[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6478575,"mediaKeyId","5708728-1efcabad80ac9d35594f34a84aaa35ff","parentId",5708728,"title","Touchmark withdraws development agreement modification after residents raise open‑space, notice and transition concerns","audioSeconds",3763,"startMs",6142000,"endMs",9905000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5708728-1efcabad80ac9d35594f34a84aaa35ff&start=6142&end=9905","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5708728-1efcabad80ac9d35594f34a84aaa35ff/thumbnail_6142000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6478575/Meridian/Ada-County/Idaho/Touchmark-withdraws-development-agreement-modification-after-residents-raise-openspace-notice-and-transition-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6478575-f90e496f89544921913ede2d4072c9df/orig.mp4?Expires=1771021508&Signature=Xnjg3o4wXzyZ33XEOLo~-lvULHT5ASoNmxbMbaCo6Gh1WuWkA2BEQQixbl5CG9lBGiVJK16Y5IhH4fbVxNHV7dpULKRAQatecl0kbVtz870KbknnkLVbsGGjLynJ5RPlSSCQEtiYZ3UwPmqoiYYrVfz6k2Elc~GbKStS9JTG3dGFDnUqCit~j8dEfXnhHLP8jkLw17rvVK9K6rpgLMbA6mz5-ajB5AMkGyPVZDNUBZYsURBiJrtkDBw-PvIGFAHr-uZPgY2FfMRQrCUJ~rIZ5L2SS4Bj3YN5QTjF~q0BzetCedqhRC2fMfNfCzxwyZt4plnq-k8t-q4Il0dz6TVLkw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Meridian","date","2025-09-03T03:20:18Z","article","Touchmark withdrew its application to modify the Meadowlake Village planned unit development and development agreement after an extended public hearing and extensive resident testimony raising notice, open‑space and compatibility concerns.

The applicant had asked the City Council to replace prior development agreements with a consolidated modification covering approximately 121.5 acres and to rezone portions of the site to allow a mix of commercial, medical office, light industrial and multifamily residential uses. The proposal described up to roughly 500 new market‑rate multifamily units, a 126‑room hotel, industrial storage, general office and 24 villas/dwellings associated with the retirement community; the applicant also proposed an alternative that would convert the existing golf course/central green to villas in an early phase.

Residents of the existing Meadowlake Village retirement campus testified in strong opposition. Dozens of residents said they chose the community for its campus‑style green space, pond, golf/putt area and campus amenities; several residents said those amenities were a material inducement to move there and called the planned conversion of the central green and golf area a loss of a core community amenity. Multiple residents said they had not received individual notice of the planning and zoning hearing (the city’s public notice rules notify owners of record, not residents or renters), and several asked that the council remand the application to Planning and Zoning so residents could be fully heard. Petition and written comments opposing conversion of the golf course were entered into the public record.

Planning staff and the commission had recommended approval with conditions (the commission added requirements to ensure canal fencing complies with city code and modified language around optional residential areas and open‑space exhibits). At the council hearing the applicant affirmed that the existing Center Park, pond and many constructed amenities for the current retirement community would remain; the applicant also said they would try to provide a vehicular connection to properties to the east but noted engineering constraints (gravity ditch, 27‑foot grade differential) could limit feasibility.

After the public exchange, the applicant requested withdrawal of the application; Council closed the public hearing and accepted the applicant’s request to withdraw. Council members who spoke later said they were not prepared to approve the application as presented and emphasized the need for better resident notification and clearer demonstration of how open space and transitions to new development would be protected. Staff and the applicant said they would continue to work with residents and could return with a revised proposal if mutual agreement is reached.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Meridian City Council - 9/2/25","oneSentenceSummary","Touchmark withdrew its request to modify Meadowlake Village’s development agreement and PUD after extensive resident testimony opposing conversion of the central green/golf area and raising concerns about lack of resident notice and building transitions.","taxTitle","Meridian, Ada County, Idaho","taxId",2628,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6478580,"Meridian staff recommends data‑first approach to construction dust and noise; council favors adding mitigation language to development findings",607,2233000,2840000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5708728-1efcabad80ac9d35594f34a84aaa35ff&start=2233&end=2840","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5708728-1efcabad80ac9d35594f34a84aaa35ff/thumbnail_2233000.jpg","/articles/6478580/Meridian/Ada-County/Idaho/Meridian-staff-recommends-datafirst-approach-to-construction-dust-and-noise-council-favors-adding-mitigation-language-to-development-findings","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6478580-5913fbf83473497d66527685e846a31e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771021508&Signature=Drn3QgLarv7WrHvXovEWRjiPysq0GbmdZJ6X6bBFJyTz8ChkCm09euCWkxGTtgsvqSAqzqyoIQBwPhEAk2naynx1GpLvj98ji0iRQFjVj-imD3EYlRSzuuZj20a7plTGgAXWYwwkAaa1JRmXduuLEum9KDnucEzCBKPKDMslXpm62EdQGDpryJvJcmddvRO-aCKf6-28~UPkoXCOA6UaQm82Oyn~gckbsapEwC2aaijR1n7swCOTqRITqgQAZO8sOHs1svKcH4b09NLjIUFiwuBmibr7cvy0AcBf3SC0eBGvNMHdbiEwmD9bn3blJ34lTkv15PkrNTFJS6Ld5ffbLg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff recommended a measured, data‑driven approach to address recent construction dust and noise complaints and proposed clarifications to design review and building‑height rules.

