HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 - 1985}"1EF,I DIAN C l COLl}iC I L FEBRUARY 19, 1985
Regular meeting of the MeridianGrant XingsforC at 7:30 p.n.City Council called to order by Mayor
Members Present: Bi1] Breb?er, Ron Tolsma, Bert Myers, Bob Gies1er.
Others Present: Gary Schaffer, EarI Ward, Gary Smith, Xenny Bowers,Kevin Robertson, Bob Uitich, Bob Spencer, Lee Roy Nelson, Lee O1son,
Don Wolkins, Dick Yetke , Lloyd Howe, ceorg Wendt, Bill Barkell,Miriman Barr, Bill BarkelI, Wayne Crookston, Members of Scout Troop#89: Jack Blattner & Laura Hobbs Meridian FFA:
Minutes of
wr i tten :
the previous meeting held February 4, 1985 were approved as
l'layor Xingsford read a Proclamation delcaring the week of February 16-23, 1985 as FFA lleek. (Proclamation on file with these mj-nutes) The
!4ayor presented thj-s proclamation to Jack Blattner from the Meridian
FFA who was in attendance at the meeting.
Mayor Kings ford
to obtain Merit
welcomed the members of Scout
Badqe credits.
Troop #89 who were present
)
ITEM # 1: Decision on
Amendment.
Upland Industries request for Comprehensive Plan
Councilman Brewer, as opposed to a motion
interest and fairest to Upland Industries
request. The Resolution has been drawn up
aoreernent signed by Upland Industr j.es has
,I believe it is in the best
to pass a Resolution on this
by the City Attorney and the
been reviewed by the Attorney.
The Motj-on was rnade by Breuer and seconded by Giesler to apProve of Res-
olution #98 pertaining to Upland Industries reguest for a Comprebensive
PlAn AMENdMENI. (RESOLUTION * 98 ON FILE WITH THESE MINUTES)
Motion Carried: A11 Yea:
City Attorney advised the tlayor the Resolution required a ro11 calI vote:
I4otion Carried: Brewer, Yeai Tolsma, Yeai Myers, Yeai Giesler, Yea;
Item *2: Variance and Fina} Plat, Arnie Subdivision:
l4ayor xingsford informed the council the city had received a request to
goitpon" iction on this request until the lvlarch 4, 1985 I'leeting'
The Motion was made by Brelder and seconded by Tolsma to table until the
March 4, I985 meeting:
Motion Carried : Al I Yea:
Item t3: Request bY Gerald RandolPh
)lorth Linder to CitY Sewer:
to connect proPerty I ocated at 330
Councilnan Myers, Mr' ward do you have any problens with this request?
AVABOSE.
fIIZGERALD
t cAoo(sToN
?.O. Aor /U7
cs42
T.l.Oho^. 6EE-a401
Ithasbeenandcontinuestobethepositionofthel'leridian
City Council to support a reqional shooping center in l'leridian'
citjr council agrees with the Find'ings of Fact and the majoritv of
the area citizens, that if private enterorise is able to build' t h
RESoLUrroll No. 9,r
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAIIO, CONCERNING THE REOUEST
OF UPI,AI{D INDUSTRIES CORPORATION TO HAVE ITS APPLICATION FOR A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A]4ETIDMENT TABLED UNTIL Ti{E SECOND !{EETING OF
DECD1BER, 19 86 .
WHEREAS, Upfand Industries Corporation has submitted an
agreement requesting that its Comprehensive Pfan Amendment
Application be tabled; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted findings of fact and
conclusions of law regarding said Application and the City Council
is ready to make a decision regarding said ,trppIication.
NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE I{AYOR .ATID THE C ITY COTINC
OF THE CITY OF IUERIDIAN, IDAHO:
Section 1- Based upon UplanC Industries Corporation's written
request and. consent aqreement to table its application for a
comprehensive plan anmendment to Cesignate the southeast quaC-rant
of Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue as a site for a regional- shopDinq
ma11 it is hereby moved that said application be tabled until the
second Cr-ty Council meeting in December, 1986, unless sooner regues
in writing by Upland Industfies Corporation that the natter be
placed upon the C.ity Council agenda.
As part of this motion it is hereby npved that the City Counci
state to Uplancl Industries that while all facets of its aPplication
and the other procedures involved in t}re path 'to actual constrdctio
of any reEional shooping center must be considered, heard, and deci
by the Council based upon Lhe then existinq policies, facts'
evidence and testimony, the most critical and pivotal concern of
City, as shovrn in the findings of fact and conclusions. is evjdelce
of lhe likelihood that the endeavors of the Applicant and the city
will result in a regional shopping center and not a conmunity or
neighborhood center. In the
this would be interDreted bY
terminolog; of regional shopping cente
the City Council to mean conmitrents
to the site, frorn two major anchor retailers, each one comrnitting
90,000 square feet for ,rse as a retail department store' The Citv
Council iou1rl retain the rioht to review the adequacy of the
commitments.
L
e(
AMBFOSE,
FITZGERALO
I CROOXSTON
P.O 8or tt27
ara2
/fu day o
P^TTEST:
emann,I tyc erk
PASSED BY T}18 COUNCIL OF' THE CITY OF' I4ER,IDIAI'I , IDAHO, this
,198s.
APPP.O\iED:
fr
Gr n t P. K l nos r yor',3r.
I
it should, as long as that buildingr is not un<lu1y subsidized with Itax dollars through need for public services, i.e. streets, sewer,
Ihrater, police and fire.
I
ITherefore, provided the adequate and necessary commitments canlbe resolved to the satisfaction of the City, the Council rr,,ould be i
sr-pport oTapplicantrs Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
I
I
I
Y
REQUEST TO TABLE AND CONSENT AGRXEMENT
This Agreement made and entered into tt'ris ,//fl aay of February,
1985, by Upland Industries Corporation,
Applicant.
hereafEer referred to as
WITNESSETH:
Applicant acknowledges and agrees as follows:
1) That Applicant has applied to the City of Meridian
and its City Council for an amendment Eo the l.{eridian
Comprehensive Plan which amendment requests that the
160 acres contained in the Southeast Quadrant of theintersection of Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road be
designated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as asite for a regional shopping center.
2) ihat the Amendment has been timely processed underthe Planrs Amendment Provision and Procedure and theLocal Planning Act of L975, Title 67, Chapter 65,Idaho Code; tha-t .A'',nlicant has had a fu1I opportunityto present facts in suDDort of its amendment; that theMeridian CiEv Council has adopted findings of fact andconclusions 6f law on said amLndment whi6h have beenreceived and reviewed by Applicant; thaE all due process
requirements under the Meridian Comprehensive Plan andLocal Planning Act have been afforded the Applicant.
3) That the City Council is in a position such that itis ready and capable of making a decision on theApplicant's application; that any delay in the makingof the final decision on Applicant's application is,
from the date first above written, at the request,
consent and agreement of the Applicant.
Applicant hereby requests that the decision on its application
for an amendment to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan be tabled by
the Meridian City Council until the City Council's second meeting
in December, 1986, unless Applicant requests, in writing, that the
matter be brought before the CiEy Council on a prior date; thaE
rhis request is made pursuant to paragraph i of the Amendment
Provision and Procedures, Meridian Comprehensive Plan at page 56;
that Applicant hereby waives its rights, under the Meridian Com-
prehensive PIan and the Local Planning Acc, to have Ehe decision
AGREEMENT P. 1
.a .r.r.i Ehe CiEy Council's
second meeting in December, 1986, or such earlier date as shaLl be
requested by Applicant in writing.
That it is specifically acknowledged and agreed Ehat this
request for, and consent to, the tabling of Applicant t s Amendment
is made for the purpose of allowing Applicant additional time to
resolve the concerns of the City of Meridian in designating its
land as a site for a regional shopping center and that it will be
at the City Council's discretion as to whether those concerns have
ultimately been so resolved.
Applicant-Upland Industries Corporation
- ,/1
t>C res ent
lsst'Secretary
STATE OF NEBRASKA
County of Douglas
On this 7\
a Nota
,1 ,t (i
)) ss.
)
day of February, 1985,before me, the unders igned,y appeared ,1. / ('/ .'. /. )Zry Publ t-c
and
or said tat e, personnall
ecretarv o e corpora
, known to me to-Ee EhEtion that execuEed this.r/;;/ ,.,,,J1r,y' arr' 1;-str-E-nl]ifrEEEZnd the persons who executed Ehe instrument on behalf
d t
of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such corporation
executed the same.
IN I^/ITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto seE my hand and affixed
my official sea1, the day and year in this certificate first above
writtea.
(SEAL)
No tary
Residin
IC or State o
at Omaha, Nebraska
GtlitiAL l0lll - !r:r. ol l.harL
AGREEMENT P. 2 C.!. JANSEN
fy Conn Erp. tlov. 28, lgEo
N eb ra ska
, L-----
(
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL EEBRUARY 4, 1985
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was cal,Ied to orderby l-{ayor Grant Kingsford at 7:30 p.m,
Members Present: BiIl Bret^reri Ron Tolsmai Bert Myersi Bob Giesler:
Others Present: Bruce Stuart, Robert Davis; Lee Roy Nefson; George
Wendt; Jim Granti Kenny Bowers; Lee Olsen; Don Wilkins, Lloyd HoweiDick Yetke; Don Wimberly; Gary Schaffer; Bob Spencer; Tom Col-eiMiriam Barr; Earl Wardi cary Smith; wayne Crookstoni Kevin Robertsoni
Rhonda Lowe;
The Minutes
as written:of previous meeting held January 2l , 1985 were approved
Mayor Kingsford read a Proclamation decfaring the week of February
10 through 16, l-985, as Vocationaf Education week: (Proclamation onfile with these minutes )
Mayor Kingsford, are there any questions or comments from the Council?
Councilman Myers, City Attorney should be commended for these Findings.
Mayor Kingsford concurred with this.
The Motion \^ras made by l\,lyers and seconaled by Brewer to adopt and
approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions as prepared by the
City Attorney:
Motion Carried: Brewer, Yea: Tolsma, Yeai Myers, Yea; Giesler rYea:
I"layor Kingsford welcorned tliriam Barr the
Don Wimberly from KBOI , who were present
Item *1: Eindings of Fact and Concluslons on
Amendment pertaining to the Rural ResidentialNorth Curve;
new Statesman Reporter andat the meeting.
Comprehensive Plan
Reserve Area in the
Conclusions on UPland Industries
Amendment for site for Regional
comments from the Counc i1?
the Mayor anal Council for the fine
the policies the Plan
Center for Meridian
to care on the loc-
ltem *2: Findings of Fact
request for ComPrehensive
Shopping Center:
and
Plan
Mayor Kingsford, are there anY
City Attorney was commendetl bY
job in preParing the Findings.
Councifman !'lyers, it is very important that
n.= .o*. up ;ith, mainly a Regional Shopping
and the peiple r have talked with don't seem
ation as long as it is in the t'leridian Area '
PAGE # 2
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 4, 1985.
Councilman Brer4,er, The Upland location in my opinion will not generate
business in downtown Meridian. A regj-onal mall- two miles in any onedirection of the region it serves, in this instance Ontario to Mtn.
Home, will not effect the ma11. However, a regional mal1 two mil-esfrom downtown Meridian wilf generate satilite growth around the malland f believe take away from the business community of downtownMeridian. A regional maI1 should have direct interchange access tothe freeway and be as close to Meridian as possible. With the taxstructures as they are in idaho, that is the only way Meridian willbenefit from a ma11, its proximity to downtown. It is my opiniona Regional Ma11 anywhere other than adjacent to I-84 will have an
adverse ef,fect on our al-ready troubled air quality. Those thousandsof automobiles must get in and out of the area without sloh, street;peeds. The development would cause further strip coru[ercial alongPair!.iew Ave, which is discourigeal by the City of Meridian. Impact
on the City water and waste treatment facility by a mall in itsself would not be substantial, however, add to that the satilitegrowth plus probable multi-famify housing it would most f j-keIy beof consequence. The proposed Comprehensive Plan change does not
meet the confines and policies of the Meritlian Comprehensive PIan
adopted in 1978 and I do not approve of its adoption. However, in
these findings we are reminded by our Economic Policies, the Policy
Diagram and the Comprehensive PIan revie$/ that this Plan'can be
changed. Due to the quality and integrity of l*1r. Howe and Upland
;rdustries f would support tabling for a maximum of sixteen months
enabling the developers to show positive proof to this Council that
they have major tennants ready to preform.
l,layor Kingsford, I have a written statement which I will read for
the record. As the Findings of Fact indicate, there are many pluses
and minuses for the Council to consider with regard to Uplandr s
request for changes in Comprehensive Planning and zor\ing. The major
concer.rs arer (I) abitity to preform, (2) surface streets being
inadequate, (3) impact on existing shopping facilitj-es in Meridian,
and (4) cost impacls on City services, principally police anil Fire'
The advantages of a center in Meridj-an are also great' The major
ones are: (i) greatly improved shopping for our residents as well
as those of the region (2) broadening of the emplol'rnent base for
Meridian citj-zens, - (3) improving the tax burden both for the city
residents anal those of the school and other taxing districts by
fru"i"g a better ratio of residentiaf to commercial properties' As
[t. ii"ai"gs say, if the tenants can be found, the other problems
can surely be overcome- It has been the position of the-Meriilian
Chamber of Commerce
-to support a regional shopping center in the
r'r.iiai-.., area of impact. 1-have my personal preference for a site
U,rt "g.". with the Finditg. ot ralt, as wel-1 as the Chamber of
Corunerce and the ""=t ^"j5tity of the area citizens' that if
pti"ii"-""terprise is abie to build, then it should' as long as
that buildirrg is .rof u"Et-.iy ""f "idi-zeil with tax dollars throuqfh
need for public ""r.ri""", i.e. streets, sewer, water, police and
f ire.
PAGE # 3
I\,1ERI D IAN
E EBRUARY
CITY COUNCIL
4, 1985
Mayor Kingsford contrd, The number of tenants which we would requireshould be no less than two signed, irrevocable letters of intent oras many as the signed tenants would regui-re if more than t$/o. Thesetenants should be of size recognized as a regional maI1 anchor andbe willing to occupy no less than 90,000 square feet of retail spaceeach. If these major obstacles can be overcome, then I certainlywould be in support of your development. Until then, it is my rec-
ommendation that the Council table your request to give you timeto obtaj-n your tenants. I wish you the very best of luck.
Mayor Kingsford, any more guestions or comments of the Council?
Councilman l4yers, we
months from the ti-methis correct ?
are talking about tabling thisthey filed this which Lrould be
for sixteenlast Ju1y, is
Mayor Kingsford, yes unless by mutual consent betureen the two parties
and certainly as the applicant they have the right at this time to
ask for a decision on this matter if not satisfied with the tabling.
This is the maximum time unless a longer time is mutualfy agreed
upon between the parties involved.
city Attorney, wayne Crookston, The Comprehensj-ve PIan Amendmentprocedure aI lor,rs the City to take up to sixteen months to make adecision on plan amendments, at this time it would be necessary
to have the written consent of the applicant to tabIe. At this
time the applicant is entitled to a decision if they want it.
They can request a decision or consent in writing if they want
it tabled.
!4ayor Kingsford, what would be procedure here, to ask them now
Crookston, They should
want a decision nol1, or
meeting.
be given the opportunity to decide if they
if they would like to havertabled until next
The motion was made by Brewer and seconded by Tolsma to adopt the
Eindings of Fact and Conclusions as prePared on the request for a
Compreiensive Plan Amendment by UPIand Industries for a site for
regional shopping center.
Motion Carried: Brewer, Yea: Tolsma, Yea: Myers, Yea: Giesler' Yea:
I'layor Kingsford, t'1r. Ho\^re t"hat is Upland's position.
upiand *uit. decision or rhat would be to your best
There was discussion as to the options available as
as to when the zoning could be approved'
Uplands decision was now that the Findings of
i-n.v ,"rfa desire time to read these findings
i."ir.=i-f. tabled until the February 19' 1985
Fact were
and asked
meeting.
on this, does
interest?
well as questions
public recoril
that the
PAGE * 4
MERIDIAN CITY COIJNCII
TEBRUARY 4, 1985
The motion was mad.e by Tolsma and seconded by Myers to tableUpland Industries request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendmentdesignation of a regional shopping center until the February
1985 meeting.
Motion Carried: AIl Yea:
Item #3: Variance & Final Plat, Arnie Subdlvision:
thefor
10
Mayor Kingsford advised the Councilfrom l.,lrs. Stutzman they would likeEebruary l-9, l-985 meeting-
The motion was made by tlyers and
Variance and Final Plat of Arni.e19, 1985, meeting.
City had received a request
request tabled until the
thethis
seconded by Giesler to table the
Subilivision until the February
Motion Carried: A11 Yea:
Item *4: Pre-Termination Hearing Water/Sewer? Trash Delquencies:
llayor Kingsford, This- is to inform you in writing, if you choose to,
you have the right td a pre-termination hearing, at 7:30 p.m. Feb-
ruary 4th, 1985, before the Mayor and Council, to appear in person
to be judged on facts and defend the claim made by the City thatyour water, sewer and trash bil-I is delinquent. You may retain
counsef. This service will be discontinued February L2, 1985, at
I A.M. unless pa)rment is received in ful]. Is there anyone present
who wishes to defend this cl,aim? There was no response.
Mayor Kingsford, Due to their failure to Pay their water bill or
present any valid reason rhy the bill has not been paid, their
water shall be turned off on February 12, 1985 at 8 a.m. In order
to have their water turneal back on, there will be an additional
fee of $10.00- They are hereby informed that they may appeal or
have the decGion of the City reviewed by the Eourth Judicial Dist-
rict Court, pursuant to Itlaho Code. Even though they appeal, the
water will be shut off.
The motion was maile by Totsma and seconded by Giesler to approve
the turn off list of deliquent water users'
Motion Carried: A11 Yea:
Mayor Kingsford announced the deliqunecies amounted to $3'742'85'
Item +5: APProve the Bills:
by Tolsma and seconded by Myers to approve theThe motion was made
bi11s.
Motion Carried: A11 Yea :
I,IERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 21 l-985
THE REGULAR MEETING OF TEE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL WAS CALLED TO ORDERAT 7:30 P. M. BY MAYOR GRANT KINGSFORD.
MEI\4BERS PRESENT: BILL BREV{ER, RON TOLSMA, BERT MYERS, BOB GfESLER:
OTHERS PRESENT: LARRY BI,DAHL, BEORGE WENDT, DOUG NICHOLS, EARL WARD,
GARY SMITH, KENNY BOWERS, BOB MITICH, BRUCE STUART, WAYNE CROOKSTON,
JUDY HAMBLEY, BONNIE ROBINSO}i, LEE OLSEN, DON WOLKINS, LEROY NELSON,
GARY SCHAEFER, DALE F,YAN, DALE & MRS. BATES, DALE RICH, GLENNfE SLEIGHT,
I,IEI,IBERS OF SCOUT TROOP # 126 :
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 7, f985 APPROVED AS WRITTEN:
MAYOR KINGSFORD WELCOMED SCOUT TROOP # 126 WHOM WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT
THE MEETING:
MAYOR KINGSFORD READ A PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF JANUARY 21-
25 AS RIDESHARING AND TRANSIT WEEK: (ON FILE WITH THESE MINUTES)
THE COUNCIL ADVISED THEY WOULD ASSIST IN SUB],IITTING AN APPLICATION FOR
FUNDS AND HELP WITH WHAT WAS NEEDED.
THE MAYOR ADVISED THE COT'NCIL THAT ITEM 2 & ITEM 3 NEEDED TO BE ACTED
ON BOTH AT THE SA.I\,IE TIME AND ASKED THE COI'NCIL WHAT THEIR POSITION WAS
ON THESE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COUNCILMAN MYERS, I HAVE NOT READ THE FINDINGS ON THE COMPREIIENSIVE
PLAN CHANGE REGARDING SITE FOR A REGIONAL SHOPPING I\'IALL. VIE DID NOT
RECEIVE THESE UNTIL NOON TRIDAY AND FEEL THIS SHOULD BE TABLED.
COUNCILMAN BREWER, I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN MYERS, THIS SHOULD BE TABLED
UNTIL WE HAVE CHANCE FOR TURTHER STUDY OF THE FINDINGS.
THE MOTION WAS I.4ADE BY BREWER AND SECONDED BY T'IYERS TO TABLE THE FIND-
INGS OF FACT ON UPLAND INDUSTRIES REOUEST EOR COMPRHENSIVE PLAN AI\'IEND-
I\,IENTS UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 1! , 19 8 5 MEETING.
MoTIoN CARRIED: BREWER, YEA: TOLSMA, YEA: MYERS, YEA: GIESLER, NAY:
ITEM *4: VARIANCE & FINAL PLAT, ARNIE SUBDIVISION:
MAYoRKINGSFoRDADVISEDTf,ECoUNCILTHAT}'{RSSTUTZMANHADCALLEDAND
THEY DO NOT HAVE THINGS WORKED OUT WITH ACHD ON THE ALLEY AND WOULD
APPRECIATE THIS BE TABiED I'NTIL THE FEBRUARY 4' 1985 MEETING'
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY TOLSMA AND SECONDED BY MYERS TO TABLE THIS
NNOUSST UNTIL THE FEERUARY 4' 1985 MEETING:
SENIOR CITIZENS WERE PRESENT TO ASK THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO ASSIST THE}.4
IN OBTAINING A BLOCK GRAltt: I\,lR. DALE RYAN PRNSIDENT OF THE GROUP ADVISED
THE COUNCIL MR. DALE RICH,CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD WOULD EXPLAIN THE
PROPOSAL. MR. RICH ADVISED THAT THERE WAS BLOCK GRANT }4ONIES AVAIL-
ABLE FOR SENIOR CITIZENS AND THAT WAYNE TORREY OF JUB ENGINEERS WOULD
BE WORKING WITH THEM TO OBTAIN FUNDS.
;r r2/17/84
I'IAYOR KII{GSFORD OPENED BID FROM BOB RICE FORD. BID BOND ENCLOSED,
TOTAL BiD PRICE, ),667 .89 .'v\./
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY BREWER AND SECO]']DD BY GIESLER TO TAK-E THE
BIDS UNDER ADVISEMENT UNT]L CHIEF NICHOLS HAD TIME TO CHECK THE
SPECIFICATIONS.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL YEA
COUNCILMAN MYERS: THE COMMITTEE I HEADED THAT WAS COMPRISED OF
COUNCILMAN BREhER AND LARRY CHITWOOD HAVE CHECKED ON GARBAGE RATESIN BOISE, NA-T.{PA, AND CAIDI,I'ELL, AND REVIEWED MR. ALDIJANI'S FIN-
ANCIAL REPORTS AND CAME UP W]TH THE FOLLOWING RECOM},IENDATIONS.
INCREASE COM},IERCIAL TO $2,60 PER YARD, INCREASE RESIDENTIAL
IJLNLIMITED SERVICE TO $4,50 PER MONTH, INCREASE SENIOR CITIZENS
TO $3.50 PER MONTH AND ESTABLISH A NEW CATEGORY FOR CONSTRUCTION
WHICH IJOIJLD BE $3.00 PER YARD EACH DIJMP. THIS IS CONSIDERABLY
LESS THAI"I THE 157. INCREASE REQUESTED AND BELIEVE THIS IS FAIR
TO },IR. ALDIJANI AND THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY.
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY I,MRS AND SECONDED BY TOLSMA TO APPROVE
THESE RATES AND TO HAVE THE NECESSARY ORDINANCE DRAWN UP FOR
COUNCIL APPROVAL.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL YEA
MAYOR KINGSFORD, COUNCIL MEMBERS WHAT DO YOU WISH TO DO WITH
UPII,ND INDUSTRIES RXQIIEST?
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY GTESLER AND SECONDED BY I"IYERS TO INSTRUCT THE
CITY ATTORNEY TO DRA'IJ UP FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ON THE
UPLAND INDUSTRIES REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING
CHANGE.
THE CITY ATTORNEY ADVISED THE COUNCIL THAT THE ZONING WAS NOT
INCLUDED IN THE REQUEST.
THE MOTION AND THE SECOND WAS WITHDRAI,IN.
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY GIESLER AND SECONDED BY TOLSMA TO HAVE THE
CITY ATTORNEY PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ON THE
UPLAND INDUSTRIES REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL YEA
BEING THERE NO FURTHER BUSTNESS TO COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL THE
MOTION WAS MADE BY MYERS AND SECONDED BY TOLSMA TO ADJOURN AT
8:07 P.M.
MOTION CARRIED: AIL YEA
APPROVED:
, A?TEST :
Jack Nie n C f ty Cl erk
cnaNt xrucsFoRD, MAYOR
fi
ITEM:
1.
z.
AGENDA
}TERIDIAN CITY COI,'NCIL
DECEI,IBER 3 , 1984
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS IIEETING HELD NOVEMBER 19, 1984.
Marilyn Dorman, Member of Juvenile Justice Committee, Presentation
on Bond & Override Election for Juvenile Center.
,l
Public Hearing: Comprehensive PIan Amendments Proposed by
Planning & Zoning Comnission & Upland Industries.
(APPROVED)
Pre -Termi rla t ion Hearing; water / Sewer/Trash Deliquencies.
(APPROVED)
Approve the Bills.
(APPROVED)
Compensation for Building Inspector.
J*5"*9IEf]"i; sanitary service: rncrease in Fees:
(FURTHER STUDY)Resolution #956nd Resol ution #96
(APPROVED)
Department Reports:
4
5
6
7
I
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL },dCEMBER 3RD, 1984
REG1JLAR },IEETING OF THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL CALLED TO ORDER BY MAYOR
GRANT KINGSFORD AT 7:30 P.M.
},IEMBERS PRESENT: BILL BREWXR, RON TOLSMA, BERT MYERS, BOB GIESLER
OTHERS PRESENT: ROBERT VAN HOUTEN, MIKE CHRISTENSEN, DERXK CLEMENTS
BRAD EBERT, SCOTT BURDICK, JEFF SHIELDS, DEL NIBLITT, RICHARD C. WILLIAMS,
TOM COLE, MOE ALDIJANI , STEVE GLEDHILL, KENNY BOWERS, BRUCE STUART, JAMES
KISER, DOROTHY HARBOUR, GARY WOODS, ROGER WOOD, EARL I^IARD, R.C. SPENCER,
DAVE OWNBY, JOHN MELAMPHY, AL LANE. ALAN COMELL, KENT COMPTER, RICK
},IEISINGER, DOUG BUTLER, RUSSELL JOHNSON, HARRY JENSEN, E.J. SMITH, TIR- AM
MRS. CARTER, DOYLE MINER, FRED S. MERTIN, GEORGE WENDT, BETTY BISCHOFF,R.D. BISCHOFF, BILL BARKELL, PHIL DAVIDSON, R.W. NAHAS, TERRY SITH, LLOYD
HOWE, WAYNE CROOKSTON, cARy SMTTH, BOB MITTCH, muc NICHOLS.
mion rirqcsFoRD rNritoDUCED MEMBERS oF SCOUT TROOP. # "28 WIIICH WAS IN rrr'
}.TTENDANCE, AT THE MEETING.
THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 19,1984..W8RE APPROVED
AS WRITTEN.
MAYOR KINGSFORD INTRODUCED MR. DOYLE MINOR NEW ADA CO1JNTY COMMISSIONER
ELECT WHO WAS IN ATTENDANCE.
IITEM If 1) - MARILYN DOORMAN, MEMBER OF THE JIIVENILE JUSTICE COMMITTEE
WAS PRXSENT TO GIVE A PRESENTATION ON THE NEED OF THE UPCOMING BOND AND
OVERIDE ISSUE IN ADA COUNTY FOR UPDATING THE JIIVENILE CENTER AND INCOUR-
AGED EVERYONE TO GET OUT AND VOTE DECE},IBER 11.1984 IN FAVOR OF THIS ISSUE.
(TTNU + D - PUBLIC HEARING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.
MAYOR KINGSFORD ADVISED TO THE COUNCIL AND THE AUDIENCE THIIT THE A}4ENDMENTS
WOULD BE HELD IN FIVE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS.
MAYOR KINGSFORD, AMENDMENT # 1 - IS TO CHANGE THE AMENDMENT PROCEDURE CON-
TAINED IN THE PLANTD_SX-ORTEN THE SEQUENCE OF $VENTS AND ENABLE AMENDMENTS
TO BE PROCESSED IN MORE TIMELY MANNER
I^IAYNE CROOKSTON, CITY ATTORMY FURTHER EXPLAINED THIS AMENDMENT,.
},IAYOR KINGSFORD OPENED MEETING FOR PUBLIC HEARING, NO COMMENTS, PUBLIC
HEARING CEOSED.
AMENDI,IENT JI2- IS TO INCORPORATE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THE MERIDIAN
I]RBAN AND LIMITS AND FI]NCTIONAL CLASSIFICATI ON TRANSPORTATION MAP WHICH
WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY IN JIILY OF 1983.
MAYOR KINGSFORD OPENED MEETING FOR PUBLIC HEARING, NO COMMENT, PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED.
AMEND}MNT /I3- I
TMFAET-TH-TEE HAS
MERIDIAN AND ADA
136) .
ST
BE
CO
O INCORPORATE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THE AREA OF
EN R.ECENTLY NEGOTIATED AND ADOPTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF
I]NTY-(SEE CITY ORDINANCE /} 439 AND COT]NTY ORDINANCE /i
PAGb Jt2 I,IERIDIA ]ITY COUNCIL MEETING
\?/
MAYOR KINGSFORN OPENED THE MEETING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING NO COMMENT, PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED.
AI'{ENDMENT i.l4-IS A PORTION OF THE UPLAND INDUSTRIES REQUEST WHICH IS A
HOUSE CLEANII'IG A].IENDMENT TO REMOVE THE NORTH CURVE'RURAI. RESIDENTIAL RNSERVE''
DESIGNATION FROM TI,IE ENTIRE NORTHWEST QUARTER SECTION 8 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH,
RANGE I EAST FO THE BOISE }4f,RIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO. THIS IS NECESSARY
AS THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN ANNEXED AND ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL,
},IR. LLOYD HOWE- UPLAND INDUSTRIES MANAGER OF LAND AND INDUSTRIAL SERVICES
WAS ASKED BY MAYOR KINGSFORD TO ADDRXSS THIS AMENDMENT IF THE COI]NCIL HAD
ANY QUESTToNS. THERE WERE NoNE.
MAYOR KINGSFORD OPENED },IEETING FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING, NO COMII'IENT, PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED.
AMENDMENT /I5-REQUEST BY UPLAND INDUSTRIES TO HAVE THE SOUTH EAST QUARTERAT THE INTERSECTION OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE AND EAGLE ROAD BE DESIGNATED IN
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ON A SITE FOR A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER.
I'{R, LLOYD HOI^IE- UPLAND INDUSTRIES MANAGER OF LAND AND INDUSTRIAL SERVICES
WAS PRESENT TO REPRESENT THIS REQUEST. MR. HOWE FORMALLY PRESENTED 3
COPIES OF TESTIMONEY IN SUPPORT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE
RICORD. MR. HOWELL SUBMITTED SOME CORRECTION AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION TO BE I-I'ICLUDED IN THE TESTIMONY BOOKIET WIIICH HAD BEEN PRE-
SENTED TO THE I.{AYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ON DECEMBER 13, 1984. THESE
CORRECTIONS WER.E FOR PAGE /I I.1 TO DELETE THE STATEMENT THAT THERE WAS
A DECLINE IN SHOPPING GOODS SALES IN ADA COUNTY BETWEEN 1977 AND 1982.
ON PAGE III-3 PARAGRAPH D CIIANGE COMPETITION MALL IN ADA COUNTY TO
CANYON COUNNTY, THE ADDITION WAS FOR MORE INFORMATION ON DESIGN.
MR HOWE ADVISED THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL HE WOI]LD ASK MR. JOHN MELANIPHY
OF MELANIPHY AND ASSOCIATES, INC. OF CHICAGO ILLINOIS, TO PRXSENT AND
EXPLAIN THE TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATIINFOR COMPR.EHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT WHICH WAS PR.ESENTED TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL ON DECEMBER13rh, 1984.
MR. JOHN MELANIPHY, PRNSENTED THE CITY WITH A COPY OF }I1S FIRMS CRXDENTIALS
AND ADVISED THEM OF THE PRIOR DEVELOPMENTS OF THIS TYPE THXI.HAD,BEEN_IN=
VOLYED IN IN AS WELL AS THE DIFFERENT DEVELOPING FIRMS THEY HAD REPRESENTED:
]'1R. }'{EI-ANIPHY }IADE A PRESENTATION ON THE DIFFERENT ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE
TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATTON FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
SUBMITTED BY UPLAND INDUSTRIES. MR. MEL]NIPHY ADVISED THER.E ARE THREE
BASIC PHASES, MARKET ANALYSIS, SITE SUTABILITY AND FISCAL IMPACT OF WHICH
THIS LOCATION HAS ALL THE FEATURES.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE COUNCIL?
THERX hERE NONE.
MAYOR KINGSFORD OPENED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
MR. RICHARD WILLIAMS
3133 AUTTJMN WAY
MERIIDAN, IDAHO 83642
PAGE I/ 3 MERI''AN CITY COUNCIL
THIS IS SAMESENATRIO AS I^]ITH THE QUONG R-EQUEST. I A1"1 AGAINST APPROVAL AS
1T WO1JLD DESTROY rHE CoMPREHENSTVE PLAN 0F.QUOTE PAGE 20 POLICIES CoRE 0F
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, 22 MILES OUT IS NOT I}f, CORE, WOI]LD DESTROY DOWNTOWN
},IERIDIAN, QUONG AND UPLAND ARE THE SAME. TRAFFIC WOULD BE A PROBLEM. I
WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL TO STUDY THIS IS NO DIFFERENT FROM THE QUONGCASE, AND IT I^IOI]LD NOT BE BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY.
STEPHEN J. GLEDHILL
ATTORNEY AT LAW
7OO WEST IDAHO
BOISE, IDAHO
I A]'{ HERE TO SUBMIT WRITTEN TESTIMONY FROM MY CLIENT EDWARD L. BEWS
VOICING HIS OBJECTION TO THIS AMEND}MNT ( TESTIMONY ON FILE WITH THESE
MINUTES) .
I.{R. PHIL DAVIDSON
CLAREMONT DEVELOPMENT
BELLVUE, I^,ASHINGTON
WE HOLD AN OPTION ON 110 ACRES LOCATED AT EAGLE AND INTERSTATE 84, THE
COMPETITION IS GOOD, NEED CI-ARIFICATION ON THE RI]LES OF THE GAME,
SHOI]LD NOT ASK FOR APPROVAL I^IITHOUT MAYOR TENNANTS, ALL PLAYERS SHOI'LD BE
ADVISED.
COUNCILMAN BREWER; SITUATION IS DIFFERENT PROPERTY HAS ALREADY BEEN ANNEXED
TO THE CITY. EVERYONE I^IILL BE TREATED FAIRLY.
MAYOR KINGSFORD; R1ILES HAVE NOT CHANGED ADVISE WAS JUST GIVEN.
HARRY JENSEN
2075 EAST FAIRVIEW AVENUE
},IERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
I LIVE ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY FAVOR A SHOPPING MALL RATHER THAN _-
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT ACCESS IN AND OUT OF
MY PROPERTY AND I DO NOT WANT TO BE LOCKED IN. IF ITS GOING TO BE
DEVELOPED PLEASE LEAVE ACCESS.
MAYOR KINGSFORD; PINE STREET IS SCHEDULED TO BE EXTENDED TO EAGLE ROAD : -IS THIS CORRECT MR. HOWE?
},IR. HOWE; YES PINE STREET IS SCHEDI,LED TO BE EXTENDED TO EAGLE ROAD FOR
ACCESS AND IRRIGATION LII{ES WILL BE IN SO YOU I^IILL HAVE WATER NEXT YEAR
MAYOR KINGSFORD, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THO W]SHES TO SPEAK
TO THIS ISSUE? THERE WAS NO RESPONSE, THEREFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING I^IAS
CLOSED.
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY BREWER AND SECONDED BY TOLSMA TO APPROVE THE FINDING
OF FACT AND CONCLUSION PERTAINING TO AMENDMENT ill AS PREPARED FOR THE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
MOTION CARRIES. ALL YEA.
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY BREWER AND SECONDED BY TOLSMA TO APPROVE AMENDMENT
II1 TO CHANGE THE AMENDMENT PROCEDURE CONTAINED IN THE PLAN AND SHORTEN
PAGE /I4
THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AND ENABLE A]'{ENDMENTS TO BE PROCESSED IN A MORI
TII',IELY MANNER.
MOTION CARRIED; ALL YEA
THE MOTION I^IAS MADE BY GIESLER AND SECONDED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS PERTAINING
FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
BREWER TO APPROVE THE
AMENDI.,IENT /I2 AS PRXPARXD
BY
TO
MOTION CARRIED; ALL YEA
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY MYERS AND SECONDED BY TOLSMA TO APPROVE AMENDMENT
#2 TO INCORPORATE IN THE PLAN THE MERIDIAN URBAN LIMITS AND FI]NCTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION TRANSPORTATION MAP .
MOTION CARRIED; ALL YEA
THE MOTION I^IAS MADE BY MYERS AND SECONDED BY GIESLER TO APPROVE THE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS PERTAINING TO AMENDMENT /i3 AS PREPARED
FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
MOTION CARRIED; ALL YEA
THE MOTION I,IAS MADE BY BPdWER AND SECONDED BY }TERS TO APPROVE AMENDMENT
/I3 TO INCORPORATE IN THE PLAN THE ARXA OF IMPACT AGREED UPON BY THE CITY
OF MERIDIAN AND ADA COUNTY BY CITY ORDINANCE //439 AND COUNTY ORDINANCE /1136,
MOTION CARRIED; ALL YEA
THE MOTION I,'AS I'{ADE BY BREWER AND SECONDED BY GIESLER TO HAVE THE CITY
ATTORNEY PREPARE FINDINGS TO FACT AND CONCLUSION ON THE AMENDMENT //4 I,JXICH
REMOVES THE NORTH CURVE RURAI RNSIDENTIAL RESERVE DESIGNATION FROM THE
ENTIRE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOI,]NSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE l EAST OF
THE BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO.
MOTION CARRIES; ALL YEA
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY BRNWER AND SECONDED BY TOLSMA DUE TO THE NEW TESTI-
MONY SUBMITTED BY UPLAND INDUSTRIES AND THE SHORT TIME THE MEMBERS HAVE
HAD THIS INFORMATION TO TAKE THIS REQUEST UNDER ADVISEMENT, WITH THE
POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A FUTURE.WORKSHOP TO GO OVER THE TESTIMONY.
MOTION CARRIED; ALL YEA
]'IAYOR KINGSFORD ANNOUNCED THAT IF ANYONE DESIRED TO LEAVE THE MEETING
BEFORE THE BALANCE OF THE ITEMS TO COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL WERE BROUGHT
UP THEY WERE WELCOME TO LEAVE. THE PEOPLE I^IHO WERE IN ATTENDANCE REGARDING
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS EXITED.
ITEM /I3 - PRITERMINATION HEARING: WATER/ SEWER/ TRASH DEL]NQUENCIES.
MAYOR KINGSFORD READ THIS IS TO INFORM YOU IN I^IRITING, IF YOU CHOOSE TO
YOU IIAVE THE RIGHT TO A PRI-IERMINATION HEARING, AT 7:30 P.M. ON DEC. 3RD,
1984 BEFORX THE MAYPR AND COUNCIL, TO APPEAR IN PERSON TO BE JUDGED ON
FACTS AND DEFEND THE CLAIM MADE BY THE CITY THAT YOUR i^]ATER, SEWER AND
TRASH BILL IS DELINQUENT YOU MAY RXTAIN COUNCIL.
I{ERIDlAN CITY COUNCTL
\,?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING NOVEMBER L2, 1984
The regular meeting of the Meridj-an Planning and Zoning Commission was
cal1ed to order at 7:30 p. m. by Chairman Bob Spencer.
Members Present:WaIt Morrowi Moe
Tom Cole;
Alidjani; Jim Johnson; Jim StrhareE!'>
Leon Gingrich;
& Lila Simerly;
Others Present: ceorge & Margaret Strelfner; Lloyd Ho\,re;
John Ewing; She11y Clark & Colleen; Ross
Gary Schaffer; Wayne Crookston;
The Motion $ras
minutes of the
l"lotion Carried: A11 Yea:
The Motion wasof the Special
made by Morrow and seconded by Johnson to approve the
prevj-ous meeting held October 9, 1984 as written.
:a{.made by Johnson and seconded by Cole to approve the minutes
Meeting held october 18, 1984 as written.
Motion Carried: Afl Yea:
Item #1: PubIic Hearing, Conditional Use Permit for Ross Simerly:
Chairman Spencer advised the Commj-ssion that there was two written
comments received to be entered j-nto the record which had no objectionto this request, in fact they r^rere j-n favor. One item was from the
Oliasonrs who reside at 630 East Pine and one from A.E. Driscoll whoresides at 533 East Pine.
