Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to Planning and Zoning Commission for January 15, 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're 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 email city clerk@ meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you'd simply like to watch the meeting, we encourage you to watch this streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org backlive. With that, let us begin with roll call. Madame clerk.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Rust here. Commissioner Sandaval present. Commissioner Stole here. Commissioner Smith here. Commissioner Perau here. Chairperson Lurch here. The first item the 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? Madam Chair, I move to approve the agenda as presented. Second. It's been moved and second to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say I. I. I.

I. Any naysay? Motion carries. 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 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? So moved. Second. It's been moved and second to approve the consent agenda. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries.

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 has 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 and chambers or you'll be unmuted on Zoom. Please state your name and address for the record. You will have three minutes to address the commission. If you've 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 have established that you're speaking on a 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 10 minutes. After all those 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're only listening on the telephone, please press star 9 and wait for your name to be called. If you're listening on multiple devices, such as a computer and a phone, please be sure to mute those extra devices so we don't experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished, if the commission doesn't have 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 become will be given a chance to come back up for another 10 minutes to respond. When the applicant is finished responding to questions and concern, 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. With that, we are going to open item number H2025-000016 to continue the Fington Hills Heights subdivision at Pine and Atkins for a reszone, preliminary plant, and a development agreement modification. and we will begin with the staff report.

Madame chair, members of the commission, good evening. So, yes, this item was continued. Oh, here, let me get that pulled up first. This item was continued from the December 4th hearing date. Um, and during that December 4th hearing date, uh, you guys gave the applicant direction, uh, to remove the open space to allow for larger building lots to accommodate some singlestory homes within the development. Uh, the applicant did revise their plan, uh, to lose an additional lot. This is a comparison of the two. The previous one on the left is the one that you guys heard on the December 4th and the right is the current uh proposal that they have. Uh so they did lose an additional lot. Uh they did remove the majority of the open space that was in the development. Um and as well as rerouting the road to actually be on that north boundary. So there's not going to be any homes abuing those northern neighbors to the north. Um uh 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 two through eight um so this whole lot this whole side will be restricted to singlestory homes um so that is in the DA uh the applicant I did briefly talk with them on that and uh seems to be in agreement with that um you know so they're I'll go over what they're requesting again just so you guys have that on the record. So, the applicant is requesting their updated request is a resone still of the 2.9 acres um of the 4.68 acres of land from the R4 zoning district to the R15 zoning district, leaving the remaining 1.78 acres of land as R4. A preliminary plaque consisting of 24 building lots, so uh 21 new lots and three um existing, so the three existing homes will remain on the southern portion of the site. Um and seven common lots on the 4.68 68 acres of land and a new development agreement to replace the current one. So, that is really where we're at tonight. Um, if there's anything else you guys would like me to highlight, I'd be happy to do so, but um, you know, this is their revision to your guys' direction from

the last hearing and I'll stand for any questions. Would the applicant like to come forward?

Hello. a little 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 address the changes, okay, that we made. So, um, on that note, Madame Chair, members of the commission, hello and good evening. For the record, my name is Sabrina Dery. I am here on behalf of the applicant. My business address is 5179 South Boven Avenue, Boisee, Idaho, 83716. And this evening, I am representing our layout of Fington 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 um you can see that we had 30 lots and during that hearing we were asked to prepare um 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'd reduced the lot count to 24 or 25, excuse me. And then we included the open space. So, um, the plan, drum roll, as you've already seen, you took out my drum roll on excitement for the new design, but here are our changes that we made. Um, we have 24 single family homes, seven common lots. Um we actually removed one of the additional lots and then our um net density um has reduced to 5.12 units per acre. And really quickly, so the changes we made, we relocated the northern road alignment to create a stronger buffer between the project and the northern abudding um properties. Two, we removed the previously proposed open space and

then redistribute those all on those western side lots. Three, we increased the lot sizes of the western side lots um to better accommodate the singlestory homes and improve compatibility. And then finally, I did a followup and contacted all the neighbors um and they were very pleased with the changes. So, with that, um we feel like in closing, we're excited about the revisions. We appreciate the time to come back one more time to work with the neighbors to address the changes. And um I just want to kind of give a a um applause an 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 the layout and so I just was very impressed with them and their willingness to to make a great project that works for everyone. So with that, I will um end my presentation. Thank you all for your time and consideration and respectively ask for an approval to city council so we can get to that next topic. So thank you.

Thanks. Do we have any questions for Sabrina before we start public testimony? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Madame clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify? Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, we do. The first person is Donald Flattton.

He does have a presentation, too. I have one or two attached files if I can. And of course, one of those duplicate what Sabrina just submitted also. Well, while she's getting that, if you can state your name and address for the record. Yeah, Don Fleetton 111 North Atkins Avenue. It adjoins the property. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you for illustration. This is a PDF so we don't see the full image of it. Uh if we can actually Oh, that's that's great. If you can reduce it. This what I submitted after December 4th meeting and it does coincide largely with some improvements of course by the developer. I just did a quick evaluation but suggestion based on irrigation e so forth within the context of an R15 zoning. This is a good plan. Um, what I'm addressing today is I just think R15 is inappropriate. It's an R4 neighborhood on all borders. Uh, there are problems with R15. I enumerated. We could go to another picture image there. I think I have a text image uh indicating what it is. Um, the problems increased congestion. Uh, 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, um there isn't room really to park on the street within the U-shape there. I'm presuming these will be twocar 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. Um problem is it doesn't leave any room for guests or to guest park when they come to visit. and with 20 or 21 residences uh numerous people um it is a an issue uh related to that and and directly to the R15 zoning to which I object u increased congestion generally noise level in the neighborhood will be higher. Uh 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. Uh increased traffic load on North Atkins Avenue. And there's a decreased privacy inherent with number

of structures. So if we were continue with an R4 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 is the one-story structures be limited in height um to appropriate and matching the neighborhood. And I haven't measured those where 16 I think some of the neighbors are 18 feet at center line. That's something to consider. Um, and also for the people on the west border where they're one stories, external structures, uh, placed, they have they really must be in in en in enforce 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 an edge. So those are considerations are the main ones. I do appreciate the effort and the 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 R15 itself. Thank you,

Madam Clerk. Madam Chair, the next person is Stephanie John. Hi, if you can state your name and address for the record, that'd be great.

