HomeMy WebLinkAboutBews, E.L. AZ CUPCOUNCIL MEMBERS
RONALD R. TOLSMA
MAX YERRINGTON
ROBERT D. CORRIE
WALT W. MORROW
SHARI STILES
Planner & Zoning Administrator
JIM JOHNSON
Chairman - Planning & Zoning
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to
Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: March 7, 1995
TRANSMITTAL DATE: 2/21/95 HEARING DATE: 3/14/95
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a variety of mixed, planned land uses
BY: E.L. Bews
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: South of Franklin Road, north of 1-84 on
the east side of the St. Luke's West Medical Center Location
JIM JOHNSON, P/Z
MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z
JIM SHEARER, P/Z
_CHARLES ROUNTREE, P2
_TIM HEPPER, P/Z
_GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR
_RONALD TOLSMA, C/C
_BOB CORRIE, C/C
_WALT MORROW, C/C
_MAX YERRINGTON, C/C
_WATER DEPARTMENT
_SEWER DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
_POLICE DEPARTMENT
_CITY ATTORNEY
_CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
CITY FILES
OTHER:
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS:
0 0
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
OFFICIALS
A Good Place to Live
WILLIJANIC L. GASB, City Treasurer Clerk
JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer
CITY OF MERIDIAN
GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt.
33 EAST IDAHO
KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney
Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813
Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211
GRANT P. KINGSFORD
Mayor
COUNCIL MEMBERS
RONALD R. TOLSMA
MAX YERRINGTON
ROBERT D. CORRIE
WALT W. MORROW
SHARI STILES
Planner & Zoning Administrator
JIM JOHNSON
Chairman - Planning & Zoning
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to
Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: March 7, 1995
TRANSMITTAL DATE: 2/21/95 HEARING DATE: 3/14/95
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a variety of mixed, planned land uses
BY: E.L. Bews
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: South of Franklin Road, north of 1-84 on
the east side of the St. Luke's West Medical Center Location
JIM JOHNSON, P/Z
MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z
JIM SHEARER, P/Z
_CHARLES ROUNTREE, P2
_TIM HEPPER, P/Z
_GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR
_RONALD TOLSMA, C/C
_BOB CORRIE, C/C
_WALT MORROW, C/C
_MAX YERRINGTON, C/C
_WATER DEPARTMENT
_SEWER DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
_POLICE DEPARTMENT
_CITY ATTORNEY
_CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
CITY FILES
OTHER:
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS:
1
n
1
1
1
1
1
-1
1
1
'I
46
E.L. SEWS, CONTRACTOR
5206 SORRENTO CIRCLE?53UMdj)�HA93704
planning and Zoning Commission
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
Z� iS mfs-
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission Members:
Application is for 70.4 acres of my property which is located next to
This Conditional Use App is
the approved St. Luke's West Medical Center location. The general location of my property
between Franklin Road and I-84 directly east of the St. Luke's site.
lication is the result of a meeting I attended on b
ruary
This Conditional Use AppFletcher of St. Luke's Hospital, Wayne s Forney, Bill
1995, with Mayor Grant P. Kingsford, Gary F
Davis,and myself. We discussed my annexation application which was originally submitted to the
plication is currently tabled
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
Health Services zoning designatio n
waiting for the city to create a new
Because of pressing business opportunities aJaii3bionapplication^�request eridian at fts fr, everyone at
from Health
the meeting agreed it would be best to modify my annexa c,mmercial GApplication
Services (H -S)
to Ceneral (C -G) i�icludii�g a Conditional Use Permit
s at the site This is the same process that the City use to
with a list of anticipated land use
approve the mix of land uses at the St. Lukes property.
It is my understSnt' zoning
andin that the City needs more time to update your Zoning ordinance
B and
prepare a new "Health Services and "Mixed PlannedUse D st of antic pat d land uses, we can y
proceeding now with a conditional use permincluding it,
move forward and attract new business to Meridian. At s Use Development depending on youe point in the future, we may r
rezone
rezone this property to Health Services or Mixed Planned e, I am ready to proceed with annexation
future Ordinance revisions. However,va�tthis condit onaoint in ltuse permit allowing the list of anticipated
to Commercial General (C -G) zoning rocessm this Conditional Use
land uses as outlined in my application. I look forward top g
Application and getting back to work with the Planning and Zong Commission on my
ni
annexation and zoning request.
Thank you for your help!
Property
f
1
CITY OF MERIDIAN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NAME: - L gEWS
PHONE 375-4341
ADDRESS: 5206 SORRENTO CIRCLE; BOISE ID 83704
GENERAL LOCATION: Generally, south of Franklin Road, north of I-84
on the east side o e u e s es en er oca ion.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: A variety of mixed, planned
' business and residential land uses to support economic expansion
within the City of Meridian.
ZONIMG CLASSIFICATION: Commercial General (C -G
' PLAN: A plan of .the proposed site for the conditional use
showing the location of all buildings, parking and
loading areas, traffic access and traffic circulation,
' open spaces, landscaping, refuse and service areas,
utilities, signs and yards.
Please see attached General Site Concept Utilization Plan. (aWw C+)
LEGAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
1 Pursuant to establishedroced
p ure, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
' the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a Public
Hearing in the Meridian City Hall on 14 March 1995
' at 7:30 p.m. Theur of
p pose the Hearing
is to consider a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT submitted by
E. L. Bews for the property generally described
as located = between Franklin Road and I-84 east of theAI1J3JK)
1
1
St. Luke's West Medical )ZL)= Center site.g0TX
TOallow a mix of planned business and residential land -uses to support
economic expansion within the City of Meridian.
11
1
CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION
1. Name, address and phone number of applicant.
E. L. Bews
5206 Sorrento Circle
Boise, ID 83704
(208) 375-4341
2. Name, address and phone number of owner of subject property.
E. L. Bews
5206 Sorrento Circle
Boise, ID 83704
(208) 375-4341
3. Legal description of subject property.
Please see Attachment A.
4. Proof of ownership of subject property.
Please see Attachment B.
S. Description of existing use.
This parcel has been farmed in the past. It is presently utilized as pasture and farmland plus
fallow vacant land.
6. Present use of subject property.
' A portion of the subject property is a subdivision known as Farmington Estates No. 1. The
remainder of the land is used as pasture and farmland plus fallow vacant land.
' 7. Proposed use of subject property.
It is proposed that it be Commercial General consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive
' Plan and Zoning and Development Ordinance. The land use would contain a variety of
coordinated commercial and residential land uses.
' In a discussion with Mayor Grant P. Kingsford and St. Luke's Hospital officials, a list of
anticipated land uses was developed for this Conditional Use Permit application. Please see
Attachment C which includes a list of anticipated land uses and the General Site Concept
Utilization Plan.
0
8. The District that pertains to the subject property.
The present is district is RT - Rural Transition.
' 9. Thirty (30) copies of a vicinity map of a scale of one (1) inch equals three hundred (300)
feet.
' Please see Attachment D.
10. Characteristics of subject property which make a conditional use desirable.
It complies with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The north boundary is Franklin Road.
The south boundary is Interstate 84. The subject property is adjacent to the. St. Luke's West
Medical Center site and is an area that will support business activity for the City and enhance
the tax base of Meridian.
11. A listing of the mailing addresses of all property owners (from authentic tax records of
Ada County) who are within three hundred (300) feet of the external boundaries of the
land being considered, and a list of all owners within the area being considered for a
Conditional Use.
Please see Attachment E.
12. A fee established by the Council; $275.00 + $1.29 each for certified mailings for each
property owner listed within the 300 feet = Total Fee.
Base fee $275.00
' Certified Mailings 11 x $1.29 = 14.19
Total Fee $289.19
13. The property will be posted one week before hearing stating they have applied for a
Conditional Use Permit or Zoning. There must be a signed affidavit that this has been
1 done as part of the application.
' Please see Attachment F.
14. A statement that the applicant or the user of the property agrees to pay any additional
sewer, water or trash fees or charges, if any, associated with the use, whether that use be
1 , esidential, commercial or industrial.
1 E. L. Bews agrees to pay any addition fees or charges associated with cine use.
15. The application shall be verified by the applicant which shall state that he has read the
contents thereof and verifies that the information contained therein is true.
Please see Attachment F.
1
Conditional Use Application — Page 2
.J -U -B ENGINEERS, INC. Franklin Road • Sol", Idaho 69705
Project: 7802 0
Date: October 31, 1978
' Revised: November 7, 1978 ATr*04M
Revised: December 26, 1978
i
*r 04
'e I
REVISION II
DESCRIPTION FOR
LARRONDO PROPERTY
FARMINGTON ESTATES, A SUBDIVISION,
LYING IN THE E 1/2 NW 1/4, SECTION 16,
ALL IN T.3N., R.lE., B.M.,
ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
A parcel of land lying in portions of the E 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16,
all in T.3N., R.lE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as
follows:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of the said E 1/2 of the n' 1/4 of Section 16;
thence North 89020106" West 497.74 feet along the Northerly boundary of the said
E 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16, which is also the centerline of Franklin Road, to
a point, also said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNINC;
thence continuing North 89°20'06" West 740.38 feet along the said Northerly
boundary of the E 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16 to a point;
thence South 0°13'03" East 516.55 feet along a line Easterly of and parallel
to the Westerly boundary of the said E 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16 to a point;
thence North 79°21'03" West 117.09 feet to a point on the said Wetste ly
boundary of the E 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16;
thence South 0013'03" East 2,158.55 feet along the said Westerly boundary of
the E 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16 to a point marking the Southwest corner of
the said E 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16;
11
thence North 85°24'37" West 499.35 feet to a point;
thence North 0004'37" West 904.75 feet along a line Westerly of and parallel
to the said Easterly boundary of the E 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16 to the
point of beginning, comprising 70.42 acres, more or less.
LRS/JDW:cc
Prepared by: _
Gary L. Rodenspiel, L.S.
thence South
89°14'45"
East 1,346.64 feet along the Southerly boundary of the
said E 1/2 of the
NW 1/4
of Section 16 to a point marking the Southeast corner of
the said E 112 of
the NW
1/4 of Section 16;
thence North
said E 1/2 of the
0°04'37"
NW 1/4
West 1,717.87 feet along the Easterly boundary of the
Section 16
of to a point;
11
thence North 85°24'37" West 499.35 feet to a point;
thence North 0004'37" West 904.75 feet along a line Westerly of and parallel
to the said Easterly boundary of the E 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16 to the
point of beginning, comprising 70.42 acres, more or less.
LRS/JDW:cc
Prepared by: _
Gary L. Rodenspiel, L.S.
• E. L. BEWS PROPERTY W A
i LEGAL
DESCRIFPION � ��
1 Project No. IR -84-1(12)45 PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
Parcels No. 13-1 a 13-1-E-1
1 Rey No. 2989
Land situated in Ada County
' PARCEL NO. 13-1
A parcel of land being on the Northerly side of the centerline of Ramp
' C -D Survey of the Eagle Road Interchange as shown on the plans of
Interstate 84 Project No. IR -84-1(12)45 Highway Survey now on file in
the office of the Idaho Transportation Department, Division of High-
ways, and being a portion of the SEhNWh of Section 16, Township 3
North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, described as follows, to -wit:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of the SEhNWh of Section 16, Township
1 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian;
thence North 0°13'14" West along the West line of said SEhNWh a dis-
tance of 46.06 feet to a point that bears North 3"37'05" East - 77.55
feet from Station 2442+05.36 of Ramp C -D Survey of the Eagle Road
Interchange as shown on the plans of said Interstate 84, Project No.
1 IR -84-1(12)45 Highway Survey;
thence South 85°35141".East - 723.14 feet to a point in the South line
of said SEhNWJJ; thence North 89 "14' 47" West along said South lizie 720.89
feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING.
Ramp C -D Station Reference: 2442+05.96 to 2449+34.
The area above described contains approximately 0.3811 acres.
' Any right of way fencing to be constructed is not necessarily intended
to designate the property line and any variance between the location of
right of way fencing and the actual property line as herein described
shall not be construed as a modification or alteration of this
description.
PARCEL NO. 13-1-E-1
A permanent easement to go upon, occupy and use a strip of land 5.0
feet wide in a portion of the SEhNWh of Section 16, Township 3 North,
Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, the Southerly side of which is coincident
with the Northerly side of the above described parcel of land (Parcel
.No. 13-1) and lying between the West line of said SE;4NW4 and Station
-2449+34 of the Ramp B -C Survey of the Eagle Road Survey of Interstate
84, Project ::o. IR -84-1(12)45 Highway Survey and containing approximat-
ely 0.0833 acres' -for the purpose of constructing and thereafter main-
taining thereon a drainage ditch and facilities together with the right
and privilege of ingress and egress to and from said property for said
purpose.
� EXHIBIT N0.
7
1
11
*RRANTY DEED
For Value Received
JO$ LARRONDO and CARMEN LARRONDO, husband
and wife,
the grantor s, do hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto
EDWARD L. BEWS and SHIRLEY G. BEWS, husband and wife,
the grantee s, whose current address is
5206 Sorrento Cir., Boise, Idaho 83704
the following described premises, in Ada County Idaho, to -wit:
PARCEL 1:
As set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto
and by reference made a part hereof;
Together with all and singular the tenements, hereditaments
and appurtenances hereunto belonging or in anywise
appertaining;
Subject to all easements and rights of way of record
or appearing on the land;
Excluded from the warranties hereinafter set forth are
warranties as to the location of the exterior boundaries
of the property covered hereby, it being understood that
the Grantees are relying upon their own survey thereof
in respect thereto;
;)Alt UI IUAIIU. CMIYTY or ADA. ss.
Fi�ko qIo'rrccnrd at qthe"request of 9,1 hhlLl lh}U
�N1�n. pasl�p..u'clock. hi. this.?ay ' • 19
CLARENCE A. PLANTING, jteco er
gy... JC7/,�� n„p„ ly
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD ;he said premises, Willi their appurtenances unto the said Grantee S.
the r heirs and assigns forever. And the said Grantor s do hereh% cocc1lant to 'w"!
Willi the said ranlres , that theyarefie owners in fee sinlple of said premir,cs: IllJI thr\are free
from all incumbrances , except current taxes and assessments for the year 1978.
and thal t hey, will warrant and defend the same from all lawful claims what'00cr.
Dated: November 27, 1978
e eon o
Carmen Larrondo
STATI-" OF IDAHO, COUNTY OF a
Oa this( of It) '78,
befm a tuc;':1' iio gin and for said State, personally
apper,d1,
ge--.'Ld.r: rondo and Carmen
11t'rondo, husband and
kpown.to initi td deC'the pe)(;on S who Se name S Zt:
subscrlto.the-,#joIt}•instrument, and acknowledged to
me that, nn 'i, yam` , - executed the same.
Notary Public
Residing at Boise Idaho
SI•ATI•: OF IDAHO, COUNTY OF
I her-aby rertify that this instrument was filed for revord at
Ow rerynest of tIRST AMERICAN TITLE M
at�v ryiliutes past (- f/`V o'clock Aril.,
this o% 7 day of
11.) 7yin my once, and duly recorded in Book
of Deeds at page
CLARENCE A. PLANTING
Ex- Lhc' Ree d •r
d ---
Fees b e2 Deputy.
Mail tn:
E
1
i
PARCEL 1: POR F wi OFE 1/2 NW 1/11, SCCT ION •
R.1E:., B.M.,
A. COUNTY, IDAHO
BEGINNING AT A BRASS CAP MARKING THE NORTIAJEST CORNER OF THE NW 1/4 OF
SECTION 16, T.3N., RJE:., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDA110;
THENCE SOUTH 89020'06" EAST 1,468.12 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY
OF THE SAID N'W 1/11 OF SECTION 16, WHICH IS ALSO THE CENTERLINE OF FRANKLIN
ROAD, TO A BRASS CAP, ALSO SAID POINT BEING THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE ALONG THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES TO IRON PINS:
SOUTH 001310.1" EAST 516.55 FEET ALONG A LINE EASTERLY OF F"D PARALLEL TO
THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE E 1/2 OF THE SAID NW 1/4 OF. SECTION 16;
THENCE NORTH 79021103" WEST 117.09 FEET TO A PoiN ON TETE SAID WESTERLY
BOUNDARY OF THE E 1/2 OF THE w 1/4 OF SECTICN 16;
THENCE SOUTH 0013103" EAST 1,153.77 FEET ALONG THE SAID WESTERLY BOUND-
ARY OF TETE E 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 16;
THENCE NORTH 89046157" EAST 150.36 FEET TO A POINT OF BEGINNING OF CURVE;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT 12.2.3 FEET, ALSO SAID
CURVE IVNING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3022'41", A RADIUS Of: 207.36 FEET, TAIJGENTS
OF 6.1.1 FEET. A1JD A LONG CHuRD OF 1.2.22 FEET BEARING SOUTH 1.028' 1•/" WLST TO
A POINT OF TANGENT;
THENCE SOUTH 0013'03" EAST 1.7.22 FEET ALONG A LINE 150.?6 FEET EASTERLY
OF AND PARALLEL TO THE SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY 01= THE E 1/2' OF THE NW 1/11 OF
SECTION 16;
THENCE NORTH 890116157" EAST 50.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 67040100" EAST 461.50 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 6000'00" FAST 267.30 FEET;
THENCE NJRTH 84000100" WEST 33.111 FEET;
THENCE 14ORTH 6000'00" EAST 170.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 811000100" WEST 25.40 FEET;
TI IE_NCE NORTH 6000'00" LAST 170.00 PELT;
THENCE SOUTH 811000100" EAST 63.87 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 6000100" EAST 230.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 84000100" WEST 20.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 1029105" EAST 175.57 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 6101111117" WEST 318.711 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 4028107" EAST 285.96 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89020'06" WEST 59.59 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00391511" EAST 203.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89020'06" WEST 7.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00391511" EAST 2;10.00 FEET 10 ;� POINT ON THE SAID NOYTI IERLY
BOUNDARY OF THE NW 1./4 OF SECTION 1U;
THENCE NORTH 8902.0' Q6" WEST 27'.1.39 FEET ALONE, THE SAID NORTHERLY BOUJD-
ARY'Of= THE N'.J 1/11 OF SECTION 1.6 TO THE POINT Of- BEGINNING, CO141PISING 20.76
ACRES, 110RE OR LESS.
rv�TTPTm A
ni
11
1
- WtAN'rY DE ED 5029 0
I•or Value Received
JOE LARRONDO and CARMEN LARRONDO, husband
and wife,
the grantor s , do hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto
EDWARD L. BEWS and SHIRLEY G. SEWS, husband and wife,
the grantee s, whose current address is
5206 Sorrento Cir., Boise, Idaho 83704
the following described premises, in Ada f Otttuy Idaho, to -wit:
PARCEL 2:
As set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto
and by reference made a part hereof;
Together with all. and :..inqular the tenements, r, redicaments
and appurtenances hereunto belonging or in anywise
appertaininq;
Subject to all easements and rights of way of record
or appearing on the land;
Excluded from the warranties hereinafter set forth are
warranties as to the location of the exterior boundaries
of the property covered hereby, it being understood that
the Grantees are relying upon their own survey thereof
in respect thereto;
TO HAVE: AND TO HOLT) the sail premise~, with their appurtenances unto Ow said Grantee S.
t.h}ye��r heirs and assigns forever. And the said tirantor s do hrrrl Y covenant to and
Willi the sattl C;rantees that theyardic owne)s in fee simple (,I said premiscs: that thry err Irec
from all incumbrances except current taxes and assessments for the year 1978.
and that t hy, will warrant and defend the same From all lawful claims what"00cl..
Dated: November 27, 1978
STAT•F,.OF, IDAHO, COUNTY OF a
fin this f day o I•+ 78,
hrtr)re.:_a i+ �ary.Fub1'C in and for said State, personally
appeamolk 1' .
�Joil Larrondo and Carmen
��Lakrondo, husband and
"U 1\-' wife,
kii'oyrr�'to�iye to•.bg'the person s who Se name S a7
sajbggr�(p„the within instrument, and acknowledged to
K
me that they executed the same.
Notary I'ublic
Residing atBoise Idaho
Comm. ]:.XPIreB
1
� C
In
Giir.��-may �
Carmen arronao
STATV OF IDAHO, COUNTY OF
I hereby certify` that this insuunif+nt was filed for record at
th.• request of FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO.
at 3o minutes past o'clock -710., .,
this �� day of
t!) u. my ofl-ice, a~ nduly recorded in ok
of )eeds at page
JOHN BASTIDA
Fx.011icio Recorder
By
- Deputy.
Fees $ '7
Mail to: — -
'r
PARCEL 2:
A parcel. of land lying in the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16, T.3N., 11.1C.,
B.M., Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of the said NW 1/4 of Section 16;
thence South 0°04'37" East 2,051.42 feet along the Easterly boundary of the
said NW 1/4 of Section 16 to a point, also said point being the REAL 1'U1NT OF
BEGINNING;
thence: continuing South 0°04'37" East- 605.39 feet along tile'sltd Easterly
boundary of the NW 1./4 of Section 16 to a point marking the Southeast corner
of the said NW 1/4 of Section 1.6;
thence North 89°14'45" West 1,346.64 feet along the Southerly boundary of
the said SE 1/4 of the N14 1/4 of Section 16 to a point marking the Southwest cor-
ner of the said SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16;
thence North 0°13'03" [Jest 1,004.79 feet along the Westerly boundary of the
said SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16 to a point;
thence North 89°46'57" East 150.36 feet to a point of beginning of curve;
thence Southwesterly along acurve to the left 12.23 feet, also said curve
having a central anglu of 3 22 47." , a radius of 207.36 feet, tangents of 6.11
feet and a lung chord of 12.22 feet bearing South 1°28'17" West to a point of
tangent;
thence South '1°]1'03" East 17.22 feet along a line 1.50.36 feet Easterly
of and parallel to the said Westerly boundary of the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of
Section 16 to a point;.
thence North 89°46'57" Last 50.00 feet to a point;
thence South 67°40'00" East 869.56 feet to a point;
thence North 89°55'23" East 175.00 feet to a point;
thence South 0°04'37" East 58.48 feet along a line 170.00 feet Westerly
of and parallel to the said Easterly boundary of the NW 1/4 of Section 16 to
a point;
thence North 89°55'23" East 170.00 feet to the point of bel;inning, comprising
24.68 acres, more or. less.
1
�II
�J
EXHTBTT A
1
WA
I WA RANTY DEED 8305028
1
1�_l
u
1
1
1
For Value Received
JOE LARRONDO and CARMEN LARRONDO, husband
and wife,
the grantor s . do hereby grant, bargain, sell and coneey unto
EDWARD L. BEWS and SHIRLEY G. SEWS, husband and wife,
the grantee S. whose current address is
5206 Sorrento Cir., Boise, Idaho 83704
the follo%%ing described premises. in Ada C oonty Idaho, to -wit•
PARCEL 3:
As set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto
dnd.Ly reference made a part hereof;
Together with all and singular the tenements, hereditaments
and appurtenances hereunto belonging or in anywise
appertaining;
Subject to all easements and rights of way of record
or appearing on the land;
Excluded from the warranties hereinafter set forth are
warranties as to the location of the exterior boundaries
of the property covered hereby, it being understood that
the Grantees are relying upon their own survey thereof
in respect thereto;
TO HAVE: AND TO HOLD the said hrenlises. with their appurtenances unit+ the said Grantee s.
tj1 - heirs and assigns forever. And the said l�I.MltUr s du hcrch\ covenant to and
with the sattl Grantees that thtyardie (ttvncts in fee Siinl,lr rl said prrmiscs', that thr\' :;,: Il'rr
frust all incumbrances , except current taxes and assessments for the year 1978.
and that t hey will warrant and defend the same froth all I:nvful claims whatsoever.
Dated: November 27, 1978
r
Carmen Lairrr
on o
STAT L OF IDAHO, COU'JTN,�j1�13�
OA''lhis
1123" day of yam— t•t 78.
befgre.;i' g
,Ime.otafy pu is in and for said State, persouany
`41%peared I, •. c
1, 'j" r,arrondo and Carmen
.rp Larrgndo, husband and
kpown %9 Mc%'t ,t'ha person S who Se name s ai
sub�lcbbe;`r. �1ip�within instrument, and acknowledged la
me thit'+ they executed the sante.
Notary Public
Residing atBoise , Idaho
Coo,'o. f•:xpireams L --
tifATK OF IDAHO, Ct)t)h't'1' 01' Q��
hereby certify that this instrument +t'as filed for record at
ill,- n•quest of FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO.
minutes past o'cloc m
at 30 .,
this .3,1,�• day of
U)❑ my office, andAuly recorded in�..k
of Deel s at page
JOHN BASTIN
I,x-Officio Recorders / /J
-
Deputy.
Fees E ��
Mail t./
1
Ir
IM
i
r
1
i
1
1
PARCEL 3: '
A parcel of land lying In the E 1/2 of the N14 1/4 of. Section 16, T.3N.,
R.lE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of the said E 1/2 of tlie'NW 1/4 of
Section 16;
thence North 89°20'06" West 497.74 feet along the Northerly boundary of
the said L 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16, wljicii is also the centerline of
Franklin Road, to a point, also said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence South 0°04'37" East 904.75 feet along a line ldesterly of and par-
allel to the Easterly boundary of the said h 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16
to a point;
thence South 85°24'37" East 499.35 feet to a point on the said Easterly
boundary of the E 1/2, of tite NW 1/4 of Section 16;
thence South 0°04'37" Last 1,1.12.49 feet along the said Easterly boundary
of the li 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16 to a point;
thence South 89°55'23" West 170.00 feet to a point;
thence North 0°04'37" West 58.48 feet along a line 170.00 feet Westerly
of and parallel to the said Easterly boundary of the E 1/2 of the N14 1/4 of
Section 16 to a point;
thence South 89°55'23" West 175.00 feet to a point;
thence North 67°40'00" West 408.07 feet to a point;
thence North 6000'00" East 267.30 feet to a point;
thence North 94°00'00" Wc3t 33.14 feet to a point;
thence North 6°00'00" East 170.00 feet to a point;
thence North 84'00'00" West 25.40 feet to a point;
thence North 6°00'00" East 170.00 feet to a point;
thence South 84000'00" East 63.87 feet to a point;
thence North 6°00'00" East 230.00 feet to a point;
thence North 84°00'00" West 20.00 feet to a Point;
thence North 1°29'05" East 175.57 feet to a point;
thence North 61°44'17" West 318.74 feet to a point;
thence North 4°28107" East 285.96 feet to a point;
thence North 89°20'06"West 59.59 feet to a point;
thence North 0'3954" East 203.00 feet to a point;
thence North 89020106" West 7.00 feet to a point;
thence North 0°39'54" East 200.00 feet to a point on the said Northerly
boundary of the E 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16;
thence South 89°20'06" East 464.99 feet along the said Northerly bound-
ary of. the E 1/2 of the NW .'./4 of Section Ito to the point of beginning,
prising 24.99 acres, more or less.
EXHIBIT A
LA
C1
E. L. SEWS PROPERTY - FRANKLIN ROAD/I-HVEAGLE ROAD AREA
LIST OF ANTICIPATED LAND USES
1. General Retail
2. Commercial and Professional Offices
3. .Auto Travel Plaza / Auto Services
4. Extended Stay Hotel Suites
5. Motel Complex
6. Retirement Center
7. Nursing Home/ Elderly Care Center
8. Towiuiouses
9. Multi -Family Apartment Center
10, Patio Homes
11. ;Medical Services
12. Restaurants
} Co
9. Q ani a m ° °' b �: 4r ,=
D So
D N Q .N N `a. C �'� a`"i�$b
i' W ++ di N fir,, N � �' 1 O N.� U d L].
(� V Q. � N rn Q C7 4) En En ani W �
0 CD
=1 U•� U O�� O `c `v °s"�`�`�N
u p�
Z J (U J �C t�jr. nm CI QOM N A U
U a
N` W N d N
m4) U — V v E N
3 Q o W
t a °1 w
LlJ O ~ W --- - --- -- a
a f- oco
=
v N ~ \ W r
zcr
N
LO
e7 C%14
� 3
-
3 to ��pp a \
uS ch a N U
N xx
00
4)
O N lk n
CL
U 'k o
P;4 >1 U N U) 0 \
_j ICL
N 0
O
CL %
CO J N
U CO fr
(D %
r
® ®C
co
w
w
AimstApir
V,
tJ ITI MAf
0acio
�og
7o
> Zm
z�
N
O n p
Z
�m
mZBm
'.,•C 'ice •.:
—�
.(� < f
300' NAMES FOR THE E.L. BEWS CUP APPLICATION
DANIEL R LAMB
1121 WHISPERING PINES
TURLOCK CA 95380-0478
DONALD ROBBINS & LINDA PENNE
925 S ROLLING HILLS DR
MERIDIAN ID 83642
OREN C & CARMEN J MAYES
3710 E FRANKLIN
MERIDIAN ID 83642
PATRICIA A NATIONS
4010 E FRANKLIN RD
MERIDIAN ID 83642
OTT COMPANY
J ROBERT TULLIS
PO BOX 8329
BOISE ID 83707-2329
LYLE E & LESLIE H BAIR
3375 E FRANKLIN
MERIDIAN ID 83642
ST LUKES REGIONAL MED!CAL CENTER
190 E BANNOCK
BOISE ID 83702
VIRGINIA JENNISON ETAL
4511 N LINDA VISTA LN
BOISE ID 83704-2819
FRAME FARMS INC_
3585 E FRANKLIN RD
MERIDIAN ID 83642
HAROLD E & DEANNA B HOLLOWAY
3545 E FRANKLIN RD
MERIDIAN ID 83642
RON VANAUKER
3084 E LANARK
MERIDIAN ID 83642
1 • •
1
� lifAzM'M�T F
1
�J
RECORD OWNER .AFF_ IDAVLT
CONDI ONAL USE PERMITBhQUE.SIAf_�FID_AVIT
POSTING AFFIDAVIT
1, E. L. Bews, aai individual, do hereby certify I am the record owner of the land referred to in an
application for a Conditional Use Permit being submitted to the City of Meridian for
consideration:
I further state that I hereby officially request a conditional use of said property by the City of
Meridia»y Idaho.
In addition, 1 hereby State and certify that the subject property will be posted one week before the
public hearing stating that the above-mentioned application with the City of Meridian has been
made,
Dated flus day of 199
By:
t E. L.
STATE OF IDAi-iO- j
} ss
County of Ada }
Mei r , Cc Y'c<.
ON THIS / � f `day of�� i u i t,/ , 19� before me a notary public in and for
said State, personally appeared E,. - de co t5 _
' known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and
acknowledged to me that __Lk executed the same.
AL
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I: have h eunto set m hand an affixed mWMy
o�ric, K. OLIVER' Y Y�iABERLY K. O
day and yeah first above written. %Notary Pubic - state of Arizona
MAASCM PA COUNTY
My Notary Commission Expires _�U %1 j , !9 Comm. expires June 6,1997
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and
the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street,
Meridian,ldaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., on March 14; 1995, for the purpose of reviewing
and considering the Application of E.L. Bews for a Conditional Use Permit for land located
in the E 1/2, NW 1/4 of Section 16, T. 3N, R.1 E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and
which property is generally located south of Franklin Road, north of 1-84 on the east side
of the St. Luke's West Medical Center location. The Application requests a Conditional
Use Permit for a variety of mixed, planned business and residential land uses to support
economic expansion wth the City of Meridian.
A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's
office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during
regular business hours.
A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons
shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit
testimony.
Dated this 21 st day of February, 1995.
0 •
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and.
the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street,
Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., on March 14, 1995, for the purpose of reviewing
and considering the Application of E.L. Bews for annexation and zoning of approximately
70.4 acres of land located in the Section 16, T. 3N, R. 1 E, Boise -Meridian, Ada County,
Idaho, and which property is generally located on South of Franklin Rd., North of 1-84. The
Application requests annexation with zoning of C -G Commercial General.
A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's
office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during
regular business hours.
A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons
shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit
testimony.
Dated this 21 st day of February, 1995.
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and
the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a
public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour
of 7:30 p.m., on May 16, 1995, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the
Application of E.L. Bews for a Conditional Use Permit for land located in the E 1/2, NW 1/4
of Section 16, T.3N, RAE, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is
generally located south of Franklin Road, north of 1-84 on the east side of the St. Luke's
West Medical Center location. The Application requests a Conditional Use Permit for a
variety of mixed, planned business and residential land uses to support economic
expansion wth the City of Meridian.
A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's
office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during
regular business hours.
A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons
shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit
testimony.
Dated this 24th day of April, 1995.
IF
F--,001, WIZE,
• .'
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, may we have your answer by:
June 7. 1994
TRANSMITTAL DATE: 5/24/94 HEARING DATE: 6/14/94
REQUEST: Annexation/zoninci for E.L. Bews
BY: E.L. Bews and Wavne Forrev
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: South of Franklin Rd, North of 1-84
JIM JOHNSON, P/Z
MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z
JIM SHEARER, P/Z
_CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z
TIM HEPPER, P/Z
_GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR
_RONALD TOLSMA, C/C
_BOB CORRIE, C/C
_WALT MORROW, C/C
MAX YERRINGTON, C/C
_WATER DEPARTMENT
_SEWER DEPARTMENT
_BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
CITY FILES
OTHER:
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS:
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
OFFICIALS
A Good Place to Live
COUNCIL MEMBERS
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk
RONALD R. TOLSMA
MAX YERRINGTON
JANICE
GITH,P.E.ity
CITY OF MERIDIAN
D.
ROBERTWALT
Engiurerneer
GARY D. SMITH, P.. City Engineer
RYD.
ORR W
WALT W. MORROW
MORROW
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt.
33 EAST IDAHO
SHARI STILES
KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
Planner
& Zoning Administrator
W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief
RECEIVED
JIM JOHNSON
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR.; Attorney
Phone 208) 888.4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813
(
Chairman
- Planning 8 Zoning
Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211
MAY 2.4 If07917-
GRANT P. KINGSFORD
Mayor
WY OF MERMAN
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, may we have your answer by:
June 7. 1994
TRANSMITTAL DATE: 5/24/94 HEARING DATE: 6/14/94
REQUEST: Annexation/zoninci for E.L. Bews
BY: E.L. Bews and Wavne Forrev
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: South of Franklin Rd, North of 1-84
JIM JOHNSON, P/Z
MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z
JIM SHEARER, P/Z
_CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z
TIM HEPPER, P/Z
_GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR
_RONALD TOLSMA, C/C
_BOB CORRIE, C/C
_WALT MORROW, C/C
MAX YERRINGTON, C/C
_WATER DEPARTMENT
_SEWER DEPARTMENT
_BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
CITY FILES
OTHER:
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS:
A
• 0
APPLIATION FOR ANNEXATION APPROVAL &
ZONING OR REZONE
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FILING INFORMATION
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
ANNEXATION REQUEST BY E.L. BEWS
(PROPOSED NAME OF SUBDIVISION)
Generally, South of Franklin Rd., North of I-84 on the East side of
(GENERAL LOCATION)the proposed St. Luke's Hospital location.
Described briefly as follows (see Exhibit A for complete description
(LEGAL DESCRIPTION - ATTACH IF LENGTHY)
A portion of the East 1/2, Northwest 1/4, Section 16, T.3f4, R.1E
B.M., Ada County, State of Idaho
F. -T.- Bews 375-4341
(OWNER(S) OF RECORD) (NAME) (TELEPHONE NO.)
5206 Sorrento Circle, Boise, ID 83704
(ADDRESS)
E.L. Bews 375-4341
(APPLICANT) (NAME) (TELEPHONE NO.)
5206 Sorrento Circle, Boise, ID 83704
(ADDRESS)
Wayne S..Forrey, AICP 887-6015
(ENGINEER, SURVEYOR OR PLANNER) (NAME) (TELEPHONE NO.)
52 E. Franklin, Meridian, ID 83642
(ADDRESS)
City of Meridian
(JURISDICTION(S) REQUIRING APPROVAL)
Mixed Planned Use Development.
(TYPE OF SUBDIVISION - RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL)
+50 74 ACRES OF LAND IN CONTIGUOUS
OWNERSHIP.
(ACCEPTED BY:)
(FEE)
•
RESPONSES TO PAGE 2- ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUESTS
APPLICATION
1. Name, address and phone number of applicant:
E.L. Bews
5206 Sorrento Circle
Boise, ID 83704
(208) 375-4341
2. Name, address and phone number of owner of subject property, and
proof of title of said owner.
E.L. Bews
5206 Sorrento Circle
Boise, ID 83704
(208) 375-4341
Please see Exhibit A for proof of title (first page, Warranty Deed)
3. Notarized request for zoning amendment from titled owner, successor of
said owner, or valid title option holder or contract purchaser with consent
from the titled owner if not requested by the titled owner:
Please see Exhibit B for notarized request
4. Legal description of property.
Please see Exhibit A (second page)
5. Legal description of all adjoining rights-of-way, railroads, roadways,
highways and easements the full length of the property:
Please see Exhibit C
6. Present land use:
This parcel has been farmed in the past, and it is presently
utilized as pasture- and farmland plus fallow vacant land.
7. Proposed land use:
It is proposed that it be Mixed Planned Use Development,
consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning and Development Ordinance. The land use would
contain a variety of coordinated planned land uses that are
compatible with the St. Luke's Hospital development.
CJ
8. Present district.
The present district is RT- Rural Transition.
9. Proposed district:
•
The proposed district is MPUD- Mixed Planned Use Development,
in accordance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the
Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance.
NOTE: Mr. E.L. Bews understands that the City of Meridian
is in the process of updating the Meridian Zoning and
Development Ordinance to comply with the new
Meridian Comprehensive Plan. We understand that
this update will include a new zoning designation to
reflect the Mixed Planned Use Development
designation. E.L. Bews understands that this
application may be tabled or delayed to give
sufficient time to the City to update their Zoning and
Development Ordinance. Subsequent to updating the
ordinance, Mr. Bews anticipates annexation with
zoning of MPUD for this parcel.
10. Characteristics of subject property which make the zoning amendment
desirable:
It complies with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, the North
boundary is Interstate 84, the South boundary is Franklin Road,
it is adjacent to the St. Luke's Hospital site, it is an area that will
support business activity for the City and enhance the tax base
of Meridian.
11. Necessity or desirability of development pertaining to the zoning
amendment and its harmony with adjacent development:
This area is within the Five -Mile Trunk Sewer drainage area, and
it is necessary to get this property included in the financing with
the City and St. Luke's Hospital for construction of the Five -Mile
Sewer Trunk line. This property is being master -planned with the
St. Luke's property, so there will be complete harmony between
the St. Luke's parcel and the parcel owned by E.L. Bews.
12. One (1) map of scale one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet of the
property concerning the zoning amendment.
Please see Exhibit D
C
13. Thirty (30) copies of a vicinity map of a scale of one (1) inch equals
three hundred (300) feet:
Please see attached copies (Exhibit E)
14. A list of the mailing addresses of all property owners, from authentic
tax records of Ada County, who are within three hundred (300) feet of
the external boundaries of the land being considered, and all property
owners included within the property being considered.
Please see Exhibit F
15. A statement of how the proposed zoning amendment relates to the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan:
The annexation and zoning request of Mixed Planned Use
Development is directly taken from the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan generalized land -use map, dated December 21, 1993. This
annexation request complies with multiple goals and policies
contained within the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. This area is
adjacent to the City of Meridian, it is in an area anticipated for
business development, which is a major objective of the City
of Meridian.
16. A fee as established by the Council; Less than 1 acre = $400.00; Over
1 acre= $400.00 + $15.00 per acre over portion thereof. In addition to
above fee, applicant shall pay cost of certified mailings at rate of $1.29
per notice:
Total acreage:
Mary Larrondo parcel - 3.42 acres
acquired on 11/27/78
Joe Larrondo parcel - 70.42 acres
acquired on 2/7/80 73.84 acres
For purposes of establishing the fee, we will use 74 acres.
1 acre= $ 400.00
73 acres x $15.00= $1096.00
$1495.00
Certified mailings: O x $1.29 =/`I 4 ?1
17. The property will be posted 1 week before hearing, stating they have
applied for a Conditional Use Permit or Zoning. There must be a
signed affidavit that will be done as part of the application.
Please see Exhibit B
County of Ada,So 0
to of Idaho, to wit:
.r
Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise He
Ada County, State of Idaho PR 15
EhNWk of Section 16 EXCEPT:
Parcel A:
The North 40 feet thereof, as deeded to the '
Ada County Highway District: for road right-of-way
by Warranty Deed recorded May 17, 1974 as Instru-
ment No. 885780, records of ,oda County, Idaho.
EXCEPT:
Parte B described as follows:
Beginning at the North quarter corner of
Section 16, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise
.Meridian, thence South on the East boundary of the
Northwcst cluarter of said saction, a distance of
938.93 feet to an iron pipe; thence Nurth 85°20'
West a distance of 499.35 feet co an iron pipe;
thence North 0005' West a distance of 905.00 feet
to the North boundary of said Section 16; thence
Sou�.h 89015' East on said North boundary a dia-
tance'of 498.85 feet, more or leis, to the point
of beginning.
EXCEPT:
Parcel C:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of Section
16, Township I North, Range i East, Boise Meridian,
thence South 89°15' East 1353.1 feet along the
North section line to a point, tire' real point of
beginning; thence South 0°06' East 496.25 feet
more or less to an iron pipe; thence. South 79. 14'
East 117.10 feet more, or less bet;vegn two irricja-
tion later..is to a point; thence North 00 6' Fest
516.67 feet more or less to a point on the North
Section line T thence •fiorth 01°45' West �15 feet
more or less to the real point of: beginning.
t WARR W DEED 8305u...
For Value Received
JOE LARRONDO and CARMEN LARRONDO, husband
and wife,
;G11�
the grantor s, do hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto
EDWARD L. BEWS and SHIRLEY G. BEWS, husband and �tafei;
the grantee S,
whose current address is
5206 Sorrento Cir., Boise, Idaho 8370 Countyldaho,,to-wit:
the following described premises, in Ada i '> "
As set forth on Exhibit Aattached hereto
and by reference made a pa
rt
Together with all and singular the tenements, hereditaments
and appurtenances hereunto belonging or in anywise
appertaining;
Subject to all easements and rights of way of record
or appearing on the land;
Excluded from the warranties hereinafter set forth are
warranties as to the location of the exterior boundaries
of the property covered hereby, it being understood that
the Grantees are relying upon their own survey thereof
in respect thereto;
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises, with their appurtenances unto the said Grantee S.
h heirs and assigns forever. And the said Grantors do hereby covenant to and
Il said ]brances except current taxes and assessments for the year 1978.
with the sttdeL�rantees ,that thgrardhe owners in fee simple of said premises; that they are free
incum
from a
and that t hey will warrant and defend the same from all lawful claims whatsoever.
Dated: November 27, 1978
oo
erron
G�k
armen Larron o
STATE OF IDAHO, COUNTY OF Aga tg 78.
On this day of.
befoiegnel'k 4-- 1pu �c in and for said State, personally
appearl(4
Joe',Larrondo and Carmen
rtondo, husband and
•,`�.� � ,wife;
Known td'nie'to�b@ the person s whose name s ax
Subscribed to the within in§trument, and acknowledged to
me that 1 they executed the same.
�1 otary Public
,Idaho
Residing at Boise
Comm. Expires L /. ` a y/
EXHIBIT A
STATE OF IDAHO, COUNTY OF DRi
I hereby certify that this instrument was filed for record at
the request of FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO.
at ° minutes past o'cloca7p..,
this / day of
tg 1?.3in my o1fice, and duly recorded i ok
of Deeds at page
JOHN BASTM
Ex -Officio Recorder
Fees$ 4
Mail to:
APP- 15-' 94 FP I 1'-:: 1'? I D: MA I L 20 'E9 TEL 1J0: 672 955-8'725 #069 P01
_.. yam• Rum -but ��7C3�c3526 e92 P01
13
ANNEMIi�
IONLMING REQUEST AFFIDAVIT
I, E.L. l9 , an individual, do hereby certify that i am the record owner
Of a part of the land described as the "E.L. Sews property" in an
appilcationkor Annexation & Zoning being submitted to the City of
Meridian consideration.
I further st a that I hereby officially request annexation of said property
Into the Co orate City Limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho.
In addition,.I hereby state and certify that the subject property will be
posted one week before the public hearing stating that the above-
mentioned �ppficatione with the City of Meridian have been made.
22A�
Dated this i
By:
E.L.
STATE OF IDAHO
day of April, 1994
) sa.
County of j da )
ON I HIS I day of 19_3±, before me a notary
public in a I
d for said State, personally appeared
- �a��-a \.- ��S
known to e to be the persons whose names are s bscribed to the
vdthin ins meet, and acknowledged to me that executed
ft some.
IN TNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed
my of#ielei the day and year first above written.
My Notary lesion Expires LLaa4 n , 19 _
My Notary fond Expires i� , 19_1�_
Notary
Residing
EXh" s
for Idaho
Idaho
RESPONSES TO PAGE 2- ANNEXATION & ZONING
REQUEST APPLICATION
1. Name, address and phone number of applicant.
E.L. Bews
5206 Sorrento Circle
Boise, ID 83704
(208) 375-4341
2. Name, address and phone number of owner of subject property, and proof of
title of said owner.
E.L. Bews
5206 Sorrento Circle
Boise, ID 83704
(208) 375-4341
Please see Exhibit A for proof of title (first page, Warranty Deed).
3. Notarized request for zoning amendment from titled owner, successor of said
owner, or valid title option holder or contract purchaser with consent from the
titled owner if not requested by the titled owner.
Please see Exhibit B for notarized request.
4. Legal description of property.
Please see Exhibit A (second page).
5. Legal description of all adjoining rights-of-way, railroads, roadways, highwa s
and easements the full length of the property. y
Please see Exhibit C.
6. Present land use.
This parcel has been farmed in the past, and it is presently utilized as pasture- and
farmland plus fallow vacant land.
7. Proposed land use.
It is proposed that it be Commercial General (C -G), consistent with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Development Ordinance. The land use would
contain a variety of coordinated planned land uses that are compatible with the St.
Luke's Hospital development.
•
14. A list of the mailing addresses of all property owners, from authentic tax
records of Ada County, who are within three hundred (300) feet of the external
boundaries of the land being considered, and all property owners included
within the property being considered.
Please see Exhibit F.
15. A statement of how the proposed zoning amendment relates to the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
The annexation and zoning request of Commercial General (C -G) is directly taken
from the Meridian Comprehensive Plan generalized land -use map, dated December
21, 1993. This annexation request complies with multiple goals and policies
contained within the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. This area is adjacent to the City
of Meridian, it is in an area anticipated for business and high density residential
development, which is a major objective of the City of Meridian.
16. A fee as established by the Council; Less than 1 acre = $400.00; Over 1 acre =
$400.00 + $15.00 per acre over portion thereof. In addition to above fee,
applicant shall pay cost of certified mailings at rate of $1.29 per notice.
W#717117rar�ra
Mary Larrondo parcel -
acquired on 11/27/78 3.42 acres
Joe Larrondo parcel -
acquired on 2/7/80 70.42 acres
73.84 acres
For purposes of establishing the fee, we will use 74 acres.
1 acre = $ 400.00
73 acres x $15.00 $1095.00
$1495.00
Certified mailings: 9 x $1.29 = $11.61
17. The property will be posted 1 week before hearing, stating they have applied for
a Conditional Use Permit or Zoning. There must be a signed affidavit that will
be done as part of the application.
Please see Exhibit B.
Annexation and Zoning Application — Page 3
• 0
RESPONSES TO PAGE 2- ANNEXATION & ZONING
REQUEST APPLICATION
1. Name, address and phone number of applicant.
E. L. Bews
5206 Sorrento Circle
Boise, ID 83704
(208) 375-4341
2. Name, address and phone number of owner of subject property, and proof of
title of said owner.
E.L. Bews
5206 Sorrento Circle
Boise, ID 83704
(208) 375-4341
Please see Exhibit A for proof of title (first page, Warranty Deed).
3. Notarized request for zoning amendment from titled owner, successor of said
owner, or valid title option holder or contract purchaser with consent from the
titled owner if not requested by the titled owner.
Please see Exhibit B for notarized request.
4. Legal description of property.
Please see Exhibit A (second page).
5. Legal description of all adjoining rights-of-way, railroads, roadways, highways
and easements the full length of the property.
Please see Exhibit C.
6. Present land use.
This parcel has been farmed in the past, and it is presently utilized as pasture- and
farmland plus fallow vacant land.
7. Proposed land use.
It is proposed that it be Commercial General (C -G), consistent with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Development Ordinance. The land use would
contain a variety of coordinated planned land uses that are compatible with the St.
Luke's Hospital development.
•
8. Present district.
The present district is RT- Rural Transition.
9. Proposed district.
The proposed district is Commercial General (C -G), in accordance with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and the Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance.
NOTE: Mr. E.L. Bews understands that the City of Meridian is in the process of
updating the Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance to comply with the new
Meridian Comprehensive Plan. We understand that this update will include a new
zoning designation to reflect the Mixed Planned Use Development and Health
Service designation.
10. Characteristics of subject property which make the zoning amendment
desirable.
It complies with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, the South boundary is Interstate
84; the North boundary is Franklin Road; it is adjacent to the St. Luke's West Medical
Center Site; it is an area that will support business and high density residential
activity for the City and enhance the tax base of Meridian.
11. Necessity or desirability of development pertaining to the zoning amendment
and its harmony with adjacent development.
This area is within the Five -Mile Trunk Sewer drainage area, and it is necessary to
get this property included in the financing with the City and St. Luke's Hospital for
construction of the Five -Mile Sewer Trunk line. This property is being master -
planned with the St. Luke's property, so there will be complete harmony between the
St. Luke's parcel and the parcel owned by E.L. Bews.
12. One (1) map of scale one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet of the property
concerning the zoning amendment.
Please see Exhibit D.
13. Thirty (30) copies of a vicinity map of a scale of one (1) inch equals three
hundred (300) feet.
Please see attached copies (Exhibit E).
Annexation and Zoning Application — Page 2
14. A list of the mailing addresses of all property owners, from authentic tax
records of Ada County, who are within three hundred (300) feet of the external
boundaries of the land being considered, and all property owners included
within the property being considered.
Please see Exhibit F.
15. A statement of how the proposed zoning amendment relates to the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
The annexation and zoning request of Commercial General (C -G) is directly taken
from the Meridian Comprehensive Plan generalized land -use map, dated December
21, 1993. This annexation request complies with multiple goals and policies
contained within the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. This area is adjacent to the City
of Meridian, it is in an area anticipated for business and high density residential
development, which is a major objective of the City of Meridian.
16. A fee as established by the Council; Less than 1 acre = $400.00; Over 1 acre =
$400.00 + $15.00 per acre over portion thereof. In addition to above fee,
applicant shall pay cost of certified mailings at rate of $1.29 per notice.
Total acreage:
Mary Larrondo parcel -
acquired on 1,1/27/78 3.42 acres
Joe Larrondo parcel -
acquired on Z7/80 70.42 acres
73.84 acres
For purposes of establishing the fee, we will use 74 acres.
1 acre = $ 400.00
73 acres x $15.00 $1095.00
$1495.00
Certified mailings: 9 x $1.29 = $11.61
17. The property will be posted 1 week before hearing, stating they have applied for
a Conditional Use Permit or Zoning. There must be a signed affidavit that will
be done as part of the application.
Please see Exhibit B.
Annexation and Zoning Application — Page 3
r
A patrcel of land Ivl"q to porl.ionr: of IIIc, li 1/2 of Ifir t11J J/4
of section It, all In 1•.1N., R.il:., 8.11., Ada County, Idaho
more particularly described as follows:
Rgginninll at Lha Norlhannl; corner of Ihn "Od It 1/i or rho NW 1./4 of 3acrlon 161
thence North 89'21106" Mot 491.7A frrl along; the Northerly boundary of that said
I; 1/2 of the NIJ 1/4 of Sect:den I6, aahicII a; nl:.o the renlrrlinu of: FranlcLLit Road, to
a point, also sold point being the ILEAL POW OF ISNCINUINC;
thence contlnuin(; North R'1"70'06" lJesl 740.10 Irct alone; the said Northerly
boundary of the 1: 1/2 of the NW*1/4 of Section III to a pol.nL;
throro South WI 1'01" Itar:t. 516; 56 f,•rt, aloo!; •a l int I'astc•rly of onrd paraI lel
to Lho Wouterl.y bonnlary or the :;aid Ii 1/2 of Ihr NIJ 1/4 ul SccLdon 16 LO a point:
Lhruco NorLb 79'21'01" WVs t 117-09 filet to a point on Lhu Bald lJesLcr.ly
boundary of the R 1./2 of the NW 1/4 of seri Inn 16;
thence Sout.la (111.11(11" East 2,198.55 (ret alone; lhr said Wectorly boundary of
the F. 1/2 of the NII I/4 of ;:erllon 16 to a point uaarlcing the Southwest corner of
the said IS 1/2 of the Nw 1/4 or Section .16:
thence So"Ih IS'1"14'45" I{nsf 1,:146.64 feel anong Ihr SnuLherly boundary of the
,aid li 1/2 of the IIID 1/4 of Section 16 to a point marl:dng the Southeast corner of
the said 1: 1/2 of ch. Nw 1/4 of Section 16;
thence North 0"114'17" We:t 1,71.7.87 lrel atom; the I'.aslerly boundary of the
sai(I li 1/2 of. the NIJ .1./4 of. Seclton 16 to a point.;
thence North 85"24'31" West 499.35 fret to a point;
thence North 1104117" Ileal 9(14.75 feel aloof; .a I bw Westerly of and parallel
to the said Easterly boundary of Ihr I: 1/2 of Ihr Ill1 1/4 of ScclJon .Ib to Lht:
point of beginntn8, r.Mprls.ing 70.42 atter;, woe or Icy::;.
0
JeWIMIT A
` 8'7 541
WARR Y DEED
For Value Received
MARY C. LARRONDO, a single woman
the grantor , does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto
EDWARD L. BEWS and SHIRLEY G. BEWS, husband and wife,
the grantees , whose current address is 5206 Sorrento Cir. , Boise, Idaho 83704
the following described premises, in Ada County Idaho, to -wit:
Real Property described on Exhibit A
attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof;
Together with all and singular the tenements,
hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto
belonging or in anywise appertaining;
Subject to all easements and rights of way
of record or appearing on the land;
Excluded from the warranties hereinafter set forth are
warranties as to the location of the exterior boundaries
of the property covered hereby, it being understood that
the Grantees are relying upon their own survey thereof
in respect thereto;
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises, with their appurtenances unto the said Grantees,
th it heirs and assigns forever. And the said Grantor does hereby covenant to and
with the said trantze s, that she is owner in fee simple of said premises; that they are free
from all incumbrances , except current taxes and assessments for the year 1978.
and that the y will warrant and defend the same from all lawful claims whatsoever.
Dated: November 27 , 1978
Mary C. Larrondo
STATE OF IDAHO, COU TY OF Ada
On this day of 19 78,
before me, a' tart' Public . is in and for said ate, personally
i.o`1i11111,1,.. ,,. 40appy
Larr ndo,
single woman
kilowti to me to bE Ihe*Reyen whose name 1S
subs2 Ibed io}�e \�'ithiieivstrument, and acknowledged to
me't She executed the same.
Ir
of Xy Public
Residing at Boise Idaho
Comm. ExpireA y_v/ / �V j
EXHIBIT A
STATE OF IDAHO, COUNTYOF
I hereby certif et this inet -eafiled for record at
the request of
at O ? minutes past Cr, o'clock fn.,
this S day of y 1 �j'jf
19 SIU. in my office, and duly recorded in Book
of at page
_JOHN BASTIDA __
Ex -Officio Recorder
By C r Deputy.
Fees $ 61 od
Mail to:
C
•
A parcel of land lying in the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16, T.3N.,
R.lE., B.M., Ada County,,Idaho and more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of the said NE 1/4'of the NW 1/4 of
Section 16;
thence North 89°20'06" West 334.24 feet along the Northerly boundary of the
NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16 to a point, which is also the centerline of
Franklin Road, also said point being the REAL POINT OF.BEGINNING;
thence continuing North 89°20'06" West 163.50 feet along the said Northerly
boundary of the NE 1/4 of the NW'1/4 of Section 16 to a point;
thence South 0°04'37" East 904.75 feet along a line Westerly of and parallel
to the Easterly boundary of the said NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16 to a
point;
thence South 85°24'37" East 164.03 feet to a point;
thence North 0°04'37" West 915.98 feet along a line Westerly of and parallel
to the said Easterly boundary of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of.Section 16 to the point
of beginning, comprising 3.42 acres, more or less.
EXHIBIT A
�jlh i�bi t
0>0,
ozoo.
Z�C.
Z,
C: z
m n�z
00
mZooi L
o,-,
Cm
7
Zm
t If
AM
;chtbit
MAILING LIST
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and
the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a
public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour
of 7:30 p.m., on May 16, 1995, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the
Application of E.L. Bews for annexation and zoning of approximately 70.4 acres of land
located in the Section 16, T. 3N, R. 1 E, Boise -Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which
property is generally located on South of Franklin Rd., North of 1-84. The Application
requests annexation with zoning of C -G Commercial General.
A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's
office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during
regular business hours.
A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons
shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit
testimony.
Dated this 24th day of April, 1995.
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI CLERK
0 •
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and
the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street,
Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., on June 14, 1994, for the purpose of reviewing
and considering the Application of E.L. Bews for annexation and zoning of approximately
74 acres of land located in the Section 16, T. 3N, R. 1 E, Boise -Meridian, Ada County,
Idaho, and which property is generally located on South of Franklin Rd., North of 1-84. The
Application requests annexation with zoning of Mixed Planned Use Development.
A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's
office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during
regular business hours.
A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons
shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit
testimony.
Dated this 23rd day of May, 1994
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK
M�w
"J
w
V
LQ
•
•
Co
a oQ cam....
�-
(
C1
m�2W
UUa
ZZj
A R .0 H I T E C T S, P. S.
May 3,1995
Mr. William G. Berg
City Clerk
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho Street
Meridian, Idaho 83642
RECEIVED
MAY 15 1995
CITY OF MERIDIAN
Subject: Roadway Access
Concerning Applications for Annexation and Conditional Use Permit of
E.L. Bews' Land Located in the E 1/2, NW 1/4 of Section 16, T.3N, R.1E
Boise, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho-.
Dear Mr. Berg:
We are responding to the E.L. Bews property applications as representatives for the
Tullis/Thomas Partnership. The Tullis/Thomas Partnership owns the vacant 85.6 acres
that border the eastern E.L. Bews property between Franklin Road and Interstate 84.
The partnership owns all this acreage with the exception of approximately ten (10) acres
on Franklin Road which is privately owned by Mr. L. Bair.
The Tullis/Thomas Partnership supports the E.L. Bews' property annexation and the
CG zone he is requesting. However, we are not in whole agreement with the public
access (roadway) locations between the E.L. Bews property and the Tullis/Thomas
property as shown on the Bews' plan dated 12/1/94. We would like to see the main St.
Luke's property access road extended from the new Eagle Road signal light intersection,
ingest to east, straight through the E.L. Bews property and carried into the Tullis/Thomas
property. (See our proposed revised access road plan, enclosed.) We believe our
proposed roadway layout will provide improved access to the new hospital for both the
properties laying to the east and those off Franklin Road. We would also like to see the
proposed northern -most east/west crossroads placed approximately 100 feet further
south. The crossroads are presently shown about 800 feet south of the new Franklin
Road signaled site access. This will place the east/ west roadway centerline on the
Bews and Bair property line. The relocated road, on this shared property line, would
allow the Bair parcel to remain intact and would assure improved access to the
Tullis/Thomas site. We believe.both of these recommendations would improve
accessibility to all properties in this area, including the Bews'.
We met with E.L. Bews' property planner Wayne Forrey (4/6/95) and discussed our
access roadway concerns. At the meeting, Wayne assured us that he and Mr. Bews
2225 NORTH 56TH STREET DOUGLAS A. DIEL
SEATTLE, WA 98103-6203 THOMAS R. WEBB
(206) 547-1940, FAX (206) 547-8212 DONALD J. WEISSINGER
LICENSED IN WASHINGTON, ALASKA. OREGON. IDAHO, CALIFORNIA, MONTANA, UTAH AND WISCONSIN.
May 3,1995
Page 2
0
would have no problem.with modifying their site plan to adopt our recommendations.
We. understand that the exact roadway locations submitted on the Bews' property are
still subject to final approval by ACHD and the City.
We want to go on record as having notified ACHD and the City of our recommend-
ations concerning the final east/west access roadway locations. We plan to continue
working very closely with the City, ACHD, and E.L. Bews to establish the final roadway
locations. If we can provide you with any additional information regarding these -
issues, please feel free to give us a call.
Sincerely,
Debra E. Tullis
Owner Representative
Thomas R. Webb
Architect/ Planner
Enclosures
cc: Dianne Pierce - Tullis/Thomas Partnership
Rick Thomas - Tullis/Thomas Partnership
Wayne Forrey - E.L. Bews
Shari Styles- City of Meridian
Karen Gallagher - ACHD
9424Bews
N
O. 00
A
s
AM
M N
0
=0
AN
\AC
CD
o
(D
wOrj)
�
r
D m
n
c
N
o
C m
o ID
Aw
a
T
i
a'
e
CY)
J
N
J
N
0
^
�
m
A
n
a
n
3
S -4 -V
lici
M N
MRY-16-1995 1634 FROM JIM JONES lU aarµai� r ri�ii
RECEIVED
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES MAY 16 1995
Attorneys at Law
1273 Shoreline Lane CITY OF MERIUM
Boise, ID 83702-6870
Jim Jones Jahn McCreedy
Boise: CIM 3&9,M Far: P83) 38s-9399
Twin Fall`: uM 734-3M
Fax Transmittal Cover
Fax Number:
Comment:
From: JIM JONES
Total Number of Pages (Including This Page)
Date:
Original Document: will be sent by first-class mail
Trill not be sent
Please Advise of Any Deficiency in this Transmission
NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
3nfozwetlon that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. if the reader of this notice is
not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible
for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us
Immediately by telephone and return these papers to us at the
address shown above via first class mail.
, or 4 c • -2c 7G1mAf g5g9 PAGE _ ni
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Law
1278 Shoreline Lane
Boise, Idaho 83702.6870
JIrn Jones
Boise: (108) 39"200
Twin Fa9c (M 7343345
May 16, 1995
Via Paz Tos 887-4813
Shari Stiles
Planning & Zoning Administrator
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
John McCreedy
Fay (2M 395-M"
Re.: Public Hearings: Request for Annexation and Zoning for
C -C of 74 Acres by E.L. Bews and Request for conditional unA
Permit for a Variety of Mixed, Planned and Residential Land
Uses by E.L. Bews
Dear Ms. Stiles:
Please include in the official public record the enclosed
letter and attachment. Also, would you kindly copy and hand
deliver copies to the Mayor and each of the City council Members
for review prior to tonight's hearing.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
lo'�i
obhny MCr
Jcm/tg
Enclosure
MAY 16 '95 16:37 2083859599
PAGE. 02
MAY -16-1995 16:34 FROM JIM JONES TO Ude4bl.S H. W111
JIM JONES S ASSOCIATES
Attorneys .at Law
1275 Shoreline Lane
Boise, Idaho 83702-6870
Jim Jones
sow CW9) ass -me
Twin Fait OM 73d-3345
Via Eau Tot 887-4813
May 16. 1995
The Honorable Grant Kingsford
Mayor
City of Meridian
Meridian, ID 83642
Meridian City Council Members
City Hall
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
John McCreedy
Fac CM 30-""
Re: Public Hearings: Request for Annexation and Zoning for
C -G of 74 Acres by E. L. Bews and Request for Conditional
Use Permit for a Variety of Mixed, Planned and Residential
Land Uses by E. L. Raws
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council;
I have been contacted by a group of concerned Meridian
citizens who reside in the Montvue Subdivision. We, Glenn and
Trasha Griffiths, 3295 North Montvue; Gus and Stella Hein, 225 S.
West Montvue; Ed and Madeline Burtner, 285 S West Montvue; Don
and Robin Hollingsworth, 3300 North Montvue; Forrest and Linda
Kurnes, 230 West Montvue; Warren and Velma Nelson, 3410 North
Montvue; Jim and Jan Clark, 215 E Montvue; James and Valerie
ownbey, 3405 North Montvue; Ralph and LaVonne Bartschi, 3475
Franklin; Johne and Neva Timmons, 3460 North Xontvue; Was and
Rosie Roalst; and Rick Willis, 3555 South Montvue, have a number
of concerns regarding the above -referenced land use applications,
including the compatibility of the proposed land use with the
existing agricultural and residential land uses, the traffic
impacts that will result from the proposed land use; the
protection of existing drinking water and other domestic water
wells in the area; the availability of public services, including
fire and police services, to accommodate this development; the
waste water and storm water drainage required to accommodate the
development; and other fundamental land use issues.
MAY 16 '95 16:37 2083859599 PAGE.03
Page - 2
May 16, 1995
Although there was newspaper notice of the pending
applications, it would appear that none of the residents of the
Montvue Subdivision were actually notified of the applications.
on behalf of the above citizens, then I an requesting that the
Meridian City Council defer the above land use applications until
its next regular meeting on June 6, 1995. This will give the
concerned citizens and myself an opportunity to review the
available documents and to prepare focused testimony regarding
these land use applications.
In the alternative, we request that you consider the
following before rendering a decision on the applications. The
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared by the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission for the Application for Annexation
and Zoning indicate that the property is presently zoned R --T and
is pasture, farm land, and vacant land. The applicant has
requested that the property be zoned C -G for a variety of
unspecific land uses. The Commission's Findings and Conclusions
make clear that the applicant has not stated a specific proposed
use for the property and "therefore it cannot be determined if
the use would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan(.]"
Commissions Findings and Conclusions, p. 14. The Commission
noted that the applicant has not stated or represented its
specific intentions as to the development even though it has
filed a conditional use permit application listing several
possible uses. Id., pp. 14-15.
Because the applicant has not stated a specific use for the
property, the Commission recommended that the City annex the
property and zone it C=G, but not allow any development until a
more specific planned development or conditional use permit is
applied for. Moreover, the Commission also recommended that, as
a condition of annexation and zoning, the applicant shall be
required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by
the Meridian Zoning Ordinance. The Commission recommended
fourteen (14) specific issues to be addressed by the development
agreement.
Judge Bail of the Ada County District Court recently issued
a decision regarding the usa of development agreements as a
condition to a rezone application. Judge Bail agreed with
concerned citizens that, under the Boise Zoning Ordinance, a
rezone application requiring a development agreement cannot be
approved unless and until the development agreement application
has been submitted and examined at a public hearing. I am
attaching a copy of Fudge Bail's decision in that case. on
behalf of the above citizens of M,ontvue Subdivision, I would
recommend that the City of Meridian proceed with the same
approach. That ia, although the annexation may be appropriate,
it is premature to approve any proposed rezone of the property
unless and until a specific development agreement has been
submitted and examined at a public hearing. The Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law of the Meridian Planning & Zoning
Commission should be modified to state that the zoning of the
property shall remain R -T until a development agreement
MAY 16 '95 16:38 2083859599 PAGE.04
MRY-16-1995 16:36 FROM JIM JONES TO 887481.5 F.b5i11
Page - 3 0
May 16, 1995
identifying the specific use has been submitted and considered at
a public bearing.
For the same reason, it is premature and inappropriate to
approve the conditional use permit applied for by the developer.
As the Commission again noted in its findings and conclusions,
the applicant has not submitted a specific plan for development
of this property. Instead, the applicant appears to want a
conditional use permit that would provide it with broad
discretion to establish the uses for the property. The
conditional use permit should be denied. As the reeommendatious
of the Commission make clear, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan
requires all development for this land to be processed under a
planned unit development procedure and as a conditional use.
Given that no specific use for the property has yet been proposed
and that a development agreement is required, it would appear far
wiser policy to simply deny the conditional use permit
application until a specific use for the property has been
proposed. Otherwise, it will be ,impossible to determine what has
and has not been approved for the property.
In sum, we are requesting that these land use applications
be deferred until June 6, 1995. In the alternative, if the
Council proceeds with tonight's hearing, we are requesting that
the rezone application and the conditional use permit
applications be denied. Although annexation may appear
appropriate under Meridian's plans, it is simply premature to
grant a rezone of the property and a conditional permit unless
and until the specific uses for the property have been set forth
in the appropriate development agreement and detailed planned
unit development or conditional use permit applications. It is
impossible for concerned citizens and property owners to comment
on future land uses unless they are provided with the specifics
of those land uses. As the Planning & Zoning Commission's
recommendations make clear, the development of this property will
be subject to numerous environmental, traffic, drainage,
landscaping and other detailed conditions that ensure compliance
with the Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. Those conditions cannot
be drafted and enforced for the protection of Meridian's citizens
until a specific proposal for the land use is put forward. Thank
you for your consideration.
sincerely,
Jo7Xccye7
17CM/tg
cc Wayne Forrey, Via Fax to 887-6049
• � a
MAY 1995
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE
4
STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA
LARRY DURKIN; SUSAN )
EASTLAKE; VICTORIA )
RICHINS and ROBERT )
RICHINS, JR.; J. DIANE )
SOULE, D.V.M. and PETER )
J. ANDERSON; and JOHN P. )
TATE, )
Petitioners, )
VS. )
THE CITY OF BOISE and THE)
BOISE CITY COUNCIL; SSB )
PROPERTIES.; and ROBERT )
AHMANN, )
Respondents. )
Case No. CV -OC -95-01348 *D
D;I
i•
The petitioners are residents of the City of Boise who seek
review of the procedures used by the City in its handling of a
rezone application made by SSB properties to allow it to build a
commercial tire store on a lot located on Broadway Avenue. The
petitioners have filed a petition for judicial review of Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered by the City Council on
February 21, 1995. The petitioners have moved to stay a public
hearing on the rezone and application for a development agreement
MAY 16 195 16 39 2083859599 PAGE. 06
0
which is currently scheduled for May 8, 1995 before the Planning
and Zoning Commission. They have also challenged the legal
sufficiency of the Notice for the Public Hearing.
