Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for December 4th, 2025. At this time, I would like to call the meeting to order. The commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are at city hall and I don't think we have anybody on Zoom. We also have staff from the city attorneys and the city's clerk's office as well as the city's planning department. If you're joining us on Zoom this evening, we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting. However, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting, you'll be unmuted and then be able to comment. Please note, we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion of the meeting. If you have a process question during the meeting, please email city clerk@meridianc city.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting, we encourage you to watch this streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org backlive. With that, let's begin with roll call. Madame clerk. Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Perau

here. Commissioner Rest here. Commissioner Smith here. Commissioner Garrett here. Commissioner Stole here. Chairperson Lure here. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. There are no changes in tonight's agenda. Please note that item number two, Lofty Creek Park has withdrawn their application. So, if there's anyone here tonight to testify for this application, we will not be taking public testimony this evening. Could I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda? So moved. Second. It's been moved and second to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. The next item on the agenda is the consent agenda, which include to approve minutes from the November 12th planning and zoning meeting. Could I get a motion to accept the consent agenda as presented? Move to approve as is presented. Second. It's been moved and second to accept the consent agenda. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed?

Motion carries. Item number two on the agenda. I am going to motion that the commission accept the withdrawal of the application of Lofty Creek Park Live Work application number H2025-000020 and that the public hearing be vacated. Second. It's been moved and second to vacate Lofty Creek a park live and work. All those in favor say I. I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Item number three on the agenda is item number H2025-000016 for Fington Heights subdivision at Pine and Atkins uh for a reasonzone preliminary plant and development agreement modification.

Madam Chair, just for the record and for the commissioner's benefit. So this is a project that the commission has considered before. You had a public hearing. You deliberated and you reached a decision which you forwarded to the city council. when it went to the city council, it was remanded back to um this commission for and the applicant also has made some some significant and substantive changes to the application. So, I just wanted to mention that to the extent any of the commissioners did not participate in the in the previous hearing that took place on this some months ago, that's perfectly fine because this is considered to be a brand new hearing. It's a really essentially a new application that's been revised. It's been published as a new hearing and we'll have a new record for this part of the process. So whether you participated previously or not is um is not relevant tonight. You're welcome to participate um in these proceedings tonight.

So before we go further, I I my notes got kind of jumbled here, but I'd like to explain the public hearing process for those of you in chambers and on Zoom. Staff will be begin their report with findings and 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 uh staff's comment 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 only be called once during public testimony. The clerks will call the names individually of those who have signed up on our website or if in chambers you may come to the microphone or if on Zoom, you will be unmuted. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the commission. If you've previously sent pictures or a presentation at the meeting, it will be displayed on screen and our clerk will help you run the presentation. If you have established that you're speaking on behalf of a larger group like an HOA where others on that group will allow you to speak on their behalf, you'll be given up to 10. You'll be given 10 minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance, we will invite any others that wish to testify. If you wish to speak on a topic, you may come forward in chambers or if on Zoom, you can raise the hand button. And if you're on the telephone, please press star 9 and wait for your name to be called. If you're listening on multiple devices, such as a computer and a phone, please be sure to mute those extra devices so we don't experience feedback. When you're finished, if the commission does not have any questions for you, you will return to your seat in chambers or be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak. And please remember, we will not call on you a second time. After all the 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 concern, we will close the public hearing and the commissioners will have an opportunity to discuss and hopefully make final recommendations or

uh recommendations to uh city council as needed. So with that, we will start with the staff report for Fington Heights subdivision. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission. Next item on the agenda is the reszone preliminary plat and development agreement modification for Fington Heights. So, the applicants requesting a reszone of 2.9 acres of the 4.68 68 acres of land from the R4 zoning district to the R15 zoning district and leave the remaining 1.78 acres as the R4 zoning district. A preliminary plaque consisting of 25 building lots and eight common lots and a new development agreement to replace the current development agreement. Uh the site is generally located at the northwest corner of Pine Avenue and Atkins Avenue. Uh as shown on the screen, the existing zoning is R4 and the flume designation is medium density residential. So, uh, the subject properties were annexed in 2000 as a part of the Fington Opal application. Uh, the zoning granted at the time, uh, at the time of annexation was the R4 zoning district. With the annexation approval, the properties were subject to a development agreement that restricted the property to adding one additional home on the 4.68 acres of land. Uh, the existing DA that is proposed would replace the new DA if approved. In addition, this application was also previously heard by the planning and zoning commission on August 7th of 2025 and was recommended for denial to city council. Uh since the hearing, the applicant was remanded back uh to the planning and zoning commission by city council. U and the reasons for denial in front of uh the reasons for the previous denial by the planning and zoning commission were due to a lack of open space, a lack of transition between the proposed two-story homes and the existing singlestory homes, and the zoning change from R4 to R15 being too

abrupt. Uh the proposed uh the proposed subdivision this time around uh is at a gross density of 5.348 units per acre uh which is consistent with the medium density designation uh flume designation of 3 to eight units per acre. Uh the surrounding landscape this is the current and the previous just so you guys can get a little look. They did lose five lots on the outer boundary of the site. So they went down from 33 building lots or yes 33 building or 30 building lots I apologize to 25 building lots including keeping the three existing homes that are on the southern portion of the site. So the surrounding landscape consists of single family detached homes to the northeast and west while to the south is Pine A Pine Avenue. The average density for a onem radius is 6.1 units per acre, which is higher than the 5.34 units per acre the applicant is proposing. Single fe single family detached dwellings are listed as a principally permitted use in R15 and R4 zoning districts. The applicant is proposing to keep the three existing homes on the southern portion as I previously mentioned. And one of the largest concerns of the uh the neighboring residents was the transition from existing singlestory homes to the proposed twostory homes. Uh the applicant has indicated they do not believe singlestory homes will be financially feasible due to the proposed lot sizes and the applicant has also indicated that the individual individual builders will make the final decision on whether homes will be one or two stories. This did raise some concerns with staff um and as a as a result of this they did we did have some conversations with the applicant and did encourage them to talk with the neighbors um to get them in contact with some of the neighbors to have another meeting prior to this meeting. Um I think the applicant will go over some of how that went. Um, but as a as a result of that, staff is recommending the building heights don't exceed 28 feet, which typically in the R15 and R4 and R8 zoning districts would be 35 ft. Um, and that windows be placed on the rear

facade oriented to promote privacy for the existing residents. And I think the applicant will cover kind of their proposal for those windows on that rear facade. Um and but however, staff is asking the planning and zoning commission and city council to carefully determine whether the changes are adequate transition to the existing homes. Would the applicant like to come forward? Hold on, Maria. Almost done. Sorry.

Uh so since the previous hearing, the applicant did revise their common open space um because that was a reason for denial. Let's see if I get this to work again. There we go. Um, so they did increase the amount of open space to 10.9% of the development with 7.5% of being designated as usable open space. Uh, in addition to this, they are proposing a play area and picnic area in lot 14, block one, right on my cursor. Um, so open space is not a requirement for this property because it is below 5 acres. Uh, so it's not a UDC requirement. However, staff wanted to see some open space here with this application and the original application due to there really no being regional park or neighborhood park in the area. Uh so having place for people to recreate, especially with the lot sizes was important. Um access to the property is proposed off of North Atkins a Avenue, a local roadway on the eastern portion of the site. This local road is shared uh drive between the proposed subdivision and existing subdivision to the east and north. Uh the applicant is proposing uh two accesses off North Atkins with a common drive accessing three uh properties on the southern portion of the site and three properties on the north northern portion of the site. Uh the proposed design includes variations of one and twotory homes through their elevations. They've submitted one and twotory homes each featuring a twocar garage. These elevations showcase a range of architectural styles, designs, elements including lapsiding, neutral color accents, brick and stone veneer, varied roof profiles, and different home styles. uh review confirms that these elevations do adhere to the city's architectural standards manual. Uh staff is recommending approval with the new development agreement of this application and we have received written testimony from Don Don Fleetton, Stephanie John, Rick Bradley, Bob Flayton, Maril Lee Turner, Shawn Freeman, and Brian Turner. Uh the neighbors providing testimony have concerns with increased traffic in the area that the transition from the

proposed development to the existing homes primarily the twotory to the singlestory. uh the density being too high and increases in crime, littering, loitering and noise. And I'll stand for any questions at this time. Would the applicant like to come forward? Got it, Nick. No, it's moving though. It's like sliding down. Perfect.

