Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-01-15 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, January 15, 2026 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Jessica Perreault Commissioner Sam Rust Commissioner Matthew Sandoval Commissioner Matthew Stoll Commissioner Jared Smith Chairperson Maria Lorcher ABSENT Commissioner Brian Garrett ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Rust. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Rust, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 1. Approve Minutes of the December 16, 2025 Joint Meeting of the Meridian City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission 2. Approve Minutes of the December 18, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing continued from December 4, 2025 for Farrington Heights Subdivision RZ, PP, MDA (H-2025-0016) by Studio H Architects, generally located at the NW corner of E. Pine Ave. and N. Adkins Ave. Recommend Approval to City Council A. Request: Rezone of 2.9 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat on 4.68 acres of land consisting of 25 building lots and 6 common lots. C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to terminate the existing development agreement and establish a new one. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Rust, Seconded by Commissioner Stoll. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Rust, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 4. Public Hearing for Building Height and Drive-through Text Amendment (ZOA- 2025-0003) by City of Meridian Planning Division Recommend Approval to City Council A. Request: UDC Text Amendment to define residential building height measurements, clarify building height standards in the Residential and Traditional neighborhood districts and update the approval process for tiered drive-throughs. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Stoll, Seconded by Commissioner Sandoval. Voting Yea: Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher Voting Nay: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Rust DISCUSSION \[Action Item\] 5. Planning and Zoning Commission Chair and Vice Chair Elections Motion to elect Commissioner Lorcher to Chair and Commissioner Smith to Vice Chair made by Commissioner Stoll, Seconded by Commissioner Rust. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Rust, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher ADJOURNMENT 7:28 P.M. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To view upcoming Public Hearing Notices, visit https://apps.meridiancity.org/phnotices --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 15, 2026. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 15, 2026, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Maria Lorcher. Members Present: Commissioner Maria Lorcher, Commissioner Jared Smith, Commissioner Matthew Sandoval, Commissioner Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Sam Rust and Commissioner Matthew Stoll. Members Absent: Commissioner Brian Garrett. Others Present: Tina Lomeli, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Nick Napoli and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Brian Garrett X Jessica Perrault X Matthew Sandoval X Matthew Stoll _X Sam Rust X Jared Smith X Maria Lorcher - Chairman Lorcher: Good evening. Welcome to Planning and Zoning Commission for January 15th, 2026. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present for this meeting are at City Hall. We also have staff from the city attorney and the city clerk's office, as well as the city planning department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting, however, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion of the meeting. If you have a process question during the meeting please e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you would simply like to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch the streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. With that let us begin with roll call. Madam Clerk. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Lorcher: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. There are no changes to tonight's agenda. Could I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda. Stoll: Madam Chair, I move to approve the agenda as presented. Rust: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any nays? Motion carries. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 2 of 32 MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the December 16, 2025 Joint Meeting of the Meridian City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission 2. Approve Minutes of the December 18, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Lorcher: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda, which includes to approve the meetings of the joint meeting of the Meridian City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission on December 16th and approve the minutes of the December 18th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Smith: So moved. Rust: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Lorcher: At this time I would briefly like to explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and our Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward and present their case and respond to staff comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant is finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called only once during public testimony. The clerk will call the names individually of those who have signed up on our website in advance to testify. You may come to the microphones in Chambers or you will be unmuted on Zoom. Please state your name and address for the record. You will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation of the meeting it will be displayed on screen and our clerk will help you run that presentation. If you establish that you are speaking on behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others from that group will allow you to speak on their behalf, you will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any others who wish to testify. If you wish to speak on a topic you may come forward in Chambers or if on Zoom press the raise hand button or if you are only listening on the telephone please press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, such as a computer and a phone, please, be sure to mute those extra F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 3 of 32 devices so we don't experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished, if the Commission doesn't have any questions for you you will return to your seat in Chambers or be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak. And remember we will not call on you a second time. After all the testimony has been heard the applicant will be coming -- will be given a chance to come back up for another ten minutes to respond. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and hopefully make final decisions or recommendations to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing continued from December 4, 2025 for Farrington Heights Subdivision RZ, PP, MDA (H-2025-0016) by Studio H Architects, generally located at the NW corner of E. Pine Ave. and N. Adkins Ave. A. Request: Rezone of 2.9 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat on 4.68 acres of land consisting of 25 building lots and 6 common lots. C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to terminate the existing development agreement and establish a new one. Lorcher: With that we are going to open Item No. H-2025-0016 to continue the Farrington Hills Heights Subdivision at Pine and Adkins for a rezone, preliminary plat and a development agreement modification and we will begin with the staff report. Napoli: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, good evening. So, yes, this item was continued -- here, let me get that pulled up first. This item was continued from the December 4th hearing date and during that December 4th hearing date you guys gave the applicant direction to remove the open space to allow for larger building lots to accommodate some single story homes within the development. The applicant did revise their plan to lose an additional lot. This is a comparison of the two. Previous one on the left is the one that you guys heard on the December 4th and the right is the current proposal that they have. So, they did lose an additional lot. They did remove the majority of the open space that was in the development and as well as rerouting the road to actually be on that north boundary, so there is not going to be any homes abutting those northern neighbors to the north. In addition to this I did talk with the applicant and in my staff report I did recommend a DA provision that all the homes -- so, Lots 2 through 8 -- so, this whole lot -- this whole side will be restricted to single story homes. So, that is in the DA. The applicant -- I did briefly talk with them on that and seems to be in agreement with that, you know, so that -- I will go over what they are requesting again just so you guys have that on the record. The applicant is requesting F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 4 of 32 -- their updated request is a rezone still of the 2.9 acres of the 4.68 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the R-15 zoning district, leaving the remaining 1.78 acres of land as R-4. A preliminary plat consisting of 24 building lots -- so, 21 new lots and three existing. So, the three existing homes will remain on the southern portion of the site. And seven common lots on the 4.68 acres of land and a new development agreement to replace the current one. So, that is really where we are at tonight. If there is anything else you guys would like me to highlight I would be happy to do so, but, you know, this is their revision to your guys' direction from the last hearing and I will stand for any questions. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Durtschi: Hello. Had a PowerPoint presentation real quick. I figured since you already heard me do my spiel last month we just will keep it really quick and abbreviated and just stress the changes -- Lorcher: Okay. Durtschi: -- that we made. So, on that note, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, hello and good evening. For the record my name is Sabrina Durtschi. I am here on behalf of the applicant. My business address is 5179 South Boven Avenue, Boise, Idaho. 83716. And this evening I am representing our layout of Farrington Heights that Nick so kindly went over with us. So, first, let's go back in time. I just want to tell you -- go back and remind us how we all got here. So, originally our August 7th hearing -- you can see that we had 30 lots and during that hearing we were asked to prepare and revise the layout, so that we provide a little more usable open space. Now on the other side of the slide you can see our December 4th hearing that I presented in front of you and we had revised the layout. We had reduced the lot count to 24 -- or 25, excuse me, and, then, we included the open space. So, the plan, drum roll as you have already seen -- you took out my drum roll and excitement for the new -- to the sign. But here are our changes that we made. We have 24 single family homes. Seven common lots. We actually removed one of the additional lots and, then, our net density has reduced to 5.12 units per acre and really quickly. So, the changes we made we -- we relocated the northern road alignment to create a stronger buffer between the project and the northern abutting properties. Two. We removed the previously proposed open space and, then, redistributed those all on those western side lots. Three. We increased the lot sizes of the western side lots to better accommodate the single story homes and improve the compatibility and, then, finally, I did a follow up and contacted all the neighbors and they were very pleased with the changes. So, with that we feel like, in closing, we are excited about the revisions. We appreciate the time to come back one more time to work with the neighbors to address the changes and I just want to kind of give applause and acknowledgement to the applicant for their willingness to listen, come back a third time, all these changes that, you know, as an extra expense to have a layout and so I just was very impressed with them and their willingness to make a great project that works for everyone. So, with that I will end my presentation. Thank Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 5 of 32 you all for your time and consideration and respectively ask for an approval to City Council so we can get to that next stop. So, thank you. Lorcher: Thanks. Do we have any questions for Sabrina before we start public testimony? Thank you very much. Durtschi: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, we do. The first person is Donald Flaten. And he does have a presentation, too. Flaten: I should have one or two attached files. And, of course, one of those is duplicate to what Sabrina just submitted also. Lorcher: While she is getting that if you can state your name and address for the record. Flaten: Yeah. Don Flaten. 1111 North Adkins Avenue. It adjoins the property. Lorcher: Thank you. Flatten: Thank you. The illustration is a PDF, so we don't see the full image of it. If we can actually -- that's great. This is what I submitted after the December 4th meeting and it does coincide largely with some improvements, of course, by the developer. I just did a quick evaluation, but a suggestion based on the irrigation easement and so forth. Within the context of an R-15 zoning this is a good plan. What I'm addressing today is I just think R-15 is inappropriate. It's an R-4 neighborhood on all borders. There are problems with R-15 that I numerated. We could go to another picture -- image there. I think I have a text image here indicating where -- the problem is increased congestion. Parking impact was brought up by three people who testified last time. It was never addressed after that and that hasn't changed. If we look at the site plan there isn't room really to park on the street within the U-shape there. I'm presuming these will be two car garages with two parking spaces on a driveway in front. If it's like most people, like myself, one of those garage spaces will be used for storing our stuff. The problem is it doesn't leave any room for guests or -- to guests park when they come to visit and with 20 or 21 residences numerous people, it is an issue related to that and directly to the R- 15 zoning to which I object. Increased congestion. Generally noise level in the neighborhood will be higher. We have animals. Other people have animals. Start adding together a circus of animals from different buildings. It just adds up. The overall volume level becomes kind of intolerable -- intolerable and distracting. Increased traffic load on North Adkins Avenue and there is a decreased privacy inherent with number of structures. So, if we were to continue with an R-4 zoning and appropriate development that way that would -- all those things would be under control. That's basically what I had to cover. The other thing I just want to be sure of -- the one story structures be Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 6 of 32 limited in height to appropriate in matching the neighborhood and I haven't measured those -- were 16 six. I think some of the neighbors are 18 feet at center line. That's something to consider. And also for the people on the west border where they are one stories, external structures, place -- they have -- they really must be enforced in HOA, keep those at legally set distances from the fence and height restrictions on those storage buildings and things. People will tend to build them and they do take up space and people tend to jam up against them. So, those considerations are the main ones. I do appreciate the effort and expertise of the developer in revising plans based on our suggestions and requests last time. Very noteworthy and it obviously is -- they put a lot of work into it. But my objection is the R-15 itself. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. Madam Clerk. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person is Stephanie John. Lorcher: Hi. If you can state your name and address for the record that would be great. John: Sure. My name is Stephanie John. I live at 1111 North Adkins Avenue. I will first say I appreciate the developer and his changes. He is, obviously, willing to play and listen. That is great. We appreciate it. A lot of stress has been taken off. I do agree with the plan they have presented. The only thing I am going to ask for is doing that development agreement modification that we cap the building sizes. I went around and collected the heights of all the surrounding homes that immediately are affected by this build and found their sizes. They are smaller homes. They were built a long time ago. 2001. Things like that. So, I understand that. I would like to see the single homes be capped from ground to highest peak at 20 feet and the two stories capped at 26 feet. I do feel like that is generous. They are still taller than the homes around them, but they are new builds and, like I said, I really appreciate the modifications they have made. I think we will hear testimony about parking, which will be an issue, and I do think that there are some heights. I think capping them would help eliminate some of the other concerns that the residents may have. I also collected signatures from people in the area that surround the field that they were going for single family -- or single story homes throughout the whole thing. You have to give and take. I understand that. They have clearly listened and they are giving and taking and, thus, that's why if they do get two -- those two story homes in the middle I'm just asking for a cap that would include not just the homes, but also any sheds or any extra things that they might want to put on the houses and things like that. So, if we can consider that, like I said, single stories to the 20 feet, double stories to the 26 feet to the highest peak, so ground highest peak, trying to keep it compatible going around, but also understanding it's a new build. That's all I really have to say. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person is Jack Harp. Flo Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 7 of 32 Harp: Jack Harp. 1038 North Adkins in Meridian. Appreciate the developer redoing this, but my major concern is you are about to stick about 80 plus people in that small area. You take that 80 people plus most generally two automobiles. Now you have got about 80 automobiles in there. Then you have people who come and visit, come and stay. Infrastructure just won't handle that. And I haven't seen any plans for garages, speed bumps. I see one way -- basically one way in and one way out. Pine Street, they are already having more wrecks than they can handle at Locust Grove and Pine. You put all this in there it's just going to -- it will be a nightmare. But I believe that's on Ada county. That isn't on Meridian. I get that. But like she said, my concern is is the height. I have been there for a little over 22 years now. Been pretty much used to looking at the geese and the view and everything. To put two story apartments in there or call them houses, whatever, but it could be kind of a cultural shock. But like she said, if you can keep the height down and not build them like those ones that are this close together right along the canal there on Pine Street, that's -- that's a travesty. My gosh, you can hand your neighbor a cup of sugar and never leave the house. That's -- they do all my life that's a poor way to live. A poor way to live. All you folks on this board -- bear with me. How many of you own your own house? Raise your hands, please. Lorcher: We all live in Meridian. Harp: Okay. You know what blood, sweat and tears to owning your own home. Most of these will end up being rentals, because no one can afford to buy houses anymore. So, with that being said, a rental, they don't care if the grass is green or if it's brown. They make a call, they complain to whoever is going to be running this outfit. They don't care. And what it's going to do it's just going to move our property value and basically our way of life across the street. So, yes, I'm complaining a little bit -- actually a whole lot, but you got to understand people live across the street. We will be looking at this less than 50 yards away. Plus all the construction, the dirt and everything that goes with all this. We will not be compensated for now, but -- that must be my bell. But, anyway, folks, yeah, thanks for your time. Lorcher: All right. Thanks for coming tonight. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person signed up is Rick Salladay. Salladay: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Rick Salladay. I live at 992 North Stonehenge, Meridian, Idaho. This is directly behind the proposed development. I brought in a couple pictures of my backyard and all my decorations on my fence. You guys can enjoy. But this shows the elevation difference from my backyard to that field. That is the retaining wall I put in shortly after I moved in to stop the drainage ditch from pouring into my yard. They used to irrigate that field at one time. You will go to the next -- next shot there, please. This is a -- kind of a shot of the trailers that are parked behind my house. I don't have an objection to that. That's their property. They can put whatever they want to on that property. I have always had a good relationship with the Brocks. I just barely put that fence up three years ago, in fact. So, I have always enjoyed an open fence to that field. The next photo. That just shows that -- the height F-11 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 8 of 32 difference there. That's -- that's sitting again showing the difference there. That is approximately eight to ten feet off my back fence. So, that is approximately what I'm thinking these new houses will be. But a lot higher. So, there again, that just shows you the height difference from my house to their field. Here again this shows -- again the fence to people on Adkins Lane. Without my fence you see the rooftops right there across that fence. That's Adkins Lane. Before that I had a clear view of the mountains. So, speaking of view is being destroyed. But that's all right. That is development. I'm good with that and I again will go with everybody else. I appreciate what the developer has done to adjust his plans to address our issues. I don't know if I had another photo or not. This is the Brocks' home. I don't know if you have ever seen the Brocks' home. It's not a home. It's a -- it's a huge house. But that just shows -- that's probably 50 yards from my backyard and, then, in the summertime they did put some trees there to block the view, because they did add a pool recently. Unfortunately they built the elevation of that right there where you see those trees, that is where they build an elevation. So, when we walk around I can see that it's basically their fence and they are walking around here. So, that's -- I can see over there. But, anyhow, again, elevation issues. I think that's the last of my -- my pictures there show my complaint of elevation, but with the new changes they made -- I noticed that they moved the open space that was behind my house. It would have kind of eliminated the buildings behind my house. They have now moved all over my house -- or my side. It looks like they put the biggest lot right behind me and I'm kind of concerned about the elevation of that house, because I think it might -- it looks like the biggest lot on their plan. So, anyway, that's all I have to say. I would like somebody to look at the -- you can't tell by just looking at lot sizes how big the houses are going to be, how the parking is going to be addressed. So, that's some issues that are also brought up. Parking. Traffic. That's nothing. So, anyhow, thank you, people. Appreciate all your time. Lorcher: All right. Thank you very much. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person signed up is Todd Lakey. Lorcher: Okay. Lomeli: The next person is Maralee Turner. Turner: Hello. My name is Maralee Turner. I reside at 1345 East Shellbrook Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. My home borders the proposed subdivision of Farrington Heights. The developers have restructured their plans over the course of several months in order to find solutions that would be beneficial and respectful to us as long standing property owners. We have lived in our home over 20 years. As a development of such proportions will impact many families for decades, including existing homeowners, I truly appreciate the accommodations the developers have made to incorporate their plans and the neighbors' concerns into the existing space. I'm very grateful that a proposed compromise currently has the potential to be reached. If we go forward with the plans a green space will buffer -- will -- a green space buffer will now separate our homes -- my home from the planned house bordering our property, which 12 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 9 of 32 will allow us to continue using our garden space. A portion of the road will also provide a small amount of separation between our property and the planned lots. The larger lot sizes will now accommodate single story homes along the proposed boundary, which we have been very concerned about in past hearings. I continue to be concerned about the insufficient intersection at Pine and Locust Grove and that that will continue to be a safety concern and that concern will expand with time. Also I would still express hesitation if garages are allowed on the single story homes, which would put that -- the garage level or a bonus room at a proposed height difference that would impact our privacy and the use of our yard. If indeed the building lots on the outskirt -- outskirts bordering the existing homes are limited to a single story and single level height restrictions are put in place that concern would be alleviated. This plan has, indeed, addressed multiple concerns in a respectful way and I am very appreciative and supportive of most aspects of the plan. Lorcher: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person is Brian Turner. Lorcher: Good evening. B.Turner: Good evening. Brian Turner. 1345 East Shellbrook Drive. And I really want to express my appreciation to the applicant and that team and hearing feedback and working with us. I wish that was done more often than it -- than it feels like it is. I currently think the proposed plan is a good one and I'm in support of it. It would be made great in my eyes if the west side, those homes there is some of the ambiguity about whether they are two story or what height they are, was removed. It would become a great plan. And -- or the use of the clear story or highlight windows in appropriate places and that's it. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Lomeli: Madam Chair, we have Bob Flaten, Senior. Flaten: It's junior. My apologies. Hello. My name is Bob Flaten, Jr. I live at 1111 Adkins Avenue. You guys have heard us speak many times. Me in particular I guess. With that being said I want to start by saying Mr. Etheridge and his team are a lot more likable and realistically they listen a lot better than I would have anticipated at the beginning of this process. With that being said I mean our interaction with him has improved. I can't say for anybody else, because I'm not them. Anyways, diving right into this. A lot of the absolutely earth shattering things that we were concerned about in our household have been addressed and I am extremely thankful for that. With that being said I made a point a long time ago of saying that it wasn't just about us, but it was about all of our neighbors and I do still hold true to that. So, to give you my God's honest take on it, where we are, I think everything they have done is very beneficial to us and to a lot of the other neighbors. Not all of them. There are still concerns of -- primarily I'm hearing with just congestion and all. You know, the rezoning and how F13] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 10 of 32 many people can get into that space. Personally I agree with that part of it and also the fact that not all could be single story. And, again, realistically, we don't have the crystal ball that makes everything work great for everybody. I wish we did. I would love to make everyone happy. But to reiterate, I think they have done a really good job of helping me, my family and some of the other families. Ideally I would love for that to be even across the board. If there was any way that all the neighbors could be pleased and we could keep it in -- to where it's basically fair for all of them that would be my ideal take. But, anyways, thank you very much for listening. I appreciate it immensely. Lorcher: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one else has signed up. Lorcher: Is there anybody on Zoom tonight? Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one is on Zoom. Lorcher: Is there anybody else in Chambers that would like to speak before we ask the applicant? Would you like to come up? If you can state your name and address for the record. Bradley: Yeah. My name is Rick Bradley. I'm at 1321 East Shellbrook Drive here in Meridian. Lorcher: Okay. Bradley: I just want to start to say -- reiterating the building team did a fantastic job in listening to our concerns. Last time we were here with this meeting we made ten times more progress talking to them out in the lobby than we did anywhere here in the Chambers. So, I really appreciate the willingness to sit and talk to us. The two things that are really consistent here is maybe the height and the traffic. Last time I was here I asked you guys if you ever been to Adkins and Pine intersection and nobody had been. Has that changed? You guys aware of how that -- small that intersection is? And we are adding all this extra traffic to it. Lorcher: We are aware of the intersection. It's -- typically in a public meeting situation to go to the site is -- is inappropriate for the commission, so -- Bradley: Yeah. I just thinking off hours; right. Lorcher: Right. But as community members of Meridian I think we are all familiar with the area. Bradley: Okay. Great. So, obviously, that is concern -- should probably concern you guys a little bit as well. As far as the heights going, I know that they can put into the CC&Rs and ACC stuff about restricting two story, restricting height, restricting with roof F14] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 11 of 32 and I think they were willing to add that into that. But when the plan checkers check the plans they are going to have to be pretty thorough about that to make sure that they are actually following all the guidelines for the ACCs and I think if it was implemented it would be public notice and we will be able to see as residents that they are withholding to what the developer said, because the builders are going to do their own thing. They don't really have control over how the sticks go up. But if it's put it into the rules I think that could solve a lot of the issues most likely and so I guess that was pretty much my main point is it can be controlled. These -- the concerns of all the residents around can be relieved if we take steps in that direction. Lorcher: Okay. Bradley: That's kind of what I wanted to say. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you very much. Anybody else in Chambers before we ask the applicant to come back up? Would you like to come back up to -- oh, Todd, you are going to follow up. Lakey: Madam Chair, Commissioners, good evening. My name is Todd Lakey. Lakey Villegas Law, 141 East Carlton Avenue here in Meridian and appreciate the opportunity. I will -- I will be brief. If you have some more technical questions on some of the plat design we have some of our other team members here. Start out always by thanking staff for their work and their recommendation of approval. Commissioners, as you know, these are often an effort to achieve balance and has -- as has been described, my clients really have gone the extra mile in this case. I think it started with about 32 lots and, you know, they -- they removed 12 lots. They are relocating things on the property. They are -- they are getting rid of the two stories that they could have done on the edge in accordance with code. They moved the road, so there is a road to the north along with that green space that goes between 15 and 25 feet. So, there is no houses immediately on that boundary to the north. You have got Adkins to the east that they are bringing up to code, widening it, including the sidewalk and, then, again, Commissioners, they are tucking those two stories back into the middle of the project. Your future land use map calls for five to eight dwelling units per acre and we are at 5.12, so we are well within that range that's provided for in -- in the Comprehensive Plan. So, Commissioners, with the changes we are -- we not only meet code, but we are doing better than code and that's, again, part of the balance, some give and take, but the R-15 -- there were comments about the R-15 zoning. Yes, we are doing R-15 zoning on a portion of the property, but our density is not R-15. We have 3,000 to 7,000 square foot lots and in R-15 you can get two. So, it's really not R-15, other than it allows us to utilize different setbacks and lot sizes and, then, with the development agreement that limits us to what we can do. That's -- that's really consistent with that R- 8 that you have in the area. As was stated, my clients met with the neighbors multiple times. Last time they met with them it was as described by several of them here. Thank you so much for the changes. We are good. And my clients went forward. The -- we do have a concern with the new building height restrictions that are proposed. Commissioners, we are surrounded by R-8 and we have R-4 and R-15 on this property. 15 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 12 of 32 There isn't really a nexus. We are complying with code. We are willing to say, okay, we will do the R-15 height restrictions -- excuse me -- take the R-15 height restrictions and take those R-4 height restrictions and spread it across the whole property. So, we will be subject to R-4 height restrictions on the whole thing and we got -- we are surrounded again by R-8. Commissioners, we also meet the ACHD requirements. There were no issues there. There was some traffic concerns and questions, but, as you know, that's their jurisdiction, their expertise and we are meeting their requirements. So, Commissioners, as I said we have gone the extra mile. We are going above and beyond code. We ask that the height restrictions be simply the R-4 height restrictions across the property and we ask that you approve our revised plan that does help provide that balance with the neighbors. With that I would ask for your approval. Happy to answer questions myself or if you have some technical ones for other experts that are here. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have questions for Todd? One of the residents asked about will there be an HOA for this community. Yes -- Lakey: I'm sure -- I get a thumbs up. Yes. Lorcher: Okay. Lakey: There will be an HOA. Lorcher: And so will there be language in there that addresses out buildings, like if somebody wanted to build a shed? Yes. I'm hearing -- Lakey: So, yes, Madam Chair, for the record. Lorcher: So, it will be respectful as far as height and so it won't -- oh. Okay. And then -- that's all I had. Commissioners, do you have questions? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Just for clarity, so you indicate you would be comfortable with, you know, R-4, R-8, that height limitation. Is that already in the staff recommendation or staff report or do we need to amend that? Napoli: Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith, so Lots 2 through -- here, let me pull it up so we can show you. So, on that west boundary Lots 2 through 8 are restricted to single story. So, R-15 allows for structures up to 40 feet measured from the property line. So, we actually are changing that. We are measuring -- measure from the property line to the peak of the roof. R-4 would have it -- 35 feet would be the maximum height. So, that would be something that would be definitely your guys' purview and I F16] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 13 of 32 would recommend you include that in your motion tonight if that is a way that you guys want to go. That is correct. Lakey: Thank you, Commissioner. Lorcher: Any questions? Stoll: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: So, I'm not sure if this is a question for Mr. Lakey or for Nick. Was -- did the applicant propose on the west -- the homes on the western side would be one story or was that -- Lakey: Madam Chair and Commissioner Stoll, we are willing to have that restriction, yes. Those Lots 2 through 8 would be limited to single story. Stoll: Okay. Lorcher: What do you anticipate the average square foot of the homes that you are proposing? Lakey: Madam Chair, I might have to ask my client for that. Lorcher: Okay. Lakey: If you could give me just a moment. Lorcher: Can you come up briefly? Hi. If you could just state your name and address for the record. Ethridge: My name is Brandon Ethridge and it's 5175 South Missoula Way, Boise, Idaho. Lorcher: Thanks. Ethridge: And to answer your question, Madam Chair, for the average square feet we are -- we want it to be around 1,500, maybe higher to 2,000 square feet if we can get it in there -- if we can fit those in the lots. Lorcher: Now you are looking at typically two car garages on these? Ethridge: We are -- we have two car garages with the driveway that can support another two cars. 17 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 14 of 32 Lorcher: Okay. So, four cars in all. And, then, your HOA would either limit or allow like a shed in the backyard for lawnmowers and that type of thing? Ethridge: Absolutely. And we are willing to do a height restriction on that as well. Lorcher: Okay. And one final question and it doesn't have to be exact. What kind of price point are you looking at for these homes? Ethridge: We want to be -- our price points -- we want to be in the five hundred thousands and maybe creep it up if we can. We just know that that helps retain the value in the area as well if we can maintain those price points. Lorcher: Okay. Any other questions for the developer? Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, on the single stories what is -- what is the height estimate that you expect? I mean we know what the maximum is, but -- Ethridge: I think the -- on those single stories we can be in the 20s, you know, depends on the pitch of the roof, but we are going to be respectful of that to plan it for the lots, because we understand. We had a meeting with the neighbors last week and it was all about height and we -- we would make -- we would limit that as much as we can, but it needs to be a nice looking product as well so it maintains its value, so -- Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Ethridge: Appreciate it. Lorcher: Appreciate it. Lakey: Any other questions Madam Chair? Lorcher: I think we are good. Lakey: All right. Thank you very much. Lorcher: Thank you, Todd. May I get a motion to close the public hearing? Smith: So moved. Rust: Second. Fl-81 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 15 of 32 Lorcher: It's been moved and second to close the public hearing on Farrington Heights Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rust: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Rust: Appreciate the rework that's gone into this. I don't know in my time as a Commissioner that I have heard this much positive testimony. So, appreciate the engagement of the community and coming out and sharing your opinion. After reconvening with the developer we often get a lot of negative and not a lot of positive. So, it was great to see that tonight. I'm in full support of this plan. I really like what they did. If I remember right at the December 4th meeting we were trying to haggle over some height restrictions on specific lots and I think what we have come to here is a really good development. It is going to lead to some increased density. That's the nature of in-fill. We talk about this with every single in-fill project. I appreciate the applicant working with the community, with the Commission, with City Council. I think we have got to a really good product here. I'm in full support. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: We already closed the public hearing, didn't we? I was hoping the applicant can come back up and address the issues that were presented. Was -- is that not something we were planning on doing? Lorcher: We closed the public hearing. Perreault: Right. Lorcher: So, did you want me to reopen it or -- Perreault: Well, typically the applicant comes back up and my one concern would be whether or not we should hear more about -- well, let me put it this way. Should we hear more about street parking or parking in general or does the Commission feel like that that's been addressed? Lorcher: Todd was representing the applicant on the second part of it. So, if you really wanted to hear from Sabrina we can reopen the public hearing for her to address it. Perreault: No. That's okay. Lorcher: Okay. Any other comments? 19 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 16 of 32 Sandoval: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Yes. Sandoval: As far as the parking I think with the two car garage and the driveway that supports an additional two, I think it's appropriate, so I don't think we need to discuss it more. Open to conversation, obviously, but I think it's adequate. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Well, there is some times a year where parking, you know, in -- in my neighborhood there is some -- you know, there is some two, some three car garages and there is still parking issues every once in a while when we have Super Bowl Sunday or, you know, during the holiday sometimes that happens, but I think broadly speaking on a day-to-day standpoint I'm not overly concerned with the parking. I think to a larger issue -- or to a larger kind of discussion I think these are -- is a really good project. I think the only thing that I would probably add to the staff report -- and I was mulling this over, but since the applicant kind of suggested it, maybe to give some peace of mind is restricting the height to be consistent with R-4 on all the properties. I know some applicant -- or some of the public were hoping for a 20 foot height restriction or things like that. I think that's a bit too -- too restrictive, a bit arbitrary. I think I was seeing some numbers on -- on some of the documents of 22 foot, 24 foot. I think I saw a 29 foot. So, I don't know that that's the right way to go, but I think as a show of goodwill and something that the developer seems content with doing is restricting it to R-4. Yeah. I think these are going to be great properties. Lorcher: Yeah. I agree as well. They are taking on the responsibility of improving Adkins Way and they are putting in the street that will be, you know, a U-shape. So, they are listening. Is it perfect? No. But a homeowner has a right to sell their property and a developer has a right to develop those properties within the zone and I will say of my six years on this I haven't seen many developers listen to the community as much as they have listened to you. They have a right to build and a homeowner has a right to sell. So, is it perfect? No. But I think when this goes to Council -- and it will -- they will engage more with height -- height restrictions and the development, you know, design that they will present to Council. Anybody want to give me a motion? Rust: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Rust: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council File No. H-2025-0016 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 15th, 2026, with one modification to -- in addition to the F20] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 17 of 32 single story lot height restrict -- or single story restriction on the west boundary, to restrict the entire parcel to R-4 heights as outlined by the applicant. Stoll: Second. Napoli: Madam Chair, if I may chime in. Lorcher: Yes. Napoli: Can we put that at 35 feet, instead of R-4, just so it's clear on the record. Would that be okay? Rust: Yes. Works for me. Lorcher: Okay. Do I have a second? Stoll: Yep. I second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve file 2025-0016, Farrington Hills. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing for Building Height and Drive-through Text Amendment (ZOA-2025-0003) by City of Meridian Planning Division A. Request: UDC Text Amendment to define residential building height measurements, clarify building height standards in the Residential and Traditional neighborhood districts and update the approval process for tiered drive-throughs. Lorcher: The next item on the agenda is ZOA-2025-0003 for building height and drive- through text amendments from the City of Meridian Planning Division. Bill had some handouts. Hopefully everybody got one to follow along for his presentation. Parsons: It looks like the room is clearing out. Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Thank you for your patience as I transition to the next item on the agenda this evening. So, I am here tonight to talk about some code changes with you. One -- two topics in particular. One being building heights and the other being drive- through processes. If the Commission recalls I was in front of you in June presenting some revised drive-through standards that we wanted to take forward. The goal at that time was to get more express drive-through establishment standards, so that we could approve drive-throughs administratively and try to eliminate the need for the applicant to come before this body to do that conditional use process. We felt like we had it nailed down pretty well. Went through a round of changes with the UDC focus group. Ultimately we got to City Council and Council said, well, we wanted to expand the F21 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 18 of 32 process on how we want to look at drive-throughs. So, that's kind of step one of tonight's code changes and the other is discussion of building heights, which you kind of touched on this evening, is how do we apply -- or measure building heights. So, currently the way the code is structured anytime -- when we measure a building height -- and in the zoning code there are maximum height limits for each zoning district. It's pretty typical throughout the nation. In our code most of the R zones are 35 feet. You saw tonight R-15 is 40 feet. Even R-40 goes up to 65 feet. So, some of those zones they do allow taller buildings, but where we have some flexibility in the code are things like elevator shafts or chimneys. Those can project even taller than the maximum height limitations and so recently Council -- staff -- city staff went before City Council and had a discussion with them and decided how would we change -- or how did the Council want us to measure residential heights moving forward. Currently the way it's structured it defers to the building code and these lists of exceptions that we currently have in code and Council said, no, we want to be very -- we want to be more restrictive than the residential code and come up with our own standards. So, the zoning code can be more restrictive than a building code. So, in this particular instance on the screen this evening you can see that first item is how we are getting to that point. We are defining how we are going to measure residential structures moving forward. So, technically anyone comes into the City of Meridian, applies for a residential building permit, Planning will verify kind of that they are from their property line to the top of the building they will have to demonstrate that the home does not exceed the maximum height limit of that residential district. So, again, if it's an R-2, R-4, R-8 you are looking at maximum height for 35 feet. So, anything under that -- any of those projections or taller roofs will not be allowed to go forward. It's going to be measured to the peak and -- and that's been historically different than what the building code does currently. So, it's going to be pretty expressed standards moving forward. The next item on this -- and kind of sticking with that theme of definitions, as -- as you recall we changed our definitions for drive-throughs. We came up with that tiered approach where we had tier one, tier two and tier three and, basically, that referenced the intensity of drive-through uses. So, we have that in our specific use standards, but we never married that up to the definitions in our code. So, that's what the next item does as well and, then, touching back on building heights again -- I know it's a little disjointed. When I put these tables together I tried to stick them in order of how they fall in the code. So, going back to our maximum building heights here, again, this goes back and reinforces that definition that I just shared with you. So, had changed some items in chapter two of the code. So, basically, it's very explicit. Number one there says how we are going to measure it based on that measurement that I just described to you and, then, items -- the exceptions that are currently in code, we have made that more explicit to say those only apply to nonresidential structures and mixed use buildings. So, again, residential, you are from the front of the property line to the very top of the roof -- the peak of the roof, the flat point of the roof, whatever it may be. If it's a flat roof it's to the parapet. If it's a peaked roof it's going right to the peak of the roof. Again for nonresidential or mixed use structures there is some latitude there. And, then, going back to -- bouncing back to our drive-through standards, as you are aware currently the way it worked in code all drive-throughs are -- come to you as a body and so in order to follow through on what the Council's directive was I had to go and amend some of the tables in our F22 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 19 of 32 code. So, I had to go back to our commercial zones, remove the term drive-through now, because now that we have a term -- drive-through tiered approach we went ahead and added tier one, tier two and tier three based on the definitions that I shared with you. Based on the direction from City Council they were comfortable with tiered one drive-throughs being approved administratively. Tier two they wanted the Planning and Zoning Commission to continue to review all of those regardless if there was a residential district or not next to it and, then, Council also wanted tier threes to bypass the Planning and Zoning Commission and go directly to them. So, that's why in these -- these tables that I have created here you can see where -- where you see an A or C -- so conceivably a tiered one drive-through can be approved by the director. However, if a tiered one is next -- within 300 feet of a residential use or district it's coming before this body still. So, that was not changed by City Council. Tier two. Again, all tier twos will come to you. And, then, tier threes currently as drafted will go to City Council. And, again, these tables are married up to do just that based on the Council's direction. I also mentioned to you -- I don't know if the Council wants to take -- or provide comment to City Council or not, but some staff members and some certain council members also were concerned about allowing drive-through uses in Old Town. They felt in downtown it should be more walkable and not more garage -- or auto oriented. We do have one drive-through in Old Town currently and that is the Human Bean on Fairview and -- or Cherry, however you look at it. Cherry and Meridian Road. And, believe it or not, that's the reason why we changed the code back in 2015 to allow drive-throughs in Old Town because of that one business. So, I don't anticipate us getting a lot of tier two or tier three drive-throughs in downtown, but that -- the potential is there, so that's certainly -- I think I anticipate some conversation with City Council as we transition there, but certainly if the Commission wants to weigh in on that topic as well I'm happy to share those comments with Council as I -- as I present to them. So, again, based on some of the commentary that I have given you here this last code change here on -- in front of you is basically the table that we use to enforce how we process applications or what bodies act on applications. So, you can see here we have added the tier one where, again, it may be the director, maybe -- like we don't need anybody, but director, no recommending body, because the director can act on it or he may become the recommending body, because they are next to a residential use and, then, same thing with tier two. We are -- the director is the recommended body. You guys are the decision-making body and, of course, tier three -- director is, again, the recommending body and City Council will become the decision-making body. I know certainly how -- as you -- as the Commission is aware certain applications, for example, like annexations and preliminary plats, typically you guys are a recommending body on those site types of application, then, you forward on a recommendation to City Council. Certainly if that's the prerogative of the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight, if you feel like you also want to act on or review tier three drive-throughs that's certainly within your purview this evening to say, you know, maybe Planning and Zoning can be a recommending body to the City Council on tier three drive-throughs as well and that's, again, something that I'm more than happy to take before City Council as this transitions to them. Looking at the public record I did not see any testimony on this item and I will go ahead and conclude my presentation, open it up to you for questions. 23 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 20 of 32 Lorcher: Quick question. Do we have any active banks still downtown? Parsons: I know a few of them have. I don't know if this one is still active -- Lorcher: Is First Interstate there? Is there -- Parsons: -- this one might be -- this one across -- north of us may be active still, but I know the one on Idaho has -- has vacated. Lorcher: Right. So, that has a drive-through. Parsons: Yeah. Different process. That was approved under a different code. I'm not sure what the -- how -- what the requirements were at that time. Lorcher: I think there is another coffee shop next to Paul's, too. Is that considered Old Town? Franklin and King -- Main Street and King? Parsons: Main Street and King -- Lorcher: Right there by -- Parsons: Oh. Yes. That's, again, another grandfathered drive-through. That's -- that's part of an old process. Correct. Lorcher: Got you. Okay. Do we have anybody signed up -- nobody's here to sign up. So, did you have -- were you going to comment tonight? Okay. Does anybody else have questions for Bill? Sandoval: Madam Chair. Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: How are you defining property line? Are you saying the front of the structure by the foundation? Are you saying the actual property line? So, if you are on a hill and you have a 20 foot house, but it's 35 feet -- or it's 36 feet, you can't build it to that height? Parsons: So, Commissioner Sandoval, if I can get to your question here. So, basically, what I would hope is -- like any plan that we get in -- Meridian doesn't have a grading ordinance, so we don't require grading -- grading plans or a grading permit. So, basically, when someone submits a site plan to us they -- they depict their -- their property lines. If there is topography like you said -- a lot of times -- sometimes in -- I think in south Meridian -- I haven't seen where the property -- the front property line is taller than the -- it's usually taller than the rear, because it kind of slopes a little -- away, but sometimes it could be the reverse. But in this case, again, if -- if there was a -- an instance where the front property was higher than the back of the property we would still 24 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 21 of 32 measure the height from -- from that. So, the developer or the home builder would have to provide us that and, then, demonstrate -- give us a side profile of how that would work, so we could verify that. So, technically -- conceivably the back of the house could be taller than the front of the house, because we are measuring from the front rather than the back. Sandoval: Thanks for clarifying. I was curious. Thank you. Parsons: Yeah. We did talk about that quite a bit with the UDC focus group and everyone kind of -- you know, typically your road is your baseline for kind of the elevation of your subdivision. So, we felt if we just had a standard requirement from just one property line, but there are instances where conceivably you could take the average of the entire property and determine that height. But I didn't want to over complicate the code, because we don't really have a lot of topography at Meridian. There are certain pockets of it, but generally it's -- it's pretty flat here. Lorcher: Any other questions before we close the public hearing? Stoll: Madam Chair, questions for Bill. Lorcher: Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: Folks that know me know that I'm big on processes when I'm kind of trying to figure it out. So, in tier one director makes decision. Tier two the director makes a recommendation to the Commission. All of the processes we have the Commission makes a recommendation to City Council, but in this case you are talking about the director makes the recommendation to the City Council. What's the reason for the difference? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that was the direction that when I presented the changes to City Council they said they wanted to act on all tier three drive-throughs, so -- and they didn't want to slow down the process. So, in our UDC there is certain -- the code is -- the way it's structured is that the Council has given the Commission the authority to act on conditional use permits. That's within your purview. That's why you -- you see the director to the Planning from us -- as a recommended body to you for -- currently all conditional use permits. But during my discussions with City Council they wanted to be mindful of the time it takes to get applications to them. So, again, it would be no different than a development agreement modification. Technically if someone -- there is certain applications that you don't even see, because they go directly to City Council. So, that was the rationale by the City Council. They said, well, we have other applications that don't require recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission, so let's make tier threes come to us just like any -- a short plat or a development agreement modification. That's at least -- I don't think they wanted to cut you out of the process, they were just thinking of it that way. We have other things that -- that don't do it, so is there a way we can do that. F25] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 22 of 32 Stoll: But there are other applications that -- Parsons: Yeah. Yeah. There are other applications and processes that do it. Correct. Lorcher: So, when it came to In-N-Out we were supposed to decide on the conditional use permit; right? Parsons: And you did. Lorcher: And we did. And they appealed it, which is why it went to City Council. So, what the Council is suggesting is that anything with a two -- two lanes, an escape lane, would go directly to Council. That's what they are -- that's what he is proposing. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Are we still in public testimony? Lorcher: We are still in public testimony. Are we ready to close the public testimony? Any other questions for Bill? Bill? May I get a motion to close the public hearing? Smith: So moved. Rust: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for ZOA-2025-0003. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Lorcher: My thoughts on this. We talked about this in our prep meeting a little bit. I -- I am not in favor of conditional use permits tier three to go directly to Council. I think they should still come to Planning and Zoning as -- to be vetted. If I am a chain that's going to be -- or whoever is going to open double drive-throughs with an escape lane, coming to Planning and Zoning gives them a chance to be able to work out some of the details of their application before they go to City Council, because when they go to City Council it's either yes or no. When they come to Planning and Zoning it's yes or no, but, then, they can appeal it and it still goes to City Council. So, I think it just -- there is not a developer here to say yes or no on it, but I just think it's not in their best interest, because it probably limits their -- it takes some time -- maybe take a week or two off their time, but it may change the whole outcome of their presentation, because there is many times where we will make recommendations saying before you go to Council, you know, do this. Or if you are going to appeal, you know, do this before you walk into Council and if they go straight to Council, then, that wouldn't do it and I hear time and time again from the Mayor and also Council Members is that they appreciate our 26 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 23 of 32 feedback and so maybe still having Council be the deciding factor, but us being the recommending body for tier three would still be helpful. Tier two stays with us, which is one lane, one drive through and, then, anything that is close to proximity to residentials will still come through us as well, including tier one if it abuts residential. But, otherwise, if it's a pharmacy that's a stand-alone or a bank that's a stand-alone that doesn't really affect those things, then, it could be administrative at tier one. Does that make sense? So, those are my thoughts. You know, I would like to see tier three still come through Planning and Zoning. We would be a recommending body to Council. Any other thoughts on this? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. I agree with you and, like you said, we talked about this in our prep meeting. I think the only instances where I could imagine there being significant delays for us having heard a tier three seems like it might be one where it's warranted where there is a continuance because of some issue or things like that. I guess, you know, if there is a lack of quorum or something, you know, there is -- there is -- I get the desire to speed things up and I'm not a developer, so I -- you know, I -- I'm not -- I don't have insight into the time value of money in their specific industry, but I don't know that this -- in my -- in my opinion slows things down and not like too much to justify it. At the end of the day if Council wants to just take it head on, you know, I trust our City Council. I think we have a really good Council, so I'm not losing sleep over it, but I think that's something that I think -- we -- we are here to help them and do some fact finding for them and some analysis for them -- and I think that's, frankly, DA mods I know it's more of a negotiation with -- with the city, so there is some more kind of executive function there, but, heck, I would like to look at DA mods, too, you know. But that's a different conversation. Yeah. I think I'm in support of that. And, then, I also -- again, just to give my personal thoughts, I don't know if we want to open this can of worms, but with Old Town restricting drive-throughs I would be okay with that. Yeah. The whole point is to have a walkable space. I -- you know, again, it's not something that I particularly will lose sleep for, because I can't think of too many areas where someone's going to go slap in a big drive through, but you never know, so I think that I'm generally in favor of that, specifically just because it's Old Town, it's a unique district. Rust: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Rust: I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I would actually take the other side. If you think back to the In-N-Out application how many people did In-N-Out have here? That was a pretty big application and they are going to bring all those people back to Council and so I think there is a time element, but there is also a cost element for developers and these tier threes are going to generate a lot of public testimony. They are generally going to be more controversial. They are probably always going to end up 27 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 24 of 32 at Council and I think the developers would generally rather get one shot, but know that it's an up or down, then, the uncertainty of having to bring all those experts to multiple meetings. They are going to have to do that if they -- if we bring tier threes in front of us and I think that that more than anything both adds cost and time. So, again, I'm not getting too worked up either way, but I -- I can see where Council is coming from and I actually agree with their take on it. Lorcher: Yeah. I mean those applications are far and few between, although I did read today -- Rust: Dunkin Donuts. Lorcher: -- Duncan's bringing 20 into the Treasure Valley. So, a lot -- my limited experience with Duncan it's just typically not two plus an escape. It's one and done. Rust: But they are going to have a lot of fun. Lorcher: Yeah. Well, I don't drink coffee, so you can bring as many as you want in there. But, yeah, I understand your point as well. But right now conditional use permits come before us anyway, so that procedure doesn't change too much. Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. I agree with Commissioner Rust. You know, when -- when Council has needed more information from an applicant on a drive-through they end up continuing it any way. So, you know, at some point you are doing three hearings and -- and so if Council -- typically when they can -- when Council continues that applicant is brought back faster than if we -- if they were to come to the Commission and, then, go to Council. So, if we are talking about time frames, if Council needs more information they will continue it. It will be back in four weeks. It will still make for a faster process. So, I'm in agreement that -- I would be satisfied if it went direct -- directly to Council. It ends up there most of the time anyway. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I think after hearing that I think -- and chewing on it some more, I think I guess I'm a little bit on the fence now, because now I'm thinking about it -- Lorcher: That's okay. That's why we are talking about it. Smith: You know, we are essentially saying, City Council, let us do the extra work for you and they are saying, hey, we are okay doing the extra work. In my mind part of it was like, well, we could take some of that load off of their -- off of their plate, but if they are content to, you know, take that on themselves that, then, I'm okay with -- look, it's -- I'm not, again, losing sleep over it and I wasn't in the first place, but maybe I'm seeing 28 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 25 of 32 more and more of that kind of opposite view. So, realistically, I would be content either way. I think it's dealer's choice for me now. Lorcher: Okay. That's fine. That's why we are talking about it. Stoll: Madam Chair, if I may. Lorcher: Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: So, I wasn't -- I will play the newbie card still. I wasn't here for the In-N-One, so I don't know the process. Is there an aspect of the application that we are still going to get and have to review, so it's -- we are not going to see the application at all. Lorcher: What should have happened with In-N-Out, it should have ended here. Right here. Because we approve conditional use permits. The only reason it went to Council is because we denied it and they appealed it. Right? Because, otherwise, conditional use permits, regardless of the number of drive-throughs, escape lanes, Raising Cane's, Chick-fil-A, the whole nine yards ends in Planning and Zoning. What the commit -- the Council is suggesting is that if it's a really big thing, then, maybe the one stop shop isn't Planning and Zoning, it's Council. Because if we end up denying it for whatever reason that's when it goes to Council because they will appeal it. Stoll: So -- but -- but the trigger is it's got a drive-through with it. That's -- in this case that we are talking about. If it's a drive-through -- Lorcher: Yes. Stoll: -- then it's going strict -- directly to the Council. Lorcher: Right. We are looking at, you know, high volume, congestion, you know, in a -- in an area that's -- not contested, because -- I mean it could be a -- so, let's take Ten Mile Crossing, the new Ahlquist part on the west side. I forget what it's called. They are going to be developing -- say they decide to put an In-N-Out over there; right? So, what they are suggesting is that instead of presenting to Planning and Zoning it's -- even though it's just bare land right now they are going to have two lanes plus an escape lane that would automatically skip Planning and Zoning and just go to Council for their -- their presentation, because most likely there is going to be businesses 300 feet on either side of them. Does that makes sense? Stoll: Yeah, it makes -- well, yes and no. So, not sure how I -- where I fall on that one. In terms of drive-throughs in Old Town, I lean towards not having them. If we can just to promote the walkability of the downtown area. Lorcher: Yeah. Sandoval: Madam Chair? F29] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 26 of 32 Sandoval: Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: Yeah. I -- thinking about the community, everyone is going to give up some, some people are going to get some. I don't see any reasonable argument to not have something go through two small bodies with diverse populations to make a good decision for the community in the long run. So, my opinion is, yes, it should absolutely come here, let's talk about it, let's vet it, let's kick it up the line or deny it. If they want to appeal that's their decision. Not every single application is going to appeal; right? Yes, some highly contested ones maybe. We have been there. But I don't see any reasonable argument to say why wouldn't it be better for the community to have two groups to look at something from different perspectives, even if it may mean a two or three week delay for one stakeholder. It doesn't make sense to me. So, that's why I'm in favor of what you spoke to. Lorcher: Right. And we are only talking about conditional use permits. I mean annexations, preliminary plats, you know, development agreements, all those still go to Council anyway. We are really talking about just businesses that are going to have a drive-through, double stacked, escape lane, within 300 feet. That's the only thing we are talking about. Correct; Bill? Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I also just want to reiterate that, you know, you could get a tier two and deny it or approve it and someone could still appeal that and go to City Council. Lorcher: Right. Parsons: That process is not changing. It's -- it's still in the code. So, it's just -- like I said, it's -- it's -- like you -- like I just said, it -- it's just going right to City Council. It's just like another application. But, again, it's certainly within your purview to -- to modify that or change that. On the Old Town topic certainly if -- if the Commission feels comfortable with tier one you can certainly say we are good with tier one and maybe strike tier two or tier three from being an Old Town. So, I think -- everything's on the table tonight, but I agree with you, I don't see a tier three happening in downtown. I could see a tier one. I mean we have some up on the street -- they are not -- they are not Old Town, but they are commercial, but their land use designation is Old Town, so conceivably someone could rezone it to something else in the future. But, again, it's -- it's full gamut. I mean ultimately the -- the City Council will weigh in on your comments and I will share that with them as I go and transition and present to them. But, certainly, I don't profess to have one size fits all here tonight. I do appreciate everyone's position on it. It's just how you look at things and I do -- I like the discussion tonight. I like -- I like the perspective of Commissioner Rust, because I didn't think of it from that angle, but it's very logical and, then, I see Commissioner Sandoval's take on it, too. So, it's like -- it's -- it's all whatever we want it to be for the community. I think that's the key here is what is the best thing we want to do for the community and I -- I truly believe this body and the City Council has that -- we all do. We want to make sure we get it right. It -- it's it's citywide. It's code changes. It's important. F30] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 27 of 32 Lorcher: Right. Parsons: But I do appreciate the discussion. Lorcher: So, just to clarify Old Town is Fairview to Franklin, from Meridian to, what, 3rd or 2 '/2? How far -- how far east does Old Town go? Just -- Parsons: Yeah. Lorcher: But I mean it's -- Parsons: It goes to Franklin, 3rd and -- I don't know how far it -- it zig-zags. It's an odd designation. Lorcher: Okay. Parsons: It's a weird configuration. It's not just a perfect rectangle. Lorcher: Got you. Parsons: It jogs throughout downtown. But it's pretty substantial. Lorcher: Right. Parsons: Larger than what you think it is. Rust: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Rust: I apologize, this was probably explained and I just missed it, but what function are we serving here with these proposals that are before us? Like are we voting on these? Lorcher: We are recommending to -- Rust: -- we are recommending -- Lorcher: Yeah. Rust: Yeah. Okay. So, we are not -- we are not able to do anything, we are just making recommendations. Lorcher: Correct. So, we can accept the way -- we would have a motion the way Bill has it framed or based on the discussion tonight we can adjust it. 31 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 28 of 32 Rust: And so if we were to -- let's just say we said we want a say on tier threes and, then, City Council could say we actually are going to go with our original intent. They wouldn't have to come back to us, they just decide. Lorcher: Correct. Rust: Thank you. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Just to clarify, Bill, the recommendation to limit drive-throughs in Old Town that came from Council or where did that come from? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, not necessarily. I know some council members were -- so, when I had presented that had come up as a topic and I presented this tiered approach or we were discussing the changes to the specific use standards and some council members said they didn't want it, but they were outvoted. So, I left it in here knowing that it would become another topic of discussion when I get in front of them. So, I know there is some council members that want to talk on that topic. So, that's why I'm curious -- I'm sharing it with you, because I'm curious how the Commission feels about it. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Personally I would like to still see that done on a case by case basis. I mean I understand the concern about drive-throughs in Old Town. There are a few areas of Old Town that still could accommodate them and I mean Old Town -- we have spent a lot of time sort of loosening restrictions on Old Town in terms of height and uses and so it seems funny to me to, then, create a restriction when there has been a lot of effort to expand the options in Old Town. So, that's just my thought on it. I mean it's not a hill I'm going to die on, but -- Lorcher: Yeah. I feel the same way. I mean what happens, you know, five years from now and Old Town is built out in a different way and, you know, we are in a life situation where people aren't dining in restaurants and they need to drive-through, you know, and, then, all of a sudden the businesses that have established themselves, you know, cannot have that opportunity or won't move into that area for that very reason. I think I agree with Commissioner Perreault is that we should evaluate those on a case-by-case basis, because there is some very skinny parts of Old Town, but there are some wider spots, too, that could accommodate them and to blanket it across -- you might be taking an applicant and turning them away from developing commercial opportunity downtown because of that restriction. I can't imagine what it would be at this point in time, but if-- I F32 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 29 of 32 would say no, but not having that crystal ball of what it looks like, you know, five years from now I hate to be in that position where we would have to say, no, you can't come here. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: If I could make -- you know I, guess a pitch -- if I -- if I were trying to die on this hill and this is -- this is not my -- I'm not playing devil's advocate quite, but this is an exaggeration of where I'm at. Is, you know, you look at places that are intended to -- built to be -- built to be, you know, pedestrian primary usage. You think post-COVID Main Street in Boise, for example, how that's built out to be really in that downtown core, there is very limited download that I have seen a car drive down that since those barriers went up in 2020. So, I think there are some areas where you can limit and if you can steer the design toward something that -- if we are trying to create a very walkable location in Meridian, that's the goal that we have, I think there is some value in not doing it case-by-case, but trying to establish some bright line or some -- some bound -- and I think if you are already trying to make a pretty walkable thing I think there is a case for simultaneously loosening height restrictions due to a lot more density per -- you know, per square foot or per square mile while imposing greater controls on automotive traffic specifically. So, yeah, I think I guess -- I guess I see the appeal looking also again at the size of a tier one or something like that. But, again, if I -- if I could wave my wand -- if I had a crystal ball that one of the people come in earlier was talking about, I think I would probably limit it tier one. I think I would like that. Again that doesn't fully restrict automotive uses, but kind of tries to steer the development toward what we are trying to do. I know there has been cases of, you know, alternate compliance or things like that and I think it just -- there are methods to I think get around that if you will, but it seems like that puts the default into, you know, nothing -- you know, you could have a small drive-through, but don't get crazy. So, there is that. One other thing that I will say as for the -- the tier threes and that chain, on whether we see it as a recommending body, I find out the way -- but I really do want to actually comment. I do like that it is going to City Council by default. I think as the elected body if there is anything that's large enough and sufficient enough and impactful enough to serve -- to stir up that kind of a tendency that usually comes with tier threes, it should go to the elected body as the deciding vote, not some volunteers who have the honor of serving on a wonderful appointment, but there is -- there is an accountability structure there and I think sometimes I wonder if like on a CUP if we approve something that Council would have denied -- Lorcher: Right. Smith: -- you know, especially something with the size of In-N-Out -- Lorcher: Yeah. 33 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 30 of 32 Smith: -- and maybe no one in the audience knows -- you know, thinks to try to appeal it from the other side, that kind of gives me some concern. So, I actually like that it is by default going to City Council. I will say that. Lorcher: They can take the heat. That's fine. Anybody want to try a motion? Rust: I will take a -- I will take a stab. Lorcher: Yeah. Rust: Yeah. Lorcher: One more for the road. Rust: One more -- two for the show. Lorcher: Okay. Rust: After hearing, staff and public testimony, I move that we recommend the changes to the -- is it the UDC? Is that what we are saying this is? I recommend that we approve -- recommend approval of the changes as laid out by the staff in this table with no modifications and no further comment on the potential drive-through modification to the downtown core. Lorcher: Okay. Do have a second? Kurt, with no second that motion dies, is that what happens? Starman: Madam Chair, since there was no second the motion dies. You can ask your fellow Commissioners for an alternate motion if you like. Lorcher: Okay. Stoll: So Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. ZOA-2025-0003 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 15th, 2026, with the following modifications: Tier two applications for drive-throughs -- tier three. Sorry. Tier three applications for drive- throughs, recommending body would be the Planning and Zoning Commission. The deciding body would be the City Council and that's it. Lorcher: Do I have a second? Sandoval: Second. F34] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 31 of 32 Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve File ZOA-2025-0003, with tier three going through Planning and Zoning for recommendation, with final decision going to City Council. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Perreault: Nay. Rust: Nay. Lorcher: So, it's two to three and I will say aye as well. So, that's four and two. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO NAYS. ONE ABSENT. Lorcher: Couple more things before we leave for this evening. Tonight is Commissioner Rust's last meeting and so we appreciate your time on the Commission. Thank you very much for your service. We will miss your south side perspective. Rust: Thank you. I enjoyed serving with you all. DISCUSSION [Action Item] 5. Planning and Zoning Commission Chair and Vice Chair Elections Lorcher: Yes. Thank you. And Item 5 on the agenda is we are going to vote on a chair and a vice-chair for the 2026 calendar year. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I'm sorry, I apologize, bad time to grab a lifesaver. I do want to -- I know that the bylaws by default nominate the vice -- the sitting vice-chair as a candidate for chair. I would like to decline that default nomination and in place nominate you for re-election for chair. Lorcher: For chair. And -- and you stay as vice-chair? Smith: I will not make a nomination for vice-chair. Lorcher: Ah. So -- Smith: I would love to serve, but I don't want to -- you know. Lorcher: All right. So, then, I will nominate Commissioner Smith for vice-chair. Is there anybody on the floor that would like these positions? Kurt, do we vote? 35 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 32 of 32 Starman: Yes. Lorcher: So, I would like a motion for Commissioner Smith to retain as vice-chair and myself Commissioner Lorcher as chair for the 2026 calendar year. Stoll: Madam Chair, I move to retain the existing officers from the 2025 commission for the 2026 commission. Lorcher: Do I have a second? Rust: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to keep Commissioner Smith as vice-chair and myself, Commissioner Lorcher, as chair. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Lorcher: I will take one more motion. Rust: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Rust: I move that we adjourn. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Lorcher: Thank you very much. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:28 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 2 16 126 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F36] E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the December 16, 2025 Joint Meeting of the Meridian City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission 3 Meridian City Council-Planning&Zoning Joint Session December 15,2025 Page 20 of 20 Hood: Can I bring up one more thing back to Councilman Cavener's previous -- and this isn't necessarily a complaint. Maybe it is something to implement. Just the potential after the motion is made and seconded, just to make sure that things are covered with staff -- I mean maybe just to check in with the legal staff, planning staff, hey, did -- I mean you do that from time to time maybe just to check in with local planning staff. Hey, did -- I mean you do that from time to time, but I don't know if it's a -- like a standard practice. You know, doesn't look like they have addressed everything, did we cover it, are you -- you know, that type of a thing. I don't know. Just a thought. Sorry. Simison: Council, Commissioners, any additional questions, comments, feedback? With that I just want to say thank you for everyone for coming in, especially the P&Z Commission coming in earlier this evening and for the dialog and the conversation and turn to Councilman Cavener for any motion and last comment. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, one quick comment and, then, a motion. Just truly I want to commend our Planning and Zoning Commission. You guys are I swear the best Planning and Zoning Commission that I have been able to follow after and you have made our life so much easier. You do a lot of hard work. My wife giggles, because I talk to you all when I'm watching your meetings on the Planning and Zoning from home and -- it's because I'm encouraging and supporting the great work that you are doing. So, thank you for making our lives easier for serving in our community and with that, Mr. Mayor, I move we adjourn our special meeting. Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and we are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:28 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR ROBERT SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F23 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the December 18, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting F24 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 18,2025 Page 5 of 5 MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. Thank you, everyone. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:05 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F29 E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Changes to Agenda: None Item #3: Farrington Heights (H-2025-0016) Application(s):  Rezone  Preliminary Plat  Development Agreement Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 4.68 acres of land, zoned R-4, generally located at the northwest corner of E. Pine Avenue and N. Adkins Avenue. History: The subject properties were annexed in 2000 as a part of Farrington, Opal application (AZ-00-012). The zoning granted at the time of annexation was the R-4 zoning district. With the annexation approval, the properties were subject to a DA that restrict the property to adding one (1) additional home on the 4.68 acres. The existing DA will be replaced with a new DA to update the concept plan and provisions to improvements relevant to the current proposal. This application was previously heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on 8/7/25 and was recommended for denial. Since the hearing, the applicant was remanded by the City Council back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to address the concerns of the neighbors and commission. The reason for denial was due to a lack of open space, a lack of transition between the proposed two (2) story homes and existing single-story homes, and the zoning change from R-4 to R-15 being too abrupt. th At the December 4 hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued the application telling the applicant to eliminate the open space and great larger lots. The applicant changed the plan to address Commissions comments. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential Summary of Request: During the previous Planning and Zoning hearing on December 4th, 2025, the commission asked the applicant to remove the open space to allow for larger building lots to accommodate some single-story homes. The applicant has revised their plan to lose an additional lot, provide larger lot sizes and single story homes adjacent to the western boundary. In addition, they have reoriented the local street along the northern boundary. The applicant indicated that they held a neighborhood meeting last week to fill the neighbors in on the proposed changes. The applicants new request is for a rezone of 2.9 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district and a Preliminary Plat on 4.68 acres of land, consisting of 24 building lots and 7 common lots, and a development agreement modification to terminate the old development agreement and establish a new one. Staff amended the proposed development agreement to include the new provision that restricts Lots 2-8, Block 1 to single story dwellings. Written Testimony: None since the previous hearing. Staff Recommendation: Approval with the conditions and a development agreement. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- th 2025-0016, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 15, 2026, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2025- th 0016, as presented during the hearing on January 15, 2026, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2025-0016 to the hearing date of ______ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4: Building Height and Drive-through Text Amendment (ZOA-2025-0003) Application(s): UDC Text Amendment Summary of Request: The amendment focuses on two primary topics: (1) clarification and revisions to the building height standards and (2) implementation of the new tiered review process for drive-through establishments. The proposed amendment includes modifications, additions, and clarifications primarily within Chapters 1, 2, and 5 of the Unified Development Code (UDC). The proposed changes are summarized below: 1. UDC 11-1-5(B): Measurements Clarifies that residential building heights are measured differently from non-residential and mixed-use structures. Residential building height will now be measured from the average grade at the front property line to the highest point of the roof or structure, while non-residential and mixed-use structure height will continue to be measured in accordance with the adopted Building Code. 2. UDC 11-1A-1: Definitions – Drive-Through Establishment Updates the definition to include the three (3) tiered categories for drive-through establishments. 3. UDC 11-2A-3(E) and 11-2D-3(B): Maximum Height Limits Residential structures will be measured as defined in Chapter 1 and are further limited from additional height increases. The amendment also clarifies which non-residential and mixed-use structures' architectural features are exempt from height limits. 4. UDC Tables 11-2B-2 and 11-2D-2: Allowed Uses in Commercial and Traditional Neighborhood Districts Updates the allowed use tables to incorporate the new tiered drive-through categories recently adopted by City Council. 5. Table 11-5A-2: Duties and Authority Adds specific review and decision-making procedures for each drive-through tier. This includes authorization for Tier 1 drive- throughs to be approved administratively or by the Commission, Tier 2 drive-throughs to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and Tier 3 drive-throughs to require City Council approval. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number ZOA- 2025-0003, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of 01/15/2026, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number ZOA- 2025-0003, as presented during the hearing on 01/15/2026, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number ZOA-2025-0003 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) h2 Planning and Zoning , 2026 th January 15Commission Meeting Slide 1 h2 Agenda Item Numbers/Order: hoodc, 12/19/2006 Zoning MapAerialFLUM PreviousCurrent Zoning MapAerialFLUM W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing continued from December 4, 2025 for Farrington Heights Subdivision RZ, PP, MDA (H-2025-0016) by Studio H Architects, generally located at the NW corner of E. Pine Ave. and N. Adkins Ave. A. Request: Rezone of 2.9 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat on 4.68 acres of land consisting of 25 building lots and 6 common lots. C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to terminate the existing development agreement and establish a new one. 30 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: January 15, 2026 ITEM #3 PROJECT NAME: Farrington Heights Subdivision RZ, PP, MDA (H-2025-0016) by Studio H Architects, wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing (mark X (Please Print) HOA? if yes) -A ' CAn 2 -► 3 ovvW 4 W l h VWL'Ou--s 5 1(620 7 8 9 f 10 12 � //a 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C` fE IDIAN -- DEPARTMENT REPORT A"o HEARING "A^02_5�Continued to 1/15/2026 Am Legend V-er. DATE: (Remanded to Planning and Zoning Project Location ` m Commission on 9/16/2025) '.:. Area of Impact City Limits TO: Planning&Zoning Commission ®Analysis FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner m 208-884-5533 nnapoli@meridiancity.org - APPLICANT: Sabrina Durtschi 1 SUBJECT: H-2025-0016 _�� Farrington Heights Subdivision RZ,PP, MDA = _ LOCATION: Generally located at the northwest corner of E. Pine Avenue and N.Adkins Avenue in the SE corner of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 7,T.2N.,R2W. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Rezone 2.9 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district and a Preliminary Plat on 4.68 acres of land, consisting of 24 building lots and 7 common lots, and a development agreement modification to terminate the old development agreement and establish a new one. B. Issues/Waivers - This application was previously recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission and has since been remanded by the City Council to allow for changes to address the concerns of the neighbors and the Planning and Zoning Commission. The previous reasons for denial were a lack of open space,the 2-story transition to the existing single-story homes, and the change in zoning from R-4 to R-15 being too abrupt.The Commission continued the application at the December 4"hearing to remove the open space and make the lots bigger to provide a better transition. - The development does not require open space due to the subdivision being under five(5) acres in size,however,there is no regional park in the area for residents to recreate at. Since the previous hearing,the planning and zoning commission gave the applicant direction to remove the open space and make the lots larger so they can accommodate single story homes. - Since the previous hearing on December 41h,2025,the applicant has revised the concept plan to eliminate the open space and include larger lot sizes. The applicant has indicated that the homes on the eastern boundary of the site will all be single story which will City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview ■ provide a better transition to the existing homes.In addition,the roadway was reconfigured to be adjacent to the existing homes on the north portion of the site. C. Recommendation Staff. Approval with a Development Agreement and Conditions. Commission: Pending D. Decision Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report I. Project Overview ■ COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Residential - Proposed Land Use(s) Residential - Existing Zoning R-4 VII.A.2 II. Proposed Zoning R-15 Adopted FLUM Designation Medium Density Residential VII.A.3 Proposed FLUM Designation Medium Density Residential Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 12/10/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 2/10/2025 Site posting date 10/23/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District iV.0 • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access Adkins Avenue: Local Street - • Traffic Level of Service ACHD does not have traffic counts available for Pine and - Adkins ITD Comments Received Yes - Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.B • Distance to Mainline Sewer Available at Site • Impacts or Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Meridian Public Works Water IV.B • Distance to Mainline Water Available at Site • Impacts or Concerns No School District(s) No Comments - Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received or see the public record. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure l: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:R2039261221 Date Retrieved:2025/4/3 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infiii Indicator: 1,223 Surrounding Area 154 8% Not City ® City Limits 1,669. 2,572 4 ■ Not City Household Household& Population Growth Households 02020 Population Change:16.8°I° Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family 43% 3396 2396 Multi-family 57 ® Commercial 2.00 2,000 Single-family y Residential 1.50 1,500 41 Parcel Diversity a 1.00 1,000 U ;, 0.82 0Parcel Count (.n 0.50 500 L a.1a a Average Acres 0.00 0 R-2 R-4 3 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 15.00 dResidential Net Density 10.00 E)9.68 p 5.00 05.33 1�5.53 GO10 0.00 M 1.23 Dwelling Units 1 Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure 2:ACHD Summary Metrics Level of Service Planning Thresholds 1. Condition of Area Roadways 1 raffic Count is based on Vehicles per hour(VPH} Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service ` Pine Avenue 314-feet Minor Arterial NIA NIA ` Adkins Avenue 648-feet Local NIA NIA ` Acceptable level of service for a three-lane minor arterial is "E" (7 0 VPH)_ " ACHD noes not set level of service thresholds for local streets. Figure 3: Service Impact Summary ImpactService . ■ Ready Marginal Caution �aN+ °0� O� fir° Qa Q- City of Meridian Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview This property is designated Medium Density Residential on the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The medium-density residential designation ui. allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three(3)to eight(8)dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school,or land dedicated for public services. The applicant proposes to rezone 2.9 acres of the 4.68 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the R-15 zoning district and leave the remaining 1.78 acres as the R-4 zoning district. A preliminary plat and conceptual building elevations were submitted showing how the property is proposed to be subdivided and developed with twenty-four(24)residential building lots and seven(7)commons lots at a gross density of 5.12 units per acre. The proposed use and density are consistent with the Medium Density Residential(MDR)FLUM designation of three(3)to eight (8)units per acre. Additionally,the applicant is proposing a development agreement modification to terminate the existing development agreement(DA)and create a new one. The R-15 zoning designation,which allows for reduced lot sizes down to 2,000 square feet, provides flexibility for developers to support a diversity and variety of housing types. This can create a dynamic,multi-generational community where residents can transition through different stages of life(known as aging in place)while remaining in the same neighborhood. This type of zoning in conjunction with other designations, should be used to support a diverse housing mix that supports long-term residency and continuity within the community,promoting stability and a sense of place for residents throughout different stages of life. The surrounding landscape consists of single-family detached homes to the east,west,and north, while to the south is Pine Avenue. It is important to note that the majority of the surrounding homes are single-story. The average density for a one-mile radius is 6.1 units per acre,which is higher than the 5.12 units per acre the applicant is proposing. Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principally permitted use in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. The applicant is proposing to keep the three(3) existing homes on the property and will configure new lot lines around the existing homes that conform to the dimensional standards. Since the previous hearing,the applicant has submitted a phasing plan indicating they would like to north portion to be a part of Phase one (1)and the southern portion as Phase two(2). Future development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. The property is already annexed with the R-4 zoning. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-651 IA. If this property is annexed, Staff recommends a DA is required with the provisions discussed herein and included in Section IV. Overall,the proposed infill development is an allowed use within the Medium Density Residential designation and contributes to the area's intended mix of residential housing types. Therefore, staff is supportive of the proposed development with the conditions and DA provisions listed in Section IV. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.02.02C: Support infill development that does not negatively impact the abutting, existing development. Infill projects in Downtown should develop at higher densities, irrespective of existing development. Staff encouraged the applicant to converse with the neighbor early on in the process, and after their neighborhood meeting,the applicant indicated the neighbors had minimal concerns. However, at the first hearing in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission,the neighbors had City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ several concerns that were not addressed by the applicant.With the resubmittal,the applicant has addressed these concerns by providing an adequate transition the neighboring residential. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.02.OID:Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity. The applicant will be extending the sidewalk along the west side of N. Adkins Avenue to connect with the northern subdivision,which will improve the walkability in the neighborhood. However, there is still an Ada County parcel that will leave a gap in the sidewalk. Once the Ada County parcel annexes into the city,the sidewalk will be completed along the west side of Adkins. Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.01.02B:Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity. The applicant will be eliminating three access points to E. Pine Avenue,which will decrease the number of curb cuts on an increasingly busier arterial roadway. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.02.00:Plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. Open space and amenities are not required by the UDC since the development is five (5)acres or less. However, staff has concerns with the lack of opportunities for outdoor recreation for residents in this area, as there is no regional park nearby. During the previous hearing,the Planning and Zoning Commission asked the applicant to eliminate the open space and make the lots larger throughout the development to accommodate some single-story homes. Table 4:Proiect Overview Description Details History AZ-00-012;DA Inst# 101052483 Phasing Plan 2 Phases Residential Units 21 new single-family detached 3 existing single-family detached Open Space None;The development is less than 5 acres Amenities None;The development is less than 5 acres Acreage 4.68 acres Lots 30 Buildable Lots and 3 Common Lots Density Gross: 5.12 Units/Acre Net: 6.66 Units/Acre B. History The subject properties were annexed in 2000 as a part of Farrington, Opal application(AZ-00- 012). The zoning granted at the time of annexation was the R-4 zoning district. With the annexation approval,the properties were subject to a DA that restrict the property to adding one (1) additional home on the 4.68 acres. The existing DA will be replaced with a new DA to update the concept plan and provisions to improvements relevant to the current proposal. This application was previously heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on 8/7/25 and was recommended for denial. Since the hearing,the applicant was remanded by the City Council back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to address the concerns of the neighbors and commission. The reason for denial was due to a lack of open space,a lack of transition between the proposed two (2) story homes and existing single-story homes,and the zoning change from R- 4 to R-15 being too abrupt. During the previous Planning and Zoning hearing on December 4t1i,2025,the commission asked the applicant to remove the open space to allow for larger building lots to accommodate some City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ single-story homes. The applicant has revised their plan to lose an additional lot,provide larger lot sizes and single story homes adjacent to the western boundary. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): The subject site contains three(3) existing homes that will remain with the formation of the subdivision. These homes will be included in southern portion of the development and shall conform to the dimensional standards listed UDC Tables 11-2A-5 and 11-2A-7. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The applicant is proposing single-family detached homes (21 new and 3 existing),which are listed as a principal permitted use in UDC Table 11-2A-2 for the R-15 and R-4 zoning districts. In addition to this,the proposed gross density of the subdivision is 5.12 units per acre,which is less than the one-mile radius average density of 6.1 units per acre. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.01.01 C encourages the applicants to maintain a range of residential land use designations that allow diverse lot sizes, housing types, and densities. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.01.01 G states development should avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.06.02D encourages a diversity of housing, recreation, and mobility options to attract and sustain the local workforce. The applicant is proposing a total of 24 detached single-family homes,which is consistent with what has been approved in the surrounding subdivisions. However,the lot sizes in this development are smaller than the neighboring subdivisions but have increased since the previous application. As a result of the increased lot sizes,the applicant has lost a total of six (6)buildable lots. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-5 and 11-2A-7 for the R-4 and R-15 zoning districts. The proposed plat complies with the dimensional standards of the R-4 and R-1 S zoning districts. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): Goals 2.01.02D, 2.01.01 G,and 2.02.02C of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize the importance of offering diverse housing types throughout Meridian to accommodate the needs, preferences, and financial capacities of current and future residents. These goals also support infill development that complement existing neighborhoods. The subject site is adjacent to established R-8 subdivisions(Danbury Fair Subdivision Nos. 1 and 7, and Maws Add No. 3)to the east,north, and west. The applicant submitted a preliminary plat and conceptual building elevations proposing 24 single-family detached City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ dwellings at a gross density of 5.12 units per acre(see Section VII.G). This density aligns with the Medium Density Residential(MDR)Future Land Use Map(FLUM) designation. A county enclave parcel remains to the north along N.Adkins Avenue,which will result in a persistent gap in the sidewalk network. The property is contiguous to annexed City land to the north and lies within the City's Area of City Impact.A legal description and exhibit map of the proposed R-4 and R-15 rezone areas are included in Section VII. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6511A,the City may require a development agreement(DA)with annexation. Staff recommends that a DA be required, incorporating the provisions outlined herein and in Section IV. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3G): UDC Section 11-3G-2 requires common open space and amenities for developments that are five(5) acres or larger. The proposed development,at 4.68 acres,falls below this threshold and is therefore not subject to the open space and amenity requirements outlined in the code. However, staff have engaged in multiple discussions with the applicant regarding the value of including open space and amenities, especially given the absence of a regional park in the surrounding area.While not a code requirement, staff are concerned about the lack of recreational space or amenities for future residents. Since the previous hearing,the applicant eliminated the majority of the open space to increase the average lot size within the development to accommodate some single-story homes. 3. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets UDC 11-2A-7 requires a twenty-five(25) foot wide landscape buffer along E. Pine Avenue, an arterial roadway. A landscape buffer is not required along N. Adkins Avenue, a local street;however, a 10-foot setback to the living space is required from the back of the sidewalk. The applicant has provided a twenty-five(25)foot wide landscape buffer along E. Pine Avenue and is required to comply with the dimensional standards for the R-4 and R-15 districts. With the submittal of the final plat, the applicant shall provide vegetation coverage calculations. ii. Tree preservation Mitigation shall be required for all existing trees four-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of one hundred(100)percent replacement(Example: Two(2)ten-inch caliper trees removed may be mitigated with four 5-inch caliper trees, five(5)four-inch caliper trees, or seven(7)three-inch caliper trees). Deciduous specimen trees four-inch caliper or greater may count double towards total calipers lost,when planted at entryways,within common open space, and when used as focal elements in landscape design. The applicant shall provide mitigation calculations with submittal of the final plat if any trees are being removed from the property. iii. Storm integration Per UDC 11-3B-11,the applicant shall meet the intent to improve water quality and provide a natural, effective form of flood and water pollution control through the integration of vegetated,well designed stormwater filtration swales and other green City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ stormwater facilities into required landscape areas,where topography and hydrologic features allow if part of the development. iv. Pathway landscaping No new pathway is being proposed as the existing attached ten(10)foot multi-use along E. Pine Avenue is going to remain. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Residential parking analysis Off-street parking is required to be provided for each home based on the total number of bedrooms per unit as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6. On-street parking is also available on portions of the proposed streets. Lot 18 will be taking access off Adkins Avenue. The applicant has submitted an exhibit showing the garage and street setback to the property in compliance with the standards. Lot 18 has an existing home that shall have the required twenty(20)foot garage setback and fifteen (15)foot living setback. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan, Architectural Standards Manual): Goal 5.01.02D of the Comprehensive Plan highlights the need for effective building design and landscaping to buffer, screen,beautify,and integrate commercial,multifamily,and parking areas with existing neighborhoods. In response,the developer has submitted conceptual building elevations that illustrate the appearance of future homes in the development(see Section VII). The proposed designs include variations of one and two-story homes, each featuring a two- car garage. The elevations showcase a range of architectural styles and design elements, including lap siding,neutral color accents,brick and stone veneer,varied roof profiles,and different home styles. Staff review confirms that these elevations adhere to the city's architectural standards and comply with the required design criteria. One of the largest concerns of the neighboring residences was the transition from the existing single-story homes to the proposed two-story homes. Since the previous hearing,the applicant has revised the preliminary plat to make the lots larger on the perimeter of the subdivision to accommodate single story structures. The applicant has indicated that Lots 2-8,Block 1 will be single story homes. Homes on lots that abut W.Pine Avenue, an arterial street,-will be highly visible;therefore, the rear and/or side of structures on these lots (i.e. Lots 15, 16, and 18,Block 1 ) should incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g. projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street.Single-story and existing structures are exempt from this requirement. 6. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. According to the submitted landscape plans,the applicant is proposing two types of fencing throughout the site, six(6) foot solid vinyl fencing and a four(4) foot wrought iron semi-privacy fencing. In addition,the applicant shall indicate the fencing location on the residential lots with the submittal of the building permits. These will be required to comply with UDC 11-3A-7. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Goals 6.01.01H and 6.01.02B of the Comprehensive Plan stress the need to minimize the number of direct access points onto arterial streets. This can be achieved through cross-access agreements, access management, frontage and backage roads,and enhancing connectivity through local and collector streets. Additionally,these goals highlight the importance of incorporating pedestrian access connectors in new developments to link subdivisions and support neighborhood connectivity within a community pathway system. Access to the property is proposed from N. Adkins Avenue, a local roadway on the eastern portion of the site. This local road is a shared drive between the proposed subdivision and the existing subdivision to the east and north. The applicant is proposing three(3) access points off N.Adkins Avenue with one being a common drive for access to Lots, 14, 15, and 16, Block 1 and the other two being local street extensions. 2. Multiuse Pathways and Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5, Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): Comprehensive Plan policy 4.04.01A ensures that new development and subdivisions connect to the pathway system. UDC 11-3G-5 emphasizes the importance of common open space and amenities being located in areas that maximize pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Multi-use pathways shall be constructed in accord with the city's comprehensive plan,the Meridian Pathways Master Plan,the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map and Roadways to Bikeways Master Plan. The standards along Arterial roadways are to provide a detached ten(10) foot wide sidewalks (multiuse pathway),however, in conversation with the parks department, it was determined the existing ten(10) foot attached multi-use pathway will be sufficient due to it being relatively new. The applicant is in compliance with this, as the ten(10)foot sidewalk already exists along E. Pine Avenue. 3. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): All sidewalks constructed as part of this proposal are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. A sidewalk connection along the west side of N. Adkins Avenue is required to be installed to connect the existing subdivision to the multi-use pathway along E. Pine Avenue. The applicant is depicting the sidewalk on the landscape plan in compliance with this standard. The applicant shall provide a street section exhibit with the submittal of the final plat reflecting compliance with these standards. With the construction of the sidewalk along the western side of Adkins,the sidewalk will extend to the north and stub at the lone remaining Ada County parcel. The sidewalk will be completed when the Ada County parcel annexes in the future. 4. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): i. Dead end streets The proposed subdivision does not contain a dead end street other than the two(2) common drives as discussed below. ii. Common driveways Per UDC 11-6C-3D, common driveways shall serve a maximum of four(4) dwelling units. In no case shall more than three(3)dwelling units be located on one(1) side of the driveway unless alternative compliance is applied for. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ The applicantproposes two (2) common drives within the development. The common drive accessing Hardiman Street will serve two (2) homes, while the common drive accessing N. Adkins Avenue will serve three(3) homes. The common drive connecting to N.Adkins Avenue complies with the UDC requirements; however, the common drive connecting to Hardiman Street must be revised to depict Lot 8, Block I with the same building envelope as Lot 7,Block 1. In addition, it is important to note that the applicant still needs to comply with the parking requirements for driveways off of common drives. If the house exceeds two (2) bedrooms, the applicant will be required to have a twenty-by-twenty(20 x 20)foot parking pad. The applicant worked with staff to modify the common drives to provide the five (5)feet of landscaping required in the UDC 11-6. Additionally, the applicant has provided details into where the curb cuts for Lots 14, 15, and 16 will take access from the common drive connecting directly to N. Adkins Avenue. iii. Block face UDC 11-6C-3-regulates block lengths for residential subdivisions. The intent of this section of code is to ensure block lengths do not exceed 750 ft, although there is the allowance of an increase in block length to 1,000 feet if a pedestrian connection is provided. In no case shall a block face exceed one thousand two hundred(1,200)feet, unless waived by the City Council. The applicant is compliance with the block length requirements in the UDC. F. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): The existing irrigation ditches on the property shall be piped or tiled in accordance with UDC 11-3A-6. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-1 S): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be installed to provide irrigation to each lot in the subdivision in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-15. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments by the City's adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow the best management practices as adopted by the City as outlined in UDC 11-3A-18. Storm drainage will be proposed with a future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and shall be constructed to City and ACHD design criteria. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development.All utilities are available to the site. Water main, fire hydrant and water service require a twenty- foot(20)wide easement that extends ten(10)feet past the end of main,hydrant, or water meter.No permanent structures, including trees,are allowed inside the easement. In addition,all buildable lots within Block 2 shall be revised to include a ten(10)-foot public utility,irrigation, and drainage easement along the rear lot lines. The applicant currently depicts a five(5)-foot easement; however,UDC 11-6C-3E grants the City Engineer discretion to require appropriate easement widths. This revision shall be made with the final plat submittal. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Comprehensive Plan policy 3.03.03G require urban infrastructure to be provided for all new developments,including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS Prior to the City Council hearing,the applicant shall revise the landscape plan, elevations, and common drive exhibits to reflect the most recent changes to the preliminary plat. A. Meridian Planning Division 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of rezone of this property. Prior IV. to approval of the rezone ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. A final plat shall not be submitted until the DA and Ordinance is approved by City Council. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum,incorporate the following provisions IF City Council determines rezone is in the best interest of the City: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan, common open space/site amenity exhibit,and conceptual building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. b. Any future development of the site must comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of the development. c. Homes on lots that abut W. Pine Avenue,an arterial street,-will be highly visible; therefore,the rear and/or side of structures on these lots(i.e. Lots 15, 16, and 18,Block 1) should incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g. projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches, balconies,material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story and existing structures are exempt from this requirement. d. The existing structures on Lots 15, 16, and 18 shall meet the dimensional standards for the R-4 zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5. In addition,the applicant shall provide paved driveways to the existing homes that will take access off the southern common drive. e. Lots 2-8,Block 1, shall be restricted to single story dwellings. 