Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

Peace.

All right, good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for September 3rd. At this time, I would like to call the meeting to order. The commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are here at City Hall. We also have staff from the City Attorneys 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. However, 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 cityclerk at meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting, we encourage you to watch it streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org backslash live. With that, let us begin with roll call. Madam Clerk.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Schappe?

Here.

Commissioner Smith?

Here.

Commissioner Stoll?

Here.

Commissioner Del Cimino?

Present.

Chairperson Lorcher?

Here. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda, and there are no changes to tonight's agenda. May I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda as presented?

Move to adopt. Second.

It's been moved and second to adopt tonight's agenda. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda, which include to approve the meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission from August 20th. May I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda?

To approve as presented? Second.

It's been moved and second to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

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 to present their case and respond to staff questions or comments, and they will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant is finished, we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called only once during the public testimony portion of the meeting. The clerk will call the names individually of those who have signed up on our website or in advance to testify. You may come to the microphones in chambers or you will be unmuted in Zoom. Please state your name and address for the record, and you will have three minutes to address the commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation of the meeting, it will be displayed on the screen, and our clerk will help you run that presentation. If you have established 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 10 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 on the Zoom app or if you're listening on a telephone, please press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you're listening on multiple devices as such as a computer and a telephone, please be sure to mute those extra devices so we don't experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you have finished, if the commission does not have any questions for you, you will return to your seat in the chambers or be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak. And please remember, we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another 10 minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns, we will close the public hearing so that the commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss, hopefully make final decisions or recommendations to city council as needed. With that, we will start with item number two, H-2026-0048, is a request for a conditional use permit for Black Creek Legal Office at 195 South Touchmark Way, and we will begin with the staff report.

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission. Next item on the agenda is the conditional use permit for Black Creek Legal Office. So the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct and operate a 4,833 square foot office building and leave an empty pad site for an approximate 3,500 square foot office building on 1.0 acres in the LO zoning district. Site is located at 195 South Touchmark Way. As shown on the screen, the existing zoning is LO Limited Office and the flume designation is Mixed Use Community. So the proposed use of a medical office aligns well with the mixed-use community designation, which supports a blend of residential, commercial, and recreational uses. Office buildings are typically a permitted use in the LO zoning district. However, a development agreement from 2005 requires a detailed conditional use permit approval for any development on any property within this that's under the development agreement. So site plan, landscape plan. and elevations for you guys tonight. Staff is recommending approval and has not received any written testimony on this. And I'll stand for any questions that you have.

Would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening. If you can state your name and address for the record, please.

Good evening. My name is Daphne Domani. Address is 3313 West Cherry Lane, Meridian 83642. Thank you. I think the city staff did a good job at summarizing the scope of the project. I don't have anything to add, but I'm available for questions if anybody has questions.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner, do we have any questions for the applicant? Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to testify?

Thank you, Madam Chair. No one has signed up.

And there's nobody on Zoom. I don't see anybody on Zoom. Any other further comments, or you're good? May I get a motion to close the public hearing?

Moved. Second.

It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H2026-0048, Black Creek Legal Office. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. For this Touchmark site plan, conditional use permits are required for any new building that's going to go up. Nick pointed out we only have two more left, so we'll do this two more times. But it fits all the requirements that the city is looking for for connectivity and flow and building requirements and elevations. So I don't see any problem with this application. Any other comments?

Madam Chair.

Commissioner Smith.

After considering all staff applicant and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2026-0048 as presented in the staff report. Seconded.

It's been moved and second to approve the black Creek legal office all those in favor say aye aye any opposed motion carries, thank you very much. The next item on the agenda is age 2026 dash 0028 Finley Cove request a comprehensive land use amendment from commercial to medium density residential at 115 South Linda road and we will begin with the staff report.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for a comprehensive plan map amendment and annexation and zoning. The site consists of 4.46 acres of land. It's mostly zoned R1 in Ada County, with some R4 in the city, located at 115 South Linder Road. A little history on this property. It was previously platted as Lot 6 and Drain Ditch, Van Hess Subdivision. In 2020, an application was submitted for a modification to the development agreement approved for the abutting property to the west, which was the villas at 12 Oaks, to include the subject property and development plan for a 64-unit multifamily residential development in the agreement. The City Council denied this application based on their finding that it wasn't in the best interest of the city to annex the property with the multifamily development plan and found commercial and office development to be more appropriate use for this property consistent with the commercial future land use map designation in the comprehensive plan for this property. The comprehensive plan future land use map designation is mostly commercial, which is 4.36 acres of the site with some medium density residential, consisting of 0.39 of an acre along the southern boundary of the site. Here's some site photos. First one on the top is looking northwest, and then the bottom one on the right is looking west from Linder Road. An amendment to the comprehensive plan future land use map designation to change the land use designation on approximately 4.38 acres of land from commercial to medium density residential is proposed to match that along the southern boundary of the property. The medium density residential designation allows residential development at a gross density of three to eight dwelling units per acre. The subject property is an infield piece of land in the county surrounded by city annexed and developed property. Commercial development consisting of a fuel sales facility, a vehicle washing facility, restaurant with a drive-through, and other multi-tenant retail and restaurant uses exists to the north. A minor vehicle repair and multifamily residential exists to the west, single-family residential detached homes to the south, and an ACHD storm drainage facility and residential common area to the east across Linder Road. The site is triangular in configuration, as you can see there on the annexation exhibit, with only about 110 feet of frontage along Linder Road at the narrowest part of the property. The topography of the land in this area slopes down from the north to the south, making the subject property quite a bit lower than the adjacent commercial property to the north. Annexation of 4.73 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district is also proposed with a conceptual development plan for 19 townhome dwellings at a gross density of 7 units per acre. The concept plan is shown there on the left along with concept elevations of the proposed townhomes on the right. The concept plan depicts public street access via Linder Road in alignment with West Barrett Drive on the east side of Linder, terminating in a cul-de-sac at the project's west boundary with common open space area along the Ten Mile Creek that runs along the southern boundary of the property. A common driveway is proposed for access to the lots at the west end of the development. The property is not proposed to be subdivided at this time. Linder Road is in the process of being widened to five lanes in this area with improvements to the Linder-Franklin Road intersection and an overpass over I-84, which are anticipated to be complete in the fall of 2027. Public transit and a bus stop is available near this site at the Franklin and Linder intersection. There is a cross-access easement that exists between the subject property and the commercial development to the north that was intended to provide cross-access with commercial development of this property because commercial development is not proposed and access drive is not proposed or required. An eight-foot-tall concrete wall exists along the northern boundary of this site. A cross-access easement was not provided to this property from the west because of the commercial designation and the cross-access easement from the property to the north, and because private drive aisles rather than public streets exist in the development to the west. With development, a 10-foot-wide detached sidewalk and multi-use pathway is required on this site along South Linder Road and along the north side of the 10-mile creek on the subject property per the Pathways Master Plan. Conceptual building elevations were submitted, as I mentioned before, shown there on the right for the proposed townhomes. Final design is required to comply with the single family residential design standards in the architectural standards manual. The townhomes are proposed to be clustered in four groups of four and one group of three, as shown on the concept plan. Staff finds the proposed amendment to medium density residential is consistent with key elements of the comprehensive plan pertaining to compatibility and transition of land uses, infill development, the provision of a variety of housing types and other elements as noted in the staff report. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the proposed feature land use map amendment and annexation as requested with the requirement of a development agreement that ties future development to this concept plan. Several letters of written testimony have been received on this application. Twenty-two are in opposition and one is in support of the request. Some of the reasons cited for denial of the request include the following. Many letters were submitted against an apartment complex. And just to be clear, an apartment complex is not proposed. Townhome single-family dwellings are proposed. And many letters were requesting a community park with recreational amenities instead. I think there was a rumor floating around that the city was looking to possibly purchase this property and develop a city park. However, that is not true. City Parks Department is not planning a park on this property or anywhere in the immediate vicinity. So just for clarification. And then many of the letters were against the traffic. Additional homes would generate requests for the Linda Road expansion and overpass to be finalized prior to approving additional dwellings in this area. negative impact on wildlife habitat in the area, negative impact on quality of life for those in the area if the request is approved, and concern pertaining to destruction of shared groundwater resources and threat to well owners. The letter in support states the residential designation for this property makes more sense than commercial, as a business would be unable to have signage sufficient to attract businesses from Franklin Road. This property is essentially located in a residential area. Concern that noise from a commercial property would be disruptive to the immediate area. And in favor of the affordable housing option with townhomes, an appreciation the plan isn't overdeveloped with excessive residential housing, but makes good use of the property. Staff will stand for any questions. The applicant is here to present tonight.

Would the applicant like to come forward, please?

Thank you for that, Sonia, and for your help on this application. Good evening, members of the Commission. My name is Bonnie Layton. I am with Layton Planning, 3324 West Catalina Drive, or Lane, in Boise, Idaho, 83705. I'm here tonight on behalf of the development team requesting your recommendation for approval of a comprehensive plan map amendment, as well as annexation and zoning of the parcel. I think Sonia did a fantastic job of covering the details of the project. However, I do have a PowerPoint presentation. I'm trying to bring it up here.

Oh, I see why it was. It's in PDF rather than PowerPoint format, it must have saved weird. Let me just one moment here. There we go.

And how do I click through the slide?

You can use the mouse up there or the arrows. Okay. And if that doesn't work, I can advance them for you.

Thank you. Again, I'm here this evening to request your recommendation for approval of our request for this comprehensive plan map amendment annexation and zoning of the property. Let's see if I can get this.

It might be easier to use the arrows. Okay, the mouse is jumping. Okay, there we go.

So just a brief overview. This is a vicinity map I like to provide for folks, both decision makers and folks in the audience to see where we are located. So just in the south, just adjacent to the southwest corner of Franklin Road and Linder Road. As Sonia mentioned, there's some residential development to our west. Those are rental units. There's commercial to the north. And then to the south, there are single-family detached homes, as well as to the east, generally speaking. Let's see. As Sonia had covered, the future land use map currently designates this as commercial. You can see that in the black circle. There's quite a bit of mix of uses around here. We're not too far from 10 Mile and I-84, where there's been some significant development happening in the area, and especially even in the last five years, I would say, with commercial development. Again, here's a map of the surrounding zoning. So we believe our request is in line with an annexation and zoning to medium density residential, that it would fit nicely into the surrounding community. As you can see on the east side of Linder Road, that designation goes all the way up to Franklin. And then also, as I mentioned, you can see the 10-mile area is really becoming heavily developed and commercial, much more visible and much more attractive location for commercial businesses. This is kind of an interesting comparison, the development pattern over the last 10 years when we look at how this area has evolved, and that's part of what the comprehensive plan talks about in sort of acknowledging and reviewing how areas of the city evolve. So back in 2015, just over 10 years ago, there was nothing out at 10 Mile. Then we can see the progression in 2020. And then, of course, in 2025 was the last aerial that I could pull from the internet showing that there's been a lot of commercial development, all while this parcel has remained vacant. So again, as I mentioned, the adjacent development, we do have a mix of commercial, we've got some higher density for rent, and we have a lot of single family detached for sale homes. We believe what's missing in this component and what moves towards the intent of the comprehensive plan is to provide a variety of housing types. Just in the southwest corner of this image, below the subdivision that's to the south of us, is Peregrine Elementary School as well. So there's pathways from the adjacent subdivisions to that school that lead into that school site. So again, and you probably saw this in your staff report, and part of our project narrative is really looking at the comprehensive plan and in the text to see where the support is for a request like that, like we're doing. So chapter two, Premier community that needs a cross section of housing, and I've listed the points for time sake I won't go through all of them. And then again in chapter three, just again reinventing key areas, again this parcel has sat vacant. for at least 10 years as commercial development has gone on in other places. And we believe that some single family attached for sale homes is really appropriate and helps to provide that transition between the commercial uses to the north and then the single family detached to the south. Here's an image of how our plan would fit into the community. Here's a little bit bigger view of that. In this process, staff had asked us initially, we had requested a comprehensive plan map amendment. They asked us to add the addition of a request for annexation and zoning. So we added that. And with that, as part of the development agreement, we were told that we needed to submit a conceptual site plan so that could be tied to the development agreement. So there wouldn't be any bait and switch. We'd come in with something later. This is really what we're intending on building. Even to the conceptual architecture, which again, we're in the very beginning stages, as you know, comprehensive plan map amendment, annexation and zoning. And then we would anticipate coming back in through the process for a subdivision plan. Again, I want to thank you for your time. We've reviewed the staff report. We are in agreement with the recommendations from staff. And with that, I'm happy to stand for any questions.

Sonia, I have a question. Since there's residential directly to the west of this, why is there a cul-de-sac and no connectivity? Because right now there's only one way in and one way out.

Yeah, two reasons. This property was designated commercial on the future land use map, and they have internal dry vials rather than public streets.

And the fire chief is okay with the one way in, one way out?

Yes, for the number of units proposed.

Okay. And you did mention these are for sale, not for rent. That is correct. And then would you say a typical townhouse is, what, a family of four people?

That is correct. Commissioner Locher, we would develop these to be a standard, just single family, but attached to car garage with a two car driveway. This is a typical type of home that we build throughout the Treasure Valley. And so it is set up to be developed that way.

Commissioners, do we have any other questions for Bonnie? All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify?

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have Norma Herron.

You may come up. If you can state your name and address for the record, you can state your question, and we may not be able to answer, but the applicant will answer when she comes back up at the end.

Okay. My name is Norma Herron and I live at 1767 West Greenhead Drive, which is just south of this proposed development. And my biggest question is the access to Linder Road. As you know, they're developing that and it's going to be a five lane. And right now the commercial area that is just north of this, they have an access to Linder and they're only going to be able to make a right-hand turn coming out of that development. So the proposed residential area will probably have to also make a right-hand turn. And the development where I live, which is Whitestone Estates, we have a one-way in and one-way out, just one street that accesses all of this. And we may also have to turn to the right. And I'm wondering Where are people gonna be turning around for this, to access Linder Road? And my concern is that people are gonna be turning to the south on Linder Road and then making a right-hand turn into the Whitestone Estates and then doing a U-turn there, and then trying to make another right-hand, a left-hand turn. So my biggest question is access and congestion in that area.

I will ask the applicant, does your subdivision say dead end street when it says no outlet? No outlet. Well, same thing. Okay. Okay. Okay. We will ask the applicant when she comes back up. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we have Chad Heron next.

Hi, if you can state your name and address for the record, please.

My name is Chad Heron. I also live in Whitestone Estates, 1767 West Greenhead Drive.

Thank you.

And additionally, there's a question there about the access in and out. You know, the fire department is going to have a heck of a time with to dead end streets. And again, if there could be a simple answer for a roundabout or something in that area, this might be of no consequence. But there are quite a few kids in our neighborhood, a lot of new people moving in, and they are all over in those streets these days. We've seen quite a turnover in housing. We've been there for about eight years, and it was very quiet when we first moved in. A lot of retired people. And as they age, it's been turning over. A lot of younger people are moving in. And again, we only have the one exit. There's a proposed road that goes out towards 10 Mile, but it's basically an alfalfa field now. If that could be remedied, this could be a good thing. I don't have any problems with the proposed project. It's just the access in and out. I worked for a fire department when I was a forestry student. I've been to residential fires. It's not really good. That's my only comment.

Okay. We will discuss it with the applicant. We might not have all the answers today because the roads are, ACHD are in charge of that, especially the cross-access.

I understand that, but I did want to say.

But we will bring it up and see what we can come up with.

I think it's pretty pertinent. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, no one else has signed up and no one is online.

Is there anybody in chambers that would like to address this application? Come on up. Hi, if you can state your name and address for the record.

My name is Paige Harp, and I'm in the Whitestone Estates as well at 1735 West Calcite Court. Thanks. Strongly opposed to rezoning this plot of land. It's kind of a wonky little shape. I understand that. Nobody in our subdivision really wants to have a lot of traffic coming in and out of there. The two speakers prior to me are... exactly right there is one way in and out of our subdivision we are right next to an elementary school from the last or the latest plans that i've seen from achd the five lane is actually going to have a median cement median from franklin all the way up to just prior to greenhead that was the last of the plans that i saw and that was just a few weeks ago posted on their on their development in the website This raises some big concerns for accessibility, but also the gentleman behind me was completely right as far as access with fire trucks being able to get in and out. We do have a lot of elderly residents in our neighborhood. A lot of times we see ambulances, we see fire trucks. With this particular addition to even more families trying to enter and exit from Linder Road, everybody is going to be pushed to go right, to go south. And we have a hard enough time just getting out of our neighborhood to go north when it's a normal summer day now. And that's without the overpass already being there. Not necessarily opposed to the overpass, but I feel like all of these things all combined, rolled into one, make residents' lives pretty difficult in the affected areas. I would really like to see some confirmation on what that median looks like, the applicant's plan on how to mitigate the influx of traffic. I'm also pretty disheartened with the destruction of our green space in that whole area. We lost 100 trees. They took 100 trees off of Linder. It looks like a ghost town. It's very depressing to drive by. People are losing parts of their lots, their yards. Easements are taking over everything. This is not... in what i thought the development and city plan was for residents that have been there for quite some time i've personally lived in that subdivision for 15 years none of this was ever brought to our attention there was a house a residential house in that lot when we moved there and chose to start raising a family i really feel that these concerns need to be taken into consideration I'm at the point and multiple neighbors that I've spoken with, we would like more green space. I propose a park there. There wasn't a rumor of the city trying to buy a park. It was we have lost so much of our green space and our buffer for the traffic. And we have a lot of really cool wildlife that live in that wonky little plot. If that's gone, that's going to take away even more from the residents that live there. It's going to take away from the safety of the kids. There's going to be so much more traffic. I just don't feel like it's a safe fit. And if you look at the construction of the apartments that are onto the west of that proposal, OK, fair enough. That's a good transition. When you look at the proposed plans for the townhomes, they look nice, but they definitely don't fit into the motif of the residents that have lived there and the ones even further south that are still on wells. Those people have been there for a very long time and we're all not very happy about all this massive expansion all at one time.

Thank you very much. Anyone else that like to speak. Come on up. Oh she's. Sorry, I'm not on the list. You're fine.

I just found out about this a couple days ago. That's fine.

My name is Lori.

Lori Smock Hill. Okay. 1961 West Franklin Road, apartment D-103. which is right near that field. Okay. That field has been, I've been there for six years, and that field has been a fire hazard since I moved in. We worry this summer that there would be a fire and we wouldn't be able to just get out with the fireworks and the lightning. Now it's become a trash dump, a tire dump. I mean, nobody's taken care of that field since we've been there. But my main concern is for the wildlife. We have a bat neighbor behind us who is fighting terminal cancer. His only thing he does is sit on that deck and feed the quail, the ducks, even a rabbit that we had this year. And the birds and we do the same where we live in front of him To the other side of us across the road there is a townhome that also is right off that field They have noxus weeds right next to their yard They can't let their kid go out and play because they're afraid that he'll touch those weeds Nothing's ever been done. They've reported it. We've had people come out Nobody does anything I am 65 years old. I've lived here for all my life. My dad was a representative in his time, and he took care of this city, the county, and did things that improved it. To me, a park, as was just mentioned, is the perfect solution for this spot. We don't need any more town homes, apartments, anything in this area. We have enough. Some of them are ugly. Some of them I don't like to look at. And the fear is that this will just be, maybe town homes are better. They probably look better. But a park would preserve the wildlife that does live in that area. I mean, we have ducks. There's a subdivision right across the street from us on Linder that is named after ducks. And where are the ducks going to go if that is? We have a pond right beside us, part of the apartment. It's Olympus Apartments, if I didn't mention. And the ducks swim in that pond. They walk across the backyard. They go to the creek. Where are they going to go? I mean, yes, they'll go somewhere else, but we don't want them to. We love the quail. There's a lot of them. So we go through food pretty steadily. Our neighbor goes through food. He feeds them in his backyard too. but I think they're important to save in that area. And a park would just be perfect. I mean, for the kids, for the elderly, should go just walk around the park, have someplace to go. I mean, I lived on Maple Grove and Franklin where my father was raised, and I lived there for 11 years. He lived there since 1923. And everybody moved in around us, all the businesses, so we had to sell. And they tore it down. I mean, it was the saddest thing I've ever seen. And to watch some of these people that have lived there, which I know they have because I've been in that area, to lose another spot that maybe they could go and relax and walk and feed the ducks, you know, would be so beneficial in that area. I... I mean, obviously I'm disabled. I need a place to go walk. I don't have it where I'm at. I mean, we have a bridge that comes across our apartment from the subdivision. Everybody comes across there. I just feel, and there's a creek that people walk along every day with their dogs. Some people let their dogs out on that field, which is scary because I know there's a lot of goat heads and things that can harm those dogs.

Okay, you need to wrap up.

Okay, I'm sorry. But my opinion is it just needs to stay green and take care of the wildlife in that area that we all appreciate and want to survive.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. Would anybody else like to testify? All right, Bonnie, would you like to come up?

Thank you again for your time this evening. I appreciate everybody's time here this evening and coming to testify. In looking at this project, there are a couple of things that are going on, as I mentioned. As commercial development has happened in the area, this parcel has remained vacant. And unfortunately, it has become at times folks Trespass they dump garbage on there and it's become a problem for the owner who would like to develop this Parcel in a manner that we believe is consistent with the comprehensive plan We've reviewed the city's parks and recreation plans, the long-term development of parks in the area. As Sonja mentioned, there is not any plan to develop a park in this area. There's some improvements to existing parks to the east going on, and Although we are at the beginning stages of this project, we will have to come back, as I mentioned, for preliminary plat application. Staff has already communicated to us that part of that, and you've seen it in the staff report as well, we will be required to put a pathway along the southern portion of our project and then try to make an effort to connect to the pathway that is to the west where there's a pedestrian bridge that goes across the Ten Mile Creek into the subdivision. I think the pathways plan even shows that there's that connection. And then when you go through the neighborhood to the south of us, then you get, as I mentioned, there's pathway directly leading to the school district, to the school property. it looks like there's a pathway around that there's also a neighborhood to the on the east boundary that also connects into that school site also along with what our development would include is improvements along linder road for a pathway along there so again trying to add amenities in that become part of the greater connectivity for the city in this area it would be landscaped with according to city standards again kind of getting ahead of ourselves but we would anticipate that we would develop this property per the code there's certain open space requirements that we are required to provide when we bring that development plan forward let's see and then again if i can just um you know we really believe last time we had come in with a much denser project this is significantly less number of use units and residents we do understand that linder road is being redeveloped at this time I'm not sure what ACHD would have planned at the Greenhead intersection, as Mr. and Mrs. Herron had mentioned. I would anticipate that that would be covered when we come forward with our preliminary plat application. Same would be the case if this were to come forward as a commercial application. You will also find in your staff report that staff noted that our proposed development is likely to generate less traffic than if this were to be a commercial site. And again, just looking at the comprehensive plan and some of those goals in providing a mix of housing here, we believe that we're We're fitting in nicely we're creating that buffer the development of this will eliminate some of the problems that currently exist on the site with maybe noxious weeds. trespassing where people are dumping things that we're having to manage so. Overall, we again agree with the comments in the staff report and respectfully request your recommendation of approval this evening.

Commissioners, do we have any questions for Bonnie?

Madam Chair.

Commissioner Smith.

I guess my question is actually probably for staff, if they have any comment on kind of the anticipated traffic flow out onto Linder. If you know anything about ACHD's plans regarding circulation, you know, if I'm trying to get out and get on the freeway in the morning or something, what does that look like?

I do believe ACHD intends to put a center median in there, so this site would be restricted to right in, right out.

Okay.

And if I may add, that's as Sonia had mentioned in her staff report, the site sits quite a bit lower, it slopes from the north end down. So visibility of this for commercial development is tough. And then having that right in right out restriction as well, just makes that for further difficult to develop as a viable commercial site. So again, it's an infill piece that's surrounded by city services and utilities, which we would be connecting into as identified in the staff report.

This is a question for staff as well. If the neighbors wanted to know what the long-term plans for ACHD for collector roads and connectivity is, is that on their website? Do you know?

It is, yes. It's the master street map that shows the future collector streets.

So Mr. Heron, if you go to that website, you could probably see if there's going to be an extension of your road. We already know that this particular road is going to have a cul-de-sac, so there'll be one way in and one way out for connectivity. And so you'll be able to get more information there. They may or may not, until this gets approved by city council and all the the appropriate agencies, the ACHD lender won't look any different until this application comes forward a little bit further. So we anticipate the lender overpass to be open probably within a year. If you were to get your entitlements, what is your timeframe to actually bring a product to market? Commissioner Lorcher, we, gosh, I mean, do you anticipate even start building before the road's even done?

No. Right now, we're coordinating with ACHD to make sure that there's utilities stubbed at our entrance where they need to be, sewer, water, or things like that. But we would anticipate... If we got to council next month or the month after, I'm not sure what your agendas are looking like these days. We still have to submit our construction documents. You know, best case would be maybe midsummer next year to start the groundwork. Okay.

And then the road, the overpass will be complete at that point?

Yeah. And of course, I would anticipate that any preliminary plat application that we submit, well, actually, it's going to be definitely midsummer because we'll have to, we would have to go through the plat application process after this. And I would anticipate that any comments that ACHD has for that would require some sort of coordination or timing potentially with what their improvements are doing there. And that's very common for what happens in some of the other jurisdictions that I work in.

Okay. Any other questions for Bonnie? All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. May I get a motion to close the public hearing for Finley Cove?

So moved. Seconded.

It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H2026-0028, Finley Cove. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. I knew the gentleman who used to live at this property. We called him Carburetor Tom. He had a mechanic business in the back of his property. I think he had a total of 10 acres, not the four that are already there, because a storm drain and a road was anticipated to connect the western parcels to Linder Road at that point in time. And when the county, or at that point, the county didn't need that anymore, they have a right to sell to another person, and that person is a developer. And that developer has a right to be able to create a project of their own. And in this particular case, it was deemed commercial, but only having 100 feet of actual visibility for a business, it's very hard to get your people to come in when you can't see that business is there. This was a personal residence. This was a home that spanned a good portion of this and having a residential community on this acreage makes sense. Now, there's not going to be a park. So that's that the city is not planning on purchasing this land, but the developer is going to be planning a multi pathway with green space that everyone will be able to access on the outside of this particular community. So the wildlife will still have a place to go and it will have a green space that not only does this small community have, but everybody else can use as well. and safe walking paths for children to be able to get to school with less than 20 units on a parcel of land. If these were apartments, there could be three times as many, but townhomes, in my opinion, make sense. There's some topography issues with the way that there is a slope, so there's going to be some challenges. There needs to be coordination with utilities and ACHD for right in, right out. And if you look at ACHD's website, you'll be able to see how things can connect. And looking at the overall square mile of this project, it makes sense to have homes in this area. And since there was a home there previously, it still makes sense, at least for me and my perspective. So I am going to go ahead and recommend that this go forward to be considered. What else does everybody think?

Madam Chair?

Commissioner Smith.

I'm inclined to agree with you. I understand a lot of the concern about traffic turning around and about kind of some of these flow and congestion things. I think at the end of the day, this being residential instead of commercial, a commercial property would face the same exact problems but on a larger scale. And so I think I do I don't love how ECHD has flow set up here. I just took a peek at the master street map and and kind of the integrated five year work plan. And I don't love that. But that's I think this change and this this amendment actually lessens the impact of this spot would have on that. I agree. There's the city's, you know. The city's made no indication and desire and committed no budget to acquiring the property and creating a park here. So I think the best way is to provide increased access to that green space and things like that is to increase that connectivity along the creek into the surrounding neighborhoods for pedestrian connectivity. I fully understand the concern about wildlife. My wife and I are huge fans of the World Center for Birds of Prey. I highly encourage you to go check out their fall flights coming up. But the thing is, I think if we want to ensure that we are taking care of our wildlife in the Treasure Valley, not in just one parcel, But in the Treasure Valley writ large, we need to try to fight against kind of that sprawl coming from the land of sprawl myself of Southern California. I've seen it. I've lived going across seven cities and not seeing a super wide open property, a wide open stretch of land in that space. And the way that you get against – you get – The advantage against urban sprawl is finding these pockets to to put density along corridors density where there already is a lot of a lot of existing residential and things like that. And so I, I understand the concerns. But the way that we address these, I think all of those concerns are valid, but changing this to a residential property and this plan that has been presented to us help us address those concerns better than if it stays commercial.

Madam Chair.

Commissioner Gelsomino.

I would like to, of course, begin always by thanking the public for coming up and speaking your voice and speaking your mind on these projects and these applications those are always important i i always encourage and i'm enthused it was one of the exciting parts uh of why i applied to the planning and zoning commission and moved from the parks and recreation commission because i would have i yearned for that engagement from the public That being said, of course, as yourself and Commissioner Smith both read my notes prior to speaking, I echo both of your sentiments. The role of our commission is to determine each application. And does it meet the conditions? Does it meet the guidelines? Is it in the best interest of the city? As a former Parks and Recreation Commissioner, I love my parks. I would put a dog park in every corner of the city. the fact that as you uh correctly mentioned uh madam chair that there is going to be green space that the app that it's going to be that balance um and that you know we are going from it being a residence to uh to what it will be going forward it makes sense it it's a good balance and um while i of course Validate and and sympathize with the sentiments of the public testimony today This product application does make sense and I will be voting in favor.

Thank you.

I'm sure I am in a former life 20-something years ago lived across the street from this property in Mallard Landing, so that was my children attended Peregrine Elementary and And so I too am concerned about the traffic flow. I think that's an issue that we need to deal with ACHD on and to look at that. I was encouraged when I read the application because I do agree that I think with the pathway and the 10-mile canal there, we will get... uh a significant amount of green space in there and especially with if the pathway as the applicant said will connect to the bridge that goes across the whitestone estates i think that's great because i know that's the way the kids go to school in the morning so i will also support this thank you

Well, Madam Chair, not to repeat what everybody said, I'll just say I'm supportive the application as is adding in residential as opposed to what we could have had as far as commercial. I know folks are frustrated regarding the traffic flow. Certainly in our Valley, as we continue to grow, we will continue to have increased traffic congestion. The purpose of right in right out access is to. Provide safe access to people on these.

project so ACHD is trying to address safety within the scope of the existing design of Linda Road and what they have so I'm gonna vote in support of it with that in mind after considering all staff applicant and public testimony I moved to recommend approval to City Council for file H 2026-0028 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 3rd second It's been moved and second to approve Findlay Cove as a recommendation to a comprehensive land use amendment from commercial medium density to city council. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries.

Madam Commissioner.

Yes.

Permission to speak.

What would you like? This application is closed. So if you're speaking on Findlay Cove, we are no longer taking testimony.

Understood. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. All right, item number four is NOLA requests a comprehensive land use amendment from commercial to industrial at 120 NOLA Road. And we will begin with the staff report.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Commission. The next applications before you are a request for comprehensive plan map amendment and annexation and zoning. This site consists of 1.61 acres of land. It's owned RUT in Ada County and is located at 120 North Nola Road, just north of East Franklin Road on the east side of Nola. The comprehensive plan future land use map designation is commercial. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation on 1.61 acres of land from commercial to industrial and annexation of 1.61 acres of land with IL light industrial zoning. The subject property is an infield piece of land in the county surrounded by city annexed land. The area to the north and to the west across NOLA Road is zoned IL and developed with industrial uses and the property to the south and east is zoned CG. The property to the east is developed with a mix of commercial uses and the property to the south is developed with a minor vehicle repair shop, which is more industrial in nature. A conceptual development plan and building elevations were submitted as shown demonstrating how the site is proposed to develop with an 18,750 square foot flex warehouse building, drive aisles and parking with yard space behind the building. The proposed use is principally permitted in the IL zoning district subject to specific use standards. The concept plan depicts access via NOLA Road. Because of the difference in elevation in this area, the terrain slopes approximately 10 feet from the east to the west property line. And because the existing and budding developments did not provide cross access to this site, staff is not recommending cross access drives or easements are provided to those properties. Staff is of the opinion the proposed map amendment from commercial to industrial and proposed development plan will be more compatible with adjacent predominantly industrial uses than commercial use would be and supports the request. There has been no written testimony received on this application and staff is recommending approval with the requirement of a development agreement that requires future development to be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan and building elevations proposed with this application. Staff will stand for any questions.

Would the applicant like to come forward? Hi, if you can state your name and address for the record, please. Absolutely.

Madam Chair, members of the Commission, my name is Chad Jones. 1119 East State, Eagle, Idaho, representing the ALC architecture. Sonia did an awesome job with this. I'm not sure exactly what else to add. I have a presentation, and I may not have you put it up, Sonia. Is it already up? Fine. I'll use it. Cool.

The mouse is a little squirrely. You might want to use arrows.

Oh, gotcha. I'm going to skip all this, all the other stuff that she so very well explained. This parcel of land has been here since I was a kid. I grew up in Meridian. I used to run by here training for cross-country. So I know it well. Anyways. I'm going to skip through this. I'm going to get back to this last slide just to kind of explain in visual perspective of what's really there. To the north, we have advanced. They're kind of an industrial supply store. To the south is driven automotive. It's very much, as Sonja had mentioned, a very industrial in use type of a structure. Of course, Cope collision across the street and Sensco just to the north and to the west. So the uses surrounding this piece of property are very much industrial in use. Gaining access to the, I guess it would be the east, would be quite a challenge. And if this were a commercial, it'd be quite a challenge also just to even get anybody off of Franklin Road to even go there. So I don't have anything more to say. I'll stand for any questions you might have.

Commissioner, do we have any questions for Chad? I think we're good for right now. Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up for testimony?

Thank you, Madam Chair. No one has signed up and no one is attending online.

Is there anybody in chambers that would like to speak on this application? Chad, are you good? All right. May I get a motion to close a public hearing?

Second.

It's been moved and second to close a public hearing at 120 North NOLA for a comprehensive land use amendment from Commercial Industrial. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. I think the businesses that are currently there are destination businesses. I don't think anybody is, I mean, driven promotes some purchasing, but you know, you go to cope collision because you got a problem with your car. So, you know, having this as, as flex space to support, whether these businesses or others to be a destination for something specific use makes sense to me for this infill project. Any other comments? Motion.

Madam Chair.

Commissioner Smith.

After considering all staff applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council file number H-2026-0005 as presented in the staff reports. Second.

It's been moved and seconded to approve NOLA's land use amendment. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much.

Madam chair, just a quick point. Uh, I guess you could call a parliamentary point, um, Sonia, Sonia, just a quick item. The, uh, on the agenda, the public, the, um, H dash 2 0 2 6 4 NOLA is 0 0 2 5. And on the report, it's 0 0 5. Just for the record, want to make sure 0 0 2 5. Okay.

Right about that.

That's all right.

Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you.

All right, next on our agenda is the city of meridians planning department requests a comprehensive plan amendment to align with Idaho state code and we will begin with a staff report.

Thank you, madam chair members of the Commission just one moment while we pull up my presentation. All right, good evening Madam chair members of the kitchen, my name is Carl Anderson I'm a longer ends associate planner here with the city of Meridian tonight I'm here to present hearing case H 2026 0038 to city initiated conference of plan text amendment. And the purpose of this amendment to the comprehensive plan is to update the plan in compliance with the amended Idaho State land or amendments to Idaho State Local Land Use Planning Act. Specifically, Idaho State Code 676542 and 676541 related to starter home subdivisions and accessory dwelling units. Both new sections of Idaho code were recently adopted by the state legislature in the spring of this year, 2026, under House Bill HB 1352 and HB 1354. And with an additional amendment to be proposed with this application being to update the list of adopted plans and studies of the city's comprehensive plan. The first proposed amendment is related to the starter home element of this amendment. The state legislator required that by February 1, 2027, cities with a population of 10,000 or more amend their comprehensive plan and land use regulations to allow starter home subdivisions in all residential zoning districts A concurrent amendment to the UDC has also been submitted to align with the state statute requirement, which is scheduled scheduled for the Commission at a hearing later this evening. The proposed language to be adopted within the conference of plan is under policy 2.01010. support starter home subdivisions in all residential areas of the city. Additionally, starter home subdivisions as defined by Idaho code 676541 are allowed in all residential zoning districts. The intention of starter home subdivision is to reduce barriers of entry to home ownership. This would be found on page 3-11 of the plan. The second amendment tonight's text amendment is similar to the previously mentioned to relate to accessory dwelling units. By February 1, 2027, cities with a population of 10,000 or more may amend their comprehensive plan and local land use regulations to allow for accessory dwelling units in all residential zoning areas. And similarly, a concurrent amendment to the city's UDC has been proposed tonight. This would, the proposed text would be located in chapter 2.0101P, support accessory dwelling units in all residential areas of the city. This would be located on page 2-4 of the plan moving forward. And just one quick point of clarification, both, rather than House bills, both were actually Senate bills. And I just want to clarify that for the record. And finally, an amendment to the list of adopted plans and studies. This is a housekeeping item. The city recently updated and adopted a new historic preservation plan, which was adopted, I believe, in April of 2026. This would strike out the 2014 version of the plan and update the plan with the 2026 version. The link and the associated table would also be updated. All public notification requirements have been met. No written public comment has been received. Agency comments have been provided and are included in the packet for your review. Staff recommends approval of H-2026-0038, a proposed comprehensive plan and text amendment, with next steps being a recommendation to city council. And with that, all I'm happy to stand for any questions the commission may have.

Okay. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify?

Thank you, Madam Chair. No one has signed up.

Commissioners, do we have any questions for Carl? I have one question. When you define a starter home subdivision, is that like a full-on parcel community, or are we just talking about starter homes to be defined as a certain thing?

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Commission. As we've written it, we haven't included a separate definition within the comprehensive plan for starter home subdivisions. We'd be referring back to the Idaho State statute as it's included in there. That is included in the packet. And if you'd like, I can pull that up for you as well.

No, but I mean, but there's a definition of what it is. So as developers start looking at parcels within our community, they can use the designation of starter home subdivision if they wanted to develop a piece of land.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Commission. I believe there's a definition within state statute. It has been a little bit since I've reviewed it myself, but I would be happy to verify that. But I would refer it to state statute for what would constitute a starter home subdivision, as well as what the city's updated unified development code would include as eventually adopted.

I'm guessing that might be a question from Council as well, so. Just to find that within your presentation to be helpful, I mean I read it, but that was a few hours ago and and just to clarify any other questions Madam chair, Commissioner just Amina.

Carl, on page 82 of the staff report, proposed addition to chapter three, evolving community, new text, quote, starter home subdivisions as defined by Idaho code 67-6541 are allowed in all residential zoning districts, so on and so forth. Should that read 67-6542? And if so, do we need to have a vote on amending that?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the Commission, one moment, if you would.

Madam Chair. Yes. I can answer that question. So it is 676541 is the starter homes statute. Does that line up with what is in the

I think the starter homes was showing us 67 dash. So in staff analysis A1, amend the text of the plan to align with new Idaho state code section 67-6542 starter home subdivisions as amended by Idaho Senate Bill 1352. But then below in the proposed new text, it says starter home subdivisions as defined by Idaho code 67-6541.

Madam Chair, Commissioner, it's 6541. So if it says 42, I think that's the typo.

And Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the green underlying text looks to include 6541. That's correct. 6542 is referenced in the paragraph above, but the proposed text itself would be 6541 for starter home subdivisions. Okay.

Good catch, but he got it right.

Thank you.

All right. Any other comments?

Madam Chair.

Commissioner Stahl.

Carl, I won't ask the question that will put you on the spot on your personal opinion about whether this will do any good or not, but do you know if any of our legislators reached out to the city or to the Association of Idaho Cities to see whether asking their opinion about whether this was a good piece of legislation and of value?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. Assistant Director Hood may be able to answer a portion of this. I do believe that Idaho APA Association, American Planning Association Chapter of Idaho was engaged. I don't know for certainty if Association of Idaho Cities was engaged, but Caleb may be able to speak to that as related to the city's elements.

madam chair commissioners commissioner stall uh yeah the city's pretty large and there were they did reach out a lot of the language in a couple of statutes that we're talking about this evening though some of the language that we preferred didn't make it into the final draft of the bills but we were consulted to some degree there was also a subcommittee of legislators that met several times uh this last summer and and drafted some of what you read in in the code um again and we can talk about this in a couple of applications i got kind of Carl and I are kind of tag-teaming this. He's got the comp plan side, and I've got the code side here in a little bit. But we can talk about some of the things. I'm hopeful that maybe this next session can get cleaned up so it can be used a little bit more, the way that some of the text reads isn't very clear and, again, isn't very usable for the development community. including even the definition starter home. There's nothing about it being for first-time homebuyers or anything like that. So the effectiveness of this bill is still to be determined. But I think there's some work that we can be done. Again, I think some of the city's collective thoughts and hopes, dreams, wishes of what this maybe could be at the state level made it, you know, landed on the cutting room floor. But I think maybe some of that will come back for discussion this next session.

Thank you. Appreciate that.

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the Commission. I would like to revisit one point of order as brought up by Commissioner Gelsomino. Yes. So this is something that actually came up during the review of the Senate bills related to starter home subdivisions and accessory dwelling units. I believe this was why we have the Scribner's error in the text. It's possible, and bear with me, that it's 6542. I believe both Senate bills reference the same section of Idaho code. If I'm remembering correctly, I could be mistaken. I believe both were referencing 6541. When on the state legislator's website, it's 6541 in parentheses 6542. Okay. Um, and so I believe it's actually 6542 for the starter home subdivisions and accessory dwelling unit would be 6541. Um, you may want to include a can, uh, condition to just ensure that that's corrected for the final, um, there, but that, that this came up during the review.