Can I use the arrows here to Okay. Madame Chair, members of the commission, hello and good evening. For the record, my name is Sabrina Derie and I am here on behalf of the applicant. My business address is 5179 South Boven Avenue, Boise, Idaho 83716. And this evening, I am so excited to present to you Fairington Heights subdivision. So, first on August 7th um this year, the application was previously before you for your consideration. During the hearing, the commission expressed several key concerns specifically related to the transition with the surrounding neighborhood, the lack of usable open space, and the zoning transition. Following the meeting, the applicant team went back to thoughtfully re-evaluated the plan to directly address the feedback you provided. On this slide, you'll see the original layout, which Nick had mentioned included 30 lots, and alongside the other side is the revised plan, which now reduces the perimeter lots to five, bringing our grand total to 25 lots. This reduction allowed us not only to soften the project's interface with the surrounding neighbors, but also to expand and enhance the usable open space, which I will highlight in more detail shortly. We feel these revisions directly respond to and effectively mitigate the concerns raised during the August hearing, particularly regarding neighborhood transition and overall quality of space within the subdivision. So with the updated layout, we are requesting a portion of the site to be reszoned, a preliminary plat and a development agreement modification. The changes show um 22 new single family homes, eight common lots, and three existing homes that are highlighted in white. Our gross density will be 5.34 units per acre. And our residential lot

sizes will be ranging from a little bit over 3,000 square ft to 9,570. So, with these changes, I would now like to reintroduce you to Fairington Heights. Fington Heights has been envisioned as a welcoming, modern, and thoughtfully planned community that future residents will be proud to call home. In shaping and designing the overall theme, we layered in clean, contemporary elements inspired by the proposed home elevations. Our goal was to create an infill project that feels both timeless and balanced, modern in character and warm and inviting. The site design emphasizes a contemporary aesthetic with a strong emphasis on community interaction and outdoor living. These features work together to create a familyfriendly environment that supports everyday livability while still providing moments of shared connection and comfort. So, let me um show you our front entrance. Um, this is our primary entrance on you can see the monumentation for Fairington Heights. This concept reinforces the modern identity of the neighborhood and establishes a clear attractive arrival experience as people enter and recognize the community. With this application, we are requesting a portion of the site to be reszoned to R15. This request is not being made to increase the overall density of the project. Instead, the purpose of the R15 designation is to provide a little flexibility which is needed to meet the zoning standards that is often challenging within infill environments. As many of you noted during the previous um hearing for this application, infill development can be very complex and the R15 zone helps us address those complexities by allowing us to create a well-designed, functional, and cohesive neighborhood while maintaining the reduced lot count and overall project

vision. We believe this request of the R15 directly supports the creation of a high quality infill community. So to better understand how the site fits into the broader area, let's look at the surrounding context in more detail. To the north, we have phases 4 through 7 of Danbury Fair subdivision. These lots were platted back in 1994 through 1996. And then we have an enclaved county parcel directly north of north of the site. To the east, we have MA edition number one and two that was platted back in 1993. And to the south we have Pine Avenue. Then directly south of Pine is the industrial commercial area that includes the weed and pest control campus. And to the west we have phases 1 and three of Danbury platted in ' 92 and 93. And then west of that is Avery subdivision which was recently platted in 2019. So what I'm trying to highlight here is nearly all of the sub surrounding subdivisions were built in the early to mid 1990s. Meaning this parcel has been remained open undeveloped field for approximately 30 years. So because of this land has been vacant for so long, the surrounding homes have never had a budding neighbors. And naturally this creates a more challenging transition for the existing neighborhood as re residents are adjusting to the idea of development occurring next to them for for the first time since their homes have been built. We recognize this and want to be sensitive to those impacts. So, on the next slides, I'm going to outline specific mitigation measures we've incorporated to create a respectful, well-designed transition that considers the neighbors long-standing expectations and character for the area. Um, first I would like to note before I start, um, when I be when I decided when I took over the project in the end of

October, I immediately reached out to Nick to the city because I know he had been in correspondence with the neighbors and during our meeting, I was like, Nick, can I have the neighbors numbers? And he was like, you know, I would prefer if I give them your information since that's their personal information, which I completely understood. Um, and so Nick had my information and was communicating, but the only neighbor that did reach out to me was Stephanie John. And um, I conducted an on-site meeting with Stephanie and her family on November 11th. And they live, um, directly north at 1111 North Atkins. And um, they're the county parcel that has been referenced in the staff report. So we reviewed the placement and you can see where that arrow's at. That's really their front living area and their front door. It's a little deceiving because you think it'd be off of Atkins, but as Stephanie explained, we had conversations. And so we went I went back to the applicant and we discussed and we made that lot a little wider so that it could accommodate a single family um single level. And so we're happy to uh make this change and um happy to have it included as a condition of approval that restricts lot to block one as a single level. So we are in full agreement with the staff reports recommendations to limit the height um of the two-story buildings to 28 ft. And additionally, we will incorporate transom windows on the rear elevations of the second floor that are adjacent to the existing homes. And you can kind of see in these pictures where the windows are high enough people can't see out, so it protects their privacy, but it also allows light into the buildings so it's not dark for the homes. Um, we feel that it's also important to note that the two-story homes are already permitted in all of your residential

zones and we're not asking for any exceptions, any variances. So, we feel that with the window placement um if we do have two stories at those locations um provides the um standards for um privacy that the neighbors are wanting. And we're also willing to commit to one additional tree in each of the lots backyards for future mitigation um for the neighbors as well. And we have I have updated the landscape plan to reflect those changes. So during our previous hearing, I'm not sure which commissioner it was, but he he someone requested that we do some side profile visuals for you to see. So, unfortunately, we did not have those at the time, but um we have selected a few homes and I have some for you to review um this evening. So, first we're looking at 1054 North Stone Hedge. This is a corner lot and the proposed home will abut the existing home kind of at an angle. Um there's a total of 29.6 6 ft from the edge of the house to the back of the property line with a with a rear setback of R15 at 12 ft on our side. This will be a total of 41.6 ft between buildings. Just next door to that last house is 1042 North Stone Hedge. The a the home adjacent to the corner lot and it has a total of 27.2 ft separation. We also have an existing tree um that's buffering along the property line that we're going to try to keep to help for privacy mitigation. And this will make the separation a total of 39.2 ft between buildings. And the last home we're looking at is 1018 North Stone Hedge. This home has a much deeper black backyard with a total of 53 feet to the back of their fence line. This will give us a total of 65 ft in total between

buildings. And we feel that the proposed window placement, the overall separation between the buildings provides sufficient mitigation to ensure privacy for the adjacent neighbors. Next, let's talk about open space. So, based on comments during our last hearing, we understood that open space was very important. After reworking the layout and expanding the open space, we have been able to design a total of 0.51 acres at 11%. And this slide shows the landscaped areas, all highlighted in green. For our qualified open space, our community is at 0.35 acres at 7.5% and will include two amenities um for our community. Pathway connectivity and walkability is also a priority within our community. Blue will depict all of our community sidewalks. Orange depicts our pathways that connect from the sidewalk to our amenity area. And pink illustrates our 10-ft multi-use pathway that um provides connection along along East Pine Avenue. So, we have some newer elevations um that we're planning to showcase for Fington. These conceptual elevations are modern, an architectural character. Um, the homes feature clean roof lines, a mix of contemporary gables and shed roofs, and a blend of warm wood toned siding with crisp contrasting accents. Window placement provides abundant natural light, while the overall design reflects a fresh modern aesthetic. And for the amenities, our community's main amenity area for Fington is designed to create a welcoming and functional outdoor environment. The central open space features a modern shaded pavilion with seating, a natural play area with logs and boulders, and a

thoughtfully landscaped edges that blend privacy and visual interest. Expansive lawn areas provide flexible space for recreation, gatherings, and everyday outdoor enjoyment, enhancing the neighborhood's overall livability. Um, one of the items when the commissioners emphasized during our August hearing was the importance of locating the play area away from the road. And taking that into consideration, we intentionally position the tot lot and picnic area in this interior corner of the site to provide additional separation and a safer area for children and families. We feel the amenities being tucked away offer protection and privacy for the future residents to be able to gather and enjoy. So to quickly summarize, we feel that Fington Heights is a well-designed, highquality community designed to offer a balanced blend of modern livability. Situated in the heart of Meridian, this enclave parcel is located near major commercial and employment hubs and provides a well-rounded selection of mid-density housing options to meet the standards of the growing population. The city of Meridian's comprehensive plan encourages infill development that delivers a diversity of lot sizes, housing types, and densities. Fington Heights aligns with this vision by introducing a fresh modern neighbor neighborhood character within an established area, offering new housing choices and a thoughtful range of densities that enhance the surrounding community. With that, I'd like to extend my thanks to Nick for his guidance, help, and support. Thanks, Nick. Um, and we are in full agreement with the staff reports findings. And with that, I will thank you for your time, your thoughtful consideration, and um the opportunity to represent our project to you this evening and respectively request a

recommendation of approval this evening from you all. Thank you so much. Okay, before you walk off, do commissioners, do we have any questions? Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith, um one question on that restriction on lot two block one. Is that already in the staff report or is that something that we would need to add to keep that single story? That would be something that would be new. That's correct. Commissioner Perau, Madam Chair, thank you. Um, the pictures of the elevations that were provided, um, I just wanted to understand what the side setbacks are, they look very close together. So,

yes. Um, Madame Chair, Commissioner Perau, um, they are with the R15, that's that kind of flexibility we're needing for the infill. Um, it's three feet in between the buildings, um, for each side, so a total of six. Yes. Is that for all all of them or just the ones in the middle? No, I believe that that's the zoning standard for all that are will be in the R15, Madam Chair. Gotcha. Okay. Any other questions before we take public comment? Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much, Madame Clerk. Um, do we have people to testify?