Sure. Uh, my name is Stephanie John. I live at 1111 North Atkins Avenue. Um, I will first say I appreciate the developer and his changes. He's obviously willing to play and listen. That is greatly appreciated. A lot of stress has been taken off. Um I do agree with the plan they have presented. Um the only thing I am going to ask for is during that development agreement modification that we cap the building sizes. Um 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. um 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 ft. I do feel like that is generous. They are still taller than the homes around them, but they are new builds. Um and like I said, I really appreciate the modifications they've made. I think we'll 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. Um I also collected signatures from people in the area that that surround the field that they were going for single family or singlestory 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 to those twotory homes in the middle, I'm just asking for a cap that would include not the the homes but also any sheds or any extra things that they might want to put on the houses and things like that. Um, 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 to 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. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you,

Madam Chair. The next person is Jack Harp.

Okay. Jack Harp, 1038 North Atkins here in Meridian. appreciate the developers re redoing this, but my major concern is you're about to stick about 80 plus people in that small area. You take that 80 people times most generally two automobiles. Now you've got about 80 automobiles in there. Then you have people who come and visit, come and stay. Uh the infrastructure just won't handle that. And I haven't seen any plans for garages, speed bumps. I see one way uh basically one way in and one way out. Uh Pine Street, they're already having more wrecks than they can handle. Locust Grove and Pine. You put all this in there, it's just gonna it'll be a nightmare. But I believe that's on Ada County. That is a non meridian. I get that. But like she said, my concern is is the height. I've been there for a little over 22 years now. been pretty much used to looking at the geese and and the view and everything to put twotory apartments in there, call them houses, whatever. But it's going to be kind of a cultural shock. But like she said, if you can keep the heights down and not build them like those ones 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 That's lived here all my life. That's a poor way to live. A poor way to live. All you folks on this board, how bear with me. How many of you own your own house? Raise your hands, please. We all living right in.

Okay. You know what blood, sweat, and tears is to own 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 renting this outfit. They don't care. And what's going to do is just going to ruin our property value and and basically our way of life across the street. Um, so yes, I'm complaining a little bit. Actually, a whole lot. But you got to understand people that live across the street, we'll be looking at this at less than 50 yards away, plus all the construction, the dirt, and everything that goes with all this. We'll we will not be con compensated for none of it. Uh, that must be my bill. But anyway, folks, yeah, thanks for your time.

All right, thanks for coming tonight.

Madam Chair, the next person signed up is Rick Salad. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Rick Salad. I live at 992 North Stonehenge, Meridian, Idaho. This is directly behind the proposed uh development. I brought in a couple pictures of my backyard and all my decorations on my fence you guys can enjoy. But [clears throat] 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. Uh they used to irrigate that field at one time. Maybe you'll go to the next next shot [snorts] there, please. This is a kind of a shot of the trailers that are parked behind my house. Um, I don't have an objection to that. That's their property. They can put whatever they want to on that property. Uh, I've always had a good relationship with the Brocks. I just barely put that fence up three years ago, in fact. So, I've always enjoyed an open fence to that field. Uh, the next photo that just shows that the height difference there. That's that's sitting again showing the the difference there. That is approximately 8 to 10 ft off my back fence. So that is approximately what I'm thinking these new houses will be but a lot higher. So if you'll go there again this shows you the height difference from my house to their field there. Again this shows no again no offense the people on Atkin Lane without my fence. You see the rooftops right there across that fence. That's Atkins Lane. Before that, I had a clear view to the mountain. So, speaking of views being destroyed. Um, but that's all right. That is development. I I'm good with that. And I again will uh go with everybody else. I appreciate what the developer has done to to adjust his plans to address our issues. Uh, I don't

know if I have any more photos or not there. Uh, this one's showing the the Brocks home. I don't know if you've ever seen the Brocks home. It's it's not a home. It's a it's a huge house. Um, but that just shows that's probably 50 yards from my back yard. And in the summertime, they did put some trees there to block the view cuz they did add a new 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 they walk around, I can see them. It's basically their fence and they're walking around here. So, that's I can see over there. But anyhow, again, elevation issues. Um, with the new, and I think that's the last of my pictures there to 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've now moved all of them over to my house or my side. It looks like they've put a biggest lot right behind me. And I'm kind of concerned about the elevation of that house cuz I think it might looks like the biggest lot on their plan. So anyway, that's that's all I have to say. I would like somebody to look at the uh I 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 adjusted. So that's some issues that that are also brought up. Parking, traffic, that's nothing. So anyhow, thank you people. Appreciate all your time.

All right. Thank you very much. Madam chair, the next person signed up is Todd Leaky.