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Add a plat note stating"direct lot access to E. Pine Avenue is prohibited." b. Graphically depict the three(3) foot wide public utility,drainage, and irrigation easements on the sides of Lots 2-8,Block 2, and Lots 2-8 & 10-12,Block 1. c. Graphically depict the five(5)foot wide public utility,drainage, and irrigation easements on the side of Lots 14, 15,16,18,Block 1. d. Modify note 15 to include language stating that all interior side lot lines for Lots 2-8, Block 2,and Lots 2-8 & 10-12,Block 1 contain a three(3) foot wide easement for public utilities,irrigation, and drainage. e. Modify note 15 to include language stating that all side lot lines for Lots 14,15,16,18, Block I contain a five(5) foot wide easement for public utilities,irrigation, and drainage. f. Modify the rear easement for Lots 2-8,Block 2 to 10 feet in width. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Include mitigation calculations on the plan for existing trees that are proposed to be removed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-IOC.S. The Applicant shall coordinate with the City Arborist(Kyle Yorita kyorita(&meridiancity.org)to determine mitigation requirements prior to removal of existing trees from the site. b. Provide details on the ground coverage material that will be used along Pine Avenue. 4. The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5 and 11-2A-7 for the R-4 and R-15 zoning districts. 5. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat, all existing structures that do not conform to the setbacks of the R-4 zoning district shall be removed. 6. Comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, alleys,driveways,common driveways,easements, blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 7. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 8. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1) obtain the City Engineer's signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 9. The final plat shall substantially comply with the approved preliminary plat as set forth in UDC 11-613-3C. 10. Comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, alleys, driveways,common driveways,easements, blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 11. The applicant and/or assigns shall have the continuing obligation to provide irrigation that meets the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-6 and to install and maintain all landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5,UDC 11-3B-13 and UDC 11-3B-14. 12. Submit an updated common drive exhibit for the common drive off of Adkins Avenue showing the driveways and the setbacks for the existing homes that will remain on Lots 14, 15, and 16,Block 1. 13. Submit a revised common drive exhibit for the common drive off of Hardiman Street showing Lot 8,Block 1,with the same building envelope as Lot 7,Block 1. 14. The applicant shall either construct the landscape buffer along and close the access points or post surety for the improvements along W. Pine Avenue with Phase one(1)of the development. 15. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 16. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two(2)years to obtain City Engineer's signature on a final plat in accord with UDC 11-6B-7. 17. Staff's failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ B. Meridian Public Works rRE-FLAT OUNDFMNS W astowater * IN to Sawa ewwM Llil at sc 5e 01:5 Sewer Shod Ezlmated Plryoet Sac app maDn Sew"ERLFS - WRAF 6cclnM 6ahnoc PrcdLtrt r:+KkstL4 t yes Wit WW Naswr MrkjFatllltf F tw - Imlrarssfoann�sTsc SM FUI:1Ir1Wr13 Slit&Pod&Corrdlbans Water • Ells=ante mWater W2tEF*Mrhle at Sttc Serlors + FYcauC Zdrle • Estlm and Proled Sac appleation Water ERU's + YI21icrQralry None Propect CoressaM Yes wlth Wier kdsur Pbn YnparlXfmnocros None F'L�IJI:R'uuxw W1kILTal Krrr NYIt Spetirg 4,Additliw4 aF A"/ YJF 1. I �nrcr...�.etra,.c Stx•er nwn Iwp. _. FBVnaer w. iry irdkr eA eI1 want.Ifl Well z lotaord on iM me n nium be abwdorrti per rt-VIOLA)re,gwrm zu peareal cbgneonniem mws tst pro.drd is dst[:vy.[-an be wei rrriFf—rvsal unppdwn. 3. PDowidu 19 FA2nwm W nusM h}drim Inlusk wd.uu ernad.I-Aumpt us should dome Lip ui IIic and orsuurrtadrara? az er vKrcr arrd LIF Flyond IL A. Ncn sznin tsjmee ,beAs,hwldag ewpons,aaah etatpaalt.blLi.fend Inl!dvr ..n utr tei r.h, t .j w Fe tuilL w.sh.n the d.Ilup car rsum 5. Fim.m no sewrr serrrc pu LLia p mnlugu vcv_trtx. 5. HeNunLhrlffia ismofin willsinSuF the w:derrneler. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ Geori it i:ou3lious A Appifo"l 1. Ajjd.L..L>I.a11-L ow.alcir xrx er nwn lLat and rt>+Lxt g.Lih Vrt Public Work Iliaisr4xvuL and cx Lx utx xLar,iad rarim ofraLea'en La far rl,nulns ila aro rail.Ircd La Provide serv�uc uu .&ara publw hluiil wh raver aver xev,cs maims LS thne fitL,L<Ko.rr rianl Lop of prpt Lo su&V dd_LS Las Ulan Lhrec lar LLm aluffum m L:r LLLI shAl br uLed LL lcWwwwiiL-of(:Liy al Mfn3a,1 Fublk Wairlr Llr(AmemS SUlldifd."inco 2. Per MuWidr th,[-adc 1 KRX:],Lill 1IM111 ud dull he n!SfHAUJ9,La-Mani Al-if rid w9kif aL..La io sad Ltfhu gh Lb1&-q,K•ui_u L.Appl,arLima,be diSiNe for a reir&ufflrrl iep mro rtr Lnfto rucwro per M[:r=i-&-S_ 3. ThtdWl.c LgWlProvide c,LserLtchLlxF roe Wpilrc,tar:Us&.0 rkoLar .ay{th_Lu3_dill waror xervrri a id iy2rW}the easemtnL w.&hr.xba11 be m-lkt ..k fora swell uldtlr,w 304cn.LEr For Era The rratbacms sJnall rob 6c dedv:llxd,L&du pUL,br ralh[r dndlw,ai rttllsidc the pflt pinam usk*he i:LR'ed Morwim's shrdard fmuic..The ealeYr_id shall hu rvJSp LiCSILy�'I•-.,an IYC Fiji lie frter86:C�wY1S.tiuhnld all tuwdeti erde .L(o..Ll,u lufm Av L,ble Imm PWAilc Wadi),i legal dlx rgpuaa pftpQ td by m Idaho L.Kcraod Prultsa ad Land Hurve,or,.iLN LLad IohWL-Lhu uca ol'Vrtt ntea Intarhed F.xiia 3rl'A)jail un K7:1-a L L-n V wd1b hemp and disl.-u {nwkei I,LI L1111T F9 Gr rovtc�.FkAh c,:l�d,nc nil be seaLk xlgned red Aoei by a F-ILsaclonLL 13nd tiur,.•foe.LA) MITT RF:{YJR 11. Jidda rlmc L4 dic plm rareftwi%lbJs dacullmil..ALI Odtmx'n LS MULZ U subml"rt-w-L iW approvr:d prlarmdtitkpavMpLLi wiluut9l. 4. 'I7rt L-nyarMtrtdtaireq.ues Lhrprezurldi urlgium syxLeaniti sugilued by i,c9lfauled source a I'wjorr�13[}[:113FS�,k 71Le apP It ail xha.ld br eequtJ W u use any es.tatn g sue rScror .ell�aLee ear 11r prinury source. If i xmaee at wK{I iLarf*a i.]1 a,illlbk.a sln&-poi d a,eadxrr La the Lulteary.00ci sYsWft.shall ht"uved.11 r uuLu&d. the■eu,eliprrrd1hu:utlxu.sihlu Iw Lltu 1uy,,,oaarasaeLLnro err LbcraeLLxoi oralparrw Filar W eletivihK d.,rululiuiuhl nIaA alilli-Al. 3. A'lle"nUg 1Lfu%-wmlllr.uc 1 uyuiNd LL hL shall be pnar Lie smrlwdr as Me FLruL plu by Lltr C rL,F:uruimi. ,illy u n„q„rL�dua we.LLu.ed La rmlaln itW I be sm1p!CLLa e.a lliamif.,Leal FPOMIhlc rcra.,x,,,,k„L t.l v ica a6Voa,t w bL Ln eo"ludec rLih k K:[-. d. All vet aw.i wiLcrrayr,vLmrxnhLnp, t Ovag or Iir bc.ne.iut.Wv.dlod irJ114e9SlrelrfdpH Lfl3f_11-3AA 3..1-G S.uch,.ate Lbe applicant rltall r amply with kl.W>[lir�42-1207 old knv iidm qT-Ii ahIc law iif Jqulra,an. 7. AA-lb L'ul will h,LioliLtlut Lo WLe"niva Ee prycrlyabr.JorKdrroontugm ldria Well C"Laiucl,on Si.udu ds E LLri almiltt3LLYL-0 by the Idaho Lkj)ll 1.of Wmrr Rriour[eL.The Lhatel*Wj Flu}:.cu:A.all provldc A eU,c1Y-..L addresslrlg xhtlhtr tll2rt llet any bt.aing.eWL LL the ir481cf .IL,.ud d act,her Mey wILL c�u he used,ar pro,L&rowed"Lbe.r abardonnKrtn K. ,Say cvlsaag xpL,c sysLcnls.wlthr iu proleti Llull be[er..,vcd G.OS xervlfY per[-ry LLrnu.nrr.. tcuoli SLI-4And'l9 H. L-orusn CbkW dLGelci Hk*M F&QufhdaLmomprLlcb3ucsrid in.R L'LfrG(2DH)37.i2I I. 9. Sami sLW art m Be In place,l761N[�sr.er wO�alcr Lyf weal fbalL be jprKovrd mid Acb,alet♦l, mod hale llAW,td by LRL-Adl{V wWy H#b iy UkwKL and Lilt Filial Flu 3or iha suhd„v.Kr "I be[ecwdk!d,prior ru appl,mg for dmlmg ptmlLx. 30.A kl arcrodt[w cosh suety m ac i loum of I IC%will.1,rrgweel Ifr ALI. OFILpleLcd rmtLo&Uad n� an18r111eL,e .,pflar w xlffr Wu ith Ur Ruud pIr< 33.A31 uMx& -aLcn u etllttdto public lue,safety aW health shall bt aarllpLabil pn&r w onupawy arils mua,res.W heir oWo*fd by Llhr[-Sy higlrKcr.an a.srr rftaf poa a pHfowarlcEr sumy rise La,L#ufpravenww m wda to ahwn f:uy Hri. cii iLgisaurc on the risL pLu ix se[I"m LILX.'11-51--313. 12.Ap1pl1 cAnL shall he roquuad Lo pay P uh Iic W ae Ls dcvt Iopnitm p Ma rtvk..and corttarudwri 1nr{tlw1vn few m drmmirrd B,ruLg Lhc p1m revrtx pruati prior m LFr rxuantm ora plan ippeo,A knee. 11.I[hall br Lhc ro NnslGLrty ardc applicanL w crrurc dtaa all dr.clapnttm Iti-n,ucs Konply.uh 1ht,lLrerttara rah UarbdlLLtf A[L altd Lhc Fa,r Housing Act 14.Appllconi. hJWI he res nsiblc lar appLKanal artdtompi wnh any Li cl 404 rernll Lltng the nu,be rcquvrd bf Lhc Amly CwlK ad FnX.ltccrx. 15.I. vtk1w shtLLl c000dlnttle awlhan L iLora wrdi Nc Mtftduh Pact ilmr1cc. 14.Cangw LLr wa scsulu.shall be submiard LL the kr uLdLan kLuld,Lg Ilepinownt.for AL budding FLbk Cw tivlllg engLh crcti brcalLll,rI�rr ivawlg would ill.atop rill-..-.-. 17.Tbr deLLErt engttK.r shall be rmluvtd m ee„Ry iltro the xv ccnafrLm e4-.uroas aro stL a minm al3-rr jba,c 11rt hLbL csubllshod peal grouWwatrr ticv n.'Ilrr Is w craurc wm the dourm elevamm a1'Vtr crcr I Ara ul hont Is ro It I-15, jba,c. I K.Tht appIlcontr.dtLlgn bilge rshall be rcspora.blc Itr uLjt3rttan ara11 tfr.rA..n AfW& driul.W ExiLry.rNh lh Li pmfWL dkiLL do,cot TO urnier Lht jwi*dlanin rit an ifny3aa,a,l dL.9riL -or A[-HL).'rbr dnlgn enguetr shall.provrie oaul LtLLIan ehr Lhr ULikilc7,Lave hceo te:ulk-d LL k'oedmce dbLht apprb.cd der pl. T1us bmuflta ah..11 bt fe.luvc-0".Pr,.a cm.kcmt crm uparrl,a Mufti for jay suual wnhaLhc pnr� 39.AL the campinLOLL orVrt proJei4 Lhr applKara shall ht reapomible w submlL rc:ord dlar BV pY the CIL,or hi,xLdLari AmbAA11 zwidl'd' These rrierd dn.rSs a.tmbt roc. load apProvea Pr"m Lht�e Ora t nawaLL Mf cupWLL`y lie jay Ar-'i•• wuhtn the pru.j0.L 2a.A arty ligh plan.1IL ribbed w be Included m 13c cl.11 odl%rwmLofL plan.L lad I.Fhi plan requirear=nu arc ILard m satuan 64 aR Lhe I12WOv YrnL tivmdsr,;Rw%mott I-qlLiryg.A.copy orLlenaatl3rdiian he laund r hnP.ilxrw.IllehdwLciLy.orgPuhlte_rorlx.r i!ul NZ. 73.The['dy allertdlna lnhju Lbm Uro u.mr poa 1 the Cny a pLrra it c sum,m L1r arn,.rt ar 125%arLbr Loral eoodl4t coo for aLLt onLplcu xrxer,wj zU ray,xc Infi*d� pnarmfLnWFlaslgnawe.'rLL Luray wdIbib,f I1WbyaLiwLLmI oral eWntaePeevededby ima.rte,rm did[-Ly.'rre ra,etty,.a.be p&mL d I n im hint arse an-&o Ae Iddl a areslu4 rash deptrt.Larboi"I Lamm rNfi lit an;4WKaoLortGarsorely,.bib can btR.0 onLht 1:onlLwuuiy 13C dxfem Llepl[lnlem.etear. Pkase ee Did.L lard Lk Vdiciphien L Ktrvlce bar meet Lnirr+^ +u"7,7311. 22.'17rt city o rMerid Ina rtrf.Irci Lha Ute a.tmr poa in We:Ley a irn■6y r L)mIht jrr rL or XI%of dh caul ranxlnci.h race la[AI Kaupbe ds ltr.Wa ar.l I mfri au n.....err durmLKt ad .yt .'lls.>.wny.IIL be v nflbya lie aim raa�provided b?We a.a mUtc Cay.Tltc:._:Lev.or,ltr paw_-0 uI Lht rLenl orm rrrtoeble la Tara lti Kash dipuClar bmid.Allilli-L a:ter l d:y i a:t::i.aiiwl Nor' tly,.bL'h can ht lound as Lht Canlmuiuly l3ewl--ill_al. rt1-7- Pkaae CfruaLL Lard 1XVt1opaenL%eerier ear nK,reulforaLuw:iuNX7 2=11. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ C. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) OMIL V"prwdwr MM iardrr onw CunfYwar" 11 ACHD -4- ItRatrkZ NErowt Canrrftk� Date:]une 9",202S REVISED To JeNiCa"eagle.S[UOh*H ArMltea5 Staff Contact:watt Pak Planner Project Deseriptiare Farrington Heights TnpGeneradon: This dLrelopnrentrsestrmated W Werate340 vehldB[nps per dot . A vONI-16 t►iPO�r how in ilia PM Ptak Nour_bawd Orr She ln!Hitut#OFTrerdP rC2Ti t Engineers Trip Generation Manual,W"edition. Tiraffir.Impact Study NU required Do area roadways meet Th re, the rutura with plar-ni NO Connecting you to Mom- Ada 4PM^q Nib'Dq#.r t-FEW M MrWkW AW.W r-FUR.Q-44-;-PM ZFO-WHA;hP.FN FINDINGS A. Rezone(UDC 11-511-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan in regard to the Medium Density Residential future land use map designation for the site. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds that the proposed map amendment and subsequent development will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available in the City. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed zoning amendment will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare with compliance of the proposed DA and conditions listed in Section IV. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds that the proposed amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. This is not applicable due to this application being a rezone. B. Preliminary Plat and Short Plat(UDC 11-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; Stafffinds the proposed plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds that public services are available and can be extended into the site to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; City water and sewer and other utilities will be extended by the developer at their own cost, therefore, staff find the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Stafffinds there is financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Stafffinds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare with compliance of the proposed DA and conditions listed in Section IV. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Stafffinds there are no natural, scenic, or historic features that need to be preserved with development of this property. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed modification to the Development Agreement, Rezone,and Preliminary Plat with the conditions of approval listed in Section IV. B. Commission: vi. Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ■ ' � 1 LLJ _CHEY -F � { FAIRVIEW wpm OW Fl I 1-4 :ZZ '4 �•..nrM 1 l•�� _ T ■! ;PINE 1 r, On i r sJim - —-:� �.�-�'�'.'`�E l!r � � # 711: r�l■ hk �—+ILaIFra ci r' ( . dR �L■. `� .,a■■alp �s I •�� RA}}--�N KLI NFX .■ , - �.♦!r� nnYlrrlrr!!!����rrrr - eC:� ��i■ 1p��r ��:i •R•��ring r•••!urrrrr W + rn u�ln■ulliil11 n �1 71r���_ � O, �■r w!!!1 G ME 'g gnnll H CHERRY' FAIRVIEW U O Isis Am � �• nnn �ii� �� r! � r�r ! !!W oil�� !r it - • ►- ■rub rs� PINE • INIt .�,` El Z • - FRANKL-IN - i ♦n� 1 r��•.■ram �■■■gyp-'� n■unn.■■mti-..nup.■■MI■.♦ ■ � -:��■■.� ■111�- i� \�•♦w...ri-..-i iw;--mil►♦���♦♦.�%: Neill AN*I.i---►�AnrLfl�l�ll �a■■■■■■..... !!1. ' • - • • • • r - 1 w�tlil!„1♦'•raid► CHERRY - FA`IRVIEW ° •t/�•y .Est � I:.�I/P+1 r■.r � � -_� Z. ■i i - MEIN Iloilo Miami ■ O + nlnnr 11-Air 11, i_ PINE ,Y -i4W1 L' --aiIIIIl,.n:-7:! Z li -n 111!!ql ON 116111 l � o -- `W z �' Ir e e FRANKL-IN ■ n11■ ■■Illlli■■■I LIN AN Al y �rm- ■ ■..... ra ■■ l i■ :o rr..N.i umn W mr. �. � ���a m■■In■1■ yl'1'�♦tilt■■o■■.Minna■a:a:.u:a:: +J n mw■rl1e......n.•�► .■■. _ • �.nnunnrnl, !nminn■� �w■MEOr.alllrlllD mun!umm�nm �w.111111.^ `'p r■■ 11 l, ----- •• . •• • �/ i�_ _■r�; � ♦ Mryl11a �n■mmuwunIF Ivor ■■� €'❑1 e-= per■ ■� �1NAME ,G Ly 11�;1 i• Z iw■:mow 4!� �•x i I�lii■■s =iui'm y -. ■ ftlil�■..■■n■ !_ = r ��itnnn/.�lilmnn»i�!iIfllpvi :.i A♦llq��■1.111 fhyr :■��:�Innn\ 1N � ■��iI- Ir ����a�� H�" � � i ♦ 111�� IINi- r�'•' ��-'� 0 _�r GI■ ■ ►/gyp��:- ..1 qr iiur � ��I nmi ■ iiii ii l��w.t r c !rr 'Jr rr � auu.�!-..... 1 li/1�■+w1#� r,y � _ n .■�I mr.nlll■^�..■/11•+.11 ri,r,rr nunn4 SEEM . ■ W ■_ III ■Ilt IIIL/ El .. r + �Lrr MMv■■ 1...Among ..1� PINE- ' i,r r�llill ,IY ■�� ■���]� J.� 11�■■linAM I IIII■�11111 ,■■-:I .!.„111 1.NewAM 1.11:!Y1■111:1:F= �� � ��■ !11■ .�■■IIII■���� � a ...=_IIII"Ili � �H■■�� �l I� ■ F ►aNKL-IN ,, ■-11■1■ ■■II■■I111MM 1� :• •� ■�..rid;���:::�: ■11111111■■■% � r B. Subject Site Photos _r Ir City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ a . City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ C. Service Accessibility Report Overall Score: 37 83rd Percentile Criteria Description ■ ■ Location In City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft. fray-. pr GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain or , % a. es GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Within 1/4 mile of current transit route GREEN Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets EEN plan) matches existing ( of lanes} 6 School Walking Proximity Within 1/2 mile walking GREEN Either a High School or College within 2 miles 0:. a Schaal Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile Jr-,inr: GREEN (existing or future) Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type RED City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ D. Landscape Plan and Open Space(date: 11/24/2025)WILL BE REVISED PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL HEARING FT!= FE _ ii ilp i Al w z ass F- �v II •^ 11 i� o nuniicimoPm sPacc suMunar. pla ntas IS ~ �z w�a - �— ~m ------------------- OPEN SPACE City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ E. Preliminary Plat(date: 1/5/2026) F..i.g-.Hcigk.Sbd—.i..P-limi..y P1. ------------ - Ski wAm ------------ - ------- ....... J i fly =f 17 High. PP-1 City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits Femng000 HciKhxaS.bdi,.i.. 2=2m PP-2 Fmmcuw—mg—I kight,Su bdiisiauu .. Arm,) ..................... ............. ------------T77 -------- ------- E7 111 .11 F--------- ---------------- ---------- - ---- ------ ----- - ------- H6gb. --------- ------- ---- E-W L-21-3 J City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits F. Building Elevations(date: 9/22/2025)WILL BE REVISED PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL HEARING l moon moon ■nn■ moon �..�. m •S if nN ti ��y l F �+ ~� -Sq 'may � ■■ SO OEM PROM City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ X M ■ - City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ g ti F° -. _-- vim•- - - _,�- .,.q:�.f ] I_ 4 - - - .may, City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ 1� .'legs DepartmentCity of Meridian 10 F - t3`'��rL. d i�i;:°+0+' Ry(;i'i_ is.� ., fi' ` .,:y l.,,y'~• �,�•'?�,.3�]. .:t�� .. :'-,.: } �ice'..+ i��,.:', ti7+. •yb��'4�,'•. .ka. -Y�:R :ii'�°F=p��� r .h•�3',�1•'" .;ii.. .,y�;; :��A� •.�, Y.-�L'1, ^:`itiy'. '..�: .. .., �•��?�!�• �' �i .d`i..'a:,'r. L 1' �•� :r.] > >i::::: �:k�. ..OFF°.�.-.•��..��..,�-'�•�"4.`.• City of MeridianDepartment Re 11Exhibits G. Rezone Legal Description&Exhibit Map iSG IDAHO 9939 w rmgroid 51 SURVEY Boise,ID E3704 Phone;;7081 W-057C CROUP Fax; 1`10tii @94-5399 Exhihil"A" R-15 Rezone Deecripunn FOr 1100. 11:30$ 1180 J:ai}f Pi ne Avenue City of Wrida0n, Idgi.ha Tttie fonowina Dasi;At 1n a Parcel Misnd being Pori no a 1100.1130 and i1-80 Eats Pine Avenue in the filly of Meridian Jdatio,ficwnry Tex Parrcet hJo'9 R203S41213. R2039261?1 r a R2039261302lying n 1he Southeast 114 oFft flortJweabt 114 of Section 7. f owns-ilp 3 North.Range 1 Ep#i-&N"Mvgkan CAY bf MerdUn.A410 County.Idaho and haing more PartiD"riy Oewbad as tollwlrg MMMIEMCING S:Ohs Sout"a%j Corr K 4I 1he Soutl*am 114 gl the Northeaul 114{E.9et 19 Comer)of Section 7,Towna w 2 Nkywi.Range 2 Wme,Boise Mendian;From WrKh,1he SoUffii Mt Corrmar of the Northoasi 114(Cenbfrr'IM C[r rwe of%aid Secdion 7 beers,South 39'07iCA'Waal 2.6A 7 51 feet; Mance 20og the Southerly 9ounal y Llne Crf iho Swlhaasl 114 of the Nlorlhaest 114 a sad Section 7,South 69"07114' Weat,574 37 feet In 1ha Cenla4ne I rdefm0p5n M FJnr1h Alkied Avg, ThenpC leaving aar5 Fvmherq Eaundary Lne,and along the Centerline of North Atkins Avenue,N*-Ih 00'02'01`f 061.a7 72"I#Lhc POPNT OF aEG1NNING; ThWe leaving wid Genb ins,Narih B9.5T210 West,334 551eet 10 iha VMsperiy Boundary Line of County Tex Per+,41 Nos R2939241213. Thence along b ie Woslariy Boundary LWK-9 of County Tax Parcel No's P-W39�61213 h RP639M 1211 North 01)'02'59'E ast.3715 04 feet to the NDrvwned Corner of County'f ax Parcel No RN2.W91�1 t. Thence 1esvwrrg said Westerly l3owidary Lines,and along the Nortrerly Boundary Lrnp of C"Jy TAX ParCal No R2,03925121 1,and jis Pralaa-petlon,North B9 21'51'East, 324.47 Faet to the Cat"Mne of Pdarth ALklne Avenue. Thong Ie&ving mM Horttwrly Bouwiay Line,and rta Prolongaticn,and along the Cantarllne of NiiM AM"Av*nU@ S4ulh 000201 Waal,379.1#7 fW Jb tree P01wr or BEGIWf+ wi. Thu above described Parcel of Land Canrairea 2.90 acres,rrrere nr less. 9f t18251 pi V 7h i 40F1 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 64 Ri7M+ BWntl4ry Lin, 4 Fownp 61uee CQ 5ccle: 1 .104' ferlrg 6eel9natlon lFle Q Fc,lnd Numinum rDp Riuht-o'-$vp Line 95 :0 dC 201: 1 Coltuated Bahr _ — .