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have Stephanie John. And there are some photos that she would like to share as well. Hey, if you can state your name and address for the record.

Sure. My name is Stephanie John. My address is 1111 North Atkins Avenue, Meridian.

Okay, perfect. All right. So, um I live on the what is it? The north border. My whole my property is a rectangle which makes my one of my longest lengths um across the shared border. They currently want five different homes. Um one of them they did say they just newly said that would be single story. The other four would be twotory 26 ft. Well actually 28 ft. We thought it was 26. So that's inaccurate. Um we if you look at it and look how those houses would sit we would have no privacy at all. Just like Miss Dury pointed out that as the front of our home that faces the field and that's my driveway. That's how the home is. Sorry. So there is no privacy. You walk out and four people can look. Well, yeah, four cuz that one is single and I will concede to that. But it gives us no privacy. Plus we need that sunlight. Our home was built in 1909 which makes that south sun winter sun vital for us. Not only are those all our main living spaces, it would increase our power our our heating bill significantly. Plus, it would leave us a shadow. I'm worried about snow being stuck in that driveway space having nowhere to go or melt, have no sun on it. I'm worried about darkness in the winter. Um, it's a very big deal. I'm worried about the traffic. The newly approved Pine43. Um I have another picture that showed um the intersections. We share two intersections with Pine43. One at Pine and Locust Grove and one at Shelbrook and Locust. On our side is called Shelbrook. On Pine43 side is called State. I did send a picture with them circled. Um that's a big deal. Getting in and out of those especially during um high traffic times is is a problem. Adding more to that just keeps adding more to the problem. Now, I know set

infill is hard. I get that. It's so hard. Pine43, that was an infill. I think that was a great use. Unfortunately, when you are 360° surrounded by existing already built homes that sorry, that's where your property is. They have owned this for a long time. They annex. They could have sold and maybe got this earlier, but they're doing it now. The residents in our homes have been there for an average of 17 and a half years. That means these these homes are homes that people are taking and living in and raising their children in. Those are the types of homes I want them to build. I'm not saying twotory homes aren't like that, but they don't fit the aesthetic. They're invading our space. They're taking our sunlight. She mentioned that she wants this community to have everyday livability, but she's not looking at the rest of us. That's not okay. I'm not okay with that. They need to address that. That buffer between what is existing and what they're going for is so abrupt. It's abrupt on us. We're R1. If you can just finish up.

Sure. we are are one making us um an extreme abrupt and that one lot being changed does not really help. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Madam chair we have um Donald Flattton and he has some photos as well. Yes. I'll be able to view them here presumably. Uh yes, Nick will Okay. Thanks, Nick. I appreciate get them up. Just give us

I too had the understanding that the maximum roof height would be 26. It's actually 28. Uh I think it best to just kind of read a summary of my comments which I submitted. So before you start, yeah, we'll need your name and address for the record. And you did have pictures. I do. Yes. Okay. So if you can give them prepared. I'll just wait a moment and we'll get that up and we can do all at the same time. Okay. Don Fleetton, 1111 North Atkins and Ridian. So, let me know, Nick, when

I think I'll see them when they come up here. Okay. And I'll comment on this. We'll just leave it up later. I'll just read this quickly. As proposed, Fairing Heights development in North Atkins Avenue will seriously degrade the livability of 11-11 North Atkins, our family residents, and that of surrounding established neighborhoods. And I point out on the introduction, we referred to a a radius of a mile in density. We should really look at that radius from Locust Grove west because that's where the homes are that are relevant. It's very high density east of that. Uh we have been neighbors immediately to the north for over 30 years bordering the proposed multi-story residences. Tall buildings with minimal setbacks on near property line would cast a sun shadow on the south wall of our home including the living, dining, and family rooms. They're all south facing, oluding solar heating, direct sunlight during the winter months, and virtually eliminating privacy throughout the year. The dramatic increase in residential density would irreversibly increase noise and traffic levels in the immediate neighborhood. be going before going forward I'll make observations here. This is an illustration based on a proposed 26 foot height. It's actually 28. So this illustration you see of a a two-story structure is 1.57 times the height of our structure. It would actually be 1.7. Uh the density even if one of those is a onetory, we've got them stacked up with six feet between homes, three to four homes ordering our lot. So instead of having opus, we're going to be looking this is roughly 12 feet high about the distance to that wall. If I step back here our wall, we could potent.

Oh, you can hear me, can't you? Sorry. If you can repeat it into the microphone, that would be So anyway, if we could have the next picture, please. I know we're limited time.

We'll add time to it for Oh, well, thank you. Yeah, I said we could. Oh, don't worry. You'll have plenty of

That's object. I just have just to kind of I did a sun shadow picture from roughly a distance. This is just a perspective. If you were to insist on a two-story development, if we traverse the position of the road, it would give us uh the north side is at the bottom of this. We would have the road as a buffer in addition to the setback. So, we wouldn't be looking that close. But we're obviously one story is what is appropriate for the neighborhood. If we were to go forward insisting on twotory, simply move the road. So the homes bordering us would be on the south end. They would have more space. They'd be looking on an open field and we would have a border that would also include that wreck area which the public can't enjoy. Only the people moving there. So it looked real pretty in the illustration. We're going to be looking at the wall of stucco. They're going to be looking at at this. So I think there's one more illustration just to give you an idea. Um, these are 26 or 28 foot height from a distance of 40 feet. Um, it's just an illustration from March showing you that what the sun shadow is. And that's about the same setback six feet six feet between buildings. Uh, and they're all twotory. So that's midafter afternoon in March. And uh, that's taken from about 35 ft away from it. Actually, it's over 40 feet to the two-story structure. and you still see it oluded. So my observation in summary of time, of course, singlestory detached homes would instead be consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. If the city were to insist on multi-story residents, however, Miss Tonga recommend the position of the structures currently proposed be reversed 180 degrees.

Did you get a chance to express your concerns about the switching of the road to the developer? No. Or are you just bring Our only comment is right here. right here. In fact, we just heard today for the first time that there might be one of, pardon me, one of the structures would be one story bordering it looks like, but the others are still on the same density. We have no information. All I have is an illustration from February that didn't match the original plan. So, we're seeing these things for the first time. Okay. But, as originally proposed, we're looking at a wall of structures six feet in between the entire south of our property up to 28t high. Thank you very much. Thank you,

Madam Chair. The next person that signed up is Rick Bradley.

Good evening. Thanks for being here. If you can state your name and address for the record.

Uh, my name is Rick Bradley. I'm at 1321 East Shelbrook Drive, Meridian, Idaho, 83642. My property, my rear property line borders the development property. Um, I'm my backyard is located in the northwest corner of this development. And that's particularly the one that has the shared driveway. I know the lady was talking about the rear of the house is having transoms, but that does absolutely nothing for my privacy with the side of that house facing my rear property. Um, privacy issues are a big concern for every resident. Um, it's a lot different moving into a subdivision that's established with no privacy as opposed to having that privacy taken from you forcefully, which is kind of what the situation that's happening here. Um, setbacks, 30 3T side setbacks. You guys seriously considering that here as a city? Because I mean, everything could be firet treated the way it's built. That's going to be way more expensive for the builders to build homes that way. Um, every resident around them's got at least eight feet on the side. I mean, we're almost three times as much side setback as what they're proposing. This is Meridian. This is a city for families to raise families, to grow and love each other. It's not to stack people on top of each other. And that's I think what Meridian has lost over the last 10 years. Um, the resources in the community are going to be limited as well. I've already noticed since the development of Pine 43 that my water pressure has gone down some and just adding more to that is going to tax I think the limited resources we have. Um, also road access on Atkins is not adequate for more traffic. I don't know if you guys have ever been to that intersection yourselves, but during any time during the day or evening there's trucks, trailers, stuff parked on the side of the road. It is literally a onelane road getting in and out of there most times. Um, so affordability.

Um, are we just trying to build more $650,000 homes in this city or are we actually really concerned about affordability for families? Um, it's a lot more expensive to build a fire rate two-story house than it is a singlestory for a family. Um, the other big issue that we are discussing is there's no access to a park. Well, instead of establishing just a little community park that they never get used, I don't know if you have them in your neighborhoods, we have them in ours, they're not really used, why don't we make these lots slightly larger, build a little bit smaller homes on them that are singlestory and actually create a yard for the family. That way, you don't need a community center. You can have your own backyard to play with your friends or your children's friends can play. Um, actually have a front yard. The pictures that she showed, they got like what a 6x4 piece of lawn in the front yard. That is not a yard, right? Are we building apartments? Are we building houses for families? Um and um and the beginning opening speech that she had was she wanted to create a timeless community for the meridian. Well, modern e architecture is not timeless. Okay, that single slope is quickly fading and nobody's going to nobody's purchasing homes like that anymore. I apologize for going over, but there's lots of things that need to be addressed here carefully. I would I would hope you guys would consider that. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The next person is Brian Turner.