Mr. Simerly was present to represent his request.
Mr. Simerly advised the Commission that the City of Merj.dian had
received a complaint on his operation of a Radiator Shop from his
home which had been in operation since 1978. He also stated he was
retired and this was supplemental income and operated on a Part
time basis. Mr. Simerly advised the Commission that only one person
who owned property in ttre area failed to sign his petition, this was
the owner ot lf,e property directly to the East of him and at the
present time was vacant ProPerty.
The Owner of this property was not present at the Meeting'
Chairman Spencer opened the meeting for public
l4r. George Strellner, 527 East State, testified
Conditional Use Permit for Mr. Simerly'
Mr
of
hearing.
in favor of the
635 East State, I have no objections to this useJohn Hvezila,
the propertY.
I
Chairman SPencer closed the Public Hearing'
l2l
There was dicussion among the Commission Members regarding Ada County
Highway District recorunendations as well as assessment on water and
Sewer should be required.
The Moti-on \^ra s made by Morrow andCity Attorney prepare Findings of
by Atidjani to have the
Conclusions on the Request.
secondedFact and
Motion Carried: A11 Yea:
The Motion was made by l,lorrow and seconded by Cole that the Fj.ndingsreflect the Commissions recornmendation of approval to the City Council
and that the Ada County'Highway District recommendations not be
enforced. .
Motion Carried: A11 Yea:
Item #2: Public Hearing, Conditional Use Permit for Leon Gingrich.
i
The Commission was advised the property was located in
Zoning and any eonstrutr.ion other than{,Single familyConditional Use Permit.
the o1d Town
required a
Mr. Leon Gingrich was
Mr. Gingrich stated he
recommendations .
Present to represent
foresaw no problems
this reques.t.
with the Ada County Highv,tay
Chairman Spencer opened the meeting for Publ j-c Hearing.
Mr. John Ewing, 325 East Second, f own a duplex at this address andfive in one side and am ilefinately in favor of this project, would
clean up area and be a great improvement for the City of Meridianin the Old Town District.
Mr. Ewing also presented \rrritten testimony
of 157 East Ada Street r,rhich stated he was
proj ect .
from l.lerlyn Schmeckpeper
also in favor of this
No Further comments, Public Hearing closeil .
The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Schearer
City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions
Conditional Use Permit request by Leon Gingrich.
to have the
on the
l"lotion Carried: A11 Yea:
The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole that the findings
reflect recommendation of approval by the Commission to the city
Counc i I .
Motion Carried: A11 Yea:
Item #3: Findings of Fact and Conclusions on Comprehensive Plan
Amendments.
(3)
Chairman Spencer advised the Commiss j-on there were two sets of findings,one on the Corunissions proposed Amendments and one on the UplandIndustries request, that'they would act first on the Commissionsproposal.
The Motion $ras made by Morrow and seconded by Cole that the MeridianPlanning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves theseFindings of Eact and Concfusions on the Planning and Zoning Commissionproposed Amendments .
Motion Carried: Morrow, Yea: Alidjani, Yea: Johnson, Yea: Shearer, Yea
Cole, Yea:
The Motion was mad.e by !'lorrov, and seconded by Cole that the MeridianPlanning and Zoning Commissj-on hereby recommends to the City Councilthat the Planning and Zoning Commission proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amend.ments pertaining to (1) the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure,(2) The Meridian Urban Limits Functional Transportation Map, and (3)the Area of Impact, be idopted by the City Council.
Motion Carried: A11 Yea:
Chairman Spencer , does theon the Findings of Fact antl
reque s t ?
Commission have any questions or comments
Conclusions on the Upland Industries
Cornmissioner Johnson, I notice in reading these Findings it speaksseveral times to not having sufficient evidence as to vJhy this request
should be granted. I feel that the Commission is partly at faultfor not explaining what is needed and addressing the issues further.
Chairman Spencer,
findings read ?
is there anyone in the audience who wishes these
There was no response.
The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Alidjani that the
Planning and zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these
of Fact and Conclusions.
l,lotion Carried:Morrow, Yea: Alidjani, Yea: Johnson, Yea:
Shearer, Yea: Co1e, Yea:
Mer id i an
Findings
The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Johnsonthat the Meridian
planninq and zoning commission hereby recommends to the city council (1)
That the Applicant,s proposetl amendment to remove from the North curve
Neighborhood the "Rural Residential Reserve" designation from the
entire Northeast Ouarter of Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 1East,
of the Boise-Meridian, Ada county, Idaho and south of Fairview Avenue,
be adopted. l2l the Applicant's ptoposed amendment to provide that
the enlire Northwest euarilr of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1
East, of the Boise-M.iidiun, Ada County, rdaho be designated in the
compihensive plan as a site for a Regional shopping center_but subiect
to Londitions to be imposetl at the time of proper zoning of the
propertyr be adoPted.
Motion Carried: A11 Yea:
l^
(4)
Commissioner Morrow saidfor the Findings of Fact
was the concensus of the
he felt the City Attorney should bethat were prepared on this request,
rest of the Commission Members.
commendedthis also
Commissioner Morrow, at the recent workshop v,re all were of the opinionthat there were several other iterns in the Comprehensive Plan that
needed corrected and these have to be completed by February, I feelthe Commission should start on them. as soon as possible.
The Motion was made by l"lorrow and seconded by Alidjanj. to schedule a
workshop on December 4, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. to start the process nec-
essary to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
Motion Carried: Alf Yea:
Being no further business to come befor the Commission the Motion was
made by Alidjani and seconcled by Cole to adjourn at 8:10 p,m.
Motion Carried: A11 Yea:
APPROVED:
BOB SPENCER, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
Jack Niemann, CJ-ty Clerk
P\- .Mayor & Council
P& Z CoNnissi-on
Police, Fire, JUB
Stuart, Ward, Kiebert,
Atty, Hein, Mitich
Va1ley News, Statesman
ACHD, ACC, ACZ,NMID
APAI CDH
FiIe (3
Mail (3
I
AMBFOSE.
FITZGERALO
A CFOOKSTON
P.O. Sot a27
9lo42
T.l.Dhon€ 88&aat1
Page I
NOTICE OF PIJBLIC HEAIIIIiC
NOTICE IS HEREBY GMN that the City Council of the City of
Meridian wi,1l hold a public hearing at 7:30 orclock p.m. on
Decerdrer 3, 1984, at the Pteridian City Hal1, 728 }4eridian Street,
Meridian, Idaho, for the purpose of considering the application of
Upland Industries Corporation to amend the Conprehensive PIan of
the City of l.leridian. The application of Upland Industries to
amend the Comprehensive Plan, .in summary, requests that the North-
west Quarter of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range l East, B.f4.,
be designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a site for a regional
shopping center and that the "Rural Residential Reserve"
designation, south of Fairview Avenue in Sectron 8, Township 3
North, Range I East, B.M., be removeC.
NOTICE IS FURTIIER GIVEN that the City Council vri11 also hold
a public hearing directly after the abo',/e referenced hear:inc-, to
the Planning and Zoning Commission's amendments to the tleridian
Comprehensive Plan which, in summary, relate to the followlnqr
items:
1. tunendments to the Comprehensive Plan to change Lhe
amend.ment procedure conta.ined in the P1an. Said proposed amend-
ments would shol:ten the sequence of events and enable the Plan-
ning and zoning Commission and the City Council to process Cor'.-
prehensive Plan amendments in a more timely and efficient manner.
2. Ar€ndments to the Comprehensj.ve PIan to reflect the
City's approval of the I{eridian Urban Limits and Functional
I
I
tl
+ , r,J i1 5rl:l +o Iizttuot yJ-i3 srij :r,3t'5 143\rIi Y:liqEiCH ili tr3ITor{
fio .r'r.(; {oo.l.c'o 0t:l J6 pfir:rsed 5r.[cftJq 6 blori IIiw neibi:el".
rJ3 :iJa 116ibr:!91{ SS! .Iiol: rrJil nsibi-.r9rr 3dj l5 . \8el .e -r 3CJrgle(i
1o r: iJscilqqs o rirj r.,rr j,:: ob j.ano--) 1o gaoq:u(t ar{J :rof , or{6b1 r nr'ibi:i3F1
1o nslcl ov t arroaigl qmol er{J SarsritE oj n.- i-J E:rL}.-i:to j zs;-tJeubfiI 5rte.lrIJ
J eeiajaubnT bircIqi, io no.rjecr Iq.lri eri.' , n6iI]iriill Io yJif erjJ
-flj:r 14 9rl.'] j6dJ aJaelr-,per , \':r6finu" ,; , , r'r6I'j ev.j afioCe:{.{mol 9CJ bEgn6
,. .g .Ja6T I epnn,q \ C.:i'roi4 i girjanr'rcr- ,o ,roliaee 1o :rej:r6uQ Jae'..i
Js oipe--r i :rof siie s a.6 nslq sv i artsds:qrro) stl3 rri boJ6ni)iasb ecl
"evre?slf l6ijnrbl?srtl .[E]UJ'I" srij JEI1J bns rsJlial I)fiiq(lorla
sirtzrlo) .8 rioi-:'39a ttr otrrr31'.^. :.r9iv:r iEt! lo tijloe .rroiJe ri;:iasb
.5gvoj.rsr ?d ! .lJ.8 ,-1:r;3 I epnr,.fi . rljxoll
h I :l o:.:lc iiirL' -l -icni.;o3 \:Jif erlj i6rij ,lEvIir fttri(TflUq aI JfITOl,l
., ')rti'Lf:)er: be:ng:g1c:r 9\.oC6 eC.i -r.,J16 "l-il.r:tb pair:-,ld oridr-,rt s
'; iir L:roy e.lJ oJ e-n.yoiibnf-lrx6 i"'noiaa-i"r,r.l) priIIo! .brrr, pfJiri;r6-Iq edJ
tit i,"'cI-t(]1 gaij oJ eJ6Iea r \.i( };J;trrrrj a rr-i , ric iri'.v ccI,'l ev i e r.grte:qrnc3
: 3flI'rj I
gr:J srnsf.c oJ n6lq gvl:sflsd{rf .}mol ..; dJ oJ ajngmbngru'\ .I
-h. ;;-',i s bgeoo'.;'r.: bisS . n6-t1 IrtJ 5i ia;ii-EJnoo orube"oiq J fi sflrhi-r g116
-: sig er!.j o-[d.6fio 5Jr6 aJfl9vo I c e]fl3llp9a er{J rrgj:tode bluow aJ fier1
- ):) ail:)3c1fo oJ I iAlttro3 yJiS ca{J ,xF, rroieeim.rio3 po-inOS bns :,ir,ir.t
.:rsr 16r( :f as t:il f s bce y.[ sm-rJ 3:roi.] . .1i ajrrsmi:fle,,-rE fl6lq 9r.ri2a91i91q
gdi JorJ].J'! oJ fl-6_t.,- sv.i a.flc dsa qmr.r! .:r r:l:t oJ aJognh$gmii . !
Itl roo O.q
garr
rtrlG6o.!q.r.I
AMBFOSE,
FITZGEFALO
TCFOOKSTON
P.O. Bor 427
E36/2
T.l.Dhons E8a.a!l!1
Page 2
Classification Transportation l.{ap which was approved by the
Council on Jul-y 5, 1983, and signed by the l{ayor on July 1, 1983.
3. Amendments to the Cornprehensive Pl-an to reflect Lhe
agreement between the City of l.{eridian and Ada County to change
the Area of Impact of the City of Meridlan. It is specifically
noted that an Area of Iopact Agreement has been agreed upon and
entered into by Ada County and the City of Ueridian and the Area
of Impact is as shown on the attached map.
The Planning and Zoning Commission has made recommendations to
the City Council concerning these Comprehenslve P1an Amendments
and Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
These hearings are being held pursuant to Title 67, Chapter
65 Idaho Code, the Revised and Compiled ordinances of the City of
Meridian, and the l4eridian Comprehensive PIan. Any and aIl
interested persons may testify or present documentary evidence.
DATED thirs//4)hdary of November, 1984.
W,A,I L*--.rafli Nteinany', city clerk
,r:J \:d bgvo:rgq6 e6v,' da-iCr/ qrit fio rJ6J:r cq i: jr6:iT itoi:t6oi1 ieesIS
r.[ .I vIuL rro :loi,-.Jr r,rJJ vtl [-.e.i ,.ii: bnc .C8QI r d r'[i-,1, ,r c., j,tcnuo3
sdj JCOl19: OJ fisIrr !,' r.r an sri.J a.-itjro.] grLJ oJ ajrreir[b.i:rrnA . e
)fiEd! oJ yjrluol.) 65F. i)n6 .iarbl:(ell 1,3 .i3i3 erij rigr'.,;f 5C Jfiitleg:rp6
I-sa.i:t 13sqa trl J I ..,s jij-:.I,1 1q; y3i3 odj 1o :i36qml 1o 6o1..\ ciiJ
is froqrj bee:po flsgci a6fl j fi$,''139:i',A -+?6,lrql lo so:A a6 jr,fjj irgJon
:,4 odj i)rl6 fl6ibr:r9l' i c,iJ.!3 sdJ bns vJ r"r ol eir:i -..c{ ojr-rr bgf si.rg
:iriifl bgrl3$JJ6 sdj no rrlrodij tr,; ar J.J6cjflr"t :to
rc j J Bbngrrl,qroa e:r sbGi;: et.ti floieextqo: r)ri j rcS brts pn-cnnsig er{I'
i]9m[]rrriiA n6 Irt a,v , ertorierrJno3 lasr:.i ,.:r-i-n:tgCCOc ,L ir{r:oC Yjil st{J
. ano tar [:iro3 Dns Jo6T ],:) epr, ibniq Ilfl6
.fe
I
6a
oi.l
a
:1 ,Jq6C,) \l) OIJiT of JnEUefUcl b[.,t' :,r'rrgd e:r6
() 'J.r1 sr{J 1o a-Baogfi.ijrlO boii$tro) br'r5 beeiv3fl
-[I c bne i'l.l,r.. . rlr,i{ sv i a n orig'-r ct,r():) ns rbl]e}1
. '.'.,.1-(s Lve .il6Jnsfnu:,(,b J t.igee:rir ro yl iJagJ ./6llr
apci:rserl oaodT
eCJ . s5of odsbf d rl
er-lJ . bfis . ne iirr:sM
afioe19q IJoJegf sjrni
. $3Q-t ,redm!r'/oi.i :1o
lir ro8 .O I
lr*0
Itl}ttrdEdq.Li
y''-'
I
Calh
If,dllm lnr ol
Glt, lr.ca
tla:lf,rtllrl Cltl tlrttr
r&&;riLl.ar.[ l,rr."
U,S Highwoy 20-26I
)
Mc Millon
I
l-
I
I
Rrt
t
Ro
autla
a'a,
o
Ct
Y
-I
-I
\,
I
\
olo
Rood
3l
Rood
36 I
-
Uilrch
a
t,
o
o
oUS Hr hr
I
l0r
if'
Efl
,lri'
roa Pocift s:'l'.t;O
us 70n,F t d
!i r I'a
aJ
lnlcr rlo I e h
8oE
ili
EJ !,oot
t,oot Vrc lory
I
a
(
)
al
I\
ooE
mrl
o
(9
al
Ef. Lol t
C
.9!
al
:
s6 55(,o
3r
Horcl
o
o
LJ
I
-tR"od
6
t'ul I
-I
-
I.,
t.lrI
-
AMBFOSE.
FITZGEFALD
I CaOOXSTON
P O.8or aZ,
lana2
.r.phon. 888.aacr
PAGE 1
BETIORE THE CITY COUNCII OF THE CITY OF !{ERIDIAN
UPLAND INDUSTRII]S APPLICATION
TO N.IEND THE MERIDIAN
COI{PREHENSIVE PI,AN TO DESTGNATE
?IIE SOUTHEAST QUADR}.NT OF EAGLE
ROAD AIiD TAIP.\/IET{ AVENUE AS A
SIE T'OR A REGIOIIAL SITOPPTNG CENTER
FINDINGS OF FACT AND COIJCLUSIONS
The above entj.tled application to amend the Meridian
Comprehensive PIan having come on for public hearing and the Pl-an-
nig and Zoning Conmission having made findings of fact and conclusio
and given the City Council its recorunendation on said application
and the City Council hatinqr heard any and all testitnony that was
submltted, and hating duly considered all the evidence, officially
noticed evidence, and facts, the Comprehensive Plan itself. the
Local Planning Act of 1975, the Planning and Zoning Cornmission lind-
ings of Fact and Concl-usions, the City Council makes the fo11o,',,inc.:
F'INDINGS OF FACT
1. That the
Corporation and is
the City Counci I.
application was s ubntj- t ted by
not an anrendment ProPosed bY
Upland Indus tries
the ConnisSion or
2. Tilat the specific parcels of property to r,Thich the applica
tion pertains are the Northwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 3
North, Range 1 East, Boise-ueridian, Ada County, Idaho, (hereafter
referred to as Parcel 1) r^rhich is conrnonIy known as the ScutheasL
corner of the intersections of Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue, and
S
I
I
ti
I
lt
I
AMEFOSE,
FIT2GEFALD
&cRooxsToN
P O- Bora27
a36a2
:cr!9hon. cE8-arrG r
PAGE 2
the Northeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 1East,
Boise-Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, (hereafter referred to as parcel
2) which is commonly known as the Southvrest corner of the inter-
section of Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue.
3. That the two speci-fic parcels included in the application
are contained within Meridian's Area of Impact; the parcels are
included rvithin the Urban Service Planningr -Area and have been in the
City limits for over two years. The Parcel,s rrrere zoned industrial
at the time of their annexation and are presently zoned Light
Industrial .
4. The Conprehensive PIan Policy Diagram appears to designate
the area within which tl.e two parcels are located as follor.rs: for
Parcel 1 in the "Eastern Industrial Review Area" and for Parcel 2
in the "Rural Resialential Reserve" of the "North Curve Neighborhood"
and the "Eastern Industrial Review Area. " The Pfan also generally
designates one site for a regional shopping center, that being at
the I-84,/fleridian Road Interchange. In order to develop Parcel 1 as
a regional shopping center the Applicantrs proposed amendments per-
taining to a regional shopping center must be approved. Likewise th
Applicantr s amendments to remove the I'Rural Residential Reserve"
from Parcel 2 should be approved to a1low the proposed industriaf
development and rermve the possible conflict that exists between the
Plan and the present zoning of Parcel- 2.
5. The application has been processed under the -Arnendment
Provision and Procedures of the Plan as set forth on pages 54, 55,
AMABOSE,
fITZGENALD
t caooKsroN
(5a2
j .lrphono 88E461
PAGE 3
and 55 of the Plan and the Local planning Act of 1975, Title 67,
Chapter 65, Idaho Code.
6. Pursuant to the Amendment Provi"sion and Procedures of the
Plan and the Local Planning Act, the Planning and Zoning Com$ission
has made its findings of Fact and Conclusions and has maCe its
recommendation to the City Council. The Cj-ty Council has reviewed
those Findings and Conclusions and relies on them for many of the
Findings and Conclusions made herein.
7. That the City Council held a iluly notj.ced public hearing o
the application on Decetnber 3, 1984; that notice of said public
hearing was publisheC in the Valley News, the official ner+spaper of
the City of Meridian, in two consecutive issues the first of $rhich
was published frfteen (15) days prior to Decerber 3, 198a, the date
of the publ j-c hearing; that notice of said hearing was available to
other nevispapers, radio and television stations,
8. That there have been no changes in the application since
the Decenber 3, 1984 public hearing nor were there any changes in th
application since it uras submitted.
9. The Commission found that the application addressed the
and ProceduresAmendment reguirements
set forth at page 54 of
such findings.
under the Amendnent Provision
the Plan anC the City Council agrees witlt
10. The applicant's reasons why the Pl-an should be amencled ar
stated in application as follows:
l.Theconditionandsi-tuationwhichwarrantsthechangebein
il
AMgFIOSE,
FlrZGEEALO
t caooxsroN
P.O Aor a27
3Xa2
PAGE 4
2
made in the Plan is that the City of t{eridian and itssurrounding area are not served by a Regional ShoppingCenter and that the property belonging to the petitionerj.s amenSble to development of a Regional Shopping Centerwith outstanding representation by major department stores,specialty stores and services for the residents of the Cityof l,leridj.an and the surrounding region. The land in questi
has heretofore been annexed into the City of t{eridian.
The public need for and benefit from such a change in the
Comprehensive Plan would generally be to:
(A) Provide for the orderly growth of the City ofMeridian and its environs;
(B) Make readily avai.lable to the residents of theCity of Meridian a vride range of store and shoppin5,facilj,ties and services that can only be furnished
by a Regional Shopping Center:
(C) To attract to the City of lleridian and. seneratewithin the City a large volume of business that
vrould result from the location vrithln the City
a Regional Shopping Center of adequate size to
serve the entire Tieasure Ya11ey and netropolitan
market;
(i)) The current designation of a single site for a
proposed regional shopping cente h,ithin the Cityof l,leridian has been in effect for several years.
The property though designated has not proved
adequate to attract the major retailers necessaryto support the development of a regional shopping
center. It is probable that the northern Ada
County area in which the City of luleridian is
situate is one of the largest metropolitan markets
in the entire nation not presently served by a
Regional Shopping Center. The size of the
popufation within the metr:opolitan area and the
trade area vrould indicate that qiven a suitable
location for a Regional Shopping Center, the rna jor
retail stores necessary to make up the developnent
of such Regional Shopping Center vrould hasten to
enter the market. Upland Inclustries Corporation
submits that the site at the intersection of
Fairvie\,i, Avenue and Eagte P.oad wil-I be able to
attract these major retail stores and that the
Regional Shopping Center can equally becone a
reality. It is aPparent by reason of the inability
I
I
AMBFOSE,
FIfZGEFAID
T CFOOKSTON
P.O. Bor.27
43642
PAGE 5
of the presently desj-gnated sites and of theBoise Re-Development Administration to attract
establ,ishment of a Regional Shopping Center eitherat these other sites or in the downtown Boise area,that the major retail firms have not found thoseother locatj-ons to be adeguate for theii needs.
11. The Application, in general terms, requests that Parcel I
be identified and designated in the Plan as a site for a regional
shopping center and that the "Rura1 Residential Reserve" desiqna-
tion of the Plan be remoyed from Parcel 2. The Application
continues in specific terms to request specific changes to the
Policy Diagram and to nany of the policies and objectives of the
various components of the Plan such that the Planrs focus on a
si-ngle clesignation of a regional shopping center site is changed to
a two site designation focus. t4any of the specific requested
ch-anges do not deal with the regional- shopping center portion of
the P1an, but with other components of the Plan tl1at would be
effected by a two site designation, one at Eag1e Road and Fairvievr
and one at }{eridian Road and I-84. However, the requested changes
are mainly a result of two site designations,
The Application, ho\.rever, requests that even in the event the
eagle Road,/Fai-rview Avenue site is not approved for a regional
shopping center, that approval be given for removal of "Ruraf
Residential Reserve" d6signation South of Fairview Avenue so the
present Light Industrial zoning is definj-teIy not in confLict with
the PIan.
12.The Application sets forth in paragraph Seven as follows:
"It 1s respectfully submitted that the suitability
AMBROSE
FITZGEBALD
I CROOKSTON
P.O.8ora27
gt6a2
PAGE 6
fpr a regional shopping center of this location atthe intersection of Eagle Road and Fairvier\, Avenuein the City of Meridian will be amply demonstratedby Lhe testimony and exhibits to he introduced atthe hearings on this cause, which will consistgenerally of reference to the suitability of the,lite itself for development, transportation accessto and from from the site, demographj-c study of trendsfor the growth of the City of l.leridian and llorthern
Ada County and the Transportation Plan for Northern
Ada County, together rrith Petitioner's proposed
improvenents to be made to the property. "
The Applicant presented to the Comrnission no testimony or exhibits
at the hearings held on this Application along the fines represented
by the
tho se
above guoted statement. However, the applicant
areas at the hearing before the City Council when
That the Plan, j,n ciealing with Comrnercial
regional shopping center is one, states as
Activity Centers at pages 19 & 20:
REGIONAL SIIOPPING CE}iTER: AS thc lATqCSt
did address
it subnitted
its document i
Comprehen s i ve
ntitled Testimony In Suppo rt Of Application For
P1an Amendment. Additionally tl'rose areas were addres-
sed by the testirr]ny of John Itlelaniphy in his oral presentation at
the City Council hearing held Decenber 3, 199r.
13.
of which a
Comme rcia 1
Ac t j. vi ti/
fol l or.r s
Center
unde r
Activity Center.s; it is designed to serve
of the Commerci
Ada County and
Treas ure Va I l-ethe surrounding counties which mahe up the
In at1 cases, the focations of Commercial Activity Center
should be guided by performance and develoPment standards
These standards consider, among other asPects:
Traffic Volume anC TYPe
TriP Generation
Impacts on Arterial street SYStem
Pr6ximity to other Comrnercial Development'
Iripacts on Neighborhoocl Residential Areas
eccessibility of Si te
Parking Demands
t
AMBROSE.
FIIZGERALD
ICFOOXSTON
P.O. Bor 427
a36a2
.phon.888-aa6l
PACE 7
Pede6trian CirculationAvailabl,e Utility SystemsAesthetics (Design Consi derations )
Drai nage
l{eridian is encouraging the potential, development of aRegional Shopping Center near the Meridian,/Kuna Road
Freeway interchange. When it becomes a reality, it will
have a sj-gnificant impact upon l4eridian and has thepotential of becoming lteridi.anrs nev, Central Busj-nessDistrict. The proposed private development program ca11sfor over a r4i l- Iion-squa re- foot shopping center, wliich wiIlprovide a wide variety of retail enterprises and sup-porting commercial uses (such as office complexes, multi-family residential units, medical cIj-nics, motels andentertainment faci lities ) .
POLICIES
The evaluation of the Regional Shoppinq Center
developr.ent shal1 be primarily based upon its
consistency srith the land use policies of l!er-dian's Conprehensive Plan, as well as the futureaj-r quality plan of Igorthern Ada County.
2
3 As the specific plans are prepared and implemen-
]tation and construction ti-metables are estahlish-
ed, the evaluation and revierr' of the Regional
IShopping Center development shall be conducted
]through an Environmental Impact Analysis procedur]
14. The Local Planning Act of 1971> indicates in Section 67-
6508 tiat the Plan shoulC be based on the following components:
population, economic development, land use, natural resources;
hazardous areas, public services, faci3,ities, and utilities, trans-
portation, recreation, special areas ; sites, housing, connunl ty
design, and implementation.
e.
1. It is the policy of the City of !.reridian to
encourage and support the development orc a
Regional Shopping Center as the core cornmercialactj-vity within Meridian's Urban Service Pl-an-
ning Area, as well as the Treasure Va11ey.
I
AMBROSE,
FI]ZGERALO
E CAOO(SIoN
PO gor a27
atoa2
15. That.the Applicant at the Planning anC Zoning Conmission
level faited to address almost all of the itens referred to in
paragraphs 13 ancl 14 above but at the hearing and in its evid.ence
before the City Council the Applicant addressed all of those iteEs
in paragraph 13 and most of the relative signifj,cant factors in
paragraph 14.
16. That the items contained in paragraph 13 above are
thirteen in number, they reaIly deal with the following seven items,
to wit: a) traffic, vehicular or p6destrian,' b)pro.ximity to other
commerci-al developrrcnti c) impact on neighborhood residential areas,
d)available utility svstemsi e) aesthetics i f)use impacts upon other
adjacent uses; and g) drainage
a) TPAITIC
1. That the testimony subnitted by the Applj-cant
concludes that theii focation i-s excellant because
of its location on two major arteriels, Fairview
Avenue and Eagle Road. Ho\r'ever, their evidence adnits
that vast irnpr:ovrnents woulci. have to be r.ade to those
two arterials over anc] .r.hove improvements already
planned for Eagle IloaC due to its inclusion in the
State Highv/ay system as a restrlt of the Eagle Road,/
I- 84 Interchange .
2. That additionally trre Applicant admits that vast
improvements would have to be made to lairview Avenue.
Fairvier^r Avenue is already heavily burden along its
route where comnercj.al activj-ties have l:een developed.
3. That besj-des the above improvements, Applicant's
evidence makes several assumptions of road im-
provements in their study area as a restllt of
residential needs. These assumed improvements includ-
ed 6ix (6) tanes on Fairview Avenue, four (4) lanes
on Franklin Road, four (r-) lanes on Eagle Rodd betweer
the proposed interchange and Ustick Road, four (4)
lanes on Cloverdale Road !)etween Overland Road and
ll "*' '
AMABOSE.
FITZ GENALD
T CFOO(STON
P.O. Aot a27
8i5a2
r.r.9hon. 86&ail0l
Franklin Road; and four (4) lanes on Eive l{iIe
Road between Overland Road and Franktin Road. No
evidence was submitted from the !.da County Highvray
Department or the State of Idaho Department ofTransportation that these assumptions of improvements
due to residential growth were valid or that the
improvements could or woul-d be made even if fj-nances
$rere not a problem.
4. That in the traffice study area bounded bylterialian Road on the West, Ustick Road on the North,
l,Iaple Grove Road on the East, and Overland Road onthe South, vast improvements need to be made and thes
improvements are discussed on pages V-2I and V-22 of
the Applicantrs Testimony. Only entrances on Eagl-e
Road and Fairview Avenue are claimed to be siterelated improvements. The other improvements are
either assumed improvements or it is not stated
whether those improvements are site related or assume
improvements.
5. That the Ada County Hiqhway District is under the
same It budget and tax restraints is the City of
l,te riclian; that the testimony reveals that the traffic
study "is not intended to imply any direct responsibi
ity for improvements either by the developer, the Ada
County Highway District or the fdaho Transportation
Department... The final responsibility for
implementing any recommendeC improvements above and
beyond those planned by Ada Countlr, wifl have to be
negotiated between the developer, the ACIID and the
ITD.' (p. [-21, Testimf,ny).
6. That the shopping center r^rould generate 37,200
trips per day and that the automobile would be used
almost exclusively for those trips i that comparing
Figure 5.1 (p. v-2, Testimony) which supposedly show
the expected level o f-Eiif-JEIZ-i n 19 8I wi thout a
shopping center at Applicant's location with Figure
5.5 (p. V-12, Testimony) which supposedllz shovrs the
expected level of traffic if the shopping center were
built, a great increase in traffic 1ev61s is shown-
Comparing the figures on Fairvieu, Avenue from Clover-
dale Road to Eagle Road there would be an increase of
4L,490 daily trips due -to the shopping center; like'
wise on Eagle Road from Fairview Avenue to Franklin
Road there hrould be an increase of 27,320 dai-ly trips
likesise there would be significant increases in trip
traffic on tJ.e other arteriels in the study area due
ll "o"u ,
I
AMBnOSE.
FIIZGEAALO
E CROOI(STON
P.O. Box a27
ar642
PAGE ]- O
burdened and inadequate, that I'ranklin lload has
recently been improved but is stifl only t\r'o lanes:
that C1;verdale Road and Five ;!iIe rload lvere recently
to the placenent of a shopping cente! at Applicant'slocation.
7. That the testimony of the Applicant reveals thatthe impact on the arterial street system would be
severe.
8. Ihat the Ada County Highway District conducted abond election in approximately l-983 to aide theDistrict in financing needed j,mprovements to the
roads within the District; that said election did not
s uccee d ,
9. That the Applicant has stated that the site isexcellantly situated for access due to being situatedat the intersection of Eagle Road and Fairview
Avenue, (p. III-1, Testimony) ; that A pplicant furtherstates that a regional shopping site must be con-venient to reach over roads lvith enough unused trafficapacity to avoid high 1ev6Is of congestion.
10. Assuming the road improvments suclgested by theApplicant, the site would haVe good accessibillty.
11. That the Applicant states there v:oul-d be 4,000-
5,000 parking spaces with an averaqe of 400 squarefeet per parking space.
12. That the Applicantcirculation or internalto provi de the Proposed
Testimony) and to po j-nt
did not detail pedestrlan
circulation design othe.r than
Ma1l Site Plan (fi. \lIIl-2,
out the rj-ng road.
13. The Applicant stated there would be two site
access roads off of Eagle Road and three access roads
off of Fairview with one access on each road being
signalized and the others not,' that iriprovements to
both roads would be required to accomplish ease of
direct access to the site frorn those roads.
14. That the roads in the area, particularly Fairvie
Avenue and Eagle Road are not in good repaii, that
Eagle P,oad is norv a narrovT two lane road; that the
Eagle Road,/I-84 Interchange project vri11 bring some
improverflents to Eagle Road; that lairview is a four
lane road, that the closer you get to Boise and
exj-sting conmercial developrnent is extremelY over-
il
AMBFOSE.
FIfZG€FALO
t cFooKsrotJ
P.O aor 427
6it6a2
.r.phoh.6884451
PAGE 1}
improved and resurfaced but are still only two laneroadsi that no evidence r./as submitted.by the Applicarias to hohr the road improvement it states would benecessary would be financed.
15- That the Clty ofjurisdiction over the
responsibi fity.
Mer i di an
roads nor
not haveit have financinq
does
doe s
b ) PROXII,IITY TO OTHER CO]IIIERCIAL DEVELOPIIE]NTS
1. That the Applicantrs ma1l location is two miles
from Cherry Plaza and a l-ittfe more than two miles
from Downtorvn Meridian; that j-t is two rdles fron ther:etaiI shops at Faiiview Avenue and Five Uile Road.
2. That the Applicant states that "The development oa regronal shopping center at its location should not
have an adverse impact on the retail facilities
located rn l4eridian, nor should it have a significant
impact on the bilance of retail facilitj,es, mainly,
shopper goods stores, in Ada County. " That in supporof that statement the Applicant polnts out that theretail i.n ileridian is not of a reqional nature nor is
there a regional mall in Ada County from rvhich itsmall would drar.r arvay cu:Btor,lers.
3. That there h/as no evidence submitted contrary to
Applicant's statement however, it is noted that there
has been testimony in a prior annexation and comprehe
sive plan amendment application ( Quong) in which
opponents to that application testified that a regj-on
maIl built along Eagle Road would be detrimental to
retail trade in downtown lleridian.
4 - That it rilus t af so be noted
was built it did Craw business
areas of Nampa and Caldvref 1.
that when
av:,ay f rom
I(archer i,la 11
the Cown tovrn
5. That f'airvievr Avenue has historically been
devetoped as a retail corridor and that coxu'rercial-
development has and is, extending towards Yeridian
from Boise .
c)IIIPACT ON NEIGHBO\,HOOD. RFSIDENTIAT ARE}.S
1. That there is not any significant residential
development surrouridinE the Applicantrs location: wha
residences there are in the area are hones related to
farm activities.
I
I
I
il
I
AMEROSE.
FIZGENALO
e cFooxsIoN
P.O Aor /t27
tsa2 PAGE 12
2. ?hat there is some contj_nuing residential- develop,ment in the North Curve lleighborhood:. that suchdevelopnent is approxi-mately one mile from theApplicant's si te.
d) AVAII,ABLE UTILITY SYSTE},IS
1. That the Applicant, is the owner of 160 acreas inthe Southwest Quadrant of the intersectj-on of Faj-rvie
Avenue and Eagle Road which it is developing as anindustrial park. The Applicant is bringing sewer andwater service to that parcel. As a result water and
sewer service will be adjacent to and available forApplicants maI1 location. Costs for these extensionswil-I be the Applicantrs.
2. That the Applicant is likewise bringing electricigas, and, telephone service to its industrial park and,
there fore those utilities will be adjacent add
available to Applicantrs mal,l site. Costs for these
extensions will be Applicantr s.
3. That no evidence hras submitted'as
the City's water and sewer facilities
the development of Applicantrs site as
shopping mall.
to
as
a
the impact oa result of
reqiona 1
4- That the Applicant's land is in the City lirnits
and at the time of its annexation the City conmitted
water and. sewer services to the site, however, such
comrni tmen t vras for an industrial use. No detailed
evidence was submitted showing L\e difference in costif any, between providing hrater and sewer to a
regional shopping center as opposed to an industrial
park.
E) AESTIIETICS
The Appticant submitteC no evidence cletailing tbe
aesth6tic effect of locating a rial1 at its site other
than its general site plan; a requirement of such at
this juncture may be Premature.
f)USE IMPACTS UPO}{ OTHER ADJACENT USES
I. The Applicant states that a
center would be comPatible with
park.
regional shopping
its l"ight indus trial
surrounding the site is
industrial and warehouse2. The r.a joritY of
agricultural; there
the fand
is some
AMBBOSE.
FIIZGERALO
E CROOKSTON
136.2
6r.Phon€ 8aE{zt6t
PAGE 13
of Lhe polj-cies is stated at page 12
17.
Paragraph 14
paragraph 15
addressed by
the in te gra I
effects these
to amend the
use south of the proposed ma 11 site.
significant residential use in the3- There is no
adjacent areas.
4. No specific evidence was submitted as to theeffect a mall- at this location r^,ould have on DowntownMeridian other than a conciusionary remark whj-chstated Downtown should not be adversely effected. This discussed in another finding.
S) DRATNAGE
This item is discussed ancl adeguatley presented asapparently the drainage plans for Applicant's malIsite and its industrial park have been approved
although no specific evidence \.7as submitted evidencin
this approval as to the ma11 site.
That nlost of the important items referred to in
and set forth in 67-6508, Idaho Codev as stated in
above, have been addressed: that these items need to be
an application to amend a comprehensive plan as tirey ar
componen ts of the original plan; any proposed amendment
components. It is felt,however, that this application
Plan to tocating a regional shopping center viould not ]
effect the folloling components: Natural Resources, Hazardous Area
Recreation, Special Areas or Sites, and Inplementation. The other
components would be effected and should be addressed and in most
cases were addressed by the Applicant and are discussed bel,ow,
A) POPULATION
L. That the POPULATIQN GROI{TH sectj.on of the Plan
-begins wit-h tFe Tolflowinq -tatement:
"Encourage orderly growth for a seLf-sufficient
comnunity, but Ciscourage unplanned g::owth within or
adjacent to the Citlz 3nd the Urban Service Planning
Area (USPA) . " (PIan, P.12)
Likewise , one
as follows:
S
I
AMBAOSE,
FITZGEBALD
a cFrooxsToll
P.O Bor a27
E!E'2
'I6l.thon EOiE-aa€1
PAGE 14
!'Unimproved or unrealized land within the MeridianCity l-imits and Urban Service Planning Area shou1d beutilized in order to maximj-ze public j.nvestments,
curtail urban sprawl and protect existing agriculturalands from unnecessary infringement.',
2. The Applicant concludes in its Testimon that t-]1edesignation of a second ma11 sit eat a ts property h/ougive Meridian rrD re opportunities to r,rork tor^rard thegoal of increased economic self-sufficency (TestirDny,
p. \rI-5) and that to maintain Lhe agricultural landsurrounding its site the City could do so by proper
zoning. (Testimony, p. VI-4 )
3. That Appl,icant speaks to the population base
necessary to support a regional mall (Testimony, p.III-2) and speaks to the demoqraphics,. existing and
expected (Testimony, p. III-4) in Ada County and in
specific radius surrounding its location.
4. The Applicant does not speak to population or
demographics as such specifically relate to ueridian
and how the location of a mall at its site would effe
the population and demographics of l4eriCian; fi-gures
or projections for such may not, hohrever, be readilyavailable or easily obtainable.
5. The Testimony does indicate that there would be a
net gain in jobs to the community and that many -of
these jobs could go to Meridian residents. (Testir.pny
p. vI-7)
b ) EcoNourc DEI,/ET,oPMENT
1. The Plan
contains the
developr,ent:
encourages economic development.follovrinq policies as to general
It
e conomi
p.15 "The City of }.leridian sha11 make every effort
to create a positive atmosphere \{hich encouragej-ndustrial and commercial enterprises to locate
in Meridian.
It is the policy of the Citlz 61 Merj-alian to
aside areas where cornmercial and iDdustrial
interest and activities are to dominate.
set
Stripping of industrial and colnmercial uses are
not in compliance \^,i th the Comprehensive Plan."
d
t
AMBFOS€.
