The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPZ - Applicant's request to continue to 4-2 Charlene Way From:Ethan Mansfield <emansfield@hcollc.com> Sent:Thursday, March 12, 2026 9:42 AM To:Sonya Allen; Clerks Comment Subject:RE: Syringa Crossing External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments. Dear Charlene and Sonya, We are writing to request a continuance of the Syringa Crossing project to 4/2. We are working to address planning comments in a way that will hopefully result in a recommendation of approval before the Commission. Thank you! Cheers, Ethan Ethan Mansfield | Pre-development Manager 855 W Broad St, Ste 300, Boise, ID 83702-7154 | hcollc.com 208.921.4686 cell | emansfield@hcollc.com From: Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2026 9:31 AM To: Ethan Mansfield <emansfield@hcollc.com> Cc: Clerks Comment <comment@meridiancity.org> Subject: RE: Syringa Crossing Hi Ethan, Please submit a request for continuance to the City Clerk with a reason for continuance and a requested continuance date. 1 Thanks, Sonya From: Ethan Mansfield <emansfield@hcollc.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2026 10:18 AM To: Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org> Subject: RE: Syringa Crossing External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments. Thank you, Sonya. I’ll discuss with my team and let you know how we plan to proceed. Cheers, Ethan Ethan Mansfield | Pre-development Manager 855 W Broad St, Ste 300, Boise, ID 83702-7154 | hcollc.com 208.921.4686 cell | emansfield@hcollc.com From: Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2026 3:18 PM To: Ethan Mansfield <emansfield@hcollc.com> Subject: RE: Syringa Crossing th We’ll need the revised plans at least 15 days prior to the hearing so it may be best to do April 16 to allow adequate time to revise the plans and re-submit, up to you though. From: Ethan Mansfield <emansfield@hcollc.com> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2026 8:57 AM To: Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org>; Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Dave Miles <dmiles@meridiancity.org>; Caleb Hood <chood@meridiancity.org> Subject: RE: Syringa Crossing External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments. Sonya, 2 We are making a few changes to reduce parking and add additional open space on the SWC of the Syringa Crossing Development. Please stay tuned. I should have something this week for your review. th In addition, Paul will be unavailable for the March 19 hearing, so we will be requesting deferral once again. I apologize. Would April 2 or April 16be better for this item to be heard? Please let me know. Cheers, Ethan Ethan Mansfield | Pre-development Manager 855 W Broad St, Ste 300, Boise, ID 83702-7154 | hcollc.com 208.921.4686 cell | emansfield@hcollc.com From: Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org> Sent: Friday, March 6, 2026 10:59 AM To: Ethan Mansfield <emansfield@hcollc.com>; Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Dave Miles <dmiles@meridiancity.org>; Caleb Hood <chood@meridiancity.org> Subject: RE: Syringa Crossing Hi Ethan, We’ll discuss this option along with other possible options and get back with you as soon as possible. Thanks, Sonya From: Ethan Mansfield <emansfield@hcollc.com> Sent: Friday, March 6, 2026 10:11 AM To: Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org>; Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Dave Miles <dmiles@meridiancity.org>; Caleb Hood <chood@meridiancity.org> Subject: RE: Syringa Crossing External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments. 3 All, Would orienting the grocery building on the NWC to face Amity improve the layout of the site from the City’s perspective? We initially did not do this because we felt it would create a barrier to integration with the o?ice/community services and residential to the north. But, if you think it would create a better site plan, we are not opposed to exploring this option. Please let me know. Cheers, Ethan Ethan Mansfield | Pre-development Manager 855 W Broad St, Ste 300, Boise, ID 83702-7154 | hcollc.com 208.921.4686 cell | emansfield@hcollc.com From: Ethan Mansfield Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 4:59 PM To: Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org>; Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Dave Miles <dmiles@meridiancity.org>; Caleb Hood <chood@meridiancity.org> Cc: Paul Stephens <pstephens@hcollc.com>; Mark Mitchell <mmitchell@hcollc.com> Subject: RE: Syringa Crossing Sonya, Dave, Bill, and Caleb, Please see our updated Concept