Okay. Um, the next person is Marley Turner. Hello, my name is Marily Turner. I reside at 1345 East Shelbrook Drive, Meridian, Idaho 83642. My home borders the proposed subdivision of Fington 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 will allow us to continue using our garden space. A portion of the road road will also provide a small amount of separation between our property and the planned lots. The larger lot sizes will now accommodate singlestory 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 um concern will expand with time. Also, I would still express hesitation if garages are allowed on the singlestory homes, which would put that um 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. Thank you, Madam Chair. The next person is Brian Turner.

Good evening.

Good evening. Brian Turner, 1345 East Shelbrook Drive. And I really want to express my appreciation to the applicant and that team and hearing feedback and working with us. Uh I wish that was done more often than it than it feels like it it is. Uh, I currently think the proposed plan is a good one and I'm in support of it. It it would be made great in my eyes if the west side those homes there was some of the ambiguity about whether they're twotory or what height they are removed. It would become a great plan. Um, and or or the use of the clear story or highlight windows in appropriate places. And that's it.

Okay. Thank you very much,

Madam Chair. We have Bob Flat Flatin, Senior Junior. My apologies if I skip.

Hello. My name is Bob Fleetton Jr. I live at 11 Atkins Avenue. Uh you guys have heard us speak many times, me in particular, I guess. Uh with that being said, I want to start by saying Mr. ETH and his team are a lot more likable and um 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, uh diving right into this. A lot of the absolutely earthshattering 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've done is very beneficial to us and to a lot of the other neighbors. Um, not all of them. There are still concerns. Uh, primarily I'm hearing with just congestion and all, um, you know, the reasoning and how many people can get into that space. Personally, I agree with that part of it. Um, 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've 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 and 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.

Thank you, Madam Chair. No one else has signed up. Is there anybody on Zoom tonight? Madam Chair, no one is on Zoom. Is there anybody else in chambers that would like to speak before we ask the applicant? Would you like to come up?

Hi, if you can state your name and address for the record. Yeah, my name is Rick Bradley. I'm at 1321 East Shelbrook Drive in here Meridian. Okay. Um I just want to start to say reiterating development team did a fantastic job and listen to our concerns. Uh last time we were here with this meeting, we made 10 times more progress talking to them out in the lobby than we did anywhere here in the chambers. So I really appreciate their willingness to sit and talk to us. Um the two things that are really consistent here is mainly the height and the traffic. Last time I was here, I asked you guys if you ever been to Atkins and Pine intersection and nobody had been. I wonder if any of this has that changed. Do you guys aware of how that small that intersection is and we're adding all this extra traffic to it?

And then the other we're aware of the intersection typically um when a public meeting situation to go to the site is is inappropriate for the commission. So well I was just thinking off hours. Right. Right. But as as community members of Meridian I think we're all familiar with the area.

Okay. Great. And so obviously that is concern should probably concern you guys a little bit as well. Um, as far as the height's going, I know that they can put into the um, CCNRs and ACC stuff about restricting twotory, restricting height, restricting roof roof pitch. And I think they were willing to add that into that, but when the plan checkers check the plans, they're going to have to be pretty thorough about that to make sure that they are actually following all the guidelines for the ACC's. And I think if that it was implemented, it would be public notice and we would be able to see as residents that they are withholding to what the developers 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 under the rules, I think that could solve a lot of the issues most likely. And so, um, I guess that was pretty much my main point is it can be controlled. these concerns of all the residents around can be relieved if um if we take steps in that direction.

Okay, that's kind of what I wanted to say. Thank you. 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're gonna follow up. Madam Chair, commissioners, um, good evening. Uh, my name is Todd Leaky, Lake of Lagos Law, 141 East Carlton Avenue here in Meridian and appreciate the opportunity. I'll I'll be brief. If you have some more technical questions on some of the plat design, we have some of our other team members here. Um, start out always by thanking staff for their work and their recommendation of approval. Commissioners, as you know, these are often um an effort to achieve balance and has, as has been described, um my clients really have gone the extra mile in this case. I think it started with about 32 lots and you know, they're they removed 12 lots. They're relocating um things on the property. They're they're getting rid of the um two stories that they could have done on the edge in accordance with code. Um they moved the road. So there's a road to the north along with that green space that goes between 15 and 25 feet. Um so there's no houses immediately on that boundary to the north. You've got Atkins um to the east that they're bringing up to code widening including the sidewalk. Um and then again commissioners they're uh tucking those two stories back into the middle of the project. uh your future land use map uh calls for 5 to eight dwelling units per acre and we're at 5.12. So we're well within that range that's provided for in in the comprehensive plan. Um so commissioners with the changes we're we we not only need code but we're doing better than code and um that's again part of the balance some give and take but um the R15 there were comments about the R15 zoning. Yes,

we're doing R15 zoning on a portion of the property, but our density is not R15. Um, we have 3,000 to 7,000T lots, and in R15 you can get two. So, it's really not R15 other than it allows us uh to utilize different setbacks and uh lot sizes. And then with the development agreement, that limits us to what we can do. Uh that's that's really consistent with that R8 that you have in the area. As was stated, uh my clients met with the ma the neighbors multiple times. Um last time they met with them, it was as described by um several of them here. Thank you so much for the changes. We're good. Um and my clients uh went forward. The We do have a concern with the new building height um restrictions that are proposed. commissioners, we're surrounded by R8. Um, and we have R4 and R15 on this property. Um, there isn't really a a nexus. We're complying with code. Uh, we are willing to say, okay, we'll do the R15 height restrictions, excuse me, take the R15 height restrictions and take those R4 height restrictions and spread it across the whole property. So, we'll be subject to R4 um, height restrictions on the whole thing. And we got we're surrounded again by R8 um commissioners. We also meet uh the ACD requirements. There were no issues there. Um there were some traffic concerns and questions, but as you know, that's their jurisdiction, their expertise. Um and we're meeting their requirements. So, commissioners, as I said, we've gone the extra mile. We're going above and beyond code. Um, we ask that the height restrictions be simply the R4 height restrictions across the

property and um, we ask that you approve our revised plan that um, does help provide that balance with the neighbors. With that, I'd ask for your approval. Um, happy to answer questions myself or if you have some technical ones for our other experts that are here. Commissioners, do we have questions for Todd? Um, one of the residents asked about uh, will there be an HOA for this community? Yes, Madam Chair, I get a thumbs up. Yes, there will be an HOA. And so, will there be language in there that addresses outuildings? Like if somebody wanted to build a shed? Yes, I'm hearing the also. Yes, Madam Chair, for the record.