FITZGER LO
e cFooxsToN
P.O Bor.27
636a2
. 'cDlro.. l6E-ail61
PAGE 15
2. The Plan at page
Econonic Development
p.14
14 as its initial statement onstates as follows:
"Stimulate, encourage and give preference
those types of economic activities and
developments which provide opportunities
employment of l.leridian citizens and arearesidents and red.uce the need for persons
commute to neighboring cities.
to
for th
to
The City of l.teridian and its residents view the
econornic enterprises of inCustri,, retail com-mercial and personal services as an integralpart of a planned community. The City'sphysical development, economic stability, sociastratification and institutional effectivenessfor dealin.o \,rith public needs are dependent upo
such economic opportunities. "
3. That the Plan lists three commercial activitycenters, the largest being a Regional Shopping Center
and states as follows at page 19 of the Plan-
p.19 IIREGIONAL SHOPPTNC CFNTER:
As the largest of the commercial activity centeit is designed to serve Acl.a Count], and the
surrounding counties which make up the Treasure
Vall-ey. "
4. That the Plan qoes on to detail the consideration
and standards for the Location of a commercial activi
center. These have previously been stated and dis-
cussed in paragraphs 13 and 16 above of these Finding
5. That the Plan goes on to state vrhere the Regional
Shopping Center is to be located and ddals \dith
specific policies af1 of which have been mentioned in
paragraph 13 above of these Findinqs. The Applicantr
proposed Pfan Amendment does not remove the !4eridian/
Kuna Road/I-84 designation as a site for a Regional
Shopping Cente.r but does add its location as a second
site. The amendment also does not alter the Policiesthat pertain to a Regional Shopping Center. Of
significance in these policies and statements are the
expressed goals that the regional shopping center
could become the central business distri.ct of
l.{eridian and that it could be the core commercial
activity vrithin lqeridianrs Urban Service Planning
Area.
v
I
AMAFOSE,
F ZGEAALO
I CFOOr(SrON
P.O Aox a27
a36a2_.r.phona t66-a461
PAGE 16
C assure Cesired econornic
6. That the Testinrony of the Applicant statesfollows pertaini,ng to the economic devetopmentof a mall located at its site:
That it wouId create 2,500 to 3,000 jobs
annual payroll of over $20,000,000.00
That during construction there woirld be
flrErn-year jobs with a payroll of between
000-00 and $28,000,000.00
as
irnpacL
a
b
with an
over 600
$26 ,000 ,
That these jobs would have a multiplier effect of
creating additional jobs and that there would benet gain of jobs even tl'ro ugh there wolrld be some
shifting of workers .
d
e
That upon completion thesales of $160 ,000,000.00
mafl would have retai Iby 1990 -
o
That the jobs created
residents.
could qo to !{eri di an
That the naI1 at its location ihoul,C not detract
from existing Downtwon l,teridian business and may
compliment them in that they are not of a reqiona
category.
That realization of economic benefit would befaster if its land hrere developed as a regional
ma1l as opposed to an industrail park.
7. That it is noted that the evidence submitted in
ouong Comprehensive Plan I'mendment and Annexation
Application by both lur. Quong and I{r- Nahas shohred
similar economic benefits and impact fron the
development of a Regional Shopping Ma11 at their
respective locations.
de vel-opmen t8. That thepolicies, as
Plan also states as economic
follows at page 15:
p.15 "Positive programs should be undertaken to
support existing industrial and conmle rci a.l- area
to ensure theii continued vitality, such as:
a. Detailed Design studies
b. Economic FeasibilitY Studies
Zoning changes to
developm.ent.
e
I
AMBROSE.
FITAGERALO
t cFooxsToN
P.O Aor /U,
8s6.2
. l.Dho.. 68E-aa6l
PAGE 17
It is the policy of the City of Meridian tosupport shopping facilities which are effectivelintegrated into existing resid_ential areas, andplan for nerv shopping centers as grovJth anddevelopment rlrarrant . "
C ) I,AIID USE
The Comprehensive Plan identifies consi_stencywith land use policies of the Plan as a majorguideline in the evaluation of a regional shop-ping center.
1- .That the Plan identifies three land usesthat are not in compliance with the goals andobjectives of the Plan: polluting industries,strip conunerci a1 or industrail and scattered
residentiil (sprawl or sprea<l) ; that urbansprawl is defined as scattered d.eveloprEnt whicis not contiguous to the urbanized part of themunicipality- Spraw1 is characterizeC bysignificant amounts of vacant land intermixedwith parcles of tlrban development---- formlessdispersal of a congested urban aiea tarith little
or no regard for the i nte rreLationships of suchfactors as logical transportation, employment,health and recreational needs -
2- That the plan presently identifies the land
use of the Applicantts site for industrial
development as part of the Eastern Industrial
Review Area; that Applicantrs amendment would,
of course, bring the proposed mall uses j-nto
conformity with the Plan as amended.
3. That at present there are signifrcant amoun
of vacant land between Applicant's site and ia'h a
would be considered the urbanized portion of
Meridian, or for that matter, Boise.
d) PUBLIC SERVICES, FACILITIES, A1ID UTILITIES
This component has previously been discussed as
part of the location standarCs for a colnmercial
activity center. - (See I'indings 15dr) llowever,
at this juncttre in discussing tbe planning
coFponents the existing policles pertaining to
Public Services, Lrtilities, Facilities should b
no ted .
s
AMBFOSE.
FIIZGEBALO
6 CFOOKSTON
P.O. Bor a27
&1642
PAGE 18
1. That the pertinent fire protection policies
at page 38 of the Plan state as. follows ? '
p, 38 "To insure adequate protection for netr'r
developments, provlsions shalI be made fosatell.rte fire stations erhich have a stafof fire fighters equipped hrith theappropriate fire-fighting facilities.
Improvements regarding the jointly usedcentral Meridian fire station (City and
Rural Fire Districts) should be reviewedperiodically because of the growth and
development \^rithin the t{eridian UrbanService Planning Area.
Adequate water supply and r,,ra ter pressure
should be available to provide fireprotection for urban-type development
within the Urban Service Planning Area."
2. That the pertinant police protection polici
at page 38 of the Plan state'as follows:
P-3e
3. That the pertinent water suPPIy policies at
page 39 of the Plan states as follows:
- ?o The monitorinql and reviev, of the l'leridian
municipal '^7ater system shoulC be continue
because of the Potential for grol'r th and
developrnent within the Urban Service
Planning Area .
A11 new developments shall, be phased as to
their connection to the municiPal central
vrater syste,m within the Urban Service
Planning Area.
Adequate vrater suppLy ehould be avdilable
for fire protec tion .
"Po1i.ce protection within the City limits
and police protection furnished by the
ACa County Sheriffrs Department in the
areas outside the cit}, limits, but within
the Urban Service P]anning Area, should be
assessed for deficiencies according to the
recornmended service ratio of 1.5 to 1.8
policernen Per 1,1)00 Persons. "
il
I
AMBFOSE,
FITZGEFALD
T CFOOXSION
P.O aor 427
E36a2
'!l.phon E66-Lol
PAGE 19
p.26
4. That the pertinent sehrer policies at page
40 of the PIan state as follows:
p.40 A11 new subdivisions, planned developmentsand large conmercial and industrial
developrnent pr:ojects shaIl be required toconnect to the municipal sewer systen.
E) TRANSPORTATIOI.I
This component has previously been partially
discussed as part of the location standards for
commercial activity centers. (See Findin 16 a.)
However, at this juncture of the Findings theexisting PIan policies should be noteil anddiscussed.
1. That the level of service of the transporta
system greatly influences the development andphysical orsanization of the planning area andthe Ci ty.
2. That Fairview Avenue, Frenklin lload, anC
Dagle Road, all roads which play an extremely
important role j-n Applicant's development, are
designated as Principal Arterials as is the Kun
Meridian Road South of Franklin Road wliich alsois an integral- part of the .\pplicant's road
study and development.
3. That East First Street (The continuation of
the Kuna/lleridian Road) is not listed as a Erinoarterial but as a collector.
4- That the plan has as one of its transporta-
tion policies "Efficient and safe access should
be provided to and trorn shopping centers, sj,nce
it is crucial to the economic success of the
centers, as well as to the maintenance and
efficient traffic movenents on the public road-
ways adjacent to the developnent.
f ) IIOUSING
1. The Plan contains housing policies and
following policies are included therein at
26 of the Plan:
the
page
"Every effort shalt be made by the City of
MeriCian to encourage corr.unercial and indust-
rial grovrth and d6veloprnent vrhich furthers
I
AvaFosE.
FITZGEBALD
I CROOKSTON
P.O Bor a27
t86.2
r.bpho.. E8E{rt6l
PAGE 20
employment and economj,c sel f-sufficiency andreduces lleridian's present reliance on Eoise'sMetropolitan economic and employemnt center.
The development of housing for all income group
close to enpfoyemnt and shopping centers should
be encouraged. "
2. The Testimony of the Appl-icant condludesthat existing housing in the North Curve Neig
hood and ad j acent to Old. ?oi.rrn should be enlranby commercial development at its maI1 l-ocatiothat the mall would increase the dernand for
housing in Meridian including a nore than pro
portionate demand for multi-family housing in
vi.cinity of the maII site; that there is a
sufficient inventory of residential ].ots to meethe demand.
cJ)CO}OIUNITY DES IGI.I
1. The Plan states as its leaC-in policy for
communl ty design at page 43 as follows:
p.48 "Create a visual and functional identityfor the City of lleridian within Ada County
anC its surroundins enviorment. "
2. The only discussion of community design
found in Applicantrs Testimony is at page VI-s
where it states "By designating this si-te as a
regional shopping area, the City l.ri1l have node
of commercial development at Cherry Plaza, dorrn
town and at this site."
18. That the Plan references at page 20 that air
quality should be a primarY evaluation factor for the developntent
of a regional shopping center. The Applicant addresses this begimi
aE page v1-1 of its Testinony. The ApPlicantrs Testimony basically
relies on the fact that if its site were Ceveloped as a regional
shopping center as opposeC to another site its Site rsould not
decrease air quality any flore than if the other site had ceveloped.
It further states that reduction of air pollution will generally
r'
ce
n;
g
AMBfiOSE.
FITZGERALD
I CFOOKSTON
a$a2
PAGE 21
increase in the.Meridian Area due to advanced technology vri1l tend t
reduce the carhon rnonoxide in auto emissions which are the rrrain
source of the air pollution even though there wil-t be growth in
populatj-on and then more vehicles- No detailed data is provided as
the exact impact on the air guality of a regional malI located at
Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue.
19. That throughout the Pl-an referance is mad.e to the regional
shopping center at the Meridian P.oaA/ I-84 Interchange; that
particularly at page 7 of the Plan, the Po1icy Diagran indicates tha
a regional shopping center site is designated in the Northeast
Ouadrant of the ueridian Road,/I-84 Interchange. The Application
would add an additronal 6ite at the Southeast Quadrant of Fairview
Avenue and Eagle Road but would not remove the l,leridian Road site.
That the P1an, in many places other than in the portion dealing with
the commercial activity centers and the Policy Diagram, refers to
trthe Regional Shopping Center" or "the Porposed Regional Shopi:ing
Center, Northeast of the I-S4/!{eridian Road Intersection" or such
other single reference terminologlr; that the Applicantrs requests
would change such references to refer to two sites or make the
uording sucl'r that it would apply to t'/ro sites for a regional shoppin
center -
- 20. That the Planning and zoning Corunissi-on as part of its
review and.action oD the present.Application made findings relative
to the existing site for a regional shopping center at ltreridian Road
and I-84, the Quong Application which pertained to the developrnent
of a regional shopping center at Eagle Roacl ancl I-84, and the presen
AMBAOSE.
FITZGEFALO
E CAOOKSTON
P.O Bor a27
E:542
3r.9hoo. EE&azEl
22
application. Those findings are specifically judicially noticed
and are found to be valid and are adopted by the Citli Council and
thus are repeated herein b6l-ow as follor,rrs:
a) The similarities, when comparing the Ouong Eagle
Road site and the Upland Eagle Road 6ite which mightdictate denial of the UpLand Application, are as
fol lows :
1 Neither site is adjacent to the existing
retail center of lleridian i
2. Both sites may require greater service costfor water, sewer, police and fire protectio
tl1an the Meridian Road sitet
The revenues to the City of lreriC,ian from a
regional shopping center at either site may
not offset the expenses to the City'
The basic property tax structure has not
changed since t.he Quong Annexation request.
b) The gissimilarities, or in some cases similarities
between the Quong site anC the Upland site and the
record in each case (rhich might lend support for
approval of the present Application are as folfows:
4
3
I
2
3
The Quong site was not already annexed to
the City and zoned, as the Upland site .is;
The ouong site, to become annexed and a
reality required an annexation route that
went South of the interstate to encompass
lands that would not have been serviced by
water and ser.ver. even tiough annexed:
4
Uuch of the Quongthe then existing
Areai
Water and sewer
extended to land
by the Applicant
site was not incl-uded in
Urban Service Planning
lines are presently being
ailjacent to the Upland si
at its cost i
5 Police and fire vehicles woufd not be re-
quired to travel outside the City limits
PAC E
I
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALO
I CFOOXSTON
P-O. aor a27
43642
PAGE 23
6
when taking the quickest route to the
Upland site;
The site is already zonecl industrial anadjacent land is presently being develo
inCustrial-Ly;
The Upland site does not have as much
adjacent existing resiCential property
which could be impacted adversely by
development.
The Upland site is already serviced'hy
Fairvier., Avenue, a four lane principal
artereal;
The Eagle Road intersection at I-84 is
planned to be developed into an inter-
change;
The Upland site is a little closer to
IUerr-dianrs existing retaiL center and
is connected to that'existing retail by
Fairview Avenue which is lik-eI], to be
developed commerc.ially as .evidenced by
the commercial development along f'airvi
toward and in Boise;
The Upland site is closdr to Boise wher
the majority of people in the Treasure
vaIley are who would use a regional
shopping center and yet the LIpIand site
is stif I in I'teridian's City limits.
8.
10.
9
11.
c) The sj-milarities and cli ss imi lari ties between the
Upland site and the Nahas site which might tencl to
lend support to approval of the Upland Application or
at feast rnake it a toss-up as to which site is pre-
ferable are as follows:
I
2
J
Both sites are alreadY in
Service Planning Area and
and zoned;
the
the
Urban
City lim-i
The City is alreadY obligated
fire anc police protection to
regardless of cost albeit one
to provid
the sites
may cos t
d
S
7.
I
I
Both sites will 'soon have tiater and
sewer services adjacent to the land;
AMBnOSE.
FIIzGERALO
T CFOOKSTON
?.O.br azt
&r6a2
PAGE 24
rrDre than the other;
4. Neither site if ddveloped as a regional
shoppinq center will- increase the
revenues of the City significantly andfor sure not enough to pay for the cosof service:
5
6.
The transportatj-on impact on t.l.e presen
down town of !{eridian would be less if
Lhe trpland sj.te were developed;
d) That the above facts pertaining to the Upland site
other than those pertaining to \,vater, ser,aer and drain-
age, have been obtained from the rnErterial submittedduring the Ouong Annexation. and accbmpanying ?Ian
Amendnent either by the Nahas people or by the Ouongpeople or have been officially or judciially noticed b
the Commission; some facts, in addition to those
referenced above, which the Commission has taken notic
of are as fo1lows, some of which may have alread\z been
stated above :
1
2
3
4
5
The Applicantr s
Area of Irnpact
ing Area ;
]and is in l.leridianrs
and Ilrban Service Plan-
The land is annexeC and is
zoned light industrial:
presently
Sewer and water lines are presentlv
belng extended by the Appl-icant to
servj-ce its industrial grouncl in the
Southrlrest ouadrant of the Eagle Road/
Eairview Avenue intersection anC thus
water and sewer linee will be adjacent
to the Applicantts proposed site of a
regional- shopping centeri
The proposed site is serviced by twoprincipal transportation arteriels,
Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road;
-The State of Idaho Department of
Transportation has existing plans for
The Nahas site has been annexeid.and
zoned and capable of being developed asa regional shopping center for a1rtostten years and yet the major retailers
have not yet decided to locate -at thatsite-
AMBFOSE,
FIIZGEFALO
t cBoor(sTori
P.O Bora27
$a2 PAGE 25
construction of an interchhnge at Eag1e
Road and I-84 and designation of Eag1e
Road from Fairview Avenue to f-84 aspart of U.S. Highway 30, that there wi.Ilthus be two interstate interchanges inthe Urban Service Planning Area;
That since the land is already in theCity, it has the obligation to provide
municipal services to the 1and, those
being specifically police and fireprotection and water and sewer;
There is very limited residential
development near the Applicantrs land
and what is there is sparse and limited
to farm homes and buildings;
when the 1978 Meridian Comprehensive
Plan was adopted the only suggested sit€
for a regional shopping center was atI,leridian Road and I-84; also the only
interchange in the !{bridian Area of
Impact or Urban Service Planningr Area
was at that site and now there is'one
planned for Eagle Road and 1-84;
The lleridian Road shopping center site
has been annexed and zoned for at least
10 years and has been capable of being
developed as a regional shopping centerfor that amount of time and yet no
center has been constructed nor does it
appear one will be soon.
2L. That in the above findinqs and discussions dealing with
the location of a commercial activity center and the planninq
components there was no mentj-on of costs; the Applicant did not
submit anl/ detailed data on what it would cost the City of ],leridian
to proviile servj.ces to its proposed maII site; that it submitted no
detailed data on: shat it would cost the Aala County Highway ristrict
or the Idaho Department of Transportation to make the necessary road
improvements to facilitate Applicantrs proposed maIl. The only
6
B
9
1
AMAROSE,
FITZGEBALD
t cRool(sIoN
P.O. 8or /t27
lt!.2
-r.Pion aaA{aar
26
conment is that.Meridian has, by previously annexing its 1and,
commi tted to pay those costs and that by its traffic study no
inferrence is to be made as to how t].e improvements wouLd be finance
The Applicant irnpliedly coniludes that even though the Cit!' is now
financially restricted by the It budget and tax restrai.nts that this
situtation may be alleviated and then the City could reap the
benefits of $I60,000,000.00 retail sates facility.
22. That costs comparisons were made between the developlEnt
of a shopping center at Meridian Road,/I-84 anC at Eagle Road,/I-84 in
the Findiogs of the Quong Application. Judicial notice of those
comparisons, although not set forth herein, is hereby takeni that
a shopping ma11 l-oca ted anywhere in the City of !4dridian i6 going to
cost the Citlz of l{eridian money which, at Present, cannot be recoupe
through taxes.
23. That the Applicant's Testimony, beginning at page \7f-5
compares Chubbuck and Karcher t4a11s to its proposed.site: it aCmits
at page VI-6 that i.vhe n Karcher MaII went in between Nanpa and Caldwe
that it attracted rnuch of the business from the doh,n town of both of
those cj-ties. It explains that this would not occur to lleridian'
as a resul-t of its proposed mall because there is more population
around its maI1 site and because l4eridian has no "reqional" t1,pe
business that would be drawn away. itleridian has an approximate
population of ?500 people, although the population figur:es in five
mile radius of Eagle Road and Fairview, Applicant states to be ?6170
and within a three nile radius to be 29,530.
PAGE
1
P.O Aa, a2t
al6a2
-l.l.phoo. EE8-azl5i
PAGE 27
P
1. The City of l'leridian intends to
periodic reviewinq, monitoring and
land uses within the nrea of Impact
24. That the Applicant has reguested the City to amend its
Comprehensive Plan to designate its Parcel I as a site for a reqi ona
shopping centeri that the Applicant submitted no evidence which woul-
indicate that if the amendment were granted that a regional shopping
center would actually be constructed. at that location; there were
no tenant leases or conunitments submitted nor was there any mention
that a ma1I woirld actually be constructed at that location.
25. That in general, the testimony, both oral and written,
-submitted by the Applicant, particularly that relatinq to Market
Analysis and most of site euitability, pertained to the ability of i
site to be successful , to be constructed, and to be the regional
shopping center for Northern Ada County and Treasure Valley, albeit,
there are referrences to locaf impact on lr.eridian;, that lderidian doe
want a regional shopping center but it also wants to know the imPact
such would have on its comrnunity anC how such would relate, impact
and effect the Ci ty.
26. That although reference to the below may have inferential
been stated in other findings the followj-ng goa1s, policies, and
objectives in the Plan are spceifically noted:
p-8 "GOAI,S OT' THE COI4PRETIENSIVE PLAN
Goal 3: To encourage the kind of economic Arowth
and development which suppues enploynent and 'economic se lf-suf fi ciency for existing and future
residents, reduces the -present reliance on Boise
and strengthens the City's ability to finance ancl
implement public improvenrents, services and its
open space character. "
.9 'LAND USE: POLICIES
plan for the
updating of
and the L':rban
v
AT'BFOSE.
TITZGEFALO
E CAOOKSTON
lt
AMBFOSE,
FITZGEAALO
6 CnCrO(STON
P.O. Aot a27
63..2
'I .raohor. !68-a/|.r
PAGE 28
Service Planning Area
1. The follotring land use activities are not incompliance with the basic aoals of the ComprehensiPlan:
a.
b. Strip cornnerci.al and strip industrial"
p . 14 ECONOMIC DEVELOPIiIENT
"Sti.mulate, encourage and give perference to tho
types of economj.c activities and developments
which provide opportunities for .the employment o
Meridi-an citi-zens and area residents and reducethe need for persons to comnute to neigl'rborirg.cities.
"The City of lleridian and its restdents view the
economic enterprises of industry, retail con-mercial and personal- services as an integral pa
of a planned community. The City's physical
development, econornic stabi J-i ty, socialstratification and institutional effectiveness
for dealing with public needs are dependant upon
such economic opportunities. To accomplish the
the above objective, the Comprehensive Plan
provi des f or f NDL]STRIAL RE\rI EI., AREAS , COII!{ERCIAL
ACTIVITY CENTERS and I.]II}iED-USE REVIET{ AREAS. "
INDUSTRIAL REVIEI{ AREAS
The Comprehensive PIan intends to prepare for
tleridian's business and employrnent future by
reserving land for industria], retail, conrnercj-a
and office uses and So removing them from the
categories of land on which ,iesidential de'relop-
ment can be proposed. "
p.25 iiOL,S ING DEVELOP}TEI{T , POL IC IES
effort shall be made.by the City of
!'leridian to
growth and
encourage conunercial and industrial
development which f urthers enPloirment
I
AMAROSE,
FIfZGEFALO
I CROOKSTON
P-O. Bor a27
&t642
T.llphoo. 888-aaal
PACE 29
Lons- ran ce means that the plan looks bei:onJ the
and economic sel f-s ufficiency and reducesUeridian's present reliance on Boi-se rs
Uetropolitan economic and employnrent center.',
P.53 OTHER PITOJECTS
Support and encourage development of
Commerc:a1 Activity Centers
Regiona I Shopping Center
27. The follov/ing. statements of the :.leridian Comprehensive
PIan are noted:
P.1 FORWARD
"The Comprehensive Plan is prinrarily a policy
document identifying policies to .quide future
development wj-thin and outside of the City of
lleridian. The Comprehensi-ve ilan is recognizabl
the primary 6tep in identifying the qual.ity of
life the City residents desire and relating goil
to its capacity to achieve particular end result
It was developed with a broad base of conununity-
wide citizen input and is both sensj-tive to the
changlinq needs of the communitlz and recogni=esa comrnitment to preserve the values identified b
the City residents.
NATURE OT THE COT'PREHENS IVE PLAI]
A Conprehensj-ve PIan is an official Cocurnentr
by 1oca1 Eovernments and public agenci-es, rvhich
serves as a po1icy quide for decisions concerninq
the physical development of a corn:nunit'2. Itj,ndicates, in a general v:ay, hovr the conununitl/ ma
develop in the next 2C to 30 years.
The essential characteristics of the Corrrp::ehensi
Plan are that it is cornprehensive, general, Iong-
range and represents a process--not a product.
ComprehensiveisEans that the plaD encompasses all
areas of the corJaunity and a 11 functional element
which bear on physical" development.Genera I
means that the plan summarizes policies and
proposals anC does not develop detailed site plan
AMBAOSE,
FIIZGERALO
t cRoo(sroN
P.O. &r a27
&Ea2
T.l.phon€ 888{zlG l
PAGE 30
pressing current issues toward the aspect ofproblems hrhich the corununity may face in the futurFinally, as a process (not a product), the
Comprehensive Plan is an ongoing process fordirecting chanqe
community--not a
for all time. "
that occurs inevitably in a
docurent that is written once,
p . 1a iCOl.Il4ERC IAL ACTIVITY CINTERS
Retail comrpercial and office development arefrequent partners within Cornmer:cial ActivityCenters. Both general categories often share
locational need.s and often prove mutual],y sup-portive. In order to coordinate uith the sup-portive areas of resiCential and inclustrial
developnents, areas should be set asi-de as
Commercial Actj,vity Centers and their development
carefully guided. "
p.15 "ECO}'IOIIIC POLICIES
I The City of ueridian sha11 'make every effort Ito create a positive atmoshPere which en- l
couragtes industrial and comrnercial enterprises
to l-ocate in lleridian.
7 It is the policy of the Cit1, 61 lteridian to se
aside areas where commercial and industrial
interest and activities are to dominate.
4 Positive
support
areas to
as 3
proqrams shoulc be undertaken to
existing industrial and comrnercial
ensure their continued vital j- tlz ,s uch
c. Zoning changes to assure desired econonic
development.
6. It is the policy of the City of !{eriidan to
support shopping facilities rerliich are 'effectively integrated into existing
residential areas, anC plan for ltew shopPingf .'
c6nters as growth and development warrant.
t
AMBROSE.
FITZGERALO
I CRool(STON
P.O 8or a27
6ll6a2
cl.phona 6aa-arl6l
PAGE 31
8. The City of lteridian intends to establish
Commercial Development Desicrn. Guides which:
a. Provide for the grouping of corunercialbuilrlings on a 6j-nq1e parcel of lanC in such
manner as to create a harmonious, efficient
and convenient retail shopping environmenti "
p.6 POLICY DIAGRA!{
"With the anticipation of growth and developmentpressures during the next decade, the Comprehensj-
Plan summarizes the potential distributions ofland use activities within the Urban Service Planning Area that are basetl upon policy recolsnenda-tions. The Policy Dia_qram attempts to makegeneral designations of appropriate and conpatiblland use, expresses the ultimate growth of the
Heridian corununity if all the land were develo
and provides a flexible framework for furtherdetailed land use decisions -
The Po1icy Diagram is to be used as a general gui
for land use deci sion-making--no t as a legalistic,literal and Cefinitive map- As applications andproposals of l-and uses are submitted, the Policy
Diagram is not intended to be used as the so1e,
authoritative means for decis ion-naking. Rather,
it is but one of the many tools which are
available for public officials as they exercise .
their responsibility regarding the health, safety
and welfare of the general public.
p. 50 CO}1]'REHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW
il
If the Cornprehensive Plan is to be useful and
Ieffective, it should not be filed away but should
Ibe continually reviewed and uFdated. The recom- Imendations within tj-re Con'prehensive Plan should nolt
be interpreted as unalterable connitments, but Irather as a reflection of the best foreseeable Iilirection at a given point in tire: It is recorn- |
nen<led by the lteri*lan Planni-ng anil Zoni ng I'Conrnissi6n - tlla t at least a yearlv revieu sha1l be | '
held of the Comprehensive Plan, to' updlate and,/or I
reaf fi.rm the PIan to fit the changing neeCs as
Iwell as unforeseen plinning problerns and
Iopportunitles. I
lt
AMBFOSE.
FITZGEFALD
I CFOOKSTOi
PO eor '12,
E3642
Tclaphona lE&aa6'l
PAGE 32
28. That. the Amendment Provrsion and Procedures of the Compre
hensive Plan provide that "Applications for Comprehensive plan
Amend.ment6 sha11 be acted upon by the City Council within 16 months
form the date of theii filing unLess, upon written agreement of the
applicant, an additional amount of time malz be specified."
29. That the testimony submitted at the public hearing held
by the Ci.ty Council rras generaLly against the granting of the
aPpl ica tion .
30. That ftom the testimony the City council has heard
pertaining to this application and the Cuong apPlication and fro[l th
attitudes of the people expressed to the City Council and froro the
ner.rspaper and broadcast mealia reports, it can be Judicially not:i-eed
that the people of lteridian and Ada County desire to have a regional
shopping mal1, regardless of $/here it is, as soon as possible but
that there are drfferences of opinion as to where it should be
located.
AMBROSE.
FITZGEFALD
E CROOKSION
P.O. Bot .?7
at6a2
r.bphon EE&L61
CONCLU S I ONS
1. That al-I the procedural requirements of the l,teridian
Comprehensive PJ-an, hereafter refered to as the p1an, and of the
Local Planning Act, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, i,ncluding aI1
notice and hearing requirerEnts, have been meti that the City Counci
has authority to arrend the Plan.
2. That Upland Industries Application to amend the PIan was
initiated by the Applicant and not by the Commission or the City
Counci I .'
3. That the City Council may take judicial or official notice
existing conditions in the City, County and State and of governmenta
actions, policies, and or<linances and of its own irior firidings in
other land use applications and those of the Planning and Zoning
Commis sion .
4. That the function of adopting, ar.rending or repealj-ng a
Comprehensi,ve PIan is a legiilative functj-on. Burt vs Cit of
fdaho Fa11s, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.2d 1075 (1983). That even tll o ulJh
this is a legislative function, the Local Planning Act requj-res
that Firidings of Fact and Conclusions be made for any application
provided for in the Act.
5. That the Appli-cation itself was conclu<1ed by the Planning
and zoning Commission to have met the requirements o'f the AnendDren t
Provision and Procedures of the PIan ;ind such concl,usion is reaffi
6. That paragraph K . of the Amendment Provision and ProceCures
of the Plan provides in part as fo1lor'rs:
f
il
ll *"' ,,
I
I
AMaROSE.
FITZGERALO
I CFOOXSTON
P.O. Bor a27
Eis.2
T.L9ho.!. EE8.aa8l
PAGE 34
"k. Amendment of the Comprehensive plan may be grantedonly to correct an error in the PIan or because ofsubstantial change in the actual conditions of an arewhich results in a materiaf discrepancy or disparity
between the condi€ions in the area and all or part ofthe Plan . "
That this Application has been processed under the above requirement
and must be jfclged on that basisi however, it is noted that such a
requirement is more restrictive than allowed or reguired under the
Loca1 P1annj-ng Act; that-the Commission recomrnended an amendnent to
Section X which renEves the idea that an amendment may only be
granted to correct an error or change in actual conditions which
reconEnenCation has been approved by the City Council; such restricti
requirenient was an error in itself since it is difficult to plan for
the future and make necessary changes when the 'Coruqission and eounci
must be guided by actual conditions. Such is a conflict in term-
inology and the function of a Comprehensive PIan to "pIan."
7. That the Plan is what it says it is. It is a P1an. ?he
portions of the Plan set forth in Finding nunber 27 reflect that
the Plan "summarizes policies and proposals and does not develop
detailed site p)-ans." The corunent to the Policy Diagrarn indicdtes
that the Diagran is not "intended to be used as the soIe,
authoritative means for decision-rnaking" but "is to be used as a
general guide for land use decision-making---not as a legalistic, ,
literal anil definitive map. " The PIan therefore shoultl be liberally
construed but stditl rnaintained aE the functional guideline.for land
usedecisions;.i.]e.,theP1anpo1iciesandobjectivescannotbe
wi11y-nilly tlisregarded when there is an apparent conflict between
il
AUBBOSE-
FITZGEBALO
T CBOOKSTON
P.O Aor tt27
E3642
the Plan and a proposed use.
8. That t}Ie Comnission has the duty, as does the City Counc1l,
to contj.nually plan; that the City Counci l- treats amendments propose
by private entities as part of that planning duty and function; the
City cannot, and should not, be the sole initiator of possible
amendments; the City Council treats amendment applications as a mean
of bringing possible and necessary planning changes to light.
g. At the tinre the Plan was initiatly adopted there was only
one interEtate i,nterchange and no!', there iE an additional, oae
Planned for the EagLe Road/I-84 intersection; also at the time of
initial adoption of the Plan the Eagle Road/Fairview Avenue area was
not in the City-,1imits and some of it Dot in the Urban Service
Planning Area; Likewise, sewer and water was not to or adjacent to
the land o$rned by the Applicant. It is concluded that these changes
and others noted i-n the Eindincrs, are a substantial change in the
actual conditions o! the area, and even of the entire Urban Service
Planning Area, which has :esulted in a substantial change in the
actual conditions of the area vrhich resulted in a material discrepan
or disparity betv,,een the conditions of the area and al1 or part of t
Plan sufficient to meet the requirer'.ents of Paragraph K. of the
Amendnent Provislons and Procedures of the P1an.
10. It is likewise concluded that the above referenced changes
warranted a review of the Plan, and anendment of the Plan if deemed
appropriate, regardless of whether the Applicant haC'submitted its
Application. The Applicati.on brou-qht to light and focused in on
PAGE 35
v
e
It I
axEFosE.
FIiTGERALD
E CAOO(S10N
P.O. Bot a27
€aBa2
T.l.phon E€a{a0l
PAGE 36
the need to revj-ew the Plan. The City Council novr is required to
assess not only the Application but also whether those chanqes above
warrant aclopti-ng the proposed amend.ment and whether the changes of t
Application its6lf are in the best interest of the plan and the City,
and whe ther they are desireable.
11. That the part of the Appli.cation pertai.ning to a regional
shopping center would have to be adopted to alIow the developement
intentions of the Applicant as set forth in the Application.
L2. The main focus of the assessment of that part of the
Application pertaining to the designation of a 6ite for a reoional
shopping center is dictated by those factors mentioned in Findings
of Fact, paragraph 13 and 14, the Application itsalf, the facts
presented j-n the hearings or officially noticed, and the goaIs,
objectives, and policies of the Pl,an as it exists and the various
planning components of 67-6508, Idaho Code.
13. That pertaining to the conmercial activity center location
performance and development standards alone contained in paragraph
13 of the Findings it is concluded as foll-ohrs:
a. TRAFFIC
That the Applicant's site, if developed, poses a sever
impact on the roads in the area it chose to stuCy and
that vast improvements would have to be made to those
roads and highways the cost of r'rhich improvements wer
not speclfically addressedi that due to. the 1t
restrictions and the public's attitude on bond .issues;
those costs could not apparentll, be borne by the Ada
County Highway DistrictT that unless contributions to
the costs of road improvements were'flade by the' ''-
Applicant, Lhe traffic impact of Applicantis develop-:
rne-n t on existing roads in their present condition
dictate that the Application be denied-
e
I
I
ALBFOSE.
FITZGERALO
I CFTOOKSTON
P.O 8or a27
dl6a2
: .i.pho6c S8{a6l
PAGE 37
by the Applicant in the Southwest Quadrant of
d
That asEuming the road irnprovements suggested by theApplicant could be financed, governrnentally or privattsthe site would have excellant aicessibilitv for aregional shopping center.
b . PROX IITITY TO OTHER COIO1ERC TAL DEVELOPII.TENTS
That thus -due to experiences of Xarcher l{a1l in drawinbusiness from do$rntown NanlEand Ca1clwe]l and due to thApplicantrs site being approximately two miles fromexisting retail in Ueridian, it is concluded thatApplicant's location would be detrimental to the Cityof Meridian: that it is likely that Fairview Avenuewill continue to receive comr..ercial development pressu
that could be detrihental to Meridian's present retail
regardless of d6velopment of a regional shopping cente
c. IUP.\CT ON NEIGIIBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL AREAS
That there would be no detrimental impact on the
surrounding residential negihborhood if Applicant's
location were developed as a regional shopping center.
d. AVAII,ABLE UTILITY SYSTF}IS
That there is or will be ueridian water and sewer
available to Applicantr s site; that other utilities of
electricity t 9ds, and telephone are available: that th
cost of extending all utilities vrould be at no cost to
the City of lteridian. That as far as avallability the
utilities present no problem to the development of
Applicantrs site. That, however, tlre Applicant Cid no
specifically detail the cost to the City providing
sewer and water to a regional shopping center at
Applicantts site, nor was the impact on the sewer anal
lvater systems detailed or discussed.
e. AESTTIETICS
That the aesthetic impact of a develoPment at
Applicant's site was not detailed in the evidence but
such is not felt to be detritnental- to the Application-
f. USE I},TPACTS UPON OTHEI( ADJACENT tlSES
That there would be
irunediately adj acent
no adverse impacts uPon the uses
to Applicant's proPosecl site for
a regional mal1, that a regional ma11 would be comPati
with the light industrail uses presently being deve lop
the
1e
il
AMBNOSE.
F|TZG€NALD
E CROOXSION
P.O. aor 427
8toa2
_ .icpho.r. EEE{a61
PAGE 38
intersection of f'aiiview Avenue and Esgle Road and withe other industrial and the residential uses in t.le
area -
9 . DRAIIILAGE
That drainage is not a problem or a drawback to the
development of a regional maI1 at Applicant's Location
That as far as the location of a regional shopping center it is
concluded that the site itself, wit}out conSidering needed traffic
improvements and the possible loss of retaj-I commercial establishmen
from downtown Meridian, is a good location 6or a regional sbopping
center. However, the traffic problems present real road blocks and
the loss of retail is a problem and will be discussed again later in
these conclusions
14. That since the Loeal Land Use Pl-anning Act requires the Ci
to consider several components in developing a comprehensive pIan, i
is felt that the impact an amendment would have on those components
must likewise be examined or at least there nust be an examination
of the components effected by the amendrnent, that these components
deal with fltore than just location of a shoPPing center site. There-
fore it is concluded as follows:
a. POPULATION
That under the lead-in paragraph of the Plan per-
taining to population and the other population
policies it is felt that a regional ntall develop-
rent at Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue wou}d not
necessarily be orderly grolr'th and would tend to
induce urban sprawl-.
..
Ihat even though the APpl-icant did not detail Lhe
impact its devetopment would have on the populatio
of }leridian, it i; felt that the Population rvould
increase and the center would add a net gain of
v
_lt
AMAROSE.
F|TZGEAALD
A CBOOXSION
P.O.8or a27
8lt6a2
r.l.9horr!88&./16l
PAGE 39
employment to Meridian and contribute to lrleridiangaining sel f-sufficiency; however,. a maI1 at anyother l-ocation in Meridian would do the same.
b ECONOMIC DE!'ELOP}{ENT
Ihat a regional ma11 developed at Applicant,s sitermuld meet the general policies of the Plan regard
economic development. It rrould add jobs, both durconstruction and upon operation. It would tend toreduce the need to cornute to neighboring cities.It would add approxinately $160,000,000.00 to theretail sales in lvleridian. Holirever, a reqional
shopping center at another location in lleridian wo
do the same.
T*lat as far as specifj-cs under economie developmen
one of the major goals of the Plan for commercialactivity centers i-s that the regional shoppingcrnter could becorne the central business districtlleridian and that it 'would be the core comrnercialactivity $/ith l4eriilian's Urban Service PlanningArea. The proposed amendment does not change or
amend the above goal- rt is felt that the dlevelop
IIEnt of a mal1 at Fairview and Eaqle Road wouldshift the emphasis of the City from the East PirEtStreet iorridor to Eagle and Fairview and make
"Oldtown" oldtown -
c. IAIiID USE
That the Applj-cant's location vrould not create or
strip commercial, however, it could be considered
to be or create sPravrl in that there is a great
amount of undeveloped ground between developed
lteridian and Applicantrs site.
d. PUBLIC SERVICES,FACTLITIES AND UTILITIEg
That portions of this conrponent were discussed in
these conclusions dealing erith Parcel 1 as a
locatlon for a regional maII, hohrever r addi'tional
@mments need to be made and, as this coruponent
includes IIDre than just sewer, water, gosr ''.electricity, and telephone, L\e undiscussed facets
need to be mentioned.
ng
1d
l[trat the only evidence submittetl by the Applicant
states that when the City annexed its land for
industrial purposes the Cj-ty cornmi ted itself to
1'
AMBFOSE,
FITZGEFALD
A CROO(STON
P.O 8ora27
E3642
T.l.phon 68Ml
PAGE 41
15. That the impact on the air quality of Northern Ada County
is stated by the Plan to be a standard in evaluating the development
of a regional shopping center. It is conctuded better evidence on
this standard would have been beneficial but that the net^, auto
emissions testing program should help the air quality: that the
development of one site over another rvould not increase or decrease
the air quality and thus the l-ack of evidence is not deemed
detrimental to the Application; that the development of any regional
maII in Meridian is going to adversely inpact the air qual-ity.
16. That in light of the above conclusion on the various plan-
ning components and the air quality it is conclualed that in creneral
Applicantrs amend.rnent would not adyersely impact population, econorni
development, Iand use, housing, or air quality: that there would be
an adverse impact on transportation and that has previously been
discussed but that adverse impact rvoul-d be the sarne if any regional
malf were developed; that specifically under population and in
general under communr ty Cesign Applicant' s development of a regional
center on Parcel 1 would tend to violate the policy against urban
sprawl , and would shj,ft the emphasis of the City to the East spread-
ing it outi that considering the cost findings contained in the ouon
applicatron, public services, facilities and utilities would be more
adversely effected by a regional ma11 located at Eagle RoaC and
Eairvierv Avenue rather than at lleridian Road and I-84 even though
the latter site vrould likewise adversely impact the public services,
facilities and utilities provided by the City of Meridian'
l
lt
P.O 8or a27
436a2
PAGE 42
Conmission did, whj-ch findings and conclusions are incorporated here
by this reference, that the Quono record does not dictate a denial ci
this Application.
18. That the Council concludes that, even though the Applicant
proposal pertains specifically to one parcel, the Application effec
the entj,re plan. The change from a single site designation of a
regional shopping rnalf to a two site designation would effect many o
the components of the Plan and theii policies. The original Plan is
so orj-ented to the present lleridian Road/I-84 site tha t a change to
add an additj.onal site would ripple through the Plan.
19. That one of the major themes, if not the rrpst prominent
theme, of the Plan is that t.leridian wants growth and development
which is orderly and balanced. This is evidenced b1t Finiling 25.
Likewise, it is evidenced by the PIan at page 2:
20.
growth and
"The goa1s, objectives and policies herein expressed
underline and shape the character and orientation of
l.Ieridian's Comprehensive Plan. They deal with three
major concerns of the people of lleridian:
1) OrderJ.y growth and development;
2) Economic growth and balance; anil
3) Improvenrent of the guality of life"'
That throughout the Plan the therne ancl dlesire
jobs and se 1f-sufficiency is repeat-ed' one
for economic
of the major
n
s
AMBROSE,
FIf?GEFALO
t ciooxsroN
il
17. Even though no repreaentative of the owners of the I-84/
Meridian Road site testified at the City Council public hearing or
objected to the granti-ng of this Application based on the record in
the Ouong application as they did before the Planning antl Zoning
Corunission, the City Council concludes, for the same reasons as the
I
IS
P.O Bor a27
a!642
T.l.phon. UAaa61
PAGE 43
AMAROSE,
FrrzcEa to
I CROOKSTON
means the Plan Etates as achieving the above was, and is, the
development of a re-oional shopping center in lUeridian. Uuch of the
Planrs focus is upon a regional shopping center. The plan
specifically located the site for such a center as the !'Ieridian Roa
I-84 intersection. This i;ite designation may have been contrary to
the idea that the Plan is a general guideline and not a legalistic,
definitive document but at the time of adoption of the Plan it was
the only 'site' in 'sight. " The area has changed. The development
of an additional interchange, the extension of the Urban Service
Planning Area and the extension of water and sewer lines rnake re-
evaluation of the Plan, and possj.bly the single designation of a
regional shopping center, appropriate. tghe ther there is one site
designated or two or more, the drisire of the people of !{eridian
is for a shopping center and the fact that the PIan strenuously
endorses a regional shopping center as a means to achieve economic
gro\4rth, jobs and sel f-suffi ciency cannot be easily di-sregarded and
any proposal that woirld, in fact, be geveloped as a regional shoppin
center must receive serious consideration.
2l . It can be, and is, judicialfy noticed that the people of
the City of Meridran would like to have a regional shopping center
located in l.leridian. It can lrkevrise be judically noticed that there
are and will be differences of opinion as to where such a center
should be located or what site has the better likelihood of drawing
tenants and of actually being deveJ-oped'
22.TheCouncilconilucesthatthefactspresentedbythe
AMAFOSE.
FIIZGERALD
e chooxsToN
P.O Bor a27
43042
T.l.phoo. lE84l6l
PAGE 44
Applicant and the officially noticed facts, are sufficient to Ineet
the reguirements of Paragraph K of the Amendment provision and
Procedures of the PIan to amend the plani that the facts, part-
icularly that there haa been a site designated for a regional
shopping center for some time anC yet it h?rs not developed, that the
Upland site i6 Eerviced by tno principal arteriels, that there will
soon be an 8ag1e Road/I-84 interchange, that sel.rer and water are or
will be available to the Upland sit€, that the Upland site is
connected to Meridian's existing retail by means of Fairview Avenue,
an historically well developed comnercial arteriel, and that the sit
is already annexed and must be provided with municipal services
regardless of how it is developed, present cogent'reasons for lookin
further into the desiqnation of the Eagle Road,/Fairvievr Avenue site
as a regional shopping center site.
23. That even though the Council has concluded the Applicant
has presented sufficient evidence to support an amendrnent, but maybe
not its specific anrendment, to the Comprehensive Plan, there are
several items of great concern to Lhe Council which lead the Council
to believe that the actual arnenCment proposed by the Applicant might
not be in the best interest of tile Citl,. These items are: 1) the
traffic improvements necessary and the costs thereofi 2) the
possibility of loss o-f retail business downtown and the shift of
emphasis of. the City to the East; 3)'the possi-bility of creating or
contributing to urban sprawl; 4) the fact that no evidence v:as
submitted that if in fact the amendment was granted that a reqional
il
I
AI'BROSE,
FITzGEBATO
ECBOOKSTON
P.O Bor a27
E36a2
Td.pnon S&4a61
shopping center.hrould in fact be constructed on the site; 5I the
possibility that the City wouJ.d have tvro sites capable of being
developed as a regj-onal shoppi-ng center and yet no centerr. and 6)
the cost of providing City services.
24. That certainly, only one site in lreridian, if any, is goin
to be developed as a regional shopping centeri that the traffic and
coEt of City services problems are going to exist vrhichever site, if
any, is developed ard thus those concerns are greatly nullified,
however, the other concerns mentioned above are peculiar to Applican
site.
25. That !4eritlian is caught in a dichotorny. On the one hancl
the City wants econonic growth and deveJ-opment which will supply
jobs, add to the tax base even though it tpould be of limited effect
at present, and increase the Cityrs se 1f-s ufficiency and a reqional
shopping center, if developed, is seen as fulfilling that desire.
On the other hand the City does not vrant the above at the expense of
ruining the present dovrntown, of contributing to urban sprawl and
reducing the identity of the City, and of creating the possibility
that even if Applicant's amendment vrere approved and changes mad.e in
the Plan the City could very well not achieve its desires mentioned
on the other side of this dichotomy.
26. That it has previoulsy been c'oncluded that the Plan is a
plan and shoutd not dictate exact locations and that the clesignation
of lrteridian Road,/I=841 as the only site for a regional-:shopping cente
may have been in errori that the Appli-cant could argue that even nor.,
theCityisrefusingtousethePlanasaplanningdocurnentinfaili g
ll ,o"u ou
UBFOSE
FITZGEBALD
t CBOOKSTON
P.O.8or 427
Bl6a2
I.r.phorE 8a&a{61
46
to designate an.aclditional regional shopping center site and that th
City is again using the PIan to dictate specific land uses; however,
even though Applicantrs proposed amendment alir,al use is pervasive and
would effect many components of the PIan and its present focus on o
regional ehopping oenter site, it still sltould il-so be viewed as a
i
specific amendrnen t that has only been reguested to a11ow one specifi
development--a regional shopping center. The problem may be that th
original ptr-an did designate one site, however, that fact must be fiv
with; that until there is proof that anotler 6ite will in fact be
constructed there is no }ogical sense in changing the existing Plan
everytime an additional shopping center si.te is proposed.
21. , Th! City council finally concludes that'just creating the
possibility that a regional shopping center could be constructed at
Applicantrs site and thus only possibly provide t.he City with
economic growth is not sufficient justi-fication to amend the
comprehensive Plan as requestec b1' the APPlicant at this time; that
if the Applicant can provide evidence sufficient to show the council
that the council's action to amend the Ptan as reguested would not b
fruitless, the Council vrould consider amending its Pfan, as the
gains from actualty having a regional shopping center are felt to
out\r'eighthedifficultiesandthepossiblecrar.lbacksofApplicant's
. ,:,Iocation'- Caaitionally the people of t.leridian r^rant a regional
shopping center sblrewhe re, if it in fact is constructed'
Thus it is concl-ualed that the city council should invoke its
option, upon agreerEnt of the Applicant' to table this Application
PAGE
d
I
lt
AMBROSE.
FI]ZGERALO
& CFOOXSTON
P.O. Bor a27
430a2
PAGE 39
employment to Meridian and contribute to l*leridiangaining sel f-s ufficiency i however,. a rnalI at anyother location in Ueridian would do the same-
b. ECONOMIC DEVELOPI4ENT
That a regional rqall developed at Applicant,s sitermuld meet the general policies of the plan regard
economic development. It would aild jobs, both dur
c-ons truc tion and upon operation. It vrould tend toreduce the need to commute to neighboring cities.It would add approxirnately $160,000,000-00 to theretail sales in I'leridian. However, a reqional
shopping center at another location in l..leridian wo
do the same.
lttra t as far as specifics under economie developrnen
one of the tna jor goals of the Plan for conunercialactivity centers is that the regional shoppingcenter could becone the central business districtlteridian and that it would be the core conunercialactivity with l{eritliants Urban Service PlanningArea. The proposed amendment does not change ror
amend the above groal - It is felt that the develop
trent of a maIl at Fairvier{ and EaQle Road wouldshift the ernphasis of the City from the East Eir6tStreet iorridor to Eagle and Fairview ancl make
"Oldtown" oldtown.
C . IAI.ID US E
That the Applicant's location $rou1d not create or
strip comrnercial, however, it coul-d be considered
to be or create sprawl in that there is a great
amount of undevelopeC ground betrveen developed
Iteridian and Applicantis site.
d. PUBL]C SERVICES, FACILITIES A}iD UTILITIES
Ttrat portions of this component were discussed in
these conclusions dealing with Parcel l- as a
Iocation for a regional ma1I, however, additional
co[unents need to be made and, as this comPonent
includes more than just sewer, uater. 93sr ,'.
electricity, and telephone, L\e undiscussed facets
Deed to be mentioned.
that the only evidence submitted by the Applicant
states that when the City annexed its land for
industrial purposes the City cornni ted itself to
d
s
n!{
f
I
j'
AMAROSE,
FITZGEAALO
E CFOOXSTON
P.O Bot 427
tli!642
Irl.phon EAAaaOl
PAGE 47
until approximately sixteen nDnths from the date €he Application was
filed to afford the Applicant opportunity to provide evidence that
its location would actual].y be constructed as a regional shopping
center. If Applicant can provide tltat evidence, it does not
necessarily nEan the 'other problens re ferred to above would be
disreqrarded. They would have to be workeC out .anC solved, j.f at -a11
possible. .
AMBNOSE.
FIIZGERALO
T CFOOKSTON
P.O. Bor.27
83642
T.r.phor!. 88E4a6l
PAGE 48
APPROVAL OT' T'INDINGS OF 9ACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The City Council of the City of tleridian hereby.adopts and
approves these Fj.ndings of Fact and Conclusions-
ROLL CALL
VotedCouncilmaa Srser
Councilman Tolsma
Counci Iman llyers
Counci lman Giesler
Mayor Kingsford (Tie Breaker)
APPROVED:
voted
Voted
Voted
voted
MOT ION
DENIED:
€
lt
fn
a'A
O aor a3,
dts.IIto
ttaa
. [ilaral
Page I
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF !.IERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCI,USIONS
The above entitled application to arnend the l4eridian Compre-
hensive Plan having come on for public Ilearing and the City Council
having heard any and all testimony that !^ras submitted. and having
duly considered alL the evidence, officially noticed evidence, and
facts of the Comprehensive PLan itself, the Local Plannj.ng Act of
1975, the City Council of the City of llerj-dian makes the following:
FINDINGS OP PACT
1. That the appli.cation r{as submitted by Upland fndustries
Corporation and is not an amendment proposed by the Commission or
the City Council.
2. That the specific parcels of property to rrrhich the
application pertaj.ns are the uorthwest Quarter of Section 9, Townshi
3 North, Range 1 East, Boise-Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, (hereafter
refdrred to as Parcel 1) which is conmonly known as the southeast
corner of the intersections of Ea91e Road and Fairview Avenue, and
the Northeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 3 North, Range I East,
Boi se-l{e rr dian, Ada county, Idaho, (hereafter referred to as Parcel
2)whichiscommonlyknownasthesouthl,estcorneroftheinter-traff()ac,
noEnALo
8@(lrotr
UPLAND INDUSTRIES APPLICATION TO A'4END TIIE
IYERIDIA}.I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN P'EGARDING THE
RURAL RESIDENTIAL RESERVE CONTAINED IN THE
NORTH CURVE
\ lnoa:,
rz0liALo
FooxtroN
O aor €,
,dr.n. LJta
{laail
section of Eagle Road and Fairviee, Avenue.
3. That the tr^ro specific parceJ.s included in the application
are contained r.rithin Meridian's Area of Inpact as recently negotiate
between the City and Ada Countyi the parcels are included within t}re
Urban Service Planning Area and have been in the City limits for
over t$ro years. The parcels were zoned industrial at the time of
their annexation and are presently zoned Light Industrial pursuant
to the recently enacted Zoning Ordirlance.
4. The Comprehensive Plan Policy Diagram appears to designate
the area withj.n which the h"ro parcels are located as being in the
"Eastern Industrail Review Area" and rn the "Rural Residential
Reserve" of the fiNorth Curve Neighborhood." The Applicantrs arend-
IIEnts to retnove the "Rural ResidentiaL ReserveI from Parcel 2 shou].d
be approved to allorr, the proposed industrail development and retrpve
the possible conflict that exists between the Plan and the present
zoning of Parcel 2. Parcel I could be considered to be in the
"Eastern Industrail Review Area. "
5. The application has been processed under the Amendment
Provision and Procedures of the Plan as set forth on pages 54, 55,
and 56 of the Plan.
5. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on
the proposed anendment on December 3, 1984; that notice of said
hearing was duly Published in the official newspaper in the City of
Meridian and was published sixteen days prior to said December 3,
Igg4 hearing; that no changes have been made in the apPlication or
propoaed antendment.
Page 2
ruEnoaE,
IZCEFALO
,800l(aTo
o aor aA,
ixrl
,tara!r
Page 3
7. The AppLication as it pertains to the removal of the
"Rural Residential Reserve" addresses the Amendment requirements
under Amendment Provisic.,n and Procedures set forth at page 54 of
the P1an,. that Applicantrs reasons why the Plan should be amended
for the removal of the "Rural Residential Reserve" are so that the
zoning of Light Industrial, which is the zone the land presently
carrj.es, is not in conflict with the Pfan where is states that the
area is included in the "Rural Residential Reserve" of the tlorth
Curve.
8. The Application, in general terrns, requests that the
"Rural Residential Reserve" designation of the Plan be renrcveC from
Parcel 2 and from South of Fairvieh, Avenue, so the present Light
Industrial zoning is definj,tely not i.n confl-ict with the PIan.
9. That on page 58 of the Plan in the glossary "Rural
Residenital Reserve" areas is defined as follorrrs:
"RuraI Re sidential-Reserve Areasi Areas of the UrbanService llanning Area which are intended for specifiedfuture use (Residential or Industrail) ,..."
10. That the Council takes Judicial notice of the fact that
the Applicant's land is in the lleridian Area of Impact and Urban
Service Planning Areai that the land is annexed and is presently
zoned Light Industrialt that sewer and $rater lines are presentl]'
being extended by the Applicant to service its ground in Parcel 2 an
that therefore water and sewer will also be adjacent to Parcel li
that the two Parcels are serviced by two principal transportatj.on
arterials those being Fairview .qvenue and Eagel,Raodi that there is
very limited Residential development near the Applicantrs land and
\M'FOAE,
rz0€i Lo.800(lroi
O aor aa,
tL,
ila..l
Page 4
PIan ale noted; page
intends to plan for the periodic revi-ewinE, monitoring and updating
of land uses within the Area of Impact and the Urban Service Plan-
ning Arear " page 14 Economic Development, "Stimulate, encouraqe and
give perference to those types of economic activities and develop-
ments which provide opportunities for the employment of Heridian
citi.zens and area residents and reduce the need for persons to
conunute to nriighborhood cities." "Industrial Revj-ew Areas, the
Comprehensive PIan intends to prepare for ueridian's business and
employment future by reserving land for industrial, retail, con-
mercial and office uses and so renroving them from the categories of
land on which residential development can be proposed."
12. The folloering statements of the l/teridian Comprehensive
Plan are no ted :
I5 "Economic PoIi.ci.esp
ffi,I erl("ll ."t " everl, effort tositi
and
crea te
industr
l}
a
ia
d
poI
Ian s
ve atmosphere which encourages
comnercial enterprises to Iocate in
')
Meridian.
It is the policy of the Cityaside areas vrhere corunercia Iterest and activities are to
o f !4eridian to
and industrial
dominate.
setin-
Positive programs should be undertaken toexisting industrial and commercial areastheir continued vitality, such as:
supportto ensure
4.
what is there is sparse and lirniteC to farn homes and buildings.
11. The following goa1s, polici,es, and objectives in the
rMafloaE,
TISEIALO
n@illo
O lor iu7 Page 5
Zoning changes to assure desired economic
development.
p. 5 Policy Diagran
"With the anticipation of crrovrth and developnent
pressures during the next decade, the Comprehensive
Plan summarizes the potential distributions of ]and
use activities wj,thin the Urban Service Planning Areathat are based upon policy recoNnendations . The policy
Diagrarn attempts to make general designations of
appropriate and compatible land use, expresses the
ultinate grovrth of the Meridian colyxmunity if all the
land were developed, and provides a flexible fram.,/orkfor further detailed land use decisions.
The Policy Diagram is to be used as a general guide
for land use deci s ion-maliing--not as a legalistic,
lj.teral and definitj,ve map. As applications and
proposals of land uses are submitted, the PoIic:r'
Diagram is not intended to be used as the sole,authoritative means for decrs ion-making. Rather, itis but one of nany tooLs r,rhich are available forpublic officilas as they exercise their responsibi,lity
regarding the health, safety and weltare of the qeneral
public.
r3.
there was
That at the public hearing held for the City Council
no public comment received objecting to the proposed
amendment removing Parcel 2 and all land south of
from the "Rura1 Residential Reserve" designation
Curve Neighborhood Area .
CO}ICI,US IONS
Fairview Avenue
of the North
1. That all the procedural requirements of the !,teridian
Comprehensive Plan, hereafter referred to as the PIan, and of the
Local Planning Act, Title 67, Chapter 65, rdaho code, including al1
notice and hearing requirements, have been meti that the Council
has authority to amend the Plan.
JAFOSE,
zsEaALO
rooxllox
' lor at
.rrl.lt llcdL:
-.alaaar
that the conurdssion has reconmended an anEndment
2. That Upland Industries Application to amend the PIan was
initiated by the Applj.cant and not by the Corunission or the City
council.
3. That the Council may take judj.cial or official notice
of existing conditions in the City, County and State and of govern-
mental actions, policies, and ordinances.
4. That the function of adopting, amending or repealing a
Comprehensive PLan is a legislative function. Burt vs Cit of
Idaho Fa11s, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.2d 1075 (1983). That
this is a legislative function, the Local Planninq Act
that Findings of Fact and Concl-usions be made for any
provided for in the Act.
even though
requires
application
restrictive than allorved or
5. That the Application itself was previously concluded to
and Proceduresh-ave met the requirements of the Amendment Provision
of the PIan and such conclusion is reaffirmed.
6. That paragraph K . of the Amendment Provision and Procedures
of the Plan provides in part as follovs:
Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan may be granted onlyto correct an error in the Plan or because of sub-
stantial change in the actual conditions of an area
whrch results in a material discrepancy or disparity
betl'reen the conditions in the area and all or part of
the Plan. "
That this AppLication has been processed under the above requirement
and must be judged on that basis; however, it is noted that such a
required under therequj.rement is more
Local Planning Ac t;
Page 5
axtnoaE,
ruo€haLo
rrcoxlToi{
o aoa al,
'ita aLl
Page 7
to Section K which rerpves the idea that an amendment may only be
granted to correct an error or change in actual conditions and the
Council has approved Findings of Fact and Conclusions regardj-ng the
anendment i such restrictive requirements was an error in itself sinc
it is difficult to plAn for the future and make necessary changes
$rhen the Commission and Council must be guided by actual conditions.
Such is a conflict in terminology and the function of a Compre-
hensive Plan to "plan. "
7. That the PIan is what it says it j.s. It is a Pl-an. The
comment to the Policy Diagram indicates that the Diagram is not
" j.ntended to be used as the sole, authoritative means for decision-
making' but "is to be used as a general guide for land use decision-
making--not as a legalistic, Iiteral and definitive map." The Plan
therefore should be liberally construed but still maj,ntained as the
functional guideline for land use decisions.
8. That the Commission has the duty, as does the City Council,
to continually plan; that the Commission and Council treat amend-
ments proposed by private entities as part of that planning duty
and functioni that Commission and Council cannot, and should not,
be the sole initiators of possible amendments r the Corunission and
Council treat amendment. applications as a means of bringing
possible and necessary planning chanqes to liqht.
9. That the Application pertaining to the removal of the
nRural Residential Reserve" South of Fairview Avenue, should be
adopted to conform the PIan to the fact that the area is zoned Ligh
Industrial.
AMEtiO8€,
IrIGEIATO
ra@ttlota
O. aor at
lL'Page I
I0. That since "Rural Residential Reserve" is d6fined in the
Glossary of the Plan at page 58 as: "Areas of the Urban Service
Planning Area hrhich are intended for specified future use
(residential or industrial) ;..." and that Parcles I and 2 could
easily be found to be located in the Eastern IndustriaL Review Area,
and because there is very sparse residential development 1n t-,\e area
and because Fairview Avenue would be a buffer betvreen possible
residential development north of Fairview and industrial developmen
south of Fairview, it is concluded that that portion of the
Applicants' Application requesting removaL of the "Rural Residentia
Reserve" from Parcels I and 2 should be granted.
11. It i,s concluded that the fact Parcel 2 is zoned Light
Industrial and the land is being developed industrially, that the
area surrounding Parcels I and 2 is farn qround and only very
sparsely used as residential property and then onJ-y in conjunctj.on
with farm property, and that both parcels could be saj.d to be
included in the "Eastern Industrial Review Area, " the applicant has
met the requirements of paragraph K of the Amendment provision and
Procedures of the PIan and the Application as it pertains to the
reroval of the "Rural Residential Reserve,, from parcel I and 2 and
south of fairview Avenue should be granted.
I
\ratRotE,
IZOEiALO
FOOl(alofl
O aot al,
,kllrl, Lliolll
Page 9
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUS IONS
The City Council of the City of !{eridian hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and conclusions.
ROLL CAIL
Counci lman Brewer
Councilman To Isma
Counci lman Myers
councilman Geisler
Mayor Kingsford (Tie Breaker)
\/ote d
vote d
voted
vote d
vote d
DENIED:
MOTION
APPROVED:eci
e4
i
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALO
E CFOO(STON
P O. Bor a27
E3.2
T!r.phon. E€E-aa6l
Page 1
BEFORE THE TIE?.ID IA}I PLANNII.]G AND ZONING CO"O4ISSION
UPLAND INDUSTRIES APPLICATION
TO AMEND THE :{ER.ID IAN
CO}4FIIEHEN S I\7E PLAN
I.iNDINGS OF I.ACT AND CONCLUS]CN*I-
The above entitled application to amend the lleridian
Conrprehensive PIan having corne on for: public hea::inc and the Plan-
nirr g antl Zoning Cornnission having held a r"rorkshop on said applica-
tion and having heard any and aII testimony that was sdxitted.
including the revrew of son-e of the record fron a prior Cornpr-ehen-
sive 11..n Amendr{',ent and Annexation request which concerneC a reqion
u1 gh6rling center, and having duly considered al1 the evidence,
offrcially noticed evidence, anci facts, the Cornpr:ehensive Dlan
itsel:i, the Local Planning Act of 1975, the PlanninE and zoning
Conunission nakes the follorving:
F'INDII.ICS O:i FACT
1. That the application lras submitted b:/ Upland Industries
Corporation and rs not an arnendment proposed bi, tile Cor.urission or
the Cr ti, Council .
2.. That the speciiic parcels of property to v;hich the applica-
tion ?ertains are the Northwest Quartei of Section 9, To:^rnship 3
North. Range t East, Boise t"teridian, \da County, Idaho, (he::eafter
referred to as Parce1 1) which is cor^,monl'g knor':n as the Southeast -
Corner of the intersections of Eac 1e ,load and Fairviet'r .A-venue, and
AMBAOSE.
FI'TZGEFIALD
acFoo(sToN
P.O. eor il27
6ita2
T6'.phom E€a{aGt P a<1e 2
Anendrnent Dl:ovisi-on anC P::oceclures of the
the Northeast Quarter of Section 8, Tor^rnship 3 Nortir, Ranqe 1East,
Bolse Her:-di-an, Ada County, Idaho, (hereafter ::efe::red to as Parcel
2) vrhich is conmonly knorvn. a-s the Southwest corner of the inter-
section of Eagle Road and Fairvie\,r Avenue.
3. That the -two specific parcels included in the application are
contained within l,leridian's At:ea of Impact as recently negotiated
between the City anC Ada Count)/i the parcels are included within
the Urban Servj-ce Planning Area and have been in the City limits
for over two years. The Parctr"] s were zoned industrial at Cre tirne
of their annexation and are presently zoned Light Industrlal
pursuant to the recentfy enacti.ng Zoning Ordinance.
4. The Comprehensj.ve Pfan PoIicy Diagram appears to designate
the area within which the ta\ro parcels are located as beinq in the
"Eastern Industrial Review Area" and 1n the "Rura1 Residential
Reserve" of the "North Curve lleighborhood." The Plan al-so generaf-
ly designates one slte for a regronal shopping center, that being
at the I-84/M.erj-dian Road Interchange. In order to develop Parcel
1 as a regional shoppinq center the Applicant's proposed ar.iendments
pertaining to a regional shopping center r0ust be approved. Like-
wise Lhe Appli.cant's amenclments to remove the ".Qural Resideit-iaI -
Reserve" from Parcel 2 should be approved to allow the Proposed
industraal developrnent and rentove the pcssible conflict that
exists between the Plan and the Pl:esent zoninq of Farcel 2.
5. The application has been processed under the -\rnendment
Provision and Procedures of Ule Plan as set forth on pages 5/, 55,
and 56 of the P1an.
6. Pu:suant to the
I
AMBFOSE
FITZGEAALO
I CROOKSION
P.O Bor a27
alGa2
T.l!phon€ 648{rt6l
Page 3
Plan, the Application was found to merit further study after the
requisite and duI1z noticed public hear.ings were held and a Com-
mission rvorkshop; the Findin-gs of Eact and Conclusions pertaining
to the question of whether the application merited further study
are incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in fuIl
hereati the Application itself was found to meet the requirements
of the Amendment Procedures.
7. Subsequent to the determination that the Application merited
further study. the Conmission h.e1d a duly noticed workshop on the
Application on Septernber 10, 1984, a duly noticed public hearing
on october 18, 1984, as required by Title 67, Chapter 65, ICaho
Code and the PIan, anil held an additional duly noticed workshop
on Novertirer 1, 1984, to consider the matteri that no changes have
been made in the Application or Proposed Arflendment.
8. The Application addresses the Amendnent requirements under
Amendrrlent Provrsion and Procedures set forth at page 54 of the
Plan; the Applicant's reasons why the Plan should be amended are
recited in the Cornmissio* earlier Findings of Fact \'rhen it deter-
mined the Applicatibn merited further stuCy.
9. The Application, in general terms, requests that Pareel- f'
be j,dentified and deslgnated in the Plan as a site for a regional
shopping center and that the "P'uraI Residential Rese::ve" designa-
tion of the PIan be removed from Parcel 2- The ApPlication
continues in specific terms to request specific changes to the
Polrcy Diagram and to many of the ;olicies and objectives of the
various components of the Plan such that the Plan's focus on a
I
tl
AMAROSE.
FIIZGEBALD
& cFoo(sToN
P.O Box a2?
830a2
Page 4
single designation of a regional shopping center site is changed to
a two site designation focus. Many of the specific requested
changes do not deal with the regional shoppinq center portion of
the Pfan, but with other components of the Plan that would be
effected by a tr,ro site designation, one at Eagle Road and Eairvievr
and one at Ueridian Road and I-84. However, the requested changes
are mainly a result of two Site Cesignations.
The Application, however, requests that even in Lhe event the
Eagfe Road/Fairview Avenue site is not approved for a regional
shopping center, that approval be given for removal of "Rural
Residential P,eserve" Cesignation South of Fairview Avenue so the
present Light Industnal zoning is deflnitely not in conflict with
the Plan.
10, The Application sets forth in paragraph Seven as follorvs:
"It is respectfully submitted that the suitability
for a regionaf shopping center of this location at
Lhe intersection of Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue
in the City of lleridian will be ampll/ dernonstrated
by the testimony and exhibits to be introCuced at
the hearings on this cause, which will consist
generall-), of reference to the suitability of the
slte itself for development, transportation access
to and from the site, demographic study of trends for
the jror^r th of the City of Iqeridian and Northern Ada
County and the Tranportation Pfan for Northern Ada-
County, together with Petitionerrs proposed improve-
ments to be made to the property. "
The Applicant presented to the Commission no testimony or exhibits
at U1e hearings held on this .Application afong the lines re-
presented by the above quoted statement.
1I. That the Plan, in Cealing with Commercial Actitity Centers
of \"/hich a regional shopping center is one, states as follows under
-l
P.O Bor a27
43642
T.lophd. 648-a461
Paqe 5
Corunercial Activity Centers at pages 19 n 20:
REGIONAL SIIOPPING CENTER: .As theActivi t./ Cent
largest of the Commercialto serve Ada County andt is Ce s i gnedthe surroundinq count-ies l.rh i ch make up the Treasure va1ley.-
In all cases, the locations of Commercial Actavity Centersshould be guided by perforrnance and developrnent standards.
These standards consider, among other aspects:
Traffic Volume and TypeTrip Generation
Impacts on Arterial Street Sj/stem
Proximity to Other Commercial Development
Impacts on Ne j-ghborhood Resirlential AreasAccessibility of Site
P^arking Demands
Pedestrian Circuldtionavailable Utility SystensAesthetics (Design Consi derations )
D ra i nage
Meridian is encouraqing the pctential development of a
Regional- Shopping Center near the l,leridian/Kuna Road
Free\{ay interchange. vlllen it becomes a reality, it will
have a significant impact upon Ueridian and has thepotential of becorning Ileridianrs new Central BusinessDistrict. The proposed private development prooram calls
for over a mi 1lion- square- foot shopping center, vrhich vrill
provide a wide varj.ety of retail enterprises and sup-portrng cornmercial uses (such as office compLexes, multl-
family residentiaf units, medical clinics, motels and
ent-ertainment facilities) .
POLICIES
It is the policy of the City of l.reridian to
encourage and. support the development of a
Regional Shopping Center as the core commeriial
acti-vity within Meridianrs Urban Service Plan-
ning Area, as well as the Tl:easure \:alfey.
The evafuation of the Regional Shopping Center
development shall- be prrrnarillr based upon its
consistency \{ith the land use policies of l'ler-
dan's Comprehensive PIan, as vJell as the future
air quality plan of northern Ada Countv.
I
1
3 As the specific plans are prepared and implemen-
tation and construction timetables are established,
the evaluation and revier'r of the '?.egional- Shopping
I
AMBAOSE.
FITZGEBALD
t cRoo(sroN
AMBFOSE.
FITZGEAALD
ECFOO(SION
P.O Aor A7
eBa2
I.laphon. E€E-aztOl
Page 6
Center development shall he conCucted through anEnvironmental fmpact Analysis proced.ure.
The Applicant in its Application addressed the standard of availa-
bility of utili,ty systems and the Craj-nage but did not address the
other standards for the location of a commercial activity center.
tikewise, the Applicant did not address the effect his application
r^rould have on land use policies or the air quality plan of northern
Ada County which are stated above to be prirnary factors in con-
sidering the development of a regional shoppino center.
12. _The Local Planning Act of 1975 indicates in Section 67-6508
that the Plan should be based on the following components:
population, economic developnent, land use, natural resources;
hazardous areas, public services, facilities, and utilities,
transportation, recreation, special areas or sites, housingi,
community design, and implementation. At the public hearincs the
Applicant did not address how the al)ove planning components 'r'rould
be effected by its proposed amendrnent or whether tl"lose conponents
would be effected at aIf.
13. At page 7 of the PIan, the Polic), Diagram indicates that a
regional shopoing center site is desiqnate<1 in the nortlleast
quadrant of the lleridian Road/I-84 Interchange. The Applica-tion -
would add an additional site at the southeast quadrant of
Fairvler,v Avenue and Eaofe Road but would not remove tle ileridian
Road site.
14. That the Pfan, in many places othe:: than in tlte portion
dealing with the commercial activity centers and the Policy
Diagram, refers to "the Regional Shopping Center" or "the Proposed
ll
I
AMAROSE
FITZGESALD
t cfiooxsroN
P.O. Bor a27
436.2
Page 7
Regional Shopping Center, northeast of the I-84/l'.leridian Road
Intersection" or such other single reference terminology: that the
Applicantrs requests trould, change such ,:eferences to refer to tvro
sites or make the wording such that it would appllr to t\^/o sites
for a regional .shopping cneter.
15. That at the hearing held before the Corpmission on October
18, 1984, testimony was presented by James W. Kiser, representing
l4r. Nahas and l4elvin Simon and Associates who own the Meridian
Road/I_-84 shopping center si teJ' that the testimony objected to
the adoption of the applicant's proposed Plan Amendm,ent; that Mr.
Kiser based his objection on the testimony his client put into
the record during the Quong-Watkin Properties Annexation request
and associated Conprehensive Plan Ar,lendments hereafter referred
to as the '[uong Record- " That it was unclear from ]4r. Kiser's
statements r,,/hether he so1e1y based his objection on the prior
testimony submitted or whether he also requested that the Com-
missi-on take offlcial or judicial notice of the testimony he and
his clients has submitted in opposition to the ouong-tr,latkins
Annexation and accompanying Plan Amendments.
That the Cornmission members fami-liarized themselves fith
the Quong record including specifically the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions; that the Cornmission sees some simjlarities \4rith the
Quong-Nahas situation and the Upland Indus tries -Nahas situation;
however, it also sees some significant dissimilarities and additio
ally sees some similarities between the Nahas site and the trplar,d
site.
I
I
AMBFOSE,
FITZGERALO
T CFOOKSTON
PO. Aor 427
tt36a2
15. The simil-.arities, rvhen cornparing the Quong Eaol-e lload site
and the Upland Eagle Road site rvhich might dictate deniel of the
Upland Application, are as follows:
a)adjacent to the existing retailNei ther
center of
site is
ller.idian ;
b) Both sites may require
sewer, police and fire
Road site;
greater service costs for water,protection, than the lle ri di an
c) The revenues to
shoppi ng cente rto theexpenses
of lleridian from a regionalsite may not offset the
the Cityat el-therciiy;
d) The basic property tax structure has not changed since
the Quong Annexation req ues t .
17. The dissimifarities, or in some cases similarities, hetl,reen
the Quong site and the tlpland site and the record in each case
which mj-ght lend support for approval of the gresent Application
are as foIlor,.rs:
a)Quong site was not already annexed to the City
zoned, as the Upland site is;
b) The ouonq s1te, to becone annexed and a reality required
an annexation route that erent south of the interstate
to encornpass lands that would not have been serviced by
water and sewer even thouoh annexed-
The
and
c) l{uch of the Quong siteexisting Urban Servi ce
e) Police and fire vehicles
outside the City limrts
to the upland site,
was not incfuded in the tiie it
Planninq Area;
d) I,later and sebrer lines are presently beinq extended to
land adjacent to the Upfand site by the Applicant at
its cost;
would not be required to travel
when taking the quickest route
f) The site is already zoned industriAl and adjacent land
is presently beinq developed inCustrially;
Page I
I
l
FITZGEAA!O
A CFOO(STON
P.O. Ao\ a2t
c!6a2
Page 9
b) Both sites will
adjacent to the
g) The Upland site Coes not have as much adjacent existingresidential property which could be impacted adversellzby development.
h) ?he Upland site. is already serviced by fairview Avenue,a four lane principal artereal;
i) The Eagle Road intersection at I-84 j-s
rieveloped into an interchanqe;
18. The similarities and dissimilarities beth,een
and the Nahas site which might tend to lend support
the Upland Application or at least make it a toss-up
site is preferable are as follorvs:
j) The Upland site is a little closer to lleridain's
existj-ng retail center and is connected to Lhat existingretail by Fairview Avenue which is likely to be
developed comnerciafly as evidenced by the comm.ercial
development alonq Pairview toward and in Boise;
-.k) The-Upland site is €loser to Boise vrhere Lhe majorityof people in the Treasure valley are who would use areqional shopping center and yet the Itpland site is
still in l4eridian's City limits.
planned to be
the Upland site
to approval of
as to which
a) Both sites are already in the llrban service Planninq
Area and the City limits and zoned;
c) The City is already obliqated to provide
pblice protection to the sites regarCless
albeit one may cost more than the otler:
soon have water and serrer services
land;
fire and
of cost
d) Neither site if developed as a regional shoppino centel:
will increase the revenues of the City significantly
and for sure not enough to pay for ti're costs of service;
e) The transportation impact on the present dol,rntown of
lleri-dian would be less if the Upland sj-te r{ere develope
f) The Nahas site has been annexed and zoned and capable
of being developed as a regional shoppj-ng center for
almost ten years and ]ret the maior retailers have not ye
decided to locate at that site.
AMBFIOSE,
FITZGERALO
I CFOOl(STON
P.O. Eor a27
436a2
Page 10
,q)
19. That the above facts pertaining to the Upland site, other
than those pertaining to water, serrr'er and drainage, have been
obtained from the material s-ubmi t te c] ilurinq the Ouong Annexation
and accompanl,ing PIan Amendment either by the Nahas people or by
the Quong peopie or have been officially or judicially noticed by
the Commission; some facts, in addition to those referenceC above,
which the Corunission has taken notice of are as follovrs, some of
which may have already been stated above:
a)The Applicantrs land is in l'leridian's Area of Impact
and Urban Service Planning Area;
b)The land is annexedindustrial;
and is presently zoned light
c)Sewer and water lines are presently being extended by
the Applicant to service j-ts inCustrall ciround in the
southwest quadrant of the Eagle Road,/Fairvierv Avenue
intersection and. thus water anC sewer lines r,r111 be
adjacent to the Applicantrs proposed site of a regional
shoppj-ng center;
d)The proposed site
tation arteriels,is serviced bly two principal transpor
Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road;
e)
f)
The State of Idaho Department of Transportation has
existing plans for construction of an interchange at
Eag1e Road and I-84 and designation of Eagle Road frorn
Fairview Avenue to I-84 as part of U.S. Highrvay'30i
that there rsill thus be trvo j-nterstate interchanges in
the Urban Service Planning Area;
That since the land is already in tire City, it has the
obligation to provide municipal services to the 1and,
those being specifically police and fire protectlon
and water and server:
There is very limited residential development near
the Applicantrs land and vrhat is there is sparse andlimited to farm homes and buildings;
I
I
AMBROSE,
FITZG€RALO
t cffooKsroN
P.O Bo! a27
E3.a2
Pace 11
"Stimu1ate, encourage and give perference to those
h)That the industrial zoning of the south\^rest quadrant
of the EagIe Road/Falrview Avenue intersection may bein conflict with the "Rura1 Residential Reserve"designation of the Plan:
i) I^Ihen the 1978 lleridian Comprehensive Plan was adoptedthe only suggesteC site for a regional shopping center
was at l4eridian RoaC and I-84; also the only inter-
change in the Meridian Area of Impact or Urban Service
Planning Area was at that site and now there is oneplanned for Eagle Road and I-84;
j) The Mericlian Road shopping center site has been an-
nexed and zoned for at least 10 years and has been
capable of being developed as a regional shopping
center for that amount of time and yet no center has
been constructed nor does it appear one r.rill be soon.
goals, policies, and objectives j-n the20. That the fol lowi ng
Plan are noted:
p-I "GOALS OF THE COIIPREHENSIVE PLAN
Goal 3: To encourage the krnd of economic growth an<l
development whi-ch supplies employment and economic
self-sufficiency for existinq and future residents,
reduces the present reliance on Boise and strenqthens
the City's ability to finance and implement public
in'lprovenents, services and its open space character. "
p.9 LAND LISE; POLICIES
"1. The Cj-ty of Meridian intends to plan for the
periodic reviewing, monitoring and updating of land
uses within the Area of Impact and the Urban Service
Planning Area
compliance with the basic goals of the ComPrehensive
Plan:
P.14
a.
b. Strip commercial and strip inCustiial"
EONOI,I IC DEVELOPI,IENT
I
AMBHOSE,
FITZGERAIO
I CFOOKSTON
P-O. Aor a2,
036a2
T.r.phon6 E6O-at6l
Paoe 12
types of economic activities and developments whichprovide opportunities for the employment of I.leridiancitizens and area residents and reduce t:\e need for
persons to connute to neighboring cities.
"The City of lleridian and its residents view Lhe
econonic enterprises of industry, retail commercial
and personal services as an integral part of a planned
corqrnunity. The Cityrs phl/sicaI devefopment, economicstability, social stratifj-cation and institutional
effectiveness for dealing with public needs are
dependant upon such economic opportnities. To accomp-lish the above objective, the Conprehensive Flan
provides for INDUSTRIAL REVIEW AREAS, COI:'II{ERCIAL
ACTMTY CENTERS and !.lIliED-USE REVIEI,{ AREAS.
"INDUSTRIAI REVIEI.] AREAS
The Comprehensive PIan intends to prepare for lleridian's
business and employment future by reserving land for
industrial, retail, cofiunercial and office uses and so
removing thern from the categories of land on rvhich
residential devefopment can be proposed.r'
p.26 IIOUS ING DEVELOPI1ENT, POLICIES
"2, Every effort shalI be made by the City of MeriC-
ian to encouraqe comrnercial and industrial growth and
development rvhich furthers ernploynent and economic
self-sufficiency and reduces ]leridianrs present
reliance on Boise's }letropolitan economic and
employnent center. "
p.5 3 OTHER PROJECTS
"2. Support and encourage development of Commercial
Activj-ty Centers
Regional Shopping Center
2l . The fotlor^,ing statements of the tleridian Conprehensive
PIan are note d:
P. I FORI^JARD
AMBFOSE
FITZGERALO
C CFOO(STON
P.O. Aor a2t
aL2 Paoe 13
1. The City of Meridian shalf make every effort to
"The Cornprehensive Plan is primarily a policy documentidentifying policies to guide future developrnent rvith-in antl outside of the City of lleridian. The Compre-
hensive Plan rs recognizably the primary step inj-dentifying the -qual j-ty of life t}Ie City residents
desj.re and rel-ating goals to its capacity to achieveparticular end results. It \ras developed $rith a broad
base of comrnunity-wide citizen input and is bothse4sitive to the changinq needs of the community and
recognizes a commi tment to preserve the values ident-
ified by the City residents.
NATURE OI THE COi4PREHENSIVE PLAN
A Comprehensive PIan is an officraf document, adopted
by- local governnents and public agencies, which serves
as a policy guide -for decisions concerning thephysical development of a comrnunitlz. It indicates, in
a general way, how the community may devefop in the
nexL 2C to 30 years.
The essential characteristics of the Comprehensive
Plan are that it is cornprehensive, general , lonq-
range and represents a process---not a pnoduct.
Comprehensive means that the plan encompasses all
areas of the community and all functlonal elements
which bear: on physical developmen€. General means
that the plan summarizes policies and proposals and
does not Cevelop detailed site p1ans.Lon - ran o e
means that the plan looks belzond th e presslno curren t
issues toward the aspect of prohlens hlhich the com-
munity nay face in the future.(not a product) , the ComPrehen
Frnal1y, as a ro ces s
sive PI an ls an ongoang
process for directinq change that occurs inevitably
in a community---not a document that is \'rritten once,
for all time . "
p. 14 .'CO}T'IERC IAL ACTIVITY CENTERS
Retail commercial and office development are frequentpartners withj-n Cornmercial Activity Centers. Bothgeneral categories often shai:e locational- needs andoften prove rlutuaIly supportlve. fn order to coordin-ate with the supportive areas of residential- andindustrial Cevelopments, areas should be set aside as
Cornnercial qctivity Centers and their devefopmentcarefully gui- ded - "
p.15 "ECONOI"TIC POl,rC 1ES
AMBROSE,
FITZGEFAID
t CFIOOKSTON
P.O a.\a27
436.2
Page 14
k-
create a positive atmosphere which encouragesindustrial and conTnercial enterprises to locate in
Ile ri di an .
2 It is the pol-icy of the Cityaside areas where comme rci a1
terest and activities are to
of lleridian to
anC industrai 1
dominate .
setin-
Positive programs should be undertaken to support
existing industrial and commercial areas to ensure
their continued vitality, such as:
a.' Zo.rirrg changes to assure deCired economic
deve loprirent - ,
It is the poficy of the City of Meridian to
support shopping facilities which are effectively
integrated into existing residential areas, and
plan for nerv shopping centers as growth and
development warrant.
The City of lleridian intends to establish Commercia
Development Design Guides wh j-ch:
a, Provide for the grouping of commercial buildirgs
on a single parcel of land in such a manner as to
create a harmonious, efficient and convenient
retail shopping environn.ent: "
p.6 POLICY DIAGR{'q
"I^lith the anticipation of growth and Cevelopmentpressures during the next decade, the ComprehensivePlan summarizes the potential distributions of landuse activities within the Urban Service planning Areathat are based upon policy recommendations. The poli
Diagram attempts to make general designations ofappropriate and compatible land use, expresses theuftimate growth of the l{eridian community if all theland were developed, and provides a flexibte frameworfor further detailed land use decisions.
u)/
4
6
I
AMBFOSE.
FITZGERALO
t CROO(SION
P.O. Aor 427
836a2 Page 15
The Policy Diagram is to be used as a general guidefor land use Cecision-making---not as a leEalistic,literal and definitive map. As applications andproposal-s of land uses are submitted, the policy
Diagram is not.i5rtended to be used as the soIe,authoritative means for decision-making. Rather, itis but one of the many tools lrhich are available forpublic officials as they exercise theii responsibility
reqaralingr the health, safety and welfare of the generalpublic.
p.50 COIIPREHENSIVE PL.AN REVIEIJ
If the Comprehensive Plan is to be useful andeffective, it should not be fileC ar^ray but should
be continually reviewed and updated. The recom-
mendations within lhe Con,prehensive Plan should not beinterpreted as unaltalrable comrnitrnents, but rather
as a reflection of the best foreseeable direction at
a given point in time. It is recorFrenCed by theUeridian Planning and Zoning Comnission that at least
a yearly revier.r' shall be held of the Comprehensive
Plan to update and/or reaffirm the Plan to fit the
changinq needs as vre11 as unforeseen planninq prob leros
and opportunities.
22. That there \^ras no testimony at any of the pubiic hearings
contrary to the Applicantrs reguest except at the last public
hearj-ng when James tr{. Kiser, representing the owners of the
Meridian Road site spoke 1n opposition: that no publi-c corEnent
was rece.iv-ed from persons not having an economic interest i,n
either the }leridian Road site or the Eag1e Road/Fai-rview Avenue
site.
C ONC LUS I ONS
1, That all the procedural requirements of the lleridian
Comprehensive P1an, hereafter refered to as the P1an, and of
the Local Planning Act, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code , in-
cluding all notice and hearing requirements, have been meti that
the Commission has authority to amend the Plan.
2. That Upland Industries Application to anend the plan raras
I
AMBFOSE,
FITZGEFALD
T CBOOKSTON
P.O.8ora27
B!6a2
Page 16
initiated by the Applicant and not by the Commission or the City
counci I -
3. That the Comnission rnay take judicial or official notice of
existing conditlons in the City, County and State and of govern-
mental actions,_ policies, anC ordinances.
4. That the function of adopting, amending or repeafing a
Comprehensive Plan is a legislative function. Burt vs City of
Idaho Ea11s, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.2d 1075 (1983) - That even though
this is- a legiSlative functionr lhe Local Planning -Act requires
that Findings of Fact and Conclusions be made for any application
provided for in the Act.
5. That the Application its6lf vTas previously concluded to have
met Lhe requirerLrents of the Amendment Provision and Procedures of
the Plan and such concl.usion is reaffirrned-
Amendment Provision and Proceduresparagraph K. of the
of
6. That
the Plan provicles in part as follows:
Amendment of the Comprehensive Pl-an may be granted only
to correct an error in the Plan or because of sub-
stantial change in the actual conditions of an area
which results in a naterial drscrepancy or disparj"ty
between tire conditions in the area and all or part of
the Plan . "
That this Application has been processed under the above require-
ment and must be judged on that basis: hovrever, it is noted that
such a requirement is more restrictive than allowed or required
under the Local Planninlr. Act; that the Con-Lmiss j.on itself has
recommended an amendment to Section K which removes the idea that
an amendment may only be granted to correct an error or chanqe
I
AMAFOSE,
FITZGERALD
I CFOO(STON
P.O. Bor a27
E36a?Page 17
in actual conditions; such restrictive requirement h/as an error
in itself s.ince j-t is difficult to pl-an for the future and make
necessary changes when the. C-orxJission and Council must be guided
by actual conditions. Such is a conflict in terminology and the
function of a C_omprehensive Plan to "plan-"
7. That the Plan is what j-t says it is. It is a Plan. The
portions of the Plan set forth in Finding number 21 reflect that
the Plan "summarizes policies and proposaLs and does not develop
detaile-d site pIans." The cornnent to the Policy Diagrar. indicates
that the Diagram is not "intended to be useil as the sole,
authoritative means for decision-rnaking" I>ut "is to be used as a
general guide for land use decision-rnaking---not as a legalistic,
literal and definitive map." The Plan thbr:efore should be liberall
construed but stil1 maintained as the functionaf quideline for
land use decisions, i.e., the Pfan policies and objectives cannot
be wi11y-ni11y disregarded \{hen there is an apparent conflict
bethreen the PIan and a proposed use.
8. That the Cominission has the duty, as does the City Council,
to continually plani that the Commission treats amendments proposed
by private entitles as part of that plAnning duty and functi-on;
the Comraission cannot, and should not, be the sole initiator of
possible amendments; the Commission treats amendment applicati-ons
as a means of bringing possible and necessary planning changes to
1i ght .
9. At the time the PIan was initially adopted there was only
one interstate interchange and now there is an additional one
planned for the Eagle Road/I-84 intersectioni afso at the time of
ll
I
I
I
AMBROSE.
FITZG€BALD
t cnooxsroN
P.O. Erox a2,
E36a2
Page 18
initial adoption of the Plan the EagIe Road,/Fairvj-ew Avenue area
r,,/ as not in the City limits and some of it not in Lhe Llrban Service
Planning Area; likervise, sew-er and lrater was not to or adjacent to-
the land owned by the Applicant. It is condluded that these
changes and oth-e rs noted in the Findings, are a substanti-a1 change
in the actual conditions of the area, and even of the entire Urban
Service Planning Area, which has resulted in a substantial change
in the actual conditions of the area which resulted in a rnaterial
discrepancy or-disparity betwe.en the condi€ions of the area and
all or part of the Plan sufficient to meet the reguirements of
paragraph Ii. of the AmenCment Provisions and Procedures of the Plan
ial Reserve" south of !'airview Avenue should be adopted to conform
the Plan to the fact that the area is zoned Ligllt fndustridl.
10. It is likewise concLud.ed that the above referenced changes I
Iwarranted a review of the P1an, and amendment of the Plan if deemedl
appropriate, regardless of whether the Applicant had submitted its l
IAppfj-cation. The Application brought to light and focused in on
I
the need to review the P1an, The Commjssion norv is required to
I
Iassess not only the Application but also whether those changes abc/g
warrant adopti.ng the proposed amendment and whether the changes
of the Application itself are j-n the best interest of the Plan
and the City, and whether they are desireable
11. That the part of the Appfication pertaining to a regional
shopping center would have to be adopted to allow the developnent
intentions of the Applicant as set forth in the Application; that
the Application pertaining to the removal of the "Rural Resident-
I
I
J
AMBBOSE,
F ZGER LO
tcRooxsToN
P.O. Bor /t27
430a2
T.l.phon€ 888-{61
Page 19
12. That since "Rural Residential Reser:ve" is defined in the
Glossary of the Plan at page 58 as: "Areas of the Urban Service
Planning Area which are intended for specified future use
(residential or industrial) ;... " and that Parcels 1 and 2 could
easily be founQ to be located in the Eastern Industrial Review
Area, and becuase there is very sparse residential development
in the area and because Fai-rview Avenue rvould be a buffer between
possible residential developnlent north of Fairvj-ew and industrial
development south of Fairvietv,. it is concluded that that portion
of the Applicants' Application requesting renroval of the Lural
Residential Ileserve from Parcels 1 anC 2 should be granted.
13. The main focus of the assessment of that part of the
Application pertaining to the desiqnation of a site for a regrional
shopping center is dictaEdby those factors mentioned in Findings
of Fact, paragraph 11 and 12, the Application itself, the facts
presented rn the hearings or officially noticed, and the goals,
objectives, and policies of the PIan as it exists and if it were
amen de d .
14. The Application and the testimony in its favor dealt rvith
se\1rer, r.vater and drainage i it cleaIt with the fact that t{erid'iai
has an existing regional shopping center location but ltet it has
not been developed as one for probabl:r over ten years; the
Application concfudes, without support, that the Applicant's Parcel
1 is "amenable to development of a Regional Shopping Center" and
makes conclusionary remarks as to the public need and benefit from
its proposeC P1an Anendment. The Application states that the
"suitability of the Eagle lload,/Fai::view Avenue as a reqional
I
I
AMBROSE,
FITZGEBALO
r cFoo(sroN
P.O.Bora2t
a3.2
Page 20
shopping center site wiIl be amply demonstrated by testimony and
exhibits to be introduced at- the hearings.. No such testimony
was subitted. However, the process of this Application is not
completed in th_at the City Council must consider it and at least
one hearing must be held at which time such testirnony could be
presented.
15. Other than those itenE mentioned in paragraph 14 above, the
Appfic_ant did.4ot address the $tandards for the location of a
commercial acitivty center contained in Findlng llo. 11; nor were
the Planning Components of Section 67-6508, Idaho Code, addressed.
16. That the representative of the or.rners of the l4eridian
Road/I-84 site objected to the approval of the Application based
on Lhe testimony those owners had submitted into the .ouong record.
The Comr0ission concludes that hrhile nany of the costs objections
to the Quong Applicatj-on apply to Upland Application they also
apply to any regional shoppinE center that is developed in the
City limits. Certainly, the costs are greater the farther the
development is frorn the existing services or means of service.
However, the slgnificant Cifferences betvreen the {)uong Applltati-o"
anC this App1rcation and which make comparison difficult and in
many cases useless are: f) Uplands I fand is already annexed,
2) the City must provide municipal services regardless of the
nature of the development, and 3) sevrer and hrater are or will be
adjacent to the site, all three of which were differences in the
AMBFOSE,
FI]ZGERALO
t CFOOXSTON
436a2
l.l.pho^! 0€A{aOt
15 upon a reoional shopping center. The Flan
development of a
the PIan's focus
comparison between the Quong site and the Nahas site t/hich vrere
felt to make the Nahas site more desireable r"rhen comparinq those
two sites and are not reasons to deny this Application, but suppo rt
Additional differences are that the Upland site is a 1ittle
closer to exist-ing I'leridian retail, the site is located on
Fairview Avenue whiih has historically proved to be a good location
for commercial activity as evidenced by development in Boise and
at Cherry Plaza in I.teridian, the site is already served by two
principal arteriels, and there.would be little if any inpact on
residential areas,
77. It is thus concluded that the Quong record does not dictate
deniel of the Application but ma1, lend evidence for approval.
f8. That one of the major themes, if not the most prominent
theme, of the PIan is that lleridian wants growth and developnent
which is orderly and balanced- This is evidenced by Findino 20.
Likevrise, it is evidenced by the Pl-an at page 2:
"The goaIs, objectives and policies herei.n expressed
underlie and shape the character and orientation of
Meridran's Comprehensj-ve Plan. Thel, 69.1 vJith U1r:ee major
concerns of the people of iieridian:
1) Orderly growth anil development;
2) Economic growth and balance; and
3) Inprovement of the gualj-ty of life."
19. That throughout the PIan Lhe therne and desire for econontlc
growttr and jobs and sel-f-sufficiencl, is l:epeated. One
al)ove was, and
of the ma'j or
means the PIan states as achieving the is, the
:luch o fregional shopping center in lleridian.
I
Page 21
AMBFOSE,
FITZGERALD
ICFOOKSTON
?-O Oo, a27
43642
Page 22
specifically located the site for such a center as the I'leridian
Road/I-84 intersection. This site designation may have been con-
trary to the idea that the,P1an is a general guideline and not a -
legalistic, definitive document but at L\e time of adoption of the
Plan it was the- only "site" in "sight." The area has changed.
The development of an addltional inte::change, the extension of the
Urban Service Planning Area and the extension of water and sewer
lines make re-eviluation of the Plan, and possibly the single
designation of a regional shopping center, appropriate. Ho\.reve r,
a.
wether there is one site designated or trrro or more, the desire of
the people of l{eridian is for a shopping center and the fact that
the Pfan strenuously endorses a reqional shopping center as a means
to achieve econonric gror^rth, jobs, and self-sufficienc), cannot be
easily disregardetl and any proposal that v/ould, in fact, be
developed as a regional shopping center must receive serious
consideration at the Planning and Zoning Commission fevel and the
City Council 1eve1. Thus, while the evidentiary presentation hras
lacking before the Commission, the Application and the Applicant
must be sent to the Council.
20.
City of
locateC
It can be, and is, judicially
l.leridian would like to have a
IN I4e ri di an . It can likewrse
and will be differences of
noticed that the peopte'of the
regional shopping cen te r
be judicial noticed that
opinion as tb where such a
has the better like lihood
there are
center should be located or what site
of drawing tenants and of actually being developed.
AMEFOSE.
FIT2GEFA!D
lcFool(sron
P-O aox /t27
€lta2
Page 23
27. Other tltan the designation of an exact site for a regional
shopping center the Appfication meets the general approval of the
goals, policies and objectives of the Plan as it exists. Of
course, if the Anendrnents were approved it would then fa11 more
completely in lj ne with the goa1s, policies, and objectives of
the P1an. There could be some objection that the designation of a
regional shoppinqr center at Eagle Road and gairview Avenue would
not entail orderly growth but since no specific evitlence was put
forth i-n that. qegard such is n9t concluded, and in any event that
one factor alone would not necessarily be grounds to deny the
Application. The Application must be held to a balanced review
without singleling out one or more factors.
22. It should be noted at this juncture since in the above
paragraph rnention is made as to how the proposed amendroent would
fit into the Plan, that the Conmission concludes that, even though
t.he Applicantrs proposal pertains specifically to two parcels, the
Appllcation effects the entire P1an. The change from a single site
designation of a regional shopping mafl to a th'o site designation
would effect many of the components of the Pfan and their policies.
The original Pfan is so oriented to the present ileridian noa-a,zi-Sa
site that a change to add an additional site would, and souId,
ripple through the P lan.
23. The Comrnission ultimately concludes that the facts pre-
sented by the Applicant and the officially noticed facts contained
in the Eindings, particularly Finding }io. 19, are sufficient to
meet the requirenents of Paragraph K of the Arnendment Provision and
AMBFOSE,
FIfZGERALO
t cRooxsroN
P.O. 8or a27
a$a2
I.l,rpi..r. 660{aO1
Page 24
Procddures of the Plan to amend the Planr that the facts, part-
icularly that there has been a site designated for a regional
shopping center for some time and yet it has not developed, !\at
the Upland site is serviced by tvro prrncipal arteriels, that there
sriIl soon be an_ Eagle Road/I-84 interchange, that sewer and vrater
are or will be available to the Upland site, that the Upland site
is connected to l,leridian's existinq retail by means of Fairview
Avenue, an historically well developed comnercial arteriel, and
that the site, is irlreatly annexed and must be provided v:ith munici-
pal services regardless of how it is developed, present cogent
reasons for looking further into the designation of the Eagle Road/
Fairview Avenue site as a regional shopping center site; that the
Applicant has, however, failed to address how hj-s proposal would
effect the planning components contained. in Section 67-650A or tvhy
the site should be designated as a commercial activity center,
regional shopping center, when held to the stanCards at page 19
of the Plan and recited in Finding 11 fcir determining the location
of a commercial activity center and thus the Applicant has failed.
to show that the location of a regional shoppinq center at
Fairview and Eagle Road is Lhe appropriate way to amend the ?fan -
even though there are changes in the area vrhich justify an
amendment if that amendment itself is deemed beneficial and ap-
propriate.
In short, the Applicant has r.e t the r.equirements to amend
the PIan but has failed to show that its amendnent is appropriate
or how it would effect the other Planning Components.
il
AMBFOSE,
FITZGEBALO
ACFOOKSTON
P.O.8ora27
43642
Tll.phon! 088-aa61
24. It is concluded, Ilowever, that si.nce the people of l4eridian
desire a reg.ional shopping center, since the one site capable of
being developed has not developed, since the P]an states that a
regional shopping center, regardless of location, is a means of
economic growth and would provide jobs and allov; lleridian to be
s6lf-sufficient and not have to rely on Boise, since the Comnrission
is a recommending bodn since the PIan is a planning document and
device and this arnendment procedure is part of the planning process,
and since tiis is a leciSJfative process and the governing body
should have an opportunity to revier.r the matter, and since the
Applicant has an opportunity to have one or more additional hearings
before the City Councj-1 and thus an opportunity to present additiona
facts which may justify aoproval of the focation of a regional
shopping center at Applicantrs site, that the Application should be
forwarded on to the City Council rvith the recoruflendation set forth
belorv in the Re cornmendation . It is,of course, realized that the
Council may Cen], the Application or take action as 1t deerns fit
but it is felt the City Council should have an opportunity to
review it without the "sceptor" of a denief hanging over its head-
25. That there was no evidence that even if Applicants pr6pbsed
amendment regarding a regional shoppinq center were apProved that
it would be constructed; that the Commission does not like to
change the Plan solely to fit particular l-and use proposals that
may not be actually constructed; and that since Parcels 1 and 2
were annexed prior to the adoption of the Zoning and Development
ordinance on April 2, 1984, and therefore Parcef I is not subject
lage 25
I
AMBROSE
FITZGEBALO
I CROOKSTON
P.O Aora2,
ailcir2
Page 26
to Sectj.on 11-9-516 which requires development to take place
wj-thin a certain time, that there should be some means to condition
approval of Apphcant's proposaf or t1e approval to the actual
development, assuming, of dotrse, that its Application receives
ultimate approval by the City Council.
25. It is finally concluded by the Conmission that any change
in designations of or for regional shopping centers in the Plan
is not to be interpretted in any fashion as a rezoning or dohrn-
zoning of the I'leridian Road/1-84 site; that that site is stil-l
viewed vith support and adoptibn of the Applicant's proposal,
if accepted, woulcl not change the abj-Iity to develop that site.
AMaFOSE.
FITZGEFALO
tcaooKsroN
P.O. Bor aa7
3lL2
T.Lphoo. 8864t161
Page 21
APFROVAL Of FI)IDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLT'ISIONS
The l.leridlan Planning and zoning
and approves th-ese Findings of Fact and
Roll CaI1
Comrnission hereby adopts
Conclusions.
Comissioner Morrov,
Comrnissioner aliCj ani
Corunissioner Johnson
Corulissioner Shearer
Cofiunissioner Cole
Chaiiman Spencer (Tie B reake r: )
Vote
\/ote
Vote
Vote
Vote
Vote
a0/esW{d!-qd{/!-s_y-
I
AMBNOSE.
f|TZGEAALD
tcAooxsTor{
P.O. aox a27
t(}ca2
rlbpho..0EE{a61
Page 28
RECOM!,lENDAT I ON
The l.leridian Pfanning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council as follows:
1) That the Applicants' proposed amendment to remove
from the North Curve Neighborhpod the "RuralResidential Reserve" designation from the entire
Northeast Quarter of Section B, Township 3 North,
Range I East, of the Boise-l4eridian, Ada County,
Idaho and South of Fairview -q.venue, be adopted.
2) That the Applicants' proposed amendment to provide
that the entire Northvrest Quarter of Section 9,
Township 3 North, Range I East, of the tsoise-Meridian,
Ada County, Idaho be designated in the Comprehensive
Pfan as a site for a Regional Shpooing Center butsubject to conditions to be imposed at the time ofproper zoning of the property, be adoptecl.
APPRoVED At\ "/eq D I SAPPROVED
I
AMBROSE.
FIIZGEFALO
tcBooxSToN
P.O. Aot .27
a5a2
T.l.pnoo. €88a/61
Page 1
BEFORE TTIE I4ERIDIAN PLA}JNING AND ZONl}iG COT4] ISS]CN
PLA],INING AND ZONING CO}IITISSION I S
APPLICATION TO AI{END
MER,IDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PINDINGS OI FACT AND COIJCLUSIONS
The above entitled application to amend the Ileridian
Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to the Amendment Procddure, the
l"leridian tlrban.Limits Functional Transportation I',ta-p., and. the -
possible adoption of a new Area of Impact for the Citi, of l4eridian
having come on for public hearing and the-Plafrning and Zoning
Cornmission having heard any and all testinony that was subrnitteC
and hating duly considered the eviCence and its own opinions and
the matter, the Planning and Zonrng Commj-sssion makes the foflowing:
1. That notice of the public hearing on the application t^ras
published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the saicl public
hearing scheduleal for october 18, 1984, the first publication of
which v:as fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the flatteI
was cluly cons-idered at the october 18, 1984, hearing and '.',as dUlY
considered by the Planning and zoningl Corunission; that copies of
all notices were available to neirspapers, and radio and televlsion
stations .
2.(a) That the proposed amendment on the Comprehensive Plan
amendment procedures shortens the sequence of events in the
FINDINGS OF FACT
AMBFOSE.
FITZGERALO
I CROOKSTON
P.O. Bor il27
dBa2
Page 2
amemdment process and enables the Commission and the City Council
to process PIan anendments in a more timely and efficient manneri
that the existing procedure requires alr€ndments to be submitted
six months prior to being finally acted upon, that a copy of the
proposed procedure is on fl1e with the City C1erk, and is hereby
incorporated herein as set forth in fu1l.
(b) That the proposed amendment pertaining to the l,leridian
Urban Limits and Functional Ctassification Transportation !',Iap is a
houseke,eping arDe ndment to update the Transportatio-n, Classificati.on
A copy of the map is on file with the City Clerk and is hereby
incorporated herein as j-f set forth in full.--
(c) That the proposed amendment pertai-ning to the Area of
Impact is an amendment which is necessitated by the fact an Area
of lmpact has been negotiated by the Clty Council and the Ada
County Conmissioners, that the Area of Inpact rs as filed with the
City Clerk and by this reference incorporated herein as if set
forth in full .
3. That at the public hearing held october 18, 1984, at
7: 30 o' clock p.m. , there r,/a s no public comment ' either ol:af or
written, on the applicatj.on. There was one written statemeni '
submittecl at a prior hearing on the Area of Impact which was
against the adoption of the Area of ImPact'
4. That these anendments have been proposed by the Comrnission
itself.
5. That the proposed amendrnents are, or will be' of a house
cleaning nature -
s
I
I
AMAAOS€,
FITZGEBALO
t CFOOKSION
P.O. Aor a27
ff5a2
T.l.phon l8&aa6l
Page 3
CONCLUS IONS
area.
7. That since the proposed amendments are teclinical in nature
and generally are, or rviI1 be, house keeping measures, the
proposed arnenclments are hereby conluded to be in the best interest '
of the Plan and the CitY.
1. That the City has authorlty to amend 1ts Comprehensive I
-lPlan pursuant to Title 57, Chapter (r5, fdaho Code, and pursuant to'l
Ithe Amendment Provisions and Procedures of the Comprehensive Pfan
I
Iof Meridian, as amended April 2, 1984.
I
2. That all notices and hearing requirements set forth -an -l
ITitle 67, Chapter 65, Idaho.Code, the Ordinances of the City of
I
IMeridian, and the Comprehensive Plan have been complied with.
I,l3. That since the propo""i amendments are profose<t by thd I
ICommission and are, or will be, of a ho_use..]-"ilg .nature, the
Itechnical requirements for an amendment application may be waived,
I
are hereby waived.
I
I4. That the Commission may take judicial notice of governmental.l
statutes, ordinances, and poficies, and of actual conditions I
Iexisting within the City, County, and State.
I
5. That pertaining to the amendment procedures the existing I
Isix months or more, from application to decision by the Com-
|
mrssion is concfuded to be too long for most arnendments
I
I6. That all the amendments are concluded to be required-by- all
I
error in the Plan or by a chanoe in the actual conditions of tb-e
I
AMBFOSE
FITZGERA!D
ACFOOI(SION
P.O 3or 427
(5a2
T.l.9hor. t$84l6l
Page 4
APPR,OVAL OE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The l4eridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts
these Findings of. Fact and Conclusions.approve s
RoIf Ca11
Commissioner l,lorrow
Commissioner Alidj ani
Commissioner Johnson
Cornmissioner Shearer
Commissioner Cole
Chairman Spencer (Tie Breaker)
RECO},l!IENDATI ON
The i.teridian Planning and zoning Corunission hereby recommends
to the City Council t}Iat the Planning and Zoning CorLrmissionr s
proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments pertaininq to 1) Lt're
Comprehensive PIan Amendment Procedure, 2) the }leridian Urban
Limits Functional Transportation l,!ap, and 3) the Area of Impact
br A/t/t/ l/ TL cifl |ou-,,l
APPROVED D ISAPPR.O\IED
and
Vote d
Vote d t
Vote d
Vote d
Voted
voted
.l-t
*-
I
Boise, Idaho
December 5, 19 84
Meridian City CouncilMeridian, Idaho 83642
Gentlemen:
I take my pen in hand again to attempt to influence you to
refuse a land developer, I call them land despoilers, the privi-
Iege of building a shopping center outside the city limits ofl,leridian. These foreigners from Chicago do not care a hoot about
what this wiIl do the city of l,leridian or the desecration of
several hundred acres oi this va1ley's fertile farm land.
I laughed scornfully when I read the article in thismorning's Statesman which guoted the spokesman for Upland and
HomarL as saying that their development would not have an
"adverse impact" on the retailers in Meridian. What a stupidstatement. of course it will hurt the Meridian retailers !Meridian will be a ghost town. I do not think that anyone in
Meridian is suffering for lack of a shopping center 2 miles from
their city. who thinks any more shopping centers are needed in
this vaIley? Only the developers.
With the exploding world populations and the ever conti-
nuing need for more food in Africa, in a very few years there
will be a demand for all the food our nation can produce. what
other nations can increase their food production substantially?It is a crime to aIlow any more of this valleyrs fertile farm
land Lo be covered with shopping centers and subdivisions, which
take that land out of production forever.
These so-ca1leil developers boast of the number of employeestheir proposed project hrill require. That tron't make a bit ofdifference in the overall picture. It takes so many employees toservice the popuiation, whether they are working in stores in
Meridian and Boise or in a shopping center out in the boonies.
I hope you wiII consider these
approval of tshis unneeded project.
facts when cons idering
{t
Very truly yours,
c@^xz*,V
C. v. Rutledge\
)\
{(,
*
o
Jnues W. Krsert
ATTOI{\EY AT LAI''
6000 FAIRVIEW AVE,
(FAIRVTE\\ AT M'fN. VIE$' DR.I
E,OISE. TDAHO 44706
206 076-0 rOO
November 15, I98 4
Mr. Jack Niemann
City CIerk
Meridian City HaIlMeridian, ID 83642
Dear Jack:
Please forward to me a copy of the Planning and Zoning
C issionrs Findings of Fact a nd Conclusions of Law
nsive Plan changes and
ustries appl ication.
ing the Meridian Comprehe
nts regarding UpIand
Iy,
J Kiser
JW a
Since
ame
g
-7-
ASSOCIATED REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC.
A Division of Melaniphy & Associates, Ine.
ASSOCIATED REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC.
One North LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 641-0600
ASSOCIATED REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC.
INTRODUCTION
Associated Real Estate Appraisers, Inc., a division of Melaniphy &
Assoeiates, Inc., is a full service real estate appraisal firm. This appraisal
company was recently acquired to complete the comprehensive set of services
offered by Melaniphy & Associates, Inc. in the area of real estate evaluation,
investment, acquisition and disposition. Associated Real Estate Appraisers, Inc.
(AREA) is qualified to inspect, analyze and determine the value of a specific
property or group of properties anywhere in the world,
AREA specializes in real estate appraisals of all types, including residential,
commercial, industriBl, public faeilities, mixed use developments, condemnations,
rights-of-way, foreclosures, properties in various stages of construction, vacant
land and others.
Appraisals, analyses, and counseling have been utilized by both the private and
publie sectors involving the development or disposition of property. In addition,
the firm ean generate computerized finaneial analyses and pro formas con-
sidering alternate uses and values,
The eo-ordinated team of real estate economists, appraisers, urbanologists, Bnd
market analysts enables Assoeiated Real EstBte Appraisers, Inc. and Melaniphy
& Assoeiates, Inc. to provide a complete range of consulting services to clients.
The highest professional standards are maintained while condueting studies and
appraisals in the most cost-effective manner.
Associated Real Estate Appraisers, Inc.
OFFICERS
President
John H. Pittroff, Jr., M.A.L, S.R,P,A.,
John Pittroff has over thirty years of professional appraisel experienee. In 1949,
he joined Real Estate Research Corporation and served as real estate analyst
with broad exposure to appraisals of aII types of real estate. Additional
assignments included retail studies, housing market analyses, and space studies
for a number of municipalities.
Other types of studies included over two years of appraisal, analysis and
eounseling with the Chicago & North Western Railway Company. Additionally,
Mr. Pittroff functioned as chief appraiser for the Exchange National Bank.
Since 1969, Mr. Pittroff headed Associated Real Estate Appraisers, Ine. The
eorporation eonducted appraisal work for a wide variety of real estate across the
United States and has provided expert testimony.
Professional Memberships:
American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, #4127; Senior ReaI Property
Appraiser, Soeiety of Real Estate Appraisers; ReaI Estate Broker, State of
Illinois; Chicago Real Estate Board; Urban Land Institute.
Viee President
James J. Schroeder, lU.A.l.
James Schroeder has over twenty-five years experienee in professional
appraisals. He has independently eonducted appraisals in all types of real estate
developments in addition to insuranee appraisals of improvements to properties
and maehinery and equipment appraisais. Testimony has also been given in
various courts throughout the eountry.
Mr. Schroeder was Viee President of Real Estate Research Corporation in charge
of the Appraisal Department, He was also President of Financial Real Estate
Appraisers, Ine.
Professional Memberships:
American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, #4319, Past President,
Illinois Chapter #6; Chicago ReaI Estate Board, Past Chairman of
Appraisers Division; Southwest Suburban Board of Realtors.
Associated Real Estate A raisers, lnc.
PROFESSIONAL SERIICES AVAILABLE
Complete analysis of property valuation utilizing the three recog-
nized approaches (cost, market and income)
Comparable assessment analysis
Study of assessment ratios by classification
4ppfeECl elc Reql Eqlqte Analysis
Investment Analysis
Assistanee to developers in the formulation of proforma statements
Valuation of investment alternatives by use of mortgage-equity
techniques
Mortgage ard property portfolio analyses
Feasibility Analysis
Analysis of properties concerning highest and best/optimum use
Cash flow, marketability and feasibility analyses (udgements relative
to the economics of prospective developments)
Machinery and E quipment
Advice on the optimum use of fixed assets, maehinery and equipment,
along with obsolescenee ereated by advaneements in technology
Condemnation and Eminent Domain
Establishment of just and equitable compensation for losses from
total or partial takings of land and/or buildings
Determination of insurable value and evaluation of losses
Appraisal for Ad Valorem Taxes
. Appraisal services for use in mortgage lending, acquisitions, fore-
closure, and arbitration matters. Valuation and eounseling for the acquisition and liquidation of real
estate assets. Assistance in estimating net realizable value for financial institutions. Special appraisal problems: Air rights valuation, price alloeation and
investment value estimates. Valuation of planned unit developments and condominium projeets,
considering retail value estimates, development expenses and ab-
sorption analyses. Periodie valuation for trusts and corporate profit sharing/pension
plans
. Valuation of recreationai and resort properties
Insurance Valuations
Associated Reel Estate Appraisers Inc.
Albeny Bsnk & Trust Compsny
Allis Chalmers Company
Alsip Brnk
Alsip Park Dist.ict
Amalgamated Taust &
Savings Bank
American National Bank
Amoco Realty Compony
Amsted Industries
Bcverly Bank
Bo.den's lnc.
Catholic Church -
ArcMiocese of Chicago
Chicago d North Weslern
TIansportstion Company
Chicsgo Board of Education
Chicego Department of
Public Buildings
Chicago Ridge Schoo)
District No. l2?
City of Blue ls)and
City of Chjcogo Ridge
City of Crncinngti, Ohio
as Consultanls
Cily of lvrsconsin
Rapids Housing Authority
Comme.cial Bank of Xorea
Continental Grain Company
Continental IIlinois
National Bank
Cook County Housing
Authority
De Paul University
Exchsnge National Bank
of Chicago
Federal Reserve Bank
of Chicago
Fi.st Federa) Savings & Loan
Associstion of Chicago
Fi.st National Bank of
Highland Bank
First National Bank of
Oak Brook
Ford City 88nk
SELECTED LIST OF CLIENTS
Harais Trust 8nd savings Bank
H. F. Phillipsbo.n and Company
He.jtage Bank of Oak Lswn
Illinois Housing Developrnent Authority
lnterpoint Co.po16tion
Jenner & Block
Kirkland & Ellis
Kendall College
Kohl & Moddcn Ink Company
Levy A Erns
Manufactured Housing Institute.
as Consultant
IlrcDermott, Will & Emery
Metropolitan Benk A Trust Comp8ny
Met.opo)itan 88nk of Addison
Metropolitan Ssnitaay District of
Greater Chicago
Minneapolis-Honey$rell, inc.
Milex, lnc.
Mobil Oil Corporation
Northern Trust Bank
OBk Brook Bank
Olympic Savings A Loan Association
Palos School District
Riv€rdele Bank
Rubloff & Company
School District 20? (Park Ridge)
School District 2l (Wh€eling)
Standard Oil Company (lndiana)
Texaco lncorporated
The Creat Atlantic & Pocific Tea
Company
3M Corpo.stion
Uptown Federal Savings &
l,oan AssociEtion
United States A.m)' Corps
of Engineeas
Unitec States Genersl Services
Administ.ation
Un,red Stares Postal Office
USI Properties Corporation
Weste.n Eiectric Company
Whiston & Company
Wh jte Hen P8nt.y
l{ilmette school Disrict
Exp€tt Testihonv
Circuit Court of Cook Counly, Illinois
Circuit Cou.t of DuPage County, lllinois
Circuil Court of Lake County. lUinols
Circuit Court of Will County, Illrnois
Uniled States Federal District Court
(Chicago and St. PauI)
Depttord TownshiP Plsnning Board
(Gloucester County, New JerseY)
t{orcester County Zoning Bo8rd, Marylsnd
,1111?, t*Fl"r\i.;l;
nduslnes Co
th 14lh Slree
srdl
Pa
lrnaha NE 68102
t02 271 4341
L E Olson
Assrslanl
Vrce P.esidenl
Sa es and
Induslr a Developmenl
The llonorable Grant Kingsford
l4ayor of MeridianMeridian, Idaho 83642
November 29, L98 4
Dear Mayor Kingsford:
Upland Industries Corporation respectfully submitsthe attached testimony in support of its applicationfor an amendment to the City of Meridian's Compre-hensive Plan" This report is the work product
of several consuLtants hired by Upland to objective-
J-y evaluate Upland's site in regard to its potential
for the development of a regional shoppir,g centerand the j.npacts such a center at this iocationwill have on the City of Meridian.
In this document you will find tha+- Upland has
addressed all cf the concerns raised in the MeridianCity Attorney's Findings of Facts and Conclusj-onsthat followed the Planninqr and Zoning Commission'spositive reccr,mendation to the Council for adoptionof the amendments. Upland will f ormal-ly present
this report to the City Council during its scheciuled
meeting on the evening of December 3, 1984- Uplandand its consultants will be prepared at that tineto address any questions, comments or concerns
you or the City Council may have.
Very truly yours,
./.-f I t //z---'-
En c 1o sure
Mr
I4r
Mr
Mr
MT
Mr
B:- l- 1 Brewer
Bob Gies ler
Bert Meyers
Ron Tolsman
Wayne Crookston
Jack Niemann
F
I DGCIIrI\IE ST'MUARY
MARET A}IALYSIS
Uelaniphy & Assoclates, Inc.rs evaluation of the Boise Ealket and that oflbe Depalt [ent of Reseatch and Uarket Analysle of Eonalt DeeeloEoent Conpany,botb irdlcate tiat tbe alte located on tbe southeaat @rDer of falrvier Avenue
and Eagle Road ( Id.bo 55) represents aa excellent locatlon for the tleeelotaent ofa oaJor regional shotrPltlg c€nter. An .bbreviated version of thel! Earket
flndinge follora!
- Tbe prJ'a..y Eadlng area of, t}te pro!,ced Eeglonal. sbopplng center ls
ldeatifled as Ada County. The najorltl, of, sales rlll originate froE the
resldents of Ada @unty. Ttrls prlnary trading area will have a 1985
popul-atlon of approrlmately 197,000, coqrared to tbe 1980 figrure of
aEpEoxi"Bate1y 173,000.
- Ti:e regj,onrl shoEring center will attlact cuatoEers froo beyondl Ada
6unty. Ihe entlre lrade area sil1 have approxluately 2861000 people in
1985.
- Per captta irrone for tbe priuary tlading alea (Ada County, ln 1985 rlLl
aEount to 912.000, 11.5 percent above the 1980 flgure of 98,483. The
Eota1 tladlng alea rill have lrer capita lDcone of aE !,roxLEately 510,900in 1985 or 40.5 percent over the 1980 figure of 97,760.
- ShoEpe!Is gods e4enditu!6 potentlal in tbe pri-mary ttade area wag foundto arDount to s190,822,000 ln 1980. By 1985, these experditures rilI
arDunt to s283,500,000 and [ 1990, to $395,600,000.
- Tbe total trade alea ln 1985 ts estinated to generate 53751700,000 in
shop6rer's goods e:qnnd{ture potential. By 1990, tbiE total ie expected
ro rLse to 9510,500 ,000.
- Ue! ldian and the entile tsoise Metlopolitan Area are currently exportinq
a significant portlon of their shotr{)elrs goods expendlture potential"
- Tbe existing corqretittve f aciU.tiea ln tle tt{er idian,ztoise area ii! e
extre8ely seak for the slze of the aarket.