Good evening.

Good evening. And I do have some pictures I wanted to share. And while we're waiting, Brian Turner, 1345 East Shelbert Drive, and also a comment up front, the communication for us to reach out to the applicant, we missed it. we would have certainly gladly reached out and expressed some concerns and that's something this process has lacked is someone to talk to about it. All right. Um I clearly stayed up front. I'll get to this what this picture is in just a moment. I would welcome one-story homes. The comments about we're used to the p the space. I'm okay. I I would welcome one-story homes in this this plot. My biggest concern even with the new plan is the two stories. This picture right here shows Aberry or Avery subdivision that is just west of this development, literally a block. And you can see clearly that there is a buffer between these large, very tall two-story homes and the rest of the subdivision. And unfortunately the mo end side side of that this house is like was mentioned 3 ft from the fence line. And this is what my backyard is going to become. A great big wall of a house next to a house that takes my privacy away. Now, they said the windows would be positioned so that to afford privacy, but for some reason I lack trust in that statement.

These um so yeah, this is my concern. This is what I will be looking at. This is why I'm here. Another thing is um this is a a picture that shows I'm standing on Atkins Road looking directly west across from the across the site and what will you what we notice here is what you cannot see and that is the side of the homes that are straight across the line of sight drawings that were shown earlier do not show the elevation change. So these homes are a good four or five, six feet lower in elevation than this this property. So you build 28 feet higher and they're going to be staring over the top of those homes. And I just don't see how that fits twotory homes fit into this plot of land for that's one of the main reasons. And so I see two-story homes here is is either greed is driving this or there's a lack of foresight and it's going to anger the neighbors for years to come and I think there's better solution for this plot of land that would that would be agreeable.

Okay. Thank you very much

madam chair. The next person is Marley Turner. I also have pictures and I'll wait till they're up. While we're waiting, my name is Marily Turner, 1345 East Shelbrook Drive, Meridian, Idaho 83642. Okay. My home borders the proposed subdivision of Fington Heights. I am not opposed to land development if it is approached respectfully and thoughtfully. I propose that a respectful compromise should be reached before this development is allowed to proceed. And for your information, I was never given the contact information for Serena. And had I been, I certainly would have reached out and um given my concerns. I propose that a respectful compromise should be reached before this development is allowed to proceed. that the developers have had to postpone and restructure over the course of several months indicates that this that this development is still far from reaching a beneficial conclusion for all of its bordering neighbors. Currently, the developer is petitioning for higher density and taller homes than is prudent for the inadequate space. I am opposed to the reszoning of this small plot from the R4 to the R15 zoning dist which is much too dense for this location. The surrounding properties are all zoned for lower density than the proposed subdivision. The developers are also expecting and planning for two-story homes, which will be detrimental to all neighbors on all sides with the exception of the homeowners who are selling the property is the developers are proposing ample green space to purposely offset the impact for them and them only. While the developers may indicate with photos and words that one homes are being considered, there is no plan for single level homes except for that one bordering our neighborhood which has been a concern for months now. In fact, according to Matthew Parks,

which you can see from your records, and I quote, "The proposed lots will accommodate secondstory residences in order to make financial sense. I disagree wholeheartedly. By reszoning this land and approving the current plan, the developers will be enabled to build several new dwellings with taller and denser homes than than virtually all of its boarding sides in all direction. A height restriction of 20 ft is reasonable for this insufficient space. A height restriction of 28 feet, which Meridian City is considering, would be appalling to us as neighbors. Our homes have existed for nearly 30 years, and we value our way of life. A develop development such as this will impact many families adversely every single day for decades. Please plan for buffers or green spaces on all sides of the development which I'm showing a picture of a buffer road um which may mean putting the access road along the outskirts of the development and planning for green spaces bordering the road. I'll wait for um picture number two. two-story homes looming over our backyards will negatively impact our ability to even remotely spend time in our yards. This is understandably very detrime um distressing to us. We would have two homes in our backyard like this. Um another concern is traffic issues. If you can get to picture number three, please. Even if the developers are required to widen Atkins, the intersection at Pine and Atkins will remain dangerous. The existing building located at Pine and Atkins intersection will not be removed and this poses a danger as an as the intersection will remain narrow despite the required marginal widening. Please do not be neglectful, disrespectful and careless. I hope that the developers, city planners and architects can be resourceful and prudent as they look for beneficial solutions. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have Patty Jeffs.

Good evening.

Hi, I'm Patty Jeffs and I live at 1416 East Shelberg Drive. I'm down on the corner. Two stories is not going to bother me at all. My house isn't that close. However, my friend and I go walking every morning and we've been by the places that they just showed you the picture of the big and honestly that looks over pine and there's a canal. It doesn't bother anybody and they put in a nice parking space so overflow of parking can park there. There is no parking space here. We go walking by other condos and things across Locust Grove and the streets are lined with extra cars and I just know that's going to happen here. There's no place for them to park extra cars except in the streets and this is already a small street. We already have trouble with traffic. Um we talked to one um person over in the other sub division across Locust Grove and he says, "Oh no, this is mostly rentals." And there were four young guys, nice guys. And you go around to the back and there's a double car garage. Two of them can park there, but there's four people renting that house. They've got two more that have to go out in the street. My fear is there is going to be rental. Housing is so high, not family, and we're going to have cars everywhere in the streets. Thank you,

Madam Chair. The next person is Cynthia Johnson. Yeah, I live at 1050 North Atkins, which is right ac across the street from one of the roads that comes out of the development. And my concern mostly is parking because the houses themselves are so close together that there's no street parking in the development at all for them. They have to use only their driveway parking. And I'm also concerned that the streets not very wide, so that I might lose my parking in front of my house. and I have three vehicles. So, we can one in the garage and two we'd have to shuffle our cars. So, I really don't want to lose my street parking. And so, that's one of my main concerns would be that.

Okay. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The next person is Robert Flattton.

Hello all. My name is Robert Flton. I live at 11-1ven Atkins Avenue now. I've been there since I was about eight. So, been there for a while. Uh, in all honesty, I'm not as well spoken as these guys. Forgive me. Uh, I had a little thing wrote out and I'm kind of just lost, especially after listening to everything that um, with all due respect to planner or whatever she has said. I will admit her examples seem pretty nice. They look great, but they leave out a lot of what there is that you're not seeing. And I don't think that's by accident. I saw her use examples of 45 feet, 60 feet. Where's our example? Because we're looking at about 25 to 30 feet. Um, they they very obviously didn't use the corner that we are discussing as being such a problem. That's by design. They're trying to not show you. Again, with all the respect, I believe planning and zoning, a big portion of why you're here is to hear the community, to work with them to try and be fair so that people don't get steamrolled. We're here. There's more of us. Um, again, respectfully, please don't ignore us. I understand that the people that are going to possibly move here matter. We also matter. We should be equals on all of this. We're not asking to not have people there. We love our neighbors. We get along with all of them. We want new neighbors, but we don't want to be swept aside so that somebody else can make more money. With even that particular involvement, you think about people that go buy homes that move here. A big part of what draws money, you go up into the foothills, it's a view. You are dismantling my home if this is allowed. There's no view. You're going to walk outside and see a wall. I don't get to believe my kids are safe in the driveway anymore without people sitting there watching down on them. There's all sorts of issues when it comes to parking, when it comes to security, survivability of our home and everyone else's is very much in jeopardy here. I wish I could somehow illustrate that, but unfortunately 3 minutes really isn't going to put that in accurate sense for all of you. I thank you very much for allowing me to come here, but I could go on a very long time about this. Um, I understand it's very persuasive

again to see everything that she put up, but it's just not encapsulating what it is that we've all been fighting here for months. I I mean, this is so stressful for all of us to be up against this, and we quite frankly don't, again, respectfully, don't want to keep doing this to you, nor us. People have a right to develop, but I would love to believe that there's an option somehow out there that can please all of us, not just a few. Because those people are going to come in, they're going to build, they're going to leave. We are the people that are left there forever. We were there before. I would like to think we can be there in the long run, but quite frankly, this just seems like the stepping stone to running people out of their homes. Because anybody reasonable knows that the person that came over there, I'm forgot your name. She herself explained to me that developments moved into her place right next to her too close and she wasn't comfortable with it. She herself did not like it. I can prove that statement was made. She knows what we are up against, but it's being minimized to you so that can get pushed through. I don't know what to say. Please don't ignore us. We are the community and we are asking that this does not happen. I hope you understand our concerns. I can't ask you to agree with them, but maybe just try to put yourself in our shoes for just a moment. All the things you hold dear in your homes, we hold dear also. Please help us. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The next person is Cecil Brock. Madam chair, commissioners, my name is Cecil Brock. I'm the owner of the current property that we're all discussing. So, so heatedly.

Can you um list the address for the record, please? 1100 East Pine Avenue,

Meridian. I understand that this is problematic for neighborhoods anytime people come in and try to develop. Unfortunately, it's part of life. I've my family's own this property since the 40s. We had our own little commune there for a long time where we had five generations sitting on that property. I'm currently the third generation owner. Um, this is my family legacy. If you notice, all the names of the streets and everything are related to my to my family, which I is neither here nor there, I guess. But, um, I've been watching and working with the developers and this is a beautiful project. The pictures and the thought that has gone into this has been very well thought out and they have talked and talked. I don't think I've ever heard of as many meetings as these guys have had is there's been a sign up for like a year. Um, I just hope that you will look at the actual plan and not there's so many heated everybody's so upset about this whole thing. I don't think you I don't think it would matter what we did. They don't want to do it. So, I just hope that you guys will take into consideration that these planners have worked very hard from the very beginning. We've been completely in compliance. They keep making concessions. They keep changing trying to make the community happy. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's ever going to happen.

I appreciate your time for listening to me ramble. Um, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have Rick Salad. Good evening, Rick Holidayiday, 992 North Stonehenge Way. Madam Commissioner and all the commissioners, thank you for hearing us. I think you've heard enough complaints about all the the concerns we have. The heights is the main concern. You saw from the one picture the guy shot from across the field. You can see our roofs. I can stand in my backyard. I have a three-foot wall, retaining wall. On top of that retaining wall, I have a sixoot fence. Behind that sixoot fence is Celia Brooks. Friends or neighbors or family have parked a trailer. It's fine. They're perfect people. We get along fine. But I see that trailer 4t above my fence. Now you think a trailer is a mobile mobile home. It's let me pull higher vehicle four foot above my fence. Put a house there. Think that now people that is not going to be 4 feet above my fence as going to be whatever window she's talking about. Doesn't matter. I'm still going to see their windows, their wall, their house. I realize this property needs to be developed. It's going to be developed one way or the other. But we got to have concerns. Just like the other gentleman said, we want singlestory homes where people will move these Pine 43, whatever it is they built on right off of pine. They insisted that it have certain levels of heights and they wanted it to face pine and be all fancy and cool. They drug in probably about 20 truckloads of dirt and raised

that elevation up to what these people have been showing you to the surrounding homes. It's ridiculous. Alls I think we all ask here put singlestory homes around the surrounding outages. You can build your two stories on the inside on Atkins Lane. I'm sorry people on Atkins Lane, but put a twotory there. They've got a buffer of the front yard and a street. But this is a money grab way is being planned. They're trying to push in more than they can really fit in there and it's what's being developed all across Meridian. If you guys don't see it, I don't understand it. But they're pushing more and more in right across the street on Locus Grove. All those apartments, threetory hike. That's great. That's on the other side. It's all a bunch of apartments. You are budding a 35year-old subdivision. And I I'm not bragging, but I was the first resident in that subdivision before Stonehenge went all the way through. It doesn't bother me. I know we're going to get re we're going to get developed. I've known that for 35 years and I I respect Mrs. Brock's right to do that. But on the same note, respect our right for lower elevation. If you want two stories, dig down, put a basement. There's your two stories. Probably cheaper right now than lumber. Anyhow, that's my concern right now, folks. Please consider that. That's a elevation issue. I know you guys have already considered it and denied it. My concern is that the city council will approve it after you've denied it. That's what happened at Pine43. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. No one else has signed up 30 by on Zoom this evening. Madam chair, there is one person. They do not have their hand raised. Is there anybody else in chambers that would like to make a public comment?

Would the applicant like to come forward and address some of the concerns? Um, for the record again, Sabrina Dery, um, first, um, we would sincerely like to thank you for rehearing our case this evening. Our intent has been to clearly show the substantial improvements we made in response to your direction, specifically regarding density, neighborhood transition, and overall usable space. and we hope that these adjustments were evident during my presentation. As you all know, infill development is inherently challenging. It is, however, a priority of the mayor and the city's long-term planning goals because it represents smart growth, utilizing existing infrastructure, streets, utilities rather than stretching services outward to the fringe. Infill strengthens neighborhoods by reinvesting areas that already have the bones to support the development. Um but with infill also comes change and challenges and that can be difficult especially for long established neighbors who have lived next to an open field for um a long time. One thing has been clear meaningful compromise is necessary and we believe that the mitigation measures we've incorporated reflect that compromise and generally respond to the primary concern of privacy. Um, a few things. Um, as far as traffic, um, we're under the threshold for doing a traffic impact study. Um, but we are making improvements along Pine um, and Atkins. And then we are going to be removing the main access ingress ingress egress points on um, Pine, really making that a safer alterior um, arterior road with less um, direct access onto it. Um, as far as sun exposure,

um, I'm not a meteorologist or a specialist in this, but when you have smaller footprints, and the two stories would have a smaller footprint than a single story, I think that that would proide provide greater separation, larger backyards, greater depth in between the buildings. Um my engineer's here, we might have to bring him up if we have some more technical questions that I can't answer. But um the grading, he said there's a 2% grade difference, but our intent of course isn't to grade the site um super high and bring fill in so the buildings are high. I think um and he can maybe speak on a little bit more, but that is not our intent. Our intent is to minimize the amount of fill that's on the site and to keep everything as level um as the site is currently. Um as far as parking um we are meeting the park parking standards. We have a driveway, twocar garages um that meet the as far as I'm concerned I've been looking over at Nick that meet the parking requirements um for the zoning code and he might want to elaborate on that a little bit more. And um to mention I am very empathetic and understanding of the neighbors and yes I did have a development built um close to my house um but they were threetory. I um begged council for um twotory which didn't happen. And so that's much more intrusive than a two-story um product. So to kind of reiterate um our commitments that are before you this evening is that we did reduce the density and the number of lots by five on the perimeter of the site plan. We are in full agreement with limiting the two-story homes to a maximum height of 28 ft and that was a um a number that um staff had provided and we're happy to meet that. um the windows. I feel like that is kind of a a good compromise.

Again, we're kind of like having to um find ways to make things work and that the windows and the rear elevations of the two stories um abuing the existing homes to the north and west. We're happy to have that as a condition of approval. Um again, planting one additional tree in each of the rear yards to provide enhanced um long-term screening. I'd be happy if that needed to be added as a condition. and um as we stated restricting that to lot two block one to a singlestory home as requested by Stephanie John at 11 one one Atkins. We feel these measures um represent a meaningful goodfaith steps to ensure the project not only fits but fits responsibly within the context of the neighborhood and we truly feel that this is a net good for the overall community for the city of Meridian. Um, I'm happy to stand for any questions. If there's anything I missed, if we need to have our engineer get up here, maybe discuss grading a little bit further, I'd be happy um with that. So, thank you.

Um, yeah, I have a question. There was a question of are these going to be home ownership or rentals? No, these are all going to be home ownership. Okay. Madam Chair, and what and what type of price point? I understand that the ones in the middle are are smaller footprint than the ones on the perimeter, but what kind of price point are you looking for for these units? Yes. Um, I'm kind of looking I think they're around the We're not going to make you hold to it, but just just I think they're around the 500 600 range. And I could be mistaken, but um, Brandon, is that around the fives? Yes. Commissioners, do we have questions for the applicant? Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith.

Um, I know there was some discussion about the kind of side profile of this Northwest property. Um, This this more yeah the one that backs up both backs up to a property and is side backed up to an additional property. Is the intention to also have transom windows on that northern edge which is the side of the home as well or would that second story have full windows?

I think um madam chair let me let me get to the right slide. Here it is. Um chairman um Smith I think we'd be happy to work be conditioned on the window placement and that is one of the larger lots. So, um I think the potential for it to be a single story, um there's potential there as well. So, um I don't want to make any commitments, but I think of th those are the few larger lots that um can accommodate um a single story um and would be happy to um condition um the extra window placement if needed. Commissioners, any other questions? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Commissioner Perau. Um, so the neighbors have all referenced that they have received limited communication or no communication regarding um the changes that that you have proposed this evening. I realize that some of those changes were very recent and maybe there wasn't time. Um, and then you had stated that staff uh had given the neighbors your contact information. So I assume you were just waiting for communication from the neighborhood. Did did staff CC you on that communication to the neighbors?

No. Um, Madame Chair, Commissioner Perau, no. And I know that this is just one step. We also have city council and all the neighbors here are more than what I'm more than happy to meet with them in between that time. Um Nick has my information that they can reach out. Um but I did communicate with Stephanie when we updated the layout originally. Um the so Stephanie's the one that lives to the north, the 111 Atkins, and we originally had the house situated so that took access off of Atkins instead of interior. And she's like, Sabrina, I don't like that. can you move the house, rotate it so that the re it's all rear? And I said absolutely. And so I sent her the update. Um I don't have the email, but it was I think it was before Thanksgiving telling her that we've expanded the lot. We're committing to a single story at this location. So it was communicated. Um and I I I'm assuming she got it because she responded. So, so there I'm happy to communicate as much as I if it what as much as the neighbors need. So, thank you. I I just wanted to um it's not I'm not placing blame anywhere. I just wanted to see if we could get to the bottom of why some of the neighbors might not have received communication um regarding this specific meeting. Um and um I I know it's a challenging thing to to help one of the neighbors and then have maybe other neighbors come and say, "Hey,

well, can you do the same for my property?" So um I can you just just for everyone's sake can you kind of go through your process of consideration in terms of um if we do single story you know did you did you look at that um what was that process like for you in the decision-m because I know in these situations um there's there's kind of a lot of assumptions made about um the intentions involved D with development. I just I want to understand all the things that you have done to or considered doing to meet the neighbors um concerns.

Sure. Um Madame Chair um Commissioner Perau. So um again I kind of got brought in at the midpoint a in October and um the developer is the applicant is here and he can maybe speak upon all the changes but the number of layouts revisions thought meetings has been ex exhausted. We have looked at multiple options repositioning things um and we feel that this truly is the best layout. Um we worked looked at um the footprints and we're not saying that they're all going to be twotory. Um but it really is challenging for them for the lot size for the square footage if we needed for threebedroom or um units. Um and so I think that that's why they would want to keep the option of the twotory just in case that if they want to do something a little larger, have a little more square footage um that they're able to. And again, um, two stories are allowed within your zoning code. We're not asking for excessive amount. Three story, four story. I mean, it is it's kind of a st it's two stories are a standard. So, I I do want to let you know that they have looked at this very extensively and um we feel like this is the best um layout and um for lot sizes that we have. And again, they've reduced their lot count by five. And I believe prior to submitting, they lost several lots there, too. So, they have made some big changes. Um, and again, I don't do the financials. I don't know what numbers they need. Obviously, it has to pencil and work. So, um, I think that they're at that point where, um, they can't make any more revisions.

Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah. Thank you all. I really appreciate your time. Can I May I get a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Second. It's been moved and second to close the public hearing on Fington Heights subdivision. All those in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. I guess I can start on this one. Um, I appreciate that the developer has made some changes to this to be able to accommodate this space. It's always hard to do infill. Like we've already talked about this for 30 years. Everybody's used to having some open space, but that open space, that farmland, you know, does not belong to the neighborhood. It belongs to um the homeowner. And that homeowner has a right to be able to sell their home or parts of their land. And a developer has a right to be able to build. The transom windows, the additional trees, um are all very generous options to be able to add to the privacy within this or within this subdivision. But I don't feel that the modern look compared to the existing houses, it it fits. It's like taking a uh an old an old Victorian house and, you know, putting something shine, you know, something super modern and glassy right next to it. It just it doesn't fit the aesthetic to the neighborhood in my opinion. But I'm not buying there either. and maybe somebody else would like it. I sympathize with the homeowners from the onetory to twotory and I would encourage the developer to find a way to make the one stories work. Um I'm not in favor of this for that very reason. I cannot ignore the people who have come forward today, not only today but probably to

city council before and are back, you know, again that it is going to get developed. So something is going to get there. So be careful what you wish for because they may change it again and it might get worse. Everything the developer has suggested is within our code. They can put two stories. They can um make the streets. The density is allowed. All of those things are on paper and are able to do that. But just because you can doesn't mean you should. So, um, you know, I appreciate all the the changes that the developer has made to do this, but for this particular parcel of land within this established community, um, even though the density is similar to the to the neighborhoods around it, I um don't feel like I I can support this at this time. Madam Chair,

Commissioner Smith. Um I I kind of empathize with a lot of of your thinking. Um I I do think I I have I could fall on the opposite side if a couple things happen. And I don't know that we're talking about respectable compromise and and I don't think that the comm what what I'm envisioning I don't think the community would necessarily be overjoyed at and I don't think the developer would be overjoyed at. I think that's what compromise looks like. Mhm.

I think I'm at a position where I'm not I I don't think we're personally if it meets the design standards, I don't personally think that I'm in a position to to judge the aesthetics of of of a home, for example. Um I've I've always kind of been irked a little bit about character kind of considerations and and things like that that are inherently subjective. And so I'm going to avoid that. Um I I think a lot of the conditions that the applicant has suggested tonight of you know um block two, block one u being conditioned to be single story, limiting the windows to be transom windows, planting additional trees, etc. I think are um all valuable. I think the only thing that is pulling me back is the potential for a series of two-story buildings. I would have no problem if there were a twotory and then a single story, two two stories and a single story and some variance to allow for some just some additional kind of feeling of openness uh on these neighboring properties. So the two areas that I'm specifically looking at are these two um if we could pull up a map. I'm looking at really looking at my own screen um of plat map. I don't know what actual lots they are, but um the kind of on the the western half or the western portion these four northernmost lots and I think conditioning um I think something like conditioning that that northwest lot and the I guess if that's number one and I'm counting southward that's lot that first lot and the lot three where there's these two houses that each have two homes next to them. Those are the two that I'm really like if we can get these to ensure that there's one story here, I think that could put me over the edge.

Okay.

So, I think that's kind of where where I'm at. And I'm not trying to I don't want to get too deep into the weeds of is it four or three. I just think that this kind of section of there being four rooms against two and the potential for them all being two stories kind of that's what really kind of gets me a little bit um just on the other side of of maybe not loving this. So I mean I'd love to hear again I don't want to get too deep into the weeds. I know I've already kind of maybe dipped my toes there, but I'd love to hear from other commissioners of of maybe recommending something like that, giving the applicant an opportunity to, you know, maybe they lose one more lot. I don't know if that's feasible or they play with the lot sizes or things like that. Um, but just ensuring that there's some ensuring some breakup in in that story I think would be beneficial.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Not an ar

I'm not an architect. Um and I don't want to pretend to be one either. I commiserate with Commissioner Smith. Um I'm a little bit torn on this one. Um, I do appreciate the lengths to which the developer um has gone to provide us elevations and I feel like this presentation was one of the best we've had particularly for a controversial infill project. Um, there was very few questions from the commission. I really appreciate that. Um, I have the plaque pulled up here in front of me. I'd quite frankly like my brothers, I'd rather see no open space, bigger lots, and height restrictions. Um but that's, you know, that I'm sitting on this side where I just am judging what is brought before us,

right?

Um I like the reduction in density. I appreciate the fact that we went from I believe in the old proposal there was five lots that abued um 11-11 Atkins and now we're at three and one of them um is going to be a single family home that they're offering to make single uh singlestory um and that directly matches the residence at 11-1ven. So I do appreciate that. I think my biggest concern is probably that northwest lot. Um, having lived in neighborhoods where there was very minimal space between homes and there was two stories. I I can commiserate with the lack of privacy. Having that on two sides, that's just not ideal. Um, I also would point out though that there are two substory dwellings in the subdivision. One of them right in the um, uh, the culdeac directly to the west. Um, so it's it's not something that's not been done before. It's in this area there's going to be probably others that pop their tops um and and go up uh to gain more square footage. So, um I again, if I could have my brothers, I'd probably just condition that northwest lot to be single story. It was already alluded that they might be willing to do that. Um I that would probably be where I shake out. Um and I'm my comments on the open space are probably more for future development. I just I'd rather see open space in these smaller sub5 acre parcels go more into lot sizes um than I would into these small cutout parks that are going to be a a cost to the HOA um probably not going to be utilized um and you know they check boxes and they score amenity points but it's not really necessary and not driving the value that that maybe we think they do. So Gotcha. Thank you. Commissioner Perau is gonna go, but I

guess I'll go. Um, I recall the last hearing we had on when we denied it and uh several of the issues that we identified have been addressed or there's a valiant effort to address them. Um, I'm still bothered by the conflict amongst the existing neighborhood versus uh this development, particularly regarding the two stories. I understand that it's allowed to have two stories versus mandating that there's a one story. Um but I also saw the value of discussion between existing um homeowners and some reasonleness to by the developer to adjust the plans to try to address the concerns. What I would like to see is that that same discussion occur with the other um property owners that are abuing the proposed lots to see if there's some sort of compromise that can be had that will at least get us towards some sort of harmony amongst the existing residents and the new residents that are going to be buying those uh properties. Um, so I'm not sure what the formal um recommendation is on this, whether it's just a continuence to allow for a discussion amongst the existing neighborhood and the developer. Um, if that's allowable or not.

Are you suggesting a continuence?

I'm I want to check whether that's something that's allowable. Madame Chair and Commissioner Stole, um obviously you'd have to reopen the public hearing, but um yeah, that if there are questions or issues you think need you need additional information as to make your decision and you would like to see, you know, additional dialogue or additional information that comes between discussions between the developer and uh the neighbors that testified or others that weren't able to be here tonight, I think that's that's fine. Uh it should be, you know, not just to continue the not just to continue the debate, but to get some concrete information. And so I think it's, you know, state the purpose of the continuence would be to get information you need to make a decision as to a recommendation to the city council. So I think I'd encourage you to be as specific as possible. We're going to continue it for x number of weeks and we're looking for in particular more information about x, y, and z.