Plan and associated narrative, along with a proposed rezone exhibit and previous response memo (this was sent prior to our meeting last week). Just want to make sure you have everything in one place! We are happy to update our CUP documents to comply with the concept plan as a condition of approval, or prior to the City Council hearing, whichever is easiest for you. Please let me know what you think. Looking forward to the PZC hearing on March 19. Cheers, Ethan Ethan Mansfield | Pre-development Manager 855 W Broad St, Ste 300, Boise, ID 83702-7154 | hcollc.com 4 208.921.4686 cell | emansfield@hcollc.com From: Ethan Mansfield Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 9:21 AM To: 'Sonya Allen' <sallen@meridiancity.org>; Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Dave Miles <dmiles@meridiancity.org>; Caleb Hood <chood@meridiancity.org> Cc: Paul Stephens <pstephens@hcollc.com>; Mark Mitchell <mmitchell@hcollc.com> Subject: RE: Syringa Crossing Thank very much, Sonya. I’ve cancelled my invite to avoid confusion. Cheers, Ethan Ethan Mansfield | Pre-development Manager 855 W Broad St, Ste 300, Boise, ID 83702-7154 | hcollc.com 208.921.4686 cell | emansfield@hcollc.com 5 From: Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 8:10 AM To: Ethan Mansfield <emansfield@hcollc.com>; Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Dave Miles <dmiles@meridiancity.org>; Caleb Hood <chood@meridiancity.org> Cc: Paul Stephens <pstephens@hcollc.com>; Mark Mitchell <mmitchell@hcollc.com> Subject: RE: Syringa Crossing Ethan, I need to reserve the conference room here at City Hall for our meeting so I’m going to send out a new invitation and also include a Teams link for a remote option. From: Ethan Mansfield <emansfield@hcollc.com> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2026 8:06 PM To: Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Dave Miles <dmiles@meridiancity.org>; Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org>; Caleb Hood <chood@meridiancity.org> Cc: Paul Stephens <pstephens@hcollc.com>; Mark Mitchell <mmitchell@hcollc.com> Subject: RE: Syringa Crossing External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments. All, Wednesday at 2 pm will work for us! I’ll send a calendar invite. Can we meet in person with a virtual option in case Mark, who is based in our AZ o?ice would like to attend? Have a great weekend, all. Cheers, Ethan Ethan Mansfield | Pre-development Manager 855 W Broad St, Ste 300, Boise, ID 83702-7154 | hcollc.com 208.921.4686 cell | emansfield@hcollc.com From: Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2026 4:14 PM To: Dave Miles <dmiles@meridiancity.org>; Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org>; Ethan Mansfield 6 <emansfield@hcollc.com>; Caleb Hood <chood@meridiancity.org> Cc: Paul Stephens <pstephens@hcollc.com>; Mark Mitchell <mmitchell@hcollc.com> Subject: RE: Syringa Crossing Wednesday is good for me. Bill Parsons, AICP | Current Planning Supervisor City of Meridian | Community Development Dept. 33 E. Broadway Ave., Ste. 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-884-5533 | Direct: 208-489-0571 Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. From: Dave Miles <dmiles@meridiancity.org> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2026 3:32 PM To: Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org>; Ethan Mansfield <emansfield@hcollc.com>; Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Caleb Hood <chood@meridiancity.org> Cc: Paul Stephens <pstephens@hcollc.com>; Mark Mitchell <mmitchell@hcollc.com> Subject: RE: Syringa Crossing 2pm Wednesday works for me if needed. Dave Miles | Director City of Meridian | Community Development Department 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208) 489-0362 Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law From: Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2026 2:26 PM To: Ethan Mansfield <emansfield@hcollc.com>; Dave Miles <dmiles@meridiancity.org>; Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Caleb Hood <chood@meridiancity.org> Cc: Paul Stephens <pstephens@hcollc.com>; Mark Mitchell <mmitchell@hcollc.com> Subject: RE: Syringa Crossing Hi Ethan, We’re happy to meet to discuss the Sta? report. I think the following dates & times would work for most of us: Monday 2:00 Tues. 1:00 Wed. 2:00 7 Let me know if any of those work for your team. Planning team, if any of these times won’t work for you and you want to attend, please reply with a preferred time. Thanks, Sonya From: Ethan Mansfield <emansfield@hcollc.com> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2026 12:56 PM To: Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org>; Dave Miles <dmiles@meridiancity.org>; Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Caleb Hood <chood@meridiancity.org> Cc: Paul Stephens <pstephens@hcollc.com>; Mark Mitchell <mmitchell@hcollc.com> Subject: RE: Syringa Crossing External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments. Dear Sonya, Dave, and Team, Please see our attached response to the sta? report. We would like to meet next week to discuss the report and our comments. We can be ﬂexible on timing. Can you please propose a few times that would work for you and your team? Thank you! Cheers, Ethan Ethan Mansfield | Pre-development Manager 855 W Broad St, Ste 300, Boise, ID 83702-7154 | hcollc.com 208.921.4686 cell | emansfield@hcollc.com From: Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 5:09 PM To: Ethan Mansfield <emansfield@hcollc.com> Cc: Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Caleb Hood <chood@meridiancity.org>; Dave Miles 8 <dmiles@meridiancity.org>; Paul Stephens <pstephens@hcollc.com>; Mark Mitchell <mmitchell@hcollc.com> Subject: FW: Syringa Crossing Ethan, Please see my comments below in pink. Thanks, Sonya From: Ethan Mansfield <emansfield@hcollc.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 12:48 PM To: Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org>; Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Caleb Hood <chood@meridiancity.org>; Dave Miles <dmiles@meridiancity.org> Cc: Paul Stephens <pstephens@hcollc.com>; Mark Mitchell <mmitchell@hcollc.com> Subject: RE: Syringa Crossing External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments. Sonya and team, I wanted to check in with you and the planning team about your comment below in green. ---------  Is there 86 residential units proposed on the NWC or 101? Site plan shows 86, narrative states up to 101….? In the narrative we are requesting permission in the development agreement to do up to 101 units, which would put our residential density at 14.99 du/acre, which is just less than the 15 du/acre supported by the MU-C. A CUP will be required for additional multi-family uses in Phase II of the project, and the CUP and subsequent CZC/DR will solidify the number/layout/design of these multi-family uses, since those are the applications where these elements (number/layout/design) have historically been considered. The gross density of the NWC is 9.57 units/acre based on 101 units on 10.55 acres; and the density of the SWC is 18.23 units/acre based on 322 units on 17.66 acres. Density is calculated separately for the NWC & SWC, not cumulatively, because the development is bisected by an arterial street. Understood. If we keep a max of 86 units on the north side, is planning supportive of the density across both the NWC and SWC? Per the Comp Plan, contiguous mixed use identiﬁed areas that are bisected by an arterial or highway are considered separate and independent areas for use and design integration and will be evaluated independently of each other (pp. 3-14 thru 3- 16). The percentage of residential uses & density on the NWC is ﬁne, the percentage of residential uses & density on the SWC is too high. ------- Will the City allow us to transfer future residential development rights from the NW Corner to the SW Corner with a development agreement? No, the Comp Plan doesn’t allow for a transfer of development rights between properties bisected by an arterial street, as noted. The total number residential units on both corners would not exceed 15 du/residential acre. We are just hoping to cluster the residential in an area that makes more sense from a development perspective. We’d welcome the opportunity to meet with you about this proposal. 9 Overall, there will be the same number of units, 15 per residential acre. With our proposal, we’ll have an area of the project with higher density (apartment buildings) and an area with lower density (townhome style multi-family). This provides a better density transition to the existing single-family homes to the north. This layout also provides consumers (renters) with housing options that may not have been available with the application of a 15 du/acre requirement across all residential areas. This isn’t supported by the Comp Plan. In 2020/2021, just prior to me joining Hawkins, Hawkins approached the City about developing only the NWC. It was communicated to us that both the NWC and SWC should be brought into the City with a cohesive development plan covering both corners (and, I assume, a development agreement that provides assurances to the City on both corners). This is the approach we have taken with this