Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-02-05 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, February 05, 2026 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Jessica Perreault Commissioner Matthew Sandoval Commissioner Matthew Stoll Commissioner Jared Smith ABSENT Commissioner Brian Garrett Chairperson Maria Lorcher ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Commissioner Perreault, Seconded by Commissioner Stoll. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith 1. Approve Minutes of the January 15, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commissioner Meeting ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing continued from December 18, 2025 for Syringa Crossing Mixed Use Development (H-2025-0007) by Hawkins Companies, generally located at the northwest and southwest corners of S. Meridian Rd./US69 Continued to February 19, 2026 Application Requires Continuance A. Request: Annexation of 62.43 acres of land with R-15 (9.76 acres), R-40 (18.01 acres) C-N (2.07 acres), C-C (9.12 acres) and C-G (23.47 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 8 building lots on 24.46 acres of land in the proposed R-40 and C-C zoning districts. C. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 322 residential apartment units on 16.35 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. Motion to continue to February 19, 2026 made by Commissioner Stoll, Seconded by Commissioner Perreault. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith 3. Public Hearing continued from December 18, 2025 for St. George (H-2025-0004) by Shaun Wardle and Jason St. George, located at 3870 E. Overland Rd. and 1545 S. Topaz Ave. Recommend Approval to City Council A. Request: Annexation of 2.0 acres with the R-15 zoning district to construct nineteen (19) multi-family units, 7,987 Sq. ft. of commercial space and four (4) vertically integrated residential units. B. Request: Two Conditional Use Permits, one for the multi-family residential and one for the vertically integrated residential project in the R-15 zoning district. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Stoll. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith 4. Public Hearing for Tong (H-2025-0049) by Dara Tong, located at 485 E. Overland Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council A. Request: Annexation of approximately 0.496 acres of land from R1 in Ada County to the R-4 zoning district. The applicant entered into an agreement with the city to annex within six months of receiving City Utility Services due to a failed septic system. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Perreault, Seconded by Commissioner Stoll. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith 5. Public Hearing continued from December 18, 2026 for Shafer View Ridge Subdivision (H-2025-0047) by Gregg Davis, Breckon Land Design, located at Lot 18 of the Shafer View Estates Subdivision at the intersection of S. Meridian Rd. and E. Shafer View Dr. Recommend Approval to City Council A. Request: Annexation of 15.2 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-4 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 38 lots (29 building lots and 9 common lots) on 13.437 acres of land. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Stoll, Seconded by Commissioner Perreault. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith ADJOURNMENT 8:03 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To view upcoming Public Hearing Notices, visit https://apps.meridiancity.org/phnotices --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting February 5, 2026. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 5, 2026, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Jared Smith. Members Present: Commissioner Jared Smith, Commissioner Matthew Sandoval, Commissioner Jessica Perreault, and Commissioner Matthew Stoll. Members Absent: Commissioner Maria Lorcher and Commissioner Brian Garrett. Others Present: Tina Lomeli, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Linda Ritter and Nick Napoli. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Brian Garrett X Jessica Perrault _X Matthew Sandoval X Matthew Stoll _X (Vacant) X Jared Smith Maria Lorcher- Chairman Smith: Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for February 5th, 2026. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are at City Hall and on Zoom. We will also have staff from the City Attorney and City Clerk's Office, as well as the city's Planning -- we also have staff from the City Attorney and City Clerk's Office, as well as the City Planning Department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting, however, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note that we will not -- we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting, please, e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch this streaming on the City's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. With that let's begin with the roll call. Madam Clerk. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Smith: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. There are no changes to tonight's agenda. Could I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda? Stoll: Move to adopt today -- tonight's agenda as presented. Perreault: Second. Smith: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 2 of 37 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the January 15, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commissioner Meeting Smith: Consent Agenda. Next item -- the next item is the Consent Agenda, which includes to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 15th. Could I get a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda as presented? Perreault: Mr. Vice-Chair, so moved. Stoll: Second. Smith: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing continued from December 18, 2025 for Syringa Crossing Mixed Use Development (H-2025-0007) by Hawkins Companies, generally located at the northwest and southwest corners of S. Meridian Rd./US69 A. Request: Annexation of 62.43 acres of land with R-15 (9.76 acres), R-40 (18.01 acres) C-N (2.07 acres), C-C (9.12 acres) and C-G (23.47 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 8 building lots on 24.46 acres of land in the proposed R-40 and C-C zoning districts. C. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 322 residential apartment units on 16.35 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. Smith: Item No. 2, H-2025-0007, Syringa Crossing mixed use development has requested a continuance. So, they are requesting to continue this to February 19th due to the site not being posted correctly. So, may I get a motion to continue the application to February 19th? F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 3 of 37 Stoll: Mr. Vice-Chair, I move to continue the hearing for H-2025-0007, Syringa Crossing Mixed-use Development, until February 19th. Perreault: Second. Smith: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing continued from December 18, 2025 for St. George (H- 2025-0004) by Shaun Wardle and Jason St. George, located at 3870 E. Overland Rd. and 1545 S. Topaz Ave. A. Request: Annexation of 2.0 acres with the R-15 zoning district to construct nineteen (19) multi-family units, 7,987 Sq. ft. of commercial space and four (4) vertically integrated residential units. B. Request: Two Conditional Use Permits, one for the multi-family residential and one for the vertically integrated residential project in the R-15 zoning district. Smith: All right. Item 3 on the agenda is H-2025-0004, which is a continuance of St. George on Overland and Topaz for annexation and two conditional use permits. Before we get started with the staff report I just wanted to defer to Kurt for a quick moment. Starman: Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. Just for the record when this item was first heard by the Commission some time ago Commissioner Stoll was not in attendance at that particular meeting and, similarly, Commissioner Perreault was at that meeting, but had to leave early and so both didn't fully participate in that initial discussion. However, both have told me and I will just ask them to state this on the record here in a moment, but both have told me that they have had the opportunity to review the record, either the recording and/or the minutes and are prepared to act tonight. So, I think we are -- they are prepared to proceed and deliberate and vote if that comes -- if that's the Commission's desire tonight and may I just ask both Commissioners just to briefly confirm that they are prepared to proceed. Stoll: I am prepared to proceed. I have reviewed the recording of the meeting. Perreault: Same for me. I have reviewed all of the materials in the project folder and watched the video from the original hearing. Smith: Great. Thank you. With that we will continue with the staff report. Napoli: Good evening, Chair, Members of the Commission. Next item on the agenda is the annexation and conditional use permits for St. George. So, on November 6th, 2025, F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 4 of 37 St. George project was presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission continued the project to have the applicant work with city staff to fix the outstanding issues. The applicant has submitted revised drawings and documents based on this direction and just a reminder to the Commission, the applicant's request tonight is an annexation of two acres with the R-15 zoning district, to construct 19 multi-family units and one vertically integrated residential building consisting of 7,987 square feet of commercial space and four residential units. Both uses require conditional use permit in the R-15 zoning district. So, just going to go over the changes since the previous hearing. Since the previous hearing the applicant has resolved the following issues. They resolved issues with Public Works regarding water- sewer easements and separation requirements and provided updated floor plans meeting the requirement for private usable open space and revised the landscape plan to incorporate additional details. However, there is still some existing -- or new issues that have not been resolved. So, the applicant did revise a landscape plan. However, it still does not meet all the design standards. I did talk with the design -- or their landscape architect. They are aware of what they need to do to bring that into compliance. But currently at this time I have not received those revisions. And, then, concerns still persist regarding functional integration with surrounding properties. In addition, staff is asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to carefully consider whether traffic generated by the development is appropriate given the existing conditions and access points. However, the largest new concern continues to be focused on the open space around Five Mile Creek. Since the previous hearing the applicant has been in discussions with the irrigation district about piping the creek and the feasibility of a bridge. The irrigation district did indicate that piping the creek was possible and a bridge may be pending the correct approvals. However, the UDC does prohibit piping natural waterways and as a result staff is not in favor of piping the creek., So, if -- if the Planning and Zoning Commission is going to be recommended approval tonight we ask that you do not pipe the creek, because the UDC prohibits it. So -- and so if the Planning and Zoning Commission is in favor of the updated -- the new plans staff has recommended that Five Mile Creek remain open without a bridge and the northernmost unit on Building A be removed to incorporate additional open space and three amenities, one from each category, be located in the open space north of Building A and this would be Building A. Right -- this would be what we would be asking to be removed for more additional open space. And we have not received any written testimony since the previous hearing and I will stand for any questions you guys have. Smith: Is there any questions for staff? All right. Would the applicant like to come forward? Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair, Members of the Commission. Shaun Wardle. 2239 East Griner Street on behalf of the applicant for the St. George project. We appreciate the opportunity to work with staff on a continuation. We believe that we have solved all of -- the majority of the technical issues. Our landscape designer did speak with Nick and is -- is aware of our deficiency there and will be submitting a new plan. So -- so, that's submitted. We have got 19 multi-family units. We have got 8,000 square feet of commercial space and, then, four vertically integrated units here. We feel Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 5 of 37 that -- that that meets the Comprehensive Plan's focus and goals for not just density, but for a mix of uses and -- and we think it will be a nice addition, especially along that Overland frontage. As part of our application -- our last discussion was over the bridge and a proposed bridge, which would access our amenities across that bridge and so we went to the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, we worked with them. One of their solutions was to what they call pipe and cover that particular waterway, which would, frankly, be their -- their preference from a maintenance standpoint and -- and we talked about this particular waterway in an urban area. We also went to the Parks Department to discuss the -- effectively what would be mandated as a pathway. There are a couple issues with that. The Parks Department has told us that they don't want the pathway constructed as part of this -- as part of this project and they are not sure which side of the -- of the ditch it would go, if they want it at all, and --- and one of the considerations there is if you look at -- if you look at Five Mile Creek from Topaz, as it meanders through the business park, there really isn't a solution and -- and when it gets to Eagle Road, of course, it dead ends and -- and how would you get over Eagle Road; right? So, the Parks Department is -- has effectively said let us figure that out. We have an easement with the irrigation district if we choose to do a pathway and so we -- we feel like we have attempted to -- to meet those requirements. We -- we have submitted two e-mail communications from the -- from the -- the -- excuse me -- from the irrigation district, both with which allow us to, one, pipe and cover, but we have got some federal permits to do. I will point out that ACHD did pipe and cover the ditch on Topaz and received a 404 permit there and so we are working with those entities to -- to -- to make that happen. We do have permission from the neighbor to the south to pipe and cover that portion as well, which would be a requirement of the irrigation district. So, the -- the new comment in terms of not being allowed to -- to put a bridge, which wouldn't allow us to access our property, was -- was new and -- and wasn't something that we had considered within our plan. So, we are here to -- to have that discussion and I would stand for any questions. Smith: Thanks. I will start. Any -- any Commissioners have any questions for the applicant? So -- so, I guess I -- I have one question around this. It seems so -- trying to get to the bottom of this, because it seems like this is -- if I had to guess might be -- kind of one of the main points of contention. NMID seems to be okay with piping. It's not in the UDC. It seems like there is federal permits is what you are -- you are saying. I guess where -- where is the rub and where is the -- what I'm trying to understand is -- for what reasons does the UDC prohibit it and are they accounted for in any way kind of-- Wardle: Mr. Vice-Chair, if I might --just before Nick answers. If I might make -- so, one of -- one of the -- one of the things about this particular application is -- is if you -- if you have been out there and seen the waterway a lot of people individually in Five Mile Creek -- how it runs through to my neighborhood. I live in Woodbridge and -- and the developer did a nice job of developing a pathway. I walk my wife's dogs every day down that particular pathway. This portion of Five Mile Creek, which runs through the business park, runs through Topaz, Rolling Hills and, then, effectively across the freeway is -- is not that aesthetic that I believe that the UDC and the -- and the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 6 of 37 Comprehensive Plan would -- would anticipate and so that's one of the reasons that -- that the irrigation district would prefer from a -- from a maintenance and construction standpoint to -- frankly, to pipe and cover it. Smith: So, I guess to append to that, Nick, from -- from my recollection -- and you guys maybe correct me if I'm wrong -- it seems like we have done this for canals. We have been okay with piping and covering. Is it just -- is it that it's natural currently is is the main reason? Napoli: Commissioner Smith, that's correct. Natural waterways in the UDC -- I think it's 11-3C-6 or 3-A-6 I should say, requires natural waterways to be improved as a natural amenity in the city. If they were -- obviously, Council does have a -- a purview to approve something that's not code through, you know, a variance process. There is a process to do that. But from staff's perspective, correct, we are consistent on leaving natural waterways -- improving natural waterways I should say, but leaving them open as a natural amenity. If they are going to pipe it I would like to know -- I did talk with our floodplain administrator. I don't know if that's his exact title. Jason Korn. He broke it down for me on kind of everything they would need to go through as far as federal permitting and he kind of broke down a rough timeline for me and, you know, you are looking at some -- sometimes up to 18 to 24 months, because you have to do CLOMR and LOMR and when FEMA mapped this area they actually didn't map it I would say accurately, so we would want an accurate map for this actual portion of the -- the canal -- or the -- the creek I should say. So, it's not as easy as just piping it. There is quite a bit of permitting that goes behind it that's on a federal level that even includes the Army Corps of Engineers. So, I -- I will -- I guess I will stand for any questions if you have on that additional -- Smith: That's very helpful. Thank you. And, Commissioners, any other questions? Perreault: Mr. Vice-Chair? Smith: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, our notes say that the staff still have concern regarding the open space. We received some new schematics in the memorandum that staff wrote and I was hoping the applicant could kind of walk through that with us a little bit, especially the revised open space exhibit. Wardle: So, a couple of the big revisions were along -- were along Overland and we will have one additional revision which will -- which will have an -- an amenity there and, then, we have got open space down -- down the middle of -- of the multi-family units. The pathway there -- I guess I'm -- here we go. Pathway through here. We have also got a bike station, which will be here at the end of the units, as well as some green space here and, then, again, we are -- we are planning on having a BBQ picnic area across the other side of that -- the other side of Five Mile Creek, which is one of the reasons that we are looking at that crossing with -- with the bridge. 10 1 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 7 of 37 Smith: Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: Shaun, are you okay with staffs other recommendations regarding the project? Their memo? Wardle: All the recommendations with -- with the exception of -- of the removal of -- of the bridge. We -- and we understand -- I -- I guess the question for this -- for this body is if we were to -- to want to pipe and cover that would -- is -- is that a consideration at the Council level or is that a -- okay. So -- so, we would ask that -- that -- that we be allowed to -- to move forward with that issue. We can do some additional research on -- on what that looks like and make a -- make a better presentation on -- on that and so the only -- the only recommendation within the staff report that we wouldn't agree with would be the removal of the bridge and we have -- we have submitted evidence that the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District will allow it within their parameters. They have some pretty strict parameters. Stoll: But just to clarify, the bridge would only be necessary if the Five Mile Creek wasn't covered? Wardle: Correct. Correct. Yes. Parsons: Mr. Chair? Smith: Yeah. Parsons: Just --just clarification if, Nick, you can go back to that -- that exhibit. So, the reason why we bring this to your attention is we -- we believe that this is an amenity for the project. I don't want the applicant to think that we don't -- the concern we have is that it's in the floodway and nothing can be built in the floodway. So, theoretically, as it stands today I don't think anyone could approve a bridge to cross the creek in the floodplain. I don't know how you permit that. Unless we go through that mapping exercise and -- and determine that it was mapped incorrectly or whatever work ACHD did corrected that situation and now it's no longer in the floodway. We don't know that. We don't have that information. So, that's the difficult part for us. That's why as staff we are like, well, if we can't -- you could still count this as open space if you leave it natural. The code says you can. That's -- it's just whether or not the Commission wants to incorporate more usable open space into the development. If you recall with multi- family standards the applicant has to provide X amount of open space based on the square footage of the unit. So, again, if the Commission finds that that natural area still meets the intent of the code you can approve it that way or if not you can stick with staff's recommendation and say lose that unit and put the -- the amenities or add more open space per the intent of the code. We are trying to get it to integrate a little bit better. I like that the applicant testified that the Parks Department doesn't want the pathway either. It's such a small segment it makes no sense to build such a little piece of that pathway. It's better to get the easement and deal with it when we have more land and incorporate that with the rest of the property. So, I think that's a wise decision. F-11 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 8 of 37 That's why Nick, staff, we have said leave it natural, leave it alone. We know there is challenges with the floodway. We don't know what those are. Nick and I aren't experts, but the best thing we can do at this point from our perspective is leave it alone. Leave it a creek. Don't disturb it and we will get the right permitting and figure it out later. But, again, that process takes time and, then, as part of your -- a part of the Commission's purview tonight is whether or not this is the right time to annex the property. Do you feel like is that something you feel comfortable with just leaving it natural and dealing with it later as parks suggested or having the applicant lose units in favor of more open space and relocating those amenities, because it may even be difficult to put those amenities in that floodway. I mean typically we want to leave those as undisturbed. Smith: I guess if -- if -- a question for you is -- see if there is a few options and -- and one of them on the table is potentially counting this against the open space without that kind of pipe and covering pathway. Would that -- I guess how is the bridge and pathway important for open space considerations or part of the -- the -- the broader project plan and vision -- you know, will that still work? Wardle: I -- I believe it still works. And -- and, again, understanding that we meet -- you know, we would meet the open space requirement. That's -- that's important. We understand that. We understand it's a tight site, multi-family, and -- and -- and we knew that we had the minimums to meet there. I guess the question -- and I haven't really talked to my client about it -- is if -- if we are not allowed a bridge there, then, it effectively doesn't have access to a portion of his property, because of this ordinance -- or because -- not this ordinance -- because of that decision and so that -- that would be a consideration that I can discuss with them as we take additional testimony. Smith: That sounds good. I think Kurt -- I might have questions for you during deliberation or something like that, but I will save on that for now. Great. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Commissioner Sandoval, you have any questions? Sandoval: None at this time. Smith: All right. Okay. So, we can move on to public testimony. Madam Clerk, is there anyone signed up to testify? Lomeli: Yes. I have Shirley Sterner. And, Vice-Chair Smith, she's indicated she is representing -- is it five -- Sterner: I am representing -- I have five listings in the neighborhood and I'm a realtor and I also -- there are three other agents that have on -- several other listings in the neighborhood and so I'm speaking on behalf of those parties. Smith: Okay. Thank you. And before we -- we get to the substance, could you also just say your name and address. F12 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 9 of 37 Sterner: Shirley Sterner. I don't live in the neighborhood. Smith: Just say an address. Sterner: 8860 West River Beach Lane. Smith: Okay. Sterner: And so I am -- the people that have their properties listed -- at least the ones that I -- you know, they basically want to sell. They want the best use of their land and I think they have a right to that and so we are trying to see this project go forward and have it continued on through the neighborhood and I have heard a lot of -- you know -- and I understand people don't want to see more traffic, but three of the parties in the neighborhood have -- already have short-term rentals in their homes, which creates more traffic and there is basically a business within the community anyway, so -- and they are not ones that are wanting this project to go through. So, I think that that needs to be taken into consideration as well. So, I just want everybody to know that our votes -- many of the people in the neighborhood's votes are, yes, please approve this. Okay? Thank you. Smith: Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, is there anyone else? Lomeli: Commissioner Smith, no one else has signed up and nobody online is raising their hand. Smith: Is there anyone else who would like to testify? All right. I guess would the applicant like to come back forward? Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair, Members of the Commission. And -- and just to -- to clarify, if -- if we were to move the items that are effectively across Five Mile Creek and relocate them at -- at some appropriate area and -- and be able to -- to continue that as the open space calculation, my team would agree with that and -- and would be able to -- to move that around, so -- Smith: All right. Any questions -- any other questions, Commissioners, for the applicant? Stoll: Mr. Chair? Smith: Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: Just to clarify. So, you would be willing to -- you would be open to moving the amenities -- I guess be north of Five Mile Creek and as long as you don't lose that building or are you open for still losing that building? F13] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 10 of 37 Wardle: Correct. Right. My team believes that they can move -- they can move that without losing the building -- without losing the building. Smith: Okay. Commissioner Perreault? Perreault: Mr. Vice-Chair. Give us a ballpark location of where those would go. And the staff made the suggestion of a specific location, but -- Wardle: Sure. I'm going to bring up our architect Jim Escobar. Escobar: Hello, Commissioners. Jim Escobar. P.O. Box 1277, Eagle, Idaho. And, yeah, I think the thought process is if we took that area that we are trying to make as an amenity on the other side of the ditch and we move it to the north of Building A, which is the eastern most building, instead of losing a unit we still have a chunk of ground there and it's still open space. We can use it and beautify it. We can do some landscaping around that area so that the occupants of those buildings can use that space, I -- I think it's suffices and I guess my question really is for Planning and Zoning if there was a concern there with going that route versus losing that northernmost maintenance garage unit that we have currently in the design. That's -- that's the intent of what -- what I'm -- what I was sharing with Shaun and what he was trying to share with you guys. Smith: Thank you. Nick, if you want to -- Napoli: Yeah. Commissioner Smith, Jim, so, you know, really, the thought process behind it -- for one and I -- in my original staff report really highlighted -- there is no regional park in the area, like, you know, none and as this area redevelops I don't know if there is any going to be a -- you know, a public amenity that people can use out here as far as, you know, plazas and those type of things between commercial and residential and as this area redevelops it's going to be -- you know, it's going to be projects like this where there is certain -- I wouldn't say piecemeal, but it -- it is. It's -- you know, you are getting a few properties here and there, a few properties here and they are trying to consolidate it, but it's going to be -- you know, it's -- it's in-fill. So, it is challenging. The thought process behind losing that -- that unit is provide more usable open space. You know, ultimately if you guys think what they have is adequate that's your guys' purview. Staff thinks, you know, having more usable open space is always better, especially when, you know, you have -- 23 units is really -- I mean that is what is out here. You know, four vertically integrated and 19 multi-family. So, you are going to have a significant amount of people living out here with practically no park, nowhere to walk their dogs. That's the challenge. So, I guess for you guys I would ask you to consider what you guys think is adequate for that. Escobar: May I follow up to that quick? Smith: Sure. F14] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 11 of 37 Escobar: So, my thought process is making sure, first of all, we can comply with what the code says -- whatever the zoning code says. So, I think it still complies from what I can remember from our process. The second part is make sure it's functional and usable and it's not just something on a piece of paper that nobody ever -- I mean that's -- we all want that for the benefit of the community and, then, the third point to that is it's a pretty significant impact the fact that there is not a regional park in a very heavy commercial and used area. We understand that's a challenge, but we don't feel like that burden is necessarily our challenge to face, yet we still want our community to be -- to rent, to be usable, to be a positive atmosphere. The owner's got his heart in this. He's planning actually on living on site in one of those vertically integrated residential units. So, we are not trying to skip by, we are not trying to develop the project and disappear, we want a good project. We have been working really hard with staff to be able to get there and I think the point is we can meet the -- the goals and have a usable area and we have a chunk of ground there on a road that's not heavily traveled. So, that's -- that's what I'm trying to propose, because the idea of eliminating that space is -- well, new to me as of a half an hour ago. So, I'm just shooting from the hip a little bit, too. Smith: Did you have something? Commissioner Sandoval, any questions? Sandoval: Nothing for me. Smith: Okay. I guess with that is there a motion to close the public hearing? Stoll: Move to close the public hearing. Perreault: Second. Smith: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Smith: I will head off with -- with some thoughts. I think as a whole the project is -- is -- I -- I think this is actually a solid project. I think being right on a -- on a -- you know, a transit corridor is -- is helpful and -- and makes a case for -- for me for density. I'm balancing a couple things. One regarding the -- the floodway specifically. I don't subscribe to the idea that something is inherently good just because it's natural. You know, arsenic is natural; right? That being said, that doesn't mean we want, you know, more developed areas to have zero natural kind of integration in them and so trying to balance that and especially with the -- the floodway considerations, I -- I -- I don't know that we have the right expertise to be able to -- to -- to judge on that and to rule on that, so one of the things that I'm considering is -- it -- it -- does that justify continuing or something like that? I don't know that it does. I think that is a conversation that regardless is going to require a council waiver if something happens up there. So, I think that's a conversation to research and -- and -- and thoroughly kind of investigate and present to Council kind of with all the -- the pros and cons, cost and benefits and 15 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 12 of 37 also legal rights. I have some thoughts and, Kurt, I -- I guess -- I don't understand how if you have part of your property that you can't access due to statute how that isn't a taking. Never -- never got my JD, but that seems a little bit odd. Starman: Yeah. Mr. Vice-Chair. So, I'm not familiar enough with the -- with the site or the details to probably comment one hundred percent of that, but I would say to the extent that's the circumstance today, it's already divided by Five Mile Creek and access is limited. The city is not doing any more to -- to compound that, other than saying we are not going to allow you to make enhancements to better use it, but my take on it is that the property's already divided and has access issues. That's an existing condition. Smith: Okay. That's helpful. And the -- the last thing I will say that I'm -- I'm kind of holding an intention is I agree it's not your responsibility to account for the fact that there is a regional park, but -- there is no regional park, but whose responsibility is it and -- and that's a question that I'm -- I'm chewing on. I think in previous contexts around mixed-use developments I have -- I have said, you know, there are a lot of projects that on their own in a vacuum are great, but you kind of can salami slice away certain things that we are looking for at a community level. So, I -- I think where I'm at is I -- I am okay with supporting this and against counting the -- the space on the other side of the creek against the usable -- against the open space, kind of what we were talking about, but -- but I think there is a larger discussion to be had about how this -- this area I think we need to kind of -- and I don't know -- I don't know what the -- what the process is, but I think some -- someone needs to account for the fact that there is a regional park. I don't feel comfortable making it any individual applicant and so I -- I'm concerned that there might need to be something at a city level, at a planning level to account for that. Perreault: Mr. Vice-Chair? Smith: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I agree with you in regards to more research being done and -- and the Commission potentially not making a recommendation to leave that natural or not, just kind of allow Council to -- to go down that road, since it will be something that they will need to address with the UDC limitations. I would absolutely prefer the applicant move those amenities to another location, meet the -- the required open space, obviously, by code and I'm not as concerned about the open space, because there are some parks in the city of Boise -- there is Peppermint Park down on Cloverdale. It's kind of around the corner. There is Kleiner Park, which is really not all that far and -- and so I'm not as concerned about that. It would be nice for somebody to -- you know, place to take their dog and whatnot, but there is many, many multi-family developments in this area that -- that are surrounded by park -- parking lots and concrete and -- and just don't -- don't have that. Do I want another one that doesn't have it? No. But I don't feel like this project is like an island unto itself and -- and we are, you know, five miles from -- from a regional park. I mean Kleiner is essentially two miles, two and a half miles from there. So -- so, I'm not as much concerned about that. I appreciate that the applicant has 16 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 13 of 37 worked with staff to resolve some of these other variety of other kind of more technical issues, so I think I have addressed everything. If I haven't let me know. Smith: Commissioner Perreault, I think -- I think you -- you got everything. Commission Stoll. Stoll: So, my recollection from the public comments that we received was this -- previously this is part of a larger project that was proposed that the landowners had decided not to go forward with it and I really wish that this had been part of a larger proposal, but the application that we are dealing with today is limited to the size of this property and so those are the issues that we are challenged with trying to make a decision on. I can see staff's viewpoint on what the UDC says about natural waterways being left open and not tiling them and enclosing them, but I also can see the point of providing access to the property owner to that parcel to meet the open space. Either way from the open space calculation I think that meets that criteria that we have and I don't see a need to remove the -- I guess it's a southern building from what the applicant is proposing. As long as they move the amenities to a different location I am comfortable letting -- punting to City Council and letting them decide whether they want to enclose the waterway or leave it open. I would also like to leave the option for folks to pursue the bridge if the waterway is left open and that's -- those are my thoughts. Smith: Commissioner Perreault? Perreault: I would like to clarify my thoughts on what Commissioner Stoll just shared. I would like to see the -- the waterway -- if -- if this is the decision of Council, I would like to see it closed. See it tiled. I would prefer there not be a bridge over an open waterway and that's just my preference. But, again, you know, that's -- that's the decision of City Council, so -- Smith: Commissioner Sandoval, do you have anything -- any thoughts you wanted to add? Sandoval: Mr. Chair, no, I think it's already been laid out here from everyone really well. It's interesting that portion that is pretty much cut off from the rest, but as presented I think it looks good and we should move it on and let City Council make a decision. Smith: All right. I guess does -- would anyone like to make a motion? I can make one if -- okay. Want to leave that option on the table. Okay. So, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2025-0004 as presented in the staff report with a modification to require that amenities be move -- moved to a different location south of the creek and to not make a recommendation about piping and covering and pathing the creek toward the northernmost battery. Any questions? Stoll: I will second, just so that we can have -- F17] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 14 of 37 Smith: Sure. Stoll: -- discussion on the motion. Smith: I can -- I can -- I'm happy to amend. Yeah. Stoll: So, I think the staff report states that they would remove the one building. I can't remember what -- Smith: Yeah. So, I think that was the two options that are -- Stoll: Are you -- are you saying that you want -- you want to allow to remove the building? Smith: No. So -- so, Nick was essentially -- and correct me if I'm wrong, but, essentially, the -- the question was if we move the amenities south do we want to count that toward the total open space or kind of require kind of-- from our discretion that they remove that additional building to kind of gain additional open space? I'm of the -- the thought that I don't think they need to remove that building. I would be in favor of -- to moving it south, not moving the unit. So, that was the intention of -- of my motion. I guess, Nick, is there anything -- okay. Napoli: That clarifies it. Thank you. Smith: The second stands? Stoll: Yep. Smith: Okay. Cool. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor, please, say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. All right. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing for Tong (H-2025-0049) by Dara Tong, located at 485 E. Overland Rd. A. Request: Annexation of approximately 0.496 acres of land from R1 in Ada County to the R-4 zoning district. The applicant entered into an agreement with the city to annex within six months of receiving City Utility Services due to a failed septic system. Smith: Next up is Item No. 4, Annexation -- it says Tong Annexation, H-2025-0049. We can begin with the staff report. Well -- so, we will start with the staff report and, then, we can -- no. You are good. I will call you. You are good. Thank you. 18 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 15 of 37 Ritter: Good evening, Commissioners. So, tonight we are looking at an annexation. So, this is an annexation of 0.496 acres of land from R-1 in Ada county to the R-4 zoning district and it's located at 485 East Overland Road. So, the applicant entered into an agreement with the city to annex within six months of receiving utility service due to a failed septic system. No new development or redevelopment of this property is being proposed at this time and the use will remain residential for the foreseeable future. There is an existing outbuilding -- detached accessory structure on the property that encroaches into the rear setback. Because no development is being proposed the applicant must either remove the structure or obtain approval from City Council to allow it to remain as a legal nonconforming grandfather structure. So, that's basically the gist of this application. They are fulfilling their duty to come in and annex with the city after receiving services. So, that's basically what I have for you. Smith: Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? And can we begin with your name and address. Tong: My name is Dara Tong and the address 485 East Overland Road. Smith: Thank you. And, then, do you -- yeah, if you wanted to add any comments or anything? Tong: No, I don't have any comments. I'm good. Smith: I guess I do have one question for you regarding that -- that outbuilding -- that rear building and is it -- is the -- is your intention to ask City Council to allow that to be grandfathered in, to not have to -- to not have to remove that structure? Tong: The -- Smith: So -- yeah. So, the -- as staff was saying is you have a structure that's the structure in the rear if we are looking at the -- this building -- or this map -- this image. You have the structure here that the mouse is pointing to that doesn't conform. It's -- it's not aligned with kind of what city code requires and so if -- from what the applicant -- or from what staff is saying is that when we annex that either needs to be removed or you can ask City Council to be grandfathered in. Is that to be -- to be allowed to -- to remain there, because it was already there? Tong: I didn't remove anything. It's just a -- Smith: Okay. So, the goal is to -- the goal is to not remove that? Is that -- I don't want to -- I just want to make sure we have a proper understanding of the conversation -- Ritter: The conversation is he wants to keep the structure there. F-19 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 16 of 37 Smith: Okay. He wants to keep -- okay. Cool. Okay. Thank you. No, I will -- any -- any questions, Commission? Okay. Thank you. Madam Clerk, is there anyone signed up to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. No one has signed up. Smith: Okay. Is there anything else you would -- you would like to add? Anything? Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Perreault? Perreault: Mr. Vice-Chair, I move that we close the public hearing for application Tong, H-2025-0049. Stoll: Second. Smith: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Smith: I guess I will just add something. I -- I think based on -- I just wanted to make sure we are clear about kind of the implications of that. I don't have a problem with letting the -- the structure stay there. I would be comfortable even recommending to City Council that that's what they do. Obviously, they can take that or leave it, but that seems fine where it is. That's the only thing that I would add. But I don't know if anyone else has thoughts. Perreault: Mr. Vice-Chair? Smith: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I agree. I don't -- I don't have a concern about that accessory structure in the back and would recommend to Council that we allow that to be left. Smith: Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Sandoval, anything you guys would like to add? Stoll: Just what do you guys have stated captures my sentiment. Smith: If I can get a motion then. Perreault: Mr. Vice-Chair? Smith: Commissioner Perreault. 20 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 17 of 37 Perreault: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2025-0049 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 5th, 2026, with no modifications. Smith: Is your intention to -- I guess I think if you -- if you wanted to recommend that staff-- or the City Council keep that I think that would be a modification. Perreault: Mr. Vice-Chair? Smith: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I wasn't of the understanding that staff was -- staff recommending that it be removed? I didn't think staff was recommending it being removed. So, I don't think we have to make that modification. Smith: Okay. Okay. That's fine. Stoll: Second. Smith: All right. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing continued from December 18, 2026 for Shafer View Ridge Subdivision (H-2025-0047) by Gregg Davis, Breckon Land Design, located at Lot 18 of the Shafer View Estates Subdivision at the intersection of S. Meridian Rd. and E. Shafer View Dr. A. Request: Annexation of 15.2 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-4 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 38 lots (29 building lots and 9 common lots) on 13.437 acres of land. Smith: All right. Next on the list is -- next on the agenda is Item No. 5. That will be the Shafer View Ridge Subdivision, Item H-2025-0047. We will begin with the staff report. Ritter: Just a second. Sorry about that. Smith: No worries. Ritter: Misplaced a page of my stuff, so -- so, the next item is for an annexation and a preliminary plat. It's an annexation and plat for an annexation of 15.2 acres of land from RUT in Ada county to R-4 zoning districts and a preliminary plat consisting of 38 lots and 29 -- 29 building lots and nine common lots on 13.437 acres. Apparently there is a F21 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 18 of 37 discrepancy in my minimum lot size. It's supposed to be 8,030. 1 got excited in writing these and the largest is the 24,000 square feet. So, the minimum lot size in the R-4 district is 8,000 square feet. This is your annexation exhibit. This is the preliminary plan. So, access to this property will be via Meridian Road, which is an arterial, and Mondt Meadows, which is a collector road. So, a couple of issues and waivers that are being asked for on this. The block length exhibit. There is a waiver for the block length as a block face for the proposed development on the south side of the existence street. It exceeds the 750 feet requirement between South Snowdon Way and South Mondt Meadows Way. So, the applicant will be requesting a waiver from City Council for that. And at this time sewer is not available to the eastern portion of development, but sewer -- and sewer is dependent upon the Mondt Meadows Subdivision bringing sewer to and through to the development. The final plat for Mondt Meadows has been approved already, so they will be moving forward with their final plat signature, so they can start putting those improvements in. And there is one common driveway with this development as you see outlined here. This is their landscape plan. So, we have a ten foot pathway along Meridian Road. We have a five foot pathway along the southern portion of the property with landscaping on both sides of that pathway. We do have amenities in this area. We have a playground and a bench as you can see here, along with our open space exhibit. So, they do exceed their open space exhibit. They are required to have 12 percent, which is 1.61 acres and they have 22 percent, which is 3.04 acres. So, they do exceed that. They submitted six conceptual building elevations and so what they -- buildings are designed with the elevations that create interest through the use of broken plains, windows, fenestration that produce a rhythm of materials and patterns. Design review is not required for single family detached structures, but because the specs of -- it's along Meridian Road we are asking that -- that the rear and sides of the homes that are facing Meridian be incorporated with articulation through changes in -- to a more -- the following modulation, projections, recess setbacks, pop outs, base banding, porches, balconies, these type of things that we are looking forward to break up the -- just the plain structure and as you can see from the design of these it looks like they have done a lot of that. Single stories are not included in that. So, the irrigation district -- the Boise-Kuna Irrigation District has some requirements for this application and the applicant is aware of this and the purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the patrons have the use of their water as they have historically and that no harm has been incurred from the newly proposed development. Adjoining landowners will not have their conveyance ditches altered or restricted regarding water entering or departing their respective properties. So, the applicant will have to meet these requirements with the irrigation district. They submitted a letter with these requirements. Again as this property is in close proximity to a state highway, noise abatement is required. The applicant is proposing to use the existing cut bank along Meridian Road, which will act as a berm and, then, combination with a wall extending ten feet above the -- the highway center line. There -- the fence will be designed to incorporate architectural elements and to break up this -- monotonous wall plains as required. So, they are meeting that requirement for noise abatement. And this is a table from the school district showing what the program capacity is for the middle school and the number of students they have for the elementary school and the number of students they have enrolled, as well as a high school -- the middle school 22 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 19 of 37 and the high school. So, we try to call out -- I try to call out what the schools have sent us, because I know this is kind of something that you guys and the Council like to see. So, we did have written testimony on this. So, Debbie Boyd submitted comments that it was like a -- a letter and had a bunch of signatures from some of the homeowners, so she was representing the Shafer View Estates HOA. So, the concern -- the safety concerns regarding this was increased traffic volumes on the existing roadways and its impact to motorists and pedestrians. The addition of homes from the proposed Shafer View Ridge and approved Sky Ranch Subdivision can be expected to significantly increase daily traffic on Shafer View Drive, since currently the single line road possesses -- poses safety hazards due to a limited visibility, especially when turning onto Meridian Road or Shafer View Drive and the view corridor is further impacted by a rise to the south. Drivers must pull past the white line for a clear view and the traffic rarely adheres to 55 miles per hour speed limit. The lack of a deceleration lane forces many to use the side medium, which is unsafe. Turning from north onto Shafer View Drive is completely -- it's complicated by blind spots caused by road curvature, making it hard to see parked cars or oncoming vehicles and she had also mentioned something about where the school bus stop is located, it used to be on Meridian Road, but they moved it inward on Shafer View Lane, helping to reduce that issue. But, apparently that's still a concern. So, based on this information staff is recommending approval of this application with the conditions that are outlined in our staff report and with that I will be happy to stand for any questions that you may have. Smith: Thank you. Are there any questions for staff? All right. Would the applicant like to come forward. Begin with your name and address. Breckon: Jon Breckon. 