At the hearing, it was conceded that at least one of the
plaintiffs did object to the approval of the rezone application.
While standing questions were raised as to the remainder of the
plaintiffs, the official record has not yet been produced and the
Court has no means to resolve the question. Since at least one
of the plaintiffs has previously objected, the Court will address
the issue presented.
Because the Commission hearing is schodul.ed for May 8, 1995,
the Court granted the petitioners' Motion for an expedited
hearing. At the hearing, over the petitioners' objection, SSB
presented testimony and argument. The City indicated that it
wished to remain neutral and did not provide either evidence or
argument. In support of the petitioners' Motion, the Affidavit
of Wayne Gibbs, the director of Community Planning and
Development for the City of Boise was submitted.
At this point, there is only a narrow point of law before
the Court. The Court is not addressing the merits of the
proposed rezone nor of the development agreement. Under I.C. §
67-5279 (2)(c), an agency action is subject to judicial review
and appropriate relief if its appears that an action is made upon
unlawful procedure.
From the record, it appears that the Planning and Zoning
uRVE t Page 2
—^11 n r I - e r . �n nmc7Gr.0cz00 mnn= M7
MAY -16-1995 16=37 FROM JIM JONES lU titsr4d1Z r.eb/ll
Commission Staff reviewed an application for rezone filed by SSB
Properties Inc. The Staff recommended a denial of the
application. The Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended
denial of the application to the City Council. The City Council
reviewed the application which had been modified to include some
more detailed sketches, to remove some curb cuts and to
illustrate the planned landscaping strip. After the public
hearing on the rezone request, the City Council voted to approve
the rezone application with a development agreement and signed
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law submitted by SSB
Properties, Inc. There is no dispute that the developer did not
submit a development agreement with the rezone application and
neither the Planning Department nor the Planning and Zoning
Commission required one previously. The City Council determined
that the development agreement should be entered into at its
hearing on January 31, 1995.
Under the Boise City Zoning Ordinances enacted by the City
Council, a procedure has been established for development
agreements. Boise City Code § 11-o8-09 provides that:
2. In the event of a determination by the Council that a
development agreement should be entered into, the Council
shall remand the matter back to the Commission, with the
Council requiring an application for a development agreement
to be submitted by the applicant, unless the applicant has
already done so and a public hearing was hold under
subsection 1. above. The Council shall, upon remand, direct
the Commission on the specific issues to be addressed by the
development agreement. The commission ehall then proceed as
specified in this Section. (emphasis added).
ORDER Page 3
MAY 16 '95 16:40 2083859599 PAGE.08
There is no dispute that the Council decided that a development
agreement should be entered into and that the applicant had not
already submitted one. Under the mandatory language used by the
Council in its ordinance, the matter was required to be remanded
back to the Planning and Zoning Commission subject to whatever
directions the council decided to impose. The use of the
mandatory "shall" rather than the discretionary "may" is
dispositive. The rules of construction of an ordinance are the
same as applied to the construction of a statute. State v. Roll,
118 Idaho 936, 939, 801 P.2d 1287 (Ct. App. 1990), Jackman v.
Hammersley, 72 Idaho 301, 305, 240 P.2d 829 (1952). Where a
statute is plain, clear, and unambiguous, it speaks for itself
and must be given the interpretation the language clearly
implies. Cameron v. Minidoka County -Highway District, 125 Idaho
801, 803, 874 P.2d 1108 (1994), Grand Canyon Dories v. Tax
Commission, 124 Idaho 1, 5, 855 P.2d 462 (1993). The record
roflects that the Planning Director advised SSB Properties Inc.
that the request for rezone was approved "with the requirement
that you submit for approval by the Planning and Zoning
commission an application for a Development Agreement, as
provided in Section 11-8-9 of the Boise City Code. The rezone
cannot be finalized until the Development Agreement has been
approved by the COMMiasion and the Council_" Letter of Wayne
Gibbs, February 31 1995, Affidavit of Wayne Gibbs, Exhibit E.
The letter is consistent with the ordinance and with the purpose
ORDER Page 4
MAY -16-1995 16:38 FROM JIM JONES TO aar4als r.le�li
of the development agreements in general as stated in 11-08--09 A
which is that, if in the opinion of the Council or the
Commission, a requested rezone's approval alone does not satisfy
the requirements for a rezone but that, a development agreement
with somewhat stricter requirements may be required. The
ordinance clearly mandates that, if it is the Council itself
which determines that a development agreement is required, then
the matter must be remanded to the Commission.
The legal notice attached as Exhibit G to the Affidavit of
Wayne Gibbs gives notice that a hearing will be held before Lhe
Planning and Zoning Commission on SSB's request for approval of a
development agreement on May 8, 1995. It appears that the entry
of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law was premature
since the rezone with the development agreement has not been
submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission and that a public
hearing on the development agreement has not been held and the
Council has not received or reviewed any recommendations from the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Any public hearing must be held
on the draft agreement and the rezone request. Boise city Code
11-08-09(F).
Because the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law were
entered prematurely in violation of the Council's own ordinances,
they are set aside- The motion for stay is granted until the
City Council has the opportunity to remand the case with any
specific directions it wishes to provide for the development
ORDER Page 5
MAY 16 '95 16:41 2083859599 -PAGE. 10
MAY -16-1995 16:38 FROM JIM JONES
88'/4x1.5 e.11/11
agreement. The case is remanded to the City Council for further
proceedings.
It is so ordered. ,
Dated this day of May, 1995
r
Deborah A. Bail
District Judge
ORDER Page 6
MAY 16 '95 16:41 2083859599 PAGE.11
REZE-;4i�I�AN
ED
MAYS
CI
Applicant Response to Agency Comments
A. Applicant agrees with ACHD comments and approvals of June 10, 1994, June
15, 1994; March G, 1995; and.March 8, 1995. Will implement ACHD
requirements.
B. Applicant agrees with comments provided by Meridian Fire Department,
Meridian Police Department, Central District Health, Nampa -Meridian Irrigation
District, Meridian School District, and U. S. West.
C. Applicant requests modification of the following City of Meridian comments:
March 10, 1995 Memo from Assistant City Engineer
General comments 92 pertaining to wells. Applicant is negotiating with the
City on acquisition or use of Farmington production well. Request that this
condition be modified to allow continued negotiations with the City. Existing
house needs to use wells until the City can serve.
March 10, 1995 Memo from Planning and Zoning Administrator
• Comment # I does not apply to this application. This is a Conditional Use
Permit application, not a Planned Development application.
• Comment #4 does not apply to this application. Not a Planned Development
application.
• Comlment #7 has already been accomplished. One (1) full year coordination.
St. Luke's has already stated acceptance of twelve specific uses. No truck
stop. Comment #7 has been completed.
• Comment #8 should not apply to the allowed uses in the C -G zone. Modify
this comment to clarify the uses. Six of the twelve specific uses are allowed in
the C -G zone. All others are subject to City Council review and approval.
MAY � i 1 9
GIT F E DIAN
Attachment C — page 1 of 2 of E. L. Bews
Annexation and Conditional Use Permit Application
E. L. Bews Property - Franklin Roadil-84/Eagle Road Area
List of Anticipated Land Uses in C -G Zone
Permitted
1.
General Retail
Permitted
2.
Commercial and Professional Offices
Permitted
3.
Auto Travel Plaza / Auto Services
Permitted
4.
Extended Stay Hotel Suites
Penmitted
5.
Motel Complex
CUP
6.
Retirement Center
CUP
7.
N ,-rsing Home / Elderly Care Center
CUP
8.
Townhouses
CUP
9.
Multi -Family Apartment Center
CUP
10.
Patio Homes
CUP
11.
Medical Services
Permitted
12.
Restaurants
442
w
Ti
a
r7 Q N fl. cawlz C). can)
m
CO64
ai m ami I
3 0 >� 0 •°7
COw�� 4 a, .ter• +. > � . � et
cn U)
Z J (a'a > Q. J c 0 N N !- r: tD M N U
_/FIVW
MA 6X45
W11 N&"
City of Meridian City Council —16 May 1994 — Public Hearing
E. L. Bews Property — Franklin Road / I-84 Area
Concise Project History for City Council and Public
1. January 1994 — Meridian adopts new Comprehensive Plan. Bews
property planned for mixed business uses.
2. Early May 1994 — E. L. Bews submits Application for Annexation
for Mixed Planned Development Zoning.
3. June 14, 1994 - Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
on Annexation Request -- tabled to November 7, 1994, to allow City
time to update Zoning Ordinance and establish a Health Services Zone.
Tabled again in November to give City more time to amend
Ordinances.
4. February 1, 1995 — Meetings with City officials. Direction from
City to proceed with established zone (rather than wait for future H -S
zone) and include a list of specific land uses processed by a
Conditional Use Permit, same procedure as St. Luke's project.
5. February 17; 1995 — Apply for C -G zoning and Conditional Use
Permit with twelve specific land uses.
6. March 14, 1995 — Planning and Zoning Commission Public
Hearing on C -G and Conditional Use Permit Application. Twelve
specific land uses of the site presented. St. Luke's representative
agrees that the twelve uses are compatible with St. Luke's West
project, but asks for clarification of what constitutes an Auto Travel
Plaza. 1f this would be or could be a truck stop, then the Hospital is
opposed. if it is an auto gas station, then it is acceptable to St. Luke's.
Other testimony favorable of project.
7. April 11, 1995 — Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Annexation to C -G and Conditional Use Permit approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Recommend approval of project to
City Council.
/AI■Iw
WIN 11
aim
n��_,,
a
ME
MI
190 East Bannock
Boise, Idaho
83712
208-386-2222
Edwin E. Dahlberg
President
May 16, 1995
The Honorable Grant Kingsford
Mayor, City of Meridian
Members of the City Council
Meridian City Hall
33 E. Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Mayor Kingsford & City Council Members:
J ILL St Luke's
111 Fr Regional Medical Center
I am writing regarding the applications currently before the City Council for annexation
and Conditional Use for the E. L. Bews' property. As you know, St. Luke's has been
working for more than a year preparing to begin the St. Luke's West ambulatory care
center now underway at Eagle Road and 1-84. In the course of this preparation, we
assumed a leadership role in working with the City on utility services which facilitated
access for other property owners.
Over the past few weeks however, it appears there have been discussions relative to
traffic circulation and roadways within the area bounded by Eagle Road, 1-84, Franklin,
and Cloverdale. I believe you have received a letter dated May 3, from Debra Tullis
and Thomas Webb relative to some of these discussions. We want it to be clear that
St. Luke's was not asked andhasn't participated in any of these discussions. There
has not been an adequate study done to support any action regarding traffic circulation
or public roadways in this area and we would respectfully request that the City Council
not take any action that might establish, or,even project, public roadways at this
juncture.
You should know we have commissioned preliminary traffic studies based upon our
understanding of proposed developments east of the St. Luke's property to Cloverdale.
These studies suggest that all three developments -- St. Luke's, Bews and
Thomas/Tullis -- cannot be adequately served with a public road through St. Luke's
property.
MOUNTAIN STATES TUMOR INSTITUTE • IDAHO'S HEALTH INFORMATION RETRIEVAL CENTER • ANDERSON CENTER • ANDERSON PLAZA MEDICAL BUILDING
ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL OFFICE PLAZA • MOUNTAIN STATES SURGERY CENTER • AFFILIATED WITH THE IDAHO ELKS REHABILITATION HOSPITAL
MEMBER OF THE VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS OF AMERICA (VHA) SYSTEM VHA
l • •
The Honorable Grant Kingsford
Members of the City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 2
St. Luke's purchased the property at Eagle Road and 1-84 to develop a medical
campus maximizing use of the property over time. Any significant roadway through
this campus could seriously compromise this future development along with access to
these medical facilities by patients and ambulances. After obtaining the necessary
approvals, St. Luke's began construction early this year before any other annexation or
Conditional Use applications were submitted. St. Luke's should not now be
conditioned by action on applications currently under consideration. We would again
ask that no action be taken to establish or imply roadways, the implications of which
have not been studied or considered.
Sincerely
Gary . Fletcher
Execut ve Vice President
GLF/wjp
Jim Jones
Boise: (208) 385-9200
Twin Faft (208) 734-3343
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES
Affameys at Law
1275 Shoreline Lane
Boise, ID 83702-6870
Fax Transmittal Cover
Fax Number:
John McCreedy
To:o J �LL.c. From: JIM JONES
Comment:
Fay: (208) 985.9599
Total Number of Pages (Including This Page)
Date: AFY
Original Document: Lwill be sent by first-class mail
will not be sent
Please Advise of Any Deficiency in this Transmission
NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
informatlon that Is prlvlleged, confidential, and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. rf the reader of this notice is
not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible
for delivering the message to the Intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying
of this communication is strictly prohibited. Zf you have
recelved this communication in error, please notify us
Immediately by telephone and return these papers to us at the
address shown above via first class mail.
MAV 1 F, ' qC; 1 F,:7F,
2083859599 PAGE.01
11
Jim Jones
Noise: (208) 38"200
Twin Fnllc (208) 73433
•
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Law
1276 Shoreline Lane
Boise, Idaho 83702-6870
May 16, 1995
Via pas Tot 887-4813
Shari Stiles
Planning a Zoning Administrator
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
John McCaeedy
Re: Public Hearings: Request for Annexation and Zoning for
C -G of 74 Acres by E.L. Bews and Request for Conditional Use
Permit for a variety of Mixed, Planned and Residential Land
Uses by E.L. Sews
Dear No. Stiles:
Please include in the official public record the enclosed
letter and attachment. Also, would you kindly copy and nand
deliver copies to the Mayor and each of the City council Members
for review prior to tonightfs hearing.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
141ri
)�
ohn MCr
JCM/tg "� 7
Enclosure
MAY 16 '95 16:37 2083859599 PAGE.02
:7
Jim Jones
Bois- (MB):BSS-M
TV& Falk (208) 734.3345
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys .at Law
1275 Shoreline Lane
Boise, Idaho 83702-6870
May 16, 1995
Via Eats Tos 887-4813
The Honorable Grant Kingsford
Mayor
City of Meridian
Meridian, ID 83642
Meridian City
City Hall
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ID
Council Members
83642
0
John McCreedy
Fac O) ="M
Re: Public Hearings: Request for Annexation and Zoning for
C -G of 74 Acres by E. L. Bews and Request for Conditional
Use Permit for a Variety of fixed, Planned and Residential
Land Uses by E. L. Bows
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
I have been contacted by a group of concerned Meridian
citizens who reside in the Montvue Subdivision. We, Glenn and
Tresha Griffiths, 3295 North Xontvue; Gus and Stella Bain, 225 S.
West Montvue; Ed and Madeline Burtner, 285 S West Montvue; Dan
and Robin Hollingsworth, 3300 North Montvue; Forrest and Linda
Kurnes, 230 West Montvue; Warren and Velma Nelson, 3410 North
Montvue; Jim and Jan Clark, 215 E Montvue; James and Valerie
Ownbey, 3405 North Montvue; Ralph and LaVonne Bartschi, 3475
Franklin; John and Neva Timmons, 3460 North Xontvue; Was and
Rosie Hoaist; and Rick Willis, 3555 South Montvue, have a number
of concerns regarding the above -referenced land use applications,
including the compatibility of the proposed land use with the
existing agricultural and residential land uses, the traffic
impacts that will result from the proposed land use; the
protection of exiating drinking water and other domestic water
wells in the area; the availability of public services, including
fire and police services, to accommodate this development; the
waste water and storm water drainage required to accommodate the
development; and other fundamental land use issues.
MAY 16 '95 16:37 2083859599 PAGE.03
• tPage - 2
May 16, 1995
Although there was newspaper notice of the pending
applications, it would appear that none of the residents of the
Montvue Subdivision were actually notified of the applications.
On behalf of the above citizens, then I am requesting that the
Meridian City Council defer the above land use applications until
its next regular meeting on June 6, 1995. This will give the
concerned citizens and myself an opportunity to review the
available documents and to prepare focused testimony regarding
these land use applications.
In the alternative, we request that you consider the
following before rendering a decision on the applications. The
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared by the Meridian
Planning a Zoning Commission for the Application for Annexation
and Zoning indicate that the property is presently zoned R -T and
is pasture, farm land, and vacant land. The applicant has
requested that the property be zoned C -G for a variety of
unspecific land uses. The Commission's Findings and Conclusions
make clear that the applicant has not stated a specific proposed
use for the property and "therefore it cannot be determined if
the use would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Pian[.]"
Commissions Findings and conclusions, p. 14. The Commission
noted that the applicant has not stated or represented its
specific intentions as to the development even though it has
filed a conditional use permit application listing several
possible uses. Id., pp. 14-15.
Because the applicant has not stated a specific use for the
property, the Commission recommended that the City annex the
property and zone it C -G, but not allow any development until a
more specific planned development or conditional use permit is
applied for. Moreover, the Commission also recommended that, as
a condition of annexation and zoning, the applicant shall be
required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by
the Meridian Zoning Ordinance. The Commission recommended
fourteen (14) specific issues to be addressed by the development
agreement.
Judge Bail of the Ada County District Court recently issued
a decision regarding the use of development agreements as a
condition to a rezone application. Judge Bail agreed with
concerned citizens that, under the Boise Zoning Ordinance, a
rezone application requiring a development agreement cannot be
approved unless and until the development agreement application
has been submitted and examined at a public hearing. I am
attaching a copy of Judge Bail's decision in that case. on
behalf of the above citizens of Montvue Subdivision, I would
recommend that the City or Meridian proceed with the same
approach. That ia, although the annexation may be appropriate,
it is premature to approve any proposed rezone of the property
unless and until a specific development agreement has been
submitted and examined at a public hearing. The Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law of the Meridian Planning 6 Zoning
Commission should be modified to state that the zoning of the
property shall remain R -T until a development agreement
MAY 16 195 16:38 2083859599 PAGE.04
Page - 3 •
May 16, 1995
identifying the specific use has been submitted and considered at
a public hearing.
For the same reason, it is premature and inappropriate to
approve the conditional use permit applied for by the developer.
As the Commission again noted in its findings and conclusions,
the applicant has not submitted a specific plan for development
of this property. Instead, the applicant appears to want a
conditional use permit that would provide it with broad
discretion to establish the uses for the property. The
conditional use permit should be denied. As the recommendations
of the Commission make clear, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan
requires all development for this land to be processed under a
planned unit development procedure and as a conditional use.
Given that no specific use for the property has yet been proposed
and that a development agreement is required, it would appear far
riser policy to simply deny the conditional use permit
application until a specific use for the property has been
proposed. Otherwise, it will be impossible to determine what has
and has not been approved for the property.
In sum, we are requesting that these land use applications
be deferred until June 6, 1995. In the alternative, it the
Council proceeds with tonight's hearing, we are requesting that
the rezone application and the conditional use permit
applications be denied. Although annexation may appear
appropriate under Meridian's plans, it is simply premature to
grant a rezone of the property and a conditional permit unless
and until the specific uses for the property nave been set forth
in the appropriate development agreement and detailed planned
unit development or conditional use permit applications. It is
impossible for concerned citizens and property owners to comment
on future land uses unless they are provided with the specifics
of those land uses. As the Planning & Zoning Commission's
recommendations make clear, the development of this property will
be subject to numerous environmental, traffic, drainage,
landscaping and other detailed conditions that ensure compliance
with the Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. Those conditions cannot
be drafted and enforced for the protection of Meridian's citizens
until a specific proposal for the land use is put forward. Thank
you for your consideration.
sincerely,
Jo7Xce
7 .7CN!/tg
cc Wayne Forrey, Via Fax to 887-6049
1 Y
V M.
MAY 4 1995
I NAV RO,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE
ib
STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA
LARRY DURKIN; SUSAN )
EASTLAKE; VICTORIA )
RICHINS and ROBERT )
RICHINS, JR.; J. DIANE )
SOULE, D.V.M. and PETER )
J. ANDERSON; and JOHN P. )
TATE, )
Petitioners, )
VS. )
THE CITY OF BOISE and THE)
BOISE CITY COUNCIL; SSB )
PROPERTIES.; and ROBERT )
AHMANN, )
Respondents. )
Casn No. CV -OC -95-01348 *D
ORDER
,i i,
The petitioners are residents of the City of Boise who seek
review of the procedures used by the City in its handling of a
rezone application made by SSB properties to allow it to build a
commercial tire store on a lot located on Broadway Avenue. The
petitioners have filed a petition for judicial review of Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered by the City Council on
February 21, 1995. The petitioners have moved to stay a public
hearing on the rezone and application for a development agreement
MAY 16 195 16:39 2083859599 PAGE. 06
which is currently scheduled for May 8, 1995 before the Planning
and Zoninq Commission. They have also challenged the legal
sufficiency of the Notice for the Public Hearing.
At the hearing, it was conceded that at least one of the
plaintiffs did object to the approval of the rezone application.
While standing questions were raised as to the remainder of the
plaintiffs, the official record has not yet been produced and the
Court has no means to resolve the question. Since at least one
of the plaintiffs has previously objected, the Court will address
the issue presented.
Because the Commission hearing is scheduled for May 8, 1995,
the Court granted the petitioners' Motion for an expedited
hearing. At the hearing, over the petitioners' objection, SSB
presented testimony and argument. The City indicated that it
wished to remain neutral and did not provide either evidence or
argument. In support of the petitioners' Motion, the Affidavit
of Wayne Gibbs, the director of Community Planning and
Development for the City of Boise was submitted.
At this point, there is only a narrow point of law before
the Court. The Court is not addressing the merits of the
proposed rezone nor of the development agreement. Under I.C. §
67-5279 (2)(c), an agency action is subject to judicial review
and appropriate relief if it appears that an action is made upon
unlawful procedure.
From the record, it appears that the Planning and zoning
ORDER Page 2
Mnv I c + o= 4C.-20 ::)SR7R1;PS99 Pf)n _ M
0
Commission Staff reviewed an application for rezone filed by SSB
Properties Inc. The Staff recommended a denial of the
application. The Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended
denial of the application to the City Council. The City Council
reviewed the application which had been modified to include some
more detailed sketches, to remove some curb cuts and to
illustrate the planned landscaping strip. After the public
hearing on the rezone request, the City Council voted to approve
the rezone application with a development agreement and signed
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law submitted by SSB
Properties, Inc. There is no dispute that the developer did not
submit a development agreement with the rezone application and
neither the Planning Department nor the Planning and Zoning
Commission required one previously. The City Council determined
that the development agreement should be entered into at its
hearing on January 31, 1995.
Under the Boise City Zoning ordinances enacted by the City
Council, a procedure has been established for development
agreements. Boise City Code § 11-08-09 provides that:
2. In the event of a determination by the Council that a
development agreement should be entered into, the Council
shall remand the matter back to the Commission, with the
Council requiring an application for a development agreement
to be submitted by the applicant, unless the applicant has
already done so and a public hearing was hold under
subsection 1. above. The Council shall, upon remand, direct
the Commission on the specific issues to be addressed by the
development agreement. The commission shall then proceed as
specified in this section. (emphasis added).
ORDER Page 3
MAY 16 '95 16:40 2083859599 PAGE.08
0
i
There is no dispute that the Council decided that a development
agreement should be entered into and that the applicant had not
already submitted one. Under the mandatory language used by the
Council in its ordinance, the matter was required to be remanded
back to the Planning and Zoning Commission subject to whatever
directions the Council decided to impose. The use of the
mandatory "shall" rather than the discretionary "may" is
dispositive. The rules of construction of an ordinance are the
same as applied to the construction of a statute. State V. Roll,
118 Idaho 936, 939, 801 P.2d 1287 (Ct. App. 1990), Jackman V.
Hammersley, 72 Idaho 301, 305, 240 P.2d 829 (1952). Where a
statute is plain, clear, and unambiguous, it speaks for itself
and must be given the interpretation the language clearly
implies. Cameron v. Minidoka County -Highway District, 125 Idaho
801, 803, 874 P.2d 1108 (1994), Grand Canyon Dories v. Tax
Commission, 124 Idaho 1, 5, 855 P.2d 462 (1993). The record
roflects that the Planning Director advised SSB Properties Inc.
that the request for rezone was approved "with the requirement
that you submit for approval by the Planning and Zoning
commission an application for a Development Agreement, as
provided in Section 11-8-9 of the Boise City Code. The rezone
cannot be finalized until the Development Agreement has been
approved by the Commi33ion and the Council_" Letter of Wayne
Gibbs, February 3, 1995, Affidavit of Wayne Gibbs, Exhibit E.
The letter is consistent with the ordinance and with the purpose
ORDER Page 4
MOV 1C + oC 1 G' AM PAf;F A4
0
•
of the development agreements in general as stated in 11-08--09 A
which is that, if in the opinion of the Council or the
Commission, a requested rezone's approval alone does not satisfy
the requirements for a rezone but that, a development agreement
with somewhat stricter requirements may be required. The
ordinance clearly mandates that, if it is the Council itself
which determines that a development agreement is required, then
the matter must be remanded to the Commission.
The legal notice attached as Exhibit G to the Affidavit of
Wayne Gibbs gives notice that a hearing will be held before the
Planning and Zoning Commission on SSB's request for approval of a
development agreement on May 8, 1995. It appears that the entry
of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law was premature
since the rezone with the development agreement has not been
submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission and that a public
hearing on the development agreement has not been held and the
Council has not received or reviewed any recommendations from the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Any public hearing must be held
on the draft agreement and the rezone request. Boise City Code
11-08-09(F).
Because the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law were
entered prematurely in violation of the Council's own ordinances,
they arP get aside_ The motion for stay is granted until the
City Council has the opportunity to remand the case with any
specific directions it wishes to provide for the development
ORDER Page 5
MAY 16 '95 16:41 2083859599 �PAGE.10
I'IMT-10-177J 1G•3Ci 1'KUI'I J
E
IyC (4Lyl t' l li 11
agreement. The case is remanded to the City Council for further
proceedings.
a
It is so ordered.,
Dated this _j3_/day of May, 1995
r
Deborah A. Bail
District Judge
ORDER Page 6
MAY 16 '95 16:41 2083859599 PAGE.11 '
OFFICIALS
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk
JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer
GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt.
KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief
W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney
• HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY •
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813
Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211
GRANT P. KINGSFORD
Mayor
COUNCIL MEMBERS
RONALD R. TOLSMA
MAX YERRINGTON
ROBERT D. CORRIE
WALT W. MORROW
SHARI STILES
Planner 8 Zoning Administrator
RECEIVIEED JIM JOHNSON
Chairman - Planning & Zoning
MAY 2 6 1954
CITY OF MEBIWAN
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, may we have your answer -by:
June 7. 1994
TRANSMITTAL DATE: 5/24/94 HEARING DATE: 6/14/94
REQUEST: Annexation/zoning for E.L. Bews
BY: E.L. Bews and Wavne Forrev
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: South of Franklin Rd, North of 1-84
JIM JOHNSON, P/Z
MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z
JIM SHEARER, P/Z
CHARLES ROUNTREE, P2
_TIM HEPPER, P/Z
_GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR
_RONALD TOLSMA, C/C
_BOB CORRIE, C/C
WALT MORROW, C/C
MAX YERRINGTON, C/C
WATER DEPARTMENT
SEWER DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
_POLICE DEPARTMENT
_CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECI.PVION(PRELIM & FIN PLAT)
CITY FILES
YOUR CONCISE
40*
OFFICIALS
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk
JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer
GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt.
KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief
W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
Phone (208) 889-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813
Public Works/BuiktMg Department (208) 887-2211
GRAD' P. KINGSFORD
Mayor
COUNCIL MEMBERS
RONALD R. TOLSMA
MAX YERRINGTON
1ROOBBSQyERT��D..CORRIE
EI`�H°STI LES W
��� lanner & Zoning Administrator
MAYZ 7 J� NSON
a ma anning RZoning
C1,1'y iij - RiLRI AIA
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, may we have your answer by:
June 7. 1994
TRANSMITTAL DATE: 5/24/94 HEARING DATE: 6/14/94
REQUEST: Annexation/zonin4 for E.L Bews
BY: E.L. Bews and Wavne Forrev
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: South of Franklin Rd. North of 1-84
JIM JOHNSON, P/Z
MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z
JIM SHEARER, P/Z
_CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z
TIM HEPPER, P/Z
GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR
_RONALD TOLSMA, C/C
_BOB CORRIE, C/C
_WALT MORROW, C/C
_MAX YERRINGTON, C/C
_WATER DEPARTMENT
_SEWER DEPARTMENT
_BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
_POLICE DEPARTMENT
_CITY ATTORNEY
_CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NADA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
CITY FILES L/
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS:
May 26, 1994
ACEIVED
J U N - 2 1994
CITY OF MERIDIAN
• SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
Bob L. Haley
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
Dan Mabe, Finance & Administration
DIRECTORS
Sheryl Belknap, Elementary
Jim Carberry, Secondary
Christine Donnell, Personnel
Doug Rutan, Special Services
JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.2
911 MERIDIAN STREET • MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 • PHONE(208)888-6701
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho Street
Meridian, Idaho 83642
RE: Request for Annexation and Zoning submitted by
E. L. Bews
Dear Councilmen:
I have reviewed the request submitted by E. L. Bews for
annexation and zoning. This planned development will accelerate
the need for Joint School District No. 2 to construct additional
classrooms and/or to adjust school attendance boundaries.
Meridian School do not have excess capacity. Nearly every school
in the district is beyond capacity.
The Meridian School District supports economic growth for Idaho
and Specifically the district's area, but such growth produces a
need for additional school construction. We ask your support
for a development fee statute on new home construction or a real
estate transfer fee to help offset the costs of building
additional school facilities. If this support is lacking then we
ask that additional residential development be denied.
Sincerely,
Dan Mabe,
Deputy Superintendent
DM: gr
RECEIVED
JUN 1 7 1994
QTY OF MERIDIAN
!GLENN J. RHODES, President
SHERRY R. HUBER, Vice President
JAMES E. BRUCE, Secretary
June 15, 1994
TO:
E. L. BEWS
5206 SORRENTO CIRCLE
BOISE ID 83704
FROM: Larry Sale, u r i r
Developm S
SUBJECT: MERIDIAN ANNEXATION/ ZONING FRANKLIN E/O EAGLE MIXED
PLANNED USE
Your application for the above referenced project was acted on by
the Commissioners of the Ada County Highway District on June 15,
1994. The attached staff report lists the conditions of approval
and street improvements which are required.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 345-7680.
LS
cc: Development Services
Chron
MERIDIAN CITY HALL
JIM FORREY
ada county highway district
318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714 • Phone (208) 345-7680
LENN J. RHODES, President
CHERRY R. HUBER, Vice President
JAMES E BRUCE, Secretary
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ACHD Commission
Development Services
Meridian - Annexation/zoning
INTER -DEPARTMENT
CORRESPONDENCE
ELBEWS/DSTECH
6-15-94
DATE: June 10, 1994
(Developer - E.L.Bews, 5206 Sorrento Circle, Boise ID
83704)
(Engineer/Agent
83642)
FACTS & FINDINGS:
- Wayne Forrey, 52 E Franklin, Meridian ID
1. E.L. Bews is requesting annexation into Meridian City and
zoning classification to MPUD for a mixed-use planned develop-
ment. The site is located on the south side of Franklin Road,
approximately one-quarter of a mile east of Eagle Road. The
site's east side borders the proposed St. Luke's Hospital.
2. GENERAL INFORMATION:
LEAD AGENCY - Meridian
ACRES - 74
ZONING - RT, existing
ESTIMATED VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY - Depends on use
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE - 162
L.F. OF FRONTAGE ON Franklin Road- 1100
MOST RECENT TRAFFIC COUNTS - (1991, west of Eagle Rd) 6,487
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAP DESIGNATION - Principal arterial
ADA COUNTY RIDGE -TO -RIVERS PATHWAY PLAN - No pathway shown
EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY - 80 -feet
REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY - 90 -feet (45 -feet from centerline)
Franklin Road is improved with 28 -feet of paving.
IMPACT FEE BENEFIT ZONE - West Ada
IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - Near Rural
ada county highway district
318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714 9 Phone (2081345-7680
Meridian annexation - E.L.Bews
June 10, 1994
Page 3
1. Street and drainage improvements
of -way shall be designed and
District standards and policies.
•
required in the public right -
constructed in conformance with
2. Dedicated streets and drainage systems shall be designed and
constructed in conformance with District standards and poli-
cies.
3. Specifications, land surveys, reports, plats, drawings, plans,
design information and calculations presented to ACHD shall be
sealed, signed and dated by a Registered Professional Engineer
or Professional Land Surveyor, in compliance with Idaho Code,
Section 54-1215.
4. Provide written approval from the appropriate irriga-
tion/drainage district authorizing storm runoff into their
system.
5. Locate obstructions (utility facilities, irrigation and drain-
age appurtenances, etc.) outside of the proposed street im-
provements. Authorization for relocations shall be obtained
from the appropriate entity.
6. Continue existing irrigation and drainage systems across par-
cel.
7. Submit three sets of street construction plans to the District
for review and appropriate action.
8. Submit site drainage plans and calculations for review and
appropriate action by ACHD. The proposed drainage system
shall conform to the requirements of and shall retain all
storm water on-site.
Public street drainage facilities shall be located in the
public right-of-way or in a drainage easement set aside specif-
ically for that use. There shall be no trees, fences, bushes,
sheds, or other valuable amenities placed in said easement.
Drainage easements and their use restrictions shall be noted
on the plat.
9. Provide design data for proposed access to public streets for
review and appropriate action by ACHD.
10. Locate driveway curb cuts a minimum of 5 -feet from the side
lot property lines when the driveways are not being shared
with the adjacent property.
11. Developer shall provide the District with a copy of the record-
ed plat prior to the installation of street name signs.
Street signs will not be ordered until all fees have been paid
Y
W
W m N C
V b
U
Z 7
w
6 N U W
6 = F
Z
a:) > Z
O O Z O
U < U
CENTRAL 9 MW••rDISTRICT
■■ HEALTH RECEIVED Return to:
DEPARTMENT ❑ Boise
REVIEW SHEET JUN 0 6 1994 ❑ Eagle
CITY Of MERIDIAN ❑ Garden City
Rezone # E . L &FN.5 R® -Meridian
Conditional Use # ❑ Kuna
Preliminary/Final/Short Plat ❑ ACz
1.
We have no objections to this proposal.
❑
2.
We recommend denial of this proposal.
❑
3.
Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this
proposal.
❑
4.
We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this proposal before we can comment.
❑
5.
Before we can comment concerning individual sewge disposal, we will require more data
concerning the depth of
❑ high seasonal ground water
❑ solid lava from original grade
❑
6.
We can approve this proposal for individual sewage disposal to be located above solid lava layers:
❑ 2 feet
❑ 4 feet
7.
After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for:
19 Central sewage ❑ Community sewage system ❑ Community water well
❑ Interim sewage [�J- Central water
❑ Individual sewage ❑ Individual water
8.
The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality:
Central sewage ❑ Community sewage system❑ Community water
❑ Sewage dry lines Central water
9.
Street runoff is not to create a mosquito breeding probelm.
❑
10.
This department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined
'If other considerations indicate approval.
❑ 11. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho
State Sewage Regulations.
❑ 12. We will require plans be submitted for a plan reiew for any:
❑ Food establishment ❑ Swimming pools or spas ❑ Child Care Center
❑ Beverage establishment ❑ Grocery store /
13: STD/L`J/.v�27z �'1�W 1✓T �9irM/Nyi JAG ►`✓�� DATE: � /A !
( 45t, -2 Qd�� . CD (+D O-Corcra cam) Reviewed by: �lAi►
OF 7-bV FIRS- 0/JE AAll' /Ncf, DF STor?,A4W�+-r� CDHD 10-91 rcb
Prior W ArSctln►t(,E -ro 7-/6L-- S✓t3SaR-r- Gam.
OFFICIALS
WILLIAM G. BERG. JR., City Clerk
JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer
GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt.
KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief
W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY •
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
Phone (208) 8884433 • FAX (208) 887-4813
Public Works/BuMng Department (208) 887-2211
GRANT P. KINGSFORD
Mayor
L
COUNCIL MEMBERS
RONALD R. TOLSMA
MAX YERRINGTON
ROBERT D. CORRIE
WALT W. MORROW
SHARI STILES
Planner & Zoning Administrator
JIM JOHNSON
Eh4ir_} an - Planning & Zoning
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT P 9ff 994
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN '� u y
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, may we have your answer by:
June T, 1994
TRANSMITTAL DATE: 5/24/94 HEARING DATE: 6/14/94
REQUEST: Annexation/zoning for E.L Bews
BY: E.L. Bews and Wayne Forrey
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: South of Franklin Rd, North of 1-84
JIM JOHNSON, P/Z
MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z
JIM SHEARER, P/Z
CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z
TIM HEPPER, P/Z
GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR
RONALD TOLSMA, C/C
_BOB CORRIE, C/C
WALT MORROW, C/C
MAX YERRINGTON, C/C
WATER DEPARTMENT
SEWER DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
CITY FILES
OTHER:
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District has no comment on the annexation/zoning
for E. L. Bews. The District will comment when
rnncrrrirti on i 1 anc �Tral iminar� i 1 atS for the
rniarr nra cjjbmitted
Bill Hdnson
Assistant Water Superintendent
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
OFFICIALS
WILLIAM G. BERG. JR., City Clerk
JANICE L. GASS. City Treasurer
GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer
BRUCE 0. STUART, Water Works Suitt.
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt.
KENNY W. BOWERS. Fire Chief
W.L. "BILL" GORDON. Police Chief
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON. JR.. Attorney
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY 0
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813
Public Works/ Building Department (208) 887-2211
GRANT P. KINGSFORD
Mayor
COUNCIL MEMBERS
RONALD R. TOLSMA
MAX YERRINGTON
ROBERT D. CORRIE
WALT W. MORROW
SHARI STILES
Planner 8 Zoning Administrator
r1pvC IVE,JIM JOHNSON
XL"d�•• Chairman - Planning 3 Zoning
MAY 3 1 199+
CITY OF MERIDIAN
i
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, may we have your answer by:
June 7 1994
TRANSMITTAL DATE: 5/24/94 HEARING DATE: 6/14/94
REQUEST: Annexation/zoning for E L Bews
BY: E L Bews and Wayne Forrey -
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: South of Franklin Rd, North of 1-84
JIM JOHNSON, P/Z
MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z
JIM SHEARER, P/Z
CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z
TIM HEPPER, P/Z
GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR
RONALD TOLSMA, C/C
BOB CORRIE, C/C
WALT MORROW, C/C
MAX YERRINGTON, C/C
WATER DEPARTMENT
SEWER DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
-
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT -
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
CITY FILES
OTHER:
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: S We -5, r e c a F-
- , n / /2^C0 ^.-% --.p .,-tet - /A A /r` .n — -
E
E.L. $EWS, CONTRACTOR
5206 SORRENTO CIRCLE • BOISE, IDAHO 83704
June 13, 1994
Mayor Grant P. Kingsford
Chairman Jim Johnson, Planning and Zoning Commission ������
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Avenue JUN 14 1994
Meridian, Idaho 83642f L1*1 AN
Gj���
Dear Mayor Kingsford and Chairman Johnson:
I have been working closely with St. Lukes Regional Medical
Center to coordinate our Master Planning process.. We are now
discussing various options to jointly develop my property and the
hospital's property. We are even exploring alternatives that could
increase the acreage of the Medical Center Campus.
I am requesting that the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council change my annexation and zoning
request from Mixed Planned Use Development (MPUD) zone, to the
proposed Health Service (HS) zone. I understand that the city does not
yet have a HS zone, but I am willing to wait until the proper zoning is in
place in order to proceed with planned development.
I am also requesting that you proceed with the St. Luke's
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the Limited Office zone and then update
your Zoning Ordinance to include the proposed HS zoning on the
balance of St. Luke's property plus my property. I do not object to
tabling my annexation request at the City Council hearing level until you
prepare the necessary ordinance amendments. I prefer to continue
through the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing process with
approval subject to the HS zone when the ordinance is amended.
Hopefully this can occur.
I look forward to working with each of youl
cc: Shari Stiles
••RECEIVED
A R rH •vT E+ S.
MAY 1 2 1995
May 3,1995
CITY OF MERIDIAN
Mr. William G. Berg
City Clerk
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho Street
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Subject: Roadway Access
Concerning Applications for Annexation and Conditional Use Permit of
E.L. Bews' Land Located in the E 1/2, NW 1/4 of Section 16, T.3N, R.1E
Ada COn� TILf
Boise, Me�tdian, y,&U
Dear Mr. Berg:
We are responding to the E.L. Bews property applications as representatives for the
Tullis/Thomas Partnership. The Tullis/Thomas Partnership owns the vacant 85.6 acres
that border the eastern E.L. Bews property between Franklin Road and Interstate 84.
The partnership owns all this acreage with the exception of approximately ten (10) acres
on Franklin Road which is privately owned by Mr. L. Bair.
The Tullis/Thomas Partnership supports the E.L. Bews' property annexation and the
CG zone he is requesting. However, we are not in whole agreement with the public
access (roadway) locations between the E.L. Bews property and. the Tullis/Thomas
property as shown on the Bews plan dated 12/1/94. We would like to see the main St.
Luke's property. access road extended from the new Eagle Road signal light intersection,
west to east, straight through the E.L. Bews property and carried into the Tullis/Thomas
property. (See our proposed revised access road plan, enclosed.) We believe our
proposed roadway layout will provide improved access to the new hospital for both the
properties laying to the east and those off Franklin Road. We would also like to see the
proposed northern -most east/ west crossroads placed approximately 100 feet further
south. The crossroads are presently shown about 800 feet, south of the new Franklin
Road signaled site access. This will place the east/ west roadway centerline on the
Bews and Bair property line. The relocated road, on this shared property line, would
allow the Bair parcel to remain intact and would assure improved access to the
Tullis/Thomas site. We believe both of these recommendations would improve
accessibility to all properties in this area, including the Bews'.
We met with E.L. Bews' property planner Wayne Forrey (4/ 6/ 95) and discussed our
access roadway concerns. At the meeting, Wayne assured us that he and Mr. Bews
DOUGLAS A. DIEL
2225 NORTH 56TH STREET THOMAS R. WEBS
*;ems
SEATTLE, WA 98103-6203
DONALD J. WEISSINGER
(206) 547-1940, FAX (206) 547-8212
LICENSED IN WASHINGTON, ALASKA, OREGON, IDAHO, CALIFORNIA, MONTANA, UTAH AND WISCONSIN.
May 3,1995
Page 2
would have no problem with modifying their site plan to adopt our recommendations.
We understand that the exact roadway locations submitted on the Bews' property are
still subject to final approval by ACHD and the City.
We want to go on record as having notified ACHD and the City of our recommend-
ations concerning the final east/ west access roadway locations. We plan to continue
working very closely with the City, ACHD, and E.L.- Bews to establish the final roadway
locations. If we can provide you with any additional information regarding these
issues, please feel free to give us a call.
Sincerely,
Debra E. Tullis
Owner Representative
v��� '
Thomas R. Webb
Architect/ Planner
Enclosures
cc: Dianne Pierce - Tullis/Thomas Partnership
Rick Thomas Tullis/Thomas Partnership
Wayne Forrey E.L. Bews
Shari Styles- City of Meridian
Karen Gallagher - ACHD
9424Bews
MIN
1
CP >
C y¢
7M
G..
s �
�..
D
VA -
"I
--�\ O
O
1,
v 0
d �- 0 2
N ~ n
U
Y U Q) N
r
p c c
r
10
3
ll
N.m
r
piCD
.'W
DLo
9
N
fD
7 r
0
U
m
i
ch
a
to
G
zE-1
c.
a)Q
p co
w"
UO.
E
0.
N
_
a
a)
W
a)
U
-..&
0
U
O
au
a)
E
3
ll
N.m
r
piCD
.'W
OFFICIALS
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk
JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer
GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt.
KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief
W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney
MEMORANDUM
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY •
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813
Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211
GRANT P. KINGSFORD
Mayor
To: Mayor, City Council, Planning & Zoning
From: Gary D. Smith, PE
.1
RE: E. L. BEWS PROPERTY
(Annexation, Zoning)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
RONALD R. TOLSMA
MAX YERRINGTON
ROBERT D. CORRIE
WALT W. MORROW
SHARI STILES
Planner & Zoning Administrator
JIM JOHNSON
Chairman - Planning & Zoning
June 13, 1994
I have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments for your information and or use as
conditions of the applicant during the hearing process:
The property is contiguous to the city limit boundary as proposed by the St. Luke's Hospital
annexation request.
2. Two Exhibit "A" legal descriptions are submitted which do not completely agree with the sketch
submitted. A combined legal description needs to be prepared by a land surveyor and submitted
for ordinance preparation.
Sanitary sewer service for this parcel is designated by our Facility Plan to flow to the north
into a future line along the UPRR tracks then to Eagle Road and then north.
4. This parcel contains a 16 inch water well drilled in 1979 by Stevens and Sons Well Drilling
to a depth of 485 feet. At that time the well was reportedly step -test pumped to 1660
gallons per minute with a water level drawdown to 84 feet below land surface. Static water level
was measured at 26 feet below land surface. I have no indication of this wells water quality.
If this parcel is approved for annexation/ zoning, it would be appropriate for us to discuss and
investigate the acquisition of this well for our distribution system.
OFFICIALS
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk
JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer
GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt.
KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief
W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY 0
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813
Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211
MEMORANDUM GRANT P. KINGSFORD
Mayor
TO: Plannin & Zoning Com fission, Mayor and Council
�C
FROM: Shari L. Stiles, Planning & Zoning Administrator
DATE: June 9, 1994
COUNCIL MEMBERS
RONALD R. TOLSMA
MAX YERRINGTON
ROBERT D. CORRIE
WALT W. MORROW
SHARI STILES
Planner & Zoning Administrator
JIM JOHNSON
Chairman • Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Annexation/Zoning with Request for MPUD by E. L. Bews and Wayne
Forrey
The request for Mixed/Planned Unit Development complies with the City of Meridian
Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning and Development Ordinance does not contain this zone. The
application submitted indicates Applicant is aware the application may be tabled or delayed until
the City has updated their Zoning and Development Ordinance. Applicant should also be aware
that amending the Zoning and Development Ordinance is a lengthy process; the City cannot
ensure when this will be accomplished. If the Applicant persists in requesting an MPUD zoning,
several months may pass before P&Z can act on this application.
A development agreement would be necessary prior to annexation of the proposed parcels. If
existing platted subdivision is to be vacated, approvals must be received from agencies.
Conditional Use Permits in the proposed MPUD will be required for each phase of development.
I believe it would be more appropriate to request this zone with an accompanying Conditional
Use Permit application, or to request an existing zone, when development plans are known, that
will allow the proposed use(s).
o r
0 RECEIVED
190 East Bannock J U N 15 1995 ILLBoise, Idaho IJSt Luk6s
83712 CITY OF MERIDIAN
208-386-2222 Regional Medical Center
Edwin E. Dahlberg
President rF
June 15, 1995
The Honorable Grant Kingsford
Mayor, City of Meridian
Members of the City Council �~
Meridian City Hall
33 E. Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
Ada County Highway District Commissioners
650 W. Main
Boise, ID 83702
Mr. Jerry Nyman, Director
Ada County Highway Department
318 E. 37th
Boise, ID 83714
Dear Mayor Kingsford, City Council Members, ACHD Commissioners & Mr. Nyman:
Recent discussions and correspondence related to the annexation and Conditional
Use application for the E. L. Bews property (east of the St. Luke's property on Eagle
Road) have included references to a potential new connector/access street through the
St. Luke's West campus. Prior to the end of April, St. Luke's had not been a party to
these discussions and now firmly opposes any division and disruption of the St. Luke's
West campus for the following reasons:
1. Through traffic from properties to the east is inconsistent with and
detrimental to the integrated medical campus.
2. St. Luke's has invested and is committed to spend in excess of $14
million on just the first phase of this multiple phase project. These
commitments and plans were predicated on the Medical Center's ability
to develop the site based on a cohesive plan utilizing internal circulation.
3. Alternatives for access seem available to properties east of St. Luke's
which do not require the appropriation of St. Luke's property nor the
compromise of the St. Luke's West campus.
MOUNTAIN STATES TUMOR INSTITUTE • IDAHO'S HEALTH INFORMATION RETRIEVAL CENTER • ANDERSON CENTER • ANDERSON PLAZA MEDICAL BUILDING
ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL OFFICE PLAZA • MOUNTAIN STATES SURGERY CENTER • AFFILIATED WITH THE IDAHO ELKS REHABILITATION HOSPITAL
MEMBER OF THE VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS OF AMERICA (VHA) SYSTEM VHA
CAMPUS DISRUPTION
St. Luke's West was conceived and planned as an integrated medical services
campus. Perimeter circulation and phased construction over the next 10-20 years are
fundamental elements of the concept. St. Luke's has cooperated and participated with
Mr. Bews to provide sewer and water to his property as part of the initial site work in
order to avoid future campus disruption.
Significant levels of "through traffic" are clearly inconsistent with and, in fact, conflict
with the medical campus environment. Pedestrians, the ill, slow moving vehicles, and
the flexibility in site use inherent in the campus concept simply do not work with
arterial traffic flows passing through the site.
The St. Luke's West site plans are intended to accommodate the St. Luke's traffic but
are not designed to meet the infrastructure needs of the potential developments to the
east.
ST. LUKE'S INVESTMENT
Both through its own experience and as an industry standard, St. Luke's has learned
that medical and hospital services can be most effectively and economically delivered
in a campus setting. This concept was fundamental in the selection of the St. Luke's
West Eagle Road site. Bounded by the Interstate and Eagle Road, along with an
established residential area to the North and platted residential to the East, the site
was an ideal/medical campus setting.
Plans included perimeter landscape buffers with jogging trails, internal "slow"
circulation, pedestrian movement, and a coordinated phased sequence of
development. The loss of over 10% of the site to roadway and additional setbacks
would compromise the entire project and the Medical Center's investment to date.
The land and roadway improvements on the St. Luke's site for the connector/access
road are estimated to cost in excess of $1.5 million.
The future impact in terms of traffic, noise, curb cut restrictions, building limitations
from setbacks and other negatives is difficult to quantify. What is now seen as an
ideal medical campus setting would be turned into a traffic nightmare.
Page 2
ALTERNATIVES
At first glance it may appear reasonable to extend the St. Luke's West internal
circulation driveway to serve properties to the East, but when the implications are fully
considered, the alternatives appear superior in terms of the public interest. St. Luke's
urges you to abandon or reject any proposed connector/access streets through the St.
Luke's West campus.
The public interest will not be served by compromising the St. Luke's West campus, by
disrupting an existing residential area, and by jeopardizing the future development of
medical services in Meridian. These costs far outweigh any benefits derived from
allowing intense traffic from east of the St. Luke's site.
Si
Garyetcher
Executi Vice President
GLF/wjp
cc: Ed Dahlberg
Jeff Hull
WestsiteAr
Page 3
190 East Bannock
Boise, Idaho
83712
208-386-2222
Edwin E. Dahlberg
President
June 29, 1995
Will Berg, City Clerk
Meridian City Hall
33 E. Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Mr. Berg,
:ALL St Lukdls
Regional Medical Center
I rrF
We would like to request deferral of the E.L. Bews hearing scheduled for the Meridian City Council, July
18th.
The reason for this request is two fold:
1) We understand that the Power Mall is to be heard on the same evening, which
might not allow for the necessary time to review & discuss the Bews proposal.
2) More importantly is that to date the traffic study commissioned by ACHD relative
to this development states that there are no acceptable options to handle the traffic
generated by the development. We would like adequate time to review and comment
on the traffic issues before us, prior to proceeding with the City Council hearing.
At this time the next regularly scheduled City Council hearing should provide us the time necessary to
review the traffic studies and respond to them accordingly.
Thank you for your consideration.
0
Gary 1+ c r' xecutive Vice Pr:si,
St. Luke's Wgional Medical Center
cc: Mayor Grant Kingsford
MOUNTAIN STATES TUMOR INSTITUTE • IDAHO'S HEALTH INFORMATION RETRIEVAL CENTER • ANDERSON CENTER • ANDERSON PLAZA MEDICAL BUILDING
.ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL OFFICE PLAZA • MOUNTAIN STATES SURGERY CENTER • AFFILIATED WITH THE IDAHO ELKS REHABILITATION HOSPITAL
MEMBER OF THE VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS OF AMERICA (VHA) SYSTEM VHA
E.L. BEWS, CONTRACTOR
5206 SORRENTO CIRCLE • BOISE, IDAHO 83704
July 5, 1995
Honorable Grant P. Kingsford
and City Council Members
City. of McMian
33 E. Idaho Ave:
Meridian, ID 83642'
RE, Clarification of Planned Development General (PD-G).Requirements and Water
Well/Tank Site for City of Meridian
Dear Mayor Kingsford and Council Members;
Based on the June 29, 1995, meeting between Mayor Kingsford, Shari Stiles, Zoning
Administrator, and Wayne Forrey regarding clarification of the City 10% set aside 'proceeaw-for
planned development projects, I now understand that the City's 10% set aside requirement can be
shared between the project developer and the property user. This is acceptable to me mid I have
no objection to continuing my planned'development for mixed business'4a0resklential uses_ I
also understand that a Conditional Use Permit will be necessary for all specific uses on the
property including detailed site'ptamiz-accordance vAb4=r PD -G requirements.
Please note that I will construct'the 3 5 foot landscape buffers atong. Frauklin Road and I-
84 in accordance with the Comprehensive. Plan entryway -corridors policy, In the Development
Agreet, we will need to spell out the 10% set aside policy so every property user will
understand that a certain amount of open space will be required to comply with the. City's PA -G
requirements. I am certainly willing to calculate the specific space requirements and provide this
data to the City during preparation of the Development Agree.
71�s you may recall, I have previously offered to sell my water well to the City of Meridian
to help provide municipal water to the Eagle Road/1-84 interchange area. My offer tohelp the
Meridiani Water Department is still available.
My well has recent7ybmn pump tested, including a complete chemical analysis using the
contractors you requested. I understand that the water volume and quality are excellent, --but the
.presence own d4c-xide (CO20s an aesthetic cancern. I also understand that the CO2 quickly
dissipates in a water storage tank. If the City purchases my water well, you will most likely need
a site to construct a water storage reservoir'to provide system pressure, fire flow and back-up.
safety. This storage reservoir could also allow bleed -off of the G02 in the well water. - I have
previously mentioned a figure of $50,000 for the well plus reimbursement for the $Ll
water
testing costs to Mr. Gary Smith T.E ( Please see the attached welltesting invoices which I have
.paid.)
To provide a functional site for municipal water development, I am willing to donate to
the City of Meridian one (1.0) acre of ground at the well location to be used for a combination
well, pump house and reservoir facility. I would appreciate coordinating with the City on a. IRS
municipal gift filing Form 8283 for this donation. I believe a one acre site should be enough
ground to construct a pump house and reservoir facility. If my property is annexed into the City
of Meridian, I anticipate constructing a planned development subdivision and we can coordinate
the configuration of the water lot and roadway design to make sure that you have good public
street access to the pump house and reservoir. I am willing to make this land donation to the City
of Meridian provided that this one acre is counted as part of the 10% planned development set
aside.
If my property is annexed, my intent is to develop a high quality mixed development with
strong commercial type covenants. I would ask that these same covenants apply to the City's
reservoir site to ensure compatible landscaping and upkeep within the subdivision. I am currently
reestablishing my water right for this well, so I would appreciate your prompt response. If you
decide to purchase the well and accept the donated one acre storage site, I will transfer my water
right to the City of Meridian.
RivErside
Inc
• EIBCW 1 AAMMUS • Sales & Repar/s
►s, ,no�F
• All type pumps •Sales & Repair
Conw4 m 6-t shop
11N
•• Desgme3
ms"
SA
lk
Well
y°E
•sa`�
M South Roswell Blvd. • P.O. Box 720 • Parma, Idaho 83660
(2011) 722.6731 • Fax (208) 722.6736
■ BILL TO:
ED BEWS
5206 SORRENTON CIRCLE
BOISE, ID 83702
INVOICE 14 6 6 6
BEWS
JOB DESCRIPTION:
WELL TEST ON FRANKLIN
RD WELL FOR ED BEWS
& ED SQUIRES
DATE SKIP YIA y F. 4 H. I TERMS �A 2°loCkIAItGE PERrM4. ON ALL PAST DiTE,ACC.}
11-18-94 Origin Net 30
" A rry
0 •
Ada County
Highway District
Development Services Division
Memorandum
Date: July 13, 1995
To: President Jim Bruce and ACHD Commissioners
RECEIVED
J U L 1 7 1995
CITY OF MERIDIAN
Mayor Grant Kingsford and Meridian City Council
Chairman Jim Johnson and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Jeff Hull, St. Luke's RMC
E.L. Bews
John McCreedy, Jim Jones & Assoc.
Shari Stiles, Meridian City
Ery Olen, Ada Planning Association
Rick Thomas
Wayne Forrey
From: Larry e
Devel ices ervisor
Subject: E.L. Bews Application
Power Center Application
Because of the complexity and magnitude of the traffic issues of these two applications, ACHD staff has
decided to defer taking the Bews' application to the ACHD Commission until the Commission meeting of
August 9, 1995. This is the same time as the Power Center application will be heard. Because both
applications impact the same geographic area and the same roadways, it is appropriate to consider them at
the same meeting.
Also by that date, ACHD, Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), and Ada Planning Association (APA)
staff members will have completed the regional land use/transportation analysis of this area, including the
impacts of the Power Center, Bews' and St. Luke's proposed developments if they are approved and
development proceeds. Also included in the analysis will be the consideration of additional transportation
system improvements, including an interchange at the Franklin/Eagle intersection to ease the effects of all
the left turning traffic (west to south) at this intersection that is proposed to be generated if these
developments (or others) occur.
A draft staff report will be prepared following a Technical Review Committee meeting that will be held
Friday, July 28, 1995. The report can be picked up on Wednesday August 2, 1995 after 12:00 Noon. As
always, the Technical Review Committee meeting is open to the public, held in ACHD's conference room.
If more than ten people attend, the location of the meeting will be moved to the ACHD auditorium for more
space.
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Law
1275 Shoreline Lane
Boise, Idaho 83702-6870
Jim Jones
Boise: (208) 385-9200
Twin FaW: (208) 734-3345
July 6, 1995
Via Paz To: 345-7650
James E. Bruce
Sherry R. Huber
Susan S. Eastlake
ACRD Commissioners
318 E 37th Street
Garden City, ID 83714
RECEIVED
JUL - 7 1995
CITY OF MERIDIAN
John McCreedy
F= (208) 385-9599
Re: E. L. Bews' Development Applications
Dear Commissioners Bruce, Huber and Eastlake:
I an writing on behalf of the Montvue Park residents to ask
ACHD to defer its consideration of the development applications
submitted by E. L. Bews until the Montvue Park residents have had
an adequate opportunity to review the traffic study of the St.
Lukes, Bews, and Thomas/Tullis properties produced- by CH2M Hill
for ACHD. A review of recent actions and ACHD's current time
frame for processing this application demonstrates beyond
question that the due process rights of the Montvue Park
residents will be violated.
The Montvue Park residents have vested property rights that
will be injured by the construction of any public roads through
or adjacent to their subdivision. Mr. Bews has proposed a road
adjacent to the Montvue Park Subdivision and a stub to be located
into the subdivision, presumably for the purpose of some future
extension or expansion.
On March 16, 1995, the Montvue Park residents appeared
before the Meridian City Council and unanimously testified that
they could not have a meaningful opportunity to comment on the
proposed development unless and until a detailed planned unit
Page - 2 • •
July 6, 1995
development application and environmental study, including
traffic study, had been submitted and reviewed. The Montvue
residents specifically requested that a detailed traffic study be
commissioned to analyze the traffic impacts associated with the
proposed developments. The residents communicated their concerns
in writing to the Meridian City Council, the developer, and the
developer's representative, Wayne Forrey. The City Council
tabled the development applications of Mr. Bews until the studies
had been prepared and commented on by interested parties at a
formal public hearing. A second hearing scheduled for June 20
was again deferred because the required studies have not yet been
prepared.
On June 15, 1995, Mr. Forrey corresponded with the Montvue
residents and indicated that copies of a traffic study and
environmental assessment would be available on or about July 3,
1995. Mr. Forrey scheduled a neighborhood meeting for July 13,
1995, but did not inform the Montvue residents that the traffic
study and development application would be brought before the
ACRD Commissioners for decision on July 12, 1995. We have not yet
seen the environmental assessment.
Last week on June 29, 1995, the Montvue residents did have
an opportunity to meet with ACHD and to receive the traffic
study. However, that meeting was not particularly productive
because neither the ACHD staff nor the residents had an adequate
opportunity to review the study. I submitted a public records
request to ACHD on June 22, 1995, asking to examine the records
of ACHD regarding the development application. By law, the
request should have been answered within three (3) days but was
not answered until June 29, 1995. Many of the residents chose to
spend this past weekend enjoying their families over the Fourth.
of July holiday. The point is that the Montvue residents have
not had an opportunity to review the records on file with ACRD
regarding the development applications and the draft and final
traffic studies.
We request that ACHD defer the staff meeting scheduled for
tomorrow morning at 11:30 a.m. for a period of two weeks, and
that the public hearing currently scheduled for July 12, 1995, be
deferred for a period of thirty (30) days. This will enable the
Montvue residents to examine the records on file with ACHD and
the traffic studies prepared by CH2M Hill.
I have been provided with a copy of a letter sent to ACRD by
Jon Gorski of Moffatt, Thomas on behalf of the St. Lukes Regional
Medical Center Ltd. It is clear that the Montvue residents are
not the only party that believes that the scheduled proposed by
ACHD for review of these development applications constitutes a
denial of due process. We respectfully request, and I believe
the law mandates, that ACRD provide the Montvue residents and all
other interested parties with substantial additional time, after
a staff report is issued, so that the public can review and
comment on this proposed development in a meaningful fashion.
Page - 3 S •
July 6, 1995
That is perhaps the key mission of ACRD, and we will be ready to
challenge any final decision made by ACRD without a full,
meaningful and worthwhile opportunity to comment, present
evidence, and have the input the law alloys and requires. Thank
you for your consideration.
sincerely,
John McCreedy
JCM/tg
cc Larry Sale
Montvue Park Residents
Wayne Forrey
Meridian City Council
Shari Stiles
Jon Gorski
RECEIVED
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES U L 1 8 1595
Attorneys at Law
1275 Shoreline Lane CITY OF MERIDIAN
Solse, Idaho 837024870
Jim Jones John McCreedy
BW= (soa) 30 - zoo Far ow 3n&""
TWW Faft CM) 734330
July 188 1995
Via FaX To$ 887-4813
The Honorable Grant Kingsford
Mayor
City of Meridian
Members of the city Council
city of meridian
Shari Stiles
Planning a Zoning Administrator
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642 ,
Re: E. L. Bews' Development Applications
Dear Mayor Kingsford, City Council Members and Ms. Stiles:
I am writing on behalf of the Montvue Park Residents
regarding the annexation, zoning and conditional use permit
applications submitted by E. L. Bows. On Nay 16, 1995, the
Meridian City council tabled these applications to allow Mr. Bews
to prepare certain studies regarding the proposed development,
including a traffic study and an environmental assessment. The
above applications were again tabled on June 20, 1995, to allow
additional time to perform the above tasks.
The Montvue Park Residents request that Mr. Bows
development applications be tabled again until August 22, 1995.
ACHD has completed and released an initial traffic study
regarding proposed developments in the vicinity of Franklin and
Eagle Roads. Based on requests submitted by the Montvue Park
Residents and St. Lukes .Regional Medical Center, ACED has
determined that additional time is necessary to study the complex
traffic issues related to the pending development applications.
A public hearing before the ACED Commissioners on the Bews#
application is now scheduled for August 9, 1995.
JUL 18 '95 11 28
2083859599 PAGE.02
-* 4--- r 6
Page - 2
July 18, 1995
Mr. sawn has submitted an environmental assessment and
related information to the Montvue Park Residents. We are in the
process of reviewing that information and will provide our
comments to Mr. Dews in the very near future_ We then plan to
meet with Mr. Bews, St. Lukes, and other interested parties to
address the concerns of the Montvue Park Residents. These tasks
will take time, but we in no manner intend to cause unnecessarily
delay to the proceedings of the Meridian City Council. Rather,
we believe that the E. L. Bews, development applications will
significantly impact the Montvue Park Residents_ The land use
issues involved are sufficiently c*mplax and controversial that
the parties Must be allowed additional time to review the
available information.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely.
AohncCreedy
JCM/tq
cc Larry Sale, ACED
Jon Gorski, St. Lukes
Wayne Forrey, E. L. Bews
Gary Fletcher, St. Lukes
JUL 18 '95 11:28 2083859599 PAGE.03
** TX CONF I RMAT I PREPORT ** AS OF JUL 18 '954022 PAGE.01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS
03 07/18 16:21 3844613 G3 --S 01'19" 002 060 OK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES RECEIVED
127Ab S o aline bane at LAW J U L 18 195
Solse, Idaho 83702.6870 CITY OF MERIDIAN
Jim Jones John McCmedy
XW= PM XZ-92oo
Twin FaDc On) Tj"30
July 1,
via Faz Tot 897-4813
The Honorable Grant Kingsford
Mayor
City of Meridian
Members of the City Council
city of Meridian
Shari stiles
Planning 4 Zoning Administrator
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
Far pm3t"M
Re: E. L. Bews' Development Applications
Dear Mayor Kingsford, City Council Members and Ms. stiles:
I an writing on behalf of the Nontvue park Residents
regarding the aunty ation, zoning and conditional use permit
applications submitted by E. L. Bows. on May 16, 1995, the
Meridian City Council tabled these applications to allow Mr. Bova
to prepare certain studies regarding the proposed development,
including a traffic study and an environmental assessment. The
above applications were again tabled on June 20, 1995, to allow
additional time to perform the above tasks.
The Montvus Park Residents request that Mr. Bewa'
development applications be tabled again until August 22, 1995.
ACRD ham completed and released an initial trafficatvA
regarding proposed developments in the vicinity of Franklin and
Eagle Roads. Based on requests submitted by the Montvue Park
Residents and St. Lukes Regional Medical center, ACRD has
determined that additional time is necessary to study the complex
traffic issues related to the pending development applications.
A public hearing before the ACHD commissioners on the Bows'
application i6 now scheduled for August 9, 1995.
JUL 18 '95 11=28 2083859599 PAGE.02
E.L. SEWS, CONTRACTOR
5206 SORRENTO CIRCLE • BOISE, IDAHO 83704
RECEIVED
JUL - 7 1995
5 July 1995 CITY OF MERIDIAN
Mayor Grant P. Kingsford and
City Council Members
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Ave:
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Mayor Kingsford and City Council Members:
On June 29, 1995, the Ada County Highway District {ACRD} held a Public Information
Meeting on the traffic study concerning public streets adjoining the St. Luke's West Medical
Center and my property. My representative, Wayne S. Forrey, was in attendance and informed
me that the residents of Montvue Subdivision would like more time to review the ACHD Traffic
Study and related documents to the St. Luke's development and my development.
At the request of Montvue Subdivision residents, we have prepared an Environmental
Assessment for my development and the Assessment has been provided to their designated
contact person. We plan on attending the July 13th Montvue Subdivision Neighborhood Meeting
to review the traffic study and Environmental Assessment with Montvue citizens.
I do not object to tabling action on my development request to your August 1, 1995, City
Council meeting. This will give all involved parties more time to review these documents.
Thank you for your understanding.
me
s
Property Owner
•
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Law
1275 Shoreline Lane
Boise, Idaho 83702-6870
Jim Jones
Boin: (208) 385-9200
Twin Fd1= (208) 734-3345
July 6, 1995
Via Paz To: 345-7650
James E. Bruce
Sherry R. Huber
Susan S. Eastlake
ACHD Commissioners
318 E 37th Street
Garden City, ID 83714
RECEIVED
J U L - 1 1995
CITY OF MERIDIAN
John McCreedy
Fu: (208) 385-9599
Re: E. L. Bews' Development Applications
Dear Commissioners Bruce, Huber and Eastlake:
I am writing on behalf of the Montvue Park residents to ask
ACHD to defer its consideration of the development applications
submitted by E. L. Bews until the Montvue Park residents have had
an adequate opportunity to review the traffic study of the St.
Lukes, Bews, and Thomas/Tullis properties produced by CH2M Hill
for ACHD. A review of recent actions and ACHD's current time
frame for processing this application demonstrates beyond
question that the due process rights of the Montvue Park
residents will be violated.
The Montvue Park residents have vested property rights that
will be injured by the construction of any public roads through
or adjacent to their subdivision. Mr. Bews has proposed a road
adjacent to the Montvue Park Subdivision and a stub to be located
into the subdivision, presumably for the purpose of some future
extension or expansion.
On March 16, 1995, the Montvue Park residents appeared
before the Meridian City Council and unanimously testified that
they could not have a meaningful opportunity to comment on the
proposed development unless and until a detailed planned unit
Page - 2 • •
July 6, 1995
development application and environmental study, including
traffic study, had been submitted and reviewed. The Montvue
residents specifically requested that a detailed traffic study be
commissioned to analyze the traffic impacts associated with the
proposed developments. The residents communicated their concerns
in writing to the Meridian City Council, the developer, and the
developer's representative, Wayne Forrey. The City Council
tabled the development applications of Mr. Bews until the studies
had been prepared and commented on by interested parties at a
formal public hearing. A second hearing scheduled for June 20
was again deferred because the required studies have not yet been
prepared.
On June 15, 1995, Mr. Forrey corresponded with the Montvue
residents and indicated that copies of a traffic study and
environmental assessment would be available on or about July 3,
1995. Mr. Forrey scheduled a neighborhood meeting for July 13,
1995, but did not inform the Montvue residents that the traffic
study and development application would be brought before the
ACHD Commissioners for decision on July 12, 1995. We have not yet
seen the environmental assessment.