Public works staff presented four options after meeting with internal departments, the Building Contractors Association (BCA), and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Staff’s recommended Option 1 would: create a single online reporting page for construction complaints, distribute a best management practices packet at preconstruction meetings, require submission (but not immediate enforcement) of SWIPs for most projects, and improve interagency enforcement coordination. Staff emphasized that Meridian currently handles about 10–15 dust complaints per year citywide and that roughly 250 active construction projects each year mean many workdays without complaints; staff argued better data will reveal whether problems are widespread or project specific.

Council members supported Option 1 but several asked that the city make dust‑mitigation plans part of development findings where projects are approved (to create an expectation for developers) even if the city does not immediately add enforcement tools or criminal penalties. Council member Schaer suggested linking a required dust control mitigation plan or adopting BCA standard BMPs into findings; other council members argued development findings can carry weight in the permitting process even if code enforcement typically uses compliance‑and‑cure procedures rather than stop‑work orders.

Staff described potential next steps if data showed persistent problems: amend nuisance or noise ordinances to address construction hours or explicitly add dust to the nuisance code; or require SWIP submission to the city and build inspection/enforcement capacity. Staff warned that criminal enforcement requires physical on‑site observation and can result in misdemeanor charges against individuals using equipment — an outcome council members said they did not want as the initial approach.

On design review and building height, planning staff reviewed the history of the city’s standards (design manual, architectural standards) and noted the Unified Development Code defers many height definitions to building code. Staff proposed three possible changes: define building height precisely (measure to roof peak), limit or clarify appurtenance exceptions (parapets, stair towers, elevator shafts, rooftop amenities) and require disclosure of any requested height exceptions at the public hearing level. Several council members said they favored clarifying height language and making any exceptions visible during public hearings, and some asked staff to focus first on residential districts before expanding changes to nonresidential zones.

Council directed staff to proceed with Option 1 for construction practices (create reporting website, distribute BMPs, track complaints) and to return with proposed UDC language that clarifies building‑height definitions, tightens appurtenance language, and ensures height exceptions are disclosed at hearing level. Several council members requested that the staff draft results be incorporated into development findings where practical and that staff report back after one year with complaint data.","City staff recommended tightening complaint reporting and distribution of construction best management practices while collecting more data before pursuing code enforcement or ordinance changes.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6478582,"Meridian council presses ACHD for explanation after several projects delayed or removed from draft five-year plan",1918,261000,2179000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5708728-1efcabad80ac9d35594f34a84aaa35ff&start=261&end=2179","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5708728-1efcabad80ac9d35594f34a84aaa35ff/thumbnail_261000.jpg","/articles/6478582/Meridian/Ada-County/Idaho/Meridian-council-presses-ACHD-for-explanation-after-several-projects-delayed-or-removed-from-draft-five-year-plan","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6478582-57ec6f21b35be049d91f15db51922b48/orig.mp4?Expires=1771021508&Signature=nWNt8ZwAKFAqW1Gvpz5DduwlmydJ8TrZtECR7dsWxEvZiYpevYZ67hQtQUuUsqwhLf1ju1ngydZpaXF12UKzSaz0V27kCYjlmQUEB9yOHaLul-wCiYDKSazpNkGxa1bf7NI6ADGdh08FtRG-Z7WFiBpXuAvNr5pUPUCckd9IgJzZ3FftELPfHz5~evs06ImgTCZ7KlkCo7MtPtgP5Q5t7uw4SQn0t5kapBYSg7X3JE~2~-PuRGjxm2T2c2ekQ9soqQUYjdgtkjigbHWyDkoruqQCSY5hab52T6SB9EXAU3uLdgcsnc1KENU47t9nC~CsbWRpMd9swUMcGY8oaQe8HA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Meridian city staff briefed the City Council on the Ada County Highway District’s draft five‑year work plan for 2026–2030 and asked the council to provide direction for a comment letter to ACHD, due Sept. 10.

Council members said they were surprised to see projects the city had previously prioritized either delayed or removed from the programmed five‑year list. Staff said ACHD advanced some projects (including the Black Cat railroad crossing pedestrian safety work) while downgrading or removing roadway widening projects such as the Black Cat-Franklin segment from the capital projects list. Locust Grove is included in the plan; Meridian Road is not, and staff told council they had not received an explanation from ACHD for that difference.