Okay. So, it'll be respectful as far as height and so it won't um uh Okay. And then um that's all I had. Commissioners, do we have questions? Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith. So just for clarity, so you indicated you'd be comfortable with, you know, our 4R8 um height that height limitation. Is that already in the staff recommendation or staff report or would we need to amend that?

Madam Chair, uh Commissioner Smith. So lots two through here. Let me pull it up so we can show you. So on that west boundary, lots two through 8 are restricted to single story. Uh so R15 allows for structures up to 40 ft measured from the property line. So we actually are changing how we're measuring. It's measured from the property line to the peak of the roof. Um R4 would have it 35 ft would be the maximum height. Um so that would be something that would be definitely your guys' purview. Um, and I would recommend you include that in your motion tonight if that is a way that you guys want to go. That is correct. Thank you, Commissioner. Any questions?

Madam Chair, Mr. Stone, so I'm not sure if this is a question for Mr. Leaky or for Nick. Um, was did the applicant propose on the west the homes on the western side would be one story or was that Madam Chair and Commissioner Stole? Um, we are willing to have that restriction. Yes, those lots two through eight to be limited to to a single story. Okay. What do you anticipate the average square foot of the homes that you're proposing? Madam Chair, I might have to ask my client for that if you give me just a moment. Can you come up briefly?

Hi, if you could just state your name and address for the record. My name is Brandon Ethridge and it's 5175 South Missoulaway, Boyisey, Idaho. Thanks. And uh to answer your question, Madam Chair, for the average square feet, we we want it to be around 1,500, maybe higher to 2,000 uh square feet if we can get it in there, if we can fit those in the lots. And are you looking at typically twocar garages on these? We are we have planned it for two-car garages with the driveway that can support another two cars. Okay. So, four cars and all. And then your HOA would um either limit or allow like a shed in the backyard for lawnmowers and that type of thing.

Absolutely. And we're willing to do a height restriction on that as well. 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? We want to be our price points, we want to be in the 500,000s and maybe creep it up if we can. We just know that um that helps retain the value in the in the area as well. we can maintain those price points. Okay. Any other questions for the developer? Madam Chair, Commissioner Perau. So on the single stories, what is what is the height estimate that you expect? I mean, we know what the maximum is, but

I think that on those single stories, we can be in the 20s. Um, you know, depends on the pitch of the roof. Um, but we're going to be respectful of that um to plan it for the lots because we understand we had a meeting with the neighbors last week and it was all about height. Um, and we we would make we would limit that as much as we can, but it needs to be a nicel looking product as well so it maintains its value. So, okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Appreciate it. Any other questions, Madam Chair? I think we're good. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Todd. May I get a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Second. It's been moved and second to close the public hearing on Fington Heights subdivision. All those in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Madam Chair, Commissioner Rust,

I appreciate the the rework that's gone into this. Um I don't know in my time as a commissioner that I've heard this much positive testimony. Um, so appreciate the engagement of the community and coming out and uh sharing your opinion after reconvening with the developer. Um, 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. Uh, 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've come to here is a a really good development. Um, it is going to lead to some increased density. That's the nature of infill. We talk about this with every single infill project. Um, I appreciate the applicant working with the community, with the commission, with city council. I think we've got to a really good product here. I'm in full support.

Madam Chair, Commissioner Perau, um, 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? Uh, we closed the public hearing, right? So, did you want me to reopen? Typically the applicant comes back up and my one concern would be whether or not we should uh hear more about well let me put it this way. Should we hear more about street parking or parking in general or do does the commission feel like that that's been addressed?

Um Todd was representing the applicant on the second part of it. So if you really wanted to hear from um Sabrina, we can reopen the public hearing for her to address it. No, that's okay. Okay. Any other comments, Matthew? Yes. Yeah. 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. Yeah. Ma, Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith.

Well, there's some times a year where parking, you know, in in my neighborhood there's some, you know, there's some two some threec car garages and there's still parking issues. Every once in a while, you know, Super Bowl Sunday or, you know, uh 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. Um, I think to a larger issue or to the larger kind of discussion, um, I think these are this is a really good project. Um, I think the only thing that I would probably add to the staff report, um, and I was mulling this over, but since the applicant kind of suggested it, uh, maybe to give some peace of mind is restricting, um, the height to be consistent with R4 all the properties. Um, I know some applicant or some, um, of the public were hoping for a 20 foot height restriction or things like that. I think that's a bit too uh, too restrictive, um, a bit arbitrary. I think I was seeing some numbers on on some of the documents of 22 foot 24T. I think I saw what 29 ft. Um so I I don't know that that's the right way to go, but I think as as a a show of goodwill um and something that the developer seems um content with doing is restricting that to R4. Um yeah, I I think these are going to be great properties.

Yeah, I agree as well. um they are taking on the responsibility of improving Atkins Way and they're putting in the street that'll be, you know, a U-shape. They're listening. Is it perfect? No. But um a 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, um I haven't seen many developers listen to the community as much as they've listened to you. they have a right to build and a a homeowner has a right to sell. So, um is it perfect? No. But I think um when this goes to council, and it will um they will engage more with height des um height restrictions and and the development um uh uh you know design that they'll present to to council. Um anybody want to give me a motion? Madam Chair,

Commissioner Russ, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the city council of file number H--2025-000016 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 15, 2026 with one modification to in addition to the singlestory lot height restrict or single story restriction on the west boundary to um restrict the entire parcel to R4 heights as outlined by by the applicant. Second, Madam Chair, if I may chime in. Yes. Can we put that at 35 ft instead of R4? Just so it's clear uh on the record with Would that be okay? Yes. Works for me.

Okay. Do I have a second? Yep. I second. It's been moved and second to approve file 2025-0016, Fington Hills. All those in favor say I. I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. The next item on the agenda is um Zoa 2025-00003 for building height and drive-thru text amendments from the city of Meridian Planning Division. Um Bill had some handouts. Um hopefully everybody's got one to follow along for his presentation. Looks like the room's clearing out. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission. Thank you for your patience as I I transition to the next um item on the agenda this evening. So, I am here tonight to talk about some uh code changes with you. One uh two topics in particular. One being building heights and the other being drive-thru processes. Um if the the commissioner recalls, I was in front of you in June um presenting some revised drive-through standards uh that we wanted to take forward. The goal at that time was to get more express drive-thru 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 um 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 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 um when we measure a building height in in the zoning code there are maximum height limits for each zoning district. Um it's pretty typical throughout the nation. In our code uh most of the R zones are 35 ft. Uh you saw tonight R15 is 40T. Um even R40 goes up to 65 ft. So, some of those zones um they do allow taller buildings, but where uh we have some flexibility in the code are things like um elevator shafts or chimneys. Those can project even taller than the maximum height limitations. And so, recently council um staff, city staff went before city council and had a discussion with them and decided how would we change or how would the council want us to measure residential heights moving forward. Currently, the way it's structured, it defi it defers to the building code and these list of exceptions that we currently have in code and council said no, we want to be very we want to be more restrictive uh than the residential code and uh come up with our own standard. So, the zoning code can be more restrictive than a building code. So, in this particular instance, the on the screen this evening, you can see that first item is how we're getting to that point. We are defining how we're

going to measure residential structures moving forward. So technically uh anyone comes into the city of Meridian applies for a residential building permit planning will verify kind of that they're from their property line to the top of their building. They'll have to demonstrate that the home does not exceed the maximum height limit of that residential district. So again, if it's an R2, R4, R8, you're looking at maximum height of 35 ft. So, anything under that uh any of those projections or taller roofs will not be allowed to go forward. It's going to be measured to the peak and uh and that's been historically different than what the building code does currently. So, it's going to be pretty express standards moving forward. Uh the next item on this uh and it's kind of sticking with that theme of definitions. Um as as you recall, we changed our definitions for drive-throughs. We came up with that tiered approach where we had tiered one, tier two, and tier three. And basically that referenced the intensity of drive-through uses. So we had 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. episode going back to our 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 tit chapter two of the code. So, basically, it's very explicit. Number one there says how we're going to measure it based on that measurement that I just described to you. And then items the exceptions that are currently in code, uh, we've made that more explicit to say those only apply to non-residential structures and mixeduse buildings. So again, residential, you're 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 parapit. If it's a peaked roof, it's going right to the the peak of the roof. Uh again for non-residential or mixeduse structures there's some latitude there and then going back to bouncing back to our drive-through standards. Um, as you're aware, currently the way uh it 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 uh some of the tables in our code. So, I had to go back to our our commercial zones, uh remove the term drive-thru. Now, because now that we have a tier drive-thru tiered approach, we went in ahead and added tier one, tier 2, and tier three. Based on the definitions that I shared with you, um based on the direction from city council, um they were comfortable with uh tiered one drive-throughs being approved administratively. Um tier 2, they wanted the planning and zoning commission to continue to review all of those regardless of of if there was a residential district or not next to it. And then council also wanted tier 3es to bypass the planning and zoning commission and go directly to them. So that's why um in these these tables that I've created here um you can see where uh where you see an A or a C. So conceivably a tiered one drive-thru can be approved by the director. However, if a tiered one is next within 300 ft of a residential use or district, it's coming before this body still. So that was not changed by city council. Um, tier two, again, all tier twos will come to you and then tier 3es currently as drafted will go to city council. And

again, these tables are are married up to to do just that based on the council's direction. also mentioned to you um I don't know if the council wants to take uh provide comment to city council or not but uh some staff members and some certain council members also were concerned about allowing drive-throughs uses in Oldtown. Um oh

they felt in the downtown it's it should be more walkable and not more garage or auto oyate. Uh we do have one drive-thru in Oldtown currently and that is the human being on uh Fair View 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 Oldtown because of that one business. So I don't anticipate us getting a lot of tier 2 or tier three drive-throughs in downtown, but the 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 a weighin on that topic as well, I'm happy to share those comments with council as I as I present to them. So again um based on some of the the commentary that I've given you here uh 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've added the tier one where again it may be the director maybe like we don't need anybody but the director no recommending body because the director can act on it or he may become the recommending body because they're next to a residential use. And then same thing with uh tier 2 we are the 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. Uh I know certainly how has as you as the commission is aware um certain applications for example like annexations and ply plats typically you guys are recommending body on those site types of application and 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. Um, and that's again something that I'm more than happy to take uh before city council as this transitions to them. Uh, looking at the public record, I did not see any testimony on this item and I'll go ahead and conclude my presentation. Open it up to you for questions. Um, quick questions. Do we have any active banks still downtown?