—. — _ LHIPo O Li" of Reoard DRAW L3. HLinbe- !_-_-- &e UGC. .ire I Bmc I 7 C?ter r- +nyxl rtl Nd.l 111Y W. ACTI J V�uu.t 7--J_ __Ll-- -- ----- y --- I �1.1f E w. 1-- �.r�.. rtr��l Ns/I�t9ie13Z1 - � 1•'I I ..—4 rr� F i A Pain L or i dano fF-e3 L4rq:lrlle.� kr I � L H99'57'7"N 334.55'�li �-15 1 . i IE � > lid I a i i I S 1 : 1 I Ix --�J— - "� �'- - g F V .154.68 E. Plnr kn Yrl9'07'd41E ov 6Y 04411P ei 9m"D r 5��q{.r'�b 1/dL�fl�4 tixti l t I t ra 18 M raM10 {". SURVEYuFSoYEV T ioxia R-15 RR2Dn3 for Srom No. �. 1100. 1130 A 1180 Pine E- Avenue 1 GROUP, LLC I—qd a h Ih4$t 1/4 yC 1/•or 5wLk T. Dft Ovid 7.31,ll.,e.,ey1.,ak nF LWdW. AO*GaryIy6 bn•c City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ IDAHO v4a4 W EnWatd St SURYF-Y ID 3741 GROUP w,wr+={7a3r sat5-T1,i?a Fax: (MB)NW-5394 Exhibit"A„ R-4 RstolMe t"crlptlon Far 1100,1130$i180 Eaat Pine Avenue Ckly of M ddilaN Idaho ne follamr.0 Descrt.es a Rnrcel CA Lz rJ k.wnqi PD4EK3rh of 11W.1130 W4 114W EJW Pine Ave-me m the City of ftferidien,Idaho,County Tex Pmed No's R20Y4 012t3, R2nWBUTI d,R203$261302I"kft the uuRva t 114 of Ih9 Norlhiliiaii 1+4 of Section 7,Tvw-ship 3 Ncrlh-Range 1 Emil Btwae Mensian.city of Menrpw.Apo Counly.IcUlle&XII I}"more Paftdady described as Follows COMMENCING at the SmAheast Comer of the Soudmw 114 of the No:Jieadt 114(Ewa I F4 Conner)of$gdron 7.Tarvrneh-p 2 NrAh-Range 2 4Ye:sl.Base Meridian;From which,the Southwasi Cccner of the Wruww 114(Center 1.14 Comer}of said Se"7 teWb SWtlt 9E"0?'64'4'Vest,2 647 61 foot;Thence alarrg the S.autheriy BoLvvdery Lrre d Iha 5outheasl 114 or the t+IpAl ast 114 if 6#gd, loon 7,South KPOTW West,1974.37 feet ka the Centerline Inteesechan M Nar1h Aikms Abeaua the POINT OF eIl9GINNING: Th4hce C-onrinwirg along**Souttwtp Boundary Line of the S IAhe-WA 104 oilhe hlvrtheast 114 of said Serslierr 7.S4u,.h 99107'04'V"t.334 BS few 10 the Prolo+.3a6on of the Wesleriy teary Line of Courity Tah Parcel No R2039261213' Tncnw heaving mid So,rherty Bounaary Line,arrd a"wtln the Westarly 9oundary Line or Coumy Tar Pamal No's R2039261213.and'ua Proaorgetion,Nnr7h d0102159-East.262 b3 feet; Tmn=heaving said Wesln6y Boundary Lane.and rts Protongaliac,South 89 57'21'Eam 334.SS fee110Irk C#nIkirErm cif Nadh Alkins Avenue. Thim-ce along the ventedine of North A4Ans.Averrl--,$quth W0QZV1'Waal 287 72 foal 10 Us$POINT OF OEGINNING. rfhr ihioVs D"Eeiged 113arr,01 of Land Contains 2 31 aerea,more or Ines. 78;.L4,04 ifJL ,%� �#4F City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 66 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation January 15, 2026Meridian Planning and Zoning Changes to Plans Hearing th December 4Layout presented in Hearing th August 7–Original Layout 24 Maximum Lot Size 9,078 Average Residential Lot Size s.f4,000 Minimum Residential Lots Size 2,951 Gross Residential Density 5.12 units per acre Total Acreage 4.68 acres Existing Homes 3 Common Lots 7 Single Family Residential Lots 1.to review the revised layout.up coordination with neighbors -Conducted follow4.improve compatibility.story homes and -better accommodate singleIncreased lot sizes along the western edge to 3.redistributed that area into the western lots.Removed the previously proposed open space and 2.northern abutting properties.stronger buffer between the project and the Relocated the northern road alignment to create a Summary C E IDIAN�-- Public Presentation(s) Proposed change in N1 orientation of Farrington Heights - PINE STREETI ED S Access roa I T1N0 _ to Pine St � �s�, I � � ,► � � j level addresee# a A a Ut house ' r e .rswrou ww� w _ mrq WNW) TAR $ A : w . ?u se a xti ti P1 x rEce Please i nipre reversed text YI EL I w 4r3e fE41 `'� � IµM w a $P22,E fi — �'�E tiG.�7r0 Ibi Wo I FT i — 4R61i 3PfiS{d} _ � st M I I s 17e WX V cac,d 9 11 CKA iz 1.� _ 1 — — LJ .ax_��� 'j 4 lk� s r Hd m � Ave Li _ Y2.6ir 3wii m I L ; L: . _ . Ll _��{ 4,J C 9 FT V R tb2,c 9 SU'( .Lr,1�r 3�ix�N2. . Ll JRou ar w ro7{�11 J11L = )1 1r, s r S!J!r Tixi R2 -y 3T� Single Story Irrigation easenOeM' Structure 'eel 0 h — — 1111 N Adkins 1345 E Shellbrook Reversing position of the development N 1 S provides better separation from existing residences to the North, maintains number of structures in the development, and assures access to the north irrigation easement, without disrupting new residential lot spaces. Placing a single story structure at the Northwest corner minimizes intrusion for Shellbrook. Don Flaten (41 ) -444 Having met with the developer for Farrington Heights on Jan 8, along with other neighbors, a proposal which I submitted in December coincides with plan revision work done by the developer's team. I proposed this revision IF R15 zoning were to be approved. However, I do Not favor rezoning to R15, since primary objections voiced by neighbors to this higher density development plan are unresolved: - Parking impact on the surrounding neighborhood - Increased congestion - Increased traffic load on North Adkins Ave - Increased noise from much higher density than surrounding neighborhood - Decreased privacy inherent from higher density zoning Thank you Don Flaten 1111 N Adkins Ave Mobile (415) 699-4442 BLOCK 1 DANBURY FAIR SUBDIVISION NO . 7 BOOK 72 , PAGC 7407 2 � a )NPIA1fFh Q 'PIS 7881 ' M89 ' 21 '511 314 . 47 309 . 4T SO ' 02' O1 'W 4aOr 1S N89 57 WW 138 . 51' M1 NR9 ' 57 01 'W 121 . 91 O N89 ' 5759V 154, 47 INN S89 ' 57'59'E 138 . 53' St307 SF C W9 CT cm 'w 99. 94 2 12 3 , 086 SF 2 , 951 SF a s HARDIMAN ST l $ i _ . .. .86.4.Y .I..- 4 ,998 SF I ' 3 8 14 g 31371 SF 3 , 201 SF --- wo ` 57' 01 'W 94.97 S89 ' 57"59T 169, 52 = w 49 ` k o m 31371 SF °; 3,201 SF ' fi BLOCK 2 " 3 . - S89 5-7591 168.51 ' —w9' 57 Gl 'W 99 .W - ' — 1 5 3, 370 SF 3 , 201 S k k 5 , 000 SF ' 3 i _.... ; _. _.. _ S89`575T 16v .49' SLACK 1 82 . — W ST 3? -w oc.ar _ , # o 3 ,260 SF 3, 119 SF 6 80.25 r^ 5 ,3.Cl2 SF �s N89 ' 57 59"W 138.49' t > fl.2t S89057159"E 154. 51 ' N89 - 57' o1`W 115.58- t'j — - �'`• , o COMMON DRIVE #1 HARDIMM ST W CAS I LLW ' 7 o C, Sd 31 . 49' 51 . 50' kn Q o g M 400 Z Lk i, 013 SF Y 25 ,00' 00 do �, Q 10 11 12 s Q N 41175 SF' 4, 200 SF 4 , 200 SF Z z s 7 , 170 SF 53 5 140 .L4 SO 91 2116 26 I t S t yt1 t 5. 1k►. 7�i Charlene Way From:rick salladay <ricksalladay1@live.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 13, 2026 2:39 PM To:City Clerk Subject:Farrington Heights subdivision meeting 1/15/26 External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments. I wanted to submit these photos for the Farrington Heights meeting this Thursday evening 1/15/26 to clarify the elevation difference. 1 2 3 4 Thank-you, Rick Salladay Cell: (208) 250-4266 992 N Stonehenge Way Meridian 5 °i � �� �� 5 cam/ 7. ,' +N x y .d4 < ���zy .�. '�� � � \ \ �\ ` � �| k [ � _ . � . \ t C - \ \ � \ \ 6 \ 2 \ ƒ \ � { , g � . . r � 1 �( \ ƒ v ; �\ . . � a g A 11 �.u" M4pIyy� Li rr el s1if � � ` . - ;� �� .. i _ `� c a '�l"Prx 3. y a W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Building Height and Drive-through Text Amendment (ZOA- 2025-0003) by City of Meridian Planning Division A. Request: UDC Text Amendment to define residential building height measurements, clarify building height standards in the Residential and Traditional neighborhood districts and update the approval process for tiered drive-throughs. 67 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: January 15, 2026 ITEM #4 PROJECT NAME: Building Height and Drive-through Text Amendment (ZOA- 2025-0003) by City of Meridian Planning Division wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing (mark X (Please Print) HOA? if yes) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 1/15/2026 DATE: ' 16 44 55 0 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission 26 FROM: Bill Parsons, Current Planning Supervisor 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: ZOA-2025-0003 Building Height and Drive-through Text Legend �. Amendment AOCI LOCATION: City wide County — 69 Line Future Road I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Meridian Planning Division has applied for a UDC text amendment to define residential building height measurements,clarify building height standards in the Residential and Traditional Neighborhood Districts,and update the approval process for tiered drive-throughs. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: City of Meridian Planning Division 33 E.Broadway Ave, Suite#102 Meridian, ID 83642 III. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 12/30/2025 newspaper Public Service Announcement 12/18/2025 Nextdoor posting 12/18/2025 Page 1 ■ IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS (Comprehensive Plan) A. Comprehensive Plan Text(https:llwww.meridianciU.or /g compplan): 3.01.01B -Update the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code as needed to accommodate the community's needs and growth trends. This is the first amendment of the year and is derived from discussions with City Council on these two topics, based on community feedback and the need to strengthen processes and code to better align with current growth trends. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS(UDC) This amendment focuses on two primary topics: (1)clarification and revisions to the building height standards and(2)implementation of the new tiered review process for drive-through establishments. The proposed amendment includes modifications, additions, and clarifications primarily within Chapters 1,2, and 5 of the Unified Development Code (UDC). The proposed changes are summarized below: 1. UDC 11-1-5(B): Measurements Clarifies that residential building heights are measured differently from non-residential and mixed-use structures. Residential building height will now be measured from the average grade at the front property line to the highest point of the roof or structure,while non-residential and mixed-use structure height will continue to be measured in accordance with the adopted Building Code. 2. UDC 11-1A-1: Definitions Drive-Through Establishment Updates the definition to include the three(3)tiered categories for drive-through establishments. 3. UDC 11-2A-3(E)and 11-2D-3(B): Maximum Height Limits Residential structures will be measured as defined in Chapter 1 and are further limited from additional height increases. The amendment also clarifies which non-residential and mixed-use structures'architectural features are exempt from height limits. 4. UDC Tables 11-2B-2 and 11-213-2: Allowed Uses in Commercial and Traditional Neighborhood Districts Updates the allowed use tables to incorporate the new tiered drive-through categories recently adopted by City Council. 5. Table 11-5A-2: Duties and Authority Adds specific review and decision-making procedures for each drive-through tier. This includes authorization for Tier 1 drive-throughs to be approved administratively or by the Commission, Tier 2 drive-throughs to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission,and Tier 3 drive- throughs to require City Council approval. These changes have been reviewed with the UDC Focus Group and align with City Council's direction. Page 2 F69] VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment to the UDC based on the analysis provided in Section IV and V and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Section VIII. B. Commission: C. City Council: Enter Summary of City Council Decision. Page 3 70 VII. EXHIBIT A. Proposed Code Changes Proposed UDC Text Amendments UDC Section Topic Reason for Charges Proposed Change 11-1- B Measurements clWifVthis section to state B.Measurements residential building heights are 1.The height of a residential structure shall be measured from the average grade measured differently than non- atthe front property line to the highest point of the roof or structure. Non- residential structures. residential and mixed-use sStructures height shall be measured in accord with the Meridian City Building Code as s set forth in title 10 chapter 1 of this Code. 11-1A-1 De fnitf ons o Pairing the e nitions in 9100 Drive-through establishment The use of a portion of a structure where business is terms Specific Standards with the Definition transacted,or is capable of being transacted,directly with customers located in a n Section of the UDC. motor vehicle,including associated stacking lanes speaker and/or ordering area pick up windows,and exit lanes.The tprm ari,,.,through establishment shall- include-but not be liwAt-ea t.. providing food er beverage sei:yic,.bank..,.,-;,:.-.. and/or Rim process i&The term drive-through establishment shall not include "fuel sales facility",or"vehicle washing facility",or"vehicle repair,minor"as herein defined. A.Tier 1.A drive-through associated with a financial institution,automated teller machine CATM].pharmacy.laundry and dry cleaning,restaurant limited to online and mobile ordering only,or other comparable uses,as determined by the Director. B.Tier 2.A drive-through associated with a restaurant limited to a designated order area one(1)stacking lane and a pick-up window. C.Tier 3.A drive-through associated with a restaurant providing either two(2)or more designated order areas.two(2)or more stacking lanes,or two(2)or more pick-up windows. aximum height Flanniur staff3wjg directed to E.Maximurnheight limit. limit update our current residential 1.Residential structures shall not exceed the maximum height of the district as height standards. defined in Chapter 1 of this title. -12.The maximum height limitations shall not applyto tbo-MR5 rchitectural features of non-residential and nixed-use structures that are not mten a or human occupation.such as steeple,belfry.cupola.and chimney.Such architectural features shall have a maximum.height limit of twenty[20]feet as measured from the roofline. 23.The maadmumheight limitations shall not applyto the following:spire; amateur radio antenna;bridge tower;fire and hose tower;observation tower; power line tower;smokestack;water tank ortower;ventilator;Windnull;wireless communication facility,or other commercial or personal tower and/or antenna structure,,or other appurtenances usually required to he placed above the level of the ground and not intended for human occupancy. 34.Notwithstanding other height limitations as set forth in this chapter,the maximum height for education facilities shall be fifty[50]feet 45.No exception shall be allowed to the height limit where the height of any structures will constitute a hazard to the safe landingand takeoff'of aircraft in an established airport aximum erg tPlanning staft was directedto B.!Lfaximum height limiL limit update our current residential 1.Residential structures shall not exceed the maximum height of the district as height standards. defined in Chapter 1 of this tide. 42.The maximum height ltnutations shall not applyto ifs rchitectural features of non-residential and mixed-use structures that are not mtem a or human occupation.such as steeple,belfry.cupola.and chimney.Such architectural features shall have a ntabmum height limit of twenty[20]feet as measured from the rooflfine. .23.The maximumheight limitations shall not applyto the following:spire; amateur radio antenna;bridge tower;fire and hose tower,observation tower; power line tower;smokestack;water tank ortower;ventilator;windmill;wireless communication facility,or other commercial or personal tower and/or antenna structure,,or other appurtenances usually required to he placed above the level of the ground and not intended for human occupancy. Page 4 71 34.No exception shall be allowed to the height limit where the height of any structures will constitute a hazard to the safe landing and takeoff of aircraft in an established airport 45.In the 0-T and TN-C districts,the additional height allowed is limited as follows: a-In the area defined as the city care in chapter 1 of this title,additional building height may deviate up to twenty(20)percent of the minimum or maximum height in the O-T district subject to the alternative compliance procedures set forth in chapter 5,"administration",of this title.Proposed building height exceeding twenty(20)percent of the maximum or minimum height for the district requires approval through a conditional use permit In no case shall the building height exceed fifty(SO)percent of the maximum height allowed in the district. b-Additional building height not to exceed twenty(20)percent of the maximum height allowed for the TN-C district may be approved by the Director through the alternative compliance procedures set forth in chapter 5, "administration",of this title.Additional height shall be allowed when the development provides ten(10)percent ofthe building square feet in open space,courtyards,patios,or other usable outdoor space available for the employees and/or patrons of the structure,excluding required setbacks and landscape buffers. c.Additional building height exceeding twenty(20)percent of the maximum height allowed for the TN-C district or when additional height is requested without providing the required open space in accord with subsection(13)(4)b of this section requires approval through a conditional use permit a e awe uses m Updating the allowed use table the commercial to add the new tiered drive- ALLOWED USES IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS districts throughs adapted by City Council Use C-N C-C C-G L-O M-E H-E Drinking C C C C Establishment' n.:..eli.. 1i-hmon a Drive-Through A/C- A/C A/C- Establishment, Tier 11 Drive-Through C C C Establishment, Tier 21 Drive-Through C C C Establishment, Tier 31 Education P P P P P P Institution, private 1 table 11-ZIJ-2 Updating the allowed use tab e TABLE 11-2l)-2 thetradihonal to add the new tiered drive- ALLOWED USES IN THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS neighborhood throughs adopted by City Council district Use O-T TN-C TN-R Drinking C C Establishmentl n..:..ah- G - Fstabli-hm@PA-1 Drive-Through C Establishment,Tier 11 Drive-Through C Establishment,Tier 21 Drive-Through C Establishment,Tier 31 Dwelling, A A A Secondayl Page 5 72 a ell-bA-Z Jutiesand Updating the duties and TABLE 11-5A-2 Authority authoritytable to specify the DECISION MAKING AUTHORITYAND PROCESS RYAPPLICAT]ON decision-making bodies for Tier 1,Ties 2.and 3 Drive-throughs. Tier 1 drive-thnoughs will he Application Recommending Decision Process approved either by the Director Body Making Body or Commission teased on the Conditional use D PZ PH specific use standards,Tier 2 Conditional use,Tier 1 None or D D or PZ Aor PH drive-throughs will go to the drive-throueh Planning and Zoning Commission and Tier 3 drive- Conditional use,Tier 2 D PZ PH throughs will go to the City D&e-through Council. Conditional use.Tier 3 D CC PH Drive-throush Conditional use(concurrmrt PZ CC PH with annexation,rezone, preliminary IALLt alternative compliance,development agreement modification, and/or combination plat) VIII. FINDINGS 1. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS: (UDC 11-513-3E) 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 a text amendment to the Unified Development Code,the Council shall make the following findings: A. The text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds that the proposed UDC text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section IV, of the Staff Report for more information. B. The text amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; and Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved. It is the intent of the text amendment to further the health, safety and welfare of the public. C. The text 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. Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment does not propose any significant changes to how public utilities and services are provided to developments. All City departments,public agencies and service providers that currently review applications will continue to do so. Please refer to any written or oral testimony provided by any public service provider(s)when making this finding. Page 6 73 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation