Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-01-27 Work Session Mayor Robert E. Simison City Council Members: John Overton, President Anne Little Roberts, Vice President Brian Whitlock Liz Strader Doug Taylor Luke Cavener CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, January 27, 2026 at 4:30 PM The City of Meridian is committed to providing equal access to all public meetings. If you need accommodation, an alternative format, or language assistance to fully participate, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at cityclerk@meridiancity.org 72 hours prior the scheduled meeting. Materials presented at public meetings are subject to disclosure pursuant to the Idaho Public Records Act. Public Meetings of the Meridian City Council are streamed live at https://meridiancity.org/live and can be joined virtually at https://bit.ly/meridianzoommeeting Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Mayor Robert E. Simison Councilman John Overton Councilwoman Anne Little Roberts Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Doug Taylor Councilman Luke Cavener ABSENT Councilman Brian Whitlock ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Overton, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Taylor, Councilman Cavener 1. Approve Minutes of the January 13, 2026 City Council Joint Meeting with Ada County Highway District 2. Approve Minutes of the January 13, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting 3. McKay Farm Subdivision Water Main Easement (ESMT-2025-0078) 4. Meridian Office at 146 E. Fairview Water Main Easement (ESMT-2025-0049) 5. McDermott Village Sanitary Sewer Easement (ESMT-2026-0007) 6. Final Plat for Hadler Subdivision No. 3, located at the intersection of Locust Grove Rd. and E. Via Roberto St, on the east side o Locust Grove Rd., by Ben Thomas, Civil Innovations, PLLC. 7. Final Order for Adero Park Subdivision No. 1 (FP-2025-0029) by Laren Bailey, Conger Group, located at 5435 N. Ten Mile Rd. 8. Final Order for Adero Park Subdivision No. 2 (FP-2025-0030), by Laren Bailey, Conger Group, located at 5435 N. Ten Mile Rd. 9. Addendum to Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Meridian and the Meridian Library District for use of Meridian City Hall 10. Addendum to Construction Contract for Urban Irrigation System in Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 3 ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] DEPARTMENT REPORTS \[Action Item\] 11. Request from Mr. Adam Markowich for Connection to the City Sewer System Outside City Limits at 2832 E. Leslie Dr. 12. Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report ADJOURNMENT 5:35 PM Meridian City Council Work Session January 27, 2026. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, January 27, 2026, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Luke Cavener, Liz Strader, John Overton, Doug Taylor and Anne Little Roberts. Members Absent: Brian Whitlock. Other Present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Carl Anderson, Jeff Brown, Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Liz Strader Brian Whitlock _X_Anne Little Roberts _X_ John Overton _X_ Doug Taylor _X—Luke Cavener X Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call this meeting to order. For the record it is January 27th, 2026, at 4:30 p.m. We will begin this afternoon's work session with roll call attendance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Next item up is adoption of the agenda. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: There are no changes to tonight's agenda. I move we approve as printed. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. Is there any discussion? If not all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is agree to it. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the January 13, 2026 City Council Joint Meeting with Ada County Highway District Meridian City Council Work Session January 27,2026 Page 2 of 22 2. Approve Minutes of the January 13, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting 3. McKay Farm Subdivision Water Main Easement (ESMT-2025-0078) 4. Meridian Office at 146 E. Fairview Water Main Easement (ESMT- 2025-0049) 5. McDermott Village Sanitary Sewer Easement (ESMT-2026-0007) 6. Final Plat for Hadler Subdivision No. 3, located at the intersection of Locust Grove Rd. and E. Via Roberto St, on the east side of Locust Grove Rd., by Ben Thomas, Civil Innovations, PLLC. 7. Final Order for Adero Park Subdivision No. 1 (FP-2025-0029) by Laren Bailey, Conger Group, located at 5435 N. Ten Mile Rd. 8. Final Order for Adero Park Subdivision No. 2 (FP-2025-0030), by Laren Bailey, Conger Group, located at 5435 N. Ten Mile Rd. 9. Addendum to Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Meridian and the Meridian Library District for use of Meridian City Hall 10. Addendum to Construction Contract for Urban Irrigation System in Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 3 Simison: Up next is the Consent Agenda. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: There are no changes to the Consent Agenda. I move we approve the Consent Agenda. For the Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest. Overton: Second. Simison: Motion and second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Simison: There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. Meridian City Council Work Session January 27,2026 Page 3 of 22 DEPARTMENT REPORTS [Action Item] 11. Request from Mr. Adam Markowich for Connection to the City Sewer System Outside City Limits at 2832 E. Leslie Dr. Simison: So, we will move on to Department Reports. Item 11 is a request from Mr. Adam Markowich for connection to the city sewer system outside of city limits at 2832 East Leslie Drive. Mr. Radek. Radek: Mr. Mayor, Council Members, yeah, this is another request to connect outside of city limits. This one's a little different. I have worked here 20 years and it seems like there is always something different coming up. So, I guess that's a good thing. The -- the -- the issues that make this one different are, first of all, the fact that -- I don't have an agreement with me, so this one, provided you approve this -- if you approve it we will come back with an agreement next week and the primary reason I don't have an agreement is because of time. I wanted to get an answer from Mr. Markowich and the second reason -- this one's a little different -- is because of the compelling health or safety reason. Generally when we have these requests they are because a well has failed or a septic system has failed or ACHD has taken out somebody's well or septic and the person's without them. In this case, again, different situation. Mr. Markowich is doing a renovation on his property and he is in the -- on Leslie Drive, which is in the Carol Subdivision, which half of those lots are annexed, half of them are not. Sewer and water were put in in 2004. The city put them in. It was part of an agreement we did to get sewer through that -- that development and water and sewer are both available there. Mr. Markowich intended to connect to the city, but in his renovation project was not aware of our city code requirements and -- and just, you know, found out through Ada county that he was going to have to either connect to the city sewer or expand his septic system and so now he is in a kind of a situation where he is -- he is all permitted and ready to build and needs to move forward one way or the other and we believe that it is a compelling health concern that the only option for Mr. Markowich at this point is to expand the septic system if we don't allow him to connect to city water or sewer and we think that the expansion and continued use of septic systems in an urban environment is a health concern. So, that's the -- that's the difference about this one. It's the -- it's -- that the health concern is kind of -- it's our health concern and the other residents' health concern that we are talking about. I think it's -- the more I think about it the more I think it's legitimate and the request is to hook up the sewer -- now, legal -- legal reviewed this and thought about it and we talked about it this morning. In their opinion is, you know, if Council approves this request Council should approve the request to connect to sewer and water and, then, we will do an agreement to -- to require annexation -- or application for annexation in a certain amount of time, address the well on site. The reason being is that when you are -- you have somebody connect to sewer it's -- it's hard to know what to bill them and it's also hard to control -- water you can turn off and -- and when they are hooked to water and sewer you know how much is going in, so you know how much will be coming out. So -- so, the recommendation at this point is that City Council allow Mr. Markowich to hook up to water and sewer immediately and we will do an agreement to require him to apply for annexation and he Meridian City Council Work Session January 27,2026 Page 4 of 22 is available to correct anything that I said that wasn't quite right or answer any questions you might have. Simison: Thank you. Council, questions? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Kyle, so the request that we have here in writing is now changed? Radek: That's correct, Councilman Overton. I -- I would say the -- maybe the request hasn't changed, but -- but you -- what you will approve I believe -- I'm -- I'm advising Council that Council can change what they approve, I guess, is the -- kind of semantics, but maybe Bill can help me out, but, yeah, he -- the -- the -- the -- Mr. Markowich has requested one thing, but I don't think we are limited to saying we approve that one thing or another. We can alter that and say we are going to approve this with that I think is what we are saying. Overton: Mr. Mayor, following up. Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: I believe in previous conversations that was made clear to me as well what you have stated. I just wanted to make sure, because the request says that Mr. Markowich wants to connect to city sewer and water. I'm assuming we are going to hear from him as well to make the same statement? Radek: He is available here and he certainly will make that statement. Overton: Thank you. Simison: Mr. Nary, do you have anything to add? Nary: No, you are -- you are right on as to what your recollection is. We recommended both sewer and water for long term of the city trying to manage it. It's much more difficult when there is only one. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Mr. Markowich, would you like to come and make any comments? I think it's just so Council -- if they have any -- Markowich: Thank you, Council. Thank you, Mayor. As Kyle said I'm just here to request to connect to city services outside of city -- city limits and, basically, what happened is I made an assumption that I could do so without knowing the code. I am a contractor. I have dealt with this before, just not in this jurisdiction. So, I haven't had to Meridian City Council Work Session January 27,2026 Page 5 of 22 do this exactly. This is going to be my primary residence, so I intended to annex in anyways. So, I guess that's the main gist of it. Simison: Council, any questions? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Overton. Overton: Mr. Markowich, just to confirm the item on our agenda said you were just wanting to connect up to sewer, but as you stand here and as we have heard today are you confirming that you would like to change that to hook up to sewer and water? Markowich: Yes. I -- my understanding is it's required both anyways; right? Overton: Correct. I just want to hear it from you. Markowich: Yeah. Connect to sewer and water. Yeah. Overton: Thank you, sir. Simison: Thank you. Markowich: Thank you. Simison: Kyle, anything additional to add? Radek: Mr. Mayor, no. Simison: Council, unless there is objection should we have him bring back that next week, sewer and water? Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Will -- Kyle, will a -- like timeline for annexation -- or I know sometimes we have put a stipulation in the that if it's sold for any reason, then, it has to be annexed at that point. Radek: Mr. Mayor, Council, Council Woman Little Roberts, we will -- we will require him to apply for annexation within a matter of -- it would be 30 to 60 days, so -- and I don't see any -- the other -- the other departments weighed in on -- on any concerns with annexation. I didn't get any concerns, so I can't imagine anything stopping him from being annexed, you know, in just a few months. Meridian City Council Work Session January 27,2026 Page 6 of 22 Little Roberts: Great. Thank you. Simison: All right. Then we will see that back next week. 12. Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Simison: Okay. Next item on the agenda is Item 12, Stratford to Touchmark transportation connection feasibility report. Turn this over to Mr. Anderson. Anderson: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Carl Anderson, long range associate planner here at the City of Meridian. So, we are here this afternoon to present to you the findings of the Stratford to Touchmark feasibility report. Before we dive in I just want to provide a little bit of background and context on -- on the project area. So, this work is intended to build on the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. My specific area of planning effort which was focused at that time on the Magic View, Woodbridge area. An extract of this summary can be found in today's memorandum through the staff report as Appendix Item B. This specific area was identified for community development beginning with fiscal year 2025 and during which the spring of 2025 the city sought professional services to develop a transportation plan focused on improvements that enhanced local connectivity and efficiency in the project area. Following this process the city selected Kittelson and Associates and Logan Simpson to complete the work, with project kickoff beginning July 31st of 2025, with this study wrapping up in January 2026. Of -- of note, just for clarification as well, this is the final report with the final technical memorandum. I recognize that the draft's technical memorandum is indicated at the heading there. This is the final understanding that there will be some potential corrections throughout -- for technical corrections and with that I will turn it over to Nick Foster and Brooke Green with Kittelson and Associates to present the report. Foster: Great. Thank you, Carl. Mr. Mayor, Council Members, my name is Nick Foster. I'm a principal planner with Kittelson and Associates and joined here by Brooke Green as well. As Carl said we led this study for the city, along with our partners at Logan Simpson. Carl, I think I'm going to have to have you flip through the slides. Johnson: You can control with the keyboard on the arrows. Foster: Oh. That is not working right now. Yep. Thank you. All right. So, today we will go over the project's purpose, generally what we were trying to accomplish with it, what we found in our analysis and a review of, you know, existing conditions, looking at future land use opportunities in the area. We will get into the different connectivity alternatives. We evaluated our assessment of them, opportunities and challenges related to them and, then, we will talk a little bit about potential next steps for the city and its partners. So, again, the goal here was to look at how can we improve connectivity in this area of Meridian to, you know, reduce stress on those major roads, particularly Eagle, Locust Grove, Franklin, to improve emergency response times in this area. You don't have a lot of connectivity through there as we will talk about later. Meridian City Council Work Session January 27,2026 Page 7 of 22 Generally enhance quality of life in the area. And, then, really, one of the big drivers for this, you know, coming out of that Comprehensive Plan was to support economic development in this area where you have got a lot of similar uses on either side of the area or synergistic uses with your med -- medical facilities on the other side -- you know, with St. Luke's east of Eagle Road. ICOM, ISU on the west side of Locust Grove Road. And, then, you were just talking here a moment ago about water-sewer connections. You know, we are looking at an area right now that is on aging well and septic infrastructure and so city staff have had concerns about public health in the area and so thinking how could development and transportation infrastructure help facilitate the extension of public utilities through this area. On the screen now is the study area for this project. We had two different study areas. Most of this presentation we are going to be focused on this -- or what we called the focus study area, which is really looking between Touchmark and Eagle Road, but we did also look a little bit at opportunities extending further over to Meridian Road and over to Touchmark -- I said Touchmark already. At Stratford to Eagle. But, then, we also looked all the way over to Touchmark on the east side. We engaged stakeholders throughout this process, including ICOM, ISU, West Ada School District, St. Luke's, city staff and some other groups with interest in the area and this figure here sort of summarizes known challenges identified through that process of meeting with those stakeholders, as well as our own previous assessments of this area through the Comprehensive Plan or just examining the area and you can see there is a number of different challenges. On the west side we have circuitous routing going through over to Meridian Road. We had, you know, concerns expressed by the ISU and the schools about traffic calming or pedestrian safety along Central Drive, along their frontage. We have congestion concerns at, you know, major intersections with Locust Grove, with Eagle Road, going between Locust Grove and Eagle, you know, as you are all well aware there is not a great direct connection from Central Drive all the way over to Eagle. That's one of the big focus areas here and people are cutting through Woodbridge to get -- make that connection right now. They have gone through some traffic calming studies in the past with ACHD. They have qualified on technical criteria, but haven't been able to muster the support to -- to actually implement it and, then, St. Luke's has concerns on -- related to their campus as well. Our partners at Logan Simpson did look at the land use analysis. They were the ones who led the Comprehensive Plan about seven years ago when that was done and what they identified -- you know, the Comprehensive Plan really envisions for this area is, you know, on that southern end more greater mix of uses; right? There was talks during the Comprehensive Plan and through some of these discussions in particular about future employment in that area, recognizing that you have got all this -- all this medical and -- and other facilities in the area that they are -- you have this big gap of low -- currently low density residential in between, without much in the way of connectivity and so if you look through the report in the memorandum they have more details on housing and land use projections based on this. All right. We initially developed five different alternatives for that primary connection between Central Drive and Eagle Road and we screened them looking at their impacts on land use or potential to support future redevelopment in the area, how well they might perform from a transportation and utility extension perspective and, then, what might be their impacts be or the feasibility of construction be in terms of right of way impacts, impacts to Meridian City Council Work Session January 27,2026 Page 8 of 22 existing parcels, housing, et cetera. So, we have this big map here that shows the five different concepts. You can see concept -- the -- going from north to south we had a concept day shown there in green, which uses entirely existing roads. You know, challenges with that. That's what's there today and, you know, there is -- that's not working well in regards to transportation connectivity and doesn't do much to support the economic development or the infrastructure concerns related to public health on the southern section. Concept B is that dashed blue line that runs straight across just south of the Magic View Subdivision area. An improvement on what's there today maybe, but still not quite getting all the way there from a transportation perspective or supporting economic development to the south, but does have fewer impacts in the south and, then, we have concept C, D and E, which are all shown in the southern section in that purple, brown and kind of red -- reddish color, which do run through that existing lower density county enclave area and provide that more direct connection to Central Drive and generally do a better job of supporting potential economic redevelopment area, which I think are some of the key goals of this project. So, we move forward with those. You will also see on the map we have -- on the east side of Eagle Road in blue we have a color that shows what is currently a proposed collector level roadway on the ACHD master street map. It's dashed across the existing St. Luke's Drive, because that does a private road, not an ACHD road today, so for it to become an ACHD collector they would need to take ownership of it. And, then, the north-south connection doesn't exist today and it's just a dashed line on the ACHD master street map. And St. Luke's through this process has expressed, you know, some surprise at seeing that I think, too, and it's I think interested in further engagement with ACHD to talk about their plans there, but that is one of the -- one of the potential next steps here. On the west side you will see we also -- west side of Locust Grove you will also see we evaluated some other potential connections and ways from Central Drive over to Meridian Road as part of this process, too, and so coming out of that screening what you see here on the screen now is where we landed with our three kind of preferred concepts that we spend most of our time on. So, they are C, D and E for the reasons I described in the last slide. They are much more direct from a transportation perspective. They provide new infrastructure through an area that is admitting for redevelopment in the Comprehensive Plan and so, then, we have those -- we will focus primarily, again, on that section between Locust Grove and Eagle. You will also see we do have some other options on the west side to, you know, maybe an extension down on the southern side of Central Drive there around the ISU, ICOM area as a potential way to increase connectivity in that area. Likely expensive to complete that with the connection across Locust Grove, but shown here as something to consider in the future potentially. We also looked at different ways of how could you improve the routing over from Central Drive over to Meridian Road and Main. Ultimately you will see on the next screens we -- we -- we landed on a preferred option of maybe realign Central Drive to create a more direct connection where it comes across Stratford Drive today and, then, routing people still up to -- up through Corporate like is done today where you have two different intersections, one with Main, one with the Meridian. It's a greater capacity to continue handling traffic versus trying to funnel another extension of Central Drive straight through to that existing, you know, multi- legged intersection where the couplet comes back together. So, this figure here shows a more detailed look at Concept C. What's shown in green is what we have identified Meridian City Council Work Session January 27,2026 Page 9 of 22 as a preferred routing. This concept mostly uses existing roadway through that area between Locust Grove and Eagle Road, which limits the amount of right of way it might need. The flip side is it also means that -- it goes along a lot of -- you know, with a lot of front-on housing; right? So, that has potential impacts, obviously, to the people who currently live there. It's on the northern area there. Again lots of existing homes already. Maybe does limit the potential that redevelopment is going to occur in -- or be as attractive in that area to catalyze the road development, too. So, maybe a little less benefit from that perspective. But if you were doing this as they say a public project, most of that roadway infrastructure is already there. But, yeah, that -- that -- currently it's still a circuitous type of alignment, so not the most direct from a transportation perspective. Does limit development potential and that existing roadway is not up to current ACHD collector standards, so you would have to still widen it out, even though it is an existing road. There would still be impacts even if you were to build this as a public road project. Concept D we call it, the Central Drive extension, is just a straightforward push right on through. This is our most direct concept we evaluated. It provides some good opportunities for potential for a larger scale redevelopment, you know, if someone were to assemble parcels along this corridor and also I believe was the preferred concept in the Comprehensive Plan, too, several years ago. You know, if you were doing this as a public project you would have greater construction challenges, because you have to build more roadway, but, again, there is greater redevelopment potential with D than there is C. A little too far. Comprehensive -- then finally E. This was another alignment evaluated in the Comprehensive Plan. This one our land use consultant believes is attractive for redevelopment purposes, because it runs right through that commercially zoned -- or not -- the commercial area shown in the future land use map. You also have, you know, freeway visibility if you were looking for those types of uses. So, you could see, you know, market driven development potentially, like in this type of alignment because of that visibility, if it's that type of development. It's not quite as direct as that last concept we were just reviewing; right? You have to go south to then go back up north again. But it does also have -- maybe this -- does have lesser impacts to existing parcels than Concept D there, because it does run away from a lot of existing homes. So, some trade-offs there in terms of its transportation connectivity and development potential. So, finally, we did a high level assessment of these all, looking at different criteria and what we found is that generally from the -- what we are trying to accomplish, you know, here what the -- the hopes of the city were for this type of connection really to redevelopment and improving transportation connectivity. We get the best performance from Concepts D and E. Potentially the best overall from D, but, again, E -- depends on type of development coming into the area. Obviously, there is trade-offs, then, within a new roadway required or amount of approved roadway. You know, more significant with D and E than maybe Concept C was, but D and E generally performing better from the -- the stated goals of the project. So, to wrap things up on, you know, next steps from here, then, I think Carl will close it out with some final thoughts here after I do and I would love some questions from the Council, but would be working -- you know, assuming this goes forward with -- as a road to be built through market driven development, which is -- is probably a good likely way. ACHD, as a general rule, doesn't build new collectors itself, it looks for that to happen through the land development process. We will be working with ACHD to get something on their Meridian City Council Work Session January 27,2026 Page 10 of 22 master street map showing an alignment through here, which will help preserve what the city is trying to accomplish as development comes in or considers the future area here. You know, then, as that goes through there could be more examinations of what does this mean from an intersection perspective, intersection design perspective. What's the best treatment for people walking and biking through here. Traffic calming. Things like that. There will be a lot more other steps if this was to go forward as in a publicly funded project by the city or ACHD, you know, related to actually developing concepts and going through a public engagement process to -- to really vet them. But, again, this type of roadway is typically built in Ada county, you know, through the development process. Yeah. And with that, Carl, you want to close out some thoughts? Anderson: Yes. Thank you. So, thanks, Nick. So, with that just as a result of this work and the identified next steps staff have ranked and recommend prioritizing the concepts as they are proposed here, C, D and E, in the order above with the preferred concept being Concept D, believing that it accomplishes, you know, most of the objectives for this work, followed by E and C. This ranking is largely informed by the comparative analysis provided in the report and that was also generally consistent with my Meridian specific area plan work from 2019 for the portion of the study area in the Magic View, Woodbridge area as well, though this effort did expand upon that looking further east and west. As indicated in the prior slide, this effort identified several potential next steps that the City of Meridian may undertake to further this work and they may occur in a variety of different options and different areas. It is a large study area and there may be some sections that can move forward while other work occurs. So, for example, looking further west of Locust, maybe one specific portion of the study area and, then, prioritizing areas between Locust and Eagle and, then, east of Eagle as well. So, each of them kind of own -- all have their own potential next steps as well. One point of clarification -- and/or just a note for Council is that there is -- there are multiple -- or at least there were two current development applications within the study area that I just want to touch on briefly just to provide a quick update. So, one of those applications did withdraw just to wait and see how -- what the results of the study were for the area. The other Council is scheduled to hear next month. Staff has worked with the current planner assigned to that -- that application and they provided that applicant with the final report and we do anticipate some additional coordination between now and next month's council meeting. So, I just want Council to know that that applicant team should have the final report in -- yes. But with that I'm happy to -- I would like to turn over for discussion on -- staff would be interested in hearing from Council as far as Council's thoughts related to the concepts, you know, the prioritization of them and the order presented and just, you know, potential next steps. Thank you. Simison: Thank you, Carl. Council, questions for Nick or Brooke, knowing this is the legislative session. I think she's open for all questions on all topics and all issues. Oh, sorry. I -- I mean -- questions for Nick at this time? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Meridian City Council Work Session January 27,2026 Page 11 of 22 Strader: Could we take a look at Concept B again really quick? That's one that I didn't really do a deep dive on, but -- so, maybe a question would be -- talk to me a little bit about B. I know you ruled it out. I think it's -- it's likely because of the right-of-way concerns from what I recall in the report. It's also kind of like a straight shot across that doesn't necessarily disturb some of the existing conditions. I was just curious -- talk to me a little bit about B and why that is not one of their preferred options and, then, my other question was around Concept E it's -- it feels like that's a beautiful option, except for the end of it where it like runs into this one property and kind of does this little like, you know, kind of jets around it. Foster: Does the jog north there? Strader: Yeah. Foster: Yeah. Sure. I will tackle B first. So, B -- some of the key challenges with Concept B is when -- you know, if it's only -- well, no matter how it's built you are still going to have to do a jog north to get to it somehow. If you get, you know, that new alignment through, it's roughly like the post property, you could do it away from Locust Grove, but if you just built the section between Wells and Locust Grove you are still going to have to have traffic use Locust Grove Road to, you know, get off Central, go up and over. So, you still have this kind of circuitous routing using that arterial system that we are -- one of the goals was to get traffic -- not local traffic off of that if possible. Then the second is from a market, you know, development perspective. With that concept, you know, it's up against the subdivision to the north and so you are looking at maybe only development on the south side of the road, instead of both sides, and so our land use consultant didn't feel it was very attractive from a redevelopment of this area perspective. You know, it does go along the back of these homes and, then, you know, you will have some concerns from people obviously of having a road right behind their homes that they didn't have before, too. But just from a potential redevelopment perspective, as well as from a transportation connectivity perspective, it didn't feel it performed very well compared to the other alternatives. And, then, Concept E -- see if I can get a cursor going here. So, I'm assuming the jog you are referring to is this one right here I'm circling with the cursor. Yeah. So, yeah, in a -- we initially looked at this. We looked at having it continue to go along and go up and over to Wells here, just following 1-84 the whole way. To do that you would either have to convince ITD to hand over there right of way and allow you to build it right next to their freeway on ramp or you would have to actually blow through this building that's -- the footprints roughly shown here. There just isn't the physical space to get it in without -- and that's a relatively newer building without removing that building. Yeah. Or building directly adjacent to the ITD freeway. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Meridian City Council Work Session January 27,2026 Page 12 of 22 Strader: But technically that it -- there is enough ITD right of way that we could; right? Like is it -- is it workable was kind of one of my questions. Like if -- if -- and, listen, I -- working with ITD we understand it's very involved, but we have successfully worked with ITD on some shared priorities -- Foster: Uh-huh. Strader: -- and I'm just curious like is it technically feasible to do it that way? Foster: That's a good question. I think there is technically the space to get it in, but you would -- yeah, you would be right up against their road, too. Yeah. It was -- it's pretty tight. You know, could it be something that was a discussion as you move forward things? Possibly. I think when we look -- you spoke with ITD as part of this; is that correct? Green: As it pertains to ITD, you certainly could work with them, although you are going to have it but straight to the Interstate and in addition to that I think there is some enhancement opportunities that they are exploring in this space as well that might limit that opportunity to extend that and, then, I also want to add some content to Concept B. So, we did feed -- receive feedback from ACHD, that doesn't -- Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Brooke, I don't mean to interrupt you. Can we -- is there an option that we try to fix the feedback. It is just really hard for me to hear you. Johnson: Just need to move the microphones away. That's the only -- Green: If I step back is that better? Cavener: I have no clue. I just -- it's not you, it didn't work with our mics -- I'm seeing maybe separate the microphones apart, is that what that -- Green: Is that better? Okay. Fabulous. Do want to add some additional content to Concept B? What I was highlighting was it doesn't meet ACHD's intersection -- is this just better if I speak out here? Cavener: I wish I had an answer for you. That is not better. Simison: Maybe put the computer down. Green: Something happened when I came up. Simison: The -- the computer at my house impacts my stuff. Green: Okay. Maybe that's -- Cavener: My cell phone. Meridian City Council Work Session January 27,2026 Page 13 of 22 Green: Oh. For the record Brooke Green. So, to what I was trying to add some content related to Concept B is when we met with ACHD and their feedback that they provided, that intersection will not meet their intersection spacing. So, should that concept move forward there would have to be some modifications either to their policy itself or to the actual plan, which could limit -- you wouldn't necessarily have that opportunity to go through. It would probably have to be right-in and right-out. So, I just wanted to add some content to Concept E. Foster: And based on my quick check again on Google Earth you could fit a road in, but you are going to be directly up against that building and the ITD road, so -- yeah. It would be technically a challenge at that point. Yeah. With no room to spare for utilities or anything. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: One question I have -- in terms of utilizing market forces to bring the redevelopment dollars and interest to this spot, you mentioned that Concept E might be more attractive from a commercial exposure point of view, but from the future land use map and what we want to see there, do you -- outside of that if we went with what staff was recommending with D, does that bring the kind of redevelopment attraction from your experience that people would see this as an attractive sort of connector through here that you would -- you would start to see that? Because I'm kind of curious just thinking through what kind of projects are coming here and I can't remember if the future land use map -- is it commercial? Was it mixed-use? Because I'm trying to think what are we trying to bring here? I know we have got some residential interest here, but are we trying to look for some commercial, some office space? I mean I'm just trying to see like what -- what concept would actually bring us the type of interest and development we are looking for. Anderson: Sure. I can answer at least a portion of that Mr. Mayor, Council Member Taylor. So, the Comprehensive Plan was updated as a result of the my specific Meridian area planning work from 2019, which designated much of this areas mixed-use neighborhood. So, it does envision some residential, you know, with some employment and neighborhood serving uses through there, envisioned potential linear parkway or park amenities as well in the area. Really looking at, you know, enhancing that connectivity between the east and west portions of the project area. Foster: Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Taylor, yeah, what you see on the screen here, the green is that mixed-use neighborhood and what's in red is the commercial. Yeah. Our land use consultant felt pretty strongly about both alternatives D and E having their benefits. They are just slightly different with what they might provide in terms of -- yeah. One provides that freeway visibility, which is nice, but with D you get that straight shot through. You could have development on both sides of it. It Meridian City Council Work Session January 27,2026 Page 14 of 22 runs right through your mixed-use neighborhood. You could create, you know, more of a boulevard type feel even if you wanted to. Taylor: Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Is the -- the -- the intersection there on Locust Grove where this is proposing, is that already at a satisfactory level or would that need to be redone; do you know? That might not be a question for you, but -- Foster: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Taylor, we did not do an intersection analysis there. I would guess most of it is operating okay, except maybe during some like peak -- of the peak times with that northbound left-in probably during the school -- school times, because you don't have a ton of demand coming from the east right now. You would want to really look at it when you were putting a road through as to what -- how that would need to function. ACHD does have a roundabout there on their master street map in the future, but, again, that would be re-examined as part of any major -- major development in this area. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Nick and Brooke and Carl, thank you for doing the work you have done on this. My concerns are a little more current. I want to come up with a agreed upon -- whether it's one or two or all three preferred routes, but in such a manner that we don't make mistakes that we have made in the past where we decide on a preferred route, but we have current applications that could possibly take one of those preferred routes off the table and I guess my biggest concern is -- I know we are not discussing that project tonight, but I want to make sure that as we do work through this is that idea of what these preferred routes are going to be something that would have to be met by those applicants -- any applicant, so we prefer these preferred routes and don't lose them in the future. Does that make sense? Foster: Yes, it -- Carl, do you want to -- or Brian. McClure: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Overton, the -- the best tool to preserve for corridors that align with the city's Comprehensive Plan is to include them on ACHD's master street map. That -- that allows both ACHD staff and city staff to ensure that when the development comes in they are not negatively impacting that or easily removing them as -- as viable options in the future. I do want to note, though, that even -- even when it's on ACHD's master street map decision makers have in the past still allowed alternatives that have sort of done that. I say really the -- the best way to make sure that we aren't undoing potential work in the future is to make investments of some sort Meridian City Council Work Session January 27,2026 Page 15 of 22 into that corridor. That doesn't necessarily mean infrastructure improvements, but having -- having a leg in the game. Overton: Mr. Mayor, follow up? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: I appreciate that, Brian. Again my concern is I -- I have seen us do it in the past and we didn't do it intentionally, we did it because we had desired routes we wanted to have the city build and, then, we allowed developments to go in and take those off the table and I just want to make sure as we are looking at this that we -- we are doing all the work necessary to make sure that we are preserving these preferred routes, because if all we do is we stop at what we are doing tonight and we haven't got that on the ACHD street map, then, I guess we are still leaving that open for future development to take away our preferred routes; is that what I'm hearing? McClure: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Overton, yes, in itself. If it's not on ACHD's master street map and we are not actively doing stuff out there, whatever that may be, then -- then, yes, it's -- it's potential that it's all for naught. We should do something even if it's -- we should do something. Overton: Mr. Mayor, one more follow up. Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: I guess this is also the rest of the Council. I love to see us -- I think they have done a fantastic job in giving us alternatives for preferred routes. I really like the looks of D and E. I think I agree with your analysis. I'm not sure if D or E -- I know E doesn't line up with Wells Circle, the stub street that comes back right now, and I don't know that D lines up with Wells Circle. It was a little hard -- with my eyes looking at this screen it was a little difficult for me to see if this preferred route in D is actually going to be north of the current Wells Circle that feeds into the commercial area now and, if so, then, I think it would definitely interfere with the potential application coming before us. McClure: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Overton, you know, what you are not seeing here is, for example, future intersection configurations. There would have to be an intersection configuration there, just like we know Central and Stratford is an issue, there would have to be intersection improvements there to eliminate conflicts and improve connectivity and flow through there. We have to do something at Wells. That -- that's just not the level of detail that this study went into. It's understood that we aren't -- those things are needed. This study isn't doing that yet. Overton: Mr. Mayor, one more follow up. Simison: Councilman Overton. Meridian City Council Work Session January 27,2026 Page 16 of 22 Overton: So, it sounds like we are not quite done. We have done a great job to this point. We have identified preferred routes, but in order for us to take this all the way home we have to get it to the point of being on the Ada County map to actually make it our official preferred route, so that we don't allow any development to wipe that off the map and put us back to square one. McClure: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Overton, that's certainly a good way of doing that. It -- it also can be -- we are requiring someone to preserve right of way and that considers intersection improvements where those two lines meet. So, if a developer came in, new one somewhere that hasn't happened out there, and we -- and we talk about this and Council wants to do it, we would say if you want to get a favorable recommendation from the City Council you need to preserve right of way and you need to make sure that intersection works where those public roads meet and, then, considering any driveways or other access points nearby. Foster: Yeah. And if I may add to that, Mr. Mayor and Council Member Overton, I think -- I do believe C -- D and E both do use Wells Circle as shown on the maps, but as Brian is saying when actually development comes in and it's time to actually fine tune that alignment and how those intersections look, you are -- they are going to want to look at all, right, does that make sense to use Wells Circle after all or do we have -- are we concerned about the site distance or other interactions in that area given its proximity to the bend in Freeway Drive there and so do we actually look at slightly moving alignment a little bit further north and looking at what the intersection configuration looks like then. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Little Roberts: Thank you. Nick. Foster: Yeah. You are welcome. Overton: As we have talked about this multiple times over the past few years I think the assumptions always been that Wells Circle would just naturally be that connection coming from Locust Grove. It would come through and connect and I was always a little skeptical that what if that's not and what if that point is actually going to be further to the north and that we need to preserve more of that land to the north for that potential preferred route. So, thank you very much. Foster: You are welcome. Thank you. Simison: And I can kind of piggyback on these -- these comments. I will give my two cents on what I think I have heard and what I think I know and what I don't know in the context of this is I think E is going to be an uphill battle. I think until ITD rebuilds Eagle Interchange and decides that they don't need that slip ramp. I don't think that E is a Meridian City Council Work Session January 27,2026 Page 17 of 22 legitimate concept to consider. Just going to put that out there. I think it could be a secondary concept at some point in time, but if we want to move forward with a concept I don't think we can put our -- our eggs in E and -- if we want a straight route. Yeah. It's -- it's -- it will -- it will bend if that's the -- the one. But I think that a DS route, with an additional E route in the future, might -- might work, but it's going to wait until ITD determines what happens in that area, in my opinion, if we wanted to have the -- the biggest straight thing and then -- and that's my -- my biggest concern with all of this, frankly, is if we don't make this easier than driving through Woodbridge no one's going to use it and we may as well go back to the drawing board or just close off Woodbridge and say -- make it a gated community and don't let people go through there and that -- that's my challenge with every one of the bends in these roads in these locations, because it -- when I look at Concept E I actually say, yeah, we are going to come up on -- we are going to go cut between the hotel and come around the back of the other one and go north of Wells and that's the path that creates a straight route without creating a couple 90 degree turns. But, again, just get us back to what I'm hopeful we are going to get away from over on the other side where we have a 90 degree turn with a left at the end of the school. So, it's like I don't know how I would ever -- could say let's do -- let's do a road that looks just like the one we want to change a mile away. In my opinion. Doesn't mean you couldn't do the one that runs on the back of Woodbridge and swoop it down and take out -- and that's where -- that's where I'm at. I -- I think you have to get beyond the point of following lines of property owners. You have to put in the road that you think works for the long term development of the city and that's uncomfortable. This may not be preferred, but if we don't do that, then, I don't know why we will be doing this. It's going to be enough to get people to come off of -- enter at the McDonald's and take those things just to get them to take on one of these routes, unless it's super fast, because it's not that hard to go through Woodbridge, even with a few of the things they put in there if that's what people want to do. So, that's -- that's to me why I -- you know, I -- I think that the D concept generally has the best straight -- getting people through to avoid a Woodbridge cut through, but where it's located is -- to me it's not on Wells based upon the current configuration of the properties and everything else. It is north of Wells. And if that's not the case, then, we should spend a little bit more time getting very -- very clear on those type of issues before we move forward with any development application in -- in this area. But that's -- that's the feedback I have also given to the team. But I -- if we had to sit down with a couple of people from ACHD and draw these directly on a map and -- and find the -- the solutions with what type of -- are these going to be a roundabout? What is the going to be the treatment? Where is it going to be so we can get to the 95 percent -- so we can actually consider development through this area. I have also expressed at least my personal opinion that, you know, you are -- what's going to be between whatever your road is and the interstate, we know what type of business presence people are going to want. I don't know that that's neighborhood commercial as a land use designation. Frankly, I think the land use designation between whatever -- if we use D use as an example would likely be different between that and the north than to Woodbridge. I think even if we don't put on the map now you have -- a future council is going to see that when people come in to redevelop because the type of people they are going to want to come in and assemble properties and do large scale projects are people that are going to want to have a large footprint that they Meridian City Council Work Session January 27,2026 Page 18 of 22 want to have showcased and be visible and it may not fit with the -- the -- with respect to the planning team, mixed -- mixed neighborhoods, the field points, because they are like, well, where is -- where is this land use going to be? So, that's just my two cents on -- on -- on this issue, but I think that if we are wanting to move forward with something to look at further, D is the only one I see as a viable option from what's been -- being presented, unless we want to go up along the back of Woodbridge and just circle it down and, then, I don't know what the land use looks like in the future. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Just really quick. I completely agree. I think E is the best alternative. I think Kittelson got it correct. I think our staff got it correct. I appreciate them looking at five different options. I really do. Because that kind of gives us something to base it off of. But before I even read the end of your study I was already sold on D. So, I appreciate the work you have done and that does look like it will be the best one going through. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Yeah. I think -- like how you said, we don't want to create this awkward circuitous sort of route that we are trying to -- that we already kind of have and so I was also thinking something more direct would be -- would be beneficial. I -- I really think that this part of Meridian is going to be -- have a really interesting future with ICOM, the ISU, annexation to the north of that, what do you do there? I think there will be a lot of interest -- there is a lot of opportunity, but I do worry if we kind of mess it up it's just going to be just a mess. It's going to be -- you know, cars are not going to move through easily or quickly. It's going to actually just -- you know, ten or 15 or 20 years from now it's going to -- future councils are going to ask what in the heck were we thinking and I agree with Councilman Overton, I -- I think there is enough interest already that we owe it to -- to them to -- when they are bringing forward applications to know what -- what to expect from us. We have already had some discussion with some applications in the past about whether this is viable or not and just not knowing what the network looked like. So, I do think we have an obligation to make a decision pretty soon and -- and just sort of recognize it's the best decision we have in front of us. I do think that D probably makes some sense given the alternatives that we are looking at. I mean it's not going to be easy. It's not going to be pain free. We are going to -- it's going to be expensive and a lot of, you know, people's properties are going to be disrupted at some point and that's -- you know, we understand that, but I do encourage us -- I think we need to make a decision and kind of stick with that and so we can -- you know. Brian, I appreciate what you said about, you know, making sure that this got into the master street map planning forACHD is kind of the most important next step we can do, but we have to signal that that's where we want to go, so -- Mr. Mayor, let me ask a follow up if I may. Meridian City Council Work Session January 27,2026 Page 19 of 22 Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: This might be even a question just for ourselves and for the Mayor. What kind of public input do we want to get though? Do we want -- I mean we can make this decision based on the things we have, but is this something where we want to invite some input -- some potential -- some hearings from developers, from the people that live there to say here is our options that we are working through, what feedback do you have? I think it might be significant enough that we might want to consider getting that input and I'm not sure if that input is going to be part of getting this included into the master street plan with ACHD, but I think we might do well to have some opportunity for the public to tell us what they think of a few of these plans. Foster: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, and I can certainly start that one and, Brian, Mr. Mayor, if you have any further input. You know, as -- as originally envisioned when -- when we started kicking this off, we wanted to do some digital outreach in addition to some of the stakeholder engagement that was conducted for this, you know, but we -- this -- this is really looking at identifying potential high level at the kind of the concept level understanding that we are going to have some next steps that we need to do. One of these first ones is to update the master street map with ACHD. I would envision that when we get -- get to a point here and we received Council's feedback as -- which has been very helpful and thank you for that. I -- I think we would want to do some level of public outreach to -- to gather feedback on -- on some of that. Thank you. Simison: Yeah. And that's what we envisioned was once we kind of had a preferred that that's where we would engage, because both the question about what is the land use or the land use, is it going to change, what is the preferred route and treatments that we may want to look at through that process. Taylor: Mr. Mayor, just to kind of close the loop on that, I -- because I'm thinking we may want to reconsider what the appropriate land use is here. I mean it might be a little bit more of a commercial or not. I don't know. So, I -- I kind of -- because I see this as a very unique piece of Meridian with the frontage and the -- and the freeway and kind of what's going on there. I would kind of like to have that discussion a little bit broader on that. So, thank you for that. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Yeah. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I -- I recognize I think kind of the goal that you are trying to achieve in terms of let's -- let's narrow the path before we present to the public. I -- I think it is really important, though, that we get really strong public buy in on what I think is the preferred option, but I -- I guess I go back -- they have been stakeholders and vocal on this and rather than us saying we have figured it out, here you are, maybe there is an opportunity to say here is the options that we are considering, we -- we like D, but I think to give them the opportunity to weigh in say, no, no, we like D, too, or for whatever reason we would prefer C or, again, we may hear we like E, but we can Meridian City Council Work Session January 27,2026 Page 20 of 22 certainly lay the case that, you know, A seems -- or E seems unlikely. I -- it will come as no surprise. I -- I'm more supportive of trying to bring those neighbor stakeholders along with us to the conclusion, as opposed to presenting a conclusion to them. Simison: And I think the challenge throughout all of this is -- and I don't know if there has been much turnover since we went through the -- the comp plan. The people that may implement these roads are not the people they are going to be living there when this happens. It's going to be the development community that -- and it -- if this area ever redevelops. If these people never sell it doesn't matter. We can put all these nice lines on there -- on the -- because we are not talking about going out and asking ACHD to start building these roads. This is -- the future redevelopment of these parcels coming into the city what it is that we want, so I -- I understand it. I also don't think that we are going to get a desire to have any of these roads built by the current residents that live in these properties. I'm sure the residents of Woodbridge would care about which -- and would even give us feedback on whatever options we want. So, I think that become part of the question is are we planning for the future of the city or are we meeting the current inhabitants of these parcels preferred options and -- and it's a balance. It is. Cavener: You can do both. Simison: So, I don't think any of this is envisioned if -- unless redevelopment happens that none of this is likely going to occur except for you could make an argument that E is the only one that can -- could potentially occur without redevelopment. Cavener: Sure. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: I know Council Woman Strader has been trying to get in -- back in to -- Strader: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Appreciate it. Just some feedback. I -- I think that D could be the priority if that's kind of what we are deciding. I'm very concerned about not also preserving right of way along E. I understand E is not feasible today and E is probably not feasible even in ten years, but I'm just -- I'm trying to -- if ICOM and ISU end up expanding their campus in like 20 or 30 years and it starts to look like Boise State University and we start to see that kind of a footprint here, I think we need both to make that work. So, I just -- I guess that's one piece of feedback for me. I -- I think, you know, engaging with -- with different bodies to discuss it is great. I think getting it on the master street map is important. If we want to do a public process I'm supportive of that. I'm okay with prioritizing D, but not at the expense of eliminating the preservation of E. I actually think we need to do both. So, that -- that's my feedback. Simison: I concur with that, that -- if my comments weren't as direct, but yeah. Councilman Overton. Meridian City Council Work Session January 27,2026 Page 21 of 22 Overton: So, the way I look at this is not that this is the only road, of course, but this is the most direct route that we are trying to preserve initially. I think when we talk about how this would be built out, B, C, D and E all run through that entire subdivision and I'm cognizant of that. All four of those alternatives run through that subdivision. So, it would cause that redevelopment no matter which one of those became the reality and when it was redeveloped I think you would have a preferred route and I think you would have a lot of roads that attach to it and made it -- make it work much like if E ends up being built along with D. I think that's a reality. Now, I have got to tell you that as the prior mayor put me on a task force on this way back in 2017 or '18 and it was Justin Lucas that I sat down with -- with our -- our planning staff. Caleb was there. remember it. And we talked about what we would do with this area and at that time Justin representing ACHD -- and I'm not going to hold him to it today, but I'm going to keep reminding him he said it, was there is only one route that would work for us and that is signal to signal and that's the signal we have got right there currently and that's the signal at St. Luke's Lane. He says the real trick is going to be doing what we are doing now, the hard work of developing what that preferred route is and how we get there, because we don't know what that's going to look like, but that's eight years ago we knew then it was going to be a ten, 15, 20 year plan at a minimum, because you have got to get the right development to come in and say they want to do it. Since that's happened we have ICOM. Since that's happened now we have Idaho State University with a 30 year build out, already one year down as they are getting ready. So, the urgency is getting greater and we need to start acting to make those preservations and start to put those wheels in motion. But everybody knows I think -- me especially -- that it's been near and dear to my heart that this is a long range development that could be many, many years before we see it come to fruition. Simison: And while I'm one hundred percent with Justin's comments, I'm also going to say one thing that wasn't listed in here is if you are going -- I was -- if you are going south on Eagle Road and if this road was in, you are not turning at the light, you are turning that out -- you are doing the right-in, right-out, because it's the one that has the -- the -- the -- the straight through that doesn't have the stop, that doesn't have the extra turn in it. So, we can say that in some context, but unless you prevent that movement, that's actually going to be the de facto road that people are going to take to any of these alignments in my humble opinion. Coming that direction. You can't do that going north. Coming -- going north you -- you have got to go to the light. Come the other direction, though, you are not going to go through the light. Sorry. So -- so, Council, I -- I guess the -- the -- the question as we come to the end of this is do you feel at a place where you are comfortable recommending -- examining B -- or D as the primary route, with an E additional concept and forced to continue to work to try to further refine these as best we can, as quickly as we can, with our partner ACHD to actually address these issues and we didn't even talk to the other side of Locust Grove, which I think is going to warrant another conversation as we look down at the connection and with Stratford. Does that help you all -- get you far enough, Carl? Brian? Caleb? Dave? Anderson: That -- that does, Mr. Mayor. I -- I believe and I -- I believe that gives us some direction. Thank you. Meridian City Council Work Session January 27,2026 Page 22 of 22 Simison: Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Council, we are at the end of our agenda. Do I have a motion? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: I move that we adjourn. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:35 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR ROBERT SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the January 13, 2026 City Council Joint Meeting with Ada County Highway District Meridian City Council-ACHD Joint Meeting. January 13,2026 Page 23 of 23 MEETING ADJOURNED AT P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON 1-27-2026 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK 1-27-2026 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the January 13, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting Meridian City Council January 13,2026 Page 46 of 46 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON 1-27-2026 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK 1-27-2026 w IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: McKay Farm Subdivision Water Main Easement (ESMT-2025-0078) Ada County Recorder Trent Tripple 2026-005756 Boise,Idaho Pgs=5 cfowler 01/28/2026 08:01:50 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN IDAHO$0.00 Project Name or Subdivision Name: Electronically Recorded Mckay Farm Subdivision Water Main Easement Number: Identify this Easement by sequential number if the project contains more than one easement of this type.See instructions/checklist for additional information. For Internal Use Only E Record Number: SMT-2025-0078 WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS Easement Agreement made this 27th day of January 2026 between Sky Mesa Development, LLC ("Grantor")and the City ofMeridian,an Idaho Municipal Corporation("Grantee"); WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to provide a water main right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS , the water main is to be provided for through underground pipelines to be constructed by others;and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipelines from time to time by the Grantee; NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantor, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantor does hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee the right- of-way for an easement for the operation and maintenance of water mains over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of water mains and their allied facilities,together with their maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee,with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of-way unto the said Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after making repairs or performing other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and maintenance. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation ofthis easement. THE GRANTOR covenants and agrees that Grantor shall not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures or obstructions within the easement area that would interfere with Grantee's use of said easement, including, but not limited to, buildings,trash enclosures, carports, sheds,fences,trees, or deep-rooted shrubs. THE GRANTOR covenants and agrees with the Grantee that should any part of the right-of-way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any Water Main Easement Page 1 Version 01/01/2024 Instrument # 2026-005756 01/28/2026 08:01:50 AM Page 2 of 5 public street, then, to such extent, such right-of-way and easement hereby granted which Lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTOR does hereby covenant with the Grantee that Grantor is lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that Grantor has a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that Grantor will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. THE COVENANTS OF GRANTOR made herein shall be binding upon Grantor's successors, assigns, heirs, personal representatives,purchasers, or transferees of any kind. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. GRANTOR: STATE OF IDAHO ss County of Ada ) This record was acknowledged before me on �'Z(25 (date) by (name of individual), [complete the folloiving Z signing in a representative capacity, or strike the./bIloiring f signing in an imlivhhial capacity] on behalf of, I! (name of entity, on behalf of whom record was executed), in the fo lowing representative capacity: �u.�h G�� Z� ' G!� s, (type of authority such as officer or trustee) Notary Stamp Below I'AULETTE'A MALOICH OMM.N0.20233181 Notary a NOTARY PUBLIC y Signature STATE of IOAHo My Commission Expires: L� 2Z l Z c✓�)t1OVIISSION EXPIRES 08/22/2029 Water Main Easement Page 2 Version 0 1/0 1/2024 Instrument # 2026-005756 01/28/2026 08:01:50 AM Page 3 of 5 GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Robert E. Si s Mayor 1-27-2026 � SEAL Attest by CIiis Johns'�ity Clerk 1-27-2026 STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ss. County of Ada ) This record was acknowledged before me on 1-27-2026 (date) by Robert E. Simison and Chris Johnson on behalf of the City of Meridian, in their capacities as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively. Notary Stamp Below Cha&wWatt CHARLENE WAY Notary Signature My Commission Expires: 3-28-2028 COMMISSION No. 67390 NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF IDAHO Water Main Easement Page 3 Version 01/01/2024 Instrument # 2026-005756 01/28/2026 08:01:50 AM Page 4 of 5 Exhibit A Water Easement McKay Farms Subdivision June 30, 2025 A portion of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the 1/4 corner common to Sections 32 and 33, T3N., R.1E., B.M., from which the Section corner common to said Sections 32 and 33 and Sections 4 and 5 T2N., R.1 E, B.M., bears South 00'1340"West, 2,676.20 feet; thence on the east boundary line of said Section 32, South 00°13'40" West, 601.18 feet; thence North 89046'20" West, 48.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 00013'40" West, 20.00 feet; thence North 89046'20"West, 157.47 feet; thence South 57°56'20" West, 17.72 feet; thence 20.21 feet on the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 81.50 feet, a central angle of 14°12'19" and a long chord which bears North 39009'49"West, 20.15 feet; thence North 57056'20" East, 26.00 feet; thence South 89046'20" East, 163.26 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 3,636 square feet, more or less. End of Description. � CENANO -- ' o 11779 CO�yTF OF M. MCCPM� Page 1 of A 0@8/22 08m1:5 AM Page 5o5 211 /\ /_ 2/ SBujlo;§ }o SlsDg t\ } (/ OZ`9z- %.O#�LOOS* ~ \ r � •.. a • ' ••... » �/ e — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ® &r3@ - - -/$g�; / r e a} a a 1 §\ +� mBB 3 /(CN 0 a1 2 x•+ / / a:# o f: R c ƒ / / \ E % �§ 2� S ƒ D _ 0 2 ®, w ® £ 2 9 XL_ [ { ) \& 2 0 0 » oc LL uj m � oz \ 0 \ (0 / ) \ k7 < § > C14 / / ° ƒ w « $ a ! / = w ! co } 7 \ .0. ` p U \ © o $ ) 0 C) ` � o o k \ \ k ® 0� 0 U) m 0 ! E § 0 \ \ / a / \ 8 0 � \ _ k 0 / ƒ OR \ \ / \ � � a \ / C4D �� / / N / CD �� 0 o ) \ ± � q > \ y ' / a � \ \ Ln \ c CD S 2 2 d E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Meridian Office at 146 E. Fairview Water Main Easement (ESMT-2025-0049) Ada County Recorder Trent Tripple 2026-005754 Boise,Idaho Pgs=5 cfowler 01/28/2026 08:00:57 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN IDAHO$0.00 Project Name or Subdivision Name. Electronically Recorded Water Main Easement Number: Identify this Easement by sequential number if the project contains more than one easement of this type.See instructions/checklist for additional information. For Internal Use only ESMT-2025-0049) Record Number: WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS Easement Agreement made thts27th day of_ January 20 26 between y"t S 0 n ("Grantor")and the City ofineridian,an Idaho Municipal Corporation("Grantee"); WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to provide a water main right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS , the water main is to be provided for through underground pipelines to be constructed by others;and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipelines from time to time by the Grantee; NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantor, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantor does hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee the right- of-way for an easement for the operation and maintenance of water mains over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of water mains and their allied facilities,together with their maintenance,repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee,with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of-way unto the said Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED,by and between the parties hereto, that after making repairs or performing other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and maintenance, However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation ofthis casement. THE GRANTOR covenants and agrees that Grantor shall not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures or obstructions within the easement area that would interfere with Grantee's use of said easement, including,but not limited to,buildings, trash enclosures, carports, sheds,fences,trees,or deep-rooted shrubs. THE GRANTOR covenants and agrees with the Grantee that should any part of the right-of-way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any Water Main Easement Page I Version 01/01/2024 Instrument # 2026-005754 01/28/2026 08:00:57 AM Page 2 of 5 public street, then, to such extent, such right-of-way and easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTOR does hereby covenant with the Grantee that Grantor is lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that Grantor has a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that Grantor will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. THE COVENANTS OF GRANTOR made herein shall be binding upon Grantor's successors, assigns,heirs,personal representatives,purchasers, or transferees of any kind. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. GRANTOR: f 1 f STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss County of Ada ) This record was acknowledged before me on © ()Z ate)by y ao cay lson (name of individual), [complete the following l signing in a representative capacity, or strike the following lfsigning in an individual capacity] -on inatnt-o€-e*titp—o recor was execu e , to t re following r4presentativc ca 7ac' rus ee Notary Stamp Below lo*d- AUSMWOODD07/IVMW otar Signature COMMISSION M2,0 My Commission Expires: NOTARY PU13E STATE OF IDA My CC3LAA,1 ION DCPIRE I i I i Water Main Easement Page 2 Version 01/01/2024 i Instrument # 2026-005754 01/28/2026 08:00:57 AM Page 3 of 5 GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Robert E. Simi ayor 1-27-2026 (Z,/ — (��4F,AL Attestby Ch Johnso - �Clerk - - 026 STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ss. County of Ada ) This record was acknowledged before me on 1-27-2026 (date) by Robert E. Simison and Chris Johnson on behalf of the City of Meridian, in their capacities as Mayor and City Clerk,respectively. Notary Stamp Below CHARLENE WAY Notary Signature My Commission Expires: 3-28-2028 COMMISSION No. 67390 NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF IDAHO Water Main Easement Page 3 Version 01/01/2024 Instrument # 2026-005754 01/28/2026 08:00:57 AM Page 4 of 5 I DAH O 9939 W Emerald St SURVEY Boise, ID 83704 GROUP Phone: (208) 846-8570 May 13, 2025 Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Waterline Easement A 20.00 foot wide waterline easement located in the SWl/4 of the SW1/4, Section 6, T. 3N., R. IE., B.M., City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap marking the Southwest corner of said Section 6, from which the South 1/4 corner of said Section 6 bears North 88'36'11" East, 2404.38 feet; Thence along the South line of said Section 6, North 88'36'11" East, 705.35 feet; Thence departing said South line, North 0098'44" East, 51.54 feet to a 5/8 iron pin marking the Southeast corner of VanAuken Subdivision, as filed in Book 104 Plats at page 14174, records of Ada County, Idaho; Thence continuing Northerly along the East boundary line of said VanAuken Subdivision North 0098'44" East 224.02 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing along the East boundary line of said VanAuken Subdivision North 00°18'44" East, 20.00 feet; Thence departing said East boundary line South 89°49'57" East, 79.89 feet; Thence South 29°52'07" East, 104.84 feet to a point lying on the boundary; Thence South 87°22'14" West, 22.49 feet to a point that bears North 87°2249" East, 1.26 feet to a 1/2 iron pin marking the angle point in the boundary; Thence North 29°52'07" West, 83.01 feet; Thence North 89°49'57" West, 68.41 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 3,361 square feet more or less. Prepared By: Idaho Survey Group, LLC I Of T. Steven T. Haug, PLS Instrument - 01/28/2026 08:00:57 AM Page 5 of 5 0 0 79.89' NN N00'18'44"E _ S89-49'57_"E 20.00' — o N89-49'57 •�2 68.41' VReal Point n of Beginning ��`s�.� � � f c \ > N o �S87'22'14"W N 22.49' N W d' O O Z ry c 0 I 'w � I '4 LO 00 Z `n•o S.6 1/4 S.1 "' 705.35' O E. Fairview Ave. 1699.04' \v�---�_ - - - -ter - - - — — — S.12 S.7 N88'36'11"E 2404.38' S.7 uj ONNL LAND ry EN SG� z z S \ Scale: 1"=60' �. of J F`EN T. �P 0 10 30 60 120 P:\Fairview Commercial Building 25-076\dwg\25076 Water_Ec—dwg 5/13/2025 3:33:41 PM IDAHO Exhibit B j 25-0�6 9939 ' EMERALD 704 Waterline Easement Sheet No. SURVEY (208) 4 DAHO 83704 (208)846-8570 1 GROUP, LLC Located in the SW1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 6, Dwg. Date T.3N., RAE., B.M., City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. 5/13/2025 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: McDermott Village Sanitary Sewer Easement (ESMT-2026-0007) Ada County Recorder Trent Tripple 2026-005755 Boise,Idaho Pgs=6 cfowler 01/28/2026 08:01:25 AM Project Name or Subdivision Name: CITY OF MERIDIAN IDAHO$0.00 McDermott Village No. 1 Electronically Recorded Sanitary Sewer&Water Main Easement Number: 1 Identify this Easement by sequential number if the project contains more than one easement of this type.See instructions checklist for additional information. For Internal Use Only Record Number: ESMT-2026-0007 SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT THIS Easement Agreement made this27lh day of January 2()26 between Woodside Avenue Investors, LAC ("Grantor")and the City ofMeridian,an Idaho Municipal Corporation("Grantee"); WHEREAS,the Grantor desires to provide a sanitary sewer right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described;and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer is to be provided for through underground pipelines to be constructed by others;and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipelines from time to time by the Grantee; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantor, and other good and valuable consideration,the Grantor does hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee the right-of way for an easement for the operation and maintenance of sanitary sewer over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of sanitary sewer and allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee,with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of-way unto the said Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto; that afier making repairs or perforitiinyg,other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and. adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and maintenance. However. Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation ofthis easement. THE GRANTOR covenants and agrees that Grantor shall not place or allow to be placed ally permanent structures or obstructions within the easement area that would interfere with Grantee's use of said easement, including, but not limited to, buildings, trash enclosures, cat-ports,sheds. fences,trees, or deep-rooted shrubs. dd Sanitary Server Easement Pa0 e 1 Version 01!0I,I'"2{)2 Instrument # 2026-005755 01/28/2026 08:01:25 AM Page 2 of 6 Relocation Right. Grantor shall have the right, at Grantor's sole cost and expense, to relocate the easement area and the public sewer facilities located therein (collectively, the "Facilities") to another location on the Property. Any relocation shall: (a) not alter the location or horizontal alignment of any sewer stubs, laterals, or connections that serve or are intended to serve property other than the Property; and (b) provide an casement area of comparable width and configuration that affords Grantee reasonable and safe access for operation, inspection, maintenance, repair, and replacement of the Facilities. To exercise this relocation right, Grantor shall submit to Grantee plans and legal descriptions depicting the proposed relocation. Grantee shall review the submittal in good faith, and approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed; provided, however, Grantee may require reasonable modifications necessary to ensure compliance with this Section and applicable City standards and regulations. In the event Facilities have been installed, Grantor shall bear all costs associated with relocation of the same, including design, permitting construction, inspection, testing, recording, restoration, and any temporary measures necessary to avoid material interruption of sewer service to any users. Upon completion and Grantee acceptance of the relocated Facilities, the parties shall execute and record, at Grantor's expense: (1) an instrument vacating the portion of the original easement area no longer needed, and (ii) an casement describing, the relocated easement area. in1 ary SQ%wr F.asQanent Page.. 3 Instrument # 2026-005755 01/28/2026 08:01:25 AM Page 3 of 6 THE GRANTOR covenants and agrees with the Grantee that should any part of the right-of-way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent, such right-of-way and easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTOR does hereby covenant with the Grantee that Grantor is lawfiilly seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that Grantor has a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that Grantor will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereofagainst the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. THE COVENANTS OF GRANTOR made herein shall be binding upon Grantor's successors, assigns, heirs, personal representatives, purchasers, or transferees ofany kind. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. GRANTOR: Woodside Avenue Investors, LLC, a California limited liability company rwil, STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County ofAda )This record was acknowledged before me onJi-i-7 t 11,161 � (date) by)P I' (name of individual), [complete the follotiving l signing in a representative capacity, or strike the follotiving Zf signing in an individual capacity) on behalf of Woodside Avenue Investors, LLC (name of entity on behalf of whom record was executed), in the following representative capacity: V-1 a (type ofauthority such as officer or trustee) Notary Stamp Below r FPAULETTE*A otary Signature NIALOICH Sl � 7.NO.20233t3t My Commission Expires: lTARY PUBLIC TE OF IDAHO ON EXPIRES 08/22/2029 Sanitary Sewer Easement Page 2 Version O1i01/2024 Instrument # 2026-005755 01/28/2026 08:01:25 AM Page 4 of 6 GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Robert E. Si (iso Mayor 1-27-2026 61�� illIAN'. j � SEAL Attest by Ch s Johnso"',' "rty Clerk 1-27-2026 STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ss. County of Ada ) This record was acknowledged before me on 1-27-2026 (date) by Robert E. SHnison and Chris Johnson on behalf of the City of Meridian, in their capacities as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively. Notary Stamp Below CHARLENE WAY COMMISSION No. 67390 Notary Signature My Commission Expires: 3-28-2028 NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF IDAHO - 14 Sanitary Sewer Easement Pa�(ye 4 Version 01!01;2024 Instrument # 2026-005755 01/28/2026 08:01:25 AM Page 5 of 6 I DA H O 9939 W Emerald St SURVEY Boise, 1D 83704 GROUP EXHIBIT A Phone: (208) 846-8570 McDermott Village Subdivision No. 1 City of Meridian Sewer Easement Boundary Description Project Number 23-317 January 8, 2025 An easement situated in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 32, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 32, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian (east sixteenth-section corner); Thence S89°17'49"E, 1325.58 feet along the south line of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter to the southeast corner of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter (southeast section corner); Thence N61°58'14"W, 924.96 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-way line of Highway 16; Thence S13040'51"W, 23.97 feet along the westerly right-of-way line of Highway 16 to the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence continuing S13°40'51"W, 69.92 feet along the westerly right-of-way line of Highway 16; Thence N89019'37"W, 20.53 feet; Thence N13°40'51"E, 63.46 feet parallel with and 20.00 feet from the westerly right-of-way line of Highway 16; Thence N44°17'13"W, 41.95 feet; Thence S89017'13"E, 28.28 feet; Thence S44°17'13"E, 33.03 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-described easement contains 2,084 square feet, more or less. 7; CD Page 1 of 1 s� PQ�24 Instrument # 2026-005755 01/28/2026 08:01:25 AtgDqqQl of 6 0 Section Corner 0 Easement Corner Dimension point Section Line Right—of—Way Line . ................... . Tie Line City of Meridian Sewer Easement Area W. Peony St. V- 0 0 S89*17'13"E 28.28'/ 0) '9 M' 0 Point of Beginning �� �O zo 20, bl TF OF (a Co 'sue EL (a Lot 3 Block 1 'Q N89*19'37"W 20.53' S.32 E1/16 S89*1 7'49"E T.4N. R.M. S.32 • S.33 Q�-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - W. - - - - - -�� - - ---a- - - - S.5 Ustick Rd. 1325.58' T.3N. R.M. S.5 S.4 Z N Coordinate System: Scale: I"=30' Ada County 0 15 30 60 P:\McOermott Village I 23-317\dwg\P1at\23-317 Sewer Ease NEW SOUTH Exhl.dwq 1/8/2026 10:28:12 AM Exhibit B Job No. IDAHO 9939 VV EMERALD ST McDermott Village Subdivision No. 1 23-317 SURVEY BOISE,IDAHO 83704 Sheet No. (208)846-8570 City of Meridian Sewer Easement 1 of 1 GROUP, LL C Situated in the SE1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section 32, Dwg. Date T.4N., RAW., B.M., City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, 1/8/2026 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Final Plat for Hadler Subdivision No. 3, located at the intersection of Locust Grove Rd. and E. Via Roberto St, on the east side o Locust Grove Rd., by Ben Thomas, Civil Innovations, PLLC. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 1/27/2026 Legend T u il DATE: Project Location TO: Mayor& City Council :::Area of Impact �= City Limits FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner O Analysis z\ ' 208-884-5533 Iritter@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Ben Thomas, Civil Innovations, PLLC ' _- - --- SUBJECT: FP-2025-0031 L Hadler Subdivision No. 3 Final Plat LOCATION: Located at the intersection of Locust e Grove and E.Via Roberto Street on the east side of Locust Grove, in the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 5,Township 2N,Range 1 E. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Final Plat consisting of 27 building lots and 1 common lots on 3.28 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district for Hadler Subdivision No. 3. B. Issues/Waivers None C. Recommendation Staff recommend approval of the proposed final plat with the conditions of approval in Section IV of this staff report. D. Decision City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Residential - Existing Zoning R-15 VLA.2 Adopted FLUM Designation Medium Density Residential VI.A.3 Note: See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section and public record for all department/agency comments received. Hadler No. 3 FP-2025-0031 (copy this link into a separate browser). City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics III. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat for substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat(H-2022-0064) as required by UDC 11-6B-3C.2. The submitted final plat is for the third phase of construction for the approved preliminary plat;therefore,the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat as required. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division I. Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this development: H-2022-0064(ALT,PS,AZ,PP),DA Inst. #2023-023846,FP-2024-0002 and FP-2025-0001. 2. The final plat shown in Section V.B,prepared by Idaho Survey Group,LLC, stamped on 1/13/25 by Michael S. Byrns, shall be revised prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer, as follows: a. Note#9: Include the instrument number for the ACHD license agreement. b. Per UDC I I-2A-3H, in no case shall a development propose less than a five-foot setback adjacent to a property that is not part of the development application and properties shall provide adequate area to maintain drainage on the site. Revise the plat map to show a larger easements on Lot 26,Block 2 and Lot 39,Block 4. 3. The landscape plan prepared by Jensenbelts Associates, dated 11/19/25, shall be revised as follows: a. Revise the landscape plan to show the grassy area in front of the detached sidewalk along E. Via Roberto Street. 4. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. 5. All fencing shall be installed in accordance with UDC 11-3A-7. 6. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 7. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 8. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15,UDC 11-313-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 9. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on each final plat, a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division and recorded for the multi-use pathways along S. Locust Grove as required by the Park's Department,unless ACHD requires an easement within their right-of-way. 10. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-313-14. 11. The applicant shall obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat within two (2)years of the date of approval(May 7, 2024) in accord with UDC 11-613-7, in order for the final plat to remain valid; or a time extension may be requested. 12. Staff s failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis B. Meridian Public Works SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: 1. The bottom of structural footing shall be set a minimum of 12-inches above the highest established normal ground water elevation. 2. Maintenance of any irrigation and/or drainage pipes or ditches crossing a lot is the responsibility of the lot owner unless such responsibility is assumed by an irrigation/drainage entity or lot owner's association. GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department,and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 3. All improvements related to public life,safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 4. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff,the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14A. 5. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all incomplete fencing,landscaping,amenities,pressurized irrigation,prior to signature on the final plat. 6. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City of Meridian. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 7. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, and water infrastructure for a duration of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 8. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life,non-safety and non-health improvements, prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C. 9. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions approval letter. 10. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 11. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 13. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-413. 14. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 15. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 16. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD.The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 17. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 18. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor's work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 19. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x I I" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 20. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 21. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources(IDWR). The Developer, Owner, or project Engineer, shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development,and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. If wells are to be abandoned,the City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions project owner or their representative must contact the IDWR Groundwater Protection Section (Aaron Skinner, Hydrogeologist 208-287-4972)BEFORE any work is done to decommission an existing well(even if it is believed that the well is less than 18 ft deep). Proof of communication with IDWR must be submitted to the City prior to any work being done to decommission the well. Failure to communicate with IDWR may result in additional work and expense to decommission the well. 22. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment procedures and inspections. 23. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(UDC 11-3B-6.). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to development plan approval. 24. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. V. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed final plat with the conditions of approval in Section IV of this staff report. B. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report V. Action ' � 1 ct Location . of Impact 0 Analysisr `- L-AKE HAZEL, _ �! Legend Project Location Area of Impact 0 Analysis ME - •, �� � �,:� ,� �,� COL-UMBI•A �uieiillgl�prr�rf�� . L--AKE HAZEL - z - �jy GIIIII 11111E 1.3 11111 111111 p 's��l. ' [n . r '.� � #I`�� -- • �. - - COL-U M B�IA ��I�� 3. Future Land Use Legend Project Location � �� : Area of Impact �-� l J Analysis -Med-High MU-C ` Density a Residential - tMedium Low )Density Density Residential Residential 4. Planned Development Map Legend Project Location �;;Area of Impact p .r City Limits Planned Parcels 1 -I O Analysis ' 1 1 RH Ell ' fL ' �1( r ' 1 1 1 \ I - 1 I - - 1 1 I 1 1 ' I 1 i City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits B. Final Plat(date: 11/19/2025) Plat Showing Hadley Subdivision No.3 A Portion of Lot 1.Black I.Rescue Ranch 5uhdivieion. Situated in the North Half of the Sauthont Ouatar of Section 5, T.—hip 2 North,Range 1 East,Boise Merldlon,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho. 2026 .----------.—._.— —....._.—.—._._.—.----- y y -e...x P•w uw.e. a+ u •...r.un,. '-M""f aw,reot anae �--•.'�" �.ve c,/• ---------------— -- -� —----- ---- ,�. nr� ------ - -- -------- _ ....... u. It --05-- ap • «,.,..,.u..p.n.,,N, --. ..v.w•rr.c a :- 'b— ME ��I1 � � � � �� ® !I®5! �I !t ¢�1�Y '��41 _p _�r�,l �', —_—_— rl�,r._✓. S srsc. , , R ; i , — — euT Poltr Boa:• SURVEY w a-aa GROUP.LLC Hadler Subdivision No. 3 ... frrilYr CO- jj- Em "w 4j•`� IDAHO SURVEY GROUP-LLC City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits Hadler Subdivision No.3 Certlfleale Of Omen CMifleele of survey,, y I..p,eaeetet tke!nll uc,a mane Hmkm II y pwy..me—.r t pep Y mm.e ee xymc a ..Hy wtxy mot rwyw tole qat pe aaecxeee n meu To Mt. au�rwyetlt k.ecw.d ro NmelaeaFoo lCedetraW::t9 W Pi t.mec.nv.�nd woe (9 f pl1 ero...ep z term. , ea.�m�a ew c ty al me.mot axorl.r-a.otgn em:o,m semen s ro.nena z nwm.Ronp.t Eo.L eol.o Nergion,emi9F boor, 733 $ �spSE.�zzam xmt mw9 me nwt<wmm�pr mateoumwet axone.91 s«uw a wa me m ewna y or tqt I,Ell-i, ea eoxntn apF97 wim.polo,or nlrvcxml.,steal.:Ion N.,(s«k tze w plot.m p99.+mz]s ztzw,9«o�w w Gat xp s sz'so'e,azr.os root p w9 a Farm II,,.pr a,e«xmn«t xaarw,wa wxnaorr a Lw t to the w'<rE,ns.ee r®t maey m.beaww,r ar we�: bep a<.ntra<nye a]n]'zr,a al9 ertxaeno srw.a a a<Fwe,epgtn eer iioi i«t mw9 mez9a„�aan er tet I: 3a r«tHw]azwrw to egierl�bp+9 ayradge ate z yep 1. woe or t)7Yu',9 a9M F.m.g N (Beeu �Pe9eeF nt . dnee Ceunln 1 taste),Faw Y xamw Subalvlelw x<.] - Y+C2, rotes,g ne FeunM,y of Home,SUI.a.tMm xo.2 e o. gonYta's,edeo9 re.t oa sttxa xwnao•yow Hoax suealviaw rva s to me b«navvy ar xagnr subamaion xa t; eroYso"e,etla last 9r acn9 the boxnawy 9r Haaw weaingw na.t: px9Ytc'G ty&]0 hat 9Im9 Ne ewneory or xmler Sumlaekn no.I W me PpNr Of BEGlxxixG. ,gory- e +q- y gt o n Ott e ACkka'�df eeegnolm State of ItlxHo e aelglele Ingalian Ie qlm CaxatY of AEo wunoblY awiloble.9px lamo Cotten B)�88])�nandxin9ixx eon In«mplionc•x m fia<nxnCwvr]I-3098� I::.ne.ro vF.r<af I Haw n.re,.to Y a. «Genes,m wwo9e:ad�mo��ai,ill uC.a Id.nooii�ie Ileb9xy<ampo,: m p0enl y miwbe GPkro N vy c, ate q ItlnFo Book Pxye IDAHO SURVEY zso-z1a GROUP:LLC vrm.,.:oayeaxaxt.,cox Hadler Subdivision No.3 HeallM1 Cer(igcale - Cefligcale Of County 5urveya App,awl of Ado County HioWy Dismlct CartiFlcole of—ty Treason, engeNg plot we eeeq<ee a epprewe ey t e nee County xgneay Olelae! xegned unty T e Ceunly e commiawnxe<n me Y o 20� 9 a e�6yon ya allbcvnenteenayollnaN1neuenlwtc^Y b vane tar[ne nut melYp(]a)exysaanly : Cemmlaalen pnareent,ACxp Appmwl of ply Eaglneer County Recorder',Certiflcote rota plot. tg"tl,Cky[9—In and for mo City of Yralon,Ma Ccwt,Id—,n Y pprave Cew1Y e//da� '' Instrument xp. I n Y Y of w.I:.etmmro<.an n.e at me,«9eel W flIt LLC, p�� at mmutep poet_oaack H.,tole doy of 10� y En91nw Oel. ee 3 Approval of Clty Council wea.City Clen In td Oty 0 M.—I. o o m qtY pxk,gxgqn.IdoM10 Book Page Map°ge4vP� D H0 SURVEY sneetwa orza G 11 IT ROUP,LLC City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits C. Preliminary Plat(date: 11/01/2022) HADLER SUBDIVISION _ I uAYURY l'l11 _ _—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_ AORL f�S ' •f I� �I aI WI •® igi .1_I _?% 1 f I � u• a �1— wl — �% •11 TI J� ----- - ---• x_ �_ Si1 - ----------•------------------- ----- --- City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits D. Landscape Plan(date: 11/19/2025) I ----------- 'i r. _- �• - - --- _ _ �. „ .- --------- - kI ------------------- 41 - --- ' -> ' _--_ _ - - ;� HADLER �I� SUNO 3 can M J BDIVISION NOTES s OVENALL LANDQCAPE O® PLAN LO RTO S ice€ rl' „ Aw o ' IIII 'III� i I IIII' Il li I IIII III . " e Z tl9r, i � a Bl ----•- i w= //i . . . . . . c c a q coo a9 CA O �i / Z J 2 EW Gavalli Ln. ®---` W 1OI ---- ---- - Q -C Pa LANT nHEDULE NOT r7L. City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits PLANT SGNEDULE��V�ry �MNe LL . e, Oj TR£E PLANTIN65TAKIN6 �e..ew ® VINYL PRIVPLY FENCE �..ow NOTES a.�rs u�-awc ewsxrva� �� z�'sz�w mmma'srw Z UO 01 �.vw��n-<,���vm�wi.� � �� q � ..� �,�•mom n�..�a�-auu EUnwwm�«amw p �O OSNRUB PLANFIN6 —,o b� .} � ancxwdrozranaar .ffi •,werwnr.mxve erumne Q u+ec�mrn �� . ewwsms�mzwvm,r�.s r.nuawvww.+.ruv.rm�vaww.� O ZLu Worwe Q IL LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS = '� �a O5 LAND5GAPE EdJLDERS a.ow as u� a O PLANIER GUT BED EDGE w..ew LANDSCAPE DETAILS L2 7-7 a w Z Qs - . Ir LLJ CL L3 City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits E. Qualified Open Space Exhibit(date: 1/30/2025) Open Space—The Hadler Neighborhood will provide 3.51 acres of landscaped common area, including a large neighborhood parr{2+AC.}and an amazing 2,446 L.F.of regional pathway that will extend and connect the City of Meridian Regional Pathway System, landscaped interior pathways, landscaped end caps on each block,and landscaped arterial and collector street frontages.The area of Qualifying open space equals 3.51 AC. (17.6°l0),which far exceeds the City Code requirement of 15%. r�wimnau :r F � li_.,.� .i I"J."K�.I' ice. 4 -_. � i 4 i UTGH LEGEND ® BUILo.ABLE LM GIMIFIED OPEN WAGE OIA LMED OPEF+WAGE(ARTERIAL BLIFFERF WALJFIED OPER WAGE PDLLEDTOR EIMEM ROWWALEM OOEH SPACE PLIEILIG RIGHT-0E-WAY City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Exhibits F. Building 1 1 8/3/2022)IIHt� Ir��l; Irl� III ,� �� ��1��I� ■�':■ 1� I� � fr■Ural .:-lfa. `I Frl'llatllllR- '["-0101:I.v yr' a'�s. �r�'A[1+1� �■ �1V jij �� li1 i ��i� �i :_.�. ��llis� '�ri\�i�/• fql, ��� �� �1�',:��'�� � �� :�� Ell����If�.�l\Ili .ILILMORK IT ..��'a- -� .� � .�1�/Ra�61.fi�...►!�� Yfls7wta - _ o. b 04 ' w City of MeridianDepartment Report 1 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Final Order for Adero Park Subdivision No. 1 (FP-2025-0029) by Laren Bailey, Conger Group, located at 5435 N. Ten Mile Rd. BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: JANUARY 13, 2026 ORDER APPROVAL DATE: JANUARY 27, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ) REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT ) CONSISTING OF 1 PARK LOT ON ) CASE NO. FP-2025-0029 8.657 ACRES OF LAND IN THE R-8 ) ZONING DISTRICT FOR ADERO ) ORDER OF CONDITIONAL PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 1. ) APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT BY: LAREN BAILEY, CONGER ) GROUP ) APPLICANT ) This matter coming before the City Council on January 13, 2026 for final plat approval pursuant to Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-6B-3 and the Council finding that the Administrative Review is complete by the Planning and Development Services Divisions of the Community Development Department, to the Mayor and Council, and the Council having considered the requirements of the preliminary plat, the Council takes the following action: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Final Plat of"PLAT SHOWING ADERO PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 1, LOCATED IN THE W. 1/2 OF THE SE '/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 4N, RANGE 1 W, BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, 2025, HANDWRITTEN DATE: November 11, 2025, by Jeff Beagley, PLS, SHEET 1 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR(ADERO PARK SUBDIVISION NO.1 —FP-2025-0029) Page 1 of 3 OF 3," is conditionally approved subject to those conditions of Staff as set forth in the staff report to the Mayor and City Council from the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department dated January 6, 2025, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked "Exhibit A" and by this reference incorporated herein. 2. The final plat upon which there is contained the certification and signature of the City Clerk and the City Engineer verifying that the plat meets the City's requirements shall be signed only at such time as: 2.1 The plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and 2.2 The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are completed and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash surety has been issued guaranteeing the completion of off-site and required on-site improvements. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAKINGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight(28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian,pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR(ADERO PARK SUBDIVISION NO.1 —FP-2025-0029) Page 2 of 3 interest in real property which may be adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty- eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review pursuant to Idaho Code§ 67-52. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 27th day of January , 2026. By: Robert E. Simison 1-27-2026 Mayor, City of Meridian Attest: Chris Johnson 1-27-2026 City Clerk Copy served upon the Applicant,Planning and Development Services Divisions of the Community Development Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: 1-27-2026 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR(ADERO PARK SUBDIVISION NO.1 —FP-2025-0029) Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEDEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 1/6/2026 Legend DATE: ® project Location :a TO: Mayor& City Council :::Area of Impact 41,4� #= City Limits FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner O Analysis - 208-884-5533 B lritter@meridiancity.org ---, APPLICANT: Laren Bailey, Conger Group SUBJECT: FP-2025-0029 ' Adero Park Subdivision No. 1 -FP "r� �� LOCATION: 5435 N. Ten Mile Road, located in the W '/2 of the SE 1/4 of Section 27,T. 4 N.,R. n L 1 W.,Parcel No. SO427428024in I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Final Plat consisting of 1 park lot on 8.657 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district for Adero Park Subdivision No. 1. This property is part of the larger Bridgetower project,where infrastructure improvements such as streets,utilities, and landscaping have already been completed. Unlike a typical subdivision,these improvements were made under previous development permits and have been inspected and accepted by the appropriate agencies. This final plat request serves as an administrative procedure to formally record the existing lot configuration, ensure compliance with the City's plating requirements, and dedicate the land to the Bridgetower West Neighborhood Homeowner's Association. The combination of parcel numbers R9035130110 and SO427428024 will fulfill the 10.2-acre parkland requirement outlined in the development agreement for the Vicenza Subdivision, formerly known as the Volterra North and South Subdivision. B. Issues/Waivers None C. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed final plat with the conditions of approval in Section IV of this staff report. D. Decision Approved with conditions City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 11. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1•Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Park - Proposed Land Use Park - Existing Zoning R-8 VI.A.2 Note: See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section and public record for all department/agency comments received.Adero Mixed-Use Neighborhood Subdivision No. 1 FP-2025-0029 (copy this link into a separate browser). III. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat for substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat(H-2024-0068)as required by UDC 11-6B-3C.2. The submitted final plat is for the first phase of construction for the approved preliminary plat;therefore,the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat as required. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS& CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. The applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval for this development H- 2024-0068 (MDA,PP,RZ); MDA Inst.No. 2025-071075. 2. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-8 zoning district. 3. Upon approval of Adero Subdivision No. 1,the lot shall be transferred to the Bridgetower Homeowners Association. 4. The final plat shown in Section V.B,prepared by Sawtooth Land Surveying,LLC, stamped on 11/6/2025 by Jeff Beagley, shall be revised prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer,as follows: a. Note#6: Include the instrument number for the ACHD license agreement. b. Note#9: Include the instrument number for the Development Agreement. c. Note#12: Include the instrument number for the ACHD sidewalk easements. d. Note#13: Include instrument number for the pressurized irrigation easement for the Adero Commercial Association. 5. The applicant shall obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat within two(2)years of the date of approval of the preliminary plat(i.e. July 8, 2025), in accord with UDC 11-613- 7, in order for the preliminary plat to remain valid; or,a time extension may be requested. B. Meridian Public Works No comment City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions V. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommend approval of the proposed final plat with the conditions of approval in Section IV of this staff report. B. City Council: Approval City of Meridian I Department Report V. Action ' 1 1 Cct Location HINDEN of Impact Analysis ` r; 4 y s: V- - ., �� i. V , MCMI ---V N W Legend ?C/111 iiii �►. Project CH-INDEN Area of Impact peTeq ------ Analysis � \.IIII��IIllnlllnn: - ►►►R-a - ■■n long, A e■ee■e■e.■.■1.■.■■.en..n.....■/ lsmon nu/� O � -::�-�C' In/IIII%�-- �p m mm�eA �i•� �♦ p0� _ - ■1111 IIIi�:::: -: 11/11111111111111%//�IIIIf -_�I/■/////■i �:1 ,= _� VI 1111 .. ■ . mlllllll■un ,� .. fe:= ////In//►��♦a : •� �/ /►1 ■i■ �//IIi i/////■/Ai/ii .,p•��-/II� 111/�•_ -- 1����I�1i--i�/■1//I///■■'�::-- =:111//'��� ♦��Q►n .,�Ip�■r/1111111 ?-► nn^�. .-♦//nn nnl►♦::_-► .■:111►�� ♦OOr milli ���1111►�, nllll=�-i��O•��_:umnn I IIIII 11111�-Ilnu/Ie m /O nnn�� �in�i• II:Ii..♦• ••��_ Inn11n■,nnii imA qm nnn►♦� ili T�♦/1\�� : • a ��QIIIIII/o/////O///I� • ��///////I,��i ���� III��-one•• a ���nOO/•-/I/////Oi i n■■-./■///. ■nm■■/� �������♦AIII��u■e•• Y //p 11//1�11►�:110//II//►1 •�.Q: ' .//.in/n■i �p�♦��♦\gym....■ ■un►�♦♦join: ���I �I -�iiiiiiiil�:► no onnn ��'/♦�1IIIIn.��_iii n �� omIDQ�♦m .• p � om/%li�i iiiii iiiiiq� Q�i�►nunn.: „ a nIi in�1/m : mnn ■omm�n o u Munn unnn�u J �IGII Illll �' Z �_ nnn/I iii1•nunnm it 1l 1 m nn nw nuonIon'n :.moon I1 110 Nelson nnu ■ �IIIIIIII 1111�-111 ► - �- ml /1111.1111�1/II■■en0./■■■■■m /111111111►1 t11:- In1.nn"■■■l Iln nnm nnn 1� --_ �/ 1�Iinm� -►•o�nunnm\�/-■Inm■■/ on IIIII Ilnlllll■111111111111 _ ��IIIII� ==,: ��••-'�:r: n e e u nn nnnnn 11- -1 lulllu • '��IIOI�i� ___= nun►►N�ri��� III: /Illln►�I :n-f MCMI�L-L-AN � _ ���•II Illlllllr; IIIIII I! �I Pin �♦ .e moon nn1_p� /'= \ool:� inns im �� m 1���♦♦I��Iliun Innli■rims _�..j ■ �ii=_�' ►�O�♦� � nlnnue /Ilan/ ♦ f/■■ ♦1♦ hm nnnunnn �.- - -a1,_ � l�►♦:♦p in♦� � ► ` nn1 �♦ s. .. nnm .---nm, pnn ♦♦ � a- 11 IIIII/-1111111 ■= --_ 1� IIIIII ♦ �� �.� � inm p:nml �anm,a=:=.annul= �.m ��IQ ►�i ♦y- ��1►i I■l 1lollry _ �imnj♦ ,� 1 II-=nnlulpll 11111 �1- nn1111u►�//anm►� �:, •n11►►11-'�IIq /I■n■i Kill .$�J /n ►►11..won ♦ I� 1 ' Legend I: ♦■�■1�-IIII► am ■■ j►� ■ 1■1�1111 II1111111111.��, r / L eProject Location HL(iI11 l■nli /111111 Are• ■11 _ IlllIlIlIl■p �m.III■IIII.I I.■1n■w■.p- po-.- =■IIIII■■IIIII■: �� -1= • moon:ono In► u= 1 m_ nn: .-1 nnnon uum■I Analysis 1,�111111111111n� V' ♦ � •�_� I■■■■/■■■■1■1//■1■� ■ \\IIII��Illlllllllllb 11 -III♦♦I\tl 11111111 ��-------11 -�.� ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■p r� � - __ 11�j nn►n tl�: ::-: hiI ��•■ mm�n.•gjll _ :illy" ■uou �-- 11■ -I loom■■��♦, �/�Inu= =��:�_�_ 1 �.. �► ■:::::::1 rim r : In■uno�►•�r un► ■ --G-:_ / In n111%--p _ ^ nu nlnnn\��•ta` �_ �� �p���,=__ �- -- �n1 IIIm�-•-• ::��19 ludlll lu■IIIIIIIr111.�•iuq - N�rl i � ► �a■nwlnmunn, I q. ���° nomn►►� I IIII► :I �� \\\I rp III■■.■■■.►► �� L-lii- inn nni�- ►ir1 ♦i:► �\ ♦�. �J i��i_ppl■� �/�►II '\-i 1 1�� - ..■...-a■■IIIIIIIIr��I►IIII� , ii i1■ ►ff1�♦11■��11�.►'%�i � � 111♦.•_-li.► :�?- a�■:►1 i is::i1 �:__-_ :: ��. O p/n .�I:.-- ♦�u►nr -=-i nlr_. ._ �nw Inn►•__� ■ ♦�. •v,.r, �.�� .11111111111111� _- ♦ ♦:°-, .. IIA �oe um�■.._ _:i .■m nm■p I�nm mop a_:Intl• nn■IIII►��� �/►�'►�� •��i --■ ■Inupwmn nl■Ju ♦ l�■.��i i IIIII:■-_v-♦IpI`.umm�■ _ '111/ IIIII IIIII\�IIIIIIIr■InIO1111111111111 11111111� ' ■m_d�� �=��r�-�� nonnl:► I I mi iiiii n�► .,►�� ►O♦-- �nnil mnn ♦ao om11• ii./ ♦♦�� : ••p■ ya��1A Q�Q►1111111_. moll IIInm : - �_■ ���.nnm11■.•�� ��GU• / n■■. ••■� - ♦� •• no-nnm- �i��� Q♦I 111�:■un i��•�;'IUD ii ,��•■■Ilm►Q■�In■anrl� LNllal ♦,Cml nllm. .� ■omnnn■1♦ ., �- �nnm nnm■► ��� ♦\iiii ::�� '.'Y��i innD����1 ��w �In■► 1-1: :� :iiiiiiiiil :�nno onm■■ \Illtq ■■m u:p mmp ♦ :m I..nm noon: I ���♦i�llaoo:=a.Iglu■_= U �1 �G.not�/I� �;■n :: =aiiiiiiiir%�n�■■■n■■■■nqp■ nnnln.:::■uuu:::Q�; I;;I,����ono■d • ..I 11::=:► ■,♦lnolno■n■ne lnnununmnm mn°n?■u•' ■r:: . IIII.�� /. ?:I i.,�: ononl n11■nnnonnnnisJ .......III ■■■n =_ igloo nIII- 'Room.�a.■■■II�-__, _ IIII �� W an::�/ 11 Illlnnn■nlnnp■ IIII 1111OI--nnnmmml=_- _ __ -_IIIII-. ■In ■-nn�num:_�--��==- - -■-- n■II- � aunQG a �a_■-un■.■■■■■.n�dun -1111111111111111- _ _ C . • \/�\•I/II ���/-■IIII ■■11 IIII 1n1O1 m111■I. nnnnunnu__J L=-_: �= �■II'/I■11\� -` �-nuP- 1 IIIIII(IIIIIIIIII Illllllllllq_�==- �\IIIII►� Inu= D - �--_��. nnnlanm C [IIII: � ��I �i1Ot0/�•>!�1 II; IIIIII 1111111111+- IIIIII n111-� (IIIIIIIIII II�JI an\ o - o ■In■tlll/1111I 1 11111111111111111�=IIIIIIIIIIn�: I - J � IIIIIIIIIIIIII_ - �1111■=111� 11► IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII•tr•1 ♦ Ir-nr-S •nnnnnlll /IIIII►� h u_ems MGMTLLAN -�_•�;<,� ■II::IIII - n _' _ _i__a ���►111111111 IIIIIIIIII 1O1 �Tn:.♦�-:_-- �,S��;i♦��i►in:�-rinunn'i =hnnml Ilgi�- • �.is... inn►�: "- �:lunnnm�■lnnnml Im nnm .:--mm �nnq 1 - ����� p" :nnnlnm p eanmm n ��I■um,����luunl� � �Onq/�, 1 � ��4i��i 1 - nnm -//In►unllllu►�/nnul►�� - 1►om li �o Innlllnn-�Inllln -fill ,��♦1 I�,IIIP� �_In►Ili e - • ���� `:nnmm�I�yuvim --1-`ENE_ u► -�:1 - n 1 q i IIp1 i 111IIII�i4 �..�:�0■I:- 11111��lI Legend l�l •rn■..1111-111n11nr, �" °+°[!♦' CHJINDEN' IIIIInn11111111■IIIIn``1111111111/1 fI111111111111111111111111 ■ij �■■TIq' - _Project ��IIIIII.IIIIIII lllllll■�-11111111 �L=■(IIIIII..Inllln^111,1� ■■■I IIIIn" — I •1 IIIIII IIIIII Illllllll?:IIIIIIIIII: ■IIIII-_-I�-p IIIII IIII■■IIIII■ _ iCa-.-q�t111111n ee- I=� ��= ..-■■...u =- IIII�III■�.IIIIII 1 7^ =IIIIII n1`, .= ■.-. ' - tlllllll/:■IIIII 11... 11� ■■I■■..■I■■■I■■■■., a of Impact ■rr1�w011111111111/_�I■•- ♦ -- - Y ��= I I•■••■•/■••.IIII/.I City Limits Planned Parcels I�;�pvoax-:nnnnln: n ♦��iunpm mom d�CC�''p'.:�C�-:o�� mm�m■■np t.•pr■ _ nnorr■■■.��� -== :IIII■" I ono � � `s In. Analysis '=::�-��� ��is� -► I �uu u�ulntC �i�■ttP� a:��nunm�►�•• III 11111��--- ^ �� J-- 11■IIIIII■/�rll �111 111.�p■.=_ -��U►i�� ■u/Ip Inn11111111p♦�♦�i1' 1ww� II nnmu►�����I ■�1 ► -•�I I►�C:-_' :►q II' ❑/an■nllllnn■Ip\I�♦I�ryr�Illlompp►��� -:.�. it r�auT � \t fl - -_� L..--• III► , ..■ hf ♦nn nnD -_ !�•�� 1• ��I%►•�C%■� �:�:=, t�. ■ ..:�■ii�1�1�11��..��.¢.�,� ��niii�l�� O♦ov ♦ /If ►In,11111111 III -:�i nnm:•�I�\•::pOnw nnl►��_■+, ::■IIA♦�• ♦����rr .. ..nlun�.unnn n .nm nm■p Limn nm►►-:-r_nul- ♦• q��. �j IIIIII- - � nn■IIII►�, �=�•• ..-���♦f,I♦►-.Iulmnl /111■ IIIII��Ilnnln nnn111onnllu�Dnnll •• rr- ►% ",►►��p ' IInn111-,IIIIII IIIIII��rlllnllnllllllllununiml■?jl■ I_ �n11■nII/, �♦tl■U■1■■■1►,.� �.�� '♦�\♦% - ••• Q Q��\(IIIIII a-nn111■III■i Inlllnun=_____ IIIP■IIIIn ■■■m■■■■�1♦ .-. r►I Q�► III/�-un■ • (� ��♦IIIIIIII �■IIIOIIOI•=wnninn=_____-�■ \IIII � - 1,:■■O■■OU■■1 • ■■•■I• 1 OIOO.�• .•• �: �•. '111n11►� n0 nlmR♦ee:,l�ll�l=_____�_-:.. ,�. ►,•c.�l,- .............■..: ��� �� Owf111-�..■■. � Y an.� J�t11 _�;����0�"all.. �■ I�=� :.0:=nmml :�rnw■nn■■■■ � � \�■n.... nnn���mot► � o I■�■■ ::.:noon■(�.► . ♦1I'1/IIIIn 1 2_ nnu V �=Innt�1►�� �o"����� ■■■■■■ i11 :.::�,mllI11I p�iti��p��I-■ ■II IIn.:.:■nu III IIIIII � o pot= I 11 � ■n■■/■mt■■■■ 111110 IIn111■un/11 n J S!9 9C1111\���� �' "`�_noI�I�■ -_I iq m1O111■111■oonnm ■I 411nIn IIIII►�71uun I■ HIII■IIdIIIi 11 ppo , •��::mllnll I ♦ .�ot`Q I■■■■■■ �u nl�: �rinm nou/n /_nnununnm m ��n � ■■1■■ I, -nn:��Illllllnl�IIIIn■n0 nnnnO IIII IIIIn( nnnnnuml u On-_,,,,,I�T L.., �■ � .■IIIII\►lllllllllnl ���:�111■■■■/I"■nl 111 -n11t11n111:C nunmm�m � ••1,11�:_� • ..rr - � \/-�•►/IIIIIIIIIII►�f/_-■111■n1■I ■■q IIII 11100 1111111OG unumm�n - _ �*1'1,/IIIII\� I I �-n■■11_ 1 IIIIII Illlllllnl 11IIIt1111111?n■■1nn Itll� �-1�\IIIIII/ t I Lis �-� -��• II- _IIIIII 1111111111= n111�� I.+.+I 1N&JI ��I�t�OO■���' 11� �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�- IIIII IIIII►� J Illlnl� � _— I■1■ItOn■.iiiii_111; II►� �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIId►Im1 IluuwillI'\ „';11'i.1�11►�� Y. , ..r ■M ' V Illlllllnlf Illllt■t111 Itnm r f l.1-1 i*i*��LL77Laa.77I11, �'. ■n:elm �:♦ _�•- 1��� ������►IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII �I� '1 1 /►v �mrrno►► � �m �==���:�= L 111111111111111—IIIlI1o.. I.c � ��1i�.•_=��:::ID • � �♦ __ + -amnn nlu: � _ �Innl Inp ♦ m ��,�i♦♦i►in::__:-- _ 1�=hn W - - `IAIIUII InI fi ♦ ■n �i♦I�Oun mm��rununu nn �_ _T I'_ �J■ •�4l===°��I w pp.� �� ♦♦ 111n OIOIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIOIW �--+-�t-T__,__f= � _ �11� nnn1O.�?�-u mnl ��I♦ � � III anon annul ouI�IIII f��� IJI 1 y�J11OIgf���� ����IIn1111nO Q■IIIIIIIIII IIIIII/Irl �\IIIII � �1♦��� 1♦�' I. n1n11o111■enunml nnnm ��+r u�.:oq/ 11 pl■11111♦ ��-nnn 1 II� IU�n:�:1oo11op:-_nnmllmmmn- __n1 1 _�mn.=numb- nn�=D.1 la�lnlo Z,■ min IINI:C oo►�i���� ��Iun■I - unnnnn- ► U ► I pp I ♦♦�j- - -.•��►��i`5� �`-- -�:: � ♦IiiO�1111� �111111\:1[; B. Preliminary Plat(date: 12/17/2024) PRELIPARK UBDIVISION -- -- AOERD PARK SUROIVISION E v<oF s 101i M NMI - - o �~., Al n..or. zo:o on o A. >FO � .1. -i J-_U_LL 8� q ---- �� G a s s a f ----L- S g PP1.0 City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits C. Final Plat(date: 10/1/2025) awaw ue`.ae o®,w�u-nis %Maa#xMT6S BOOKPACE- -mllw msrvn�_- ADERO PARK _ ax.>movom I I � owµ m ua�rwrt, ,�*'�• ON ..t.._,._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._...'� � S O LOCATED IN THE W112 OF THE SE114 OFSECTION 2NT.4 CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO .. ._.._.._.._._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._. ti 2026 i alma auwnww xo.a eow..t eam,wm-m I I I I . xaranre ww'Pmaw YLmo sNimi•E NOJ�' ✓/�i� h i I silt \ \ I ; .m a-Ak- ; r i �- q�` 1157.4p g �ew� ,I �m,�xwww.w �xx»�.w onx xc�e..�x uvne 2Nxrwx W— 2217-71 xrr.�ve gar ssn .............._.._.._ a x�r mm xrza x:s�vmw i g .-___.._______..________.gx vamav veao SEE SHEET}OF3fOR lglB,REffREM£5,0.N0 NMR1T14£ anmx�aw 1 � � ADERO PARK SUBDIVISION NO.1 BOOKS PAGE axrmareaavrree wm.u,axwn@.�,a _ m.x,..d..w.,,x narowieoctnsvr �w.s.mx.�s..wn«:mmax�...,....a.d.s,,;g�,m.:r nnrxo*Et � .,,�„x��w.mgxx.,w�.��nEa...,....a•ne®mam,s,,.,�w xwvwai,wmmxeaiw., s.w,aww•mvm.womewemax �.rwnmammndm onemra�evwn REIGiE OF SHR4EYOR: nmwxxnsmw,m®xn m. x uwr, m.m. �:v�emrv.wu�.x¢ranru xaw¢msvw[usxisw woucamww w� m m+rs�w�r�aw�s�m / awrcmmeian mnimmxxn svvxwu.wxvmearrmr,:nx ,3.awat. 3 11574 u" xwm vmuaa.x wwww.eemoxoao+.as.n `@"m'•,,".v sa.ammwxaoxwwxxHw.vµ ,. x�vi wc�.�rvwa.®ox,w,waz�r,nm 20305MMETT,N 83617 E. EMMETT,ID8 A (208)398-8109 FAX(208)398-8105 swwca.om®nawxmne�ar: �w,xuu�mnwome .aowrm,xa.,m gm. JLadua+J�ry--.eigieJLL-/G/ 4LM1wv.5awf0oiHtS.COM City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits ADERO PARK SUBDMSION NO.1 BOOK—PAGE . nEurn menFlGn: aroawai oFmrenuxai Ro-msnl«sasupuxmevrowomoc rmesR aumrx,x RavEemvSavrssun arvcawo�leoox mrswarwasRur aiux momoe evev�svi�aor""""`aaxn°fbirc�'aires ;u aac«o..+a wmisecnw� acres®.Voa�. O:RnFIUTE OF COUNN SURVEYQR Lo�rooasirxo,rxmemau�S�Prar�ammunv��m�mvmrcarixar�xe�� a OMoFaoamunrrwc-r AYDo a OERnFIGn:OF COUNtt TRE/SURER mamvr,aw ravrtvxRwwavwsm¢i Mrt Lixrwveis�rwo,cwxivixrasvaEa m.word r�mwrrttaM SrairOsimn,rm rnF�¢Qureemrr5a aDSFowmlviSlCRMrEBRR 9uR w����wr��rswlowtlNE�iRry (x�i)Mr51wnr15 Ri ARRROvx OF Cnv ENGINEER COUNn'RECORDERS L'ERnFfGn: L ��WS(GI.'®.arvB.miHRaM'D2N rxEarveFretlm/+'.aM rdxm,mxp,[o MABr �mNnrtram�R rgsrur 11Eup[SrCfSexTmIXWnSUMn�w.'.ut,arm 10305.WASMNGTONAVE. a EMMETT,ID 83617 g 11574 g (206)398-8109 �+iq c� FAX(208)398-8105 ;yya��a` NWT T Lad 5wvryiiq,LLG WNM1N.59WTOOTHLSCOM L City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Final Order for Adero Park Subdivision No. 2 (FP-2025-0030), by Laren Bailey, Conger Group, located at 5435 N. Ten Mile Rd. BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: JANUARY 13, 2026 ORDER APPROVAL DATE: JANUARY 27, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ) REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT ) CONSISTING OF 55 BUILDING ) CASE NO. FP-2025-0030 LOTS AND 10 COMMON LOTS ON ) 11.31 ACRES OF LAND IN THE R- ) ORDER OF CONDITIONAL 15 ZONING DISTRICT FOR ) APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT ADERO PARK SUBDIVISION NO. ) 2. ) BY: LAREN BAILEY, CONGER ) GROUP ) APPLICANT ) This matter coming before the City Council on January 13, 2026 for final plat approval pursuant to Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-6B-3 and the Council finding that the Administrative Review is complete by the Planning and Development Services Divisions of the Community Development Department, to the Mayor and Council, and the Council having considered the requirements of the preliminary plat, the Council takes the following action: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Final Plat of"PLAT SHOWING ADERO PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 1, LOCATED IN THE NE '/4 OF THE SE '/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 4N, RANGE 1 W, BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, 2025, HANDWRITTEN DATE: November 7, 2025, by Jeff Beagley, PLS, SHEET 1 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR(ADERO PARK SUBDIVISION NO.2—FP-2025-0030) Page 1 of 3 OF 6," is conditionally approved subject to those conditions of Staff as set forth in the staff report to the Mayor and City Council from the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department dated January 6, 2025, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked "Exhibit A" and by this reference incorporated herein. 2. The final plat upon which there is contained the certification and signature of the City Clerk and the City Engineer verifying that the plat meets the City's requirements shall be signed only at such time as: 2.1 The plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and 2.2 The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are completed and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash surety has been issued guaranteeing the completion of off-site and required on-site improvements. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAKINGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight(28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian,pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR(ADERO PARK SUBDIVISION NO.2—FP-2025-0030) Page 2 of 3 interest in real property which may be adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty- eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review pursuant to Idaho Code§ 67-52. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 27th day of January , 2026. By: Robert E. Simison 1-27-2026 Mayor, City of Meridian Attest: Chris Johnson 1-27-2026 City Clerk Copy served upon the Applicant,Planning and Development Services Divisions of the Community Development Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: 1-27-2026 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR(ADERO PARK SUBDIVISION NO.2—FP-2025-0030) Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (�/-WERIDIANI, DEPARTMENT REPORT I D A H D HEARING 1/6/2026 Legend DATE: Project Location 0 TO: Mayor& City Council Area of impact �= City Limits FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner O Analysis 208-884-5533 e lritter@meridiancity.org ; 4 . APPLICANT: Laren Bailey, Conger Group i Wr SUBJECT: FP-2025-0030 Adero Park No. 2 FP ® G, LOCATION: 5435 N. Ten Mile Road,located in the NE '/4 of the SE '/4 of Section 27,T4N, R1W,Parcel No. SO427417210 I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Final Plat consisting of 65 lots(55 building lots, 10 common lots) on 11.31 acres of land in the R- 15 zoning district for Adero Park Subdivision No. 2. B. Issues/Waivers None C. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed final plat with the conditions of approval in Section IV of this staff report. D. Decision Approved with conditions City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 11. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1•Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Uses) Residential - Existing Zoning -p R-15 VLA.2 Proposed Zoning R-15 Adopted FLUM Designation Mixed-Use Community(MU-C),Medium Density VLA.3 Residential Note: See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section and public record for all department/agency comments received.Adero Park Subdivision No. 2 FP-2025-0030(copy this link into a separate browser). City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics III. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat for substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat(H-2024-0068)as required by UDC 11-613-3C.2. The submitted final plat is for the first residential phase of construction for the approved preliminary plat;therefore,the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat as required. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. The applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval for this development H- 2024-0068 (MDA, PP, RZ); MDA Inst.No. 2025-071075; FP-2025-0029. 2. The final plat shown in Section V.B,prepared by Sawtooth Land Surveying,LLC, stamped on 11/7/2025 by Jeff Beagley, shall be revised prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer,as follows: a. Note#6: Include the instrument number for the ACHD license agreement. b. Note#9: Include the instrument number for the Development Agreement. c. Note#10: Include the instrument number for the CC&Rs. d. Note#13: Include the instrument numbers for the ACHD sidewalk easements. e. Note#14: Include the instrument number for the City of Meridian sanitary sewer easement. f. Missed Note#15. g. Note#16: Include the instrument numbers for the McMullen and Hudson lateral irrigation agreements. h. Note#17: Include the instrument number for the City of Meridian water main easement. i. Note#18: Include the instrument number for the roadway easement. j. Note#19: In the instrument number for the City of Meridian sewer and water easement. Only show the portion of the easement that is associated with the proposed plat. k. Revise the irrigation easement for the McMullen and Hudson lateral to show only the portion associated with the current plat. 4. W. Gondola/W. Malta Drive (N. Aria Way)shall be constructed to N. Vicenza Way, excluding only the ten(10)foot multi-use pathway and landscaping on the east side of the new collector roadway in the first phase. The remainder of the roadway to N. San Vito Way shall be completely constructed as a complete street including sidewalk and landscaping on both sides,prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the second phase. 5. The landscape plan prepared by Jensenbelts Associates,prepared by Kimberly C. Slegenthaler dated 11/14/2025, shall be revised as follows: a. Show the location of the bags for dog waste disposal and the benches within the fenced area. b. Terminate the pathway on Lot 14,Block 3 at its northern intersection with the east—west pathway within Lot 1,Block 3, as a fence exists along the north property boundary and the pathway does not continue beyond that point. 6. Apply for alternative compliance for the landscaping on the north portion of the property within Lot 24,Block 1 and Lot 1,Block 3. The narrative shall state why pathway landscape City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis cannot be provided in this area which require trees every 100 linear feet. This shall be approved prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat. 7. The rear and/or sides of 2-story structures along W. Gondola/W. Malta Drive(N.Aria Way) shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. 8. All fencing shall be installed in accordance with UDC 11-3A-7. 9. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 10. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 1I- 3A-15,UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 11. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-313-14. 12. The applicant shall obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat within two(2)years of the date of approval of the preliminary plat(i.e. July 8, 2025), in accord with UDC 11-6B- 7, in order for the preliminary plat to remain valid; or,a time extension may be requested. 13. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of ACHD. 14. Staff s failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. B. Meridian Public Works SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: 1. The bottom of structural footing shall be set a minimum of 12-inches above the highest established normal ground water elevation. 2. Maintenance of any irrigation and/or drainage pipes or ditches crossing a lot is the responsibility of the lot owner unless such responsibility is assumed by an irrigation/drainage entity or lot owner's association. 3. If there are water/sewer mains that cross an Irrigation District owned facility; for this crossing you will be required to: a. Submit a project request to irrigation district on behalf of the City that includes provisions for the City to construct, install, repair, replace, operate, and maintain the facility necessitated by the development. b. Cause the District's attorney to draft a Project Agreement which is to be submitted to the City for review. c. Pay to District(or reimburse City)for the applicable fees charged by District's attorney in connection with the preparation of the Project Agreement. GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department,and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions Standard Specifications. 2. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 3. All improvements related to public life,safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 4. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff,the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-313-14A. 5. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all incomplete fencing,landscaping,amenities,pressurized irrigation,prior to signature on the final plat. 6. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City of Meridian. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 7. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, and water infrastructure for a duration of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 8. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life,non-safety and non-health improvements, prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C. 9. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 10. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 11. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 13. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-413. 14. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 15. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 16. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD.The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 17. At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 18. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor's work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 19. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 20. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 21. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR). The Developer, Owner, or project Engineer, shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so, how they will continue to be used,or provide record of their abandonment.If wells are to be abandoned,the project owner or their representative must contact the IDWR Groundwater Protection Section(Aaron Skinner, Hydrogeologist 208-287-4972) BEFORE any work is done to decommission an existing well (even if it is believed that the well is less than 18 ft deep).Proof of communication with IDWR must be submitted to the City prior to any work being done to decommission the well. Failure to communicate with IDWR may result in additional work and expense to decommission the well. 22. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment procedures and inspections. 23. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(UDC 11-3B-6.). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to development plan approval. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 24. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. V. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommend approval of the proposed final plat with the conditions of approval in Section IV of this staff report. B. City Council: Approval City of Meridian I Department Report V. Action ' 1 1 � k �0. ctLocation of Impact 0 Analysis - I I aIs j ■:1 00 -- MCMILLAN W Lu r r� ill"Project Location t Legend CH�INDEN j IIIII ■II■1II I■IIIII ,1.—.. .IIIII!n1111111==11111111 III■..IIII� - • IIIIIII n1111111=:■■1111■I: IIII■I/■■. Area mn uunm= . m nm■ :: �mm�mm� nm .i �r.1�1111 Full:■■IIII III► l �- �:■ ■■■■■■■n■nn■n.� ��� � Analysis ♦ =_ O11n1n■onus ♦ ♦�Il/i■ �lunnn11111-IIIIIII■ '■ :- ��n 11 In1:Illlll■ �� ::IAi1 ���i I�i........i.ij/Ij -- Illlln nnn► • 1 ::: inr� __ �♦ ♦�� 1►\I �- - -= 11/ll IIIII --- ~�� Q♦.■■♦..-_� p�■//1/I' �C::: -:.�> d1111 111111111�♦���mn��? mm�u���� Umn nri r11 Ij�O�. \/ II .---• . nn■1111 aid\\I/�r�err �pnnn■A►�♦�lumnm- �IIII■�� -\i ii i,' �ii-■IIIII 1111�:.■11 ,�■\•�III•` ■■ ■■A�•ii,�■IIII■■t\� 1:/ �� ���-111�_■�O , --■IIIII/Ill■�� III v■1/■ It ��: C /�V•�C�/�■► IIII�:� �::��.■■InI1On..� ��IIII'1r� ♦� I�Illn■■mI/ 1 ?-lilnm"�. .����IIIn mll►�- � ��� ♦O v �umm�n. - ,gllllll IIIII►� _ ♦ �: .0111� ♦O ��Unnnun• .�lul■�.Ylnnn IIII.. -: � .lO/ IIIO.= Ilnm nm0 � ♦• /��►i, • ;,//f,��_:mnnnn:_il nn' ►IIII III11►_lunnn � l...mod♦ Nnnnm� H mm �■�unit Ilan nm�� am nnu►♦�'-- IOp•�-�rr� �■I � � • III/,• ♦,QI■■ms ll►� Q� Q: ♦ ��♦g1111 II■.11InIO111- ■1 -■■n■■■■■1■��� ■■■n■ `I I:111�1�lim►�►O�1;„.-:� Q�• �:lunnum: W =I %•�■mnnnl■■►♦ u� .mr li_ lion �v■■o■-. ..nl�►o�V- t II►\:nn nlln►1 -n I nnn■noun nn■�==: A111��■n■f�..�91���i%�an► J-,■ J 1 In■� .............■■n■ni■■e 5/ nnl...■,.'■:IY ♦�1■n1► � ■u■p� FI 111 IIII -�■■■n man■-►IOO■■e e■ lllO-c nnm C V n11 / : � ■n■ - ii■%1■.■IIII■nn1►■■■nI■n llln■.:.■ nn ■///I//\��! 1■I■'■�� . nn11■�: ■■1■nn■■n o■■■11■■■■� I Illllms■1 a ■■ ■� � � :nll1■- 111 IIII■mnnnn ■■1I■■p■� n11 I nnnnppi moms,�: �1Inn■nn■► .m nnn � ■ m W �all:0- nnm�1nul■■m m■■■■nm unq� IlllO==11 Illl��IIII �l■11111►1 ■■ Illlll nl e 5 ■�.j Illlll 1'- solo►► •�I-.In■I■111"11p111111 Illl 1p� nunumnm ■,II,/IIIII• �1���0/ 111'lllll\•��•■Ill■Inn ■1I■IIIIIII)■■• IIIIIIIIII' ll IIIII- ���1-1 IIIIIIII ���� .IIIII IIII n pp■O�i��:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi IIIIIIII IIIIIIII o=e IIIIIIII lnl = nl■/1■■II111111■III n■Itl�1111111 �1111■� 1��- IIIIIIIIIIIGnnuwl �► �■■-!y.. .�■Il:?ulrall.��� IIIIIIIIr/�II11111111 - r,-_.. 'e 22 �I /Inns loll♦ 1� noon .---.... ... ue•- �1 I /IInIi isms♦1♦ �■nnn1 O mm��r�nwnu■nm ,anon■ _ � �=-�i �nu11/ ♦♦♦♦�i Inn m I lnIn11111111110 IIIIIPI t111111D _ nllllnl v:'�-�l■IIII♦�III♦ ►'—� - r�► I♦♦��♦ �■■■ ■■■ Illl1�Illlllllnli nnn■ ■:Pnlnl, = 111 �Enlgl' ---- gill ♦i���1 4 - ♦ �� IIII■■■. nm.-nnnnn uml tr I �nq1 •R 11//11�♦1 ��- Ib nnn■- IIIII p 11111111111■IIIIIII nllll 111►►1/p �I��A�I nut.a mm�/uumum �Inl/���-=��mlr♦ u j/11■�01//Oj�/� III��nnn■in■\ 1 ME ��•rrr��i� n:- RUT ♦♦♦•►��1/i���J►����II��i��11 nlll�Il� Legend �• is�'i�p j%. .�11�.---`!� � �1'��""��!\ �.■■■■■.■■IIII►� r mz� _ III IIIL.II1111 � � I Project Location IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIOII CH N 111_I /)1 pI1111111f111111111111111 ��un.nuuu% an Area of Impact IIIIII IIIIIIIII=G IIIIIIIII 1 •■�111111-.L_ IIII� ■IIII■.11110- ■1111111 Illlllllr 5O nlnln. ■IIII=1 �:■IIIIII■IIIIII: _ nm■I�=1i11u n1` o� .,li�„' - ° •nn-um- roimm�nudooillP� T I :mI mn. =c ♦ . 'rlllllln 7■IIOI In►• until �11IIIIIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■•�\��•Illlllr e _ :■ --i �IIOII■■n■In1111�1�•1�„111.■ -_■g11111111111i p1111n�`�i 1 11111111- �Ip pA IIIIIO■■■■■.►I �i1 ♦�rI U221 ■IIIIIIIIII non► .: �. �• ::Qlup �♦ runnnwl♦p _ - C0 IIIu■uD• .�p = yn►\��o` :_�Innnm��i�o�►I/iOG _ 1�►1 Ilirllll 1 IIIIIIIII �uu� A■ LII/��^.�■II 10' :.. .�' ♦ � I♦ V-=I■■■■■■■■■►1r IImO ni/ Be Lam . r11 11 1���■. �... • III"� Ilunuullll rn �11. 1I ♦rI � ^`■/■II I ��1 111••�1��...,I I►...i�Ilnl In1�::�IjIII ■ ,■.in.. IIIII■I■■\ ,.''j�:IIIIII'11 1\\ 1/•�-_/It�\I SIC 1 �� , �. ■Ii�liiiii.. �■ ••■ ■ �♦ Is UOpn;nllllll IIIII►1■I �-='iiI°nr=�im nni��� ♦�--�, � �IIII►��� ��♦���r11i►iinliiiii= �nul��uunn nv■•r _=-i Innn nuns ::ndl ■■■ ►� �p j pv��G 11111111111:LI IIIIME IIII IIIII,�IIIIIIIII Il.r■dl■rllllllll Inllnl� - 0 1■�♦�♦ ►IIIIIII■Ir, ••��a �� IIIIII ■IIII■II IIIIII i I ■■■III .\ ■■■■■■/ �In■■••••■••`a`�•1♦ ♦♦♦v♦\IIII 11��■I■IIIII■II i �,,,,.■ II■■� D -� I■■.Qom,■ 1•/I//�:nn111�p1.;(���i��, •In ■►�■IImO■II LIJ\I.�IwAAAnn�,♦♦�1111�■ nn�� I■■■■m����ni'?:1: OI■=�...■.• II Ih�♦am♦� .JII■I■IIn► J:II: ==■ IIn - . - e ■m■ nn1 �'■.:Y� /ONm1■II■DID♦ ■uq ��I 1-1: ..■ 1■n ■■mnu■3?I IIIII��2 IIIIII pp. 1/�I�1Qt.� ■II��/►\. 'iiiii::��: ■I III■I/ji iiiii iiiii►�i■iiiiii��J nnm :U��III■I III►�C nn • °� ■:.:,u mn/O 6 :■n IIIII::C:now=:" ! u► . �nm1 \ ■■II■iiiiii�■iii■■iiiiiiil�� ♦a vo.■� . \ 7 illO►1'��- ■ IIIIII ■ ■.�� 1 nupulmm� nmm�■ 1r.........1�1� 11111.��� � Z 1�:� ' ■.� I IIII►�auun �mm�►J nnnnmml mn I■nnnll■■'.II► �nmU►,�:..I nn11 ��■■un nn■►IIn nn�� nnumm�nm=:m[o e____: �) W un:._ un 1 In■■m onu.■nn nIn/�� IIIIII�=nnnnnmm--� __ �IIII��IIIII� � Jlln qn■■■■n ■pn1 6 IIIII.p nnnnlmnll? -I �� e �■�y IIIIIII�. � �1�►�i% .IIIIII � IIII■■n■■ ■■■p11111) �• ■IIIII:mmlr nlln n 1 J L y�::':: ■'I'/IIIIII\� r�_ D - m■.= I I ■ v mm�unm: IIII: \ � ■ul jlr III•i��:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIn IIIIIIII�- 11111111111 Itlllllll: �IIIII � i IIIIIIII �IIIIIIIIIIII:� pllllllllnn�,,,,, ,IIIIIII., ��o� e IIII iiiii�111��O nl■IIIIIII IIII.1.1•-r••^-n-vr: mm�nln � /II���: �n-��.:� =M G M I L LA N- I■n:��nr.IrL� u-1.d-1- /-.-...,...L.+_JI '-"_ IIIIIII 11111111�� O°r!`4i�Innllnujl �noon Ion/Ion F ImI 1 mom. , ot In►/i� �Innnn. mnn�rmm�ll nwn►��I mnnnn �'• •`41 _� . �i�i Inn n■►� nnmul�. m � rr. o . ♦■II ■II► Inn p'unnnm■nnl�_ �:jnmu 7:==nnu- ■ �nlnll I(im �i i ��unn wnu Inn a_ / nnu.-IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIL�I . �� _all n 1, .■IInIIn= Inn�=nnwlnmmml= _ —/im nmlll ►�/innn►� �•In►1 I - - e - • W■ur nl� IIIII i=IIOIIII uw m= Intl;�II■�,InP/ \/ _ ■■ 1■. �•.,, J I� -----'-� _-r■� a ►�►i����■p�/J�♦�I�1 ff Ij,�n mn nq ���I ' IIII �1■ Jy 1�o .e♦�Q ■111•`r �:aCC7 1 GS ��•� Legend -- l IIIIIIII::,.I�11j1111�11�1.��r�r Project Location IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII`•1111111111 Cf7I1\DEN-- 71_ I� IPIn111I1A11111Illllllp �anununn ■IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII= IIIIIIIII 1 :■IIIIIII Area of Impacte.�?.;IIIIIII �I���II� ■IIIIII■IrI . II'IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII. .Illq=1?In■ - ':.IIIII■■II ■'I7�IIIIIIIO= 1 - I --- 7 =111u■In�1 NI:__I?JI -■nI-I == Inllnnlunl Inn■.'�. - •,umull.■nI11 III mnm- _ I-ICI_ u 1 nnnnu noon► ..nmu� _ lumen.nnm/p����111�■ rrunnmml'IIIIIII■• ♦ ':::: -- ��./mllllllll:IIIIIIII� �b 1 11111111� -.I � •\ III■IIIII■■nqr �Q�j���1/�� City Limits �;'■pn nun►►■■■r�Ij OG��I Planned - � = _Illllllln mnI► .� �. s �" �' Ii� .. I■unnn►►1♦♦♦ 1�/i�r1►\I °=C►IIIu■nIP ■:: _`_ �� InI �. ►.o�� _=�Innnm I�i♦••►II�Of�� IIII 11/' I ter"l�, un11111 p►/��nunl�=I uumu►//ter minun ur/ I�%-1■_�•�I II ��:: *• •QII Ili� eenwn111 \II►\\1/►II hq�I�InnnW►►����Unnntn= Analysis _\� ..� .....i1nl nlli:7 q►,U- I� ���11/IIq� Ulm un■O r. lununu' 1�111■n.rll��_�/II►I mI�.. ...�.nnlllln■..--_■fir. .IO' �/ I .IIIIIIII IIIII►� = 'lilnln°■■■II I■III Cp♦IIIIIII iii i�O�a:call `IIII���i ♦►�����IqI"ttttln .Ilu■■♦♦uunn nv■•I �' UI■►� .�i ►boom m� ;11•►�_:nnn,,,,l II' � IIIII►:Ilnnm 11ln1lll1111111111 nnm11 1 nnn■r�, �in�♦�♦�- ••���- � 1- II .,IIInI I■1■II ■Illlllllllllllllllljllllllllllll�lp�• .\■n■■n■II♦ (•�/ IIn■••O• a ,�•: Q:♦,i1 •�iiiiI�IIIIi��unnunn___ _ �■ \IIIII �1 �IIIr:,,i III■iiiiiiii i► uNn 0I:'• III �•. lnnnnuu sa=_a _ ■ ■In I►�I �/■��iiii►`••�•A V i�1 ♦� BillIIIIII►�islAllll__ ■■I== =:=����.■ IIn. .� ��.nn■:C�II .♦♦ �� ■nnm noon •: /� �♦ -Milloo� ■■ .n.�� nun ■. nun noon■■maul__I ■��m I.:?.„ Ii1noID♦♦ ►��p �oo��: :nm�:�� ..nm noon.I um r°I 11■■� nnm cam'V � i p000000�� �■IIII■ -nm:.�. III�p■m■n■III ■■■■■■U._:. ■■III.:::now:: I � �a�0000��2■■IIII■ I pnnlP��: In/II ■manna:i mnm�P/I 1■I■I1011lmm nnm Q \�� �',00�o= �■�� n11■mnnnn nnnu�.I�`U�p\ ��■■IIII■ -.nnp IIII I I IIIII%1_•`�nnm Munn J IdIIII III►/ j�p•�e��-■■III■ -IIInnII►,�:• In ��■■nu mn►'nn now= unnuumnnl�Im �-�- •L1■ �■�IIII:1 IIOI IIOIn■un■nun■mI U■n//I IIIIn• _ •�mI1� ��nnunuunn=�� . IIII\ .■ �. IIIOI.C nnunwnnl�: I_ :� r .j IIII■��1•.w �� `�.IO111► Q■..IIIIm■■I I■■p1I1111 ... 11■I■■■noon■non J L -e /IIIII\� I •+I ' �1���►I IIIII\I/p_.InI■-In In1I11111)••• I_I'�' �IIn■■�%A mnninnn: IIII� _ ��� �� -�1■nl `i■i1�Ipp���IIIIIIIIImllll IIIIIIII n: 11111111111 IIIIIII" _ IIIIII� I^"�I ■ OI■nlllnr1111n� nI ttl■IIIIIII --�nnnunll: Inn.ln■� IIIIII.� � 111 Illlllllllli nnullnnnn' nunnnal ,� �/IIII � � r, � �11��n-�i:: IIIIIIIII/�1111111111 11111�II�� ` - - !'.�M,CMI LLA __a■__B ___���J�-1���► IIIIIII 111111111I� •O°r� ;�I1�w■nnmp►� �nmm��►„ _�=: 111111111111111—IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII_ r+ .. 1 ,IIIIII��p.. 1��••`' // J L�I: r•C=� �'-''. c!/IIn■IIpI1 1/ nnm■.w W----In►►1� Innnn �■ num�rinuunl Ilnun►►� __=_=T�'__ •'n� = ri ■ Inn on ■■ IIOIIIIIIIIIIIIO Illllr►111 _ee= 'J �mlinnm:?�'^OOII 0,II I� v� - y noon Inuun moll .� 1!i1 r�•V ♦1�� Inn Q'lllllllllll IIIIIIIIhII �■I■IIII 1 4 Jinlnl,�\� iomon m i p IIIII p:unnnn nunlri���+ri_ :■In/I 1•r IIIIII oil Innn■ mu�■mmmm�mml_ nnl- �1■� �•n1►1►►•�C 1�/I �f/ �i►nonll IInIO nut:=nwnluunnl„- �...pnnq ■ �u �U:.�111►1�/� IIf1j -�.,,� _� I�= ..: Z ►�►i�0�np•/J♦••IIIf1 I�aI nm.n� �pp,� �►�_:==::-Es�►gip W �IIIp■• • Iff11�i■i Io ll.. --mill Iu��� �fflfllr►�_•, �IC B. Subject Site Photos l�� �.� r own l _ -ilk a • ' ' °� r 1, Ow City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits C. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL S0427417210 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Score: 27 32nd Percentile DescriptionIMP Location In City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or n 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time 5-9 min. YELLOW Reporting District meets response time goals some of Emergency Services Police YELLOW the time Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Not within 1/4 of current or future transit route RED Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration {# of lanes in master streets GREEN plan) matches existing (# of lanes) School Walking Proximity Within 112 milewalking GREEN Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Either a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Community Park Walkability Park within 112 mile OR a Neighborhood Park within kREEN 1/4 mile walking City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Exhibits A Preliminary Plat(date: 12/17/2024) PRELIMINARY PLAT rOR -- -- ADERO PARK SUBDIVISION ,.a„e,.,,.,. F°F'�H.`te...� >Fp I rar eve rrr evr w-� r, um3 ���� ® L-L-= J-1--L--L-L-J 1 _1 J-1_LJ_LL_ Ei p W i am.1 a r `' fir'-�..�--- \,�//• _�'/�` � ., � e .• ���i G � Eng E. Final Plat(date: Click here to enter a date.) City of Meridian i Department Report VI. Exhibits F. Landscape Plan(date: Click here to enter a date.) ' Lj 1 I !? 1 I � I 11 I! ------ " .- - r _Tt I n ADERO PARK ADERO PARK I� \ NO. 1 NO. 2 �� 04 -- --- I o � �d= FUTUREI � � z o PHASES [L 5 a� °I w 0 LL L q I NOTES WPM O aseiL - � ' LAM7BCAPE LID l_ J2I _ ———————— ——————————— ,r , w ii b ii ii ii elACK3 i� n f BLOIX 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- mm __ 04 r . I w I ------ - -------------- :. - T , v _____________ ______s______ Y �IM`GL`L� QQJ O 5¢ PLANT SO+IEDULE NOTE W J 0 TL KEY MAP Ll City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits 2 �_I�WITsCFCI'E LL1 ______3KLOCK BLOCK4 hil i __e_____ BLOCK3 `BLOCK 1 J � .��\ `��+•- N A0.1A WAY- -' a cli \ \ PLANT SCHEDULE Z J NOTE ` Q \\' nocKs� ^� � �KEY MAP \r\\ Eff Lw>_�Ls ® LArcecnre O L2 PLANT SCHEDULE pup MATCFLKE Ls < .". NOTE W. j " o j cr % O 5¢ w Jw KEY MAP _ 5 L4 pA��APE Q W City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits PLANT 5GHI=PULE ,, a.mnwnmxmuw�ewxwvwvw,�wr � ® VINYL FRIVALY FENCE w r...e..��.®.� ��wse...o_w a.m ew rain..,. 0 i1iEE PLAMIN�i/SiAKIM1K ..p... p•�•••• � .r»r,vm .._�.�..�� } NOTES N i Mxx. Z �O ..µ,.x�....� M x O Q ME �i .� w,vro.wu+xv.vx�eevavne Q �� a nr$�aamve,mwvrtmzx>vm. LLAN'D5OAPE OALOULA7ION5 Q3 PLANTHL LIIT 9ED �E � p LPND9GAVE BOLLDH25 v DET�B w L4 ....,..�, ........m w....,... ......o.a...._. N G _ Z _. _ a IL p g .......... ................... L5 City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits G. Qualified Open Space Exhibit _ -- � -------------- \� ••1 ; :i � ' f i l i __1' I •�� � � i I AOERO PMKS KDIV1510N • - ---^""— -- OPFllSPAC[F]IXIi1T roTURE51N-AR-.. Q.Al .Of EX SPACE---11 S.m �.fafNX,fxlncoPpu,�E_,f�� I q1Y-1MNG OVEN�6E NON-0LLWMNG LPoN SPlLE VYY City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Exhibits H. Amenities Exhibit(date: 12/19/2024) Proposed Amenities; One Aae Central Plata Iblock 4,tot 33), ■ Three Pltkleball Courts ■ Fountain + Play Structure r v ■ Dog park ■ Climbing Rock $' Seating Benches } � * Attrattivt Landscaping 6NYig I x I r:F i V At a • i f. :11li:I nl �j. a . City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits • Pathways—The Adcro Mixed Use Neighborhood will include the following ped estrian pathways: • 10'Wide Regional Pathway 2,752 LF • 5'wide pathway in liner open x- space 1,70O LF _r Pedestrian pathways within the Adern Mixed Use Neighborhood will total a ti half a mile In length. • bog Park(Block S.Lot 451 * Fenced encloser * Dog Waste Station , * Sitting Benches * Attractive Landstaping }I ■ Other open green areas—Several other open spares will i awe the following Amenities: . ' ; + Shade structures -' r Large open grass areas } ■ Internal Pathways * Plcnlc Area Attractive Landscaping City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits I. Residential Building Elevations Il< - ■rrr RRAPqM A [ I .I A i City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits 3. i .4$ V DepartmentCity of Meridian po E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Addendum to Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Meridian and the Meridian Library District for use of Meridian City Hall ADDENDUM TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Addendum to Memorandum of Understanding (this "Addendum") is made and entered into as of the date it is fully executed, by and between the MERIDIAN FREE LIBRARY DISTRICT d/b/a MERIDIAN LIBRARY DISTRICT, a public corporation duly organized and existing as a library district under and pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and laws of the state of Idaho ("MLD"), and the CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, a municipal corporation formed under the laws of the state of Idaho ("City"). MLD and City may be referred to collectively as the "Parties." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, MLD and City, together with the Meridian Historical Society ("MHS"), are parties to that certain Memorandum of Understanding fully executed as of January 19, 2021 (the "MOU"), pursuant to which, among other things, MLD agreed to accept the Collection (as defined in the MOU) from MHS, and City agreed to provide a secure storage facility within City Hall for the Collection for up to five (5) years, subject to additional extension and renewal, at no cost to MLD, all as more fully described therein; WHEREAS, the Parties have been utilizing an upstairs display area and basement storage area within City Hall to store and display the Collection; WHEREAS, MLD has removed the Collection materials from the basement storage area within City Hall and has no further need for that space; WHEREAS, MLD has requested that Collection materials remain in the upstairs display area until City undertakes planned renovations to City Hall; and WHEREAS, the original term of the MOU expires on or about January 18, 2026 (the "Expiration Date"), and the Parties, by this Addendum, now wish to renew such term as provided herein. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the Parties have agreed to modify and supplement the MOU as set forth in this Addendum. 1. Recitals and Exhibits. The Parties acknowledge the foregoing recitals are true to the best of their knowledge and belief and are incorporated into this Addendum as if set forth in full. 2. Definitions. Any capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the MOU, except where the context indicates otherwise. 3. Term. The term of the MOU is hereby renewed for an additional five (5) years from the Expiration Date, subject to earlier termination in accordance with the MOU (the "Renewal Term"). During the Renewal Term, the Collection shall continue to be displayed within the upstairs display area at City Hall at no cost to MLD. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties acknowledge that City intends to initiate renovations to City Hall during the Renewal Term and in such event, and upon the giving of notice and the opportunity to remove displayed Addendum to Memorandum of Understanding- 1 47541.0003.4908-3211-6614.1 Collection materials as provided in the MOU, the MOU shall terminate in accordance with its terms. Upon termination of the MOU, MLD shall take possession of all Collection materials displayed at City Hall. The Renewal Term may be further renewed by the mutual agreement of the Parties. 4. Full Force and Effect. Except to the extent modified in this Addendum, the MOU shall remain in full force and effect including, without limitation, as to (i) the respective rights and responsibilities of the Parties, (ii)termination, and(iii)renewal. 5. Counterparts. This Addendum may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. [The following page is the signature page.] Addendum to Memorandum of Understanding-2 47541.0003.4908-3211-6614.1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, MLD and City have caused this Addendum to be executed in their respective corporate names effective as of the Expiration Date. MLD: Date: January 15 , 2026 MERIDIAN FREE LIBRARY DISTRICT d/b/a MERIDIAN LIBRARY DISTRICT By: Nick Grove, Library Director CITY: Date: January 27th , 2026 CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO By: Mayor Robert E. Simison Attest: City Clerk Chris Johnson Addendum to Memorandum of Understanding-3 47541.0003.4908-3211-6614.1 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Addendum to Construction Contract for Urban Irrigation System in Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 3 Mayor Robert E. Simison City Council Members: E IDIAN� Luke Cavener, President Liz Strader,Vice President D A H O Brian Whitlock Doug Taylor John Overton Anne Little Roberts January 16, 2026 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Robert Simison and City Council FROM: Mike Barton, Parks Superintendent RE: Community Center— Addendum to construction contract for urban irrigation system in Cedar Springs Subdivision no. 3 Background The original construction contract for the delivery of pressurized irrigation from Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District (NMID) was recorded against the Community Center property and followed the transfer of ownership to the city. The purpose of this addendum allows us to move a pressurized irrigation mainline owned by NMID from under a planned sidewalk. All other terms remain the same. This addendum has been reviewed and approved by our legal team. Action Council to approve as presented on the consent agenda. Instrument N 2026-011731 Ada County, Boise Idaho 02/20/2026 09:39:34 bM No. of Pages: 6 Recorded for: NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT Trent Tripple Fee: $0.00 nolson 1111Mt��.rf�'IQK�;��} Y�I��+��k���hll��l'�ifi� ; 'i�:�},�W��h �I III ADDENDUM TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR URBAN IRRIGATION SYSTEM IN CEDAR SPRING SUBDIVISION NO. 3 1. DEFINITIONS. In this Agreement certain words appear which have the following �+ meaning; 1 "Owner" means the City of Meridian, an Idaho municipal corporation, the owner of the land to which irrigation water will be distributed by the urban irrigation system that is the subject of this Addendum. "District"means Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District. "Addendum"means this written and signed Addendum(contract)entered into between the Owner and District. "Agreements" or "Prior Agreements" mean the written and signed Agreements (contracts) that have previously been entered into pertaining to Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 3. "Subject Property" means Lot 11, Block 25 Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 3, according to the official plat thereof. 2. STATUTORY AUTHORITY. This Addendum is made under the authority of Idaho Code § 43-330A through 43-330G. 3. PRIOR AGREEMENTS. Howell-Murdoch Development Corporation, an Idaho corporation, and Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District have entered into a Construction Contract for Pressurized Urban Irrigation System in Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 1 on the 15th day of October, 2002, recorded on the 17th day of October, 2002 in the records of Ada County,Idaho as instrument member 102119513 and Agreement for Pressurized Urban Irrigation System(PUIS)with Restrictive Covenants Running with the Land as to Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 1 on the 15th day of October,2002,recorded on the 17th day of October,2002 in the records of Ada County,Idaho ADDENDUM TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT-Page I as instrument number 102119514. The parties further entered into an Addendum to Construction Contract for Urban Irrigation System in Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 1 and Agreement for Pressurized Urban Irrigation System(PUIS)with Restrictive Covenants Running with the Land as to Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 1 to Include Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 2 on the 19`' day of November,2002,recorded on the 22"d day of November,2002 in the records of Ada County,Idaho as instrument number 102138257 and an Addendum to Construction Contract for Urban Irrigation System in Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 1 and Agreement for Pressurized Urban Irrigation System (PUIS)with Restrictive Covenants Running with the Land as to Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 1 to Include Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 3 on the 5" day of August, 2003, recorded on the 8"day of August, 2003 in the records of Ada County, Idaho as instrument number 103132413. 4. PROPERTY COVERED BY THIS ADDENDUM. This Addendum is intended for the benefit of the Subject Property. 5. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Addendum is to allow the vacation and relocation of the existing pressurized irrigation mainline in the Subject Property as more particularly described herein. 6. PUMP STATION. The pump station to serve the Subject Property is located in the Pump Station#47 Cedar Springs. It is understood and agreed by the Owner that the capacity of the irrigation pump(s)and facilities will be sufficient for the delivery of pressurized water to the subject Property and that the delivery of pressurized water to the Subject Property will not adversely impact the delivery of pressurized water to the other existing properties served by the pump station. If the delivery of pressurized water to the Subject Property adversely impacts the delivery of pressurized water to the existing properties served by the pump station the Owner agrees to pay their proportionate share of the cost to upgrade the pumps. 7. EASEMENT. The Prior Agreement, Addendum to Construction Contract for Urban Irrigation System in Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 1 and Agreement for Pressurized Urban Irrigation System (PUIS) with Restrictive Covenants Running with the Land as to Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 1 to Include Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 3 entered into on the 5"day of August, 2003, recorded on the 8` day of August, 2003 in the records of Ada County, Idaho as instrument number 103132413, paragraph 8G, provides that the District has an easement for the installation, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the irrigation mainline within the Subject ADDENDUM TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT-Page 2 Property.The location of the easement shall be determined by the location of the pipelines and other facilities, as finally installed,with the width of the easement being five(5)feet on either side of the centerline of each pipeline, for a total of ten (10) feet. 8. RELOCATION OF PIPELINE. EASEMENT. Upon receiving all necessary permits and other documents or approvals that may be required by the Public Authorities for the performance of the work, Owner will remove the existing pressurized irrigation main line that runs along the east boundary line of the Subject Property. The irrigation main line will be relocated slightly east of the existing pressurized irrigation main line of the Subject Property which will run approximately 900 LF.The pipe used will be 6" Class 200 PVC main line. A 6-inch gate value will be installed on each end of the newly installed main line. The general location of the existing pressurized irrigation main line and the general location of the relocated irrigation main line are shown on the Plan which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.The relocated main line will run north and south along the east boundary line of the Subject Property line. All products and workmanship shall be done in accordance with the current District Standards and Specifications. Upon completion of the relocated main line to the satisfaction of the District,the District will relinquish the easement pertaining to the existing pipeline. Owner hereby grants to District an easement for the installation, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the relocated pressurized irrigation main line. The actual location of the easement shall be determined by the location of the pipeline and other facilities, as finally installed, and the width of the easement shall be five (5) feet on either side of the centerline of each pipeline, for a total of ten (10) feet. The easement shall be ten (10) feet in width irregardless of property lines, fences or other obstructions. Owner shall not place any obstruction, encroachment, crossing or vegetation in the easement of District that would hinder or impair the operation,maintenance or repair of the main line by District. All costs of construction shall be paid in full by Owner. 9. OWNERSHIP, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. The relocated pressurized irrigation mainline constructed under this Addendum shall be the property of, and shall be owned by, District upon completion and acceptance of the work by District. District shall, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 43-330F, upon acceptance of the relocated ADDENDUM TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT-Page 3 pressurized irrigation mainline, maintain, repair, operate and replace the pressurized irrigation mainline which is the subject of this Addendum. 10. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Addendum and the Prior Agreements contain the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter of this Addendum. 11. GOVERNING LAW. This Addendum shall be construed under,and governed by, the laws of the State of Idaho. 12. BINDING EFFECT. This Addendum shall bind the parties hereto and their respective heirs,personal representatives,successors and assigns. 13. AUTHORIZATION OF SIGNATURE. Owner hereby warrants that the person signing this Addendum has been authorized to do so by Owner. 14. AMENDMENTS. Amendments to this Addendum shall be made only by written instrument executed by each of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto caused their names to be subscribed this 12 day of _, 202�. o�pTEDAU(; CITY OF MERIDIAN an Idaho municipal corporation �`9 ECif ID ell, TiAN%- ICAko B T� SEAL obe't E. 'this n,Mayor 1-27-2026 Atte- R°r1he7Rr-- Christ Jo n ,City Clerk 1-27-2026 NAMPA &MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT 13y L•� Its President ATTEST: z-7 It cretaty ADDENDUM TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT-Page 4 STATE OF IDAHO County of Ada This record was acknowledged before me on January 27,_202_6_______,(date)by Robert E, Simison and Chris Johnson on behalf of the CITY OF MERIDIAN,in their capacities as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively. FS1ATE ARLLNE WAIF �hd- v I MISSION No.67,390 Notary'Public. for the State ol'Id-.ti OTARY MBLIC My commission expires:_3-28-2ta28 OF IDAHO —� STATE OF IDAHO County of Canyon This record was acknowledged before me on �� � � 207(o _, (date),by, 1I%\ 0. and Lor 3. President and Secretary,respectively,of NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT. T %Alf Sol lgf+f 14 I. &A. v;IOTA � Notary Public for Idaho e My Commission Expires: UBLXCP w i 1b� w OF • +f�fflfAf AtRf7t■\ ADDENDUM TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT-Page 5 Existing Main Line in Red r Relocated Main Line in Black MIAMI r h x; � �� y _ - •s •n � l�l � I � a1AYfx i]6U][�Tg F • .f]Vl pt1 .+IS+W `J I � �alwwnly " 114. r �• -_.ice' � � f r � - .. I � �• � ]]fi610.1163 �� I Y --f- � I, tee■. ry,;;,A^� "'..: . —� - rrl — t E r[urAnoiAn]nun••.� ..'. r Z , 5'r',1f�'•- 'loos. lIA .�n�xn v. 1i.ry + 1 .Fllw � i .� I •x�t� � 1 N NMID_PRESSURE IRRIGATION Exhibit A E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Request from Mr. Adam Markowich for Connection to the City Sewer System Outside City Limits at 2832 E. Leslie Dr. (0 E IDIAN :---- IDAHO MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL Request to Include Topic on the City Council Agenda From . Kyle Radek, Public Works Meeting Date : TBD Presenter : Kyle Radek Estimated Time : 10 minutes Topic . Request from Mr . Adam Markowich for Connection to the City Sewer System Outside City Limits at 2832 E Leslie Drive Recommended Council Action . Approve the request from Adam Markowich for connection to the City Sewer System with agreement to pursue annexation and connect to the City Water System . Background . I . DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSONS Kyle Radek, Assistant City Engineer 208489 - 0343 Warren Stewart, City Engineer 208489 - 0350 Laurelei McVey, Director of Public Works 208 - 985 - 1259 II . DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST TO CONNECT Mr. Markowich is the owner of the property and building at 2832 E Leslie Drive . The home on the property is currently being served by a well and septic system . The property is contiguous with the City and has both water and sewer services built by the city in 2004 . Mr. Markowich has secured permits from Ada County to renovate the existing single family home and is ready for construction . From the outset of the project, he believed that because City sewer infrastructure was already at the property, he would be able to pay applicable fees and connect. He was not aware of the requirement to annex prior to connection . Mr. Markowich is willing to apply for annexation, hook up to water, and pay all applicable fees if this request is approved . III . CITY COUNCIL REVIEW Page I of 5 Mr . Markowich ' s request is governed by Meridian City Code sections 94 - 26 . These provisions state that the City may grant a request to provide City sewer service to a property outside of city limits if the requestor demonstrates a compelling health or safety reason to do so . If this standard is met, the process established by Code is for Public Works to bring the request to City Council and make a written recommendation regarding whether to allow the proposed connection . City Council , in the exercise of its discretion, may either grant or deny the request after review of the materials . If City Council grants the request, the property owner is to enter into an agreement with the City of Meridian for the provision of sewer service outside the city limits . In the agreement, the owner must agree to comply with City policies and codes ; to pay all applicable connection, assessment, and service fees ; to annex into the City; not to change or intensify use of the property prior to annexation ; and other reasonable conditions of granting the request to connect to the city sewer system that may be imposed by the City. IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Staff finds that the expansion of use of septic systems such as this one in this urban environment may be a compelling health and safety reason to connect sewer service to this parcel outside of city limits . Community Development, Park, and Fire staff have no concerns with the property coming in for annexation . Staff recommends that City Council approve the request to be allowed to connect to City sewer following execution of an agreement which includes requiring the owner to : • Pay for all construction required as well as all water and sewer assessments and applicable fees • Complete the annexation process • Decommission (Abandon) the septic system according to State law V. ALTERNATIVES A denial of this request would mean that Mr. Markowich would proceed with redesign of the septic system and not connect to city sewer or water . This would prolong and expand the use of the septic system on the property, which represents a greater threat of ground water contamination than if the property were on City sewer . Additionally, this would add expense for Mr. Markowich and prolong the wait for any return on the cost of the City water and sewer services that were built by the City in 2004 for the purpose of serving this property. VI . TIME CONSTRAINTS The owner would like to secure an agreement with the City and proceed with connection and application for annexation as soon as possible . VII . LIST OF ATTACHMENTS • Request from owner to hook up to City sewer Page 2 of 5 • Map of parcel Approved for Council Agenda : Date : Page 3 of 5 ATTACHMENT 1 Letter from Adam Markowich requesting sewer connection . To N Ioin It lilac- concern , l .' 1 G ` 410 ' E; Per Four request , this erlail serves as my formal written request to connect the propem located t S 3 _' E Leslie Dr to the Cite of ti'iend an sewer system pursuant to .NIei-idian C' iti- Code to iuitrme the rel•iew process for consideration by Cite Council . The project at ' S ; 2 E Leslie Dr is already fully pernutted through Ada County and paid for . and construction is reads• to proceed . At the outset . I reasonably believed that because City sewer infrastructure is alreadt• present and adjacent to the property . the process would simply iurol•e payment of applicable fees and connection to the system . I did not anticipate that annexation would be required prior to sewer connection in order to begin construction . If approval to connect to Cite sewer is not granted , Central District Health would require a septic system modification or replacement . This would be a substantial and unexpected expense and was not contemplated during. planning , particularly given the proxitruty and availability of Cltt_ utilities . Delaying the project to redesign for septic would significantly impact the project t: neline and cost , despite the fact that City sewer service is readih• available . I aiul respectfully requesting approval to connect to the City sewer system at this time so that construction may proceed alld the project niay be completed . I fuRN unders#and and aclolowledse the City * s annexation requirements and aim willing to : • Apple for annexation . • Enter into an agreement connmittine to annexation within an agreed-upon tinieframe , and • Pad- all applicable sewer. water , meter. and annexation fees as required by the City. The estimated construction timeline for completion is approximately 90- 1 .10 days once surer connection approval is ° ranted . As discussed . this situation does not appear to be the type of circumstance the ordinance was intended to prevent . and I appreciate the City ' s willingness to consider a waiver or exception through the City- Council process . Please let rue know if any additional information . documentation , or formal application materials are needed from me at this stale . I appreciate vour guidance and the City ' s consideration , and I loot: forward to working cooperatively toward a solution . This will be our primary residence upon completion . Thank you again for your time and support _ Sncerel-. 0 - Adam XIarkoulch 10S - 501 - 6000 Page 4 of 5 ATTACHMENT 2 p of 2832Dr . r . - .tic ' w,c .+• • • �^t+ �, t 66 Page 5 of 5 � l y s r: F Y � { . ♦ ' S F E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report MEMORANDUM E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Memo to Mayor & City Council From: Carl Anderson, Long Range Associate Planner Meeting Date: January 27, 2026 Presenters: Carl Anderson Estimated Time: 45 Minutes Kittleson & Associates Topic: Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Summary: The intent of this update is to provide City Council with the findings of the Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report. The presentation will cover the scope of the project, approach, findings and potential next steps. Background: During the 2019 Comprehensive Planning (Plan) efforts, several areas were identified for future land use discussion and identified in the "My Meridian Specific Area Summary" (Attachment B —Extracted pages). The Magicview/Woodbridge area was one of three focus areas and included focused outreach, which resulted in much of the aforementioned area being designated as Mixed Use Neighborhood (MU-N) on the Future Land Use Map. The Stratford to Touchmark project builds upon the initial work of the Plan and focused on transportation improvements that enhance local connectivity and efficiency enhance public services and support future economic development. This project identifies high-level potential opportunities to improve connectivity,primarily east-west, between Meridian Road, across Locust Grove and Eagle Roads, to S. Touchmark Way. The primary focus is between Eagle Road and S. Stratford drive, with expanded study looking to Meridian Road and S. Touchmark Way. The City selected Kittleson&Associates, along with Logan Simpson to conduct the work, with project kickoff beginning July 3lst, 2025. To understand the context and opportunities in the study area the review included land use analysis as the basis to inform connectivity opportunities. This work consisted of. existing & future land uses, housing & commercial characteristics, vacant land&redevelopment opportunity, future growth projects. Stakeholder interviews were conducted to provide additional background with: COMPASS, ACHD, Idaho Transportation Department(ITD), Idaho State University (ISU), West Ada School District(WASD), ICOM, Meridian Public Works and Economic Development, and St. Luke's. Five initial alignments were identified, and consideration was given to the impacts of each (land use, utilities, existing conditions, feasibility, etc.). Three alignments were carried forward for further analysis,labeled "Concepts C,D, & E" respectively(—see "Exhibit G"within Attachment A). The findings of this white paper report are found in Attachment A, which includes further discussion of approach, results and comparison of the final three alignments, as well as next steps. Community Development. 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-884-5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.orci Next Steps: The white paper identified several potential next steps that the City of Meridian may undertake to further improve transportation connectivity within the study area. Additionally, staff also believe that cost estimates would be helpful to better inform implementation and feasibility of the final concepts. Since the potential alignments, and much of the future improvements are, or require, intersection improvements (see Figure 5 Attachment A), additional design work would be helpful. Staff also anticipate additional coordination with Meridian's partner agencies. Please feel free to reach out to staff if you have any questions regarding the attached white paper. Attachments: A. Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report—White Paper B. My Meridian Specific Area Summary Page 2 Exhibit A Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility White Paper KI TT E LS O N 101 South Capitol Boulevard,Suite 600 Boise,ID 83702 &ASSOCIATES P 208.338.2683 White Paper January 20, 2026 Project# 31860 To: Carl Anderson, Brian McClure, City of Meridian From: Brooke Green, Nick Foster, and Chenming Zhang, Kittelson &Associates Miriam McGilvray and Ben Ryan, Logan Simpson RE: Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Introduction The City of Meridian is building on the 2019 Meridian Comprehensive Plan to develop a realistic and coordinated approach to improving transportation connectivity within this key area of the city. The intent of this effort is to establish the foundation for enhancing the efficiency, safety, and capacity of the multimodal transportation system while supporting long-term growth and infrastructure investment. Achieving these objectives will help reduce reliance on the arterial network, improve emergency response times, enhance quality of life, and support continued economic development and infrastructure modernization, including the extension of water and sewer service to address public health and environmental considerations as development occurs. This white paper summarizes existing plans and land use conditions and evaluates high-level potential transportation and development opportunities within the study area. As part of this effort, the project team developed five conceptual east—west collector roadway alternatives between Locust Grove Road and Eagle Road and identified other opportunities to enhance transportation connectivity and address concerns raised by area stakeholders in the expanded portions of the study area (i.e., west of Locust Grove Road and east of Eagle Road). Based on the project team's evaluation, conversations with area stakeholders, and City of Meridian staff feedback, three of the five east-west alternatives were evaluated further and are the focus of this white paper. More information on the initial concept of screening can be found in Appendix A. Figure 1 illustrates the study area and the expanded study area. Much of the evaluation is centered on the focus area; however, the project team also examined opportunities for improved connections east of Eagle Road and west of Locust Grove Road within the broader project area. It includes a mixture of large commercial, healthcare, institutional, and education-related uses, as well as a mix of medium and lower density residential areas. Large employment areas are located west of Locust Grove and adjacent to, and east of, Eagle Road, with residential uses in between. Connections between the employment areas are limited, putting traffic on the surrounding arterial system or cutting through residential streets. The white paper is organized via the following sections: • Existing Conditions & Future Growth • Alternative Development& Evaluation • Summary of Recommendations • Appendices Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 20,2026 Page 2 Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Introduction Figure 1. Project Study Area 0 1,W US Feel Franklin Rd I I I I gSpringwaad a � w t i r - I t I I I I waferlovrer 51 I I I I Auen sr St Wkes � k'ooaytaSetl' I I I 3 I I I k k cer,ral or coaln—or i 1 I ISu I I ICOM 3 Overloud Rd Expanded Study Area k__I Study Water Figure 1. Project Study Area Water Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 20,2026 Page 3 Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Existing Conditions&Future Growth Existing Conditions & Future Growth This section documents known challenges identified from previous plans and staff and stakeholder engagement, as well as the findings from a land-use analysis focused on redevelopment potential. Identified Challenges City staff, stakeholders, and previous planning efforts have identified challenges in the project area related to transportation and public health. Figure 2 illustrates the key challenges within the project area identified through stakeholder meetings, discussions with City staff, and reviewing previous plans. Stakeholder meetings focused primarily on Central Drive, Locust Grove Road, and Eagle Road, where concerns included inefficient connections, congestion, and motor vehicle speeds, particularly near ISU and St. Luke's Medical Center.These conversations also identified pedestrian crossing needs and concerns related to neighborhood cut-through traffic. Further, the low-density residential development between Locust Grove and Wells Street and south of the subdivision located along Woodbridge Drive is on individual well and septic systems.According to City staff, this has created environmental and public health concerns as these systems age and could potentially leak into ground water. Some of these parcels are adjacent to existing City services and could be connected; however, others must wait for connections to be made further into the subdivision before they could connect.The project area has also been identified as an area for future development in the 2019 Meridian Comprehensive Plan, identifying a mix of uses for this area. Enhanced transportation connectivity and public utilities access will be important to realize this vision. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 20,2026 Page 4 Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Existing Conditions&Future Growth Figure 2. Known Challenges nN /V Meridian z m Storey Park Cemetery tery i A E Springwood Dr04 � 7 W Ao ' JE Autumn Way U) vChd+drF Watertower St O 0 dy St Luke's Corporate Dr Idaho State r — — — — OE Woodbridge Dr „ Meridian Police I ISU i Medical Center Future y m I Expansion © Central Dr © 00 i E5U Meridian ,. - ti S •� Figure 2. Known Challenges 0 0.1 02Miles OCircuitous routing to Meridian Rd 0 Aging wells and septic systems © Intersection near a curve O Cut through traffic on Woodbridge Dr © Concerns about speeds and school traffic safety along Central Dr Q Long queue for the Eagle Rd on-ramp OPedestrian crossing needs between ICOM/ISU campus to parking lot O Only full access between Franklin Rd and I-84 © Traffic congestion at the Locust Grove Rd/Central Dr intersection Concerns about speeds, congestion, and safety on St Luke's St Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 20,2026 Page 5 Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Existing Conditions&Future Growth Land Use Analysis Existing land use conditions and future growth trends within the study area are summarized to provide context for transportation analysis.The key findings highlight current zoning, development patterns, and redevelopment opportunities, as well as anticipated areas of residential and employment growth that will inform evaluation of the proposed transportation alternatives.A more comprehensive analysis of alternative concepts can be found in Appendix B. Key findings from this analysis include: Existing Conditions/Zoning- Most of the area is a mix of commercial and residential zones.A significant portion of the area is currently under the zoning jurisdiction of the County. Furthermore, the study area is dominated by General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) zoning, which makes up nearly half of the total land. This is complemented by low-density residential zones, primarily R-1, R-2, and R-4, and Limited Office (L-O),which define much of the area's residential character. Smaller clusters of other residential, commercial, and limited industrial zones add diversity to the overall land use pattern. Future Land Use- The future land use plan includes a mix of residential, commercial, mixed-use, civic, and office areas, with commercial uses making up the largest share of the study area. Currently, the study area is roughly 40% of commercial and office space, with the remaining split between residential neighborhoods and mixed-use developments. Some County-zoned areas may be annexed into the City of Meridian, with future redevelopment following the City's land use plan. Housing Characteristics- Housing in the study area is primarily low to medium density, with most homes being single-family detached houses. There are fewer attached homes and multifamily buildings. Vacant Land and Redevelopment Opportunities-About 9% of the land is undeveloped, mainly near S Meridian Rd and E Locust Grove Rd and in the northeast near N Eagle Rd. Several older commercial areas east of S Locust Grove Rd are underutilized, offering strong redevelopment opportunities. Future Growth Projections (Housing)-The analysis highlights anticipated future residential growth may be most likely in the southeastern portion of the study area, near S Allen Street and N Eagle Road, with some additional growth in smaller pockets near E Franklin Road. Future Growth Projections (Jobs) - The analysis projects the potential addition of approximately 1,338 new jobs across the area. Map 7, Employment Projections suggest that the highest concentrations of job growth could be expected near N Eagle Road and S Meridian Road, where darker purple shading indicates up to 166 additional jobs. Figure 3 shows the distribution of future land use categories throughout the study area. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 20,2026 Page 6 Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Existing Conditions&Future Growth Figure 3. Future Land Use- - '-.. — li_ L- L L� \, . L —_—__ _~_ L - -- s l L_ L_ i i L I— L LL L LL I L ;R L LL I LL -I L \�. -_ .__.-_ — -I LL L I_ : L L L _ L L L L L - L LL .. L -� �L -L 4L - _ t L _LL E' Franklin•Rd I ti 1 1 L. - g c E WateM! RVrd IAMP,I AN � f G v I 1 E L L n"- ----- --------L 1 E Central Dr � i•�` ��������,� V�\�`�. � Jj- --- --- L ; l r-1 Study Area Future Land Use - L u L Footprints M Civic -! L L County Zoning A Commercial _ - 1-L Districts L.L.LL ti L L != _ - General Industrial _ = Rivers&Streams High Density L I LL waterbodies Residential - '� L�.. L A L _ L L L L Interstates L Mixed Use- ��� 'sL�- .L- — �L_- Roads Community L - L L L L L Mixed Use- L - \� Neighborhood L Medium Density L - L Residential �L - - L� _ I N �`v - office t L t - _ L `L IL - 0.3 Miles .L L- - Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 20,2026 Page 7 Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Alternatives Development&Evaluation Alternatives Development & Evaluation Based on the land use analysis, the Comprehensive Plan, coordination with City of Meridian staff, ACHD's Master Street Map (MSM), and stakeholder input, five high-level alignment alternatives were developed to explore options for a new east—west collector roadway. These initial five concepts, shown in Figure 4, reflect adopted future land-use designations and changes that have occurred since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The concepts were intended to address existing and future connectivity needs, with a primary focus on improving east—west travel within the Focus Study Area, especially between Locust Grove Road and Eagle Road, while also considering opportunities to enhance connections, within the Expanded Study Area, west of Locust Grove Road and east of Eagle Road. Initial Alternatives and Screening A preliminary, high-level screening was conducted to evaluate how each concept performed relative to the project's objectives, including connectivity, feasibility, public health, and consistency with the future land use vision. Each concept was evaluated at high-level according to the following criteria: ■ Land Use: o How might the connection facilitate redevelopment potential? o How might the connection impact the function of existing land-uses? ■ Transportation & Utilities: o How well might the connection create a viable alternative to using arterials? o What roadway improvements and traffic calming measures are needed to support the alternative? o Will the alternative impact existing roadway infrastructure? o How might the connection facilitate the extension of public water and sewer services? ■ Feasibility: o What are the potential right-of-way impacts? o What other cost or construction considerations might impact the feasibility of the connection? In addition to this high-level evaluation, the project team also evaluated each concept against quantitative metrics (e.g., number of parcels impacted, miles of new roadway construction). This quantitative evaluation is included in Appendix B. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 20,2026 Page 8 Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Alternatives Development&Evaluation Figure 4. Initial Collector Road Concepts — Franklin Rd ro � `a o Springwoad Dr u ! E Autumn Way I 1 1 1 � I 1 Watertower St _----j Illil E Bowstring St f Ulil .�. 1011 woogbrid48 St Lukes !MB um 41------ -- .)57 UPI ----- Illd Cadillac Dr 1 1 —' Central Dr --------------- 1 1 1 ISU ICOM r I Figure 4. Initial Collector Road Concepts Concept A-Existing Roads Focus Study Area Existing Road Concept B-Northern Connection Expanded Study Area Potential New Road Concept C-Central -Tonino Planned roundabout(ACHD Master Street Map) Concept D-Central Drive Extension 0 Intersection Improvements(All Concepts) Concept E-Concept Plan Alignment ACHD MSM Collector Preservation Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 20,2026 Page 9 Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Alternatives Development&Evaluation Based on this initial evaluation and input from the city, Concepts C, D, and E, shown in Figure 5, were moved forward for further evaluation.These concepts more effectively support future redevelopment potential, improve connectivity, and facilitate the expansion of public water and sewer infrastructure, key objectives of the City's long-range planning efforts. In contrast, Concepts A and B provide limited support for future redevelopment and are less likely to facilitate addressing public health and environmental concerns associated with aging well and septic systems east of Locust Grove Road.Additionally, these two concepts would continue to rely on Locust Grove Road for east—west travel between the Central Drive area and areas east of Eagle Road, limiting their ability to improve overall network connectivity. The concepts shown in Figure 5 also narrow down the number of connections shown west of Locust Grove Road. Watertower Street does not connect to Meridian Road, so the concepts moved forward focus on Central Drive and Corporate Drive. Concept Evaluation This section describes the concepts advanced for further evaluation, focusing on the section from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road. It also discusses opportunities and challenges related to connectivity west of Locust Grove Road and east of Eagle Road. LOCUST GROVE ROAD TO EAGLE ROAD Concepts C, D, and E offer three alternative strategies to improve east—west connectivity and support future development. Concept C prioritizes neighborhood-scale connections with fewer right-of-way impacts, Concept D provides a more direct corridor with stronger long-term regional and redevelopment benefits, and Concept E emphasizes regional mobility and commercial visibility along the 1-84 corridor. Figure 5 illustrates the location and general alignment of each concept. Concept C—Central-Tonino—Uses the existing S Tonino Avenue to form most of the connection between S Locust Grove Road and S Wells Street. S Tonino Avenue would need to be extended to meet S Well Street. Concept D—Central Drive Extension— Extends E Central Drive to S Wells Street, primarily through new road segments. Concept E—Comprehensive Plan Alignment—Creates a new connection from E Central Drive to S Wells Street through a new road fronting 1-84. Figures 6-8 illustrate and describe each concept in greater detail.Appendix C provides an additional view of the intersections specific to the proposed concepts above. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 20,2026 Page 10 Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Alternatives Development&Evaluation Figure S. Concepts C, D, & E Franklin Rd In o"ac a't Sprirtgwood Dr I� C�7 +m o v E Autumn Way I 1 -- 1 f 1 W atertower St E Bowstring St wooabrid4e D+ fAlSt Lukes ��-- --_—Cadillac Dr 0 --- II NI Central Dr III1 ISU r ICOM Figure S. Initial Concepts C, Dr & E Concept C-Central -Tonino Focus Study Area Existing Road Concept D-Central Drive Extension Expanded Study Area Potential New Road Concept E-Concept Plan Alignment Planned roundabout(ACHD Master Street Map) Intersection Improvements(All Concepts) ACHD MSM Collector Preservation Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 20,2026 Page 11 Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Alternatives Development&Evaluation Figure 6.Alternative Concept C-Central Tonino Concept C performs well in terms --1 StoreyPark of feasibility and local connectivity 91 en meterr'E5 rin g r"D, * I by creating a new east—west 77 (I ''�` connection across Locust Grove ET! •+ Road while largely relying on existing roadway alignments and Idaho Staffer` #� - p-1` IIF'Ewr��o�' =eo- era eri st I sridiaa"�r r limiting overall right-of-way sw ( impacts compared to other s? Qconcepts. The use of larger r'c i for — — '� ✓f °+�-• + ��4.,� parcels reduces the likelihood of property splits and supports the *ram♦� G, , ISUMeridiian 'coM potential extension of public -- - water and sewer services. N However, from a transportation Alternative Concept C - Central-Tonino 0 0.25 0.5 Miles and redevelopment perspective, its indirect, neighborhood- Study Area Roadway Concepts Future Land Use oriented alignment limits its Current Development Preferred Alignment- Civic O Front-on housing. Applications — New Roadway Commercial effectiveness for regional travel Creeks&Canals Construction General Industrial pp Existing road would need to be widened to collector and constrains opportunities for Interstates Preferred Alignment standards. o Roadway pow Density non-residential redevelopment. Roads Improvements Residential © Fivelnile Creek crossing. The presence of homes fronting Planned Water& Preferred Alignment Medium Density p g Sewer Mains — Residential Existing Roadway the roadway raises livability Existing Water& Mixed Use- Further evaluation needed of the Master Street Map to Sewer Mains Alternative Alignment New Roadway Community identify connections east of Eagle Rd. concerns and may require traffic 0o ACHD Master Street Construction Mixed use- calming, while the need to widen Map Collector Neighborhood Alternative Alignment Note,Road segments categorized as Existing Roadways may only need Roadway Office existing roads to meet ACHD minor infrastructure improvements;while those categorized as Roadway Improvements Improvement will need more substantial upgrades to meet collector road collector standards could increase Alternative Alignment- standards(e.g.,road widening,adding curb,gutter,and sidewalk). Existing Roadway impacts on adjacent properties and neighborhood traffic levels. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 20,2026 Page 12 Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Alternatives Development&Evaluation Figure 7.Alternative Concept D- Central Drive Extension E kl'n+1d Concept D this concept rates Storey Parks air , _ y, � ,_. - �, .., °± -g � r strongly for transportation and Meridian ri*1, LEsp c " + � r t, r J I redevelopment by providing the Cemetery „ b- i_' �. .. �� ``""` > 3 �..-i�`�' ,y j ��'�• ay., � most direct east—west connection between Central — •ram` t ,�- • , �© �, j ; - ��� � tao,sr��<s �► �!';��=r� � ., -� �" Drive and Wells Street and 'Idanostate i E o� I o k . sr Mend¢an .., � supporting long-term regional Medical Center 'T and local connectivity. The seM direct alignment improves jjj travel efficiency and creates V.hsi�v r Ei olrt�x" 71aw�:a�Ar'a e_ y .M A opportunities for larger-scale � `••+`��t'- ISU Merfdfan redevelopment through parcel assembly, with potential to N incorporate amenities such as a Alternative Concept D - Central Drive Extension 0 0.25 0.5 Miles linear park or greenway, while t I j A also supporting future ^.Study Area Roadway Concepts Future Land use extension of public water and O Opportunity to create linear parklgreenway along Current Development Preferred Alignment- Civic roadway. sewer services. From a feasibility Applications — New Roadway Commercial Creeks&Canals construction General Industrial Further evaluation needed of the Master Street Map to standpoint, the concept Interstates Preferred Alignment- © identify connections east of Eagle Rd. presents greater challenges o Roadway Low Density Roads Residential than Concept C due to the need Improvements p Planned Water& Preferred Alignment Medium Density for substantial new roadway Sewer Mains Residential y .__..Existing Roadway Existing Water& Alternative Alignment- Mixed Use- construction,widening of Sewer Mains oo Community ACHD Master Street New Roadway existing roads to meet ACHD Map Collector Construction Mixed Use- Alternative Alignment- Neighborhood Note:Road segments categorized as Existing Roadways may only need collector standards, and ©Roadway Office minor infrastructure improvements,while those categorized as Roadway significant right-of-way Improvements Improvement will need more substantial upgrades to meet collector road Alternative Alignment- standards(e.g.;road widening,adding curb,gutter,and sidewalk). acquisition through an Existing Roadway established neighborhood. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 20,2026 Page 13 Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Alternatives Development&Evaluation Figure 8.Alternative Concept E-Comprehensive Plan Alignment EF..nkl'niFd _ Concept E fronts Interstate 84 g Y connecting direct) to Central Drive Meridian ' �} E5 �.w nQ f + " and supporting east—west regional A 4. �L! 4 mobility while providing high ` visibility for commercial and mixed- 7 y7 `= a use redevelopment along the v w,•,,. - StLukes _ _ r Idaho State r �F.F t - ��•`ri -w o 1 Meridian corridor. Visibility from both Locust •Ptilice 1�s;e�9.� �z°�/ - '� -'Medical Center Grove Road and 1-84 makes the alignment attractive for retail and =4• +_� �' - commercial uses, and additional ISU 0 Meridia EF`e0 connections to Central Drive could:. 1°OM © help stimulate redevelopment on the © east side of Locust Grove Road.The N concept requires some out of Alternative Concept E - Comprehensive Plan Alignment 0 0.25 oi5 Mil"A direction travel; however, it is more direct than Concept C. Compared to Study Area Roadway Concepts Future Land Use O concept C and D, Concept E has the Current Development Significant school traffic and pedestrian crossings. P Preferred Alignment- Civic Applications New Roadway greatest amount new roadway Commercial Visibility from Locust Grove for commercial Creeks&Canals Construction General Industrial redevelopment. construction and right-of-Way Interstates Preferred Alignment Low Density Roadway Potential grade-separated crossing to increase acquisition, resulting in higher Roads Residential Improvements connectivity. Planned Water& preferred Alignment- Medium Density overall implementation complexity. Sewer Mains — Residential Existing Water& Existing Roadway Mixed Use- Interstate visibility for commercial redevelopment. However, it has the least amount of Sewer Mains Alternative Alignment Communi front on housing and requires Ie55 New Roadway t' Further evaluation needed of the Master Street Map to g q ACHD Master Street Construction Mixed Use- © identify connections east of Eagle Rd. Map Collector Neighborhood widening of existing roadways than Alternative Alignment Note:Road segments categorized as Existing Roadways may only need ©Roadway office minor infrastructure improvements,while those categorized as Roadway Concept D, partially offsetting its Improvements Improvement will need more substantial upgrades to meet collector road _Alternative Alignment- standards(e.g.,road widening,adding curb,gutter,and sidewalk). COnStrUCtlOn and right-Of-Way Existing Roadway impacts. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 20,2026 Page 14 Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Alternatives Development&Evaluation ACHD's Master Street Map (MSM) is a planning tool that helps coordinate future roadway development with comprehensive plans for cities and Ada County.The MSM outlines planned street types, access guidelines, number of lanes, right of way needs, and collector streets networks, but does not represent final designs or a commitment for ACHD to build the roads as shown on the map. Changes to the MSM are facilitated through MSM planning efforts. In this section of the study area, only parts of St Lukes Street,Allen Street, and Magic View Drive are included on the MSM (see Appendix E). If a preferred concept is selected, it should be added to the MSM. EAST OF EAGLE ROAD East of Eagle Road, the MSM reflects a new collector-level connection between St Lukes Street and Louise St.This connection is shown in Figures 5-8. St Lukes Street is currently a private road.The connection between St Lukes Street and Louise St is also through private property. Completing this connection would potentially reduce cut-through traffic through the eastern portion of the St Luke's campus and the existing Portico-Buffalo Wild Wings parking lot. However, it could also potentially increase traffic along St Lukes Street between this connection and Eagle Road. Further discussion needs to occur between the City, St. Luke's and ACHD regarding the current MSM reflection of a new proposed collector at this location. Further evaluation of the current proposed MSM collector and potential alternatives may also be needed. Through stakeholder engagement with St. Luke's additional safety enhancements were identified. The safety enhancements include safer pedestrian crossings and measures to reduce cut-through traffic and vehicle speeds along St. Lukes Street, where St Lukes staff noted that existing and anticipated traffic volumes create safety concerns for patients, staff, and visitors.They also expressed a desire for additional intersection enhancement to improve intersection operations. Reference Appendix D for additional feedback from St. Luke's, ACHD and Meridian Economic Development Administrator. See Appendix E for additional details regarding the MSM. WEST OF LOCUST GROVE ROAD The three concepts generally have similar opportunities for connectivity west of Locust Grove Road. Currently, traffic associated with ISU, ICOM, West Ada School District facilities, and other uses along Central Drive must travel indirect routes via Corporate Drive or Industry Way to access Meridian Road— Main Street.As development in the area continues, improved connectivity will be increasingly important. Figure 5 illustrates several conceptual options for improving connectivity west of Locust Grove Road, including: ■ Extending Central Drive to Meridian Road ■ Extending Corporate Drive to Central Drive ■ Constructing a new collector roadway near 1-84 ■ Realigning Central Drive to intersect Stratford Drive more directly. None of these options are shown on the current ACHD MSM, which currently includes the existing alignments of Central Drive, Watertower Street, Corporate Drive, and Stratford Drive. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 20,2026 Page 15 Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Alternatives Development&Evaluation The routing shown as "preferred" in the figure was identified as such due to its limited right-of-way impacts and use of the existing signalized intersections at Corporate Drive and Meridian Road-Main Street, rather than concentrating traffic at the Central Drive/Meridian Road intersection. Confirming this routing as the preferred alternative will require additional analysis, including traffic operations modeling, coordination with affected property owners, and evaluation of pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. During stakeholder engagement with ISU, ICOM and West Ada School District, the following additional opportunities for potential transportation improvements were identified: • Traffic calming and operational improvements along Central Drive to manage speeds and improve safety along Central Drive. • Enhanced connections across Central Drive to ISU SELECT INTERSECTIONS Appendix C contains more detailed figures illustrating potential ACHD collector-level right-of-way needs at intersections requested by City staff. Each figure also describes potential intersection configuration considerations. Further engineering study is needed to determine the ultimate traffic control at each of these locations, including reviewing projected traffic volumes, sight distance, and other information related to the surrounding context.Typically, collector/collector and collector/local intersections are controlled by stop signs on the minor streets, stop signs on all approaches, or a roundabout. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 20,2026 Page 16 Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Alternatives Development&Evaluation COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS FOR CONCEPT C. D, & E Each option was reviewed for how well it supports redevelopment, improves transportation connectivity, and the level of feasibility challenges (e.g., right-of-way needs, potential level of construction needed, land-use impacts) that may exist.The evaluation considered roadway alignment and directness, impacts to parcels and neighborhoods, right-of-way needs, amount of new roadway construction, and consistency with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.The ratings reflect a relative comparison of strengths and tradeoffs among the concepts rather than detailed modeling, cost estimates, or engineering analysis. Table 1 provides a summary comparison of those criteria applied to each alternative, ranking the alternatives from best performing (Blue) to worst performing (Orange) relative to each other. The table further evaluates the scale and intensity of potential roadway improvements, and their associated land use impacts. It is based on the amount of new roadway construction and roadway widening needed to generally meet collector standards, as well as the number of parcels and buildings affected both directly and within proximity to the roadway alignment. Appendix B contains the quantitative metrics behind these ratings, which also distinguish between types of parcel impacts, including commercial, residential, and vacant or right-of-way properties, and identify parcels that may become unusable due to size or configuration changes. Table 2 provides the narrative that further explains the ranking. Table 1. 1 Comparative Analysis COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS RANKING CONCEPT C CONCEPT D CONCEPT E CRITERIA Redevelopment O • • Transportation O • 0 Feasibility • O 0 Total New Roads • O O Total Improved Roads O O • Existing Land-Use Impacts O O O (Vote:All existing roads would also need to be widened to meet ACHD collector standards,increasing overall implementation complexity and cost.Applies to all and was not a factor in the evaluation COMPARATIVE RESULTS RANKING O • Better Performance Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 20,2026 Page 17 Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Alternatives Development&Evaluation Table 2 Comparative Analysis Narrative COMPARATIVE CONCEPT C CONCEPT D CONCEPT E CRITERIA Ranked third for redevelopment Concept D ranked for best Concept E is ranked as best because its internal alignment performance for redevelopment performing for redevelopment and reliance on existing roadway because it creates opportunities because it provides strong visibility easements limit the likelihood of for coordinated land assembly from Locust Grove Road and 1-84, properties being split or rendered and larger-scale redevelopment making the corridor attractive for unusable for future development projects.The alignment commercial,retail,service,and particularly for non-residential supports the potential creation mixed-use development to these development.The expanded of a linear park or greenway roads.This visibility,combined with Redevelopment roadway and expected vehicle along the roadway and limits additional potential connections traffic will reduce livability direct frontage on housing, from the frontage alignment and property appeal for the which improves redevelopment toward Central Drive,could existing homes fronting directly potential.It is one of the stimulate redevelopment east of onto the roadway,while large concepts explored during Locust Grove Road and support parcel configurations decrease development of the Meridian broader economic development the likelihood of parcels being Comprehensive Plan,However, opportunities.It is one of the subdivided or repurposed, successful redevelopment would concepts explored during constraining redevelopment depend on effective coordination development of the Meridian potential. among multiple landowners,and Comprehensive Plan. the concept bisects an existing neighborhood. Transportation is ranked three as Best performing ranking reflects Concept E is ranked second It reflects a mix of advantages and Concept D providing the most because Concept E requires some constraints:the concept provides direct connection from Central out-of-direction travel;however,it a direct connection across Locust Drive to Wells Street.This is a more direct connection than Transportation Grove Road from Central Drive, directness could make this Concept C.This concept includes but the resulting alignment is more concept the most efficient for the potential for a grade-separated circuitous and could require traffic multimodal travel with limited crossing of Locust Grove Road. calming measures if residential out-of-direction travel and turns If this alternative alignment was frontage remains. required for people traveling implemented,it would significantly through from Locust Grove Road enhance connectivity,however, to Eagle Road. it may be cost-prohibitive to construct. The ranking is driven by The second ranking The second ranking recognizes comparatively lower right-of-way acknowledges that the alternative Concept E would require the impacts and reduced need for new provides long-term connectivity greatest amount of new roadway roadway construction compared benefits;it requires significant construction.This concept does to the other two concepts.Most of right-of-way acquisition and have the least amount of front- the new roadway extends across some new roadway construction, on housing along its alignment property for which there is a This concept has more significant and has relatively similar parcel pending development application; right-of-way and new road impacts as,and less roadway however,this section would not construction needs,as well as widening than,Concept D. be enough to create a complete occupied property impacts,than The score does not reflect the Feasibility connection as the road would Concept C,and relatively similar higher cost associated with a need to be extended further west to Concept E.It does require less grade separated crossing for than the current development widening of existing roads and the alternative alignment.This application boundary.Existing has less front-on housing along alignment was the preferred of roads would also still need to its alignment than Concept C. the build options in this area be widened to ACHD collector during outreach conducted for the standards,which could affect Meridian Comprehensive Plan. adjacent properties.Completing this connection could also result in concerns from adjacent front-on housing properties due to increased traffic volumes,and traffic calming may need to be considered in these sections. COMPARATIVE RESULTS RANKING O O • Better Performance Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 20,2026 Page 18 Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Summary of Recommendations Summary of Recommendations Implementation of a preferred east-west connectivity alternative is expected to occur primarily through private investment associated with future redevelopment, rather than a stand-alone public roadway project constructed by ACHD. Next steps toward implementation focus on advancing the preferred alternative concept(s) from planning level evaluation to a more defined and actionable framework. Transportation Collector Network The following recommendations are related to the design and implementation of an east-west collector. These recommendations are applicable to other identified collectors in the study area. Coordination with ACHD-To implement a preferred alternative, the City of Meridian would need to work with ACHD to pursue revisions to the Master Street Map (MSM).Any proposed updates would reflect the concept the City chooses to advance from this planning effort and would help ensure the preferred alternative alignment is formally recognized and supported as future redevelopment and infrastructure improvements move forward. Discussion regarding updates to the MSM should focus on including the new preferred alternative. In addition to potentially refining the existing MSM connection shown in the 2026 MSM on St. Luke's property between E Louise St and St. Luke's Street. The current connection intersects a vacant parcel and connects to an existing St. Luke's parking lot. St. Luke's has submitted a letter highlighting concerns with the existing MSM connection. Formal requests to modify the MSM occur through the following steps: • Formal Submittal:The City would submit proposed MSM revisions to ACHD with supporting maps and documentation demonstrating alignment with the Comprehensive Plan and planning documents, in addition to anticipated growth. • Public Review and Adoption:ACHD would review the request, conduct any required public process, and amend the Master Street Map upon approval. • Implementation Guidance: Once adopted, the updated MSM would guide future development review, roadway construction, and coordination of public and private infrastructure investments. Concept Development-If the roadway were to be built by a public agency, a concept development process is recommended.This would include developing preliminary cost estimates and conceptual design drawings for all identified new connections and intersections as well as public engagement, to understand the right-of-way needs, construction complexity, potential phasing opportunities, intersection control, and funding opportunities and to identify a preferred alternative. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 20,2026 Page 19 Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Summary of Recommendations Stakeholder Engagement- Following the conceptual design, the city needs to work with ACHD and development partners to ensure the collector network is implemented in a coordinated and logical way that supports access, redevelopment, and long-term connectivity. As a preferred alternative through development or future planning efforts, the city and ACHD should work together to make sure those connections are accurately reflected in the Master Street Map and amendments to city Comprehensive planning documents. Coordination will help ensure the new collector streets fit well within the broader transportation network, and documentation will ensure continuity as redevelopment occurs. Land use and redevelopment—To proactively shape reinvestment in conjunction with the possible new collector roadway through this area, the city could pursue a coordinated suite of redevelopment, annexation, and land use tools.Ajoint agreement with Ada County could establish enhanced building and infrastructure standards for unincorporated properties within the area, paired with a phased annexation strategy that includes cost-sharing agreements for roadway, utility, and service upgrades. Targeted incentives tied to road and utility improvements—potentially implemented through public- private partnerships—could help offset upfront redevelopment costs and encourage early participation. The city could also consider strategic acquisition of key parcels for land banking, followed by a future request for proposals to guide catalytic redevelopment, supported by land assembly and consolidation efforts and a coordinated master planning program. Additional tools may include designation of sites eligible for incentive bonuses, tax abatements, or tax increment financing through an urban renewal district, or consider establishment of a local improvement district to equitably distribute infrastructure costs among benefiting property owners. Together, these strategies could be reinforced through incentive-based zoning that allows increased density and flexibility in exchange for redevelopment that delivers infrastructure improvements, coordinated site planning, and long-term community benefits. Utilities Connection- Coordination between private and public entities to implement utility systems as development occurs. For further details regarding existing utilities within the planning area reference Appendix F. Intersections- A more detailed engineering evaluation will be necessary to establish the final traffic control treatments at each location, including an assessment of future traffic volumes, sight distance and other site-specific conditions. Collector Road Funding- New collectors are typically tied to development. Consistent with ACHD policy, these facilities are usually constructed by private development as projects occur, allowing the roadway to grow alongside new development. Roadway improvements may be identified and prioritized through the ACHD planning process, while pedestrian improvements, stormwater mitigation and maintenance projects are submitted through the ACHD Five-Year workplan. Submittal for pedestrian enhancements, traffic calming, and safety enhancement may also be submitted by community members through ACHD Community Programs applications. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 20,2026 Page 20 Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Appendices Appendices Appendix A- Initial Concept Evaluation Appendix 6-Meridian Alternative Concepts Appendix C- Select Intersections Appendix D-Stakeholder Feedback Appendix E-ACHD Master Street Map Appendix F-Utilities Appendix G-11x17 Concepts, C, D, & E Appendix H-Updated Tech Memo (Placeholder) Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Appendix A- Initial Evaluation . . CONCEPT LAND USE TRANSPORTATION & FEASIBILITY UTILITIES • Some homes front on the Not a direct connection, Roads already exist and the roadway, reducing livability requires using Locust Grove connection could be enhanced and property appeal. Rd.and circuitous routing with intersection upgrades. • Alternative option would through a subdivision. Upgrading existing roads to Concept A impact open space and Unlikely to facilitate the ACHD collector standards adjacent properties and may extension of public water and would impact adjacent require taking property. sewer services. properties. • Unlikely to spur Least environmental redevelopment. disturbance. • Road behind houses could Unless the road is also Right-of-way acquisition create noise and light impacts extended west of Locust needed-full parcels to adjacent homes on both Grove Rd., local traffic would may need to be required, sides. still need to use Locust Grove depending on location and • Unlikely to spur Rd.for a short duration to condition of septic and other Concept B redevelopment. make this connection. infrastructure. Could maintain existing Direct connection from Locust Entirely new road from Locust neighborhood character and Grove Road to Wells St. Grove Rd.to Wells St. infrastructure Likely to facilitate the Fivemile Creek crossing extension of public water required. and sewer services to only a limited area. • Internal alignment may limit Provides a direct connection Potentially lowest right-of-way redevelopment potential for across Locust Grove Rd.from impacts of routes requiring non-residential land use. Central Dr. new road construction. • Some homes front on the Circuitous routing. Existing roads would need to roadway, reducing livability Traffic calming may be be widened to ACHD collector Concept C and property appeal. required if front-on housing standards,which could impact • Large parcels reduce the remains. adjacent properties. likelihood of properties being Likely to facilitate the Fivemile Creek crossing could split or rendered unusable. extension of public water and potentially be avoided, but sewer services to a moderate one may be required. amount of the area. • Opportunity to create Most direct connection from Significant right-of-way needs. linear park/greenway along Central Dr.to Wells St. Requires some new road roadway. Option to extend the construction. • Opportunity for larger connection to Allen St.to Existing roads would need to redevelopment projects further local road connectivity. be widened to ACHD collector Concept D through parcel assembly. Likely to facilitate the standards. Success of this hinges on extension of public water and Avoids crossing Fivemile successful coordination with sewer services widely through Creek unless extended to landowners. the area. Allen St. • Limited front on housing. • Bisects an existing neighborhood. • Provides visibility from Does not require using Locust Potentially significant right-of- Locust Grove Rd.and 1-84 Grove Rd. way needs. for commercial development. Some out-of-direction travel. Concept is mostly new roads. Visibility(even without direct Potential grade-separated May not be sufficient space access) makes the corridor crossing of Locust Grove between 1-84 and existing attractive for retail,service, Rd.would further increase buildings for the southern and mixed-use projects. connectivity. alignment for the east-end of Concept E Additional connections from Likely to facilitate the the connection,which could the frontage alignment up to extension of public water and lead to more circuitous travel Central Drive could stimulate sewer services to a moderate and right-of-way needs. development on the east side amount of the area. Extending west of Locust of Locust Grove Rd. Grove would be complex and costly. • Avoids crossing Fivemile Creek. Appendix 6- Meridian Alternative Concepts L 0 G A N S I M P S 0 N DRAFT—20 January 2026 STRATFORD TO TOUCHMARK TRANSPORTATION CONNECTION FEASIBILITY REPORT - ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS ANALYSIS Alternative Concept C — Central-Tonino � torey Park Cemetery to _ � �f mrt t�=--� FFiowati ig6! i • � I E.rragwv mcm snne,s; � = St J. Meridian —r w S v abdee�o Medical Cenyter �••`,`�t � {rr;I YU Meridian �� L�F`e lip' — rya +l.ti!co N Alternative Concept C - Central-Tonino 0 0.25 0.5Miles� I I I Study Area Roadway Concepts Future Land Use Current Development Preferred Alignment- Civic O Front-on housing. Applications w New Roadway Commercial Creeks&Canals Construction ©standards. Existing road would need to be widened to collector — Interstates Preferred Alignment- General Industrial o Roadway Low Density —Roads Im rovements Residential P ©Fivemile Creek crossing. —Planned Water& Preferred Alignment- Medium Density Sewer Mains —Existing Roadway Residential Existing Water& Mixed Use- Further evaluation needed of the Master Street Map to Sewer Mains Alternative Alignment- Community identify connections east of Eagle Rd. —New Roadway ACHD Master Street Construction Mixed Use- Map Collector Neighborhood Alternative Alignment- Note:Road segments categorized as Existing Roadways may only need —Roadway Office minor infrastructure improvements,while those categorized as Roadway Improvements Improvement will need more substantial upgrades to meet collector road _Alternative Alignment- standards(e.g.,road widening,adding curb,gutter,and sidewalk). Existing Roadway Table 1: Metrics for Alternative C 1 Metric Preferred Alternative Notes and Considerations Alignment Alignment Total New Roads(Miles) 0.23 0.62 Total Improved Roads 0.63 0.99 Expanded to meet ACHD ROW for collector level (Miles) road (70ft) Total Parcels Impacted (within 300ft) 104 123 Within 300 ft of the road alignment Preferred Alternative Notes and Considerations Alignment Alignment Total Parcels Directly 72 85 Easement needed for road construction or Impacted expansion Commercial 29 34 Residential 29 32 Vacant/ROW/Other 14 19 Total Buildings Impacted Buildings that are within 10ft of the expanded 70ft (within 10ft of ROW) �$ �13 right-of-way(highest estimate) Total Parcels that may 10 9 Parcels that are bisected or otherwise diminished become Unusable to an unusable size(under 0.1 acres) 2 Alternative Concept D — Central Drive Extension I Fmoklln Rd — — Storey Pedt gwoatl br .e L�� EAulumn Way Est a � E'�tU St Luke.s R �'Ck SAllen St � Idaho State=��+.- FW°�eb,�aya n' Meridian 1�!P`olice`:1.1P'� � Medltal'Genter 1su Meridian' N Alternative Concept D - Central Drive Extension 0 0.25 0.5 Miles I I I Study Area Roadway Concepts Future Land Use O Opportunity to create linear parklgreenway along Current Development Preferred Alignment- Civic roadway. Applications New Roadway Commercial Creeks&Canals Construction General Industrial Further evaluation needed of the Master Street Map to Interstates Preferred Alignment ©identify connections east of Eagle Rd. t�Roadway Low Density Roads Improvements Residential Planned Water& Medium Density Sewer Mains _Preferred Alignment Existing Roadway Residential Existing Water& Alternative Alignment Mixed Use- Sewer Mains m New Roadway Community ACHE Master Street Construction Mixed Use- Map Collector Neighborhood Altemative Alignment- Note:Road segments categorized as Existing Roadways may only need Roadway Office minor infrastructure improvements,while those categorized as Roadway Improvements Improvement will need more substantial upgrades to meet collector road _Alternative Alignment- standards(e.g.,road widening.adding curb,gutter,and sidewalk). Existing Roadway Table 2: Metrics for Alternative D Metric Preferred Alternative Notes and Considerations Alignment Alignment Total New Roads(Miles) 0.37 0.61 Total Improved Roads 0.35 0.90 Expanded to meet ACHD ROW for collector level (Miles) road (70ft) Total Parcels Impacted 102 121 Within 300 ft of the road alignment (within 300ft) Total Parcels Directly 67 81 Easement needed for road construction or Impacted expansion Commercial 30 37 Residential 23 26 Vacant/ROW/Other 14 18 Total Buildings Impacted -13 -18 Buildings that are within 1 Oft of the expanded (within 1 Oft of ROW) 70ft right-of-way(highest estimate) Total Parcels that may 6 7 Parcels that are bisected or otherwise become Unusable diminished to an unusable size(under 0.1 acres) 3 Alternative Concept E — Comprehensive Plan Alignment Store a P 9 k. Idaho StaEe -� ` -F E-N,1�i o 't si Meridian �• ao'1 a +t��lA�i�44a►� d�� Medial ceder v♦dI �` _ IS1J Meridian ¢F`0 N Alternative Concept E - Comprehensive Plan Alignment 5 0.5 Miles� Study Area Roadway Concepts Future Land Use Current Development Preferred Alignment- Civic O Significant school traffic and pedestrian crossings. Applications New Roadway Commercial Visibility from Locust Grove for commercial Creeks&Canals Construction General industrial ©redevelopment. Interstates Preferred Alignment- Low Density Roads ®Roadway Residential ©Potential grade-separated crossing to increase Planned Water& Improvements connectivity. Medium Density Preferred Alignment Sewer Mains Existing Roadway Residential O Interstate visibility for commercial redevelopment. Existing Water& Alternative Alignment- i Mixed Use- Sewer Mains oo New Roadway Community Further evaluation needed of the Master Street Map to Master Street Mixed Use Map Construction Collector ©identify connections east of Eagle Rd. Map orhood Alternative Alignment Neighb Note:Road segments categorized as Existing Roadways may only need Roadway Office minor infrastructure improvements,white those categorized as Roadway Improvements Improvement will need more substantial upgrades to meet collector road Alternative Alignment- standards(e.g.,road widening,adding curb,gutter,and sidewalk). Existing Roadway Table 3: Metrics for Alternative E Metric Preferred Alternative Notes and Considerations Alignment Alignment Total New Roads(Miles) 0.66 1.70 Total Improved Roads 0.21 0.82 Expanded to meet ACHD ROW for collector level (Miles) road (70ft) Total Parcels Impacted 102 129 Within 300 ft of the road alignment (within 301 Total Parcels Directly 65 87 Easement needed for road construction or Impacted expansion Commercial 31 40 Residential 19 25 Vacant/ROW/Other 15 22 Total Buildings Impacted Buildings that are within 1 Oft of the expanded 70ft (within 1Oft of ROW) �12 �23 right-of-way(highest estimate) 4 Metric Preferred Alternative Notes and Considerations Alignment Alignment Total Parcels that may 8 10 Parcels that are bisected or otherwise diminished become Unusable to an unusable size (under 0.1 acres) Summary Comparison of Metrics Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative Alignment Alignment Alignment Total New Roads(Miles) 0.37 0.61 0.37 0.61 0.66 1.70 Total Improved Roads 0.35 0.90 0.35 0.90 0.21 0.82 (Miles) Total Parcels Impacted 102 121 102 121 102 129 (within 300ft) Total Parcels Directly 67 81 67 81 65 87 Impacted Commercial 30 37 30 37 31 40 Residential 23 26 23 26 19 25 Vacant/ROW/Other 14 18 14 18 15 22 Total Buildings Impacted -13 -18 -13 -18 -12 -23 (within 10ft of ROW) Total Parcels that may 6 7 6 7 8 10 become Unusable 5 Appendix C-Select Intersections 1PPl1+ ' >oioe�'s�i'�+>biowosoe'*e�e"i�`obiwobiws oet •obewwwewbewwo b'wwww�S�wgb®{swepweebe�ebr'lwwwwww+` F *��. .��.weo.oeowoewwewowowowoww! r' ®� l0000woowoow�, , w00000w' a�` N = +f�Awwwwwwwwwwb iY j4^` `� reAwwwowbwwbwwll `0't � R ,►ebwwwwlwwwwwwwwebwwy}:;�www �♦ •�. bowwwowowe ♦r gsl,. w ,AwwC►�1rtf+e�w. are€: ,�� 'iwQ +,e0awwl�°►._/,�.�g ,yO.bwe: �. �wwwowwww0000wwwoww AM `r Intersection Control Considerations a_ �t�,eeebbeieeeeeiweeeea> Intersection is currently a signal. I �►e"e`®eeiwibiwieiwieiwi� A ie.e�bew00000� Ibebbbbobbeeebbeeweeeeeeeo: roundabout is shown in AC H D s M S M. �ewwewei00e�wiwewiwi0e� Alternative Concept D —Study Area Future Land Use Current Development Civic Intersection:5 Locust Grove Road and E Central Drive applications Commercial O Potential Right of Way General Industrial Creeks&Canals Low Density I me rstates Residential Existing Water& Medium Density Sewer Mains Residential Mixed Use- Community Mixed Use- Neighhorhood Office 7 `; -- Intersection Control Considerations ff Evaluate relocating stop control to Stratford Drive, or installing a roundabout, "-j--• when realigning Central Drive. n I -- 4*4r wv � rs ►r� ebv 1644w444 4 4 4 4 4♦4��v44 4 4� a v 4 4 4 44444 44444 4 4 4 444 Alternative Concepts (All) Study Area Future Land use Intersection:5 Stratford Drive and E Central Drive current Development Civic Applications Commercial 0 Potential Right of Way General Industrial Creeks&Canals Low Density Interstates Residential Existing Water& Medium Density Sewer Mains Residential —Mixed Use- Community _Mixed Use- Neighhorhood office 8 ♦1..♦�.�♦ _+ 3 > ♦� ►........� ♦e < a Intersection Control Considerations '.•�`.`�•.'.• ft skEvaluate stop control placement, `�`i`.`�•�`� including considering all-way stop control, ������������!♦ or installing a roundabout when extending 00`000�0•i� •���•���� Wells Circle. Alternative Concept E —Study Area Future Land Use Current Development Civic Intersection:Wells Circle and S Wells StreetlE Freeway Drive applications Commercial O Potential Right of Way General Industrial Creeks&Canals Low Density Inte rstatea Residential Existing Water& Medium Density Sewer Mains Residential Planned Water& Mixed Use- Sewer Mains Community Mixed Use- Neighhorhood Office 9 �•*` - - "� Intersection Control Considerations ,••�° Evaluate retaining all-way stop control or ;•� =. -;;- installing a roundabout. E d9a91 VIywClr rF��i�'��-'o Alternative Concepts (All) Study Area Future Land use Intersection: E Magic View Circle and S Allen Street Current Development CivicApplications i Commercial 0 Future Right of Way General Industrial Creeks&Canals Low Density ®Interstates Residential Roads Medium Density Existing Water& Residential Sewer Mains —Mixed Use- _Planned Water& Community Sewer Mains _Mixed Use- Neighborhood office 10 Appendix D: Stakeholder Feedback (St Luke's) Note: Comments were submitted by St Luke's Health Systems regarding draft technical memorandum. StLuke I s 0 January 6, 2026 SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY:canderson@meridiancity.org Carl Anderson,AICP, CNAU Long-Range Associate Planner City of Meridian/Community Development Department Dear Mr. Anderson, Thank you for sharing the draft technical memorandum for the Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Feasibility report. We appreciate the thoughtful work from Kittelson &Associates and look forward to continuing our collaboration as the feasibility report progresses. We have completed our initial review and appreciate the opportunity to share our feedback and stay closely aligned on next steps. One concern we want to highlight is the current amount of traffic on St. Luke's Drive,which poses a safety concern for staff and patients as they move into and between the St. Luke's campus and adjacent medical buildings, including Portico, Montvue, and Meadowlake. We want to ensure that any future plans thoughtfully address these concerns and support a safe, accessible environment for everyone. This risk is compounded by two related future factors. First, we anticipate increased east—west traffic as a result of improvements contemplated west of Eagle Road. Second, if planned projects by Touchmark or St. Luke's move forward,we will see an increase in residents, patients, and staff, which may further affect traffic flow and safety. We are also interested in improving access and circulation for everyone visiting the campus. In particular, we would welcome the opportunity to explore additional access points to Franklin or Eagle Road that do not rely solely on St. Luke's Drive. Diversifying access routes could help ease congestion and enhance safety for staff, patients, and visitors alike. A traffic impact study is currently underway, and we would like to incorporate its data and feedback before any final recommendation is widely circulated.We anticipate having initial findings around the end of January. We noted St. Luke's private roads were identified as collector streets in the draft and contacted Kittleson to discuss a modification. Kittleson will update their report to remove any roadway improvements on St. Luke's property and ensure ACHD makes this update to its Master Street Map. Thank you again for the opportunity to collaborate. If helpful,we are happy to set up a brief working session to walk through our comments and discuss access and safety considerations together— please don't hesitate to reach out. Sincerely, Rene Pallotti VP Population Health Meridian St.Luke's 1 190 E.Bannock Street I Boise,Idaho 83712 1 208-706-1182 Appendix D: Stakeholder Feedback (Meridian Economic Development Administrator) Note: The comments represent feedback from Meridian Economic Development Administrator regarding the draft technical memorandum. From:Curtis Calder<ccalder@meridiancity.org> Sent:Monday,January 5,2026 5:10 PM To:Carl Anderson<canderson@meridiancity.org> Subject:Comments re:Stratford to Touchmark Transportation Connection Feasibility Report Carl, Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the feasibility report. Generally,I thought the report was very comprehensive and outlined the practical difficulties that exist within the Project Study Area. From an economic development standpoint,I agree that Concepts A and B do little to spur redevelopment. From a transportation circulation perspective,Concept B duplicates much of what Concepts A and C can already provide,but at a much higher cost. Focusing on Concepts C,D,and E,here are some thoughts: • 1 like the Corporate and Central extensions(black circles). Those look achievable and would go a long way to cleaning up the west side of the Project Study Area. One or both extensions/connections could be implemented as near-term solutions,with Central being the priority. • With a traffic signal already in place on Locust Grove&Central Drive(pink circle),I'm not sure why ACHD wants to replace it with a Roundabout. • Concept C(red circle),I would select the southern option for the connection between Cadillac&Wells, avoiding the installation of a bridge. This concept could be implemented as a near-term solution(in conjunction with the Central Drive extension/connection). • While I like Concept D,the amount of ROW needed,combined with the total of improved road miles seems unrealistic. Too much speculation with regard to redevelopment potential due to land assembly issues. • Concept E(preferred alignment)is my favorite option. This could be a long-term solution in conjunction with Concept C(referenced above),or a standalone option. As parcels north of 1-84 are acquired for ROW, redevelopment can occur north of the frontage road. Additionally,when Locust Grove bridge is eventually replaced,the bridge can be redesigned to accommodate the extension of the frontage road to the west. Fronklln Ptl Sprirtgw Dr �v 1 FAO.—Way W - - 1 � Walerfower Sr 1 IIN E eow:m°e sr 1 IMF !1 NI I � 2!! ■1 Cotlflloc Dr � --_-_ —______ ■1Irl erlm Ur r jt ___________� wa Isu r_ 1�1 1 yl ICOM !1 1 11 Revelopmein Area -r- If you have any questions,please feel free to follow-up! Sincerely, Curtis Calder I Economic Development Administrator City of Meridian I Mayor's Office 33 E.Broadway Ave.,Meridian,Idaho 83642 Phone:(208)489-0537IFax:(208)884-8119 Built for Business,Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention,and may be released upon request,unless exempt from disclosure by law Appendix D• Stakeholder Feedback (ACHD) Note: Stakeholder feedback was provided by ACHD. The feedback refers to Technical Memorandum. Only pages containing ACHD's December 18,2025 comments are included in this appendix. Page 5 Plan Review,Land Use Analysis,and Initial Concepts Plan Review This section identifies adopted and in-process plans that are relevant to this project and were provided by City staff. Specifically, it reviews previously identified projects that may impact transportation within the study area.Table 1 summarizes the documents reviewed. Table 1 Planning Documents Reviewed D. Description Rel Staff Report(2024) City of Meridian Staff Report Land Use Plan Hand sketches of proposed Identifies 2017 existing road conditions and (2017) land use changes on printed potential traffic calming locations. maps. Accesses the bicycle and Recommend bicycle improvements for - pedestrian network and Stratford-Central Drive and Watertower anticipates needs within Street corridors, plus crossing downtown Meridian area improvements at Locust Grove Road/Woodbridge Drive. ISU Campus Site 2022 ISU Campus Site Plan Identifies new parking garage location as a Plan (2022) six-story building positioned north of East Central Drive and west of South Locust Grove Road. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Page:5 ■Number:i Author.Edinson Bautista Subject:Highlight Date:1/8/20268:43:15 AM Call out the plan's update conducted in 2023/2024. Author:Edinson Bautista Subject:Sticky Note Date:1/8/20268:43:46 AM ZA This is an ACHD plan so I would also add ACHD as part of the title Franklin Rd a — � I0 ' marl ° Springwood Dr l� 2 v � IW i E Autumn Way I ---— r r Wa}edower S} E Bowstring S} !! ar 001/brid9e Or -- Allen St ST Lukes 2 r.r I .�,....... ................. -- rr Catlillac Dr nr Central Dr ................. .. , MU �r ,\ r i ICOM Figure 3. Initial Collector Road Concepts o° - Concept A-Existing Roads Focus Study Area Existing Road - Concept B-Northern Connection Expanded Study Area Potential New Road - Concept C-Central-Tonino Planned roundabout(ACHD Master Street Map) - Concept D-Central Drive Extension 41 Intersection Improvements(All Concepts) Concept E-Concept Plan Alignment Page:8 Number:1 Author:Edinson Bautista Date:1/8/20268:39:23 AM QTo show a wholelistic picture,the map would benefit of showing Stratford Drive as a collector consistent with the MSM. Number:2 Author:Edinson Bautista Subject:Sticky Note Date:1/6/2026 3:35:17 PM East of Stratford Dr,we are showing two to three collectors in a quarter mile for all the concepts.I don't think that's ideal. Number:3 Author:Edinson Bautista Date:1/8/20268:41:39 AM QChange to a solid line to reflect existing roadway Number:4 Author:Edinson Bautista Subject:Sticky Note Date:1/6/2026 3:31:13 PM QIn Concepts D and E,there are sections that show two different proposed alignments.For the purpose of displaying these concepts in the MSM,it would be preferable to select a single alignment and allow for refinement during the development application review process.Showing two alignments may create confusion about which alignment represents the intended concept. December 18,2025 Page 9 Plan Review,Land Use Analysis,and Initial Concepts Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road The project team has developed five concepts connecting Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road. They are described below and shown in more detail in Attachment "B." The five concepts include: ■ Concept A— Existing Roads— Uses the existing road network to make the connection. To facilitate this connection, intersection control upgrades would be recommended at E Woodbridge Dr/S Locust Grove Rd ancPE Magic View Cir/S Wells St.Traffic calming measures may be required along segments with front-on housing to mitigate traffic volumes and speeds.Alternatively, if avoiding impacts to front-on housing is prioritized,q new short section could be built through open space east of Thornwood Way; however, this space is narrow and traffic noise and lighting would likely impact adjacent residences. Finally, a connection could be made using unopened right-of-way between Autumn Way and E Bowstring Street to improve north-south connectivity; however, this connection could also increase cut-through traffic on adjacent residential streets. ■ Qoncept B— Northern Connection—Creates new direct connections, from E Central Dr at the ISU/West Ada Complex through the existing Idaho Post Academy to E Watertower St. as well as a second connection from S Stratford Dr through S Locust Grove Rd to S Wells St, routed behind existing residential properties.This alignment would require crossing through the Idaho POST Academy and over Fivemile Creek.The Stratford Dr to Wells St connection may generate noise and light impacts to adjacent properties. To mitigate these concerns, the alternative could be shifted slightly southward to increase the buffer distance from residential properties. ■ Qoncept C—Central-Tonino— Uses the existing S Tonino Ave to form most of the connection between S Locust Grove Rd and S Wells St. S Tonino Ave would need to be extended to meet S Well Street and the existing section would need to be widened to meet ACHD collector standards. This alternative would likely result in the lowest property impacts; however, the internal alignment may limit future redevelopment potential for non-residential land use. ■ Qoncept D—Central Drive Extension— Extends E Central Dr to S Wells St, primarily through new road segments. Existing road sections would need to be widened to meet ACHD collector standards. It could also be extended past S Well St. This concept is similar to the "Grand Boulevard" concept in the My Meridian Comprehensive Plan Update. ■ lioncept E—Comprehensive Plan Alignment—Creates a new connection from E Central Dr to S Well St through a new road fronting 1-84. It includes an option for a connection across Locust Grove Rd to further local connectivity and alignment with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan's goals.This alignment is similar to the preferred scenario in the My Meridian Comprehensive Plan Update. West of Locust Grove Road The only direct connection between Locust Grove Road and Meridian Road-Main Street is via Watertower St.Traffic related to ISU, ICOM, the West Ada School District uses, and other traffic along Central Drive must take a circuitous route using Corporate Drive or Industry Way to reach Meridian Road-Main Street. This area could also benefit from increased connectivity as it continues to develop. Figure 3 presents multiple options for improving connectivity west of Locust Grove Road, including: ■ Extending Central Drive to create a direct connection to Meridian Road-Main Street.This would require removing an existing parking lot and crossing the Eightmile Lateral. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Page:9 Number:1 Author:Edinson Bautista Date:1/8/20268:45:07 AM u Is the vision being an all way stop control?Is the reasoning to use it a traffic calming treatment?Since this concept is not moving forward,I'm not as concern with what is written. ■Number:2 Author:Edinson Bautista Date:12/30/2025 8:51:45 AM I'm not confident of the feasibility of this new connection. Number:3 Author:Edinson Bautista Date:12/30/2025 9:02:20 AM The new intersection at Locust Grove most than likely will not meet ACHD accessing spacing on minor arterial policy.It can meet policy if it is a right in/right out access. Number:4 Author.Edinson Bautista Date:12/30/2025 9:07:17 AM I would just add that the current Tonino alignment while not ideal,it would discourage speeding since it is not a straight road.I noticed that several alternative call out traffic calming which is fine,but if the roadway alignment already acts as one,it is worth calling it out. Number:5 Author:Edinson Bautista Date:12/30/20259:09:51 AM My only comment is that the new connection to Freeway Dr is not ideal.A diagonal approach would create visibility concerns and possibly significant impacts to the FiveMile Creek Number:6 Author.Edinson Bautista Date:1/6/2026 3:27:54 PM You show two new roadways connecting to Tonino Ave.Can you clarify which is the prefer alignment? Author:Edinson Bautista Subject:Sticky Note Date:1/8/2026 8:46:25 AM ZR Consistent with my previous comment,concept C,D,and E could benefit ofjust defining one alignment and then further refinements can take place as part of the development process. December 18,2025 Page 10 Plan Review,Land Use Analysis,and Initial Concepts ■ Extending Corporate Drive to Central Drive.This would remove one turn from current routing to Corporate Drive from Central Drive, move turning traffic away from the existing Central Drive/Stratford Drive intersection, which is located near a curve, and would further promote the use of the Corporate Drive signals with Meridian Road and Main Street, which disperse demand across two intersections, as opposed to the Meridian Road/Central Drive intersection. ■ Creating a new collector street near 1-84, which would provide an alternate to Central Drive. ■ Realigning Central Drive so that it intersects Stratford Drive perpendicularly on both sides instead of near a curve. Stakeholders also requested that traffic calming and improved pedestrian crossings along Central Drive be considered between Locust Grove Road and Stratford Drive. East of Eagle Road ACHD's Master Street Map includes a new collector-level connection between St Lukes Street and Autumn Way. This connection is shown in Figure 3.This connection would potentially reduce cut-through traffic through the eastern portion of the St Luke's campus and the existing Portico-Buffalow Wild Wings parking lot. It could potentially increag traffic along St Lukes Street between this connection and Eagle Road. a OTHER OPPORTUNITIES In addition to the connections described in the previous section, the project team has identified other opportunities to improve transportation connectivity, operations, and safety in the study area based on previous plans and conversations with City staff and area stakeholders. Figure 4 illustrates these opportunities. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Page: 10 Number:1 Author:Edinson Bautista Subject:Sticky Note Date:1/6/2026 3:21:24 PM QConsistent with recent conversations,I think it would be a good idea to call out current ownership of St Luke Rd and the future north south connection.In the MSM,while we call out the two roadways as collectors,they are both own and maintain by St Lukes.We should further discuss the future of these connection if St Luke Rd is not planning to transfer the owners to ACHD. Appendix E-ACHD Master Street Map IZAKITTELSON X &ASSOCIATES ACHD Master Street Map (MSM) The Master Street Map (MSM) is a planning tool that helps coordinate future roadway development with comprehensive plans of cities and Ada County. It outlines planned street types, access guidelines, number of lanes, right-of-way needs, and collector street networks, but does not represent final designs or commitment to build.Agencies can request changes to the MSM through development applications or planning efforts (such as sub-area or long-range plans). Changes to the MSM are formally made through amendments adopted through the ACHD Commission. The figure below identifies the planned collector network within the planning area. -/,J�ACHD Ada County Highway District Purpose Amendment Legend Notes T�11 + Gruber Lateral Q®aa® MS•M Roundab o uts— er diani Dual-Lane Q Multi-Lane G Single-Lane .Triple-Lane MSM Arterials E nam,w r State System- State System' E ——— State System(New Alignment)' Mobility Arterials E Mobility Arterials(New Alignment) ——— Mobility Corridor(U near Study) Residential Moblity Arterial Residential Mobility Arterial(New Alignment) L� Transitional/Commercial Planned Commercial Residential ;q Selected features:0 Neighborhood Residential J Town Center 2,000 Gty of Boise,City of Me,Al County of Ada,Esri,T—Tom,Garman,SafeGra_. Powered by Esri I� KITTELSON &ASSOCIATES . - E Watertower, Main Street S Stratford Dr. E Watertower, Stratford Dr to S Locust Grove COMMERCIAL COLLECTORS E Coperate Dr, S Main Street, to S Stratford Dr (EXISTING) S Stratford Dr, E Coperate Dr to E Franklin Dr E Central Dr E Stratford Dr to S Locust Grove St Luke's, Highway 55 to E Montvu Dr PLANNE❑ COMMERCIAL North South Collector, St Lukes to E Louise Dr` COLLECTORS (PLANNED) E Magicview Dr, S Wells St to S Allen St INDUSTRIAL COLLECTOR St Luke's, Allen St, to Highway 55 (EXISTING) Allen St., E Magicview Dr to St Luke AC14D wX be modifying the MSM Appendix F-Utilities Ei Flanklln Rd �l �� Meridian � Ersr,,;r,yw�onor �F Cemetery - a n u ,f a� -� EMaskv yde .�II� + St Luke,'s C'r SRllen S[ 'Idaho Sate "+�Ilv� 1 a'4� �,� edical'Center t115U Merid ian�, M1e ram, ,—M ,tdF-`� v � _• _ . ICOM b7 1 N Water and Sewer Utilities ° 0,25 0.5 Miles I I I Study Area Future Land Use Current Development Civic Applications Commercial Creeks&Canals General Industrial Interstates Low Density Roads Residential Existing Water and Medium Density Sewer Infrastructure Residential _Planned Water and Mixed Use- Sewer Infrastructure Community Mixed Use- Neighborhood Office 6 Appendix G- Concept C E Franklin Rd I r- Storey Park �I t �I Meridian E Springwood Dr Cemete E=Autumn o `; — -- E Watertower Rd -- � i—E Bowstring St L �� c "' �� I _ Magrc Vie � St LUke'S r" --o State —.�� T Wc; SAffen St —.w� Meridian � Idah � - I 1• � li fir —�� wOpdbridgep d z Medical"Center E10entral Dr ISy Meridian N Alternative Concept C - Central-Tonino 0 0.25 0.5 Miles I& Study Area Roadway Concepts Future Land Use Current Development Preferred Alignment - Civic O Front-on housing. vs� Applications oo New Roadway Commercial Creeks & Canals Construction General Industrial © standards. Existing road would need to be widened to collector Interstates Preferred Alignment - o Roadway Low Density Roads Residential Planned Water & Improvements © Fivemile Creek crossing. _ preferred Alignment - Medium Density Sewer Mains Residential Existing Water & Mixed Use - p Existing Roadway Further evaluation needed of the Master Street Ma to Sewer Mains Alternative Alignment - Community � identify connections east of Eagle Rd. ACHD Master Street Construction Mixed Use - Map Collector Neighborhood Alternative Alignment - Note: Road segments categorized as Existing Roadways may only need o Roadway Office minor infrastructure improvements, while those categorized as Roadway Improvements Improvement will need more substantial upgrades to meet collector road Alternative Alignment - standards (e.g., road widening, adding curb, gutter, and sidewalk). Existing Roadway Appendix G- Concept D i E Franklin Rd Storey �I Meridian ' E Springwood Dr I— Gemetery E Autumn Way � U O m � I WatertowerRd--i - -- i-E Bowstring St � l_-��. I 'EMagicVieWC � J St LUke;S j--•� - �� it S Allen I� ■ .r-y = Idaho State EW° i h st u,� Meridian ram* °dbridge 9 °.h ` z Police i �o Medicco al'Center I E Central Dr IISU`Men ialn s•�,= IC OM N Alternative Concept D - Central Drive Extension 0 0.25 0.5 Miles I I I 0& Study Area Roadway Concepts Future Land Use Opportunity to create linear parklgreenway along Current Development Preferred Alignment - Civic O roadway. Applications oo New Roadway Commercial Creeks & Canals Construction General Industrial Further evaluation needed of the Master Street Map to Interstates Preferred Alignment - © identify connections east of Eagle Rd. o Roadway Low Density Roads Residential Improvements Planned Water & Preferred Alignment - Medium Density Sewer Mains — Residential Existing Roadway Existing Water & Alternative Alignment - Mixed Use - Sewer Mains Community ACHD Master Street cDcD New Roadway Map Collector Construction Mixed Use - Alternative -Alignment Neighborhood g Note: Road segments categorized as Existing Roadways may only need Roadway Office minor infrastructure improvements, while those categorized as Roadway Improvements Improvement will need more substantial upgrades to meet collector road Alternative Alignment - standards (e.g., road widening, adding curb, gutter, and sidewalk). Existing Roadway Appendix G- Concept E E Franklin Rd �— 1 Storey Park �I I I Meridian E springwood Cemetery Autumn Way U O � m � I WatertowerRd-•—i - -- -' i-E•Bowstring l_-��. I 'EMagicVieWC J St LUke;S j--•� - �� it S Allen I� ■ r-y = Idaho State EW° i h st �� Meridian � ram* odbridge 9 °�4 ` z co • Police � i 1 ��o� � Medical'Center E CentralDr, ISU Meridian ,, ICOM (0� © N Alternative Concept E - Comprehensive Plan Alignment 0 0.25 0.5 Miles 0= Study Area Roadway Concepts Future Land Use Current Development Preferred Alignment - Civic O Significant school traffic and pedestrian crossings. Applications oo New Roadway Commercial Construction © Visibility from Locust Grove for commercial Creeks & Canals General Industrial redevelopment. Interstates Preferred Alignment - Low Density Roads o Roadway Residential © Potential grade-separated crossing to increase Planned Water & Improvements connectivity. Medium Density Sewer Mains Preferred Alignment - Existing Roadway Residential Existing Water & Mixed Use - O Interstate visibility for commercial redevelopment. Sewer Mains Alternative Alignment - cocDNew Roadway Community Further evaluation needed of the Master Street Map to Map Collector ACHDMaster Street Construction Mixed Use - 0 Map identify connections east of Eagle Rd. Alternative -Alignment Neighborhood 9 Note: Road segments categorized as Existing Roadways may only need Roadway Office minor infrastructure improvements, while those categorized as Roadway Improvements Improvement will need more substantial upgrades to meet collector road Alternative Alignment - standards (e.g., road widening, adding curb, gutter, and sidewalk). Existing Roadway Exhibit 6 My Meridian Specific Area Summary Note: Pages extracted from the 2019 Comprehensive Plan ��ivl E IDIAN�--- MY MERIDIAN MY MERIDIAN SPECIFIC AREA SUMMARY INTRODUCTION As part of the My Meridian Comprehensive Plan Any changes to the allowed use or density of the Update, several areas were identified for further land must be consistent with the Future Land Use future land use discussion: The Fields, Magicview/ Map. This helps ensure that infrastructure and Woodbridge, Southwest Meridian, and South services will be in place for future growth within Rim. Two public meetings were held; one at a given area. Willowcreek Elementary on Feb. 11th discussing The input received during this phase of updating the Fields area and one at City hall on Feb. 12th the Comprehensive Plan is invaluable to the discussing the Magicview/Woodbridge area. In process. Input recieved will be considered as the addition to these meetings, residents could submit part of the land use recommendations to these comments through an online survey available for Specific Areas, and will be reviewed with the all four areas through the month of February. community's vision for an ideal future in Meridian. Between the neighborhood meetings and online surveys, residents were able to review several CONTENTS scenarios for each area, vote on their favorites, Outreach to Date.........................................2 and provide insight and ideas. There were over 130 event participants, 202 online participants, Current FLUM and Area Boundaries..............3 and over 40 comments were submitted by email. What We Heard.............................................4 The City's current Future Land Use Plan was The Fields......................................................................4 originally adopted as part of the comprehensive Magicview/Woodbridge...........................................6 plan in 2011,with regular updates.The Future Land Southwest Meridian...................................................8 Use map is designed to guide development and South Rim...................................................................io density for every area in the City with color blocks Public Event Map Comments........................12 showing general land use categories like "low density residential" or "mixed use neighborhood." Verbatim Comments....................................15 FOUNDATION EVENT SERIES #1 EVENT SERIES #2 EVENT SERIES #3 EVENT SERIES #4 MY MERIDIAN MY MERIDIAN MY MERIDIAN MY MERIDIAN VALUES VISION CHOICES PLAN THANK YOU • . YOUR PARTICIPATION! MY MERIDIAN OUTREACH TO DATE z Z Z Z r 3 r 3 o a <i m a 55 Milla r �l W UsticTc R - Z 0 CD W r,.J Un CD W Pine Ave W Frankli*ve �� r E Overland Rd f �r E Victory Rd a Legend 3 Neighborhoods ° Amity Rd Meridian-North Q- Meridian-West L Air Meridian-East Meridian-Downtown z Cn r Meridian-Northeast o Meridian-Northwest Q N Meridian-Southwest ;0 o CL < m Meridian-Southeast Locations from pin maps in the Values Phase Locations from pin maps in Total Online participation to date*: 3996 the Visioning Phase Q Locations of specific area Total in-person participation to date*: 961 workshops and participants *March 13,2019 2 LOGAN SIMPSON CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE / SPECIFIC AREA BOUNDARIES -&- - -We o „ --------------------------------- Fields Area ooIL _, ,,.,y Ma�gic�iew/ y •a Wo�bmdge, = = 0 South Rim ,. • � f Southwest - _ , �- _ _ look slip ......................................,,.,,�,. Adopted Future Land Use Map Rural 40 High Density Civic Mixed-Use Mixed-Use High Density Residential Community Regional Employment U Low Density Commercial Old Town Mixed-Use Mixed-Use Residential Commercial Residential Medium Density Office Gas Mixed-Use Mixed Residential G Neighborhood Employment Med-High Density Industrial Low Density Mixed-Use Mixed-Use Residential G Employment Nonresidential Interchange 3 MAGICVIEW / WOODBRIDGE CONCEPTS %K61 0 10 4 • • _ Concept 1: WNW, Roadway realignment along WNW _ the freeway to maximize visibility ►, Mixed-use intended to support hotel and conference facilities t Pad of commercial to serve neighborhood • Medium density residential should be phased and 1 oriented to buffer existing neighborhood • • 1 _,i. _ - .. Concept 2: • A Grand boulevard and parallel greenway connecting mixed-use areas to office and commercial I , A new e ark to encourage 9 s - w redevelopment Roundabouts to manage traffic flow • Phased housing to buffer existing neighborhoods 6 LOGAN SIMPSON • 1 1.4 1 - Concept 3: • Provided opportunity for slow redevelopment • Mixed-use residential and non-residential to support office, residential, and commercial uses New commercial center that serves locally and ` regionally N I .} Legend Concept Future Land Use �g Area of City Impact + • • Pathways Low Density Res �k MU-Residential Commercial l 1 Discussion Area Greenway Concepts Medium Density Res MU-Non Residential Interchange Roadway Concepts High Density Res IndustriallFlex Civic Desired Future Park Area Gateway Areas Mixed Density Res Office Key Takeaways: Overall, those who took the survey preferred Concept 3 which provides opportunity for slow redevelopment with a large area of residential mixed use to the south of the existing Woodbridge Subdivision and non-residential mixed use, office, and commercial uses moving closer to the east. A second runner up to Concept 3 was "none of the concepts." Participants Generally Liked: Concept 1:4% • The proposed park Concept 2: 1% • The greenway in Concept 2 • Round-abouts Concerns: • Low-impact, low-density buffer from existing None:26% subdivisions • High density housing will add to traffic congestion Concept •.., • Many don't want the area to change MERIDIAN SPECIFIC AREA SUMMARY 7 • • • -Road Pull road through com. } grand in woodbridge to onnect ; ,i Leave Locust Heights closed r--Walk bridge 1 pe c ncept 2:Grand u.egar�rt Retirement y rSuPer.Mw �. ;edge WOUdbC ' ;,l .___.Program light 1 � �i Payable to land owners -J' 7 r- lC -- - MERIDIAN SPECIFIC AREA SUMMARY 13 FACJ • plei , • 1 • 1 1 - - + Franklin Rd WFr option for efficiency C, v r.rwr-ti fD'i u , - c,ov%,R roa a� commercial commercial 4 ` '^walkway X2 me d slow chool � relieve neighborhood parking-from - - - -school—, _ 14 LOGAN SIMPSON Magicvew / Woodbridge Concept 1: • Greenways, parks • Consider the potential of decreasing the amount of MU Residential, shifting it instead towards Office or similar. The currently specified Office proposed seems relatively small and may be inadequate for fuller commercial development, particularly for the stated hotel/conference facilities as well as for anything that would truly deliver against the Regional Focus. Overall, I distinctly prefer this option over the others; first and foremost, Concept 1 is clearly and directly in line with and appears the only one that would actually fully deliver against the Meridian Vision and Planning goals. • We think that with any of these concepts there needs to be an freeway interchange at Locust Grover to minimize the traffic on Eagle and Meridian roads. Concept 2: • I love roundabouts! Concept 3: • We need a lower density buffer adjacent to all sides of Woodbridge Subdivision in this Non-residential designation. Single story, low lighting, no high density next to our low density residential neighborhood. We do like the new road configuration which will alleviate the flow of traffic through Woodbridge. The purple office designation to our east should be light office (This was said 53 times) • We have an amazing neighborhood and we are not enthusiastic about any change that would lower the standard of living here. • Traffic thru must be alleviated. To the east of Woodbridge needs to be light office designation. There must be low density around Woodbridge. Thru the entire city quit cramming high density in every corner. • We need low density to protect our subdivision and ease the traffic. • Add a greenway along Five Mile Creek if possible. • I like the idea of a park and the additional road access will help alleviate traffic use in the neighborhood. Woodbridge sub needs low density buffer around the neighborhood. • NO high density housing. Fix the traffic issues - tired of my neighborhood being a raceway. Keep with hotel and light office designation. But know the Eagle Road - St Luke's Dr intersection is a mess now! • I like the idea of a future park in the area, please ensure it is kid friendly. • I like enclave 3 because it impacts the least amount of existing residences in the area. The other two options impact a large number of existing homes. Many of the people that live in this subdivision have been there for 30+ years. I would be very disappointed to see those family homes torn down. One of which is owned by one of my relatives. If changes have to be made to this neighborhood, please be considerate of those people who live in that area. Preferably, I would like to see no changes made to that area. • The area off Wells, near where the canal/waterway is has a very high water table, and building on that land would be very costly. With the amount of wildlife that frequents along this area, it would be wonderful is a small park could be put in, in this area bordering both sides of the canal. This would not only help preserve the wildlife, but would give the neighboring hotels a place for guests to walk, visit. Especially those who are extended stay quests, like those with family in the nearby hospital. There are no small parks near this area. • Increase sewer and water to other areas and follow through on a comprehensive that will allow for growth. Use foresight and opportunities that project outward. Vision is the only way to truly plan. • A park or greenway should be added. My biggest concern is that the roads need to be constructed first. If building construction precedes the roads, there will be no leverage to force road construction. Further, is ACHD the entity for road construction or is the City of Meridian responsible? If the city, where does it get the money? 16 LOGAN SIMPSON • We need a lower density buffer adjacent to all sides of the Woodbridge subdivision • I strongly feel that #3 is the best option for our area. I have a lot of concern about adding high-density housing right next to the existing Woodbridge neighborhood in what is already a heavily trafficked area. I like the new road and the light office around this neighborhood. Single store and low-lighting associated with light commercial will be best. • Allowing high density housing will further complicate traffic flow/access to Eagle Road. • Roundabouts for existing traffic flows • We would like to see low density residential around Woodbridge subdivision. Too much traffic coming through our neighborhood but the new road configuration would move traffic away. Other: • Medium Density Residential Buffer to the east & south of Woodbridge & Greenhill Estates A Collector road from Central & Locust Grove east through Locust View Heights connecting to the signal at St. Luke's ST. & Eagle Road No high density residential is constructed off of Magic View east of Woodbridge until the signal to signal (Central/Locust Grove to Eagle) is connected. The developments should be done in a responsible and respectable manner in relation to existing residential housing next to any proposed developments. (This was said 20+ times) • We do not want Concept #1 — they are considering to change this area to mixed use residential which would allow apartments all around us. We don't want Concept #2 — This change would make it high density residential directly to the East of us. In other words, if they get this change, they could change it to high density apartments. Those of you that have been here for many years, remember that Woodbridge fought long and hard in early 2005 when we approached City Hall and P&Z through the appeal process to prevent Conger from building these high density apartments. It is this concept all over again. Concept #3 is the best choice for Woodbridge because directly to the east of us is mixed use residential so they can't build apartments. It is critical that you complete this tonight due to time constraints. You must vote in order to be heard. Thank you to everyone for your support. • None of these concepts reflect other discussions that have been on going with regard to a step down buffer area adjacent to Woodbridge with any redevelopment to the south. Having a buffer of equitable R-8 residential style housing up against Woodbridge and then beginning any higher density construction or business designations to Woodbridge. In other focus groups we actually had concepts that reflected this design, but apparently this group did not. I think they should. • I oppose all of your planning ideas. No one should be able to upturn peoples lives by destroying the neighborhood they live in. Any one of your plans would lower property value and disrupt our quiet lives. We moved into this neighborhood 15 years ago. We knew it would be a wonderful place to raise our family. My children are able to walk around the corner to visit their grandparents,as they also live in the neighborhood.The city of Meridian act like they care about family and community but all they care about is money. The people of this neighborhood shouldn't have to sacrifice because you didn't plan. Maybe Woodbridge shouldn't have been built. If this goes through and we are forced out of our homes where are we to go?We would never be able to find a comparable place. I just can't believe this is happening. It's one of my worst fears. • I oppose all of your planning ideas. No one should be able to upturn peoples lives by destroying the neighborhood they live in. Any one of your plans would lower property value and disrupt our quiet lives. We moved into this neighborhood 15 years ago. We knew it would be a wonderful place to raise our family. My children are able to walk around the corner to visit their grandparents,as they also live in the neighborhood.The city of Meridian act like they care about family and community but all they care about is money. The people of this neighborhood shouldn't have to sacrifice because you didn't plan. Maybe Woodbridge shouldn't have been built. If this goes through and we are forced out of our homes where are we to go?We would never be able to find a comparable place. I just can't believe this is happening. It's one of my worst fears. • Medium Density Residential Buffer to the east & south of Woodbridge & Greenhill Estates A Collector road MERIDIAN SPECIFIC AREA SUMMARY 17 from Central & Locust Grove east through Locust View Heights connecting to the signal at St. Luke's ST. & Eagle Road No high density residential is constructed off of Magic View east of Woodbridge until the signal to signal (Central/Locust Grove to Eagle) is connected. This area has an inherent traffic problem I have discussed with ACHD. Getting traffic through the area, and on/off eagle road is a big problem. The intersections are overloaded already, and the intersections at eagle have a lower priority than eagle road or the hospital. One ambulance disrupts traffic for up to 30 minutes. Please consider low impact options for traffic. The developments should be done in a responsible and respectable manner in relation to existing residential housing next to any proposed developments. • After attending your meeting, Tuesday, February 12, 2019, many concerns were raised: 1. This is stage three of four of a plan that has a great deal of impact on our neighborhood, yet this is the first time we have been informed. One committee member said it was generally reported on T.V. and newspaper but did not specify our neighborhood. 2. The three plans only addressed our neighborhood and did not consider any other alternatives. The concerns seemed to be the neighborhood to the north who had gained city approval without addressing traffic problems and now wants our neighborhood to remedy their problem. 3. Our neighborhood is an established county neighborhood that has at least four three generation families where the children have grown up, married, and are now raising their children down the street from grandparents. 4. A large percentage of our owners are original owners who have lived here since the early 1970s or are second or third owners who have been here since before 2000. 5. Any of your three plans would cut the neighborhood into sections and would move families and friends who depend on each other for safety, friendship, and health. this appears to be a city problem and should be settled within city boundaries. The original plan of the valley to have one mile main road should be honored and not infringe on neighbors' rights or livelihood. • The presentation Feb. 12, 2019 only considered three passages through County land of Locust Grove Heights Subdivision to connect Locust Grove and Eagle Roads. Less expensive and less intrusive roads could be on city property: 1) Straight through Woodbridge --instead of T after the bridge, go through the green area and connect to the outlet on the east side of Woodbridge. 2) Take a lane on the north or south side of the L.D.S. church to connect with property to the east. An established three generation neighborhood should not be disrupted to meet the needs of poor planning by new subdivisions. Franklin Rd. is established for through traffic so this is not a need but a want. • I have learned with shock and dismay that the Locust View Subdivision where I have lived for 47 years in Meridian is being considered for disruption by a proposed roadway. Left standing by development all around us, we have maintained a modest group of acreages where generations of families have lived and loved for more than fifty years. Overlooked, it has thrived as a semi-rural environment: quiet, winding streets; pastures; mature trees, neighborliness, tolerance, a place where joggers and bicyclers from other places come to find safety and exercise out of the main, speed-driven adjoining streets. In some cases, individuals have enhanced standardized farm home properties; others have created bases for cottage industry. Still living here are retired teachers, widows, aging veterans, and disabled persons alongside young lively families. Few homes are ever advertised for sale; it is a stable neighborhood. It has enabled many of us to maintain a quiet, self-reliant, relatively unpolluted home environment. Our children used to sled on adjacent property now filled with new homes. Traffic is confined to that of homeowners, visitors, and school buses and does not endanger the paths of children or walkers. In short, we have been endowed with an affordable place which many others might strive to achieve. In fact, the very values the comprehensive plan subscribes to in print are already vested here and would be contradicted by the proposed changes. What we cherish and have striven to maintain would be swept away with an increase in traffic and a change in configuration. An aerial view reveals our subdivision to be a green oasis which counters some of the freeway noise and compromised air quality. It forms a unit which has its own irrigation system, pasturage for horses, goats, and chickens and room for gardens whose bounty is shared. It embodies and preserve the values of the stakeholders expressed in #My Meridian Vision (p. 10-11)and repeated again and again: family friendly, community, open space, small acreages, small town atmosphere. Furthermore, within the Summary of Stakeholder Feedback (p.6) key topics are said to be: balance between growth and values; preservation of open space; preserve small town and rural character; and improve traffic. 18 LOGAN SIMPSON What traffic studies justify sacrificing the first three of these values for the last one, which would be involved in intruding a roadway through the Locust View Heights Subdivision. What cost, maintenance, environmental and residential impact beyond that already inherent in main roads such as Franklin, Locust Grove, and Overland is being fully measured. • ACHD could have run a road from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road straight thru along Woodbridge and Green Hill before Woodbridge was built. Piss poor planning on ACHD does not lead to running a road thru our subdivision. I have lived here for 48 years. S0UL11 ,,,%-.J1t Meridiai, Concept 1: • More trails! I go for long runs along these roads. Its beautiful scenery, but hardly any room on the side of the road. • I think the Northeast corner of S. McDermott and Lake Hazel should be zoned commercial so we can build a 7-eleven or Maverick there. Maybe Stinker. Local gas and convenience store cuts down on traffic. • Keep Medium and High Density areas south of the canal. We do not want Medium density in our area • Personally, I don't like either one of these. My farm is at the northwest corner of Blackcat and Amity. 160 acres. There is nothing in these plans about open space , which is what everyone is screaming for. The people that are in want open space. And aren't you people concerned about farmland preservation? This map of your #6 currently has lots of green in it. You can see all of the farms. Why don't you do something to preserve that. Why do we have to have every inch of land put into houses?Aren't you concerned about where your next meal might come from, or are you like the new Governor of Georgia? He is going to get his food from the grocery store . Well where does he think the grocery store gets it? There is a bumper sticker that says No Farms, No Food . Just leave what is zoned Agriculture as Agriculture. If you have to zone #6 as something, zone it all into Low Density, nothing under 5 acre lots. At least there will be a little bit of Open Space left in Ada County. • Bigger lots for houses. Some of these houses you can reach out and shake hands with your next door neighbor. We moved here to Meridian 24 years ago and we love our city.We don't mind the growth because every one wants to live in the best place possible for their family. Be careful of too much density as it will spoil a lot of the wonderful life we all enjoy in our lovely city. • Use of some pockets for small commercial occupancies. • Please zone for more 1 acre or larger lots to preserve the rural area as much as possible. • The area shown as 'Southwest Meridian' is actually unincorporated Ada County. We like it that way. We definitely need an urban buffer of small farms and fields between the massive urban sprawl developing in our valley. Everything south and west of the South Rim area should be kept as Agricultural and Low Density Residential. • I would want to be zoned to southwest meridian schools. I love the idea of keeping big lots and have an place to hike! • Retain rural corridor along 10 Mile between Victory and Amity to blend with existing development at Twin View Lane and larger acreages North of Victory. Keep this entire corridor as a buffer between Kuna encroaching from the South. Keep residential because of land ownership by West Ada School District for possible school East side of 10 Mile between Victory and Amity. Concept 2: • I like the idea of mixed use along 10-Mile Road. Gets tremendous traffic because of the freeway and Kuna at the other end. MERIDIAN SPECIFIC AREA SUMMARY 19 IKITTELSON South Capitol Boulevard,Suite 600 Boise, ID 83702 &ASSOCIATES P 208.338.2683 DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM January 22, 2026 Project# 31860 To: Carl Anderson, City of Meridian From: Chenming Zhang, Nick Foster, and Brooke Green, Kittelson &Associates Miriam McGilvray and Ben Ryan, Logan Simpson RE: Plan Review, Land Use Analysis, and Initial Concepts Introduction The City of Meridian is looking to build on the 2019 Meridian Comprehensive Plan by creating a realistic plan for a connected transportation network in this key area of the city. The intent of this effort is to establish the foundation for enhancing the efficiency, safety, and capacity of the multimodal transportation system while supporting long-term growth and infrastructure investment. Achieving these objectives will help reduce reliance on the arterial network, improve emergency response times, enhance quality of life, and support continued economic development and infrastructure modernization, including the extension of water and sewer service to address public health and environmental considerations as development occurs. This memorandum summarizes existing plans and land use conditions. It also identifies and evaluates five potential new east-west collector roadway alignments and other transportation and development opportunities within the study area. Based on the initial evaluation, three of the five alignments were selected for further refinement and detailed analysis to better align with the City's goals for this project. PROJECT AREA Figure 1 illustrates the project area. It includes a mixture of large commercial, healthcare, institutional, and education-related uses, as well as a mix of medium and lower density residential areas. Large employment areas are located west of Locust Grove and adjacent to, and east of, Eagle Road, with residential uses in between. Connections between the employment areas are limited, putting traffic on the surrounding arterial system or cutting through residential streets. 0 1,000 US Feet 0 Franklin Rd -y . Q — - - —— — — — — — ———— —— —— —,— - - `_ — —— — — —— — — —— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 Springwood Dr w a o m 11 o I 1 J I ,Ni I i ' i I Watertower St I Allen St St Lukes I �Opdtx�d9e�� I �. AE I h I I 1 Central Dr Cadillac Dr - + N 1 1 I ISU , +• r 1 /// I Icom L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �- Overland Rd Expanded Study Area I=.I Focus Study Area Water Figure 1 . Project StudyArea January 22,2026 Page 3 Plan Review,Land Use Analysis,and Initial Concepts KNOWN CHALLENGES City staff, stakeholders, and previous planning efforts have identified challenges in the project area related to transportation and public health. Figure 2 illustrates the key challenges within the project area identified through stakeholder meetings, discussions with City staff, and reviewing previous plans. Stakeholder meetings focused primarily on Central Drive, Locust Grove Road, and Eagle Road, where concerns included inefficient connections, congestion, and motor vehicle speeds, particularly near ISU and St. Luke's Medical Center. These conversations also identified pedestrian crossing needs and concerns related to neighborhood cut-through traffic. Further, the low-density residential development between Locust Grove and Wells Street and south of the subdivision located along Woodbridge Drive is on individual well and septic systems. According to City staff, this has created environmental and public health concerns as these systems age and could potentially leak into ground water. Some of these parcels are adjacent to existing City services and could be connected; however, others must wait for connections to be made further into the subdivision before they could connect. The project area has also been identified as an area for future development in the 2019 Meridian Comprehensive Plan identifying a mix of uses for this area. Enhanced transportation connectivity and public utilities access will be important to realizing this vision. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. N W Meridian C Storey Park i > Cemetery -la :a y E Springwood Dr ' � +J c I; 7 W ro4 I 0 E Autumn Way �n ch�drk I � Watertower St O 0 I I I — — — — OE St Luke's daho StateCorporate Dr — 1 Woodbridge Dr *, Meridian Police I ISU i Medical Center I I Future I Expansion0 I 3 a I L Q © Central Dr0 00 .O j L ISU Meridian ` �- ■ h • • �� Figure 2. Known Challenges 0 0.1 0.2 Miles OCircuitous routing to Meridian Rd 0 Aging wells and septic systems © Intersection near a curve O Cut through traffic on Woodbridge Dr © Concerns about speeds and school traffic safety along Central Dr 0 Long queue for the Eagle Rd on-ramp OPedestrian crossing needs between ICOM/ISU campus to parking lot O Only full access between Franklin Rd and I-84 0 Traffic congestion at the Locust Grove Rd/Central Dr intersection QD Concerns about speeds, congestion, and safety on St Luke's St January 22,2026 Page 5 Plan Review,Land Use Analysis,and Initial Concepts Plan Review This section identifies adopted and in-process plans that are relevant to this project and were provided by City staff. Specifically, it reviews previously identified and future projects that may impact transportation within the study area.Table 1 summarizes the documents reviewed. Table 1 Planning Documents Reviewed Document(Year) Relevant Information Staff Report(2024) City of Meridian Staff Report Analysis of proposed site access, multiuse about the ISU annexation pathway extension, and parking design request. standards compliance.The project will be incorporated into the city's comprehensive plan; no planned unit development is currently proposed. Land Use Plan Hand sketches of proposed Identifies 2017 existing road conditions and (2017) land use changes on printed potential traffic calming locations. maps. Magic Bridge Provides concept plans for the Identifies alternative roadway alignments Concept Plan study area through the study area, as well as potential (2019) land-uses, including parks, and trails. Meridian Accesses the bicycle and Recommend bicycle improvements for Downtown pedestrian network and Stratford-Central Drive and Watertower Neighborhood anticipates needs within Street corridors, plus crossing Transportation Plan downtown Meridian area improvements at Locust Grove (2017, Update in Road/Woodbridge Drive. 2023/2024) My Meridian Part of the My Meridian Identifies three land-use and transportation Specific Area Comprehensive Plan Update concepts for the study area. Three concepts: Summary(2019) "A regional focus", "A grand boulevard" and" An urban enclave"were put forward for public discussion, each with a different roadway network strategy. ISU Campus Site 2022 ISU Campus Site Plan Identifies new parking garage location as a Plan (2022) six-story building positioned north of East Central Drive and west of South Locust Grove Road. Transportation ISU annexation TIS Recommends signal timing adjustments and Impact Studies addition of a southbound right-turn lane at the (2024) Central Drive/Locust Grove Road intersection. Recommends a second westbound through lane Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 22,2026 Page 6 Plan Review,Land Use Analysis,and Initial Concepts on Central Drive. Staff Report H-2019-0127 Andorra Senior Includes a project description and proposed (2019 Living concept design for access routes, pathways, sidewalks, and parkways Staff Report H-2020-0078 1625 E. Bentley Includes analysis of the existing access and road (2020) Drive network and proposes a new roundabout plan. ACHD FYP Ada County Highway District Includes a project where ACHD plans to replace Five Year Plan for fiscal years Wells Street Bridge#1224 over Five Mile Creek, 2026-2030 designed to accommodate future widening from two to three lanes with curb, gutter, and sidewalks in 2029. Land Use Analysis Attachment "A" provides a comprehensive analysis of current conditions and future growth potential within the project area. The document highlights the existing land uses, zoning and housing characteristics, while evaluating development (new and redevelopment) potential in the project area. Key findings from this analysis include: Existing Conditions/Zoning- Most of the area is a mix of commercial and residential zones.A significant portion of the area is currently under the zoning jurisdiction of the County. Furthermore, the study area is dominated by Community Business (C-G)zoning, which makes up nearly half of the total land.This is complemented by low-density residential zones, primarily R-1, R-2, and R-4, and Limited Office (L-O), which define much of the area's residential character. Smaller clusters of other residential, commercial, and limited industrial zones add diversity to the overall land use pattern. Future Land Use- The future land use plan includes a mix of residential, commercial, mixed-use, civic, and office areas, with commercial uses making up the largest share of the study area. Currently, the study area is roughly 40% of commercial and office space, with the remaining split between residential neighborhoods and mixed-use developments. Some County-zoned areas may be annexed into the City of Meridian, with future redevelopment following the City's land use plan. Housing Characteristics- Housing in the study area is primarily low to medium density, with most homes being single-family detached houses.There are fewer attached homes and multifamily buildings. Vacant Land and Redevelopment Opportunities-About 9% of the land is undeveloped, mainly near S Meridian Rd and E Locust Grove Rd and in the northeast near N Eagle Rd. Several older commercial areas east of S Locust Grove Rd are underutilized, offering strong redevelopment opportunities. Future Growth Projections (Housing)- The analysis highlights anticipated future residential growth may be most likely in the southeastern portion of the study area, near S Allen Street and N Eagle Road, with some additional growth in smaller pockets near E Franklin Road. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 22,2026 Page 7 Plan Review,Land Use Analysis,and Initial Concepts Future Growth Projections (Jobs) - The analysis projects the potential addition of approximately 1,338 new jobs across the area. Map 7, Employment Projections suggest that the highest concentrations of job growth could be expected near N Eagle Road and S Meridian Road, where darker purple shading indicates up to 166 additional jobs. Initial Concept Development & Evaluation Based on our previous land use analysis, discussions with the City, and stakeholder interviews, five alignment alternatives for a new east-west collector have been developed.These concepts consider adopted future land-use designations and other changes completed since the Comprehensive Plan's adoption.The project team has also completed a high-level evaluation of the concepts against the project's objectives.A more detailed evaluation will be completed on three concepts selected by the City for further evaluation. INITIAL CONCEPTS Five initial concepts were developed to improve connectivity and address challenges shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 illustrates these concepts. The concepts are primarily focused on connecting Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road; however, they also include options for increasing connectivity west of Locust Grove Road and east of Eagle Road. Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road The project team has developed five concepts connecting Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road. They are described below and shown in more detail in Attachment "B." The five concepts include: ■ Concept A— Existing Roads— Uses the existing road network to make the connection. To facilitate this connection, intersection control upgrades would be recommended at E Woodbridge Dr/S Locust Grove Rd and E Magic View Cir/S Wells St.Traffic calming measures may be required along segments with front-on housing to mitigate traffic volumes and speeds.Alternatively, if avoiding impacts to front-on housing is prioritized, a new short section could be built through open space east of Thornwood Way; however, this space is narrow and traffic noise and lighting would likely impact adjacent residences. Finally, a connection could be made using unopened right-of-way between Autumn Way and E Bowstring Street to improve north-south connectivity; however, this connection could also increase cut-through traffic on adjacent residential streets. ■ Concept B— Northern Connection—Creates new direct connections, from E Central Dr at the ISU/West Ada Complex through the existing Idaho Post Academy to E Watertower St. as well as a second connection from S Stratford Dr through S Locust Grove Rd to S Wells St, routed behind existing residential properties.This alignment would require crossing through the Idaho POST Academy and over Fivemile Creek.The Stratford Dr to Wells St connection may generate noise and light impacts to adjacent properties. To mitigate these concerns, the alternative could be shifted slightly southward to increase the buffer distance from residential properties. However, the Locust Grove Road intersection may not meet ACHD access spacing requirements for a minor arterial. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 22,2026 Page 8 Plan Review,Land Use Analysis,and Initial Concepts Should this alternative move forward, modifications to address ACHD access policy may need to be incorporated during design. ■ Concept C—Central-Tonino— Uses the existing S Tonino Ave to form most of the connection between S Locust Grove Rd and S Wells St. S Tonino Ave would need to be extended to meet S Wells Street and the existing section would need to be widened to meet ACHD collector standards. While the current Tonino Ave alignment is not ideal for direct connectivity, the curved alignment discourages speeding. This alternative would likely result in the lowest property impacts; however, the internal alignment may limit future redevelopment potential for non-residential land use. ■ Concept D—Central Drive Extension— Extends E Central Dr to S Wells St, primarily through new road segments. Existing road sections would need to be widened to meet ACHD collector standards. It could also be extended past S Wells St.This concept is similar to the "Grand Boulevard" concept in the My Meridian Comprehensive Plan Update. ■ Concept E—Comprehensive Plan Alignment—Creates a new connection from E Central Dr to S Well St through a new road fronting I-84. It includes an option for a connection across Locust Grove Rd to further local connectivity and alignment with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan's goals.This alignment is similar to the preferred scenario in the My Meridian Comprehensive Plan Update. OTHER OPPORTUNITIES In addition to the connections described in the previous section, the project team has identified other opportunities to improve transportation connectivity, operations, and safety in the study area based on previous plans and conversations with City staff and area stakeholders. Figure 3 illustrates these opportunities. West of Locust Grove Road The concepts generally have similar opportunities for connectivity west of Locust Grove Road. Currently, traffic associated with ISU, ICOM,West Ada School District facilities, and other uses along Central Drive must travel indirect routes via Corporate Drive or Industry Way to access Meridian Road—Main Street.As development in the area continues, improved connectivity will be increasingly important. Figure 3 presents multiple options for improving connectivity west of Locust Grove Road, including: ■ Extending Central Drive to Meridian Road ■ Extending Corporate Drive to Central Drive ■ Constructing a new collector roadway near I-84 ■ Realigning Central Drive to intersect Stratford Drive more directly. None of these options are shown on the current ACHD MSM, which currently includes the existing alignments of Central Drive, Watertower Street, Corporate Drive, and Stratford Drive. The routing shown as "preferred" in the figure was identified as such due to its limited right-of-way impacts and use of the existing signalized intersections at Corporate Drive and Meridian Road-Main Street, rather than concentrating traffic at the Central Drive/Meridian Road intersection. Confirming this routing as the preferred alternative will require additional analysis, including traffic operations modeling, coordination with affected property owners, and evaluation of pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 22,2026 Page 9 Plan Review,Land Use Analysis,and Initial Concepts During stakeholder engagement with ISU, ICOM and West Ada School District,the following additional opportunities for potential transportation improvements were identified: ■ Traffic calming and operational improvements along Central Drive to manage speeds and improve safety along Central Drive. ■ Enhanced connections across Central Drive to ISU East of Eagle Road East of Eagle Road, the MSM reflects a new collector-level connection between St Lukes Street and Louise St.This connection is shown in Figures 3. St Lukes Street is currently a private road. The connection between St Lukes Street and Louise St is also through private property. Completing this connection would potentially reduce cut-through traffic through the eastern portion of the St Luke's campus and the existing Portico-Buffalo Wild Wings parking lot. However, it could also potentially increase traffic along St Lukes Street between this connection and Eagle Road. Further discussion needs to occur between the City, St. Luke's and ACHD regarding the current MSM reflection of a new proposed collector at this location. Further evaluation of the current proposed MSM collector and potential alternatives may also be needed. Through stakeholder engagement with St. Luke's additional safety enhancements were identified. The safety enhancements include safer pedestrian crossings and measures to reduce cut-through traffic and vehicle speeds along St. Lukes Street, where St Lukes staff noted that existing and anticipated traffic volumes create safety concerns for patients, staff, and visitors. They also expressed a desire for additional intersection enhancement to improve intersection operations. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Franklin Rd r • I� ° Springwood Dr y C9 v O W • I E Autumn Way I ' • Watertower St • , E Bowstring St seen I sell _ ■ •nl• �0 Obridge V ' ' ' II Allen St St Lukes •fill h stele 3� I fsfs• soft• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • , sees• Cadillac Dr l •� • • s l • , en@e Central DrNJ----—- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' •nee ISU I � � � ` � � _ ,■ � � � • � 7 � ICOM e • + � e 1i l / Figure 3. Initial Collector Road Concepts Concept A - Existing Roads _ Focus Study Area Existing Road Concept 6 - Northern Connection Expanded Study Area Potential New Road Concept C - Central - Tonino 1 Planned roundabout (ACHD Master Street Map) Concept D - Central Drive Extension Intersection Improvements (All Concepts) Concept E - Concept Plan Alignment ACHD MSM Collector Preservation January 22,2026 Page 10 Plan Review,Land Use Analysis,and Initial Concepts INITIAL CONCEPT EVALUATION The project team evaluated each concept for connecting Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road at a high-level according to the following criteria: ■ Land Use: o How might the connection facilitate redevelopment potential? o How might the connection impact the function of existing land-uses? ■ Transportation & Utilities: o How well might the connection create a viable alternative to using arterials? o What roadway improvements and traffic calming measures are needed to support the alternative? o Will the alternative impact existing roadway infrastructure? o How might the connection facilitate the extension of public water and sewer services? ■ Feasibility: o What are the potential right-of-way impacts? o What other cost or construction considerations might impact the feasibility of the connection? o Will the concept generate new development in the study area? Table 1 summarizes the results of this evaluation. In addition to this high-level evaluation, the project team also evaluated each concept against quantitative metrics (e.g., number of parcels impacted, miles of new roadway construction).This evaluation is included in Attachment"C." Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 22,2026 Page 11 Plan Review,Land Use Analysis,and Initial Concepts Table 1 Initial Concept Evaluation Criteria . . Concept A Some homes front on Not a direct Roads already exist the roadway, reducing connection, requires and the connection livability and property using Locust Grove could be enhanced appeal. Rd. and circuitous with intersection • Alternative option routing through a upgrades. would impact open subdivision. Upgrading existing space and adjacent Unlikely to facilitate roads to ACHD properties and may the extension of collector standards require taking property. public water and would impact • Unlikely to spur sewer services. adjacent properties. redevelopment. Least environmental disturbance. Concept B • Road behind houses Unless the road is Right-of-way could create noise and also extended west of acquisition needed light impacts to Locust Grove Rd., —full parcels may adjacent homes on local traffic would still need to be both sides. need to use Locust required, • Unlikely to spur Grove Rd. for a short depending on duration to make this redevelopment. connection. location and • Could maintain existing Direct connection condition of septic neighborhood character from Locust Grove and other and infrastructure Road to Wells St. infrastructure. • Likely to facilitate the • Entirely new road extension of public from Locust Grove water and sewer Rd. to Wells St. services to only a 0 Fivemile Creek limited area. crossing required. Concept • Internal alignment may • Provides a direct 0 Potentially lowest limit redevelopment connection across right-of-way potential for non- Locust Grove Rd.from impacts of routes residential land use. Central Dr. requiring new road • Some homes front on 0 Circuitous routing. construction. the roadway, reducing • Traffic calming may Existing roads livability and property be required if front- would need to be appeal. on housing remains. widened to ACHD • Large parcels reduce 0 Likely to facilitate the collector standards, the likelihood of extension of public which could impact properties being split or water and sewer adjacent properties. rendered unusable. services to a Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 22,2026 Page 12 Plan Review,Land Use Analysis,and Initial Concepts Criteria . . Feasibility moderate amount of Fivemile Creek the area. crossing could potentially be avoided, but one may be required. Concept D Opportunity to create 0 Most direct Significant right-of- linear park/greenway connection from way needs. along roadway. Central Dr. to Wells 0 Requires some new • Opportunity for larger St. road construction. redevelopment projects • Option to extend the • Existing roads through parcel connection to Allen would need to be assembly. Success of St. to further local widened to ACHD this hinges on road connectivity. collector standards. successful coordination • Likely to facilitate the • Avoids crossing with landowners. extension of public Fivemile Creek • Limited front on water and sewer unless extended to housing. services widely Allen St. • Bisects an existing through the area. neighborhood. Concept • Provides visibility from 9 Does not require 0 Potentially Locust Grove Rd. and I- using Locust Grove significant right-of- 84 for commercial Rd. way needs. development. Visibility 9 Some out-of- 0 Concept is mostly (even without direct direction travel. new roads. access) makes the 0 Potential grade- 0 May not be corridor attractive for separated crossing of sufficient space retail, service, and Locust Grove Rd. between 1-84 and mixed-use projects. would further existing buildings • Additional connections increase connectivity. for the southern from the frontage Likely to facilitate the alignment for the alignment up to Central extension of public east-end of the Drive could stimulate water and sewer connection, which development on the services to a could lead to more east side of Locust moderate amount of circuitous travel and Grove Rd. the area. right-of-way needs. • Extending west of Locust Grove would be complex and costly. • Avoids crossing Fivemile Creek. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. January 22,2026 Page 13 Plan Review,Land Use Analysis,and Initial Concepts Based on this initial evaluation and input from the city, Concepts C, D, and E, shown in Figure 4, were moved forward for further evaluation.These concepts more effectively support future redevelopment potential, improve connectivity, and facilitate the expansion of public water and sewer infrastructure, key objectives of the City's long-range planning efforts. In contrast, Concepts A and B provide limited support for future redevelopment and are less likely to facilitate addressing public health and environmental concerns associated with aging well and septic systems east of Locust Grove Road. Additionally, these two concepts would continue to rely on Locust Grove Road for east—west travel between the Central Drive area and areas east of Eagle Road, limiting their ability to improve overall network connectivity. The concepts shown in Figure 4 also narrow down the number of connections shown west of Locust Grove Road.Watertower Street does not connect to Meridian Road, so the concepts moved forward focus on Central Drive and Corporate Drive. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Franklin Rd I� > I� I v ° Springwood Drce vs 0 ID '~ W O E Autumn Way I ' I Watertower St E Bowstring St I Woodbridge V Allen St St Lukes . . . . zz- 3� I • • - I Cadillac Dr n no Central Dr ISU ICOM `'it eL Figure 4. Initial Concepts C, D, & E Concept C - Central - Tonino r _ Focus Study Area Existing Road Concept D - Central Drive Extension Expanded Study Area Potential New Road Concept E - Concept Plan Alignment Planned roundabout (ACHD Master Street Map) R Intersection Improvements (All Concepts) ACHD MSM Collector Preservation A • A Y V Y L O G A N S I M P G O N 21 January 2026 STRATFORD TO TOUCHMARK TRANSPORTATION CONNECTION FEASIBILITY REPORT LAND USE ANALYSIS Existing Conditions The Stratford to Touch mark Transportation Study Area includes a mix of residential, commercial,and industrial land uses. Understanding these existing conditions provides a baseline for evaluating redevelopment potential, land use changes,and future growth patterns. ZONING Zoning within the study area consists of primarily residential and commercial uses,with small portions of industrial throughout. However,there is a significant portion of the area that is not within the City of Meridian and is currently under the jurisdiction of the County. Table 1: Acreage and Percent of Study Area by Zoning District Zoning District Acreage Percentage C-G(General Retail&Service Commercial) 468.3 acres 45.2% R1 (Estate Residential—County) 167.6 acres 16.2% L-O(Limited Office) 116.2 acres 11.2% R-4(Medium-Low Density Residential) 80.8 acres 7.8% RUT(Rural-Urban Transition—County) 79.4 acres 7.7% I-L(Light Industrial) 50.8 acres 4.9% R2(Low Density Residential—County) 28.6 acres 2.8% R-15(Medium-High Density Residential) 11.4 acres 1.1% C-C(Community Business) 9.5 acres 0.9% R-8(Medium Density Residential) 6.3 acres 0.6% R-40(Medium Density Residential) 6.2 acres 0.6% C-N (Neighborhood Business) 4.7 acres 0.5% R-2(Low Density Residential) 4.4 acres 0.4% R6(Medium Density Residential—County) 1.4 acres 0.1% Total 1,035.6 acres 100% The zoning pattern is characterized by a significant concentration of Community Business(C-G)zoning, which alone accounts for nearly half of the study area.This is followed by substantial areas of low- density residential zoning, including R-1 and Limited Office(L-O) districts,which together establish the residential character of much of the area.Smaller pockets of other residential and commercial districts, along with limited industrial zoning,further diversify the overall land use structure. These distributions establish the framework for current land use,density,and development intensity within the study area. Map 1 illustrates the geographic distribution of zoning districts. 