Okay. Do we need to have any words? for a motion to verify the actual numbers, or is it more of a typo type thing?

Madam Chair, it's 67-65-41. That's simply the way it is. So if it's wrong somewhere, it's okay to call it a typo, I think, and just move on if that works for you.

Yes. All right. May I get a motion to close the public hearing?

So moved. Seconded.

It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing at age 2026-0038. The planning division's request for comprehensive plan text amendments to align with Idaho State Code and new language for the 2026 Historic Preservation Plan. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. We're following the rules of the legislature to incorporate this into our language in our city. And I am encouraged that the city will hopefully work with the legislature at this session coming up in 2027 to kind of define some of these things a little bit better so that we can have some clear direction going forward with starter homes, ADUs, and And then to update the historic preservation plan, I'm excited about because I'd love to see more of our historical buildings and communities in our city being acknowledged. Any other comments?

and i'm sure if i may commissioner stowe i'm just like to say i'm pleased to hear that there was some effort of outreach um and i'm not surprised that there was some of the comments around the cutting room floor um it's a messy process and hopefully things are fixed i do wish that The legislature would allow the cities to determine their own destiny instead of trying to micromanage them. But with that, I will make a motion. Thank you. On this proposal. After considering all staff applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2026-0038 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 3rd, 2026. Seconded.

It's been moved and seconded to approve file H-2026-0038. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Our next application is also a comprehensive text amendment to address the 10 mile interchange specific area plan. And that item number is H2026-0037. And we will start with the staff report.

Thank you madam chair members of the commission car understand again. tonight i'm here to present hearing case 2026 h-2026-0037 city initiated future land use map amendment to the 10 mile interchange specific area plan a brief overview of tonight's comprehensive plan map amendment i'll probably be referring to this as a cpam for short moving forward The City of Meridian Planning Division is applying for the amendment following discussion by City Council on April 14, 2026, where Council heard a land use application located south of Franklin Road and west of Black Cat Road, during which Council expressed a desire for further evaluation of the flume designation within the general vicinity. um after which staff initiated a review of the land use designations within the 10 10 mile interchange specific area plan and evaluated options to improve alignment of land use designations with a comprehensive plan as a whole Consideration for the future land use map amendment was given to designations where there's existing zoning or land use entitlements. It was most similar to existing designations. That is, future land use map designations as adopted by the 10 mile interchange specific area plan and development trends, as well as prior council discussion. The proposed amendment is to the future land use map only and does not propose to modify the text of the 10 mile plan nor existing zoning destinations or establish entitlements in the area. The request does involve multiple parcels scattered throughout the plan area, amending 847 acres, more or less. This request amends the flume from mixed-use commercial, mixed-use residential, mixed employment, low-density employment, and high-density residential to mixed-use neighborhood, mixed-use community, mixed-use non-residential, medium-high-density residential, commercial, and industrial. And I'll go through these areas in a little bit more detail further. And of note, this amendment is intended to wholly just to amend those uses within the 10 mile plan that are wholly unique to the 10 mile plan, aligning them with comparable citywide designations. So the image you have before you is the 10 mile interchange plan that was adopted in 2027 and the land uses that were envisioned at that time. Here you should see some of these elements highlighted, which indicate areas where there have been changes or deviations from the plan in general. It's not application specific, but general areas for them. This plan was adopted in 2027, and since that time, there have been several modifications to the plan area. Staff did further evaluate land uses of the 10 mile plan as a whole, and staff did explore whether or not to retire the plan in its entirety or include potential text of the plan into the comprehensive plan itself. Staff are proposing an amendment to the future land use map only at this time, though have noted that future change may be considered by the city moving forward at some point in the future. The image you have here is the existing future land use map designations within the 10 mile area as they are currently adopted. You'll see some of those areas that were called out on the prior slide where those areas have deviated somewhat from what was originally envisioned for the plan. One thing I would like to note is that the symbology or color scheme that was used for some of these areas is different, though the designation is the same. For example, mixed employment has gray and some highlighted dots on it, whereas prior it was more of a light blue. Just to identify a few of these areas, for example, the Lifestyle Center has originally adopted north of the 10-mile interchange, and I-84 was envisioned for Lifestyle Center and heavy employment along I-84 in alignment with the vision of the 10-mile plan, which was ENVISIONED TO ACCOMMODATE FUTURE JOB GENERATION PREDOMINANTLY ALONG THE INTERSTATE UPWARDS OF 20,000 JOBS TO I BELIEVE 10,000 RESIDENTS AT THE HIGH FUTURE BUILDOUT FOR THE PLAN AREA. MANY OF THE PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS THAT YOU'LL SEE ARE PROPOSED TO ALIGN AGAIN MOST SIMILARLY WITH THOSE USES THERE AND INTENDED TO PRESERVE THE EMPLOYMENT THAT WAS ENVISIONED WITH THE PLAN. Today, approximately 71.5% of the land use area of the 10 mile plan has been annexed into City of Meridian city limits. This image here is slightly updated from the version you had within your report, which now includes the project that was south and west of Franklin and Black Cat. depicting the zoning and land use as nations, though there are two applications that are called out here in case applications that are still under review and forthcoming. More than 90% of the residential areas, mixed use and special areas of the plan have been brought into city limits, have received some form of zoning, and with many of those receiving entitlements as well. Approximately 55% of the employment areas that were envisioned have been annexed. with the majority of the remaining areas being employment areas. The plan originally, as indicated, envisioned employment generation occurring along I-84 and future state Highway 16. You'll note in attachment B-2 to your staff report, there was a review of the 10-mile plan done in 2022, 2022, which evaluated the entitlements to date and potential future build out of the plan. The envisioned jobs to housing ratio of the plan at the high level was 2.5 jobs to dwelling units. The high range actually was all the way up to 3.3. The medium was 2.5 and the low was 2.0. As of the analysis that was done in 2022, it was then 0.6 of jobs to dwelling unit ratio and estimated that a potential future max build out then would be 1.7 jobs to housing ratio. So still short of the low end of what was originally envisioned. And I think that's just important to note as we're looking at this and for some of the 90 designations that we're proposing to preserve some of those areas. That being said, there are some areas of deviation, and we'll talk through that. So again, when proposing a land use as a nation step generally apply to land use that accomplishes one or more of the following is most similar to the existing land use designation. aligns with development trends in a given area or lines with existing conditions on a given property, including developed and as entitled. The map you have here are the areas of change. There are approximately nine areas that I've separated out in the report for ease of review. You'll note there are four 10-mile specific area designations that are currently applied. The Lifestyle Center and High Density Employment are no longer designated currently, though the text remains in the plan. The low density employment, mixed employment, mixed use residential, and mixed use commercial are shown here. The mixed employment area accounts for the largest portion of the land area included within this request. Mixed employment areas were intended to provide a diversity of compatible land uses, inclusive office research, specialized employment areas, as well as light industrial, such as manufacturing and assembly. The intention of the mixed employment areas was to provide a variety of flexible sites for small startup businesses, as well as sites for large national regional enterprises. Low-density employment was originally envisioned as low-rise offices, specialized employment areas, and would not generally include retail and consumer services. Line uses would be comprised of corporate business offices as well as research facilities and laboratories. Mixed-use commercial, MU-COM, just for clarity, there is some similarity between abbreviations that you'll see in the report. The purpose of the mixed-use commercial designation is to encourage the development of a mixture of office retail, recreational employment, and other miscellaneous uses with supporting multifamily or single-family attached residential uses. And finally, the mixed-use residential was intended to encourage a diversity of compatible land uses that may include a mixture of residential office, retail, recreational employment, and other miscellaneous uses. One additional designation that I'd like to note here is the high density residential located east of 10 mile north of Franklin. This area, while it has a designation of high density residential, has built in a more industrial manner, is where you'll find the Amazon shipping services, I believe a FedEx facility and so forth, as noted in the staff report. The proposed amendments here, you'll note staff are proposing to remove the areas for those 10-mile specific designations for low-density employment, mixed employment, mixed-use residential, and mixed-use commercial, and designate those areas as low-density, or excuse me, industrial, mixed-use non-residential, mixed-use community, and mixed-use neighborhood, as well as a commercial area as well. For the area located west of Black Cat, staff are proposing a general industrial or industrial future land use designation consistent with the development trends that we're seeing south of Franklin and several of the pre-applications that we've seen coming in moving forward to the north of Franklin and consistent with the low-density employment and mixed employment elements of the plan and preserving the employment vision of the plan. Mixed use community is promote is proposed just north and east of Franklin and black cat intended to serve as somewhat of a buffer between the school site there and the neighborhood as well. And while maintaining some of the employment opportunity as envisioned by the mixed employment designation there. Mixed use non-residential is proposed further to the south on Black Cat, consistent with the mixed employment as well, and also consistent with the zoning designation there. And the zoning for that site is also consistent with the sample zoning for the mixed use non-residential. Mixed use community is where you would find mixed use commercial from the plan for several areas, specifically the 10 Mile and Franklin intersection area. You'll note the industrial where the high density residential had been originally and the general and the industrial where the mixed employment was previously and also consistent with much of the zoning in that area. A medium high density designation is proposed here where there are existing apartment use as well as a portion of it that is some retail style commercial, which is consistent with the text of the designation for the 10 mile plan as well. And I'll touch on that here in just a moment. And then looking south of I-84 along Overland, much of this area has been designated as mixed employment. Staff are proposing mixed use non-residential for much of this area as well. And again, consistent with the employment division for this area. Commercial is proposed over the Kendall Ford Auto service area consistent with their use that's established. Should be noted that should additional uses be proposed for this site, there is an existing DA that would need to be addressed with the site as well. and then mixed-use commercial south of Overland, community south of Overland, consistent with the existing mixed-use commercial. And one thing I'd like to note just moving forward as well is staff are not proposing again to amend the text of the plan. So the design elements and transportation elements of the plan are still in place currently. So as development moves forward, especially for those areas where there is text with the plan, those areas will still need to follow the transportation and design elements of the plan. A public notification requirements have been met courtesy notice was sent to all property affected property owners, whose properties were included in this request. Written public comments have not been received the staff has received several phone calls on inquiring about the proposed to come plan map amendment agency comments are have been received and are included in the packet. staff recommends approval of the comprehensive plan future land use map amendments and are happy to stand for any questions that the commission may have madam clerk do we have anybody signed up to testify thank you madam chair no one oh i'm sorry um richard ellis has signed up good evening 225 north blackout road meridian thank you

I urge you to reject this proposed amendment to the 10-mile interchange area for a couple of reasons. And can I read from the official document itself on the 10-mile interchange? The final suggestions or recommendations given to the city on this was to maximize employment. That sounds good. However, when you look at what it says about industrial, it says they have a relatively smaller workforce. Now, this was written 20 years ago before automation and robotics started. So it's possible now to build an industrial plant, a fabrication plant, with no employees. Everything's run by machinery. That's low employment. So I think that they are missing the boat on that in those two areas, west of Linder and west of Black Cat Road, adding that in. I think that flies in the face of the recommendations. And secondly, the plan calls for best use, and I did hear Craig talking about this, best use of each area in concert with the others. Now, this area on Black Cat, As I'm familiar with here, there's a school there now. There's a subdivision. There's a subdivision being built as we speak there. And there's a spot in the past that was for a school. I don't know if they've changed that or not, but there was another school there. And the plan calls for a buffering zone between residential and industrial. So we need to do that buffering in there. So... For those reasons, I ask you to reject this plan and have Planning Department redo it and go back. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, anyone else to testify?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have Doug Bloomberg. Julie. Carl. I don't know if they signed up for a different hearing, but.