- Accessibillty tD tbe subject property for reBidents of tbe trading area
is excellent.
r-1
- the propeed locatlon, recently annexed to t$€ city of l,ter ldlan, is rcll
located to aerve the residents of lterldlan as eeLL as thoge residents fD
tbe .destern !,ortlon of tie Boise urban a!ea.
1
ACCESSIBILITY (Continued)
The site must be convenient to reaeh over roads with enough unused traffic
capscity to avoid high levels of congestion.
2. Ingress to and from arteriat< must be safe and easy.
3.The location must be a dominant position within the trading area, situated in
such a manner to serve both the present and future market.
The site must have easy aceess from expressway/interstate interehange points,
within one-half to one mile. Note, however, that when high activity centers
such as a busy regional center have side aceess points too close to freeway
interchanges, traffic is likely to be severely eongested under peak hour
conditions. Shopper traffic interferes with the flow of through traffie, thus
resulting in an intensification of congestion and heightened sceident potential.
4.
5.Direet aecess from the primary traffie artery with adequate traffic signals and
turning lanes is most desirable. Loeations fronting on limited aeeess ex-
pressways are good for visibility, but insdequate for access.
Good visibility of the location from aeeess routes allows drivers adequate time
to prepare for turns.
l
b
Once again, in all of the above, the subjeet site is in an excellent position to
meet the accessibility standards of a major regional shopping eenter.
B. POPULATION BASE
Both Urban Land Institute and the International Councii of Shopping Centers
define the trading area for a major regional center as one that contains a minimum
of 150,000 people. Additionally, the primary trade area is often defined as that area
within ten minutes travel time, while the secondarJ trade area, generally doesnrt
exceed 20 rn*rutes. The tertiary or fringe portion of the trading area (if one exists)
generally does not exceed 30 minutes.
Distanee and total popuiation &re not the sole criteria for determining'a centerrs
trading area. The quantity and quality of th€ competition is extremely important, as
is the age structure of the popuiation and the distance to other major markets.
In Boise, there are no regional size mslls within Ada County to provide
competition to the Uplaad site. Tte larger neighborhood centers, downtown Boise and
strip eommercial projeets will provide eompetition, but not to the extent that they
will affeet the drawing power of a regional shopping center. Additionally, the age
structure of the population is often more important than the total number of people
within the trading area. This will be discussed in a latter Portion of this section.
Itr-2
POPULATION BASE (Continued)
The population of Ada County (the primary portion of the proposed Upland
Reg"ional Shopping Center's trading area) contain 173,036 persons in 1980 and is
estimated to have 196,?64 persons in 1985. By 1990, this is expected to rise to
223,7 45 persons. Thus, Ada County contains an adequate number of people for a
regional shopping centerrs trading area. Added together with the fact that there are
no regional shopping eenters in Ada County further compounds the opportunity for the
development of a major regional shopping center at the subjeet site.
C. TOTAL TRADING AREA . 2O-MINUTE DRIYE TIME
Trading areas are a function of time and distance and the interrelationship to
eompetitive facilities. Trading areas 8re affeeted by physieal and psychological
barriers, as well as the mix of stores snd the mix of merehandise presented to the
consumer. The trading area of the proposed reg"ional shopping center has been
developed by analyzing the forees of attraetion and resistenee. Through this analysis,
we have concluded that the primary trading area will eover Ada County, contain
adequate population and income resources, as well as a deart}t of competition, and
provide more than adequate potential for a sueeessful major regional shopping center.
D. RELATIONSHIP WITH EXISTTNG RETAIL FACILITIES
The development of a regiona-l shopping center on the subject ppoperty should not
have an adverse impact on the retail facilities located in Meridian, nor should it have
a significant impact on the bdance of the retail facilities, mainly, shoppers goods
stores. in Ada County. As previously pointed out, there is only one competitive mall
in Canyon Countysn6 one major downtown with aging and inadaquate facilities -
downtown Boise. Moreoverl-TEE County has been exportilg shoppers goods dollars to
other major eities beeause of the lack of modern, exciting weU-stocked and
merchandised shoppers goods stores in Ada County. Thus, consumers are traveiing to
SaIt Lake City and Portland to make major shoppers good purehases. Moreover, at
a time when the growth of GAFO store sales ought to be increasing, it has in fact
been declining; a further indication of an exporting of importsnt shoppers goods
dollars.
1. Kareher Ma-il
Karcher Matl, whieh contains a tgtal of 570,000 square feet of retail facilities,
is an enclosed heated and air-eonditioned facility located in Nampa, and is 17
years old, reiativeiy unattractive, with three major magnets. The Bon Marche
department store in the Karcher lvlell s6n1gin5 epproximately 60,350 square feet.
Additionaly, J. C. Penney operates a store in the Kareher Mall, containing
727,670 square feet along with a Falkrs, of approximately 15'000 square feet.
III-3
F
i
i The site plan on the lollowing page illustrates the preliminary design concept tor the
proposed mall on $e subicct property at tull build-out. The key issues of concern to the
City ot Mcridian arc discusscd bclos:
Irurcss and Egcss lngress and egress to and frorn the site should be
excellent. Persons entering the site lrom Eagle Road will have two ingrcss
pointa vhile thosc cntering from Fairview Avcnuc will have three intre3s
points. lt is assumed ttrat two signalized access points would bc constn ctcd,
onc oo Eagle Road and one on Fairview Avenue, allowing traffic to turn lcft
across through traflic on both major arterials.
OrFSie Circdatiqr: As illustr3ted
allowing easy on-site circulation
establishments fronting Fairview Ave
this road as *'ell.
Ps-dq1q o Accesss Visits on foot to the mall by tradc area residents are
proiected to be very los because of the limited population base within one
milc of the site. Population within I mile of the site is proiected to be nil.
t
r
h:
F.
the development will have a ring road
Peripheral land users (free-standing
nue and Eagle Road) will benefit lrom
vuI-l
VIIL DESIGN
PROPOSED MALL SITE PLAN
Meridian, ldaho
I
\\..
(i
I
I
3. elg hi.t ru.rri bll[ E Ekfi i[rre kl .-l Lr.--.,
,,-.\p1N
\ l_/
..';,i---r--_].
z(!,
o
U
I
2
tI
9
a
E
Ig(I
ot
?
e,
x
ul
-]
I
" r ", ";f,..-):_,ii 7,
ii t,4
',A
.l
/,{
I
i
,l
l.)
-- '-' J.'.\.!
i'x
.'rJ
I
l
I
i
I{
I
, ,rl,
L:it*7'r.tt,L
..i '. >)
.' \. >r'_
.:1. :,\ LP .'
t
l
rQ
STEPHEN J. GLEDHTLL
ATA ORNEY AT LAW
December 3, 19 84
Mayor of the City of Meridian
City Council of Meridian
Meridian, Idaho
RE: Upland Industries Application to lunend
Meridj-an Cornprehensive Plan
Gentlemen:
The undersigned is an owner of certain real properiy
within Mer.idian's area of city impact, and specifically,
Road, adjacent to the fnterstate.
l oca ted
on Eagfe
I wish to specifically object to the proposed Amendment to
the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The Amendment ignores all of the
basic principles of the Local Planning Act of 1975, establishedpolicy of the City of l{eridian, and is, and rvould be, arbitrary
and discriminatory.
There are no facts in the record which justify or couldjustify this proposed Anendment. For al-I of these reasons,
respectfully object to the adoption of the proposal .
Very truly yours
t_
I
.1-
'Edward L .Bews
5206 Sorrento
Boise, Idaho 83704
/19,L/"r.-
//-t-Lt'>)-t/
TELEPHONE {2OB) 31l:I'78I I
CLEYONS. COSHO A HUTTPHREY. P-A aolsE loaHo 437C)2
December 3, 19 84
Mayor of the City of Meridian
City Council- of !4eridian
Meridian, Idaho
RE: Upland Industries Application to Amend
Meridian Comprehensive Plan
Gentl-emen:
The undersigned is an owner of certain real propery
within Meridian's area of city inpact, and specifically,
Road, adjacent to the Interstate.
Ioca ted
on Eagle
I wish to specifically object to the proposed Amendment to
the Meridian Comprehensive Pl-an. The Amendment ignores all of the
basj,c principles of the Local P1annj-ng Act of 1975, establ-ishedpolicy of the City of l{eridian, and is, and rvould be, arbitrary
and discriminatory.
There are no facts in the record which justj-fy or couldjustify this proposed Anendment. For all- of these reasons,
respectfully object to the adoption of the proposal .
Very tr yours,
Edwa L. BewS
5206 Sorrento
Boj-se, Idaho 83704
I
\
December 3, L984
Mayor of the City of Meridian
City Councif of l4eridianMeridian, Idaho
RE: Upland Industries Application to Amend
Meridian Conprehensj-ve PIan
Gent Iemen :
The undersigned is an owner of certain reaf properywithin Meridian's area of city impact, and specificafly,
Road, adjacent to the Interstate.
l-ocated
on EagIe
I wish to specifically object to the proposed Amendment to
the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The Amendment ignores a]1 of the
basj-c principles of the Local Planning Act of 1975r establishedpol-icy of the City of l{eridian, and is, and r,/ou1d be, arbitrary
and discriminatory.
There are no facts in the record which justify or couldjustify this proposed Ariendment. For all of these reasons, I
respectfully object to the adoption of the proposal-.
Verv tru yours ,
Ed Bews
5206 Sorrento
Boise, Idaho 83704
Is
,W
TABI,E OP CI)NEENTS
LIST OT FIq'RES At{D TABI,ES
Page
iv
v
vi
r-l
LIS"I OF II,LUSTRATIONS
INTRODI'CTION
I BXECIIEVE SI'M ARY
II. UAAXEI AIiIALYSIS ..........
Sumary
Retail CoEPetition ..
l,ter ldianAolse - Aal,a County lrade Area
Deeelopent Potential
III. SITE SUITAAII,ISY ...
Accessibility
Potrrlation BaBe ...
Iotal Trading Area - 2o-Uinute Drive Tfule
Relationship nith Existing Retail Sacilities
Derrcgraphlcs
Proxloity to The Retall Corrialcr
visibiliry
InterEtate 84 Not cruclaL Due to tbe L,ack of coq)etition
The Ability to Builtl on the site
IV. PISCAT IMPACT A}IALYSIS
fhe Shopping Center Develo[mentrs Inpact on Merldlan
Benefits Realized fron Industrial gse (Future) in Relation
to Retail/Cormercial tse Today ...
V.TRAFTIC AIIAIJYSTS
lransportation System .
Existing Traffic Volumes
Level of Service
Site Trip Generatlon
Trip Distr ibution
lraff,ic Assigment
tevel of Service with Site
Intersection Capac ity AnalyBis
System Inprovenents ..
Su oaly of Pindings and Recomenalatlons
II.1
II-1
II-3
II-4
II-5
III-1
III-1rtt-2
III-3
III-3
III-{
III-5
III-6
III-6
III-6
rv- I
rv-1
rv-3
v-1
v-I
v-1
v-3
v-6
v-8
v- 10
v-10
v- 14
v-20
v-22
I1
\r'I. @l{rlIrNIE IUPACTS
\nI-1
wr-1
VII-1
\EI-2
VIII-I
Alr Quality
IDpac t on Ne ighborhood Resldential Area6
IEt at on Mjacent UseE and f,andl lrse Changes
Co@un ity Patterns
Cotqlar isons irlth Other Comunit.ieB
General Econor0lc Inpac t on lthrldian
Qua1i ty of Life
Bibliography of, Inforoatlon Sourcea
VII . ENGINEERING
Storo and Irr lgatlon Dra inageUtilities
So ils .
VIII. Design
1I1
Page
vr-l
w-1
vr-3
vI-tl
vr-d
w-5
vr-7
vr-9
vr-11
LI S! OT EIGI'RES AI{D BBI.aS
Year 1988 Daily Traffic Volures
Year 1988 Planned f.,anes andl Level of Servlce
Level of Traffic Servlce
Plgure 5.I
Flgure 5.2
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Flgure 5.3
Pigure 5.4
Eigure 5.5
Figure 5.6
Flgure 5.7
Eigure 5.8
819ure 5.9
Figure 5.10
Figure 5.1I
Eigure 5.12
Table 5.3
Tr ip
Year
Er ip
Year
Year
Year
Peak
Generation Rate8
1988 L,ane8 Requlreal for stable 81or
Distr lbution
1988 Da ily site Traffic
1988 Conbined Da ily Traffic
1988 Projecd IaneE arlal Level of service
Eour Traffic - Eairview Ave. & Eagle Rd
Peak Bour traffic - Site Entlance
I]r[,ical Georetry - North Entrance
s/pical GeoDetry - Pine Rat. Entrance
Tentative Geordetry - Ealrview Ave. & Eag Ie Rd.
P4IE
v-2
v-4
v-5
v-5
v-7
v-9
v-11
e-L2
v- 13
v-15
v-16
v- 17
v- 18
v-19
v- 20InterEection I€veI of service
IV
LI ST OF ILI.USTN,ATIONS
Fol:.ows
Reglonal Locatlon Uap
Paqe
II-1
II-3
II-4
II-5
uajor Coupetltion in the Boise Area
Potulatlon Grtrth 1980-1990
Pr i[ary Trade Alea
v
INSRODOCTION
lhis report is presented to the lller idian, Idaho City @uncil as te st i$onyin support of a proposal by Irplanat Industrles Corporatlon to anend City's cotq)re-
henslve p1an. ltre arrenalnents pertain to the corqrrehensive plan's designalions of
a 320-acre property owned by Upland on the south side of Fairview Avenue and
bisected by Eagle Road (NElr Section I ancl ltr{rr Section 9, Torrnship 3 North, Range
1 East of lhe Boise Meridian), within lt{er id ian city linits. The desired changes
are to designale the 160-acre portion in Section 9 as a site for a nRegional
Sbopqring Center' and to renove fron the l5o-acre portlon in Section 8 Ehe desig-
nation of 'Rural Residential Reserve.' t?le latter clrange is merely a natter of
'housekeeplng', as there is ongoing develoFtrent of an lndu6tr ial park at thissite. This report focuses only on the change in designation of the east 160
acrea to 'Regional Shopping Center.'
fhis alccunent addresaes aIL of the concerns ralsed in the l{eridian Clty
Altorneyts Rirriing6 of Fac ts and Concluslons that follored the Planning and
Zoning @urission's pGitive reconEendation to the City Council for adoption of
the anendnents. Al,so, all areas of concern wh ich are identified on page L9 of
the ClEy of lGridlanrs Corq>rehensive Plan and in Sections 57 and 68, Idaho code
have been adalressed. lhis Eestfurcny will be fornally presented to the clty
Council and entered into the public record during its scheduled meeting on the
evening of, Deceroer 3, 1984.
lhis report is the v{ork product of gplanalrs in-house staff and several
independent consultants hired by Upland to objectively evaluate the eastern 160-
acre parcel in regard to its potential for the develoPnent of a regional shopplng
center and the i[pacts that such a cenEer will have at this location on the city
of ller idian.
The services of Irpland I s consultants are recognized here vrith the acknowl-
ed$[ent of the ti.nely and professional manner in whlch they have perforned. The
folloring tliscussion identifies lhe involveEnt of aIL palties!
Eenningson, DurhaD & Richaralsn (mR) of onaha, is ne lL kDoh,n in the fleld
of transportation planning, traffic engineering ancl lransit studies. The firn
curreotly erq)loyees over 400 professionals located in 15 offices throughout the
UniCed States. EDR eras responeible for lraffic analysis.
v1
lblan iphy & Aa6ociates, Inc., a Gricago based organization, is a firn of
real estate economist, @nsultants, urbanologists and narket analysts that are
specialist in the delernination of narket potential for shopping center develop-ment. ItGlan iphy & Associates nere responsible for the market analysis, slte
suitabllity, and fiscal di.scussion sections of the report.
Snith & Associates is a lcal (Boise) firn specializing in project Eanage-
&ent, reaource analyeis, coEtrun ity affiars and analysis of governnent regrula-llons. The corDunity i.up* t section was the respdrsibility of, Snl th &
Associates.
The dleslgn section of the analysis irras provlded by Eonar t DevelopEent
Corq)any, a divlslon of Sears, Roebuck & Colpany.
t planal Irrtustr ies I in-house staff developed the utillty anal executive
surmary section of the report.
v1t
EXECIITIVE SUMi'ARY
I,tATKE|T AIIALYSIS
ltelaniptry & AgltociateE, fnc.IE elraluatlon of the Boise Earke! .rnd tbat of
lhe D€part!€nt of Research aDd Ualket AralyslE of E@a!t Develoi[ent Coq,.ny,
botb lndicate that Ebe slte located o.r Ebe soutleaat corne! of Paiavl* Avenue
and Eagle Rod (Idabo 55) repres€nta an eacellent location for tbe ale?eloEoent of
a naJor regional shoppllrg clnter. An abbreviated version of tbeir aalket
f,indinge follosa:
- Ibe prop€€d location, recently aanexed to tlre clty of M.rldlan, is re11
located to serve the rEclalents of !,|rrldian as reLL as those residents h
lbo lreatern lroEtidr of the Boise urban area.
- The pritoary tladlng area of Ehe proPosed reglonal Sho!4ring center is
identified a6 Ada County. The najority of Eales ri11 originate f,ron lhe
resi.dents of, Ada Cou[ty. thls pri.oaly tradlng alea sill have a 1985
polndatlon of approxinately 1971000, clq,ared to the 1980 figuEe of
alrE,roxieately 173, 000.
- The regional sho!,E, ing center will attract cusloEers froE beyond Ada
Counry. The entire traale alea wil]. have ap!,rorlDately 286,000 people in
1985.
- Per caplta lrrone for the prinary ttading alea (Ada county, in 1985 rlll
amunt to S12,000, 41.5 percent above the 1980 flgure of $8,483. The
tDtal tladitrg area wlLI have Eer caplta lncoEe of aEDroxirately t10,900ln 1985 or 40.5 perceDt over the 1980 flgure of $7,760.
- SboEErer's geds e4eodlture E otential in the prloerY tlade alea sas found
to aDunt to $190,822,000 in 1980. By 1985, tbese exE endltures riLL
aDunt to $283,600,000 and by 1.990, to $395,600,000.
- The total trade alea ln 1985 ls eBtinated to geoelate 9375,700,000 in
shoEper's goods e:rpendltur€ potential. By 1990, tbls total ls e4rected
to rlse to S510 , 500 ,000.
- Mes ldian and tbe entile Bolse IiGtroE olitan Alea ale currently e:(por tinq
a significant poEtlon of their shopper's goods exE endlture potential.
- The existl.ng coqretitive facilitles in Ure uer idian^oise alea ale
extre8ely ereak for the size of the nalket.
- Accessibillty to tbe subject proE erty for residents of tbe tlading alea
is excell'ent.
I
r-l
- Initially, the narket will sqrport a reglonal retail corq)lex containingthree departrent stores totaling betrreen 4001000 and 4501000 squarefeet, and an additional 250,000 to 300,000 square feet of gross leasable
area.
- By 1990, there wlII be a market for the developoent of a rdajor regional
shopplng center containlng approxinately one trllLion square feet of
bullding area capable of generating apE,loxioately S160,000,000 in sa1es.
Ehe envlsloned center w111 contain five departraent stores, totaling
650,000 sguare feet, rrith an aaldilional 340,000 square feet of grosg
leasable area.
SITE SUITABILITY
I'he lrr ban Landl Instltute anal the Internalional Councll of Shopping Centers
have published nutreroua documents dlscussing the many attributes rrhlch nake agite suitable antl desirable for develoSm.ent of regional tholrEring centers. I'hese
organizations are recognized as trro of Ehe most outstanding in the field of real
estaEe developoent in the United State6 loday. gpland's site has been evaluated
in light of the ideals expresad by these groups with the foLlovring findings.
- A reglonal shoEping center must have entirely adeguate access, plus
ingress atrd egress fron at least one najor traff,ic artery. The
suitability of, Uplandrs site fron an accessibility point of view is
excellent.
- The trading .rrea for a naJor regional center is defined t contain a
nin inun of 1501000 people. Ada county contains an adequate nunber of
people for a regIonal shoEping centerrs trading area. Itlis taken
together wlth the fact that there are no regional shopping centers in Ada
county further arqrlif,ie8 the otrportunity for the developBent of a najor
regional Ehopping center at the subject site.
- Ttte demographic statlstlcs of age andl econouic status of, the primary
trade arears populatlon for the proposed shopplng center are very
pogitive factors ln the roar ke! considerallons observed in neasuring the
f easibiuty of this develoFrent.
- Developing a najor regional shoppj.ng center on Fairview Avenue fits well
into what already exists as a corEron retalI pattern in the BolseA{eridlan
Uetropolitan Area.
- The locatlon at Fairvl* Avenue and Eagle Road enJoys excellent
visibiuty frora both Pairvier Avenue and Eagle Road.
L-Z
- Ihe subject property neets all other requireDents neceBaary for the
develolment of a najor regional shopplng center cot[E lex based on the
concerna of aleveloperg in relation to size, shape, topography, drainage,
ard Eub6o11 conditlons -
FISCAL IMPAC! AIIAI.YSIS
- Ttre upland proErerty ha6 already been annexed to the City of l,ter ldLan anal
thue, the clty ba8 agred to provide clty Eervice6 to the slte.
- The forcea of suI,E,ly anil deEand in the marketplace will best aleciale whlch
location EaJor alepart[ent ard specialty store8 rill chooae as the best
olportunlty for thero to Eerve lteridlan anal the Ada County arket.
- lhe developrent of a najor regional shotrping center on the Upland
property will create both full- and part-tiDe jobs after coEpletion
armunting !o betrreen 2,500 and 3,000 jobs rrith an annual payroll of over
s20,000, 000.
- Tbe aalEinistrative costs which the city night be expected to bear are no
different than lhose for an inalustlial developtrent anal thus, lt ls not
anticipated there rri1l be any adalitional aalninistrative charges.
- lrajor regional shopplng centers oEErated by professionals have thelr own
seculity f,orce and EhuE call upon the local. police only in unuBual
situatlona.
- A najor regional shotping center is aleveloped rith fire protection in
mincl. Such center have, perhaps, the best fire ard safety recorals of any
comercial develolnent llGre.
- Sder facilities required for a shoping center of, this magnitude are
currently in the process of being provided by Upland, at its own cost.
- water facilities requlred for the proposed regional shoFPing center will
also be providled { Upland at Uplandrs co6t.
- !{hi1e at the present Eime, the sales tax and najor adalitional property
taxes wlll no! accrue directly to the clty of Meridian, the signiflcantretail sales to be generated by the malI ($160,000,000 by 1990) along
with the value created frorn a najor one nitlion square foot shopplng
center t{111 positleely affect the taxes collected by the City of Meridian
over tlDe. Addltionally, these taxes will be far in excess of the taxee
to be created by the developBent of an lndustrial park.
r-3
rhe fiscal irElract analysis considers the benefits !o be aler lved by the
comuni ty, as weIL as the cost involved in creating those benefits through the
develotnent of a regional shol[,ing center. This section of the report discusses
flscal ranif,ications of such a develo[rEent.
TRAFFI C
A number of recomendations relateal to the effj,ciency of traffic opera-
tions were identified in this report. lhey are sumarized in this section.
- lhe exlsting street systeo will need to be inproved to adequately serve
the proj ected traffic volune increase in this area in the near future.
This irrcrease is directly a result of an increase in population and a
travel denand shift. created by the nel, interchange at Eagle Road.
- The interstate systeE, although decreasing in level of service, will be
able to adequate.Ly serve the additional site traffic in 1988.
- To achieve stable flon along Eag1e Roail, bebreen I-84 and trranklin Roaal
slx through laneE will be necessary.
- fo maintain an adeguate leve1 of service on Pairview Avenue si:( through
lanes w111 be necessary b,l' 1988.
- frro signalized entrances nill be necessary to provlde adeguate accesE to
the shotrrylng center. One entrance should be Located on each llajor street
adJacent to the Eite. lo nininize conflicts, these entlances shouldl be
located no clolrer than 1200 f,eet, to the next intersection.
- three un8lgrulized entrances should be included to provide alternative
polnts of access and to relieve denands on the signalized entrances.
- The lntersection of Fairviev, and Eagle wlIl need to be dleveloped as shonn
in Slgure 5.12 as a ruininum. A aleEign of this tl'lre is includled in the
1986 j.trproveDent plans for Eagle Roaal.
clllo,tlit NIry Ilr{PAcT
ltrese elenents have been derived fron the text to illuBtrate the antici-
pated comun lty iqracts of a regional shopping center on Meridian at this
Iocation. These are further expanded in the text to deDonstrate how the elenentspreserve the lntent and purpose of Ueridianrs c€rq)rehensive plan.
- Regaraling air quality, it is rpt likely that developoent of a regional
shopping center at Falrview Avenue and Eagle Road will negatlvely impact
the plan for air quali ty attainoent in northern Aala County.
- !{ajor comercial developlent is csnpatible with light indu8trlal use
such as that rhich exists to the south and lhat which is being alevelopedto the west of the site.
r-4
- Residential developtrent of aI[ housing types and resale values of
exlsting propertles riIl be enhanced by the constructlon of a regional
shoEping center ln lller idlian.
- Rural land6 eaat anal nor th of the site provlde an excellent meang of
preservlng an agrlcultural buffer betrreen Meridlan and Bolse, regardlessof the stters use - cormer ical or indugtrlal.
- Designatlng gpland's site as a regional shopping center creates a better
balance of lanal use within Meridian which is essential for economlc self-
sufflciency within Ehe coflrnunity whlle tliscouraging undesirable istrip'
develop.ent.
- lhe construction of a regional shopping center in lGridian is not viewed
as tlamaging to other cormercial activities in the city, as there are
currently rr) such activities which are truly regional in nature.
- Ilre sane hpacts felt by Naq)a and caldwell Hith the develoFnent of
Katcher lrlall are not foreseen in !{eridian due to the nuch larger popula-
tion base of, Ada County.
- A sioila! shoEE,ing center in chubbuck, near Pocatello, is seen by public
officials froo both cities as having al0ost no adveree lmpacts on
existing comerclal develoFnent.
- Economlc stinulus wllI be felE in [ter idian frorn jobs created by construc-
lion and pernanent erployment. A multiplier eff,ect of 1.5 to 1.7 is
estimateal for further job creation.
- As Eeasured in a recent survey by the Boise Future Foundation, there
apE ears Eo be a deBire for irqrroved retail otportunj.ties by the popula-
tion of the Boise l0etropolltan area. The willingness by sone to travel
aB far a6 Port1and, Salt Lake City, Seattle, or Spokane in order to shoP
further underscores this point.
EIIGINEERTNG
ALl utilltle8 are adequately sized, ancl ln the itmediate vicinity, to neet
the need8 of a regional shopping center. Ebese utilitles have been extended at
Upland's expense. The present Phase I construction west of Eagle Road has a
built-ln allosrance for storD drainage that Hould result from Ehe de\reloFrent of a
regional shopping center. soil aleposits are conducive to develolrment and vill
support moderate to high bearing pressures.
DES IGN
Ttre site is of adequate size and dfuoension to meet all per fornance and
develotrment stanalardls to satisfy pedestlian and internal circulation concerns.
r-5
II. MARKET ANALYSIS
A. SUMMARY
Our evaluation of the Boise market and that of the Department of Researeh and
Market Analysis of Homart Development Company, indicates that the site located on
th€ southeast corner of Fairview Avenue and Eagte Road (Idaho 55) represents an
excellent loeation for the development of a major regional shopping eenter. The
various aspects of our findings are as follows:
1. The proposed location, recently annexed to the city of Meridian, is weII located
to serve the residents of Meridian, as weil as those residents in the western
portion of the Boise Urban Area,
The primary trading area of the proposed regional shopping eenter includes Ada
County. While the regional shopping center will attract customers from beyond
the Ada County corporate borders, the majority of sales will originate from the
residents of Ada County. Moreover, based on frequency of visit to the proposed
regional mall, Ada Countyrs residents represent the primary support for the mall.
The primary trading area will have a 1985 population of approximately 197,000
people. This compares to the 1980 figure of approximately 173,000 people. The
entire trade area in 1985 will have a total of approximately 286,000 people.
Per eapita ineome for the primary trading area (Ada County) in 1985 will amount
to $12,000, 41.5 pereent over the 1980 figure of $8,483. The total trading area
in 1985, will have per capita income of approximately $10,900 or 40.5 percent
over the 1980 figure of $?,760.
Shoppers goods expenditure potential (the types of stores most often found in
major regionai malls) was found to amount to $190,822,000 in the primary
trading area in 1980. By 1985, we estimate that these expenditures wiII amount
to $283,600,000 and by 1990, to $395,600,000. The total trade area in 1985 is
estimated to generate $375,700,000 in shoppers goods expenditure potential. By
1990, we expect this to rise to $510,600,000.
,
J
4.
II-1
Melaniphy & Associates, Inc. has inspeeted the subjeet property, made a
reconnaissance of the Meridian/Boise market, eollected data pertaining to population
and population growth, socioeconomic characteristics, present and future traffic plans,
inspected the existing competitive facilities, reviewed existing shopping habits and
patterns, and examined the existing zoning of the proposed regional shopping center
Iocation. Homart Development Company, a division of Sears, Roebuck & Company has
also evaluated the subject site for development purposes. The studies arrived at
similar conclusions and thus have been utilized in this report presentation.
REGIOI{AL LOCATION MAP
iliddl!:IQ
8,t.
t II!
".*,^.(
_l
A
Ii /ii
I
I
I
.J
I
t/
':l;,.''/
*N.
!
I
,
{
I 'I
.\\!nl
.1F:t
\(
I
1""*-
a\
't.9r,',.-{'l
)
,f.r
,r)r,
'"ii I
r.-{'! /l
,t fiittldrt | /--.:.: . rJ-
uit
5,s
I
l.'
A
I
I
,t
I:LI
-t
\'
,l
I
-l
i
I
l,
I
l,
J.
I rrrorttttt r ocar r v r(rncunnaNr
Ir,r,atorrrons nt aonf Dnrvr,{o
| .t ,,^,*"novto noAos sHowr
,I
0wt
t,
t i"l
.a..rJ
t,
)
(
I
I
l
N
{
@
I \|i,(
II
I
I
I
t
;l
I
\\
I
I
I
ll
,l
l-.,""
" ..L
t
...,i't r'),;i E a I
I
,t
.l
Ii\
I
-t
I
I
ll,.',.*Lr
'l,lt , ;
''""F1*"r,j,\i J
SUMMARY (Continued)
The Meridian area is currently exporting a sigaificant portion of its shoppers
goods expenditure potential. This is the result of a lack of modern and new
major merchandising faeilities, not only in the Meridian erea but also throughout
the entire Boise Metropolitan Area. As a result, residents are traveling to Salt
Lake City and Portland for major purchases.
5
o
8
The existing eompetitive facilities in the Meridian/Boise area are extremely
weak for the size of the market. The only shopping center of any size is
Kareher Mall which is old, unattractive, and not easily accessible to Boise
residents. Conversely, downtown Boise is aging and inadequate to serve the
rapidly growing market. Plans are being formulated for a commercial
redevelopment project in downtown Boise. However, it appears that only limited
land is available to ereate a significant major regional mall complex in
downtown Boise and it will be a very slow process.
Accessibility to the subject property for residents of the trading area is
exeellent. Fairview Avenue is a major eest-west traffic artery which extends
from the area near downtown Boise to Meridian Road in Meridian. For the most
part, Fairview Avenue is a four-lane traffic artery with turning lanes at major
intersections. Moreover, Fairview Avenue is identified 8s a commercial artery
by the very nature of the commereial developments whieh proliferate its
extension through the Boise Urban Area.
Eagle Road is a two-lane traffic artery, extending north and south from the
subject property. Becently designated Idaho 55, Eagle Road provides locai
north-south access. At the present time this access is sufficient to meet the
shopping center market. Nevertheless, with completion of the interchange on
Interstate 84 approximately one-mile south of the subject property, Eagle Road
will beeome a far more significant traffic artery and provide convenient aceess
to Interstate 84, thus reducing driving times for those persons using Interstate
84.
Our ana.lysis indicates that by 1990, there will be a market for the development
of a major regional mall containing approximately one million square feet of
building area. This eomplex will be capable of generating sales of approximately
$160,000,000. The envisioned shopping center wiII eontain five department
stores occupying approximateiy 660,000 square feet, with an additional 340,000
square feet of ieasable mall spaee.
Initiauy, the market wiil support a complex eontaining three department stores
with between 400,000 and 450,000 square feet, The analysis indicates that the
Ieasable mall space will initially command between 250,000 and 300,000 square
feet and rise to 340,000 square feet by 1990.
Parking will ultimately be provided for between 4,000 and 5,000 cars.
?
o
il-2
B. RETAIL COMPETITION
Boise is one of the few major trading eenters without a first-class regional
shopping center. The city of Boise and Ada County officials have established a policy
of preventing the development of regional shopping eenters in outlying areas and
instead, promote a program of revitalizing downtown Boise through the development
of a major complex there. As a result, there are no significant major outlying
regional shopping centerc.
The largest shopping center that has been built is Kareher MaIl, a 570,000 square
foot enclosed mall faciiity, Iocated in nearby Nampa. The shopping center contains
a Bon Marehe, Sears, J. C. Penney and Falk's. The shopping center is 17 years old,
relatively unattraetive, and serves the western portion of the market (Canyon County).
Downtown Boise is anchored by older faeilities occupied by Bon Marche, a smaller
J. C. Penney softline store, and two limited line department stores operated by the
Bazaar and Falk's.
In addition, there are six discount department store units located in small centers
or in freestanding locations throughout the Boise Metropolitan Area. K-mart operates
three units, two in Boise and one in Nampa, while Grand Central operates three units
in Boise.
The sizes of the major facilities located in downtown Boise and Karcher Mall are
depicted below.
Downtown Boise Estimated Size (Square Footage)
Bon Marche
Sears
J, C. Penney
The Bazaar
Falk's
Kareher MalI
Bon Marehe
J. C. Penney
Falk's
60,350 square feet
12?,670 square feet
15,000 square feet
55,000
96,160
46,000
20,000
25,000
square
square
square
square
square
feet
feet
feet
feet
feet
II-3
fc lnn l,tt ttyfo
c!o
trio
3
1.,
t'1c l
I 1s
c\i{
T)Ix
3
a
Be
lrl
E,
ur
=cl
CJ
CLE44lrJ2o
oo
.9.o
OU
!
t.9r
aa
II
o---ah rA
,tvorrio-tf
E-E
E:Itg
aa
e
I
ra
Bc
.R
t
cI(f
1-
o
o
!
ou"-
? i'^o - =d:i!. { r .oox:r: r i s..=ii5i
FF<vIrr(,
<-UasEO
o
a
TJ
-!qa
!ZoII
+oY \o 3€:d b!'5.o-:6ocLaa;3Yf ,P iooooa 6
o
:
.9
o
a
o
o,
a)o
.s,;
lo->-Etl-t o)aut.
.q
o:rcrsH, rY,
Xllr.----o IY
t
)
ti
Eog
E
==S
E
rI
&t
I
I
\s
oQo
GY,
)t
o
i1 *-{I
I
I
d
tr
,
I,
til 0
I
o
-cn
l T
)
J
I
1
-trt,i'r€tlc
@E
,l
(
\
o
a4I
o
$
U)
14
o
=
I
I
f
I U
.. O-o
tl |,
E,./i
a Ir9V l o
o
r Nvtoruttr
tr.i
Io
I
I r
.,
r
I
i
I
L
a,l
G
CL
E.oz
I-it
I
t
-,f-
o
orI i
rol lxlolr'l
.1
o I
I
I
tAv
v
f
I
=a:
attc,
ovot
Ii\
sl
I
R
ta
/et
,AV Hlot
rUd.
tl-ttn
oco
llJ
-
z
z
aF.
F
LUo-
=oU
d.o
=
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
1
:,'
I
RETAIL COMPETITION (Continued)
The total square footage operated by each of the major general merehandise units
is as follows:
Bon Marehe
Sears
J. C. Penney
The Bazaar
Falk's
K-mart
Grand Central
115,3 50
96,158
t73,672
91,800
60,000
284,000
1? 2,000
square
square
square
square
square
square
square
feet
feet
feet
feet
feet
feet
feet
Grand Total 992,970 square feet
Sourees:Field Researeh;
Discount Store
Center Direet ; Department Store Directory;
lre etory; an omart evelopmeni Company;
C. MERIDIAN/BOISE - ADA COUNTY TRADE AREA
As previousiy indicated, the primary trading area of the proposed shopping center
is coterminous with Ada County. The primary portion of the trading area is that area
from whieh the most frequent visitors to a major mall originate. In faet, they are
the ones that determine the extent of a market of a shopping eenter and more
practically provide the support that makes sueh a development economically feasible.
An examination of the primary elements of the trade area are as follows:
1. Demographics
The primary trading area (Ada County) has grown significantly sinee 1970. In
1970, the population stood at 112,230 p€rsons which grew by 4.4 percent to 1980.
The 1980 population stood at 1?3,036 persons. Current estimates indicate that
by 1985, the population of Ada County wiII amount to 196,764 persons, an
increase from 1980 to 1985 of 2.5 percent. Further forecasts prepared by the
Ada County Planning Commission indicate that the population can be expeeted
to rise by 1990 to 223,7 45 persons or 13.? percent.
Meridian had a 1980 population of 7,596. Current estimates indicate that by
1990, Meridian will have a population of 13,649 persons according to the Ada
Planning Association.
II-4
on
l:
I I I rtlt I I lt
POPULATION GROWTH .- 1980.1990
I ..
t
Il
a
2!a
a
t
a
\^ 209
oa
a
224
o3
218.
223
I
It
o
r I
r -'-'
210
Kirchei'ruall
AOA O 1980 Populatron
O 1980- 1990 Populatron Growth\
€ACH OOT EQUALS
r.000 P€R50Ns2t9
102
a
laurf atr#a
a J\--r a
a
I
a t0r
2lt 2 a
a.a.
t03"02
a aa 6O rt.u a.{cBon23.tXa aa a
a
'tI
3
a 20'r o +n
i:J
a
103.0r $^.8'aa ,\) \:'a
i.'
104.02'".a
I
N
tl0{.m
Io
a
a2.fl
"21
aa
0222"
a
(e 105
I
I
o)
t
,
MERIDIAN/BOISE - ADA COUNTY TRADE AREA (Continued)
It should be pointed out that the greatest amount of growth in the primary
trading area of the shopping center will be located to the east of the site in the
western Boise suburban area. Thus, in time, the extension of suburban Boise
westward toward Meridian will fill in much of the land between both
communities.
The 1970 Decennial Census of the United States, conducted b y the Bureau of the
Census, United States Department of Commeree,found that residents of the
trading area of the proposed mall had per capita incomes of $2,905. The 1980
census reported that income had grown to $7,101 or an inerease of L44.4
percent. While income will continue to grow, it is anticipated that the glowth
will be at a deereasing rate. Thus, by 1990, per capita income is expected to
rise to $14,517 for the trading area as a whole.
The primary trading ares (Ada County), had per capita income as reported in the
1970 census of $3,135. The 1980 census reported that this income had risen on
a per eapita basis to $7,749 or 147.2 pereent overall. In 1985, we estimate that
the per capita ineome will amount to approximately $12,000 and by 1990,
$16,072. Thus, between 1980 and 1990, we expect per capita income to increase
by 10?.4 p€reent. AII of the estimates are in cuEent dollars. Thus, between
1980 and 1985, income has been increasing at an annual rate of ?.2 percent
which, between 1985 and 1990, would be incieasing a-t a 6J percent annual rate.
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
Shoppers goods-type merehandise include: general merchandise, apparel and
accessories, furniture and household furnishings and other shoppers goods-type stores
are included in these categories. They are often referred to as GAFO, GAFO
merchandise sales generally represent approximately 90.0 pereent of the sa-les
captured in regional shopping centers and more particulariy, those regiona-l shopping
centers developed by Homart Development Company.
Given the increase in population and per capita income, it is rather startling to
D
recognize that
and 1982. This
wth in sh rs
decl lne rs a re ono the I lmr ted shoppers ae ties ava e
sales in Ada Count declined between 197 7
tolEEiEdnts in Ada County.Therefore, consumers are spending a considerabie amountof their shoppers goods dollars in other markets and thus, expenditures are being
exported outside of Ada County. Conversely, this is reflective of the unrealized
expenditure potential available at the subject site, given the development of a three
to five department store eompiex, aiong with a full eomplement of specialty stores.
II-5
2. Income
BOISE, IDAHO
PROJECTED GROWTH RATES IN INCOME,1980-1990
(Constant 1980' Dollar Values)
I I .xEY,-
Prolo(ted Growth Rat€rrI
1
l
r-- lrl,
l--tr-t
!0.0% & Over
25.0% ro 39.97r
l5.O% to 2/!.9%
5.0% to la-g%
Ler! than 5.0%
a
5
/)
N
!4
-t:
\
!