Last week on June 29, 1995, the Montvue residents did have
an opportunity to meet with ACHD and to receive the traffic
study. However, that meeting was not particularly productive
because neither the ACHD staff nor the residents had an adequate
opportunity to review the study. I submitted a public records
request to ACRD on June 22, 1995, asking to examine the records
of ACHD regarding the development application. By law, the
request should have been answered within three (3) days but was
not answered until June 29, 1995. Many of the residents chose to
spend this past weekend enjoying their families over the Fourth
of July holiday. The point is that the Montvue residents have
not had an opportunity to review the records on file with ACHD
regarding the development applications and the draft and final
traffic studies.
We request that ACHD defer the staff meeting scheduled for
tomorrow morning at 11:30 a.m. for a period of two weeks, and
that the public hearing currently scheduled for July 12, 1995, be
deferred for a period of thirty (30) days. This will enable the
Montvue residents to examine the records on file with ACHD and
the traffic studies prepared by CH2M Hill.
I have been provided with a copy of a letter sent to ACHD by
Jon Gorski of Moffatt, Thomas on behalf of the St. Lukes Regional
Medical Center Ltd. It is clear that the Montvue residents are
not the only party that believes that the scheduled proposed by
ACHD for review of these development applications constitutes a
denial of due process. We respectfully request, and I believe
the law mandates, that ACHD provide the Montvue residents and all
other interested parties with substantial additional time, after
a staff report is issued, so that the public can review and
comment on this proposed development in a meaningful fashion.
Page - 3
July 68 1995
That is perhaps the key mission of ACRD, and we will be ready to
challenge any final decision made by ACHD without a full,
meaningful and worthwhile opportunity to comment, present
evidence, and have the input the law allows and requires. Thank
you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
?4&-YA+
John McCreedy
JCM/tg
cc Larry Sale
Montvue Park Residents/
Wayne Forrey
Meridian City Council/
Shari Stiles
Jon Gorski
190 East Bannock
Boise, Idaho St Lukds
83712
837126-2222 Regional Medical Center
Edwin E. Dahlberg
President rF
RECEIVED
July 13, 1995
J U L 1 7 1995
CITY OF MERIDIAN
James E. Bruce
Sherry R. Huber
Susan S. Eastlake
ACHD Commissioners
and
Jerry Nyman
Director, ACHD
318 E. 37th Street
Garden City, ID 83714
Re: E. L. Bews' Development Application/MCU-1-95
Dear Commissioners Bruce, Huber and Eastlake and Mr. Nyman:
We are contacting you in connection with the above -referenced application by E. L. Bews on property in
the vicinity of Franklin Road and the freeway near Eagle Road and the traffic studies being completed
in conjunction with this application and other developments in the area. The Bews property adjoins St.
Luke's property on the east side.
When St. Luke's purchased its property a few years ago, it had intended to develop a medical campus
over time. As St. Luke's planned and started construction of a medical office building, Mr. Bews
decided to seek annexation into the city of Meridian and change the zoning on his property. At the
public hearings before the city of Meridian, St. Luke's has expressed a concern over traffic issues and
requested that appropriate traffic studies be done. It became clear in the preliminary discussions that
either Mr. Bews or ACHD was planning a public road through St. Luke's property. St. Luke's opposes
this idea.
A traffic study is being conducted on behalf of ACHD by CH2M Hill. We have already expressed
concern to ACHD staff concerning the procedures proposed to be followed by ACRD and its staff in
reviewing these matters. St. Luke's believes that the development of this area requires thoughtful, long-
range planning, frankly not unlike the attention and resources devoted to the Bench -Valley
Transportation Study. St. Luke's has recently been informed by ACHD staff that a staff report would be
available on July 24 in time for a public meeting before the ACHD Commission on July 26. The
purpose of this letter is to request an extension of time from the time the staff report is issued until the
time in which you formally consider the traffic studies and Bews' application and make your
recommendations to the city of Meridian. It is unreasonable to give St. Luke's only 2-1/2 days to review
staff comments and the final report when staff has spent well over 30 days reviewing the project. If
ACHD is interested in soliciting meaningful public input, St. Luke's must have an opportunity to review
the final staff report and the final traffic study, ask appropriate questions for clarification, and offer
suggestions for alternatives that might be considered as extensions of the traffic studies. In addition, as
we understand it, the current traffic studies are being completed utilizing APA's current population and
planning model for this area. This model, for example, only calls for twenty new homes in the area
MOUNTAIN STATES TUMOR INSTITUTE - IDAHO'S HEALTH INFORMATION RETRIEVAL CENTER - ANDERSON CENTER - ANDERSON PLAZA MEDICAL BUILDING
ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL OFFICE PLAZA - MOUNTAIN STATES SURGERY CENTER - AFFILIATED WITH THE IDAHO ELKS REHABILITATION HOSPITAL
MEMBER OF THE VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS OF AMERICA (VHA) SYSTEM VHA
ACHD Commissioners, Mr. Nyman
July 13, 1995
Page 2
which is a fraction of what is being proposed. APA is currently updating this model and we therefore
recommend that the traffic studies not be completed until APA's model is updated and available.
As a result of these actions and the need for thoughtful, long-range planning, St. Luke's formally
requests that with respect to the above -referenced traffic studies and application of E. L. Bews, the
formal hearing before the ACHD Commissioners be held no less than thirty (30) days after the staff
formally submits it final report. However, the completion of any studies, reports and recommendations
should await the updated APA model and again, we request that no formal hearing be held no less
than thirty (30) days after the staff completes its report. St. Luke's would also request to be invited and
receive notices for all meetings of interested parties with respect to the above application and studies
so that no additional meetings are held without the presence of St. Luke's. Meetings or discussions
concerning traffic in the area cannot be meaningful without St. Luke's input. St. Luke's is certainly
willing to work with ACHD and the developer to discuss all the various options with regard to any
development change in zoning and traffic, but St. Luke's has not agreed to allow any public road
through its property. For some reason, this position was misrepresented at a July 7 meeting at ACHD
at which St. Luke's was not present; therefore, we have taken extra caution of writing you a formal
letter requesting this deferral so that these unfortunate circumstances do not arise again and St. Luke's
can be present to articulate its position at future meetings or hearings.
Sincerely,
Gary . Fletcher
Executive Vice President
GLF/wjp
cc: Meridian City Council and Mayor
E. L. Bews
John McCreedy
Jon Gorski
Jeff Hull
Larry Sale
.�k
JUL-18-1995 11:25 FROM JIM JONES
9
•
RECEIVED
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Law JUL 1 8 1995
1275 Shoreline Lane
Boise, Idaho 83702-6870 CITY OF MERIDIAN
Jim Jones John McCready
Balm PW 385 9UO
'tWW Fax CM) 73d- m
July 18, 1995
Via Fam TO: 887-4813
The Honorable Grant Kingsford Post.jr Fax Note
Mayor
Meridian 70
Co.IDept.
Members Of the City Council phone #
city of Meridian
Fax #
Shari Stiles
Planning a zoning Administrator
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
Fay (ZOS) 389599
Pa'Oesip
Date
7671
From
Co.
Phone #
FaX #
Re: E. L. Bews' Development Applications
Dear Mayor Kingsford, City Council Members and Ms. Stiles:
I an writing on behalf of the Montvue Park Residents
regarding the annexation, zoning and conditional use permit
applications submitted by E. L. Bows. On May 16, 1995, the
Meridian City council tabled these applications to allow Mr. Bows
to prepare certain studies regarding the proposed development,
including a traffic study and an environmental assessment. The
above applications were again tabled or June 20, 1995, to allow
additional time to perform the above tasks.
The Montvue Park Residents request that Mr. Bews'
development applications be tabled again until August 22, 1995.
ACHD has completed and released an initial traffic study
regarding proposed developments in the vicinity of Franklin and
Eagle Roads. Based on requests submitted by the Montvue Park
Residents and St. Lukes Regional Medical Center, ACRD halm
determined that additional time is necessary to study the complex
traffic issues related to the pending development applications.
A public hearing before the ACRD commissioners on the Bows$
application is now scheduled for August 9, 1995.
JUL 18 '95 11:2'8*''
2083859599 PAGE.02
JUL-18-1995 11:25 FROM JIM JONES
Page - 2
July 18, 1995
1
• 0
8874813 P.03/03
Mr. Bsws has submitted an environmental assessment and
related information to the Montvue Park Residents. We are in the
process of reviewing that information and will provide our
comments to Mr. Down in the very near future_ we then plan to
meet with Mr. Bevis, St. Lukes, and other interested parties to
address the concerns of the Montvue Park Residents. These tasks
will take time, but we in no manner intend to cause unnecessarily
delay to the proceedings of the Meridian City council. Rather,
we believe that the E. L. Bews' development applications will
significantly impact the Montvue park Residents. The land use
issues involved are sufficiently complex and controversial that
the parties must be allowed additional time to review the
available information.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
I ---'L
ohn McCreedy
JCM/tq
cc Larry Sale, ACRD
Jon Gorski, St. Lukes
Wayne Forrey, E. L. Bews
Gary Fletcher, St. Lukas
JUL 18 '95 1128
:2083859599 PAGE. 03
** TX CONFIRMAREPORT ** AS OF JUL 18 '91*:26 PAGE.01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS
04 07/18 16:25 208 887 6049 G3 --S 01'26" 002 062 OK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JIM JQONoES & Arnep SSOCIATES RECEIVED
1276 Shoreline Lana U 91995
Bolsa, Idaho 837o24870 aTy OF MERIDIAN
Jim Jones John McCready
Twit FAC (M) 73"36
July 18, 1995
Via Paz To: 867-4533
The Honorable Grant xingsford
Mayor
City of Meridian
Members of the city council
City of meridian
Shari Stiles
Planning A Boning Administrator
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
F= am iesm
Re, E. L_ Bows, Development Applications
Dear Mayor Kingsford, City council Members and Ms. stiles:
I am writing on behalf of the Xontvue park Residents
regarding the annexation, zoning and conditional use permit
applications submitted by E. L. Sews, on Nay 16, 1995, the
Meridian city council tabled these applications to allow Mr. Bows
to prepare certain studies regarding the proposed development,
including a traffic study and an environmental assessment. The
above applications were again tabled on June 20, 1995, to allow
additional time to perform the above tasks.
The Montvoe Paris Residents request that Dtr. BewaI
development applications be tabled again until August 22, 1995.
ACRD has completed and released an initial traffic study
regarding proposed developments in the vicinity of Franklin and
Eagle Roads. Based on requests submitted by the Montvue park
Residents and St. Lukes Regional Medical center, ACRD has
determined that additional time is necessary to study the complex
traffic issues related to the pending development applications.
A public hearing before the ACRD commissioners on the Sewat
application is now scheduled for August 9, 1995.
JUL iB '95 11 28 2083859599 PAGE.02
-JTM--JUqES i u
9 0
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES
Attiorneys at Law
9275 Shoreline Lane
Boise, Idaho 837024870
Jim Jones
Boi®e: cm 383 9200
TwmFaU : CM 734.3345
July 26, 1999
Via ?az To "7-6049
Wayne S. Torrey, AICD
52 Last Franklin
Meridian, ID 83642
John McCreedy
PWc Mo 385-"99
Re: B.L. Bows* Development Applications
Dear Mayne:
You mentioned in our phone conversation last vmak that Xr.
Bows was considering requesting that his development applications
be deferred until January, 1996. The Montvue Park residents are
wondering whether Mr. Hews has made a decision in that regard.
We are still in the process of reviewing the CH2X Hill traffic
study and the information you submitted. It does not seem to sake
such sense, however, to generate detailed comments if your client
intends to defer the application until next year. Please advise.
Thank you.
wnft
John McCreedy
JCN/tg
I',oc 4C -nM 2083859599 PAGE.02
i
is
COUNCIL MEMBERS
OFFICIALS
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk
A Good Place to Live
RONALD R. TOLSMA
MAX YERRINGTON
JANICE L. City Treasurer
D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer
CITY OF MERIDIAN
W ROBERT W. MORROW
GARY
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt.
33 EAST IDAHO
P & Z COMMISSION
DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt.
SHARI S. STILES, P & ZAdm.
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
JIM JOHNSON, Chairman
PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor
Phone (208) 888-4433 - FAX (208) 887 -4813
JIM SHEARER
JIM
KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief
Public Works/Budding Department (208) 887-2211
CHARLIE ROUNTREE
W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police ChiefMotor
Vehicle/Drivers license (208) 888-4443
TIM HEPPER
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attomey
GRANT P. K NGSFORD
MEMORANDUM
Mayor
TO:
Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor and Council
FROM:
Shan es, Planning & Zoning Administrator
DATE: August 15, 1995
SUBJECT: Council Meeting of August 15, 1995
The following are my recommendations for the items on the agenda tonight:
Item 1 - Bews Annexation and Zoning - This item should be tabled as ACHD has
still not received or acted on a traffic study for the new configuration
submitted (L -O park). In addition, the School District has expressed an
interest in the L -O park site as a new high school site, but I have heard
nothing from the Applicant on further development of that concept. A
development agreement is required as a condition of annexation.
Item 2 - Bews Conditional Use Permit - Same as Item 1, plus the fact that the
information submitted for a conditional use permit is incomplete and does
not meet the requirements of Section 11-9-607 of the Zoning and
Development Ordinance.
Item 3 - No comment.
Item 4 - Waterbury Park No. 5 Variance - The public hearing for a variance on
tiling the Creason Lateral needs to be held and Findings of
Fact/Conclusions of Law ordered if sufficient information is available at
this time. From a visit to the site today, it seems that a 48" pipe would
not accommodate the flow through this lateral.
Item 5 - Waterbury Park No. 5 Preliminary Plat - This item should be tabled to
wait for FF/CL on the variance and to ensure roadway alignment issues
are worked out with Joe Simunich. The stub street to the west has been.
moved from the north to the south.
Item 6 - Lake at Cherry Lane Nos. 5 & 6 - If no new FF/CL are required as a
result of public testimony given tonight, I would recommend that the
request for annexation and zoning to R-4, R-$ and R-15 be approved and
that an ordinance be prepared. Council will hold public hearing on plats
0
G46f)-c
JAMES E. BRUCE, President
SHERRY R. HUBER, Vice President
SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, Secretary
TO: E.L. Bews, Contractor
5206 Sorrento Cr
Boise, ID 83704
FROM: Karen Gallagher, Coordinator
Development Services Divisio
SUBJECT: MCU -1-95
Franklin Rd east Eagle Rd
December 1, 1995
Your application for the above referenced project was acted on by the Commissioners of the Ada
County Highway District on November 29,1995. The attached staff report lists conditions of
approval and street improvements which are required.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 345-7680.
KG
cc: Development Services
Chron
John Edney
Chuck Rinaldi
St. Luke's -Construction Office -190 E Bannock -83712
John McCreedy-960 Broadway -83706
City of Meridian Ada County Planning Wayne Forey-6045 Thayen P1-83709
La/0I5fI-,-
ada county highway district
318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714-6499 • Phone (208) 345-7680
ADATOUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
Development Services Division
Development Application Report
MCU -1-95 - Mixed use development
Franklin Road east of Eagle Road, City of Meridian
The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit for amixed-use planned
Road to
development
The 74 -acre site extends from the south side of Franklin south one -ha f of the
approximately one-quand is
arter mile to one-half mile east of Eagle Road.us This
site's west side borders the proposed St. Luke's RegionalMedical vehicle trips per day. Two traffic
development is estimated to generate up to 16,600 additional
een submitted for this application. Both studies indicate that the Eagle/Overland/
studies have b b development in the four
Franklin corridors will be seriously impacted y this and other anticipated
square Hole
area and that the planned roadway system will not be adequate to support the ultimate
level of development.
Roads directly impacted by this development:
Franklin Road - Principal arterial with no pathway designation
- Traffic count 10,170 in 1994 (e/o Eagle Road)
S.H. 55 (Eagle Rd) -Principal arterial 33 on 64/94 (s oe route esignation
Franklin)
- Traffic count 24,2
�••
1600
42UU
3
Tlu
sl
N
PINE ST. g
�_
=
o
�EM Q
W
N
>
W
J
<
O
d
�11
W
c7 S FRANKLIN
W
�g
8 D. resr
Izal_
EAST S
3300
4
g 200 8
ro 30
1600
= ST.I UKE15
55
RMC CRoNPas
Q
W
W
J
HWY.
44
0
OVERLAND
RD.
3300
4200
Q 30
FRANKUN
ACRD Commission Date - November 29, 1995 - 7:00 P.M.
?IM RC
0 g S moc
1IM
N
2-7
u r
n �j I a6
N2
U u _
r
�o q
W \Z �\ I N mI'
1 Q3 y Q
� U J
CLUl
CL
Lo
N
�r
04r.� a 0 N
G H
II
_
41 0
U N
°a
cll
J
U
CUc:
U N N _. L� �O c+1 (4
U
V)
W
ti•�
cv
2-7
u r
n �j I a6
N2
U u _
r
�o q
W \Z �\ I N mI'
Facts and Findings:
A. General Information
C -G - Requested zoning
74 - Acres
162 - Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)
West Ada - Impact Fee Benefit Zone
Western Cities - Impact Fee Assessment District
Franklin Road
Principal arterial with no pathway designation
Traffic count 10,170 in 1994 (e/o Eagle Road)
1120 -feet of frontage
80 -feet existing right-of-way abutting this site and the Montvue Park Subdivision
90 -feet required right-of-way
Franklin Road is improved with 28 -feet of pavement with curb, gutter or sidewalk.
B. The consideration of this application has been deferred by the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission until December 5, 1995.
C. On March 8, 1995, the Commission acted on a request for approval for a conditional use for a
conceptual mixed use planned development for this site. This approval included the following
special recommendation to the City of Meridian,
"Please require the preparation and submittal of a traffic study to the District to that
also considers the effects of the master plan for St. Luke's RMC. Prior to beginning
the traffic study coordinate with District staff."
A traffic study has been submitted, reviewed, and accepted by staff. Additionally, "A sub -
regional transportation study of the area around Eagle Road and I-84 interchange" was
completed by the Ada Planning Association (APA) at the District's request in conjunction with
the review of the Power Center/MCU-7-95, in the southeast quadrant of I-84 and Eagle Road.
D. The site plan under consideration is still conceptual. The land uses proposed for this
development are:
Commercial Retirement suites
General office Elderly care/nursing center
Planned business cluster Medical and professional office
Townhouse and patio homes Motel
Garden apartments Restaurant
The conceptual site plan shows two stub streets to the east to the Bairs and Thomas/Tullis
properties. Representatives of the Thomas/Tullis property have told DS staff that they intend
to have medical office uses and senior housing similar to that proposed by this application.
MCU -1-95
Page 2
0 •
Three stub streets tote west are also shown on the site plan. One of the stubs extends to the
Holloway property and the other two extend to the St. Luke's property. Representatives of St.
Luke's have expressed opposition to having two stub streets to maintain a "closed" campus.
E. The site includes the formerly platted Farmington Estates Subdivision (43 single family lots) that
was never developed. The applicant has received vacation of the plat by the City of Meridian.
The ACHD Commission acted on the vacation of the street right-of-way on April 26, 1995.
F. The site is currently undeveloped. It is inevitable that this site will develop for some intensive
medical associated land use. The site's location next to St. Luke's RMC and the interstate
highway makes it highly desirable for the type of land use being proposed. However, the site
only has frontage on Franklin Road which causes severe problems of traffic dispersal, because
only one route exists for vehicles to travel to I-84 - through the Eagle/Franklin intersection. Of
the 1,600 trips generated by this site during the p.m. peak hour, 60 -percent (960) are coming
from or going to I-84 (Figure 5). From a traffic circulation standpoint, it would be much better
if this site had direct access to Eagle Road. This report points out the problems that intensive
development of this property (and others in the area) will cause the local transportation system
in a rapidly developing rural area.
G. Access to the site from Interstate 84 is prohibited by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD).
Interstate 84 is under the jurisdiction of Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). The developer
is required to submit application materials to ITD for review and requirements of that
Department.
H. The site plan indicates a traffic signal on Franklin Road at the site's main access road. The
traffic study concurs that a signal may be warranted for this complex in the future and
recommends that it be located 1,760 -feet east of Eagle Road for optimum traffic efficiency.
The intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road is signalized. Currently, Franklin Road is
a 2 -lane roadway with an added left -tum lane at both legs of the Eagle Road intersection. Eagle
Road is a 5 -lane roadway both south and north of Franklin Road, with single left turn lanes on
both legs of the signalized Franklin Road intersection.
Traffic:
The sub -regional transportation study from APA estimated this site to generate 11,900 vpd. The
individual traffic study for this project estimated this application to generate 16,600; this number
includes a 10 -percent reduction in trips due to linked and/or multi-purpose trips with St. Luke's
RMC. The difference in the two numbers is also attributable to the detail of the land use
assumptions. The sub -regional analysis used generalized land uses such as office, general retail,
and R3 residential, whereas the individual traffic study had 10 separate land use categories and
corresponding trip rates, resulting in the higher volumes.
In contrast to the analysis conducted by APA, the St. Luke's/Bews, et al traffic analysis did not
assume that a Five Mile interchange would be built, as the development of the projects north of
I-84 seem to be likely regardless of the Bench -Valley outcome and results. Although that
analysis did not include the Five Mile interchange, it used the previously assumed APA 2015
MCU -1-95
Page 3
0
land use in the sub -regional area and the remainder of Ada County so the lower trip generation
in the surrounding area somewhat counterbalanced the lack of a Five Mile interchange. Thus,
the two studies yield similar and compatible results.
K. The key elements of the St. Luke's/Bews traffic analysis are summarized below:
The provision of an east -west connection between the Bews property and Eagle Road will
provide a significant improvement to the operation of the Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection.
However, the added traffic from the east -west connection across the St. Luke's property would
seriously degrade the operation of the St Luke's driveway intersection with Eagle Road. The
addition of this roadway would delay the need for an interchange at the Franklin/Eagle
intersection. The ultimate alignment of an east -west roadway connecting to Eagle Road at the
approximate location of the St. Luke's driveway intersection will depend on future land use and
development in the area. If a roadway intersection with Eagle Road is not located at the St.
Luke's driveway, St. Luke's could "tee" into this connecting roadway, that would probably be
constructed to collector standard and could warrant a traffic signal at its intersection with Eagle
Road. This roadway should be buffered from any adjacent single-family residential land use
existing when the roadway is constructed.
Findings and Recommended Construction:
On-site:
1. The planned multi -use development will include approximately 74 -acres of office,
commercial, residential uses.
2. The proposed project is forecast to generate 1,600 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour.
3. The proposed project is forecast to generate 16,600 daily vehicle trips.
4. A single, signalized intersection will provide access from Franklin Road to the access site.
5. The intersection of the site access road with Franklin Road will require three northbound
lanes and two south bound lanes.
6. The site plan proposed two stub streets to the east and three stub streets to the west.
(Staff anticipates an additional north -south roadway connection to Franklin Road from the
Bairs and Thomas/Tullis properties east of this site when they develop. This additional
connection will spread some the site traffic along Franklin Road).
Off-site - Franklin Road/Eagle Road
1. Of the 1,600 trips generated by this site during the p.m. peak hour, 60 -percent (960) are
coming from or going to I-84 (Figure 5).
2. Westbound Franklin Road will need an additional left -turn lane at the site access road
intersection.
3. The segment of Franklin Road between Eagle Road and the site access road will require
ultimate widening to six traffic lanes; two eastbound through lanes, two westbound left turn
lanes, and two westbound through lanes. However, a 5 -lane section will accommodate the
traffic forecast to be generated by this and adjoining development for several years. At
some time in the future as growth continues in this area, additional improvements to the
roadway system will be required.
4. The southbound approach of the Eagle Road/Franklin Road intersection will require
ultimate widening to include two left turn lanes.
MCU -1-95
Page 4
0 0
5. The northbound 'approach of the Eagle Road/Franklin Road intersection will require an
added right -turn lane.
6. The south and west legs of the Eagle Road/Franklin Road intersection will require widening
to match the added turn lanes north and east of the Eagle Road/Franklin Road intersection.
7. The west leg of the site access road/Franklin Road intersection will require widening to
match the added turn lane east of the intersection.
L. ACHD staff has analyzed the operation of the Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection and found
that it currently operates at LOS C, with an average delay of about 21 seconds per vehicle, and
uses about 35 percent of the intersection's capacity of critical volumes. (Critical volumes are
the specific intersection volumes that conflict with each other, e.g., the southbound left turns
conflict with the northbound through movements.) If this project is developed, and the
recommended improvements have been constructed, the forecast traffic volumes will exceed the
capacity of critical volumes of the intersection. If the project is developed with the
recommended improvements and a street connection to Eagle Road, the Franklin/Eagle
intersection will use 88 -percent of the capacity of critical volumes. Because the intersection
capacity used by this development cannot be replaced without constructing a grade -separated
interchange, staff recommends that the developer be required to construct the listed off-site
improvements and provide a public street connection to Eagle Road. The connection to Eagle
Road will delay the need for the grade -separated interchange at the Franklin Road/Eagle Road
intersection. The actual timing of the interchange will depend on the rate of build -out of the
subject project and other development in the area.
M. Based upon the submitted traffic study and District policy, staff recommends that the developer
be required to make the following roadway improvements that are necessary to accommodate
the site generated traffic in the short term, prior to the build out of the four square mile impact
area. These improvements will not replace the current unused capacity of critical volumes of
the Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection, but will delay the timing of the improvements needed
to effect the replacement, e.g., an interchange at the Franklin Road/Franklin Road intersection:
On-site:
1. A fully actuated traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Franklin Road and a
public site access road located 1,760 -feet east of Eagle Road.
2. The intersection of the site access road with Franklin Road will include three northbound
lanes and two south bound lanes.
3. Provide two stub streets to the west, one of which will be a public street connection to
Eagle Road and one into the Holloway property, north of the said street connection to Eagle
Road. The street connection to Eagle Road will not be extended east of the first north -south
road in the Bews property. It is not necessary that the street be constructed through the St.
Luke's property if an alternative route is determined to provide the same results. This
roadway should be buffered from adjacent single family land use existing at the time of its
construction. The buffering should consist of berms and landscaping consistent with the
City of Meridian's standards.
4. Provide a stub street to the east to the Thomas/Tullis property. This stub street will be
south of the street connection to Eagle Road.
5. Provide a stub street to the east to the Bairs' property.
MCU -1-95
Page 5
0 •
Off-site - Franklin Road/Eagle Road
1. Westbound Franklin Road will be constructed to include an additional left -turn lane at the
site access road intersection.
2. The segment of Franklin Road between Eagle Road and the site access road will be
constructed to include five traffic lanes; two eastbound through lanes, one westbound left
turn lane, and two westbound through lanes. This roadway section will be located within
the right-of-way so that the lanes will constitute the south 5 -lanes of the ultimate 6 -lane
section. The developer will be required to construct curb, gutter and sidewalk along the
south side (5 -foot wide sidewalk if detached from the curb, 7 -foot if attached).
3. The west leg of the Eagle Road/Franklin Road intersection will be re -constructed to match
the widening east of the intersection.
4. The northbound approach of the Eagle Road/Franklin Road intersection will be re-
constructed to include an added right -turn lane.
Sub -Regional Transportation Study
N. The Power Center application/MCU-7-95 was before the Commission on June 14, 1995. At that
meeting, the Commission deferred action on MCU -7-95 and requested Ada Planning Association
(APA) to conduct a sub -regional land use/transportation analysis of the four square miles
surrounding the Power Center, including this site. That analysis was completed by APA on
August 1, 1995. The volumes of traffic forecast by the APA study to be generated within the
four square mile area are shown in Table 4, immediately following the maps at the front of this
report and its findings have been summarized by District staff as follows:
The analysis was requested by ACHD in response to the Power Center application, the St.
Luke's project adjacent to this proposed project, the Bews application, and other anticipated
developments in the Eagle Road corridor. The conceptual plans for the referenced properties
indicate a much higher level of development than is assumed in the Long Range Transportation
Plan. The purpose of the transportation analysis was to determine the transportation impacts of
these planned developments and determine the amount of additional roadway improvements that
may be needed to accommodate those impacts. On August 23, 1995, the Commission acted on
the Power Center application (MCU -7-95), incorporating the following findings from the APA
study in its deliberations:
1. The conceptual planning area represents approximately four square miles (2,560 acres),
including the entire area bounded by Locust Grove Road, Franklin Road, Cloverdale Road
and Victory Road. Approximately 150 acres (6% of the total) are undevelopable, including
the I-84 corridor, canals, and flood plains.
2. The 2015 forecas trip generation from the entire area is estimated at 272,500 daily vehicle
trips. This is roughly equivalent to 27,000 single family homes or seven Boise Town
Square Malls. The forecast trip generation was based on a land use scenario developed by
E.J. Smith and Associates under contract to APA and reviewed by ACHD staff, City of
Meridian staff and some officials, and APA staff. The analysis assumed that the entire area
MCU -1-95
Page 6
would be built ou�y 2015. Maps 5 and 6 show the trattic in the study area now and in
20 years assuming full build out of the study area.
This is an extremely aggressive land use assumption and build -out schedule. It includes
designations by the adopted Meridian Comprehensive Plan, known or approved
developments and some developments that are in the "talking" stage.
3. This project will generate 4.4 percent of the total traffic in the study area by year 2015, but
occupies only 2.9 percent of the land area.
4. APA's modeling effort used the Bench to Valley Transportation Study network which
included the Five Mile Road interchange The roadway volume forecast in the Eagle Road
corridor will increase over the estimated traffic volumes in this report if the Five Mile
interchange is not constructed.
The Five Mile interchange was included in the network assumption because this system
improvement would be necessary to support the proposed high level of development and its
resulting traffic. The Bench/Valley network used in the analysis is the proposed network
developed as a result of the March 2, 1995, community -wide meeting, and it is essentially
equivalent to several versions that are currently under consideration. With respect to this
area of the County, it is most important to note the Five Mile interchange assumption. it
is not feasible to consider such an intense sub regional development without a Five Mile
interchange
5. Eagle Road and Franklin Road are principal arterials. ACHD Traffic Services staff ran
computer analyses of the operation of the Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection analyzing
its current operation, its operation with this project and the St. Luke's site, and its operation
with this project plus the full build out of the four square mile impact area. The results of
that analysis indicate that the Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection currently operates at
LOS C or better, having less than 21 seconds of average delay per vehicle and uses
approximately 35 -percent of its capacity of critical volumes. Both the Franklin Road/Eagle
Road and Overland Road/Eagle Road intersections fall below Level of Service D using any
conventional intersection and arterial roadway design with the level of regional development
assumed by the APA study.
Assuming full build out of the four square mile impact area withou this project, the
Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection will require additional lanes but will operate at LOS
D, with an average delay of 38 seconds per vehicle. Adding the forecast traffic from this
project and the aforementioned improvements to the Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection,
the intersection will operate worse than the described range of LOS F, with an average
delay of greater than 70 seconds per vehicle. Extensive roadway widening and some form
of grade separated interchanges would be required to attain level of service (E or better) at
the Eagle Road/Franklin Road and Eagle Road/Overland Road intersections.
6. The costs of the grade separated intersection improvements ($5 million to $8 million per
intersection) would be the predominant extra -ordinary cost of the high level of development
being considered in the area if right-of-way for major roadway widening is obtained with
MCU -1-95
Page 7
development and mitigation requirements do not escalate between the time of the adjacent
development and the construction of the ultimate roadway section.
7. The APA analysis indicates that Eagle Road will have 57,000 trips per day along the one
mile plus segment from south of Overland Road to north of Franklin Road, requiring
widening to a minimum of eight lanes.
8. Traffic on Franklin Road will exceed 25,000 trips per day east of Eagle Road and will
require widening to five lanes for most of its length. Severe problems with left turns at the
Eagle Road intersection (westbound to southbound) will also require some form of special
intersection treatment. The special treatment will probably require a grade separated
intersection.
9. Franklin Road west of Eagle Road will have 23,000 trips per day upon build out of the
impact area, including the traffic from the Bews site, and will require four through lanes
and left turn lanes at public street intersections.
O. The build -out of this project, the ensuing spin-off development in the immediate area, and the
anticipated longer term development in the four square mile impact area will negatively impact
the District's Five Year Work Program, if currently acceptable levels of service are to be
maintained, and will create a need for transportation system improvements that are currently
unanticipated and for which funding has not been identified. These findings must be established
and adopted as a basis for the imposition of extraordinary impact fees.
P. Based on the need for these unanticipated roadway improvements, it would follow that some
form of extraordinary impact fee or construction should be required to fund the offsite roadway
improvements needed to make the system operate at the current level of service, or that the
needed improvements be constructed by the developers of the impacting projects. Eagle Road,
which requires widening to eight lanes, is not eligible for the expenditure of extraordinary fees
that might be imposed by the District.
Q. Facilities Financing Districts are used in other states to finance a combination of state, local and
private roadway improvements. This would be extremely helpful in this (and other) cases, but
cannot be done without special authorization by the Idaho Legislature.
R. The impact fee ordinance allows the developer to prepare an individual assessment and
potentially obtain a substantial reduction of the regular impact fee, because of the usage of the
Interstate Highway and State Highway systems by some customers of this project to make part
of the trip to this development. Although some of the volume of traffic to and from the site will
use I-84 and Eagle Road for most of the length of the trips, the turning movements that are
necessary to get from the site back to 1-84 will cause serious degradation of the level of service
and exhaustion of existing capacity of critical volumes at the Franklin Road/Eagle Road
intersection.
MCU -1-95
Page 8
Alternative Actions: •
0
1. Adopt and impose an extraordinary impact fee for all development within the four square mile
affected area. This may tend to drive the development to other locations, causing problems
there. Another disadvantage of extraordinary impact fees is that they are collected over a long
period of time, when the improvement they are to pay for may be needed immediately. This
would require additional accounting efforts and commitments of staff time to account for the
special fees.
The extra -ordinary impact fee could be calculated by either of the following methods:
i. Compute the total estimated cost of the off-site improvements that are required to maintain
an acceptable LOS and divide by the total number of estimated trips in the four square mile
impact area). The result would be applied to each land use as development was being approved
as a fee for each forecast vehicle trip generated by the proposed use.
A staff estimate indicates that the cost of needed improvements in the area is $27 million and the
number of trips is 272,500, resulting in an extraordinary impact fee of $99.08 per trip. Relating
this to actual land uses, a single family dwelling would have an extraordinary impact fee of
$990.80 in addition to the regular impact fee of $900 ($687 if smaller than 1500 square feet).
A 30,000 square foot office building would have an extraordinary impact fee of $36,248 in
addition to a regular impact fee of $95,250 A 3,000 square foot convenience store would have
an extraordinary impact fee of $131,834 in addition to the regular impact fee of $27,729. This
is the method used in the calculation of the regular impact fee and assigns the fee to the source
of travel demand.
ii. The cost of the off-site improvements could be divided by the number of developable acres
of land in the impact area. The result would be assessed on each acre of land as it is developed.
This would place an unfair share of the cost on residential development, or eliminate any land
uses with low traffic generation rates. ($27,000,000 / 2406 acres = $11,220 / acre = $2805
/ dwelling, at four dwellings per acre).
2. Require the construction by this developer now, of the off-site improvements that are needed in
the four square mile area to accommodate the anticipated traffic needs of the future development
that would impact Franklin Road, since that is the only road to which the project would take
access, then use regular or extra -ordinary impact fees over the long term of growth to reimburse
the developer for his cost. The developer would be reimbursed for some or all of the
construction costs, but may have to absorb the cost of carrying the expense until he is totally
reimbursed. This action would be in lieu of establishing an extraordinary impact fee for the
area.
A variation of this option would be to require developers of property abutting the four arterial
roads in the four square mile impact area to install additional system improvements along those
roadways and be reimbursed from regular impact fees collected from any development within
the West Ada Benefit Zone. This is allowed by the impact fee ordinance and is currently being
used by the District to finance capacity improvements. Franklin Road from Cloverdale to
Meridian and Eagle Road from Overland to Victory are currently qualified by the Capital
MCU -1-95
Page 9
Imnrovements Plan Athe use of impact fee revenue. Victo Road along the south boundary
of the impact area is not currently eligible for the use of impact fee revenue to increase capacity
because the CIP does not anticipate this level of development in this area. The Commission
amends the CIP annually to recognize changed conditions in the County and this roadway could
be qualified for the use of impact fee revenue if the need is justified.
This option would require additional staff time and accounting as described in A. above. It
would provide the needed improvements as development occurs and assess the costs of those
improvements to the developments causing the need.
3. Form a Local Improvement District (LID) to finance the construction of the off-site
improvements and assess either extra -ordinary impact fees or the usual property tax liens to pay
off the cost of the improvement. This would require the cooperation and cost of some
landowners that may not have plans to develop their property and it would cost all owners the
same per unit of land regardless of the ultimate use of their property. However it would provide
all of the improvements needed to meet the anticipated impacts prior to all the development
occurring. The cost to be financed would approximate the cost of the extraordinary impact per
acre under Lii. above ($27,000,000 / 2406 acres = $11,220 per acre).
4. Accept the responsibility to meet the challenge created by the intensive development that is
forecast in this area and fund whatever level of roadway improvements are affordable using the
revenue currently available to the District and accept a deficient Level of Service until needed
improvements can be funded and constructed. The regular impact fees from the forecast
development will be a substantial sum, but will be collected as the traffic is being generated and
will not provide sufficient time between the need for the improvements and the construction.
Project design, right-of-way acquisition and construction usually require a minimum of three
years for a District sponsored improvement project. This situation could last several years,
while the District was trying to build itself out of the shortfall.
The developer of the proposed Power Center project estimated the regular impact fee revenue
to be generated by the level of development forecast by APA in the four square mile impact area
to be $22 million at build out. Staff agrees with this amount, based on current published trip
lengths and network adjustment -factors. However, using new trip length and network
adjustment data provided by APA, ACHD staff calculated the amount of regular impact fee to
be $16,700,000, if the area develops according to the land use scenario developed by APA.
ACHD staff estimated the cost of accommodating the traffic from the same level of development
at $27 million, including:
• two grade separated intersections for Eagle Road at Overland Road and Franklin Road,
• widening Overland Road and Franklin Road to five lanes between Cloverdale Road and Locust
Grove Road,
• widening Victory Road to three lanes between Cloverdale Road and Locust Grove Road,
• widening Eagle Road to five lanes from Overland Road to Victory Road.
A variation of this option would be modified impact fee offset agreements with developers as
they construct their projects, requiring improvements to the system that are near their
development. The difference between these and regular impact fee offset agreements would be
MCU -1-95
Page 10
that reimbursement toothe developer would be deferred untie revenue was available from
other development within the impact area. Again, the developer would be required to absorb
the interest on his money until he was reimbursed. That would be his contribution to the
solution of the problem, in lieu of an extra -ordinary impact fee. No mechanism is available to
reimburse the developer if the other proposed developments never occur.
5. Pursue enabling legislation to allow "partnering" between the State (ITD), ACHD and private
parties within an impact area to provide joint funding for the required improvements. Staff
recommends that this legislation be pursued anyway, whether this development occurs or not.
6. Recommend denial of the application on the basis that the development will exceed the ability
of the Highway District to maintain current levels of service on the impacted roadways and
intersections. This action ignores the likelihood that this property and the surrounding property
will eventually be developed for some intensive form of land use, with or without the District's
approval.
7. Accept the project with the regular impact fee revenue that will be collected, recommending to
the City of Meridian that the developer be required to construct the site related improvements
to Franklin Road and to the Franklin/Eagle intersection, including the additional lane(s) on each
leg of the intersection. This action will partially replace the lost unused capacity at the
intersection and will further inhibit future growth in the area, because of the deficient LOS.
An alternative to this option would be to establish the four square mile area as a separate impact
fee benefit zone and commit all of the impact fee revenue from the new zone to construct arterial
improvements only within the zone as development occurs along them. This action would alter
the schedule of capacity improvement projects in the balance of the Meridian area, since it would
take revenue that currently go to the construction of those projects.
8. As in 7, above, accept the project with the regular impact fee revenue that will be collected, but
require the developer to prepare a Traffic Impact Study that identifies "thresholds" of
development related traffic generation and attach construction requirements to those thresholds
that will maintain an acceptable level of service in the area. This may require lowering the
acceptable level of service within the impacted area to LOS `D', rather that LOS `C' that is the
current accepted LOS.
9. Require developers of property abutting the four arterial roads in the four square mile impact
area to install additional system improvements along those roadways as they develop their
property and be reimbursed from extraordinary impact fees imposed on the properties in h
interio of the sections. This would result in spreading the cost of the improvements among all
the properties in the impact area as they developed, and the needed improvements would be
provided more quickly than the District could program, design and construct them if they were
to be done as District sponsored projects.
10. Require the developers of all property in the impact area (and District wide) to replace a pro -rata
share of the then available unused capacity of all intersections and roadways. The unused
capacity would be quantified including a reserve for background District wide traffic and
MCU -1-95
Page 11
adjusted downward afeach property in the effected area is developed, so there would be no
unused capacity in the system when the area is 100 percent developed.
Recommended Alternative:
Consistent with the Commission's action on MCU -7-95 (Power Center), staff recommends that a
combination of Alternatives 8 and 10 be adopted for this and future applications in the area. Accept the
development(s), requiring the developers to make whatever site related improvements to the system are
necessary to mitigate their site related impacts,nuc replace all possible unused capacity in the system
that their development uses up (short of a grade separated interchange).
Also require the preparation and submittal of a special Traffic Impact Study that establishes thresholds
of site related traffic generation that require specific roadway improvements. These improvements may
include the added lanes on Franklin, improvement of the Franklin/Eagle intersection, or the construction
of the connection to Eagle Road. The development will be approved in stages, tied to the thresholds
of traffic generation described by the Traffic Impact Study. The developer can control his own rate and
extent of development and expenditures. If one or more of the required construction activities seems
infeasible, the developer does not have to construct that threshold of development.
Use regular impact fee revenue to make needed capacity improvements as funds are available and as the
Commission budgets funds for the improvements. This will result in the public having to cope with
deficient levels of service in some cases until revenue is available to make the required improvements.
Staff Recommendation:
If the application is approved, the following requirements should be forwarded to Meridian as conditions
for approval.
Site Specific Requirements:
1. Prepare a Traffic Impact Study that establishes thresholds of development related traffic
generation to which specific roadway improvements will be related. The developer shall not
complete a phase until the required roadway improvements identified by the Traffic Impact Study
for that phase have been constructed.
2. This approval is for the conceptual plan only. Approval of additional phases will require
additional conditional use permit or subdivision applications that are related to the Traffic Impact
Study identified above. Specific development proposals (building permits, conditional uses,
subdivision plats, etc.) for the 74 -acre site shall be individually reviewed and approved by the
District and requirements identified by the Traffic Impact Study or by the District may be added
by the District at those times.
3. When warranted, install a fully actuated traffic signal at the intersection of the site access road
and Franklin Road, with design and construction acceptable to the District. As an alternative,
the developer may elect to deposit $70,000 to the Public Rights -of -Way Trust Fund and the
District will install the traffic signal when it is warranted.
MCU -1-95
Page 12
4. When indicated by the Traffic Impact Study, westbound Franklin Road shall be constructed to
include an additional left -tum lane at the site access road intersection.
5. When indicated by the Traffic Impact Study, the segment of Franklin Road between Eagle Road
and the site access road shall be constructed to include five traffic lanes; two eastbound through
lanes, one westbound left turn lane, and two westbound through lanes. The District will acquire
right-of-way along Franklin Road necessary for this widening (except along the frontage of this
property).
6. The west leg of the Eagle Road/Franklin Road intersection shall be widened to match the
widening east of the intersection.
7. The northbound approach of the Eagle Road/Franklin Road intersection shall be constructed to
include an added right -turn lane.
8. When indicated by the Traffic Impact Study, acquire right-of-way for and construct a public road
from the project site to Eagle Road, at a location acceptable to Ada County Highway District.
The developer will not be compensated for this expense. Design of the roadway will include
buffering in the form of berms and landscaping of any adjacent single family residential land use
existing at the time of the construction. Design of the landscaping buffer shall meet the
objectives and plans of the City of Meridian. Coordinate location and design of the roadway
with the District's Traffic Services staff and ITD. The construction of this connection will effect
the timing of the construction of the improvements on Franklin Road, in that the connection
could offset some additional capacity on Franklin Road. The Traffic Impact Study required
above will include recommendations for the schedule of all required off-site improvements.
9. Provide the following stub streets. Locations to be coordinated with the District's Development
Services and Traffic Services staff.
a. Provide a stub street east to the Bairs' property line.
b. Provide a stub street east to the Thomas/Tullis property line. This stub street shall be south
of the street connection to Eagle Road.
c. Provide two stub streets to the west, one for the street connection to Eagle Road and one
into the Holloway property, north of the said street connection.
10. Dedicate 45 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Franklin Road abutting the parcel (5
additional feet) and abutting the parcel. The owner not will be compensated for this additional
right-of-way. The additional right-of-way would not otherwise be required for several years
without the development of this parcel, therefore it is a project related impact, not reimbursable
under either the District's ordinance or the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act.
11. Locate the public access road to the site 1,760 -feet east of Eagle Road. The intersection of the
site access road with Franklin Road will include three northbound lanes and two south bound
lanes.
MCU -1-95
Page 13
12. . Dedicate a 25' x 25'10iangle (or appropriate curve) of right-of-way at both corners of the
Franklin Road/site access road to keep the street improvements in the public right-of-way. The
owner will not be compensated for this additional right-of-way.
13. Construct pedestrian ramps on the corner of Franklin Road and the main site access road in
compliance with Idaho Code, Section 40-1335.
14. Locate proposed sign(s) out of the public right-of-way and out of the clear -vision sight -triangle
of all street and driveway intersections.
15. Construct 5 -foot sidewalk on Franklin Road abutting the parcel. Coordinate location with the
District's Development Services staff.
16. Direct lot or parcel access to Franklin Road is prohibited.
17. None of the roadway improvements described above will be eligible for impact fee offset or
reimbursement.
18. Comply with requirements of ITD for Interstate Highway 84 and Eagle Road frontage. Submit
to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements.
Standard Requirements:
A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall
be made in writing to the Development Services Supervisor. The request shall specifically
identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation of why such a
requirement would result in a substantial hardship or inequity.
Requests received prior to the date scheduled for Commission action shall be rescheduled for
discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda.
2. A request for an appeal of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Development
Services Supervisor within 15 calendar days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of
$110.00. The appeal will be scheduled to be heard by the Commission within 20 calendar days
after receipt. The request for appeal shall specifically identify each requirement to be
reconsidered and include a written explanation of why such a requirement would result in a
substantial hardship or inequity.
3. A right-of-way permit must be obtained from ACHD for any street or utility construction within
the public right-of-way. Utility cuts should be combined where practical to limit pavement
damage. Contact Construction Services at 345-7667 (with zoning file number) for details.
4. Submit site drainage plans and calculations for review and appropriate action by ACHD prior
to issuance of building permit (or other required permits). The proposed drainage system shall
retain all storm water on-site and shall conform to the requirements of the City of Meridian.
MCU -1-95
Page 14
Public street drainage tpcilities shall be located in the public f-of-way or in a common lot
owned by a homeowners association set aside specifically for that use. There shall be no trees,
fences, bushes, sheds, or other valuable amenities placed in said easement. Drainage lots and
their use restrictions shall be noted on the plat (when applicable).
5. Locate driveway curb cuts a minimum of 5 -feet from the side lot property lines when driveways
are not being shared with the adjacent property.
6. Construct pedestrian ramps on the corner of all street intersection in compliance with Idaho
Code, Section 40-1335.
7. Dedicate a 20' x 20' right-of-way triangle (or appropriate curve to keep street improvements
within the public right-of-way) at all intersections abutting and/or within the development prior
to issuance of building permit (or other required permits).
8. Continue existing irrigation and drainage systems across parcel.
9. Continue borrow ditch drainage abutting parcel (culvert may be required).
10. Provide written approval from the appropriate irrigation/drainage district authorizing storm
runoff into their system.
11. If street improvements are proposed, locate obstructions (utility facilities, irrigation and drainage
ditches and appurtenances, etc.) outside of the public right-of-way, as may be required by the
District. Authorization for relocations shall be obtained from the appropriate entity.
12. Install a stop sign on every unsignalized approach of a project street to an intersection involving
a collector or arterial as the cross -street. The stop sign shall be installed when the project street
is first accessible to the motoring public.
13. The developer is required to install street name signs at the locations approved by the Ada
County Highway District. Purchase street name signs, sign poles, and mounting hardware from
ACHD's Traffic Operations Department or an approved outside supplier. The District will not
manufacture street signs until a copy of the recorded plat showing the recording data has been
provided to Development Services staff.
14. Provide a clear vision sight triangle at all street intersections. Within this triangle no obstruction
higher than 36 -inches above the top of pavement will be allowed, including landscaping, berms,
fences, walls or shrubs. The triangle shall be defined by the long leg measured down the
centerline of any collector 350 -feet; and the short leg measured down the centerline from the
collector street curb line 20 -feet. Provide notes on the plat and street construction plans of these
restrictions.
15. Submit three sets of street construction plans to the District for review and appropriate action.
16. Provide design data for proposed access to public streets for review and appropriate action by
ACRD.
MCU -1-95
Page 15
13
0
W
17. All public streets and drainage systems shall be designed and constructed in conformance with
District standards and policies.
18. Specifications, land surveys, reports, plats, drawings, plans, design information and calculations
presented to ACHD shall be sealed, signed and dated by a Registered Professional Engineer or
Professional Land Surveyor, in compliance with Idaho Code, Section 54-1215.
19. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit
(or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes.
20. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable
requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy.
Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Development Services Division
at 345-7662.
Submitted by:
Development Services Staff
Date of Commission Approval:
November 29, 1995
MCU -1-95
Page 16
E.L. BEWS, CONTRACTOR
5206 SORRENTO CIRCLE • BOISE, IDAHO 83704
USC 0 1 1995
CATY 0� �
30 November 1995
Mayor Grant P.' Kingsford
and City Council
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Mayor Kingsford and Council Members: '
I understand that my Annexation and Zoning request and Conditional Use Permit request
is scheduled for action by the City Council at your December 5, 1995 meeting.
I ani writing to ask that you table my Annexation and Zoning request and Conditional Use
Permit request to be acted on at your December 19, 1995, Meridian City Council meeting.
Several of n y associates and I, will be out of town next Tuesday, Deceiiiner 5th, and we feel it is
necessary for us to be ill attendance at this meeting.
Thank you for tabling our application to your December 19, 1995 City Council agenda.
-ei= -
E. L. -•s
Copies T o:
Montvue Subdivision Representative
St. Lukes Regional Medical Center
Thornas J Tullis Property
Bair Property
FEB -14-1996 14:47 FROM TO MERIDIAN CITY P.01
�pGINEER11yG
BRIGGS
ING
February 14, 1996
.
FEB 1 4' 1996
Ms: Shi�ri. Stiles, '
City of M, eridianCITY DI: MERIDIAN
33 E. Idaho AVenue
IVIIendia6, Idaho 5:3642
Ike: Ed Bews Annexation'8 Conditional Use Permit
Franklin Road Property
Dear Shari:
This letter is a formal request to defer any scheduling of a new Planning and Zoning
Commission healring until further' notice. The applicant, Mr. Ed Bews, requires
additional time to'evaluate the site plan which Briggs Engineering prepared while Mr.
Bews was in Arizona. Once Mr. Bews is satisfied with the site plan, I will meet with St.
Luke's Hospital representatives and the neighborhood representatives. I will then
notify the City4o!schedule the application for a new public hearing.
Sihcer�ly,
0RIGGS; ENGINEERING, INC.
Becky L. wcutt
Land Use Planner
i
961202
i
I
1111S. chard, Suite 600 • Polse, Idaho 83705 • (208) 344-9700 Fax# (208) 345-2950
TOTAL P.01
FEB 14 '96 13:50 PAGE.01
•
E.L. BEWS, CONTRACTOR
5206 SORRENTO CIRCLE • BOISE, IDAHO 83704
Mr. Jim Johnson, Chairman
and Commission Members
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Dear Chairman Johnson and Commission Members:
1J
RECEIVED
07 November 1994
NOV - 7 1994
Y OF MERIDIAN
On June 14, 1994 the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public
hearing on my property annexation request with Health Service (HS) zoning. The Commission
tabled my annexation and zoning request to November 7, 1994 to allow time for the City to
update your Zoning Ordinance to include a HS Zone.
It is my understanding that the City needs some more time to prepare the Health Service
Zoning Amendment for the Saint Lukes Property and my property. I do not object to tabling my
annexation request again, .. but if there is anything I can do to help expedite this zoning
amendment, please let me know.
0
E.L. BEWS, CONTRACTOR
5206 SORRENTO CIRCLE • BOISE, IDAHO 83704
0
June 13, 1994
Mayor Grant P. Kingsford
Chairman Jim Johnson, Planning and Zoning Commission�����
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Avenue JUN 14 1994
Meridian, Idaho 83642 Cj-14 t)f MLiULAAN
Dear Mayor Kingsford and Chairman Johnson:
I have been working closely with St. Lukes Regional Medical
Center to coordinate our Master Planning process. We are now
discussing various options to jointly develop my property and the
hospital's property. We are even exploring alternatives that could
increase the acreage of the Medical Center Campus.
I am requesting that the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council change my annexation and zoning
request from Mixed Planned Use Development (MPUD) zone, to the
proposed Health Service (HS) zone. I understand that the city does not
yet have a HS zone, but I am willing to wait until the proper zoning is in
place in order to proceed with planned development.
I am also requesting that you proceed with the St.. Luke's
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the Limited Office zone and then update
your Zoning Ordinance to include the proposed HS zoning on the
balance of St. Luke's property plus my property. I do not object to
tabling my annexation request at the City Council hearing level until you
prepare the necessary ordinance amendments. I prefer to continue
through the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing process with
approval subject to the HS zone when the ordinance is amended.
Hopefully this can occur.
I look forward to working with each of youl
cc: Shari Stiles
actor
E.L. BEWS, CONTRACTOR
5206 SORRENTO CIRCLE r5QJtj &� F199Y04
19 5i;�t / S,—
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, IU 83642
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission Members:
This Conditional Use Application is for 70.4 acres of my property which is located next to
the approved St. Luke's West Medical Center location. The general location of my property is
between Franklin Road and 1-84 directly east of the St. Luke's site.
This Conditional Use Application is the result of a meeting I attended on February 1,
1995, with Mayor Grant P. Kingsford, Gary Fletcher of St. Luke's Hospital, Wayne S. Forrey, Bill
Davis, -and myself. We discussed my annexation application which was originally submitted to the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on June 14, 1994. This application is currently tabled
waiting for the city to create a new Health Services zoning designation.
Because of pressing business opportunities available to Meridian at this site, everyone at
the meeting agreed it would be best to modify my annexation application request from Health
Services (H -S) to Commercial General (C -G) including a Conditional Use Permit Application
with a list of anticipated land uses at the site. This is the same process that the City used to
approve the mix of land uses at the St. Luke's property.
It is my understanding that the City needs more time to update your Zoning Ordinance and
prepare a new "Health Services and "Mixed Planned Use Development" zoning designation. By
proceeding now with a conditional use permit, including a list of anticipated land uses, we can
move forward and attract new business to Meridian. At some point in the future, we may want to
rezone this property to Health Services or Mixed Planned Use Development depending on your
future Ordinance revisions. However, at this point in time, I am ready to proceed with annexation
to Commercial General (C -G) zoning with a ccaiditional use permit allowing the list of anticipated
land uses as outlined in my application. I look forward to processing this Conditional Use
Application and getting back to work with the Planning and Zoning Commission on my
annexation and zoning request.
Thank you for your help!
FF00-, I �
Property Owner
• •
Administrator, If, in the sole discretion of the Zoning
Administrator, the changes do not substantially effect the
interests of those persons entitled to notice by mail, the
Zoning Administrator may allow the changes to be made
without requiring that the application be refiled and re -
noticed. Alterations, amendments, or modifications that
increase the amount of land or change the zoning district,
the use of the property, the density, increase the impact
on surrounding property, etc., shall be considered as
substantial changes and shall require the application to be
refiled and re -noticed. If the application does not need to
be refiled or re -noticed no additional filing fees shall be
required. If the application is required to be re -noticed
additional fees for re -mailing and republication shall be
required. If the application is required to be refiled an
additional filing fee shall be required.
2-405 J MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT OF APPROVED APPLICATION OR USE
All applications for amendment, alteration or modification of an
approved application or use shall be treated as an initial
application and must be processed in the same fashion and under
the same procedures as an initial application. (Ord. 592,
11-17-92)
2-406 NON -CONFORMING BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND USES
2-406 A INTENT
It is the intent of this Ordinance to permit conforming uses. All
applications for the enlargement, expansion, extension of non-
conforming uses or all applications for the addition of other
structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district
shall be subject to the Conditional Use procedures of Section
2-418 of this Ordinance. (Ord. 430, 4-2-84)
193 -34-
E
NOTICE IS HERESY GIVEN that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission of
the City of Meridian, Idaho will hold a Special meeting at City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, on Tuesday, May 31, 1994 at 7:00 P.M. The Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission will be hearing the following items:
• Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for West One Rezone
• Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for G.L. Voight Annexation Request
• Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for St. Luke's Regional Medical
Center Annexation Request
• Public Hearing: Request for Annexation and zoning with a Preliminary Plat
for Hartford Subdivision
• Public Hearing: Request for Annexation and Zoning with a Preliminary Plat
for Fawcett's Meadows No. 2
• Public Hearing: Request for Annexation and zoning with a Preliminary Plat
for Ramble Wood Subdivision
• Public Hearing: Request for Annexation and zoning with a Preliminary Plat
for Chamberlain Estates Subdivision No. 2
• Public Hearing: Request for a Preliminary Plat for Bedford Place Subdivision
• Public Hearing: Request for an Accessory Use Permit for a Family Day Care
by Stacie Ybarra
The Public is welcome to attend.
DATED this 6th day of May, 1994.
IF
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CIT CLERK
• •
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
OFFICIALS
A Good Place to Live
COUNCIL MEMBERS
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk
JANICE L. GAS, City
CITY OF MERIDIAN
RONALD R. TOLSMA
MAX
GARY D. SM THS P.E. City Engineer
D.INGTON CORR E
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
WALT W. MORROW
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt.
33 EAST IDAHO
SHARI STILES
KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief
"BILL"
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
Planner s Zoning Administrator
W.L. GORDON, Police Chief
JIM JOHNSON
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney
Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813
Chairman - Planning & Zoning
Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211
GRANT P. KINGSFORD
Mayor
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
NOTICE IS HERESY GIVEN that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission of
the City of Meridian, Idaho will hold a Special meeting at City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, on Tuesday, May 31, 1994 at 7:00 P.M. The Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission will be hearing the following items:
• Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for West One Rezone
• Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for G.L. Voight Annexation Request
• Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for St. Luke's Regional Medical
Center Annexation Request
• Public Hearing: Request for Annexation and zoning with a Preliminary Plat
for Hartford Subdivision
• Public Hearing: Request for Annexation and Zoning with a Preliminary Plat
for Fawcett's Meadows No. 2
• Public Hearing: Request for Annexation and zoning with a Preliminary Plat
for Ramble Wood Subdivision
• Public Hearing: Request for Annexation and zoning with a Preliminary Plat
for Chamberlain Estates Subdivision No. 2
• Public Hearing: Request for a Preliminary Plat for Bedford Place Subdivision
• Public Hearing: Request for an Accessory Use Permit for a Family Day Care
by Stacie Ybarra
The Public is welcome to attend.
DATED this 6th day of May, 1994.
IF
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CIT CLERK
0 0
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: MAY 16 1995
APPLICANT E.L. BEWS ITEM NUMBER; 1
REQUEST; REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C -G FOR 74 ACRES
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION;
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
COMMENTS
PLANNING & ZONING MINUTES
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
"REVIEWED"
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
vw
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
!1 V
J
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
• 9
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: JULY 18.1995
APPLICANT E.L. SEWS ITEM NUMBER; 1 & 2
REQUEST; REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION/ZONINGiCONDMONAL ANNEXATION/ZONING/CONDITIONALUSg PERMIT
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION;
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
COMMENTS
OTHER:
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
0 0
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: DECEMBER 5 1995
APPLICANT: E L BEWS ITEM NUMBER; 1 & 2
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY9PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION;
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
1i _,k 42I&
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
0
0
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: JANUARY 16.1996
APPLICANT: E.L. BEWS ITEM NUMBER; 1 & 2
REQUEST; REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION/ZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
C•7� r71.7�[•7 � �l�i�l
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION;
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
COMMENTS
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
CJ
0
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: June 14.1994
APPLICANT: E.L. BEWS AND WAYNE FORREY AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: /5
REQUEST: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
COMMENTS
COMMENTS FORTHCOMING
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
"REVIEWED"
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER: jrixx,
US WEST: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: !!✓✓
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER: I O n d, �11�,1�
0
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: NOVEMBER 9.1994
APPLICANT: E.L. BEWS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 1
REQUEST: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: MINUTES FROM JUNE 14,1994
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
.rye' � ,
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
✓ 0�
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: b f vd
Q
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
3 �
I
E
•
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: MARCH 14.1995
APPLICANT: E.L. BEWS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 7
REQUEST:_ _REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C -G
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
>T3hdf*ii1
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
COMMENTS
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
• •
MERIDIAN PLANNING S ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: APRIL 11.1995
APPLICANT: E.L. BEWS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 3
- � � � • : 1. • • • • ,_ �. • .: L .L l .__ � ' • • •
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
�Z*]1i&14zw
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
E. L. BEWS
APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING
SOUTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD, NORTH OF I-84
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on June 14, 1994, at the hour of 7:30
o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, and was tabled to November 9, 1994, then
tabled again to March 14, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission
having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant
appearing through his representative, Wayne Forrey, and having duly
considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and
zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for March 14, 1995, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the March 14, 1995 hearing;
that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 1
0 0
submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to
newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That the property included in the application for
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
reference is incorporated herein.
3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as R-
T, Rural Transition; it has been farmed in the past, is presently
utilized as pasture and farmland, plus fallow vacant land; that the
Applicant requests that the property be zoned C -G, General Retail
and Service Commercial and the representative stated that the land
use would contain a variety of coordinated planned land uses that
are compatible with the St. Luke's Hospital development.
4. That the property is adjacent to the St. Luke's West
Medical Center Site; that the South boundary is Interstate 84 and
the North boundary is Franklin Road.
5. That E. L. Bews is the Applicant and he owns the land;
that the land consists of approximately 74 acres and he has
consented to the application and has requested this annexation and
zoning and the application is not at the request of the City of
Meridian.
6. That the Meridian Planning and Zoning Administrator and
the City Engineer's office submitted comments for the conditional
use Application and they are equally applicable to this annexation
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 2
• 0
and zoning request; they stated that irrigation and drainage
ditches must be tiled, existing domestic wells and/or septic
systems must removed, and sidewalks shall all be provided in
accordance with City Ordinances, and that the Applicant, per Ada
County Highway District recommendation, will be required to prepare
and submit a traffic study in conjunction with the St. Luke's
Hospital Master plan; that the sewer service for this site to the
Five Mile Sewer Trunk Line has been proposed by the Applicant; the.
feasibility of that proposal is being investigated by the Public
Works Department; water service is subject to positive results from
the City computer water model; that the legal descriptions
submitted do not meet the requirements of Resolution 158; that this
area is designated as Mixed/Planned Use Development in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan, which requires that all uses be approved under
the conditional use permit process; that the plan submitted, is
only conceptual and does not conform to requirements of 11-9-607;
that pathways for pedestrian/bicycle access must be incorporated
throughout this development; that the Applicant is to enter into a
development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D;
the development agreement shall address, but not be limited to, the
inclusion of the requirements of 11-9-605 C., G., H.2., K, and L,
and the goals expressed in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that a
minimum of ten percent of the site must be landscaped in accordance
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 3
with Planned Development - General Requirements; that minimum
landscape setbacks of 35 feet beyond required right-of-way along
Franklin Road and I-84 shall be provided; that co-ordination with
St. Luke's Hospital Master Plan requirements is needed to ensure
compatibility of development; and that at a minimum the City
Council, should require detailed site plan review at City Council
for each use proposed; that a drainage plan designed by an
architect or an engineer shall be submitted for all off-street
parking areas; that outside lighting shall be designed and placed
so as to not direct illumination on any nearby residentials; and
that all signage shall be in accordance with Meridian City
Ordinances; that pathways for pedestrian/bicycle access must be
incorporated throughout this development; that a minimum of ten
percent (10%) of the site must be landscaped in accordance with
Planned Development - General requirements; and that a minimum
landscape setbacks of 35 feet beyond required rights -or -way along
Franklin Road and I-84 shall be provided.
7. That the Meridian City Fire Department commented that a
sub -station with fire fighters will be needed if the City allows
this annexation.
B. That the Ada County Highway District submitted comments
for the conditional use Application, they are equally applicable to
the annexation and zoning, and they are incorporated herein as if
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 4
0
set forth in full which includes the special recommendation to
require the preparation and submittal of a traffic study to the
District that also considers the effects of the master plan for St.
Luke's Hospital.
9. That the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and The
Central Health Department submitted comments and they are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
10. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
11. That the parcel of ground requested to be annexed is
presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area
(U.S.P.A.) as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in the Meridian Area of Impact.
12. That the property can be physically serviced with City
water and sewer, if the lines are extended to the property by the
Applicant.
13. That the Application states in No. 7., the Proposed land
use section, as follows:
"It is proposed that it be Commercial General (C -G),
consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and
Development Ordinance. The land would contain variety of
coordinated planned land uses that are compatible with the St .
Lukes Hospital Development."
14. That the following pertinent statements are made in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 5
A. Under Land Use, Commercial Policies, 4.8U, it states as
follows:
"Encourage commercial uses, offices and medical -care uses to
locate in the Old Town district, business parks, shopping
centers and near high-intensity activity area, such as freeway
interchanges."
B. Under Land Use, Mixed -Use Area Adjacent to I-84 and
Overland Road, it states as follows:
"These areas are unique in that they are surrounded by
arterials, immediately adjacent to freeway (I-84), are
relatively level in topography, have a distinct linear shape,
and are greatly affected by contiguous industrial, residential
and commercial land uses. In order that compatible land uses
and efficient use of the land might occur, this corridor is
anticipated for a variety of planned, compatible mixed uses.
Probable mixed uses for the areas could be commercial,
combined medium -to -high density residential, open space uses
(as a means to buffer highway noise), tourist lodging,
industrial, office, medical, and related land uses."
C. a. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic Development
Goal Statement, Policies, Page 19, it is stated as follows:
1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to
create a positive atmosphere which encourages
industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in
Meridian.
1.2 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set
aside areas where commercial and industrial
interests and activities are to dominate.
1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new
commercial or industrial developments should be
harmonized with the natural environment and respect
the unique needs and features of each area.
1.5 Strip industrial and commercial uses are not in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 6
r �
L
1.6 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to support
shopping facilities which are effectively
integrated into new or existing residential areas,
and plan for new shopping centers as growth and
development warrant.
1.8 The City of Meridian intends to establish a Design
Review Ordinance which will foster compatible land
use and design within the development, and with
contiguous developments; and encourage innovations
in building techniques, so that the growing demands
of the community are met, while at the same time
providing for the efficient use of such lands.
D. Under LAND USE, Mixed -Use Areas Adjacent to I-84,
Overland Road and Franklin Road, Page 28, it is stated:
5.6 The development of a variety of compatible land
uses should be provided in specific plans and
proposals for future development.
5.8 Development in these areas should be based on
functional plans and proposals in order to ensure
that the proposed uses conform to the Comprehensive
Plan policies and are compatible with the
surrounding neighborhoods.
5.9 The integrity and identity of any adjoining
residential neighborhood should be preserved
through the use of buffering techniques, including
screen plantings, open space and other landscaping
techniques.
5.10 Development should be conducted under Planned Unit
Development procedures and as conditional uses,
especially when two or more differing uses are
proposed. (Emphasis added.)
5.11 The character, site improvements, and type of
development should be harmonized with previously -
developed land in the area, and where located
adjacent to or near any existing residence or
residential area, shall be harmonized with
residential uses, and all reasonable efforts shall
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 7
be made to reduce the environmental impact on
residential areas, including noise and traffic
reduction.
5.12 Strip development within this mixed-use area is not
in compliance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
5.13 Clustering of uses and controlled access points
along arterials and collector streets will be
required.
5.14U Because these areas are near I-84, Franklin and
Overland Roads, high-quality visual appearance is
essential. All development proposals in this area
will be subiect to development review guidelines
and conditional use permitting procedures.
(Emphasis added.)
5.15U The mixed-use area in the vicinity of the
Overland Road/Franklin Road/ Eagle Road/I-84
interchange is a priority development area.
E. Under COMMUNITY DESIGN, Policies, at Page 73, it is
stated:
1. Entrance Corridors Goal Statement - Promote,
encourage, develop and maintain aesthetically
pleasing approaches to the City of Meridian.
2. Policies,
a. 4.4U Encourage 35 -foot landscaped setbacks
for new development on entrance corridors. The
City shall require, as a condition of development
approval, landscaping along all entrance corridors.
15.
That in the Rural
Area
section
of the Comprehensive Plan,
FINDINGS
AND CONCLUSIONS -
E. L.
BEWS
Page 8
•
Land Use, Rural Areas, page 29, it states as follows:
"Land covered by this policy section has characteristics which
generally allow for agricultural and rural residential
activity due to the existence of irrigation systems, soil
characteristics and relative freedom from conflicting urban
land uses. Where community growth creates pressure for new
development, it must be recognized that agricultural land can
no longer economically continue to be identified or used as
agricultural land to the exclusion of orderly city growth and
development."