Okay. Thanks. The um Sabrina did say that the developer was had made as many changes as they were probably going to make. I mean, so I mean, we can reopen that and address it. I don't I don't think that continuing it. It's going to really make any changes, but I'll entertain that with the other commissioners if you think it might be worthwhile. Madam Chair, Commissioner Perau,

um I agree on the continuence. I think the developers probably done kind of the most changes that they're going to be willing to. Um I have a question for staff. While while I'm sharing my thoughts, is it possible to look at the plat more closely and identify which lots have more than say 4500 square ft, 4,500 5,000 ft². Um, and we can discuss limiting the stories on the lots that could accommodate that. um and and and then see if we can potentially address address some of those concerns of the two um neighboring lots there on the west side that have two backyards uh budding up against them. Um I wanted to to say a couple things very quickly to the audience. Um it's always a desire of mine to make sure that um that our residents understand what our role is in this process more specifically. So we realize that most of you've never come to anything like this. Probably never even crossed your mind. Um and there's a there's a belief perhaps that the city um has more control over specific decisions in this process than we do. So the this property is already annexed into the city of Meridian. So if a property is not annexed, this the city decision makers have a lot more leeway in um requirements that they can make on the applicant. Um but that's not the case here. And so what we primarily have to look at is is the applicant meeting the current um uh uniform development code and the comprehensive plan and those things like that. And so our decisions that come into play really don't have to do with our personal preferences. Um I I can

completely relate because I have a two-story home right in my very small backyard. Um at first I was concerned about the privacy, but I've just adjusted and um and that doesn't mean I don't understand where everyone is coming from. Um, but it's uh it's something that all over the city of Meridian, we have two-story homes up against singlestory homes. So, that can be a factor in our decision making. Um, but it also isn't something that we can we just have to be careful if we're denying it only for that reason because the applicant would have the ability to do that. Um, however, we, you know, we're going to we're going to take the whole big picture, but we we just have a a real specific balance that we have to strike as to why we um approve or deny a property, not just based on kind of fears or or um you know, preferences on our part. And that doesn't mean we're not taking all of your concerns into account. I just want to set the the tone for what this decision uh process is like for the commission. So, um that being said, uh I agree with a couple of my fellow commissioners regarding the possibility of limiting um the homes to single story if the lots will accommodate. I realize we can't make that decision for the developer and say, "Hey, 4,500 ft² is enough to do a single story for that builder." But um we could ask I suppose we could open up the the public hearing yet again and ask. Um did you happen to find that information? Madam Chair, Commissioner Perau. Yes. So there's really only two lots. It's going to be lot two block one and lot seven block one. Um they're roughly about 4,700 ft both of them. Um so the rest of them on the outskirts of

the the property are 3500 square ft um to 4,000 square feet. So, none of them are in that 4,500 above that besides lot two and lot seven of block one. Madam chair, may I ask staff another question? Thank you. Uh, what are the depths of the two lots? I can't see on here what the lot numbers are, but what are the depths of the lots? Uh, one that's off the common drive and the one to the south of that or Yeah. Are those deep enough to do a single story that's long and skinny essentially?

Madam Chair, Commissioner Pro. So the lot seven on where it touches the common drive is uh 75 ft and on the north boundary it's 95 ft and then lot eight below it is the 75 ft and on the south boundary of that lot it's the 84t. Uh a matter of single story versus twotory. it. Could you build a single story here? Yes, you definitely could. Um it's ultimately they've indicated to us that that's two story is their preference for financial um reasons. We see we have seen singlestory homes on smaller lots that typically cater to older demographics. Um but at the end of the day, we're not here to design or I'm not when they come in with their application to tell them what they what home to build on the lot as far as square footage and two one twotory. Correct. Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith,

um I think kind of where I'm at and I'm curious to hear the commissioner's thoughts is I think these two properties that are kind of the maybe the easier choices of conditioning to be one story. Um I mean I think those seem like easy candidates. I' I'd like to maybe condition of saying one additional home on that western boundary. let the developer figure out where it is, but ensuring that at least one of those is single story to again ensure some breakup. I'd like to see it about halfway down if I could you again if I could wave my magic wand, but I think where I'm at is for single story is lot two block one this most northern this northern westmost parcel and at least one other um of these properties in the R15 zone on the western boundary. I'm curious if that seems like that might be amicable without getting too into the engineering what to build where while still kind of ensuring some some breakup. I'm curious to hear other thoughts.

Yeah, Madam Chair,

I don't in the time that I've been on the commission, I haven't seen an infill, be it commercial or residential, that hasn't been a problem. Um I I I mean I don't know. It it it seems that everyone has an opinion on an infill and uh good or bad. I think the developer I I'm with Commissioner Rust. I'd like to see the uh open area cut down because what's the point of that? I mean, it really doesn't solve anything and give everybody a little bigger lot. And I think if they're meeting the height standards, um I think it's okay. I mean, it meet within the building codes and it's in what's been approved. And I'm I'm sorry, you know, I know that there was a lot of concerns over twotory versus one story, but in the in the sense that it's been undeveloped for this period of time, now's the time.

Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith, I think I think it might just be time. I'll make a motion and if it fails, um, no offense will be taken. Um, I'll just look forward to the the next best option. Okay.

Um, so after considering all staff applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to city council of file number H--2025-0038 as presented in the staff report with the following modifications. to require that uh singlestory homes be built or that singlestory usage be limited to lot two block one. Um this northernmost lot northwesternmost lot um and then one additional uh lot on the western boundary of the R15 zone. that an additional tree be planted in the backyard of each uh each um property in the R15 zone that bord is bordering an existing uh or that backs up to an existing property. And then to limit um all second story windows on all properties which would border in the R15 zone which would border um neighbors yards to be transom windows only to protect privacy.

Need you to make one adjustment on that. The application is 0016. I'm looking at the wrong one. Sorry. That would be for um H- Wow. 2025 0016. Okay. Thank you. Do I have a second to Commissioner Smith? One other clarification. I think it's important to note that this is R15 and R4 zoning.

I think it's your intention that it only apply to those the R15 zone portion of the development and not the R4. Correct. Those will only apply to the second story limitations, the additional tree, etc. to the the R15 zoning on the northern path. So, can you summarize?

I can summarize. Yeah. So, for applying for the R15 zoning, um I would move to approve uh with single story on lot two block one, which is the one that backs up to uh 11-11. This northern westmost lot, um which is in that top left corner on the map, and then at least one additional lot on this western boundary of the R15 lot. to require the applicant plant an additional tree in the backyard of each of these bordering properties in R15 as they said they'd be willing to do and accept a condition. And then similarly, as they said they would be willing to accept as a condition to limit that all second story windows on any of these R15 bordering properties uh be limited to only be transom windows. Do I have a second?

It fails. It does not have a second. So, the motion fails. Madam Chair, Commissioner Rust, I'll make a motion. Uh, I move that uh we approve Fington Heights file number H2025- Z0016 with the following conditions that we restrict um lots 1 and 7 I believe to single story um and the additional tree and the transom windows um in the R15 all for the R15 portion. I'll second block. It's been moved and second to approve Ferington Heights subdivision. All those in favor say I.

I. I. Those uh those not in favor? Nay. I. Nay. Are we tied again? We're tied again. Rock paper scissors. Sorry. Fails then. Yeah. Yes. The motion fails. So 33 does not does not a majority. So that motion fails as well. You can entertain a new motion or as we had to do recently for a different application, you could um reopen the public hearing and continue until you have a tiebreaking vote. Madam Chair, if I can just throw out some thoughts,

Mr. Stole. Um, I really liked Commissioner Russ's thoughts as far as whe allowing the developer to explore um what they could do with the lot size and whether they could financially make it work out to singlestory without the green space um that's being required in the um infill development. Um so uh with that in in mind why don't we reopen the public hearing um so that we can approach the developer for a continuence to work on that open space. Can I get a motion to open reopen the public hearing? So moved. Second.

It's been moved and second to reopen the public hearing to um approach the developer about continuence of uh uh adjusting the U plant. Will you come up to the microphones, please? Do we need to vote? Oh, do we not vote? It's been moved and second. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Okay, motion carries. Sorry, I'm all flustered. We We don't have ties very often. No, no problem. Um, okay. Thank you for um being uh amanable and uh your patience. So, uh, as a commission, we are a little bit torn on, um, the application,

and it has been suggested that, um, the open space may be, uh, potentially adjusted to offer more lot sizes and to really hone in on, uh, the potential of single stories with respect to the to the existing neighborhood. Is that something you would consider? Yeah, Madam Chair, I think um we didn't even know that was an option since the last time we were directed to bring more open space. So um we would be happy to go back re-evaluate taking that open space out and um making those lots larger if that's the direction of all of the commissioners. Yes. Yes. Okay. So with that in mind, Madam Chair, Commissioner Perau.

Um so I want to ask a clarifying question. Are we just referring to the lots that are on the perimeter of the development and not the lots internally because there's no open space in that section. So, or are we talking about a a revamp of the entire design? Well, I mean, because it's under five acres, open space is not officially required. Correct, Nick? Madam Chair, that is correct. Under five acres, uh, open space and amenities are not required by code. That is correct. So, should we give the leeway to the developer to look at the entire lot or you just want interested in just the um perimeter?