I I know a few of them have left. Um, I don't know if this one might be. This one across the north of us may be active still, but I know the one on Idaho has has vacated, right? So, that has a drive-thru. Yeah, different process that was approved under a different code. I'm [snorts] not as sure what how what the requirements were at that time. And I think there's another coffee shop next to Paul's too. Is that considered Oldtown? Franklin and King. Uh Main Street and King. Main Street and King. Right. Oh, yes. That's again another grandfather drive-thru. That's that's part of an old process. Correct.

Gotcha. Okay. Um, do we have anybody signed up? Nobody's here to sign up. Sir, did you have Were you going to comment tonight? Okay. Does anybody else have questions for Bill? Madam Chair, Commissioner Sandable,

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're on a hill and you have a 20ft house, but it's 35 ft or it's 36 ft, you can't build it to that height. So, Commissioner Sandaval, if I can get you your question here. So basically um 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 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 Marine I haven't seen where the property the front property line's taller than the it's usually taller than the rear because it kind of slopes a little ways but sometimes it can be the reverse. Uh but in this case again if if there was an instance where the front property was higher than the back of the property, we'd still measure the height from from that. So the developer or the the home builder would have to provide us that and then demonstrate give us a side profile of how that would work. Uh so we could verify that. So technically conceivably the back of the house could be taller than the front of the house because we're measuring from the front rather than the back. Thanks for clarifying. I was curious. Thank you.

Yeah, we did talk about that quite a bit with the UDC focus group. Um, 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 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 of meridian. There are certain pockets of it, but generally it's it's pretty flat here. Any other questions before we close the public hearing? Madam [clears throat] Chair, question for Bill.

Commissioner Sto.

Um folks know me know I'm big on processes where I'm kind of trying to figure it out. Um so on tier one director makes a decision. Tier two the director makes a recommendation to the commission. All other processes we have the commission makes a recommendation to city council but in this case you're talking about the director makes the recommendation to the city council. What's the reason for the difference? Uh, madame chair, members of the commission, uh, 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's certain the the code is the way it's structured is the 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 recommending 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's 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 3es come to us just like any a short plaid 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? But there are other applications or processes. Yeah, there are other applications and processes that do it. Correct. Definitely. So when it came to In-N-Out, we were supposed to decide on the conditional use permit, right? I missed that. And you did. And we did and they appealed it, which is why it went to city council. So what com the council is suggesting is that um anything with a two two lanes and escape lane would um go directly to council. That's what they're that's what he's proposing.

Madam Chair, commissioners, Mr. We're still in public testimony. Okay. We're still in public testimony. Are we ready to close the public testimony? Any other questions for Bill? May I get a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Second. It's been moved and second to close the public hearing for Zoa 2025-00003. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed?

Motion carries. Um my thoughts on this, we talked about this in in our our prep meeting a little bit. Um I uh I am not in favor of uh conditional use permits tier three to go directly to council. I think they should still come to planning and zoning as to be vetted. Um, if I am a 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 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 um appeal it and it still goes to city council. So, um I think it just it there's 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's many times where we'll make recommendations saying before you go to counsel, you know, do this or if you're going to appeal, you know, do this before you walk into counsel. And uh if they go straight to council, then that wouldn't do it. And I hear [snorts] time and time again from um the mayor and all our council members is that they appreciate our feedback. And so maybe still having council be the the um deciding factor, but us being the recommended body for tier three would still be helpful. Tier two stays with us, which is one lane, one drive-thru, and then um anything that is close to proximity to residentials will still come through us as well. Um including tier one if it abuts residential. But otherwise, if it's a pharmacy that's a standalone or a uh a bank that's a

standalone that doesn't really affect those things, then it could be administrative [clears throat] at tier one. Does that make sense? So, those are my thoughts. Um, you know, I I would like to see tier three still come through planning and zoning. We would be the recommending body to council. Any other thoughts on this, Madam Chair? Commissioner Smith.

Um, yeah, I agree with you and like you said, we talked about this in our prep meeting. I I think um the only instances where I could imagine there being significant delays for us having heard you know a tier three seems like it might be one where it's warranted where there's a continuence because of some issue or things like that. Um I guess you know if there's a lack of a quorum or something you know there's there's I get the desire to speed things up. Um, 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, you know, in their specific industry. Um, but I I don't know that this in my in my opinion slows things down enough like too much to justify it. I'm not at the end of the day, if council wants to just take it ahead on, you know, I I trust our city council. I think we have a really good council, so I'm not losing sleep over it. Um, but I think that's something that I think we, you know, we're we're here to help them and and do some factf finding for them and and some some analysis for them. And I think that's frankly DAO, I know it's more of a negotiation with with the with the city, so there's some more kind of executive function there, but I heck I'd like to look at DAOs, too, you know, but that's a different conversation. Um, yeah, I 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 Oldtown restricting drivethrus, um, I would be okay with that. The whole point is to have a walkable space. I, you know, again, it's not something that I particularly lose sleep for because I can't think of too many areas where someone's going to go slap in a big drive-thru. Um, but you never know. So I, you know, I think that I'm generally in favor of that. Um, specifically just because it's Oldtown. It's a unique district. Madam Chair, Commissioner Rest,