application, and we hope that it can be considered as a cohesive plan. If approved, a development agreement will be required. As proposed, the overall conceptual development plan doesn’t meet many of the development provisions in the Comp Plan for mixed use and speciﬁcally MU-C designated areas. Does the City’s comprehensive plan – which appears to value a diversity of housing types and forms – really want a uniform distribution of housing density across all residential areas of a Comp Plan land use area? The desired density range is between 6 and 15 units per acre in the MU-C designation, which provides for diversity in housing types & form. Other non-residential uses, including employment uses, are needed to support residential uses and reduce vehicle trips; therefore, there can’t be too much residential. From a city-wide perspective, of which the Comprehensive Plan is the guide, the overall density across the entire development area and/or project is what truly matters. As noted in 3-10 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the FLUM is not zoning. It is not parcel speciﬁc. It deﬁnes the “character and type of use that is desired in the future.” Placing more units north or south of the intersection does not change the fact that the project area will hold no more than 15 du/residential acre – which meets the requirements of the MU-C land use – and under 8 du/acre across the entire 55-acre project (the density across thee the entire 55-acre area is arguably what deﬁnes the character – aka vibe, feel, etc. – of the project area). As noted on pp. 3-14 & 3- 16 of the Comp Plan, contiguous mixed use identiﬁed areas that are bisected by an arterial or highway are considered separate and independent areas for use and design integration and will be evaluated independently of each other. Residential density is calculated on the residential area, not the overall site per the MU-C provisions on pg. 3-21. Below is the current density across the project with 86 units. Because you’re requesting approval of up to 101 units, density needs to be calculated on that number. The proposed density across the project with 86 units on the NWC is 14.46 du/ residential acre. The proposed density across residential areas with 101 units on the NWC is 14.99 du/ residential acre. I have the gross density of the NWC at 9.57 units per acre based on 101 units on 10.55 acres; and 18.23 units on the SWC based on 322 units on 17.66 acres – I need the net density of both areas from you Please let me know if 101 or 86 units can be supported by the planning team. 101 units on the NWC meets the Comp Plan density & coverage requirements. We are happy to meet to answer any questions about this project. Cheers, 10 Ethan Ethan Mansfield | Pre-development Manager 855 W Broad St, Ste 300, Boise, ID 83702-7154 | hcollc.com 208.921.4686 cell | emansfield@hcollc.com From: Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 4:48 PM To: Ethan Mansfield <emansfield@hcollc.com> Subject: RE: Syringa Crossing Please see my responses below in green. From: Ethan Mansfield <emansfield@hcollc.com> Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 5:39 PM To: Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org> Subject: RE: Syringa Crossing External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments. Sonya, Please see my thoughts/questions in purple below! Let me know if you have any additional questions. Cheers, Ethan 11 Ethan Mansfield | Pre-development Manager 855 W Broad St, Ste 300, Boise, ID 83702-7154 | hcollc.com 208.921.4686 cell | emansfield@hcollc.com From: Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org> Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2026 4:29 PM To: Ethan Mansfield <emansfield@hcollc.com> Subject: RE: Syringa Crossing Ethan, please see my responses below in blue. From: Ethan Mansfield <emansfield@hcollc.com> Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2026 12:28 PM To: Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org> Subject: RE: Syringa Crossing External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments. Hello, Sonya, Please ﬁnd my responses below in red. I need some additional information from you, as follows:  The gross & net density of each of the proposed multi-family developments based only on the multi-family development areas. Here are the densities of each multi-family area: NWC = 8.15 du/acre *9.57 units/acre based on 101 units on 10.55 acres; SWC=18.23 du/acre; Total= 14.46 du/acre. Can you specify how you would like me to calculate gross vs. net? Per UDC 11-1A-1 (deﬁnitions), gross density: The ratio of the total number of dwelling