16. That Section 6.3, of the LAND USE section of the
Comprehensive Plan, states that land in agricultural activity
should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services
(municipal sewer and water facilities) can be provided.
17. That Section 6.3, of the LAND USE section of the
Comprehensive Plan, states as follows:
"Existing rural residential land uses and farms/ranches shall
be buffered from urban development expanding into rural areas
by innovative land use planning techniques."
18. That the property is included within an area designated
on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan
as a Mixed/Planed Use Development area.
19. That the requested zoning of General Retail and Service
Commercial, (C -G) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B.
11. as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 9
•
(C -G) General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of
the (C -G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are
customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a
building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed
commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are
located in close proximity to major highway or arterial
streets; to fulfill the need of travel -related services as
well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring
public. All such districts shall be connected to the
Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and
shall not constitute strip commercial development and
encourage clustering of commercial development.
20. That Planned Development is defined in 11-2-403 B, at
page 20 of the Zoning Ordinance booklet, as follows:
"An area of land which is developed as a single entity for a
number of uses in combination with or exclusive of other
supportive uses. A PD may be entirely residential,
industrial, or commercial or a mixture of compatible uses. A
PD does not necessarily correspond to lot size, bulk, density,
lot coverage required, open space or type of residential,
commercial or industrial uses as established in any one or
more created districts or this Ordinance."
and a Planned General Development is defined as follows:
"A development not otherwise distinguished under Planned
Commercial, Industrial, Residential Developments, or in which
the proposed use of interior and exterior spaces requires
unusual design flexibility to achieve a completely logical and
complimentary conjunction of uses and functions. This PD
classification applies to essential public services, public or
private recreation facilities, institutional uses, community
facilities or a PD which includes a mix of residential,
commercial or industrial uses."
21. That under 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, B,
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 10
• 0
Commercial, Planned Commercial Development, is a permitted use in
the C -G district and Planned Unit Development - General, is an
allowed conditional use in the C -G district.
22. That 11-9-607 A, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in
part as follows:
"The City's policy is to encourage developers of land
development and construction projects to utilize the
provisions of this Section to achieve the following:
1. A development pattern in accord with the goals,
objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
5. A more convenient pattern of commercial, residential and
industrial uses as well as public services which support
such uses."
23. That 11-9-607 E, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in
part as follows:
"A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each
district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in
the Section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations of the
district or districts in which said PD is located. The
approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide
for such exceptions from the district regulations governing
use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other
regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of
the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with
the standards and criteria contained in this Section."
24. That 11-9-607 F, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in
part as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 11
i 0
1. Planned Developments - Planned developments shall be
subject to requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance
and also subject to all provisions within this Ordinance.
8. Financial Guarantees - The developer shall post financial
guarantees for all approved on-site improvements if
required pursuant to 9-606 C."
25. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council were given and followed.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a legislative function.
3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged these
annexation, zoning and conditional use applications under Idaho
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 12
Code, Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian
City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the
record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial
notice.
4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
5. That the Council may take judicial notice of government
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within
the City and State.
6. That the land within the proposed annexation is
contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and
the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation.
7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant, and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105
Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983).
9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 13
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular
Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and
requirements, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling
of ditches and waterways and 11-9-606 14., which requires
pressurized irrigation.
10. That the Applicant stated no specific proposed use of the
property and therefore it cannot be determined if the use would be
in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, however any uses would
have to comply with the Zoning Ordinance.
11. That the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its
meeting on January 4, 1994, and has not amended the Zoning
Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan;
thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan
but the Zoning Ordinance may not address provisions for the use; it
is concluded that upon annexation, as conditions of annexation, the
City may impose restrictions that are not otherwise contained in
the current Zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinances.
12. The Applicant has not stated or represented its specific
intentions as to development, which is of concern to the
Commission, even though the Applicant has filed a conditional use
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 14
permit application for several uses and has listed some possible
uses; it is therefore concluded, as a condition of annexation and
zoning, that any use or development of the property shall only be
allowed as a conditional use.
13. That it is concluded that the City could annex the
property and zone it C -G but once the property was zoned C -G, the
Applicant could place.many different uses on the property without
additional approval from the City other than building permits,
which limits the control that the City should have over the
development and the uses of the property due to the mandates of the
Comprehensive Plan.
14. That it is concluded that since the Comprehensive Plan,
under LAND USE, Page 27, Mixed -Use Areas Adjacent to I-84, Overland
Road and Franklin Road, in Section 5.10, on page 28, states that
all development should be conducted under Planned Unit Development
procedures and as conditional uses and since the City should have
control over any uses that are to be placed on the land, it is
therefore concluded that development of the parcel of land is
conditioned on being developed as a Commercial Planned Development,
which is allowed in the General Retail and Service Commercial ( C -G )
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 15
district, and under the conditional use permit process for each
proposed use.
15. Therefore, it is concluded that the property should be
annexed and zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C -G), but
only capable of being developed as a planned commercial development
and only under the conditional use permit process for each proposed
use.
16. That, as a condition of annexation and the zoning of C -G,
the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development
agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the
development agreement shall address, among other things, the
following:
1. Inclusion into the development of the requirements of 11-
9-605
a. C, Pedestrian Walkways.
b. G 1, Planting Strips.
C. H, Public Sites and Open Spaces.
d. K, Lineal Open Space Corridors.
e. L, Pedestrian and Bike Path Ways.
f. M, Pressurized Irrigation
2. Payment by the Applicant, or if required, by any assigns,
heirs, executors or personal representatives, of any
impact, development, or transfer fee, adopted by the
City.
3. Addressing the subdivision access linkage, screening,
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 16
buffering, transitional land uses, traffic study and
recreation services.
4. An impact fee to help acquire a future school or park
sites to serve the area.
5. An impact fee, or fees, for park, police, and fire
services as determined by the city.
6. Appropriate berming and landscaping.
7. Submission and approval of any required plats.
8. Submission and approval of individual building, drainage,
lighting, parking, and other development plans under the
Planned Development guidelines, including plans for the
storage units.
9. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements with
the existing residential development.
10. Establishing the 35 foot landscaped setback required
under the Comprehensive Plan and landscaping the same.
11. Addressing the comments of the Planning Director, Shari
Stiles.
12. The sewer and water requirements.
13. Traffic plans and access into and out of any development.
14. And any other items deemed necessary by the City Staff,
including design review of all development, and
conditional use processing as required under the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
17. That Section 11-2-417 D of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance
states in part as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 17
"If property is annexed and zoned, the City may require or
permit, as a condition of the zoning, that an owner or
developer make a written commitment concerning the use or
development of the subject property. If a commitment is
required or permitted, it shall be recorded in the office of
the Ada County Recorder and shall take effect upon the
adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the property, or
prior if agreed to by the owner of the parcel. . . .";
it is concluded, however, that it is more appropriate for a
development agreement to be entered into when plans for development
are better known and therefore as a condition of annexation a
development agreement must be entered into prior to issuance of a
building permit or prior to plat approval, which ever comes first.
18. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the
property is in the best interests of the City of Meridian, and it
is concluded that the annexation shall be conditioned on meeting
the requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and if they are not met the land may be de -annexed.
19. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, Ada
County Highway District, Meridian Planning Director, Central
District Health Department, and the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District, shall be met and addressed in a development agreement.
20. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 18
• 0
a condition of annexation and if not so tiled, the property shall
be subject to de -annexation. That pressurized irrigation shall be
installed and constructed, and if not so done the property shall be
subject to de -annexation.
21. That the Applicant will be required to connect to
Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains
will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be
subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development
Ordinance and the development agreement, and it shall only be
developed as a commercial planned development and under the
conditional use process.
22. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant and its assigns.
23. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial (C-
G), would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian.
24. That if these conditions of approval are not met, the
property shall not be annexed, or if already annexed, it shall be
de -annexed.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. HEWS Page 19
i 9.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of the City
;_____-' of Meridian hereby adopts and approves these Findings of
Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED
COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED �
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the
property set forth in the application be approved by the City
Council for annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in
these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including that the
Applicant, or assigns, enters into a development agreement prior to
issuance of a building permit, a final plat being approved, or
issuance of a conditional use for any proposed use, which ever
comes first and that the property only be developed as a commercial
planned development and under the conditional use process; that if
the Applicant is not agreeable with these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions and is not agreeable with entering into a development
agreement, the property should not be annexed.
MOTION:
APPROVEDj;j DISAPPROVED:
1' r /
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 20
• 0
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 14, 1995
Page 8
Crookston: Mr. Chairman I need to step down due to a conflict of interest.
Johnson: Step down please, you are being replaced by Mr. Riddlemoser. Any discussion
regarding these findings of fact? I need a motion then on the findings.
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission adopts and
approves these findings.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second for approval of the findings of fact and
conclusions of law, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Yea, Rountree - Absent, Shearer - Yea, Alidjani - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they grant the conditional use
permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application in
accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein.
Alidjani: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we pass the recommendation as stated onto the
City Council, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF C -G
FOR 74 ACRES BY E.L. SEWS:
Johnson: At this time I would invite the applicant or his representative to come forward and
address the Commission. The public hearing is now open.
Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission my name is Wayne Forrey and I am
representing Ed Bews and also Bill Davis Construction. We have been working gee over
a year now with the City looking at development of the 1-84 Eagle Road area and looking
at development opportunities with St. Luke's hospital, making sure there is good
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 14, 1995
Page 9
compatible development in that area. About ten months ago in May of 1994 we submitted
an annexation request to the City. At that time the request was for Mixed Planned Use
Development to comply with the Comprehensive Plan and then some discussions lead to
the change to a request for Health Service zoning. That was heard I think in June of 1994
and at that time your Commission tabled the annexation request to give City staff time to
update the zoning and development ordinance to get all of the changes in that document
to comply with the comprehensive plan and look at a new health service zone. It came off
of the table I think about October or November of 1994 and then it was tabled again with
no date certain, just indefinitely because no one was really sure when the health service
zone would be incorporated into the new zoning ordinance.
Johnson: Even if it would be.
Forrey: Or if it would be. In the meantime Ed Bews received some serious inquiries about
buying a portion of that property. Of course it was contingent upon annexation and the
proper zoning. So on February 1, there was a meeting with Mayor Kingsford, Ed Bews,
Bill Davis, myself and Gary Fletcher of St. Luke's Hospital and during that meeting we
looked at the scenario of updating the zoning ordinance, the possibility of a different or a
new zone in that area to accommodate a mix of uses. We looked at the time constraints,
we did not want to hold up the hospital in any way. And the suggestion of the Mayor was
that we because the uses that Ed anticipated were more business and commercial in
nature, the Mayor's suggestion was that we apply for a zone that currently exists in the
Meridian ordinance the C -G zone, Commercial General. And also because Ed and Bill and
myself believe also that there are some appropriate non-commercial uses at that site, town
homes, patio homes, nursing center, a retirement center and medical services, which are
not allowed in the commercial zone because we felt there was a potential that it could
blend well. The Mayor suggested that we apply for a conditional use permit to allow some
of those other uses in addition to the regular commercial uses. So we developed a list of
anticipated land uses submitted that in the application and so we are requesting C -G
zoning with annexation and the next item on your agenda is a conditional use permit which
would allow by conditional use 6 land uses that currently are not addressed in the C -G
ordinance or the C -G portion of your development ordinance. I would like to go through
the staff report just quickly to respond to some comments. I am looking at the first page
here the March 10 memo from the public works department and the Planning and Zoning
Administrator, general comment #2. It asks that the well that is on the Bews property be
removed from domestic service. Right now, we would ask that condition be modified and
give permission to Ed Bews to retain that for domestic use by the City. We are currently
negotiating with the City to see if the City would want to purchase or acquire that well for
city use and it would be domestic City use. On the next page item #8
Johnson: I wonder Wayne, excuse me for interrupting, but those comments are directed
E
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 14, 1995
Page 10
•
towards the next item on the agenda, not relating to this one.
Forrey: Would you like me to wait then?
Johnson: I think that would be appropriate.
Forrey: Okay, I am sorry I didn't notice that you are correct. Well, let me summarize then,
we picked a zone that is in the ordinance today. It doesn't require any waiting for any
ordinance changes. We think that zone will work for this conditional use permit to allow
a good development in that area. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Johnson: Any questions for Mr. Forrey? What we are dealing with here is just annexation
and zoning at this point, to C -G. This would require findings of facts unless you have any
further questions. We need to hear from the public, if there is anyone else here that would
like to testify on this? Is there anyone else that would like to come forward on this
application?
Gary Fletcher, 190 East Bannock, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Fletcher: I am not here necessarily in support or in opposition to the application. I just
want to be sure Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission that we have had several
meetings with Mr. Bews and his representatives talking about compatible development of
our respective properties and how we might work together to maximize the benefit to the
community. We have also talked about how we might collaborate on utilities and
appropriate traffic patterns and really haven't gotten specific in that regard. I would say our
position is one that certainly some of the uses that are anticipated by Mr. Bews and his
property are compatible with what we are trying to do and we see them as working
together to benefit the community. So certainly there is no opposition from our point of
view and we look forward to working with Mr. Bews and the further development of our
respective properties and think it would be advantageous if the property were annexed into
the City so that collaborative effort coudl continue. I would be glad to answer or respond
to any questions you might have.
Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Fletcher? Thank you Gary I appreciate that. Anyone else
from the public that would like to address the Commission at this time? Seeing no one.
then I will close the public hearing.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law on this project.
Alidjani: Second
i
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 14, 1995
Page 11
Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare
findings of fact and conclusions of law for the application by E. L. Bews for annexation and
zoning to C -G, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
VARIETY OF MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES BY E.L.
BEWS:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite Mr. Forrey to come back and
continue.
Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission what this is, is a list of anticipated uses
out of our conditonal use application. The second page is a map and the property in
yellow is the Bews property. Out of that list of 12 anticipated land uses 6 are permitted in
the C -G zone that is with the green "P" that you see there. Items 6 through 11 the
retirements center, nursing home, town houses, apartments, patio homes and medical
services are not addressed at all in your zoning ordinance. So, in our discussions with the
Mayor and trying to get this project to move forward inside the confines of your existing
ordinance. Our approach is that with C -G zoning and a conditional use permit for those
items 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 on that list we feel that it would work. And so, as general retail or
a hotel -motel is developed that would be a permitted use in the C -G zone. The retirement
center or nursing home would require a conditional use permit to come back before this
body and the City Council. I would like to go through the staff comments just briefly. I will
start over again, on the March 10 memo from the public works department and the
Planning and Zoning Administrator, item #2, Ed Bews does have a well, a large municipal
quality well on the property. Rather than vacate that or remove that we would like to have
that opportunity to continue to negotiate with the City. The City has expressed an interest
in acquiring that, Ed has been testing it. We want to have the door open so that can
continue to happen. On the next page, item #8, Americans with Disabilities Act is a federal
law, it has no local jurisdiction. So it is inappropriate the way that is worded because there
are businesses and there are situations which are exempt from Americans with disabilities
Act. If it does trigger than it is triggered at the federal or state level and the builder or.
contractor has to construct accordingly. But it is not something that the City monitors, it
is not something that the City has authority to impose in an action like this. I would ask that
8 be modified or removed. Item #3 under site specific requirements, our May 1994
application did include 1/2 of the adjacent right of way in the legal descriptions that were
submitted. Under site specific requirements under the planning department, comment #1,
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MAY 16. 1995
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Grant
Kingsford at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Max Yerrington, Bob Corrie, Ron Tolsma:
OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith Shari Stiles, John
McCreedy, Wilma Barker, Mike Littlefield, Delores Richey, Virgil Richey, Mary Edmondson,
Lee Edmondson, Doug Campbell, G.A. Ruyl, Gary Fletcher, Forrest Kerrnes, Wayne
Forrey, Gerald Rice, Richard Willis, Ed Burtner, Glen Griffin, Tresha Griffin, Gary Fors,
John Timons, Karen Gallagher, Jeff Hull, Steven Bradbury, Bill Teter, Gary Lee, Ted
Hutchinson, Russ Hepworth, Bryan McKoy, Brent Adamson, Mike Caven, Brad Miller,
Michael Vance, Robert Montgomery, Terry Adamson, David Turnbull:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MAY 2,1995:
Kingsford: Are there any corrections to those minutes?
Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I move they be approved as written.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve the May 2nd minutes, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF C -G
FOR 74 ACRES BY E.L. SEWS:
Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his
designee to speak first.
Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Forrey: Mayor and members of the Council, my name is Wayne Forrey and I am working
with Ed Bews. Ed is a native of Eagle and Meridian, in fact he graduated from Meridian
High School I think about 50 years ago, he has a reunion this summer. He has owned
property along Franklin Road, which border to Interstate 84 about 17 years. I am going
to show you a few aerial views of that property and walk through some of the history of this
project to be very concise I know there are some folks that want to testify on this tonight.
This is looking towards the east and in the foreground is the St. Luke's Hospital project
which is under construction. That is the Interstate 84/Eagle Road Interchange which would
be the northeast quadrant the Bews property is in green, the light brown property is
0 0
Meridian City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 2
included in the annexation request. That is the portion of the Interstate that abuts the
Bews property there. This is the neighborhood in general, you see a plan view here of the
Interstate Interchange, some of the residential development and rural residential that is out
in that area. The green property is all of the Bews property, the olive green color that you
see is a Farmington Estates Subdivision which was approved I think in the early 80's and
was anticipated for a residential development by Ed Bews, platted but never developed.
Then in late 1993 when the City of Meridian began updating the Comprehensive Plan and
it became apparent that the City anticipated significant business type development at that
interchange area, Ed decided to vacate the Farmington Estates plat, that has been
vacated. I am going to walk you through a history from that point since the Comprehensive
Plan to tonight. In January when the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan it became
apparent that the City anticipated mixed and business uses at that interchange area. So
in May of 1994 a year ago we submitted and application for annexation for mixed planned
development zoning and then in June 14 we had a Planning and Zoning Commission
public hearing on that annexation request. The Planning and Zoning Commission decided
to table that request until November 7 of 1994 to give the City time to update the zoning
and development ordinance. At that time there was consideration for a health service zone
in that area. Then in November we got back off the table and then the Planning and Zoning
Commission decided to continue that tabling to give the City more time to amend the
zoning ordinance again looking at that health service zone issue. Then in February of
1995 we had various meetings with City officials and we received direction to go ahead
and proceed with an established zone that is already in the ordinance rather than waiting
for a future health service zone that may or may not happen. And then include a list of
specific land uses to be processed by a conditional use permit. Very similar and same
procedure that the St. Luke's project was approved by the City. On February 17th we did
apply for C -G Commercial General zoning because the majority or the predominant land
use that we anticipate in this project would be commercial in nature, but there would be
some non-commercial uses to blend in with the mixed development objectives so we
proceeded with a conditional use permit then and identified 12 specific land uses. On
March 14th we had a public hearing with the Planning and Zoning Commission, we
identified those 12 specific uses, we have been coordinating very good I believe with St.
Luke's Hospital through this past year. Watching their project grow and develop and
anticipating development of the Bews property. They looked at the 12 uses we worked out
with them, one use was confusing to the hospital and it was the auto travel plaza. They
felt they could agree to all of the 12 uses on the Bews property as compatible to the
hospital as long as the auto travel plaza would not become a truck stop. If it was a truck
stop then they felt that specific use would not be compatible with their proposed medical
project. Then on April 11 findings of fact and conclusions of law for annexation to
commercial general with that conditional use for those 12 specific uses was approved by
your Planning and Zoning Commission and recommended onto the City Council. That
recommendation came with a list of conditions. We agree to all of the ACHD conditions,
•
Meridian City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 3
their comments and approvals. We have had 4 different occasions to work with the
Highway District. Item B there is we agree completely with the Meridian Fire Department,
Meridian Police Department, Central District Health, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, the
School and US West conditions that have been incorporated into the findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Now there are a few conditions we would like some clarification on to
understand how it would apply to this development. First of all in the March 10, 1995
memo from Mr. Bruce Freckleton, in his comment #2 pertaining to wells. The comment was
that any wells on the property would have to be discontinued or abandoned. There are I
believe 3 wells on the property, one is a production well, production capability well. It is
about 485 feet deep, it has been recently pump tested. It would be a very good well for a
City to develop. We are actively negotiating right now with the City of Meridian. Hopefully
the city would acquire that well or want to use that well. So we would like to clarify his
comments #2 to keep the possibility open to continue negotiating with the City if you see
it is advantageous to use that well rather than just walk away from it. Also in that same
memo there were comments from the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Comment #1
pertained to putting planned development regulations on this application. We did not apply
for planned development, we proceeded with a zone that you have now in your zoning
ordinance with a conditional use process to allow those other specific uses. So we would
thing that comment #1 would not apply. The same with comment #4 it would not apply to
this specific situation. Comment #7 asks that we coordinate with St. Luke's Hospital to
make sure they were compatible uses and we believe we have done that. We have already
accomplished that. I am stating tonight that the auto use that we listed will not be a truck
stop. That is because of the sensitivity and the partnership that we want to have and have
had with St. Luke's Hospital. Comment #8 asks that all the uses in this project be subject
to a conditional use procedure. We are asking for C -G zoning and your current ordinance
does allow 6 of the 12 uses that we are proposing to be developed right now in the C -G
zone. So the same C -G zone that you have at Meridian 1-84 Interchange for example that
same zoning is what we are applying for. We would want the same opportunity to proceed
with permitted uses at this project just like any other property owner in Meridian that has
C -G zoning. Now for other uses we definitely support and want to proceed with a
conditional use permit. Let me show you what those uses are. In the application we
identified these 12 uses as part of the Conditional Use Permit. The general retail,
commercial and professional offices the auto travel plaza which will not become a a truck
stop, the hotel suites and motel complex and down at the bottom the restaurants those are
permitted right now in your C -G zone. That is the zone we are asking for, those other uses
the retirement center, the nursing/elderly care town houses, multi family apartments, patio
home and medical services would require a conditional use permit. Those certainly should
be processed at future City Council public hearings. So in that process as the Bews project
proceeds and let's assume a restaurant is developed we would proceed on that basis
without a conditional use but come in for the site plan review through the normal permit
processing through City Hall, but the medical services or the retirement center would come
Meridian City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 4
into City Hall, public hearing before the City Council with specific site plans. That is the
way we hope that it is approved by the City. We think that makes then very good balance
of uses, it keeps in character with the existing C -G zoning that we have in the community.
But those uses that are needed to be reviewed by the public with specific site plans we
definitely agree that it ought to be done by conditional use permit process. I would be
happy to answer any questions.
Kingsford: Mr. Forrey, you are aware that the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in
I believe December of 1993 required that all that area have a conditional use permit. So
what you are proposing in that permitted area would be in violation of our Comprehensive
Plan.
Forrey: I guess it depends on how you apply that policy, you know Mayor I helped write
that and at the time we met with Citizens the example that was used to help write that
policy about conditional uses along the Interstate and I don't want to be derogatory but
there as a business property in Meridian right along the Interstate that was developed
without a conditional use permit and citizens said we don't want that kind of thing to
happen again. There is no landscaping, no screening, they are really close to the fence
along the Interstate, there should have been a set back, how do we prevent that from
happening. My response was well we should have a conditional use permit policy that
addresses that. So, now, at the time we did that I don't think anyone envisioned that would
be 6 or 7 or 8 or a 1000 feet deep away from the Interstate. The intent Mayor was to get
uses along the Interstate under a conditional use permit process to review for citizen and
City Council and public review. I don't know how far you stretch that back. Should
something on Franklin Road be subject to Conditional Use because it is within a 1000 feet
of the Interstate, I don't know. But if that is the direction that you are taking that policy and
that is really a Council decision because the Comp Plan is a policy guide and ultimately
it comes back to the Council. If that is the feeling of the Council then I would agree with
that and Ed is here tonight and he would agree with it. If that is the way the City is going
to treat all of the properties along the Interstate that it be done by Conditional Use then the
playing field is there. If other property owners have to do that we will do it as well. It just
comes down to that Council interpretation of depth.
Kingsford: Other questions of the Council?
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, this auto travel plaza, you say it is not there now, or it is still there. I am
a little foggy on that.
Forrey: This is, in the conditional use permit, working with City staff, we came up with the
process of giving a specific list of uses that would happen at the Bews property to allow
this conditional use permit. During the public testimony at the Planning and Zoning
0 •
Meridian City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 5
Commission St. Luke's Hospital commented that they had no problem with all of those 12
uses except they did not understand what an auto travel plaza would be. And they said
if that is a truck stop or a fancy name for a truck stop then we are against it. We don't want
a truck stop next to the future hospital. So, I am saying tonight it will not be a truck stop
that is just a gas station a gas and go chevron it is an excellent example here in Meridian
of an auto travel plaza. Now there are some trucks that deliver fuel in there and that would
happen here as well but it would not be designed and constructed as a truck stop. It would
be designed as an auto fueling and quick gas and go type operation.
Kingsford: Other questions of Mr. Forrey? Thank you, anyone else from the public?
John McCreedy, 1275 Shoreline, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
McCreedy: Mayor and members of the Council I am an attorney, I work for Jim Jones in
Boise and I am here tonight on behalf of 12 residents of Meridian. The Griffins, the Hines,
the Burtner's, the Hollingsworth's, the Kearne's, the Nelson's, the Clark's, the Ownby's, the
Barchi's, the Timon's, Mr. Hoalst, and Mr. Willis. I did this afternoon fax over to the Mayor
and Council a letter that I would like to have included in the official public record as
testimony of those people. 1 do have extra copies if anyone didn't get it. I did have a
chance the speak with Wayne this afternoon a little and kind of gave him an outline of what
our concerns were at this point.
Kingsford: You are speaking of Wayne Crookston?
McCreedy: Wayne Forrey, surprise attack on this, the bottom line as I understand it is the
Montvue Residential Subdivision is located essentially adjacent to the proposed
development did not have notice other than by newspaper notice of this development
application. The majority of them really haven't had an opportunity to look at the project
or to come in here and testify. Now I understand that the City of Meridian complied with the
300 foot notice but I kind of question whether that is adequate in this case. I think the City
does have the authority to expand those notice requirements and that is going to be one
of the issues we would like to take up tonight. Although technically the notice requirements
were complied with clearly I think the residents of the Montvue Subdivision have some
concerns and that they are going to be affected by this proposed development. There is
some access issues that clearly affect them, there will be some noise issues, general land
use, fundamental land use issues that will affect them. They all have water well, or the
majority of them do that may be impacted. Public services, you have had a
recommendation from P & Z that you get a fire department in the area. All those issues will
in fact affect the Montvue Residents. I was contacted for the first time last night by my
secretary who indicated that they really didn't have an understanding of what was going
on. She asked me to come and speak tonight and I told I would do that provided that she
0 •
Meridian City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 6
got me enough sponsors to play in a golf marathon up in Terrace Lakes in a few weeks.
So that is how I got hooked into it. We would first off like to ask the Council to consider
a formal deferral of this to the June 6th City Council hearing. The reason is I think the
record is pretty clear that there was not actual notice to those (inaudible). I have had a
chance to talk to a few of them. They do have some serious concerns, Wayne Forrey and
I agreed this afternoon that it would be good to get those 2 groups together and try to
address some of those concerns. If in fact a deferral is not in order then we would ask that
you deny the conditional use permit application and the rezone. We have several fairly
good legal and factual reasons for that denial. One, I think the folks in Montvue need an
opportunity to comment on a specific plan, a specific, comprehensive, single, formal
development plan for the proposed area. That includes the appropriate studies, the traffic
studies the environmental studies. From what I understand from Mr. Forrey's presentation
he would prefer more of a piece meal approach to the approval and we think that is
contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and it is pretty much contrary to due process where
citizens have an opportunity to take a good hard look at a formal, clear, concise,
sufficiently detailed proposal that is going to affect their property rights. So we think that
is the better course to go. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Commission,
I commend them they are fairly exhaustive and they do a pretty good job of setting forth
the issues. I think it is clear that under the Meridian Comprehensive Plan that this area is
certainly considered planned unit development material and that is what should be done.
We'd ask that there be a couple of modifications to those findings of fact and conclusions.
You have clearly got any number of agencies that expressed a lot of concerns with the
project, IDEQ, the Division of Environmental Equality, ACRD, the traffic study, the St.
Luke's plan that is out there. There is a lot of material for these residents to have an
opportunity to look at to ensure that their rights are protected. We'd ask that you wrap all
of those basic conditions up into one clear, concise environmental study that is to be filed
with the City and made available to the residents that they have an opportunity to look at
it rather than 7 or 8 different filed studies that come in at different times. Provide a time
line for the submission of that study so that these residents can understand how it is going
to affect their property. Second we would ask that you consider imposing design review
along with public hearing with the design review on the project. We think that is clearly
within your authority and it would certainly help go a long ways toward providing a forum
for the citizens and the developer to get together and decide what looks best for that area.
Third, I would point out to you a decision that I did participate in the Judge Bail issue and
it regards how you process development agreements. The basic issue is do you approve
the use first and then take a look at the development agreement or do you look at the
proposed use and the development agreement at the same time and approve or deny both
of them together essentially in tandem. Judge Bail looked at it and this is of course the
Boise zoning ordinance not the Meridian zoning ordinance and concluded that there the
language was pretty clear and I have provided a copy of her decision. That if you are
going to require a development agreement don't approve the change in the rezone first,
• 0
Meridian City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 7
hold up on the rezone, don't enter findings and conclusions approving it because that
would be premature but take a hard look at the development agreement. Make sure it
does in fact meet the terms and conditions of the Comprehensive Plan and then if it does
grant the rezone and if it doesn't deny it. Now I do not that in the Meridian ordinance you
do have a provision that allows you to pass rules and regulations on how you are going
to create and require development agreements. I don't know that those rules and
regulations are out there yet but this is probably one of the first opportunities to define how
you are going to do that process. I think Judge Bail's reasoning is the better policy and that
is give the citizens an opportunity to look at one Comprehensive Plan for development for
the parcel at one public hearing and that hasn't occurred yet. We think that is the better
approach to doing it. It is fundamentally a due process issue, I note that the developer
says tonight that they did not apply for a planned unit development but I think you clearly
have the authority to require one. It seems to be mandated under your Comprehensive
Plan. If you are going to approve 6 uses and then leave 6 uses subject to conditional use
permit you have to kind of wonder what the purpose of having those additional public
hearings might be. There is definitely going to be infrastructure and other matters in place
to accommodate the first six uses that should be commented on first before those uses go
into affect. We don't think the (inaudible) is going to serve the residents, they should have
a opportunity to comment on one project at one time. The Planning and Zoning
Commission did not recommend further public hearings on the development agreement
or on any final development plan. We would specifically ask that notice be provided to and
we can provide you a list of the residents who are interested to the people in the Montvue
Subdivision that are clearly going to be affected and that there be additional public
hearings on the development agreement and the final development plan before any
development goes forward. That is the testimony that I have and I thank you.
Kingsford: Thank you, any questions?
Crookston: Mr. McCreedy, did I understand you to say that you do feel the City met the
notice requirements within the 300 feet?
McCreedy: I haven't personally examined the mailing of it but I do note that in the findings
of fact and conclusions of law it has stated that they did meet the 300 foot notice
requirement. I did look at the mailing list, I haven't gone out and personally measured
whether there are people within the 300 foot area. It appears that they met it in order to
definitely state it under oath I would have to do some more work (inaudible). I do think that
300 foot requirement should be expanded particularly for planned unit developments when
there are subdivisions that are going to be affected.
Kingsford: I would like to ask, I wasn't clear, how does this development affect people's
wells there? I don't understand that logic.
• 0
Meridian City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 8
McCreedy: Well, I do note that from talking with a couple of the residents that when other
subdivisions were put in around them and wells sunk that they did notice a decrease in
their pressure. Now as this one is going to be hooked up to City sewer and water that may
not be an issue. But there are certainly some waterways in the area, the recommendation
is that they be tiled and lined, but again that is an issue to be looked at.
Kingsford: Thank you
Gary Fletcher, St. Lukes Regional Medical Center, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Fletcher: I apologize for not getting this over to you earlier Mayor and members of the
Council but I will briefly go through it and you will have an opportunity to look at it later and
I would be glad to get copies to anybody who might like to have those. I am appearing to
make comment on the applications before the City Council for annexation and conditional
use for the E.L. Bews property. As you all know St. Luke's has been working for more than
a year now preparing to begin the St. Luke's West Ambulatory Care Center now underway
at Eagle Road an 1-84. In the course of this preparation I think many will testify that we
have assumed a leadership role in working with the City on utility services which facilitated
access for other property owners. On thing I want to make clear this evening we are not
here to oppose development in any respect, we don't think it is up to St. Luke's to dictate
or to have a predominant role in decisions that are made relative to the development of
this area. Rather it is responsibility of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City
Council and the neighbors and developers and we would hope to play a substantial role
in that process and participate to the extent that it is beneficial to the area but also
hopefully beneficial to the patients that we are going to serve here in Meridian at St. Luke's
West. The concern I think that brings us here this evening is that over the past few weeks
there have been discussions relative to traffic circulation and roadways within the area
bounded by Eagle Road, 1-84, Franklin and Cloverdale. I believe you received a letter that
you hopefully you have seen dated May 3rd from Deborah Tullis and Thomas Webb
relative to some of these discussions which have gone on. We want to make it clear this
evening that we were not asked and have not participated in any of these discussions
much to our chagrin. In our view clearly there has not been adequate study done to
support any action to traffic circulation or public roadways in this area. We would
respectfully request that the City Council not take any action that might establish or even
project at this point public roadways in this area at this juncture. I need to tell you that we
have commissioned ourself preliminary traffic studies that we are willing to make available
to the City and any others that might wish to see them based on our understanding of the
developments that would occur at the St. Luke's site as well as the developments east of
there to Cloverdale. These studies suggest at this preliminary stage that all 3
developments namely the St. Luke's development, Mr. Bews's and the Tullis/Thomas
development could not be adequately served by a public access through St. Luke's
Meridian City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 9
property for that matter by the existing Franklin Road and Eagle Road and the
intersections that may be planned or might be envisioned in these areas. Our opinion
based on these studies is that these developments frankly could not be completed in
totality as they are being proposed and you may not have seen anything relative to the
Tullis/Thomas development. We just received a copy of that today, but our judgement is
that none of those developments could be completed in their totality with the current road
system or frankly with a major road through the St. Luke's property. So, all of us would be
compromised as it relates to access ingress and egress at least as it currently appears.
St. Luke's purchased the property at 1-84 and Eagle Road to develop a medical campus
and it was our intent to maximize the use of that property over time. In our judgement any
significant roadway through the campus could seriously compromise future development
along with access to these medical facilities by patients and ambulances. After obtaining
the necessary approvals we began construction early this year before any other
annexation or conditional use applications were heard. It is our opinion that St. Luke's
should not now be conditioned by action on applications currently under consideration. I
think in summary we would ask that no action be taken to establish or imply roadways at
this point until the implications of that are studied and considered so that the area can be
developed in an orderly and planned way. So again we are not here to particularly oppose
anything or support anything we are here to express concerns relative to what we envision
to be major traffic circulation and roadway problems in this area. We do not want a chain
of events in terms of any approvals to dictate what might end up being done relative to
traffic circulation and roadways. Rather what we are asking for is a deferral on any action
that relates to traffic circulation and roadways so that there could be an opportunity for the
City and neighbors and ourselves and others to participate in whatever process may be
necessary to determine what is best for the entire area for the future based on what is
envisioned in terms of developments. Thank you very much Mayor and members of the
Council, I would be glad to respond to any questions that you might have.
Morrow. Mr. Fletcher, your original concept for the St. Luke's Campus was one of a closed
self sufficient single site and not dependant upon surrounding developments to support
your facility?
Fletcher: That is correct.
Morrow. One comment, its St. Luke's Meridian and then Boise.
Fletcher: I apologize, I will know better next time.
Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Fletcher? Thank you Gary, anyone else from the
public?
Meridian City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 10
Forrest Kearns, 230 Southwest Montvue, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Kearns: I just have a couple of comments. One, we, Mr. Fletcher came and talked to all
of us last year and we understood that their plan was closed campus so to speak, low
traffic impact area. And now we have been advised that they wish to put a road across
here through St. Luke's which is certainly within 300 feet of the Montvue Subdivision. I am
a licensed land surveyor, I can tell you this is a 1/2 mile, this is a 1/4 mile and this is 330
feet, this is Holloway's property. While that is not 300 feet per say I agree with the Attorney
that is helping us that it is probably reasonable to assume that we would like to know what
is going on. Our major concern is a roadway through here which would definitely affect us.
And also as a surveyor I have been involved in water studies and water generally follows
ground water will generally follow and I can't testify totally to that but it will generally follow
your above ground water courses. This is a water course here so this will affect and
everyone of us over here has our own well. So it would affect our water.
Kingsford: But only if there were wells put there, if I am reading the concerns correctly.
Kearns: Also, on the roadway, it was my understanding that the major reason for putting
the road in there was because there is not that they needed 2 accesses. That is 1320 feet
less maybe 100 feet where Bear's property is there. That is plenty wide enough for 2
accesses in off of Franklin plus the plan that we saw indicated a connection with I don't
knowwhose subdivision is over here, but it indicated a road coming through this area too
into that. I guess it came from over in here somewhere and out into that other one is
better, but it went over in along Franklin over towards Cloverdale and gained another
access in that area. That is all I have to say, any questions?
Morrow. I have a question, I am confused about this well issue. Typically the wells in your
subdivision would be 90 to 120 feet deep and these projects would be served by City water
which are generally 450 to 750 deep not even in the same strata. They would be required
to have pressurized irrigation which would take advantage of surface water as provided
by Nampa Meridian and so I don't see where they would be any issue at all here that
relates to individual domestic wells within the subdivision which you live. What is the
point with respect to the wells?
Kearns: I guess our major concern is that the development will get into that strata and
affect our water. We feel that there should be a comprehensive study done as to the effect
on our water and also the waste water and that sort of thing.
Morrow: Waste water meaning?
Kearns: Surface run off from the streets, how will that be handled, will that affect us?
0 •
Meridian City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 11
Kingsford: Those are things that would have to be covered, typically they are retained on
site and so on, but it is a valid concern. Any other questions of the Council? Anyone else
from the public?
Gerald Rylf, 360 Montvue Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Rylf: Mayor Kingsford, gentlemen of the Council, I would like to start off my little
presentation by asking everybody in Montvue Drive to please stand up. Now this is a
majority portion of the people that live on Montvue Drive. When they say our concern is
the road that has been proposed immediately adjacent to our subdivision and how it would
affect everyone. We have gone to the P & Z notes, minutes and we have selected
paragraphs which we feel will directly affect our subdivision. I will just briefly note these,
on page 8, paragraph 4 talks about any development be harmonious with the general
vicinity. Now since our area has been one of low development and the people that are
attempting to develop the area around us are talking about an extremely high density
development, they are talking about apartments, town houses and so forth. Also, in
paragraph 41) it deals with having a non -hazardous situation or one that is disturbing. A
road immediately adjacent to Montvue Drive that could be possibly feed from a road
coming from Franklin could and probably would be used as a short cut for people trying
to avoid the existing Eagle Road, Franklin Road intersection trying to get to 1-84 and the
reverse coming from 1-84 and then going back up. If a road was put through the property
by St. Luke's. On paragraph 4F is says that any development would be non -detrimental
to the economic welfare of the community and we find that hard to believe in that if our tax
base would be suddenly increased because of a forced annexation by Meridian which will
surround us maybe gentlemen we will be voters for Meridian. And we question who is
going to pay for the fire department and where would it physically be located on the St.
Luke's property. Paragraph 4G deals with excessive production of traffic or noise. Once
again we consider that traffic possibly coming from Franklin and escaping out through a
road through the St. Luke's property onto Eagle Road would be extremely noisy.
Paragraph 41 we talk about no destruction of natural or scenic features. It is already stated
that if the road would go through that the proposed jogging paths and vegetation that
would be planted by St. Luke's would have to be given up and have to be stopped. We
submit that the BewsfTullis people could select alternate routes for roads if they need to
be the property including going south over the freeway if they have to or going toward
Cloverdale and selecting that instead of trying to load down Eagle Road. Are we going to
have restaurant signs next to the hospital saying this road to Jolly Back hamburgers etc.
Now, if the property immediately adjacent to the subdivision which belongs to a man
named Holloway, he has it up for sale now and is expecting somebody to come and buy
his property. A road could also be placed on the Holloway property intersecting any road
that would be through St. Luke's. Thereby increasing the traffic, we would request that not
only a traffic study but environmental study be taken into consideration by the City Council
Meridian City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 12
before approving anything. May I answer a question about the water at this time for Mr.
Morrow. As you know sir, anytime agricultural land is no longer being irrigated that it does
help in feed the aquifer an the aquifer is getting less and less. Once again here we have
agricultural land being promoted into something where they will take from the aquifer but
they will put nothing back. The people in the subdivision are concerned about their water,
we do not have City water in the subdivision. We are all on wells and have septic systems.
That is all I have, thank you very much.
Kingsford: Any questions for Gerald? Thank you
Richard Willis, 3555 Montvue Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Willis: Mr. Mayor and Council I live on Montvue Drive and I would like to say when Mr.
Bew's representative made his proposal he stated that his proposal was in accordance
with St. Luke's master plan. I recall attending a meeting when St. Luke's presented their
master plan as did most of Montvue. I don't believe anyone protested the plan that St.
Luke's presented. They were very considerate of all of the neighbors in Montvue and they
took our views into account when they developed their plan. Quite frankly I don't remember
seeing anything on that plan of an access road as Mr. Bews is showing on his plan. Now,
I live on Montvue so I know what the traffic is on Eagle, you don't have to be a traffic
engineer or do any studies to walk out on Eagle Road at a busy time of the day and you
will see traffic (End of Tape) because there is not a whole lot of development on southeast
Eagle. We understand that -is about to change and we have heard stories about when that
development goes in over there they are talking about 24,000 cars a day. Where are those
24,000 cars going? A good number of them are going to come down Eagle and we also
know that Eagle is proposed to be 4 lanes all the way to Eagle and will eventually be the
major north/south access to the northern part of the state. If you go out there and look now
if you put a light at St. Luke's the current traffic that stops at Franklin will back up from that
light up to your freeway off ramp. You start dumping 24,000 more cars or however many
there are shortly you are going to have the same situation that Boise had a Cole and
Overland. Traffic will be out onto your freeway. Now, the last point I would like to make
is we have heard testimony here from St. Luke's stating that they don't want that road, now
when the St. Luke's property was originally approved I would like you to recall back there
was a lady that appeared before the Council who was protesting a zoning change of her
neighbor along Franklin Road. She had an attorney represent her who made a very good
presentation but at the end of the presentation Mr. Morrow who I recall specifically asked
this lady's attorney if his client was willing to purchase her neighbors property. And she
said no and Mr. Morrow made the most profound statement that was made that night when
he stated than what gives you the right, your client's right to tell that neighbor what they
can do with their property. That is exactly what Mr. Bevis representative is telling St.
Luke's is that they are going to have to give them access. And we have heard testimony
Meridian City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 13
that they do not want that. Now you stated you have to treat all citizens equally and I
stand behind that 100%. So if the statement was true that night it is true this night as well.
Thank you.
Kingsford: Any questions for Mr. Willis?
Morrow. My only comment is that I stand by the statement.
Ed Burtner, 285 Montvue Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Burtner: I just wanted to add one comment on the wells, I think the other things have been
pretty well expressed already. Mel Southerland who also lives on Montvue Drive was not
able to be here tonight, he asked me to express and I will say because I know this to be
true. The wells during the, a couple of years ago when we had the realtor out they started
that well up on the property, you will have to excuse me I have a problem with my throat.
They started that well on a pump 24 hours a day and everybody here in the subdivision
will know this. At that time Mel Southerland's well dropped to the point where he could not
get water out of the bottom of it. Guss Hine who is not here tonight his has dropped, mine
has dropped considerably over the time since we moved there. There must be some sort
of connection between that big well and the water we get. I think it is something that
should be considered. If we are going to be using our wells we have to know that we are
going to have water. That is all I have to say.
Kingsford: Thank you Ed
Glen Griffith, 3295 North Montvue Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Griffith: All my neighbors have adequately addressed most of our concerns. I think there
is one other issue that for us who have purchased property in this subdivision within the
last couple of years it hasn't been addressed and that is if the City Council's decision is
to go ahead and approve this and their solution for our water situation is to force us to sign
onto the City water that is a considerable financial undertaking. Some of us it is going to
be a hardship. I purchased this property me and my wife with the knowledge that we had
water. If we kept our well up that was the way it would stay. Now, I didn't fathom being in
the City this quickly. I think it is an issue that ought to be brought up.
Robin Hollingsworth, 3300 North Montvue Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Hollingsworth: In listening to the testimony this evening by Mr. Forrey, he spoke a lot of
how well he has worked with St. Luke's Hospital and that may well be but I think that he
did not take the residents of our subdivision into consideration. As has been stated tonight
Meridian City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 14
we knew what the plan was for St. Luke's Hospital there was not plan for an access road.
They were going to put up a beautiful buffering of landscaping, there was going to be a
jogging path for residents of not only our subdivision but also of the Greenhill Estates
across the street so that it could be accessible to them also. That will be eliminated by this
plan. Also, as far as Eagle Road goes and the Eagle Road congestion we not only have
Eagle Road but we also have two lateral roads, Overland and Franklin. They are 2 way
roads at this time, 2 lanes. Last week I was in my yard and my friend was coming out of
Springwood Drive which is directly across from Montvue Drive. For curiosity sake because
we have been having so much trouble and this mind you was at 7:30 in the evening, I
glanced at my watch and it took her 8 minutes and that was to get across to the median.
And then to ease her way into oncoming traffic, that is not even during rush hour. As Mr.
Willis stated daily traffic is backed up past Montvue Drive, well towards where the access
to St. Luke's and where this access, the access road that is proposed by Forrey will be
located. At this time it is just absolutely impossible. I also agree with Mr. Fletcher, I do
believe that this is a piece meal. Wheno°elare a ou theltruth ent In a we do not subdivision
want to make it full
o not
have privy to all of the paperwork a Y
time job to read the little Meridian newspaper, the Idaho Statesman, listen to public
television wherever it is that they place these notices we do not for the next year and a half
to the two years want to make it a full time occupation to keep up with what is going to be
coming in our backyard. I feel that a plan needs to be submitted in its entirety and that we
will be able to see exactly what Mr. Bews is going to do as far as noise reduction and also
I would say lighting. Especially if we have an access road so that there will not be
anything that is intrusive on our neighborhood. So I would like to see the full plan. I think
that we all know that growth is inevitable and that especially this intersection is very much
desirable. We understand that but we would also hope that we could work with existing
residents. That our way of life won't
disturbed
we could do this n such aable
fash onsell
our
that
homes because we are an island. I ust feel that
it could also be harmonious with the residents in Montvue Subdivision.
Kingsford: Thank you
Tresha Griffith, 3295 North Montvue, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Griffith: What I wanted to talk about was traffic. Since there is so much cars going on
Eagle Road and one winter when it was really bad the cars were backed up they thought
our subdivision was a short cut so we had about 80 cars in just a few minutes pulling in
and turning around and finding out it was a dead end. You should have seen the mess
that it caused. So that is why I think we need traffic studies and others dies to havetak as
look at and see what kind of impact
and Ithis
would hate to see this wild
life habitat disappear
of ducks that return to our la
because of the congestion of traffic and noise and other things that might prevent them
0 •
Meridian City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 16
going to go on overkill by putting up these street lights. Now that we have you can see
basically it is one road in, it make a little tum, it is tear dropped shaped and goes back out.
We have children that like to ride their bikes, we have people that like to take walks around
the neighborhood, we have horses, we have people that walk around through that
neighborhood. Their safety is now becoming a concern where we all moved out into that
area to avoid safety concerns. We have animals, we have children, and those are my
concerns. I believe those are probably concerns of everybody in this room. I think they
need to be addressed as well.
Kingsford: Thank you, anyone else? Seeing none I will close the public hearing, Council
members. It is clear we have received additional testimony is that right Counselor?
Crookston; That is correct.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to have the City Attorney prepare new findings
of fact and conclusions of law on the annexation and zoning to C -G for Ed Bews, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
(Inaudible)
Kingsford: I would have taken that if I hadn't closed the public hearing, now we are going
to have new findings. Go ahead
Crookston: You need to re -open the hearing.
Kingsford: Re -open the public hearing, you know what you are going to create, we are
going to go full round again.
Forrey: No, I think it is solutions, I have been taking notes and listening to citizens and
here are some things to think about in terms of your findings of fact and for good
development here. First of all if the Council policy in terms of that one Comprehensive
Plan policy about Conditional Uses along the Interstate if that is the procedure the Council
is going to follow then I want you to know that Ed Bews does not have a problem with that.
We stated that at the Planning and Zoning public hearing and are re -iterating that tonight
asking Council to make that determination of how to (inaudible) that policy. Secondly, Ada
Meridian City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 17
County Highway District has required a traffic study of the Bews property and the St.
Luke's property and they have asked to coordinate both of those properties together work
with the Highway District, we are doing that. St. Luke's is a little ahead of us they started
the traffic study and we are starting our with them. ACHD controls the layout of roads
here. The Highway District on four separate occasions has asked that there be a traffic
connector between the Bews property and the St. Luke's property. If the Highway District
changes that the policies we have to follow. One of the access points that has been
proposed would be on the north side of the St. Luke's site. I think a good way to mitigate
the concerns that people have here is to move that access road and maybe move it down
close to the Interstate which is another concept we have explored. At one time we
anticipated 2 traffic roads between the 2 sites ACHD has indicated only one is necessary.
It does not have to be on the north side and I think one of the things I would like to do with
the homeowners out there in Montvue Subdivision and the Highway District and St. Luke's
is look at moving that south and meetings we have had with St. Luke's Hospital they
recognize they have to have some traffic access. We are going to have hotel, motel,
restaurants, those services are critical to the hospital and for the people that will use that
facility in Meridian. So there has to be some type of traffic access, maybe not a major road
and I agree with that. We have got to do some good planning here with the highway district
and with the citizens and we will do that. If the City acquires the Bews well and if there is
a relationship between those water strata than the City has options, mainly not use it, if
there is a problem we certainly want to protect your water or deepen it to get into a totally
different strata, maybe we could go down to 700 feet instead of 485 to protect the water
that is there. I sympathize with that and I hope that helps. Just a commitment that we will
continue to work and help and try and make this a good project that we can all be proud
of and not hurt Montvue Subdivision.
Kingsford: Well certainly Mr. Forrey that is something that you need to move posthaste
on because it is my understanding that utilities are already being planned or extended in
that northern area. So that would need to be accommodated, we don't want to cut up the
St. Luke's property for them.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I think Mr. Forrey what I would like to see speaking for myself is that
we are talking of about, there was a letter here from Thomas Tullis folk asking for more
input with respect to traffic circulation. Mr. Fletcher testified to St. Luke's concern, I think
that what I would like to see is as a City Councilman is these things structured put into
format and brought before the City Council.
Forrey: The traffic study?
Morrow. I want to see what the ultimate plan for those properties is and how it relates to
other plans. I think the thing is that the danger is that these things get put together
•
Meridian City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 18
somewhat haphazard infringe on other properties own plans and what I would like to see
and I think it is a responsibility of the Council to see those plans and either pass on them
favorably or unfavorably. But have on the public record the concurrence of Mr. Fletcher
and St. Luke's, the concurrence of the Thomas/Tullis properties, and the ones affected.
I think those people ought to speak for themselves and say yes we are satisfied with this
plan or no we are not satisfied with this plan. I think that should be done.
Forrey: In that arrangement then probably the best way to approach it would be that the
uses as it is stated in the current findings of fact that the uses would be subject to
conditional use permit and review by City Council. I believe that would address that
concern.
Morrow. Well I think there are some other issues there also.
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, also Wayne, the 3 areas of roads, the top one which is commercial
general, does that go into Montvue?
Forrey: No, it goes into the Holloway Tree Service property. That also was a requirement
of the Ada County Highway District, they did not want a connection into the Montvue, it
was a stub street into the Holloway property.
Corrie: Then the other 2 is it says H2O the water line and the bottom one is below the
hospital complex.
Forrey: That is correct?
Corrie: And those would go out to Eagle Road am I correct on that or (inaudible) in their
parking lot?
Forrey: No that is very conceptual and it is not meant to imply anything on the St. Luke's
property. This was just exploring ideas with the highway district. At one time there was a
concept of 2 connectors to St. Luke's but they have agreed now that it should be one and
that has not been accurately located. Whether it is on the north side or the south side or
the middle that is something the traffic study has to decide.
Kingsford: Any other questions or comments? Mr. Morrow?
Morrow. I have a comment and I think my personal preference would be to table pending
these studies. Now we are talking about maybe concepts obviously some of the testimony
we have had tonight including myself would like to see something more than concepts
Wayne. So I think in fairness to us to the City Council and to our staff and to our citizens
0
Meridian City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 19
I think that I would like to see some of these things ironed out before we go to findings so
I would like to see it tabled until we can get more definitive information. That is a comment
on my part.
Kingsford: Any other questions first for Wayne? I did re -open the public hearing ma'am
you are welcome to come and speak.
Mary Edmondson, 3360 North Montvue, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Edmondson: When Mr. Van Auker was developing north of Franklin we received 3 letters
concerning various stages and so forth. We just got a round about gossip down the street
that all of this development was planned and they were putting the first bricks in. I think
that we should have a right to request of the City Council that they notify of these
proceedings as they go along. That is all I have to say.
Rylf: What we failed to understand is how a person can buy a piece of property and
someone come along with a lot of juice and say they are going to put a road through when
there are alternate ways of handling the situation. Now, if Mr. Bews has his property that
does abut 1-84 it seems to me if he is in such need as access to this property for his
restaurants and so forth that he would get away from Eagle Road and heavy traffic and
trying to disturb the neighborhoods at Montvue Drive and to disrupt what St. Luke's has
for is patients, get off the dime and develop his project and pick alternate input outs and
leave Eagle Road alone. Thank you
Patricia Rylf, 360 Montvue Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Rylf: It has been mentioned that Mr. Holloway's property would have a stub street. Mr.
Holloway's property abuts our property to the east, it runs right along the irrigation ditch.
St. Luke's property abuts our irrigation ditch to the north. If and when, I understand that
Mr. Holloway has an offer that he is looking at today. If and when his property is
developed and the road goes through there it can conceivably go by our back fence and
that would make our neighborhood an island. So this also impacts in that way. Thank you.
John Timons, 3460 Montvue Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Timons: I would like to make a comment on roads. I don't know if anybody from the Ada
County Highway District is here but it might be a suggestion that they build a frontage road
along the freeway and then Mr. Bews can have access off of that into his property. They
can build a lot of businesses along that frontage road which would be better I think even
for his development. That is just a suggestion. Then I have another concern, it is about
your sewer district, your water and sewer facilities out at Ten Mile. I think it is just your
0 •
Meridian City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 20
sewer, do you have the current capabilities of handling, are you going to build something
else? Because my concern is that I grew up on Duck Alley on Linder Road and my family
still has property there and there is a sewer line that runs down to the River. At times it is
hard to handle all of that development out west of Meridian. I have seen raw sewage run
into that river in years past. I wonder if this is going to add to that?
Kingsford: We have never had raw sewage from our plant into the River.
Timons: From Ten Mile?
Kingsford: Not from Ten Mile, what that is, the Boise River outfall and what happens is if
Ten Mile Drain is too low then we are required by EPA to pump that affluent that has been
treated into the Boise River.
Timons: So you are saying it is treated?
Kingsford: It is treated yes, it use to be treated with chlorine now it goes through and Ultra
Violet Basin.
Timons: I should have taken pictures.
Kingsford: We have never had a violation in our treatment plant so I don't think you saw
raw sewage come from our plant.
Timons: Well, that alleviates my concerns. Thank you
Kingsford: Thank you, I wish somebody from the Highway District was here I would like
to know what their feeling is with regard to, oh Karen you are here, get up here and tell us
what the Highway District thinks about frontage roads.
Gallagher: I was prepared to speak on the Conditional Use, I can wait or repeat it then
whatever you would like.
Kingsford: I think about everyone has integrated their thoughts both ways so why don't
you.
Karen Gallagher, ACRD, 318 E. 37th, Garden City, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Gallagher: As a representative of the Highway District I am here tonight to request that
no approval be given to this conditional use/annexation. I am not sure how you are going
to proceed with it until a traffic study has been submitted and we have had a chance to
0 0
Meridian City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 21
review it. As stated in the report from the District the plan submitted to the district are of
a conceptual nature only and lacks sufficient traffic data and detail design information
needed for a thorough staff review. Therefore their staff report will be a conceptual review
only, those are the comments you have received from us. If your approval was to be
conceptual we would like to incorporate in the traffic. Or either way the traffic study at this
point we have no information to do any detailed analysis to even decide. Just from what
the applicant has told us we believe at this point that 2 accesses to Franklin, one to
Franklin and one to Eagle Road would be necessary for the circulation in this area. As far
as the frontage road work, we would have some concerns. One of which in dealing with
St. Luke's is that they wanted to keep their campus fairly secure and not divide it.
Therefore the first access you can have off of Eagle Road is where their signal is located
it is very close to that vicinity. You couldn't put a frontage road south of that, so to put a
frontage road in you would need to back up to the east off of Eagle Road in order to have
stacking and then pull the frontage road through either the St. Luke's Campus and down
or if you wanted to leave St. Luke's intact it would have to go all the way over to the shared
property line and then come south and then it would be a frontage road only on the Bew's
property possibly extending over to the Tullis property. I don't know if that is what you had
in mind. Usually a frontage road would encompass both properties, so I would see that as
a problem just from the interactions and conversations I have had with St. Luke's. I would
like to also address the letter that we did receive from Thomas and Tullis that their
concept, we do support having the connections at a minimum 2 between the Bews property
and the Tullis property. The alignment that they drew up would continue the St. Luke's
road straight through to the Tullis. And we would have concerns with a road going that far
in that linear direction. We do support the connection more similar to what has been
proposed at this point on the Bews conceptual outline. So again we would prefer or
request that no approval be granted until we see some detailed information and a traffic
study to square footage and type of development that is taking place on this property.
Tolsma: Would Ada County Highway District have a great problem with isolating St. Luke's
I mean just the entrance into their campus only and then putting Bews property with 2
accesses off of Franklin Road along with the Tullis property off of Franklin Road. I have
a hard time isolating or making hospital parking lots thoroughfares. I worked for the
paramedics for several years and the fire department and getting into St. AI's and out of
St. AI's without having a through street there is exceptional and also St. Luke's downtown.
I would really like to see them have a closed campus if it is anyway possible to run their
access off of Franklin Road. The hospital is not a thoroughfare to a subdivision or a
grocery store or restaurants or gas stations or whatever.
Gallagher: From our understanding it was to be a mixed use in this area and we also
understood that the development that was proposed was to be in direct correlation to the
people using the St. Luke's campus. Therefore we were in support of a connection of
Ak
Meridian City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 22
some sort. We are having problems at this point with St. AI's that connections with the
development that takes place to the west of the current campus that a connection would
be needed there or that they would prefer to have a connection there so that people can
flow. With the rate that they are growing the connections would be needed. So, in that line
of thinking of development a connection of some sort would be positive we believe for the
traffic circulation. Possibly the format, like I said we don't know the numbers that are going
to be generated and just solely based on those it maybe possible or from our perspective
that both connections one to Eagle and one to Franklin would work best for circulation.
If that is not true and those numbers turn out differently like I said we would definitely still
support some sort of connection maybe not such a main road as it drawn now.
Morrow. Question, is this case Karen where St. Luke's has been completely approved is
not St. Luke's in the driver seat whether there is a connection or not done? I don't know
how as we as a City or ACHD could require St. Luke's to give up property to adjoining
properties no matter how the numbers come out. If St. Luke's doesn't want to be connected
to anybody else and wants a closed campus then is that not the way it will be?
Gallagher: We discussed it with them the status of this road and it was thrown out on the
table that it could possibly be a public road in the future and they would build it. At this
point they were open and willing to build it to a public road standpoint at this point so that
it could be acquired by the Ada County Highway District in the future. Understanding that
connection would go to the property to the east.
Morrow: That is a decision that they will make.
Gallagher: I am not sure and I didn't bring that file with me I apologize, I can find that
information out on exactly how it is detailed or possibly the representative here can recall
better than I can. I felt that it was fairly, it was an understanding that there wouldn't be a
road block to it being public in the future.
Kingsford: I believe my discussions with Mr. Fletcher indicated that they want to be a part
of that certainly. I don't want to speak for you, you are still here and the public hearing is
still open.
Gallagher: Thank you
Jeff Hull, 190 East Bannock, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Hull: We would like to clarify a little confusion on St. Luke's being represented at ACRD.
We have not employed or sent anybody to ACHD to comment on our desire to have a
public thoroughfare through there as has been stated before this evening. I think it is very
•
Meridian City Council
July 18, 1995
Page 2
ITEM #1: TABLED JUNE 20,1995: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF C-
G FOR 74 ACRES BY E.L. BEWS:
ITEM #2: TABLED JUNE 20, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES BY E.L.
BEWS:
Kingsford: We have been requested that they be tabled again until the next meeting. This
is from both the applicant and from ACRD.
(Inaudible)
Kingsford: I have about 8 different correspondences from them so which is the last one?
Yerrington: So we would have to table it until our first meeting in September.
Kingsford: I think Mr. Bews requests though was August 1 st and he is the applicant. So
it would be appropriate I think to table until them. If that requires further tabling from there
it needs to come from the applicant.
Yerrington: I would make the motion, so moved to table until the next meeting August 1 st.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Bob to table items 1 and 2, the Bews annexation and
zoning and public hearing for planned unit development until the August 1 st meeting, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: TABLED JULY 5, 1995: FINAL PLAT FOR LOS ALAMITOS PARK
SUBDIVISION NO. 2, BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
Kingsford: I think I saw the developer, does the Council have questions of him?
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, did we get the pressurized irrigation systems squared off that the
homeowners or the irrigation ditch companies responsibility?
Goldsmith: Yes, that is squared off but that is not the homeowners or the irrigation districts
responsibility. The FHA and VA have approved the subdivision and there really wasn't any
significant hold up there with financing on any of the homes.
0
0
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 15.199'15
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Grant P.
Kingsford at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Max Yerrington, Bob Corrie, Ron Tolsma:
OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, John
Shipley, Wayne Forrey, Kristina Donner, Marshall Smith, Archie Roberson, Joe Simunich,
Gene Babbitt, Freda Babbitt, Garret Lanston, Tom Bauens, Contance Johnson, Jonathan
Seel, Steve Youngerman, Norm Brown, Nancy Hansen, Marvin Hansen, Marty Goldsmith,
Charlie Gongre, Mary Creech, Gene Schultz, Bonnie Glick, Rex Young, T. Hanson, Lydia
Aquerre, Eric Strolberg, Gene Smith, Steve Bradbury, Karen Gallagher, Jim Lee, Charles
Eddy, Mike Preston, Ann Witherell, Jim Witherell, Alan Rennison, Rod Cullip, Jim Allen,
Greg Johnson, Jack Miller:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD AUGUST 1, 1995:
Kingsford: Are there any corrections to those minutes?
Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I move they be approved as written.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve the minutes as written, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM # 1: TABLED AUGUST 1, 1995: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF
C -G FOR 74 ACRES BY E.L. SEWS:
ITEM #2: TABLED AUGUST 1, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES BY E.L.
SEWS:
Kingsford: So far as I know we have not received a letter asking for them to be tabled to
a date certain. Mr. Forrey could you enlighten us there with regard to the Bews?
Forrey: Thank you Mr. Mayor, my name is Wayne Forrey, I work with Ed Bews,
representing and working with him on the annexation and requesting a conditional use.
Mr. Bews submitted a letter to the City asking that it be tabled until a date that the access
issue could be resolved between different properties out there near Eagle Road, the
Interstate and Franklin Road. The Highway District is taking that issue up in late
September. I would think that maybe a date in November on the City Council agenda
0
Meridian City Council
August 15, 1995
Page 2
would be appropriate then to come back. I think it might be resolved by late September.
Or excuse me a date in October for City Council meeting.
Kingsford: The 17th?
Forrey: That would be fine.
Yerrington: I make the motion to table both items until that date.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to table items 1 & 2 the Bews annexation until
October 17th meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: TABLED AUGUST 1, 1995: RESOLUTION #161 - PICNIC SHELTER
RESERVATION FEES:
Kingsford: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN PROVIDING FOR A FEE FOR
RESERVATION OF AND USE OF MERIDIAN PARK PICNIC SHELTERS; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Council deemed that it would be a good idea to set
a fee for reserving a covered picnic area. That set that up as $10. Does the Council have
any discussion on that? You have your copy is it your desire to approve Resolution #161 ?
Morrow: So moved
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve Resolution #161, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: At this time I would like to deviate from the agenda just slightly and to make an
appointment and swear in a new police officer. I Grant Kingsford, Mayor of the City of
Meridian do hereby appoint Eric Strolberg as a police officer and require that he take an
oath subscribed to the Idaho Code 31-2007. So Eric if you would come forward, we will
get you sworn in and on the street. (Inaudible)
ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR WATERBURY PARK
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 2
Kingsford: The correct date for that meeting should be the 8th being election day. Notify
the applicant of that.
ITEM #2: TABLED AUGUST 15, 1995: ANNEXATION AND HEARING ZONING
REQUEST FOR 74 ACRES BY E.L. SEWS:
Kingsford: Likewise it asked to be deferred. until the December 5, 1995 meeting.
Morrow: So moved
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to defer the Bews annexation request until the
December 5, 1995 meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: TABLED AUGUST 15, 1995:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MIXED,
USES BY E.L. BEWS:
Kingsford: Entertain a motion to table that.
Yerrington: So moved.
Morrow: Second
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A
PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to table the third item to the December 5, 1995
meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: TABLED OCTOBER 3,1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR
HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP:
Kingsford: Does the Council have questions on that? Mr. Morrow?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have a question I guess with respect to the procedure for Highlands
Ranch. When we approved the findings of fact and conclusions in September, the decision
was essentially that the Meridian City Council hereby decides that the annexation and
zoning shall not proceed at this time but shall be tabled until October 3, 1995 that the
0 0
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 5. 1995
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Grant P.
Kingsford at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Max Yerrington, Bob Corrie,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Tolsma:
OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Marty
Goldsmith, Greg Oslund, Glenn Bentley, Brian McColl, Larry Van Hees, Tracie Persons:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 21,1995:
Kingsford: Any corrections to those minutes? Is there a motion to approve of them?
Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the minutes of our meeting of November
21, 1995.
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve the minutes of November 21, 1995,
all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: TABLED OCTOBER 17,1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR
74 ACRES BY E.L. BEWS:
ITEM #2: TABLED OCTOBER 17, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL
USES BY E.L. BEWS:
Kingsford: You have reviewed the letter you have been asked to table that to the next
meeting. I guess I would just bring up, I would ask staff if they have discussed that either
with Mr. Bews or Mr. Forrey. My dilemma is that you put that off until the next meeting, the
findings are drawn you are going to be asking a different Mayor and two different
Councilmen to deal with it. I guess I would suggest that it be tabled until the second of
January.
Morrow: Restate your position please?
Kingsford: Well, if you table that to the next meeting as the developer has requested and
then you direct at that point findings to be prepared then you would be asking a different
Mayor and two different Councilmen to deal with the issue. And those findings might very
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 16, 1996
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert D.
Corrie at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Glenn Bentley, Charles Rountree, Ron Tolsma:
OTHERS PRESENT: Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Jim Johnson, Bill
Gordon, Anna Doty, Moe Alidjani, Grant & Lavon Kingsford, Max Yerrington, Becky
Bowcutt, John McCreedy, Gary Fletcher, Mike Littlefield, Glenn Rufus, Forest Kerns, Marty
Goldsmith, Brian McColl, Dennis Butterfield, Dave Collins, Glenn Blaser, Bruce Blaser,
John Wardle, Walt Casey, Marshall Baker, Tom Eddy, Robert Morrison, Richard McCuhey:
Corrie: I would like to make a presentation tonight if I might. Moe,Alidjani, would you come
up here please? Moe, thanks, this is a plaque, it says Mohammed A. Alidjani, Planning
and Zoning Commission presented in appreciation of your (inaudible) as Planning &
Zoning Commissioner, 1983 to 1995. Your volunteered time and effort as a public servant
(inaudible) January 16, 1996.
Alidjani: Mr. Mayor, it has been a privilege to serve the City and citizens and it has been
a great time for as many years as you said with all of my colleagues. (Inaudible) thank you
very much.
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 2,1996:
Corrie: Are there any corrections, additions or deletions? I will entertain a motion for the
acceptance as written.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we accept the minutes of the previous meeting held
January 2nd.
Morrow: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we accept the minutes as written, all those in favor
say Aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: TABLED DECEMBER 5,1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR
74 ACRES BY E.L. BEWS:
Corrie: With the Council's approval I would like to switch those two around and do the
public hearing first on the second one (inaudible) and then come back for the annexation
and zoning and maybe do those two at the same time. Does anyone see any problem with
that at this time? Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 9, 1994
Page 2
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: TABLED: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY E.L. BEWS:
Johnson: We have a letter we received dated November 7, 1994 from Mr. Bews asking
that we table this annexation request again and if we do so we need to do so to a date
certain.
Alidjani: Is there a special request?
Johnson: No, there is no special request for a date.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we table this until the December meeting.
Crookston: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if this is waiting for a medical or a hospital zone.
We would not have one in effect by then.
Johnson: Well, you are probably right but we can still do that. We can pick another date
if you want.
Rountree: Can we suspend action on that until we have the zone?
Crookston: You might as well table it until you do have that zoning.
Shearer: I withdraw my motion and I move that we table this until we have the health
services zone approved.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: I guess what we are saying is that it is a dead issue until we have a zone, in
other words if they requested another zone at that time then we can do that. We have a
motion to table and a second until an HS or Health Services zone is approved and added
to our zoning ordinance, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #2: TABLED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY
BRIGHTON CORPORATION:
Johnson: I call your attention to a letter we have received from Mr. Mike Wardle. Do the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 18
to the City Council for preliminary plats on Chamberlain Estates and Fawcett's Meadows
No. 2.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded to pass on a favorable recommendation for the preliminary
plats as addressed by Commissioner Rountree, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR E. L.