6661 Glenwood Street, Garden City. I have a presentation to walk through here and I guess, you know, a couple things to add. You know, we had a good time working through this with -- with Linda and -- and team. It's a challenging project just because it's kind of in-fill and an odd shape and you may remember when we came through with the Mondt Meadows project previously to the south -- we have been working on both of these projects together. Mondt Meadows is almost approved through land design. We are waiting on final improvement from ACHD for an easement and, then, I look forward to starting construction on that project and that's the one to the south that we connect to and I will -- I will probably go pretty quickly through some of these slides. I think Linda covered most of the overview stuff. I just wanted to add a little more detail. So, here is the Mondt Meadows project to the south and it connects to Sublimity Avenue on the east side, which is a collector street, and that -- actually, I will keep going, because I have got a better slide. Speak to that one. The zoning and how we fit into that -- that zoning context. Sky Ranch to the south has a -- has a higher density and, then, we have been in -- part of our goal on this project is to have a transition between Sky Ranch and, then, we have got some existing one acre lots on the north and east and, then, previous Shafer View project that the R-4 to the northwest there. Here is our school locations that Linda mentioned. Services. Fire stations. I have got -- that are close by and, then, here is kind of our overall plan and you can see -- you know, one of the things we did to -- to buffer the Sky Ranch to the south is have that -- that nice common area and landscape buffer with a pathway that connects from F23] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 20 of 37 that westerly street all the way over to the east of Mondt Meadows Way. Here is a little connectivity map that speaks to traffic circulation a little bit. Just for overall and adjacency. You can see Meridian Road there on -- on the west and we did explore options there. That letter that was sent in spoke to the access off of Shafer View Drive. We actually did quite a bit of work to change that access off Shafer View Drive, so that it would be moved further to the south, essentially aligning with where we have that proposed driveway and, then -- oh, the mouse does work. Yeah. Right here where that driveway is. We were going to -- we were going to move this -- we were going to block this off and do a turnaround and we -- we looked at that concept and we were going to move the access down here, but it ended up being cost prohibitive. So, we talked to the ITD, they were going to require us to install thousand feet of a concrete buffer, which is part of their long-term plan for Meridian Road is to have a center median all the way through there and, then, turn Shafer View Drive into a right-in, right-out. So, anyway, we -- we did make some modifications in any case there to help with the safety of it. Right now as you exit Shafer View Drive onto Meridian Road there is a -- the embankment on the south side is very -- is -- kind of blocks the view, so you can't really see the oncoming traffic very well and so you can see we have got that triangle shaped lot right there where we are going to -- we are going to grade that -- that whole hillside back, so you can -- you can see the oncoming traffic. The other thing we did was -- based on neighborhood meeting was we relocated -- we shifted this driveway connection over so that headlights would not shine into the house across the street. It's aligned with a common lot right next to it and, then, overall traffic circulation -- I don't really have a plan -- actually I think I might have a plan of -- of the Sky Ranch to the south. I can show you that later if you would like to see it. But, you know, you can see the red arrows here that show traffic connectivity and circulation. Like I said, Mondt Meadows is -- you know, we anticipate starting construction on that very soon and, then, that would be a connection point here and, then, that all connects over to Sublimity Avenue, which is a collector street and it also connects up and over to Quartz Creek, which connects to Meridian Road. Here is the block length item Linda mentioned. You know, Shafer View Drive, existing road, and, then, you know, as I mentioned trying to lay this out proved quite challenging. We went through several revisions to get it to work and -- and to get lot sizes to -- to transition as you can see and so we are -- we are slightly over that 750 foot threshold between these two access points. Another item was ACHD was -- or I think actually the -- excuse me -- the city was wanting to -- wanted us to build a sidewalk on the north side through here and kind of went back and forth trying to work that out. We had landed on doing a -- a striped pedestrian route on the road, so that we wouldn't be tearing up the people's front yards and ACHD was not supportive of that, but, you know, part of what we are planning is to extend crosswalks for -- you know, we are doing a curb, gutter, sidewalk on the south side and all the new -- within the new development and, then, connecting up to the neighborhoods to the north with crosswalks where there is sidewalk over on the -- on the west side. And I have got some detail here on utility connections. You know, water, we are connecting to the west and, then, also to Mondt Meadows to the south. Here is the irrigation or, I beg your pardon, the sewer map. So, the east side -- the way this grades out east side will sewer to the east and connect to Mondt Meadows and, then, the west side sewers to the west and connects to the existing sewer. Shafer. Oh, 24 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 21 of 37 Irrigation. Irrigation. This was -- this was a fun one, too. So, it was good that we go to work on both these projects at the same time, particularly on the irrigation front. There is -- so, our head gate is a little off the map here to the north and, then, there is a pipe -- you can see it right here that comes down and has historically fed gravity irrigation to this property Mondt Meadows and, then, the neighbors to the south and -- and these folks down here and -- and they -- you know, we found out as part of this and working on the Mondt Meadows project, they -- they really don't get their irrigation water just because of the grading it's just -- they -- they can't get it there. They tried and had a lot of issues with that and so what we agreed to was to do a joint pump station with a -- an irrigation pond at this location and -- and, then, do a pressurized irrigation system that would not only serve this development, but Mondt Meadows and, then, these neighbors to the south that are adjacent and so I was just reviewing that the other day. I think we have got that all figured out. This is a picture of the playground that we are proposing and the open space. Open space. And the -- and the homes. Stand for questions. Smith: Commissioners have any questions? Perreault: Mr. Vice-Chair? Smith: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Can you tell us the -- the width or the -- I should say maybe the depth of that transition -- that landscape transition between -- on the south side and also kind of how the lots will line up? I can kind of see very faintly the -- the grid lines here, but help us understand more about that transition. It looks like that there is a lot of density in Sky Ranch in comparison to this. Breckon: There is. I think -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, there is -- yeah. This landscape buffer through here, that was one of the reasons we wanted to have that in there is because we do have a bit of a jump on the -- on the lot sizes and you -- yes, on this one in particular you can see, you know, these are -- these are quite dense and -- and so in order to provide a nice buffer there -- now the width of it -- I don't remember the width of it off the top of my head. It's 15 or 20 feet. Is it 20? Twenty wide. So, it's -- it's comfortable I guess I would say. I think it will be -- I think it will serve its purpose there, so that we can get some sizable trees in there and -- and provide a -- a decent buffer. Fencing as well is per code. Yes. So, we have got -- see if I can remember. It would be solid fence on both sides of that, I believe, because of the backyards. Smith: Could you explain why ACHD wasn't supportive of -- or isn't supportive of the sidewalk or -- or path on the north side? Breckon: Mr. Chairman, yes. So, that -- I'm just going to go back to that slide. I don't know if I have a road section of it, but -- so, there is an existing road there and those one acre lots are -- they are still in the county and so county standards -- there was -- when they were built there was no requirement for a sidewalk at that time and so there was never a sidewalk installed there. There is a curb and gutter, but no sidewalk. And F25] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 22 of 37 so, you know, beings what it is, an in-fill project, staff wanted us to install a sidewalk along there for those -- those three folks then -- through their yard and -- and, you know, that would disrupt everything they got going on in their front yard. Anyway, that -- the -- the pathway, what we were trying to get in there, was a striped pedestrian way. So, I guess it would be similar to a bike path, right, where you have a -- a separate stripe to delineate a pedestrian area from the drive aisle, if that makes sense, and they were not supportive of that. Smith: So, I guess to -- to -- to clarify or -- or to give additional context, in our prep meeting and make -- and to make sure I guess I'm on the right page -- in our prep meeting I was under the impression there -- there is an existing pathway coming off of Meridian on the north side that connects -- or that -- that end somewhere, is -- is that right? Breckon: There -- there -- there is -- there is -- so, there is one -- this -- this previous phase of, you know, Shafer, this was done just a few years ago where these three lots -- this all connects up to the north and, then, these green lots here are the -- the older one acre lots and so, you know, when these -- when these went in more recently they have curb, gutter and sidewalk and so that sidewalk -- this dead ends here at the -- I -- I don't remember if it's at the common lot or at the end of this lot and so that's -- I think that's what we were trying to do is, you know, connect that sidewalk and extend it along this frontage over -- over to this east side. Now, we have got, you know, curb, gutter, sidewalk on -- on the south side and so, you know, I guess, our -- our fix or -- or whatever you want to call it was to provide a crosswalk that would connect from the north to the south and, then, you know, people can walk along a sidewalk on the south side and, then, also provide another crosswalk over on this side. So, if these folks want to walk over and enjoy the park they can -- they at least have a crosswalk there and stuff. Smith: So, I believe we have eight feet of right of way. Is there anything -- because, personally, I don't like just that -- just nothing happening there. I don't like the lack of connection there and just letting that kind of -- just kind of be in a state of -- of being incomplete. So, we have eight foot of right of way, five feet of-- five foot stripe attached -- you know, attached pedestrian walkway. Is there anything outside of ACHD's displeasure, if they have done -- you know, is there anything that would preclude you from being able to do that if that was a requirement? Breckon: Oh, besides ACHD? I -- Mr. Commissioner, I don't think so. Smith: I mean I guess the question for staff is that's city right of way, is it not? Is that -- does ACHD have the ability to control -- that seems like that would also be a city -- that's city street. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's -- it's all ACHD right of way. It's not the city's purview. F26] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 23 of 37 Smith: Oh, it is. Parsons: Yeah. Smith: Okay. Parsons: Correct. It's -- we defer to them. I know Linda and I tried hard to understand why we wouldn't do sidewalk and -- because we do have comprehensive plan policies that say complete streets are required or desired as part of the Comprehensive Plan and we all understand it's difficult when you have a county subdivision and, then, you are building around it, trying to get the infrastructure to align with what's currently in the area. Historically in these types of situations we would prefer to have the property owner's agreement, because it does impact their property. There is landscaping and those -- there is a lot of obstructions in the way and that's why ACHD kind of said, well, we are -- we are not going to require the sidewalk and so the applicant worked with us -- we thought, well, could we stripe it? They are like, well, you know, if -- we don't need the striping and so we kind of landed on the crosswalks where they were. Smith: Okay. Parsons: But we -- at staff we still felt it was important to have some kind of pedestrian delineation on the -- on the north side of the road, whether it was striping or the existing sidewalk and that's why in our staff report we left the condition as approved by ACHD. That way if they say, yes, the applicant can do it. If they say, no, the applicant can meet the condition, so -- Smith: Okay. Parsons: So, we left it pretty -- pretty open-ended for the ACH -- the road authority, transportation authority, to make that -- that call. Again, this one's going in front of City Council as well, so if-- if Council -- I'm sure they will weigh in on that topic as well. Smith: Thank you. Sorry, I was under the impression arterials and collectors are ACHD and local roads are Meridian. I know it's not always cut and dry. In this case I guess -- I guess not. It's not. Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions? Commissioner Stoll? Stoll: So, the sequencing of all the projects is what I'm kind of struggling with. So, the -- the development to the north that was part of Ada county. Is it Ada county approved? How -- how long ago was that? And you all were -- you and the developer -- same developer did it or is it different? Breckon: No. Mr. -- Commissioner Stoll, the -- the -- yes, the area that's in the county I think -- this -- this shows it. Yeah. So, we have got these -- these gray lots here, that's still in the county and that was done when the -- 2003. 27 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 24 of 37 Stoll: The Mondt Meadows is the -- you were involved in that one? Breckon: Yes, sir. Stoll: Is that under the county or is that under the city? Breckon: That is city and that -- Stoll: How long ago was that? Breckon: That was approved just last year. Stoll: Last year. Breckon: Yes. Stoll: And, then, Sky Ranch -- Ranch coming our way. Breckon: That has already been approved. Stoll: It's already been approved. Breckon: Yes. Stoll: Okay. When was that? Sorry? I'm new, so -- pardon? Breckon: 2024. Stoll: Okay. So, how come they didn't all come together? Breckon: Well, Commissioner Stoll, I -- I do not know. You know, we -- we tried to get at least these two to go together, but the -- the different ownership and ownership of Mondt Meadows didn't want to wait and so I moved forward and -- yes. I mean in reality if -- if we can get -- you know, if -- if we achieve approval here relatively soon on -- on -- on this project construction of -- of the Mondt Meadows and this project could essentially happen at the same time. We will start at one and kind of work our way through the other one would be kind of the expectation. Stoll: Was there a traffic impact analysis required for Sky Ranch? Breckon: I'm not sure about that. I -- I don't think so. Ritter: They did not require one, because there had been one done in this area previously and so they went off of that and it was more of a rezone, so it -- because it was already annexed in. 28 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 25 of 37 Smith: Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Sandoval, do you have any questions? Sandoval: No. Thank you. Smith: All right. Okay. Well, thank you. Continue to public comment. Madam Clerk, is anyone signed up to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. We have Gail Ward. Smith: And if we could begin with your name and address. Ward: Yes. My name is Gail Ward. 152 East Shafer View Drive. I have some pictures. Can I give them to you? Okay. Smith: Pass them around. Ward: Thank you. That's just some pictures that I have taken that shows you a little bit of traffic on our street on Shafer View. I was going to say that, you know, our Shafer View Drive was designed for 15 homes in a rural area. Now, you have got Shafer View Ridge is coming in with 29 homes. You have got 188 homes coming in in Sky Ranch, which there was never traffic studies done for that and you have got them all channeling and funneling to Shafer View Drive. So, you have got 230 homes coming down Shafer View Drive, which is not accommodating for them any cars -- or for that many homes. It's just a small road and as you can see the pictures that I gave you you can see when cars are parked on the street how hard it is to get by. There has been many times with those constructions of those three homes that have come in on our street that just gives you a demonstration of how we have had to maneuver to get out of our road and coming into the road. There is blind spots, there is curves and, then, as you could see at the first page it's a slope down. Even, you know, learning tonight, you know, where they are wanting to take out that one lot and making -- taking part of that hill, it's still going to be a hard one to see, because Meridian Road to the south of it from Lake Hazel -- it's got a slope, so we have to pull way out to even be able to -- oh, excuse me -- to see the traffic as it comes down and I mean they are not going just 55. 1 go about 55 and I -- they -- I think I'm sitting still sometimes because they pass us so quickly. And so you have to -- you can't even see them until they are up on you and if it's getting dark or dusk you -- you can't even go out, because the traffic -- you don't know which lane they are in and so you have to sit there until you are up on it and if you have got these 230 homes and they have all got at least one car or more and they are coming out on Shafer View to get out to Meridian Road -- I mean it's just going to be a nightmare. It -- it just can't -- I -- I mean it's just not going to work. Anyway. And, then, when you have Shafer -- or Costco coming in only a half a mile, that's going to increase traffic, which it's going to be even harder for us to even get out of our street. I have sat there sometimes five, six minutes just to get out onto Meridian Road turning right, not turning left, but just turning right. So, you can imagine if you have got that many cars backed up on Shafer View Drive trying to get out on Meridian Road what that's going to 29 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 26 of 37 do? It's -- it's terrible. And, then, learning tonight about the sidewalks, you know, to cross the street, you know, to go walking on the -- you know, the south side of the -- the road, I mean how are you going to get across when you have got that much traffic zooming on Shafer View Drive? I mean that's dangerous to have people in a crosswalk trying to even get to another sidewalk. We, as a subdivision, did you say that we would be happy to close off and -- and, you know, Shafer View Drive, which would be great. We would have to travel farther -- farther, but that's okay to us. I do understand that it's an expense for the new developer and the new subdivision, but there would be a straight line of traffic. They would be able to have a straight road to Meridian Road. It would be straight on Meridian Road. They wouldn't have to see any hills or anything. The traffic -- you know, they would be able to access a lot better on Meridian Road. even though taking out that one lot you are still going to have that incline on Meridian Road, which is going to still be dangerous for that much traffic to -- to go out onto Meridian Road from Shafer View. So, I'm just begging you to please not pass this through yet until more traffic study is done, that this is going to be an accident waiting to happen. Our neighbor got hit on the subdivision going -- with a car going a hundred miles an hour. So, something needs to be done before building can proceed. So, I beg you that you would look at those pictures, see what we are talking about and take that in consideration before this is approved. Thank you. Smith: Thank you. Oh, if you had -- Commissioner Perreault, do you have a question? Perreault: Yes. Thank you for being here. So, you are in the -- you are in the county parcels; correct? Ward: Yes. Perreault: So, I'm really surprised there is this many cars parked on that street given the lot sizes that you have. Are they construction vehicles? Ward: Those -- some are construction, some are looking at the homes, you know, to -- for sale. But you figure people have company. We have company. And so they park on both sides. So, you got this one lane road that you are going to have cars on both sides and with the new subdivision those houses are going to be facing Shafer View, too. So, you have got houses -- we are going to be looking at more houses in front of us and if you are parking in front of your house or you have company -- and we are, you know, having company, there is going to be cars and there is going to be hardly any traffic -- you could never get two cars by, especially as fast as they go. You just -- it's going to be a nightmare. Perreault: Mr. Vice-Chair? Smith: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, cars parking on both sides of the street is allowed publicly in every subdivision. F30] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 27 of 37 Ward: Right. Perreault: So, you are saying what's unique to your subdivision is that the -- that there is curves and that is making the line of sight more difficult? The applicant said that they are going to take down some of that big berm that's on the south side, so that folks can have more of that view, you know, for those coming -- Ward: It doesn't take out the slope coming on Meridian Road. There is a slope that comes down from Lake Hazel to our street and you can't see beyond that. So, that doesn't -- yes, it may open it up and you can see maybe a little bit better, but you still can't see up that hill or what's beyond that hill, so -- but that's different than our -- parking on our street. Parking on our street you are going to have cars on both sides and, then, you are going to have traffic in the middle of it. You have got 230 homes that are accessing Shafer View with cars parked on both sides. Perreault: Mr. Vice-Chair? Smith: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, I have been doing this for about ten years now and in my experience most folks try to take the shortest route to get to the main roads. So, I haven't seen the -- the map of -- it's been a couple years, so I have -- I don't remember the map of Sky Ranch and where those folks are kind of driving out to get to. I assume they are going to Lake Hazel and Meridian Road. So, I -- I don't know what you mean when you there is 200 and some homes that will be accessing Shafer View. I would be really surprised if Sky Ranch was going through there -- Ward: If they want to go to Meridian Road they can. It's accessible to them. So, if they -- otherwise they can't get to Meridian Road. They would either have to go to Lake Hazel or they have to go towards Locust Grove. They cannot go to Meridian Road unless they access Shafer View Drive. Perreault: Yes, they can -- if they can access Lake Hazel, then, they can make a right onto Meridian Road at the light; correct? Ward: That is correct. So, I'm sure all the ones closer to Lake Hazel will do that, but the ones closer to us -- probably going to be using our road. Smith: Commissioners, any other questions? Ward: Thank you. Smith: Madam Clerk, is there anyone else signed up to testify? Lomeli: The next person signed up is Mary Ward. F31 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 28 of 37 Smith: And if you could state your name and address for the record. Ward: Excuse me. Mary Ward. 152 Shafer View. Thanks for taking our -- our comments, Commissioners. This has been quite a -- a process for us and our subdivision. Even a few things have come to light tonight that weren't expected as far as some of the things that have been proposed that we had not heard of recently. As you have heard, the -- the road design is -- is fairly old. From edge of asphalt to edge asphalt is only 32 feet. So, if you park a car on each side you have got -- you can't get two cars to go past that. The main -- the main problem is -- if I can get this -- is there another -- well, anyway, coming into Shafer View right here that -- that -- coming off on Meridian Road you are about four or five foot difference in height for Meridian Road to the -- the height of Shafer View. So, you are coming into there, you are coming on and as soon as you make the little crest on there it makes a right turn and, then, you go about a house length, a house and half length, and, then, you make another left turn. So, it's -- it's -- it's kind of convoluted in there and with the traffic on Meridian Road nobody hits that little hill at 15 miles an hour, which is the posted speed limit -- or 20 miles an hour, so it's -- it's all kind of coming around there and I am just a little worried about what's going to happen with this extra traffic and the Sky Ranch has no access to Meridian Road without going through a different subdivision of some kind. That down here -- where did my -- where did my mouse go? There it is. Right in here there is -- there is no access. The reason for the proposal was to -- to allow the traffic that's -- that's -- the street that comes in off of Sky Ranch and goes up into this was to put that little road right there, because right where that road is -- is -- it's flat with the little hill that's there. So, people coming down Meridian Road past Lake Hazel coming down and it has a little dip down, so if you are down in our little dip and looking to the -- to the south you can't tell exactly where all those cars are coming from. At night when the headlights are on you can't tell which lane those folks are in until they are almost there. So, that's -- that's been a -- a real -- a real big concern. I mean we -- we deal with it now, because that's what we are used to. Have been there for 22 years. But it just keeps increasing with all the traffic that's coming. So -- so, the line of sight with -- you know, we don't always know when people are visiting. If you have cars on both sides emergency access equipment is going to have a hard time. So, anyway, those are kind of my thoughts and I appreciate your time. Smith: Thank you. Commissioner Perreault, do you have a question? Perreault: Vice-Chair, yes. I think I remember you from the application to the -- or the subdivision to the north. Did you come? Ward: I was -- I was going to thank you for that, but I didn't think any of you have been here on -- when we did that, so -- Perreault: Oh, my goodness. No, I have -- I have been either on Planning and Zoning or City Council since 2017. So, I remember a lot of these. F32] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 29 of 37 Ward: You did make some concessions for us when we put those three lots there and I do appreciate that. I have -- so, that was -- that was a good consideration. But now they are kind of in the middle of that whole thing that's going on, so -- Perreault: I do remember having a lot of conversation about this access and the slope and no left turn lane into -- into the subdivision and I'm -- I'm not recalling off the top of my head what concessions the developer made, but I was of the understanding that they were supposed to -- to -- to make some improvements to that, so the line of sight was better. Is that not the case or -- Ward: Nothing was changed as far as the line of sight for the road. All of the entryway has stayed exactly the same as it was when that approval was made. The one concession that the -- that the Council -- City Council made was for them to put in circular driveway or some way, so that they didn't have to back out onto the road. Well, there is no circular driveways in those three houses, but they do have kind of larger driveways, so that they could back out of the garage and -- and come out forward. So, that they kind of -- they kind of did that, but it wasn't exactly what City Council recommended at that time. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Ward: Yeah. Smith: Thank you very much. Ward: Thank you. Smith: Madam Clerk? Lomeli: Mr. Vice-Chair, the next person is J.R. Hawkins. Smith: Would you state your name and address for the record. Hawkins: J.R. Hawkins. I live at 7034 Catfish Creek and that was my mother-in-law and father-in-law and we go over to their house and visit on a regular basis and when I -- we have been going over there with the new construction, with the contractors just parking their vehicles besides those, that's when it was a real eye opener of it doesn't take much traffic to where that's going to end up being a very dangerous area and I just wanted to stress to you guys, please, do a proper analysis of that street before opening that up, because I hate seeing -- and I have seen it time and time again -- where we go the easiest route -- it's not always the best route and, then, when something bad happens, then, we change it and I just really wanted to, please, stress do a proper analysis of that street before we open it up to more traffic. Thank you. Maria Lorcher, Commission President, 2-19-2026 Smith: Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you. Madam Clerk. Chris Johnson, City Clerk 33 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 30 of 37 Lomeli: Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. The next person -- I apologize with the handwriting I can't quite tell. Is it Oriole or -- first initial O. Last name starts with an M. I'm not sure. Smith: And if we can get your name and address for the record. Morgan: Dave Morgan. 498 East Shafer View Drive. I'm also the acting president for the last 20 years now for Shafer View Estates. So, kind of speaking also for the other, what, 13 homes that aren't here, so -- yeah. As far as the entrance on that, I know that's -- it doesn't meet current view corridor requirements for that. A lot of thing is, too, since the houses on that do face, you know, south you will have company that does -- going to park on -- you know, they park in the front of the house if somebody comes over, which, then, narrows that down. Whereas if you had the entrance more to the south those lots are aligned -- that's the sides. So, just basically -- basically cars can come in, get in, you are either going straight or -- oops. Sorry. Off to the left. So, it makes the flow a little bit better with that and, like I said, we were willing to -- the whole subdivision have it blocked off. You could even put a nice bus stop down there, because a lot of times we do get -- of course in the winter it's not just the kids coming out and the parents come down, they park their cars and, then, wait until the bus gets there and, then, let their kids out, so -- which cranks it down and I do know in wintertime a lot of times we have had -- I have had a couple cars run off into our entrance trying to turn in, because they are -- you know, they are going probably too fast for the situation, but a lot of times even coming in in dry conditions if they are not -- you know, everybody is going -- they -- I think that's highway -- not Highway 69, it's probably Interstate 69 is what it's kind of turning into, but -- and I do know that's supposed to go seven lanes here at some point at least to Lake Hazel and I'm guessing that will probably go maybe all the way to at least first phase for Columbia due to Shopko being in there. So, I think an entrance more to the south -- and if they need to do -- I know you may lose a lot on that. Well, then, since they are at 21 percent, take a lot out of the -- reduce the open space on the other side. Take it somewhere. They will still be within the parameters. And, yeah, the sidewalk is a new thing. I know those three. Of course, Mary and Gail will be in the first house there. The other two houses -- all your light posts that we have everybody install for our subdivision, all your mailboxes, everything is all right in that and I don't think any -- none of them really care if they have a sidewalk in front of their house just to go to cross the street to another sidewalk. You know, we have been doing it for 25 years now, so it's not that big of a deal and, then, I'm not quite sure on -- I hadn't seen before that second entrance coming in down past the third lot, if that necessarily also has to be an entrance, because that's going to tend to feed more traffic in the Shafer for the people on that side. Yeah. I guess it'd be -- oh. Yeah. Anyway right -- right there in that area there. Smith: I got Mondt Meadows Way specifically or -- Morgan: Yeah. I'm sorry. What? Smith: Are you talking about Mondt Meadows? F34] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 31 of 37 Morgan: Yeah. Mondt -- you all -- no, not -- yeah, I guess Mondt Meadows Drive. Yeah. Yeah. I didn't know we had that connecting into there, but -- that's -- of course everybody from there is automatically going to feed onto that, too. So, that increases a lot of your traffic on there. And, of course, I know for Sky Ranch, yeah, it's not everybody, but, you know, you are going to get your 50-50. So, if that's 140 homes, whatever, you are going to get at least 70 coming through there. Everybody is going to go -- if you are close to Lake Hazel you are going to go that way. So, you are still going to be over -- well over a hundred homes trying to go through that. So, that's why we would just prefer to have it -- do it the other way, so -- and we know eventually, too, we are not going to get a left out. Once they go to seven lanes it's right-in, right-out. So, it's like whatever. If it's a couple years early that -- that's -- that's okay. We know we are going to lose that -- maybe -- you are taking your life in your own hands going to Kuna, but that -- we would be okay with shutting that off now. So, thank you very much. Any questions for me? Smith: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you very much. Morgan: Thanks for your time. Smith: Madam Clerk. Lomeli: No one else has signed up and no one online has their hand raised. Smith: Is there anyone else who would like to testify? All right. Would the applicant likes come back forward? Breckon: Jon Breckon. 6661 Glenwood Street. I think a couple things on this whole circulation item. The one is there is a traffic study that was performed for this overall development, which -- and I'm speaking for Sky Ranch, because that's the bigger property to the south, a different developer, that -- we were not involved in that project, so I don't really know the history of that. Now, I -- I do have -- actually, let me see -- I have a print of Sky Ranch. I don't know if this is the latest version, but this was the one that we were able to obtain when we were working on planning and connectivity. I don't think this is the latest one, because I think we have since slid our southwestern connection, which would be the -- the -- this northwest connection over, but it's -- it's similar, so that we have got this for reference. One thing I would point out here is that -- actually, I will go back to the -- the previous one that I had just a second ago. I think what you will find is that traffic study contemplates what's been improved for roadways, the roadway connectivity and some of the upcoming improvements that are -- that are planned. We all know that Meridian Road is very busy and it is planned to be widened. I think it's three lanes each way, center median, and at that time Shafer View will very much change from the way that it has been historically. It will go to a right-in, right-out only and there will be a -- and we know this, because when we considered that we were coordinating with ITD and looking at those various options and so it will be impossible to make a left-hand turn to go to Kuna that way and I point that out, because part of this overall plan is that everybody will, for the most part, go to the east first and go over to 35 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 32 of 37 Sublimity Lane, down to Lake Hazel or up to Quartz Creek on the north where traffic signal lights are and at -- you know, if you want to go down to Kuna you will have to go down to Lake Hazel and, then, to the intersection and, then, take a left-hand turn at the light and -- and so that's -- that's an important point to make. So, Mondt Meadows coming in and in that connection to the east over through here will facilitate that connection. Solemnity Avenue is a collector road and that will -- will be signalized and, then, the other thing to consider is just the phasing of all this. The Sky Ranch, it's -- I don't know how many phases it has. It's got a lot of phases. But they will start construction on the east side, because that's where the sewer is and, then, move slowly to the west and, then, at some point, once they finish up, they will connect up to where we are -- have that stub road to the south for Standards. We have looked at many many concepts on this and I would be happy to have a -- a dead end right there where we have got that connection to the south, but that's not allowed. So, you know, I -- I can't speak for the other developers. There has been other developers involved with this, you know, the -- you know, there is the three lots to the north and on -- on the -- that -- that other Shafer project and, you know, I know one of the concessions we made there was we had four lots in there at one point, we brought it down to three and, then, the other thing I would point out here is on this -- on that corner that, you know, what we are really -- I want this thing to be safe, too. I mean this -- this is -- the way it is right now it's -- it's terrible. I have been out there. There is big conifer trees in the way. I mean you can't -- you can't see. I mean you got to really kind of watch your P's and Q's to -- to even to make a right-hand turn, so -- and so, you know, here you can see -- I mean this is all -- I mean that's why this -- we have this gigantic common lot here so that we can just cut that whole hillside back. This -- this -- this part of the road slopes and so, you know, cut -- cut that all back so that you can see and you can see what -- we moved our -- you know, one of the requirements, too, on Meridian Road, since it's an interest to the city, is to have that berm -- ten foot berm with a with -- a -- a fence on it and a nice landscape buffer and we have we designed -- we have actually designed everything from here north up to Amity, but what you will see here is that at this location, because of the safety concern, what we did is we pulled that berm back and that landscape buffer back, so that it's at the back of these lots and so this will be very very open, just turf area. So, it will really facilitate that -- that view. But, you know, all that to be said, I mean once this connection is made to the east anybody wanting to travel south will find that it's a lot easier to go to east down to Lake Hazel and, then, over, instead of trying to take your life in your own hands and -- for the -- for the short term and -- and make a left-hand turn on Meridian Road. So, they -- wanted to provide a little bit of clarity there. The -- and, then, that connection to Sky Ranch, you know, yes, we have that stub road there as we were required, but I would also note that that's -- that's a few years out as far as phasing goes before that connection is actually made and those folks will all, you know, be -- be traveling to the south and -- to Lake Hazel, because that's where the -- the light is. Stand for any more questions. Smith: Commission, questions? Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Mr. Vice-Chair, thank you. First I want to say thank you for this presentation. We see some interesting ones and -- and your presentation is clear, so that's nice. So, I F36] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 33 of 37 was just looking at -- and it might have changed, but I was just looking at the colored rendering of Sky Ranch and how they -- their traffic was going to flow and if you wouldn't mind bringing up your -- your traffic rendering as well. Not that one, the -- the larger one you have. Yes. Excellent. So, the property to the south of Escalation Street is still in the county, as well as that county parcel that has the -- has the home there. and so there won't be any connection for Sky Ranch into that area anytime in the near future; right? So, we kind of have to lose those -- those connections for a while and so since that's the case anyone who is directly south of-- in -- in Sky Ranch of the -- of that first curved street that we have here, they are likely going to go up through Shafer View to get -- you know, to get out to Meridian. So, if I'm understanding correctly what you are saying is that they would need to travel all the way south towards the waterway and head out south on Sky Ranch to Sublimity in that -- in that southeast corner to get to Lake Hazel and that the motivation for doing that would be to be able to be at the light? Breckon: Commissioner Perreault, I'm going to go to this -- on here, because I think this is what you are referring to on the circulation pattern in Sky Ranch. I don't know if it's the same one you are looking at, but there -- these connections to the south I think is what you are talking about. Perreault: Yeah. Let me see. That -- that might have -- and so maybe that's where the difference is. It may have changed since I last saw that. So, yes, so the -- so, you are anticipating that anyone over here in this northwest corner of Sky Ranch is going to head south and hit that Lake Hazel access? Breckon: Commissioner Perreault, I -- I think that's anybody's guess, but I think it really depends on which -- where they are wanting to go. I mean if you want to go down to -- if you want to go downtown Meridian you are -- you are going to want to get on Meridian Road and go north and so, sure, I -- I would agree that there is going to be a -- a component of people here that are going to short circuit and want to come out Shafer View and go to the north. No, I -- I think what I was trying to point out is that, you know, the phasing of -- of this project will start over on this east side and work its way over to the northwest and as such, you know, these folks are all -- well, they are right there on Lake Hazel. There is no reason for them to try to cut through the rest of the development, even if they were planning on going to the north and, then, to your point on, you know, the -- the -- the folks that are still in the county here just to the north there is this roadway connection here, but that -- or one of the requirements was to gate that off, so that -- well, that doesn't show it either. I will go back to the other one. So -- so that all these folks will be required to come out on this Escalation Street and that will -- that will -- and -- and by doing that, then, they will go on Sublimity either to the north up to Quartz Creek or to the south down -- down to Lake Hazel. Smith: So, just to make sure I'm understanding right, that Sky Ranch thing, kind of that -- the -- and I don't know, what is -- what is the name of this I guess curved street immediately off of Meridian? So, I go to -- on to Shafer, right, and it's that -- that first immediate right. This looks kind of-- yeah, this -- 37 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 34 of 37 Breckon: This one right here? Smith: Yeah. Breckon: Well, I think we have got three different street names there. Smith: Okay. This is the one I'm referring to. Breckon: The S curve. Yes. Smith: It seems to me that most of the people in Sky Ranch -- just to make sure I'm reading this right -- that westernmost connection to the north at Sky Ranch is this road, right? Not Mondt Meadows. Mondt Meadows is the one that's kind of currently -- okay. Breckon: Correct. Smith: Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. Just wanted to make sure I'm aligned. Commissioners, any other any other questions? Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: Not a question, but I just wanted knowledge -- and apologize. I -- for some reason I thought you all had developed Sky Ranch and that was my point of my question earlier. Now that you have clarified -- and I appreciate that clarification that you guys did not develop Sky Ranch, so -- Breckon: No problem, Commissioner Stoll, and I -- yeah, we were -- actually it was -- we had our hearing for Mondt Meadows same night as -- as Sky Ranch and, actually, we were requesting that we had a little more transition than Sky Ranch, but, you know. Stoll: I'm fine with the questions you guys have asked have answered my questions. Smith: Any other questions, Commissioners? Commissioner Sandoval, do you have any questions? Sandoval: Mr. Vice-Chair, nothing for me. Smith: Yeah. All right. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing? Stoll: So moved. Perreault: Second. Smith: Moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. F38] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 35 of 37 Smith: Who wants to go first? Lot of thoughts. Stoll: In-fill. Smith: In-fill stuff. Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: In general from a transportation viewpoint folks are going to go towards spots that are going to make -- provide them the easiest access to the points that they want to go. In some cases, because it's a right-in, right -- eventually a right-in, right-out onto Shafer View Drive, some folks are not going to be taking that route. However, the layout of Sky Ranch doesn't provide a lot of connectivity for -- given the volume of people they are going to be there. There is going to be a large number of folks that are going to go towards that S curve or whatever that road is and accessing Shafer View Drive. That is going to be a challenge and has to be acknowledged. But I'm not sure -- I'm not sure what else -- oh, I'm sorry. I'm not sure what the other solutions are on that. Providing additional access onto Shafer View Drive is going to be even more problematic. I was initially having a problem with the -- the lack of additional roads to provide access onto that, but it provided additional traffic onto Shafer View Drive and would be an additional burden. That was just my first thoughts. I will let you guys -- Smith: Yeah. I think my -- my -- my biggest issues are not in the hands of a developer. I -- I don't like how Meridian Road operates there. It's not under the developer's control, under the cities, even under Ada county's, it's under ITD's control and -- and that is actually -- it's -- it's not ideal to say the least. I think when it comes to the conditions on Meridian Road I understand there is likely to be more internal congestion in some areas. I understand -- I'm actually not as concerned about traffic flowing from Mondt Meadows. I do think the people who are likely to go directly to Meridian are in this western most subdivision and so I think -- we call it Snowden, Lake Hasner Street, whatever -- whatever this -- this curve is, I think that's going to be the main source of access onto Shafer View Drive from the south and -- and when I kind of do -- look at kind of the number of houses I know it's -- there is the larger kind of congestion question, but I am glad that there is things like that and so I -- I do think it's also kind of the -- the -- the nature of -- of like the -- the geometry of that -- of that road necessitates kind of more careful driving. I live just off Meridian more north and we have -- often have cars parked on either side and that in combination with the shape of the -- the -- the actual path of the roads that actually I think makes -- a lot of times it makes me feel safer, because I feel like all the cars on my street are driving 10, 15 miles an hour when there are kids around and not 20, 25 and so I feel oftentimes that -- that, actually, it's -- it's the pace is a little calmer. It may not feel comfortable -- as comfortable, but that's also part -- part of what makes people slow down. So, I'm not as concerned about internal safety, I'm mostly concerned about safety on Meridian Road and I think, if anything, that this project alleviates that more than -- more than exacerbates that. So, I'm generally in favor of this. I understand the desire to kind of cap off that interconnectivity with Mondt Meadows, but that's -- the interconnectivity is -- that -- that's kind of the -- the purpose of some of this development. I don't know if it's explicitly in code, but I'm pretty sure it is or, you know, the developer is required to have that connectivity. So -- but -- but, yeah, 39 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 36 of 37 1 -- I understand this kind of change is hard. I understand there is a lot of construction into the parking and -- and things. I -- I fully empathize with that from previous experiences, but I -- I think on net this -- this addresses some really serious safety concerns on Meridian Road and helps alleviate that. Doesn't make them perfect, but helps. Hopefully provide a little bit more visibility and I know -- I'm not concerned about internal safety on this as much. As for the sidewalks, again, I think that's another thing that's out of our control. I really would love having those -- those northern sidewalks and walking paths and having a contiguous, you know, safe pedestrian path, rather than having to cross the street, but I don't know that there is anything we can do there, so I will -- I will -- I will wish upon a, star but that's about all I can do. Beyond that I -- I support this plan. Perreault: Mr. Vice-Chair? Smith: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I'm not a plat engineer by any means, but I have seen a few hundred of them and I -- just wondering if -- if -- this buffer is fantastic. Rarely do we see something like that and that well thought out to have a buffer like that. But wondering if that -- you know, could there be a roadway that would -- that could go there that -- where Sky Mesa heading north -- or Sky Ranch heading north they would make a right, then, and kind of fill out onto Mondt Meadows or something along that -- along those lines. I assume that there is a need for two streets in here for safety or -- or fire access, but if a street could be used as a buffer there, instead of that landscaping I -- that was a thought that crossed my mind. But I -- I really feel -- I mean I really feel for our -- our member -- members of the community here. I live off Ten Mile and when I bought my home Ten Mile was not a raceway that's basically equivalent to Eagle Road. So, I run the gauntlet every day to make a left out of my house and sit for five minutes to make a right out of my house. So, I completely relate with -- with you all. But our purview is really just to decide should we annex into -- this into the city and is it appropriate -- is the design of this appropriate for this -- for this location and appropriate for the city as a whole and a lot of thought has been put into this design. We respect the -- the owner's property rights to -- to -- to make an application like this and so as far as what the applicant is able to do with the restrictions that they have in and of their ability, I feel like they have addressed a -- a good majority of whatever they could address and so in that regard I'm -- I'm happy with what they have done so far. I don't see any reason that we didn't necessarily recommend denial, because there isn't anything that they haven't complied with with what the staff has asked. So, that's the tough part for us in that -- in that regard as well, so -- Smith: I think really the -- the only way to recommend denial is -- is just as deny the annexation as a whole and not based on any issues with the -- the plat itself, because, yeah, I don't think there is anything in the -- in the plat specifically that they haven't complied with. Commissioner Sandoval, do you have any thoughts? F40] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 5,2026 Page 37 of 37 Sandoval: Yeah, Mr. Vice-Chair. I agree, you know, that -- the traffic has already been addressed. I'm not going to talk about that. The buffers are great on this. I think overall it's a -- it's a good plan and definitely in favor of recommending approval. Smith: Commissioners, any other comments, thoughts, motions? I can make one if you would rather -- Stoll: Nope. I will -- I will do it. That's fine. Mr. Vice-Chair, after considering all staff, applicants and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2025-0047 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 5th, 2026. Perreault: Mr. Vice-Chair? Smith: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I would like to second the motion and I would like to say one -- one thing. I would encourage you all to go to the City Council hearing and share with them what you have shared with us, because they are a different body and they take different things we have a -- kind of a different purpose to some extent than they do. So, they will they will take your -- your concerns and consideration there as well. So, I second that motion. Smith: Moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Smith: With that I will take one final motion. Stoll: Move to adjourn. Perreault: Second. Smith: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:03 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED Maria Lorcher, Commission President, 2-19-2026 Chris Johnson, City Clerk F41 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the January 15, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commissioner Meeting 4 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 15,2026 Page 32 of 32 Starman: Yes. Lorcher: So, I would like a motion for Commissioner Smith to retain as vice-chair and myself Commissioner Lorcher as chair for the 2026 calendar year. Stoll: Madam Chair, I move to retain the existing officers from the 2025 commission for the 2026 commission. Lorcher: Do I have a second? Rust: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to keep Commissioner Smith as vice-chair and myself, Commissioner Lorcher, as chair. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Lorcher: I will take one more motion. Rust: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Rust: I move that we adjourn. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Lorcher: Thank you very much. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:28 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 2 16 126 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F36] E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Changes to Agenda: • Item#2: Syringa Crossing Mixed-Use Development(H-2025-0007)—Request for continuance to Feb. 1911 due to the site not being posted correctly with public hearing notice signs per UDC standards. Item#3: St.George AZ, CUP (H-2025-0004) Application(s): ➢ Annexation ➢ Conditional Use Permit Size of property,existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 2.0 acres of land,zoned R1, located at 1545 S. Topaz Avenue and 3870 E. Overland Road. History: On November 6t", 2025,The St.George project was presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission.The Planning and Zoning Commission continued the project to have the applicant work with city staff to fix outstanding issues to gain Commission favorable recommendation to City Council.The applicant has submitted revised drawings and documents based on this direction. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use Regional Summary of Request: The applicant requests Annexation of 2.0 acres with the R-15 zoning district to construct nineteen (19) multifamily units,and one vertically integrated residential building consisting of 7,987 square feet of commercial space, and four(4) residential units. Both uses required a conditional use permit in a proposed R-15 zoning district. Summary of changes from the previous hearing: Resolved Issues/Concerns: •The applicant did not decrease the unit count and remains at 23 total residential unit on the site. •Resolved the issues with Public Works regarding water and sewer easements and separation requirements. •Provided updated floor plans meeting the requirements for private usable open space for the multi-family units. •Revised the landscape plan to incorporate additional landscape details and elements. However, the landscape plan and site plan still do not match.These plans will need to match 15 days prior to the City Council hearing. Outstanding Issues/Concerns: •Much of the concern continues to focus on open space around the creek. The exhibit below shows that a significant portion of this area is located within the floodway. Since the Commission hearing,the applicant has been discussing with the irrigation district the possibility of developing this area and incorporating it into the project's open space. However, because the property lies within the floodway,options are very limited and construction of a bridge is not feasible. In addition,the applicant is considering piping the creek, which is supported by the irrigation district but not permitted under the UDC. Staff has consulted with the City's Floodplain specialists, who indicated that any such proposal would require several permits including: a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis demonstrating how piping the creek would affect base flood elevations within the floodplain and floodway;a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) approved by FEMA,followed by a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR); an approved Section 404 Permit from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers; an approved Stream Alteration Permit from the Idaho Department of Water Resources;and an approved variance from MCC 11-3A-6. Obtaining these permits may require a significant amount of time and coordination. Natural waterways are intended to be preserved as natural amenities, and staff finds that leaving this area undisturbed and in its natural state is preferable.A balance must be achieved between open space preservation, maintaining the creek in an open condition, and the proposed project density. Staff recommends prioritizing the preservation of Five Mile Creek in its natural state, even if this results in the loss of a unit and providing additional open space elsewhere on the site.Alternatively,the Planning and Zoning Commission may consider counting the creek corridor as open space under the code. If the Commission supports the project,staff recommends that Five Mile Creek remain open without a bridge,the northernmost unit in Building A be removed to incorporate additional open space, and three (3)amenities, one from each category, be relocated to the open space north of Building A. •The applicant revised the landscape plan to address the water conserving design that is being requested along the Overland Road frontage. However, the landscape plan still does not meet the water conserving design standards. •Concerns persist regarding functional integration with the surrounding properties in the future. •In addition,the Planning and Zoning Commission should carefully consider whether the traffic generated by the development is appropriate given the existing conditions and access points. Development Agreement and Conditions to Consider: Below are conditions of approval and development agreement provisions for the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider IF they are going to recommend approval of the application to City Council. A. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review Application will not be accepted until the Ordinance and Development Agreement are recorded. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA.The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6) months of the City Council approval of the annexation Findings. The DA shall,at minimum, incorporate the following provisions IF City Council determines annexation is in the best interest of the City: B. Future development of this site shall be consistent with the site plan, landscape plan, qualified open space, and a total of three (3)site amenities one(1)from each category; one (1)vertically integrated residential structures featuring four(4)dwelling units and 8,000 square feet of commercial space along with three(3) multi-family building consisting of 19 dwelling units(for a total of 23 residential units); and conceptual building elevations and renderings as proposed in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. C. The Development shall comply with the Specific Use Standards for a multi-family development outlined in UDC 11-4-3-27 and a vertically integrated residential project as outlined in UDC 11-4-3-41. D. The applicant shall submit written documentation to Jason Korn to Pipe Five Mile Creek if allowed by City Council E. The existing homes and accessory structures shall be removed prior to submittal of the first Building Permit. F. Restaurants and Drinking Establishments shall be a prohibited use in the commercial space in the vertically integrated building. G. Any future development of the site must comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of the development Conditional Use Permit 1. The site and landscape plan shall include the following revisions: - Depict all proposed fencing and provide a fencing exhibit. - Implement directional signs and striping to indicate the northern entrance off of Topaz Avenue as one-way. - In order to count the buffer along the arterial street, it has to meet the enhanced buffer requirements in UDC 11-4-3-27C.9, 11- 313-5, 11-3G-3, and 11-3B-7C.3f. - Provide parking lot landscaping in accordance with UDC 11-313-8 or apply for alternative compliance to relocate the trees to the buffer along Overland Road. - Provide bicycle parking for the multi-family and non-residential uses in compliance with UDC 11-3C. - Leave Five Mile Creek in its natural state and remove the northernmost unit in Building A to incorporate additional open space, and three (3)amenities, one from each category, be relocated to the open space north of Building A. 2. The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC)and Administrative Design Review(DES)approvals before submitting any building permit within this development. 4. Off-street parking is required to be provided by the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for multi-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles, boats,or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area. 6. 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 outlined in UDC 11- 313-14. 7. With the submittal of the first certificate of zoning compliance application,the applicant shall provide a maintenance agreement for the development. 8. With the submittal of the first certificate of zoning compliance application,the applicant shall submit and get the 14 foot pedestrian easement for the future pathway. 9. The Conditional Use Permit approval shall become null and void unless otherwise approved by the City if the applicant fails to 1)commence the use, satisfy the requirements, acquire building permits and commence construction within two years as outlined in UDC 11-5B-6F.1; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as outlined in UDC 11-513-6F.4. 10. Fifteen (15)days prior to the City Council hearing,the applicant shall provide the revised concept plan, landscaping plan and open space exhibit to match, provide details for the amenities,and relocate the open space. 11. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD's conditions of approval. 12. Staff's failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2025-0004, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 5th, 2026,with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2025- 0004, as presented during the hearing on February 5th, 2026,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2025-0004 to the hearing date of for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item#4:Tong (H-2025-0049) Application(s): ➢ Annexation Size of property,existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.496 acres of land, zoned RUT, located at 485 E. Overland Road. History: The septic system was failing on the single-family residential property, and Applicant had to hook-up to City water and sewer service. No new development or redevelopment of the property is proposed at this time and the use will remain residential for the foreseeable future. There is an existing detached accessory structure on the property that encroaches into the required rear setback. Because no redevelopment is proposed,the applicant must either remove the structure or obtain approval from the City Council to allow it to remain as a legal nonconforming (grandfathered)structure. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential Summary of Request:Annexation of approximately 0.496 acres of land from R1 in Ada County to the R-4 zoning district. The applicant entered into an agreement with the City to annex within six months of receiving City utility services due to a failed septic system. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation:Approval Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2025-0049, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 5, 2026,with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2025- 0049, as presented during the hearing on February 5, 2026,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2025-0049 to the hearing date of(insert continued hearing date here)for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s)for continuance) Item#5: Shafer View Ridge Subdivision (H-2025-0047) Application(s): ➢ Annexation ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property,existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 15.2 acres of land,zoned RUT, located at the intersection of S. Meridian Road and E. Shafer View Drive. History: The property resides within Ada County and is currently zoned RUT. The property owner recorded a property boundary adjustment on January 16, 2024,to reconfigure the lot lines in order to subdivide the norther half of their property. This parcel is Lot 18, Block 1 of the Shafer View Subdivision. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Low Density Residential Summary of Request:Annexation of 15.2-acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-4 zoning districts; and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 38 lots (29 building lots and 9 common lots)on 13.437-acres of land. The minimum lot size proposed is 8,300 square feet (s.f.)and the largest lot size proposed is 24,000 s.f.The minimum lot size in the R-4 district is 8,000 s.f. Access to the property will be via Meridian Road, an arterial road and Mondt Meadows, a collector road. IssueslWaivers • Waiver for block face length as the block face for the proposed development on the south side of the existing street exceeds the 750 feet requirement between S. Snowden Way and S. Mondt Meadows Way. • Sewer is not available to the Eastern portion of development at this time. Sewer is dependent on Mondt Meadows Subdivision bringing sewer to and through their development to Shafer View Ridge Subdivision. Noise Abatement As the property is within close proximity to SH-69,the applicant will be required to provide noise abatement per UDC 11-3H-4D. Noise abatement could include but not limited to a berm or a berm and wall combination to help reduce the traffic noise. The applicant states this requirement can be met using the existing cut bank along Meridian Road,which will act as a berm, in combination with a wall extending 10 feet above the highway centerline. The fence will be designed to incorporate architectural elements and to break up monotonous wall planes as required. Building Elevations Six(6) conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed subdivision. Buildings shall be designed with elevations that create interest through the use of broken planes,windows,and fenestrations that produce a rhythm of materials and patterns. Design review is not required for single-family detached structures. However, because the rear and/or sides of homes facing Meridian Road will be highly visible, Staff recommends a DA provision requiring those elevations 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 that are visible from adjacent public streets. Single-story homes are exempt from this requirement. Common Driveway The applicant is proposing one common driveway that meets the dimensional requirements as outlined in the UDC. Block Face Length The existing street, Shafer View Drive, measures approximately 1,194 feet along the north side and approximately 873 feet along the south side, both of which exceed the maximum block length standard of 750 feet as established by the Unified Development Code (UDC).As a result, the block does not fully comply with the UDC block length requirements intended to promote walkability, pedestrian connectivity, and an interconnected street network. Accordingly, the applicant is requesting a waiver from City Council to allow the block face to exceed the maximum block length standard. This request is based on the existing configuration and alignment of Shafer View Drive,which was constructed within Ada County prior to the current development proposal and outside the context of the City's adopted block length standards. The applicant has stated that the size and irregular shape of the subject property, combined with the proposed residential lot layout and lot sizes, limits the ability to further subdivide the block. Irrigation The Boise-Kuna Irrigation District is requiring the applicant to provide the following: 1. A map that clearly shows the lots. 2. A design of irrigation deliveries and drainage ditches on both existing and proposed new lots. 3. Irrigation design for delivery to any adjoining properties that are impacted by the change. 4. GIS map of existing conveyance systems; irrigation easements and drainage ditches, on proposed development as well as adjoining properties. 5. GIS maps for any newly installed conveyance systems or drain ditches. 6. Engineer's certificate that new irrigation and drainage conveyance systems capacity is adequate to supply the water rights and drain the land. 7. Engineer's certificate stating the capacity on any new conveyance and drainage system. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure their patrons have use of their water as they have historically and that no harm is being incurred from the newly proposed development.Adjoining landowners will not have their conveyance ditches(live water and drainage) altered or restricted regarding water entering or departing their respective properties. West Ada School District School Capacity of School Number of Students Enrolled Mary McPherson Elementary School 550(Program Capacity) 526 Victory Middle School 1000 1094 Mountain View High School 2175 2516 Written Testimony: Debbie Boyd (on behalf of the Shafer View Estates HOA)—Safety concerns regarding increased traffic volumes on the existing roadway(Shafer View Drive)and its impact to motorist and pedestrians. The addition of homes from the proposed Shafer View Ridge and approved Sky Ranch subdivisions can be expected to significantly increase daily traffic on Shafer View Drive. Currently the single-lane road poses safety hazards due to limited visibility,especially when turning onto Meridian Road or into Shafer View Drive and the view corridor is further impacted by a rise to the south. Drivers must pull past the white line for a clear view, and the traffic rarely adheres to the 55-mph speed limit. The lack of a deceleration lane forces many to use the side median which is unsafe. Turning from the north onto Shafer View Drive is complicated by blind spots caused by road curvature, making it hard to see parked cars or oncoming vehicles. Staff Recommendation:Approval with conditions Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2025-0047, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 5, 2026,with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2025- 0047, as presented during the hearing on February 5, 2026,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2025-0047 to the hearing date of(insert continued hearing date here)for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s)for continuance) h2 Planning and Zoning February 5, 2026Commission Meeting Slide 1 h2 Agenda Item Numbers/Order: hoodc, 12/19/2006 Zoning MapAerialFLUM PreviousUpdated PreviousUpdated A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to l. Staff’s failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. k. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD’s conditions of approval.relocate the open space.plan, landscaping plan and open space exhibit to match, provide details for the amenities, and j. Fifteen (15) days prior to the City Council hearing, the applicant shall provide the revised concept 6F.4.-5B-outlined in UDC 116F.1; or 2) obtain approval of a time extension as -5B-construction within two years as outlined in UDC 11the applicant fails to 1) commence the use, satisfy the requirements, acquire building permits and commence . The Conditional Use Permit approval shall become null and void unless otherwise approved by the City if ithe 14 foot pedestrian easement for the future pathway. h. With the submittal of the first certificate of zoning compliance application, the applicant shall submit and get maintenance agreement for the development.g. With the submittal of the first certificate of zoning compliance application, the applicant shall provide a 14.-3B-landscape plan as outlined in UDC 11Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved f. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area.e. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles, boats, or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit.family -6 for multi-3C-street parking is required to be provided by the standards listed in UDC Table 11-d. Off(DES) approvals before submitting any building permit within this development.c. The Applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Administrative Design Review 15 zoning district. -7 for the R-2A-listed in UDC Table 11b. The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards north of Building A.additional open space, and three (3) amenities, one from each category, be relocated to the open space Leave Five Mile Creek in its natural state and remove the northernmost unit in Building A to incorporate -3C.-residential uses in compliance with UDC 11-family and non-Provide bicycle parking for the multi-relocate the trees to the buffer along Overland Road.8 or apply for alternative compliance to -3B-Provide parking lot landscaping in accordance with UDC 11-7C.3f.-3B-3, and 11-3G-5, 11-3B-27C.9, 11-3-4-UDC 11In order to count the buffer along the arterial street, it has to meet the enhanced buffer requirements in -way.-Implement directional signs and striping to indicate the northern entrance off of Topaz Avenue as one-Depict all proposed fencing and provide a fencing exhibit. -a. The site and landscape plan shall include the following revisions:Conditional Use Permit time of the developmentAny future development of the site must comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the -vertically integrated building. Restaurants and Drinking Establishments shall be a prohibited use in the commercial space in the -Building Permit.The existing homes and accessory structures shall be removed prior to submittal of the first -by City Council The applicant shall submit written documentation to Jason Korn to Pipe Five Mile Creek if allowed -41.-3-4-27 and a vertically integrated residential project as outlined in UDC 11-3-4-outlined in UDC 11family development -The Development shall comply with the Specific Use Standards for a multi-the provisions contained herein.residential units); and conceptual building elevations and renderings as proposed in Section VII and family building consisting of 19 dwelling units (for a total of 23 -space along with three (3) multiintegrated residential structures featuring four (4) dwelling units and 8,000 square feet of commercial open space, and a total of three (3) site amenities one (1) from each category; one (1) vertically Future development of this site shall be consistent with the site plan, landscape plan, qualified -in the best interest of the City:DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions IF City Council determines annexation is Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council approval of the annexation Findings. The commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to Development Agreement are recorded.Zoning Compliance and Design Review Application will not be accepted until the Ordinance and property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. A Certificate of Zoning MapAerialFLUM Zoning MapAerialFLUM The Boiseor restricted regarding water entering or departing their respective properties.Adjoining landowners will not have their conveyance ditches (live water and drainage) altered historically and that no harm is being incurred from the newly proposed development. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure their patrons have use of their water as they have Engineer’s certificate stating the capacity on any new conveyance and drainage system. 7.adequate to supply the water rights and drain the land. Engineer' s certificate that new irrigation and drainage conveyance systems capacity is 6.GIS maps for any newly installed conveyance systems or drain ditches. 5.proposed development as well as adjoining properties. GIS map of existing conveyance systems; irrigation easements and drainage ditches, on 4.Irrigation design for delivery to any adjoining properties that are impacted by the change. 3.lots. A design of irrigation deliveries and drainage ditches on both existing and proposed new 2.A map that clearly shows the lots. 1.Kuna Irrigation District is requiring the applicant to provide the following:- Number of Students EnrolledHigh SchoolMountain View 21752516SchoolVictory Middle 10001094Elementary SchoolMary McPherson 550 (Program Capacity)526SchoolCapacity of School Debbie Boyd (on behalf of the Shafer View Estates HOA) or oncoming vehicles. complicated by blind spots caused by road curvature, making it hard to see parked cars use the side median which is unsafe. Turning from the north onto Shafer View Drive is mph speed limit. The lack of a deceleration lane forces many to -rarely adheres to the 55a rise to the south. Drivers must pull past the white line for a clear view, and the traffic Meridian Road or into Shafer View Drive and the view corridor is further impacted by road poses safety hazards due to limited visibility, especially when turning onto lane -to significantly increase daily traffic on Shafer View Drive. Currently the singlethe proposed Shafer View Ridge and approved Sky Ranch subdivisions can be expected View Drive) and its impact to motorist and pedestrians. The addition of homes from Safety concerns regarding increased traffic volumes on the existing roadway (Shafer V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing continued from December 18, 2025 for St. George (H-2025- 0004) by Shaun Wardle and Jason St. George, located at 3870 E. Overland Rd. and 1545 S. Topaz Ave. A. Request: Annexation of 2.0 acres with the R-15 zoning district to construct nineteen (19) multi-family units, 7,987 Sq. ft. of commercial space and four (4) vertically integrated residential units. B. Request: Two Conditional Use Permits, one for the multi-family residential and one for the vertically integrated residential project in the R-15 zoning district. 37 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET E. DATE : February 5 , 2026 ITEM #3 PROJECT. NAME : St . George ( W2025 - 0004 ) by Shaun Wardle and Jason St . George , located at 3870 E . Overland Rd . and 1545 S . Topaz Ave . I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing ( mark X ( Please Print ) HOA ? if yes ) v r JUG (r 2 3 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . Py9ayor Robert E. Sirnison City Council Members: EIDIAN ��� John Overton, President r' Anne Little Roberts.Bice President 'cif, D H Brian Whitlock Liz Strad er Doug Taylor Luke Cavener February 5',2026 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission CC: City Clerk, City Attorney FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner RE: St. George(H-2025-0004) On November 6t'',2025, The St. George project was presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission continued the project to have the applicant work with city staff to fix outstanding issues to gain Commission favorable recommendation to City Council. The applicant has submitted revised drawings and documents based on this direction. Staff has reviewed the revised plans and offers the following summary: Resolved Issues/Concerns: • The applicant did not decrease the unit count and remains at 23 total residential unit on the site. • Resolved the issues with Public Works regarding water and sewer easements and separation requirements. • Provided updated floor plans meeting the requirements for private usable open space for the multi- family units. • Revised the landscape plan to incorporate additional landscape details and elements. However, the landscape plan and site plan still do not match. These plans will need to match 15 days prior to the City Council hearing. Outstanding Issues/Concerns: • Much of the concern continues to focus on open space around the creek. The exhibit below shows that a significant portion of this area is located within the floodway. Since the Commission hearing, the applicant has been discussing with the irrigation district the possibility of developing this area and incorporating it into the project's open space. However, because the property lies within the floodway, options are very limited and construction of a bridge is not feasible. In addition, the applicant is considering piping the creek, which is supported by the irrigation district but not permitted under the UDC. Staff has consulted with the City's Floodplain specialists, who indicated that any such proposal would require several permits including: a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis demonstrating how piping the creek would affect base flood elevations within the 0 floodplain and floodway; a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) approved by FEMA, followed by a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR); an approved Section 404 Permit from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers; an approved Stream Alteration Permit from the Idaho Department of Water Resources; and an approved variance from MCC 11-3A-6. Obtaining these permits may require a significant amount of time and coordination. Natural waterways are intended to be preserved as natural amenities, and stafffinds that leaving this area undisturbed and in its natural state is preferable. A balance must be achieved between open space preservation, maintaining the creek in an open condition, and the proposed project density. Staff recommends prioritizing the preservation of Five Mile Creek in its natural state, even if this results in the loss of a unit and providing additional open space elsewhere on the site. Alternatively, the Planning and Zoning Commission may consider counting the creek corridor as open space under the code. If the Commission supports the project, staff recommends that Five Mile Creek remain open without a bridge, the northernmost unit in Building A be removed to incorporate additional open space, and three (3) amenities, one from each category, be relocated to the open space north of Building A. • The applicant revised the landscape plan to address the water conserving design that is being requested along the Overland Road frontage. However, the landscape plan still does not meet the water conserving design standards. • Concerns persist regarding functional integration with the surrounding properties in the future. • In addition, the Planning and Zoning Commission should carefully consider whether the traffic generated by the development is appropriate given the existing conditions and access points. Development Agreement and Conditions to Consider: Below are conditions of approval and development agreement provisions for the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider IF they are going to recommend approval of the application to City Council. A. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review Application will not be accepted until the Ordinance and Development Agreement are recorded. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council approval of the annexation Findings. The DA shall, at minimum,incorporate the following provisions IF City Council determines annexation is in the best interest of the City: B. Future development of this site shall be consistent with the site plan, landscape plan, qualified open space,and a total of three(3) site amenities one(1) from each category; one(1)vertically -integrated residential structures featuring four(4)dwelling units and 8,000 square feet of commercial space along with three(3)multi-family building consisting of 19 dwelling units(for a total of 23 residential units); and conceptual building elevations and renderings as proposed in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. C.'..The Development shall comply with the Specific Use Standards for a multi-family development outlin-ed in-UDC.11 4-3-27 and a vertically integrated residential project as outlined in UDC 1I- 4-3-4 1 / D. The applicant shall submit written documentation to Jason Korn to Pipe Five Mile Creek if allowed by City Council - -E--The existing homes and accessory structures shall be removed prior to submittal of the first Building Permit. F. Restaurants and Drinking Establishments shall be a prohibited use in the commercial space in the vertically integrated building. G. Any future development of the site must comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of the development Conditional Use Permit 1. The site and landscape plan shall include the following revisions: - Depict all proposed fencing and provide a fencing exhibit. - Implement directional signs and striping to indicate the northern entrance off of Topaz Avenue as one-way. - In order to count the buffer along the arterial street, it has to meet the enhanced buffer requirements in UDC 11-4-3-27C.9, 11-3B-5, 11-3G-3, and 11-3B-7C.3f. - Provide parking lot landscaping in accordance with UDC 11-3B-8 or apply for alternative compliance to relocate the trees to the buffer along Overland Road. - Provide bicycle parking for the multi-family and non-residential uses in compliance with UDC 11-3C. - Leave Five Mile Creek in its natural state and remove the northernmost unit in Building A to incorporate additional open space, and three(3)amenities, one from each category,be relocated to the open space north of Building A. 2. The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and Administrative Design Review(DES)approvals before submitting any building permit within this development. 4. Off-street parking is required to be provided by the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for multi-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats,or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate,designated and screened area. 6. 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 outlined in UDC 11-313-14. 7. With the submittal of the first certificate of zoning compliance application,the applicant shall provide a maintenance agreement for the development. 8. With the submittal of the first certificate of zoning compliance application,the applicant shall submit and get the 14 foot pedestrian easement for the future pathway. 9. The Conditional Use Permit approval shall become null and void unless otherwise approved by the City if the applicant fails to 1) commence the use, satisfy the requirements, acquire building permits and commence construction within two years as outlined in UDC 11-5B-6F.1; or 2) obtain approval of a time extension as outlined in UDC 11-513-6F.4. 10. Fifteen(15)days prior to the City Council hearing,the applicant shall provide the revised concept plan,landscaping plan and open space exhibit to match,provide details for the amenities, and relocate the open space. 11. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD's conditions of approval. 12. Staff's failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. F-40 Revised Site Plan SNESf HO'IES: s COVERAGE AREA CALCULATION �orEs:Q�ve—eye�x ___ ^❑0 ® r �anoc '�I ++ : Ra,nnmoxs..n.wc uor,eo..ao. RID '•,,lam m..,,�� + I ��..,��s�'s�'.,. �ic •, •\ BLOGC a +' menvic�.s ,1 g d m.nw. ;1 �l u"n -a EcoOVERALL LAYOUT�I.V I-P TOPAZ DEVELOPMENT vo —-------------- F41 Revised Landscape Plan Rendering 0 . r o .,.'r ' N'/lIlLW-IFI�n6 rC�-0�.B,f•L&C\fA'S• !1J a 1 �� i y iV 9 'mod ys -- - - l Revised Open Space Exhibit ��?�' � % ■ � sne co�eee�zr � yT�i^f,. ■ _ hu � 0 7 ry's b cw+�yaw � u 43 Site Plan with Floodplain Overlayed P Z' r k f l a r I J r� F 4S R h FEMA Flood ZONE SUBTY x; . Ir./ FLOOMM 0.2PCT4NNLLAL ,�j? 2�. 'd[�, }� _ CHANCE FLGOD �t HAZARD 1 PO'ANNUAL(I-MU Al CONTAINED IN .. CHANNEL AREA OF M]NL*ML fL"HAZARD [all other valor.-. - ,•��_r` ww Y R i[ • ..T - -- "- � _--�E;Querlaaiti:Rd� ---4r 1 ■ Revised Building Elevation ------------------------------------------------------- .. O .. . La a 5 &Aa ° ggp a b 6!a 664 ' j LaA0151 _ ______—._._._.—.____._.________________--.__.._--.___—._ _____._._.___._.___---._._._._._._._----- l Y y � 6 b b] 00 .Q 2�:_ h" Amp ieo.axn swm-rvnarca � LLl � r. / �.. t F- 45 ti S a rl �. II�0 3I'lli jm U.Q mIDm,; mm��1 mmil AB212 - a Iwo MAIM Pm so.mr rrw .rr�nnwarv:a., U 7 � 4! a m m i- - lrnm•-�- --—� �iy,rJyyil•n�r, �m VIEWS v AA212 a mom mnF,Y. `b.m ne,liW.i 2 I ] m k EXTERIOR VIEWS MI lwo imo Nil qo � AC212 - - 47 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Tong (H-2025-0049) by Dara Tong, located at 485 E. Overland Rd. A. Request:Annexation of approximately 0.496 acres of land from R1 in Ada County to the R-4 zoning district. The applicant entered into an agreement with the city to annex within six months of receiving City Utility Services due to a failed septic system. 48 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : February 5 , 2026 ITEM #4 PROJECT NAME : Tong ( W2025 - 0049 ) by Dara Tong, located at 485 E . Overland Rd wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing ( mark X ( Please Print ) HOA ? if yes ) IL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 2/5/2026 Legend DATE: M Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of Impact «= City Limits m I[ FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner O Analysis - 208-884-5533 Iritter@meridiancity.org - --- APPLICANT: Dara Tong - a�- 77 SUBJECT: H-2025-0049 I�I�rr Tong Annexation-AZ LOCATION: 485 E. Overland Road, located in the N T"` '/2 of Section 19 T.3N R. lE Parcel# - S1119212410 - I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Annexation of approximately 0.496 acres of land from R1 in Ada County to the R-4 zoning district. The applicant entered into an agreement with the City to annex within six months of receiving City utility services due to a failed septic system. B. Issues/Waivers There is an existing detached accessory structure on the property that encroaches into the required rear setback. C. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the provisions in Section IV in accord with the Findings in Section V. 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) Residential - Proposed Land Use(s) Residential - Existing Zoning R1 (Ada County) VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning R-2 Adopted FLUM Designation Medium Density Residential VII.A.3 Proposed FLUM Designation Medium Density Residential Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 10/14/2025 Neighborhood Meeting 10/1/2025 Site posting date 1/26/2026 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District - • Comments Received No comment - • Commission Action Required No - • Access E. Overland Road - • Traffic Level of Service N/A - ITD Comments Received No Comment IV.E Meridian Fire No Comment - Meridian Police No Comment - Meridian Public Works Wastewater No Comment Meridian Public Works Water No Comment IV.B Note: City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section and public record for all department/agency comments received. Tong Annexation AZ H-2025-0049 (copy this link into a separate browser). City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure l: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:51119212410 Date Retrieved:2025/12/2 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: 530 Surrounding Area 161 9% Not City ® City Limits 4io 1,627. 2,468 1 ■ Not City Household Household& Population Growth Households 02020 Population Change:3.0°I° Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family Multi-family —0% 100% 0% ® Commercial do Preliminary Plats (last 5-years) Conditional Use Permit(last 5-years) Proposed Proposed Pending Pending Approved Approved 0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600 0 Single-family ® Multi-family City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ 2.00 2,000 Single-family y Residential T 1.50 143 1,500 Parcel Diversity a 1.00 1,000 U 0 Parcel Count 0.50 500 L © 0.27 `6 1810 a Average Acres 0.001. a'12 0 R-2 4 R-8 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 10.00 01 �8.15 Residential Net Density V 5.00 0 5.65 O 0 3.71 3,97 0.00 00.70 Dwelling Units 1 Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. Figure 2: Service Impact Summary Service Impact Tools Ready Margin Q Caution o Qo ray tm a• �� �p roo � as yo Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The MDR designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The property is developed with an existing residence,and the property owner intends to continue this use and has requested the R-4 zoning district. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History N/A Acreage 0.372 Lots 1 B. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): The applicant is not proposing any changes to the existing site. The annexation request is being made due to the failure of the existing septic system and the need to connect to City services.An existing detached accessory structure on the property encroaches into the required rear setback. Because no redevelopment is proposed,the applicant must either remove the structure or obtain approval from the City Council to allow it to remain as a legal nonconforming(grandfathered)structure. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The Applicant proposes to annex a 0.496 acre parcel,including the adjacent right-of-way to the section line of E. Overland Road with an R-4(Low-Density Residential)zoning district. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in VII.D. This property is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. The reason for annexation is the septic system was failing on the single-family residential property, and Applicant had to hook-up to City water and sewer service.No new development or redevelopment of the property is proposed at this time and the use will remain residential for the foreseeable future. The Applicant entered into an agreement with the City for extension of domestic water and sewer service outside Meridian city limits for the subject property(Inst. #2025-034475). This agreement allowed the property to hook up to City water and sanitary sewer service with disconnection from the private well and septic system.A provision of the agreement requires the property owner to apply for annexation of the property into the City as proposed with this application. Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principally permitted use in the R-4 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure future development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the land use desired for this property, Staff recommends a Development Agreement as a provision of annexation pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6511A,which requires the property to be rezoned and the agreement modified to include a conceptual development plan prior to any change in use and/or development of the property. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed existing house appears to comply with the dimensional standards of the district. C. Design Standards Analysis 1. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Residential parking analysis 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. The existing home meets the required number of off-street parking spaces per UDC Table 11-3C-6 for a three (3)bedroom home; four(4)parking spaces are required, at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10-foot by 20-foot parking pad. The existing home has an enclosed two-car garage and a detached one-car garage. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table The existing home is indicated to have three(3)bedrooms which requires a 20' by 20' garage and parking pad. The applicant is in compliance with these standards. D. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan 6.01.02B, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Access to the property is via E. Overland Road. With future redevelopment of the property, access via E. Overland Road and interconnectivity with adjacent properties will be evaluated in accordance with the provisions listed in UDC 11-3A-3. 2. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Overland Road is improved with an existing 7-foot wide attached concrete sidewalk abutting the site in accordance with UDC standards. Staff is not recommending that this sidewalk be replaced with and 7-foot detached sidewalk. E. Services Analysis 1. Utilities (Comp Plan 3.03.03G, UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accordance with UDC 11-3A-21. The Applicant entered into an agreement with the City for extension of domestic water and sewer service outside Meridian city limits for the subject property(Inst.#2025- 034475). The Applicant is currently connected to City utilities. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.03.03G requires urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks, water and sewer utilities. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ sa 4ti71s� 014-31 lb E averMnd Rd I 1 J � �r�4•F�f I F I e � r r f f � '� 1 ti4 f' r 4 S _ 1 City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision for annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum,incorporate the following provisions IF City Council determines annexation is in the best interest of the City: a. Prior to any change in use or redevelopment of the subject property, a rezone to a commercial and/or a higher density residential zoning district and a modification to this agreement shall be requested to include a conceptual development plan consistent with the Mixed-Use Regional Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation and guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan. b. Future redevelopment of the property will evaluate access via E. Overland Road and interconnectivity with adjacent properties in accordance with the provisions listed in UDC 11-3A-3. c. Future development of this site shall be consistent with the applicable standards in the city of Meridian's Unified Development Code. B. Meridian Public Works No Comment C. Irrigation Districts 1. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=425413&dbid=0&redo=Meridia nCi D. Ada County Development Services https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/browse.aspx?id=425413&dbid=0&redo=MeridianCit X E. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=425413&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ V. FINDINGS A. Annexation(UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds annexation of the subject property with an R-2 zoning district and requirement for the property to redevelop in the future consistent with the Medium Density Residential future land use map designation in the Comprehensive Plan is appropriate for this property(see Section III for more information). 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment to the R-2 zoning district is consistent with the purpose statementfor the residential districts in UDC 11-2B-1, in that it will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available in the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed residential use should be compatible with adjacent single-family residential homes/uses in the area. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the provisions in Section IV in accord with the Findings in Section V. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ■ , ' I I NINE Z" L ' y 1 1 11l11tI1.1 A.V ' ct Location ��.11111111111111�t. Q L pill. W of Impact • (D n i 84 h C ti Z- Legend •Project Location 'r �111 IIYI wl w�_ NINE- �= y - NINI MNI■NII., uAnalysis 0 11111���: l."I-I.mill r ln a: INII■u on. RU U O -- OYE 1 IN MEN -i ilnnlllll �—--—rli■:r 1■■■ I� � nn■ NINE s�i�r ' �i::■■n�■ A.r 1 alrs■�snn■ .. A MEN urran■■ ., ■Gail �� ■■R N� ♦ill�+� �I nn■:: pr■■un un.. No ♦ I �_■iii 1, a� nno.� ♦� ♦� ��}♦ � rn w■nnuy ♦ ■1111 - alaQl Al1ia� 1�■■■s P� ■ ■n h alri♦ :.lusss u O � ♦ sr����� .� ■■■■ ♦ Ilr■i■_■■�■rl■■►C �Eluf -yI �� �:- � ► r . •111►� �w :�. III. •_• nun: al ■ r r r ■■■ ! ..� �*IIIIn:�: ns��a ■ �r►r r■.r. nnlu �■11 11r i11! JJ .pills _ ■ ♦��+ rtid ♦ �: + :�nnn n1►�► �j�►�■�:'.= ^`♦♦♦ � � rr unn■�` �flIMF i� ■=fl_ .���1�1�1i1 �! :�1♦�y fts■�■sla f��t 1 Z. • Legend a.r' Ill Ill�r 111 !■ 1 Q' lin LocationProject �_ W M.NIIII^ Area of •• ',• • GIwnIL 0 Analysis111 ■i II■nt�i■1lrr _ , � ill ■■■■■■■ �. im rnnu'al�iuua 84 - V • • o ' (�Iijgh Density OYERLA�• 'ND� � ■s ■�r■ r '�►'r ���nn�no Ir f ' _ �i�■■■ ■ r���uu Via■ ■■ :_m�o �� ��!r bra r!j ♦♦�r�r�■a,~.Aiie.� ■■r - idential NINE ■ �� 1♦ �r.r r . u■ ��Ij+ngPmnuA\ • era:=� fr♦�`��1♦♦��lf��L.f■n�■ ■■r =`h ++�i111lq ■.:p r i ti*Eli��I♦y♦ .,�/=��r�/\ loll • - gyp' ♦ ♦ rly�K1• u �I♦ uum Ra • - • Pr m■n■• I�r�� ■■1r11\� � .Q � -di\ No �■nun liary ��:II� � lr .wN !Y! l-1� � n �f1��■■aP■■,�; . !l�!1 ♦I� �i► ■_ ■■■ ■IP1e -�I" ■ G r r o.�a1y ,■w �If !♦;.♦ ISO ■ .■11 1■■i ��._IrA�+ � ��.■ 1�rIr.r 1 1 I I�+ir .■ � 1■+ ■ rrr n■ �11+��I♦♦ ♦ i:\ r!!■�l� ["A IAii Aiiiiii ■� �■♦ ral+r r+rirrrrr► ♦ •■11 r lxlr ♦ ■- _- -_�I{uux=. a ♦ � �..aq woulu!►♦ • WOn rPn�!C ♦ . !! 1�■ rr`\�a n■■■n■d►r No on �■rr�•. ■� liC i C111 I IIIiI■nrr�� �rl���fa_i��i �i•. _ +■■�■I�r [' Legend Project Location Area of Impact City Limits Planned Parcels ��- �■ maw 11111 �u�IiYI� W- IIIIIIII_ ■ c? ■EIlllAnalysis �r��� IIIIIIIIII ■! 011ERLAND= w ■ hnlli ;�7- . . r- .■n I ■■-_ �{!!!1!1lIIIIi w AAnIj ■ r n iy�♦ ♦��r r•'r r■■■■ w� 1 i.nnno h Ij+ngPnugla� mn m■ :�_ r r r s:r Dl ♦ ♦ rs �1� RlA1N111 ■m■i ian ..+_ ��•pl�■ai I •�I In r �� � r � �� �aii�ilir"1� :: �;tom': r1�r`i�i �■+:: � nit� r� 1rK■ i : ■11 Nor MEN 1 �almvi� f1 �♦ ♦♦♦• 1■■nuu� m`scr_cooCi �r ��. ♦ �`♦ ` n■rn ■■■n r Ir�♦ ♦ � �.r M �i:.i�n� ♦♦��♦1'iI���•\ ♦ ♦ r■nm� �i unm rr �� r' �� � ■ ■■■■■rr■ '�■nnm M • Q► ■IINr ♦ ,Z nu�u �.,i I"I�'� 'I�7GE a'las� ■■■■■■■■■i I�Mcly► nun ua iq ■Ir ..rnluluQ � \■+��a 4q�:■■r■+■ar rri�r+i ► wa■nu■!. IN ■u1`■■ -��" r•=N Aa: '•r r.r 11 ■ . ♦ ♦ ■ ♦r■■■��IC� 0 n ul11i0� �1,11n .a�f■rnn.':a 9 1--lii a■[wII-K ra■ �r�' ♦I• ■Iriiimoll rill JJ �illlaw... ■IIlII`_ r�♦� N I!■► ♦♦I♦♦j �{�i`r F■■■■■■■■1 11r, II1i111 .�i►�■w wi�? W�-I! f♦♦ _p r/•j 1♦ y:c:■n■ • ►I�it ■a.r•�■'!• _ ■■Irnll�w s r■■ .■p ♦♦ monsoons n■ � N � _ �• •_an lulu,�► ■� i+ ��«:��1•A ���i■�!1_ J,1111111nunlr aw��n���ri ��• :.� ��♦' I was+W-=- ■■�a1�� 5. Map Notes Nearby Recent Preliminary Plats(within last 5-years) H-2018-0081 H-2018-0089 H-2019-0140 H-2021-0085 H-2022-0094 H-2023-0034 H-2022-0048 H-2024-0012 Nearby Recent Conditional Use Permits(within last 5-years) H-2019-0150 H-2020-0105 H-2022-0048 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ 79 41b el' E ' .= APDX. ., Overland Rd City of MeridianDepartment Re 11Exhibits C. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL S1119212410 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY overall Score; 32 53rd Percentile Description Location Within 1/2 mile of City Limits YELLOW W Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain or : % a�--e, GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Emergency Services Police Reporting District meets response time goals most v_ GREEN the time Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Within 1/4 mile of current transit route GREEN Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets GREEN plan) matches existing (# of lanes) School Walking Proximity Within 1/2 mile walking 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) ParkWalkability No park within walking distance by park type FLED City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ D. Annexation Legal Description &Exhibit Map ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION FOR DARA TONG A parcel located in the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 19 Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap monument marking the northeasterly cornet of said NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4,from which a brass cap monument marking the northwesterly corner of said Section 19 hears 5 89'43'29"W a distance of 2444.43 feet; Thence 5 89°43'29"W along the northerly boundary of said NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 a distance of 946.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing 5 8943'29"W a distance of 120.00 feet to a point; Thence leaving said northerly boundary 5 W13'29"W a distance of 180.00 feet to a point; Thence N 89"43'29"E a distance of 120.04 feet to a point; Thence N W13'29"E a distance of 180.00feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 21,600 square feet(4.496 acres). Prepared by: Kyle A.Koomler,PL5 per' LR Civil Survey Consultants,Incorporated �? November 5,2025 18 ` 'r OF Sri ry 4. KO4ti. City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION FOR DARA TONG LOCATED IN THE NE 114 OF THE NIA I/4 OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, SOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO E OVE►LLD ROAD M9S a'BEARING I3 ra S 89'4.3zs"W 2444.43' �f�r14 2 "9 — — i3a8.a3' Imov, 946.00 * Tqs P15 772Y 9 pp G DEDCATFD RVYT-DF WAY 6 IMST NO. 102140525 PLS W A&'R�L+W 06Rd'UW7 AV I f8.�5R iXGCK 2 Lw& TONG > PARCEL SJr I9212410 485 E OLEfi.4xo fia MER,IQIAA, 0 8J642 w g N h � 7 a� gf/ITCL-0IAI DEED p 17E'CdRD CL,SURY£Y JNST. MR. 20 16-090129 $ NO, fd,3.54 PLS 783.50 N 89'4,129"E 12U.Lid` pLs .— r8.35R LEGEND a, LAy FOUND BRASS NS $� G4P MONUMENT FCXWD 518-IRON PIN ANNEX4770N BWNLWY £4' — — -- =T)OAr LINE l�`R. K(0) PRn'92TY LOW CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTAW!s INC. C. 15 30 60 2893 SOUTH MERIDM ROM MERIDIAN, IDAHO 8.3642 (206)888-4312 SCALE; 3"=30' City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ VIII. ADDITIONAL NOTES & DETAILS FOR STAFF REPORT MAPS,TABLES,AND CHARTS (link to Community Metrics) A. One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Notes This data is automatically derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Date retrieved notes generally reflect data acquired or processed within the last 30- days.Analysis is based on a one-mile radius from the centroid of the identified parcel. Parcel based data excludes certain properties and represents land as it exists now. Properties considered are only those with a total assessed value greater than 0(i.e. excludes most HOA area,transitional development, government, and quasi government facilities). The following values also constrain included property acreage to reduce outliers and non-conforming instances from distorting averages: R-2<5.0; R-4<2.0; R-8< 1.0; R-15 <0.5; R-40<0.25. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. Some approved entitlements, and particularly older ones,may be constructed. Decennial population counts and household counts are based on the most recent Decennial Census. Current population and current household values are COMPASS estimates,usually for the year previous, and are based on traffic analysis zone boundaries(TAZ's). B. Mixed Use Analysis Notes This data is derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Data considered for analysis are only those areas overlapping the overall Mixed Use boundary area. Mixed Use areas across arterial roadways are distinct, separate, and not considered as they do not meet the mixed use principles in the Comprehensive Plan(e.g.pedestrian safety, transportation efficiency, etc.). Mixed Use parcel areas may be greater or smaller than the future land use area designation boundary due parcel size,configuration,right-of-way, and other factors. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. C. Service Assessment Notes This data represents existing conditions derived from our enterprise application and GIS database, exported through dynamic reporting. The system references the most recent available data from various sources, including sewer main lines, sewer trunksheds, floodplain, fire service areas and response times,police crime reporting,pathway information,existing and planned transit, roadway improvements, school and park proximity, and other resources. The tool provides context for project review,using multiple indicators consistently. Data from similar topics may vary based on different levels of review. The overall score is based on weighted criteria(not a ranked order), and the percentile score compares the parcel to others in the city(higher is better). This tool was developed as a City Council priority and outcome of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. Scores,whether high or low, are just one data point and should not be the sole basis for decisions. D. ACHD Roadway Infographic Notes The Ada County Highway District utilizes a number of planning and analysis tools to understand existing and future roadway conditions. • Existing Level of service(LOS).LOS indicator is a common metric to consider a driver's experience with a letter ranking from A to F.Letter A represents free flow conditions, and on the other end Level F represents forced flow with stop and go City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts ■ conditions. These conditions usually represent peak hour driver experience. ACHD considers Level D, stable flow,to be acceptable. The LOS does not represent conditions for bikes or pedestrians, nor indicate whether improvements: are possible; if there are acceptable tradeoffs; or if there is a reasonable cost-benefit. • Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP).The IFYWP marker(yes/no) indicates whether the specified roadway is listed in the next 5-years. This work may vary, from concept design to construction. • Capital Improvement Plan(CIP).The CIP marker(yes/no)indicates whether the specified roadway is programmed for improvement in the next 20-years. City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts ■ W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing continued from December 18, 2026 for Shafer View Ridge Subdivision (H-2025-0047) by Gregg Davis, Breckon Land Design, located at Lot 18 of the Shafer View Estates Subdivision at the intersection of S. Meridian Rd. and E. Shafer View Dr. A. Request: Annexation of 15.2 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-4 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 38 lots (29 building lots and 9 common lots) on 13.437 acres of land. 69 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : February 5 , 2026 ITEM # 5 PROJECT NAME : Shafer View Ridge Subdivision ( H - 2025 - 0047 ) by Gregg Davis , Breckon Land Design , located at Lot 18 of the Shafer View Estates Subdivision at the intersection of S . Meridian Rd . and E . Shafer View Dr I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing ( mark x ( Please Print ) HOA ? if yes ) 1 / Asa Sf� rs l� ea' Q l /W �l 2 k CJ 3 5 6 k 1 � vhG n 7 �(R �(°� OV �le�a 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 12/18/2025 -- - Legend � DATE: - Project Location t TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of Impact }= City Limits FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner O Analysis 208-884-5533 ---- -.--- " J-,� fritter@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Gregg Davis,Breckon Land Design SUBJECT: H-2025-0047 I , Shafer View Ridge Subdivision AZ,PP I' � I LOCATION: Lot 18 of the Shafer View Estates Y '" "-� • ; I Subdivision,located at the intersection of ' S. Meridian Road and E. Shafer View Drive in the North%2 of the Southwest'/4 of Section 31,Township 3N,Range 1E. Parcel No. R7824220180 I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Annexation of 15.2-acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-4 zoning districts; and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 38 lots(29 building lots and 9 common lots) on 13.437-acres of land. The minimum lot size proposed is 8,300 square feet(s.f.) and the largest lot size proposed is 24,000 s.f. The minimum lot size in the R-4 district is 8,000 s.f. B. Issues/Waivers • Waiver for block face length as the block face for the proposed development on the south side of the existing street exceeds the 750 feet requirement between S. Snowden Way and S. Mondt Meadows Way. • Sewer is not available to the Eastern portion of development at this time. Sewer is dependent on Mondt Meadows Subdivision bringing sewer to and through their development to Shafer View Ridge Subdivision. C. Recommendation Staff recommend approval of the proposed annexation and preliminary plat per the provisions in Section IV in accord with the Findings in Section V. D. Decision City of Meridian I Department Report I. 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 Rural Urban Transition(RUT VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning R-4 Adopted FLUM Designation Low Density Residential VII.A.3 Proposed FLUM Designation Low Density Residential Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 6/12/2025 Neighborhood Meeting 3/17/2025 Site posting date (Click or tap to enter a date) Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes, Staff Report - • Commission Action Required No - • Access Meridian Road - • Traffic Level of Service N/A - ITD Comments Received No Comments received Meridian Public Works Wastewater � IV.B • Distance to Mainline Not available to the site • Impacts or Concerns Sewer not available to the Eastern portion of development at this time.Availability of sewer dependent Mondt Meadows Subdivision bringing sewer to and through their development to Shafer View Ridge Subdivision. Meridian Public Works Water IV.B • Distance to Mainline Available at the site • Impacts or Concerns No School District(s) West Ada School District IV.B • Capacity of Schools Mary McPherson Elementary School—550(Program Capacity) Victory Middle School— 1000 Mountain View High School-2175 • Number of Students Enrolled Mary McPherson Elementary School—526 Victory Middle School— 1094 Mountain View High School-2516 ' Note: City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section and public record for all department/agency comments received. Shafer View Ridge Subdivision AZ,PP H-2025-0047 (copy this link into a separate browser). City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:R7824220180 Date Retrieved:2025/6/26 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: 335 1.094 Surrounding Area 5 D% Not City 419 ® City Limits Not City Household Household& Population Growth Households 02020 Population Change:160.1°I° Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 2,000 4,000 6,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses a% ■ Single-family 2195 Multi-family 100% 79% ® Commercial Preliminary Plats (last 5-years) Conditional Use Permit(last 5-years) Proposed Proposed Pending Pending Approved Approved 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 Single-family ® Multi-family City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ 2.00 500 Single-family y T 1.50 (AResidential Q 01.25 Parcel Diversity (A 1.00 OParcel Count Zn- 0.50 0.36 L Average Acres 0.00 a 0.16Fdh .09 0 a R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 15.00 Residential - Density 10.00 10.78 5.00 •)6.39 C `]■81 a 2.76 0.00 0.90 Dwelling Units 1 Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Repo rt Maps,Tables,and Charts. Figure 2:ACHD Summary Metrics Level of Service Planning Thresholds 1. Condition of Area Roadways Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per hour(VPH) Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service SH-691Meridian Road 509-feet Principal Arkerial N/A NIA Shafer View Drive 1,434-feet Local N/A NIA *ACHD does not set level of service thresholds for State Highways or local roadways. 2. Average Daily Traffic Count (VDT) Average daily traffic counts are baser!on ACHD's most current traffic counts. + The average daily traffic count for SH-69.'hleridian Road south of Amity Road was 3 9,54 8 on October S, 2024_ There are no average daily traffic counts for Shafer View Drive_ 1. Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)l Fine Year Plan (FYP): • Amity Road is scheduled in the FYP to be widened to 5-lanes from SH-6911tleridian Road to Locust Grove Road with a design year and construction year yet to be determined. • The intersection of Amity Road and Locust Grove Road is scheduled in the FYP to be reconstructed with a multi-lane roundabout with 1-lane on the north leg, '1-1aneson the south, 2-lanes east, and 2-lanes on the west leg with a design year of 2023-2024 and a construction year yet to be determined. * Locust Grove Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Lake Hazel Road to Amity Road between 2036 and 2040. Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Repo rt Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure 3: Service Impact Summary Service Impact Tools Ready 00 Caution 01, 00 �o Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Repo rt Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview This property is designated Low Density Residential on the City's Future Land Use Map(FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation allows for the development of single- family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and resources,recognize view sheds and open spaces, and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces, parks,trails, and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The proposed land use of single-family residential is consistent with the recommended uses in the FLUM designation. The proposed project has a gross density of 2.18 du/ac,meeting the required density range listed above. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed preliminary plat and requested R-4 zoning district to be generally consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation of Low Density Residential. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section IV. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. Table 4: Pro*ect Overview Description Details History Lot 18,Block 1 of the Shafer View Subdivision Inst.No. 102106515 Phasing Plan 1 Residential Units 29 single-family detached Open Space 2.72 acres/20.3% Amenities 3 points requires/ Physical Features Dry Ditch Acreage 13.44 Lots 38(29 residential/9 common) Density 2.18 dwelling units per acre(gross) City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ B. History The property resides within Ada County and is currently zoned RUT. The property owner recorded a property boundary adjustment on January 16,2024,to reconfigure the lot lines in order to subdivide the norther half of their property. See Recorded Plat. G M PLAT OF Sel sA, SHAFER VIEW ESTATES I.Kt. A PoRIICN Q 1HE NCR1H 1/2 Q 1NE SR 1/4 - Ikgxl-b-,NY Iti Yn SECTION 31,T.3N.,R.I E.,9.M. ��pe �x.�m 404 COONTy.iVPHO bt the 2 00 2 RI eEoac c rwxd xyx d,aY a m l w.l.E w tee= s.l eM'aV n.N..hn n°.he cw o: o"'"R°on s11n5xr xea.ux Nmtk cm '/4°w�� x,, �„�.�.,xe � a F�sre•ham,Ph —PLATTED x Faxa In"xxx Pin B FasM PY N Pb Nle"r.•� ___________ MfiV5576'E SN87_N' _ ______ °x nb sl-��\ X Ce4Wwea PeM- YInp�orp.� oai�e12;xs + x ewa, I 3 �x ,x.EumxP °N TM a uP`_��m IN 77- �oE wiww.cE��nrvrx�ER�x x,w�.ox�xr,�x..max°.x e..x F v� � I ewxm avn°ncm w u,aaxw,rnxm uacss°mwmx esvvo=m.r�cx g3 A 11.4 Rk �7r s 4 e xsarcss enmxx.ioe tic , 9ea:aa°' � 0 'icy e1 cd1t I _ .sw°come sx.0 wx.av n xiww.w or...w tta,.x reel.aauw� �11 nut RLOtlf 1 ��s men >N . i 5'x[cF - - i e s �� s• S ��. L rz cR v��u'w axy�`°rmxe°iEcxnx�xce`�:��a are T;z arcxbaur xUNncw°ixo re'�xasEuo ma°i�xnar` UNPLATTED v career pun.ne av ct,R0.nnx uu°x.Naxrun n'me Nn.ix.r,< ^EECTION CORNER yx,Fm+xF N:xsm T Ip,S�e;9B£y e�+��uyo 0.wax�- IJL0.I��JIc1'Vr_ELVFX.RNOxO irtnuv��n RES sowu>Ee�,xs.xo. a x1 1 5 ac x.q SAXITNn RFSfPICTdNS� 2°N w EDf.1 ° cant / 0 ��,wn xeuw esea,,e d�MEur AY $�y'9�.i �g s9'oY[ NIMM OD PAMERMEP BRMW BNGnam RiG,INC. Developer Consu ling Engineers in xnie nv n,a. - ----- --- Bolee.IGONo Baise.Idoha ne Isnn Nsno nsl n.n 71N x-11[ cle serzsv s.N uu m.ie mee se'n a x.ia SHEET, OP 2 C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): The current use of the property is residential and vacant. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (Comp Plan 2.01.01 C, UDC 11-2): The applicant is proposing single-family detached homes which are listed as a principal permitted use in UDC Table 11-2A-2 for the R-4 zoning district. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.01.01 C allows for a range of residential land use designations that allow diverse lot sizes, housing types, and densities. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): In the R-4 zoning district the maximum building height for this area is thirty-five (35)feet with an interior setback of 5 feet and a rear setback offifteen (15)feet. The minimum street frontage is sixty(60)feet. There is no minimum requirement for local street landscape buffers. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ D. Design Standards Analysis The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5 for the R-4 zoning districts. The proposed lots comply with the dimensional standards of the above-mentioned districts. 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan 5.01.02A, UDC 11-3A-19): The property is currently vacant and is part of the Shafer View Estates subdivision Lot 18, Block 1. City utilities are required to be extended to serve the proposed development. Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.01.02A requires the applicant to maintain and implement community design ordinances, quality design criteria, and complete street policies to set quality standards citywide. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, 2.02.00, Comp Plan 2.02.0IB, UDC 11- 3G): Based on the standards in UDC Table 11-3G-3, a minimum of 12% (or 01.61-acres)for the R-4 zoning district of qualified open space is required to be provided within the development. An open space exhibit was submitted as shown in Section VITF, that depicts 22%(or 3.04- acres) of open space that exceeds the required quality and qualified open space standards. Based on the standards in UDC 11-3G-4A, a minimum of three(3) amenity points are required as the overall project is 13.44 acres in size. The amenity proposed is a playground with a six(6)foot long bench.All common open space areas are required to be landscaped with one deciduous shade tree for every 5,000 square feet of area and include a variety of trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover per UDC 11-3G-5B.3. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.02.00 requires the applicant to plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.02.0IB requires the applicant to evaluate open space and amenity requirements for consistency with community needs and values. 3. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets UDC 11-2A-6 requires a twenty-five (25)foot wide buffer along arterial roads (Meridian Road). ii. Tree preservation Per UDC 11-313-10,the applicant shall preserve existing trees four-inch caliper or greater from destruction during the development. Mitigation shall be required for all existing trees four-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of one hundred(100)percent replacement(Example: Two(2)ten-inch caliper trees removed may be mitigated with four 5-inch caliper trees, five(5)four-inch caliper trees, or seven(7)three-inch caliper trees).Deciduous specimen trees four-inch caliper or greater may count double towards total calipers lost,when planted at entryways,within common open space, and when used as focal elements in landscape design. The applicant submitted a tree mitigation schedule on the landscape plan indicating the removal of twelve (12) trees totaling 160 caliper inches, to be replaced with 140 trees totaling 280 caliper inches. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ iii. Storm integration Per UDC 11-3B-11,the applicant shall meet the intent to improve water quality and provide a natural, effective form of flood and water pollution control through the integration of vegetated,well designed stormwater filtration swales and other green stormwater facilities into required landscape areas,where topography and hydrologic features allow if part of the development. Development will be required to meet UDC 11-3B-11 for stormwater integration. iv. Pathway landscaping Landscaping for pathways shall meet the requirements outlined in UDC 11-3B-12. The applicant is required to provide a landscape strip a minimum of five(5) feet wide shall along each side of the pathway. Designs are encouraged in which the width of the landscape strip varies to provide additional width to plant trees farther from the pathway, preventing root damage. The minimum width of the landscape strip shall be two (2)feet to allow for maintenance of the pathway. The landscape strips shall be planted with a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn,and/or other vegetative ground cover. There is a five(5)foot pathway being proposed along the southern portion of the property. The applicant shall provide a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn, and/or other vegetative ground cover along the length of the pathway on both sides. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised landscape plan showing the pathway landscape meets the requirements of UDC 11-3B-12. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for each home based on the total number of bedrooms per unit as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6. On-street parking is also available on the proposed streets. i. Residential parking analysis The proposal will be required to meet the standards for parking as set forth in UDC 11- 3C-6. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan 2.01.01 C,Architectural Standards Manual): Six(6) conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed subdivision as shown in Exhibit VU G. As the property is within close proximity to SH-69, the applicant will be required to provide noise abatement per UDC 11-3H-4D. Noise abatement could include but not limited to a berm or a berm and wall combination to help reduce the traffic noise. Buildings shall be designed with elevations that create interest through the use of broken planes, windows, and fenestrations that produce a rhythm of materials and patterns. Design review is not required for single-family detached structures. However, because the rear and/or sides of homes facing Meridian Road will be highly visible, Staff recommends a DA provision requiring those elevations 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 that are visible from adjacent public streets. Single- story homes are exempt from this requirement. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.01.01 C encourages the applicants to maintain a range of residential land use designations that allow diverse lot sizes, housing types, and densities. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 6. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3A-7. The landscape plan shows a six(6)foot tall solid vinyl privacy fencing along the perimeter of the plat and a six(6)foot open vision fence along the common areas of the project. 7. Parkways (Comp Plan 3.07.01 C, UDC 11-3A-17): Per Comp Plan policy 3.07.01C appropriate landscaping,buffers, and noise mitigation with new development along transportation corridors(setback,vegetation,low walls,berms, etc.) is required. Per the UDC the minimum width of parkways planted with Class II trees shall be eight(8) feet. The width can be measured from the back of curb where there is no likely expansion of the street section within the right-of-way;the parkway width shall exclude the width of the sidewalk. Class 11 trees are the preferred parkway trees. The applicant is proposing a parkway along E. Shafer View Drive. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan 6.01.02B, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Access to the property will be via Meridian Road, an arterial road and Mondt Meadows, a collector road. As the property is within close proximity to SH-69, the applicant will be required to provide noise abatement per UDC 11-3H-4D. Noise abatement could include but not limited to a berm or a berm and wall combination to help reduce the traffic noise. The applicant states this requirement can be met using the existing cut bank along Meridian Road, which will act as a berm, in combination with a wall extending 10 feet above the highway centerline. The fence will be designed to incorporate architectural elements and to break up monotonous wall planes as required. See berm cross section below. t { 6'VILL 90.G xNONm3 �NIu�eE�I�wlePxir�Y P�MN.LEL To nE 4i�ni�E XbMNYn Nl aF nE _- � �O�Ax ].rll rdPN rY!!lNI OR DlP1lMdvMLL xGplIlMrlp+nLL!lAM+nWNrlx[IOI RT3 x•'wC rxn n!ppvAry Ar rG GCMipb.R p r!SYAtt xpN.v. N y �.�wec�.wttw�L�tl3�P Nu R G'A�AAtt 9C..�aYttx�iMb wpotiL.� pl � 'ee R 1.rxE MHL w111 sr MAavEo ficr�3 LIrEM.�r nlwMn,/+� - PKuvE® [v]file of we�I-�«ap,,�t cp-�I�,s afus M nE It.LL. - - excarrnT ni treRier cxva.lx rNrn ne Ivwennon ol�ct 11u xx nudr 1' �1 b� GddrWGPdL Ca AL+Ee�ial+. 4 b� ../•fa3GAp!plPH 10'/�fM'REE SIGEIMLK M y, MhkN EtI0lV1 MAD T CC.Kc!6l.il.pn PTA Ip WOaW+�SnW +LI'E 6tz'n*q+ O'd v'ti iV-o' rW-G R. Q 3 BERM ADJACENT TO MERIDIAN ROAD CROSS SECTION 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): Multiuse pathways shall be constructed in accord with the city's comprehensive plan, the Meridian Pathways Master Plan, the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map and Roadways to Bikeways Master Plan.A ten (10)foot wide detached pathway is reflected along City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ S. Meridian Road which is consistent with the alignment shown on the Pathways Master Plan. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): A 10-foot wide detached pathway is reflected along S.Meridian Road which is consistent with the alignment shown on the Pathways Master Plan. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): All sidewalks constructed as part of this proposal are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 Staff is requiring the applicant to provide a striped five foot(5) walkway along the north side of Shafer View Drive between Snowden Way and E. Prairie View Lane, subject to approval by ACHD. This improvement is necessary to maintain continuous pedestrian connectivity, as there is currently a gap in the sidewalk system along the north side of E. Shafer View Drive. The striped walkway will serve as the missing link, ensuring a safe and consistent pedestrian route through this segment. 5. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): i. Dead end streets No streets or series of streets that ends in a cul-de-sac or a dead end shall be longer than five hundred(500)feet except as allowed by UDC 11-6C-3. There are no dead end streets being proposed that are longer than five hundred(500) feet. ii. Common driveways Per UDC 11-6C-3D, common driveways shall serve a maximum of four(4) dwelling units. In no case shall more than three(3)dwelling units be located on one(1) side of the driveway. The applicant is proposing one common driveway that meets the dimensional requirements as outlined in the UDC. iii. Block face UDC 11-6C-3-regulates block lengths for residential subdivisions. Staff has reviewed the submitted plat for conformance with these regulations. The intent of this section of code is to ensure block lengths do not exceed 750 ft, although there is the allowance of an increase in block length to 1,000 feet if a pedestrian connection is provided. In no case shall a block face exceed one thousand two hundred(1,200)feet,unless waived by the City Council. The existing street, Shafer View Drive, measures approximately 1,194 feet along the north side and approximately 873 feet along the south side, both of which exceed the maximum block length standard of 750 feet as established by the Unified Development Code (UDC).As a result, the block does not fully comply with the UDC block length requirements intended to promote walkability,pedestrian connectivity, and an interconnected street network. Accordingly, the applicant is requesting a waiver from City Council to allow the block face to exceed the maximum block length standard. This request is based on the existing configuration and alignment of Shafer View Drive, which was constructed within Ada County prior to the current development proposal and outside the context of the City's adopted block length standards. The applicant has stated that the size and irregular shape of the subject property, combined with the proposed residential lot layout and lot sizes, limits the ability to further subdivide the block. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Pursuant to UDC 11-6C-3.F.3.a, blockfaces within residential zoning districts maybe extended up to one thousand(1,000)feet when a pedestrian connection is provided to maintain connectivity for non-vehicular travel. In support of this standard, the applicant has provided a detached sidewalk along the south side of E. Shafer View Drive, which establishes a continuous pedestrian connection through the subdivision and enhances access for pedestrians. While the north block face exceeds the one-thousand-foot allowance, the provision of pedestrian infrastructure helps mitigate the impacts associated with the extended block length by supporting safe and convenient pedestrian movement consistent with the intent of the UDC. F. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan 4.05.OID, UDC 11-3A-6): Per UDC 11-3A-6, requires limiting the tiling and piping of natural waterways, including, but not limited to, ditches, canals, laterals, sloughs and drains where public safety is not a concern as well as improve,protect and incorporate creek corridors (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South Slough and Jackson and Evan Drains) as an amenity in all residential, commercial and industrial designs. When piping and fencing is proposed, the standards outlined in UDC 11-3A-6B shall apply. In Residential Districts, irrigation easements wider than ten (10)feet shall be included in a common lot that is a minimum of twenty (20)feet wide and outside of a fenced area, unless otherwise waved by City Council. Comprehensive Plan policy 4.05.OID requires improving and protecting creeks and other natural waterways throughout commercial, industrial, and residential areas. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): 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 prior to receiving development plan approval. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate drainage system is required in all developments by the City's adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practices as adopted by the City as outlined in UDC 11-3A-18. Storm drainage will be proposed with a future construction application and shall be constructed to City and ACHD design criteria. The applicant is proposing a pressurized irrigation system using existing surface and groundwater rights will serve all lots and open space throughout the project. The homeowner's association will own and operate the irrigation system, consisting of a pump station and retention pond to be shared between Shafer View Ridge Subdivision,Mondt Meadows Subdivision and adjacent neighbors that currently take access from the Boise Project Board of Control Irrigation District via headgate 3.44, located on the north side of E. Shafer View Drive and accessing the McBirney Lateral. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan 3.03.03G, UDC 11-3A-21): Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development.All utilities are available to the site. Water main,fire hydrant and water service require a City of Meridian I Department Report 11I. Staff Analysis ■ twenty foot(20) wide easement that extends ten (10)feet past the end of main, hydrant, or water meter. No permanent structures, including trees are allowed inside the easement. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.03.03G requires urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks, water and sewer utilities. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division I. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. A final plat will not be accepted until the Annexation ordinance and development agreement are approved by City Council. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at a minimum,incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan, open space exhibit,and conceptual building elevations for the single-family dwellings included in Section IV and the provisions contained herein. b. The rear and/or sides of 2-story structures that face Meridian Road 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. c. Direct lot access to S.Meridan Road is prohibited. d. No building permits shall be issued prior to the plat being recorded. e. The Open Space amenities shall meet the following requirements: provide a playground and bench as depicted in Exhibit VIIF. f. If allowed by ACHD,the applicant shall provide a striped 5-foot walkway along the north side of E. Shafer View Drive between Snowden Way and E. Prairie View Lane. g. Any future development of the site must comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of the development. 2. Submit the following revisions for the Preliminary Plat included in Section VII, dated 4/7/25: a. Revise the plat map to depict the dry ditch on parcel# S 1131346650 and its associated easement or provide written documentation showing the dry ditch had been abandoned and is no longer in use by the affected property owners. 3. Lots shall meet the dimensional requirements of the R-4 zoning district per UDC 11-2A-5. 4. The Landscape Plan prepared by Breckon Land Design and stamped by John Fritz Breckon, included in Exhibit Section VIIE, dated 7/15/25, is approved as submitted. 5. Provide bollard lighting along the pathway on Lot 20,Block 2. Provide lighting detail at the time of final plat submittal. 6. The applicant shall construct all proposed fencing and/or any fencing required by the UDC, consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and I I-3A-6B, as applicable. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ 7. The development shall comply with standards and installation for landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5 and maintenance thereof as set forth in UDC 11-3B-13. 8. The development shall comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to driveways,easements,blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 9. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 10. All common driveways shall meet the requirements of 11-6C-2-D including a perpetual ingress/egress easement being filed with the Ada County Recorder,which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. 11. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two(2)years to obtain City Engineer's signature on a final plat in accord with UDC 11-6B-7. 12. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of ACHD. 13. Staff's failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. B. Meridian Public Works Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. Water main along S Perlite Ave needs to be 12". 2. Water stub to the West needs to be 12"for potential extension in the future. 3. Water main along E Shafer Ridge St between Snowden Way and Perlite Ave needs to 12". 4. Water main along S Snowden Way needs to be 12". 5. Engineer to verify if there is a well onsite. If a Well is located on the site it must be abandoned per regulatory requirements and proof of abandonment must be provided to the City. Can be used for Pressurized irrigation. 6. 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. 7. Provide 20'Easements for mains,hydrant laterals and water services. Easements should extend up to the end of main/hydrant/water meter and 10'beyond it. 8. No permanent structures (trees,bushes,buildings, carports,trash receptacle walls,fences, infiltration trenches, light poles,etc.)to be built within the utility easement. 9. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ General Conditions of Approval 1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department,and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. 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. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 3. 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 development plan approval. 4. 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 prior to receiving development plan approval. 5. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 6. 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. 7. 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. The Developer's 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. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 9. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 10. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing,landscaping,amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ 11. 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-313. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 16. 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. 17. The design 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancily.oriz/public works.aspx?id=272. 21. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse 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 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. 22. 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,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate 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. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ C. Meridian Park's Department https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=408378&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y D. Irrigation Districts 1. Boise-Kona Irrigation District hggs://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=408378&dbid=0&repo=Meridia nCi E. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) https://weblink.meridianciN.org/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=408378&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y F. West Ada School District https://weblink.meridianciV.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=421062&dbid=0&repo=Meridian Cit Y G. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/browse.aspx?id=408378&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y H. Ada County Development Services https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=408378&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ V. FINDINGS A. Annexation(UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the annexation of the subject site with an R-4 zoning designation will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Low Density Residential FL UM designation and if the Applicant complies with the provisions in Section IV. As the designation will be in line with the large estate surrounding properties in the area. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed lot sizes and layout proposed will be consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts and that housing opportunities will provide consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for that area. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds that the map amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds the proposed annexation shall not result in adverse impact of services. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City if the property is developed in accord with the provisions in Section IV. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; Stafffinds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section IV. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds public services can be made available to the subjectproperty and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. Sewer and water are available at the site. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Stafffinds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's Capital Improvement Program. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed development is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Stafffinds there are no natural, scenic or historic features on the site. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommend approval of the proposed annexation and preliminary plat per the provisions in Section IV in accord with the Findings in Section V. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ■ ' 1 1 ct Location of Impact 0 Analysis 44` ',m 4 Legend f i1lEII[rlllj 1 f h f W _ . AMITY �-.�■1�■...:::.:,... Project . . . Area 0 of0 Analysis Impact Lu II�L W uuur \ 1111 lllllll� (i ����(il I' 6- �111111!!� ■� II �l111-11` -� f ��■ IG II 1�.' � .r �►�I � I �nnnm nnn r I �i� �El�■r� - � 111l111111-1111111111 �---%I- -.� 11111111 IIIII IIIIIIII 1 �57� r,J1,2 ■.� 1=IIIIIIIII III LU�CJJ �`�- � ■■ uiw J Illlli '-m ' II A�il�ll •d.... ..III�LAKE-HAZEL - IM s ml nln/j a■■nl■1 ,�' , C�Iurq+� ;lulu_ R Z AMITY N r - Legend Project Location Area of Impact �� - . - Analysisr LIJ Illlllr =� - Ills 11111111 ' � Medium Density Residential IIIIIIILL ■1 nnR ilrjlll��r It Residential a�Ii � �� ■ Illllnl!11111111 �- • ■��� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIRIIIF =- r��ll■11- Illllllllll lllllll Ilnl4nn11. `-"-^""`Y! � (IIIIIIIII IIIIIII - 11111 ■� �IIIIIIIII IRRII � ■.11111 .alllla.... L-AKE IiAZEL ........rr IIIIIIn11 f,,, =- r►ifjip IIII- ' 111 11111L- Il/ I - Illllr legend ProjectArea of Impact i� iiiirLrrllBlo r � I I�T� VIIIIlIIIIIIII� _1± �.rr�� 'T Z' City Limits {��R'11=11`� EIIIIIII IIIIIIII_I ll�� "�� 1 IIIIni:11F1111��IIIIIIIHIIIIIII Illllllllllllli—�i!'11111111111 I 1111111• ` u' pI:IC� Il:lt:li:a I;i° ulo nnull , i1:1 -IIIIII IIIIIIII_P -+a1111■rl- 11111111�,��,'r '■�� IlllnElllllllll=I-�- __-,1flalll��IIIIIIIIIII ',,`•f�j - , -_Illll�� ml uuu a � a:aac� =nunnnm=�=i�• �y♦ .III. ��� �� III' ill IIIIIIlIIII- IIIIIIIIIIIII gn.� , rl�.�; y� �'r num unla 'Runty n�a!►Ii_'�a/! � \�i.�II��,� Illllllll Iuluu IVIIEIIIII �I ♦ � ___ IIIIIIIII unilli nl•uull •I illllll 14 pFll , ' ---- n I - �.I uuul mu1'=11 ���u�I i�■ �� � ,. .,,..l..11:.,'� •_I_ klrl - GiGic:�ll�■�u _`�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�_ =� ��I�������II1111FIFIh111 k1111111111��- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII - =II_Illllll IIIIIIIII Planned Parcels 0 Analysis ��jnrl�///1111111111_III�1== 11111 IIII -111111111'IIIIII IIII 'llllllklll i'I"_ //Nl IIIIII IIIIIIII- -■ EN iun .lunl :mm�lulnnl IIR�Ia ,•111RRRa1ii ����'- � i11111r/� RtnalR-1 =1111111f11 ff, uR�►j�i4� �Z �C IIIII4R :��� N 61.1� i -- (IIII ILLIII� R a . /-1. • -aR 1 5. Map Notes Nearby Recent Preliminary Plats (within last 5-years) H-2021-0020 H-2023-0041 Nearby Recent Conditional Use Permits(within last 5-years) H-2018-0054 H-2018-0129 H-2019-0129 H-2020-0009 H-2020-0057 H-2020-0117 H-2021-0021 H-2021-0036 H-2021-0087 H-2020-0056 H-2019-0097 H-2022-0050 H-2023-0041 H-2024-0014 H-2024-0022 H-2024-0041 H-2024-0067 B. Subject Site Photos - J ��y.�.e/- i r. L,W. _ c , wm R`. e I City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ C. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL R7824220180 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Score: 16 3rd Percentile Location Within 1 j2 smile of City Limits YELLOW Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain or > 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time 5-9 min. YELLOW Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals some of the time YELLOW Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways I GREEN Transit Not within 1/4 of current or future transit route kED Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets YELLOW plan) > existing (# of lanes) & road IS in 5 yr work plan School Walking Proximity From 112 to 1 mile walking YELLOW School Drivability Not within 2 miles driving of existing or future school 7RED� Either a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Community Park Walkability Park within 112 mile OR a Neighborhood Park within GREEN 1/4 mile walking City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ D. Preliminary Plat(date: 9/8/2025) A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SHAFER VIEW RIDGE SUBDIVISION SHEET UST TPBLE NOTES LOCATED IN LOT A BLOCK OI,SHAFER VIEW ESTATES SUBDMISM _ s ® BOOK K PACES OM RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY,IDAHO AND A PORTION OF THE N V2 OF THE SW V4 OF SECTION 3% T.B N R I I-BM.CITY OF MERIDIAN fi CDC,IOAHO Ep�lli��E RWg u `p BffE INFORAWl1ON 1 7— AL •s mwsv¢mai ,.,dam .,�,v..am�,,.,�,., RiAA1-H£ND� i i o awi -_---__ _°__ 3 LL Q � W¢— W yy \ ro, i i cr -T�.�...,,....,. __ i moo....... �I'l�je i c 3II iII`� ------------- HT a �\ \ / /�I�TPREUMINARY PLAT m m o m m �.. •-T CONTACTS a.. PPID EAST SHAFER VIEW 'R. .W.LOCAL ROAD SE TI N o z0 l�13T R.O.W.LOCAL ROAD WITH DETACHED SIDEWALK IN EASEMENT ROAD SECTION j UJ N � N %1 CONCRETE FLATWORK a Q Er w x y N�� 4 ROLLED CURB AND GUTTER S ASPHALT PAVIN SE TI N °# PP2S City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ E. Landscape Plan(date: 9/8/2025) IL ® I� - - - AWN cm, \ 0]¢(�W W W= 3 O RALL LANDSCAPE PLAN ¢ Z WZ:5 `i LANDSCAPE NOTES: CITY OF MERIDIAN w¢ ! _ _. .... �. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS PROJECT INFORMATION y¢ LL = �® _ PP0.0 TFEE MITIGATION WHEDLLE CALLDUf LEGEND LANDSCAPE LEGEND -() � � ��.. M.......,....,,.. y•u L.�.`.'"'fie MITIGATION N07ES a � PLANT SCHEDULE r rn Q m¢cw `I i W21 l i�l I Wao ® �^ '\�'a l9'':• .-. MA W - o �s � 0 E � , jj !: City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ _ O z Y k .tea LY1GC 000�Oti00]f:f 1COi0[:Y-9i�►:=Y��SO.® 9�J� ME M7 IC It '.:... �.... �� oll I�1111 jill"u, ro r Mom a=zm� a 17714 T— —��a�a o ' ��#�did• �aFlo TURF AREA PREPARATION NOTES �;„-- A �"'< TOPSOIL NOTES71 ,g .� .mna. ..c..,..� SHRUB PLANTING z a TREE PR TE TI N OETAIL / CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING N WEED ABATEMENT NOTES 3LUZ2 TREE PROTECTION NOTES: - ^ W= Z 111QW2aJ PERNTINENNIAL BRD ND COVER y Es ix BEDruin CUTEDGE aA . � ,�,� Pvaicwnr rvE u.Ensl MM (DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING �.. 4�8�LDER INSTALLAT'ONN PP$?4 IN RETAININ WALL ......:.w...a........ — ...,�.,.. O /A N� 3 BERM AD ENT T MERIDIAN ROAD m�a s R E TI N NO.g W 3.0LU U.W Q o>oa 0z >(0 a _ �WLLJ b i� UpII °�;ir'li e 2 EC�EDAR FENCE E���a�v PP3b City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ F. Amenity Exhibit(date: 9/8/2025) r PLAYGROUND AMENITY ✓ �i - -"� D d >w N BENCHES w 3 0 X LL Z Z A w co CALLOUT LEGEND Q F�IAMENITY AREA-ENLARGEMENT KEY MAP EXI.I Y City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ G. Open Space Exhibit(date: 9/10/2025) CITY OF MERIDIAN a� RCWD SINGLE FAMILY (R-4) FA OPEN SPACE 0 AR a� REQUIREMENTS F51 E I s°_FT. QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE AREA- Rte.i;i%IPFIM s A. F ,rr.6 ao.a_ 5376 0mo,uhRFWFWP �q4y"I5_44AQ {m�irim o�N 9rAc{F SO-FT. �oEo 10 Ta,441�61 jW-J I18fiT4 sr7]A0 AREA= F31 1553 1 �' LEGEND SO-FT. 1 1 a A ❑5 AREA 2337 &N-94BD OM MACZ so.Fr. J f7] 10 � 11 12 AREA= 1$ 5.T2d SO.FT. 1 15 16 17 . E $ 0 18 99 � ❑� 2t 3❑ —AREA=-.. �� _4,537 L5] SQ_FT. 1"=200'•U" W1012025 ry �° SHAFER VIEW RIDGE PROJECT A:25412 ,. SUBDIVISION Lf MTN 3G, �. OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT E 1. City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits Flool H. Block Length Exhibit(date: 9/3/2025) a Roan ❑7 ® d59 LF # „ 11 �f &wi n. 1 128 LF 4 ❑5 �+{' ®116 ® + 10 11 12 13 14 15 � 1z 18 19 n 20 n 1"=20W-0" SHAFER VIEW RIDGE PRO E T#:25012 SUBDIVISION BLOCK LENGTH EXHIBIT EX1. City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 1 01 I. Common Drive Exhibit(date: 12/15/2025) 12500 SF 13928 S F 2#37 5F coftewo r I+ k 1 { 9241 SF 11977SF j I -1371.— —� 92215F #. Ld ti ILd cnI I B273SF w I+tip °� - Go- 13028 SF i n 5376 S F L.80'= ————92' hfAd4�1 ® =3F E 6ASNER STREET ; j - SIDPSETB4 r -1 r W a-OSED MSk I FENCEf4 ALL II II ILu II II I s 10194SF I ® I} ® n 1Q r I 11 REAR SFTB,{C i 83173F i i 6322SF I I 88USF I I B030SF iY 1 53SF i II II L—_—_ SIDE SEIBB Iq _=�J L____J L---J 78 f . L w 71' fi ' GJ W an w in °-� HAFER VIEW RIDGE PROJECT#-25U12 SUBDIVISION — 7A+ M N DRIVE EXHIBIT EX1.1 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 02 J. Building Elevations f � . t !� Al a � .e City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 103 - a a - J R City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 04 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 05 K. Annexation Legal Description& Exhibit Map �t L7re 1111111111R CCUR TE SURVEYING I MAPRIN6 sF p q t s Job No_25-160 Annexation Description A parcel of land being all of Lot 18,Block 1 of Shafer View Estates Subdivision as recorded in Book 64 of Plats at Pages 9403 and 9404,Records of Ada County,and being a portion of the adjoining right-of-- ways,said parcel is located in the:North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 31,Township 3 North, Range 1 East of the Boise Meridiaa,Ada County,Idaho,being more particularly described as follows: Cornmeneing at the found aluminum cap monument at the Quarter Corner cornmon to Section 31, T.3N.,R.1E.and Section 36,T.3N,,R.1 W.as perpetuated by document 103052690,Records of Ada County,from which the found aluminum cap monument at the township corner common to Township 3 North,Ranges 1 East and 1 West,and Township 2 North,Ranges 1 East and 1 West as perpetuated by document 2019-015470,Records of Ada County bears S OW 05' 1.7"E a distance of 2669,99 feet; thence S 00'05' 17"E along the township line for a distance of 802.03 to the READ.POINT 4F BEGINNING; Thence along the centerline of E.Shafer View Drive the following 7 courses and distances: 1.) N 89-55'39"E for a distance of 219.95 feet; 2.) Along a curve to the right 83,80 feet,said curve having a radius of 100.00 feet,a central angle of 48°00'49"and a long chord bearing S 6660F54"E a distance of 8 1.37 feet; 3.) S 42°0l'36"E for a distance of 107.12 feet; 4_) Along a curve to the left 418.04 feet,said curve having a radius of 500A0 feet,a central angle of 47°54'12"and a long chord bearing S 65057'53"1,a distance of405.97 feet; 5.) S 8905326"E for a distance of 263.95 feet; 6.) Along a curve to the left 91.06 feet,said curve having a radius of 100.00 feet,a central angle of 52'10'33"and a long chord bearing N 64001'17"E a distance of 8T95 feet; 7.) N 37`56'41"E for a distance of 314.07 feet; Thence along the boundary of Lot 18,Block 1 of Shafer View Fstates Subdivision the following 5 courses and distances; 1.) S 5200019"E for a distance of 254.86 feet to a found'/s inch iron pia with a plastic cap labeled PLS 4998, 2.) N 34054'59"E for a distance of 60.10 feet to a found'/s inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 4998; 3.) S 51°55'59"E for a distance of 298.07 feet to a found Y2 inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 11463; (CONTINUED ON NEXT PACE) t 1520 W.Washington St., Boise, ID 83702•Phone:20"88-4227 wwW accuratesurveyors_oom City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 106 �'� .,ACC RATE SURVEYING & MAPPINa y rF rr y t Job No. 25-160 4.) 5 009 5'48"E for a distance of 253.73 Feet to a found V2 inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PL5 4998; 5.) N189°51'33" W for a distance of 1743.10 feet; Thence N OD'O'l 1 n W along the township line for a distance of 532.81 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING.- Parcel contains 15.200 acres. 1 11463 tP of 2 1520 W.Washington St.. Boise,I D 83702 •Phone:208-488-4227 www.acouratesurveyors.corn City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 107 Of BASIS OF BEAT INO LA 7,2W,, R.i W.� T.3W., R.1 W. S ROYL5'iT"E P&&a 98' S. Ad14fD14N RD. T.2W„ R,i E.MI f_.i 7.3N., R.1 E. t335-75'� 532.87' W2.OT GF 'Q j y z ���+"7 ❑ Simi m 't.. c Om God tln9 Pr z pp I� aoo SS rey x A _ F[Q� {r!i AS�i�N 2 O -kO)D. O czcz; w -4 rh w � y s� z ' n � " ww� ao ` A V■n N rp — -.O ITI � �F, cn6a6 x zv cnC7 2� n A yr C. El 47 �7 ■*� u+o rw I'l CA to 0 oa op O Ln 0 mrnmr*tim �rnuim 6ti a � mmr*� Z {S GI � .iuta[n rn mom= c`A� a �70L SO075'08mE 'V ^� EO m a 2771 z x a } i L� A Lam' o � � s CA FPR rl S P p "' a oD a �j Z�� ,� a City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 08 L. Preliminary Plat Legal Description& Exhibit Map r ACCU RATE SURYEYIN9 & DAPPING F sFgYIt Job No.26-160 Prelim inay Plat Description—Shafer View Ridge A parcel of land being all of Lot 18,Block 1 of Shafer View Estates Subdivision as reoorded in Book 64 of Plats at Pages 9403 and 9404,Records of Ada County,said parcel is located in the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 31,Township 3 North,Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the found aluminum cap monument at the Quarter Career common to Section 31, T,3N.,R.1 E.and Section 36,T.3N..R.1 W.as perpetuated by document 10305268-9, Records of Ada County,from which the found aluminum cap monument at the township corner common to Township 3 North,Ranges 1 East and 1 Wcst,and Township 2 North.Rmges 1 East and I West as perpetuated by document 2019-015470,Records of Ada County Dears S 00'05' 17"E a distance of 2669.99 feet; thence S 00105' 17"E along the township line for a distance of 1334.94 feet;thence S 99'51'33"E for a distance of 60.11 feet to a found 98"inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463 and the RFAL POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence N 06'06'47"E along the easterly right-of-way of S.Meridian Rd. for a distance of 184.75 feet to a found 3 inch brass cap stamped`ITD'; Thence N 00'05' 17"W along said right-of-way for a distance of 300.00 feet to a found 3 inch brass cap stamped`TTD'; Thence N 04'02'03"W for a distance of 4.57 feet to a found 518 inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence N 43'30'27"E for a distance of 27.33 feet to a found 1I2 inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 4998; Thence N W 55'39"E along the southerly right-of-way of E.Shafer View Dr.for a distance of 121.33 feet to a found 112 inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 4999; Thence 62.83 feet along the arc of a 75.00 foot radius curve right having a central angle of 48'00'08" and a long chord bearing S 66'01'34"E along said right-of-way a distance of 61.01 feet to a found 112 inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 4998; Thence 5 42'01'36"E along said right-of-way fora distance of 107-12 feet to a found 1{2 inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 1 t463; {CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE} 1 1520 W.Washington St,Boise,ID 83702•Phone:208-488-4227 - www.accuratesui-veyois.com City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 1 09 4 tq + TfA ACCURATE � a SURVEYIN6 & MAPPING < SF y 0 Job No.25-160 Thence 43$.27 feet along the arc of 525.00 font radius curve left having a central angle o£47°51'07" and a long chord hearing S 65156'22"E along said rigbt�f--way a distance of425.83 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 4998; Thence 5 89'53'26"E along said right-ofway for a distance of 264.40 feet to a fotmd 1I2 inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 499$; Thence 113.83 feet along the arc of a 125.00 foot radios curve left having a central angle of 52'10'33" and a long chord bearing N 64'01' 17"E along said right-of--way a distance of 109.94 feet to a point witnessed by a found 5I8th inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 1 1463 which bears N 37'56'0 1"E for a distance of 1.00 foot; Thence N 37'56'01"E along said right-ofway for a distance of 314.04 feet to a found 518"'inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 52'00' 19"E for a distance of 229.86 feel to a found II2 inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 4998; Thence N 34'54'59"E for a distance of 60-10 feet to a found 112 inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 4998; Thence S 51'55'59"E for a distance of 298.07 feet to a found 112 inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PIS 11463; Thence 5 00'15'09"E for a distance of 253.73 feet to a found 112 inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 4998; Thence N 89°51'33"W for a distance of 1682.96 feet to REAL POINT OF BEGINNING: Parcel contains 13.437 acres. d � X11463 S 6.2•75 a �'r of to �ra 2 1520 W.Washington St.,Boise,V 83702•Phone:208488-4227 www.accuratesurveyors.com City of Meridian Departtnent Report VII. Exhibits 1 10 I :2 Q.CL ALA FM1 4�I Q3'K 9 `'S� } Y QF Y �4e Q f' qu CIt, k' W [p [yryOO K�90Ca f-q V} Ogi cv tm OO�A dh 4We w$w w w w S9 q ieJ s fl ++Y n r9 r+rn ao Opoo [[yy sV J y �,{ lu `�0 � { • mzazxxsnxa 41 ty � otpw�n 4 {ki JJ J..IJ!3!� L+! } [} { vie, IrL�ll rr�� try �i eo w tu cQ Ln I ,q r W uj d k � tn LL Ln O �4jilh Z Z Q• ia5 riO� F�� •3L•a Nzl tol Y 'ON V70121Ji1f :S ,66'699Z ? „11,4�p0 s :Alk l'U IN Cl fD r, 'J41 G•k 'NZ°i �r���rv�a �o s�sr� ►� City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ VIII. ADDITIONAL NOTES &DETAILS FOR STAFF REPO RT MAPS,TABLES,AND CHARTS (link to Community Metrics) A. One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Notes This data is automatically derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Date retrieved notes generally reflect data acquired or processed within the last 30- days.Analysis is based on a one-mile radius from the centroid of the identified parcel. Parcel based data excludes certain properties and represents land as it exists now. Properties considered are only those with a total assessed value greater than 0(i.e. excludes most HOA area,transitional development, government, and quasi government facilities). The following values also constrain included property acreage to reduce outliers and non-conforming instances from distorting averages: R-2<5.0; R-4<2.0; R-8< 1.0; R-15 <0.5; R-40<0.25. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. Some approved entitlements, and particularly older ones,may be constructed. Decennial population counts and household counts are based on the most recent Decennial Census. Current population and current household values are COMPASS estimates,usually for the year previous, and are based on traffic analysis zone boundaries(TAZ's). B. Mixed Use Analysis Notes This data is derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Data considered for analysis are only those areas overlapping the overall Mixed Use boundary area. Mixed Use areas across arterial roadways are distinct, separate, and not considered as they do not meet the mixed use principles in the Comprehensive Plan(e.g.pedestrian safety, transportation efficiency, etc.). Mixed Use parcel areas may be greater or smaller than the future land use area designation boundary due parcel size, configuration,right-of-way, and other factors. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. C. Service Assessment Notes This data represents existing conditions derived from our enterprise application and GIS database, exported through dynamic reporting. The system references the most recent available data from various sources, including sewer main lines, sewer trunksheds, floodplain, fire service areas and response times,police crime reporting,pathway information,existing and planned transit, roadway improvements, school and park proximity, and other resources. The tool provides context for project review,using multiple indicators consistently. Data from similar topics may vary based on different levels of review. The overall score is based on weighted criteria(not a ranked order), and the percentile score compares the parcel to others in the city(higher is better). This tool was developed as a City Council priority and outcome of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. Scores,whether high or low, are just one data point and should not be the sole basis for decisions. D. ACHD Roadway Infographic Notes The Ada County Highway District utilizes a number of planning and analysis tools to understand existing and future roadway conditions. • Existing Level of service(LOS).LOS indicator is a common metric to consider a driver's experience with a letter ranking from A to F.Letter A represents free flow City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Repo rt Maps, Tables, and Charts 112 conditions, and on the other end Level F represents forced flow with stop and go conditions. These conditions usually represent peak hour driver experience. ACHD considers Level D, stable flow,to be acceptable. The LOS does not represent conditions for bikes or pedestrians, nor indicate whether improvements: are possible; if there are acceptable tradeoffs; or if there is a reasonable cost-benefit. • Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP).The IFYWP marker(yes/no) indicates whether the specified roadway is listed in the next 5-years. This work may vary, from concept design to construction. • Capital Improvement Plan(CIP).The CIP marker(yes/no)indicates whether the specified roadway is programmed for improvement in the next 20-years. City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Repo rt Maps, Tables, and Charts 113 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Shafer View Ridge IDAHO, MERIDIAN Subdivision H 4 zoning district-RPreliminary Plat consisting of 29 buildable lots and 9 common lots on 13.4 acres in the proposed 4-Annexation of 15.2 acres of land and rezone from RUT in Ada County to R AZ, PP0047 Shafer View Ridge Subdivision-2025- Site Location S Sublimity Ave ApexSky RanchShafer View TerraceShafer View EstatesMondt Meadows PROJECT SITE SiteProject East of Meridian Road and Future Land Residential zonein Low Density Property resides Use Map Zoning Map development15 -approved as an RSky Ranch to the south is Density Residential4 Medium -zone as RProposed to annex and CountyTransition (RUT) in Ada Property is Rural Urban Schools ELEMENTARYMcPHERSONMARY VICTORY MIDDLE SCHOOLSCHOOLMOUNTAIN VIEW HIGH Project Site 2.3 miles–Mary McPherson Elementary School 3.8 miles–Victory Middle School 4.2 miles–Mountain View High School Emergency MERIDIAN FIRE STATION #7MERIDIAN FIRE STATION #4 Project Site 1.5 miles–Meridian Fire Station #7 5.3 miles–Meridian Fire Station #4 Services Proposed Site Plan 21% : 2.76 AC◦Open space provided4 @ 12% : 1.56 AC-R◦Open space required0.55 acres)-(0.1824,000 SF -Lots from 8,000 family residential lots-29 singleacre site-13.4 Connectivity RIROFuture E Shafer View DrE Quartz Creek St Meridian Rd expansion project(RIRO) in the future with become right in / right out Meridian Rd will -Shafer View Roadways◦Pressurized Irrigation◦Water◦Sewer◦same timeline for synergyExpect to construct on the developmentprocess with land plat approved, in approval Mondt Meadows preliminary Block Length connection through the subdivisionsouth side of E Shafer View Dr that provides A detached sidewalk is proposed on the connection is provided residential districts when a pedestrian extended up to one thousand (1,000) feet in 3.F3a allows the block face to be -6C-UDC 11(750) feetblock face that exceeds seven hundred fifty and the distance between them creates a Two new connecting streets to the south, Project utilizes the existing E. Shafer View Dr Variance Sidewalks CrosswalksProposed and utilize the south sidewalk.neighbors to the north to access south side of the road to allow the proposed sidewalk on the adding crosswalks at the ends of ACHD would be aligned with •policy.This is not allowed per District •ACHD response: Public Utilities E Escalation StE Shafer View DrS Sublimity AveS Meridian Rd developmentsto future To and Through Mondt MeadowsConnection to water mainExisting 12” water mainProposed 8” Mondt Meadows Wayconnection offsite in proposed nd 2subdivision8” water main within the in E Shafer View DrConnect to existing 12” water main WATER INFRASTRUCTURE Public Utilities E Escalation StE Shafer View DrS Sublimity AveS Meridian Rd connection Offsite gravity mainsProposed 8” gravity mainExisting 8” gravity mainExisting 18” site8” sewer mains within the south/eastMeadows Way and gravity proposed 8” main in S Mondt View Dr and gravity northexisting 8” main in E Shafer SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE Irrigation E Escalation StE Shafer View DrS Sublimity AveS Meridian Rd HG 3.44Supply from pondand Irrigation Pump station all common & residential lotsProvide pressure irrigation stubs to Shafer View Ridge, and neighborsshared between Mondt Meadows, and retention pond, expected to be Construct irrigation pump station to propertyPipe irrigation water from headgate View DrHeadgate 3.44 north of E Shafer Improvements Amenities neighborhoods Pathways throughout and large common lot with a benchMultiple structure playground in a Open Space E Shafer View Drat intersection of S Meridian Rd and Improvements made to sight triangle subdivision to the southserving as buffer to higher density Open space with walking path 12% required, 20.3% provided Elevations Elevations Elevations Thank You! " Iy " fir • - F eF E i lS ; Wr - �, , t Iv W 4 ' i 7r f { r W f i, 1 ' 7 .Ys { + AN � 4�-4�.yW . . _ '7. • ` a ki / • lt f t l X `W W. ..� I. a �w eW� �g t r< 4 k i WW pp WS i � }i .> !_ r i1 � FF _ 'y. , :- _ - W t 7 y�rr 'r 4 - f -tr + Y! f A F .• L T-' - - _ `• f . i - _ .. . . s ✓" ! y. . . XXX t�f�f l�tr _ Y � 42 jgji +..� �-�i �7 t • �. _ .j MTh � I�� k� l #�� Sp iWL .� } IN kk Apt i it III 1 y rr _ r,It pi pp > t It ItFrt pa to ! ;r s Ito ; . . IF - ',�} a r It F �I . pr It I A \ _ It Apt fit) �.' i- i , . -: r. , , - � i � 1 � . t r - z .:t wIt i It If s <. } Wow l t _,' t 1 III }.14 4 r r ' ,t* pI Ir 4 .. JI 1pIt i � x Its `at �. I a � yc } 4 foj tat IF - If � �'�`w +l,r,IIIeAN ta If 0 pool p sip Almllp 1 + } No VI.'j'' �N,r(�se. ., � i` + . { y �at`, . 4i 4'^ ' t , 1,..• : . rp, �� ard "NO OF i h� •q � ' r Itr ; r r s 1�� ON - :t t 4 sr . fr "�r^ 7` : ; tit } ��lil ` \ 1 7 k . - ' � 1 _ - W.Or ¢ � r _NrF if NN NONNON k- MOO OF L71 - ;T ii LY_ 2 t , Or } , Oder TOFF IF ON ! � � OF ddd I NO u2 1 1 '1 . 1 aONON red t i FOOL f 1ON I s.iN FIN, NO ON n" P . r N FI rr�F FL 1. - OF Ir, D k I F. r 1 1 I � s ( Tt OFF r 11 OFFOr F .'Or N aL OF OFF 11 iOr 7 - _ F } Frm + - -OF :ij 1 ; t ,i t a• F r _ ON Or - 1 _ f t 1 � r iIIIIIIIIS IF ° � ti OI ON ON 3 1 It T1. r- `s 3 � NO . • . Y � i' - t i - _ ' i € - fl i SUS 1 s f y tOr NO L OF LL it�:r W� i� r i rt 1 1 # i yt d 7 reY{ 1 k 3$N k' F _ a s L jr L NO NO L NO L NO OFF 7 t ! Fri .! '+ faAAA A; ff r k All For i 43��€i - 11 - t t F 44 Al f; Footit Acy k S a'lv f i r i€ �`� 4r, B �t r oft- 0000iojol000qoo� or, it of to IF— It t too i FF r_. FAA i. �,. µ g �s Lr i - _ eR. - �S- r ' ' J if I— A -14 � r L € - lye _ r = E _ - lol 'i toot i � , -ol FF r� u �+v T A To � S t ' r ittot rtor z s ! ;a Yi s € z 7 $ - Floor FF �re Ss � - sIF FF- L Yam= ' �': f , ss it r r� F i 'k''J FF A . v All— FrIf 3 IF- Ingot ;7 +� t F AFF a1 ' } c , fe - �, "� ' f ' - y,• g' wk; rr Y "°Si yam_ 7M A lot +k 77 tworfstor 'ON I 1 A � ? Ai r 7 qe yYs �y i 4 `�e1it+i p -;t vA - may .+ r IF Wy� OAt� I Aloof t of At ; Foot IF It A rr ` r u, 4 _ s i, ! r ,Off All, +rr ��f. YAFt ,t �rtv+ ice"' _ y a 4� rr{.; r r a w� 4 !r �s } of I : � ' 0 it 0 AV a get rit r r r y ]� j IF r e A lC IJA. /+1 i!/!ta PJ yslow [{§y�,,�, to }g g ice,. 1 i 4 ! f JOF I 13 ` sortt 4_ g- J- r �j tom r � r . . tA r . Olt ,r yam,, ..✓t �►^' . . 0 � � � �l t ij / lt l J , - to at 1Tr t V I � jto tf V/}� r III �e IF ask, 0 �7LL La `f : f i 'a� IJ74 ILL a Alt �r lLd .%Jltb Ifw y�, 74 .3daL' ILL, - i ,j' 74�' •i Y�' \. ✓1y 40 IL x ad 'i'^ r ~ • 1 r , kwe-ILL a J6 �C17ts� Lad- � " yJ Ir _ J'a ,1'�C . . t44� 11Yw 17. j ,p� `( I Lady .>d ' `: '/ .. f , f �. •r I ls�+ a K p A . , . 1 Z (y ';,�fa�t' {r I +� 5r s141ylt_ y , 1 ' i,! , ,.0 - f S i '. ''z t � 1 I ! IN 10 ILL IL ada LLr P,l . t'+ L.7` . l . fl-''� _ *2 '�z.rarL'` T' �' .t � 1 0 ell so t fir +► ";' �add I IL J r, aid :Y � �rIF ii3e pb A jt• iizr 4.4JS L1i• fir" affiLaL LptA st } , � �� L If xr a ' y f- + y ¢ F � s III L If 5 , . 11 fir rX I F � I Zia PP If ILL, ILL Ida, L- Z If ad ,III ak a a, ffeAL L- N2 'L� f4 ; F _ s� a "'f :IL of '% : .£4 If hdjZ �'. 'g s r .i fat L ILL L, s _ e IF 0 h t I s it �. > � i I �t -,. � 1 lye - , d � fALLI _ j ¢ I , _r r 4, � � t � r Fit d , - ka -17led _I IF — F r J IF dd ,c J Ot Ad hy - - eor 1 IF doll lo di I i ti 2 AY t1'rdr �` - —IF — IF a ,t - •YIL db dall 'Id did did de t jr l ,f # { d tild.IF it VOL I d I ! y 71 Y e IFFor — _ l . . IT It rr it t i I <, to i 4 If t } :✓ �" a r T did tl� lit I.JA - v' IFIe IF CdIm s � oIF I le Ut did el { .:.ri. S � d .� rS1 Id. OeL IF Ad d did I did FIr WI,�. IF IF gyp' " ._ F,i ,1 ild ` . Z r ; a 7� _ £ ; Id allied L, IF, IF It died X s. did idgit Idd IF ILL = ,Ikkk IF;did dj i I IF all IF IF s i; 7tom # , ` I, did lot W t41� : ao66 _ . � ._ .. ,..:a r 4i t` iff f - s 11Ilk. 4 -- � 3 If LLLLL CC 13 f � 3 f. t yT, F. If fl.tit IF CI i - _ s (( : IF, r { , x o- If If }+ CC x ,e CIP Fo rr Cp fa 71 14 IT LI IL t' 11 I � u d ✓ 4 - - .may/ - � J. y��mF. IfT IT VP tITIT Com r rACCI III I I ', ITT ifal IT FIJI rr I IF x - Y IF l 1 � PFF y r IF If PC pr IT y f -KS 1; 3 aT Ir If - '�" -7 lr : rg -b '"3 hs j,{ s A IT 21, Ety If IF ' .- 3 lf.. 4 r R' y' 4 PP PIP TIFF I fl a� iIf IF CP xx 4 a a t : _ i'�`' �.�y- ,f t. F - . z • ;IF F a9Ftj,,TIC I I I . IF If j fIf - 1iei' i p, S f 2 A1 'F' s Yr TP- tSI5` s tPT PPF IT OF Fig, If gt ICCP_ Fim Zvia 55 y z ;- x `� xisPlIF ej ji N. I =1 I, for 0. Zi M PC Al ccc I PC C. rY- - - If I r - ! I m IF I PC L .t TrCe i CC I g _ _.1 AAA .14 rl At -c . . . a r t a ; , = F . It - Ift x vvPFF T i 41 wlt It AAA io ry l � 2 - { Y SS r be ! a _ "� ``r.! ' �, �� 1 °� Z e • sa �� t jk Y,� '-ram �3- : -..:�. e K tY 4 'dL , fit ,, s � i I} q 1 IF A It ' r7 Y sa r Y .,w Y AFF �Adv jr I IF tIF II if FF IF I m Ad- A IF IF �*. .; . Cti4t4ttA., YfTr IFd kk — A s AsAt F ,112 1 t 0 f a§ t ITFAN e ? . ; it Im FAA S. A IF w i:If I IF I i.9 s 1 . At If I-F } ctt { � } c od A, -IA " i .it IF ! J r. �R jq x Ad I t .AI AFFIF�IZtj m ' e tiY� r To &I Its If A A Cited C k : 71 ` OF FA IF dIdIF IF ,r kit .' i �� ' _1 1 '�� . � IF 1 f rr i ' If >r. ACF IF Ad 'vFIC, f e, ' Ad I Aw Fold " Jd�Nr F IF ap f For Lei` , � x r Add— did A Ad CAITIFF Ilk M I � 'e a < ? i � F,,IF 1 � n Ad f.� �i • h .` - "may - �` ° y`IF IF FIFFAC CAPF � `�v��i sg vi'c ` ! � I f zFF. COCA 4. FALL RA f air: -yeyyt hLA L. .1117¢YaL`T�+ 2 '