units within a development divided by the total area, including streets, alleys, easements, waterways, and common spaces; net density: The ratio of the total number of dwelling units within a development divided by the total area, excluding streets, alleys, easements, waterways, common spaces, and any other area not devoted to the residential lots. Copy. I’ll have my engineer/site planner ﬁnd the areas dedicated to ROW in this project. For this methodology, because this is a mixed use project, the dedicated ROW is also part of a commercial project (not just residential). It would be disingenuous to apply all ROW to the residential because the ROW serves both. My proposal would be to only apply the 12 ROW immediately adjacent to the multi-family to the net MF area calculations. Does that work? If you mean half of the ROW adjacent to the residential, yes that’s ﬁne.  Are you wanting the multi-family developments on Lot 7 and 8, Block 1 to be stand-alone developments or are you proposing to have them share common areas, open space, and amenities as well as maintenance responsibilities? What’s the reason for two lots? Yes, the entire multi-family development will share all common areas, open space, amenities, and maintenance responsibilities and operate as a single development. We are keeping 2 lots for ﬂexibility of ownership and ﬁnancing/reﬁnancing opportunities. Of course, there will be a maintenance and operating agreement requiring the entire project to be operated as a single project. ok  What is the acreage & percentage of the quasi-public areas on the SWC & NWC, excluding the private areas in the multi-family developments? The total amount of quasi-public open spaces represents 12.3% of the site’s total area. That’s about 6.77 acres of quasi-public areas, including parks, plazas, pathways, and other open areas. The bottom of page 3 of my narrative discusses this in more detail. I did see that – the calc’s include areas that are exclusively part of the multi-family developments and shouldn’t. Please provide calc’s/an exhibit showing what areas you’re counting that qualify as quasi-public areas that comply with the Comp Plan (i.e. including but not limited to, parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, linear open space – spaces must be designed with community supportive purpose, incorporate permanent design elements with features to promote frequent use, and support amenities that foster a wide variety of interests ranging from relaxation to play). Please see my previous email. I think with the clubhouse and pool areas subtracted from this total we are probably closer to 6.25 acres of quasi-public open space. Do you want me to prepare an exhibit? See my response on previous email.  Your narrative states there is almost 142,000 s.f. of commercial space consisting of 35,000 s.f. of commercial area (restaurants, retail shops, co?ee shop, gas station/c-store), 21,000 s.f. of o?ice uses and a 65,000 s.f. grocery store…what is the other 21,000 that I’m missing? Ok, thx – 146,840+/- s.f. commercial; 20,800+/- s.f. o?ice. Please refer to the tables below for Commercial square-footage. I apologize if the narrative was unclear: SWC NWC 13  Is there 86 residential units proposed on the NWC or 101? Site plan shows 86, narrative states up to 101….? In the narrative we are requesting permission in the development agreement to do up to 101 units, which would put our residential density at 14.99 du/acre, which is just less than the 15 du/acre supported by the MU-C. A CUP will be required for additional multi-family uses in Phase II of the project, and the CUP and subsequent CZC/DR will solidify the number/layout/design of these multi-family uses, since those are the applications where these elements (number/layout/design) have historically been considered. The gross density of the NWC is 9.57 units/acre based on 101 units on 10.55 acres; and the density of the SWC is 18.23 units/acre based on 322 units on 17.66 acres. Density is calculated separately for the NWC & SWC, not cumulatively, because the development is bisected by an arterial street. Understood. If we keep a max of 86 units on the north side, is planning supportive of the density across both the NWC and SWC? Per the Comp Plan, contiguous mixed use identiﬁed areas that are bisected by an arterial or highway are considered separate and independent areas for use and design integration and will be evaluated independently of each other (pp. 3-14 thru 3- 16). The percentage of residential uses & density on the NWC is ﬁne, the percentage of residential uses & density on the SWC is too high.  