BEWS BY E. L. BEWS AND WAYNE FORREY:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if there is an applicant or someone
representing the applicant that would like to come forward at this time please do so.
Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission I am here tonight representing Edward
and Shirley Bews the owners of the Bews property which is generally east of the Eagle
Road Interchange, which would be on the north side of the Interstate between the
Interstate and Franklin Road. I have a vicinity map I would like to hand out. The subject
property on the transparency is shown in green that is the property owned by Ed and
Shirley Bews. It is immediately east of the proposed St. Luke's Hospital site which is on
the east side of North Eagle Road. The brown that you see on that transparency is the
Department of Transportation Interstate right of way, Interstate 84. Several years ago Ed
Bews recorded a plan called Farmington Estates Subdivision and that is located on this
property, it has been recorded but never constructed. All of that green area show the 75
acre Bews ownership but the olive colored portion there is the Farmington Estates plat,
again never constructed. Ed believes and I do too now that we have had a chance to do
some master planning with St. Luke's Hospital that subdivision would not be compatible
with the proposed medial campus envisioned for that site. So, it is Mr. Bew's desire to
vacate that plat and work it out with any of the agencies that are involved. One thing that
would not be vacated is the well lot. There is a developed municipal quality well on the
property and that well lot would remain so that there is a possibility of getting that to the
City.
Johnson: When did that go through the County?
Forrey: I am thinking 1976 -1978 somewhere in there. The request of Mr. Bews for Mixed
Planned Use Development complies with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, but right now
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 19
your current zoning ordinance does not have a Mixed Use Zone.
Johnson: Correct.
Forrey: After Mr. Bews applied for this annexation request St. Luke's Hospital and Mr.
Bews got together and decided it was in good interest to jointly master plan the 2
properties. That shows a little better the relationship between St. Luke's Hospital site and
the Bews property. And now that both parties are negotiating on joint development and
even exploring the possibility of increasing the St. Luke's ownership, a transfer of property
between the 2 owners the Hospital has asked that their site be zoned Health Service,
much like the Health Service zone in Boise or cities where there is a major medical
campus. Ed Bews submitted a letter today to the Commission asking for the same type
of zone, and we are in a little bit of a dilemma because the City doesn't have a Health
Service zone, this would be the first medical campus in the community. It is appropriate
to have that type of zone to give the medical community to develop all of those port uses
around a major hospital. So, there is a possibility that this would have to be tabled at
some level either at the Planning & Zoning Commission level until such time as a zone is
there if it is appropriate or the City Council level. Mr. Bews fully expects that is going to
happen and it is going to take awhile to develop a new zoning district.
Johnson: Right, we have a letter from him which I am sure you are familiar with, that
basically says the same thing. How was this advertised for tonights meeting.
Forrey: As Mixed Planned Use Development, but when l posted the property a week ago
on the notice on the posting I put Mixed Planned Use Development and possible Health
Service zone, I had both of those.
Johnson: Where do we stand Wayne with the difference there, the change? Does that
present a problem is my question?
Crookston: It really does because we don't have the zone in which it was initially
advertised, so we don't have an effective notice.
Johnson: We don't have either one of those zones at this point.
Crookston: That is correct.
Johnson: Well, I guess it is a good idea that he is agreeing to table this at this point. It
kind of confuses me when we advertise something for a zone we don't have, I don't know
how we can do that, even though we have it in our Comprehensive Plan and we will have
that zone I'm sure, but we don't have it now.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 20
Forrey: Just as a side note, how this was developed, St. Luke's applied for a Limited
Office zoning and now that their master plan is coming together, their master plan will likely
include many uses that are not allowed in the Limited Office zone and that was one of the
reasons that the hospital felt there should be a zone appropriate to their medical campus.
And the Bews property a portion of that or perhaps all of it will be part of that medical
campus and that is why the letter today.
Johnson: Have you looked into the terminology, the description of that HS zoning?
Forrey: Yes
Johnson: And can you make some of that available to the City?
Forrey: Yes, in fact we submitted a 2 or 3 page synopsis.
Johnson: Of different approaches in different cities.
Forrey: Right, it was based on the Boise, and the hospital also has a consultant from
Boston that had one of the teaching schools hospitals in Boston that had a similar type
zone. We could find other and research others if you want. And just one last thing, the
property has been posted and I understand there is some confusioin or a dilemma here
we are willing to wait and let the City take time to see if the hospital zone or health service
zone would be appropriate and take a look at that. The other option would be, I guess Mr.
Bews could request Commercial General that may cover some of the items. And then
lastly a development agreement should definitely be required in this situation and Mr.
Bews would agree to that. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Johnson: Mr. Bews is obviously a patient man he has waited since 1977 for Farmington
to develop.
Forrey: Mr. Chairman, one more thing, the area in brown I did speak with Mr. Larry
Strough with the Idaho Transportation Department District 3, that area in brown has a
separate legal description. His recommendation to Mr. Bews and to this Commission it is
not in writing yet but I believe a letter is forthcoming that the State would prefer that area
in brown to be zoned industrial. It complicates potential construction down the road or
overlay or staging of contractors in a public right of way when it is zoned commercial or
limited office or things like that. If it is zoned industrial then the State can get in there and
do maintenance and not have any potential conflicts with local ordinances which they are
doing right now.
Johnson: Okay, any questions for Mr. Forrey?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 21
Shearer: You mean we have to have a zone in order to do construction on the road?
Forrey: 1 understand the State has had some conflicts in the transportation department
when the roadway is zone residential and they get involved in construction.
Shearer: What do you call it when we build a commercial building, is that industrial
because we bring a backhoe in, it doesn't make any sense.
Johnson: Well, there is some staging out there right now is what he is talking about
(inaudible) right to the south of that.
Shearer: Yes, but that is not a permanent thing that is construction, when any piece is
zoned you have to have construction, in residential (inaudible).
Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Forrey. Thank you Wayne, this is a public hearing, anyone
else like to address the Commission on this issue please come forward now. Seeing no
one then I will close the public hearing. I would suggest that we need a motion.
Rountree: Just for discussion there is not much we can do if we don't have the zoning.
Johnson: I believe it would be proper to table, you have to table it to a date certain.
Rountree: I am trying to get an idea of when we could address the amendments of the.
Johnson: We don't have a clue when we will have the zoning capabilities available. Do
you have any suggestions on that Wayne?
Crookston: The applicant could withdraw the application and either request an
amendment to the zoning ordinance and propose it or the City could propose amendments
to the zoning ordinance which probably would include other items than this particular zone.
In which event if the applicant does not withdraw, you can table it to whenever because
you don't have sufficient to make a decision as to what to zone it, you don't actually have
an application for a particular zone that we have in our ordinance now. So, you can deny
it.
Johnson: It is actually an irregular application isn't it, because the application maybe
should not have gone this far because we do not have that zone.
Crookston: That is correct.
Johnson: But, here we are. What is your thinking gentlemen, what would you like to do?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 9, 1994
Page 2
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: TABLED: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY E.L. SEWS:
Johnson: We have a letter we received dated November 7, 1994 from Mr. Bews asking
that we table this annexation request again and if we do so we need to do so to a date
certain.
Alidjani: Is there a special request?
Johnson: No, there is no special request for a date.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we table this until the December meeting.
Crookston: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if this is waiting for a medical or a hospital zone.
We would not have one in effect by then.
Johnson: Well, you are probably right but we can still do that. We can pick another date
if you want.
Rountree: Can we suspend action on that until we have the zone?
Crookston: You might as well table it until you do have that zoning.
Shearer: I withdraw my motion and I move that we table this until we have the health
services zone approved.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: I guess what we are saying is that it is a dead issue until we have a zone, in
other words if they requested another zone at that time then we can do that. We have a
motion to table and a second until an HS or Health Services zone is approved and added
to our zoning ordinance, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #2: TABLED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY
BRIGHTON CORPORATION:
Johnson: I call your attention to a letter we have received from Mr. Mike Wardle. Do the
190 East Bannock
Boise, Idaho 83712
208-381-2222
Edwin E. Dahlberg
President
The Honorable Mayor Bob Corrie
Meridian City Hall
33 E. Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Meridian City Council Members
Meridian City Hall
33 E. Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
JJ St Lukes
=IIIgional Medical Center
r
rF
January 5, 1996
RECEWED
JAN - 5 1996
CITY OF MERIDIAN
Re: E. L. Bews' Applications for Zoning, Annexation, and Conditional Use
Permit for Property South of Franklin Road and North of I-84 in Meridian,
Idaho
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
In February of 1995, Mr. Bews, through his representative Wayne Forrey (herein
Bews or his representatives referred to as the "Applicant"), filed the above -referenced applications
with the City of Meridian. These applications received conditional approval through the Meridian
Planning and Zoning Commission. On November 29, 1995, after a number of deferrals, Ada County
Highway District (ACRD) made its recommendations and conclusions on these applications.
See Exhibit 1 for chronology of events. We understand the City Council will now act on the
annexation, conditional use permit and zoning request on January 16, 1996.
St. Luke's generally agrees with the staff reports and formal actions of Meridian,
Planning and Zoning, and ACHD, except as to one issue --the suggestion that a public road run from
the Applicant's property across St. Luke's land. See Exhibit 2 for copies of formal actions. Although
St. Luke's previously supported the annexation request, the purpose of this letter is to express St.
Luke's concerns regarding these applications.
AN AFFILIATE OF VHAs-
The Honorable Mayor Bob Corrie
Meridian City Council Members
January 5, 1996
Page 2
A. LACK OF SPECIFICS
Based upon the wide variety of land uses proposed by Applicant, it is hard to
determine the compatibility of the Applicant's project, as it relates to St. Luke's Meridian Campus.
The Applicant's sketch plan has provided no details, such as site circulation, open space, landscaping
plans, elevations, or any other land use details, which will allow the city or surrounding property
owners to review the Applicant's project. Page two of the zoning administrator's Finding of Facts
stated that "the land use would contain a variety of coordinated planned land uses that are
compatible with the St. Luke's Hospital development." The twelve land uses identified by the
Applicant may or may not be compatible to the St. Luke's campus and surrounding properties.
Coordination will depend on where the different land uses are located and what amenities are placed
on the Applicant's site.
The attorney for the Montvue Park Subdivision residents stated in a letter to the
Applicant's representative on May 24, 1995, that "the lack of a detailed planned unit development"
was a concern. It is also a concern of St. Luke's that the land uses considered by the Applicant may
not be compatible.
B. CLOSED CAMPUS
The St. Luke's campus has been master planned to create a closed campus that is
compatible for pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The closed campus will allow patrons to drive or
be shuttled to the campus and then they can transition to other parts of the campus by walking or
using other designed interior campus movement. The Applicant has suggested that a road should
be constructed through the St. Luke's Meridian campus to provide access to the Applicant's property
from Eagle Road. With the purchase of the Holloway property, Applicant's proposal would bisect
the St. Luke's property and a five lane roadway (as suggested by the ACHD report) would destroy
St. Luke's interior closed campus patterns. The southern stub road from the Applicant's property is
not compatible with the St. Luke's Meridian Campus approved site plan. It concerns St. Luke's that
a stub road could be required through an approved project, which will be completed in 90 days. One
must remember that the Applicant does have access from Franklin Road. Finally, St. Luke's worries
about the conflict between public traffic and public access to medical facilities. Our experience is
that when people are seeking medical services, they are more consumed by medical issues than
traffic. Placing another Fairview Avenue on the boundary of the campus destroys the campus
concept and creates unnecessary barriers and safety concerns for the public.
C. FAILURE TO FOLLOW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Another concern is the land use and development process. The current
Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian requires that the Applicant's property be partially
The Honorable Mayor Bob Corrie
Meridian City Council Members
January 5, 1996
Page 3
single family residential and partially commercial use. See Exhibit 3 attached. Based upon the
Applicant's sketch plan there is a need for a conditional use permit for uses not allowed in a zone.
Some land uses proposed by the Applicant, such as the Planned Storage area, would not be an
allowed use according to the existing comprehensive plan. If the comprehensive plan was modified
and a conditional use was requested, Section 2-418C of the zoning ordinance requires that the
Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed
conditional use. The modification of the comprehensive plan must first be applied for and approved;
secondly, a zoning request must be applied for and approved; and finally, a request by Applicant for
a conditional use permit must be requested and approved. Each of these requests must be approved
by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the comprehensive plan modification and rezoning
request must also be approved by the City Council. The Council should require that these
applications follow the ordinances and Comprehensive Plan. See Meridian City Code 11-2-417A.
Given the lack of specificity in the applications and the lack of an amendment to the Comprehensive
Man to accommodate the requested change by the Applicant, one could argue that no action should
be taken until all of the necessary procedures have been followed.
D. ROADS AND TRAFFIC
The ACHD report references a number of traffic studies. While St. Luke's generally
agreed with the ACHD report, our counsel previously provided you with comments concerning that
report. See Exhibit 4 attached. The St. Luke's study demonstrated the necessity of a traffic signal
to accommodate the St. Luke's campus traffic. Based upon the Ada Planning Association study,
ACHD made aggressive assumptions and determined that within a mile of this area there will be the
equivalent of the trip generation of 27,000 single-family homes or the traffic equivalent to seven
Boise Towne Square Malls by the year 2015. St. Luke's still believes more study is merited to
support these assumptions. Since there are so many unanswered questions with the Applicant's
project, ACHD assumed you would allow the most intense use and the Applicant has not supplied
any detail to the contrary. As a result, there are some critical questions that must be answered.
1) How many lanes of traffic will Eagle Road and Franklin Road have in the
future?
2) When will the grade separated interchange at Franklin/Eagle and the Five
Mile interchange occur?
3) Who will pay the cost of these improvements?
The only thing that is entirely clear is that if the City of Meridian allows the very
intensive use proposed by the Applicant, it must first be sure there is capacity on Franklin and Eagle
to handle the traffic generated by this new intensive development. ACHD believes the above issues
The Honorable Mayor Bob Corrie
Meridian City Council Members
January 5, 1996
Page 4
must be resolved. St. Luke's believes there has not been adequate study done to date. Until the
above questions are answered, the comprehensive plan for the City of Meridian may conflict with
the road capacity in the area.
E. IMPACT ON ST. LUKE'S
St. Luke's supports responsible, planned development and growth. In 1994, St.
Luke's proposed its medical campus concept to the City of Meridian and requested annexation. All
of the adjoining property to St. Luke's was zoned and platted as residential. Based on your zoning
approvals, St. Luke's designed a medical campus. A traffic signal has been installed to service the
medical campus. The design of St. Luke's infrastructure that has already been constructed was based
on an internal roadway system for a closed medical campus. St. Luke's specifically designed its
internal circulation system to be user friendly for a medical campus. The placement of all of the
infrastructure, the location of the building, and our entire master plan would have been different if
St. Luke's thought the northerly strip of land would be taken to become a public arterial to service
the Applicant's property.
St. Luke's opposes any public road through its property. The congestion, noise, cost
and safety risks with a public road through St. Luke's property are not acceptable to St. Luke's. If
the St. Luke's private property is required to be used for a public road, there will be substantial cost
needlessly incurred. The hard costs to reconstruct the road to meet ACHD standards would result
in expenses of at least $3,563,000. Exhibit 5 attached hereto sets forth all of the costs to reconstruct
existing improvements to meet ACHD standards. Who will pay for improvements and redesign
costs? If the reconstruction occurs, who will compensate the public, the physicians, St. Luke's and
their employees for the disruption of services and operations of an operating medical office
complex? Taking valuable land for a road will inhibit St. Luke's ability to provide the full potential
of medical services in the future based on the current plan. We cannot quantify that cost to the
public.
St. Luke's would remind the City of Meridian that St. Luke's project for a closed
medical campus was approved a year ago. St. Luke's incurred substantial expense in bringing public
improvements to its property and has cooperated with the Applicant (without reimbursement to date)
to allow water and sewer to be laid through the St. Luke's property to connect to the Applicant's
property.
There are ways to develop the Applicant's property in a manner complimentary to
St. Luke's approved use. However, the level of detailed plans have not been provided by the
Applicant. We have attempted to meet with the Applicant to discuss these issues. The Applicant
has not brought forth anything in those meetings except the same sketch plan submitted a year ago.
The consequence of a public road through St. Luke's property is devastating, not only because of the
The Honorable Mayor Bob Corrie
Meridian City Council Members
January 5, 1996
Page 5
cost but also because it significantly damages a project that was approved by you only a year ago.
The City Council determines what is the approved use for the Applicant's land, but the City must
understand that St. Luke's cannot support the use of its land for a public road until there is a detailed
plan of development with uses compatible and complimentary to St. Luke's. Even then, the
Applicant would need to bear all costs to redesign and reconstruct any of the improvements St.
Luke's has already installed.
CONCLUSION
St. Luke's does not oppose annexation and development of the Applicant's property.
However, because the Applicant has failed to provide any specific plans of development for well
over a year, St. Luke's feels that the City should withhold any sort of approval until the necessary
details are provided for good planning. St. Luke's would recommend the comprehensive plan first
be reviewed and revised and that appropriate traffic studies be conducted before the City entertains
such intense use. Finally, St. Luke's opposes any public road through its property and would further
suggest that a road to the north of St. Luke's property would have an equal devastating impact upon
its northerly neighbors and St. Luke's, but for different reasons. We will make ourselves and our
experts available for questions and will be present at the City Council meeting to address any
concerns you might have with the issues raised in this letter.
Very truly yours,
ST. LUKE' REGION MEDICAL CENTER,
LT
By
Gary Fl r, Executive Vice President
cc: E. L. Bews
John McCreedy
Wayne Crookston
83256_1. WPD
.P
THE FOLLOWING IS A CHRONOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE HISTORY OF THE
ON THE PROPOSED E. L. BEWS (VARIETY OF MIXED PLANNED BUSINESS AND
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES) PROJECT LOCATED SOUTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD,
NORTH OF I-84 AND ON THE EAST SIDE OF ST. LUKES WEST MEDICAL CENTER
(SLWMC).
April 12, 1994 - St. Lukes Conditional Use Permit Application.
"A plan of the proposed site for the conditional use showing the location of all
buildings, parking and loading areas, traffic access and traffic circulation, open
spaces, landscaping, refuse and service areas, utilities, signs and yards."
2. April 26, 1994 - St. Lukes Conditional Use Application, Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission, FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW.
Note: No ACHD Findings
June 15/June 9, 1994 - Letter from Larry Sale, ACHD, to Jeff Hull SLRMC, ACHD
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
4. February 15, 1995 - E. L. Bews Conditional Use Permit Application.
"A plan of the proposed site for the conditional use showing the location of all
buildings, parking and loading areas, traffic access and traffic circulation, open
spaces, landscaping, refuse and services areas, utilities, signs and yards."
Note: The same description as SLRMC Application.
March 9 and March 6, 1995 - Letter from Karen Gallagher, ACED, to E. L. Bews,
ACHD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. Note: Page 2, #6 & #7-
6. March 10, 1995 - Letter from Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer and Shari
Stiles, P&Z Administrator to Meridian City Council and Mayor, E. L. BEWS REQUEST
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BEWS PROPERTY(VACATED
FRAMINGTON ESTATES) IN REQUESTED C -G ZONE.
Approx. March 14, 1995 - E. L. Bews Conditional Use Permit Variety of Mixed Planned
Business and Residential Land Uses South of Franklin Road, North of I-84 & on the east
side of St. Lukes West Medical Center, FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW.
8. April 4, 1995 - Letter from Richard Brown to Property Owner (SLRMC), Notice of the
request to vacate of Farmington Estates.
EXHIBIT 1
9. April 4, 1995 - Letter from Gary Smith, City Engineer, Sewer Service and attached
February 10 and April 3, 1995.
10. May 3, 1995 - Letter from Debra Tullis to William Berg, City Clerk, Roadway access as it
relates to Bews and SLWMC.
11. May 10, 1995 - Letter from Wayne Forrey to Gary Fletcher, Coordination of Water and
Sewer Service to Bews Property.
12. May 16, 1995 - From Gary Fletcher to Meridian Mayor and City Council, regarding E. L.
Bews application (Roadway Acc -ss).
Note : "You should know we have commissioned preliminary traffic studies based
upon our understanding of proposed developments east of the St. Luke's property
to Cloverdale. These studies suggest that all three developments - St. Luke's
Bews and Thomas/Tullis - cannot be adequately served with a public access road
though St. Lukes's property."
13. May 22, 1995 - Letter from Debra Tullis to Gary Fletcher, St. Lukes and access from
Tullis/Thomas Property.
14. Approx. June 14, 1995 - E. L. Bews Application for Annexation and Zoning South of
Franklin Road, North of I-84, Merdian, Idaho, FINDING OF FACTS AND
CONCLUSION OF LAW.
15. June 14, 1995 - Letter from E. L. Bews to Meridian Mayor and City Council, Table
Annexation, Zoning, and Conditional Use Permit to July 18, 1995. NOTE: 1 st table
request.
16. June 15, 1995 - Letter from Wayne Forrey to Montvue Park Residents regarding
Neighborhood Coordination Meeting.
17. June 19, 1995 - Fax from Montvue Residents to Wayne Forrey regarding all future
discussions shall be made with John McCreedy.
18. June 20, 1995 - Letter from Larry Sale to Mayor - Defer decision until ACHD
Commission meeting on July 12, 1995 in order to receive finding from traffic impact
study.
19. June 22, 1995 - Letter from John McCreedy to Larry Sale, regarding E. L. Bews
Application (Montve Park Residents Concerns). Also November 30, 1994, May 24, and
June 20, 1995.
20. June 28, 1995 - Letter from Karen Gallagher to Residents of Montvue Subdivision,
regarding MCU-1-95/Bews Property.
21. June 29, 1995 - Letter from Jon Gorski to Larry Sale, regarding Bews Property.
Timing Issues, Notice of Informal Meeting, Traffic Study, Public Road.
22. June 29, 1995 - Letter form Jeff Hull to Larry Sale, regarding Traffic study Bews
Development
23. July 5, 1995 - Letter from E. L. Bews to Mayor and City Council, regarding Clarification
of Planned Development General (PD -G) Requirements and Water Well/Tank Site for
City of Meridian.
24. July 5, 1995 - Letter from E. L. Bews to Mayor and City Council, regarding cancelled
Council meeting to August 1, 1995. Attached Letters dated July 6 & 13, 1995.
25. July 7, 1995 - Information packet to Montvue Park Residents from Bews/Davis/Forrey.
26. July 12, 1995 - Letter from Larry Sale to Je,THull/Gary Fletcher, regarding Traffic
Analysis for the St. Lukes/Bews/Thomas/Tullis Properties.
27. July 13, 1995 - Memo from Larry Sale to E. L. Bews and others, Power Center
Application.
28. July 14, 1995 - Memo from Jared Jameson, CH2MHill, to Jeff Hull SLWMC Access
Study
29. July 18, 1995 - Letter from Jon McCreedy to Mayor and City Council, regarding Bews
Development Application.
30. July 19, 1995 - Sign-up sheet for meeting with St. Lukes/Bews.
31. July 20, 1995 - Memo from Jared Jameson, CH2MHi11, to Jeff Hull SLWMC Access
Study.
32. July 24, 1995 - Letter from E. L. Bews to Mayor and City Council, regarding Gary
Fletcher.
33. July 28, 1995 - Letter from Larry Sale to Jeff Hull, regarding Traffic analysis for Bews
Development.
34. July 31, 1995 - Letter from Larry Sale to E. L. Bews, Deferral request to a later date:
September 13, 1995.
35. July 31, 1995 - Letter from David Szplett to Jeff Hull, Traffic Analysis.
36. August 1, 1995- Sub -Regional Transportation Study of Area Around Eagle Road and I-84
Interchange.
37. August 31, 1995 - Draft ACHD Development Application Report regarding Bews
Property, MCU 1-95 Mixed use development
38. October 11, 1995 - Letter from John McCreedy to ACID
39. November 30, 1995 - Letter from E. L. Bews to Mayor and City Council to defer
application request until December 19, 1995.
40. December 1, 1995 - Letter from Karen Gallegher to E L. Btws, MCU -1-95 Franklin Rd.
East of Eagle Road.
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ONING COMMISSION
E. L. BEWS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
SIN ROAD NORTH OF 1-02 & %"" J`
ST. LUKE'S WEST MEDICAL CENTER
MERIDIAN. IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled conditional use permit application having
come on for consideration on March 141 1995, at the hour of 7:30
o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Planning and Zoning Commission
having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant
appearing through his representative, Wayne Forrey, and having duly
considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the
following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use
Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for March 14, 1995, the first
was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
publication of which
that the matter was duly considered at the March 14, 1995, hearing;
that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and
submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to
newspaper, radio and television stations.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
SIONS OF LAW
CONDITIONUSE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 1
2. That the property is located within the City of Meridian;
that the general location of the property is south of Franklin
Road, north of I-84 and on. the east side of the St. Luke's West
Medical Center in an area classified as a Mixed/Planned Use
Development Area on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and -which is described in the application which
description is incorporated herein.
3. That the property is currently zoned R -T, Rural
Transition; that the Applicant has an application before the
Commission for annexation and zoning to C -G, General- Retail_ and
Service Commercial.
4. That the zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial,
(C -G) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. 11. as
follows:
(c -G1 General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of
the (C -G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are
customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a
building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed
commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are
located in close proximity to major highway or arterial
streets; to fulfill the need of travel -related services as
well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring
public. All such districts shall be connected to the
Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and
shall not constitute strip commercial elopment and
encourage clustering of commercial development;
5. That the Applicant, E. L. Bews, is the owner of record of
the property; that the owner has submitted a consent to this
application.
6. That the property is currently undeveloped, vacant and
consists of 70.4 acres.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CONDITIONAL USE - E. L. BEWS
Page 2
7. That the proposed anticipated land uses by the Applicant
y are mixed, and consist of the following variety of uses:
a. General retail
b. Commercial and Professional Offices
c. Auto Travel Plaza/Auto Services
d. Extended stay Hotel Suites
e. Motel Complex
f. Retirement Center
g. Nursing Home/Elderly Care Center
h. Town houses
i. Multi -family Apartment Center
j. Patio homes
k. Medical Services
1. Restaurants
that Mr. Forrey stated that items a. through e. and 1. are allowed
uses in the C -G district and items f. through k. are conditional
uses.
S. Mr. Forrey then testified that there was a well on the
property and that the City may be interested in acquiring the well;
that he felt that the Americans with Disabilities Act was not
applicable in '-the' 'City; that in response to site specific
requirement that the area is designated as a Mixed/Planned Use
Development in the Meridian Comprehensive Plain, he stated that they
were no requesting -4 -planned development zone and he did not feel
that the comment was applicable; and that detailed site review at
the City council level should only be required for uses that are
not allowed in the C -G zone.
9. The Applicant's representative did not state any specific
uses that they had in mind or that were planned.
10. That the Meridian Planning and Zoning Administrator and
the City Engineer's office submitted comments; they stated that
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Page 3
CONDITIONAL USE - E. L. SEWS
irrigation and drainage ditches -list be tiled, existing domestic
wells and/or septic systems must removed, and sidewalks shall all
ith City Ordinances, and that the
be provided in accordance w
Applicant, per Ada County Highway District recommendation,
will be
required to prepare and submit a traffic study in conjunction with
the St. Luke's Hospital Master plan; that the sewer service for
this site to the Five Mile Sewer Trunk Line has been proposed by
the Applicant; the feasibility of that proposal is being
investigated by the Public Works Department; water service is
subject to positive results from the City computer water model;
that the legal descriptions submitted do not meet the requirements
of Resolution 158; that this area is -designated as Mixed/Planned
Use Development in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, which requires
that all uses be approved under the conditional use permit process;
that the plan submitted', is only conceptual and does not conform to
requirements of 11-9-607; that pathways for pedestrian/bicycle
access must be incorporated throughout this development; that a
minimum of ten percent of the site must be landscaped in accordance
with Planned Development - General Requirements; that minimum
landscape setbacks of 35 feet beyond required right-of-way along
Franklin Road and I-84 shall be provided; that co-ordination with
St. Luke's Hospital Master Plan requirements is needed to ensure
compatibility of development; and that at a minimum the City
'
Council, should require detailed site plan review at City Council
for each use proposed; that a drainage pian designed by an
FINDINGS OF FACT
AE L.NH�SIONS OF LAW
Page 4
CONDITIONAL USE
f
i
architect or an 'engineer shall be submitted for all off-street
parking areas; that outside lighting shall be designed and placed
so as to not direct illumination on any nearby residentials; and
that all signage shall be in accordance with Meridian City
Ordinances; that pathways for pedestrian/bicycle access must in
incorporated throughout this development.
11. That the Meridian City Fire Department commented that if
the City is going to allow more building in this area the Fire
Department is going to need a sub -station with fire fighters.
12. That the Ada County Highway District submitted comments
and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full which
includes the special recommendation to require the preparation and
submittal of a traffic study to the District that also considers
the effects of the master plan for St. Luke's Hospital.
13. That the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and The
Central Health Department submitted comments and they are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
14. That in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan it is stated
under LAND USE, Mixed -Use Areas Adjacent to I-84, Overland Road and
Franklin Road, Page 28., as follows:
115.6 The development of a variety of compatible land uses
should be provided in specific plans and proposals for
future development.
5.8 Development in these areas should be based on functional
plans and proposals in order to ensure that the proposed
uses conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and are
compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Page 5
CONDITIONAL USE - E. L. HEWS
5. 10 Develo ment should be conducted ung.;.,= Planned Unit
Development procedures and as co,,Aitional uses,
especially when two or more differing us are proposed.
(Emphasis added.)
5.11 The character, site improvements, and type of development
should be harmonized with previously -developed land in
the area, and where located adjacent to or near any
existing residence or residential area, shall be
harmonized with residential uses, and all reasonable
efforts shall be made to reduce the environmental impact
on residential areas, including noise and traffic
reduction.
5.12 Strip development within this mixed-use area is not in
compliance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
5.13 Clustering of uses and controlled access points along
arterials and collector streets will be required.
5.14U Because these areas are near I-84, Franklin and
Overland Roads, high-quality visual appearance is
essential. All development proposals in this area will
be subiect to development review guidelines and
conditional use permitting procedures. (Emphasis added.)
5.15U The mixed-use area
nthe
Road/I 84 vicinity interchangeOverland
a
Road/Franklin Road/ Eagle
priority development area.
15. That in the annexation and zoning Application in No. 7.,
the Proposed land use section, it is stated as follows:
"It is proposed that it be Commercial General (C -G),
consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and
Development Ordinance. The land would contain variety of
coordinated planned land uses that are compatible with the St.
Lukes Hospital Development."
16. That proper notice has been given as required by law and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Page 6
CONDITIONAL USE - E. L. HEWS
1
x'
all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission ha—e been
given and followed.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property;
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant
conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to
11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian;
3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property
pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho CC_, and pursuant to 11-2-418(D) of the
Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho.
4. That 11-2-418 (C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances
of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review
applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of
those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the
conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Page 7
CONDITIONAL USE - E. L. SEWS
L concludes as follows:
a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and
a conditional use permit is required by ordinance.
b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance with
the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
C. The use apparently would be designed and constructed, to
be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the
general vicinity.
d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be
disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses.
e. The property has sewer and water service available.
f. The use would not create excessive additional
requirements at public cost for public facilities and services
and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare
of the community.
g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process,
material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be
detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by
reason of excessive production of traffic or noise.
h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed
use will be required.
i. The development and uses will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of
major importance.
5. That since the Meridian Comprehensive Plan states under
LAND USE, Mixed -Use Areas Adjacent to I-84, Overland Road and
Franklin Road, at Page 28, in Sub -Sections 5.10 and 5.14U, that a)
development should be conducted under Planned Unit Development
procedures and as conditional uses, especially when two or more
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Page 8
CONDITIONAL USE - E. L. BEETS
differing uses are proposed, and b), all development proposals in
this area will be subject to development review guidelines and
conditional use permitting procedures, it is concluded that this
application for a conditional use should be granted, but that as
required and stated above in this paragraph, all uses shall only be
approved if submitted as conditional uses and all of the procedures
and requirements of the conditional use ordinance are met and
complied with.
6. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met,
including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform
Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Electrical Code, the Fire
and Life Safety Code, and all parking and landscaping requirements.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CONDITIONAL USE - E. L. BEWS
t �
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
r
VOTED_
Page 9
DECISION AND RECOKKENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property
described in the application with the conditions set forth in the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
MOTION:
APPROVED(! DENIED
1
L/
FINDINGS OF
FACT
AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW page 10
CONDITIONAL
USE
- E.
L. BENS
X,
E. L. SEWS
APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING
SOUTH OF FRANKLIN RIADF NORTH OF I-84
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on June 14, 1994, at the hour of 7:30
o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, and was tabled to November 9, 1994, then
tabled again to March 14, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission
d written testimony and the Applicant
having heard and taken oral an
appearing through his representative, Wayne Forrey, and having duly
considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and
zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for March 14,
1995, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the March 14, 1995 hearing;
tunity to express comments and
that the public was given full oppor
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page
1
submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to
newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That the property included in the application for
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
reference is incorporated herein.
3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as R-
T, Rural Transition; it has been farmed in the past, is presently
utilized as pasture and farmland, plus fallow vacant land; that the
be zoned C -G, General Retail
Applicant requests that the property
and Service Commercial and the representative stated that the land
f coordinated planned land uses that
use would contain a variety o
are compatible with the St. Luke's Hospital development.
4. That the property is adjacent to the St. Luke's West
Medical Center Site; that the South boundary is Interstate 84 and
the North boundary is Franklin Road.
5. That E. L. Bews is the Applicant and he owns the land;
that the land consists of approximately 74 acres and he has
consented to the application and has requested this annexation and
zoning and the application is not at the request of the City of
Meridian.
6. That the He Planning and Zoning Administrator and
ubmitted comments for the conditional
the City Engineer's office s
equally applicable to this annexation
use Application and they are
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS
Page 2
and zoning request; they stated that irrigation and drainage
ditches must be tiled, existing domestic wells and/or septic
systems must removed, and sidewalks shall all be provided in
accordance with City Ordinances, and that the Applicant, per Ada
County Highway District recommendation, will be required to prepare
and submit a traffic study in conjunction with the St. Luke's
Hospital Master plan; that the sewer service for this site to the
Five Mile Sewer Trunk Line has been proposed by the Applicant; the
feasibility of that proposal is being investigated by the Public
Works Department; water service is subject to positive results from
the City computer water model; that the legal descriptions
submitted do not meet the requirements of Resolution 158; that this
area is designated as Mixed/Planned Use Development in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan, which requires that all uses be approved under
the conditional use permit process; that the plan submitted, is
only conceptual and does not conform to requirements of 11-9-607;
that pathways for pedestrian/bicycle access must be incorporated
throughout this development; that the Applicant is to enter into a
development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D;
the development agreement shall address, but not be limited to, the
inclusion of the requirements of 11-9-605 C., G., H.2., R, and L,
and the goals expressed in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that a
minimum of ten percent of the site must be landscaped in accordance
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS
Page 3
General Requirements` that minimum
ment Ge along
Planned Develop of -way
with and required right -
35 feet bey with
landscape setbacks °f rovided; that co-ordination
Road and I-84 shall be P needed to ensure
Franklin uirements is
St. Luke's Hospital Master plan req the City
S a mi,ni.mum
and at
that
of development; Council
compatibility review at City
uire detailed ,site plan designed by an
Council, should req desig
roposed; that a drainage plan Street
each use p for all off-
fOr shall be submitted
or an engineer and placed
eng
architect kiting shall be designed
that outside lig and
parking areas; nearby residentials;
direct illumination on any City
so as to not in accordance with Meridian
be
that all signage shall access must be
pathways for Pedestrian/bicycle minimum of ten
that P that a mi
Ordinances; this development;
throughout accordance with
incorporated landscaped in
10%) of the site must be
percent
requirements; and that a minimum
went - General q kits -or -way along
Planned Develop required rig
setbacks of 35 feet beyond
landscapeovided.
Franklin Road and
I_84 shall be pr rtment commented that a
That the Meridian City Fire Depa
7.
will, be needed if the City allows
sub -station with fire fighters
submitted comments
this annexation. hway District
That the Ada County Ui licable to
the
8• they are equally app
conditional use Application,
forare incorporated herein as if
annexation and zoning, and they
the gage
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. SEWS
A. Under Land Use, Commercial Policies, 4.8U, it states as
follows:
"Encourage commercial uses, offices and medical -care uses to
locate in the Old Town district, business parks, shopping
centers and near high-intensity activity area, such as freeway
interchanges." '
B. Under Land Use, Mixed -Use Area Adjacent to I-84 and
Overland Road, it states as follows:
"These areas are unique in that they are surrounded by
arterials, immediately adjacent to freeway (I-84), are
relatively level in topography, have a distinct linear shape,
and are greatly affected by contiguous industrial, residential
and commercial land uses. In order that compatible land uses
and efficient use of the land might occur, this corridor is
anticipated for a variety of planned, compatible mixed uses.
Probable mixed uses for the areas could be commercial,
combined medium -to -high density residential, open space uses
(as a means to buffer highway noise), tourist lodging,
industrial, office, medical, and related land uses."
C. a. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic Development
Goal Statement, Policies, Page 19, it is stated as follows:
1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to
create a positive atmosphere which encourages
industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in
Meridian.
1.2 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set
aside areas where commercial and industrial
interests and activities are to dominate.
1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new
commercial or industrial developments should be
harmonized with the natural environment and respect
the unique needs and features of each area.
1.5 Strip industrial and commercial uses are not in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS
Page 6
1.6 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to support
shopping facilities which are effectively
integrated into new or existing residential areas,
and plan for new shopping centers as growth and
development warrant.
1.8 The City of Meridian intends to establish a Design
Review Ordinance which will foster compatible land
use and design within the development, and with
contiguous developments; and encourage innovations
in building techniques, so that the growing demands
of the community are met, while at the same time
providing for the efficient use of such lands.
D. LAND
Road and Franklin s Road, Areas Page 28, it is Ostated:
Over
5.6 The development of a variety of compatible land
uses should be provided in specific plans and
proposals for future development.
5.8 Development in these areas should be based on
functional plans and proposals in order to ensure
that the proposed uses conform to the Comprehensive
Plan policies and are compatible with the
surrounding neighborhoods.
5.9 The integrity and identity of any adjoining
residential neighborhood should be preserved
through the use of buffering techniques, including
screen plantings, open space and other landscaping
techniques.
5.10 Development should be conducted under Planned Unit
Development procedures and as, conditional uses
especially when two or more differing uses are
proposed. (Emphasis added.)
5.11 The character, site improvements, and type of
development should be harmonized with previously -
developed land in the area, and where located
adjacent to or near any existing residence or
residential area, shall be harmonized with
residential uses, and all reasonable efforts shall
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS
Page 7
S
be made to reduce the environmental impact on
residential areas, including noise and traffic
reduction.
5.12 Strip development within this mixed-use area is not
in compliance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
5.13 Clustering of uses and controlled access points
along arterials and collector streets will be
required.
5.14U Because these areas are near I-84, Franklin and
Overland Roads, high-quality visual appearance is
essential. All development proposals in this area
will be subject to development review guidelines
and conditional use permitting procedures.
(Emphasis added.)
5.15U The mixed-use area in the vicinity of the
Overland Road/Franklin Road/ Eagle Road/I-84
interchange is a priority development area.
E. Under COMMUNITY DESIGN, Policies, at Page 73, it is
stated:
1. Entrance Corridors Goal Statement - Promote,
encourage, develop and maintain aesthetically
pleasing approaches to the City of Meridian.
2. Policies,
a. 4.4U Encourage 35 -foot landscaped setbacks
for new development on entrance corridors. The
City shall require, as a condition of development
approval, landscaping along all entrance corridors.
15.
That in the Rural
Area
section of
the Comprehensive Plan,
FINDINGS
AND CONCLUSIONS -
E. L.
BEWS
Page 8
Land Use, Rural Areas, page 29, it states as follows:
"Land covered by this policy section has characteristics which
generally allow for agricultural and rural residential
activity due to the existence of irrigation systems, soil
characteristics and relative freedom from conflicting urban
land uses. Where community growth creates pressure for new
development, it must be recognized that agricultural land can
no longer economically continue to be identified or used as
agricultural land to the exclusion of orderly city growth and
development."
16. That Section 6.3, of the LAND USE section of the
Comprehensive Plan, states that land in agricultural activity
should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services
(municipal sewer and water facilities) can be provided.
17. That Section 6.3, of the LAND USE section of the
Comprehensive Plan, states as follows:
"Existing rural residential land uses and farms/ranches shall
be buffered from urban development expanding into rural areas
by innovative land use planning techniques."
18. That the property is included within an area designated
on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan
as a Mixed/Planed Use Development area.
19. That the requested zoning of General Retail and Service
Commercial, (C -G) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B.
11. as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS
Page 9
4
C -G General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of
the (C -G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are
customarily operated entirely or almost entirely
ly within ro osed
building; to provide for a review of the imp prop
commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are
located in close proximity
streets; to fulfill the need to tr velhrelated serviceslal as
ient and permanent
ing
well as retail sales for the tans
shall be connected m to rthe
public. All such districts and
Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City
of development , and
shall not constitute strip
encourage clustering of commercicommercialal development.
20. That Planned Development is defined in 11-2-403 B, at
page 20 of the Zoning Ordinance booklet, as follows:
land which is developed as a single entity for a
uses in combination with
entirelyslve of res residential, A PD may
or commercial or a mixture compatible
A
necessarily correspondfolot sizer density,
a of residential,
lot coverage required, open space or tyP
commercial or industrial uses as established in any one or
more created districts or this Ordinance."
"An area of
number of
supportive
industrial,
PD does not
and a Planned General Development is defined as follows:
."A development not otherwise distinguishedDevelopments,
er anned
in which
Commercial, Industrial, Residential
the proposed use of interior and exterior spaces requires
a completely logical and
unusual design flexibility to achieve
complimentary conjunction of uses and functions. This PD
classification applies to essential public services, public or
private recreation facilitiet a lmixlonal f ecommunitresidentialy
facilities or a PD which includes
commercial or industrial uses."
21. That under 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, B,
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS
Page 10
Commercial, Planned Commercial Development, is a permitted use in
the C -G district and Planned Unit Development - General, is an
allowed conditional use in the C -G district.
22. That 11-9-607 A, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in
part as follows:
"The City's policy is to encourage developers of land
development and construction projects to utilize the
provisions of this Section to achieve the following:
1. A development pattern in accord with the goals,
objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
5. A more convenient pattern of commercial, residential and
industrial uses as well as public services which support
such uses."
23. That 11-9-607 E, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in
part as follows:
"A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each
district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in
the Section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations of the
district or districts in which said PD is located. The
approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide
for such exceptions from the district regulations governing
use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other
regulatipns as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of
the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with
the standards and criteria contained in this Section."
24. That 11-9-607 F, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in
part as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS
Page 11
1. Planned Developments - Planned developments shall be
subject to requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance
and also subject to all provisions within this Ordinance.
g. Financial Guarantees - The developer shall post financial
guarantees for all approved on-site improvements if
required pursuant to 9-606 C."
25. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council were given and followed.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a legislative function.
3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged these
annexation, zoning and conditional use applications under Idaho
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS
Page 12
Code, Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian
City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the
record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial
notice.
4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
5. That the Council may take judicial notice of government
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within
the City and State.
6. That the land within the proposed annexation is
contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and
the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation.
7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant, and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105
Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983).
9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS
Page 13
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular
Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and
requirements, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling
of ditches and waterways and 11-9-606 14., which requires
pressurized irrigation.
10. That the Applicant stated no specific proposed use of the
property and therefore it cannot be determined if the use would be
in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, however any uses would
have to comply with the Zoning Ordinance.
11. That the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its
meeting on January 4, 1994, and has not amended the Zoning
Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan;
thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan
but the Zoning Ordinance may not address provisions for the use; it
is concluded that upon annexation, as conditions of annexation, the
City may impose restrictions that are not otherwise contained in
the current Zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinances.
12. The Applicant has not stated or represented its specific
intentions as to development, which is of concern to the
Commission, even though the Applicant has filed a conditional use
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 14
J
permit application for several uses and has listed some possible
uses; it is therefore concluded, as a condition of annexation and
zoning, that any use or development of the property shall only be
allowed as a conditional use.
13. That it is concluded that the City could annex the
property and zone it C -G but once the property was zoned C -G, the
Applicant could place many different uses on the property without
additional approval from the City other than building permits,
which limits the control that the City should have over the
development and the uses of the property due to the mandates of the
Comprehensive Plan.
14. That it is concluded that since the Comprehensive Plan,
under LAND USE, Page 27, Mixed -Use Areas Adjacent to I-84, Overland
Road and Franklin Road, in Section 5.10, on page 28, states that
all development should be conducted under Planned Unit Development
procedures and as conditional uses and since the City should have
control over any uses that are to be placed on the land, it is
therefore concluded that development of the parcel of land is
conditioned on being developed as a Commercial Planned Development,
which is allowed in the General Retail and Service Commercial (C -G)
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 15
rict, and under the conditional use permit process for each
proposed use.
d be
onl a p arine , mz`iie a de�te�
16. That, as a condition of annexation and the zoning of C -G,
the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development
agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the
development agreement shall address, among other things, the
following:
1. Inclusion into the development of the requirements of 11-
9-605
a. C, Pedestrian Walkways.
b. G 1, planting Strips.
C. H, Public Sites and Open Spaces.
1�.
K. Lineal Open Space Corridors.
e. L, Pedestrian and Bike Path Ways.
i. M, Pressurized Irrigation
2. Payment by the Applicant, or if required, by any assigns,
heirs, executors or personal representatives, of any
impact, development, or transfer fee, adopted by the
City.
3. Addressing the subdivision access linkage, screening,
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 16
11
buffering, transitional land uses, traffic study and
recreation services.
4. An impact fee to help acquire a future school or park
sites to serve the area.
5. An impact fee, or fees, for park, police, and fire
services as determined by the city.
6. Appropriate berming and landscaping.
7. Submission and approval of any required plats.
8. Submission and approval of individual building, drainage,
lighting, parking, and other development plans under the
Planned Development guidelines, including plans for the
storage units.
9. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements with
the existing residential development.
10. Establishing the 35 foot landscaped setback required
under the Comprehensive Plan and landscaping the same.
11. Addressing the comments of the Planning Director, Shari
Stiles.
12. The sewer and water requirements.
13. Traffic plans and access into and out of any development.
14. And any other items deemed necessary by the City Staff,
including design review of all development, and
conditional use processing as required under the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
17. That Section 11-2-417 D of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance
states in part as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS
Page 17
i
"If property is annexed and zoned, the City may require or
permit, as a condition of the zoning, that an owner or
developer make a written commitment concerning the use or
development of the subject property. If a commitment is
required or permitted, it shall be recorded in the office of
the Ada County Recorder and shall take effect upon the
adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the property, or
prior if agreed to by the owner of the parcel. . . .";
it is concluded, however, that it is more' appropriate for a
development agreement to be entered into when plans for development
are better known and therefore as a condition of annexation a
development agreement must be entered into prior to issuance of a
building permit or prior to plat approval, which ever comes first.
18. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the
property is in the best interests of the City of Meridian, and it
is concluded that the annexation shall be conditioned on meeting
the requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and if they are not met the land may be de -annexed.
19. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, Ada
County Highway District, Meridian Planning Director, Central
District Health Department, and the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District, shall be met and addressed in a development agreement.
20. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS
Page 18
a condition of annexation and if not so tiled, the property shall
be subject to de -annexation. That pressurized irrigation shall be
installed and constructed, and if not so done the property shall be
subject to de -annexation.
21. That the Applicant will be required to connect to.
Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains
will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be
subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development
Ordinance and the development agreement, and it shall only be
developed as a commercial planned development and under the
conditional use process.
22. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant and its assigns.
23. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial (C-
G), would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian.
24. That if these conditions of approval are not met, the
property shall not be annexed, or if already annexed, it shall be
de -annexed.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 19
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of the City
eo,a7,.'3 of Meridian hereby adopts and approves these Findings of
Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED4�— !�
6/L -
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
VOTED��--
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
VOTED
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the
property set forth in the application be approved by the City
Council for annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in
these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including that the
Applicant, or assigns, enters into a development agreement prior to
issuance of a building permit, a final plat being approved, or
issuance of a conditional use for any proposed use, which ever
comes first and that the property only be developed as a commercial
planned development and under the conditional use process;. that if
the Applicant is not agreeable with these Findingsof Fact and
a development
Conclusions and is not agreeable with entering
into agreement, the property should not be annexed.
MOTION:
APPROVED'-, �'x� DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BETAS
Page 20
oc�no
JAMES E. BRUCE, President
SHERRY R. HUBER, Vice President
SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, Secretary
TO: E.L. Bews, Contractor
5206 Sorrento Cr
Boise, ID 83704
FROM: Karen Gallagher, Coordinator
Development Services oty
SUBJECT: MCU -1-95
Franklin Rd east Eagle Rd
December 1, 1995
Your application for the above referenced project was acted on by the Commissioners of the Ada
County Highway District on November 29,1995. The attached staff report lists conditions of
approval and street improvements which are required.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 345-7680.
KG
cc: Development Services
Chron
John Edney
Chuck Rinaldi
St. Luke's -Construction Office -190 E Bannock -83712
John McCreedy-960 Broadway -83706
City of Meridian Ada County Planning Wayne For
ey-6045 Thayen P1-83709
ada county highway district
318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714-6499 9 Phone (208) 345-7680
Three stub streets to the west are also shown on the site plan. One of the stubs extends to the
Holloway property and the other two extend to the St. Luke's property. Representatives of St.
Luke's have expressed opposition to having twg stub streets to maintain a "closed" campus.
E. The site includes the formerly platted Farmington Estates Subdivision (43 single family lots) that
was never developed. The applicant has received vacation of the plat by the City of Meridian.
The ACHD Commission acted on the vacation of the street right-of-way on April 26, 1995.
F. The site is currently undeveloped. It is inevitable that this site will develop for some intensive
medical associated land use. The site's location next to St. Luke's RMC and the interstate
highway makes it highly desirable for the type of land use being proposed. However, the site
only has frontage on Franklin Road which causes severe problems of traffic dispersal, because
only one route exists for vehicles to travel to I-84 - through the Eagle/Franklin intersection. Of
the 1,600 trips generated by this site during the p.m. peak hour, 60 -percent (960) are coming
from or going to I-84 (Figure 5). From a traffic circulation standpoint, it would be much better
if this site had direct access to Eagle Road. This report points out the problems that intensive
development of this property (and others in the area) will cause the local transportation system
in a rapidly developing rural area.
G. Access to the site from Interstate 84 is prohibited by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD).
Interstate 84 is under the jurisdiction of Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). The developer
is required to submit application materials to ITD for review and requirements of that
Department.
H. The site plan indicates a traffic signal on Franklin Road at the site's main access road. The
traffic study concurs that a signal may be warranted for this complex in the future and
recommends that it be located 1,760 -feet east of Eagle Road for optimum traffic efficiency.
I. The intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road is signalized. Currently, Franklin Road is
a 2 -lane roadway with an added left -tum lane at both legs of the Eagle Road intersection. Eagle
Road is a 5 -lane roadway both south and north of Franklin Road, with single left turn lanes on
both legs of the signalized Franklin Road intersection.
Traffic:
J. The sub -regional transportation study from APA estimated this site to generate 11,900 vpd. The
individual traffic study for this project estimated this application to generate 16,600; this number
includes a 10 -percent reduction in trips due to linked and/or multi-purpose trips with St. Luke's
RMC. The difference in the two numbers is also attributable to the detail of the land use
assumptions. The sub -regional analysis used generalized land uses such as office, general retail,
and R3 residential, whereas the individual traffic study had 10 separate land use categories and
corresponding trip rates, resulting in the higher volumes.
In contrast to the analysis conducted by APA, the St. Luke's/Bews, et al traffic analysis did not
assume that a Five Mile interchange would be built, as the development of the projects north of
I-84 seem to be likely regardless of the Bench -Valley outcome and results. Although that
analysis did not include the Five Mile interchange, it used the previously assumed APA 2015
MCU -1-95
Page 3
land use in the sub -regional area and the remainder of Ada County so the lower trip generation
in the surrounding area somewhat counterbalanced the lack of a Five Mile interchange. Thus,
the two studies yield similar and compatible results.
K. The key elements of the St. Luke's/Bews traffic analysis are summarized below:
The provision of an east -west connection between the Bews property and Eagle Road will
provide a significant improvement to the operation of the Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection.
However, the added traffic from the east -west connection across the St. Luke's property would
seriously degrade the operation of the St Luke's driveway intersection with Eagle Road. The
addition of this roadway would delay the need for an interchange at the Franklin/Eagle
intersection. The ultimate alignment of an east -west roadway connecting to Eagle Road at the
approximate location of the St. Luke's driveway intersection will depend on future land use and
development in the area. If a roadway intersection with Eagle Road is not located at the St.
Luke's driveway, St. Luke's could "tee" into this connecting roadway, that would probably be
constructed to collector standard and could warrant a traffic signal at its intersection with Eagle
Road. This roadway should be buffered from any adjacent single-family residential land use
existing when the roadway is constructed.
Findings and Recommended Construction:
On-site:
1. The planned multi -use development will include approximately 74 -acres of office,
commercial, residential uses.
2. The proposed project is forecast to generate 1,600 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour.
3. The proposed project is forecast to generate 16,600 daily vehicle trips.
4. A single, signalized intersection will provide access from Franklin Road to the access site.
5. The intersection of the site access road with Franklin Road will require three northbound
lanes and two south bound lanes.
6. The site plan proposed two stub streets to the east and three stub streets to the west.
(Staff anticipates an additional north -south roadway connection to Franklin Road from the
Bairs and Thomas/Tullis properties east of this site when they develop. This additional
connection will spread some the site traffic along Franklin Road).
Off-site - Franklin Road/Eagle Road
1. Of the 1,600 trips generated by this site during the p.m. peak hour, 60 -percent (960) are
coming from or going to I-84 (Figure 5).
2. Westbound Franklin Road will need an additional left -tum lane at the site access road
intersection.
3. The segment of Franklin Road between Eagle Road and the site access road will require
ultimate widening to six traffic lanes; two eastbound through lanes, two westbound left turn
lanes, and two westbound through lanes. However, a 5 -lane section will accommodate the
traffic forecast to be generated by this and adjoining development for several years. At
some time in the future as growth continues in this area, additional improvements to the
roadway system will be required.
4. The southbound approach of the Eagle Road/Franklin Road intersection will require
ultimate widening to include two left tum lanes.
MCU -1-95
Page 4
5. The northbound approach of the Eagle Road/Franklin Road intersection will require an
added right -tum lane.
6. The south and west legs of the Eagle Road/Franklin Road intersection will require widening
to match the added turn lanes north and east of the Eagle Road/Franklin Road intersection.
7. The west leg of the site access road/Franklin Road intersection will require widening to
match the added turn lane east of the intersection.
L. ACHD staff has analyzed the operation of the Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection and found
that it currently operates at LOS C, with an average delay of about 21 seconds per vehicle, and
uses about 35 percent of the intersection's capacity of critical volumes. (Critical volumes are
the specific intersection volumes that conflict with each other, e.g., the southbound left turns
conflict with the northbound through movements.) If this project is developed, and the
recommended improvements have been constructed, the forecast traffic volumes will exceed the
capacity of critical volumes of the intersection. If the project is developed with the
recommended improvements and a street connection to Eagle Road, the Franklin/Eagle
intersection will use 88 -percent of the capacity of critical volumes. Because the intersection
capacity used by this development cannot be replaced without constructing a grade -separated
interchange, staff recommends that the developer be required to construct the listed off-site
improvements and provide a public street connection to Eagle Road. The connection to Eagle
Road will delay the need for the grade -separated interchange at the Franklin Road/Eagle Road
intersection. The actual timing of the interchange will depend on the rate of build -out of the
subject project and other development in the area.
M. Based upon the submitted traffic study and District policy, staff recommends that the developer
be required to make the following roadway improvements that are necessary to accommodate
the site generated traffic in the short term, prior to the build out of the four square mile impact
area. These improvements will not replace the current unused capacity of critical volumes of
the Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection, but will delay the timing of the improvements needed
to effect the replacement, e.g., an interchange at the Franklin Road/Franklin Road intersection:
On-site:
1. A fully actuated traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Franklin Road and a
public site access road located 1,760 -feet east of Eagle Road.
2. The intersection of the site access road with Franklin Road will include three northbound
lanes and two south bound lanes.
3. Provide two stub streets to the west, one of which will be a public street connection to
Eagle Road and one into the Holloway property, north of the said street connection to Eagle
Road. The street connection to Eagle Road will = be extended east of the first north -south
road in the Bews property. It is not necessary that the street be constructed through the St.
Luke's property if an alternative route is determined to provide the same results. This
roadway should be buffered from adjacent single family land use existing at the time of its
construction. The buffering should consist of berms and landscaping consistent with the
City of Meridian's standards.
4. Provide a stub street to the east to the Thomas/Tullis property. This stub street will be
south of the street connection to Eagle Road.
5. Provide a stub street to the east to the Bairs' property.
MCU -1-95
Page 5
Off-site - Franklin Road/Eagle Road
1. Westbound Franklin Road will be constructed to include an additional left -turn lane at the
site access road intersection.
2. The segment of Franklin Road between Eagle Road and the site access road will be
constructed to include five traffic lanes; two eastbound through lanes, one westbound left
turn lane, and two westbound through lanes. This roadway section will be located within
the right-of-way so that the lanes will constitute the south 5 -lanes of the ultimate 6 -lane
section. The developer will be required to construct curb, gutter and sidewalk along the
south side (5 -foot wide sidewalk if detached from the curb, 7 -foot if attached).
3. The west leg of the Eagle Road/Franklin Road intersection will be re -constructed to match
the widening east of the intersection.
4. The northbound approach of the Eagle Road/Franklin Road intersection will be re-
constructed to include an added right -turn lane.
Sub -Regional Transportation Study
N. The Power Center application/MCU-7-95 was before the Commission on June 14, 1995. At that
meeting, the Commission deferred action on MCU -7-95 and requested Ada Planning Association
(APA} to conduct a sub -regional land use/transportation analysis of the four square miles
surrounding the Power Center, including this site. That analysis was completed by APA on
August 1, 1995. The volumes of traffic forecast by the APA study to be generated within the
four square mile area are shown in Table 4, immediately following the maps at the front of this
report and its findings have been summarized by District staff as follows:
The analysis was requested by ACHD in response to the Power Center application, the St.
Luke's project adjacent to this proposed project, the Bews application, and other anticipated
developments in the Eagle Road corridor. The conceptual plans for the referenced properties
indicate a much higher level of development than is assumed in the Long Range Transportation
Plan. The purpose of the transportation analysis was to determine the transportation impacts of
these planned developments and determine the amount of additional roadway improvements that
may be needed to accommodate those impacts. On August 23, 1995, the Commission acted on
the Power Center application (MCU -7-95), incorporating the following findings from the APA
study in its deliberations:
1. The conceptual planning area represents approximately four square miles (2,560 acres),
including the entire area bounded by Locust Grove Road, Franklin Road, Cloverdale Road
and Victory Road. Approximately 150 acres (6% of the total) are undevelopable, including
the I-84 corridor, canals, and flood plains.
2. The 2015 forecast trip generation from the entire area is estimated at 272,500 daily vehicle
trips. This is roughly equivalent to 27,000 single family homes or seven Boise Town
Square Malls. The forecast trip generation was based on a land use scenario developed by
E.J. Smith and Associates under contract to APA and reviewed by ACHD staff, City of
Meridian staff and some officials, and APA staff. The analysis assumed that the entire area
MCU -1-95
Page 6
would be built out by 2015. Maps 5 and 6 show the traffic in the study area now and in
20 years assuming full build out of the study area.
This is an extremely aggressive land use assumption and build -out schedule. It includes
designations by the adopted Meridian Comprehensive Plan, known or approved
developments and some developments that are in the "talking" stage.
3. This project will generate 4.4 percent of the total traffic in the study area by year 2015, but
occupies only 2.9 percent of the land area.
4. APA's modeling effort used the Bench to Valley Transportation Study network which
included the Five Mile Road interchange. The roadway volume forecast in the Eagle Road
corridor will increase over the estimated traffic volumes in this report if the Five Mile
interchange is not constructed.
The Five Mile interchange was included in the network assumption because this system
improvement would be necessary to support the proposed high level of development and its
resulting traffic. The Bench/Valley network used in the analysis is the proposed network
developed as a result of the March 2, 1995, community -wide meeting, and it is essentially
equivalent to several versions that are currently under consideration. With respect to this
area of the County, it is most important to note the Five Mile interchange assumption. h
is not feasible to consider such an intense cub regio^'� �PvPlonment without a Five Mile
intercha
5. Eagle Road and Franklin Road are principal arterials. ACHD Traffic Services staff ran
computer analyses of the operation of the Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection analyzing
its current operation, its operation with this project and the St. Luke's site, and its operation
with this project plus the full build out of the four square mile impact area. The results of
that analysis indicate that the Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection currently operates at
LOS C or better, having less than 21 seconds of average delay per vehicle and uses
approximately 35 -percent of its capacity of critical volumes. Both the Franklin Road/Eagle
Road and Overland Road/Eagle Road intersections fall below Level of Service D using any
conventional intersection and arterial roadway design with the level of regional development
assumed by the APA study.
Assuming full build out of the four square mile impact area without this project, the
Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection will require additional lanes but will operate at LOS
D, with an average delay of 38 seconds per vehicle. Adding the forecast traffic from this
project and the aforementioned improvements to the Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection,
the intersection will operate worse than the described range of LOS F, with an average
delay of greater than 70 seconds per vehicle. Extensive roadway widening and some form
of grade separated interchanges would be required to attain level of service (E or better) at
the Eagle Road/Franklin Road and Eagle Road/Overland Road intersections.
6. The costs of the grade separated intersection improvements ($5 million to $8 million per
intersection) would be the predominant extra -ordinary cost of the high level of development
being considered in the area if right-of-way for major roadway widening is obtained with
MCU -1-95
Page 7
Improvements Plan for the use of impact fee revenue. Victory Road along the south boundary
of the impact area is not currently eligible for the use of impact fee revenue to increase capacity
because the CIP does not anticipate this level of development in this area. The Commission
amends the CIP annually to recognize changed conditions in the County and this roadway could
be qualified for the use of impact fee revenue if the need is justified.
This option would require additional staff time and accounting as described in A. above. It
would provide the needed improvements as development occurs and assess the costs of those
improvements to the developments causing the need.
3. Form a Local Improvement District (LID) to finance the construction of the off-site
improvements and assess either extra -ordinary impact fees or :he usual property tax liens to pay
off the cost of the improvement. This would require the cooperation and cost of some
landowners that may not have plans to develop their property and it would cost all owners the
same per unit of land regardless of the ultimate use of their property. However it would provide
all of the improvements needed to meet the anticipated impacts prior to all the development
occurring. The cost to be financed would approximate the cost of the extraordinary impact per
acre under Lii. above ($27,000,000 / 2406 acres = $11,220 per acre).
4. Accept the responsibility to meet the challenge created by the intensive development that is
forecast in this area and fund whatever level of roadway improvements are affordable using the
revenue currently available to the District and accept a deficient Level of Service until needed
improvements can be funded and constructed. The regular impact fees from the forecast
development will be a substantial sum, but will be collected as the traffic is being generated and
will not provide sufficient time between the need for the improvements and the construction.
Project design, right-of-way acquisition and construction usually require a minimum of three
years for a District sponsored improvement project. This situation could last several years,
while the District was trying to build itself out of the shortfall.
The developer of the proposed Power Center project estimated the regular impact fee revenue
to be generated by the level of development forecast by APA in the four square mile impact area
to be $22 million at build out. Staff agrees with this amount, based on current published trip
lengths and network adjustment factors. However, using new trip length and network
adjustment data provided by APA, ACHD staff calculated the amount of regular impact fee to
be $16,700,000, if the area develops according to the land use scenario developed by APA.
ACHD staff estimated the cost of accommodating the traffic from the same level of development
at $27 million, including:
• two grade separated intersections for Eagle Road at Overland Road and Franklin Road,
• widening Overland Road and Franklin Road to five lanes between Cloverdale Road and Locust
Grove Road,
• widening Victory Road to three lanes between Cloverdale Road and Locust Grove Road,
• widening Eagle Road to five lanes from Overland Road to Victory Road.
A variation of this option would be modified impact fee offset agreements with developers as
they construct their projects, requiring improvements to the system that are near their
development. The difference between these and regular impact fee offset agreements would be
MCU -1-95
Page 10
adjusted downward as each property in the effected area is developed, so there would be no
unused capacity in the system when the area is 100 percent developed.
Recommended Alternative:
Consistent with the Commission's action on MCU -7-95 (Power Center), staff recommends that a
combination of Alternatives 8 and 10 be adopted for this and future applications in the area. Accept the
development(s), requiring the developers to make whatever site related improvements to the system are
necessary to mitigate their site related impacts, mid replace all possible unused capacity in the system
that their development uses up (short of a grade separated interchange).
Also require the preparation and submittal of a special Traffic Impact Study that establishes thresholds
of site related traffic generation that require specific roadway improvements. These improvements may
include the added lanes on Franklin, improvement of the Franklin/Eagle intersection, or the construction
of the connection to Eagle Road. The development will be approved in stages, tied to the thresholds
of traffic generation described by the Traffic Impact Study. The developer can control his own rate and
extent of development and expenditures. If one or more of the required construction activities seems
infeasible, the developer does not have to construct that threshold of development.
Use regular impact fee revenue to make needed capacity improvements as funds are available and as the
Commission budgets funds for the improvements. This will result in the public having to cope with
deficient levels of service in some cases until revenue is available to make the required improvements.
Staff Recommendation:
If the application is approved, the following requirements should be forwarded to Meridian as conditions
for approval.
Site Specific Requirements:
Prepare a Traffic Impact Study that establishes thresholds of development related traffic
generation to which specific roadway improvements will be related. The developer shall not
complete a phase until the required roadway improvements identified by the Trak Impact Study
for that phase have been constructed.
2. This approval is for the conceptual plan only. Approval of additional phases will require
additional conditional use permit or subdivision applications that are related to the Traffic Impact
Study identified above. Specific development proposals (building permits, conditional uses,
subdivision plats, etc.) for the 74 -acre site shall be individually reviewed and approved by the
District and requirements identified by the Traffic Impact Study or by the District may be added
by the District at those times.
3. When warranted, install a fully actuated traffic signal at the intersection of the site access road
and Franklin Road, with design and construction acceptable to the District. As an alternative,
the developer may elect to deposit $70,000 to the Public Rights -of -Way Trust Fund and the
District will install the traffic signal when it is warranted.
MCU -1-95
Page 12
4. When indicated by the Traffic Impact Study, westbound Franklin Road shall be constructed to
include an additional left -turn lane at the site access road intersection.
5. When indicated by the Traffic Impact Study, the segment of Franklin Road between Eagle Road
and the site access road shall be constructed to include five traffic lanes; two eastbound through
lanes, one westbound left turn lane, and two westbound through lanes. The District will acquire
right-of-way along Franklin Road necessary for this widening (except along the frontage of this
property).
6. The west leg of the Eagle Road/Franklin Road intersection shall be widened to match the
widening east of the intersection.
7. The northbound approach of the Eagle Road/Franklin Road intersection shall be constructed to
include an added right -turn lane.
8. When indicated by the Traffic Impact Study, acquire right-of-way for and construct a public road
from the project site to Eagle Road, at a location acceptable to Ada County Highway District.
The developer will not be compensated for this expense. Design of the roadway will include
buffering in the form of berms and landscaping of any adjacent single family residential land use
existing at the time of the construction. Design of the landscaping buffer shall meet the
objectives and plans of the City of Meridian. Coordinate location and design of the roadway
with the District's Traffic Services staff and ITD. The construction of this connection will effect
the timing of the construction of the improvements on Franklin Road, in that the connection
could offset some additional capacity on Franklin Road. The Traffic Impact Study required
above will include recommendations for the schedule of all required off-site improvements.
9. Provide the following stub streets. Locations to be coordinated with the District's Development
Services and Trak Services staff.
a. Provide a stub street east to the Bairs' property line.
b. Provide a stub street east to the Thomas/Tullis property line. This stub street shall be south
of the street connection to Eagle Road.
c. Provide two stub streets to the west, one for the street connection to Eagle Road and one
into the Holloway property, north of the said street connection.
10. Dedicate 45 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Franklin Road abutting the parcel (5
additional feet) and abutting the parcel. The owner = will be compensated for this additional
right-of-way. The additional right-of-way would not otherwise be required for several years
without the development of this parcel, therefore it is a project related impact, not reimbursable
under either the District's ordinance or the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act.
11. Locate the public access road to the site 1,760 -feet east of Eagle Road. The intersection of the
site access road with Franklin Road will include three northbound lanes and two south bound
lanes.
MCU -1-95
Page 13
12. Dedicate a 25' x 25' triangle (or appropriate curve) of right-of-way at both corners of the
Franklin Road/site access road to keep the street improvements in the public right-of-way. The
owner will not be compensated for this additional right-of-way.
13. Construct pedestrian ramps on the corner of Franklin Road and the main site access road in
compliance with Idaho Code, Section 40-1335.
14. Locate proposed sign(s) out of the public right-of-way and out of the clear -vision sight -triangle
of all street and driveway intersections.
15. Construct 5 -foot sidewalk on Franklin Road abutting the parcel. Coordinate location with the
District's Development Services staff.
16. Direct lot or parcel access to Franklin Road is prohibited.
17. None of the roadway improvements described above will be eligible for impact fee offset or
reimbursement.