Madam Chair, that was just that was my question to the commissioners is do we need to give them direction or share our thoughts on that? I I assume I would prefer that they have the option obviously to completely redesign it if they'd like. I just wanted to give clarification to them on what it is we're requesting of them. Mad Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith,

I may also to maybe throw another wrinkle in here. I don't know that I would personally be comfortable if we remove the open space without reworking that interior buffer because there again there's there's no real significant open space for those lots. So I I would almost for my personal uh support I I would kind of require the whole thing to be reworked if we're removing that open space. I I think we leave it to the discretion of the developer to be able to present something that yeah, you know that that works for them. Commissioner Rust. Yeah, Madam Chair. I I think what we've heard from the community is that they're open to development. They understand that this is going to be developed, right?

And the consistent item that I've heard is we don't want two stories, right? So, I would theoretically be in favor of even increasing density by a couple of lots if it meant that we could only get single story. if they would go to single story. Um, I think that that could be an effective compromise. Um, but I I think we're seeing the the problem with trying to legislate from here what exactly can and can't happen. So, I'm just trying to give my perspective. Um, I would love to not really fetter them in any way and give you as the developer a chance to go back to the drawing board,

look at it again, know that the community really doesn't want two stories. Um, and and see what you come back with. um knowing the the business case that you have to make and and the performance you have to hit. Yeah. I mean, everybody knows it's going to be developed, so that's a given. The density that you were suggesting, whether it was the 30 homes or the 25 homes, fits into the the neighboring communities around it. Um the like Commissioner Russ said, I think the overall is is that um there's been a because they the majority of them are single s single uh story homes that it's intrusive. Yeah, I think yeah, the

the need for this open space is I just don't see it in that small an area, right? And if they can increase the lot size and increase the density, that's a win-win. So I think that but that's that's between the developer and and whomever, right? U that's certainly not our perview to dictate that.

And I think initially that had been um a comment that staff had made because there's no regional park in this area. So if it is catering to small families now you don't have a space for them to go that was within their community but legally or based on our code you don't have to either. So, but if they have bigger backyards like one of the residents said that maybe that open space isn't as um necessary understanding today is December 4th. What timeline do you think you would need to We will not have a meeting on January 1st. Okay. So, our next meeting is the 18th and I the 16th. No, that's city council.

So, Thursday the 18th is our next planning and zoning meeting. We won't have one the first. That's the first Thursday of January. Um, Madame Clerk, what is the uh next date in January? Is that the Madam Chair, it's January 15th? 15th. So, with that in mind, knowing that you have December 18th or January 15th? Um, do you have a preference or do you need more time?

Um, I think the sooner one would be fine. Um, absolutely. Just real quick, just for clarification so that we don't have to table it again in the near again, but can the roads be reworked? Are you guys wanting the roads in the same position? We c it's free. We are free to make any changes. Bill, Nick, Madam Chair, Nick's having heartburn right now. I know members of the commission, you know, 18th, two weeks out from today. So, we'll be sitting here today in two weeks. Um, I know we already have three things on the agenda. Some of them are pretty large projects. Um,

and I want to be sensitive to the applicant, but if they get me revised drawings, you know, a few days before, which probably is realistic because you got next week, they're probably going to be working hard all next week over the weekend and I might get it the week of the hearing. It's Yeah, it's pretty tough um on on staff's end. You know, if that's your guys' purview, we'll make it happen. But I think January 15th is definitely preferred. It gives us time and if we need to do a special meeting in January, I know there's been conversations at the staff. I'd be more than happy to January 8th could even be a date where if we need to do it, I would be happy to be there on that day as well. So, um and I'd like to hear from the applicant, too, on what they think on that. And you know,

no, and we want to be um sensitive to like your schedule and if you already have a full um but obviously we've been we've been working and delayed and we were August and now it's December. So um obviously sooner the better. Um but we do I mean if you did have a special hearing that would give us a little more extra time because I really want the next time we're in front of you guys to be like this is what we want. So, Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith, I also I I think part of the conversation was while maybe not the applicant's fault or shortfall there, there maybe was some some opportunity for more engagement with the community. So, I think that later date would give some extra time for not saying that they we're going to reach agreement on everything, but yeah,

seeing if we can fine-tune some stuff um to to get the community's approval. Commissioner Sto. Madam Chair, yeah, I'd like to see some meaningful dialogue with the community, the existing neighborhood. Um, that'll make me feel much more at ease than saw the benefit of having the discussion with the one homeowner. Um, the other thing is I'm not sure you're going to have quorum on the ETH either, right? So, I think January 15th is probably your best I think that's Yeah, that's probably your best bet to allow everybody reasonable amount of time. Um, I know it's frustrating um from a developer standpoint, but we want you to succeed. So, no, and I appreciate that.

And if it's rushed again, then we're going to be right back where we are. Sure. At the same point in time. So, um um so we need to motion to close the public hearing and then motion for the 15th. Is that where we're at? Or just continue. Where am I at? Kurt, keep keep the hearing open and you would ask for a motion to continue the hearing until January 15th. Madam Chair,

Commissioner St. I move uh that we continue the public hearing for um file number um H--2025-000016 Fington Heights until uh January 15th for the reasons to allow the developer um to look at a revised plan to bring back to the commission um and to have meaningful ful dialogue with the surrounding um land owners to see if there's the opportunity for to bring some sort of harmony and agree compromise on the proposal that will be presented to us.

Have a second. Second. It's been moved and second to continue Fairington Heights. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much.

Yes. Um we will take a uh five minute break and then we'll have our um next application. Yes, sir. That's it. Yeah, As long as it

shaker. Yeah. Yeah. I Yeah.

All right. The next item on the agenda is item H2025-0038 3780 Overland Road for annexation of 0.91 parcel of land and we will begin with the staff report.

Madam chair, members of the commission, next item on the agenda is the annexation for 3780 East Overland Road. Uh so as shown on the screen, the existing zoning is R1 in Ada County. Um, and the flume designation is mixeduse regional. This applicant actually has a hookup agreement with the city. Their well was failing. They're in the county. Um, and they needed to hook up to city water and sewer as an emergency hookup. And as a provision of that, they needed to annex into the city. So, as a result of this, R2 zoning obviously would not be the appropriate zone in a mixeduse regional. However, we are going to give them the R2 zone as a placeholder zoning until that property does redevelop. So, you know, um really we haven't seen received any written testimony on this one. Um they do run a um home occupation business. It's actually an alteration business out of it right now. And one of my DA provisions is that they acquire a home occupation as an accessory use permit here with the city or cease the the home occupation if it doesn't meet our standards. And they are aware of that. Um, I haven't received any written testimony as I mentioned and we're recommending approval with that development agreement. Um, so essentially the property will be R2 and they will have to come in with a development agreement modification at the time that it does redevelop. Um, and it will likely be with some of the neighboring properties at the time of redevelopment. So, this is more of annexing them so they can hook up emergency hookup into city services.

So, I don't see anybody in chamber. So, I take it there's no particular applicant uh here. You're just you're you're going to um plead their case. Madam Chair, uh the out he did indicate he would be online. It sounds like there was he probably was online. He might have tuned off uh over the last last public hearing. Um so uh you know I don't think he would have much to say. Um they're just looking for an approval. They already have the hookup in progress to get hooked up to city water because that well was failing. So um yes, hopefully they'll be here at the council hearing.

All right. Again, I think this is the first where we haven't had an applicant uh in chambers. So, we closed the public hearing since there's no one here to speak. So, Madam Chair, that's obviously if the applicant's not here to speak, uh that's that's fine. Um I think we have the same answer, but I guess I just for the record, I guess you'd invite the public. I'm not sure anybody on Zoom or not. Probably not. But if there's anybody in the public like to testify, that'd be fair game as well. And absent that, you can entertain a motion to close the public hearing. All right. Madam Chair, Commissioner Pro, I have a question for staff. Sure.

I thought I read in the staff report that there was a recommendation that the applicant uh put together a concept plan and so um I'm hoping that's not the case because that would seem a bit excessive to me considering it's going to redevelop all in much larger swath. Madam Chair, Commissioner Pro, uh I need to go back and reread it. I apologize if I read it or wrote it incorrectly, but no, at the time of redevelopment is when we'll receive that concept plan. So, I apologize if that was unclear in the staff report. All right. May I have a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Second.

Has been moved and second to close the public hearing on 3780 East Overland. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Do we have any conversation? Possibly a motion? Madam Chair, Commissioner Rust, after hearing all public testimony, I recommend that we approve file number H--202025-000038 for approval as set forth in the staff report. Second. It's been moved and second to approve uh 3780 East Overland. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. I will take one more uh motion.

Madam chair. Oh, we get stereo. Commissioner Smith move to adjurnn. Second. It's been moved and second to adjurnn. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Um a little housekeeping. So the 16th is a Tuesday. We have a 430.