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I'd actually take the other side. If you think it back to the In-N-Out application, how many people did In-N-Out have here? That was a pretty big application, and they're going to bring all those people back to council. And so, I think there's a time element, but there's also a cost element for developers. And these tier 3es are going to generate a lot of public testimony. They're generally going to be more controversial. They're probably always going to end up at council. And I think the developers would generally rather get one shot but know that it's an up or down than the uncertainty of having to bring all those experts to multiple meetings. Um they're going to have to do that if they if we bring tier 3s in front of us. And I think that that more than anything both adds cost and time. Um so again, I'm not getting too worked up either way, but I I can see where council's coming from and I actually agree with their take on it. Yeah, I mean those applications are far and few between. Although I did read today

Dunkin Donuts. Duncan's bringing 20 into the Treasure Valley. So although my limited experience of Duncan, it's just typically not two plus an escape. It's it's one and done. You guys are going to have a lot of fun. [laughter] Yeah. Well, I don't drink coffee, so you can bring as many as you want in here. But I'm sure but yeah, I understand your point as well, but right now conditional use permits come for us anyway, so that procedure doesn't change too much. Commissioner Perau,

thank you. Uh, I agree with Commissioner Rust. Um, you know, when when council has needed more information um from an applicant on a drive-thru, they they end up continuing it anyway. So, you know, at some point you're doing three hearings and um and so if council typically when they 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, we're talking about time frames. If council needs more information, they'll continue it. It'll be back in four weeks. It will still make for a faster process. So I I'm in agreement that um I'm I would be satisfied if it went direct directly to council. It it ends up there most of the time anyway.

Okay. Madam Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith, I I think after hearing that I think and chewing on it some more I I think I guess I'm I'm a little bit on the fence now. Um because now I'm thinking about it talking about it.

You know, we're essentially saying city council, let us do the extra work for you. and they're saying, "Hey, you know, we're 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're content to, you know, take that on themselves, then then I I'm okay with like it's not I'm not again losing sleep over it, uh, it wasn't in the first place." But, but maybe I I'm seeing more and more of of that kind of opposite of you. Um, so realistically, I'd be content either way. I think it's dealer's choice for me now. Okay, that's fine. That's why we're talking about it. Madam Chair, if I may, Commissioner Stole.

So, I I wasn't I'll play the newbie card still. I wasn't here for the In-N-Out one, so I don't know the process. Is there an aspect of the application that we're still going to get and have to review, so it's we're not going to see the application at all. What should have happened with Inn Out, it should have ended here, right here, because we approved conditional use permits. The only reason it went to council is because we denied it and they appealed it. Yeah.

Right. Because otherwise conditional use permits regardless of the number of drive-throughs, escape lanes, raising canes, Chick-fil-A, the whole nine yards ends in planning and zoning. What um 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, it that's when it goes to council because they'll appeal it. [clears throat]

So, but but the trigger is it's got a drive-thru with it. That's in this case that we're talking about. If it's a drive-thru, then it's going strict directly to the council. We're looking at, you know, high volume congestion, you know, in a in a area that's con not contested because I mean it could be a So, let's take uh 10 mile crossing the new alquist part on the west side. I forget what it's called. They're going to be developing, say they decide to put an in-n-out over there, right? So, what they're suggesting is that instead of presenting to planning and zoning, it's even though it's just bare land right now, they're 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.

Okay? Because most likely there's going to be businesses 300 feet on either side of them. Okay. Um Yeah. I'm not sure that makes sense. Yeah, it makes Well, yes and no. Um, so not sure how I where I fall on that one. Terms of drive-throughs in Oldtown, I lean towards not having them um if we can just to promote the walkability of the downtown area. Yeah, Madam Chair, Commissioner Sandal.

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've 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 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.

Right. And we're only talking about conditional use permits. I mean annexations, preliminary plat, you know, development agreements, all those still go to council anyway. We're really talking about just businesses that are going to have a drive-thru double stacked escape lane within 300 feet. That's the only thing we're talking about. Correct, Bill? Yeah. Madam Chair, members of the commission, I also just want to reiterate that, you know, you could get a tier 2 and deny it or approve it and someone could still appeal that and go to city council. 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. Um, but again, it's certainly within your purview to to modify that or change that. On the oldtown topic, certainly if if the commission feels comfortable with tiered one, you can certainly say we're 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. Um, but I agree with you. I don't see a tier three happening in downtown, but I could see a tier one. I mean, we have Blimpies is up on the street. They're not they're not Oldtown, but they're commercial, but their land use designation is Oldtown. So, conceivably, someone could reszone it to something else in the future. U, but again, it it's it's full gamut. I mean, ultimately the the city council will weigh in on your comments, and I'll share that with them as I go and transition and present to them, but certainly I I don't profess to have one-sizefits-all here tonight. I I do appreciate everyone's position on it. Um, it's just how you look at things, and I do I like the discussion tonight. I like I like the pers perspective of uh Commissioner Russ because I didn't think of it from that angle, but it it's very logical. And then I see Commissioner Sandaval'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 and we all do. We we want to make sure we get it right. It it's it's citywide. It's code changes. It's important. I do appreciate the discussion. So, just to um clarify, Oldtown is Fair View to Franklin from Meridian to what third or two and a half. How far how far

east does uh Oldtown go? Just Yeah, but I mean it's basically it goes to Franklin third and I don't know how far it's exact. It's an odd designation. So, it's it's a weird configuration. It's not just a perfect rectangle falling. It jogs throughout downtown, but it's pretty substantial, right? It's larger than what you think it is. So, okay, Madam Chair, Commissioner 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? We're recommending to We're recommending. Yeah. Okay. So, we're we're not

we're not able to do anything. We're just making recommendations. 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. And so if we were to let's just say we said we want a say on tier 3es and then city council could say uh we actually are going to go with our original intent it wouldn't have to come back to us. They just decide correct. Thank you madam chair. Commissioner Pearl, just to clarify, Bill, uh, the recommendation to limit drive-throughs in Oldtown, that came from council or where did that come from?