18. Comply with requirements of ITD for Interstate Highway 84 and Eagle Road frontage. Submit
to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements.
Standard Requirements:
A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall
be made in writing to the Development Services Supervisor. The request shall specifically
identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation of why such a
requirement would result in a substantial hardship or inequity.
Requests received prior to the date scheduled for Commission action shall be rescheduled for
discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda.
2. A request for an appeal of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Development
Services Supervisor within 15 calendar days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of
$110.00. The appeal will be scheduled to be heard by the Commission within 20 calendar days
after receipt. The request for appeal hall specifically identify each requirement to be
reconsidered and include a written exlanation of why such a requirement would result in a
substantial hardship or ine uu .
3. A right-of-way permit must be obtained from ACHD for any street or utility construction within
the public right-of-way. Utility cuts should be combined where practical to limit pavement
damage. Contact Construction Services at 345-7667 (with zoning file number) for details.
4. Submit site drainage plans and calculations for review and appropriate action by ACHD prior
to issuance of building permit (or other required permits). The proposed drainage system shall
retain all storm water on-site and shall conform to the requirements of the City of Meridian.
MCU -1-95
Page 14
Public street drainage facilities shall be located in the public right-of-way or in a common lot
owned by a homeowners association set aside specifically for that use. There shall be no trees,
fences, bushes, sheds, or other valuable amenities placed in said easement. Drainage lots and
their use restrictions shall be noted on the plat (when applicable).
5. Locate driveway curb cuts a minimum of 5 -feet from the side lot property lines when driveways
are not being shared with the adjacent property.
6. Construct pedestrian ramps on the corner of all street intersection in compliance with Idaho
Code, Section 40-1335.
7. Dedicate a 20' x 20' right-of-way triangle (or appropriate curve to keep street improvements
within the public right-of-way) at all intersections abutting and/or within the development prior
to issuance of building permit (or other required permits).
8. Continue existing irrigation and drainage systems across parcel.
9. Continue borrow ditch drainage abutting parcel (culvert may be required).
10. Provide written approval from the appropriate irrigation/drainage district authorizing storm
runoff into their system.
11. If street improvements are proposed, locate obstructions (utility facilities, irrigation and drainage
ditches and appurtenances, etc.) outside of the public right-of-way, as may be required by the
District. Authorization for relocations shall be obtained from the appropriate entity.
12. Install a stop sign on every unsignalized approach of a project street to an intersection involving
a collector or arterial as the cross -street. The stop sign shall be installed when the project street
is first accessible to the motoring public.
13. The developer is required to install street name signs at the locations approved by the Ada
County Highway District. Purchase street name signs, sign poles, and mounting hardware from
ACHD's Traffic Operations Department or an approved outside supplier. The District will not
manufacture street signs until a copy of the recorded plat showing the recording data has been
provided to Development Services staff.
14. Provide a clear vision sight triangle at all street intersections. Within this triangle no obstruction
higher than 36 -inches above the top of pavement will be allowed, including landscaping, berms,
fences, walls or shrubs. The triangle shall be defined by the long leg measured down the
centerline of any collector 350 -feet; and the short leg measured down the centerline from the
collector street curb line 20 -feet. Provide notes on the plat and street construction plans of these
restrictions.
15. Submit three sets of street construction plans to the District for review and appropriate action.
16. Provide design data for proposed access to public streets for review and appropriate action by
ACHD.
MCU -1-95
Page 15
17. All public streets and drainage systems shall be designed and constructed in conformance with
District standards and policies.
18. Specifications, land surveys, reports, plats, drawings, plans, design information and calculations
presented to ACHD shall be sealed, signed and dated by a Registered Professional Engineer or
Professional Land Surveyor, in compliance with Idaho Code, Section 54-1215.
19. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit
(or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes.
20. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable
requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy.
Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Development Services Division
at 345-7662.
MCU -1-95
Page 16
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
Development Services Division
Development Application Report
MCU -1-95 - Mixed use development
Franklin Road east of Eagle Road, City of Meridian
The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit for a mixed-use planned
development. The 74 -acre site extends from the south side of Franklin Road to I-84 and is
approximately one-quarter mile to one-half mile east of Eagle Road. The south one-half of the
site's west side borders the proposed St. Luke's Regional Medical Center (RMC) campus. This
development is estimated to generate up to 16,600 additional vehicle trips per day. Two traffic
studies have been submitted for this application. Both studies indicate that the Eagle/Overland/
Franklin corridors will be seriously impacted by this and other anticipated development in the four
square mile area and that the planned roadway system will not be adequate to support the ultimate
level of development.
Roads directly impacted by this development:
Franklin Road - Principal arterial with no pathway designation
- Traffic count 10,170 in 1994 (e/o Eagle Road)
S.H. 55 (Eagle Rd) - Principal arterial with a bike route designation
- Traffic count 24,233 on 6/14/94 (s/o Franklin)
M..
ACHD Commission Date - November 29, 1995 - 7:00 p.m.
70 1600
<�
MGN'1
10800
3
W
S_�_
N PINE ST.
$ _
J
1
¢
-3ILIo
�
EMERALD
~
41 Ir
W
U
8
8 8
'~
UST 8
t7
8 FRANKLIN
D. TEST
FRANKLIN
RE
g
30 1600
g 3300
�T GUKE'S
g 4200
s12000. 106003
980(
$
N �
& CC CRM Pas s6
STi
84
W
W J
OREGON TRAIL
HWY
+4
OVERLAND
12000 RD.
RD.
30 1600
3300
4200
10M
■
N
ACHD Commission Date - November 29, 1995 - 7:00 p.m.
Ir
� y
lb
W W N Q V
OQ�s \y
r
�vW �.t.i Nn�l1
u
Cu
� v
m
>
C
O
C
in
'J �'0 w�� r
O
CL
(n L
0-0
�� a G •= — =u
> C!!=!! r> � X
Q
N N T
%-
caao °'A 3A
�.
II
J
U�
cc
a as
G cn N
U
W
�•�
cv
I I
N \�
z
en
F
MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
GFM ALIZED LAND USE MAP
INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING ANALYSIS
N
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAP ADOPTED ON DECEMBER 21, 1993
CHr4DEN BLVD. R 1W R. 1E
74
- —
-4
q 1
�i I z 25 1 r
— I I
rt; i-- — , I - - 1 S
f i r....... L SCALE- I' = 2300'
■r �■■ mill
1111 - _mash
cd
PROPOSED SCHOOL
• EXISTING SCHOOLi,
EXISTING URBAN
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
f
;
J
'
� z
A PROPOSED FIRE
MIXED RESIDENTIAL
- ..
33
A. EXISTING FIRE
® GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
y
E F
-O STORAGE WELL'I
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
L
• EXISTING WELL
■ COMMERCIAL
-� PROPOSED WELLAGAICULTURAL
I RURAL RESIDENTIAL
Z
N
URBAN SERVICE PLANNING
PARKS
I
F
AREA BOUNDARY_—
MEDICAL FACILITY
�i' IMPACT AREA BOUNDARY
IMPACT AREA ADJUSTMENT
® MIXED / PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT
r
FUTURE PATHWAYS
i_ IMPACT AREA ADJUSTMENT - ADA COUNTY
gp 1
_,-
�; clTr LIMITS
PROPOSED
PROPOSED SEWER TRUNK EXTENSIONS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
:.�4 . �• - �...... e
/! FUTURE 1-84 OVERPASS
s J, SEWER TRUNK DRAINAGE BOUNDARIES
�"`� m °AL
...� �. .
Eugene C. Thomas
John W. Barrett
R. B. Rock
Richard C. Fields
Robert E. Bakes
Paul S. Street
Larry C. Hunter
Glenna M. Christensen
Mark S. Prusynski
Morgan W. Richards, Jr
Michael G. McPeek
Stephen R. Thomas
Jon S. Gorski
Gary T. Dance
Gerald T. Husch
LAW OFFICE
MOFFATT, THOMAS, BARRETT, ROCK & FIELDS
CHAR11MED
Kirk R. Helvie
Thomas C. Morris
Michael E. Thomas
James C. deGlee
Patricia M. Olsson
Stephen J. Olson
Patrick J. Kole
Andrew P. Doman
David S. Jensen
Allen K. Davis
Bradley J. Williams
Mark A. Ellison
James L. Martin
Kelly Greene McConnell
FIRST SECURITY BUILDING
911 WEST IDAHO
POST OFFICE BOX 829
BOISE, IDAHO 83701
Telephone (208) 345-2000
Facsimile (208) 385-5384
December 11, 1995
Ada County Highway District Commissioners
Jim Bruce, President
Sherry Huber, Vice President
Susan Eastlake, Secretary
318 East 37th Street
Garden City, Idaho 83704
Re: E. L. Bews Development Application MCU -1-95
MTBR&F File No. 4-263.93
Dear Commissioners:
Willis C. Moffatt
(1907-1980)
E. Renn Yorgason
Office Administrator
Gary T. Dance
Partner in Char e
Eastern Idaho rices
IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO
525 Park Avenue, Suite 2D
Post Office Box 1367
83403
Telephone (208) 522-6700
Facsimile (308) 522-5111
POCATELLO, IDAHO
845 West Center, Suite C
Post Office Box 4941
83201
Telephone (208) 233-2001
Idaho WATS: 1 (800) 422-2889
ABA Net 010
We write this letter on behalf of St. Luke's Meridian Medical Center (St. Luke's).
The above -referenced application has been pending before the City of Meridian since February
1995. It has also been pending before you since March of 1995. Finally, after repeated deferrals,
studies and request for extensions, you acted on the above -application on November 29, 1995.
While St. Luke's will not appeal the action of the Commission, St. Luke's has a
number of objections to the findings and conclusions and has elected to advise you of its objections
by letter rather than a formal appeal. After reviewing the contents of this letter, St. Luke's hopes that
you will review your findings and conclusions and make the appropriate changes.
In the introductory paragraph on page 1, the findings summarize the application.
There is reference to the "proposed" St. Luke's campus. The construction of this campus is well
under way and, St. Luke's is just a few short months away from opening up the campus to the public.
St. Luke's project has received all appropriate approvals, including one from ACRD, and built its
project based on those approvals. During the review process, a public road through St. Luke's was
not anticipated or required.
The introduction ends with a statement that the "planned roadway system will not be
adequate to support the ultimate level of development." As will be discussed below, the ultimate
level of development is based upon the highest perceived uses in an application that does not give
EXHIBIT 4
Ada County Highway District Commissioners
December 11, 1995
Page 2
any meaningful detail on uses. St. Luke's is unable to reconcile your conclusion regarding
inadequate roads to handle development with your ultimate action to approve the application. Part
of your approval recommends that a roadway be put through St. Luke's property. On page 9 of the
Facts and Findings in paragraph number 2, you find that Franklin Road is the "only road" to which
the project would take access. We also cannot reconcile these findings.
Some of the foundational elements of this report are subject to scrutiny that would
cause the whole report to be called into question. These items are listed as follows:
1. On page 6, paragraph N(2), suggests that in 2015 the trip generation for the
area will be equivalent to 27,000 single family homes or 7 Boise Towne Square malls. This analysis
as admitted is extremely aggressive and, in St. Luke's view, unsupported.
2. The report assumes that the Five We Interchange is completed. Without the
interchange, the intensive development referenced above cannot even occur. It is our understanding
that the Bench to Valley Transportation Study included the Five We Interchange, but this project
is not on the Idaho Department of Transportation's five-year plan, nor is there funding available for
this project.
3. The recommended road through St. Luke's only delays the need for an grade
separated interchange at Franklin/Eagle in the future.
St. Luke's objects strongly to the recommendation that a public road be required
through St. Luke's property simply to delay future required highway improvements. In addition, we
cannot recall an instance where a property had been approved and developed as St. Luke's did only
to find less than one year after approval, a government agency would recommend changes to the
design and existing construction of the roads only to benefit another developer.
On pages 2 and 3 of the report, ACHD has made a number of assumptions regarding
intensive medical use. St. Luke's disagrees with the magnitude of these assumptions. Rather, the
contrary may be true. If a road goes through St. Luke's, the traffic may be so intense that highly
intensive medical use may not be the appropriate use. If there was a detailed master plan, St. Luke's
would be able to determine whether the adjacent uses are compatible and complimentary to medical
use. Compatible uses may not generate the high traffic volumes suggested.
We wish to reiterate that on page 4 of your report, the Commission admits that the
"added traffic from the east/west connection across St. Luke's property would seriously degrade the
operation of the St. Luke's driveway intersection with Eagle Road." There is a tremendous cost with
not only redesigning St. Luke's property but also tearing up construction less than one-year old only
to delay the need for an interchange. In addition, medical services to the community would be
disrupted during any roadway reconstruction on the St. Luke's property. St. Luke's appreciates that
Ada County Highway District Commissioners
December 11, 1995
Page 3
many of these costs are placed on the developer, nonetheless, St. Luke's had previously suggested
and would suggest again that a full study of the caliber of the Bench To Valley Study be done in this
area prior to approval of such intensive development as proposed in the above application.
As admitted in the report on page 12, paragraph 2, this application is conceptual only.
Since St. Luke's does not know the plan of development or density, St. Luke's cannot determine the
impact of the Bews application on St. Luke's property. When St. Luke's designed and began
construction of its project, the Bews property was zoned residential and had an approved plat. These
new, proposed intense uses assume a right to use St. Luke's facilities and improvements, which were
not designed to handle the volume, noise and congestion. We applaud the staff on looking for ways
in which to accommodate development, but we still believe the overly aggressive assumptions cause
the recommendations to be flawed. St. Luke's opposes your recommendation for a road through St.
Luke's.
St. Luke's by its failure to appeal, does not agree that its development should be
subject to the same conditions you have required in this application for any future project or
proposal St. Luke's might have. Since the Commission is not asking St. Luke's to incur these
expenses or accept these conditions for its existing project, we cannot comment until such time as
St. Luke's is before the Commission on a St. Luke's project. The Bews application did not contain
a sufficient level of detail and therefore St. Luke's opposed the recommendation of a road through
its property in fear of adverse impacts this development will have on St. Luke's.
Very truly yours,
Jon S. Gorski
JSG\bm
cc: Mayor of the City of Meridian
City Council Members
Gary L. Fletcher
Larry Sale
E. L. Bews
JSG/80773_1.WPD
I A• L I f O A 0
I m n
0
ASE 1
I 11NOWIttallowT. LUKE'S MERIDIAN MEDICAL CENTER
#0100^ 00m
0H
Jas
EA
WOW.W.Wwr1c w.=
. w. krwe r
06m & AosaW o Adtt&U PA
air.�ir ir�iw w1i��
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
St. Luke's Meridian Medical Center Campus Concerns About the Applicant's Application
SCOPE OF ST. LUKE'S MERIDIAN MEDICAL CENTER CAMPUS
• Phase I Building
• Closed Campus Concept
• Comprehensive Medical Services
LACK OF SPECIFICS
• The Applicant's sketch plan of 74 acres provides no development details as one would expect for
a planned development.
• The Applicant requests approval for land uses that may or may not be compatible to the St.
Luke's campus and surrounding properties.
• Compatibility will depend on where the different land uses are located and what amenities are
placed on the Applicant's site.
CLOSED CAMPUS
• A closed campus has been master -planned to create a compatible pedestrian and vehicle
environment
FAILURE TO FOLLOW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
• The current Comprehensive Plan identifies the applicant's site Commercial and Single Family
Residential
• Applicant should seek modification of the comprehensive plan.
ROADS AND TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON ST. LUKE'S
• The Applicant's proposal would result in a 5 -lane roadway through the St. Luke's campus and
create the following impacts:
- Destroys the close campus concept
- Requires $3.6 million to reconstruct infrastructure
- Limits potential for future development
- Business interruption costs will be significant
CONCLUSION
• St. Luke's supports annexation and responsible planned development
• St. Luke's will attempt to meet with Applicant again
• St. Luke's opposes a public road through its property
83503_1. WPD
- PRY -1b- yy5 b 64 rkUf I J 1 JUNtS
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES
Attomeys at Law
1275 Shoreline Lane
Boise, ID 83702-6870
Jim Jones John McCreedy
Boise: (lM 385.9W w Fa= (208) 38"399
Twin AM: (208) 734-3343
Fax Transmittal Cover
Fax Number:
Comment:
From: JIM JONES
Total Number of Pages (Including This Page):
Date: lqs-
Original Document: � will be sent by first-class mail
will not be sent
Please Advise of Any Deficiency In this Transmission
NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from
disclosure under applicable lay. if the reader of this notice is
not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible
for deiivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us
Immediately by telephone and return these papers to us at the
address shown above via f f Ot clasp ails
2083859599 PAGE.01
0
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Law
1273 Shoreline Lane
Boise, Idabo 83702-6870
Jim Jones
Bad (208) 385-9200
Twin FAUC (208) 7343345
May 16, 1995
Via Paz Tos 887-1813
Shari Stiles
Planning & Zoning Administrator
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
John McCreedy
F= (2W 388-9599
Re: Public Hearings: Request for Annexation and Zoning for
C -G of 74 Acres by E.L. Bews and Request for Conditional UsA
Permit for a Variety of Mixed, Planned and Residential Land
Uses by S.L. Bows
Dear No. Stiles:
Please include in the official public record the enclosed
letter and attachment. Also, would you kindly copy and band
deliver copies to the Mayor and each of the City council Members
for review prior to tonight's hearing.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
lotle.,
ohn MCr
JCM/tq /
Enclosure
MAY 16 '95 16:37 2083659599 PAGE.02
•
Jim Jones
(208) 3S -4-M
Twin Faft (No 734.3345
0
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Law
1275 Shoreline Lane
Boise, Idaho 83702-6870
Via Past Tos 887-4813
May 16, 1995
The honorable Grant Kingsford
Mayor
City of Meridian
Meridian, ID 83642
Meridian City Council Members
City Hall
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
John McCreedy
Fac O) 384.9599
Re: Public Hearings: Request for Annexation and Zoning for
C -G of 74 Acres by E. L. Bews and Request for Conditional
Use Permit for a Variety of fixed, Planned and Residential
Land Uses by E. L. Save
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council;
I have been contacted by a group of concerned Meridian
citizens who reside in the Montvue Subdivision. we, Glenn and
Trasha Griffiths, 3295 North Montvue; Gus and Stella Hein, 225 S.
West Montvue; Ed and Madeline Burtner, 285 S West Montvue; Don
and Robin Hollingsworth, 3300 North Montvue; Forrest and Linda
Kurnes, 230 West Montvue; Warren and Velma Nelson, 3410 North
Montvue; Jim and Jan Clark, 215 E Montvue; James and Valerie
ownbey, 3405 North Montvue; Ralph and LaVonne Bartschi, 3475
Franklin] John and Neva Timmons, 3460 North Xontvue; Was and
Rosie Hoalst; and Rick Willis, 3555 South Montvue, have a number
of concerns regarding the above -referenced land use applications,
including the compatibility of the proposed land use with the
existing agricultural and residential land uses, the traffic
impacts that will result from the proposed land use; the
protection► of existing drinking water and other domestic water
wells in the area; the availability of public services, including
fire and police services, to accommodate this development; the
waste water and storm water drainage required to aaaommodate the
development; and other fundamental land use issues.
MAY 16 '95 16:37 2083859599 PAGE.03
Page - 2
May 16, 1995
Although there was newspaper notice of the pending
applications, it would appear that none of the residents of the
Montvue Subdivision were actually notified of the applications.
on behalf of the above citizens, then I am requesting that the
Meridian City Council defer the above land use applications until
its next regular meeting on June 6, 1995. This will give the
concerned citizens and myself an opportunity to review the
available documents and to prepare focused testimony regarding
these land use applications.
In the alternative, we request that you consider the
following before rendering a decision on the applications. The
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared by the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission for the Application for Annexation
and Zoning indicate that the property is presently zoned R -T and
is pasture, farm land, and vacant land. The applicant has
requested that the property be zoned C -G for a variety of
unspecific land uses,. The Commission's Findings and Conclusions
make clear that the applicant has not stated a specific proposed
use for the property and "therefore it cannot be determined if
the use would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan[.]"
Commissions Findings and Conclusions, p. 14. The Commission
noted that the applicant has not stated or represented its
specific intentions as to the development even though it has
filed a conditional use permit application listing several
possible uses. Id., pp. 14-15.
Because the applicant has not stated a specific use for the
property, the Commission recommended that the City annex the
property and zone it C -G, but not allow any development until a
more specific planned development 'or conditional use permit is
applied for. Moreover, the Commission also recommended that, as
a condition of annexation and zoning, the applicant shall be
required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by
the Meridian Zoning Ordinance. The Commission recommended
fourteen (14) specific issues to be addressed by the development
agreement.
Judge Bail of the Ada County District Court recently issued
a decision regarding the use of development agreements as a
condition to a rezone application. Judge Bail agreed with
concerned citizens that, under the Boise Zoning Ordinance, a
rezone application requiring a development agreement cannot be
approved unless and until the development agreement application
has been submitted and examined at a public hearing. I as
attaching a copy of Judge Bail's decision in that case. on
behalf of the above citizens of Montvus Subdivision, I would
recommend that the City of Meridian proceed with the same
approach. That ia, although tho annaxation may be appropriate,
it is premature to approve any proposed rezone of the property
unless and until a specific development agreement has been
submitted and examined at a public hearing. The Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law of the Meridian Planning is Zoning
Commission should be modified to state that the zoning of the
property shall remain R -T until a development agreemant
MAY 16 '95 16:3B 2083859599 PAGE.04
Page - 3 • •
May 16, 1995
identifying the specific use has been submitted and considered at
a public hearing.
For the same reason, it is premature and inappropriate to
approve the conditional use permit applied for by the developer.
As the Commission again noted in its findings and conclusions,
the applicant has not submitted a specific plan for development
of this property. Instead, the applicant appears to want a
conditional use permit that would provide it with broad
discretion to establish the uses for the property. The
conditional use permit should be denied. As the recommendations
of the Commission make clear, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan
requires all development for this land to be processed under a
planned unit development procedure and as a conditional use.
Given that no specific use for the property has yet been proposed
and that a development agreement is required, it Would appear far
wiser policy to simply deny the conditional use permit
application until a specific use for the property has been
proposed. Otherwise, it will be impossible to determine what has
and has not been approved for the property.
In sum, we are requesting that these land use applications
be deferred until June 6, 1995. in the alternative, it the
Council proceeds with tonight's hearing, we are requesting that
the rezone application and the conditional use permit
applications be denied. Although annexation may appear
appropriate under Meridian's plans, it is simply premature to
grant a rezone of the property and a conditional permit unless
and until the specific used for the property have been set forth
in the appropriate development agreement and detailed planned
unit development or conditional use permit applications. It is
impossible for concerned citizens and property owners to comment
on future land uses unless they are provided with the specifics
of those land uses. As the Planning & Zoning Commission's
recommendations make clear, the development of this property will
be subject to numerous environmental, traffic, drainage,
landscaping and other detailed conditions that ensure compliance
with the Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. Those conditions cannot
be drafted and enforced for the protection of Meridian's citizens
until a specific proposal for the land use is put forward. Thank
you for your consideration.
sincerely,
John Mc e
JCM/tq -447
cc Wayne Forrey, Via Fax to 887-6049
May 1 r- P PI -1 1 F,: 79
2083859599
PAGE. 055
11
0
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Law
1275 Shoreline Lane
Boise, Idaho 83702-6870
Jim Jones John McCreedy
Boise: (208) 385-9200 Fa= (208) 385-9599
Twin Falls: (208) 734-3345
May 19, 1995
Shari Stiles
Planning & Zoning Administrator
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
Re: Request for Annexation and Zoning for C -G of 74 Acres
by E.L. Bews and Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
Variety of Mixed, Planned and Residential Land Uses by E.L.
Bews
Dear Ms. Stiles:
Enclosed please find written testimony signed by twenty
Montvue Park homeowners regarding the proposed development by E.
L. Bews. The written testimony reflects the comments submitted
at the public hearing on May 16, 1995. We would appreciate you
providing a copy of this written testimony to the members of the
Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council prior to any
further public hearings on the above requests.
Sincerely,
i
ohn McCreedy
JCM/tg
Enclosure
May 16, 1995
Mr William G. Berg
City Clerk
City of Meridian
35 East Idaho Street
Meridian, Idaho 83642
SUBJECT: Roadway Access/Additional New Construction
Concerning Applications for Annexation and Conditional Use Permit of E. L. Bews'
Land Located in the E 1/2, NW 1/4 of Section 16, T. 3N, R.1E Boise, Meridian, Ada
County, Idaho
The Montvue Park homeowners met Monday evening, May 15th to discuss their concerns with
the proposed roadway access. It was unanimous among the residents that this road access as
proposed should not be approved.
Concerns discussed were: Increased traffic; impact on environment; disturbance to existing
wells; irrigation for pastures, lawns and gardens; increase in noise pollution; quality of air;
increase in crime
1. MONTVUE PARK WELLS: With the new construction projects completed in the
surrounding areas, along with the proposed new construction --the water table levels are affected.
Altering the landscape to accommodate the new construction has an impact on run-off waters
which will impact Montvue Park properties.
2. IRRIGATION IN MONTVUE PARK SUBDIVISION: If access to the irrigation
presently established is altered in certain areas and buried in others, the system will not work
effectively as it does at present which in turn affects the aquet. Residents rely on the
irrigation to water their pastures, gardens and lawns.
3. TRAFFIC: The access road will increase the volume of traffic on Eagle Road, which
already has heavy traffic and impacts the Montvue Park subdivision. Further, it will increase the
noise pollution which impacts upon the quality of life of the homeowners and their livestock.
The homeowners accepted St Lukes' building plans along with the expected increase in traffic.
The proposed access road plan was not a part of the plan that was presented and approved for St
Lukes. Traffic on Eagle road is increasing daily with the ongoing completion of new
construction throughout Meridian. The proposed shopping mall planned for the corner of Eagle
Road and Overland will have a major affect on traffic in itself. Eagle Road will be overburdened
as it now stands without the access road. An alternative would be to consider placing the
proposed access road to Cloverdale and not to Eagle Road.
4. QUALITY OF LIFE: Additional increase in traffic, noise and air pollution, will be
most stressful to not only the residents and their families, but to livestock as well. The tightly
knit community of Montvue Park will no longer enjoy a sense of security and safe haven for their
children to grow up in. Crime will most certainly increase and the freedom of children to play
unaccompanied in their community will cease to exist. A threat to water resources is also
certain.
In summary, we the homeowners of Montvue Park realize that we live in an ever changing
society. We are not opposed to progress; however, when there is an over kill in construction that
impacts the quality of life of homeowners in a 30 year old subdivision and the impact of changes
proposed on us have not been considered --that is wrong (please refer to Atch 1, it does not reflect
that Montvue Park subdivision exists). This project is moving too quickly and studies need to be
done to acquire data to support what the long-term affects will be on the environment. There are
areas in West Meridian that are presently experiencing repercussions of moving too quickly i.e.,
raw sewage is spilling into the Boise river when there is an overabundance of rain! Studies to
confirm the long-term affect of the impact on the environment, inhabitants, etc. are obviously not
being done. It is imperative that studies be conducted and results of those studies be reviewed
prior to any more development of the immediate area in question. Developers come and go --
people who are directly affected are already here and will be here when developers have moved
on. Those of us who are directly affected will have to live with the mistakes made by those who
have profited and have gone.
We the Montvue Park homeowners ask that you have the developer pay for studies of the long-
term impact on the environment. The results of studies completed should then be reviewed by
all who will be directly affected by the outcome prior to approval of any permits or access road
plan.
Sincerely,
Montvue Park Homeowners:
CC .iz, 'f—
.366
3ss5 act. h%4Vry14
-ciao "carp-ruLa
wu�� 33cx� rl. '(Yloh� Vc�sZ.
Road Locations, dated 5/4/95
;Z/ s' /`70 -n 7'.4 ,4, —e
L34/7.�-F 5�4i.Al Rj) 9. 5 (-, y9' -
MAY -16-1995 08:26 FROM JIM JONES
w
co
V
m
I
TO 12088287622 P.04iO4
ae
o ca
W
C1.
r
C'' • H b
�
v G
V
w r
z
-Q
ffi
C.)
j y '.
o
�
1
� •�
w
�
t"
s
rn
s
c
�
V
Z
� 1 V
JUN -20-1995
• 0
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Law
1275 Shoreline Lane
Boise, Idaho 83702-6870
Jim Jones
Boise. (208) 385-9200
Twin Falls: (208) 734-3345
May 24, 1995
Via FaX to 887-6049
Wayne S. Forrey, AICD
52 East Franklin
Meridian, ID 83642
Re: E.L. Dews Development Applications
Dear Mr. Forrey:
John McCreedy
Fax: (208) 385-9599
I represent the Montvue Park Homeowners. We wanted to put
our concerns in writing and present some suggestions for reaching
an accommodation between your proposed development and the
property rights and interests of the Montvue Park Homeowners.
Perhaps our most important concern is the lack of a detailed
planned unit development application and environmental studies
supporting the project. We share the conclusions of the Planning
& Zoning Commission that the Meridian Comprehensive Plan requires
all uses in this area to be approved as part of a planned unit
development. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan calls for specific
plans and proposals for future development in this area. Design
review is also applicable. At a minimum, therefore, we believe
Mr. Dews must modify his position and apply for a planned unit
development.
The planned unit development application must be supported
by a specific, comprehensive environmental study examining the
impacts of the proposed development on traffic; the Montvue Park
water and irrigation wails and rigihtel pollution, noise and
natural resources, including wildlife, air quality, and other
relevant matters. Without a detailed, master plan and
accompanying environmental studies, it is simply impossible to
determine whether the proposed development adequately protects
JUN 20 '95 15:07
2083859599 PAGE.04
Page - 2 • •
May 24, 1995
and is in harmony with the property rights and interests of the
Montvue residents.
We also share the conclusion of the Planning & Zoning
Commission that, as a condition of development, the applicant
must enter into a development agreement with the City of
Meridian. The agreement must be approved as part of the
development application, must be filed with the Ada County
Recorder's office, and must be binding upon future owners and
occupants of the development. The Planning A Zoning Commission
did a very thorough job of outlining the fourteen (24) issues
that must be addressed by the development agreement. Again, it is
simply premature to determine whether the rights and interests of
the Montvue residents are protected unless and until a specific
development agreement application addressing each of those items
has been submitted and made available to these residents for
examination. In fact, it seems premature to meet with the
developer until we have had sufficient time to examine the master
plan, the environmental study (including traffic study), and the
detailed application for a development agreement. I would
suggest a minimum of ten days so that we can carefully focus our
concerns and comments.
I want to reiterate that the Montvue residents are
unanimously, absolutely opposed to the proposed access road as
delineated on your application. Montvue Park Homeowners
supported the St. Lukes' project, in part, because we were
guaranteed protection from the noise and traffic associated with
such a proposed access road. The Mentvue residents are adjacent
to an extremely busy intersection and it is extremely important
that we preserve and protect the unity and peaceful nature of
their neighborhood. We will support St. Lukes in opposing any
such access road, and believe that Mr. Bova should direct his
efforts at working with ACRD and the interested parties to find a
less intrusive, more desirable solution.
We look forward to receiving your response to this letter.
We hope that the detailed application and studies requested above
can be supplied to the Montvue residents as soon as possible so
our discussions can proceed without delay. Please direct your
communication& to this office. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,,
G
chn McCreedy
JCM/tg
Cc B.L. Bews
JUN 20 '95 15:08 2083859599 PAGE.05
JUN -20-1995 15=04 FROM JIM JONES
0
TO
0
8874813 P.02/05
RECEIVE
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Lav J U N 2 0 1995
1275 Shorellne Lane CITY OF MEKIUTA
Boise, Idaho 83702-6870
Jim Jones John McCready
Bow M" 38"M���s F= (209) 39&95"
Twin Faft M" June 20, 1995
via Bas Tos a27-1813
Shari Stiles
Planning & zoning Administrator
city of Meridian
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
Re: E. L. Bows' Development Applications
Dear Ms. Stiles:
I an writing on behalf of the Montvue Park residents
regarding the annexation, zoning and conditional use permit
applications submitted by E. L_ Sews. At the Meridian City
Council hearing hold May 16, 1995, the Council tabled these
applications to allow Mr. Bews and his representative to prepare
certain studies, including a traffic study, supporting the
proposed development and mast with St. Lukes' and the Montvue
Park residents. Following the May 16 Council hearing, the Montvue
Park residents articulated their concerns to Wayne Forrey in
writing and indicated a willingness and desire to meet to discuss
the development. A copy of my letter dated May 24 to Mr. Forrey
is attached for your reference.
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that Mr. Bews
has not yet submitted the required studies for review. The
Montvue residents again respectfully request that the City
Council table the applications submitted by E. L. Bews until the
required studies have been submitted and the Montvue residents
have had sufficient time to review and comment on those studies.
I understand that Mr. Bews has submitted a similar request.
JUN 20 '95 15:07 2083859599 PAGE.02
JUN -20-1995 15:04 FROM JIM JONES
•
Page - 2
June 20, 1995
TO
•
8874813 P.03/05
please include this letter in the official record for the
above -referenced applications. Thank you for your cooperation.
sincerely,
obn McCready
JCM/tg
Enclosures
cc Montvus Paris Residents
Wayne Forrey
JUN 20 '95 15:0?
2083859599 PAGE.03
0 •
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Law
1275 Shoreline Lane
Boise, Idaho 83702-6870
Jim Jones
Boise: (208) 385-9200
Twin Falls: (208) 734-3345
September 15, 1995
Via Fax to 887-5049
Wayne S. Forrey, AICP
52 East Franklin
Meridian, ID 83642
Re: E.L. Bews Development Application
Dear Wayne:
cEi,t
SEP 2 2 1995
CITY Of mthi.uiii;.
John McCreedy
Fax: (208) 385-9599
This letter confirms the general agreements reached between
your client, E. L. Bews, and my clients, the Montvue Park
Residents. At the ACHD meeting on September 13, 1995, you asked
the Commissioners to defer Mr. Bews' development application so
that Mr. Bews and his representatives could conduct settlement
discussions with the Montvue Park Residents. We agreed to a
deferral until the ACHD Commissioners' meeting on October 11,
1995, on the express condition that Mr. Bews and his
representatives not submit any further plans or information to
ACHD in support of his application.
We have also agreed to conduct our first settlement
discussions on September 25, 1995. That meeting will be between
E. L. Bews and his representatives and the Montvue Park Residents
and their representatives. The meeting can take place in Warren
Nelson's garage at 3410 North Montvue Drive, beginning at
7:00 p.m. We have also agreed to a second meeting on
September 27, 1995, between E. L. Bews and his representatives,
the Montvue Park Residents and their representatives, St. Lukes'
Regional Medical Center, the Thomas/Tullis Partnership, the
Bairs, and the Holloways. I understand from speaking with Gary
Fletcher that he is trying to locate a meeting room at the St.
Lukes' facility in downtown Boise for this second meeting. I
further understand that you will contact the representatives of
the Thomas/Tullis Partnership, the Bairs, and the Holloways and
request their attendance at the meeting on September 27, 1995.
Page - 2
September 15, 1995
Please contact me if you have any concerns with the
contents of this letter. We look forward to meeting with E. L.
Bews and his representatives.
Sincerely,
G
6�0
John McCreedy
JCM/tg
cc Jon Gorski, Moffatt Thomas
Gary Fletcher, St. Lukes
Montvue Park Residents
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Law
1275 Shoreline Lane
Boise, Idaho 83702-6870
Jim Jones
Boise: (208) 385-9200
Twin Falls: (208) 734-3345
September 12, 1995
Via Fax To: 345-7650
Jim Bruce, President
Sherry R. Huber, Vice President
Susan S. Eastlake, Secretary
Ada County Highway District Commissioners
318 East 37th Street
Garden City, ID 83714
Ll
qEC j
SEP 2 2 1995
CITY Ok 11twDIA1
John McCreedy
Fax: (208) 385-9599
Re: E. L. Bews Development Application -- MCU -1-95
Dear Commissioners Bruce, Huber and Eastlake:
I am writing on behalf of the Montvue Park Residents
regarding the development application submitted by E. L. Bews.
The Montvue Park Residents have only had a very brief opportunity
to review the draft development application report issued by the
Development Services Division. We are requesting that ACHD make
certain modifications to the report and adopt additional findings
and conclusions in order to protect the property rights and
interests of the Montvue Park Residents.
The Montvue Park Residents have, since 1964, maintained
their subdivision as a rural, residential neighborhood. Each lot
is one half acre or more; half of the lots are designed to
pasture livestock; and nearly all of the lots are served by water
from the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. The Montvue Park
covenants and restrictions prohibit buildings in the Subdivision
more than one and one-half stories in height. As a result, the
residents have enjoyed a spectacular view of the mountains in two
directions -- the Owyhees to the southwest and Bogus Basin to the
northeast. Perhaps the most significant feature of the Montvue
Park Subdivision is its openness.
Page - 2 • •
September 12, 1995
In the past few years, Eagle Road has been widened to five
lanes, St. Lukes has begun the development of a medical facility
south of the Subdivision, and traffic and growth have
drastically increased in the general vicinity surrounding the
Subdivision. In the near future, it is likely that the Montvue
Park residents will be completely surrounded by commercial uses.
The residents do not welcome this isolation of their residential
neighborhood, and they are certainly not in favor of being
surrounded by a fortress -type stonewall as constructed on I-84
and as proposed by E. L. Bews.
Rather, the residents want very much to maintain their
current lifestyle and to avoid the degradation associated with
the impending commercial development. The residents believe that
ACHD, the City of Meridian, St. Lukes, E. L. Bews and the other
neighboring developers must make every effort to decrease the
negative impact that surrounding commercial development will have
on the residents. Our requests, therefore, are as follows.
First, as we have stated to the Meridian City Council on
several occasions, it is impossible for the Montvue Park
residents to develop detailed comments on the development
application because the application itself does not disclose the
specific uses proposed by E. L. Bews. For the past several
months, the Montvue Park Residents have requested that Mr. Bews
specifically identify the proposed uses for his development.
That request has not been met. Without a detailed planned unit
development application that includes specific uses for the
parcels of property in question, it is simply impossible to
generate accurate traffic numbers for this development.
The ambiguity and uncertainty associated with the E. L.
Bews' development application is demonstrated by ACHD's staff
report. The report notes that the Sub -Regional Transportation
Study by the Ada Planning Association estimated this site to
generate 11,900 vehicles per day. The individual traffic study
performed by CH2M Hill estimates up to 16,600 additional vehicle
trips per day. This difference highlights the significant
problems associated with the traffic studies. Unless and until
the developer has identified specific uses for each of the
parcels in question, it is impossible to determine with any
certainty what the traffic impact of the proposed development
will be on the Montvue Park Residents.
The Montvue Park Residents believe that a more detailed,
careful, and thorough study of region -wide traffic issues must be
completed before even conceptual approval can be granted for this
development. The Sub -Regional Transportation Study put forward by
the Ada Planning Association is not broad enough in scope to
delineate the impacts of the numerous commercial projects planned
for this area. A study similar to the Bench to Valley Regional
Page - 3 0
September 12, 1995
Transportation Study is warranted before approval is granted to
any specific developments in this area.
Second, it does not appear that certain findings set forth
in the staff report are warranted or supported by any evidence.
For instance, at paragraph K, page 4, ACRD staff concludes:
The provision of an east -west connection between the
Bews property and Eagle Road will provide a significant
improvement to the operation of the Franklin Road/Eagle
Road intersection. However, the added traffic from the
east -west connection across the St. Luke's property
would seriously degrade the operation of the St. Luke's
driveway intersection with Eagle Road. The addition of
this roadway would delay the need for an interchange at
the Franklin/Eagle intersection. It is not necessary
to make this connection to Eagle Road through the St.
Luke's property. The connection can be made north of
the St. Luke's campus in the future as the anticipated
re -development of the Montvue Subdivision from single
family residential to medically related land uses
occurs. At that time, St. Luke's could "tee" into this
connecting roadway, that would probably be constructed
to collector standard and could warrant a traffic
signal at its intersection with Eagle Road.
Staff Report, p. 4. Foremost, there is no evidence to support
the conclusion that the Montvue Park Subdivision will be
redeveloped to medically related land uses in the future. The
staff report is certainly one-sided in this regard. If it is not
necessary to make this east -west connection to Eagle Road through
St. Lukes' property, then it is no more necessary to make the
same connection through the Montvue Park Subdivision. It is
clearly not warranted to single out the Montvue Park Subdivision
at this time. For the same reason, paragraph M, subsection 3 of
the Staff Report should also be modified.
Third, the Montvue Park Residents request that the following
additional findings be added to the site specific requirements.
Paragraph 1 should be modified to indicate that the Montvue Park
Residents shall be provided formal, written notice and an
opportunity to be heard regarding each site development proposal
that is submitted to ACRD for review and approval. The site
specific requirements should be modified to indicate that
approval by the ACHD Commissioners at this time is conceptual
only, and that said conceptual approval can be modified or
amended as the specific development proposals are submitted and
approved.
Paragraph 9, which requires the developer to acquire right-
of-way for the construction of a public road from the project
site to Eagle Road, should be modified to include a provision
Page - 4
September 12, 1995
requiring the developer to design and construct a sufficient
buffer zone between any future east -west connection and the
Montvue Park Subdivision. As a method of protecting the Montvue
Park Subdivision, present and future developers should agree to,
or be required to, establish park -like buffer zones along the
boundaries of the Subdivision. These park -like zones might be
similar to what St. Lukes has planned along the southern boundary
of the subdivision.
The increasing traffic and noise levels along Eagle Road
might warrant more extensive buffering within the west buffer
zone. All of the buffers, including the berms and plantings,
should not exceed the height of a one and one-half story
building, which is consistent with the Subdivision's covenants
and will preserve existing views.
These are the preliminary comments of the Montvue Park
Residents. Additional comments will be generated and submitted
to the Commissioners on or at the meeting scheduled on this
application for September 13, 1995. We appreciate your
consideration of these comments and look forward to working with
ACHD.
Sincerely,
ohn McCreedy
JCM/tg
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Law
1275 Shoreline Lane
Boise, Idaho 83702-6870
Jim Jones
Boise: (208) 385-9200
Twin Falls: (208) 734-3345
October 11, 1995
Via Fax To: 345-7650
Jim Bruce, President
Sherry R. Huber, Vice President
Susan S. Eastlake, Secretary
Ada County Highway District Commissioners
318 East 37th Street
Garden City, ID 83714
John McCreedy
Fax: (208) 385-9599
Re: E. L. Bews Development Application -- MCU -1-95
Dear Commissioners Bruce, Huber and Eastlake:
I am again writing on behalf of the Montvue Park Residents
regarding the development application submitted by E. L. Bews.
Mr. Bews and his representative failed to keep their commitment
to meet with the Montvue Park Residents, St. Lukes and other
interested parties. Mr. Bews' development application is so
lacking in specifics that it is inadequate. We are therefore
requesting that you recommend denial of the application until a
specific planned unit development application and supporting
materials are submitted and considered.
Mr. Bews and His Representative Failed to Keep Their Commitment
to Meet With the Montvue Park Residents, St. Lukes, and Other
Interested Parties
At the ACHD Commission meeting held September 13, 1995, Mr.
Wayne Forrey stated that he represented Ed Bews and Bill Davis,
the owners of the Bews' property. Mr. Forrey requested that the
Commissioners defer action on the Bews' application. Just before
the Commission meeting, Mr. Forrey asked whether I would support
his request for a deferral. Mr. Forrey stated to me that he
believed that his clients and the Montvue Park Residents had
common ground to explore regarding the Bews' development
T. •
Page - 2
October 11, 1995
application, and that he would like to meet with the Montvue Park
residents to discuss that common ground and attempt to reach some
agreement. I expressly indicated to Mr. Forrey that we would
agree to a deferral provided his clients agree to and conduct
meetings with the Montvue Park residents and other interested
parties, and that neither he nor his clients submit any further
information to ACHD during the deferral. I made these requests
to Mr. Forrey because it has been difficult to obtain accurate
information regarding the Bews' development application and
because the Montvue Park Residents wanted an assurance that Mr.
Bews and Mr. Forrey would meet with them and work to solve issues
of concern in a good faith, productive fashion.
Attached is a copy of the minutes of your meeting of
September 13, 1995. At page 4, Mr. Forrey agreed to the
conditions outlined above. You will also note that St. Lukes
supported a deferral so the parties could explore resolution of
questions and concerns regarding the development application.
Immediately after the September 13 meeting, the parties
arranged for a series of meetings between E. L. Bews, Mr. Forrey,
the Montvue Park Residents, and St. Lukes. On September 15,
1995, I sent a letter to Mr. Forrey confirming the parties'
agreements. We agreed that a first meeting would take place on
September 25, 1995, between the Montvue Park residents and E. L.
Bews, and a second meeting would occur on September 27, 1995,
between all of the interested parties. A copy of my letter to
Mr. Forrey is attached. I specifically asked Mr. Forrey to
contact me if he had any concerns with the contents of my letter.
Mr. Forrey never contacted me regarding any concerns with the
letter. On September 25, 1995, I received a letter from Jon
Gorski, the attorney for St. Lukes, confirming the September 27,
1995 meeting.
On September 25, 1995, the day of our first meeting, Mr.
Forrey called me at approximately 11:45 a.m. He stated that he
and Ed Bews were cancelling the meeting with the Montvue Park
Residents. Mr. Forrey stated that there was no new information
to report; that no new submittals would be made to ACHD; and
that the project would be on hold until more information became
available on the traffic situation and how to resolve it. Of
course, many of the Montvue Park Residents had planned to attend
the meeting and were extremely disappointed when it was cancelled
at the last minute. On September 27, 1995, we went ahead and met
with St. Lukes without Mr. Bews, his representative or any of the
other parties.
On October 5, 1995, Mr. Bews submitted a letter to
Commissioner Bruce, a copy of which is attached to this letter.
In that letter, Mr. Bews objected to the ACHD staff report and
asked the Commission to locate an access road through the St.
Lukes' property. Mr. Bews did not provide a copy of his
Page - 3
•
October 11, 1995
October 5 letter to myself or any Montvue Park Residents. I
obtained a copy of the letter from Jeff Hull of St. Lukes.
I have outlined the above facts not to personally attack Mr.
Bews or his representative, Mr. Forrey. Rather, I illustrate
these facts because they support several important conclusions.
The Montvue Park Residents have spent the last year tracking Mr.
Bews' application, objecting to its lack of specificity and
requesting that additional, detailed information be provided,
including, a planned development and traffic studies. The
Residents have consistently demonstrated a willingness to work
with existing and future commercial developers to find a solution
that accommodates the needs and interests of all parties,
including the need to protect the existing rural, residential
land uses in the Montvue Park Subdivision.
The response we have received to date has been nothing short
of miserable. The Montvue Park Residents have been told that
their rural, residential subdivision will be redeveloped into
commercial uses. The residents have been told that a public
access road for E. L. Bews' development will be placed within
their Subdivision. Now, the Residents are being told that it is
not worth even meeting to discuss the issues. All in all, the
course of proceedings over the last year have demonstrated a
disregard for the property rights of the Montvue Park Residents.
In addition to Mr. Bews' failure and unwillingness to meet
with the Montvue Park Residents and other interested parties, we
also believe that sufficient cause exists to recommend denial of
Mr. Bews' development application. As stated in our letter dated
September 12, and as stated on several other occasions to both
Mr. Forrey and the Meridian City Council, the development
application is so lacking in specific details and supporting
studies that approval of the application is not warranted at this
time.
Specifically, the application fails to disclose the need for
and the location of a public road from the project site to Eagle
Road. Unless and until a specific need has been demonstrated and
a location for the public road has been selected and proposed, it
is impossible to know what impacts such a road will have on St.
Lukes and the Montvue Park Residents. It is unreasonable to
approve a public road to be located "somewhere" in the future.
Rather, the application should be denied until a specific
location for the public road is proposed.
Second, as we stated in our September 12 letter, it is
impossible for the Montvue Park Residents to develop detailed
comments on the development application because the application
itself does not disclose the specific uses proposed by E. L.
Bews. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission ruled that the
applicant "stated no specific proposed use of the property and
Page - 4
October 11, 1995
therefore it cannot be determined if the use would be in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan[.)" Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Regarding E. L. Bews' Application for Annexation and Zoning, p.
14. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission noted that the
applicant "could place many different uses on the property
without additional approval from the City other than building
permits." Id., p. 15. To prevent this unreasonable result, the
Planning & Zoning Commission concluded that the property could be
annexed and zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C -G),
but that development would only occur as part of a "planned
commercial development and only under the conditional use permit
process for each proposed use." Id., p. 16.
The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission indicated that as
a condition of annexation and zoning, the applicant must enter
into a development agreement that addresses, among other things,
pedestrian walkways, planting strips, public site and open
spaces, lineal open space corridors, pedestrian bikeway paths,
future schools or park sites, traffic plans and access into and
out of the development, and other requirements. The developer
has failed or refused to comply with many of these requirements
and, in particular, refuses to submit a comprehensive planned
unit development application for review and approval by the City
of Meridian, ACHD and other impacted agencies and property
owners. Unless and until specific uses and a formal, detailed
planned unit development application is submitted, the
conclusions regarding the traffic impacts from this proposed
development can only be described as extremely general. Those
conclusions may not be warranted depending on what actual use is
specifically proposed for the property.
At a minimum, and as requested in our September 12 letter,
ACHD should include in the site specific requirements a provision
indicating that approval by the Commissioners at this time is
conceptual only because of the lack of details associated with
the application, and that said conceptual approval can be
revoked, modified or amended by ACHD as necessary once the
specific development proposals are submitted for review. Without
such a condition, any recommended approval of this application is
premature.
Finally, we note that the revised staff report does not
include any recommendations regarding the design and construction
of a sufficient buffer zone between any future east -west
connection and the Montvue Park Subdivision. At the
Commissioners' September 13 meeting, we requested this
modification to paragraph 9 of the site specific requirements.
ACHD staff indicated that they would support the mitigation
buffer between any east -west roadway and the residential area.
Again, we do not believe that enough information has been
submitted in support of the application to warrant the conclusion
Page - 5
October 11, 1995
1J
that an east -west roadway is necessary. However, if the
Commissioners are unwilling to deny the application for its lack
of specificity, then we request that paragraph 9 of the site
specific requirements be modified to include the required
mitigation buffer.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the E.L. Bews'
development application.
Sincerely,
1 /
John McCreedy
JCM/tg
Enclosures
cc Larry Sale, ACHD
Gary Fletcher and Jeff Hull, St. Lukes, Via Fax: 381-4613
Jon Gorski, Moffat Thomas, Via Fax: 385-5384
Wayne Forrey, Via ax: 887-6049
City of Meridia
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Law
1275 Shoreline Lane
Boise, Idaho 83702-6870
Jim Jones John McCreedy
Boise: (208) 385-9200 Fax: (208) 385-9599
January 12, 1996
Via Fax To: 887-4813
The Honorable Mayor Bob Corrie
Meridian City Hall
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
Meridian City
Meridian City
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ID.
Council Members
Hall
83642
Re: E. L. Bews' Applications for Annexation, Zoning and
Conditional Use Permit
Dear Mayor Corrie and Members of the Meridian City Council:
I represent the majority of the Montvue Park Subdivision
Residents. A list of the individuals that I represent and their
addresses is attached to this letter as Exhibit A. Please
accept this letter as the written comments of those Residents
regarding the above -referenced land use applications submitted in
February, 1995 by E. L. Bews. Please include this written
testimony in the official public record regarding those
applications.
The Montvue Park Residents are asking that the Meridian City
Council deny the annexation, zoning and conditional use permit
applications submitted by Mr. Bews. The Montvue Residents are not
opposed to the orderly and proper development of nearby
commercial property. However, the applications submitted by Mr.
Bews fail to comply with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant has not submitted a specific,
detailed plan unit development application and has failed to
comply with the recommendations made by the Meridian Planning &
Zoning Commission. For these and other reasons set forth below,
the applications should be denied.
Page - 2 •
January 12, 1996
THE MONTVOE PARR SUBDIVISION AND ITS RESIDENTS
The Residents of the Montvue Park Subdivision have, since
1964, maintained their subdivision as a rural, residential
neighborhood. Each lot is one half acre or more; half of the
lots are designed to pasture livestock; and nearly all of the
lots are served by water from the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District. The Montvue Park covenants and restrictions prohibit
buildings in the Subdivision more than one and one-half stories
in height. As a result, the Residents have enjoyed a spectacular
view of the mountains in two directions -- the Owyhees to the
southwest and Bogus Basin to the northeast. Perhaps the most
significant feature of the Montvue Park Subdivision is its
openness.
In the past few years, Eagle Road has been widened to five
lanes, St. Lukes has substantially completed development of a
medical facility south of the Subdivision, and traffic and growth
have drastically increased in the general vicinity surrounding
the Subdivision. In the near future, it is likely that the
Montvue Park Residents will be completely surrounded by
commercial uses. The Residents do not welcome this isolation of
their residential neighborhood, and they are certainly not in
favor of being surrounded by a fortress -type stonewall as
constructed on I-84.
Rather, the Residents want very much to maintain their
current lifestyle and to avoid the degradation associated with
the impending commercial development. In that regard, the
Residents have adopted a number of positions. First, the
Residents do not want any public roads directly to the south and
east of the Subdivision. Both Eagle and Franklin Roads are
scheduled to be expanded and to carry extremely large numbers of
vehicles. Heavy traffic on the west and north of the Subdivision
is a given. There is no need to route any of that traffic through
or adjacent to the Subdivision on the south or east of Montvue
Drive.
Second, but nearly as important as the first consideration,
is that future development must maintain the aesthetic views the
Residents have of the mountains to the south and to the north.
All future buildings should be placed an adequate distance from
the Subdivision boundaries and limited in height so as to not
obstruct the line of sight Residents now have of the mountains.
Third, the Residents must be able to maintain their rural
lifestyle, especially as it relates to surface irrigation of
pastures for livestock within the Subdivision. Open ditches (and
one siphon) are the sole source of irrigation water to this
Subdivision. Any rezoning and subsequent development of adjoining
Page - 3 •
January 12, 1996
agricultural lands could jeopardize the rural character of this
neighborhood.
It is impossible to evaluate the Applicant's proposal in
light of these criteria. The reason is that the Applicant has
failed and refused to submit the type of detailed, specific plans
required in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. As a
result, the Montvue Park Residents cannot determine whether their
existing real property and lifestyle will be injured, unaffected,
or enhanced by construction of the project proposed by the
Applicant.
THE LAND USE APPLICATION IS SO LACKING IN SPECIFICITY THAT IT
SHOULD BE DENIED UNDER THE MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING
The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian (Centennial
Year - 1993) identifies the Applicant's property as suitable for
mixed -planned use development. See Generalized Land Use Map
Adopted December 21, 1993. The conditional use application
submitted by the Applicant on February 17, 1995, states that the
intended use is to "allow a mix of planned business and
residential land uses" and that "[t]he land use would contain a
variety of coordinated commercial and residential land uses."
Attachment C to the conditional use permit application describes
numerous potential uses, including general retail, commercial and
professional offices, an auto travel plaza and auto services,
extended stay hotel suites, a motel complex, a retirement center,
a nursing home/elderly care center, townhouses, a multi -family
apartment center, patio homes, medical services, and restaurants.
The Meridian Comprehensive Plan contains several
requirements for mixed -planned use developments. First, mixed -
planned unit developments must be done pursuant to specific
project plans:
Mixed use is a planning category which refers to the
coordinated development of several major uses as part
of a single project, such as specialty retail/
commercial, variable density residential, offices,
motels, industrial, service, commercial, and public and
semi-public uses Certain areas have been designated
for mixed -planned uses. The development of mixed and
planned compatible land uses should be carefully guided
through specific project plans, in accordance with the
mixed-use policies contained in the Land Use chapter of
the Plan.
Meridian comprehensive Plan, p. 17 (emphasis added).
Page - 4 • •
January 12, 1996
The Meridian Comprehensive Plan also specifically addresses
the mixed use areas adjacent to I-84, Overland Road and Franklin
Road, and requires as follows:
5.6 The development of a variety of compatible land
uses should be provided in specific plans and
proposals for future development.
5.8 Development in these areas should be based on
functional plans and proposals in order to
ensure that the proposed uses conform to the
Comprehensive Plan policies and are compatible
with the surrounding neighborhoods.
5.9 The integrity and identity of any adjoining
residential neighborhood should be preserved
through the use of buffering techniques,
including screen plantings, open space and other
landscaping techniques.
5.10 Development should be conducted under Planned
Unit Development procedures and as conditional
uses, especially when two or more differing uses
are proposed.
5.11 The character, site improvements, and type of
development should be harmonized with
Previously -developed land in the area, and where
located adjacent to or near any existing
residence or residential area, shall be
harmonized with residential uses, and all
reasonable efforts shall be made to reduce the
environmental impact on residential areas,
including noise and traffic reduction.
5.14U Because these areas are near I-84, Franklin and
Overland Roads, high-quality visual appearance
is essential. All development proposals in this
area will be subiect to development review
_guidelines and conditional use permitting
procedures.
Meridian comprehensive Plan, p. 28 (emphasis added).
The Applicant's proposal does not comply with the above
provisions of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. More
specifically, it is impossible to determine whether the proposal
complies with the Plan. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Page - 5
January 12, 1996
Law prepared by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
("Commission") for the Application for Annexation and Zoning
indicate that the Applicant has not stated a specific proposed
use for the property and "therefore it cannot be determined if
the use would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan[.)"
Commissions Findings and Conclusions, p. 14. The Commission
noted that the.Applicant has not stated or represented its
specific intentions as to the development even though it has
filed a conditional use permit application listing several
possible uses. Id., pp. 14-15.
The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission noted that the
Applicant "could place many different uses on the property
without additional approval from the City other than building
permits." Id., p. 15. To prevent this unreasonable result, the
Planning & Zoning Commission concluded that the property could be
annexed and zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C -G),
but that development would only occur as part of a "planned
commercial development and only under the conditional use permit
process for each proposed use." Id., p. 16. (emphasis added)
The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission indicated that as
a condition of annexation and zoning, the Applicant must enter
into a development agreement that addresses fourteen (14)
specific issues, including pedestrian walkways, planting strips,
public site and open spaces, lineal open space corridors,
pedestrian bikeway paths, future schools or park sites, traffic
plans and access into and out of the development, individual
building plans, appropriate berming and landscaping, and other
necessary requirements.
The developer has failed or refused to comply with many of
these requirements and, in particular, refuses to submit a
comprehensive planned unit development application for review and
approval by the City of Meridian, ACRD and other impacted
agencies and property owners. Unless and until specific uses and
a formal, detailed planned unit development application is
submitted, the conclusions regarding the impacts from this
proposed development can only be described as.extremely general.
Those. conclusions may not be warranted depending on what actual
use is eventually proposed for the property.
The Montvue Residents request that the Meridian City Council
go further to protect the interests of existing Meridian citizens
and property owners. Annexation may be appropriate under the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan. However, the rezone, and
conditional use permit applications are simply not supported by
the type of detailed, specific plans that must be submitted and
examined at a public hearing in order to determine what the
impact of this development will be on neighboring uses. In other
words, it is simply premature to approve the rezone and
conditional use permit. The Applicant appears to want a rezone
Page - 6
January 12, 1996
and a conditional use permit that would provide it with broad
discretion to establish the uses for the property. Given that no
specific use for the property has yet been proposed and that a
development agreement is required, it would appear far wiser
policy to simply deny the rezone and conditional use permit
application until a specific use for the property has been
proposed.
In sum, we are requesting that these land use applications
be denied. Although annexation may appear appropriate under the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, it is simply premature to grant a
rezone of the property and a conditional use permit unless and
until the specific uses for the property have been set forth in
the appropriate development agreement,., detailed planned unit
development, and conditional use pe-�nit applications. it is
impossible for concerned citizens and property owners to comment
on future land uses unless they are provided with the specifics
of those land 'uses. As the Planning & Zoning Commission's
recommendations make clear, the development of this property will
be subject to numerous environmental, traffic, drainage,
landscaping and other detailed conditions that ensure compliance
with the Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. Those conditions cannot
be drafted and enforced for the protection of Meridian's citizens
until a specific proposal for the land use is put forward. Thank
you for your consideration.
sincerely,
John McCreedy
JCM/tg
Jim Jones
Boise: (208) 385-9200
! 0
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Law
1275 Shoreline Lane
Boise, Idaho 83702-6870
January 18, 1996
Shari Stiles
Planning & Zoning Administrator
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
John McCreedy
Re: E. L. Bews Development Applications
Dear Ms. Stiles:
Fax: (208) 385-9599
RF,GE1 V 1E0
JAN 2 2 1990
CrrY OF MERIDIAN
On behalf of the Montvue Park Subdivision Residents listed
on Exhibit A attached to this letter, I would greatly appreciate
it if you would include this office in the list of individuals
who are to be provided with written notice of any future public
hearings held by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission or
Meridian City Council regarding the E. L. Bews' development
applications. I would also appreciate you letting me know when
Mr. Bews or his representatives submit any new or modified site
plans, applications, studies, or other documents in support of
his development applications. We want to stay informed regarding
the development applications and we want to work with the City of
Meridian, St. Lukes, and Mr. Bews on this issue.
Sincerely,
John McCreedy
JCM/tg
cc Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering
Jon Gorski
Montvue Park Residents
•
EXHIBIT A
Ed and Madeline Burtner
Jim and Jan Clark
Lee and Mary Edmondson
Glenn and Tresha Griffiths
Karoly Hatvani
Gus and Stella Hein
Wes and Rosie Hoalst
Don and Robin Hollingsworth
Forrest and Linda Keirnes
Wilma Burke and Mike Littlefield
Warren and Velma Nelson
Jim and Valerie Ownbey
Hank and Maureen Ownbey
Terry and Sally Roher
Jerry and Patty Ruyf
Lloyd and Diane Stewart
Mel Sutherland
Rick and Thora Willis
285 W. Montvue Drive
215 E. Montvue Drive
3360 N. Montvue Drive
3295 N. Montvue Drive
3285 Franklin Road
225 W. Montvue Drive
385 S. Montvue Drive
3300 N. Montvue Drive
230 W. Montvue Drive
325 E. Montvue Drive
3410 N. Montvue Drive
3405 N. Montvue Drive
3359 N. Montvue Drive
3460 N. Montvue Drive
360 E. Montvue Drive
320 E. Montvue Drive
320 W. Montvue Drive
3555 S. Montvue Drive
TTT1� 2225 NO T4 56TH ST.
ARCHITECTS P.S. SiaAT'SHINGTON
i11J 1' 96103-
(206) 547-1940 FAX (206) 547-8212
h�� , '1daSb ERZ
[LI LJ CK� @1P W ° Hc@ Iv UU I
wrlowmWofflill
MINE
111011
11111111
WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items:
❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Planss.�- ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications
❑ Copy of e ❑ Change order ❑
GIVEHE
r �
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑ For approval
For your use
❑ For review and comment
❑ Approved as submitted
❑ Approved as noted
❑ Returned for corrections
❑ Resubmit
❑ Submit _
❑ Return _
—copies for approval
—copies for distribution
corrected prints
❑ FORBIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS'' -f' <<?•
C I
CITY OF MERIDIA1
COPY TO
If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.
OCT -17-1995 15:57 SLRMC CONSTRUCTION OFFICE 2083812023 P.01
0
190 East Bannock
Boise, Idaho
83712
208-386-2222
Edwin E. Dahlberg
Preeident
October 17, 1995
William G. Berg Jr.
Meridian City Clerk
Meridian City Hall
33 East Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
RE: Bews Annexation and Conditional Use Application
Dear Will,
JL St Lukes
rReq
RECEIVED
0 C T 17 1995
CITY OF MIA(I)IAi
It is my understanding that the representative for the aforementioned project
has formally requested a deferral. Although St. Luke's regrets further delays in the application
review process we do support this request.
At the Oct. 11, 1995 hearing at ACHD the Commission deferred consideration of
this project until their Oct. 25th hearing. It is our understanding that the Meridian City Council
needs to get the recommendation of ACRD before acting upon the Bews application.
Thus St. Luke's respectfully requests deferral of said applications until the City Council
has had time to consider the recommendations of the ACHD Commission.
Sincerely,
ull
Director of Architecture & Construction
Post -it® Fax Note 7671
Dei lv /-7 V&� /
To /
From P
CodDePt
0 T- � � ,a
Co, _� , rc S
Phone A J
Phone r s Q -AZ 2-
U �
Fax a FJJ' 7 - �7?/ 3
Fax u
MOUNTAIN STATES TUMOR INSTITUTE - IDAHO'S HEALTH INFORMATION RETRIEVAL CENTER - ANDERSON CENTER - ANDERSON PLAZA MEDICAL WILDING
ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL OFFICE PLAZA - MOUNTAIN STATES SURGERY CENTER - AFFILIATED WITH THE IDAHO ELKS REHABILITATION HOSPITAL
MEMBER OF THE VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS OF AMERICA fVHA) SYSTEM VHA
TOTAL P.01
OCT 17 '95 15=58 2083812023 PAGE.01
FROM W A Y N E S FORREY P. 001
Wayne S. Forrey, AICP
Urban Planner and Development Analyst
3045 Thayen Place — Boise, Idaho 83709
Cornprohonsivo
Mannino /
Cay & negional
Plan Updates
Ciucon
Parti:ipation
Community
lirl,arnl.n;
Mayor Grant P. Kingsford
Groan
and City Council
rAanayoment
City of Meridian
Pian I(rioiementation
33 E. Idaho Ave,
ion.1g, Annexation
Meridian, I I) 83642
& Development ,
ordirkrnces R1?: Bews Annexation Request
0000 analysis
Telephone 362-9345
October 17, 1995
16
0 C T 1 7 1995
CITY OF MERIDIAN
I and Dear Mayor and Council:
Development
Plonrnng & On behalf of F's, I.,. Bews, i am requesting that the Meridian City Council table the
Nepnt aliOnS Aews properry annexation request until your first meeting in December 1995, which we
InlroStruClure understand is December 5, 1995, We are still meeting with the Ada County Highway
Planning District (ACHD) to resolve traffic and access issues to serve economic development in
Revitalization this area. Our next meeting with ACRD is scheduled for October 25, 1995. We
f'I;ans anticipate additional AC11D meetings during November 1995, so we would appreciate
Fconom,c continuing to table this item until your December 5, 1995, City Council agenda.
Development
Communily
Dovulopment Respectfully,
I inyiL6 Analysis
Fiscal '
mOiications Wayne S. Forney, AICP
Funding Strategies Representative of E.L. Bews
Public Policy cc Ed Bews
E.alualion
Project
ManAfgQmant
flnntrnr•I
Planning
SCrviCC", t0
i,mar, k (;r)unhCs
McMDer. AM(W.C30 blsedul0 01 CorUliod Vlonnurs - AmoriCan F;tyrning Association - Idaho Planning Association
OCT 17 '95 11:00 208 887 6049 PRGE.01
•
E.L. BEWS, CONTRACTOR
5206 SORRENTO CIRCLE • BOISE, IDAHO 83704
July 24, 1995
Mayor Grant P. Kingsford
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Mayor Kingsford:
LJ
J U f. 21 7 i90';
CITY OF MERIDIAN
This letter is to obtain clarification and to set the record straight concerning matters set
forth in a letter dated July 13, 1995, from Gary L. Fletcher, Executive Vice President of St.
Luke's Regional Medical Center. As you know, I own the seventy-four acres east of the St.
Luke's property. Primarily, I want to note that any suggestions to the possibility of my
misrepresenting anything is simply unfounded.
Apparently, there has been a direct challenge to my integrity. I want to make it perfectly
clear that any statements, if made by me at the July 7th meeting referred to in Mr. Fletcher's letter,
were made in a good faith belief that they represented my understandings based on prior
conversations between us over several months.
I am concerned about the suggested limitations St. Luke's requests on my access to
meeting with Ada County Highway District (ACRD) staff and other public agencies. Certainly I
have the right to meet with ACHD and members of its staff on my application. This right is
provided to me under policies that, to my understanding, have been in place with ACHD for
years. Frankly, I don't understand how the District could function if this were not the case.
Further, I know of no legal basis for such a requirement, and would appreciate
confirmation in writing from you that I am not proceeding with a misunderstanding.
At this time, it appears that some might not want this area approved with the best overall
planning in mind, and are opposed to even what traffic studies indicate. I simply do not want to
be a party to this kind of process at this time. Therefore, please consider this letter as notice to
have my application for Annexation and Zoning with the City of Meridian and ACHD tabled until
a later date when this traffic access issue is resolved.
Thank you for your consideration.
cc: Meridian Mayor and City Council members, ACHD Staff Officials, John McCreedy, Jon
Gorski, Gary Fletcher
JUL-26-1995 15:58 FROM JIM JONES TO lets (401.3 r e,41 ric
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Law
1275 Shoreline Lane
Boise, Idaho 837026870
Jim Jones
BWw. (2M 3854200
Twin FaU: CM 734-3343
July 26. 1995
Via !az To SS7-6049
Wayne S. Torrey, AICP
52 East Franklin
Meridian, ID 83642
•
John McCmedy
Inc: (208) 3859399
Re: E.L. Bows' Development Applications
Dear Wayne:
You mentioned in our phone conversation last meek that i[r.
Being vas considering requesting that his devalopwent applications
be deferred until January, 1996. The Montvue Park residents are
wondering whether Mr. Bova has made a decision in that regard.
We are still in the process of reviewing the CH2K Hill traffic
study and the information you submitted. It does not seem to make
such sense, however, to generate detailed comments if your client
intends to defer the application until next year. please advise.
Thank you.
�r •
John McCready
JCM/tg
„, ,oma ,�•�� 2083859599 PAGE.02
OFFICIALS
WILLIAM G. BERG, Jr., City Clerk
JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer
GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt.
DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt.
SHARI S. STILES, P & Z Adm.
KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief
W. L "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney
• HUB OFTREASURE VALLEY
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
Phone (208) 8884433 a FAX (208) 8874813
Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211
GRANT P. KINGSFORD
Mayor
MEMORANDUM: (Supplemental)
To: Mayor, City Council
From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engine
Re: E.L. BEWS - 74 Acres
(Annexation/Zoning and Conditional Use)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
RONALD R. TOLSMA
MAX YERRINGTON
ROBERT D. CORRIE
WALT W. MORROW
P R Z COMMISSION
JIM JOHNSON, Chairman
MOE ALIDJANI
JIM SHEARER
CHARLIE ROUNTREE
TIM HEPPER
June 15, 1995
I have reviewed this submittal and ' offer the following supplemental comments, for your
information and consideration as conditions of the Applicant during the hearing process:
We have been receiving quite a few complaints of low water pressure from residents in
various parts of the City. Also, our water system has not been able to supply required flows
to fire sprinkler systems in some recent commercial developments. These developments have
had to install a pressure booster pump in their line in order to meet required fire sprinkler
flows. In light of these problems we don't feel comfortable adding more demand to our
already taxed water system, and we respectfully request that this application be tabled until
such time as we have the problems better defined and a clear plan of action in place.
C: \WPW1N60\GENERAI.\EL.BE WS. C -C
OCT -11-1995 11:55 ST. LUKE'S R.M.C. CONST.
10/11!96 11:42 '®'21645 7850 ?►CUD 0
P.01
IM 001/001
E.L. Bsws, ComctoR R E C rz: if ri Q
5208 Sowrw o CIRCLE * BOISE, IDAKO 63704
OCT 10 iN5
Mr. Jim Brum. President
Ada County Highway District Commission
318 East 37th Sheet
Garden City, Idaho 83714
October 5, 1995 ACRD A0,#AjTr.
Imp, Pik 511�
post -W Fax Note 76/1
Cate to/
Tb
F
CoMepL
Co.
Phone #
Phonec�lC
.
Fax R � _
Fax #
, ' ti L / .3
Regarding- Bews Annexation Rerluesr - mCU-1,95, Mizell Use Development. Franklin
Road East of Eagle Road, City or Meridian.
Dear Commissioner Bruce,
I own the property which is the subject of this application. I have reviewed the draft copy
of the AMM staff report- 'Phis staff report rtaquines access to Eagig Road for the dwdopmem of
my property Them is ample wx["oiled property is the area upon which to place such access.
It is logical and fair to locate this access within the adjoining St. Luke's property.
The ACHD ME report requires otherwise- The essence of the report requires me to
purchase up to four homes and propatiea in the Montvue Park Subdivision to build a public
roadway. If this rega4r==9 is cvfwced, I will be required to purchase these properties, even if
they are available, at greatly infined prices,
This is not flair to me! Also. I have been advised b9 my legal WMW that tins is not in
accardsace with say legal reyuirement, including your ability to impose an extraordinary impact
Pev. The condWoas in the ACID staffraport are UWWAPtsble to mel
Would you please rcMew this math, I since rely believe the logical so[utian is to
Copies to Meridian City Courd
TOTAL P.01
Commission Meeting - September 13, 1995
Page 3
Pronosed Vacation, Headwav Court (Continued
Commissioner Bruce moved to leave the public hearing on the
proposed vacation of Headway Court open until a decision is
made with regard to MCU -15-95. Commissioner Huber seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, MCU -1-95, E. L. BEWS -
Larry Sale presented the staff report (copy attached) for sub-
ject application and explained the area in general and how the
proposed development fits in the area. He pointed out that a
letter had been received from John McCreedy, an Attorney repre-
senting the residents of Montvue Park Subdivision (copy at-
tached). Mr. Sale pointed out the objections listed on the
letter and explained the processes followed by the City of
Meridian and ACRD to get to the final plan. He stated that
there are still detailed traffic information that needs to be
addressed, but those will be addressed if the Commission adopts
the staff recommendations because each phase that comes will
have to be the subject of its own traffic impact study. Staff
believes the overall gross traffic concerns have been identi-
fied and made recommendations to mitigate those. He further
explained Mr. McCreedy's letter and the need to have an addi-
tional east/west roadway to connect the Bews property to Eagle
Road. He suggested that the Commission include language in the
findings that the eas necessary,_but the precise
location and alignment of the roadway is not required at this
time. Mr. Sale pointed out that the notification requirem n
requested by Mr. McCreedy should come from the City of Meridian
because the plans are presented to the City and forwarded to
the District by the City. He fur er pointed out that staff
would support the mitigation buffer between the east/west road-
way and the-resi en i
Mr. Sale then explained the requirements included in the staff
report and pointed out the traffic studies that were used in
preparing the document. He recommended that the Commissioners
adopt a combination of alternatives 7 and 9 (on page 11 of the
staff report), for this and future applications in the area.
He then read those options into the record and continued with
the Recommended Alternative. The recommendation to the City of
Meridian is that if the application is approved, the seventeen
Site Specific Requirements should be attached as conditions of
approval. Mr. Sale suggested that an additional requirement be
added to s a re or requiring adequate buffering along the
east/west connection o ag a Road. He further suggested
the IQcaton and alignment of the east/west roa way could be
left to future negotia ions and the ver cage a on vue Subdi-
vision will be developed in the future could be removed.
Much discussion followed concerning the Site Specific Require-
ments, the location of the different properties, how future
roadways might be extended through them, and how other local
roads might be allowed.
Commission Meeting - September 13, 1995 •
Page 4
MCU -1-95, E. L. Bews (Continued
John McCreedy, 1275 Shoreline Drive, representing the Montvue
residents, stated that Mr. Sale did an excellent job of summa-
rizing some of their concerns. He asked that the Commission
seriously consider their request for notice of future applica-
tions in the area and explained the reasons for the request.
He stated that they are willing to establish one person as the
contact person. That person would be Trisha Griffiths, Mr.
McCreedy's Secretary. He stated that if a deferral is request-
ed by the developer's representative, he would like to add a
couple of stipulations to the record.
Discussion followed concerning the notification process and the
best way for the residents to be notified. Commissioner
Eastlake suggested that Mr. McCreedy deliver to the Highway
✓� District office a written request and some self-addressed,
stamped postcards for notification purposes.
Commissioner Bruce asked for further audience input.
Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, Meridian, stated that he
is representing Ed Bews and Bill Davis, the owners of the Bews
property. He complimented the staff in their analysis of this
very complex issue. He stated that they have been reviewing
the staff report and would like a i.tt elel more time to review
the requirements and asked the Commissioners to defer any ac-
tion on this matter. Discussion followed concerning the
possibility of connecting this property to the St. Lukes proper-
ty, with Mr. Forrey stating that there definitely will be a
connection.
Mr. McCreedy stated that his clients are comfortable with the
staff report as amended by Mr. Sale. But if a deferral is
granted he asked that two conditions be imposed. The first is
that it be a minimum of thirty days. Mr. Forrey agreed to that
condition. Mr. McCreedy asked that there not be any submittals
to the Highway District to change the application, or to study
future roads, or anything in the meantime, unless he wants to
negotiate with the Montvue residents. Mr. Forrey also agreed
to that condition. After discussion about deferring the matter
to October 11, Larry Sale pointed out that would be 26 days and
Mr. Forrey and Mr. McCreedy agreed to that.
Commissioner Bruce asked for further audience input.
Gary Fletcher, Executive Vice President, St. Lukes Regional
Medical Center and St. Lukes Meridian Medical Center, stated
that St. Lukes would support the deferral being requested by
the applicant. They believe that the additional time may lead
to some further resolution of questions and concerns by each
developer.
Commission Meeting - September 13, 1995
Page 5
MCU -1-95, E. L. Bews (Continued)
After determination that the next scheduled action by the City
of Meridian is scheduled for October 17, 1995, Commissioner
Huber moved to defer MCU -1-95 until October 11, 1995. Commis-
sioner Eastlake seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, HIGHLANDS HACKBERRY NO. 2 -
Chris Korte, 499 Main Street, stated that they were not present
to reconsider the issue of the number 4 condition of approval
tonight; they are requesting a little time for their Engineer
to analyze the ramifications of that condition. He stated that
their Engineer was not present at the meeting where conditions
were altered by the Commissioners. He pointed out that they
had notified Mr. Thompson and the neighborhood association of
their concern; what they are asking is that they be able to
come back at an evening meeting to discuss the problem.
Dave Wynkoop pointed out the procedures necessary for allowing
reconsideration. The standard for determining whether reconsid-
eration should be 1) if it is something new; (2) if it is sig-
nificant; and (3) if presented in the original hearing, it
might have altered the decision. He stated that there should
be some good indication, by the applicant, why the information
was not submitted at the original hearing.
Mr. Korte pointed out that they agreed with the staff report
they had in hand at the original hearing; the problem was that
the condition was being modified by the Commission and a change
was made that may be exceedingly hard to meet. He then ex-
plained the problems with the grading and phasing as required
in the staff report. A goal established by the City of Boise
is to develop projects in phases to reduce the amount of distur-
bance over a lengthy period of time. Mr. Korte further ex-
plained the problems that would occur if phased improperly and
the need for time to better evaluate the conditions. He stated
that they agreed to the condition that was revised at the Com-
mission level because they want to work with the neighborhood
and the Highway District, but they were not aware of the ramifi-
cations of the condition. Much discussion followed concerning
the possible changes that are being reviewed. Mr. Korte stated
that they want to work with the neighborhood to see if some-
thing can be worked out that will allow the development with
the least amount of impact to the existing neighborhood.
Discussion held concerning the possibility of constructing a
temporary 24 -foot access road to the first phase.
Commissioner Bruce asked Jim Thompson for his comments on the
letter from Mr. Smith. Mr. Thompson stated that he had not had
a lot of time to circulate it to his neighbors, but are support-
ive of ACHD in their requirements; he felt it was a good compro-
mise. He was not totally opposed to the Commission granting a
E.L. BEWS, CONTRACTOR,
5206 SORRENTO CIRCLE • BOISE, IDAHO 83704
J U N 2 0 1995
June 14, 1995 �;�� Of Mbfll )M-,
Honorable Grant P. Kingsford .
and City Council
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
RE: Annexation of Bews Property at I-84 and Franklin Road
Dear Mayor Kingsford and Council Members:
At your May 16, 1995, City Council meeting, the City tabled my Annexation, Zoning and
Conditional Use Permit request to your June 20,1995, meeting agenda to give us time to complete
a traffic study in cooperation with the Ada County Highway District. This traffic study is almost
complete, but I believe we need additional time to meet with the residents of Montvue Park
Subdivision and review this traffic report with them:
To allow more time for citizen coordination, I am requesting that you continue to table my
development request to your July 18, 1995 City Council agenda. This will give everyone involved
adequate time to review the traffic study prior to your July 18th City Council meeting. Also, I,
will send a letter to residents of Montvue'Park. Subdivision informing them of my request for
tabling to July 18th and invite them to a neighborhood meeting to review the traffic study as soon
as it is complete.
If there is anything else I need to do at this point, please let me know. Thank you.
1.
rws
Owner
• HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY •
OFFICIALS COUNCIL MEMBERS
A Good Place to Live RONALD R. TOLSMA
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City
MAXYERRINGTON
L. S Engineer Treasurer
GARY E SMITH, P.E. City CITY OF MROBERT 0. CORRIE
ERIDIAN WALT W. MORROW
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. SHARI STILES
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. 33 EAST IDAHO Planner & Zoning Administrator
KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642. RECEIVED
W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief JIM JOHNSON
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney Phone (208) 888-4433 a FAX (208) 8874813 Chairman - Planning & Zoning
Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211
GRANT P. KINGSFORD F E B 2 3 1995
Mayor
OW OF MERIDIAN
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning 8r, Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to
Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: March 7, 1995
TRANSMITTAL DATE: 2/21/95 HEARING DATE: 3/14/95
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for variety of mixed planned land uses
BY: E L Bews
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: South of Franklin Road, north of 1-84 on
the east side of the St Luke's West Medical Center Location
JIM JOHNSON, P/Z
MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z
JIM SHEARER, P/Z
CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z
TIM HEPPER, P/Z
GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR
RONALD TOLSMA, C/C
BOB CORRIE, C/C
WALT MORROW, C/C
MAX YERRINGTON, C/C
WATER DEPARTMENT
SEWER DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
=FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY ATTORNEY
G NEER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
CITY FILES ff
OTHER:
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS:
_CITY EN I -
CITY PLANNER M o k rz- ki l '•J TN '0i eA Yh9.
..e i-., S
JAMES E. BRUCE, President
SHERRY R. HUBER, Vice President
SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, Secretary
TO: ACHD Commission
INTER -DEPARTMENT
,�S CORRESPONDENCE
ELBEWS.2/DSTECH
07 �� 3-8-95
4jvr
DATE: March 6, 1995
FROM: Development Services
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Franklin e/o Eagle Mixed Use Development.
(Developer - E.L.Bews, 5206 Sorrento Circle, Boise ID
83704)
(Engineer/Agent - Wayne Forrey, 52 E Franklin, Meridian ID
83642)
FACTS & FINDINGS:
. 1. The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use
permit for a conceptual mixed-use planned development. The.
site extends from the south side of Franklin Road to I-84 and
is approximately one-quarter mile east of Eagle Road. The
site's east side borders the proposed St. Luke's Hospital
campus.
2. The plans submitted to the District are of a conceptual nature
only and lack sufficient traffic data and detailed design
information needed for a thorough staff review. Therefore,
this staff report will be a conceptual review only.
3. GENERAL INFORMATION:
LEAD AGENCY - Meridian
ACRES - 74
ZONING - Requesting C -G
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE - 162
L.F. OF FRONTAGE ON Franklin Road- 1120
MOST RECENT TRAFFIC COUNTS - 6,487 (1991, west of Eagle Rd)
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAP DESIGNATION - Principal arterial
ADA COUNTY RIDGE -TO -RIVERS PATHWAY PLAN - No pathway shown
EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY - 80 -feet
REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY - 90 -feet (45 -feet from centerline)
Franklin Road is improved with 28 -feet of paving.
•
ada county highway district
318 East 37th - Boise, Idaho 83714 - Phone (208) 345-7680
Meridian Conditiona se Franklin e/o Eagle xed Use Development
March 6, 1995
Page 3
• SPECIAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN:
Pi
0
1. Please require the preparation and submittal of a traffic
study to the District that also considers the effects of the
master plan for St. Luke's Hospital. Prior to beginning the
traffic study coordinate with District staff.
STANDARD REOUIREMENTS:
1. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any require-
ment or policy outlined herein shall be made, in writing, to
the Manager of Engineering Services within 15 calendar days of
the original Commission action. The request shall include a
statement explaining why such a requirement would result in
substantial hardship or inequity.
Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the
Development Services Division at 345-7662.
STAFF SUBMITTING:
Karen Gallagher
DATE OF COMMISSION APPROVAL:
Cd
P4
w
C%4 ~
N
O c7
h
H
O
z
O
N
0 d
CL
•
C
U y�
C
a�
c�
O
c�
a G.
o 4) 0
E
_3a
HN CL
s—
CL
Cl)
�' N
:S
~may
(l1
CL
)
co
CL
0
NE
C
tH�
CJ
p -a a: cn 4;
O
U 3
au
A
O
�'3�0���'
•
NN
U
NEcn
-�
Q= =Ef4 y
N
U U 4,�
:YL
L V
cc
0
W
L
v►,�a.
.J
cl
J
N
N
N
cn
N
,d.
O
C%4 ~
N
O c7
h
H
O
z
O
N
0 d
CL
:E
cn
a�
N
O
� �
U
_3a
CL
uj o
C%4 ~
N
O c7
h
H
O
z
O
N
a
CL
U
O
CL
CL
.
.
Co
a
O
U 3
au
A
•
•
-/
•IF/
"Mmw"M�z I
NCN
d
42-N
c 0- E c0
72 N
- -- a
\ O
�1`
C
A)
E
cc
H
4
cc
c
m
®U
„j C
W >k
M
a
U
O
N
-
a
U
U
N .
O
U 3
au
A
NCN
d
42-N
c 0- E c0
72 N
- -- a
\ O
�1`
C
A)
E
cc
H
4
cc
c
m
®U
„j C
W >k
M
*Wow
poc I
E. L. BEWS PROPERTY - FRANKLIN ROAD/1-8WEAGLE ROAD AREA
LIST OF ANTICIPATED LAND USES
P1. General Retail
f2. Commercial and Professional Offices
P3. Auto Travel Plaza / Auto Services
P 4. Extended Stay Hotel Suites
P 5. Motel Complex
C 6. Retirement Center
!� 7. Nursing Home / Elderly Care Center
i Gi: ' 8. Townhouses
9. Multi -Family Apartment Center
10. Patio Homes
It. Medical Services
�% 12. Restaurants
V1urJ t111 MSP
�! ry •i . E.M
/ � �•� :�' KENTFIELD WAY
v
a y
. t• a
11 I
Of
o ,
p.1 . t , t � . .;
/p r 8`.A.
/ II
0
I . It. T o P '-! 0
0
o>o,
z o y
V
O
=
_
K
EMU"
z > m
A
H
O n T
n
n�
as
q�
Tw�A
0
• *S66T 'L gDaPN UO uOTSSTUIUIOD buTUOZ I buTuuETd UP
-TPTJ9N aqq AC( buTIPaq OTTgnd ao; paTnpagOS ST UOTgPOTIddP STgq -OT
'88T# 90UPUTPIO QHOV 90 ST UOT409S g4TM aouPpa000P UT
'punoab buTXPaaq Oq aoTid aO4Pl4STUTMPE ea; gopdUIT aqq og Paq
-gTUtgns aq gsnur uOT4p3TTddp up 'AAM-10-4gbTl TPUOTgTppp aqq JOI
pTPd aq oq sagSTM ladOtanap aqg JI 'Mou SgSTxa gPgM Oq UOTq
-TPPE UT UOTgPOTpap APM-j0-4gbTl log uaATb aq Xplui Aagy •ppog
UTZxuPla buOTE sguauianoaduiT ApmpPoa aqq jo uoTgonagsuoo log
UaATb aq you Arui sgas;;o a93 gopdutl ppog ' aao;azagq ' umjboja
X.TOM aP92� aATa aqg UT PapnTOUT qOu ST gT IDAaMOq !A4TOPdPO
SqT asEaaouT oq spun; aaa gopdwj ppog JO asn 30; paAOaddP ST
PPO -d UTTXUPJ 3 gpgq sagPOTPuT uPTd guaucanozdwI TP4TdPD QHov aq,L • 6
•papaau alp gaa.ags
goof -TV P moaj suoTgpTjpA gT auTujaagap TTTM Apngs OTj;paq
aqy •gnOAPT TEngdaouoo aqq 109 PaggTWgns PPOa UTPW aqq 10;
Sgaazgs XDPq-04-31OPq goo; -TV jo; peau aqq sagEdTOTguE I;PqS •g
•P9mOTTP aq you qT gPgg p04sanb9J
PUP UPTd agTs s,axnq •gS qTM aTQTgpdtuoo you ST uETd 94TS STgq
uo uMogs sp Agaadoid sTgg woij gngs uaeggnos aqg gPgq PagEo
-TPUT aATgPquasaidaa aqq 'aATgPquasaidea s,axnq •qS ggTM sbuT
-gaaw snOTAajd buTanQ -AI nqs goEdUIT oT;;Pzg p Aq pauTui.zagap
sE agTs s.qg Jo Spaau UOTIPTnOITO OTjjPag aqq PUP agTs s,93[nq
-qS uodn buTpuadap 's,axnq •qS ;o ggaou aqq oq Zaojpd aqq
• oq auo PUP 'Taoapd TPgTdSOH s,axnZ •gS aqg ;o Pua g4aOu aqg uo
PPOI OTTgnd gsaM-gspa eangnj P ggTM goauuoo oq auo 'gsaM aqg
oq peptnoid sgaajgs gngs oMq pup 'gsPa aqg og puPT padOTanapun
aqq Oq PapTAOad aq sgaasgs gngs oMq gpgq spueunuooaa ;;PgS •L
•AOUa?OT33a oTjgpaq
umiuTgdo ao; ppog aTbpa 10 gsPa 49a3-09L'T pagPooT aq qT gpgq
spuaunuooaa pup aangn; aqq UT xaTdwoo STgq zo; paquplipM aq
AMU TPubTs P gPgq sznouoo ;;PqS •pPOI SSaOOP uTPut s,agTs aqq
qP PPO -d UTT7[UPJa UO TEubTs OTI;P14 P SagPOTPUT UPTd agTS aqy • 9
•„sndumo gsaM saxnq •qS„ guauidOTaAap aqg buTTTPO ST gupO
-TTddp aqy •aaquaO buTsJnu/alUO ATaapTa PUP sagTns quawa.zTq
-az 's4uaur4aPdP uapzPb ' SaUIOquMOq ' Tagout ' quPlnpgsaz ' aoTI;o
' TPTOlaunuOO :alp quaucdOTanap STgg log pasodoid sasn puPT OU *S
'S66T 'ST gozPw uo APM-10
-ggbTz gaazgs aqq ;o UoTgEOEA aqq UO qOP oq paTnpagos ST QHOV
• gsanbaa gPgq 90 TPAoiddP aqq saumsald 3;P4s PUP ' UPTPT.zaw
;o AgTo aqq Lq gPTd aqq ;o uotgpopA pagsanbaz &Tagpapdas spq
quPOTTddp aqs •padOTanap J9Aau SPM gPgq (sgoT-ZV) UOTsTATpgnS
sagPgSS UOgbutu IPd paggpTd LTJau[J0J aqq sapnTOuT agTs aql • V
TpjnH ipaH - ioiuiSIQ S,KawssHSSX aad iovawl
Ppv gsaM - HNOZ SI3HAmas aaa Lovawi
•
z abpa
S66T '9 gozPw
quautdoTanaQ asn paxTwTbPH o/a uTTXUPla asnOFuoTgTPUOD UPTpTJaW
re elveez
PW
E. L. BEWS PROPERTY - FRANKLIN ROAD/1-8WEAGLE ROAD AREA
LIST OF ANTICIPATED LAND USES
P1.
General Retail
fp 2.
Commercial and Professional Offices
P3.
Auto Travel Plaza / Auto Services
P 4.
Extended Stay Hotel Suites
P 5.
Motel Complex
6.
Retirement Center
1- U 7.
Nursing Home / Elderly Care Center
i Cu' 8. Townhouses
9. Multi -Family Apartment Center
10.
Patio Homes
11.
Medical Services
�% 12.
Restaurants
-- i ..
Ro
D
W
Z
A
C15'
D. can)
a,, °fib U
Zj
to
�N N s � a�--8 ov `"Iq
mco
E C m 0- •? L y •� N „o N N O�
�ta cE N Edi N SON>^ ".g aai O
Q� 0.
% �� ools ils -0 i.��w+ r" +'
ca
> 0 C4
a J ca N N
c � - W I,,-= v
41
•
L C g746
JAMES E, BRUCE, President
SHERRY R. HUBER, Vice President
SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, Secretary
TO: P:CHD Commission
FROM: Development Services
TNTER-DEPARTMENT
CORRESPONDENCE
ELBEWS.2/DSTECH
3-8-95
DATE: March 6, 1995
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Franklin e/o Eagle Mixed Use Development.
(Developer - E.L.Bews, 5206 Sorrento Circle, Boise ID
83704)
(Engineer/Agent - Wayne Forrey, 52 E Franklin, Meridian ID
83642)
FACTS & FINDINGS:
1, The applicant is
requesting approval of a
conditional
use
permit for a conceptual mixed-use planned
development.
The.
site extends from
the south side of Franklin Road
to I-84
and
is approximately
one-quarter mile east of
Eagle Road.
The
site's east side
borders the proposed St.
Luke's Hospital
campus.
2. The plans submitted to the District are of a conceptual nature
only and lack :sufficient traffic data and detailed design
information needed for a thorough staff review. Therefore,
this staff report will be a conceptual review only.
3. GENERAL INFORMATION:
LEAD AGENCY - Meridian
ACRES - 74
ZONING - Requesting C --G
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE - 162
L.F. OF FRONTAGE ON Franklin Road- 1120
MOST RECENT TRAFFIC COUNTS - 6,487 (1991, west of Eagle Rd)
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAP DESIGNATION - Principal arterial
ADA COUNTY RIDGE -TO -RIVERS PATHWAY PLAN - No pathway shown
EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY - 80 -feet
REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY - 90 -feet (45 -feet from centerline)
Franklin Road is improved with 28 -feet of paving.
ada county highway district
318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714 9 Phone (208) 345-7680
l
Meridian Conditionalwe Franklin e/o Eagle Oxed Use Development
March 6, 1995
Page 3
SPECIAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN:
1. Please require the preparation and submittal of a traffic
study to the District that also considers the effects of the
master plan for St. Luke's Hospital. Prior to beginning the
traffic study coordinate with District staff.
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS:
1. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any require-
ment or policy outlined herein shall be made, in writing, to
the Manager of Engineering Services within 15 calendar days of
the original Commission action. The request shall include a
statement explaining why such a requirement would result in
substantial hardship or inequity.
Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the
Development Services Division at 345-7662.
STAFF SUBMITTING:
Karen Gallagher
DATE OF COMMISSION APPROVAL:
MAR 0 8 1995
it -
��'L•�_ � 1% [sly
CW
CENTRAL
DISTRICT
HEALTH
DEPARTMENT
Rezone #
REVIEW SHEET
Environmental Health Division
!RECE-WED
Return to:
MAR 0 1 1995 ❑ Boise
Cl l Y t)f MLrtt!JiAa ❑ Eagle
❑ Garden city
Conditional Use # /"/iXgo AU+NI-J� 44rie uses . Meridian
❑ Kuna
Preliminary / Final / Short Plat ❑ ACZ
❑ I. We have Objections to this Proposal.
❑ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal.
❑ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type. of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal.
❑ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment.
❑ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of:
❑ high seasonal ground water
❑ solid lava from original grade
❑ 6. We can Approve this Proposal for individual sewage disposal to be located above solid lava layers:
❑ 2 feet
❑ 4 feet
❑ 7. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for:
❑ central sewage ❑ community sewage system ❑ community water well
❑ interim sewage ❑ central water
❑ individual sewage ❑ individual water
❑ 8. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare,
Division of Environmental Quality:
❑ central sewage ❑ community sewage system ❑ community water
❑ sewage dry lines ❑ central water
❑ 9. Street Runoff is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
❑ 10. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other
considerations indicate approval.
r
❑
11. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage
Regulations.
❑ 12. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any:
❑ food establishment ❑ swimming pools or spas ❑ child care center
❑ beverage establishment ❑ grocery store
/If
cr-7
'o//
(�?' N7XaL 5�—e/L /S Date:
V,,rrlvz Reviewed By:
7b LLSrT �litxr� �=�7'
CDHD 10/91 rcb, rev. 11/93 jll
OFFICIALS
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk
JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer
GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt.
KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief
W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney
• HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY •
AI Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813
Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211
GRANT P. KINGSFORD
Mayor
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES
WITH
To insure that your comments and
Planning & Zoning Commission,
COUNCIL MEMBERS
RONALD R. TOLSMA
MAX YERRINGTON
ROBERT D. CORRIE
WALT W. MORROW
SHARI STILES
t(''�l -:> �,zL i•.., r, r� r1 I, ' & Zoning Administrator
U li ��:.� `✓ a✓� a �V� L1 L`L JIM JOHNSON
Chairman - Planning & Zoning
R COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
CITY OF MERIDIAN
will be considered by the Meridian
submit your comments and recommendation to
Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: March 7. 1995
TRANSMITTAL DATE:
REQUEST:
M
HEARING DATE: 3/14/95
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: South of Franklin Road north of 1-84 on
that irrigation water be made available to all developments within this District.
Bill Henson, Assistant Water Superintendent
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
RECEIVED
MAR - 9 1995
CITY OF MERIDIAN
JIM JOHNSON, P/Z
_1MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
JIM SHEARER, P/Z
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z
—� ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
TIM HEPPER, P2
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
RONALD TOLSMA, C/C
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
BOB CORRIE, C/C
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
_WALT MORROW, C/C
-U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
MAX YERRINGTON, C/C
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
WATER DEPARTMENT
_::- BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
DEPARTMENT
I CITY FILES
_SEWER
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
—=OTHER:
FIRE DEPARTMENT
YOUCONCISE REMARKS: Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Distr"ct's Chaffin -Drain' courses through the middle of the
CITY ATTORNEY
proje t. The right-of-way of the Chaffin Drain- is 60 feet:
CITY ENGINEER
20 feet to the right and 40 feet to the left of center
_CITY PLANNER
facing downstream. See Idaho Code 42-1208--RIGHTS=of-
WAY NOT
SUBJECT TO ADVERSE POSSESSION
The dc -vel opPr most- rnnYarf- .Tahn Anrlarcnn nr u;ll Henson at
466-0663
or 345-2431 for approval
hefnrP any Pnrrnarhmanr nr rhang of r;Sht—ni—;,jy
O(;cu
file
platting. Contact Donna Moore at 43-188 or 466-7861
or review prior to ina
for further
in ormation. All laterals
and waste ways must be protected. Municipal
surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the site,
Nampa
& Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. It is recommended
that irrigation water be made available to all developments within this District.
Bill Henson, Assistant Water Superintendent
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
RECEIVED
MAR - 9 1995
CITY OF MERIDIAN
7 March 1995
9
E. L. Bews
5206 Sorrento Circle
Boise, ID 83704
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-888-6201
Phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa
466-7861
Boise
343-1884
SHOP: Nampa
466-0663
Boise
345-2431
RE: Land Use Change Application for Planned Business & Residential
Dear Mr. Bews:
Enclosed please find a Land Use Change Application for your use to
file with the Irrigation District for its review on the above -
referenced development.
If you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free
to call on Donna Moore at the District's office or John Anderson,
the District's Water Superintendent at the District's shop.
Sincerely,
DAREN R. COON, SECRETARY/TREASURER
NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
DRC/dnm
cc: File
-Water Superintendent
11 City of Meridian
enc.
COPY
RECEIVED
MAR - 9 1995
CITY OF MERIDIAN
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000
L
RECEIVED
q'RTa S.
May1945 MAY 1 2 1995
CITY QF MERIDIAN
Mr. William G. Berg
City Clerk, .
City ofMeridian
33 East, Idaho Street
Meridian, Idaho 83,642
Subject: Roadway Access
Concerning Applications for Annexation and Conditional Use Permit of
E.L.. Bews' La0d Zbc4ted in the E 1/2, i\iW 1/4 of Section 16, T.3N, R.1E
Dear Mr,: Bet g:
We are responding to the. E.L..Bewsproperty applications as representatives for the
Tullis/Thous Partnership: The Tullis/Thomas Partnership owns the vacant 85.6 acres
p p ty apklin Road and Interstate 84.
that border the eastern E.L. Bevis ro er between Fr _
The partnership owns all flus' acreage with the exception o€:.approximately ten (10) acres
on irrar+lclul
, Road which' is privately owned by Mr; L'&*.
The Tullis/Thomas Partnership supports the E,L. Bews',property annexation and, the
CC zone'he is requesting. However, We are not,in whole agreement with the public
access ,(roadway) locations_ between the E.L. Bews property and the Tullis/Thomas
property as, shown on the Be'ws' plan.dated 12/1/94, We would like to see the main St.
Luke's property access:road extended from the new, Eagle';Road signal light intersection,
west to east, straight through e,E.L. Be ns propel fid=carried into the TullisJThomas
property; (See our proposed revised,access road phu-i, closed.) We believe our,
Proposed roadway layout wall provide improved the new hospital for both the
properties laying to the east andlhose off FranklanRoad. We would also like to see the
proposed .nortliern :most-east/west crossroads P1404 roximately 100 feet further
south Mie.crossioads are preser►tly shown about th of the new Franklin
lxae:
Road s,�_ ed site accesso Tl v _ p the ea wwvay,centerline on .the
. Bew's mrd' lair Fr°=perly `' died raacl f:ad �operiy line, would
alitiw t%` Bair parcel to ream andz oultt saved access to the
Tullis/Thomas site. We belioir�e of these `recd xnendations would improve
accessibility to all properties m this area, inciud g the ,Sews'.
We met with E.L. Bews' property planner Wayne Forrey'(4/6/95) and discussed, our
access roadway concerns. At.-die-meeting, Wayne assured us that he and Mr. Bews
2225 NORTH 56TH STREET. - - - DOUGLAS A. DIEL
SEATTLE, WA 98103-6203` THOMAS R. WEBB
(206) 547-1940, FAX (206).54778212 now DONALD J. WEISSINGER
LICEN'SEO IN WASHINGTON, ALASKA, OREGON, IDAHO, CALIFORNIA, MONTANA, UTAH AND WI'SCONS'IN.
F
•
JAMES E. BRUCE, President
SHERRY R. HUBER, Vice President
SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, Secretary
To: E.L. BEWS
5206 SORRENTO CIRCLE
BOISE ID 83704
From: Karen"'Illagher, Coordinator
Development Services
RECEIVED
MAR 14 1995
CITY OF MERIDIAN
March 9, 1995
Subject: MERIDIAN CU - FRANKLIN E/O EAGLE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
Your application for the above referenced project was acted on by the
Commissioners of the Ada County Highway District on March 8, 1995. The
attached staff report lists conditions of approval and street improvements which
are required.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 345-7680.
I"to,
cc: Development Services
Chron
WAYNE FORREY
CITY OF MERIDIAN
ada county highway district
318 East 37th 9 Boise, Idaho 83714 9 Phone (208) 345-7680
X6/20/95 14:30 $208
E
cc�nc
JAMES E. BRUCE, President
SHERRY R, HUBER, Vice President
SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, Secretory
Grant Kingsford, Mayor
City of Meridian
33 E.Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
FAX: (208) 887-4813
Re: Bews Property
Conditional Use Permit/Mixed Use Permit
Dear Mayor Kingsford:
10001/001
Am
Post -it' Fax NoM 7671
Da
p�9��
To
m
Z.
co.�oeoiCt �,i
Ica. C g o
Phone #
Phone # �_ W O
I� OG/
Fax #
Fax #
June 20, 1995
This letter is to request the City to defer action on this application until the Highway District can
provide the City with findings from the traffic impact study. That study was just received by the
District staff and we have requested additional data from the consultant. We are assured that the
data will be provided to District staff by June 28, 1995 and staff will have a staff report for
transmittal to the ACHD Commission for its meeting of July 12, 1995. That will be in time for
your Council meeting of July 18, 1995.
As you are aware, the magnitude of growth in this area will cause major impact to the
transportation system. The reason for our requested delay is so that we can make proper
recommendations to the City based on sound traffic data for your consideration during the review
of this application.
Sincely,
arty S
iDeveI
went Services Supervisor
cc: Chron
Project File
Engineering Services
Traffic Services
Shari Stiles, Planning & Zoning
ada county highway district
318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714 • Phone (208) 345.7680
JUN 20 '95 14:20 208 345 7650 PAGE.01
Vc
JAMES E. BRUCE, President
SHERRY R. HUBER, Vice President
SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, Secretary
Residents of Montvue Subdivision
RE: MCU-1-95/Bews Property
JUN 2 6 1995
C TY OF MtDI ?
KI '
June 22, 1995
On June 29, 1995, at 6:00 p.m. the Ada County Highway District will hold a public information meeting
with the residents of Montvue Subdivision to discuss the proposed development of the Bews property in
conjunction with St. Luke's campus and the Tullis/Thomas parcel. The District will receive a completed
traffic study for this area on Wednesday, June 28th. The traffic study will analysis the amount of traffic to
be generated by these three parcels, the origin/destination of vehicles from these parcels, and the amount of
delay time a vehicle will experience at the existing and proposed intersections on Eagle Road and Franklin
Road. Copies of the traffic study summary will be available at the meeting for your review.
The information meeting will be held from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. in the auditorium of the Ada County Highway
District, 318 East 37th Street, Garden City (southeast corner of 37th Street and Adams Street). This meeting
is not a decision making meeting. The primary purpose is to exchange information about the traffic to be
generated by these three properties, if they develop and how to cope with that traffic.
Sincerely,
,00rdinator
cc: City of Meridian
St. Luke's, Jeff Hull
Wayne Forrey
E.L. Bews
Rick Thomas
Chron
Project file
ada county highway district
318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714 • Phone (208) 345-7680
•
JAMES E. BRUCE, President
SHERRY R. HUBER, Vice President
SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, Secretary
E.L. Bews
5206 Sorrento Circle
Boise, ID 83704
Re: Conditional Use Permit
Meridian Application No. MCU -1-95
Dear Mr. Bews:
RECEIVED
AUG - 8 1995
CITY OF MERIDIAN
July 31, 1995
In response to your letter of July 24, 1995, in which you requested deferral of the consideration
of your application "until a later date when this traffic access issue is resolved.", Ada County
Highway District (ACHD) will defer taking the matter to the ACHD Commission until
September 13, 1995. A Technical Review Committee (TRC) meeting will be held at 3:00 P.M.
on August 25 and a draft staff report will be available for public review on August 30, 1995.
You and/or your representative should plan to attend both the TRC meeting and the Commission
meeting. The adjoining landowners and the residents of the adjoining subdivision will be invited
to the meetings.
By copy of this letter, I am notifying the affected parties of this schedule and inviting them to the
meetings to be held by ACHD.
Sincerely,
ON
Services Supervisor
cc: Chron.
Project File
Engineering Services
Traffic Services
Director
Commission
Wayne Forrey
Sheri Stiles
Mayor Grant Kingsford L --
Jeff
Jeff Hull
John McCreedy
ada county highway district
318 East 37th 9 Boise, Idaho 83714-6499 • Phone (208) 345-7680
•
.I I I1 2 5 1995
JAMES E. BRUCE, President
SHERRY R. HUBER, Vice President July 12, 1995
SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, Secretary y
Jeff Hull and Gary L. Fletcher
St Luke's Regional Medical Center
190 East Bannock
Boise, Idaho 83712
Re: St. Luke's/Bews/Thomas/Tullius Properties
This letter is in response to Mr. Hull's correspondence of June 29, and Mr. Fletcher's
letters of July 13, and other dates.
First, I am sorry that you believe it to be inappropriate for the Highway District to direct
our consultant to adjust a draft traffic study to present the most accurate information
possible. As a result of that direction, the traffic analysis was revised to better reflect
future conditions and increase the study's accuracy.
None of the background data, nor the daily traffic volume forecasts were changed from
those supplied by the Ada Planning Association (APA). The trip generation estimates
provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) were not changed.
The number of trips assigned to the roadway system was reduced. The base
assumptions used in the current transportation planning model assume a 10%
reduction due to transit, car pooling, van pooling, and other non -driver travel modes.
These are area -wide figures developed as part of the Bench to Valley Transportation
Study. The additional reduction was based, in part, upon St Luke's proven record of
trip reduction and the stated goals of a shuttle system between the two campuses. The
additional reduction was also based on Meridian's increased ability to retain trips
because of its increased level of services that is not currently included in APA's model.
A small additional reduction was attributed to the linked trips between the adjoining land
uses. This linked trip reduction was not used when the roadway connection was not
present between the St. Luke's and the Bews and Thomas/Tullis properties.
The peak hour percentage for the background traffic was revised to better reflect
changing conditions in the corridor. Although Eagle Road exhibits a current peak hour
percentage of 10.85%, this reflects the existing rural function of the roadway. Over the
twenty year planning period, the area will grow and develop and the roadway will
assume more of an urban function, carrying a higher percentage of local traffic rather
ada county highway district
318 East 37th 9 Boise, Idaho 83714 9 Phone (208) 345-7680
4
With regard to the July 7 meeting at which Mr. Fletcher states that someone
misrepresented St. Luke's position regarding a road through their property, I have
talked to people who were at the meeting and they do not understand what may have
been misrepresented or by whom. I do not believe any member of ACHD staff made
any mis-statement relative to St. Luke's position, since we know it rather well.
I hope these comments have helped to further explain the issues. We look forward to
receiving your firm's comments on the draft traffic analysis.
Lar
o m �...;
n rvices Si"rpervisor
cc: Chron City of Meridian
Project File - - -- - - J-Ohn Mc ree y
Engineering Services E.L. Bews
Traffic Services Gary Moles, P.E., ITD
Director
Commission
Attorney
file GASHAREMSTLUKE
Eugene C. Thomas
John W. Barrett
R. B. Rock
Richard C. Fields
Robert E. Bakes
Paul S. Street
Larry C. Hunter
Glenna M. Christensen
Mark S. Prusynski
Morgan W. Richards, Jr
Michael G. McPeek
Stephen R. Thomas
Jon S. Gorski
Gary T. Dance
Gerald T. Husch
LAW OFFICE
MOFFATT, THOMAS, BARRETT, ROCK & FIELDS
CHARTERED
Kirk R. Helvie
Thomas C. Morris
Michael E. Thomas
James C. deGlee
Patricia M. Olsson
Grant T. Burgoyne
Stephen J. Olson
Patrick J. Kole
Andrew P. Doman
David S. Jensen
Allen K. Davis
Bradley J. Williams
Mark A. Ellison
James L. Martin
Kelly Greene McConnell
FIRST SECURITY BUILDING
911 WEST IDAHO
POST OFFICE BOX 829
BOISE, IDAHO 83701
Telephone (208) 345-2000
Facsimile (208) 385-5384
December 11, 1995
Ada County Highway District Commissioners
Jim Bruce, President
Sherry Huber, Vice President
Susan Eastlake, Secretary
318 East 37th Street
Garden City, Idaho 83704
RECEIVED
DEC 1 2 1995
CM OF MERIDIAN
Re: E. L. Bews Development Application MCU -1-95
MTBR&F File No. 4-263.93
Dear Commissioners:
Willis C. Moffatt
(1907-1980)
E. Renn Yorgason
Office Administrator
Gary T. Dance
Partner in Char e
Eastern Idaho Of%Sices
IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO
525 Park Avenue, Suite 2D
Post Office Box 1367
83403
Telephone 208) 522-6700
Facsimile (208) 522-5111
POCATELLO. IDAHO
845 west Center, Suite C
Post Office Box 4941
83201
Telephone (208) 233-2001
Idaho WATS: 1 (800) 422-2889
AICA Net 010
We write this letter on behalf of St. Luke's Meridian Medical Center (St. Luke's).
The above -referenced application has been pending before the City of Meridian since February
1995. It has also been pending before you since March of 1995. Finally, after repeated deferrals,
studies and request for extensions, you acted on the above -application on November 29, 1995.
While St. Luke's will not appeal the action of the Commission, St. Luke's has a
number of objections to the findings and conclusions and has elected to advise you of its objections
by letter rather than a formal appeal. After reviewing the contents of this letter, St. Luke's hopes that
you will review your findings and conclusions and make the appropriate changes.
In the introductory paragraph on page 1, the findings summarize the application.
There is reference to the "proposed" St. Luke's campus. The construction of this campus is well
under way and, St. Luke's is just a few short months away from opening up the campus to the public.
St. Luke's project has received all appropriate approvals, including one from ACHD, and built its
project based on those approvals. During the review process, a public road through St. Luke's was
not anticipated or required.
The introduction ends with a statement that the "planned roadway system will not be
adequate to support the ultimate level of development." As will be discussed below, the ultimate
level of development is based upon the highest perceived uses in an application that does not give
190 East Bannock
Boise, Idaho Mi I LL
83712
208-386-2222 =III Fr
Edwin E. Dahlberg
President
May 16, 1995
The Honorable Grant Kingsford
Mayor, City of Meridian
Members of the City Council
Meridian City Hall
33 E. Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Mayor Kingsford & City Council Members:
St Luk6s
Regional Medical Center
I am writing regarding the applications currently before the City Council for annexation
and Conditional Use for the E. L. Bews' property. As you know, St. Luke's has been
working for more than a year preparing to begin the St. Luke's West ambulatory care
center now underway at Eagle Road and 1-84. In the course of this preparation, we
assumed a leadership role in working with the City on utility services which facilitated
access for other property owners.
Over the past few weeks however, it appears there have been discussions relative to
traffic circulation and roadways within the area bounded by Eagle Road, 1-84, Franklin,
and Cloverdale. I believe you have received a letter dated May 3, from Debra Tullis,
and Thomas Webb relative to some of these discussions. We want it to be clear that
St. Luke's was not asked and hasn't participated in any of these discussions. There
has not been an adequate study done to support any action regarding traffic circulation
or public roadways in this area and we would respectfully request that the City Council
not take any action that might establish, or even project, public roadways at this
juncture.
You should know we have commissioned preliminary traffic studies based upon our
understanding of proposed developments east of the St. Luke's property to Cloverdale.
These studies suggest that all three developments -- St. Luke's, Bews and
Thomas/Tullis -- cannot be adequately served with a public road through St. Luke's
property.
MOUNTAIN STATES TUMOR INSTITUTE • IDAHO'S HEALTH INFORMATION RETRIEVAL CENTER • ANDERSON CENTER • ANDERSON PLAZA MEDICAL BUILDING
ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL OFFICE PLAZA • MOUNTAIN STATES SURGERY CENTER • AFFILIATED WITH THE IDAHO ELKS REHABILITATION HOSPITAL
MEMBER OF THE VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS OF AMERICA (VHA) SYSTEM VHA
it
Eugene C. Thomas
John W. Barrett
R. B. Rock
Richard C. Fields
Robert E. Bakes
Paul S. Street
Larry C. Hunter
Glenna M. Christensen
Mark S. Prusynski
Morgan W. Richards, Jr
Michael G. McPeek
Stephen R. Thomas
Jon S. Gorski
Gary T. Dance
Gerald T. Husch
•
LAW OFFICE
MOFFATT, THOMAS, BARRETT, ROCK & FIELDS
CHARTIItID
Kirk R. Helvie
Thomas C. Morris
Michael E. Thomas
James C. deGlee
Patricia M. Olsson
Grant T. Burgoyne
Stephen J. Olson
Patrick J. Kole
Andrew P. Doman
David S. Jensen
Allen K. Davis
Bradley J. Williams
Mark A. Ellison
James L. Martin
Kelly Greene McConnell
FIRST SECURITY BUILDING
911 WEST IDAHO
POST OFFICE BOX 829
BOISE, IDAHO 83701
Telephone (208) 345-2000
Facsimile (208) 385-5384
December 11, 1995
Ada County Highway District Commissioners
Jim Bruce, President
Sherry Huber, Vice President
Susan Eastlake, Secretary
318 East 37th Street
Garden City, Idaho 83704
RECEIVED
DEC 12 1995
CITY OF MERIDIAN
Re: E. L. Bews Development Application MCU -1-95
MTBR&F File No. 4-263.93
Dear Commissioners:
Willis C. Moffatt
(1907-1980)
E. Renn Yorgason
Office Administrator
Gary T. Dance
Partner in Char e
Eastern Idaho Oices
IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO
525 Park Avenue, Suite 2D
Post Office Box 1367
83403
Telephone (208) 522-6700
Facsimile (208) 522-5111
POCATELLD,IDAHO
845 West Center, Suite C
Post Office Box 4941
83201
Telephone (208) 233-2001
Idaho WATS: 1 (800) 422-2889
ABA Net 010
We write this letter on behalf of St. Luke's Meridian Medical Center (St. Luke's).
The above -referenced application has been pending before the City of Meridian since February
1995. It has also been pending before you since March of 1995. Finally, after repeated deferrals,
studies and request for extensions, you acted on the above -application on November 29, 1995.
While St. Luke's will not appeal the action of the Commission, St. Luke's has a
number of objections to the findings and conclusions and has elected to advise you of its objections
by letter rather than a formal appeal. After reviewing the contents of this letter, St. Luke's hopes that
you will review your findings and conclusions and make the appropriate changes.
In the introductory paragraph on page 1, the findings summarize the application.
There is reference to the "proposed" St. Luke's campus. The construction of this campus is well
under way and, St. Luke's is just a few short months away from opening up the campus to the public.
St. Luke's project has received all appropriate approvals, including one from ACHD, and built its
project based on those approvals. During the review process, a public road through St. Luke's was
not anticipated or required.
The introduction ends with a statement that the "planned roadway system will not be
adequate to support the ultimate level of development." As will be discussed below, the ultimate
level of development is based upon the highest perceived uses in an application that does not give
_4
Ada County Highway District Commissioners
December 11, 1995
Page 2
any meaningful detail on uses. St. Luke's is unable to reconcile your conclusion regarding
inadequate roads to handle development with your ultimate action to approve the application. Part
of your approval recommends that a roadway be put through St. Luke's property. On page 9 of the
Facts and Findings in paragraph number 2, you find that Franklin Road is the "only road" to which
the project would take access. We also cannot reconcile these findings.
Some of the foundational elements of this report are subject to scrutiny that would
cause the whole report to be called into question. These items are listed as follows:
1. On page 6, paragraph N(2), suggests that in 2015 the trip generation for the
area will be equivalent to'27,000 single family homes or 7 Boise Towne Square malls. This analysis
as admitted is extremely aggressive and, in St. Luke's view, unsupported.
2. The report assumes that the Five Mile Interchange is completed. Without the
interchange, the intensive development referenced above cannot even occur. It is our understanding
that the Bench to Valley Transportation Study included the Five Mile Interchange, but this project
is not on the Idaho Department of Transportation's five-year plan, nor is there funding available for
this project.
3. The recommended road through St. Luke's only delays the need for an grade
separated interchange at Franklin/Eagle in the future.
St. Luke's objects strongly to the recommendation that a public road be required
through St. Luke's property simply to delay future required highway improvements. In addition, we
cannot recall an instance where a property had been approved and developed as St. Luke's did only
to find less than one year after approval, a government agency would recommend changes to the
design and existing construction of the roads only to benefit another developer.
On pages 2 and 3 of the report, ACHD has made a number of assumptions regarding
intensive medical use. St. Luke's disagrees with the magnitude of these assumptions. Rather, the
contrary may be true. If a road goes through St. Luke's, the traffic may be so intense that highly
intensive medical use may not be the appropriate use. If there was a detailed master plan, St. Luke's
would be able to determine whether the adjacent uses are compatible and complimentary to medical
use. Compatible uses may not generate the high traffic volumes suggested.
We wish to reiterate that on page 4 of your report, the Commission admits that the
"added traffic from the east/west connection across St. Luke's property would seriously degrade the
operation of the St. Luke's driveway intersection with Eagle Road." There is a tremendous cost with
not only redesigning St. Luke's property but also tearing up construction less than one-year old only
to delay the need for an interchange. In addition, medical services to the community would be
disrupted during any roadway reconstruction on the St. Luke's property. St. Luke's appreciates that
Ada County Highway District Commissioners
December 11, 1995
Page 3
many of these costs are placed on the developer, nonetheless, St. Luke's had previously suggested
and would suggest again that a full study of the caliber of the Bench To Valley Study be done in this
area prior to approval of such intensive development as proposed in the above application.
As admitted in the report on page 12, paragraph 2, this application is conceptual only.
Since St. Luke's does not know the plan of development or density, St. Luke's cannot determine the
impact of the Bews application on St. Luke's property. When St. Luke's designed and began
construction of its project, the Bews property was zoned residential and had an approved plat. These
new, proposed intense uses assume a right to use St. Luke's facilities and improvements, which were
not designed to handle the volume, noise and congestion. We applaud the staff on looking for ways
in which to accommodate development, but we still believe the overly aggressive assumptions cause
the recommendations to be flawed. St. Luke's opposes your recommendation for a road through St.
Luke's.
St. Luke's by its failure to appeal, does not agree that its development should be
subject to the same conditions you have required in this application for any future project or
proposal St. Luke's might have. Since the Commission is not asking St. Luke's to incur these
expenses or accept these conditions for its existing project, we cannot comment until such time as
St. Luke's is before the Commission on a St. Luke's project. The Bews application did not contain
a sufficient level of detail and therefore St. Luke's opposed the recommendation of a road through
its property in fear of adverse impacts this development will have on St. Luke's.
Very truly yours,
Jon . Gorski
JSG\bm
cc: Mayor of the City of Meridian
City Council Members
Gary L. Fletcher
Larry Sale
E. L. Bews
JSG/80773_1. WPD
11
190 East Bannock
Boise, Idaho
83712
208-386-2222
Edwin E. Dahlberg
President
May 16, 1995
The Honorable Grant Kingsford
Mayor, City of Meridian
Members of the City Council
Meridian City Hall
33 E. Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Mayor Kingsford & City Council Members:
4
ALL St Luke's
Regional Medical Center
rF
I am writing regarding the applications currently before the City Council for annexation
and Conditional Use for the E. L. Bews' property. As you know, St. Luke's has been
working for more than a year preparing to begin the St. Luke's West ambulatory care
center now underway at Eagle Road and 1-84. In the course of this preparation, we
assumed a leadership role in working with the City on utility services which facilitated
access for other property owners.
Over the past few weeks however, it appears there have been discussions relative to
traffic circulation and roadways within the area bounded by Eagle Road, 1-84, Franklin,
and Cloverdale. I believe you have received a letter dated May 3, from Debra Tullis.
and Thomas Webb relative to some of these discussions. We want it to be clear that
St. Luke's was not asked and hasn't participated in any of these discussions. There
has not been an adequate study done to support any action regarding traffic circulation
or public roadways in this area and we would respectfully request that the City Council
not take any action that might establish, or even project, public roadways at this
juncture.
You should know we have commissioned preliminary traffic studies based upon our
understanding of proposed developments east of the St. Luke's property to Cloverdale.
These studies suggest that all three developments -- St. Luke's, Bews and
Thomas/Tullis -- cannot be adequately served with a public road through St. Luke's
property.
MOUNTAIN STATES TUMOR INSTITUTE - IDAHO'S HEALTH INFORMATION RETRIEVAL CENTER - ANDERSON CENTER - ANDERSON PLAZA MEDICAL BUILDING
ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL OFFICE PLAZA - MOUNTAIN STATES SURGERY CENTER - AFFILIATED WITH THE IDAHO ELKS REHABILITATION HOSPITAL
MEMBER OF THE VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS OF AMERICA (VHA) SYSTEM VHA
• 0
The Honorable Grant Kingsford
Members of the City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 2
St. Luke's purchased the property at Eagle Road and 1-84 to develop a medical
campus maximizing use of the property over time. Any significant roadway through
this campus could seriously compromise this future development along with access to
these medical facilities by patients and ambulances. After obtaining the necessary
approvals, St. Luke's began construction early this year before any other annexation or
Conditional Use applications were submitted. St. Luke's should not now be
conditioned by action on applications currently under consideration. We would again
ask that no action be taken to establish or imply roadways, the implications of which
have not been studied or considered.
ly
Fletcher
,e Vice President
GLF/wjp
0 •
190 East Bannock
Boise, Idaho :A LL
83712
208-386-2222 oil Fr
Edwin E. Dahlberg
President I F
May 18, 1995
The Honorable Grant Kingsford
Mayor, Meridian
Meridian City Council Members
33 E. Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
Ada County Highway District Commissioners
Mr. Jerry D. Nyman, Director
Ada County Highway District
318 E. 37th Street
Boise, ID 83714
Ladies and Gentlemen:
St Luk6s
Regional Medical Center
RECEIVED
MAY 19 1995
Cl'FV Or Mthft)IA,
I am writing to express our extreme concern related to recent proposals and
discussions involving a new connector "street" through the St. Luke's West campus
connecting Eagle Road and Franklin Road. This concept has come up in the context
of Meridian annexation considerations related to the Bew's property and development
of the Thomas/Tullis partnership properties on Franklin road.
We are in the process of developing a position paper addressing the operational and
financial impacts of such a "street" on our investment and plans for the St. Luke's
West campus. This paper will be available early in the week of May 22.
We urge you. and your staff to proceed cautiously in regard to this concept and if
considerations continue, please be sure that St. Luke's is involved in all internal and
external discussions. Please feel free to contact Jeff Hull at 386-2609 as those
discussions are scheduled and occur.
MOUNTAIN STATES TUMOR INSTITUTE • IDAHO'S HEALTH INFORMATION RETRIEVAL CENTER • ANDERSON CENTER • ANDERSON PLAZA MEDICAL BUILDING
ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL OFFICE PLAZA • MOUNTAIN STATES SURGERY CENTER • AFFILIATED WITH THE IDAHO ELKS REHABILITATION HOSPITAL
MEMBER OF THE VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS OF AMERICA (VHA) SYSTEM VHA
•
May 18, 1995
Page 2
•
As described at the May 16, 1995 Meridian City Council hearing, the concept of this
public road through St. Luke's property is not only inconsistent with our site
development plans but also causes considerable direct expense, potentially in the
millions, and could compromise the viability of our entire West Ada project and our
investments to date.
Sincerely,
L.'Vletcher
Aivb Vice President
190 East Bannock '�'' �"� St Lukd S
Boise, Idaho
83712 CITY nMERIDIAN
Regional Medical Center
208-386-2222
Edwin E. Dahlberg
President
June 15, 1995
The Honorable Grant Kingsford
Mayor, City of Meridian
Members of the City Council
Meridian City' Hall
33 E. Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
Ada County Highway District Commissioners
650 W. Main
Boise, ID 83702
Mr. Jerry Nyman, Director
Ada County Highway Department
318 E. 37th
Boise, ID 83714
Dear Mayor Kingsford, City Council Members, ACHD Commissioners & Mr. Nyman:
onal
Recent discussions and correspondence related tof the St Luke's property oe annexation and n Eagle
Use application for the E. L. Bews property (east o
Road) have included references to a potential new St.nL ke�s/had not been a access party street roughfobs
St. Luke's West campus. Prior to the end of April,
these discussions and now firmly opposes any division and disruption of the St. Luke's
West campus for the following reasons:
1. Through traffic from properties to the
campus.is inconsistent with and
detrimental to the Integrated medical
2. St. Luke's has invested and is committed to spend (projects Theseof 4
million on just the first phase of thispie phase
commitments and plans were predicated on the Medical Center's ability
to develop the site based on a cohesive plan utilizing internal circulation.
3. Alternatives for access seem available to properties east of nor the is
which do not require the appropriation of St. Luke's property
compromise of the St. Luke's West campus.
MOUNTAINSTAT SSPTUM. IDAHO'S HEALTH
MOUNTAIN STATES SUTION RETRIEVAL RGERY CENTER • AFFILIATED ATED WITHOTHE IDAHO EL KCENTER - SITAON HOSPITAL PLAZA MEDICAL BUILDING
T. MEMBER OF THE VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS OF AMERICA (VHA) SYSTEM VHA
ALTERNATIVES
At first glance it may appear reasonable to extend the St. Luke's West internal
circulation driveway to serve properties to the East, but when the implications are fully
considered, the alternatives appear superior in terms of the public interest. St. Luke's
urges you to abandon or reject any proposed connector/access streets through the St.
Luke's West campus.
The public interest will not be served by compromising the St. Luke's West campus, by
disrupting an existing residential area, and by jeopardizing the future development of
medical services in Meridian. These costs far outweigh any benefits derived from
allowing intense traffic from east of the St. Luke's site.
Sin
Vice President
GLF/wjp
cc: Ed Dahlberg
Jeff Hull
Page 3
J `11, L St LU
190 East Bannock �'� _
Boise: Idaho kd
83712 CITY OF AEFRIDIAN � °Regional Medical Centel
208-386-2222
;.,
s
Edwin E. Dahlberg
President
June 15, 1995
The Honorable Grant Kingsford
Mayor, City of Meridian
Members of the City Council
Meridian City' Hall
33 E. Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
Ada County Highway District Commissioners
650 W. Main
Boise, ID 83702
Mr. Jerry Nyman, Director
Ada County Highway Department
318 E. 37th
Boise, ID 83714
Dear Mayor Kingsford, City Council Members, ACHD Commissioners & Mr. Nyman:
Recent discussions and correspondence related to the annexation and Conditional
Use application for the E. L. Bews property (east of the St. Luke's property on Eagle
Road) have included references to a potential new connector/access street through the
St. Luke's West campus. Prior to the end of April, St. Luke's had not been a party to
these discussions and now firmly opposes any division and disruption of the St. Luke's
West campus for the following reasons:
1. Through traffic from properties to the east is inconsistent with and
detrimental to the integrated medical campus.
2. St. Luke's has invested and is committed to spend in excess of $14
million on just the first phase of this multiple phase project. These
commitments and plans were predicated on the Medical Center's ability
to develop the site based on a cohesive plan utilizing internal circulation.
3. Alternatives for access seem available to properties east of St. Luke's
which do not require the appropriation of St. Luke's property nor the
compromise of the St. Luke's West campus.
MOUNTAIN STATES TUMOR INSTITUTE • IDAHO'S HEALTH INFORMATION RETRIEVAL CENTER • ANDERSON CENTER • ANDERSON PLAZA MEDICAL BUILDING
ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL OFFICE PLAZA • MOUNTAIN STATES SURGERY CENTER • AFFILIATED WITH THE IDAHO ELKS REHABILITATION HOSPITAL
MEMBER OF THE VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS OF AMERICA (VHA) SYSTEM VHA
E
�� •
St. Luke's West was conceived and planned as an integrated medical services
campus. Perimeter circulation and phased construction over the next 10-20 years are
fundamental elements of the concept. St. Luke's has cooperated and participated with
Mr. Bews to provide sewer and water to his property as part of the initial site work in
order to avoid future campus disruption.
Significant levels of "through traffic" are clearly inconsistent with and, in fact, conflict
with the medical campus environment. Pedestrians, the ill, slow moving vehicles, and
the flexibility in site use inherent in the campus concept simply do not work with
arterial traffic flows passing through the site.
The St. Luke's West site plans are intended to accommodate the St. Luke's traffic but
are not designed to meet the infrastructure needs of the potential developments to the
east.
ST LUKE'S INVESTMENT
Both through its own experience and as an industry standard, St. Luke's has learned
that medical and hospital services can be most effectively and economically delivered
in a campus setting. This concept was fundamental in the selection of the St. Luke's
West Eagle Road site. Bounded by the Interstate and Eagle Road, along with an
established residential area to the North and platted residential to the East, the site
was an ideal/medical campus setting.
Plans included perimeter landscape buffers with jogging trails, internal "slow"
circulation, pedestrian movement, and a coordinated phased sequence of
development. The loss of over 10% of the site to roadway and additional setbacks
would compromise the entire project and the Medical Center's investment to date.
The land and roadway improvements on the St. Luke's site for the connector/access
road are estimated to cost in excess of $1.5 million.
The future impact in terms of traffic, noise, curb cut restrictions, building limitations
from setbacks and other negatives is difficult to quantify. What is now seen as an
ideal medical campus setting would be turned into a traffic nightmare.
Page 2
ALTERNATIVES
At first glance it may appear reasonable to extend the St. Luke's West internal
circulation driveway to serve properties to the East, but when the implications are fully
considered, the alternatives appear superior in terms of the public interest. St. Luke's
urges you to abandon or reject any proposed connector/access streets through the St.
Luke's West campus.
The public interest will not be served by compromising the St. Luke's West campus, by
disrupting an existing residential area, and by jeopardizing the future development of
medical services in Meridian. These costs far outweigh any benefits derived from
allowing intense traffic from east of the St. Luke's site.
Sin erel�
i
Gary
Executiv
GLF/wjp
Vice President
cc: Ed Dahlberg
Jeff Hull
westsde.ttr
Page 3
•
190 East Bannock
Boise, Idaho
83712
208-386-2222
Edwin E. Dahlberg
President
October 17, 1995
William G. Berg Jr.
Meridian City Clerk
Meridian City Hall
33 East Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
RE: Bews Annexation and Conditional Use Application
Dear Will,
E
ALL St Luke's
Regional Medical Center
I FrF
RIECEi''ED
0 C T 1 7 1995
CITY OF tAERID1AN
It is my understanding that the representative for the aforementioned project
has formally requested a deferral. Although St. Luke's regrets further delays in the application
review process we do support this request.
At the Oct. 11, 1995 hearing at ACHD the Commission deferred consideration of
this project until their Oct. 25th hearing. It is our understanding that the Meridian City Council
needs to get the recommendation of ACHD before acting upon the Bews application.
Thus St. Luke's respectfully requests deferral of said applications until the City Council
has had time to consider the recommendations of the ACHD Commission.
Sincerely,
Je ull
Director of Architecture & Construction
MOUNTAIN STATES TUMOR INSTITUTE • IDAHO'S HEALTH INFORMATION RETRIEVAL CENTER • ANDERSON CENTER • ANDERSON PLAZA MEDICAL BUILDING
ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL OFFICE PLAZA • MOUNTAIN STATES SURGERY CENTER • AFFILIATED WITH THE IDAHO ELKS REHABILITATION HOSPITAL
MEMBER OF THE VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS OF AMERICA (VHA) SYSTEM VHA
•
A R C H I T E C T 5, P. S. •
October 24, 1995
Mr. James Bruce, President
Ada County Highway District Commission
318 East 37th Street
Garden City, Idaho 83714
Subject: Roadway Access to Eagle and Franklin Roads
Through the New Meridian St. Lukes Undeveloped Property
Dear Mr. Bruce and Commissioners:
OCT
C17Y OF ME ID. -
As representatives of the Thomas/Tullis Partnership, we are requesting your reexamination of
ACHD's decision to ignore the critical need for a public access road through the new Meridian St.
Lukes site. This secondary access for the near 200 acres of undeveloped property east of St. Lukes is
essential in providing future community and emergency vehicle access and circulation. Your own
studies have shown that this access road is absolutely necessary for accessibility and public safety.
Please provide this critical access connector.
ACHD's original June 1995 Draft Traffic Study of the St. Luke's, Bews and Thomas/Tullis Properties, which
we reviewed this summer, recommended a public access road system through the undeveloped St.
Lukes site. This access would have run though the Thomas/Tullis site, through the Bews' site, and
through the St. Luke's site to connect with Eagle Road (copy of diagram enclosed). This proposed
access roadway would provide an essential connector for almost 200 acres of undeveloped property
between the only two available arterials. Your ACRD report recognized the need for this essential
connector.
We were all very surprised and distressed to hear that ACHD had totally revised its final staff report.
We now understand that ACHD has exempted the St. Lukes property from any possible connector
through its property to Eagle Road — the only workable solution to the access and major traffic
congestion around the St. Lukes site area. We do not understand why St. Lukes, a major and private
property developer, appears to be exempt from participating in ACHD effective long-term
community -access planning — all other developers are required to provide public access through
their properties. We all support St. Lukes for providing a wonderful new medical facility at this
location. What we do not understand is why St. Lukes refuses to work with the surrounding
community to provide a simple public access road through their site.
The only alternative to having a public access road through the St. Lukes site is to have no secondary
emergency access to St. Lukes and no secondary access to the surrounding areas at all. ACHD has
told Mr. Bews (and all other adjacent property owners) that he should personally purchase a right-of-
way through the existing Montvue residential neighborhood. Why has this unnecessary burden been
placed on the families within the Montvue Subdivision and Mr. Bews? Why should these families
2225 NORTH 56TH STREET
SEATTLE, WA 98103-6203
DOUGLAS A. DIEL
THOMAS R. WEBB
12061 547.1940. FAX 12061 547-8212 DONALD J. WEISSINGER
LICENSED IN WASHINGTON. ALASKA. OREGON. IDAHO. CALIFORNIA. MONTANA. UTAH AND WISCONSIN.
•
October 24, 1995
Page 2
give up their homes? Since when can a private landowner force homeowners to sell their homes for a
public right-of-way? Since when has it become the responsibility of a private landowner to buy
crucial right-of-way for the county? Under the above scenario, a public access road would be
impossible. No public access road would be built.
ACHD's present "non -position' on this matter ignores the best long-range interests for the people of
Ada County, St. Lukes, and its neighbors. A connector road through the St. Lukes site, the Bews
property, and the Thomas/Tullis site is crucial for accessibility and public safety. ACHD's own
studies project that Eagle Road and the Franklin/Overland intersections will become the heaviest
traveled routes in the state within ten (10) years. Without this essential connector road, what
happens when Eagle Road is obstructed? How do emergency vehicles access the new St. Luke site?
How do fire trucks and ambulances access the existing Montvue Subdivision and the 200 acres of
residential and commercial development that will be developed beyond St. Lukes?
We all know that a connector between Franklin and Eagle is vital. Even if the county builds new
intersections, the traffic congestion in this area will be enormous if the county fails to provide this
secondary public access road. There will be times when access for emergency vehicles will be
impossible. We request that you and the ACHD commissioners reexamine this important issue as
soon as possible. Do what is obviously best for the present and future: Bite the bullet and tell St.
Lukes the public access road is going through their undeveloped parcel. This is a very important
common sense issue that deserves your attention and respect.
Thank you for looking at this critical issue again as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Thomas R. Webb, Architect
Principal
Enclosure
cc: R. Thomas
D. Pierce
Wayne Forrey
John McCreedy
William Berg
Alan G. Lance
Debra E. Tullis, Representative
Thomas/Tullis Partnership
Thomas/Tullis Partnership
Thomas/ Tullis Partnership
E.L. Bews Property
Montvue Subdivision
City Clerk, City of Meridian
Idaho State Attorney General
9424achd
M®
J
Y
Z
000
`11
44
.:�/: •Y'•• •i•
••.•.••
-:-
::ao: -
.................. ...........
............. ..............
................
:r
..............
............. ....
.... ........... �-* '. ...........................
r.......... ........... ...................
..... ....... ................ ........... ........ .... ...........
?:;• J•
..........
.......
......
....................... ....................................
.... .........
...................
...........
...... .... .....
... ..........
...... ............
000 QV08 3TDV3 000 000
Na
C�
M W
S2 P
LL Fn
w
LU
U -
z
LU
J
cnQ
U c
H
4
x
O
CCa
a
a
O
ED
O
JRN-12-1996 12:26 FROM JIM JONES TO 8874813 P.01/UB
0
IMMAIED
JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES JAN 1 2 1596
Attorneys at Law
1275 Shoreline Lane CITY OF MERIDIAN
Boise, ID 83702-6870
Jim Jones John McCreedy
Bubo. aW 385-9200 Fa= (208) 385-9599
Fax Transmittal Cover
Fax Number;
To: LoagL From: JOHN MCCREEDY
Comment:
Total Number of Pages (Including This Page): d
Date: l Zh�
Original Document:_ will be sent by first-class mail
will not be sent
Please Advise of Any Deficiency in this Transmission
NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the
Individual or entity to which it is addressed and. may contain
information that is privileged, confidential, and exompt from
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this notice is
not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible
for delivering the message to the intended rooipiont, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us
Immediately by telephone and return these papers to us at the
address shown above via fist cia s mail.