No. Did you have something to say? Yes, please come up. If you can state your name and address for the record.

This is Kathy Aberstury, and I'm at 88 North Black Cat Road. Okay. And... The the place that most concerns me is on black cat north of franklin because I live right there and. the school is right directly behind me. And I'm sure that eventually I'll get swallowed up, but currently the traffic during school time is crazy there. It's absolutely crazy because they park all along Black Cat Road to get into the main entrance of the school right directly across where it proposes to change it to commercial. And so I just think that area needs to be a buffer area one for the community because there's residents right there and nobody wants to look across the street at a warehouse from your front porch. And I just think it's, it makes it more, you know, It feels dangerous for the kids, for the traffic situation that's already there. I mean, today at 4 o'clock, there was two accidents on Black Cat Road. It was so crazy. It was incredible. And to add delivery vans and semi-trucks going in and out of a commercial property directly across the street from the main entrance of the school, I think is a disservice to the community. And I would like that portion of land north of Franklin to be rejected on this plan.

Okay. Do we know when Black Cat between Cherry Lane and Franklin is supposed to be widened? It's probably 20, what is it, 2026 right now. So I'm guessing 2030 to 2035, that that's gonna go to five lanes. So two in each direction with a center divider, just like 10 Mile is between Cherry and Ustick. They're all gonna be very similar. I just don't know the timeframe off the top of my head. And the other thing that, and I can't speak to this and maybe Carl can, is that if there's going to be commercial across the street from Compass and where you live, the way ACHD has been developing USIC, I live in the impact area of Highway 16, is that there's going to be one central entrance in to access that commercial. So you're not going to have like a storefront right in front of your house with neon lights, O'Reilly's blinking out. It's more going to be a drive aisle, a berm, a setback. possibly if it's retail, it's going to be parking or the building's going to be set back. And so there's going to be a buffer between not only the road to be widened, but for you to have that commercial pushed back almost to that house with the playground in front of it, it's going to be further back. Now I, It all depends on who purchases it and how it goes. But we'll just have to kind of wait and see. But the text amendment that they're proposing now is to be able to encourage employment and put the comprehensive plan more in line of what the long-term vision of the city is in regard to not only the school area, but Highway 16 and how they're going to handle that with the flow.

They want to change that to general industrial. And I just, I don't know. I don't want a warehouse across the street.

I agree. I agree. And we'll have to get a better definition of what that actually means. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Or did you have anything else to say? You're good. Carl, did you want to make any comments to her to her statement?

Thank you madam chair members of commission, just a few additional items so friend mcclure confirmed for me black cat why name between chair lane and Franklin timeline would be 2041 oh 41 oh my gosh okay. So and related to the area just to focus for a West of black cat. So. the current designation for the area just West or excuse me, East of black cat North of Franklin is currently designated mixed employment, uh, looking what West of black cat would be low density employment generation. Um, The proposal currently for the area moving forward so east of black cat it would be mixed use. Community. Again, recognizing the school site located there and serving as a buffer between. future industrial development and residential uses at that location. The general industrial again is somewhat following development patterns that we've seen in the area with the industrial just west of where it's currently proposed existing on the plan today.

Right.

um the definition of the comp plan for industrial designations is uses that would support industrial and commercial activities industrial uses might include warehousing storage units light manufacturing flex incidental and retail office uses it's still envisioned again with the text of the plan remaining that the text of the plan related to industrial uses would also apply so those uses as development occurs would be subject to the elements within that area right

Does that give you a little bit better definition of what that means? It could be like a storage facility. It could be a low rise. It would be a building for employment, but it wouldn't be high retail with multiple trips per day. I mean, if a developer buys it, they have a right to be able to develop it, right? I mean, so, but they also need to have access as well as, you know, it has to make sense so they can make money. They're not going to do it otherwise. Unfortunately, for those of us that are holdouts, because I'm a holdout on Ustick as well, we're getting squeezed out by other things because we choose to stay. and uh so it's it's challenging i lost my whole front yard to um itd and achd is going to take the rest you know a good portion of my alpha field so i feel you because we choose to stay and yet the city continues to grow around us so um but uh without black cat being um developed until 2041 to a five lane it may be a long time before um those uses come to fruition so

um may i have a motion to close oh do you have a question yeah i was just wondering um if you could speak to a little bit of the concern around uh industrial new residential i think especially is kind of near that high density residential that's what i was seeing um if you could speak to that um and kind of how the city plans on still ensuring that there's still some buffer space

yes uh thank you madam chair members of commission um so a portion of this was as you as called out here um designated as mixed use community um to provide further buffer space there um looking back at the history uh for the plan area uh looking at a 20 22 element of the plan some of this area was it looks to be envisioned to be industrial prior to the adoption of the 10 mile plan when the 2019 comprehensive plan was adopted looking north of the the railroad tracks some of that low density area was also proposed to be industrial and some of that area was reduced to from that industrial to be low density employment as well. As the plan as development occurs, the development would need to meet the elements of the 10 mile plan and so forth. It's possible that another designation may be proposed for that area. However, it would be preferred that it, you know, be either the industrial or mixed use non-residential, again, consistent with the employment elements of the plan.

Thank you.

Any other questions? May I get a motion to close the public hearing?

So moved. Second.

It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H2026-0037, Comprehensive Text Amendment for the 10 Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. It's hard. I mean, this is a crystal ball, right? We're, we're assuming if, if you, if you let it, they will come. But, you know, and I sympathize with the family that lives off a black cat and that as we choose to stay, it, it, it becomes challenging because You feel like the Stuart Little House among skyscrapers, right? But as our city grows and progresses, and we want people to live, work, and play in our community, creating employment opportunities continues to be imperative. for our community as well. We're always going to play catch up. It's never going to be the roads are built first, and then the businesses come, the businesses will come and the road improvements will happen, unfortunately. And so we'll just have to kind of see how this plays out. As far as creating a text amendment to the comprehensive plan, I'm in support of this. And as we, as a commission and city council decide on each individual application, we can address those as they come forward. Any other comments?

Madam chair.

Commissioner Gelsomino.

There are no further comments. After considering all staff applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2026-0037 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 3rd, 2026. Second.

It's been moved and second to approve file 2026-0037. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. All right, we got one more. Everybody ready to go? They may need a break. We're good. All right. Item number ZOA 2026-0001, City of Meridian Planning Division requests a UDC text amendment to update the code in regard to manufacturing homes, ADUs, and starter home subdivisions. And we will begin with the staff report.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Commission. Give me just one second here to share this. John Potter, apologize, the beginning of this presentation it's not as no pretty pictures like Carl has it's it's just the text from the staff report, because this is a text amendment to the code so um. I'm going to scroll through the staff report. If you want to follow along on your computers, this should look familiar to you. Hopefully you had a chance to review this before my presentation, but again, this is in your packet and I'm just going to kind of scroll through. As we kind of talked about a little bit before, two projects or two applications ago, Mr. Anderson had kind of the companion application that addresses the comprehensive plan and a couple of policies within the text to address two of the three topics that this agenda item addresses. So accessory dwelling units or ADUs, I'll probably say ADU a few times. So accessory dwelling units and then starter home subdivisions. And I'll just say starter home subdivisions. So this is, again, the code that then enables the comp plan policies going forward. So we'll go through the text that we've proposed. I will also say we have Ms. Kane here. She was very active, I know, in presenting to council, and I've coordinated with her and others in legal and other departments of the city to have some of these proposals. So there could still be errors. I just wanted to let you know this just isn't my brainchild that it has been vetted through others at the city, too. So I think the first thing, and this one will start kind of going easiest to hardest, I guess, a little bit. Manufactured homes. I won't read this to you, but there's the house bill number, the two sections of code that address manufactured dwellings. City code already actually addresses this, but only for single family dwellings. So pretty simple fix within the definitions of multifamily. I'm proposing to amend the code to just address, and this is not quite verbatim, but it's very, very similar to the legislation noted above about multifamily dwelling units that are manufactured and constructed in accordance with HUD. They actually use some other words in there like cited and things like that within the definition. But I think this portrays kind of that, yes, you can pre-manufacture a unit, bring it on site, and it still counts as a dwelling unit. You don't have to stick build them. So maybe I'll pause that one again. I think it's low-hanging fruit. Get us warmed up a little bit. That's the first proposed change to the UDC. Pretty straightforward. And quite honestly, even if the legislature didn't change this, it's probably just a good thing for us to do. So this one, no real issues with.

No, I mean, there's a trend where people are building houses out of Legos, right? So they're building them off-site and then they're just snapping them all together. So that trend is going to continue. Matter of fact, what's the name of the company off of Robinson? AutoVol, that they make the apartments in pieces and then they just stick them together.

Modular construction is becoming more and more popular.

Right. And so the fact that the city is addressing that and that can be part of the conversation is a good thing.