I
t
lt +-l
I
I
I
NonrH Halr Aoe Couivrv
'rll
_t
I
I
iJ
L_l
1.t
T_T_
PRIMARY TRADE AREA
rt
B
,f--'
I
i
I
tesImp\i
";tr---
\
i
t ,"." '1 u
----,{ . \ !-'
-13. \rntet r,i,-']'l"nh"rl-
F'/
At".'A/,ti
l,,.,fI
l(
,t .?),
I
(
)'l
.l
t-l_,r,-s
vrl.Y
\
t
I
I
l .-i:
I
I
..r aI1\,\
turl
lr-,t
I
lt
II,.-t
.t.I 'l\iJ \SawtoolhI
t lrlla
r /
F1'0ilaUo G
n
i{
I
J.
-qY
owel
n.!
\
r.,,|'i,,s
I
I
,I
'r,,r:,ll
I
'- r." {
t
l
I
owvtrEE
rNoutnt tocAttY Fo8 cunStNY
coNorTroNs ot foFE oFlvlNo
oN ur{rMpnovto aoaos Stotvt{
OI{ THIS MAP 0
I
I
I
>
I
It-+-
I
I
I
I
I
I
0u.*
ra
Vell.f l___l t",Ll,0ryhn
---m'r^i^-
'L,r-"{
4 ..9rrf r, i,- 1
I
- 1_-
,7,
l
' \ nat ';"i|ili, :
'|A .
r\on"d,n B&. -
'I rtt.'ca
), ,l
I lt,tt,onal , a-'1.:.: . ,':
^i I
I4 I
L-: L
I-\II '2'l
,rr,n,/I I
It-l't"pa
Ghnnr t "t
L "1,, --. t:
-
- _1tr, (\
,l
lFa
N \;
iI t- xl
-i.ii J+
@ ::J'!t \' -(II
I
I
I
";,t':
I
t
I
I
t
,(^t
'AI
PRIMARY TRADE AREA
+-I
lg
1
J Eoie
r.'d
i,I,)
53
l
10nrair
H urtington
&.)! -ivrh!
\
/'
I
I
I
I
.1ois
't
5
?6
al
'1A
rll
A
E mmt(t
I;-I
i
t
i4iddlr
Aotr
I
-I
)t_
ifor. '-
A
B
ciql
2I
I
_-t
,'----c;i;
s6iiri
t5
(,
I
63
1l
A
4.
!
*
I
,/
4
H
Q,h+
I
I
t^ tt rd,nn'r,
- c/--\/ -
,/.,I,
i
Sawtooth
^, ,l-
ttetl. 'i'i:Ei"i 7
s,,t "3'
-Au Bal| ,,tJ.
A
cium
^l!
Fot6,
7t
- 1_-
A
Cal
3
.,^.ltii"-.,-
I
I
I
Lciry
.J
wrn
Fall
x
.11
t,\
I
v
J
,:)
tr f \
,'a t.l\l
IIIOUIFC IOCALLY FOF CUAR€{Icol.orrrolls aEFoRE oitvtr{G
or\r uNrMPBovEo Foaos ${omaoll THts t/taP
I
II.l
I
I
I
I
t,
t,
li
ll
r',/
",ri8tt|!l.
----93 vi6^-
I
Oucl
-_a
\
'rt1#)l,l
i
I
/t Buhl
0wvh..
\
?o @
rt
zl
\
(
Filrr
5a
iiEic
Clmna
A
21
,r---T-
I
l:l
Sewtoorh
t
J
I
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (Continued)
GAFO expenditures range between 10.0 percent and 15,0 percent of total gross
income of the residents of an area. GAFO expenditures for Ada County, the primary
trade area of the proposed regional mall, amounted to $190,822,000 in 1980, rising to
$283,600,000 in 1985. By 1990, GAFO expenditures are expected to amount to
approximately $395,600,000.
The total trading area is estimated to have 1985 expenditures of $395,700,000
and 1990 expenditures of $510,600,000. Whereas, the total trade area expenditures
represent a significant amount of money, the bulk of the forecasted sales for the
proposed regional ma[ wiU initially be generated in Ada County.
In considering the development of a major mall, it is essential to recogrize that
the regional shopping center will be at the subject location for many decades. Thus,
it is important to forecast the ehanges which can be expected and the potential which
will exist to 1990. Such an analysis provides the extent of the target market and the
size of the shopping eenter to meet that market.
Market share has been developed through an ongoing evaluation of the
performance of existing major regional shopping centers. Additionally, a thorough
evaluation of the existing competitive facilities, aceessibility, shopping habits and
patterns, demographic change, income, population growth, the influx of new stores,
the impact of a major complex of this magnitude, and other factors, have led to the
conclusion that the mall will eapture epproximately 25.0 pereent of all the GAFO
expenditures generated in Ada County. Thus, Ada County will contribute approxi-
mately $98,900,000 to the mall's sales. The balance wiII be generated in time over
the total trading area, resulting in total shopping center ssles of $160,000,000.
Based upon this analysis, a market was found to exist for a million square foot
regiona.l mail at the proposed site in 1990. From this analysis, department store
square footage was projected at a total of 660,000 square feet and an estimated
$92,000,000 in sales based upon the 1990 levels.
Mall stores will require approximately 340,000 square feet in 1990 with a sales
estimate of $68,000,000. Thus, the total shopping eenter is estimated at 1,000,000
square feet, capturing $160,000,000 or an average of $160 per square foot in current
year dollars.
II-6
ru. SITE SUITABILITY
As previously indicated, the subject site is located at the southeast quadrant of
the interseetion of Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road (Idaho 55). The site is adequate
in size, is buildable, and by providing suitable deceleration, turning lanes and traffic
signals, is entirely adequate for the development of a regional shopping center.
Upland, as a part of its industrial development across the street, has brought the
necessary utilities to the site and thus, the only missing element is zoning.
There are many definitions of what eonstitutes a regional shopping eenter. The
International Council of Shopping Centers and Urban Land Institute have published
numerous documents discussing the size and attributes necessary to constitute a
regional shopping center. By today's standards, the type planned for the subject
property must necessarily contain two or more major department store operations,
along with an adequate amount of square footage devoted to mall stores under a single
ownership with entirely adequate parking. The maII stores usually constitute anywhere
from one-half the amount of square footage devoted to department stores to an equal
amount. Parking generally represents a ratio between 4.0 and 5.0 spaces per 1,000
square feet of gross building area. Internal traffic circulation is provided through the
development of an internal roadway network system, complete with stop signs and
traffic channels. Traffic signals are ordinarily provided at the primary entrances to
the major regional shopping center.
A super regional shopping center is one which eontains four or more department
stores along with a significant array of mall specialty stores. Most super regional
malls contain between 800,000 and 2,500,000 square feet. The subject mall when fully
eomplete will be in this super regional shopping eenter category.
A. ACCESSIBILITY
A regional shopping eenter must have entireiy adequate aceess, plus ingress and
egress from at least one major traffic artery. In this case, that traffic artery would
be Fairview Avenue, which is a four-lane, median divided, highly identifiable traffic
artery. In addition, Eagle Road provides twc-lane loeai aecess to the subject site and
with the eompletion of the Interstate 84 interehange, Eagle Road will provide
expressway aecess via Eagle Road. Thus, the suitability of the site from an
aceessibiiity point of view is excellent.
The International Council of Shopping Centers and Urban Land Institute have
found over the past 30 years that regional shopping center locations generally require
the following:
ru-1
I
ACCESSIBILITY (Continued)
The site must be convenient to reach over roads with enough unused traffic
capacity to avoid high ievels of congestion.
2. Ingress to and from arterials must be safe and easy.
The location must be a dominant position within the trading area, situated in
such a manner to serve both the present and future msrket.
The site must have easy access from expressway/interstate interchange points,
within one-half to one mile. Note, however, that when high activity centers
such as a busy regional eenter have side access points too elose to freeway
interchanges, traffie is likely to be severely congested under peak hour
conditions. Shopper traffic interferes with the flow of through traffic, thus
pesulting in an intensification of congestion and heightened aceident potential.
Direet access from the pcimary traffic artery with adequate traffic signals and
turning l,anes is most desirable. Locations fronting on limited access ex-
pressways are good for visibility, but inadequate for acee*s.
Good visibility of the location from access routes allows drivers adequate time
to prepare for turns.
Once again, in all of the above, the subjeet site is in an excellent position to
meet the accessibility stendards of a major regional shoPPing center.
B. POPULATION BASE
J
o
Both Urban Land Institute and the International Council of Shopping Centers
define the trading area for a major regional center as one that eontains a minimum
of 150,000 people. Additionally, the primary trade area is often defined as that area
within ten minutes travel time, while the secondary trade area, generally doesnrt
exceed 20 minutes. The tertiary or fringe portion of the treding area (if one exists)
genera.lly does not exceed 30 minutes.
Distanee and total population are not the soie criteria for determining a center's
trading area. The quantity and quality of the competition is extremely important, asis the age structure of the population and the distance to other major markets.
In Boise, there are no regional si2s malls within Ada County to provide
competition to the upland site. The larger neighborhood centers, downtown Boise andstrip commercial projeets will provide eompetition, but not to the extent that theywill affect -the drawing power of a regional shopping center. Additionary, the aglstlgturg of the population -is often.more important than the total number of peopiewithin the trading area. This will be discussecl in a latter portion of this section.
m-2
POPULATION BASE (Continued)
The population of Ada County (the primary portion of the proposed Upiand
Reg"ional Shopping Center's Eading area) contain 173,036 peNons in 1980 and is
estimated to have 196,?64 persons in 1985. By 1990, this is expected to rise to
223,7 45 per:ions, Thus, Ada County contains an adequate number of peopie for a
regional shopping centerrs trading area. Added together with the fact that there are
no regional shopping eenters in Ada County further compounds the opportunity for the
development of a major regional shopping center at the subject site.
C. TOTAL TRADING AREA - zO-MINUTE DRIVE TIME
Trading areas are a function of time and distance and the intemelationship to
eompetitive faeilities. Trading areas are affected by physical and psyehological
barriers, as well as the mix of stores and the mix of merchandise presented to the
consumer. The trading area of the proposed reg'ional shopping center has been
developed by analyzing the forces of attraction and resistenee. Through this analysis,
we have concluded that the primary trading area wiil eover Ada County, contain
adequate population and income resourees, as weu as a dearth of competition, and
provide more thsn edeguate potential for a sueeessful major regional shopping center.
D. RELATIONSHIP WITI{ EXISTING RETAIL FACILITIES
The development of a regional shopping eenter on the subject property should not
have an adverse impaet on the retaii facilities Iocated in Meridian, nor should it have
a signifieaat impact on the balance of the retail facilities, mainly, shoppers goods
stores. in Ada County. As previously pointed out, there is only one competitive mall
in Canyon Countyand one Eig downtown with aging and inadaquate faciiities -
downtown Boise. Moreover-, Ada County has been exporting shoppers goods dollars to
other maior cities because of the iack of modern, exciting well-stocked and
merchandised shoppers goods stores in Ada County. Thus, consumerS are traveiing to
Sa.it Lake City and Portland to make major shoppers good purchases. Moreover, at
a time when the growth of GAFO store sales ought to be increasing, it has in fact
been deelining; e further indication of an exporting of important shoppers goods
doilars.
1. Kareher Mali
Karcher Ma-tl, which contains a tpta.l of 570,000 square feet of retail faeilities,
is an enclosed heated and air-eonditioned facility Ioceted in Nampa, and is 17
years old, relatively unattractive, with three major magnets. The Bon Marehe
dep$tment store in the Karcher Mall contains approximately 60,350 square feet.
Additionaliy, J. C. Penney operates a store in the Karcher Mall, containing
127,670 square feet along with a Falk's, of approximately 15,000 square feet.
Itr-3
RELATIONSHIP WITH EXISTING RETAIL FACILITIES (Continued)
Karcher Mall is located in the northwest portion of Nampa, in Canyon County.It is located over 12 miles away and thus, should not be adversely sffeeted by
the development of a major regional mall on the subject property. In faet,
whereas the trading areas might refleet some overlap, there will be Iittle
customer interehange between the two retail complexes.
2. Downtown Meridian
'rOld Town," as downtown Meridian is referred to, is composed primarily of
convenience gooG and convenience goods service stores, Our studies over the
past 27 years of hundreds of shopping centers, indicates that there is only a
minor interrelationship between these uses and a major regional shopping center.
Thus, it is not antieipated that "Old Townr will be affected through the
development of the proposed regional mall, Residents of Meridian will still find
the rOld Town" area, as well as the Cherry Plaza Shopping Center, convenient
for the purehase of their convenience items.
E. DEMOGRAPHICS
The population within a three-mile radius of the proposed Upland shopping center
site currently stands at approximately 29,530 people. By 1990, the populstion within
the three-mile radius is expected to be approximately 36,000 persons.
Within a five-mile radius, there cumently are a total of 76,700 persons. By 1990,
this is expected to rise to 98,800 people. Other significant factors include:
1. Age Groups
The median age of the persons residing within a three-mile radius is 27.7 years,
while the median age of persons residing within a five-mile radius is 28.1 years.
The average sge of the persons residing within a three-mile redius is 29.8 years,
in contrast to the average age of persons residing within a five-mile radius of
30.2 years.
Approximately one-third of the persons residing within a three-mile radius are
between the ages of 25 and 44. A total of 46.0 percent of the population is
under 24 years of age while the balance, 22.0 percent is over 45 years of age.
The significant factor here is a young nature of the Popuiation. Young families
are the greatest consumers. Families with young chiidren, are constantly buying
clothing and food, simply to meet day-to{ay demand and consumption. They
also usually represent a major shopping eenter's best customers.
III-4
DEMOGRAPHICS (Continued)
Within a five-mile radius, 31.9 pereent of the population are within the ages of
25 to 44, while 45.2 percent of the population is under 25 years of age. The
balance, 22.9 percent is over 45 years of age or older.
2. Income
l9ithin a three-mile radius of the proposed Upland regional shopping center
location, the average household income currently amounts to $2?,380. The
median household income amounts to $24,301. The per capita income within the
same three-mile radius is currently estimated at approximately $9,500.
Within I five-mile radius, the average household income currently stands at
approximately $28,300 while the median household income stands at approxi-
mately $25,400. The estimated per capita income for the area within five miles
currently stands approximately $9,700.
All of the above are positive factors in the market for the development of the
major regional shopping center.
F. PROXIMITY TO THE RETAIL CORBIDOR
Fairview Avenue, extending westward from downtown Boise, has historically beena major commercial artery. In addition to a proliferation of various types of
commercial uses, Fairview Avenue is the location of the Westgate MaIl, featuring The
Bazaar, a 36,800 square foot limited-line department store. As a result, the residents
of Boise and the Meridian area &re fully aware of the commercial orientation of
Fairview Avenue and thus, this major artery fits in to their existing shopping habits
and patterns, People are habitual. They tend to follow similar patterns unless some
drastic change occurs. One of the benefits of developing a major regional shopping
center on Fairview Avenue is that it fits in to what already exists as a common
pattern.
Our firm has been involved in the interviewing in major regionai shopping centers
throughout the United States and Canada. Moreover, the work that we have done with
major retailers within the same areas has eontinuously re-emphasized for us the
importance of the existing shopping hebits 8nd patterns 8nd plaeing new major
facilities within that pattern so as to not disturb the existing retail network. As a
result of that, the impact on existing facilities is usually less because the other
convenience goods and convenience goods service store and diseount department store
patterns remain intact.
III-5
G. VISIBILITY
The location at Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road is an exeellent location.
Moreover, the site enjoys excellent visibility from either Fairview Avenue or Eagle
Road. Consumers traveling in a westerly direction from the suburban portion of Boise,
will enjoy excellent visibility to the site. Likewise, consumers traveling eastbound on
Fairview Avenue toward the location will have excellent visibility of the site as they
approach the interseetion. Consumers both northbound and southbound on Eagle Road
will also enjoy excellent visibility relative to the location because of the signifieant
amount of frontage availabie to the shopping center on both arteries.
H. INTERSTATE 84 NOT CBUCIAL DUE TO THE LACK OF COMPETITION
Interstate 84 is a major east-west interstate artery in the Boise area. At the
present time, an interehange is planned at Eagle Boad. An existing interchange is in
place at Meridian Road.
Initialy, as the shopping center is developed, our market analysis indicates that
approximately three department stores will be placed in the developing complex.
Because of the laek of major regional shopping eenters, we expect the majority of
traffic moving to and from the proposed shopping center to travel to the location via
Fairview Avenue and some of the other east-west traffic arteries. That traffic will
filter to the shopping center via the north-south arteries such as Eagle Road.
The completion of the interchange at Interctate 84 will provide an additional
means of aceess to the subject property. Nevertheless, the lack of major competition
within either the western portion of the Boise area or the entire Meridian area
indieates that Interstate 84 will not be as significant as ordinarily might be the case.
In fact, a study of the existing urbanized population development indicates that the
majority of the househoids which wouid be patronizing the shopping center resides
north of Interstate 84 at a point where Fairview Avenue will be much more eonvenient
to travel to the shopping center than Interstate 84.
I. THE ABILITY TO BUILD ON THE SITE
Urban Land Institute and the International Council of Shopping Centers identify
ten site selection eharacteristics which are to be considered for regional shopping
centers:
Location and Access
Size
Shape
Topography
1
2
3
4
m-6
THE ABILITY TO BUILD ON THE SITE (Continued)
5. Drainage
6. Minimal subsoil complications
7. Surroundings
8. Utilities
9. Zoning
10. Environmental impact feasibility
Number 1, the location and access has already been discussed, while the last four
items above (surroundings, utilities, zoning, and environmentai impact) are adequately
discussed in other sections of this report. It is suffieient to say that these
eharacteristics have been considered in regard to the Upland site and are not believed
to pose any problems for the development. A discussion of the other elements related
to the ability to build on the site are as follows:
1. Size
The building to site ratio applied for outlying (suburban) shopping centers with
a onertory design is four or five parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building
area. Thus, a million square foot mail would require between 4,000 and 5,000
parking spaces. Given an average of 400 square feet per parking space, the
parking area would require between 1,600"000 and 2,000,000 square feet while
the buildings would require 1,000,000 square feet. Thus, the total amount of
land area required would represent between 2,600,000 and 3,000,000 square feet,
or between 60 to 70 acres of land. Along with the additional facilities that are
usually developed on the outlots of a super regional shopping eenter (whieh this
is) the Iand area requirements would approximate 90 acres. Moreover, planning
for the future is important and thus having available land for future development
and expansion is a critical need for major regional shopping eenters.
117-7
,
THE ABILITY TO BUILD ON THE SITE (Continued)
Shape
The most advantageous shape for a major regional shopping center is one which
has an equal amount of frontage on both major arteries. Where only one artery
exists, it is advantageous to have the majority of the frontage on that artery.
Nonetheless, adequate length and depth is neeessary. A square shape of
roughly even length and width allows for advantageous circulation on the site
and provides for the centralized placement of the building structure. Thus, total
planning ean be provided to the site eonsidering internal traffic circulation,
parking, ingtess and egress, drainage, water retention, and other pertinent
factors.
3" Topography
A flat size is most easily developed, requiring little on-site grading to be
performed and ease of construction. The most suitable topography has a slope
grade of less than 5.0 percent. The Upland site is flat and will pose no slope
restrictions.
5. Minimal Subsoil Complications
III.8
4. Drainage
Adequate drainage for storm-run office is essential. As noted in the Engineering
Section of this report, Upland has produced and received approval of a drainage
plan for the site. This plan includes the detention of excess run off (above
historic levels) with discharge of no more than half run off rates, with the
addition of an oil and sediment trap.
The absence of subsurface lot and a depth of water table which will not pose
complieations for construction are absolutely desirable. These are also
addressed in Upland's Engineering Seetion to this report and had been found to
pose no problems to grading and/or construction.
In summary, the subject property meets aII of the requirements necessary for the
development of a major regional shopping complex designed to primarily serve Ada
County. These inciude the market asPects, aceessibility, and buiidability.
1
.)
ry. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
As a part of the overall evaluation of the potentisl and advisability of developing
a major regional shopping center on the subjeet property, we have eonsidered the
fiseal impact that such a development will have upon the community, Fiscal impact
eonsiders the benefits to be derived by the community, as well as the costs involvedin assessing those benefits. This section of the report discusses the fiscal
ramifieations of such a development.
A. THE SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT'S IMPACT ON MERIDIAN
The impact elements which need to be addressed are as follows:
The Upland prop€rty has already been annexed to the City of Meridian and thus,
the City has already agreed to provide City services to the site.
A regional shopping center designation aheady exists in the city of Meridian and
has been zoned for almost ten years. To date, no activity has occurred there.
It is our recommendation that the City of Meridian proceed to zone the Upland
site as a major reg"ional shopping center location in order to encourage an
elternate location to the existing regional shopping center property so indicated
in the Comprehensive Plan. Our analysis indicates that little interest has been
shown in the existing location because of its position relative to population
deployment in the area. We are of the opinion that that department stores,
which are the catalysts for major regional shopping centers, wiII be far more
interested in the Upland location. Thus, the forces of supply and demand in the
marketplace will decide which location the major department stores and
specialty stores believe represents the best opportunity for them to serve the
Meridian market.
The development of a major regiona.I shopping center on the Upiand property will
create both full- and part-time jobs after completion, amounting to between
2,500 and 3,000 jobs with an annual payroll of over $20,000,000.
During the eonstruction phase, it is anticipated that over 600 man-year jobs will
be created, representing a total payroll of between $26,000,000 and $28,000,000.
While this is a two-year situation, the permanent part-time and full-time
employment will continue to add over $20,000,000 to Meridian's economy.
The employment dollars generated by both the construction and the full-time
operation of the mall on the upland site will have a multiPlier effeet throughout
the Meridian eommunity and, thus, the employment and the expenditures will
have an extremely posiiive impaet upon most types of businesses and services
loeated in the eitY of Meridian.
ry-1
THE SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT'S IMPACT ON MERIDIAN (Continued)
City expenditures relative to a major development of this magnitude are usually
of coneern. We have, therefore, reviewed the qualitative aspects of the mall
development and offer the following observations:
a. AdministrativeCosts
The administrative costs which the city might be expected to bear are no
different than those for an industrial development and thus, we do not
anticipate any additionai administrative charges.
b. Police
Major regional shopping eenters operated by professionals, such as this one
wiil be, have their own seeurity force and thus call upon the loeal police
only in unusuai situations. Therefore, the shopping center is providing for
the security of the persons on its property at the time that they are
shopping.
c. Fire Protection
A major regional shopping eenter is developed with fire protection in mind.
All areas are sprinkled to protect against the spreading of a fire, and
provide life safety systems. Homart Development Company, which
operates 25 major regional shopping centers, has never had a major fire
and has averaged one minor fire per year for all of its 25 shopping centers.
A major fire eould only occur if there was a simultaneous breakdown in the
entire sprinkler system within a major eomplex. A review of other major
shopping center developers a-Iong with the lnternational Council of Shopping
Centers whieh represents the shopping center industry, the same type of
exeellent fire reeord has been found. In faet, major regional shopping
eenters have, perhaps, the best fire and safety records, and buildings are
designed and built with safety and protection in mind.
N-2
4.
THE SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT'S IMPACT ON MERIDIAN (Continued)
d. Sewer Faeilities
The sewer facilities required for a shopping eenter of this magnitude are
currently in the process of being provided by Upland at its own costs.
e. Water
The water facilities required for the proposed major regional shopping
center will also be provided by Upland at Uplandrs costs. Thus, again, no
eost will be borne by the City of Meridian.
B. BENEFITS REALIZED FROM INDUSTRIAL USE (FUTURE) IN RELATION TO
R ETA]"CO M M EREIAL USE TODA Y
Upland is cumently in the process of developing part of its land as an industrial
park. It will take time to absorb the land currently allocated for industrial
development, before the site proposed for a major shopping center could be
developed industrially. Moreover, the total number of jobs to be generated will
not be as high for industrial use on the proposed regional shopping center site
as for a regional shopping center. Moreover, while at the present time, the sales
tax and additional property taxes do not accrue directiy to the City of Meridian,it appears in time that they may. Thus, the significant retail sales to be
generated by the mall ($160,000,000 by 1990), along with the value created from
a major million square foot mall will positively affect the taxes colleeted by the
City of Meridian over time. These taxes will be far in excess of the taxes to
be ereated by the development of en industrial park.
IV-3
V. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
The greatest impact from the proposed shopping center, located south of
Fairview Avenue and east of Eagle Road, will be in the area imnediately
surrounding it. For the purposes of this study, this area is taken to bethat bounded by Ustick Road to 0verland Road, and Meridian Road to l'!aple
Grove Road. Figure 5.1 shows the proposed sjte and the surrounding street
network.
The Iand surrounding the site is primarily agricultural in nature;
however, the- area has shown a trend towards increased comnercial,
industrial, and residential u ses.
Access to the site is via Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road. Fajrview
Avenue is a major arterial providing four through lanes between Boise and
Meridian. Eagle Road is currently a tvro-lane mjnor arterial but is planned
for upgrading to five lanes between Fairview Avenue and I-84 in 1986. Eagle
Road, north of Fairview Avenue, is tentatively scheduled to be widened tofive lanes in 1988.
Traffic signals exist at each of the major intersections along Fairv iew
Avenue with the exception of Locust Grove Road. Typically, these signals
operate in an actuated mode thus providing quick response to the area's
varying traffic needs. Currsntly, Eagle Road is signal ized only at
Fairview; however, signals at 0verland and Franklin Roads will be included
with the Eagle Road widening project in 1986.
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
If all goes as planned, the shopp ing center could be open by 1988-
Based upon this premise, 1988 was chosen as the base year for traffic
analysis. An estimate of the 1988 average daily traffic, as shown in Figure
5.1, was obtained from Ada Planning Association and from an Interchange
Locition Study perfonned for the Idairo Department of Transportation (DgT) .
These estimatis were derived from the year 2000 planning proiections from
both sources and adjusted back to 1988 using a ?% per year growth rate.
This rate was obtainld from the Ada Planning Association and represents the
averaqe for Ada County and this area in particular'
Theyear2000estimatesdidaccountforatraveldemandshiftcreated
by the aioition of an interchange at I-44 .ql9 Eaole Road' Thev did not'
however, .inctude any traifi-i-g;;;;.t.d Uy aOJitionit retail shopp'ing in the
'immed i ate study area.
v-l
coL RD
OYE RD.
RD.
LE RD.
o
G ROVE RD
D
oo
€-
oo9'z
!
(D
o
o
o(t
(D(l
oo!o
€t
9,800 6.500 MAPLE G
1 I ,000
oo
(l,
5,360
o
otr
tB
ooo
o
13,0O FIVE MIL
7,300
ooo
F
6t
7 ,AOO 'I O,900 CLOVERD
oq
!t
6t
10,500
o
r 1O,2OO
oo
o6tlrl-
oo
@
|oo
oo
(o.
(?
citr1 6,5 00 EAGLE RT
ooo
|o
oz
G
lrJ
o
oo(t
ooq
.o
LOCUST
4,500
oo
€-
o ci
IB
J
Y
TElt
=g
g
lt
16l
ooo-
o
1 0,170
o
ls
o t
@
800
co
g
M ERIDIAN
oa
o_
qt
\'r
r
0II
FIGUBE
5.1SOOO - AVERAGE DA[-Y TBAFFIC
IINCH = 4220F1.
YEAR 1988 DAILY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
t
(o
oo
cl-
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Ihe Ada Pl ann i ng Association's Transportation Improvement Proqram,
1985-1990 lists the followi ng major improvements within the study area:
oescri pti on Start Date
-tli den intersection of
Five Mile Rd. and Franklin Rd.
-lliden S.H. 69 (Meridian Road),
Amity Rd. to I-84
-Eagie Road & I-84 interchange
-l.liden Eagle Road to five lanes,
I-84 to Fairview
-l,liden Eagle Road to five lanes,
Fairview to Ch i nden
1985
1985
1986
1986
1988
Assuming these improvements are jmplemented, Figure 5.2 shows the
resulting widths of study area roadways (in number of through lanes) andthejr Ievels of service. These widths.are for the base year of 1988.
Level of service (LoS) for a facility describes the quality of traffic
operation with respect to maneuverabiljty ancl operating speed. These levels
range from A (best) to E (worst) and cover the entire range of operations
that may occur. Level of service C or better is usually preferred, but LoS
D may be acceptable during peak hours. Table 5.1 describes the various
levels of traffic service. The description of level of service factors is
also applicable to interstates, aithough the vo'lume ranges are somelrrh at
higher than those for arterials. Table 5.1 also surmarizes these volume
ranges and their respective service levels.
As indicated by Figure 5.2, traffic conditions worse than LOS C would
be expected for many street segments in the study area. It is assumed that
the Ada County Highway Department will address these needs in the future, as
traffic volumei justify them.
For the purpose of this study, it will be assumed that a level of
service C or better will be available on all streets within the study area.
This is done to illustrate the effects on service level that additionai site
traffic may have. 0bviously, if a facility is operating at LOS E or worse
the effects of additionai traffic could not be indicated by a lower service
\/-3
Intersection turning movement data was also obtained from Ada Planning
Association souices since actual volume counts were not available. Thi;
data was uti lized in the capacity checks at Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue
as well as the entrances to the proposed shopping center.
COLE RD.
OVE RD.
RD.
CLO YERD LE RD.
GB VE RD.
o
Fo
R
o
=ao
r'
(o
ouJ
MAPLE G
o
6l
6
(\|
ul
IJJ
o
o
IE
!E
lll
FIYE MILI
.o o
ul
!t
t
UJ
ci
E
uJ
t0
a
ul
6.
a
G EAGLE BT
oz
Gul
o
b
ql
o
LOCUST
ci
G
z
!ctl.
=g
cc
IL
rEl
qI rt
(o
tro
I
MERIDIAN
co
(\l
\t
r
E?r-
() - LEVEL OF SERVICE
.I - NUMBER OF THRU LANES
IrNCH = 4220F1.
YEAR 1988 PLANNED LANES
AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
FIGURE
5.2
I I I
TABLE 5.1
LEVEL OF TRAFFIC SERVICE
Level of Servi ce (LOS)Arteri al
4-Lane
Freeway
4-Lane 6-Lane2-Lane 6-Lane
A. Free Flor,l 7,000
8,170
15 , 960
18,620
25,980
30 ,310
?5,200
36,000
43,200
64,800
C
B Stable Flow - Few restric-
tions on operati ng speeds
Stable Flow - Higher volune,
more restri ctions on speed
and Iane changi ng
9,330 2t,280 34.640 46,800 75,600
Approachi ng Unstable Flow -
Li ttle freedom to maneuver,
condl tion tolerable for
short peri ods
10,500 23 ,940 38,970 54 ,000 81 ,000
E. Unstable Flow - Loler oper-
ati ng speeds, some momentary
stoppages
F. Forced Fl ovl - Traffic stop-
pages, breakdor,,n condi ti on
11,670 26,600 43,300 72,000 108,000
> 11,670 >26,600 >43,300 Not applicable
Source: Quick Response Urban Travel Estimation Techniques and Transferable Parameters, NCHRP
D
I tttllttrll
level, nor could traffic be realistically added to this route. Using LoS C
as the mininum design criterion, both Frankl in Road and Fairvievr Avenue
would have to be widened an additional two through lanes as shown in
Figure 5.3. There would also be a need for widening on some portions of
Cloverdale Road and Five Mile Road.
SITE TRIP GENERATION
The proposed regional shopping center will be located on a 9O-acre
tract of land. 0f this tract, 23 acres (l million sq. ft.) will be leasablefloor space while 67 acres will provide space for 8000 parking stalls'
access roads,'and other uses.
Estimates of trips generated by
obta i ned from three sources. Tab I e
surmarizes the information found there.
shopping centers5.2 identifies
of this size were
these sources and
TABLE 5.2
TRIP GENERATION RATES
Tripends per
1000 G.F.A.
37. 1 6 1000+
a1 500-1000
?25-133210
NA 500-1000
Study
Si ze
G. F. A.
(xI000 )
1
Source
Institute of Transportat ion Eng.
Trip Generation Report, 1982
Institute of Trnasportation Eng.
Trip Generation Report, 1982
San Diego Traffic Generators,
1979
4. NCHRP Report 187, 1978
,
37.?
47 .03
34.7
. For this study the rate of 37.2 tripends per 1000 square feet (G.F,A.)(source #?, llE) was chosen as the most 'reasonable rate.' Not on)y'was theITE source the most current, but the study size used to oevelop ihis ratewas -large- enough to considered representatlve. Based on this Lrip rate, atotal of 37,200 trips will be generated by the shopping center daily.
\/arious travel modes (particular]y transit) to and from the site werealso .considered; however, based on
- discussions with the Ada p lanningAssociation, it was determined that the automobile would oe ,ieo 'ilmost
exc'lusiveiy for trips to this shopping center.
\/-6
COLE RD.
OYE RD.
FIVE MIL RO.
LE RD.
ci
tE GR VE RD.
g,
o
t
Co
!t€
oo
MAPLE G
o
I
o
6l N
o
(o
a
oE
€
o
6a
o
(o
CLO YERD
6
o
e
ui.
tc
6
oe EAGLE BT
oz
e
lrr
o
o
t
o
o
LOCUST
6
E
Ell
6
R IDIAM
t
(o
=u.l
=IL
r
BII
( , - TEIVEL. OF SERVICE
* . NUMBER OF THRU LANES
I|NCH = 422 0 FT
YEAR 1988 LANES REQUIRED
FOR STABLE FLOW
FIGURE
5.3
I
rdrl
It is not uncommon for shopping facilities of this type to diverttraffic passing the site. This diverted traffjc represents customers who
are already on the street and are merely stopping off at the site while en
route to another location. Typicaily, this accounts for a significant
percentage of the business for drive-in banks, supermarkets and convenience
stores but is only a small portion of the trips to a regional shoppingcenter. Because of this and the simplistic nature of the study, diversion
was not directly accounted for in the generation rates. Thus, the results
from this analysis represent a worst-case estimate of site traffic.
The orientation of site traffic with respect to the surroundingvicinity is a function of distance, population, location of competingfacilities, and major street linkages. For this study it was assumed that
competing facilities would be distributed in direct relation to the
surrounding population. Moreover, the street and highway network is of
similar quality in all of the major directions. Hence, trip distribution
percentages were calculated based on population size and distance from the
s i te.
The area surrounding the site vias divided into eight subareas or zones(see Figure 5.4), each with similar characteristics and served by an
identifiable street or highway. For each of these zones a percentage of the
total shopping trips is estimated based on its population and average travel
distance. Zonal population was detennined from information provided by the
Ada Pianning Association and the 1980 census. In addition to Ada County,
population centers in Canyon County were also included since they would
comprise a significant percentage of the market.
As shown in Figure 5.4, the following trip percentages are estimated:
Ma.ior Access Route Percent
- East on Fairview Avenue
- North on Eagle Road
- ',.lest on Fairview Avenue
- West on I-84.
- South on Meridian Road
- South on Cloverldale Road
- Southeast on I-84
- Downtown via I-84
These percentages are comParab I e
prepared by Homart Development Co.
34,(I
13
14
2
10
11I
wi th
v-8
the market Percentage est i mates
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
t /l-
\s 8i%\
!
I
\,n
q Ir
-4 {4\s I
I
#i 1/
f .!-
a^rli-<HJ
A,\l il \'I
JRE
4
S"\t;,E4\F.I"fi
(
(l1 t-
.\yQ 11 d'i\\i
\\
..s I,Y
->,\
I
-rs{
\L zi\
\(
v\(
l
r
PROJECT SITE
I
J
l,
FIGURE
5.4
TRIP DISTRIBUTIOT\T
I
I
I I
I I
l
J
Ii
I
k-i'*+\;*XJ
H
r
ErI
TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT
once the trip distribution percentages are determined, the next step isto convert these into actual trips and assign them to the base year street
system. The assignment was aided by a computer traffic modeling program
cailed TMOOEL. This program can quickly evaluate many route alternatives in
search of the optimum street routing. At all times, the trip assignment
process considers street capacity as wel'l as current traffic volumes.
Daily site traffic as assigned to the street system js shown jn
Figure 5.5. As might be expected, the heaviest volumes were on Fairview
Avenue and on Eagle Road between Fairview and I-84. These routes provide
the major'access link to most of the market area.
LEVEL OF SERVICE l'lITH SITE
To anaiyze the overail effects of the site on the street system, thesite generated traffic is combined with the estimated 1988 daily traffic as
shoyrn in Figure 5.6. These volumes are then compared to level of service
ranges in Table 5.1 to estimate the stabil ity of traffic f low in each street
segment. This analysis presumes that the existing street system has the
lane configurations discussed previously and shown in Figui'e 5.3. Levels of
service for each street segment are shown in Figure 5.7. As would be
expected, the addition of site traffic to the street system decreasestraffic service levels on several roadway sections. In particular, the
major east-west travel routes would experience a reduction by one or two
service levels.
Traffic along Fairview Avenue, between Eagle Road and Maple Grove Road,
would be reduced from LOS B to LOS D. At this level, traffic fluctuations
would cause short periods of restrictive movement; however, the majority of
the time f low would be relatively stable.
Assuming Franklin Road is widened to four through 1anes, as would be
dictated by projected residential growth patterns, the additional sitetraffic vrould not have any significant effect on its operation. In fact,
due to an excess of capacity, 'its leve'l of serv'ice would remain at LoS A.
Traffic operations along Eagle Road, between Franklin and I-84, would
be reduced to LOS E as a result of site traffic. This is due to the heavy
volume of traffic expected to approach the site via the interstate. In
order to meet this demand, Eagle Road may require widening to six ]anes inthis area. Conditions on that section of Eagle Road, between Fairview and
Frankiin, will also worsen ltith the addition of site traffic. In fact, the
serv ice level will drop from A to D in this area. As with Fairview Avenue,
a level of service 0 indicates some periods of flow restriction, however,
v-10
COLE RD
OYE RD.
RD.
CLO VER LE RD.
o
IE GR YE BD.
cEo
I
M RlDIA BD,
oF
o
690 890
€
tt
.o
ooo o(l,
o(o€
MAPLE G
r,513
o.o
N
1,000 o
o
G
TE
FIVE MIL
2.710
ooo
o
3,680
2,alo oo
ci
G
oo
o-
oo
ts
o
3,200 . .? I 239
0o
t!
3,680
o
F
citr EAGLE RE
o
IE
!J
o
r 2,950
o
ot
e_
o
@€
|o
LOCUST
ciE
=!
IElr
=ut
!c
tt
IT]
-Lql
o(t..rt
@
\t
r
EII
FIGUBE
5.5SOOO - AVERAGE DA[.Y TRAFFIC
I|NCH = 4220F1.
YEAR 1988 DAILY SITE TRAFFIC
2,870:
x
COLE RD.
OVE RD.
FIVE MIL RD.
LE RD.
oE GR VE RD.
x
RD.
oo
.o
o
8,290
t(o
It€
oo
N.
@(o
o(!
cl.
o€c,
(oo MAPLE G
11,310 -
o
ao
t\(!l
7,500 o
oE
c
oo
o-
lo
'r 3,000
t3,7ro
ooq,
t\(t
c,300
oocl
" 14,58 CLO VERD
r0,410
13,400 . 21,13,370 o(!,q
o
ui
:i
G
ooF
F(!l
oaro
o
o€q('oo\
6lI
ooo
ciE EAGLE RT
oo
o-
o
o2
!E
ur
o
29,4sO
o
6l
ot
€
o(o
(o
LOCUST
4,5OO.
oo
o-
o ci
IE
cEtt
=ur3;?e,ri
']16l
1 0,17
q
co
, 5,800
IEo
g
MERIDIAN
o
c,
SOOO - AVEFAGE DAILY TFAFFIC
I tNCH = 4220F7.
YEAR 1988 COMBINED
DAILY TRAFFIC
FIGUFE
5.6
1 r ,4A0'
lzo
t
r
Er
.,
COLE RD.
OVE RD.
FIVE MIL RD.
CLO VEBD LE BD.
GROYE RD.
I(J
RD
rt€
t€
o
o
MAPLE G
o
(9
co o
o
IE
E
UJ
-:
o
o
o
(o
o
o
€
ui
o
o
o
N
o
ci
IE EAGLE RT
ol
o
e
ut
o
u,
G
LOCUST
o oe
z
IE
=5
=lt
ut
S
16lF-l ro I
.l
(!
q
€
o
o
M ERIDIAN
€
N
(.)
r
EI
o - LEVEL OF SEFVICE
* - NUMBER OF THRU LANES
'ilNCH = 4220F1.
YEAR 1988 PROJECTED LANES
AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
FIGUFE
5.7
o
(D
ul
the majority of the time flow would be stable.
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Based on the traffic volumes entering and exiting the site, it was
determined that two signalized access points shou ld probably be constructed.It was also assumed that one of these entrances would be located on Fairview
Avenue and the other on Eagle Road at its intersection with the future Pine
Road extension. These entrances would provide a means for shoppers tosafely turn left across through traffic on both major arterials. Three
additional unsignalized entrances would provide for right turns into and outof the site. These would be stop-sign controlled with their capacity
dictated by the gaps in through traffic on the main street.
In addition to the two signal ized entrances, the intersection of
Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road was selected for further analysis due to itsproximity to the s ite.