1 Map 1: Zoning E,F,,,,*1n•Rd 3 �.,cilral Ur I— Q Study Area Zoning ` _Footprints `�,C-C Rivers&Streams C-G - ----- - �'1 L vftk'bodies r,C-N Interstates I_L - - - - - Roads L-O - 0 study Area 0-7 -_ L,' 1 i. .� R-15 - _LIL - R-2 - _ - R-q R40 - _ 1 I RI(County) _ R2(County) R6(County) - -�.. �RUT(county) - — _- - _ L t- - ---D 0.1 0.3 Miles I i I FUTURE LAND USE The study area contains a diverse range of future land use categories, reflecting the range of residential, commercial,and mixed-use development patterns within Meridian. Primaryfuture land uses include Civic, Low and Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use—Community, Mixed Use—Neighborhood, Office,and Commercial,with the largest acreage occupied by Commercial land uses.The following table summarizes the distribution of future land uses within the study area. Table 2: Future Land Use Acreages Future Land Use Type Acreage Percentage Commercial 336.4 acres 33.2% Civic 158.7 acres 15.6% Medium Density Residential 148.8 acres 14.7% Mixed Use—Neighborhood 100.5 acres 9.9% Mixed Use—Community 96.2 acres 9.5% Low Density Residential 79.7 acres 7.9% Office 54.8 acres 5.4% General Industrial 39.4 acres 3.9% 1-84 Right of Way 21.2 acres 2.1% Total 1,035.6 acres 100% 2 In total,the study area is roughly 40%of commercial and office space,followed by residential and mixed-use areas. One key difference between the zoning and future land use of the area is the incorporation of R1, R2, R6, RUT zoning districts within the Future Land Use map.Aside from zoning, Ada County does not plan long-term for unincorporated enclaves or unincorporated parcels if they are within the City's Impact Area. If the property owners of these unincorporated enclaves are interested in being annexed and incorporating into the City, redevelopment would be guided by the City Meridian Future Land Use designations. Map 2 shows the distribution of future land use categories throughout the study area. Map 2: Future Land Use I - - - - -= - E FrankliniRd - - —J t--_————— I F� EiWWWier Rd '��� I / ----- --.r—T�! - of+sue A n S�1 ;,(ff St � I ! � z ----------- E Central Dr — - - - p study area Future Land Use — __!� L`_ L Footprints Civic _ - .� - _ LL 1 _ County Zoning %Commercial — 1— Districts General Industrial .. — L Rivers&Streams High Density _ -� Waterbodies Residential Interstates Mixed Use- Roads Community Mixed Use- Neighborhood '. �' -�� = I,_ Medium Density - Residential Office tr'- I0 0.1 0.3Miles� HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS The study area contains approximately 590 dwelling units, representing a mix of housing types and densities. Most of these units are concentrated within the R-4 and R-15 zoning districts,which together account for roughly 365 units(about 62%of all dwelling units).The next largest share is located outside the City of Meridian's zoning jurisdiction,within the County's R1, R2, and RUT districts.These County- zoned areas contain approximately 35%of dwelling units in the study area.The remaining share is distributed across the R-2 and R-8 districts. Overall, housing intensity in the study area is characterized by low-and medium-density residential patterns,with housing stock dominated by single-family detached homes,supported by a smaller 3 presence of attached housing and multifamily structures.This distribution generally aligns with the existing zoning framework; lower-intensity residential uses are more common in the County-zoned districts,while higher-density and more diverse housing types are concentrated within City-zoned areas. In terms of development intensity, residential densities across the study area typically fall at or below 3 dwelling units per acre.The highest concentrations of housing are located along E Locust Grove Road, which serves as the central corridor for existing residential development. Map 3 illustrates the distribution of residential units throughout the study area. Map 3: Residential & Non-Residential Buildings IF t L L _- --- E Franklin Rd L � weridEaa�� � i� =L c c L� �� •� 41 L-' U� ■cam Bark Park, f I ■■ kLlLLLL4 L u.q L �_ L ` L ..,,4.,, `..:�kuui ` jo ! i E-WateAowerRtl v�rti: 4 4. kL ! I ■ it ■ ■ 1tr� L t spl�nme i.•: y E-Central-Dr ]abll S L 4 J� L- � it ILL -I- , Study Area --- — ` Parks&Open Space L - - L ' Waterbodies `L4 LL Rivers&Streams - - I t - L i _ I Interstates — Roads - 1. � S Nor-Residential Buildings 9 I N Residential Buildings D 0.1 a 3 Miles Rams Pak I 4 Vacant Lands and Redevelopment Opportunities Vacant lands and underutilized parcels within the study area will playa key role in shaping future growth. Underutilized properties were determined by comparing the parcel's assessed improvement value,or the value of structures on the parcel,and the assessed land value. Parcels with improvement- to-land value ratio less than the land itself and may therefore be candidates for redevelopment. Approximately nine percent of residential and commercial land remains vacant,concentrated in two primary locations:the commercial centers between S Meridian Rd and E Locust Grove Rd on the west side of the study area,and the northeast portion near N Eagle Rd.Several commercial areas east of S Locust Grove Rd and parts of the residential Locust View Heights neighborhood are underutilized, offering possible opportunities for reinvestment. Collectively,these conditions create a development landscape where both new construction and redevelopment are likely to occur in the future.Table 3 summarizes the distribution of vacant lands and parcels expected to evolve through new development or reinvestment. Map 4 illustrates the distribution of Vacant and Redevelopment Opportunities throughout the study area. Table 3: Vacant & Redevelopment Opportunities Acreages Category Acres Percentage Stable Lands 587.4 acres 65.2% Evolve(Redevelopment Potential) 191.6 acres 9.7% Vacant 134 acres 9.5% Right of Way(ROW) 122.6 acres 15.6% Total 1,035.6 acres 100% 5 Map 4: Vacant & Redevelopment Opportunities E•Franklini Rd .a. E�Sprin`gwo r� �.t _ L L - - L I-`L -L - - ` _ L _ ` glum Way- 1 g L L=�L` L L E-N!terta over-Rd L�o ( E Bow tring �'N 4 LL, m -�� _ m sc �Le�aAiC,_L, —h L C: ___ _ _ iE W Crr ��--5 Allen St LL, z. _ — E-Genlral Dr — - i\ I_ L \ - 11 Study Area Vacant& L_ Footprints Redevelopment Rivers&Streams Opportunities Waterbodies Evolve Road-Labels Stable Intarstates ®Vacant nr Roads 0 0.25 Miles I Areas of Change Model & Methodology The Future Areas of Change for the Meridian Transportation Study Area were modeled at the parcel level. Each parcel was evaluated to reflect existing conditions as well as potential future uses for both commercial and residential land,with consideration given to changes in land use,density, and redevelopment potential. The analysis identified development potential by cataloging vacant parcels and assessing redevelopment opportunities and constraints.This framework draws on the 2018 Meridian Comprehensive Plan and provides a parcel-level evaluation of where future change is most likelyto occur. Both commercial and residential lands were analyzed to highlight areas that are stable,evolving, or vacant.The criteria used to build the model are summarized below. Likely Land Use Change(Score=1).Areas of likely land use change were evaluated by analyzing Meridian's Zoning and Future Land Use.Areas that fellwithin this criterion were based on both primary residential and commercial zoning districts that changed within the City's Future Land Use.The misalignment between zoning and future land use suggests that future land use changes will have to be made to accommodate future development within the area. Change in Density(Score=1). Density shifts were considered by identifying locations where the adopted Future Land Use Plan anticipates higher intensity housing or mixed-use development 6 compared to existing zoning allowances.These areas highlight the City's expectation for more efficient land use patterns and potential redevelopment pressure, particularly along corridors and near employment centers where increased density supports transportation and housing goals. Commercial Buildings>20 Years Old(Score=1). Older commercial buildings often represent opportunities for reinvestment, redevelopment,or adaptive reuse. Properties with buildings more than 20 years old may no longer meet modern market demands, building codes,or consumer preferences, and are therefore more susceptible to transition.These areas are important to capture in the model as they may represent the next generation of commercial revitalization in Meridian. Areas with an Active Entitlement or within Preliminary Plat(Score=1). Parcels that have active entitlements or within approved preliminary plats represent near-term development opportunities. These areas have already undergone an initial entitlement process,which signals a high likelihood of imminent change. Incorporating active entitlements and preliminary plats into the analysis provides a forward-looking measure of where growth is most immediately expected to occur. Vacant Lands(Score=2).Vacant lands, particularly those within or adjacent to the city limits and service areas,are prime candidates for future development.With limited barriers to redevelopment, these sites often represent the most straightforward growth opportunities. Identifying vacant parcels highlights where greenfield development may expand Meridian's residential and commercial footprint. Commercial Floor Area Ratio(FAR)(Score=1 for FAR<=20%). Low-intensity commercial properties with relatively low Floor Area Ratios(FAR) may indicate underutilized land.These areas have the physical capacity to accommodate additional development,either through vertical expansion or site redevelopment. In the context of future growth, underbuilt parcels present opportunities for more efficient land use and higher-value redevelopment. Parcels Over 5 Acres(Score=1).Large parcels represent opportunities for master-planned development or significant land divisions. Because of their size,these sites can accommodate a mix of Land uses or more comprehensive community design. Including larger parcels in the AOC analysis helps flag locations where substantial new development could occur in a single phase. 100-Year Floodplain(Score=-2). Floodplain areas constrain development potential, but they also guide where growth will be redirected. Parcels significantly impacted by the 100-year floodplain are less likely to develop intensively,which shifts demand toward alternative sites. Including this factor ensures the model accounts for natural hazards and the regulatory environment that shapes where growth can realistically occur. Improvement-to-Land Ratio.A traditional AOC scoring method was applied by evaluating the ratio of improvement value to land value on commercial and residential parcels.This metric reflects whether a property is underperforming relative to the land it occupies. 7 • Evolve(Score=1): Parcels with an improvement-to-land value ratio of less than 1, suggesting the land may be worth more than the existing structures.These areas are prime candidates for redevelopment or transition. ■ Stable(Score=-1): Parcels with a ratio greater than or equal to 1, indicating that improvements are generating sufficient value relative to the land.These properties are less likely to redevelop in the near term. This scoring helps distinguish between properties with latent redevelopment potential and those that are currently stable, refining the AOC model. Table 4: Summary of Areas of Change Analysis Variables Variable Condition/Threshold Weight Likely Land Use Change Zoning Misaligned with Future Land Use +1 Change in Density Future Land Use Density>current zoning intensity +1 Commercial Buildings>20 Years Primary commercial structure age>20 years +1 Active Entitlements&Preliminary Parcels with active entitlements or within approved +1 Plat Parcels preliminary plat boundary Vacant Lands Parcel has no primary development +2 Commercial FAR(Underbuilt) FAR below"low"threshold(0.2) +1 Parcels Over 5 Acres Parcel Area >5 Acres +1 100-Year Floodplain >50% parcel area in FEMA 100-Year floodplain -2 Improvement to Land Ratio Parcel Improvement Value+ Land Value< 1.0 +1 Parcel Improvement Value+ Land Value>- 1.0 -1 The Areas of Change(AOC)score was calculated by summing the values assigned to each variable in the analysis. Most variables were assigned a value of+1 when present,while vacant parcels were weighted at+2 to emphasize their higher likelihood of development due to limited barriers to change. Parcels with more than 50 percent of their area located in the 100-year floodplain were assigned-2, reflecting significant development constraints,and commercial parcels with an improvement-to-land (I/L) ratio greater than or equal to 1 were assigned-1 to indicate stability.The resulting formula can be expressed as: Areas of Change Score = E(All Variable Scores) Scores were then categorized to provide a simple interpretation framework:-2 to 1 =Stable areas, 2= Potential to Change,3=More Likely to Change,and 4-6=Most Likely to Change.This scoring approach allows both commercial and residential parcels to be evaluated consistently while accounting for physical, economic, and regulatory drivers of change. Based on the Areas of Change(AOC) model, parcels most likely to experience future change are concentrated within the commercial and office areas in the western and northeastern portions of the study area.These locations score high in the model due to factors such as building age, low floor area ratio(FAR), misalignment between current zoning and future land use designations,the presence of vacant land,and low improvement-to-land value ratios.The Locust Grove neighborhood, located in the southern part of the study area, also exhibits higher AOC scores due to a combination of these 8 variables.Although this area currently lies outside the City's zoning jurisdiction, its designation within the Future Land Use Plan suggests that annexation and associated land use or density changes may occur in the future.Additionally,several parcels with active entitlements or preliminary plats indicate near-term development or redevelopment potential.The model highlights these areas because of the combined influence of multiple variables evaluated in the analysis, reflecting how different development, market, and policy factors interact to identify where change is most likely to occur. Map 5 shows the final Areas of Change results for the study area. Map 5: Areas of Change ` L t LL L L L �L L _ L � C —` i— L L L L Li L— IL LL L \' l [1- Lt S — t f E•Franklin•Rd - L L it �I -0r —E A,w-way — L 2 c - —r- atert o — -'EB wstring m. gLNW m St f '1. 'ag,c r w � .LLLI I_ � 5-gden-5[��IF w E - ��� a E e.nt aI er — F� - -- - - L.L 17 L L _ I L L `L l L_ - L L L`t _ — L L L L `L L— 4_ L L tiLT L f L L L i t` � L L I L-I_LL L�- L LO study Area Areas of Change t `� L L `t LFootprints µ, i LL L— p Areas of Stability --`I�L Lr-i LL L L L — Rivers&Streams Areas of Potential to L Li L= 4 L Waterhodies Change L tnterstates —Areas More Likely to � i- LL- i I Roads Change E L, L L Areas Most Likely to a' Change N L 1 Lc L � 01 3 files 9 Future Growth Projections HOUSING PROJECTIONS Due to differences between current zoning designations and the City's future land use plan,additional housing units may be in areas not strictly aligned with existing zoning.This analysis projects where future residential development is likely to occur, assuming three buildout scenarios—Low, Medium, and High—based on allowable densities for each land use type. Parcels were classified by land use category and assigned a corresponding density based on the residential densities for each future land use category in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. Mixed-use parcels were adjusted to account for the proportion of land likely devoted to residential development, ranging from 6-12 units per acre on 40-60%of the area. Non-residential parcels and parcels located within the 100-year floodplain were either excluded or scaled to reflect development feasibility. Three buildout scenarios were calculated for each parcel: 1. Low: minimum allowable density 2. Average:average of minimum and maximum allowable densities 3. High: maximum allowable density For each scenario,the analysis estimates the total projected units, representing the potential magnitude of housing growth.The projections illustrate areas where development is most likely to occur, providing a spatial representation of potential residential growth patterns to inform planning and infrastructure considerations.Table 5 breaks down the current residential units within the study area and projected units for each buildout scenario. Table 4: Current and Projected Dwelling Units in Study Area Buildout Scenario Current Number of Projected Number of Change in Number of Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Minimum Density 593 Units 686 Units +93 Units Scenario Average Density 593 Units 1,150 Units +557 Units Scenario(shown in Map 6) Maximum Density 593 Units 1,613 Units +1,020 Units Scenario Map 6 illustrates where residential development may occur with an average-intensity buildout scenario. 10 Map 6: Future Residential Development Projections --- F — F-Franklin Rd L M-1dian Pool L •• i L — t StareY L L— T -7 Park - ~� �LI. L. s.. �. t L`t -L _ 4 I L Sta..V LL LI LL_N L Sark Park L— L L—LL_ E-Watertower-Rd LL L - L� f �. N L_`L 4 m i I- F _ L•�L_ L _ �P 4 t s Affen-St rn i, z L L L 4 yt L- `/L LLL E-Central-Or _ _--- - — s ]abll - f Fields - L II 0 Study Area Residential I _ Footprints Development Rivers&Streams Projections Waterhodies Little Future Residential Parks&Open Space development Interstates Roads High Future Residential Development �oreoa 0 0.1 0.3 Miles Han'is Park i i i JOB PROJECTIONS Future job growth was estimated by applying land use- based floor area ratios(FARs)and median square foot per employee factors to each parcel in the study area. Median square footage per employee factors were derived from the U.S. Energy Information Administration's 2018 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey(CBECS) (EIA, 2018). Floor Area Ratio estimations were derived from the 2016 Metropolitan Council's Local Planning Handbook(Metropolitan Council,2016). Employment projections were modelled based on the City of Meridian's Future Land Use Map developed as part of the City's 2019 Comprehensive Plan. Two primary methods were used for Mixed-Use(MU)and non-Mixed-Use parcels within the study area. For Mixed-Use areas,future employment projections were estimated at the Future Land Use level, specifically by aggregating all parcels'total lot square footage and applying both a commercial development fraction of 50%and a floor area ratio(FAR)to determine the total feasible commercial floor space.A Future Land Use-level aggregation was then performed to estimate the total potential newjobs with each MU designated parcel,factoring in the estimated FAR and proportion of commercial development.The total future jobs were then allocated proportionally to parcels based on lot size to account for a change to existing land uses or parcels to accommodate for future commercial growth in the area. 11 For non-Mixed-Use parcels, projected job growth was modelled based on a similar approach.The baseline number of jobs within the study area was estimated by taking the existing building's square footage by the median area per employee.While future job projections were estimated by applying a FAR value appropriate to the parcel's Future Land Use category. For each Future Land Use category, FAR values were assigned at 50th percentile reflecting the expected intensity of development for the City of Meridian.These ratios were chosen to balance planning assumptions and industry standards.The FAR values that were applied include: General Industrial(0.32), Commercial(0.28), Office(0.64),and Civic(0.28). Future job projections that were modelled by FAR values were applied to the total area of each parcel and divided by the median area per employee. Only parcels with redevelopment potential were assumed to capture additionaljobs,while stable parcels retained baseline employment levels.This approach prevents overestimation of job growth in locations unlikely to develop in the near future. Additionally, parcels with active entitlements or preliminary site plans,such as the expansion of the ISU Meridian Campus,were modelled based on the future built area rather than generalized FAR assumptions. Overall,the study area is expected to accommodate approximately 2,371 additional jobs by buildout. This estimate reflects both the spatial distribution of redevelopment potential and site-specific growth assumptions.These results provide a framework for understanding where growth is likely to occur and can inform planning and decision-making at the parcel level. Map 7 shows the distribution of projected job growth at the parcel level throughout the transportation study area. 12 Map 7: Additional Employment Projections —01 E•Frankfin, c` I EWaie�Mweyr�-Ryder- I - - � � S Aden St- �— O study Area Employment Projections L— Footprints No Additional lobs Waterbodies 1-10 Additonal lobs Rivers&Streams = 10-100 Addtional lobs Interstates = 100-500 Additonal Jobs Roads - Greater than 500 Additional lobs N 0.3 files 13 R • a Y V T L O G A N S I M V S U DRAFT-5 January 2026 STRATFORD TO TOUCHMARK TRANSPORTATION CONNECTION FEASIBILITY REPORT - ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS ANALYSIS Alternative Concept C — Central-Tonino klin Rd �_ ————r———f� storey Park `,.��_ I�6I_- v + •`I I C m tery ,.. ♦t I' _ %f. � i_- I .ire._ x: ^1 -r. Y 4 F= Idaho State � e°oabncv=o � I s' �Mezrldia� i dice i I i a'� -. _ � � MedlCarCenter O MerldlanIM, N Alternative Concept C - Central-Tonino 0 025 0.5 Miles I I I A Study Area Roadway Concepts Future Land Use Current Development Preferred Alignment- Civic O Front-on housing. Applications e»New Roadway Commercial Creeks&Canals Construction General Industrial ©Existing road would need to be widened Interstates Preferred Alignment- Low Density to collector standards. Roads ®Roadway Residential Improvements ©Fivernile Creek crossing. Existing Water and Preferred Alignment Medium Density Sewer Infrastructure Existing Roadway Residential Planned Water and Alternative Alignment- Mixed Use Sewer Infrastructure m New Roadway Community Construction Mixed Use- Alternative Alignment- Neighborhood o Roadway Office Improvements _Alternative Alignment- Existing Roadway Table 1: Metrics for Alternative C Metric Preferred Alternative Notes . Considerations Alignment Alignment Total New Roads(Miles) 0.33 0.40 Total includes both alternative connections to Wells St.Southern road connection is 0.15 miles Total Improved Roads 1.30 1.32 Expanded to meet ACHD ROW for collector level (Miles) road (70ft) Total Parcels Impacted 128 151 Within 300 ft of the road alignment (within 300ft) 1 Metric Preferred Alternative Notes and Considerations Alignment Alignment Total Parcels Directly 90 106 Easement needed for road construction or Impacted expansion Commercial 36 45 Residential 30 31 Vacant/Right-of-Way/Other 24 30 Total Buildings Impacted Buildings that are within 1 Oft of the expanded 70ft (within 1Oft of ROW) �10 �13 right-of-way(highest estimate) Total Parcels that may 10 9 Parcels that are bisected or otherwise diminished become Unusable to an unusable size(under 0.1 acres) Alternative Concept D — Central Drive Extension [ kl,Rrl ' storey Park _ 4' 7 a r,!.t F♦� t� I _ - t � Meridian � --/♦♦./1 � �° F�n �+� -� � ! Cemetery y �� _ r, -- _ '� �•'3 • 'fi q �_ ax�,.� ;rya�� ., � � .� _ L,I�!'' / r 1 ew i lowe.ed---- �—`��. ra, ys A IAA♦l� yI�� -. — ' l.. �, t °cr~A•; sA e„ys: iJ � StlLukes ��. I Idaho state F n Mendfari - �e ♦♦♦i I;Ito j � •3 7 � �♦♦��♦et�.., III Mendlan, JIM Alternative Concept D - Central Drive Extension o 0.25 0.5 Miles I II A Study Area Roadway Concepts Future Land Use O Opportunity to create linear parkl Current Development Preferred Alignment- Civic greenway along roadway. Applications New Roadway Commercial Creeks&Canals Construction General Industrial Interstates Preferred Alignment o Roadway Low Density Roads Improvements Residential Existing Water and Medium Density Sewer Infrastructure _Preferred Alignment Existing Roadway Residential Planned Water and Mixed Use- Sewer Infrastructure Alternative Alignment- Community New Roadway Construction Mixed Use- AlternativeAlignment- Neighborhood o Roadway office Improvements _Alternative Alignment- Existing Roadway 2 Table 2: Metrics for Alternative D Metric Preferred Alternative Notes and Considerations Alignment Alignment Total New Roads(Miles) 0.60 0.90 Total Improved Roads 0.68 1.17 Expanded to meet ACHD ROW for collector level (Miles) road(70ft) Total Parcels Impacted 121 145 Within 300 ft of the road alignment (within 300ft) Total Parcels Directly 83 101 Easement needed for road construction or Impacted expansion Commercial 37 50 Residential 23 23 Vacant/Right-of-Way/Other 23 28 Total Buildings Impacted -15 -20 Buildings that are within 10ft of the expanded (within 10ft of ROW) 70ft right-of-way(highest estimate) Total Parcels that may 6 7 Parcels that are bisected or otherwise become Unusable diminished to an unusable size(under 0.1 acres) 3 Alternative Concept E — Comprehensive Plan Alignment E F kl'n Hd _ �. �S�rey Park i I.� - � � +rK�' r � r :�;V.��„�•"�'t' � Meridia -L Fsp er+,F° �• — '� 1 1�; - er,�ae:°�'ew' •�.. m I St.Lukgaan, Mend'iari - ePi°iiin l.m�w�>aap wedaeea, �k Medlcal'Genhr k4*1, t '? 'f !•9l�.e ♦V� �-Yih 5. a r�t ISM Meridian © N Alternative Concept E - Comprehensive Plan Alignment ° 0.25 0.5MilesA Study Area Roadway Concepts Future Land Use O Significant school traffic and pedestrian Current Development Preferred Alignment- Civic crossings. Applications New Roadway Commercial Creeks&Canals Construction General Industrial Visibility from Locust Grove for Interstates Preferred Alignment- Low Density ©commercial redevelopment. o Roads Roadway Improvements Residential Existing Water and Medium Density Potential grade-separated crossing to Sewer Infrastructure _Preferred Alignment Residential ©increase connectivity. Existing Roadway it y Planned Water and Alternative Alignment- Mixed Use Sewer Infrastructure m New Roadway Community O Interstate visibility for commercial Construction Mixed Use redevelopment. Alternative Alignment- Neighborhood o Roadway office Improvements _Alternative Alignment- Existing Roadway Table 3: Metrics for Alternative E Metric Preferred Alternative Notes and Considerations Alignment Alignment Total New Roads(Miles) 0.77 1.73 Total Improved Roads 0.54 1.15 Expanded to meet ACHD ROW for collector level (Miles) road (70ft) Total Parcels Impacted 119 156 Within 300 ft of the road alignment (within 300ft) Total Parcels Directly g5 114 Easement needed for road construction or Impacted expansion Commercial 40 52 Residential 20 28 Vacant/Right-of- 25 34 Way/Other 4 Metric Preferred Alternative Notes and Considerations Alignment Alignment Total Buildings Impacted Buildings that are within 10ft of the expanded 70ft (within 10ft of ROW -14 -24 right-of-way(highest estimate) alignment) Total Parcels that may 8 10 Parcels that are bisected or otherwise diminished become Unusable to an unusable size(under 0.1 acres) Summary Comparison of Metrics Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative Preferred Atternativ Alignment Alignment Alignment Alignment Alignment Alignme]n Total New Roads(Miles) 0.16 0.15 0.60 0.90 0.67 0.93 Total Improved Roads 1.60 1.66 1.23 1.17 0.73 0.75 (Miles) Total Parcels Impacted 138 134 144 145 144 152 (within 300ft) Total Parcels Directly 96 96 103 101 102 110 Impacted Commercial 39 39 48 50 49 24 Residential 30 31 26 23 22 24 Vacant/ROW/Other 27 26 29 28 31 62 Total Buildings Impacted -12 -10 -18 -20 -17 -23 (within 10ft of ROW) Total Parcels that may 9 8 6 7 7 9 become Unusable 5 ATTACHMENT C - ADDITIONAL CONCEPT EVALUATION Summary Comparison of Metrics Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative Alignment Alignment Alignment Alignment Alignment Alignment Total New Roads 0.16 0.15 0.60 0.90 0.67 0.93 (Miles) Total Improved Roads(Miles) 1.60 1.66 1.23 1.17 0.73 0.75 Total Parcels Impacted (within 138 134 144 145 144 152 300ft) Total Parcels 96 96 103 101 102 110 Directly Impacted Commercial 39 39 48 50 49 24 Residential 30 31 26 23 22 24 Vacant/ROW/ 27 26 29 28 31 62 Other Total Buildings Impacted(within -12 -10 -18 -20 -17 -23 1 Oft of ROW) Total Parcels that may become 9 8 6 7 7 9 Unusable Stratford toTouchmark Transportation Connectivity Feasibility Report The City of Meridian is building upon the 2019 Meridian Comprehensive Plan to establish a foundation for a safer, more efficient, and higher- capacity multimodal transportation system that supports long - term growth and infrastructure investment . The connectivity alternatives evaluated in this white paper are intended to reduce pressure on the arterial network, improve emergency response times , enhance quality of life, and support continued economic development , including future water and sewer extensions needed to address public health and environmental considerations as development occurs . This white paper summarizes existing plans and land use conditions and evaluates high - level transportation and development opportunities within the study area . The project team developed five conceptual east- west collector roadway alternatives between Locust Grove Road and Eagle Road and identified additional connectivity improvements based on stakeholder input in areas west of Locust Grove Road and east of Eagle Road . Following technical evaluation , stakeholder discussions , and City of Meridian staff input , three alternatives were advanced for further analysis and form the focus of this white paper. Concepts C, D, and E offer three alternative strategies to improve east - west connectivity and support future development. Concept C prioritizes neighborhood - scale connections with fewer right- of- way impacts , Concept D provides a more direct corridor with stronger long - term regional and redevelopment benefits , and Concept E emphasizes regional mobility and commercial visibility along the 1 - 84 corridor. Figure EX-1 illustrates the location and general alignment of each concept . Franklin Rd o � �_ Irc'o Spdngwood Or iW 1V E Autumn Way I W alertower St F Bowstring St w0odbdd9e Or Atlen SI I St Lukes ccff = d y 3 t Cadillac Or N Central Or N� Isu ` t M ICOM I \ I EX- 1 , Initial Concepts C, D, & E Concept C Central Tonino I I Focus Study Area Existing Road n Concept D - Central Drive Extension Expanded Study Area Potential New Road Concept E - Concept Plan Alignment • Planned roundabout (ACHD Master Street Map) Intersection Improvements (All Concepts) — ACHD MSM Collector Preservation CONCEPTS UNDER CONSIDERATION Concept C aim Central -Tonino Uses the existing S Tonino Avenue to form most of the connection between S Locust Grove Road and S Wells Street . S Tonino Avenue would need to be extended to meet S Well Street . fAll Storer Part 1 t Hendon _ I�''t F • f - VI 7 Cemetery h� [.L t e JT yl,a j- 4 �. ) - re T 0' IF firm stale - r >.,/ ..'�'. M Idl n t• '. � = Medical Center I � �19U L,en— © v ICON — MOM — sell — all�Uses 1 N Alternative Concept C Is Central -Tonino 0 025 0.5 Miles ate— Study Area Roadway Concepts Future Land Use Current Development Preferred Alignment - Civic O Front-on housing. Applications oe New Roadway Commercial Existing road would need to be widened to collector Creeks & Canals Construction General Industrial © Interstales Preferred Alignment - standards. o Roadway Low Density — Roads Improvements Residential Planned Water & Pr © Eremite Creek crossing. Preferred Alignment - Medium Density Sewer Mains — Residential Existing ve Nigay Further evaluation needed of the Master Street Ma to Existing linter & Alternative Alignment - Chad uUsenit - p Sever Mains oo New Roadway Community 0 identify connections east of Eagle Rd. ACHD Master Street Construction Mixed Use - Map Collector Neighborhood Alternative Alignment - Note: Road segments categorized as Existing Roadways may only used o Roadway office minor infrastructure improvements, while those calegorized as Roadway Improvements minor will need more substantial upgrades to meet collector road _ Alternative Alignment - standards (e.g., road widening, adding curb, gutter, and sidewalk). Existing Roadway Concept D - Central Drive Extension Extends E Central Drive to S Wells Street, primarily through new road segments . fill � ri etoraY Park �' + -- - — l Herldran �.! LI il t Map Y ; ti _ _ * �yq Ce rse r metery - js— fz y - - - . j 10 ' 9rL ke's + .7 Ild ho91ate e - - M ildlan P Ice tdricalCebI PV _ 0 tjlFt ' Imo_„ yO _ II so Meridian " IL ' Ala - - r — �' - -• — rem N Alternative Concept D - Central Drive Extension D 0.25 05 Miles I I ^Zo Study Area Roadway Concepts Future Land Use Opportunity to create linear park/greenway along Current Development Preferred Alignment - Civic O roadway. Applications oo New Roadway Commercial Creeks & Canals Construction General Industrial Further evaluation needed of the Master Street Map to Interstates Preferred Alignment - © identify connections east of Eagle Rd. o Roadway Low Density ty' 9 — Roads Improvements Residential Planned Water & Preferred Alignment Medium Density Sevier Mains — Residential Existing Roadway Existing Water & Alternative Alignment - Mixed Use - Sew'er Mains m New Roadway ACHOMap C Community Master Street Construction Mixed Use - Map Collector Neighborhood Alternative Alignment - Note: Road segments categorized as Existing Roadways may only need o Roadway Office minor infrastructure Improvements, while those calegorized as Roadway Improvements Improvement will need more substantial upgrades to meet colleclorroad _ Alternative Alignment - standards (e.g. , road wklening, adding cum, gutter, and sidewalk). Existing Roadway NEXT STEPS ID Coordination with ACHD Land use and redevelopment To implement a preferred alternative, the City of To proactively shape reinvestment in conjunction Meridian would need to work with ACHD to pursue with the possible new collector roadway through revisions to the Master Street Map ( MSM ) . Any proposed this area , the city could pursue a coordinated suite updates would reflect the concept the City chooses of redevelopment , annexation , and land use tools . to advance from this planning effort and would help A joint agreement with Ada County could establish ensure the preferred alternative alignment is formally enhanced building and infrastructure standards for recognized and supported as future redevelopment and unincorporated properties within the area , paired with a infrastructure improvements move forward . Discussion phased annexation strategy that includes cost - sharing regarding updates to the MSM should focus on including agreements for roadway, utility, and service upgrades , the new preferred alternative . v s Utilities Connection Concept Development Coordination between private and public entities to If the roadway were to be built by a public agency, implement utility systems as development occurs . a concept development process is recommended . This would include developing preliminary cost estimates and conceptual design drawings for all identified new connections and intersections as well as public engagement , to understand the right - of- way needs , construction complexity, potential phasing opportunities , intersection control , and funding opportunities and to identify a preferred alternative . Intersections A more detailed engineering evaluation will be necessary to establish the final traffic control treatments at each location , including an assessment of future traffic volumes , sight distance and other site - specific conditions . Stakeholder Engagement Following the conceptual design , the city needs to work with ACHD and development partners to ensure the collector network is implemented in a coordinated and logical way that supports access , redevelopment , and long - term connectivity. As a preferred alternative Collector Road Funding through development or future planning efforts , the New collectors are typically tied to development . city and ACHD should work together to make sure Consistent with ACHD policy, these facilities are usually those connections are accurately reflected in the Master constructed by private development as projects Street Map and amendments to city Comprehensive occur, allowing the roadway to grow alongside new planning documents . Coordination will help ensure development . Roadway improvements may be identified the new collector streets fit well within the broader and prioritized through the ACHD planning process , transportation network , and documentation will ensure while pedestrian improvements , stormwater mitigation continuity as redevelopment occurs . and maintenance projects are submitted through the ACHD Five -Year workplan . Submittal for pedestrian enhancements , traffic calming , and safety enhancement may also be submitted by community members through ACHD Community Programs applications . Concept E - Comprehensive Plan Alignment Creates a new connection from E Central Drive to S Wells Street through a new road fronting I - 84 , I Menm � v 511E x i Id n 51 let 1 ' _ 2e•,'• � ,y�tm �M ItlI e P II M d lienter` „� • f ' 3 I ISU fileridpan i Alternative Concept E - Comprehensive Plan Alignment o 0.25 0.5 Miles ^� Study Area Roadway Concepts Future Land Use Current Development Preferred Alignment - Civic O Significant school traffic and pedestrian crossings . Applications cioaia New Roadway Commercial Visibility from Locust Grove for commercial Creeks & Canals Construction General Industrial © redevelopment. Interstates Preferred Alignment - Low Density © Potential grade-separated crossing to increase Residential— Roads y Improvements connectivity. Planned Water & Medium Density Preferred Alignment - Sewer Mains Residential Existing Roadway Interstate visibility for commercial redevelopment . Existing Water & Mixed Use - Alt Roa a Alignment - Sewer Mains Community Further evaluation needed of the Master Street Map to ACHD Master Street W New Roadway Construction Mixed Use - 0 identify connections east of Eagle Rd. Map Collector Neighborhood Alternative Alignment - Note: Road segments categorized as Existing Roadways may onlyneed o Roadway ice minor infrastructure improvements, while those categorized as Roadway Improvements Improvement will need more substantial upgrades to meet collector road _ Alternative Nignment - standards to.g., road widening, adding curb, gutter, and sidewalk). Existing Roadway COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS FOR CONCEPT C , D , & E COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS RANKING CONCEPT C CONCEPT D CONCEPT E CRITERIA Redevelopment O O Transportation O O O Feasibility • O O Total New Roads is O O Total Improved Roads O o • Existing Land - Use Impacts O O O Note: All existing roads would also need to be widened to meet ACHD collector standards, increasing overall implementation complexity and cost. Applies to all and was not a factor in the evaluation COMPARATIVE RESULTS RANKING O O O Better Performance E IDIAN�- )AH AGENDA ITEM Department Reports Stratford to Touchmark January 27, 2026Meridian City Council Feasibility Study Overview :Next Steps Comparative Analysis for C, D & E Other OpportunitiesConcepts C, D, & E Alternative Development & EvaluationLand Use Analysis Existing Conditions & Future GrowthProject Approach Study AreaReview Project Goal Project Overview  Project Overview and environmental considerations as development occurs. water and sewer extensions needed to address public health Support continued economic development, including future Enhance quality of lifeImprove emergency response times,Reduce pressure on the arterial network, transportation connectivity within this key area of the city to:Develop a realistic and coordinated approach to improving Project Goals - Project OverviewProject Study Area - Project OverviewKnown Challenges - Project Overview Future Growth Projections (Jobs) Future Growth Projections (Housing)Vacant Land & Redevelopment Housing CharacteristicsFuture Land UseExisting Conditions/ZoningKey Findings:- Alternative Development & Evaluation FeasibilityTransportation & UtilitiesLand UseInitial Alternative Screening Initial Screening - Alternative DevelopmentA, B, C, D, & E -Initial Collector Road Concepts- Alternative Development West of Locust Grove East of Eagle Rd. -84.-fronting IDrive to S Wells Street through a new road Creates a new connection from E Central –Comprehensive Plan Alignment–Concept E primarily through new road segments.Extends E Central Drive to S Wells Street, –Central Drive Extension–Concept D need to be extended to meet S Well Street. and S Wells Street. S Tonino Avenue would connection between S Locust Grove Road existing S Tonino Avenue to form most of the Uses the –Tonino -Central–Concept C Concept C, D, E & Other Opportunities - Alternative Concept C traffic levelsproperties and neighborhood increase impacts on adjacent ACHD collector standards could Homes fronting the roadwaysdevelopment potentialregional travel and Neighborhood alignment limits the likelihood of property splits The use of larger parcels reduce way impacts -of-Limits rightMostly existing roadway Central Tonino- Alternative Concept D construction substantial new roadway due to the need for challenges than Concept C Greater construction scale redevelopment -largerGreater opportunities for Drive and Wells Streetconnection between Central west –Most direct east- Comprehensive Plan Alignment -Alternative Concept E widening of existing roadshousing and requires less The least amount of front on constructionGreatest amount new roadway Some out of direction travel and commercial uses Attractive alignment for retail Alternative DevelopmentComparative Analysis - Summary of Recommendation & Next Steps Development Driven Collector Road Funding Utilities ConnectionLand Use & RedevelopmentStakeholder EngagementConcept DevelopmentIntersection enhancement Bike & Pedestrian ImprovementsTraffic Calming ROW WidthsMaster Street Map (MSM)Coordination with ACHD Staff’s Prioritization of Concepts Comprehensive Plan Alignment -Alternative Concept E2.Central Drive Extension-Alternative Concept D1.Central Tonino-Alternative Concept C3. Discussion