Madam Chair, members of the commission? Uh, 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 uh 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 I know there's some council members that want to 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. Madam Chair, Commissioner Pro.

Um, personally, I'd like to still see that done on a case- by case basis. I mean, I understand the concern about drive-throughs in Oldtown. Um, there are a few areas of Oldtown that are still could accommodate them. Um and uh I mean Oldtown, we've spent a lot of time sort of um loosening restrictions on Oldtown in terms of height and uses and so it seems funny to me to then create a restriction when there's been a lot of effort to expand the options in Oldtown. So that's just my thought on it. I'm I'm not a hill I'm gonna die on, but

yeah, I feel the same way. I mean, what happens, you know, five years from now and Oldtown is built out in a different way and and um, you know, we're 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. Um, I think I agree with Commissioner Perau that we should evaluate those on a case-byase basis because there's some very skinny parts of Oldtown, but there's some wider spots too that could accommodate them. And to blanket it across, you might be taking uh an applicant and turning them away from developing uh commercial opportunity downtown because of that restriction. I I can't imagine what it would be at this point in time, but if us saying 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. Madam Chair,

Commissioner Smith, um, if I could make um, you know, I guess I guess a pitch if I if I were trying to die on this hill, and this is this is not my, you know, 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. Do you think postcoid main street in Boisey for example

how that's built out to be u you know really in that downtown core there's very limited if I don't know that I've seen a car drive down that [laughter] since those uh barriers went up um uh 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're trying to create a a very walkable location in Meridian if 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 bounds and I think if you are trying to make a pretty walkable thing I think there's a case for simultaneously loosening height restrictions due to a lot more density uh per you know per square foot or per square mile while imposing greater controls on on automotive traffic specifically. So yeah, I think I guess I guess I guess I see the appeal looking also again at the size of of a tier one or something like that. But you know again if I if I could wave my wand um if I had the crystal ball that one of the people coming in earlier was talking about I I think I'd probably limit it tier one. Um I think I I would like that. Again, that doesn't fully restrict, you know, automotive uses, but kind of tries to steer the development toward [snorts] what we're what we're trying to do. Um, I know there's 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-thru, but don't get crazy. Um, so, so there's that. Um, one other thing that I'll say as for the um the tier 3es uh and that chain um on whether we see it you as a recommending body, I'm fine either way. But I really do want to actually comment. I do like that it is going to city council by

default. Um, I think as the elected body, if there's anything that is large enough and sufficient enough and impactful enough to s to stir up that kind of attendance that usually comes to the tier threes, it should go to the elected body as the deciding uh vote, not some volunteers who who have the honor of serving on a wonderful uh appointment. But there's there's an accountability structure there. And I think sometimes I wonder if like on a cup if we approve something that council would have denied, right? You know, especially something the size of In-N-Out. Yeah.

And maybe no one in the audience know, you know, thinks to try to appeal it from the other side. Um that kind of gives me some concern. So I actually like that it is by default going to city council. I will say that. Okay. They can take the heat. That's fine. Um anybody want to try a motion? No. Yeah, I'll take a I'll take a stab. Yeah. Yeah. One more for the road. One more. Two for the show. Okay.

Um after hearing staff and public testimony, I move that we recommend the changes to the is it the UDC? Is that what we're 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-thru modification to the downtown core. Okay. Do I have a second?

Kurt with no second. That motion dies. Is that what happens? Second. So the motion dies. I use Commissioner Russ. Madam Chair, yeah, but since there was no second, the motion dies. You can uh ask your fellow commissioners for an alternate motion if you like. Okay. So, madam chair,

after considering all staff applicants public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the city council file number za-2025-00003 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of uh January 15, 2026 with the following modifications. uh tier 2 applications for drivethrus. Um tier three, sorry, tier three um applications uh for drive-throughs. Um recommending body would be the planning and zoning commission. The deciding body would be the city council. And that's it.

Do I have a second? Second. It's been moved and second to approve file ZA 2025003. um with tier three going through planning and zoning for recommendation with final decision going to city council. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Nay.

So it's two to three and I will say I as well. So that's four and two. Motion passes. Um couple more things before we leave for this evening. Um, 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 Southside uh perspective. Thank you. I enjoyed serving with you all. Yes, thank you. And um item five on the agenda is um we are going to vote on a chair and a vice chair for the 2026 calendar year. Madam Chair,

Commissioner Smith, I sorry I apologize. Bad time to uh grab a lifesaver. Um I do want to I know that the bylaws um by default um nominate the vice the sitting vice chair uh as a candidate for chair. I'd like to decline that um default nomination and in place uh nominate you for reelection. For what? For chair. For chair. and and you stay as vice chair. I will not make a nomination for vice chair. Ah so I would love to serve but I don't want to you know make that

all right. So then I will nominate um Commissioner Smith for vice chair. Is there anybody on the floor that would like these positions? Kurt, do we vote? Yes. So, um, I would like a motion for, uh, Commissioner Smith to retain as vice chair and, uh, myself, Commissioner Lorcher as chair for the 2026 calendar year. Madam Chair, I move to retain the existing officers from the 2025 uh, commissions for the 2026 commission. Do I have a second?

Second. It's been moved and second to um keep Commissioner Smith as vice chair and myself, Commissioner Lurcher as chair. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. I will take one more motion. Madam Chair, Commissioner Russ, I move that we adjourn. Second. It's been moved and second that we adjourn. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. I almost stole that from you on