What is proposed in the 40’ wide irrigation easement on the SWC? Is it a dry streambed? That is correct. It is a dry streambed that will be driveable by Boise Project Board of Control vehicles if access is required. Please ﬁnd a schematic exhibit of this attached.  What is the maximum number of stories and building height planned on the NWC in the C-G district? We don’t plan on anything more than 1 story within this area. This would likely be a max of 20-25’ high. We would like the ﬂexibility to construct to the maximum height of the zone because there does not appear to be a reason to explicitly limit it at this time.  What hours is the grocery store proposed to operate? We have not signed an agreement with a grocery store at this time. Therefore, we don’t know the speciﬁc hours of operation. I would think that to optimize convenience for residents, a business with a wider range of hours would be preferred over one with more limited hours. I’m thinking of my personal experiences of wishing there were grocers closer to me that were open earlier and/or later when I needed to pick something up. Because of this, I don’t see any speciﬁc reason to limit hours at this time.  Instead of C-G zoning on the NWC, would you be amenable to L-O for the o?ice and C-C for the commercial/retail in order to provide better transitions in zoning to future residential uses to the west and proposed residential uses? We would be happy to go to C-C for the commercial retail. However, before we agree, can you please conﬁrm that a store like Costco would be classiﬁed as a Retail store and not a wholesale store, and would be allowed in a C-C zone? (ignoring store size questions, but just the nature of the business). We need the ability to explore users with business models like Costco’s. Costco 14 would be considered a retail store. Per UDC 11-1A-1, Wholesale sales. The use of a site for selling, distributing, or brokering merchandise to retailers, business users, or other wholesalers. This use can include incidental retail sales to the general public. Thanks for clarifying. If that is the case, we are ﬁne with C-C. We would like to suggest C-N for the o?ice portion. I remember distinctly discussing a karate studio in those spaces. It appears that a yoga studio, karate studio, artist studio, etc. are not allowed in the L-O zone. We appreciate the ability to provide lower intensity uses as we transition to residential; the L-O zone will needlessly limit services that might be desired and used heavily by the nearby community. Those uses are classiﬁed as “arts, entertainment or recreation facility, indoor” and allowed as a conditional use (CUP) in the L-O district. We are willing to go to C-N so that a CUP will not be required for a use that the City has expressed support for previously. We are doing this so that future residents of this project and nearby projects can more easily access services that they would like to see there. In my experience, one of the biggest barriers to the success of small, local businesses is the entitlement and permitting process. By making spaces that are allowed by right available to entrepreneurs in the community, we are expanding opportunities to both proprietors and customers. A minimum of 3 di?erent land use types are required per the Comp Plan – if C-N zoning is granted instead of L-O, there’s no guarantee the required mix of uses would be provided. In regard to the common open space required with the CUP for the multi-family development, please note the following:  If you include the street bu?ers along collector and arterial streets in the open space calc’s as proposed, you’ll need to comply with the enhanced bu?er requirements in UDC 11-4-3-27C.9. Do you have any issues complying with those standards or do you want to remove those bu?ers from the open space exhibit/calc’s? No issues!  If you include common open space areas adjacent to collector/arterial street bu?ers, they have to be separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least 4’ in height, with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access per UDC 11-4-3-27C.8, unless otherwise approved through the CUP process. Do you have any issue with providing a berm/barrier as required or do you want to ask for it to be approved without such berm/barrier through the CUP? We plan to provide a berm on Meridian Rd. We are not planning a berm on Hermatite south of Amity Rd. We want to enhance the interaction between the street (and 10’ multi-use path) so residents that are bike/peds have a more comfortable experience to than the Meridian Rd experience. That’s why we are proposing a narrower street section and wider pathway option