Okay, if there's no other comments, I'll jump to the second one and maybe just begin to pick up kind of where you all left off with the comp plan sections. I think what we got hung up on a little bit is these bills were tracking at the same time to the legislature, so they actually both did propose 67-65-41, but you can't have two different 65-41s. So ADUs won out, and they're 65-41, and starter homes is 65-42. But at the time they were actually going through the process, they were both 65-41. Right. So... Yeah, so I think it's correct in the comp plan and what you see here, but that was some of what was going on there. So the legislature did require cities of 10,000 or more, again, in Idaho. So obviously Meridian is subject to this legislation. These changes, again, they're not all new. We do already have address accessory dwelling units, also known as secondary dwelling units in our code. I just put the definition here just for background. There's no change for our current definition. We're good there, consistent with state law. The first one I think I want to highlight is, and this is all under specific use standards for accessory doling units, is section E. And I'm sorry for the... The spacing here, there should be a line break here. This is subsection E and the maximum size. So you can see today code limits an ADU maximum size to be 900 square feet. And the legislation has been amended to prohibit a city from prohibiting an ADU smaller than 1,000 square feet. or more than 75% of the primary dwelling size. And this is important, whichever is greater. It doesn't say that in the code, but that's been the interpretation, and that's how we're going to apply this. So in theory, you could have a 4,000 square foot home, which isn't uncommon in Meridian. There are more 2,200, 2,500, 2,700 square foot homes. But a 4,000 square foot home, just for simple math, gives you a 3,000 square foot ADU, but very large ADU. Most ADUs are more in the 900 to 1,000 square feet size. But in theory, you could have a pretty large ADU with this. But again, I think this is one of those things that they will clean up, hopefully, fingers crossed, this next session and clarify the intent of this based on some of the sponsors of the bill and some of the discussion. We understand this was the intent of legislation, but again, it doesn't read exactly this way, but that's how we're going to put it into effect and we can't prohibit the number of bedrooms. So if you had a bunch of eight by eight bedrooms, you probably could get a three or four bedroom maybe even out of an ADU. Don't see that happening probably a ton or again the 3,000 square foot example, we just don't have a whole very many lots in Meridian that you could fit that and still meet setbacks to put a really large ADU on. I'm not too worried about us being inundated with extra large ADUs, but that's the first change there. Not a whole lot we can do. Again, this is sort of mandated to us, kind of Commissioner Stahl's comment last time. The state's telling us what's in our best interest, so we really can't change that. Parking, this is one where we have a little more discretion. Again, my opinion, not necessarily that of the city, so a little disclaimer there. I think the language in the bill is just bad regarding parking. It's very confusing, wonky. They talk about proximity to parking. transit and business opportunities. And it's just very difficult to measure and bus routes can change over time and things like that. So I just don't know how we would manage that. So at the end of the day, and we've talked to council a little bit about this, and I think at this point anyways, they're comfortable with not having a parking requirement for ADUs. We would still have a parking requirement for the primary dwelling. So you can't convert that. And again, depending on how many bedrooms you have in the primary dwelling would dictate how many parking stalls, garage covered stalls and surface pad sites. But for the ADU itself, we are not looking to require a parking spot. So that is a change. Today we do require one. Or if you've got enough and over parked for your single family primary dwelling, you can count that.

But no parking requirements.

The next one I want to touch on is just design real quick. And this is a really just they can't be taller than the primary dwelling. So we're putting that in our code. Certainly can't exceed the height of the zone, but it can't be taller than the principal dwelling unit. And I think the last one I wanted to highlight for you is, and this probably doesn't even need to be said, but we are, again, just matching some of the language in the code. Before, currently, we already have a vehicle or tent. It doesn't count as an ADU. We just added to that laundry list of things that you can't call a dwelling unit. So a motorhome, a camper, an RV, tiny home on wheels, none of those constitute an ADU. Yeah.

Can we go back to design for a second? So I'll give a hypothetical, you know, example. So I'm in an old Craftsman downtown Meridian on a big extended lot. But I'm barely one story because that was built in 1940. And my house is, you know, 1,500 square feet. So... I can build 1,000 square foot ADU. But what you're telling me is that it has to be one story. It can't be taller than the building that's in front of it.

That's correct. That is how this would read. If your existing primary dwelling is 20 feet tall, that's the maximum height that your ADU could be. That's correct. It cannot be taller than, at least how it's worded here. This is one where we do have some discretion. The bill did not actually say... It was silent on this more. It does have some allowances for design so the city can pick and choose what they want to put in their code as far as fit and feel of an ADU. This is something, and again, in conversations with staff and even in council, making it clear that, nope, the ADU can't be three stories if you've got a single story.

No, I agree with that, but is it too limiting to say that it can't be that tall, or just, what did you call it, a design in kind, or what did you just say?

I don't remember.

Just say two seconds ago.

design standards i mean yeah yeah i mean so we do have some discretion and again you're you are recommending to the council so if you don't like the way this reads we can amend it and we do have some latitude here to to say if you want to say you know no taller than 10 over the primary dwelling or something like that you you know that you could do something like that again i think the concern was if we don't address height and it made sense just to say no taller than at least in previous conversations um But there's nothing, we wouldn't be prohibited per se in saying, yep, it can be 20% taller, no more than 20% taller than the primary dwelling when it's a single story or even two story. Okay. There's other ways, many ways you could skin this cat. It was just meant, again, where someone doesn't say context of the neighborhood.

Right.

35 foot maximum tall building when most of the dwellings are 17 foot to the peak.

Right.

Doesn't fit the neighborhood character. So we're just, let's just head that off before it becomes a problem. okay but yes you could you could change that and i think again i think that's most of the rest of it is um existing code this is just the cleanup to what i was talking about before in secondary dwellings or accessory dwellings or require one for them in conjunction with the number of bedrooms for So that table will need to be amended accordingly. But I'll pause again for any more comments or questions on the changes for ADUs.

Just, Madam Chair, if I may.

Uh-huh, Commissioner Stoll.

Caleb. Do we have any limitations on how close to the lot line they can build the ADU? Or, I mean, do we have any discretion on that? And another one, not in a particular reason I'm asking this, but... What happens if somebody wanted to put an ADU on their property over the irrigation pipe for the subdivision?

Yeah. Specific. Madam Chair, Commissioner Stahl, commissioners. Yeah, any encumbrance for easements like that would still need to be adhered to. We wouldn't be able to issue a building permit for something that encroached on an existing easement. Regarding setbacks, it's the base zone. So the legislature, and we'll talk about this a little bit when we talk about starter home subdivisions, they did tell cities how far starter home subdivision dwellings can be from the various property lines. For ADUs, they didn't address that. um and i'm not proposing to either it's just whatever your base zone is so if you have a 20 foot front your adu can't be any closer than 20 foot it's 10 12 15 is pretty typical rear setback and five on the sides r15 we do allow a three foot side so in theory you could build an adu in an r15 zone up to three feet within of the side property line um but again it's whatever the base zone setbacks are so your home if you want to do an addition on your home It'd be the same distance as an ADU. So it's the same building envelope, if you will.

City standards. Not overridden by.

That's correct. Not for ADUs. Correct.

All right.

Madam Chair.

Commissioner, just a minute.

Yeah, quick question. And it kind of touches on a little bit of things that Madam Chair spoke of a moment ago and what you were discussing a little bit ago when it comes to clarifying some of the practical reach of the of the state mandate. So because the city can't impose standards that are more restrictive standards than the new starter home minimums, Could, for example, a four plus acre parcel in a low density district like R2 or R4 see a 1500 square foot starter home lots, which effectively is a much higher density than that zone's underlying character with the commission unable to stop it on density and character grounds alone?

Madam Chair, Commissioner Joe Spino. Yeah, we're jumping right into it. That is the crux of the starter home subdivision legislation. And I'm going to talk about that a little bit. Can we put a pin in that just for a second? Yeah. Just make sure we're good here. And I have some findings even that we'll talk about that I want to propose and I think gives the seat a little more discretion. in approving these where it's not just yep you have to irregardless of you know any residential district you have to approve a starter home subdivision i think there's some some things we can consider in that but let's put a pin in that just for a second if you don't mind and i just want to make sure we're ready to go there i wasn't ready to go there just yet but but almost ready do the commissioners have any other questions about adus all right okay and so um Maybe just a little bit of, again, maybe some editorial before we jump into starter home subdivisions even more. I mean, there was quite a bit of talk with ADUs and starter home subdivisions about housing affordability in Idaho. That's been a topic, but the legislature really did spend quite a bit of time on that this last session. This bill, I'm going to talk to you about the code that's associated with it. Again, in my opinion, there's a lot of good things in it. What it doesn't have is anything that has anything to do, though, with being a starter home for anybody. And so that's one of the shortcomings, I think, is there's some loopholes that could be played here that I'm a little cautious about how it's currently written. We've got to enact it, but I am a little bit concerned about... Just saying, yep, just do starter home subdivisions as it reads now. So we'll have to do it, again, consistent with state law. But it doesn't really address the cost or that these projects are for first-time homebuyers or seniors or veterans or low-to-moderate income families or anything like that. So it doesn't have anything to do with housing affordability, really. It just has to do with lot size. So I am concerned that we, to your question, an R2 zone now, if I claim starter home subdivision, I'm 4.01 acres, I'm eligible to strip that out at 1,500 square foot lots. I can build them 35 feet tall, sell them for half a million dollars still. Or whatever. So there's nothing here that really gets to the heart of what I think the legislature was really trying to address that says, okay, if you do these subdivisions, something that gears it towards first-time homebuyers or people that need some help getting into a home. So – Or rentals, for that matter. I mean, so it doesn't prohibit it. Again, it only really talks about a subdivision and stripping out lots. So that being said, we'll comply. But I am hopeful that some changes can be made to this in the coming session and probably even the coming sessions. I don't know that we'll even get it right after this. some amendments this year, but hopefully we take some solid strides. So I will point out, I have the same topographical error here, 6541, because at the time this was 6541, but it is in fact 6542. So again, only applies to cities over 10,000 people. And again, this one has a pretty substantial impact on our zoning ordinance, our comprehensive plan, our codes. we can't ban starter home subdivisions. So they can't be outright banned, but we still do have a little discretion. Again, we'll put a pin in that again for the second time, but talk about that a little bit more as we move on to this. But if, again, if you're essentially in paraphrasing, if you have four acres or more, it's zoned residential, you're doing detached single family homes on 1500 square foot lots, you're entitled. It doesn't matter if you're R2, R4, R8, R15 or R40. It doesn't matter what your comp plan says. If you're zoning, if you have the zoning, residential zoning, you can do a starter home subdivision, so 1,500 square foot lots. So forget that we're planning for it to be low density in and have roads and sewer lines and schools that anticipated those densities you and there you could have you know an 80 acre parcel come in and strip out 1500 square foot lots and it's really not a whole lot we can say although those things I just mentioned are things we can say hey we were our sewer capacity isn't there we weren't we don't have line sized. know this is eight times the density we were planning on we can't serve it at this density so um multiple multiple sections of the udc will need to be amended i've got them listed here on the screen um i'll i'll try to be pretty brief and running through them um question kind of even previously in the comp plan we are adding a definition and this isn't the exact same words but it's pretty darn close to the to the bills language again we we are trying to mirror it as best we can um So residential zoning district, at least four acres of land, lot size for single family detached dwellings. The one thing here I want to point out is we're putting a maximum. I'm proposing a maximum square footage of 1,500. Again, I think we kind of talked about it before anyways, but there's nothing to prohibit someone from doing 8,000 square foot lots. saying i'm a starter home subdivision your typical lot they're just bypassing the whole process and saying i'm a starter home subdivision so this is one of the things i really really really want to talk to legislation legislators about this next session let's put let's put a minimum maximum to it or something like that as far as lot sizes go so just not every subdivision claiming starter home then not selling or developing for first-time home buyers or others that maybe need these so it's this is pretty key this is different than um the legislation doesn't address a maximum lot size but i am proposing that we do and so you can't have lots any bigger than 1500 square feet and there's no way to put in the language uh

something to the effect that until the definition of starter home is defined we will refer back to our city's code enforcement or something of that nature because what you're suggesting is is that if we put so say october 1st this goes on the books and some developer comes up here and says okay i've got you know 40 acres and i'm going to put 10,000 1500 lots with 15 foot setbacks, we wouldn't be able to stop. Well, I mean, there's other mechanisms in regard to like you said, utilities and city services and that type of thing. But you know, I, I'm uncomfortable with the fact that starter home is not officially defined.