Council members repeatedly urged improved coordination between ACHD and Idaho Transportation Department on how State Highway 16 and local intersections will open and operate. Councilman Taylor pointed to the intersection at Ustick and Venable and the upcoming community center there as an example where city developments and ACHD priorities must align. Staff said ACHD appears to be programming construction quickly but that some state work (State Highway 16) will open before ACHD’s programmed work, reinforcing the need for coordination.

Members also raised concern about the Black Cat corridor: while ACHD advanced the community safety program for the railroad crossing, the roadway widening at Black Cat and Franklin was removed from the five‑year capital list. Council members asked staff to request an explanation from ACHD and to press for corridor‑level reasoning rather than piecemeal project decisions. Several council members suggested the city reaffirm its top 3–5 priorities so ACHD can focus resources accordingly.

Council members discussed whether to remove from Meridian’s priority list projects that are already funded or in active construction, to conserve the city’s top slots for unfunded needs. Staff noted the transportation commission recommended keeping certain projects (Victory–Meridian to Locust Grove and 10 Mile–Cherry) at design readiness so they are “shelf ready” if funding becomes available. The transportation commission also recommended the city ask ACHD how changes to impact fee policy might affect available funding.

Staff said ACHD asked for formal comments by Sept. 10 but that the commission hearing is not until October and staff could deliver a letter up to the day prior; council directed staff to draft a letter based on the discussion and to return if the council wanted further refinement before sending.

Meridian council members left the discussion divided on whether ACHD’s edits reflect budget constraints (inflation and rising project costs were cited by staff as a major driver) or programmatic choices by ACHD. Several council members said they wanted a clear explanation of why Black Cat was dropped and whether impact‑fee changes would restore prior priorities.","City staff reviewed the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) draft five‑year plan for 2026–2030 and council members asked staff to draft formal comments, seeking clarity on why some Meridian priorities — including parts of the Black Cat corridor and Meridian Road improvements — were delayed or removed.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6478570,"City Council adopts fiscal updates: FY25 appropriation adjustment and FY26 budget ordinance",49,16808000,16857000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5708728-1efcabad80ac9d35594f34a84aaa35ff&start=16808&end=16857","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5708728-1efcabad80ac9d35594f34a84aaa35ff/thumbnail_16808000.jpg","/articles/6478570/Meridian/Ada-County/Idaho/City-Council-adopts-fiscal-updates-FY25-appropriation-adjustment-and-FY26-budget-ordinance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6478570-cc8b3b647c72c645715266b91c02b36a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771021508&Signature=mgokwc7PjJEk~W18we8o4WIghFlZ7G0EjIjtKnMPPEEq2zBAYnHqoa5LLQ40c-xnwLcAVe5qfAwm4kbHnlG-Dd8y1NwmNEeUBMFo~GKxNt-RlZhupciXiSTOGRkbX7fparbJQB~EA164xpLtgf-C8kBPMDrXzZPYlNSgMR-kgvqZ1QjDqeyoRCVec2mqjB3PqbRCAcIFw4Bax9cb6WsU5aqRSn3wkNoxtExN4CNKz5I68eGXwkYOa37CPL93~PJvXJNDByb4xbnmiqa2JQGn0eGf3jw9PE1Zl7VZEZYjKIr6mxXZCkKU~RSI20X39Qmp62d2JlUCQbXL9IzXTL39Pg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The City Council approved two ordinances during the regular meeting on Sept. 2: an amendment to the fiscal year 2024–25 appropriation ordinance and adoption of the fiscal year 2025–26 budget.

Ordinance 25‑2096 amended FY25 appropriations, increasing total appropriations from $255,511,778 to $264,009,348 and adjusting revenue and fund balance estimates accordingly. The motion to approve passed on a recorded roll call vote.

Ordinance 25‑2097 adopted the FY26 budget, appropriating $264,498,131 for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2025. Council moved and seconded adoption and waived second and third readings under Idaho Code 50‑902; the ordinance passed by roll call vote.

Clerk recorded aye votes from council members; the measures carried on the council record. No substantive debate on the motion was recorded in the regular‑session minutes; council moved on to scheduled business and closed the meeting after an executive‑session motion later in the evening.","Meridian City Council adopted two budget ordinances—an amendment to FY25 appropriations and the FY26 budget—after votes in the regular meeting. The motions passed on voice/roll calls as recorded in the Sept. 2 meeting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Touchmark withdraws development agreement modification after residents raise open‑space, notice and transition concerns

Meridian staff recommends data‑first approach to construction dust and noise; council favors adding mitigation language to development findings

Meridian council presses ACHD for explanation after several projects delayed or removed from draft five-year plan

City Council adopts fiscal updates: FY25 appropriation adjustment and FY26 budget ordinance