Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-04-16 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, April 16, 2026 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Jessica Perreault Commissioner Matthew Sandoval Commissioner Dom Gelsomino Chairperson Maria Lorcher ABSENT Commissioner Matthew Stoll Commissioner Jared Smith ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Commissioner Gelsomino, Seconded by Commissioner Perreault. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Gelsomino, Chairperson Lorcher 1. Approve Minutes of the April 02, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for Skybreak Rim (H-2026-0001) by Conger Group, located near the southeast corner of S. Eagle Rd., and E. Lake Hazel Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to the existing development agreements (Inst. #2021-042520 and #2021-119175). B. Request: Planned Unit Development Modification to remove the subject property from the boundary of the approved Pura Vida Ridge Ranch Subdivision and incorporate the proposed development into the boundary of the Skybreak Subdivision with a new development agreement. C. Request: Rezone of approximately 6.64 acres of land from the R-8 zone to the R-15 zone. D. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 38 single-family residential building lots, 5 common lots, 2 common drive lots and one private street lot on 9.74 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district. E. Request: Private Street to provide access to the proposed development. Motion to recommend approval to Council made by Chairperson Lorcher, Seconded by Commissioner Gelsomino. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Gelsomino, Chairperson Lorcher ADJOURNMENT 7:09 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To view upcoming Public Hearing Notices, visit https://apps.meridiancity.org/phnotices --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting April 16, 2026. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 16, 2026, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Maria Lorcher. Members Present: Commissioner Maria Lorcher, Commissioner Dom Gelsomino, Commissioner Matthew Sandoval and Commissioner Jessica Perreault. Members Absent: Commissioner Jared Smith and Commissioner Matthew Stoll. Others Present: Tina Lomeli, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Linda Ritter and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE (Vacant) X Jessica Perrault _X Matthew Sandoval Matthew Stoll _X Dom Gelsomino Jared Smith X Maria Lorcher - Chairman Lorcher: Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for April 16th. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present for this meeting are at City Hall and on Zoom. We have staff from the city attorneys and the city clerk's office, as well as the city's planning department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting, however, you -- 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 we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion of the meeting. 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 the streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. With that we will begin with roll call. Madam Clerk. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Lorcher: 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? Gelsomino: So moved. Perreault: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adopt tonight's agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 16,2026 Page 2 of 21 CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the April 02, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Lorcher: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda, which includes to approve the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of April 2nd. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Gelsomino: So moved. Perreault: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded -- it's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Lorcher: At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and our Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff's comments and they will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant is finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called only once. During public testimony. The clerk will call the names individually of those who have signed up on our website in advance to testify. You may come to the microphones in Chambers or you will be unmuted on Zoom. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and the City Clerk will help you run your presentation. If you have established that you are speaking on behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others from that group will allow you to speak on their behalf, you will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken we invite any others who wish to testify. If you wish to speak on a topic you may come forward in Chambers or if you are on Zoom press the raise hand button or if you are only listening on a telephone please press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, such as a computer and a phone, please, be sure to mute those extra devices, so we do not experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you have finished if the Commission does not have questions for you you will return to your seat in Chambers or be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak. And, please, remember we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant has finished responding to the questions and concerns we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 16,2026 Page 3 of 21 opportunity to discuss and hopefully make final decisions or recommended -- recommendations to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for Skybreak Rim (H-2026-0001) by Conger Group, located near the southeast corner of S. Eagle Rd., and E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to the existing development agreements (Inst. #2021-042520 and #2021-119175). B. Request: Planned Unit Development Modification to remove the subject property from the boundary of the approved Pura Vida Ridge Ranch Subdivision and incorporate the proposed development into the boundary of the Skybreak Subdivision with a new development agreement. C. Request: Rezone of approximately 6.64 acres of land from the R-8 zone to the R-15 zone. D. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 38 single-family residential building lots, 5 common lots, 2 common drive lots and one private street lot on 9.74 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district. E. Request: Private Street to provide access to the proposed development. Lorcher: We will start with Item No. H-2026-0001, Skybreak Rim, for a modified development agreement, a planned unit development modification, rezone, preliminary plat and private street request. We will begin with the staff report. Ritter: Good evening. Linda Ritter with the city of Mukilteo. So, again, this is Skybreak Rim. It is located at 3727 East Lake Hazel Road. It is 9.74 acres of land and it has a current zoning of R-8 and R-15. Again, the applicant is proposing to rezone -- do a portion of the property that is zoned R-8, another portion -- because a part of it is already R-15 and they are looking at doing the preliminary plat. There is currently a plat that is approved with 30 lots that is zoned R-8 and they are looking at rezoning that to R-15. They are doing the planned unit development modification, because that portion of the property was approved with the Pura Vida Subdivision and they are modifying the existing development agreement to do a new development agreement for this portion of the property and they also have private streets. So, this is the Pura Vida Subdivision and this is a portion of the property that they are removing from the planned unit development to create an additional subdivision Skybreak Rim to add to the existing Skybreak Subdivision. So, this is a portion of the property that they will be rezoning to R-15 that is currently R-8. And, again, just a little background. So, this property was -- F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 16,2026 Page 4 of 21 in 2001 it was included in the planned unit development agreement. Again, it consisted of a mix of residential housing types, including single family detached, attached and townhome units. And, again, they are proposing to remove that portion from the PUD, rezone the parcel and add eight additional lots and it is developing as a standalone subdivision. So, in order to do this again they have to amend the existing PUD to demonstrate that it -- removing the parcel will not negatively impact the integrity of the remaining development and, again, modify the existing development agreement to exclude the subject parcel and the new development agreement will be established for the proposed standalone subdivision. So, this is the plat that they are proposing. The previous plat had a public road, but they are proposing a private road. This is their landscape plan that is provided with that. So, the open space that they have for this subdivision meets the requirement for the R-15 zone. The open space is actually over what is required. They are providing amenities for this area that -- and they are also sharing amenities with the existing Skybreak Subdivision. So, for the amenities that are being proposed they are providing a shade structure seating area and landscaping. What we have asked the applicant is that 15 days before the City Council hearing that they provide us an exhibit showing the -- these amenities, because it is -- in the code it is considered a picnic area. So, we need to see the things that are proposed -- that are required for a picnic area. So, they will just need to provide us an amenity exhibit showing these things. So, these are the amenities with the existing Skybreak Subdivision that will be shared with this subdivision. Again, they -- if they choose not to share these amenities they don't have to, because the amenities that are with the proposed subdivision Skybreak Rim meet the requirements and no additional amenities are required with that. But that will be up to the developer whether or not he chooses to share with the existing subdivision. So, I'm showing the pedestrian connections that they are proposing to go along with this subdivision. Again, this is a private road now that will connect into the existing subdivision Skybreak Subdivision to the south and this is a common driveway that is an emergency access that they are -- that the fire marshal has approved. This is the pathway that will connect to Pura Vida. It will be a natural pathway, so it will not be paved and the hillside will be left in its natural state. This is an existing pathway that is already built and so this -- it connects to this private road. So, this -- they are showing their pedestrian connection and I just wanted to show what was previously approved with the Pura Vida Subdivision. These are the building elevations that were submitted with this. So, now I just want to talk about some of the things that the city -- some concerns that we had and we have -- the applicant is aware of these, so they are proposing a private road and our private road standards basically state that you are supposed to have a sidewalk on both sides unless -- so, it's supposed to have a five foot -- five foot wide attached sidewalk or a four foot wide detached sidewalk and it shall be provided on both sides of the private street. This may be waived by the decision making body if the applicant can demonstrate an alternative similar pedestrian pathway -- path exists. So, the applicant is asking for waiver to construct the five foot sidewalk on the one side of the street, as previously approved with the previous Skybreak Subdivision. So, they want it to match up. And they have provided a section showing the pedestrian -- the parking along here that would be required for this. You would have to have one side that had parking on it. So, what we are saying is that Commission and Council will need to determine if what is being proposed is sufficient and if it meets the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 16,2026 Page 5 of 21 requirement. The private street section of the code was changed in 2025, so we just need you to carefully consider whether the proposed request meets the intent of the current UDC for sidewalks associated with private streets. So, another thing that is common driveways for the -- the revised private street code says that no common driveway shall be allowed off of a private street, unless the street section allows for parking on at least one side of the street or if the development has designated adequate guest parking dispersed throughout as determined by the director. So, again, the applicant is -- he provided a -- the parking -- oh, my God. Excuse me. They provided the parking exhibit that shows parking for this development and, again, we ask that the Commission and Council review this and determine if what is being proposed is appropriate based on our code and the next thing is the gated area. So, there is -- the way our code reads is that there should be no more than one hundred dwelling units behind a gate. A gated community consist of no more than one hundred dwelling units. So, we bring this up because even though it's a separate subdivision, the only way that you can access this subdivision is through this gated area, because it takes access through this street here that will go up to meet with the new development and when this was -- when Skybreak was approved they -- at that time the code stated no more than 50 homes behind the gate and they were given alternative compliance to add 106 units behind that gate. So, now there is an additional 38 lots that will utilize that gated area and so -- again it's one of those things where we are asking Commission and Council whether or not you feel this is sufficient -- sufficient and it meets the intent of the code. If you guys choose to do alternative compliance for them to allow these units behind this gated area, then, staff needs to be directed to do that or state on the record that is something that you have no objection to. But we have to point these things out to you. Even though it is a standalone subdivision, it still goes through these private roads for this gated area to access these 38 homes. So, those are the concerns that we have, the issues that we ask you to look at and carefully consider for this project. And also in order for this connection to be made to Skybreak Rim they will have to modify Skybreak Subdivision No. 1 in order to lose a buildable lot to bring that private road through there. So, that modification has to take place prior to a final plat being submitted. The city did receive two written comments on this proposal. One was opposed to having to share amenities with the new subdivision and the other one felt that what was approved before was consistent with the subdivision here. The portion of Skybreak -- this was consistent and now that they are rezoning they feel that it's not consistent anymore. So, those were the two written comments that we received on this. Again with the PD -- PUD modification we feel that this being removed from Pura Vida still leaves it in -- intact with the open space and other requirements that it had, so there is no issue with that. Again, the issues that were expressed are the only concerns that we have, but we asked you guys to look at those and -- and give us guidance. Lorcher: Linda, can you go back to the previous screen where the two gates are located, please? This one. So, where is -- where is Skybreak Rim in this picture, because I'm confused on what I'm looking at. Ritter: Up here. It will be up here. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 16,2026 Page 6 of 21 Lorcher: Oh. Ritter: So, this road will extend up to extend a private road into the subject -- into the new subdivision. Lorcher: Okay. So, if I'm driving I'm coming down this road along these greens and, then, I'm going to turn I guess -- and, then, I can go through this. Ritter: Yes. This comes in from Eagle Road. Lorcher: Oh, that's Eagle Road. Okay. Ritter: This is the public portion and, then, it turns private. And, then, it goes this way up and to -- Lorcher: And then -- and that's the only way in there -- into that new -- into the -- the Skybreak Rim? Is that new extended road where they will give up the lot; is that correct? Ritter: Correct. Right here it shows it. So, this is Skybreak Rim -- I mean Skybreak and this is Skybreak Rim. So, this is the new private road that will extend up into Skybreak Rim. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, do we have any other questions for staff before we invite the applicant to come forward? Starman: Madam Chair, can I -- can I just interject? I wanted to clarify one topic and Linda can kick me from afar if I misspeak or if I'm wrong, but I don't want to get too technical about this, but there was a comment made during the presentation about alternative compliance for this proposal before you. So, I think, you know, my read of the code is that this -- as Linda's mentioned about three times, this project stands on its own. It's a subdivision. Thirty-eight buildable lots. It does not trigger the requirement in the UDC that requires alternative compliance, because it is -- it's not gated, number one. Number two it is below one hundred buildable lots. But as Linda mentioned -- so, in my read of the code there is no need for alternative compliance, but Linda makes a fair point -- and the applicant will speak to this as well -- is that the access to this new subdivision comes through a gated community and so you need to consider that as you look at, you know, whether it's in the city's interest to amend existing development agreements and proceed with the project of this nature. But I just wanted to clarify there is no -- in my read of the code there is no need for alternative compliance relative to the project before you today. Lorcher: Thank you. Ritter: Thanks, Kurt. What -- what I was alluding to is that the previous alternative compliance that was done for Skybreak would need to be amended if we are adding Flo Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 16,2026 Page 7 of 21 these additional lots to the gated portion of it. But, as Kurt has clarified, the stand-alone subdivision itself does not. The previous one, because of the code at the time, require that, but our code -- with the changes to the code it does not require that anymore. It's just whether or not you feel that this meets the intent of our code. Lorcher: Right. Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Hello. Clark: Got a presentation for me, Linda? While she gets that fired up, Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street in Boise. Representing the applicant. And before I get too far I just want to remind everybody that that is a recommendation for approval. So, even if it felt maybe like we were in the weeds a little bit there. So, I want to -- but I am going to talk about all those issues as we go through here. But I -- this is one that I think is pretty simple. It's a lot of common sense that goes along with this application and I will kind of show you why that's the case. The -- while she gets back there. So, the application, as you guys know and you saw on the other maps, it's property that's just south of Lake Hazel, just east of Eagle Road. So, you have got arterials right there. I can take it over if you want, Linda. Oh, there we go. You got it. So, this previously was a part of the Pura Vida application and you can see that on the screen. You can also see Skybreak and you can kind of see the larger context for this. You have Discovery Park just not too far away. Firefighting facilities are available. Emergency services. Lake Hazel has been rebuilt. I live in the area, so I got to live through that 18 months of fun to get the Lake Hazel and Eagle intersection done, but it's all there. But one thing I want to point out is we -- we put on -- in red on this map the hillside and that hillside is really what drives a lot of this conversation. So, keeping that hillside there, because I'm -- I want to be pretty consistent in that. The other element of this that I think is really important to point out is the comprehensive planning. So, the southern portion of that block as it were is medium density. That's the existing Skybreak Subdivision. So, lower density. Once you get to the Skybreak Rim boundary you move into medium high density residential as the comp plan designation. So, rather than having the -- the lower density now, we are talking about the comp plan calling for between eight and 12 units per acre, variety of housing types, all that sort of thing. Now, we anticipate that that's going to -- that density is going to be coming with these future applications. It will be down further north closer to Lake Hazel and along Eagle, but that was very much in our minds when we looked at this, because we -- we are supposed to be under the -- under the city's planning somewhere in the range of eight to 12 units per acre for that -- for that piece. Okay. So, more about the hillside. So, those -- if you have ever driven by it -- I'm sure most of you have. It -- it is a steep slope. You got two to one or greater. At some points it's 50 to 60 feet above the valley floor. So, something like a five to six story building there. So, you can see the Skybreak lots that are there looking down on -- on Boise Ranch and in that valley is where the Pura Vida Subdivision is. So, again, this was approved originally with the 30 lots that were part of the Pura Vida Ranch Subdivision. They had a density that was on the low side for the medium high density residential a 5.96, but if you look at the design you can see kind of how these are really two different projects. Down in the valley you have the townhomes, the attached project -- product, the -- the denser product that is kind of down there along the canal and, then, almost completely separated from it was this area that was up on top of the hill and it F11 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 16,2026 Page 8 of 21 had -- rather than having the -- kind of different PUD treatment that you had for the lots down below with the different densities, it was just kind of a straight R-8 subdivision. And it was going to be a challenge for those homeowners to access the Pura Vida amenities, because there is not a public street way to get down there from that. They had shown a number of pathways on their plans, but most of those were not feasible. We have maintained the one that actually is feasible, but in order to get down to the other amenities from, you know, what would otherwise be your subdivision if you were part of Pura Vida, you would have to do the switch back, walk down and if you had the stroller or whatever, probably -- probably not the most ideal situation. So, we really had this 60 feet difference that makes a -- makes a big difference in terms of where that -- that project can and should develop. So, our solution was to work with that property owner to acquire that piece and to incorporate it into the existing Skybreak Subdivision. So, in that case the future residents of that area they would be part of an HOA that's at the same elevation as them, much better access to amenities and just makes sense. Now, I wanted to add a little bit more context. So, after Skybreak was approved and not as a part of the Skybreak approval requirements, the developer decided to add amenities to Skybreak. So, a community pool was added and two more pickle ball -- pickle ball courts were added. Those are, again, above and beyond what the city had required and what the city approved. So, with that there we believe that there is plenty of capacity to be able to -- to serve those residents and -- and I will just hit a couple of these last couple items here and, then, answer questions. So, the staff report identified three questions there at the beginning. Linda talked a bit about those. First one was parking. Parking -- you guys have seen this almost identical drawing that we have presented on behalf of this developer very often. This is a street with parking on one side. Satisfies all the code requirements and you can see that there is 18 on-street additional parking spots. We -- we don't believe that that is a concern. So, let's talk about gates -- and, Commissioner Lorcher, I think this might help part of -- to answer some of your questions that you had. So, Skybreak was approved for 106 lots behind two gates. So, there was already discussion and an allowance to go above what would otherwise have been the -- the -- the code requirement. The code specifically contemplates that the City Council can allow for more lots to be behind gates. It's not a -- not a -- like a strict variance, but in that case they did ask for the alternative compliance. It was granted. So, here was our thinking with these gates. So, the existing rim lots are all accessed behind the gate and you can see that there is two gates there, so the two green arrows. So, it's not just a single access to all the gated lots and -- but there is two gated accesses and two emergency accesses that are proposed. Our thought was to continue with the rim lots, because these are also rim lots and put them also behind the gated area. They -- as you can see it aligns pretty well that way, but we are not proposing any new gates. Instead we are just asking to add these lots to the existing gated area and, then, last with regard to the sidewalk. So, if you look back at the discussion with regard to Skybreak there was a -- an extensive discussion about sidewalks. You probably remember. And so the Council ultimately approved sidewalks on one side. Our proposal is to continue that, make it consistent with the rest of Skybreak. If you -- if you look closely at this drawing -- if the mouse will follow me here. So, the sidewalk that we are proposing is on -- on this side of the street and, then, it -- it will connect into the sidewalk that is on the inner block here in Sky Rim F12 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 16,2026 Page 9 of 21 -- in -- sorry -- in Skybreak. Again just trying to stay consistent with the existing approvals, make it match up, and so we are just -- we think that that makes sense and there is no reason to change it. So, just to summarize, no new entitlements are proposed here. This is, again, an attempt to change these project boundaries to include Skybreak Rim in Skybreak HOA. Give these future residents the ability to access their amenities much more easily, make it a more coherent subdivision. It's consistent with the existing Skybreak Subdivision approvals and we are in agreement with the staff conditions. So, I'm happy to answer questions if you have any. Lorcher: How much of Skybreak is already finished? Clark: I think it's about 60 percent'ish. Skybreak. Yeah. Lorcher: Is there a big space between the existing homes and Skybreak and Rim or is the -- are -- are you ready -- if you went to -- if approved that you would just be continuing on? Clark: We would just be continuing on -- continuing on, Madam Chair. Lorcher: And the -- the whole Skybreak Subdivision is broken out between gated and non-gated community; is that right? Clark: That's correct. So, you have -- if you look at this picture the shaded area is gated and all of that stuff behind the gated area is R-15 and, then, everything that's not shaded is on public streets and most of that's R-8. There is a few -- I think there is a little bit R-15 in there as well. Lorcher: And what is the advantage of having half gated and half non-gated in this particular community? Cark: Oh. The -- the advantage is that you have kind of that area where you have your typical traditional public streets, but there is also a buyer, you know, oftentimes maybe later in life, maybe, you know, looking for a quieter project, maybe -- that maybe has the narrower streets, less traffic, and so those folks are looking for something that is a little more -- feels a little bit more secure and so this way with the -- the split you have kind of your traditional subdivision on the west and, then, this kind of quieter enclave on the east behind the gates. Lorcher: But it's not age restricted; correct? Clark: Not age restricted, no. Lorcher: All right. And one final question from me. The square footage of the homes that are currently in Skybreak compared to Skybreak Rim, are they similar in size or do they change? F13] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 16,2026 Page 10 of 21 Clark: Well, there is a -- there is a variety of -- of housing -- like housing sizes as you can see here that you have, you know, all the way on the south there is some custom homes with larger lots. Lorcher: Right. But I'm talking about the majority of what -- where they connect. Clark: Oh. Where they connect it's -- it's pretty darn similar. I think these are going to be -- the ones on the rim are going to be maybe a touch smaller than with the three foot setbacks, but other than that they are pretty similar. Lorcher: Okay. Commissioners, do we have any questions for Hethe before we open public testimony? Gelsomino: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Gelsomino. Gelsomino: Quick question for you. As a member of my own subdivision's HOA board and a -- a bit of a stickler for policies and procedures, have -- and this might be a question for -- as a matter of confirmation, but have existing Skybreak homeowners or the HOA been notified of the changes to the -- to converting Lot 13, Block 1, and does the HOA's recorded CC&Rs require member consent for alterations to the subdivision boundary or lot count? Clark: Madam Chair, so two -- two answers there. We had two neighborhood meetings and that's the notification that would typically be provided with regard to a zoning matter. As with most CC&Rs -- and -- and I draft a lot of them -- the -- the CC&Rs allow the developer to annex or modify boundaries of the subdivision and annex additional properties and that's the case with these. So, there -- there is the -- the private legal authority to be able to bring this in in addition to the city process that's required. Yep. Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Thank you, Madam Chair. Hethe, can you just kind of go through a little bit of the history for us on -- I remember this application pretty well for the most part. Lots of conversation about the disconnect between Pura Vida and this property. So -- so, you -- was this purchased from a prior owner or the -- the prior developer? How did that come to be? And then -- and, then, you know, then a desire to bring it into Skybreak. Can you just kind of give us some information on that? Clark: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, I think you have pretty much nailed it. So, yes, that was a conversation between the current owners of the two projects and I think a recognition that Skybreak Rim we will just call it makes more sense with Skybreak and so it was -- it's -- the -- it's going to be acquired from that -- from the existing Pura Vida owner in order to be incorporated into the rest of Skybreak. Does that answer your question? F14] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 16,2026 Page 11 of 21 Perreault: Yeah. I just wanted a little bit more understanding of, you know, at what point did -- did Pura Vida decide, hey, this isn't something we want to continue with with our original and, you know, approval and entitlements and, then, were you approached by them, that kind of thing. Just curious. Clark: Yeah. So, I would say two things. One is I think -- I think anybody who saw the -- looked at the Pura Vida application initially probably had that question of how is this going to work together. I'm not putting words in anybody's mouth. That's just my -- my impression of it. The conversations have been relatively recent and, then, you know, we submitted once a deal was struck to be able to acquire it and -- and at that point it made -- it -- once that -- once it was clear that it made sense for both parties they moved forward. But beyond that I don't -- I'm not at liberty to share the specific details of the negotiation, but -- yeah. You know, a couple thoughts, too, that I -- I might note in addition, just to -- maybe this helps the Commissioners. A couple is that we are -- you know, Linda mentioned that the property has enough amenity -- or the project has enough amenities to qualify on its own, but I wanted to confirm for the record that we are planning to share amenities and as I mentioned we do have the ability to incorporate that into the existing HOA and I -- I would just note as well that the -- it makes sense for -- from a perspective of economies of scale that you would have the private road come in and be part of the private road network back there, because, then, you can add some miles and some -- some users to help pay for all that maintenance. So, that would -- I would throw that on the pile of things to talk about for a reason to include it. Lorcher: Okay. Clark: Okay. Lorcher: Thank you. Clark: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up for public testimony? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. The first person is Pete Szobonya. Sorry. Lorcher: Hi. If you could just state your name and address for the record, please. Szobonya: Yes. My name is Pete Szobonya and I live at 3405 East Englehart Drive in Skybreak. Excuse me. Losing my voice today. So, I -- I was one of the two comments that were submitted online and so I would just like to reiterate for you to consider that this piece of property was part of the other subdivision and in those documents when the city approved that that developer had said that they purposely made this a zone R-8 so that it would match Skybreak and so now my basic question is what's the reason for changing from an R-8 to an R-15. They stated -- didn't know this until today -- that they are asking for the exemption to have a sidewalk on one street, so that it is consistent 15 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 16,2026 Page 12 of 21 with Skybreak, so why change the zoning and the lot -- lot setbacks basically. So, they would be allowed to go from a five foot setback on the sides to a three foot setback, which in my opinion is nowhere near consistent, so -- Lorcher: Okay. We will have him address that after public testimony. Thank you. Szobonya: Okay. Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person is Margaret Ann Beckwith. Lorcher: Hi. If you could state your name and address for the record, please. Beckwith: Yes. Good evening. I'm Margaret Ann Beckwith and I reside at 3339 East Englehart Drive in the Skybreak Subdivision. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Beckwith: I am a new resident. We moved in in January and before I begin, Linda, I wanted to thank you for your assistance. Lorcher: Can you get a little closer to the microphone, please? Beckwith: Oh, yes. Lorcher: Thanks. Beckwith: When we bought our house amenities were very important to us and the reason we chose Skybreak was because we wanted to utilize those amenities and we felt that the size of the neighborhood was balanced against the type of amenities provided and in the purchase price of our housing we paid for those amenities. Now, we find out that the developer wants to expand the subdivision and while the pictures being depicted are very pretty, I would like to show you some pictures of what -- one of the fairly new pickle ball courts look like. Linda, could you bring my pictures up, please. While she is doing that I also wanted to express a concern. Not only is the size of the subdivision increasing, but the number of people from outside the subdivision who come in to utilize our amenities is a constant problem and with the expansion of the new lots and with the subdivision that is going in, the townhouses below it and the pathways being provided, there is no way to restrict the access of people coming into this subdivision and utilizing our amenities that the homeowners are responsible for maintaining and basically pay for. Lorcher: Let me ask you a question, since we are still waiting on that. So, in order to get to the -- to the pickle ball courts is there -- do you have a key or -- Beckwith: No. F16] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 16,2026 Page 13 of 21 Lorcher: -- is it just wide open? Beckwith: It's wide open. Lorcher: And what about the pool? Beckwith: The pool is secured. It's my understanding we will be provided with fobs. But in talking to people who -- we were not there during the summertime when the pool was initially opened, there also was a problem with people coming in from the outside, because one of the gates was not secure. Lorcher: Okay. So, that should be something to take up what the HOA to make -- because aren't they the ones who are in charge of maintaining the -- Beckwith: The HOA is currently the developer. Lorcher: Oh. Okay. Beckwith: Okay. Lorcher: Got you. And what other amenities do you have besides the pickle ball courts -- Beckwith: We have the pickle ball courts, the pool and a little playground. Lorcher: Okay. Beckwith: Which is quite nice. As you can see this is -- this is what the pickle ball court looks like. There are cracks in the court. The concrete is shifting. I'm not an engineer, but I -- I play pickle ball and I know that it is not a safe court to play on at this point in time because of the holes that are appearing and the cracks. Somebody from the outside came in -- we are assuming -- damaged the net. We -- my husband and I were out walking and encountered a group of seven boys who were on the other pickle ball courts and were vaulting over the nets and vaulting over the fence. They didn't belong to our community. So, our concern is if this is a state of the amenities now with the number of people utilizing it, it's not going to get any better with the number of increased people and we would like you to take that into consideration. Lorcher: All right. Thank you very much. Beckwith: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person is Thomas Grewe. Lorcher: Good evening. If you can state your name and address for the record. 17 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 16,2026 Page 14 of 21 Grewe: Thomas Grewe. 3748 East Belfry Lane in Skybreak. Lorcher: Great. Thank you. Grewe: First I want to say I have no issue with the homes that are being built over there. I knew it was going to be developed, but last year when they had our first meeting they said there is only going to be 30 homes. There was a number of us, okay, that's fine. My biggest concern is -- because the way that road -- they want to run through and take out a lot, people moved into that area because it was going to be limited traffic. Quieter. He had mentioned that. That's the reason why people moved there. You put that road through and if you go to 38 homes times two that's 76 extra cars that are going to be going through and that road is narrow. Sidewalk on one side. You can barely get two cars passing each other and if there is a car parked legally you can't get two cars. Also I mean emergency vehicles going down that road, it's going to be tough. So, I think it will greatly affect the property value. The reason why people went in there was for that. Secondly, we moved into a gated community for a specific reason, so, you know, we don't have that extra traffic. Now you are saying there is going to be two ways to get there. They put that through, the gated, and, then, the other way, people will still have access into the gated community. I don't know why they can't just build the road so -- towards Eagle, so is that east? Where they are -- they are doing a huge development over there. They are getting ready to lay pavement and everything like that. There is a cul-de-sac that they dug out that would be a perfect access to the rim lots. That is my big concern. So, I just wish you -- hopefully you will take that into consideration, because traffic will exponentially change that whole road and there is like 11 homes that -- it's just going to be a major thoroughfare. I'm just around the corner, but I connect to Casa Bell. So, that's really my -- my biggest concern and I'm really against them putting -- just throwing a road through. I don't know how they can legally do it when they sell property to, hey, it's a great little circle, limited homes, and you are throwing in that amount. So -- Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Grewe: Thank you very much. Lomeli: Madam Chair, we have Danny Cafferty. Lorcher: Good evening. If you can state your name and address for the record, please. Cafferty: My name is Danny Cafferty. I live at 3500 East Penny Lane, which is adjacent to this property. Lorcher: Thank you. Cafferty: Get my notes here. I am here for a number of reasons. I own the property -- can you put the property up? This is -- this is my property right here, so -- if you can see that or not. I have got approximately 23 acres there. 18 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 16,2026 Page 15 of 21 Lorcher: Oh. Okay. So, you are the big gray square? Cafferty: Yes. Lorcher: Okay. Cafferty: You know, I had irrigation water that ran into my property. In fact, there is a pond -- I don't know if you can see where my pin is here, but it came across this property here from the canal over here and came across into here and it's been done away with now when they have put this development in. I have had some conversation with them that I'm to get irrigation, but I don't have any yet. I want to make certain that I do get that. I feel that it's important for me to have it for future development purposes, plus the fact that I -- I have paid for it and kept it and it's expensive and I want it. Lorcher: Okay. Cafferty: They are installing a pressurized system. I have worked with them to install this system. I have allowed him to take my fence down. You know, a lot of them have access across my property, move existing fences and the -- and the road to do their berm work and I have tried to facilitate all their wants and needs and I think I have fairly well. I have been told repeatedly three or four times in meetings that they are going to provide me with alternate access and with all utilities to my property. By all utilities I mean water, sewer, gas, electricity and, then, I come to this meeting and I get this paperwork that Io and behold the property that goes next to me that they were going to run my access onto this future phase it says here, there is a road that's supposed to be coming off of this road that goes into Eagle Road that goes right into my property and, you know, the other thing is on this map here it's my understanding there is cut-offs into my property -- I don't know if you can see it, but there is a cut-off there and that's this road that I was talking about, this future development thing. It's my understanding this road is supposed to go into here and this is to go over into this subdivision here. So, I would think that this has to be done at the same time they are doing this to provide access that they claim they need to get into here and as they do that I expect them to run all utilities and services to me, you know, and maybe they are planning that. I just wanted to confirm it and make sure they are. Lorcher: Okay. Cafferty: But I can't see why you would not -- go ahead and do that while you are putting down that that's a future phase, rather than it's something that's going to have to be done to provide access to this part that they are coming in here tonight for -- Lorcher: Right. Cafferty: -- according to their plans. 19 1 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 16,2026 Page 16 of 21 Lorcher: So, the developer is here this evening. So, we will make sure that you connect with them, so they can answer some of your questions. Cafferty: Okay. The -- the -- about the only other thing I have to bring up is, you know, they have addressed parking tonight, but the parking they want to add -- they want to do roadside parking and so forth and, you know, we are a lot more mobile population than what we used to be, folks. You know, I was just sitting back here and I started writing down some things. You know, there is anniversaries, there is birthdays, there is weddings, there is baby showers, there is wedding showers. I mean there is holidays. There is graduations. There is carpooling. It goes on and on and on. And, guess what, they are all driving cars and they need a place to park them and, you know, I'm not a big fan of roadside parking. I have had two cars that have been ran into being parked on the side of the road. I want to park in a parking lot and I would like to see -- you know, I think it's wonderful the landscaping that they have put in there, but I think you could adjust that landscaping back, you know, and -- and put in some fixed parking spots. Do something of that nature. And I think it would -- it would help them. It would benefit a lot of people. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Cafferty: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one else has signed up and no one is online. Lorcher: Is there anyone else in Chambers that would like to speak? Would the applicant like to come forward and address some of the neighbors' concerns, please. Clark: Going to leave this picture for now and, then, we will switch over to mine. Okay. So, Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street in Boise. So, I wanted to keep this picture up, because I actually think that it's pretty helpful with regard to the first question about matching Skybreak. So, if you look at this picture, everything that is orange is R-15. Everything that's yellow is R-8. So, what you actually have with Skybreak Rim is an island of R-8 where the -- that we are -- we are asking to make consistent with everything else, including the Pura Vida on the north and all of the gated area of Skybreak on the south. Linda, you can switch me over now. Beyond that, I want to emphasize when it comes to this kind of consistency comment is that this is medium high density residential on the comp plan and medium high density residential calls for eight to 12 dwelling units per acre. We are at less than six. So, ultimately what that does is we talk here a lot about transition and making a good transition from one product type to the next. What we think Skybreak Rim is going to do is it's going to help to transition from the future more dense stuff on the north in the -- in the Skybreak Rim and, then, also -- all the way down into Skybreak itself. So, just to remind everybody, yeah, medium high density residential for Skybreak Rim. With regard to amenities, appreciate the concern. I do want to point out a couple of things. So, again, these are the additional amenities that we have added. The pool is card -- does have a card reader. The outdoor amenities are like every other HOA, you don't usually put like a F20] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 16,2026 Page 17 of 21 padlock on everything. You know, you do have to deal with some of the folks from the neighborhood coming in, but that is something that -- that we and every other HOA deal with, but I also want to just point out -- like these are some of the existing the amenities that were approved with the original package and it wasn't just a couple of things, it was we had pick -- in addition to the two pickle ball courts we had another pickle ball court, three fenced dog parks, pathways, shade structures, all sorts of things. So, this is a very amenitized project. It can -- it's more than capable of handling that. Now, with regard to the -- the cracks, we have reached out to our concrete contractor for warranty work to figure out what's going on there and they are on it. So, we will -- that will -- that will be addressed. With regard to Mr. Cafferty's comments -- let me see. I have got another better picture here. So, there are not one, but four accesses to Mr. Cafferty's property. So, if you look on the north at Pura Vida there is an existing access down at the bottom of the hill. Then Mr. Cafferty has his existing driveway access out to Eagle Road. In addition to that you have that cul-de-sac access that I think is in. Am I remembering that right? Under construction. And then -- and, yet, an additional access to the -- to the east there. So, there is four access points for Mr. Cafferty's property. Utilities -- everything gets stubbed. I mean that's a city requirement. You guys are very familiar with those requirements. So, you know, we -- we are -- we are not land locking anyone. We are not cutting off anyone. In fact, you can see it's a -- it's a very porous design and it provides for the interconnectivity that the city requires. So, I think the last question had to do with the gated area. So, the -- the gated street, gated area streets are 27 foot streets. So, this is the same dimension as a public street. No parking on one side. Parking on the other side. So, it's -- it's -- it's a street section that this group is very familiar with. So, it's not a stand sideways and get past each other kind of a situation. It is a 27 foot street section. The other access here that was mentioned, that is emergency only. So, that is not going to provide a back door to get into the gated area somehow. That is only emergency. And, then, I guess the last thing that I would -- point I would make is that there is -- there is over -- or already a hundred houses that were planned for it -- to be in the gated area and you can see this gated area is very porous. It's -- in terms of the -- the -- a number of blocks. It's -- it's -- oops. Excuse me. It's gridded. So, there is a lot of different ways to get in and out of there. You know, so from -- from our perspective it's a -- it's -- it is more than adequate to be able to handle the additional 38 lots and we wouldn't propose it if we thought that it was going to make that area less pleasant, less marketable. So, with that I'm happy to answer any follow- up questions and -- and especially if you think that there is something from the -- from the public that I might have missed, so -- Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Madam Chair. So, the request to go to R-15 is that primarily to bring in the additional lots -- we have density increase or are there setback changes that you are intending as well? Clark: Commissioner Perreault, we are not proposing any changes to the dimensional standards in the R-15. The -- the proposal is to make it consistent with the area zoning both on the north and on the south. We are proposing R-15 style lots with three three 21 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 16,2026 Page 18 of 21 foot setbacks. That would generally include a side yard easement, so you have actually use of six feet in between each one, if you are familiar with how the side yard easements work. But other than that standard R-15 dimensional standards. Lorcher: And just to reiterate in regards to the roads and the proposed -- that they are all private within the gated community. So, if I'm towards the south of the development, those roads of 27 feet are identical to the ones that you are proposing to the north; correct? Clark: Madam Chair, that's correct. Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval, do you have any questions before we close the -- Sandoval: Madam Chair, nothing for me. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Everyone good? All right. I think we are good. Thank you very much. Perreault: Madam Chair, I have a question for staff if that's okay. Lorcher: Sure. Perreault: The staff report mentioned that planning staff had a conversation with the fire department about emergency access to this and feasibility and if there is any concerns and I didn't see anything in the agency comments. So, I was curious if there is anything that should be added to what we know. Ritter: There are conditions under the fire department's section in the staff report. So, they did add a couple of conditions to it. So, they have to sign the road and, then, they also have to make a connection off of Vantage Point. There is a section that is not paved, so they will have to pave that so it connects, so they can get access into the development for emergency access. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Okay. So, that -- they just didn't put that in -- in writing to add into the -- into the agency comments, but they did review what -- what was in the staff report and added additional conditions or -- Ritter: So, they added a couple of conditions to the staff report that are under the agency comment section. So, it's under the Meridian Fire Department. Lorcher: All right. And, then, before we close the public hearing, Hethe, if -- if your team could just sit with Mr. McCafferty to make sure all his questions are answered 22 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 16,2026 Page 19 of 21 before the evening's done that would be great. May I get a motion to close the public hearing, please? Gelsomino: So moved. Perreault: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Skybreak Rim. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: I get a better clearer picture with it visualized here than I did in the staff report, because everything was very tiny and it -- it makes more sense to continue Skybreak than to have a top -- a topography that really set -- sets back the Pura Vida from this to make it more consistent. I know 38 homes probably seems a lot and it may seem like a little bit of a bait and switch, but when there is open developed land to be done there is always going to be changes based on market conditions and as far as the way that they have designed this to be consistent with the property to the south -- as he said it just kind of makes sense. It's not necessarily what we want in our community because nobody likes change, but if they were to add houses, which you all knew that they were going to eventually, this one makes sense to me. It's consistent with the size of the roads. It's consistent the way everything kind of works. The -- it is not required for the developer to share the amenities, because they have their own, so as you develop the HOA -- and I mean maybe that's something you decide that these 38 houses can only have their own amenities, but it kind of makes sense where it all kind of blends together. I -- I'm in favor of this and it is a standalone subdivision and they have gone through the due diligence of making sure all the changes kind of fit the code and what it needs to be and because of the topography it's limited in what you can and cannot do to that area based on that big ridge that -- and the density is consistent. So, I don't have any problems with this design personally. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I agree. Just want to address the three items that staff brought up and I believe that there is sufficient parking on one side of the street to meet the parking concerns. Eighteen spaces. I don't -- I'm not a huge fan of street parking either, but 18 spaces for 38 lots is -- I -- I think is sufficient for that. And, then, as far as -- as far as the gated community adding -- as far as, you know, having 106 units and, then, adding the 38 units, I don't think that that is -- I don't think that creates, you know, a problem. I understand from a marketing standpoint that the current owners would be concerned that the gated community would be -- would become larger and that new buyers may -- you know, may have some concerns about that as well. But ultimately we just have to decide if it's something that the city code -- you know, that they have gotten approval on F23] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 16,2026 Page 20 of 21 the -- on the code side and so I think in this particular situation I'm not as concerned about adding those lots to the gated community area. It's clear where the gates are. It's clear when you are coming into that area that it's intended to have a different feel and look and size of home. So, I think it's -- as you said I think it's consistent with what is existing there and -- and, then, again, I think the five foot sidewalk on the east side is -- is going to be sufficient for that size of addition to the neighborhood. Gelsomino: Madam Chair, I will -- I will agree with yourself and my fellow Commissioner Perreault. I will say that as a relatively newer homeowner in the Chateau Meadows Subdivision, who, along with my fellow neighbors and HOA board members met with ACHD for the future of the Locust Grove Road expansion. We -- I -- I can sympathize and -- and somewhat empathize with the growing pains of growing, that there are discomforts, especially in our situation, we are going to be losing a lot of the sound buffer from the mature trees that line Locust Grove and as the expansion happens it could, you know, entail a noisier neighborhood. I understand that. We understand that. We are -- but that is, unfortunately, one of the gives and takes of the growth that we are experiencing, not only in this valley, but in the state. I would just as always encourage the continued open communication between -- excuse me -- between developer HOA and the residents both within the neighborhood, as well as the surrounding areas that are -- and -- and all parties affected. But, otherwise, I agree with all the comments that have been made. Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval, any other comments? Sandoval: Yeah, Madam Chair. Just quickly. Moving to the R-15 just makes sense. It's surrounded by R-15. Yeah, I definitely support the application as is. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. I mean they are doing density of six units per acre or whatever it is, so it's on the lower side, so I think that's good as well. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of File No. H-2026-0001 as presented in the staff report on the hearing date of April 14th, 2026. Gelsomino: Seconded. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve Skybreak Rim. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: Before we adjourn tonight just a reminder for the month of May we do have some changes to our schedule. We will have three meetings in May because of the Public Works Expo in June. So, just remember to put on your calendar we have May 28th, as well as the -- our standard meetings. May I get one final motion, please? Gelsomino: Madam Chair, I make a motion to adjourn. F24] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 16,2026 Page 21 of 21 Perreault: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:09 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 5 11 126 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F25 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the April 02, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 3 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 27 of 28 where staff sat tonight on that. So, I just wanted to add a little bit more information on that. Thank you. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. And we also recognize that you have some geographic and topography issues, too, which is why you have some of the buildings placed the way you do. I think you said that that civic park in the middle towards the north had a big difference in elevation and so -- and, obviously, having the commercial surround the -- the two roads is going to be imperative for the success of this -- of this project, but it's just a little bit off balance. Commissioner Smith. Smith: Oh, if there is no other -- Lorcher: Any other comments? Smith: -- ready to make a motion. Lorcher: Go ahead. Smith: All right. Madam Chair, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File No. H-2025-0007 as presented in the staff report for the hearing April 2nd, 2026, for the following reasons: Inadequate integration between residential and non-residential uses. Lack of prioritization of pedestrian mobility within the project. And existing open space as proposed failing to serve residential and non-residential use users adequately under the Comprehensive Plan. Gelsomino: Seconded. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to deny Syringa Crossing Mixed-Use Development for annexation. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Lorcher: Thank you very much. So, I would take these comments to you with -- to City Council and maybe make some adjustments so that you can be able to advocate for your project. Thank you. Before we adjourn a couple of things. We are having a special meeting on May 28th. So, we will have back-to-back meetings towards the end of May, because our June 4th meeting will not happen due to I believe a Public Works event here on that day. So, please, put on your calendars May 28th. Also the City of Meridian is very graciously doing a voluntary appreciation luncheon on April 16th. Bill needs to know from everyone on this board on whether or not you can attend by April 9th. So, the Mayor's Office is asking for head counts. So, if you are able to attend or not attend, please, message Bill and let him know that if you would be in attendance or not. With that I will take one more motion. Stoll: Move to adjourn. F30] E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Changes to Agenda: None Item #2: Skybreak Rim (H-2026-0001) Application(s):  Rezone  Preliminary Plat  Planned Unit Development Modification  Modification of Development Agreement  Private Street Size of property, existing zoning, and location: Modification to the existing development agreement (Inst. #2021-042520) to create a new development agreement; Planned Unit Development modification to remove the subject property from the boundary of the approved Pura Vita Ridge Ranch Subdivision; Rezone of approximately 6.64-acres of land from the R-8 zoning district to the R-15 zoning district; Preliminary Plat consisting of 38 single-family residential building lots, 5 common lots, 2 common drive lots, and 1 private street lot on 9.74-acres of land in the proposed R-15 district; AND a Private Street to provide access to the proposed development located at 3727 E lake Hazel Road. History: AZ, PUD PP (H-2020-0064); DA # 2021-042520; FP-2021-0043; MFP-2022-0001 Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium High Density Residential) Summary of Request: The Applicant requests Modification to the existing development agreement (Inst. #2021-042520) to create a new development agreement; Planned Unit Development modification to remove the subject property from the boundary of the approved Pura Vita Ridge Ranch Subdivision; Rezone of approximately 6.64-acres of land from the R-8 zoning district to the R-15 zoning district; Preliminary Plat consisting of 38 single-family residential building lots, 5 common lots, 2 common drive lots, and 1 private street lot on 9.74-acres of land in the proposed R-15 district; AND a Private Street to provide access to the proposed development. The applicant is proposing single-family detached dwellings which are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-15 zoning districts in UDC Table 11-2A-2. The minimum lot size is 3,826 square feet with a average lot size of 4,543 square feet. Background In 2021, the subject property was included in a planned unit development (PUD) consisting of a mix of residential housing types, including single-family detached, single-family attached, and townhome units. The applicant is now proposing to remove this portion of the property from the PUD, rezone the parcel to R-15 from R-8, add eight additional lots and develop it as a standalone subdivision. To proceed with these changes, the applicant must amend the existing PUD to demonstrate that removing the parcel will not negatively impact the integrity of the remaining development. Additionally, the existing development agreement must be modified to exclude the subject parcel, and a new development agreement must be established for the proposed standalone subdivision. Planned Unit Developments (PUD) The applicant is requesting to remove the subject property from the boundary of the previously approved Pura Vita Ridge Ranch Planned Unit Development (PUD). Upon review of the prior approvals, the Pura Vita Ridge Ranch Subdivision included single-family detached homes, single-family attached homes, and townhomes. The PUD approval also included deviations from the dimensional standards of the R-15 zoning district to accommodate the variety of housing types proposed within the overall development. All of the R-8 lots were required to comply with the required dimensional standards. This is the portion of the property that the applicant is proposing to rezone to the R-15 zone and develop single-family detached homes similar to the previous approval. The rezone is desired so the applicant can increase the number of residential lots from 30 to 38. Like the previous approval, no deviations to the dimensional standards are requested or approved. Staff has concluded that the portion subject to the PUD will still provide a mix of housing types as required. Therefore staff is supportive of the applicant increasing the density and providing all single-family detached homes within the proposed development. The original PUD approval also established specific requirements for amenities and open space to serve the overall development. Based on staff’s review, the majority of the approved amenities and open space areas are located on the remaining property that will continue to be governed by the PUD. By removing the subject property from the PUD boundary, the applicant is required to independently meet the City’s current open space and amenity requirements. Based on the analysis above, staff is supportive of this property being excluded for the boundary of the PUD. NOTE: Although not required, the applicant intends to have both developments (Skybreak and Skybreak Rim) share amenities and open space. Open Space Based on the standards in UDC Table 11-3G-3, a minimum of 15% (or 1-acre) for the R-15 zoning district of qualified open space is required to be provided within the development. An open space exhibit was submitted as shown in Section VII.F, that depicts 49.1% (or 4.78-acres) of open space that meets the required quality and qualified open space standards. Based on the standards set forth in UDC 11-3G-4A, a minimum of one amenity point is required, as the total project area is 6.64 acres. The applicant indicates that amenities within the existing Skybreak Subdivision will be accessible to residents of the proposed Skybreak Rim Subdivision, as it is intended to function as an extension of the original development. In addition to shared access to these existing amenities, the applicant proposes to provide on-site amenities within Skybreak Rim, including a shade structure, seating areas, and enhanced landscaping. The proposed picnic area, as defined in UDC 11-3G-4.B (includes tables, benches, landscaping, and a shade structure), exceeds 5,000 square feet in size. As such, it qualifies for the maximum of two amenity points, exceeding the minimum requirement. Pathways The previously approved plan showed a pedestrian connectivity plan was submitted that depicts sidewalks along streets, pathways through internal common open space areas providing connections to the multi-use pathway along the creek. A 10’ wide multi-use pathway is proposed along the east boundary of the Pura Vida Subdivision site adjacent to the creek in accord with the Pathways Master Plan, a 5’ wide concrete pathway is proposed from Road 4 to Road 8 and at the top of the slope in Lot 40, Block 5, and dirt trails are proposed within the unimproved slope area providing connections between the upper ridge and the lower valley lots (see Section IX.G). These walkways provide pedestrian connections to the shelters with picnic tables and benches proposed as amenities within the development. No new multi-use pathways were required for this development. The applicant is proposing a pathway on the north side of the property that connects to a foothill trail descending the slope. This trail will be designed as a natural switchback along the hillside, with disturbed areas reseeded and maintained in a natural condition. In addition, a separate pathway is proposed within the open space area along the private road. This pathway is standalone and does not directly connect to existing sidewalks or other pathway systems. Building Elevations Ten (10) conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed subdivision as shown in Section VII.G. The proposed housing products throughout the development are single-family detached units featuring a variety of regionally appropriate designs. Issues/Waivers  Per UDC 11-3F-1 Common driveways. No common driveways shall be allowed off of a private street unless the street section allows for parking on at least one (1) side of the street or the development has designated adequate guest parking dispersed throughout, as determined by the director. The applicant is providing parking on one side of the street as required; however, the Commission and Council should also determine if adequate parking has been provided. o The applicant is required to comply with the private street requirements outlined UDC 11-3. To serve the 38-lot development the applicant is proposing private streets. In doing so, they are proposing to utilize the existing private street network within the Skybreak development. While the proposed subdivision does not include additional gates, the development will connect to and rely on the existing private streets and gated entrances that currently serve the Skybreak community.  Per UDC 11-3F-4.B.4, states proposed gated developments shall serve no more than one hundred (100) dwelling units. The applicant is proposing to construct private streets that tie into the existing private street network approved with the Skybreak project. A gate is not proposed with this development which means 38 additional homes will be using the two existing gates approved with the Skybreak Subdivision. The Commission and Council should carefully consider if the additional homes should be served by private streets. Planning staff has coordinated with MFD to ensure there is no public safety concerns associated with the request. o The City Council previously approved the Skybreak development with 106 homes served by private streets and two (2) gated accesses. The current proposal would add an additional 38 homes to the private street network. o Pursuant to UDC 11-3F-4, gated residential developments served by private streets shall have no more than one hundred (100) dwelling units, unless a greater number of units is approved through a planned unit development (PUD). The code in effect at the time required one gated entry for every fifty (50) dwelling units. Given that the previously approved development already exceeded the 100-unit threshold and the applicant is proposing to add an additional 38 homes to the existing private street network, the Planning Commission and City Council should carefully consider whether expanding the number of homes served by this private street system remains appropriate and consistent with the intent of the Meridian City Code.  Per UDC 11-3F-4.C.2.c states for private streets serving dwellings, a five-foot-wide attached sidewalk or four-foot-wide detached sidewalk shall be provided on both sides of the private street. This requirement may be waived modified by the decision-making body if the applicant can demonstrate that an alternative, similar pedestrian path exists. The applicant is requesting a Council waiver to construct a 5-foot sidewalk on one side of the street as previously approved with the Skybreak project. o The applicant is proposing a private street with a 5-foot sidewalk on the east side which does not meet the requirements of UDC 11-3F-4.C.2.b. The applicant is requesting a waiver to design the same street section and sidewalk configuration approved with the original Skybreak Subdivision. o As the private street section of the UDC was changed in 2025, the Planning Commission and City Council should carefully consider whether the proposed request meets the intent of the current UDC for sidewalks associated with private streets. Existing Skybreak No. 1 Subdivision Plat Modification In order to facilitate the proposed connection to the existing private street network, the applicant is required to modify the existing Skybreak Subdivision plat. Specifically, one of the buildable lots within Skybreak Subdivision (Lot 13, Block 1) must be converted to a common lot to accommodate the connection and circulation associated with the private street system. As a result, the applicant will be required to submit a final plat modification for Skybreak Subdivision and a concurrent private street application to allow the proposed connectivity. These applications must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to submittal of the final plat for the proposed subdivision. Written Testimony: Two written letter opposing the development and objection to sharing amenities with the new development and the rezoning of the previously approved plat. Staff Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval with the conditions outlined in Section IV of the staff report. Possible Motions: Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2026- 0001, as presented during the hearing on April 14, 2026, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2026-0001, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 14, 2026, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2026-0001 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 Commission MeetingApril 14, 2026 Slide 1 h2 Agenda Item Numbers/Order: hoodc, 12/19/2006 Zoning MapAerialFLUM and a structure shade.benches, landscaping amenity including tables, proposed picnic area exhibit showing the to provide an amenity The applicant is required LandscapingAttractive Seating AreaShade Structure Additional 38 homes added to the gated community which was approved with a maximum of 106 homes. feel it’s not consistent.to the southwest and now density of the subdivision as it previously matched the 15 8 to Rrezoning from Rthe number of lots and Expressed concern about SubdivisionSkybreake xisting sharing amenities with the Expressed concern about W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Skybreak Rim (H-2026-0001) by Conger Group, located near the southeast corner of S. Eagle Rd., and E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to the existing development agreements (Inst. #2021-042520 and#2021-119175). B. Request: Planned Unit Development Modification to remove the subject property from the boundary of the approved Pura Vida Ridge Ranch Subdivision and incorporate the proposed development into the boundary of the Skybreak Subdivision with a new development agreement. C. Request: Rezone of approximately 6.64 acres of land from the R-8 zone to the R-15 zone. D. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 38 single-family residential building lots, 5 common lots, 2 common drive lots and one private street lot on 9.74 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district. E. Request: Private Street to provide access to the proposed development. 32 C l0 00 V C1 U7 .A .a cr -s F, a � � N � T N � � � m � z A � 1 � • cr) In �.� Cq CL _ (D LA O*q O _ O s�- O ? N � C � 77 0 0 0 Q � ( � = N P- (DD 0 N 0 0 � fD c n r+ N COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 4/16/2026 Legend - ----- DATE: Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission :_= Area of Impact = City Limits FROM: Bill Parsons,Planning Supervisor O Analysis bparsons@meridiancity.org Linda Ritter,Associate Planner lritter@meridiancity.org - , 208-884-5533 S � APPLICANT: Laren Bailey, Conger Group �� SUBJECT: H-2026-0001 '? Skybreak Rim MDA,PP,RZ LOCATION: Near the SEC of S. Eagle Road and E. Lake Hazel Road, located in the a NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 4 Township 2N, Range lE Parcel# S1404212755 1' PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary The Applicant requests approval of the following applications: • Modification to the existing development agreement(Inst. #2021-042520)to create a new development agreement; • Planned Unit Development modification to remove the subject property from the boundary of the approved Pura Vita Ridge Ranch Subdivision; • Rezone of approximately 6.64-acres of land from the R-8 zoning district to the R-15 zoning district; • Preliminary Plat consisting of 38 single-family residential building lots, 5 common lots, 2 common drive lots, and 1 private street lot on 9.74-acres of land in the proposed R-15 district; AND :ssues/Waivers Private Street to provide access to the proposed development. B. • Per UDC 11-317-1 Common driveways.No common driveways shall be allowed off of a private street unless the street section allows for parking on at least one(1)side of the street or the development has designated adequate guest parking dispersed throughout, as determined by the director. The applicant is providing parking on one side of the street as required;however,the Commission and Council should also determine if adequate parking has been provided. City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview ■ • Per UDC 11-3F-4.B.4, states proposed gated developments shall serve no more than one hundred(100) dwelling units. The applicant is proposing to construct private streets that tie into the existing private street network approved with the Skybreak project. A gate is not proposed with this development which means 38 additional homes will be using the two existing gates approved with the Skybreak Subdivision. The Commission and Council should carefully consider if the additional homes should be served by private streets. Planning staff has coordinated with MFD to ensure there is no public safety concerns associated with the request. • Per UDC 11-3F-4.C.2.c states for private streets serving dwellings, a five-foot-wide attached sidewalk or four-foot-wide detached sidewalk shall be provided on both sides of the private street. This requirement may be waived modified by the decision-making body if the applicant can demonstrate that an alternative, similar pedestrian path exists. The applicant is requesting a Council waiver to construct a 5-foot sidewalk on one side of the street as previously approved with the Skybreak project. C. Recommendation Staff recommendation: Approval with conditions D. Decision City of Meridian I Department Report I. Project Overview ■ COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Residential - Existing Zoning R-8 VII.A.2 II. Proposed Zoning R-15 Adopted FLUM Designation Medium High Density Residential VII.A.3 Proposed FLUM Designation Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 12/2/2025 Neighborhood Meeting 12/4/2025 Site posting date 3/30/2026 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District IVT • Comments Received Yes/Letter - • Commission Action Required No - • Access S.Cascabel Lane,which is reached from E.Bingley Lane - by way of S.Eagle Road/Existing Arterial/Local/Private Streets • Traffic Level of Service N/A - Meridian Fire See conditions of approval IV.0 Meridian Public Works Wastewater & IV.B • Distance to Mainline 300 ft to the south in Skybreak Subdivision 4 • Impacts or Concerns See conditions of approval Meridian Public Works Water • Distance to Mainline Available at the site • Impacts or Concerns A vault to be located at the bottom of the hill right up against the road so it can be accessed with a truck easily. Vault to be our standard size T by 16'vault for a Water Control Valve.Install the valves inside the vault and then provide a straight DIP pipe between valves. City will install the WCV at a later time School District(s) No Comment Note: See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section and public record for all department/agency comments received. Skybreak Rim Subdivision MDA,PP, RZ H-2026-0001 (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:S1404212755 Date Retrieved:2026/1/15 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: 1,095 834 Surrounding Area ® City Limits 1,255 792.3 ■ Not City Household Household& Population Growth Households 02020 Population Change:33.3°/° Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 5,000 10,000 15,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family Multi-family (90% 0% ® Commercial Preliminary Plats (last 5-years) Conditional Use Permit(last 5-years) Proposed Proposed Pending Pending Approved Approved 0 1000 2000 3000 0 10 20 30 .0 ■ Single-family ® Multi-family Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report 11. Community Metrics ■ Single-family y 2.00 1,500 H 1.50 +' Residential 1,000 Parcel Diversity a 1.00 U 0 Parcel Count 0.50 0.69 500 L m Average Acres 0.00 19TO.13 0 a R-2 R-4 8 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 10.00 �7.75 ResidentialDensity Q 5.00 0 5.28 a 03.21 4.72 1.45 0.00 Dwelling Units 1 Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 Figure 3: Service Impact Summary Service Impact Tools Ready Margins Alp Caution °Rye ���t \ooa �\te °\`°e Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Medium High Density Residential(MHDR). lll. The MHDR designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from eight to twelve dwelling units per acre. These areas are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and project identity. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into 38 single-family residential lots at a gross density of 5.72 dwelling units per acre,which is slightly lower than the density range envisioned within the MHDR designation(8-12 dwelling units per acre).When calculating density for this property, staff excluded approximately 3.1 acres of undevelopable land due to the slope and hillside located on the northern portion of the site. This approach is consistent with staff s analysis during the review of the Pura Vita Ridge Ranch project. Although the proposed density is lower than anticipated in the MHDR designation,the property is part of a larger MHDR designated area that is not yet fully built out,and future development is expected to contribute to the overall density of the area. Additionally,this site was previously approved for 30 single-family lots, and the current proposal increases the total number of lots by eight contributing to a higher density in this area than the previous approval. Therefore, staff finds the proposed density is generally consistent with the surrounding area. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History AZ,PUD PP(H-2020-0064);DA#2021-042520;FP-2021-0043;MFP- 2022-0001 Phasing Plan 1 Residential Units 38 Open Space 4.78 acres/49.1% Amenities 1 required/the applicant is proposing a picnic area which includes tables, benches,landscaping,and a structure for shade. The residents of this development will also be able to utilize all the amenities within the existing Skybreak Subdivision.These amenities include the following: Clubhouse with pool,pickleball courts,fountain,play structure,dog parks, walking trails,climbing rock and seating benches. Physical Features Significant slope/hillside on east portion of the site Acreage 9.74 Lots 46(38 building and 8 common) Density Required: 8-12 du/acre Proposed: 5.72 B. History In 2021,the subject property was included in a planned unit development(PUD) consisting of a mix of residential housing types, including single-family detached, single-family attached,and townhome units. The applicant is now proposing to remove this portion of the property from the PUD,rezone the parcel to R-15 from R-8, add eight additional lots and develop it as a standalone subdivision. To proceed with these changes,the applicant must amend the existing PUD to demonstrate that removing the parcel will not negatively impact the integrity of the remaining development. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Additionally,the existing development agreement must be modified to exclude the subject parcel, and a new development agreement must be established for the proposed standalone subdivision. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): There are no existing structures on the site. The site will be developed as single-family detached residential homes. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The applicant is proposing single-family detached dwellings which are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-15 zoning districts in UDC Table 11-2A-2. The minimum lot size is 3,826 square feet with a average lot size of 4,543 square feet. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): 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. The proposed lots comply with the dimensional standards of the above-mentioned district. 4. Planned Unit Developments (UDC 11-7): The applicant is requesting to remove the subject property from the boundary of the previously approved Pura Vita Ridge Ranch Planned Unit Development(PUD). Upon review of the prior approvals, the Pura Vita Ridge Ranch Subdivision included single-family detached homes, single-family attached homes, and townhomes. The PUD approval also included deviations from the dimensional standards of the R-15 zoning district to accommodate the variety of housing types proposed within the overall development. All of the R-8 lots were required to comply with the required dimensional standards. This is the portion of the property that the applicant is proposing to rezone to the R-15 zone and develop single-family detached homes similar to the previous approval. The rezone is desired so the applicant can increase the number of residential lots from 30 to 38. Like the previous approval, no deviations to the dimensional standards are requested or approved. Staff has concluded that the portion subject to the PUD will still provide a mix of housing types as required. Therefore staff is supportive of the applicant increasing the density and providing all single-family detached homes within the proposed development. The original PUD approval also established specific requirements for amenities and open space to serve the overall development. Based on staffs review, the majority of the approved amenities and open space areas are located on the remaining property that will continue to be governed by the PUD. By removing the subject property from the PUD boundary, the applicant is required to independently meet the City's current open space and amenity requirements. Based on the analysis above,staff is supportive of this property being excluded for the boundary of the PUD. NOTE.Although not required, the applicant intends to have both developments(Skybreak and Skybreak Rim)share amenities and open space. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan 2.02.00, Comp Plan 2.02.OIB, Comp Plan 3.07.OIA, UDC 11-3A-19): The property is currently vacant and zoned R-8. The applicant is proposing to rezone this area to the R-15 zoning district. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Comprehensive Plan policy 2.02.02C supports infill development that does not negatively impact the abutting, existing development. Infill projects in downtown should develop at higher densities, irrespective of existing development. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.07.0 encourages compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.07.0IA requires all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening, transitional densities, and other best site design practices. 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 15% (or I-acre)for the R-15 zoning district of qualified open space is required to be provided within the development.An open space exhibit was submitted as shown in Section VIT F, that depicts 49.1%(or 4.78- acres) of open space that meets the required quality and qualified open space standards. Based on the standards set forth in UDC 11-3G-4A, a minimum of one amenity point is required, as the total project area is 6.64 acres. The applicant indicates that amenities within the existing Skybreak Subdivision will be accessible to residents of the proposed Skybreak Rim Subdivision, as it is intended to function as an extension of the original development. In addition to shared access to these existing amenities, the applicant proposes to provide on-site amenities within Skybreak Rim, including a shade structure, seating areas, and enhanced landscaping. The proposed picnic area, as defined in UDC 11-3G-4.B (includes tables, benches, landscaping, and a shade structure), exceeds 5,000 square feet in size.As such, it qualifies for the maximum of two amenity points, exceeding the minimum requirement. 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. Storm integration Per UDC 11-313-11,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. ii. Pathway landscaping Per UDC 11-313-12,the landscape strips shall be planted with a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn, and/or other vegetative ground cover. There shall be a minimum of one(1)tree per one hundred(100)linear feet of pathway. If this calculation results in a fraction of five (5)or greater,round up to an additional tree; if the calculation results in a fraction less than five (5),round the number down. The applicant is required to revise the landscape plan to show how the landscaping for pathways meets the requirements outlined in UDC 11-3B-12. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 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 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. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan 2.01.01 C,Architectural Standards Manual): Ten (10) conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed subdivision as shown in Section VII.G. The proposed housing products throughout the development are single-family detached units featuring a variety of regionally appropriate designs. 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. development. 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 five (5)foot open vision fence along the common area on the north and east side of the project. The applicant will be required to extend the open vision fence up to six(6)feet in height. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Access to the site will be provided via S. Cascabel Lane, which is reached from E. Bingley Lane by way of S. Eagle Road. 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC I1-3A-5): No multiuse pathways were required with this development. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): The previously approved plan showed a pedestrian connectivity plan was submitted that depicts sidewalks along streets,pathways through internal common open space areas providing connections to the multi-use pathway along the creek. A 10'wide multi-use pathway is proposed along the east boundary of the Pura Vida Subdivision site adjacent to the creek in accord with the Pathways Master Plan, a 5'wide concrete pathway is proposed from Road 4 to Road 8 and at the top of the slope in Lot 40, Block 5, and dirt trails are proposed within the unimproved slope area providing connections between the upper ridge and the lower valley lots (see Section IX.G). These walkways provide pedestrian connections to the shelters with picnic tables and benches proposed as amenities within the development. No new multi-use pathways were required for this development. The applicant is proposing a pathway on the north side of the property that connects to a foothill trail descending the slope. This trail will be designed as a natural switchback along the hillside, with disturbed areas reseeded and maintained in a natural condition.In addition, a separate pathway is proposed within the open space area along the private road. This pathway is standalone and does not directly connect to existing sidewalks or other pathway systems. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ The applicant needs to update their pedestrian circulation exhibit to show how they plan to connect the proposed pathway below the slope to Pura Vita Subdivision. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): For private streets serving dwellings, a five-foot wide attached sidewalk or four-foot-wide detached sidewalk shall be provided on both sides of the private street. This requirement may be waived or modified by the decision-making body if the applicant can demonstrate that an alternative, similar pedestrian path exists. The previous approval provided sidewalks on both sides of the public street connecting to the proposed pathway network as seen in the exhibit below. I : RVr --_--_—__—_—_—__—_----- — �i RUT ' � Z FW . ; . YCROPA11NfAY . mK li Rur yl I �4 (` \�6 1 , •�5''���j ,nvr ti Fur Rur 1 sTnua CONNECrnmr EXHOFF The applicant is proposing a private street with a 5-foot sidewalk on the east side which does not meet the requirements of UDC 11-3F-4.C.2.b. The applicant is requesting a waiver to design the same street section and sidewalk configuration approved with the original Skybreak Subdivision (see exhibit below). City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Pedestrian Connectivity Exhibit Connection to Pura Vida#1 "Foothill"Trail 5'Sidewalk Connection to Skybreak#1 As the private street section of the UDC was changed in 2025, the Planning Commission and City Council should carefully consider whether the proposed request meets the intent of the current UDC for sidewalks associated with private streets. 5. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): The applicant is required to comply with the private street requirements outlined UDC 11-3. To serve the 38-lot development the applicant is proposing private streets. In doing so, they are proposing to utilize the existing private street network within the Skybreak development. While the proposed subdivision does not include additional gates, the development will connect to and rely on the existing private streets and gated entrances that currently serve the Skybreak community. The City Council previously approved the Skybreak development with 106 homes served by private streets and two (2)gated accesses. The current proposal would add an additional 38 homes to the private street network. Pursuant to UDC 11-3F-4,gated residential developments served by private streets shall have no more than one hundred(100) dwelling units, unless a greater number of units is approved through a planned unit development(PUD). The code in effect at the time required City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ one gated entry for every fifty (50) dwelling units. Given that the previously approved development already exceeded the 100-unit threshold and the applicant is proposing to add an additional 38 homes to the existing private street network, the Planning Commission and City Council should carefully consider whether expanding the number of homes served by this private street system remains appropriate and consistent with the intent of the Meridian City Code. Additionally, in order to facilitate the proposed connection to the existing private street network, the applicant is required to modem the existing Skybreak Subdivision plat. Specifically, one of the buildable lots within Skybreak Subdivision (Lot 13, Block 1) must be converted to a common lot to accommodate the connection and circulation associated with the private street system.As a result, the applicant will be required to submit a final plat modification for Skybreak Subdivision and a concurrent private street application to allow the proposed connectivity. These applications must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to submittal of the final plat for the proposed subdivision. R-8 Single \ Story. wo Story, j Attached w ! -- y Single Family I R-15 Large Rim Lot I �1`/'` 1`• — ———— I ("CFO Housing") R-15 Gated Single j I I I R 8 Single Story` = Story,Single s Y - j i Family I I --�-� Single Family R-15 Gated, Singie Family I Y Custom \ � � 6sxi i - - - —Cam'_ - .. -�---•—•—----�J 6. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): i. 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 two common driveways that meet the dimensional requirements as outlined in the UDC 11-6C-3D. However, UDC 11-3F-4.B.6 states no common driveways shall be allowed off of a private street unless the street section allows for parking on at least one(1)side of the street or the development has designated adequate guest parking dispersed throughout, as determined by the director. The Planning Commission and City Council should consider whether or not the parking showing is sufficient and meets the intent of UDC 11-3F-4.B.6. ii. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report 11I. Staff Analysis ■ There are no dead-end streets being proposed for this development. The Fire Marshal has reviewed and approved a secondary emergency access for this development. 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. As currently designed, the proposed plat meets the block face requirements. F. Services Analysis 1. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-I5): 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. 2. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. A Geotechnical Evaluation and geotechnical groundwater monitoring report was submitted with this application. 3. 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 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 ■ CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. Fifteen days prior to the City Council public hearing,the applicant shall submit the following items to the city for review: • Submit a revised pedestrian exhibit showing how the pathway from Skybreak Rim IV. connects to the pathways within the adjacent subdivisions. • Submit an amenity exhibit showing the proposed picnic area amenity,including tables,benches,landscaping,and a structure for shade. • Provide a rezone exhibit map showing the boundary of the property being rezoned. 2. Development Agreement Modification(Pura Vida Subdivision-Parcel S1404212755): 1.1 A new Development Agreement is required and shall be signed by the property owner(s)and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council approval of the rezone ordinance. The Development Agreement shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan, site plan, qualified open space exhibit, site amenity exhibit and conceptual building elevations included in Section VIII of the Staff Report attached to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law attached hereto as Exhibit"A"and the provisions contained herein. b. No building permits shall be issued prior to the plat being recorded. c. Any future development of the site must comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of the development. 2. The applicant shall submit a final plat modification for Skybreak Subdivision and a concurrent private street application to allow the proposed private street access. These applications shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to submittal of the final plat for the proposed subdivision. 3. Lots shall meet the dimensional requirements of the R-15 zoning district per UDC 11-2A-7. 4. The Landscape Plan prepared by Jensenbelts Associates and stamped by Kimberly C. Slegen Thaler, included in Exhibit Section VIIE, dated December 23,2025, shall be revised as follows: a. Revise the landscape plan to show the required pathway landscaping for Lots 16 and 38 of Block 1. The landscape strips shall be planted with a mix of trees, shrubs,lawn,and/or other vegetative ground cover. A landscape strip a minimum of five(5) feet wide shall be provided along each side of the pathway. The minimum width of the landscape strip shall be two(2)feet to allow for maintenance of the pathway. 5. 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 11-3A-6B, as applicable. 6. 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. 7. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ 8. 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. • Per UDC 11-317-1 Common driveways,no common driveways shall be allowed off of a private street unless the street section allows for parking on at least one(1)side of the street or the development has designated adequate guest parking dispersed throughout, as determined by the director. The applicant is providing parking on one side of the street as required;the Commission and Council should also determine if adequate parking has been provided. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 Water(Per Public Works) 1. A vault to be located at the bottom of the hill right up against the road so it can be accessed with a truck easily.Vault to be our standard size 7'by 16'vault for a Water Control Valve. Install the valves inside the vault and then provide a straight DIP pipe between valves. City will install the WCV at a later time. If you need a figure for the vault let me know. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ 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(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. 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. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ 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 h!Ltp://www.meridiancily.org/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. C. Meridian Fire Department 1. Secondary Access from Vantage Point Lane into the Skybreak Subdivision shall be fully paved and capable of supporting 82,OOOlbs as there is a current section that is unpaved. 2. Signage shall be posted on Vantage Point Lane to indicate/navigate Responding Fire Apparatus to Secondary Access "Fire/Emergency Access Only" as the current signage on Vantage Point indicates "Private Drive No Outlet". D. Irrigation Districts 1. New York Irrigation District https:llweblink.meridiancioy.ory WWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=430080&dbid=0&repo=Meridia nCi 2. Boise Project Board of Control https:llweblink.meridiancioy.or lWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=430080&dbid=0&repo=Meridia nCi City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ E. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridianciU.oLglWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=430080&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X F. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orQ/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=430080&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ FINDINGS A. Private Streets In order to approve the application,the Director shall find the following: 1. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this article; The director finds if the applicant complies with all conditions of approval, the private streets v' meets the standards, if Commission and Council find adequate parking and a singular sidewalk is sufficient. 2. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property, or uses in the vicinity; and The Director finds approval of the private street would not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property, or uses in the vicinity. Secondary access is being provided to serve the proposed development consistent with MFD requirements. 3. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. The Director finds the use and location of the private street does not conflict with the comprehensive or any regional transportation plans. The applicant intends to connect to an existing private street network to provide access. ACHD has commented on the plat and finds no additional road improvements are required. 4. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a gated community,promotes infill, or is a planned unit development. The Director finds the proposed development promotes infill by utilizing an existing private street network and two (2) existing gates. The Commission and Council should determine if this meets the intent of the private standards. B. Rezone(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; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment to rezone the property from the R-8 zoning district to the R-1 S zoning district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment complies with the regulations outlined in the requested R-15 zoning district. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment should 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 Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Not applicable C. 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. 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. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Stafffinds 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 Stafffinds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Stafffinds the proposed development preserves the natural topography (i.e. hillside) on this V1. property. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommendation: Approval with conditions B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ■ ' 1 1 • J i'., ct Location of Impact LU Analysis • < UJ FA LAKE HAZEl�I - , "� - COL-UMB•IA � aYAlq•. _Y • , • • ■ �� •r-NET _ ..�iil7 LegendProject Location .. -�lal 1111':url� 1.1- �:��•'••,f-'iiiii it yuu imun�=�lrnu� Are • of Impact `��:��� .I;,.,;�� 1111111l1Elmo 111111 0 Analysis ir.0i°i - '':IIIIIIIIIIIIII��II�i�li�L• lul Ilia[ 11 r I_AKE 5 HAZEL :•• _ *.... =_III awl Ila ■ '-- ::'III/ ••'•�•:•• �.:,�,,: 1 ��1•��i 1111��■■u....a ��'�■■�■rl:llll��ou..OM .a in Legend 1 inn:!=c �IC' •�•r SS•.w tllAiii'p'jF1i111� %i......IIn1111Are .111�I■11 11{{pY HIM • of Impact LowDensity 0 Analysis Residential -__+1►' ,_�_ :�1_11 s.�r�111f\l���Illir ■llui.unm A=IIIII'IF • - - 11111 Illll lilt br.'yl,'�I-1•,,�1:::::"�' -_fUM` • IIIIIIIIIII IUIIIII III=_______ ��""'ll '•�l!; rnllik n_'��'ti'!' r I°IIIIIlIIIIIIIIII-___ 111 =�i`IIIII If„ • l Ilri � r i'llllx.rn..n = wl uluA°- --- ilir lil:��' Iqu° r .n.u.:a�:ri 'olra�'s:«Y:'Yi"•�'-��• r '-�r�� .�.#vfl._� �: � �' IIi�,� ° C_1°'�.��:��:il p_c' �`"•!71'4,c �s�er���` -teal=-�_ 11 rrri■+. 1�■f■-Ilp/�4��_ •4%�o s`P•,����„g. ■ -__ �_ rinu■uls .... -; "I l l l l l l l�t// 1.,.1 �� ,r.,„r- �� , l I{II lr.rl .IIII.1111lh11 1_••...�.it i. ��*����� HIA, •AIAA:: _! ' ��s �111111�I•����..... CQL-UMBIA �� ta• ■1•I�rr.rrl:■II=_.......... :�' �.o.�,l'.►,:; 1{III Ti L ■_ ,111 -�i5 '=i'iunun�g' c_-nnl Legend - r•_I"r= 'm '�i'nu a ii ir' '-0 'Li,'.YS.� :'H�.:'•mn• � ��` °'°.burr... �O ":�....'=-..� __::-iiiinil. -r,• '�� � i� i1 lu�l= �:� •n.�'+'=niu� Project . . . r iniuwlu�1 n - Ilr. 1 tIlu .'� ,,' - :,uluunleuunll��i :•••••• ^c_r.' �Flnum�,,ln1u n,iuuu=iir1111 � ���n.lh . •��_ ul uun. Area of Impact �h�',: mii��•u;;:,;a `P==.Ic :I..,rrG ;%^:° ..r C:II,c_11+s1.11111i1p�111111 City Limits Planned Parcels � ,,�,�; r_I �,:,�:,I�:,; _,I,' IIIIIIIIIII,II�mill■.Illl�ltllllllll Analysis �1-uum��r _ • ��' ■■ .. � III{\- rnnAlat '4ry�uyN�1 i-►IIu1 i.nlr n.r r�rrlllr� `.,'= ■IYY...-1 III IIIIIIII/�� `•' = =zl^nlil r.r■9�:.'r„'=,rr..r.G'?aIl�':ISI;e.'• r IIRlf111111 _ .rl....� --- ICI' _1" - ''■3'^�-.-i�rr,;;"11;:�_:+..:':ter>���a' . LAKE HAZEL .i�1�+I':■ _��:,,..;�� .�`i�'ril _ ;:�11:1\\1■: _ - -'-==_:c III ���►ri►�►11'll��ki_-��� ��IIY���''Inr.� ` �-!��==s_�_''•Ja i•,�nn/,mil'`IIIIII - v,11111 Imp �. .. -�_ __:11�� '♦J . Ys''R��" .III 11 n1p r 1I _���p.11� :�„S•`�••• +�II ��+��_';•-" "\ti R:;;■■+, ■f■`nri�y IIGi. - ,�:�Illllnl�q - ■Iq _P b�:-a•: a I __ ° L.lI�•-� • 11111111_,,,q, i-.,Il,y,lllr,r.rl linrluwu° €."III 2 ..rlll`';'p.:a'I� I�� � °";'t ■ ����."£ _ ICII�� {fie�lIL�� ��1�j��/■IIfI.� ■� ipil.ol.....I 1 l !!f �•�/1111�i INIMUM 'hn•'' !! erg IIII�i iiww�I�AI� ■on ou. COLf1MBIA I�I�I�r. �� �1• ■1.1��■om II.I1911111::::: ■_ p�m.....R•- uiii ONE - 111 5. Map Notes Nearby Recent Preliminary Plats(within last 5-years) H-2019-0134 H-2020-0095 H-2021-0062 H-2022-0036 Nearby Recent Conditional Use Permits(within last 5-years) H-2019-0123 H-2020-0009 H-2020-0030 H-2020-0035 H-2020-0064 H-2019-0134 H-2020-0127 H-2021-0046 H-2021-0086 H-2017-0068 H-2018-0043 H-2017-0129 H-2022-0036 H-2023-0047 H-2023-0050 H-2024-0023 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ B. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL S1404212755 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Scare: 20 1 4th Percentile Criteria Description Location In City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains � 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or 3 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Reporting District does not have enough data to report Emergency Services Police RED results Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Not within 1/4 of current or future transit route RED Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (# of lanes in master streets 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 RED 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 Report generated on 01-15-2026 by MERIDIAN bitter City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ C. Preliminary Plat(date: 12/23/2025) PREFIMMRY PLAT FOR SKYBREAK RIM SUBDIVISION�OFxxE,NaEix F,,.�oxn —— � xoxi,E E.xcE, \ v a e d rsc�"'9 7 \ Y^ City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ D. Landscape Plan(date: 12/23/2025) J ! G a' I —— \ 4b. SKYBREAK RIM SUBDIVISION _ 1� PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN MERIDIAN, ID ' oecenaee n.mzs � Cs�f�7 K ;• i Z z n� o Oro CL m � O m p W <G 6= .. Ill .. T m PLANT PALETTE NpTey 0 _ KEY MAP to O City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ z 6 O a o VJ =6 t ce °C `a lL c � 7 PLANT PALETTE - N07E5 0 KEY MAP Oz=k. ® '_•_' moa�.Re """ PLAN PLANT PALETTE 0 n�vrm nnw rwe,aaewrwr,mw.am,«. a ® VINYL PRNALY FENCE OTR��PL.4NTIN5/STAKIN6 � ��� � , ...,«.. .,.., m avi p �.ow wmwces�s .u. O IRON FENCE 6a Jaa O5XRIle PLANnN6 e.,..,. Y w DEVELOPMENT DATA NOTES LU <3 LU .aJ `�'m44— LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS ,,,�,,, ���^�+��-�� .�..�.»a..•d.�..�r+.b OPLA-ER CUi BED EDGE re.re a+ms�.ax" ens a.m esae sioom..m..vi.Mn.vr,m,awww.�.w.am mwMwnux LANDSCAPEPLAN " L3 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ ij I i •\ e � n R \ SKYBREAK RIM SUBDIVISION _ . ,ENSENBELTS PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN MERIDIAN, ID -.=,--- City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ E. Qualified Open Space Exhibit(date: 12/23/2025) v � P \ ® SKYBREAK RIM SUBDIVISION OPEN SPACE EYNIBIT 9 \' TOTAL ARM.x9.79 AC y QUALIFYING OPEN SPACE.W.78 AC(49.1%1 WAUN.0 OPE.SPAa NOu-OIWUMUG 9PEu SPAtE CEW BEVISION OATE'12f23/25 -v--- City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ ElevationsF. Building i12/23/2025) J City f♦u llF�/ I �+'f�S of MeridianDepartment Re 11Exhibits x, ----6z ,", rA Ellerlk - _ - City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ G. Common Drive Exhibit I --- 1 rc y I 1 3.00'510E I I \\ I I n I I 15E13AC1 LOT 15 TAKES DIRECT STREET 1 BLOCK 1 ACCESS.DRIVEWAY LOCATED 10TO�EfBACK/� I-� 1 1 I I 1 ESMT ON EAST SIDE OF LOT. 19 I 18 1 17 1 I / 15 14 j 1 � --- ---- I.g ---L So 13 N I ' 20 I 1 z.DD•REAR r——— n.oD•FRONT SETBACK TP. 6 SETBACK TYP./ / \... LOT 21 TAKES CIREYT STREET ACCESS.DRIVEWAY LOGTEO ON SOUDi SIDE OF LOT, s� 20 0 20 40 PD WX— SKYBREAK RIM SUBDIVISION � — emse,meemv LOT 15-21 BLOCK 1 COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT g '+a• [glalum®[swcglneeMng.[gm 41 42 43 qq 45 26 I LOT 27 TAKES DIRECT STREET ACCESS.DRIVEWAY LOCATE. �" "'�• ON NORTH SIDE OF LOT. 27 j S 29 1 M 25.00'COMMON L--�--- DRIVE 72.00'REAR T-- -------I + 3.00'SIDE S SETBACK TIP SETBACK AR I 29 i 31 So + I L -------� 19932 I 33 34 35 LSrP 20.00'FRONT 5.060j LO I BLOCK 1 SETBACK TYP I 1 TAKES DIRECT STREET 1 30 I ACCESS. E LOCATED SIDE OF 1 I —— ON EAST SIDE OF LOT. !lmma0pp pNp �o yp �? FA P@@m N 20 0 20 40 Po eoX cosg SKYBREAK RIM SUBDIVISION eo7se,to sa]m LOT 27-32 BLOCK 1 COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT srw�L:g'—�0• PM1:(20Bj 956-38]4 [gleM1a m�[swdglneeHng.mm City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ H. Pedestrian Path Exhibit(date: 3/26/2026) Pedestrian Connectivity Exhibit II Connection to Pura Vida#1 "Foothill"Trail 5'Sidewalk N owl Connection to Skybreak#1 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits I. Parking Plan Exhibit r-� ff I � I •� h _ q 18 additional on �. street parking spaces p o City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ J. Emergency Access Plan Exhibit wry. +r•..w,.� .ry-r.ynrw a.s.f .—ti�f.w s.a. �\ �\ � sureKEu weomsroN "� u�wcMcr.��a ucess ctwry Sa MbbAUMSBRFM p I'• �..` � If it '. .I r .. .. City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ K. Rezone Exhibit(date: 3/26/2026) 5awtooth Lana 5urveying, LLC P: (208)398-81 04 F: (208)358-81 05 2030 5. Wa5hington Ave.,Emmett, ID 8361 7 5kybreak Rim R-15 Zoning Description The following Describes a Parcel of Land being a portion of Government Lot 3 of Section 4,Township 2 North, Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian, Ada County Idaho, and being Tax Parcel No.S1404212750,more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at a found Aluminum Cap Marking the Northwest Corner of said Section 4; From which,the North 1/4 Corner of said Section 4 bears,North 89'43'34"East, 2661.67 feet which is being Mcnumented with a found"Illegible"Aluminum Cap;Thence along the Northerly Boundary Line of the NW 1/4 of said Section 4, North 89143'34" East, 1325,81 feet to the Northwest Corner of said Government Lot 3;Thence leaving said Northerly Boundary line,and along the Westerly Boundary Line of said Government Lot 3, South lC0012'11"West, 803.83 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence leaving said Westerly Boundary Line, North 90000'00" East, 227.21 feet to a point,- Thence.South 60035'33"East,280.04 feet to a paint; Thence, South 32019'11"East, 299.15 feet to a point,- Thence, South 00011'50"East, 159.31 feet to a paint on the Southerly Boundary Line of said Government Lot 3; Thence along the Southerly Boundary Line of said Government Lot 3, South 89°43'59"West, 633.61 feet to the Southwest Corner of said Government Lot 3 which is being Monumented with a found 5/8"Iron Pin PLS "645"as Shown on Record or Survey No. 1485, Records of Ada County,Idaho,- Thence leaving said Southerly Boundary Line,and along the Westerly Boundary Line of said Government Loi 3, North 00112'11"East, 552.57 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-Described Parcel of Land contains 6.54 Acres,more or less. � ,py O a 11574 !!rr OFjF P:1202511 EMT\125081-5KYBREAK RIM SUBDIVISION-CMG\Survey\Drawings\Descriptions1125081 5kybreak Rim R-15 Annexation.docx _, j - �1 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ 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- vitt. 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 ■ Development Application Transmittal Link to Project Application: Skybreak Rim MDA, RZ PP H-2026-0001 Hearing Date: 4-16-2026 Assigned Planner: Linda Ritter To view the City of Meridian Public Records Repository, Click Here The above "Link to Project Application" will provide you with any further information on the project. The City of Meridian is requesting comments and recommendations on the application referenced above. To review the application and project information please click on the application link above. The City of Meridian values transparency and makes a variety of information available to the public online through our public records repository. We request that you submit your comments or recommendations prior to the hearing date specified above. When responding, please reference the file number of the project. If responding by email, please send comments to comment(a)_meridiancity.org. For additional information associated with this application please contact the City of Meridian Planner identified above at 208-884-5533. Thank you, City Clerk's Office 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208.888.44331Email: cityclerk(cD_meridiancity.org Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received bV CitV of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and maV be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. F71 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Vicinity Map Comprehensive Plan Hillside Skybreak building story -to 6-Equivalent to a 5•than Pura Vida60’ higher -Skybreak Rim is 50’ •Steep slopes of 2:1 or greater• History 15 by Significant Slope)-R8 Area Disconnected from Lower -(Upper RDisconnected Neighborhood and Amenities •Issue:Original Density of 5.96 du/ac•157 Residential Lots–26.34 Acres •Preliminary Plat Approved in 2021•Pura Vida Ridge Ranch: Solution: Add Area to UtilizeFuture Residents to Access and Skybreak Amenities Easier for •Ridge)Nearest HOA (Not Separated by •Same Vertical Elevation •NeighborhoodSkybreak Existing Developer Additional Pickleball Courts•Changing RoomsCommunity Pool and •Additional Pickleball Courts•Changing RoomsCommunity Pool and •Original ApprovalAfterAdded Amenities - Parking is More Than Adequate SkybreakSame Product Mix as Original •Spaces Providedstreet Parking -18 Additional On• Gates Consistent with Existing Gated AreaExistingProposal: Add Rim Lots to •Gates ProposedNewNo •GatesExisting Rim Lots Accessed via •Developed)Behind Two Gates (103 Skybreak Approved for 106 Lots •Skybreak Approval Sidewalks Consistent with Existing Existing Skybreak Street SectionsProposal is to Remain Consistent with •Skybreak Gated StreetsApproved Sidewalk on One Side of Discussion, Council ExtensiveAfter •Skybreak Approval Summary In Agreement with Staff Conditions•Proposal Remains Consistent with Existing Skybreak Subdivision •Skybreak HOAChanging Project Boundaries to Include Skybreak Rim Lots in •No “New” Entitlements Proposed• Access Comp Plan Consistency 4.53 du/ac gross density86.33 acres, 391 lots, •Skybreak (Revised): •4.43 du/ac gross density79.69 acres, 353 lots, •Skybreak (Original): •6.45 DU/acre gross density19.70 acres, 127 lots, •Pura Vida (Revised): •5.96 DU/acre gross density26.34 acres, 157 lots, •Pura Vida (Original): •5.72 du/ac gross density•Skybreak Rim: •Density- Amenities(Skybreak Rim)New Shade Structure •PathwaysRegional and Internal •Three Fenced Dog Parks •Pickleball Courts•Climbing Dome•Fenced Play Structures• Site Plan 12 DU/acre-Density of 8 Better Aligns with MHDR •Density = 5.72 DU/acre•15 Zone -R•family homes-38 single• Open Space Code required 10% at time of approval•14.54 Acres or 18.4% •Skybreak Overall Open Space 3 additional acres beyond code•4.78 Acres or 49.1%•Skybreak Rim Provides:City Code Requires: 1.46 Acres North Neighbor Access Emergency Access Remoteness served, measured in a straight line between accesses.maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be half of the length of the -a distance apart equal to not less than oneWhere two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed Remoteness–Section D107.2 approved fire apparatus access roads.dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate and family dwellings where the number of -or two-Developments of oneDevelopments over 30 dwelling units–Section D107.1 The 2018 International Fire Code Requires: Remoteness distance .than half the diagonal requirement for more Does not meet the • Remoteness Remoteness Access Optional Layout Gated Vs. Non Option “B”Preferred Gated Option Gated Access -