So again, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, it isn't currently, but I am proposing that we define it. So if you don't meet this definition, you would not be a starter home subdivision. So you would not.

I agree. But I mean, I guess what I'm saying is like, so then they're 800,000, you know, they're not entry level homes. They're not starter homes to me is inferred that it's your first one. Right.

Yeah.

But it's not defined as that based on the legislation. And that's, that's the, that's the loophole.

It is. And I guess, um, madam chair, I'm a little concerned. And I think that's probably a little bit what they struggled with as well as how do you then police that? How do you, who verifies that? How do you mean, you know, I don't want to put that in there and we're not checking, you know, W2s and, you know, have you owned a home before and checking with, you know, mortgage companies and are you, so it is, it is a tricky topic. Um, But I think there's still some other levers you can pull that kind of at least gear towards people that are having difficulty entering the market.

Right.

If, in fact, that's the intent for this.

We have developers who push the envelope now. So this is just another mechanism to push a little harder. So that's my concern. Okay, carry on.

Okay, so moving on then a little bit. And again, this is the caveat, I guess, to all the other residential, you know, districts. This is at the very bottom of the code, which, you know, talks about all this other stuff. And then we have to say, however, a starter home subdivision, principally permitted everywhere. You can put them, you know, you can do that subdivision as long as you're four acres or more.

Right.

You can do a starter home subdivision anywhere you want in Meridian.

That means I could.

This was a clean up I'm sorry we didn't we've we over the years have changed minimum dwelling size and we no longer have a minimum dwelling size in any district so there's a couple of these hanging out there that we're still across referencing referencing a minimum dwelling size and I think that's even the next thing that I have in the staff report so doesn't really have anything to start home subdivisions is living space. It's just old code that we need to clean up. So I apologize for that. OK, some more asterisks and notes to our tables for the standards for everyone else. So setbacks were a little bit different. The legislature said 50. This is one of the ones that is on the cutting room floor. I tried to get it in front of them saying, if you have a garage, you're going to park in front of your garage. And most cars aren't 15 feet long. If you only have a 15 foot front setback to your garage, cars are going to be parked in the street or in the sidewalk. Why are you putting a 15 foot front setback? So – but whatever. They say we can't prohibit front setbacks from being any more than 15 feet. So we're going to get likely a lot of garages that are right up to 15 feet, and you're going to park your truck in front of your garage, and it's going to be middle of the street. So the other setbacks I don't really have a problem with, but that one was very confusing. I didn't really understand that. So the rest of this I think we've already talked about, but they did preempt our standards for front setbacks.

Madam Chair.

Quick question on that particular item, Caleb, being that, you know, on the side I serve on my subdivision's HOA board. When it comes to that particular detail, have HOAs been engaged with and discussions, you know, especially with them having specific guidelines and things in their CC&Rs, Are they, do they have any concerns about the flexibility and the preparedness of updating those CCNRs, depending on which direction things go?

Madam Chair, Commissioner Gelsomino, it's a tough question for me to answer. I do know that more HOAs were involved in the ADU discussions in the starter home subdivisions, and there was quite a bit of legislation talking about, you know, preempting even HOA bylaws. this on this one though i don't recall i didn't watch every single committee meeting on this but i don't recall there being you know overly active hoa presence but again i didn't watch all of them and don't know all the communications that may or may not have been had so um yeah i'm sorry i really can't directly answer that question um i haven't talked to any hoa presidents or any other hoas that brought this to my attention or had concerns because conflict with CCNRs. And then the final thing, I guess, and I alluded to this earlier, what I would propose, and this isn't just for starter home subdivisions, but this is for all subdivisions and all subdivision findings. So 116B6, so I've just, I've added the starter home subdivision to the beginning of the list, but all preliminary plots, combined preliminary final plots, short plots, the commission, the council will need to make the following findings. And all these other ones are the same. But this G, the plot is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. I think that's one that gives us a little discretion here to say, you know, if we're going to do 1500 square foot lots and you've got 8000 square foot lots and that last lot is turned perpendicular and you got eight backyards. not appropriate. So if it doesn't meet the neighborhood intent and is compatible with, and you get to decide that through public hearings and other fact finding that happens throughout the public hearing process. But just to find that we should make for all subdivisions, in my opinion, that whatever subdivision we're approving is generally compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. I will also call to your attention, it's, you know, Already on the books, right? But public services are available and accommodate the proposed development. So that's another one that as we're going through this process, we talked about sewer. If we have a one inch sewer line, which those don't really exist, but just to make a point and you've got this high density project, hey, we can't serve that at that density. That's not what our capital improvements plans on our utility plan shows. So we do have some things here that, you know, but it would be short of public work saying we can't serve this project at this density or. ACHD saying we're really concerned you're throwing a whole bunch more traffic on 10 mile at this location and we can't widen it anymore or whatever the case may be but there are some outs if you will there but I would caution us and we're going to have to you know really take those on a case by case you know coordinate with legal when we're starting to go that way because state law basically says in a residential district you're doing 1500 square foot lots cities have to approve them basically so. All right. With that, let's start our home subdivisions, and I will stand for any questions.

Any other questions for Caleb before we close the public hearing? May I get a motion to close the public hearing, please?

So moved. Second.

It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on ZOA 2026-0001. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Well, this is packed with a lot of stuff to the only. The only I see many challenges for us as a planning and zoning Commissioners as this comes through. We already have developers who push the like I had mentioned before push the envelope for density and. I have concerns that, you know, this is just one more push. The height thing kind of bugs me, but not enough to do anything really about it. I live in an old house that is very short, and if I ever wanted an ADU, you know, I don't know if I probably would want it a little bit taller, but I'm not making one, so I guess it doesn't really matter. But, I mean... to limit ourselves for that. I like the idea of fitting the neighborhood character and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. And maybe not having that language specifically saying the height has to be equal or less than the building that's in front of it. But I'm not going to hold it up for that. I just put it on the record. So you know how I feel about it. So I'm sure Commissioner Smith.

Yeah, I think, I mean, I'm supportive of these changes. I think there are some things that I don't love much like you, but I think that is an issue with more how the legislature has set this up rather than how Kayla has tried to make it work. I just, Look, I'm kind of a fan of by right development in some areas. I think Austin, Texas, I think Minneapolis has done it pretty well. Right next door in Montana seems like they're doing a pretty good job of that, and they've made some reforms. I know the National Conference of State Legislatures. I know NCSL offers free research programs. for or it's paid for but each legislature can access each legislator can access that and figure out what works in other states and how to write good legislation that works and I don't see anything that's going to really move the needle the same way on our housing issues, the same way that it has in some of those other municipalities. So I'm a little frustrated with some of that. Part of me wants to say 1,500 square feet is too small. Can we up the lot? But then, you know, as Caleb mentioned, you're opening the door to, well, 2,000 square foot anywhere. You know, that's a risk too. And so there's this... There are a lot of things that I would change about this, but none of them we can really change in a way that's satisfactory. It doesn't create some larger issue down the line. And so I think, you know, I hope that we can revisit this in a year or so with, you know, with the legislature coming with a cleanup bill or some maybe hopefully even better legislation. But I think for what we have and the cards were dealt, I think this is good.

I'm sure. I'll keep it short. I echo Commissioner Smith's sentiments. Caleb is trying to make amazing lemonade out of not great tasting lemons. So as always, the legislature puts the onus on the local municipalities to clean up their messes. So Caleb, thank you for all your efforts and your work that you've done so far. and as well as the rest of the planning department. I apologize. It's late.

Commissioner Schapia, Commissioner Stoll, do you have anything else to add?

I'm sure I will echo Commissioner Gelsomino's statements regarding the appreciation of staff's work on this. Still lipstick on a pig. I struggle with – I don't really have a problem with ADU. It's fine. It is the starter home thing because I'm looking at – it's really setting us up to deal with some bad actors in the development community that are going to, as you said, push the envelope. And I don't understand how we're guaranteed this is going to help the housing affordability issue where a townhome – can fit on a 1500 square foot lot already. So what is the problem that they're solving by forcing this down the city's throats?

Yeah, I mean, in that regard, we need to look beyond Meridian. I mean, if you take a highly dense community like, you know, Boise or even like some of the downtown quarters or Coeur d'Alene, I mean, we're looking at the entire state, not just our community, which we've had the pleasure of being able to go wide, right? But, yeah.

But today, we're dealing with Meridian.

We're dealing with Meridian.

From a protest standpoint, I'm gonna vote no.

Okay.

Commissioner Chappie, do you have anything? Madam Chair, I concur with my fellow commissioners wholeheartedly. I do like the maximum box size. I mean, I don't have any problem with ADU, but I do think that that is... Sorry, there you go. I think the... The maximum gives us some help there. And then additionally, like, I just can't imagine the services, ACHD. I mean, it's just problems all the way around. So I think that that gives us the ability, but I will concur with the others that will vote for the amendment.

Well, hopefully it's just stuff on paper.

Yeah.

I'm sure.

Commissioner Smith.

After considering all staff applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number ZOA-2026-0001 as presented in the staff report.

Seconded.

It's been moved and seconded to request the UDC text amendments for ZOA-2026-001. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed?

Nay.

The eyes have it.

Madam chair.

Commissioner.

If there is no other business, I'd like to make a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting.

One second. Before you do that, just as a reminder for the commissioners, our next meeting is the 17th. I think. The planners would like to offer us a appreciation dinner before the meeting next time. So we will be gathering probably around five o'clock. If you can make it and then the the meeting will start usually at six. So we