Procedures described in Circular 212: Interim Materials on Highway
Capacity for intersection ana I ,als 'raia utr-I-izedffi
leve'l of service for the base year 1988 both with and without the site. The
Circular 212 methodology is based on the sum of confl icting traffic
movements during the peak hour of operation. To transform the A0T volumes
into hourly volumes, the daily volumes ',{ere multiplied by 10 percent, whichis a typical value used for approximating peak hour traffic. In addition, a
directional split of 60% outbound/40fl inbound was assumed for this area.
This split was determinecl from data provided by the Ada Planning Association
and assurnd to be representative of this area.
The resulting peak hour traffic volumes for these intersections are
shown in Figures 5.8 and 5.9. As mentioned previously, right turningtraffic had the option of choosing which of the five entrances to use;
hence, their volumes were distributed among all entrances. However, allIeft turning traffic was routed to the signalized entrances- Based on these
volumes, the entrances were designed to provide adequate access to the site
whi le minimizing confl ict with through traffic. Figures 5.10 and 5.11
i llustrate typical jntersection geometries which accomplish these
objecti ves.
Information provided by the Idaho Transportation Department indicatedthat improvements to the intersection of Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road
wouid be included in the Eagle Road widening project of 1986. The tentative
geometry at this intersection is shown in Figure 5.12.
The level of service at the entrances and the intersection of Fairview
and Eagle is shown jn Table 5.3.
\/-14
jiL FAIRVIEW
60/40 sPLrr
DHV =.1O ADT
+- 1217
68 t 138
131
--}lll'qaoooloA) EXISTING TRAFFIC
o 3.t
Jtt FAIRVIEW
o-/
rzo ----+
54--="-t
a\- G,
a--128
t-oI
Ir360
B) STTE TRAFFIC
SBeB
Hl rTiIII) l \.
FAIRVIEW.
*J
1051
-)
ra5------}
a\- 142
F-1373
z- 138t
1lt'
EgE
C) COMBINED TRAFFIC
r
EI
FIGUHE
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC FAIRVIEW AVE. AND EAGLE RD.
Ie
I
IJJJIol<lurI
. 92tt-_f
uJJ.ol<l
r1ll
I
-l
5.8
33lrr$
WEST ENTRANC E
^.73
{- 61o
uJJ
t,lJ
tr'l
EE
FAIRVIEW
.--- 1lg8
ii- -sso
1172----+
64---
tu(,
u-F
IJJ
F
IIo
38
r
EII
FIGURE
troPEAK HOUR TRAFFIC SITE ENTRANCES
I
6-
I
Irtot
=u.l
=tr
l!
OL
o
o
\
\I
NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL GEOMETRY NORTH ENTHANCE
FIGURE
5.10
llllNORTH ENTRANCE
{;ITniIO{
-
)
t
t
I
t
EA
NOT TO SCALE
GL ERO AD
6
(r
ul
=o-
-s
1
ot
l
ro
r
E?
-
. FIGURE
5.11
TYPICAL GEOMETRY PINE RD. ENTFIANCE
I
I
I
-
k ,"". J
\
I t\
o
o
u.t
o
tu l
IRVIEW AVENUE
/
/
--
I
\1
I
TENTATIVE GEOMETRY
FIGURE
5.12
I
&
I
ll
r
0?r-
FAIRVIEW AVE. AND EAGLE RD.
TABLE 5.3
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Location
-Fairview Avenue & Eag le Road
-Eag1e Road & Pine Road Entrance
-Fairview Avenue & North Entrance
Prooosed
N/A
N/A
0-/c-
B
E/o+
The two levels of service ratings under the "Proposed" heading represent the
operating conditions before and after the suggested widening of Fajrview
Avenue from four to six through ianes, respectively.
If congested conditions were found to exist at the north entrance, as
suggested in Table 5.3, it may be necessary to add an additjonal left
turning lane off of Fairview. Another option, which would also provide for
future increases in site traffic, would be signal ization of an additional
entrance on Fairview. This would be done instead of the additonal left turn
lane previously mentioned. In either case, actual traffic numbers shou ld be
used for abso lute justification.
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
System irprovements are categorized by one of the fol lowing three
types:
i. Pianned Improvements - these are projects listed in the Ada Planning
Association's Transporation Imp rovement Proqram. 1985-1990.
?Assumed Improvements - these would be improvements necessary to
maintain an adequate level of service for the area's projected
population growth and would be independent of any cormercial
development on the project site. Improvements of this nature are shownin Figure 5.3.
Site-Reiated Improvements - this would encompass any irnprovements
needed over and above those previously mentioned. These improvements
would attempt to mitigate the impacts of site traffic on the
surrounding street system.
3
This study js not intended to irnp'ly any
improvements by either the developer, the Ada
(ACHD) , or the Idaho Transportation Department
d irect
County
(ITD).
responsibility for
Highway oepartment
Instead, its sole
u-20
Ex i sti ng
purpose is to forecast future traffic needs and identify potential problem
areas. The f inal responsibi lity for irnplementing any recomnended
improvefients, above and beyond those planned by Ada County, will have to be
negotiated between the developer, the ACHo and the ITD.
This section surmarizes the traffic service evaluation and improvement
requ irements for the study area.
-Fairview Avelue, from Locust Grove tq Xeffdjallsqqlhe TeveT ---ervTce;-EasEd on-Tg$8 piojected traff ic voiumes, is
approximately LoS C. The addition of site traffic wilI put this link
at LOS E. li'idening to six lanes, consistant with the rest of Fairview
Avenu€, wilI restore an adequate service level.
-Eagle Avenue, from Franklin to I-84Thii street ---EhEduIe- Tor wTilening (as a planned irnprovement) to
four through lanes jn 1986; however, site traffic wil1 still push
traffic operations into LOS E at this location. liidening this portionof Eagle Road two add'itional through lanes is recommended.
-Inlerstate 84, from Eagle Road to the I-184 l{ye
Traffic volume! for ttiis piiti on of the jnterstate shou ld increase due
to a shift in travel daand via the ner interchange at Eagle Road. In
addition, site generated traffic will increase volumes significantly;
however, the interstate should be capable of meeting this dmand at a
LoS of C. No improvements recommended.
-Frankl in RoarlIf four lanes are provided to serve the projected residential traffic,
any additional increase, as a result of the shopping center, should
not significantly decrease the level of service here. This wou ld bean assumed i[provement; therefore, no additional s ite-related
improvonents are necessary.
-Fairview Avenue from Meridian Road to Cole Road
tm ar to ran 1n o e tra c proJ ec ions made by the Ada
Planning Association indicate a need for six lanes by 1988. If six
lanes are availabie, the level of service along this arterial wou ld
decrease from B to 0 with the additon of the shopping center. Th'is
may still' be an acceptab le service level. This would be an assumed
irprovernent; therefore, no additional site irprovements are necessary.
-Five Mile Road and le Grove Road North of Fairv'i ew
L lma ted site traffic on these streets has ower a? the Los from DE, thus us'ing ali of the renaining capacity. l.lidening may
indicated by this anlysis; however, not recomended untiI iustified
,t
to
by
\/-21
actual vehicuiar counts.
-Interchange at I-84 and Eagle RoadThis interihEnge was not diFect 'Iy analyzed for level of service
because of a lack of infomration specific to its design and
orientation. However, interchanges between roadways of this type
typically serve traffic volumes of this magnitude. 0f course, both
off-ramps would require coordinated signalization to minim'ize conflict
between rEvements. The construction of this inter'change is a planned
improvement and is scheduled for 1986.
-lntersectio4 of Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road
Assuming this interaection is designed as shown ln Figure 5.12, it
should operate with some congest'ion with the extra site traffic.
However, the widen'lng of Fairview Avenue to six through lanes would
improve operations. This wiclening is an assured irnprovenent.
-Entrance on Eag le Roadthis entrance ii assnneO to be located at P'ine Road. A typicai design
which would adequately serve site traffic is shovrn in Figure 5.11. In
addition to site traffic, a signal at this location could serve
traff ic along P'lne Road when it is constructed. This wou ld be a s'ite
related improveflrent.
-Entrance on Fairview Avenueffisection rras found to be very near unstable
flow conditions (i.e. LoS E). However, the additional capacity gained
from the widening of Fairview would restore operation to a more
reasonable level. In recognition of the near-capac'ity condltions, itis recormended that this entrance be located no closer than 1200 feet
to Eagle Road. Th'is wouid be a site-related improvement.
SUIf'IARY OF FINOINGS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS
A number of recormendat i ons related to the
operations were identified in this report- They
secti on .
efficiency of
are surrnari zed
trafficin this
-The existing street systsn will need to be improved to adequately
serve the projected traffic volume increase in this area in the nearfuture. 'This increase is directly a result of an 'increase in
population and a travel demand shift created by the new interchanqe at
Eagle Road.
-The interstate system, although decreasing in level of service, should
be able to adequately serve the additonal site traffic in 1988.
u -22
-fo achieve stable f low along Eag le Road, between
Road it wilI be neces sary to widen this portion
through I anes.
I-84 and Franklin
from four to six
-To maintain an adequate level of service on Fairview Avenue six
through I anes will be necessary by 1988. The additional through lanes
would be necessary primarily because of population growth in this
area.
-Two signalized entrances wilI be necessary to provide adequate access
to the shopping center. one entrance should be located on each maJor
street adjacent to the site. To minimize conflicts, these entrances
should be located no closer than 1200 feet to the next intersection.
-Three unsignalized entrances should be inciuded to provide alternative
points of access and to relieve demands on the signalized entrances.
AlI entrances would be site-re]ated improvements.
-The intersection of Fairviey and Eagle will need to be developed as
shown in Figure 5.12 as a minirrum. A design of this type is included
in the 1986 improveflEnt plans for Eagle Road.
v-23
VI COMMUNITY IMPACTS
A. AIR OUALITY
Background
Since the early 1970's people have been becoming more aware of and
concerned with the condition of the envi.ronment where they live. As
scientific research has advanced the abillty to assess the impacts of such
lhings as poltuted air, l-aws have been passed in an effont to better protect
natural- resources and to assure impnoved envinonmental qua]ity. A major sfep
loward controlling air pollulion occurred when the Federa] Clean Air Act was
passed in 1970. ThrouSh that law, and ils aoendments passed in 1977 ' Lhe
Environnental Protection Agency (EPA ) eslablished national clean air
standards, wilh which every comounity in the counlry must comply.
Moni,toring of the air quality has been going on i.n Ada County since 1974.(2, p. 8) The pollulants whj,ch are of concern are carbon monoxlde (CO),
hydrocarbons, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulates and
photochemical oxidants. (5, pp. 12-13) The latter resuLt from the sun
inleracting with chemical-s in the air and breaking them inlo other substances,
such as sunlight acting on oxygen to creaEe ozone.
Northern Ada County exceeds the federal alr quality slandards and has
been designated a 'rnon-at tainmen lrr anea for carbon monoxide. Il is anrrallainmenl'r area for suspended partj-culates and sulFur dioxide and anrrunclassified" area ( data are nonexistant or insufficient !o determine
attaj-nmen! on non atlainment status) fon hydrocarbons, ozone and nitrogen
dloxide. (5, p. 11) (Ada County is considered to be an attainment area for
particulates even lhough measurements indicaLe concenlratj-ons whj-ch exceed the
air qualily standards. Thls is due !o a provlslon fhat allows an area !o be
considered in attainment if the particulate matter is due !o high background
levels of fugi.tive dust which are carried into an area from surrounding
agricultural activities. This is common lhroughoul lhe western United
States . )
The Problem
In accordance with the requirement of the Clean Air Act, northern Ada
County musl meet fedenal standards for carbon monoxide by 1987. 12, p. a)
Various control stralegies have been deveLoped lo atlain and maintain accept-
able air quality levels in each area, such as the recently insLituted aulo
emissions inspections.
Monitoring air quality has been carried out primaril-y 1n the downtown
area of Boise where the greatest concentralion of auto traffic can be
expecled. Some addilional temporany monltoring has been done i-n the West
Bench area as far as Maple Grove Road. Little monitoring has been done in the
Meridian area sj.nce some samples were taken there in laEe 1977. (2 p. 11)
VI- 1
According to lhe resulLs of air quality modeling (not measuremenis), Ehe
Meridian area is projected to have Lower concentralions of C0 in lhe future.
Daily lotal levels of 8.5 parts per miLlion i-n 1980 are projected to be
reduced to 4.5 ppm 1n 1987 and 4.6 ppm by 2000. (5, p.25) This projection is
based on the population allocatlons in the 1975 Metroplan, however.
Indicalions a! this time are that the peopl,e are choosing to locate on the
Wes! Bench and toward Meridian in gneater numbers than lhe Metroplan cal1s
for. Thj-s means lhat traffic concenLrations are already greaLer closer to
Merldian. No recent alr quality monitoning has been done to delenmlne the
impacts oF this shift on aj,r qualj,ly in Meridian.
All indicalions are tha! lhe C0 probl,ems are related to transportation
and are enhanced by meteorological conditions. Moniloring has shown that high
C0 levels are concentrated a.Long najor traffic corridors. When temperature
inversions occur, most commonly during midr,Jlnter months, alr contalning lhe C0
is tnansported by light winds throughout lhe val}ey. (15, pp. 123-124) This
means that the entire area shares vulnerabilily to high levels of C0 which
oniginales 1n highly traveled roadway corridors. Because the area near
Meridian is a sllghtly higher elevation than Boise, there may be some air
draj.nage to the easL. It 1s also possj.ble that with fewer bariers to
prevailing winds, more mi,xing and lhenmal convection could be present near
Meri.d j.an. Thls theory has not been tested sclentifically, however. It is
known that the problem of air quality deterioraiion is vaLLey-wide.
Solving the ProbLem
The total amoun! of emissions are dependent on the Lolal nunber of
automobiles being driven. As more peopfe move inlo the area, emissions wlfl
be increasing, but with continued improvemenls in technology, there shouLd be
reduced levels of C0 in lhose emj.sslons. Thus, even wilh anticipaEed
populalion growth, i! is expected that the Federal standards erill be met
eventually.
Developing a regi.onal shopping site at Fairview and Eagle could shift the
concentralions of C0 lrilhj.n the valley slightly to lhe west, but Ehis is very
]ikely to happen anylray, as the West Bench contlnues to grow and Meridian adds
suburban housing t,o t,he east. The interchange at Eagle Road at I-84, which
w111 be begun in 1!86, will also enhance this shift. Should another shopping
center site in Meridian also develop, the same predictj-ons could be made
concerning the impacts on air quality in northwestern Ada County.
The plan to attaj.n the designated levels of air quallly improvement wj.J-],
contlnue to depend on control of aulo emissions and efforts to reduce total
auto trips. The development of a shopping centen could well make it possibLe
to more efficiently serve the Meridj.an area wilh transit, alternatives {bus,
carpools, etc. ) and thus further reduce lhe number of auto trips made.
There are two maln factors which affect air quality }ocal}y. One is the
trend gro$rth in populalion toward the wesl and away From the southeast (as the
vr-2
Melroplan is written) ; and the other is lhe meleoroLogica.L condition whlch
causes the ambiant air quality lo be shared by all areas in northern Ada
Counly. It is not likely lhat a change in the Merldlan pLan to allow an
additional negj-onal shoppj-ng cenLer sile at Fairview and Eagle would nega-
tively inpact the plan flor air quallty attalnment in nonthern Ada County.
B. IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Meri.dian has several resldenti-aL areas in proximily to 01d Town and
exlendj,ng to the east, north and soulh of Fairview in lhe Nort,h Curve neigh-
bonhood. There is a m1x of older homes close to lhe downtown, while the
suburban resi.dences have been buil! wllhin the past ten years or are currently
under construction. In general the qua1j.!y of lhe housing stock is quite
hj.gh, with the older homes being wel]-main tained. The residents are proud of
lheir nei8hborhoods and of living in Meridian.
The goals For the devel,opmenl of Meridian, as listed in the comprehensiveplan, j-nclude a desire to assure development in an orderly fashion which
distributes housing within the Urban Service Planning Area. That is the
nature of lhe nesi.dential deveLopment which is happenj.ng in the North Curve
nei.ghborhood and which exists on lhe periphery of old Town. These areas
should be enhanced as residential areas by comnercial development at Fainview
and Eagle.
The primary iopacts which could nesult from developmenl of a shopping
center !,iouLd support the continued residential uses in the North Curve area.
An increase in housing demand has been occuming in Meridian already and
locatlng a regional shopping center aL Fairview and Eagle would probably
increase the number of people choosing to live in Menidlan. There r.rould
Iike]y be a greater demand for multi-farDil-y housing in the vicinity of the
reglonal shopplng center. This enhances lhe plan goals and policles sel fonth
in lhe Meridian plan which recogni.ze a need for additional types of
residential choi.ces for Meridian ci.tizens.
At the current !ioe, there ane pnobably a sufflicient nunber of lols
available to accommodate additional demand. (3, p.33) There would be less
impacl on other residential nej-ghborhoods in Meridian, such as Cherry Lane,
Warrior or Linder Acres. Some growth would contj.nue near established resi-
denli.al areas, however, as long as Iand is available. Certalnly there would
be a continued deuand for re-sal-e homes as they relurned to the markel.
Traffi.c impacts on existing and proposed resideniial areas would be
sllghtly less wilh a regional shopping site at Fairview and Eagle, parlicu-
larly when the i.ntenchange is completed at Eag]e Road and I-84. ThaL wiLl
reduce traffic through doemtown, though lhe old Tov.m area vrill conlinue to
have some traffici 1! should be far less than if the only lnterchange wene at
Meridj.an Road. This wil-l- al1ow the preservation of lhe mixed use,/ resident ialqualily of lhis neighborhood.
VI-3
C. ]MPACT ON ADJACENT USES AND LAND USE CHANGES
Land use changes are taking lonn in Meridian right now. According to the
pIan, and emphasj,zed by decisions made by city officla.l-s, houses are being
built and induslriaL sites are being developed. The effect of a regiona.L
shopping center on the nearby residential uses has been menlioned. 0ther
adJacent land uses at Fairvi-e!., and Eagle are the llght indus trial /warehousing
being developed across Eagle Road. A major commercial development would be
quite compatible with the lighf industrial uses which exist just to the south
of lhis sile and now are developi.ng to the west.
East and nonlh of the site rural activi,ty conlinues t,o be the primary
land use. A combinalion of hay and row cnops, dalrying and nural- residentj.al
uses characterize lhe area. These uses are compalible with the stated inten-
tion in the Merj,dian plan of preserving an agricultural buffer between devel-
opment in Merj-dian and Boise. These uses can be preserved through zoning and
by offlerj.ng posltive j.ncentives lo maintaining the land in its curcent use.
If it i.s the intention of lhe city to direcl growth in such a manner that
each area develops as set out in the plan, then that can happen Ehrough fhe
fain appl-icalion of administralive policy as growth continues.
There rril] be pressures to develop lhe areas adjacent to lhe Eagle Road
interchange. By designating the southeast corner of Fairview and Eagle as a
conoe rc i a.l- zone (along with the exlsting industrial zonlng in the area), someof the demand for land use changes night at this interchange wiII be diverted.
The combination of zones should enhance the interchange enterprise areas which
the plan encourages.
D. COMMUNITY PATTERNS
The goals in the Meridi.an comprehensive plan indj.cate a desire to develop
a balanced corulunity in lerms of land uses, !o reach a level of economic
seff-sufficlency and !o have a strong community ident,ity. Designating thesile al Fairview and Eagle as a location for a regional shopping center would
argueably help create the desired bal-ance oF land uses. Il supports and
complements the growth of Ehe easlern i.ndustrlal area, which is essenoial for
economic sel f-sufficlency in Meridian.
VI-4
The slte is separated from other conmerclal- uses. There is residentiaL,
}j-ght industrial and agrj-cultural use between the site and Ehe nearesl conmer-cial uses, lrhich are approximately one miLe away. By enforcing zoning along
Fairview, funthen strip commerclal development can be restricted or prevented,
leavlng the existlng buffers of other uses in place. This follows one of thenajor plan policies which identifies strip commercial and strip industrial as
undesirable uses.
By designatj-ng this slte as a reglonal shopping area, the ciiy wi.lL have
nodes of commercia] developnenl at Chenry Plaza, downtown and at this si,te.
The typical commercial, aclivities which exist at Cherry Plaza and downtown are
nou regional in nature and so woufd nol be expected to change dramatlcal-ly.
The corDnercial uses at lhe regional site would be somewhat difFerent--such as
large department stores--and draw on a larger pub]lc than the grocery stores,
small restauranis, gas stations, etc. which make up much of Meridj,anrs current
commercial mix. This Lrould enhance the neighborhood/ communi ty character of
the existing conmercial uses and provlde a more complete mlx of uses for the
city ln the long run. There is a posltive benefit to the resu]f ing
cost-revenue balance of mixed land use developmeni a],so.
Deslgnation of a second sj.te for development of a regional shopplng
center gives Meridlan more opporLunities to work loward the goal- of increased
economic self-sufficiency. The jobs and support services which would accrue
to such a developmen! would bning Meridian closer !o lhat goal. In this case
the needed utiliEies, waten and sewer have been brought to lhe site at
developer expense, without the expendlture of public funds.
ogher land uses and proposed mixed use areas indicaled in lhe plan will
not be negatively impacted by the designation of an additional regional
shopping cenLer sile at Fainview and Eagle. Meridian has already commilted
the appropriate areas in the North Curve to residentlaf and has annexed much
of the land a.Iong Fairview. This gives the city lhe opporlunity lo direc! the
nature and character of the adjacent land uses as lhey are developed.
E. COMPARISONS WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES
There is always curiosj.ty bo kno$, just whag will happen as a nesult of
maJor land use decisions. It is afways reassuring Eo consider r,rhat has
happened in other sltuatLons when a sj-mil,ar decision has been made. Thal is
one lhing which takes some of the 'rcryslal gazj,ng" out of predicting inpacts.
There are lwo somewhal similan examples from Idaho experience which can be
ciled. one j,s the developmenl of Karcher MafI between Nampa and Caldwell and
another is the developmenl of lhe Pine Ridge MalI in Chubbuck, near Pocatel,lo.
Karcher Ma1l is used because it 1s familiar to almost everyone who
resides in Ada Counly, Ehough it may no! provide a thoroughly vaLid compar-
ison. When Karcher MaIl was first developed almost tweniy years ago, lt was
neputed !o be lhe largest suburban shopping mall in lhe Nonlhwest. It
certai.nly was the largest in Idaho at the time.
The ma]} was built ouE in the country betvreen Caldwe]l and Nanpa along
lhe main thoroughfare connectj.ng lhe lwo cities. Most of t,he land along the
Nampa-Ca1dwell Boulevard was then zoned for comnencial use, which naturally
resulted in the strip commercial deveLopmenl existing loday, (The zoning in
Meridian j.s already different as are the plan pol1cj.es.)
t/T-q
When the maII wenE j-n, it altracted much of the business from the down-
towns of both small communilies. There simply was not enough population or
economic demand to supporl, for instance, a J.C. Penneyrs, in bolh lhe mall
loca0ion and in downtown Nampa. Today with more populalion base and some
renovation, lhe downlown areas of both Nampa and Caldwell are much more
prosperous.
Those saue impacts cannol be expected in Menidlan. The restaurant,
banking, medica.L servj.ces, groceries, gas stations and the feed mi11/larm
supply stones are not suffi,ciently negional in nature to be likely to relo-
cate. It is likely that a few businesses may opt lo move toward the shopping
center locauion, but others would be just as likely to come into 01d Town.
The impacts of the ma11 are likely !o be felt 1n Bolse if, for instance,
the tson or Sears moves oul of downlown to relocate a! the new regional mall
site. For Meridian, however, Uhe impacts would seem to come on the benefit
side.
In Chubbuck, lhe new Pine Ridge Mall was completed in about 1981 and it
is currently the largest mall in Idaho. It has three anchor slores including
ZCMI and lhe Bon, and has about 750,000 square feet. Discussions with the
public works dlrecior ln Chubbuck and planners in Pocatello indicate almost no
negative impacts on existing comnercial development have occurred j-n ej-ther
communily. Most of the existing comnercial activity j-s very similar in naeure
lo that in Meridlan at present and very few businesses have left due to the
maII.
There has been increased lraffic and !he maIl developer nesponded by
inslalling a lnafflc Iight at the maln entrance to the mal}. AncilIary
comnercj-al development has come in lo lake advanlage of the increased comnence
i-n the area.
Apparently t.he potentiaL]y negative impacts of such a land use change
decislon can be countered by good consistent plannj.ng on lhe part of lhe
comounily which opts for i.ncreased comnercial development al the regional,
scale.
vr-6
The Chubbuck Police Department has had additional calls for such things
as bad checks and lheft. This can be better handled--in the case of Menid-
ian--by the cj.ty bui-fdj.ng more stringenL security requiremenis into agreemenls
with the developer.
offlicials of both comnunitj.es i,nllially expecled greater economic impactsbut the area has apparently suslained its old character and been able to
support the new mall. The only negalive impact.s observed have been on the
older Pocat,ello Mall, which has experienced a decline in lhe numben of shop-pens. There is no parallel situation in Meridian !o this example.
F. GENERAL ECONOMIC IMPACT ON MERIDIAN
Jobs--Expanded Income opp ortunitles for People
Development of a major project brings benefits to fhe community j.n ferms
of added jobs and increased spendlng power. In lhe case of developing a
regj.onaL shopping center, job opporLunllies rr1lI be available during the
consgruction phase and for permanenl employers a! the various stores when the
center is compLe0ed. It is anticipaled thac despile some shj-fting of workers,
there wil-1 be a nel gain in total jobs due to the different nature of
retailing on a regional scale. Many oF lhese jobs could go !o Meridian nesi-
dents simply because they live closer Eo the site.
A single job genenates more economic contrj-bution to the community than
lhe value of its wages. That wage earner not only spends his earnings for
food, sheller and consumer goods, but he al-so requires services. As his wages
are spent for those foods and services, addltlonal jobs are created to provide
the support for that wage earner. This rrmultipLier effectrr ranges belween 0.5
in small isolated lowns to as high as 1 .85 secondary jobs for each original
employee. The generally accepted multlplj,er Level for commercial development
is between 1.5 and 1.7 per original job. (8, p.22) Thus for every $'1 ,000 in
wages eanned, between $1 ,500 and $1,700 addilional money would cycle through
lhe local economy.
Expanded Income Sources--City Benefi ts
Additional revenue could neturn to Ehe cily ln lerms of taxes on prop-
erty, though with the lax limitatlon cei]lng thj.s would be within the one per
cenl level. There wouLd be increased lundings available flor schools due to
oore local, residenLiaL development. The neturn flnom sales tax to the
comrDunity would be greater. other sources of additional money available to
help Ehe clgy would coBre from sewer and waten hook-up fees, new construction
permit fees, etc.
Some roadway improvements could be expected, particularly as lraffic
demands and use warranted widening on other improvements. This could improve
generaL aspects of circuLalion and traffic handling. The Eagle Road inLer-
chan8e r,rill necessitate some widening of Eagle loward Fairview which shoul-d
lmprove lhal area.
One of the primary beneflts of developing a negional shopping center in
Meridian ls lhat j.t brings the city closer to its goa] of economic self-sufficiency. If r,r11l give a boost to the entire economy, allowing the city !ofocus more on Meridian as a viable whole community, rather than as arrsatelliterr corununity, Some of the things that people now have to leave
Menidian for--i.e., jobsi shopping fon cerlain consumer goods--would be in
place in Meridlan.
Net, Expenses Incurred
Thene wi-lL be some new expenses, partj-cularlyproject. The polj.ce and fire protection costs may
the beginnj-ng of lhe
the largest. In termsbe
VI-7
of fire pnobection, thene is a perceived need fon additional- capital outlay.
For police protection, it may be possj.ble for the city to negoti.ate some
arrangemenl vrj"th the developer of lhe regj,onal center, though there will-
probabLy be some need for added staff.
It shouLd be noted, however, !ha! Meridian obLigated itself lo providlng
cerlain senvlces when the sile was origlnally annexed to Ehe ciUy. The center
will provide some funds to ofFset these costs on a year-for-year basis and
other tax revenue should he1p. As far as added administratj.ve costs are
concerned, lhe clty has wanled and needed an improved city haLl lacility for
some time. This increase in connerci-al- developmenl may help make that
possible, though 1t wiIl be an expense for the ciEy.
The shopping cenler might not be a total solution to the basic funding
problem, and the communily could experience some costs above thai which the
cenler brings in annually. Il would be expected, however, t,hat lhose cosls
might be fel! mosl sLrongly duning lhe first years of the centerrs operation,
and would I'even-outrr oven ti-me. The initial capj,tal costs to Meridian would
also be phased over future years, but would provide an impnoved base for
public service now.
other expences which are tradltional-Ly borne by a communiiy experj-encing
growth and developmenl are lhe costs of extending sewer, water and uLllity
lines. This has already been coopleted by the developer. The city wil-l
neceive the usual hook-up fees which should help offset any change in oper-
aling cosls. Again, over time, the 1ni-!ial j-mpact wiLL smooth out. It should
be nelatively easy to adjust Lo any future incremenlal changes.
Commercj-al vs. Industrial Development
One very strong recormendati.on for granting the zoning change, ls lhat
comnercial- development couLd be begun in the near fulure. IE would aIlow lhe
increased lncome and other benefits to the communj.ty !o come much sooner lhan
i.f Meridian wai.ts for the demand for industriaL uses to develop.
From a market standpoint., the Eagle/Faj-rvlew location for a regional
shopping centen is closer lo population cenlers and has a nunber oF other
factors in its favor for more immedi,ate developmene. It is in an exceLlentposition to develop soon. The induslrial land r,riIl also be developed, bul itwill li.kely happen more slow]y. It 1s posslble tha! Meridian would have tooffer more incentlves to industrial developers in the next lwenty-five years
of competin8 wlth other industrial zoned land in lhe valley.
VI.8
Thene is a demand for industri.al land, and the ciLy has a good supply of
land zoned for induslrial uses. It is quite like]y that in todayrs market the
rate of absorption--i. e. , demand for industrial park development--wil1 be
lower than for prime commercial development sltes.
all
mee t
There is the perception of a latent demand for a shopping cencer--now--if
the development factors are j-n pLace. This site in Meridian appears to
ihese very favorably.
Downtown Meridian
01d Town has been discussed from lhe standpoint of possible impacts. The
basic character of 01d Town is not 1ikely to be altered. There are
nestauranes, convenience stores, banks, reaL estate offices, medical clinics
and other busi-nesses which are not regional in nature and which l,rill probably
nemain .
There are vacant stores in the nain par! of town now. Renovatj-on proi-
ects similar to the buildings on East First Stree! and ldaho in 01d Town could
be undertaken by lnvestors and creale some reuse areas i-n buildin8s r,rhich are
currenl}y vacant. There is a lot of character in Meridianrs downtown
buildings which will nol be ignored in lhe future. The added populallon base
could make the economics very posilive for redevelopmen! even soonen.
The other small shopping areas such as Cherry Plaza and lhe specially
servLces such as t,he farm supply stores certainly wil-l not Ieave the area.
The nature of lheir business conplements but does not compele with a negiona]
center. While some indlvidual merchants may opt to move, lhe lower rental
rates in, for instance the Cherry Plaza area, will, certainly attract new
businesses.
Basical-Iy, it shoufd be antj.cipated that the developoent
shopping opportunity in Meridian will have a positive effecl
comnuni ty.
of
on
a regional
lhe en tire
G. OUALITY OF L]EE
Many factors enter each j,ndj.vidual's opinion of v,rhat rrquality of life'r
includes. Psychologist Abrahar Maslow developed a human needs hierarchy whlch
contributes lo the sense of quality of 1j.fe. Maslow and other theorists
suggest thal human beings develop through five needs levels, from the baslc
physlologi-ca] (survival), to safety/ securi ty, bel,ongi.ngness/ l ove, !o sel,f-
esLeem and flnally self-ac luaL ization. (6, p. 11) This theory can be extended
flrom t,he individual to the communj-ly, where a set of individuals determine
ways to satisfy those needs at a community Level .
In an attempt to quantj,fy the qual,lty of life factons whj.ch exist for Ada
County, the Boise Fuiure Poundation has just completed the analysis of a
questionnaire sent to Ada County cj,tlzens whlch asked about such things as the
environment, economy, governmenl systems, social conditions and culturalresources. The researchers needed to ldentify both subjective indicalors(sensitive to peoplets feelings of salj,sfaction, expectation, etc. ) andobjectlve indicators (able to measure information regarding infrastructure,for i,nstance ) to be able to make an accurate sample of Ada County residents'
opinions. (6, p. 13)
1I T.O
The factors which were identified as the most important quality of llfe
considerations were: individual well-be1ng; corununity stabilily and onderi
employment and advancement opportunities. For Lhe most part people lIererrhighly salisfied[ witfi the avaj,],abilj,ty of waler for drinking and especiallyfor recreation; access to housing, health services, pank facillties and
recreational activilies. The ci-tizens tended to be least salisfied wi.th airqualiiyi lhe condition of roads; and genera.L performance of government (and
citizen participation in government). (6, p. 20)
The quality and availability of retail shopping ranked wilh availability
of cul-tural and artistic aclivities in aboul the middle range of satisfaction,
so lhere is noom for improvemenl in these areas. This brief summary does nof
include aLl the factors the survey attempted to evaluate, nor did the survey
attempt to examine some of the more difflcult lo define reasons Lhat cause
people to come to or stay in Ada County and particul,arly Meridian.
There is a sense of freedom here that is missing in other parts of the
country. when people are asked whal lhey like about living in the area, the
great variely of individual recreation act,ivitj.es is bound to be rnentioned.
Many Meridian residenLs cj-te the size of lhe town as an advanLage,
facililating the easy-going 1i.fe style which is not available in langer
communities. Many like the availabili-ty of most consumer goods (allhough not
in Meridlan) in reasonable proximity !o their jobs, homes, churches and oEher
community activities. They seem lo almost take the low crime rates forgranted. Some mention the sense of communj,ty which exists in Menidj,an and
they point proudly to Meridianrs healthy growt,h j.n recent years.
The people here are very mobile and willing to drive or travel" any
dj.stance, particularly to fi.nd suiEable necreagion opporluniti.es or even Eo
shop in a Larger market area such as Salt Lake Cily, Portland, Seatlfe or
Spokane. Thls would seem to imply that lhere is a demand for improved
commenc iaI,/ consumer opportunities, even though the majorlty of local residents
are very salisfied wiEh living in the comnunlty,
VI-10
4
BIBL]OGRAPHY OF INFORMATION SOURCES
Ada Planning Association.
Populatj,on and Employment
1978. DraFt--Ada Counly, Idaho. Year 2000
Projections.
2. Ada Planning Associ.ation. 1979. Transportation Control PIan for ihe
Carbon Monoxide Non-altainmenl Area of Ada County, Idaho.
3. Ada Planning Association. 1984. Demographic Report, Ada County, Idaho.
Bartholomew, Harland. 1955. Land Uses in American Cilies.
Boise Future Foundation. 1962.
Alr Quality Resources.
Gneater Bolsers Carrying Capacity: The
Bolse Future Foundation. 1984.
ouality of Life.
Managlng Carrying Capacily and lhe
Clark Coleman & Rupeiks, Inc.
District P1an.
1970. Nampa, Idaho Central Business
Urbanizatlon
9. De Chiara, Joseph and Koppelman, Lee. 1969. Plqlr4ltg qegi€n qLr!9I14.
10. Idaho Dlvj.sion of Financial Management.1980. Idaho Economic Forecas t.
11. Marsden & Associates and Ada DaLa. 1982. An Analysis and Evaluation of
Meridian Comprehensj,ve Plan Modifications Related to Probable Commerciaf
Developments.
12. Meridian Comprehensi.ve Plan. 1978. Amended 1984.
A Tethersonde Fleld Study13. North Amenican Weather Consultants. 1980.
Examining Lor^, Leve1 Stabi"Lity in lhe Boise Valley.
14, United S!a!es Environmental Protectlon Agency. 1981 . Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Wastewater Management fon Boj-se, Eagle and Ada County,
Idaho.
15. United States Envi.ronmental
Impact Statement Appendlces,
Protection Agency. 1981 . Draft Environmental
WasLewater Managernent for Boi-se, Eag.Ie and
6
7
Ada County, Idaho.
16. Urban Land Institute. 1968. Cornnunity Buildersr Handbook.
8. Conklin and Rossant; Hamner Siler George AssoclaLes. 1973.
Pro j ec ! j,ons-- Powder River Basin, Eastern, Wyoming.
17. Urban Land Institute. 1973. Technlcal- Bulletin 69.
Zoning. Washlngton D. C.
18. Urban Land Institute. 1976.
ments: New Ways of Land Use.
Techni.cal Bul"letin 71 .
Washj-ngton D. C.
Shopping Center
Mj,xed Use Deve]op-
Personal Conversations with:
Steve Baxter, Planning Directori Pocatello, Idaho
Non0 Ho1m, Pl,anning Dj,rector; Nanpa, Idalo
Syfvj.a Robinson, Planning Director; Ca1dwell, Idaho
Steve Scott, National Weather Service; Boise, Idaho
Steve Smart, Public Works Di.recLori Chubbuck, Idaho
VII ENGINEERTNG
The follcirlng inforuation is a slatenent of the engineering aspects of
Treasure valley Business Center which will affect the proposed develo[ment of a
Regional Shoping Center :
STORI'i Al{D IRRIGETIOII DRAINAGE
UE land has already prepared anal haB recelved approval of, a alrainage study
for the entire 320 acrea of Treasure Valley Business Center developoent lncluding
the area proE6ed for tbe Regional Shopping Center. Itte study includes:
The present Phase I constructlon eest of Bagle Roaal has a buiLt-in allosancefor storD drainage that $ould result frou the developoent of a Regional Shotrping
Center .
I'lrILITIBS
As a result of the present Phase I developnent, aU of the neceBsaryutilities ,i11 be brought virtually to lhe front door of the proposed Regional
shopping Center site:
water - t pland is presently connec ti ng lnto the City of lGridian
water systen b!' installing atrProxi-Eately 1.3 niles of offslte ltater
nalns in Falrvien Avenue and Pine Stleet. we are installing a 12"
plEe netrork within our palk to insure adequate alistribution" We1ls
will be added as required to sustain the florr necessary for fire
protectlon.
Sanitaty Sefler - Ap[,roxinately a nile of 15r offsite outfall sewer is
presently being constlucted ln Pine Street to our Treasure Val,ley
Buslness Center site. Ttris outfall contains enough reserve capacity
to serve the proposed Reglonal Shoprping Center.
Pouer, Gas, and Telephone - These utilitieg will also be available at
the slte because of our Phase I constructlon. Ehree phase polrer is
being brought to the site. Gas lrill be tapped fron a 4' supply linein Pairvier Avenue, and the telephone ril} be on the Meridian
exchange wh lch w111 allor calls to either Naqra or Bolse rithout a
long-d istance charge.
1rII-1
1. conveyance anil rouLing of offgite storo water runoff flors
2. @nveyance anal routing of onsite storn water runoff florrs
3. Storn water detention and grrification
4. Irrigation routing and distribution
SOILS
Ttre Caltlvell and Narqra sedi.Eents a6 found on the site generalLy consist of
clay, silt, sard ard graveL allal contain varlable anounts of caliche cenent. The
coarser Eate!lal @nsist8 of crystalllne rock including rhyolite, quartz
monzonite, diorlte anil arkose with sooe scoria and basalt pebbles. These sanal
and graveI Clepcl ts encountered over the site are conduclve to developent and
will sugport noderate to high bearing pEessures.
vtt-2
VIIL DESIGN
The site plan on the following page illustrates the preliminary design concept tor the
proposed mail on the subject property at full build-out. The key issues of concern to the
City of Meridian are discussed below:
Itrrrcss ard Egress In gress and egress to and tro.n the site should be
excellent. Persons entering the site from Eagle Road will have two ingress
points, while those entering from Fairview Avenue will have three ingress
points. It is assumed that two signalized access points would be consructed,
one on Eagle Road and one on Fairview Avenue, allowing trallic to turn left
across through traflic on both maior arterials.
OrrSite Circulatian: As illustrated, the develoPment will have a ring road
allowing easy on-site circuiation.
establish:'nents Ironting Fairview Av
Peripheral land users (free-standing
enue and Eagle Road) will benefit trom
this road as wcll.
Peddtrian Acccss: Visits on foot to the mall by trade area residents are
proiected to be very low because o
mile oI the site. PoPulation within l
f the limited population base within one
mile of the site is proiected to be nil.
vlll-i
T
PROPOSED MAIL SITE PIAN
Meridian, ldaho
-{
-irn{l-:-
I
.)'i-t
I
!,
6
7r7r7I
y'.*
II
)-
\
)
)
)
I
1 ,/i7 f 'f ://
Vr
,/,{
1,A
I
;//
.l
I'.lI I7 l.'
tJ //I
'
(
,:]
{,//AV,
w /t
.-< 4Ja //////
irI
Eo
rl2)t.E.t!li
a
0
t-!til0itl
I IIIII