that ACHD is o?ering us. If that requires CUP approval then we would like request that. Ok Are the other exhibits revised yet \[i.e. access exhibits for SWC (EXH 1 & EX1.0), site amenity exhibit (concept plan w/commercial plazas & dining establishment plaza)? Please ﬁnd the updated access exhibit attached. We are still awaiting the site amenity exhibit. I should be able to send by the end of the week. The access exhibit wasn’t attached. Sorry about that. Please see attached! Do you have a detail/exhibit of the children’s play equipment? We do not at this time. Typically, these are spec-ed at the DR or building permit phase. Please let me know if you would like pictures of our existing developments. This will reﬂect something similar to what we are proposing. Yes, please submit an example of what you’re proposing as part of the CUP application. I believe I sent these in a previous email. If not, see this link: Play Structures_Amenities Do any of the multi-family structures at the SWC have units that take access via secured common corridors? We have not yet ﬁnalized the design of the buildings, however, as currently proposed, only the three central multi- family buildings will take access from secured common corridors. I am curious what is driving this question! See UDC 11-4-3-27G. Noted, thank you! I hope these answers help! Let me know if you still have questions. 15 Cheers, Ethan Ethan Mansfield | Pre-development Manager 855 W Broad St, Ste 300, Boise, ID 83702-7154 | hcollc.com 208.921.4686 cell | emansfield@hcollc.com From: Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 8:21 AM To: Ethan Mansfield <emansfield@hcollc.com> Subject: Syringa Crossing Hi Ethan, I need some additional information from you, as follows:  The gross & net density of each of the proposed multi-family developments based only on the multi-family development areas.  Are you wanting the multi-family developments on Lot 7 and 8, Block 1 to be stand-alone developments or are you proposing to have them share common areas, open space and amenities as well as maintenance responsibilities? What’s the reason for two lots?  What is the acreage & percentage of the quasi-public areas on the SWC & NWC, excluding the private areas in the multi-family developments?  Your narrative states there is almost 142,000 s.f. of commercial space consisting of 35,000 s.f. of commercial area (restaurants, retail shops, co?ee shop, gas station/c-store), 21,000 s.f. of o?ice uses and a 65,000 s.f. grocery store…what is the other 21,000 that I’m missing?  Is there 86 residential units proposed on the NWC or 101? Site plan shows 86, narrative states up to 101….?  What is proposed in the 40’ wide irrigation easement on the SWC? Is it a dry streambed?  What is the maximum number of stories and building height planned on the NWC in the C-G district?  What hours is the grocery store proposed to operate?  Instead of C-G zoning on the NWC, would you be amenable to L-O for the o?ice and C-C for the commercial/retail in order to provide better transitions in zoning to future residential uses to the west and proposed residential uses? 16 In regard to the common open space required with the CUP for the multi-family development, please note the following:  If you include the street bu?ers along collector and arterial streets in the open space calc’s as proposed, you’ll need to comply with the enhanced bu?er requirements in UDC 11-4-3-27C.9. Do you have any issues complying with those standards or do you want to remove those bu?ers from the open space exhibit/calc’s?  If you include common open space areas adjacent to collector/arterial street bu?ers, they have to be separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least 4’ in height, with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access per UDC 11-4-3-27C.8, unless otherwise approved through the CUP process. Do you have any issue with providing a berm/barrier as required or do you want to ask for it to be approved without such berm/barrier through the CUP? Are the other exhibits revised yet \[i.e. access exhibits for SWC (EXH 1 & EX1.0), site amenity exhibit (concept plan w/commercial plazas & dining establishment plaza)? Do you have a detail/exhibit of the children’s play equipment? Do any of the multi-family structures at the SWC have units that take access via secured common corridors? Thanks, Sonya Allen | Associate Planner City of Meridian | Community Development Department | Planning Division 33 E. Broadway Ave., Ste. 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-884-5533 | Direct/Fax: 208-489-0578 Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 17