JAN 12 '96 12:28 2083859599 PAGE.01
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: MARCH 14.1995
APPLICANT: E.L. SEWS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 8
REQUEST: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A VARIETY OF MIXED PLANNED
BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
COMMENTS
CITY ENGINEER: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ``nn
CITY ATTORNEY: n I w
CITY POLICE DEPT: J
CITY FIRE DEPT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
V"
J
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
0
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: APRIL 11 1995
APPLICANT: E L SEWS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 4
REQUEST: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: MAY 16 1995
APPLICANT E L BEWS ITEM NUMBER; 2
REQUEST; REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A VARIETY OF MIXED, PLANNED
BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION;
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
COMMENTS
PLANNING & ZONING MINUTES
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS /
U" �J
V
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
C
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: AUGUST 1 1995
APPLICANT E L SEWS ITEM NUMBER; 1 & 2
REQUEST; REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION, ZONING AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION;
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
501011,1174w
OTHER:
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: OCTOBER 17 1995
APPLICANT: F L BEWS ITEM NUMBER; 3
REQUESTIABLED AUGUST 15 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PER MIT FOR MIXED
PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL USES
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
COMMENTS
0i
�1
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION;
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
• 0
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: OCTOBER 17 1995
APPLICANT: E.L. BEWS ITEM NUMBER; 2
REQUESTJABLED AUGUST 15,1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR 74 ACRES
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEFT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION;
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
COMMENTS
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
0
1J
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: JANUARY 16 1996
APPLICANT: E L BEWS ITEM NUMBER; 1 & 2
REQUEST; REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION/ZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION;
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
COMMENTS
OTHER:
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: JUNE 20 1995
APPLICANT -11. BEWS ITEM NUMBER; 1 A 2
REQUEST; REQUEST FOR ANENXATION AND ZONING OF C -G FOR 74 ACRES WITH A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MIXED PLANNED BUSINESS MID RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION;
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
•T
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
Awl Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
•
•
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
E. L. BEWS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
VARIETY OF MIXED PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
SOUTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD, NORTH OF I-84 & ON THE EAST SIDE OF
ST. LUKE'S WEST MEDICAL CENTER
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled conditional use permit application having
come on for consideration on March 14, 1995, at the hour of 7:30
o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Planning and Zoning Commission
having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant
appearing through his representative, Wayne Forrey, and having duly
considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the
following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use
Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for March 14, 1995, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the March 14, 1995, hearing;
that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and
submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to
newspaper, radio and television stations.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1
CONDITIONAL USE - E. L. BEWS
0 0
2. That the property is located within the City of Meridian;
that the general location of the property is south of Franklin
Road, north of I-84 and on the east side of the St. Luke's West
Medical Center in an area classified as a Mixed/Planned Use
Development Area on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and which is described in the application which
description is incorporated herein.
3. That the property is currently zoned R -T, Rural
Transition; that the Applicant has an application before the
Commission for annexation and zoning to C -G, General Retail and
Service Commercial.
4. That the zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial,
(C -G) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. 11. as
follows:
(C -G) General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of
the (C -G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are
customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a
building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed
commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are
located in close proximity to major highway or arterial
streets; to fulfill the need of travel -related services as
well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring
public. All such districts shall be connected to the
Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and
shall not constitute strip commercial development and
encourage clustering of commercial development;
5. That the Applicant, E. L. Bews, is the owner of record of
the property; that the owner has submitted a consent to this
application.
6. That the property is currently undeveloped, vacant and
consists of 70.4 acres.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2
CONDITIONAL USE - E. L. BEWS
0
•
7. That the proposed anticipated land uses by the Applicant
are mixed, and consist of the following variety of uses:
a. General retail
b. Commercial and Professional Offices
C. Auto Travel Plaza/Auto Services
d. Extended stay Hotel Suites
e. Motel Complex
f. Retirement Center
g. Nursing Home/Elderly Care Center
h. Town houses
i. Multi -family Apartment Center
j. Patio homes
k. Medical Services
1. Restaurants
that Mr. Forrey stated that items a. through e. and 1. are allowed
uses in the C -G district and items f. through k. are conditional
uses.
8. Mr. Forrey then testified that there was a well on the
property and that the City may be interested in acquiring the well;
that he felt that the Americans with Disabilities Act was not
applicable in the City; that in response to site, specific
requirement that the area is designated as a Mixed/Planned Use
Development in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, he stated that they
were no requesting a planned development zone and he did not feel
that the comment was applicable; and that detailed site review at
the City council level should only be required for uses that are
not allowed in the C -G zone.
9. The Applicant's representative did not state any specific
uses that they had in mind or that were planned.
10. That the Meridian Planning and Zoning Administrator and
the City Engineer's office submitted comments; they stated that
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3
CONDITIONAL USE - E. L. SEWS
• •
irrigation and drainage ditches must be tiled, existing domestic
wells and/or septic systems must removed, and sidewalks shall all
be provided in accordance with City Ordinances, and that the
Applicant, per Ada County Highway District recommendation, will be
required to prepare and submit a traffic study in conjunction with
the St. Luke's Hospital Master plan; that the sewer service for
this site to the Five Mile Sewer Trunk Line has been proposed by
the Applicant; the feasibility of that proposal is being
investigated by the Public Works Department; water service is
subject to positive results from the City computer water model;.
that the legal descriptions submitted do not meet the requirements
of Resolution 158; that this area is designated as Mixed/Planned
Use Development in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, which requires
that all uses be approved under the conditional use permit process;
that the plan submitted, is only conceptual and does not conform to
requirements of 11-9-607; that pathways for pedestrian/bicycle
access must be incorporated throughout this development; that a
minimum of ten percent of the site must be landscaped in accordance
with Planned Development General Requirements; that minimum
landscape setbacks of 35 feet beyond required right-of-way along
Franklin Road and I-84 shall be provided; that co-ordination with
St. Luke's Hospital Master Plan requirements is needed to ensure
compatibility of development; and that at a minimum the City
Council, should require detailed site plan review at City Council
for each use proposed; that a drainage plan designed by an
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4
CONDITIONAL USE - E. L. BLWS
• •
architect or an engineer shall be submitted for all off-street
parking areas; that outside lighting shall be designed and placed
so as to not direct illumination on any nearby residentials; and
that all signage shall be in accordance with Meridian City
Ordinances; that pathways for pedestrian/bicycle access must in
incorporated throughout this development.
11. That the Meridian City Fire Department commented that if
the City is going to allow more building in this area the Fire
Department is going to need a sub -station with fire fighters.
12. That the Ada County Highway District submitted comments
and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full which
includes the special recommendation to require the preparation and
submittal of a traffic study to the District that also considers
the effects of the master plan for St. Luke's Hospital.
13. That the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and The
Central Health Department submitted comments and they are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
14. That in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan it is stated
under LAND USE, Mixed -Use Areas Adjacent to I-84, Overland Road and
Franklin Road, Page 28., as follows:
115.6 The development of a variety of compatible land uses
should be provided in specific plans and proposals for
future development.
5.8 Development in these areas should be based on functional
plans and proposals in order to ensure that the proposed
uses conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and are
compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5
CONDITIONAL USE - E. L. SEWS
5.10
especially when two or more differing uses are proposed.
(Emphasis added.)
5.11 The character, site improvements, and type of development
should be harmonized with previously -developed land in
the area, and where located adjacent to or near any
existing residence or residential area, shall be
harmonized with residential uses, and all reasonable
efforts shall be made to reduce the environmental impact
on residential areas, including noise and traffic
reduction.
5.12 Strip development within this mixed-use area is not in
compliance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
5.13 Clustering of uses and controlled access points along
arterials and collector streets will be required.
5.14U Because these areas are near I-84, Franklin and
Overland Roads, high-quality visual appearance is
essential. All development proposals in this area will
be sublect to development review guidelines and
conditional use permitting procedures. (Emphasis added.)
5.15U The mixed-use area in the vicinity of the Overland
Road/Franklin Road/ Eagle Road/I-84 interchange is a
priority development area.
15. That in the annexation and zoning Application in No. 7.,
the Proposed land use section, it is stated as follows:
"It is proposed that it be Commercial General (C -G),
consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and
Development Ordinance. The land would contain variety of
coordinated planned land uses that are compatible with the St.
Lukes Hospital Development."
16. That proper notice has been given as required by law and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6
CONDITIONAL USE - E. L. BEWS
all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission.have been
given and followed.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property;
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant
conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to
11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian;
3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property
pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418(D) of the
Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho.
4. That 11-2-418 (C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances
of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review
applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of
those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the
conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7
CONDITIONAL USE - E. L. BEWS
•
concludes as follows:
a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and
a conditional use permit is required by ordinance.
b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance with
the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
C. The use apparently would be designed and constructed, to
be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the
general vicinity.
d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be
disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses.
e. The property has sewer and water service available.
f. The use would not create excessive additional
requirements at public cost for public facilities and services
and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare
of the community.
g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process,
material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be
detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by
reason of excessive production of traffic or noise.
h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed
use will be required.
i. The development and uses will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of
major importance.
5. That since the Meridian Comprehensive Plan states under
LAND USE, Mixed -Use Areas Adjacent to I-84, Overland Road and
Franklin Road, at Page 28, in Sub -Sections 5.10 and 5.14U, that a)
development should be conducted under Planned Unit Development
procedures and as conditional uses, especially when two or more
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8
CONDITIONAL USE - E. L. BEWS
differing uses are proposed, and b), all development proposals in
this area will be subject to development review guidelines and
conditional use permitting procedures, it is concluded that this
application for a conditional use should be granted, but that as
required and stated above in this paragraph, all uses shall only be
approved if submitted as conditional uses and all of the procedures
and requirements of the conditional use ordinance are met and
complied with.
6. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met,
including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform
Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Electrical Code, the Fire
and Life Safety Code, and all parking and landscaping requirements.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI.
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CONDITIONAL USE - E. L. BEWS
VOTEDfi--�
VOTEDVOTEDVOTED
VOTED
Page 9
• 0
DECISION AND RECOW[ENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property
described in the application with the conditions set forth in the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
MOTION:
APPROVED) DENIED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10
CONDITIONAL USE - E. L. SEWS
MEMORANDUM: March 10, 1995
To: Mayor and City Council/Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer
Shari Stiles, P&Z Administrator
SUBJECT: Request for Conditional Use Permit for Bews Property (Vacated Farmington
Estates) in Requested C -G Zone
The above -referenced submittal is conceptual in nature; therefore, detailed comments cannot be
made at this time. We have done a cursory review of this submittal and offer the following
comments, for your information and consideration as conditions of the Applicant during the
hearing process:
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this
project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. Plans will need to be approved
by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written
confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department.
2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be
used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation.
3. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-2-414 of the City of
Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance and/or as detailed in site-specific
requirements. Paving and striping shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in
Sections 11-2-414.D.4 and 11-2-414.D.5 of the City of Meridian Zoning and
Development Ordinance.
4. A drainage plan designed by an architect or an engineer shall be submitted for all off-
street parking areas for approval by the City Engineer as required by Ordinance 557.
5. Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as to not direct illumination on any
nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-414.D.3
• •
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
OFFICIALS
A Good Place to Live
COUNCIL MEMBERS
RONALD R. TOLSMA
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk
MAX YERRINGTON
JANICE L. GAS, City Treasur
CITY OF MERIDIAN
ROBERT D. CORRIE
GARY D SM THS P.E. City Engineer
WALT W. MORROW
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
33 EAST IDAHO
SHARI STILES
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt.
Planner & Zoning Administrator
KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief
Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813
JIM JOHNSON
Chairman - Planning & Zoning
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney
Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211
GRANT P. KINGSFORD
Mayor
MEMORANDUM: March 10, 1995
To: Mayor and City Council/Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer
Shari Stiles, P&Z Administrator
SUBJECT: Request for Conditional Use Permit for Bews Property (Vacated Farmington
Estates) in Requested C -G Zone
The above -referenced submittal is conceptual in nature; therefore, detailed comments cannot be
made at this time. We have done a cursory review of this submittal and offer the following
comments, for your information and consideration as conditions of the Applicant during the
hearing process:
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this
project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. Plans will need to be approved
by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written
confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department.
2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be
used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation.
3. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-2-414 of the City of
Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance and/or as detailed in site-specific
requirements. Paving and striping shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in
Sections 11-2-414.D.4 and 11-2-414.D.5 of the City of Meridian Zoning and
Development Ordinance.
4. A drainage plan designed by an architect or an engineer shall be submitted for all off-
street parking areas for approval by the City Engineer as required by Ordinance 557.
5. Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as to not direct illumination on any
nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-414.D.3
Mayor and Council, Planning & Zoning Commission
March 10, 1995
Page 2
6. Sidewalks are to be provided in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B.
7. All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-2-415 of the
City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance.
8. All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
1. Per Ada County Highway District recommendation, Applicant will be required to prepare
and submit a traffic study in conjunction with the St. Luke's Hospital Master Plan.
Applicant to coordinate with ACHD staff prior to beginning study.
2. Sewer service for this site to the Five Mile Sewer Trunk Line has been proposed by the
Applicant; however, feasibility of this proposal is being investigated by the Public Works
Department. Water service is subject to positive results from our computer water model.
3. Legal descriptions submitted with this application do not meet the requirements of
Resolution 158. Legal descriptions must be prepared by a Licensed Professional Land
Surveyor and include one-half of adjacent public right-of-way.
1 This area is designated as Mixed/Planned Use Development in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan, which requires that all uses be approved under the conditional use
permit process. Plan submitted is only conceptual and does not conform to requirements
of 11-9-607 of the Zoning and Development Ordinance. Detailed comments cannot be
made at this time.
2. Pathways for pedestrian/bicycle access must be incorporated throughout this development.
3. Applicant is to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and
11-2-417 D; the development agreement shall address, but not be limited to, the inclusion
of the requirements of 11-9-605 C., G., H.2., K. and L, and the goals expressed in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
4. A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the site must be landscaped in accordance with
Planned Development - General requirements.
5. Minimum landscape setbacks of 35' beyond required rights-of-way along Franklin Road
and I-84 shall be provided.
• 0
Mayor and Council, Planning & Zoning Commission
March 10, 1995
Page 3
6. It is anticipated that a Design Review Committee will be formed to address development
standards in this area.
7. Coordination with St. Luke's Hospital Master Plan requirements is needed to ensure
compatibility of development.
8. At minimum, Council should require detailed site plan review at Council level for each
use proposed.
0 •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 14, 1995
Page 11
Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare
findings of fact and conclusions of law for the application by E. L. Bews for annexation and
zoning to C -G, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
VARIETY OF MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES BY E.L.
BEWS:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite Mr. Forrey to come back and
continue.
Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission what this is, is a list of anticipated uses
out of our conditonal use application. The second page is a map and the property in
yellow is the Bews property. Out of that list of 12 anticipated land uses 6 are permitted in
the C -G zone that is with the green "P" that you see there. Items 6 through 11 the
retirements center, nursing home, town houses, apartments, patio homes and medical
services are not addressed at all in your zoning ordinance. So, in our discussions with the
Mayor and trying to get this project to move forward inside the confines of your existing
ordinance. Our approach is that with C -G zoning and a conditional use permit for those
items 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 on that list we feel that it would work. And so, as general retail or
a hotel -motel is developed that would be a permitted use in the C -G zone. The retirement
center or nursing home would require a conditional use permit to come back before this
body and the City Council. I would like to go through the staff comments just briefly. I will
start over again, on the March 10 memo from the public works department and the
Planning and Zoning Administrator, item #2, Ed Bews does have a well, a large municipal
quality well on the property. Rather than vacate that or remove that we would like to have
that opportunity to continue to negotiate with the City. The City has expressed an interest
in acquiring that, Ed has been testing it. We want to have the door open so that can
continue to happen. On the next page, item #8, Americans with Disabilities Act is a federal
law, it has no local jurisdiction. So it is inappropriate the way that is worded because there
are businesses and there are situations which are exempt from Americans with disabilities
Act. If it does trigger than it is triggered at the federal or state level and the builder or
contractor has to construct accordingly. But it is not something that the City monitors, it
is not something that the City has authority to impose in an action like this. I would ask that
8 be modified or removed. Item #3 under site specific requirements, our May 1994
application did include 1/2 of the adjacent right of way in the legal descriptions that were
submitted. Under site specific requirements under the planning department, comment #1,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 14, 1995
Page 12
we are not requesting a planned development zone so we are not applying under Section
11-9-607 of the zoning and development ordinance, I don't feel that comment is applicable.
Same with #4, this is not a PD request and so comment #4 would be not applicable. And
then comment #8 on page 3, 1 would ask that it be modified to say at minimum Council
should require detailed site review at Council level for each use proposed except for those
uses that are allowed in the C -G zone. Because if it is zoned C -G there will be permitted
uses, it would not be required detailed site plan review. That is the end of my comments
Mr. Chairman I would be glad to answer questions.
Johnson: Thank you Wayne, questions of Mr. Forrey, comments.
Hepper: I have a question Wayne, is it possible under the permitted uses for the C -G zone
is it possible a different use could be brought in there other than those proposed that
would be allowed in the C -G zone?
Forrey: You mean something other than the 12 here on the list?
Johnson: Other than the 6.
Hepper: Other than the 6 permitted uses that go with the C -G zone, you have some
anticipated uses. Would it be possible that one of those may disappear and something
else could be in there?
Forrey: Yes, that is entirely possible, there is 74 acres and that is a very strategic
interchange. It is very possible
Johnson: So you are not restricting yourself just to these permitted uses because there
are other permitted uses, is that what you are saying?
Forrey: Yes, that is correct, what I am saying these are the 12 that Ed. Bews, Bill Davis,
myself, working with the hospital, the realtors, talking to business people, those are
generally the 12 that we would put money on, that we would be money on that would be
developed at that site.
Hepper: I guess my question is, what if some other use wants to come in there that is
compatible with the C -G zoning that may not be compatible with other uses proposed.
Forrey: If it is a permitted use than the ordinance would allow it, if it is not than we would
have to come back here for a conditional use permit. I think maybe that should be spelled
out in the development agreement.
0 •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 14, 1995
Page 13
Johnson: I guess you lost me just a little bit there Tim, do you have anything specific in
mind that might occur?
Hepper: I don't know maybe a truck stop or something out on Franklin Road there that may
not be compatible with some of the residential stuff that is in the area. Although that may
be allowed in the C -G zone it may not be compatible with a planned town house and patio
homes even though it is all C -G zoned.
Forrey: And it is possible that the hospital, Gary Fletcher may have a problem with a truck
stop or may not I don't know.
Hepper: That is just a potential, it could any of a million different things. I am just
wondering if, to me it is hard to allow a conditional use when we don't know what the use
is. I would almost be tempted to agree with your concept but say that maybe I would like
to see the whole thing conditioned. If these things come through that you have figured
would be the things that probably would go than I would figure those would probably be
reasonable things. My concern is that is just an anticipated use, it is a concept and there
could be other things that may not be as compatible.
Forrey: The comprehensive plan does indicate a high intense use for this area. So, I am
reasonably certain that we are not going to be here talking about single family detached
homes. It is business oriented, the majority of this ground would be commercial and that
is why we chose the C -G as the base zone. About 80% of this property is going to be
enveloped in a business C -G zone type use. There also needs to be a transition to the
east. As you get to the east end of this property the Comprehensive Plan says that you
transition to residential the farther we get from Eagle Road. So at some point here we have
that transition.
Johnson: Has there been an consideration given to what might be in it for the City of
Meridian, something in terms of a fire station?
Forrey: Yes, in fact we talked to to Fire Chief about a satellite fire station at this site, he
did not want one. He preferred to have one on the south side of that interchange on Eagle
Road. The other thing is the water well, Ed is discussing with Gary Smith, taking that well,
dedicating a well site to the City, maybe even large enough well site to have a storage on
site. I guess there is some air, oxygen Gary, oxygen in the water and it may need to be
let off. Carbon Dioxide, there may need to be, more than a normal well site, maybe larger
I think, to have some kind of a filtering or settling tank or something to delete that off. That
is all under discussion, so that is only thing I know of that is public Mr. Chairman.
Alidjani: Wayne I have a question, on #6 through 11, is this a specific use that you are
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 14, 1995
Page 14
asking on your conditional use permit?
Forrey: Yes
•
Alidjani: The attachment "C", page 1, particularly talking about what you just gave us,
correct, so with that conditional use permit you are not having any other uses except the
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 that you are asking for.
Forrey: That is correct, and what I would like to happen is that say, well Ed has been
approached by a developer that wanted 10 acres for a retirement center, item #6 on this
list. What I hope would happen in the development agreement, if you look right now in the
C -G zone a retirement center is not addressed, presumably not allowed. Yet, working with
St. Luke's and other folks we feel that is a pretty good location for a retirement center. Ed
has been approached to buy 10 acres of his ground for a retirement center. So what we
would like to see is come back, if this is approved we know that a retirement center could
be a possible use at that site, come back for a conditonal use permit with site plans,
landscape, parking, drainage, building elevations etc.
Johnson: I need to echo some of Tim's concerns here. I know the City of Meridian is
committed to, I don't know if protecting is the right word but I will use that, protecting the
success of the St. Luke's project because it is a major project and they were there before
you were so to speak. In that regard, I kind of lean toward anything going in there being
conditioned or approved. Just because although Tim's example might be a little bizarre
maybe it isn't, you know something there that would have a negative impact on that
development as well as other developments that you are going to do within your 74 acres.
Because this is kind of a guess, a conceptual guess on what might happen out there. I
don't feel real comfortable about that, right now I have to look up an auto travel plaza to
see if that is in anyway shape or form a truck stop that you have on your list, I am not sure
what that is.
Forrey: Hopefully it is a big Chevron (inaudible) car wash.
Johnson: The auto services is kind of a broad catch all too. In other words what I think
I am trying to say is that whatever we do out there we sure want to do it right. I am sure
you do too. But we need the safeguards in place in the event you and I aren't around.
Forrey: Is that the same safeguards that are at the Meridian interchange?
Johnson: I can't answer that, a lot of that was before me.
Forrey: Want to make them both competitive, make them both attractive to investors.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 14, 1995
Page 15
Johnson: I guess you can look at it that way. But, (inaudible) from our past mistakes, not
continue them.
Hepper: I don't think we are necessarily saying that there is any proposed use that we
would deny right across the board that we wouldn't want out there, we are just saying we
want to take a look at it, not necessarily give up our rights to place restrictions on their use.
Maybe their hours of use, landscaping or accesses or somethign like that. I think if we
keep that as a conditional use that we also keep the ability to control some of that stuff.
Alidjani: Tim, explain to me one item, I hear your concern and Mr. Chairman's concern,
is it item #7 instead of 8, because if he is getting a general commercial zoning, anything
is permitted is already said and done we asked the City Attorney to prepare findings. Now,
the next item is just a conditional use permit. I think your 2 concerns is with the general
commercial not the conditional use permit or is your concern the mixture of both when they
get mixed together. What is your concern, I head the example.
Hepper: I think my concern is on the C -G also, not necessarily the conditonal use part.
We have had other C -G parcels, we just had one out on Overland Road and Meridian
Road. That was passed C -G with a conditional use. 1 think there are several of them
around town that we want to look at and see what they are doing to make sure that we
have the ability to place the restrictions on there if we feel that it is necessary. If we allow
conditional use without a conditional use then they can go strictly according to the City
ordinance and we don't have any right to place any further restrictions on here.
Alidjani: Maybe I had better put this question to the City Attorney, are we (inaudible).
Shearer: I think what Moe is saying and what you are saying (inaudible) included in the
findings of fact and not item #8.
Alidjani: The #7, item #7 was asking for zoning and annexation of C -G zone and it is over.
The public hearing is closed we have jumped to #8 and that is only a conditional use
permit. So any concern we had should be reflected on findings of fact later in time. Am
I right or wrong Mr. Attorney?
Shearer: We will put that sucker in the findings of fact and get on with number 8, becasue
the number 8 deals with the conditional use which is items 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. What tim
is talking about is items 1 through 5 and 12 and 13 on.
Crookston: Well, the conditional use of course it contingent upon the property being
annexed and zoned (End of Tape) so to that extent they are somewhat, quite similar
because if it is not annexed or zoned then you lose the ability to even deal with the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 14, 1995
Page 16
conditional use aspects of it. But also, it is one piece of property which is being discussed.
The development can be made a part of or a condition of the annexation. So I don't think
it is unreasonable to discuss it, but you are right to the extent that the C -G zoning is part
of the annexation and zoning request. They are somewhat intermingled.
Alidjani: Well, thank you for saying I am right.
Johnson: Well, I think our concern is obvious, we have 3 choices, turn it down totally, or
condition what we want to do, or just approve the conditional use permit the way it is and
how that things come out the way we want. I am more concerned naturally with the
permitted uses that are in the C -G zone that we have already done. I am not too
concerned with the Conditional use permits because we are going to handle those
individually when they come up and that is my concern. Any further discussion?
Alidjani: I have one more question to ask Wayne, do you or the developer have any
problem that this basic C -G zoning be within your conditions of any activities happens
over there for any reasons for any usage be all conditioned? Basically (inaudible) what
Tim and Jim (inaudible) and have a transfer station.
Forrey: If that is your wish we will comply with it, but I want you to understand this. From
the developers side and from a business owners side, in my particular business going to
a bank to borrow money and telling your banker your use is a conditional use is always
difficult to borrow money on. It is always difficult to sell property when you say to someone
well, I think it will work but we have to go through 70 days minimum in Meridian to have
a public hearing process before you get permission.
Johnson: That would be a new record.
Forrey: So those 2 things financing where the banks like to see commercial zoning and
they aren't as familiar with the conditional use process as we are all familiar and then the
delay. That puts the developer at a bit of a disadvantage. It is just something else that we
have to deal with. If it is your desire that all uses out there be conditional use, if that is the
way it is going to be with other properties around there then we will do it.
Johnson: I think our desire is compatibility and the safe guards against insuring that zone
to happen.
Forrey: We have worked with the hospital close and we will continue to.
Johnson: I accept at least I accept your offer to have everything conditioned. Anyone else
from the public like to address the Commission on this application? If not then I will close
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 14, 1995
Page 17
the public hearing. We need some action on the conditional use permit.
Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we have the City Attorney prepare findings.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: It has been moved and seconded to have the City Attorney prepare findings of
fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF R-8 FOR
.40 ACRES BY D.W., INC.:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative
to come forward and address the Commission.
Gary Lee, 250 South Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Lee: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, the application tonight before you is zoning and
annexation on four tenths of an acre (inaudible). The property in question consists of a
20 foot wide strip along parcels owned by Monroe, Barker and Kinkerstrom. That piece
of ground is known as Dixie Lane. The ownership of the property is in question and
without clear title. In addition there is a 10 foot strip of property along the eastern side of
Mirage Meadows that was in the same situation, there was question of title on that parcel
as well when Mirage Meadows was platted. Wingate Subdivision which was proposed in
1993 and approved I would like to hand out a reduced copy of (inaudible). As you can see
on the westerly side on the left part of this page there is a strip of land between the
proposed Wingate Subdivision and Mirage Meadows and that is the piece that we are
talking about. At the direction or suggestion I guess of the City Attorney Wayne Crookston
to Dan Wood the developer of Wingate we needed to get that piece of property
straightened out, get the title in order and proceed with annexation of that strip so that the
pieces come together. Dan Wood proceeded with that quiet title action and was
successful. Has obtained ownership along with Monroe's and Barker of that piece of
ground, both the 20 foot Dixie Lane Strip and 10 foot piece that was left off of Mirage
Meadows. The preliminary plat for Wingate is going now into a final plat process and we
have taken into the account the 20 foot and 30 foot strip of land and distributed it
throughout that portion of the development. I brought kind of a work sketch that we
developed at the office for a final plat. (Inaudible) The configuration is basically the same,
there was some modifications in some street alignment due to the shift in there to make
lots usable and at the same we have generated some storm drainage facilities in there that
•
Meridian City Council
May 16, 1995
Page 24
Forrey: That is the schedule we have tonight but we will accelerate that in the morning.
We will speed that traffic study up so we have time to meet with the folk and ACHD and
others.
Kingsford: Mr. Morrow would you restate your motion please?
Morrow. I would move that we table this E.L. Bews request until our second meeting in
June the date of which is June 20th.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to table the Bews request until the June 20th
meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: Mr. Forrey, could we have copies of all the overheads for public record please?
I appreciate everybody's comments.
ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
VARIETY OF MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES BY E.L.
BEWS:
Kingsford: Those folks with interest in the Bews request, is there separate testimony
specific to the conditional use permit that you wish to offer before you go? It will be tabled
until that time too. Is there anyone else that would like to offer specific items to that?
Seeing none then I would entertain a motion to table that to the 20th of June as well.
Corrie: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Ron to table the Conditional Use Permit for Bews
until the second meeting in June, June 20th, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: STEINER DEVELOPMENT: APPEAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION:
Kingsford: Who is representing Steiner?
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JUNE 20. 1995
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Grant
Kingsford at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Max Yerrington, Bob Corrie, Ron Tolsma:
OTHERS PRESENT: Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Anna Doty, Helen
Sharp, Dale Sharp, Vern Alleman, John Wasson, Joe Carleton, Mike Caven, Dan Wood,
Ted Hutchinson, Don Brian, Floyd Reichert, Mick Dauvin, Dan Torfin, Chief Gordon, Jim
Johnson:
MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JUNE 6,1995:
Kingsford: Are there any corrections to those minutes?
Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I move they be approved as written.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve the June 6, 1995 minutes, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: TABLED MAY 16,1995: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF C-
G FOR 74 ACRES BY E.L. SEWS:
ITEM #2: TABLED MAY 16,1995: PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES BY E.L. BEWS:
Kingsford: The first item on the agenda as with the second item on the agenda and I
recognize some folks from the audience that were concerned about that issue the Bews
issue. We have received a request from the Bews' to table this to the second meeting in
July, the July 18th meeting. I had hoped that they had contacted you, I asked them to
when they asked us to continue that. So has that been sent along? Okay, they did
receive a study or about to have from the Highway District and they are going to be
reviewing that and suppose to be getting with you. Unless you have some comments I
would ask the table to go ahead, the Council to go ahead and table that to that meeting.
I would entertain a motion then for the Council to .table then items 1 and 2 with regard to
the E.L. Bews issue.
Crookston: Table to when?
Meridian City Council
June 20, 1995
Page 2
Kingsford: Until the 18th of July.
Yerrington: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to table items 1 and 2 to the July 18th meeting,
all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE
REQUEST BY DAVID AND DENISE HALL:
Kingsford: Has the Council reviewed those and do you have any questions or comments?
Corrie: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law
as stated for David and Denise Hall and also approve the decision that the application for
a variance to setback for (inaudible) Tract Subdivision No. 3 be hereby granted.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Ron to approve of the findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the decision represent therein, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie -Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE
REQUEST BY GOLF VIEW ESTATES PARTNERSHIP:
Kingsford: Has the Council received and reviewed those findings?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I have a question, on page 5, item should be a it is noted as g, it says
on or before June 20, 1995 should that not say June 20, 1996.
Kingsford: The one that I had reviewed earlier didn't say 19961 am sure. That is though
number 9 instead of g Mr. Morrow, it goes 8, a, b, c, d, e, and then 9. So amend that to
June 20, 1996.
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk
JANICE L GASS, City Treasurer
GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt.
DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt.
SHARI S. STILES, P & Z Adm.
PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor
KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief
W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attomey
MEMORANDUM
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
COUNCIL MEMBERS
A Good Place to Live
RONALD R. TOLSMA
MAX YERRINGTON
CITY OF MERIDIAN
ERT D. CORRIE
WA W. MORROW
33 EAST IDAHO
P & Z COMMISSION
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
JIM JOHNSON, Chairman
Phone (208) 888-4433 - FAX (208) 887-4813
MOE ALIDJANI
Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211
JIM SHEARER
Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443
CHARLIE ROUNTAEE
TIM HEPPER
GRANT P. KINGSFORD
Mayor
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor and Council
FROM: Shan<E es, Planning & Zoning Administrator
DATE: August 15, 1995
SUBJECT: Council Meeting of August 15, 1995
The following are my recommendations for the items on the agenda tonight:
Item 1 - Bews Annexation and Zoning - This item should be tabled as ACHD has
still not received or acted on a traffic study for the new configuration
submitted (L -O park). In addition, the School District has expressed an
interest in the L -O park site as a new high school site, but I have heard
nothing from the Applicant on further development of that concept. A
development agreement is required as a condition of annexation.
Item 2 - Bews Conditional Use Permit - Same as Item 1, plus the fact that the
information submitted for a conditional use permit is incomplete and does
not meet the requirements of Section 11-9-607 of the Zoning and
Development Ordinance.
Item 3 - No comment.
Item 4 - Waterbury Park No. 5 Variance - The public hearing for a variance on
tiling the Creason Lateral needs to be held and Findings of
Fact/Conclusions of Law ordered if sufficient information is available at
this time. From a visit to the site today, it seems that a 48" pipe would
not accommodate the flow through this lateral.
Item 5 - Waterbury Park No. 5 Preliminary Plat - This item should be tabled to
wait for FF/CL on the variance and to ensure roadway alignment issues
are worked out with Joe Simunich. The stub street to the west has been.
moved from the north to the south.
Item 6 - Lake at Cherry Lane Nos. 5 & 6 - If no new FF/CL are required as a
result of public testimony given tonight, I would recommend that the
request for annexation and zoning to R-4, R-8 and R-15 be approved and
that an ordinance be prepared. Council will hold public hearing on plats
0
Meridian City Council
July 18, 1995
Page 2
ITEM #1: TABLED JUNE 20,1995: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF C-
G FOR 74 ACRES BY E.L. BEWS:
ITEM #2: TABLED JUNE 20, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES BY E.L.
BEWS:
Kingsford: We have been requested that they be tabled again until the next meeting. This
is from both the applicant and from ACRD.
(Inaudible)
Kingsford: I have about 8 different correspondences from them so which is the last one?
Yerrington: So we would have to table it until our first meeting in September.
Kingsford: I think Mr. Bews requests though was August 1 st and he is the applicant. So
it would be appropriate I think to table until them. If that requires further tabling from there
it needs to come from the applicant.
Yerrington: I would make the motion, so moved to table until the next meeting August 1 st.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Bob to table items 1 and 2, the Bews annexation and
zoning and public hearing for planned unit development until the August 1 st meeting, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: TABLED JULY 5, 1995: FINAL PLAT FOR LOS ALAMITOS PARK
SUBDIVISION NO. 2, BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
Kingsford: I think I saw the developer, does the Council have questions of him?
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, did we get the pressurized irrigation systems squared off that the
homeowners or the irrigation ditch companies responsibility?
Goldsmith: Yes, that is squared off but that is not the homeowners or the irrigation districts
responsibility. The FHA and VA have approved the subdivision and there really wasn't any
significant hold up there with financing on any of the homes.
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 5. 1995
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Grant P.
Kingsford at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Max Yerrington, Bob Corrie,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Tolsma:
OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Marty
Goldsmith, Greg Oslund, Glenn Bentley, Brian McColl, Larry Van Hees, Tracie Persons:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 21,1995:
Kingsford: Any corrections to those minutes? Is there a motion to approve of them?
Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the minutes of our meeting of November
21, 1995.
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve the minutes of November 21, 1995,
all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: TABLED OCTOBER 17,1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR
74 ACRES BY E.L. SEWS:
ITEM #2: TABLED OCTOBER 17, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL
USES BY E.L. SEWS:
Kingsford: You have reviewed the letter you have been asked to table that to the next
meeting. I guess I would just bring up, I would ask staff if they have discussed that either
with Mr. Bews or Mr. Forrey. My dilemma is that you put that off until the next meeting, the
findings are drawn you are going to be asking a different Mayor and two different
Councilmen to deal with it. I guess I would suggest that it be tabled until the second of
January.
Morrow: Restate your position please?
Kingsford: Well, if you table that to the next meeting as the developer has requested and
then you direct at that point findings to be prepared then you would be asking a different
Mayor and two different Councilmen to deal with the issue. And those findings might very
•
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 2
well be not the findings of that particular Council. In addition to that I did visit today with
Gary Fletcher from St. Luke's who understands that position but they would like to see it
not tabled, they would like to see it get remedied. Your dilemma? I still maintain that it is
better for a council to have continuity and work through that problem all the way through.
Even though we have been dealing with that issue for a year.
Morrow: Well the long and the short of it is we.haven't really dealt with it. We have had a
couple of meetings and then nothing but continuous tables. I guess with respect to the
2 new council members that will come on, obviously Mr. Rountree is well up to speed mr.
Bentley will be essentially an apprentice and have no go here at all. It would make a
certain amount of sense in my mind at least to give the man a running chance of figuring
out what is going on. I don't know that in terms of, I would be sensitive to Mr. Fletcher and
St. Luke's but I don't see that is in the best interest of certain the Council or the citizens
of the community for us to rush ahead.
Kingsford: I think also you are looking at a new set of findings and conditions from the
Highway District, I don't know whether you have had an opportunity to review those, those
just came in this afternoon.
Morrow: I just got them now.
Kingsford: I suppose, if it is your disposition to table that to the January 2nd meeting then
you certainly want to forward those along with the other information we have to those 2
new councilmen.
Morrow: I think my preference would be to table them to the January 16th meeting
because the January 2nd meeting will be largely ceremonial in nature.
Kingsford: You are that anxious to get rid of me I understand.
Morrow: My point is I don't think that January 2nd is reasonable for them to make a
decision because they don't officially come on board until January 2nd let's give them a
couple of weeks to review and go to the 16th. And I throw that open for discussion.
Kingsford: I would just offer that all of that material could be given to them and they could
be up to speed probably on the 2nd as they might be on the 16th. But I understand where
you are coming from.
Yerrington: Mr. Crookston told me that we have to take up all tabled items on the second.
Kingsford: All items that we have dealt with.
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 3
Crookston: They are the old items that would be on the agenda you have to take care of,
this Council has to take care of at the beginning of the meeting. Until that is taken care of
the new Councilmen and Mayor are not sworn.
Morrow: Does that include old Mayors?
Crookston: Well, some old mayor aren't around.
Kingsford: So we want to table it then to the 16th, I agree with Walt then.
Crookston: That is up to you guys.
Yerrington: I would make a motion that we table this until the 16th.
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to table items 1 and 2 the Bews annexation and
conditional use permit to the January 16, 1996 meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: TABLED NOVEMBER 8, 1995: RAMON YORGASON: REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF WELL DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR CROSSROADS
SUBDIVISION:
Kingsford: As I recall Mr. Smith you were going to make a presentation on that am I
correct?
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council members. I have met with the engineer from
Hubble Engineers to discuss this issue and up to the time when the project was tabled
before you everything had been answered with the exception of the secondary supply or
the one point connection for City water. Bruce Stuart and I have both been in discussion
with Hubble Engineers concerning that and they will or I shall say a point of secondary
connection can be made. Right now the well that has been drilled on the site is supplying
water to the common areas only. The sprinkler system for the common areas is separate
from the sprinkler system for the residential lots. So that when this secondary connection
is made from the City system only the residential lots will be supplied water from the City.
The common area will continue to be sprinkled by the well that they drilled on site. That
was one of our concerns because they had so much common area we didn't want to be
providing City water to that. When I talked to Gene Smith today from Hubble Engineers
Meridian City Council
January 16, 1996
Page 2
ITEM #2: TABLED DECEMBER 5, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL
USES BY E.L. BEWS:
Corrie: I will open the public hearing, is there a representative here, Becky?
Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering, 1111 S. Orchard, Boise, was sworn by the City
Attorney.
Bowcutt: As I was saying it is nice to be here this evening, welcome to the new members
and new Mayor. Our firm has been retained by Mr. Bews to represent him in this matter.
We got this project a few weeks ago, I have been doing a considerable amount of
research and trying to come up to date on what has transpired over the past year, year
and a half. I have met with Jeff Hull of St. Luke's hospital yesterday and spent two hours
discussing problems, conflicts, issues of communication, transportation, planning and so
forth. We had a nice meeting and I think we can work out a plan that would compliment
that particular area and add to the City of Meridian as far as commercial and residential
development is concerned. Basically, it is my understanding this is the plan which was
submitted this sketch plan. This is what was considered in the application and was
presented at the previous hearings. Some of the input that I received from the hospital,
I also met with Shari the planning staff and got input from her, was that they would like to
see some additional information. A bubble concept just basically shows you what could
potentially happen there. The public streets were shown but as far as visually what this
would look like that information wasn't provided and it appeared that was one thing that
was lacking here. So basically what I did is I took this particular plan that Mr. Forrey set
up and reading through all the documentation, staff reports and reading through the comp
plan, reading through previousfindings of fact and conclusions of law I kind of came up
with a concept showing what the internal transportation patterns would look like. This
particular area, this is Franklin Road you are looking north. This particular area he had
designated as office uses. This is pretty much consistent with medical offices, we have
done quite a few of them, we have done quite a few on Mr. Bews properties. The
Milwaukee and Ustick portion at Bayhill Springs has turned into medical office. We see
dentists, oral surgeons. We also had a comer that a restaurant was looking at. These
particular foot prints were done by an architect and basically what I did was took these pad
sizes and we put them on this particular drawing. As you can see the intent here is
interconnected office areas so that you don't have multiple accesses we have shared
approaches. And then we interconnect these parking areas so you can basically go from
this office and all the way out to this office here. So you create a little office park that is
interrelated not spot type commercial development. When we come down into this area
he had this designated as more business. This is consistent with what you would find in
a business park, small businesses. We worked on projects like with the Century Landmark
r
Meridian City Council
January 16, 1996
Page 3
Center which is a mix of office and retail. He had additional office and business on this
perimeter in through here, so this is basically consistent with this. The collector concept
was maintained with 60 foot right of ways all the way around. When we come in through
here we try to minimize any approaches so that you get a nice flow of traffic. In here he
had nursing care centers, retirement suites, elderly care facilities, what I would envision
when we start getting into details some type of group facility with parking along the exterior
for substantial amount of landscaping within the interior if they wanted to put (inaudible)
such as pools, gardens, etc. Also I have maintained the 30 foot setback all along Franklin
and a 20 foot perimeter so that we could get a nice landscaping corridor as you enter the
park. Along this exterior of this parcel right here, I maintained a 30 foot setback from all
residential structures and I went 40 foot offset from the freeway. That would give you
enough room to have nice berms and landscaping. This area down in here he had like a
restaurant, motel type uses. If one were to put that type of facility that is probably what it
would look like. He had mini storage in here. This particular area was laid out in his plan
as types of residential uses. I believe he had patio homes, garden apartments and so forth.
That particular area I didn't layout, I kind of ran out of time. So, but based on your comp
plan when we look east you find that it is designated single family and so what I envision
is you are going to have to transition in. The Edgeview Estates subdivision which we did
on the other side of the Ridenbaugh Canal, single family residential and then you would
probably come in with single family residential. And as you move west you would start
transitioning and you transition from single family to multi family and then typically you will
transition into office and then the more intensive commercial or uses that you wouldn't
want in somebody's back yard would be on the perimeter or next to the interstate. This is
kind of, if you were to put it on paper this is what it would look like. I showed a draft to Jeff
Hull yesterday, it wasn't completed on the CAD system as of yesterday. I have not met with
the neighborhood to discuss the plan at this time. Like I stated earlier I have only been
working on this project for just a short period of time. Some of the issues as far as
transportation I think the Highway District they have done their staff report, the
Commission has adopted it. There are controversial issues in that staff report Mr. Hull and
I discussed. I feel that on the issues of transportation I think that is going to have to be
tackled when you go in and have a particular use. To give you a good example we worked
on this project here since about 1988 which predates my time with Briggs Engineering.
Billy Ray Strite architects did this concept. This project is also by Interstate 84. It is on
Overland and Maple Grove, here is Maple Grove, 1-84 and here is Overland, it is called
the Century Landmark Center. We did this for Chuck Winder and Dwayne Wolf and LB
Industries. He did this concept, as you can see he had office, they had some retail, had
motel and then they also had an auto related industry. It was going to be the new Boise
motor village. Well as time wore on, the cole interchange happened, they took a big chunk
out of it, ITD did, we platted this property and recorded two plats on it due to changes. The
client passed away, Dwayne Wolf and it was build and set vacant for years. Now the first
users are coming in, the Bureau of Land Management is building approximately 175,000
0
Meridian City Council
January 16, 1996
Page 4
Is
square foot office building and Wal-Mart is coming into this project. But my example is the
fact that conceptually this is what it looked like and this is how it was approved by the City
of Boise. They put the same condition that the Planning & Zoning Commission placed
upon Mr. Bews' project that no use would go in here without a conditional use. There was
a substantial amount of neighborhood opposition to traffic, traffics was looked at and a
conceptual traffic study was done based on this plan. What happened is we had to turn
around when the first use came in and we had to do another traffic study. It cost $10,000
the district paid for it but they get reimbursed as each user goes in. The reason being by
the time something happened with the property the old traffic study was obsolete. Since
the uses had changed it no longer was going to be the second Boise motor village that
kind of went out the window everything was moot. We went in we did a modification of the
PUD that was originally approved. We came in with site specific conditional uses with
landscaping. We have done traffic studies, this is an example of a very similar type parcel
in location and size. The best laid plans don't always pan out that way. One nice
mechanism is that conditional use because if a use is inappropriate too intensive,
generates too much traffic than this body and the Planning and Zoning Commission have
the ability to basically say that is not an appropriate use for your project. It has worked out
quite well and like I said we are finally getting off the ground and we are excited. I kind of
see Mr. Bews property as being very similar. We can come up with all kinds of different
concepts, what could happen, what it would look like and things change. Do you have any
questions that I can possibly answer?
Corrie: Council?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, does this new plan that you are envisioning does that include an
access a vehicular access to the St. Luke's property?
Bowcutt: What I did was I put stub streets in based upon ACHD's site specific
requirements. They asked for a stub street to this parcel here, they asked for a connection
here and then they asked for a connection to the Holloway and one to the St. Luke's
property here. These as you can see I put culdesacs. If they were to be extended you
have the ability because the right of way would come out here. If they were never
extended you have a proper tum around area. That is an issue that like I said depending
upon the use that is when that will come to a head. The Highway District in my
experiences with them lately have been very concerned about interconnection of streets
and collectors. On a majority of the projects that I have done I did a 55 acre residential
single family subdivision just a few months ago and they required nine stub street
connection to my project and they required that we construct a collector. We did convince
them to come down from the nine we ended up with about five, we did get stuck with the
collector and one of the issues I brought up with the Highway District is they said you are
the first one to go in so you have got to provide the connections to the other parcels. I said
Meridian City Council
January 16, 1996
Page 5
well we end up building the collectors while the other parcels just basically hook and take
advantage of that facility. Have you ever looked at maybe assessing other parcels when
they come in and hook into someone else's collector that they spent a considerable
amount of money constructing. They said that is a good idea in theory, I don't know if it
would work and it would be difficult to implement. But stub streets and interconnections
where people can go in multiple directions is the way they are moving. We have been
fighting it because it is expensive, every time I do a stub street I lose a lot and when I build
collectors they take a big swath out of a parcel, I can't front any lots on it. So typically you
are building a lot of street with no lots fronting on it. Now they won't even let us put little
islands so that we can create little knuckles off the collectors, they are not allowing that.
So times are changing, they say that things like this the interconnections the multi
directions are necessary to cut down on the volumes of traffic because they need to give
people as many routes as they possibly can for ingress and egress into their businesses
or their homes. So that is kind of the situation that we have been facing. Jeff Hull and I
kind of talked about that and said it depends on which side of the fence you are on
whether you want a collector or you don't. Like I said this would work either way the way
it is laid out.
Rountree: Could you show on your concept the break between the Holloway parcel and
the closed campus of St. Luke's. Recognizing that both are owned by St. Luke's. Where
does the property break?
Bowcutt: The Holloway parcel, it lays right in through here.
Rountree: To what point?
Bowcutt: I think it came down, because this traverses I believe the southern portion. I
think it comes up through here. I think it is about right in through here approximately
based on the location of this Chaffin Drain.
Rountree: You indicated that the concept is not complete that you are still doing drawings
on it.
Bowcutt: The residential area here.
Rountree: What is your projection to complete that?
Bowcutt: Basically to lay it out it takes me a few days, the technician, it takes a couple of
days for her to lay it out. It would take probably less than a week.
Rountree: You would be done by Friday.
0 0
Meridian City Council
January 16, 1996
Page 6
Corrie: Any other questions of the Council to Ms. Bowcutt?
Rountree: I have an additional question about the stub, (inaudible) lay of the land look like
it would go into the closed campus. Is that at the guidance of ACHD or at the desire of the
property owner and developer?
Bowcutt: This right here, I took that off of the staff report. They had site specific
requirements, it did not specify exactly where it had to be.
Rountree: Did they indicate in the staff report that there needed to be vehicular access or
(inaudible).
Bowcutt: Yes, it stated, this was the longest staff report I had ever seen, provide a stub
street to the east to the (inaudible) property line. Provide a stub street to the east to the
Thomas/Tullis property line. This stub street shall be south the street connection to Eagle
Road. Provide two stub streets to the west, one for the street connection to Eagle Road
one into the Holloway property north of said street connection.
Rountree: Is there an indication in that report that ACHD is going to pursue a connection
to Eagle Road?
Bowcutt: They basically went into a discussion on the impact on the neighborhood, the
opposition to the connection by St. Luke's and the way it read they stood by their
recommendation that there should be some type of a westerly connection.
Corrie: Other questions of the Council?
Tolsma: Becky, what is that street that goes to the closed campus (inaudible) is that
classified as a collector street in your property?
Bowcutt: This particular street here, this one right here? That is just a 60 foot right of way,
I didn't classify it as a collector and I have approaches on it like it was a local. If it was
designated as a collector I would have to have a substantial amount of distance on my
approaches. If ACHD determined it would have to be a collector standard than obviously
I would have to change that.
Tolsma: So basically what they are saying is you need a (inaudible).
Bowcutt: It didn't state that it had to be anything other than your standard 60 foot right of
way found in commercial and office complexes. Now when somebody comes in with a
particular site specific conditional use at that time then they may comment with specifics.
Meridian City Council
January 16, 1996
Page 7
Corrie: Other comments? Thank you Becky. Anybody from the audience that would like
testify?
John McCreedy, 1275 Shoreline Lane, Boise was sworn by the City Attorney.
McCreedy: Like I said my name is John McCreedy I am a lawyer I work for the office of
Jim Jones and Associates I wrote a letter to you last week and I spoke with Shari Stiles
after faxing that letter over. She indicated that she had gotten an opportunity to copy that
and submit it to you. So I hope you have had a chance to review that. I won't repeat the
letter verbatim but I would like to highlight a few points and make a few comments based
on what Ms. Bowcutt presented to you tonight First, I represent 17 of the families that live
in Montvue subdivision. Their purpose in retaining me was to try and bring some
consolidation to their comments not to hire a hired gun or to try and shoot the project down
but rather to present their comments in a consolidated and a well reasoned fashion so that
you have an opportunity to listen to them to hear them and digest them and make what
you will. I did have an opportunity to participate in all of the ACHD meetings that went on
with this project. Did have an opportunity to meet with Mr. Bews, Mr. Davis, Mr. Forrey on
a couple of different occasions. I am pleased that Ms. Bowcutt is part of the group at this
point and look forward to meeting with her and trying to find some solutions to the
problems that are presented with the application. I do briefly want to let you know what
the interests of the Montvue residents are and they are basically threefold, they are very
concerned about public roads in and adjacent to their subdivision. They are concerned
about the maintenance of the views and the amenities that they have with their subdivision
which is a bit older than most of the commercial developments in the area. And they are
very concerned with the maintenance of their rural lifestyle, the irrigation, the opportunity
to raise livestock in their area. If you take a look at the comprehensive plan it looks like
they will be surrounded by commercial development in the near future. Their purpose is
to prevent the degradation of that lifestyle and their rural property during that process.
And to prevent it to such a point where their property is so devalued that they can be
bought out for much less than what their property is at this point. So they intend to
participate in all of these commercial developments and proceedings and protect their
property rights. There are a couple of key facts that I think are very important not only to
the conditional use application but also the rezone and the annexation that is before you.
First the comp plan is clear it requires mixed planned use in this area and it is clear that
it requires that process be done by a planned unit development. That is not the type of
application that you have before you. You do not have a planned unit development
application that has been submitted. So it appears right at the get go we are running a little
bit of a problem with the comprehensive plan process. There are a couple other
requirements in the comprehensive plan that don't see to be met by the application. First
it does require some specific project plans and that is one of the concerns we have had
throughout the entire process. It is very difficult to comment on what the impact is going
0 0
Meridian City Council
January 16, 1996
Page 8
to be to these folks if you don't have a specific plan. We haven't had a Becky said an
opportunity to look at her new plan. We have not had an opportunity to meet with her. I
think as a matter of due process we would be allowed to do that to have an opportunity to
look at that plan so it would seem extremely premature to approve that plan or any other
plan tonight. We have had an opportunity to get through the P & Z findings on the
annexation and the zoning request and the conditional use permit and we support two or
three key fact that are set forth in those findings the recommendation that was made to
you. First it appears that we don't have a specific use that has been stated. That may
have been changed with Becky's presentation tonight and with her plans for the future but
again the process wold seem to require that we either deny the current application,
withdraw it, remand it or defer it or table it do something other than approve it tonight to
give the parties an opportunity to look at the specific plans if in fact some had finally been
presented. Two a development agreement is required, we specifically requested an
opportunity to look at that development agreement because it will control the development
of this property and it will have an impact on our clients on my clients. So when and if
Becky does get a chance to put a development agreement together that is another piece
of the puzzle that we would like to have an opportunity to comment on to present our
comments to you on. Again a development agreement is not prepared and it would seem
premature to approve the project until we have got those specifics. Again, as the Planning
& Zoning Commission found, development in this area needs to occur only as planned unit
development. We think this Council has an obligation to go a little bit further than the
Planning and Zoning Commission and find someway out of the box that we have got right
now. We don't have the specifics on the plan and on the project that are necessary for us
to know what the impacts are going to be and for this Council to be assured that any
approval is going to protect the existing citizens. So again it seems to me that we have
got three or four different options. We can table it to give Becky an opportunity meet with
the parties and to put some more specific plans together and see if we can reach some
common ground that is our preferred approach. We are not against development we are
not anti -growth, we simply want an opportunity to protect our property rights. Tabling it or
deferring it would accomplish that goal. Two, it could be remanded back to the Planning
and Zoning Commission which under a couple of different cases that are out there and
under your own planning and zoning ordinance would appear to be one of the preferred
approaches. If there is a new plan in order, if there are some specifics for the project that
have been finally put together it seems appropriate to give the Planning and Zoning
Commission and opportunity to comment on that and to make new recommendations to
you based on that. You can certainly deny the application as being incomplete at this
point and we have written to you requesting that you do that because we were not aware
at that time that Becky had been retained and we were not aware that new plans were in
the works and that seemed appropriate at the time. And finally you can approve the
conditional use permit the annexation and the rezone. Of the three the most reasonable
for approvable seems to be the annexation. We would submit that does appear to be a
0 •
Meridian City Council
January 16, 1996
Page 9
reasonable step as part of Meridian's growth. But approving the conditional use permit
and approving the rezone at this point is simply again premature. There aren't enough
specifics and the problems simply haven't been worked out enough to warrant approval.
Becky did make one comment and that is that it seems appropriate to tackle the
transportation issues when we have a specific use. One of my clients that was sitting next
to me elbowed me when she said that because that is exactly what we have been saying
for about a year now. And that really is the just of our comments. We need to have a
specific plan in front of us whether that is piece meal and our preference certainly would
be that the plan is one that is presented in totality. It really doesn't make a tremendous
amount of difference but there needs to be some specifics with the project. If we do have
a new more detailed plans that satisfy some of the planning and zoning conditions we
want an opportunity to look at that and we haven't had that opportunity yet. It is clear that
we do need additional information in order to make comments on the project. As Becky
said the best laid plans certainly can go awry but nevertheless they are plans. They are
binding they are enforceable, as a planned unit development we would have the
opportunity to see those plans were enforced after we had an opportunity to comment on
them. And as the example she gave if they needed to be modified well then so be it there
are legal procedures to get that accomplished. But at this point I would reiterate simply it
is premature to approve the project so we would request that you find some other
alternative that gives us the opportunity we have consistently requested and that is to
know what the heck is going to go on out there and comment on it. I will certainly stand
for any questions.
Corrie: Thank you John, Council any questions?
Rountree: I have one Mr. Mayor, Mr. McCreedy, what or how would you define a specific
plan?
McCreedy: Well the plans that were attached as attachments to the conditional use permit
I would not define as specific and would not define as in compliance with the
comprehensive plan. They suggested anywhere between 7 to 12 different uses it was a
very rough sketch. We did not see detailed landscaping plans, we did not see detailed
road plans, we did not see building heights or restrictions or colors. We did not see traffic
circulation patterns that had any detail to them. So I would not call those specific plans.
Those are the only ones that I feel have been formally submitted to the City and those are
the only ones that would being binding upon (inaudible) you did approve it at this point.
So I don't believe those are specific. The types of plans that we are interested in
examining are exactly the type that were recommended by the Planning & Zoning
Commission. And specifically the issues that were set forth in the development agreement
that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended. I detailed those in my letter they
include 14, 1 won't recite them, but they cover the gamut of good planning.
0 •
Meridian City Council
January 16, 1996
Page 10
Corrie: Any further questions from the Council? Mr. McCreedy thank you.
Gary Fletcher, 1249 Hart Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Fletcher: Mayor Corrie, members of the City Council, I appreciate being here this evening
to be able to testify on these applications. I wrote to you on the fifth of January a letter as
well as supporting exhibits and I assume you have copies of those and if you would like
to have additional copies I would be glad to distribute those if you need them. Again it
would not be my intent to go through the detail of that letter and those exhibits but rather
to highlight some points that we would like to make relative to the E.L. Bews applications
for zoning and annexation and conditional use permit for the property south of Franklin
Road and north of 1-84 in Meridian. We do appreciate Becky Bowcutt's comments this
evening and although she did have a meeting with Jeff Hull who is our facility architect at
St. Luke's this last week, I think it was yesterday we really haven't had an opportunity to
look in detail at the additional work that they have done and so it is difficult to comment
relative to what the implications of that might be. Although we do stand ready and look
forward to doing that. Should you make a decision that allows that opportunity as you
proceed with these projects. I do want to make a point here that I think is important and
that is that the Council be sure and understand the recommendations are being made by
ACHD and unless I misunderstand and if I do I would stand to be corrected. But as I
understand it they have offered 3 options not necessarily a specific recommendations. The
three options are number one to deny the applications and we are not here to advocate
that but that is one option that they have offered. Second would be to approve a less
intense use that would have implications with respect to the roads and traffic and so on.
And third would be to approve the application as proposed, applications if you will in which
case the traffic and roadway designs and recommendations that they have offered would
be ones that they would advocate namely the latter with the latter option of the road from
the east to the west and vice versa accessing Eagle Road. So, I just think it is important
that everybody understand what the recommendations has been from ACHD and they
have offered options not a specific recommendation. Again as I understand it. Let me
point out to begin with quickly that. St. Luke's does generally agree with the staff reports
that have been offered by the Planning staff here at the City and also ACHD with one
exception. That being the public road that would run from the applicant's property through
across St. Luke's property to Eagle Road. And although St. Luke's as previously
supported the application, the application for annexation and frankly continues to, we do
have some concerns regarding these applications that we need to express this evening.
By way of summary and again highlighting the information that we have submitted
previously. I think first and foremost you need to know that we have had several and I think
several may be an understatement, but 1 think it is close, several meetings with the
applicant and his representatives and certainly the neighbors in the Montvue Subdivision.
I think we have worked very well with the neighbors in the Montvue Subdivision in terms
0 •
Meridian City Council
January 16, 1996
Page 11
of trying to be sure that we had a compatible development, St. Luke's that is. But our
discussions with Mr. Bews and his representatives have been generally unproductive. We
think that is unfortunate and frankly it is almost embarrassing to be here to be raising any
concerns or opposition to the applications because I would have hoped and I still hope that
we can work out a compatible relationship as it relates.to their development and ours. I
would hope the process as we go forward would offer that opportunity to do that whatever
that might end up being. But at this point and again not having the benefit of seeing the
front of the material that Becky presented it is difficult for us to comment relative to the
compatibility for our project and we would frankly just need more time to look at that and
again offer a legitimate concept. So at this point we can't be supportive of it. I think
secondly and very important is the closed campus concept that we have advocated since
the beginning of our project. The St. Luke's campus has been master planned to create
a closed campus that is compatible for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The
applicant has suggested that a road be suggested through the St. Luke's Meridian campus
to provide access to the applicant's property from Eagle Road. The applicant's proposal
would bisect the St. Luke's property and I think there is some lack of clarity here in terms
of whether we are talking about a two lane road or a five lane road. The horror story that
we are concerned about is whether it be an access back and forth or whether it be a
multiple lane road that introduces significant traffic through our campus onto Eagle Road.
If it were a multiple lane road with significant traffic it would for sure destroy the St. Luke's
interior campus traffic patterns access and everything else. The southern stub road from
the applicant's property is not compatible with the St. Luke's Meridian campus approved
plan. It concerns us that after 18 months from the approval of this project and 12 months
from the beginning of construction and 3 months from the conclusion of the construction
that we are not being asked to go back and look at the totally restructuring traffic patterns,
access and everything else on and off the St. Luke's campus and we think that is
incompatible with what has been approved previously and what our plans have been as
we have articulated them all along. One must remember that the applicant does have
access to and from Eagle Road potentially in more than one location. Our experiences
when people are seeking medical facilities and medical advice they are consumed more
by the medical issues and emotions of what they are dealing with than they are with traffic.
Again we think this would, the introduction of a significant roadway, public roadway
through the property would compromise what we have tried to design all along as we have
been working on this almost three years now and have had discussions with the City on
and off about this for that period of time. In terms of the compatibility of the proposed
applications with the comprehensive plan that is clearly up to the Council and the City to
decide whether or not it is compatible, one could raise the question as to whether or not
the plan should be revised and then appropriate applications should be submitted but that
is really the Council's business and the City's business in terms of how that is governed
and adjudicated. I think in terms of roads and traffic there are a diversity of opinions
relative to what is adequate and not adequate as far as the roads. I think we can introduce
0 •
Meridian City Council
January 16, 1996
Page 12
all of those this evening but I think it is simply important to understand there are a diversity
of opinions. We think there are some questions that need to be answered as we go along
here I mean all of us in terms of the development of this area. One would be how many
lanes of traffic there ought to be on Eagle Road and Franklin Road for the future. Secondly
when will the grade interchange that ACHD talks about when would that occur and who
would pay for it. We think those are significant questions and frankly it may be that they
need to be decided as we go along. There are certainly challenges that we have ahead
of us that we all need to address. I think to be fair to it I think ACHD would say that those
questions need to be answered and we don't think there has been adequate study to really
conclude what ought to be done with the size of the roads and the traffic patterns for Eagle
and Franklin and the related area. Impact on St. Luke's and let me conclude in a couple
minutes here. We clearly support responsible planned development and from the
beginning have supportedthe annexation of this property and still do. In 1994 St. Luke's
proposed its medical campus concept to the City of Meridian and requested annexation
and based on your approval of both the annexation and the zoning have proceeded with
the development of our campus. What we are in opposition to here tonight to is the
imposition of a public road through our property. The congestion, noise, cost and safety
risks with a public road through the property are simply not acceptable to us and we think
are intolerable relative to what we have tried to do and what we continue to do in the
future. There are substantial costs associated with this both in terms of redesign and
reconstruction that we would hope you would consider as you contemplate this. Beyond
that in terms of business interruption we have a facility that we have made a significant
investment about half of which is doctor offices the other half of which is urgent care,
outpatient surgery, laboratory, X-ray, pharmacies and so on. I have a difficult time
appreciating at this point what the disruption would be to all of those businesses and those
up to 200 employees and so on as we proceed in the future if in fact it is decided in any
way that there would be a road through the St. Luke's property as it currently is designed.
So the questions come up who is going to pay for it who is going to compensate for the
business interruption and things of that nature. It would clearly be in our estimation
devastating for us to go back and introduce that now at this late date. I think in summary
and in conclusion again we would not oppose the annexation or development of this
property however because we don't have an appreciation of the specifics in terms of what
is really proposed to be done and can't make a judgement in terms of whether or not it is
compatible with what is being done generally in the area we too would support the
Council's efforts to develop a process that would allow these things to be worked out as
we go into the future. Clearly we oppose this road, there are other things that access back
and forth that have been discussed that haven't been fully explored and that we would be
receptive to and willing to consider what the City and the adjacent neighborhood and the
developers and any others that should be involved in those discussions. I appreciate the
opportunity to present our views. And you have a more complete version of what we have
put together and be glad to try and answer any questions you might have.
Meridian City Council
January 16, 1996
Page 13
Corrie: Thank you Mr. Fletcher, Council any questions?
Rountree: Mr. Fletcher, you alluded to the fact that you had been asked or directed or
asked to consider access through your property is that true? Or is that something you read
through ACHD's staff report?
Fletcher: Mayor Corrie and Councilman Rountree and members of the Council, this project
or these applications have gone on for a long time and there have been multiple people
involved in terms of commenting and approvals and almost from the beginning of the time
that St. Luke's acquired the property we were sensitive to the neighborhood and
everybody around us. We initiated meetings early on to talk about what we were going to
do or proposed to do in fact if you recall we had public meetings here in Meridian about
this and entertained comment from the public. (End of Tape)
Tolsma: You stated in there that ACHD you didn't have any (inaudible) for roads but your
concept out there right now was just for closed campus basically. But the concept we
approved at Council many months ago is for (inaudible) it was a closed campus concept
there was no application for road or no desire to have a road. I don't know how many
multi-million dollars that project is but it seems ludicrous to me after the fact ACHD comes
back and (inaudible) multi -lane road in there (inaudible) the time your project came before
us. When you alluded to they didn't know (inaudible) I don't think that is anything that
(inaudible) when this project was considered the first time. I can't speak for the rest of the
Council but myself I (inaudible) closed campus concept when we approved St. Luke's
(inaudible). Mr. Fletcher anything else? Anyone else from the public that would like to
testify on this?
Mike Littlefield, 325 East Montvue, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Littlefield: We have still not seen any plan and have not seen the plan that Ms. Bowcutt
has brought in again this evening. She had made references to as you look to the east,
we need to step this down into a residential setting and where I stand as a Montvue
Resident with 24 other homes I consider that a residential area and we are to the west of
this development, are we going to have any sizing down to the west as well. We still have
no site specific plans and as a Council member I believe it is your responsibility to after
nearly 2 years of this if you can't come in with a specific plan we cannot approve your
application. I don't think it is right for you to say okay we are going to give this developer
the green light to go ahead and build whatever they want without any specific
development. We are referring back to the road again, well where is this road going to go,
do we need this road. Well Wayne Forrey who used to represent the Bews development
had one meeting with us out of 45 meetings that we have had and he stated that Ada
County wasn't requiring that road, the Highway District wasn't requiring that road but that
Meridian City Council
January 16, 1996
Page 14
the people who might come in and buy some of that property are requiring that road and
I think that is one point that has been left open. Here we go again putting the cart before
the horse, if we don't have, if there is not a need for that specific road or we are saying we
might need that road those are two different things. I don't believe that you should
approve this application. I personally am opposed to annexation anyway, we moved to a
county setting a rural setting where we can have children and we can have horses and
cattle and now we are completely encased in City. I am actually opposed to the
annexation as well. If you have any questions from me I would be happy to answer them.
Corrie: Thank you, Council, any questions? Anybody else that would like to testify?
Glenn Rufus, 3295 North Montvue Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Rufus: As my neighbor Mike has reiterated, our main concern is the subdivision here is
we don't oppose per se the application of this development. We don't feel as private
property owners we have that right. I think this issue needs to be looked at as a private
property issue here, we have two entities of private property owners if this application
approved by ACHD standards that this public road has to be forced through either our
subdivision or St. Luke's. It has never been proven to us by the Highway District that this
road is needed. Maybe in the future but at this point even with the first development I don't
feel this road is needed. We are less than a mile from the freeway from Franklin
intersection. We already know what traffic is like on Eagle Road it is a given. We put a
public road through to the south of us it is helter skelter traffic all around us. That isn't
conducive to a nice private rural setting for a family life. It would in my opinion depredate
our property value. I don't oppose the application personally if it is approved without the
public road. I think they can still have their development and make it a good development
is this is approved without the public road.
Corrie: Council, any questions? Thank you, anybody else wish to testify at this point?
Forest Kerns, 230 South West. Montvue, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Kerns: I just have a couple of comments. One is as I read through the traffic study,
ACHD's proposal generally stated that the bottleneck was at Eagle and Franklin and that
it would have to be a separated grade crossing at some point in the future and that would
alleviate the problem of the traffic out of both St. Luke's and Bews. We have heard Mr.
Fletcher state that St. Luke's will not sell the property that means if ACHD wishes to put
a road across there they are going to have to condemn it. To condemn you have to prove
a public need. I don't think that a public need can be proven because Bews has sufficient
right of way or sufficient frontage along Franklin to have 2 or 3 accesses onto Franklin if
the need is proven. Therefore I think they would have a hard time proving public need for
Meridian City Council
January 16, 1996
Page 15
condemnation across St. Luke's or Montvue Subdivision. I think that probably if this is
approved the next step is to decide who is going to pay for a separated grade crossing at
Eagle and Franklin and that should be the next process rather than look for side roads
here and there to alleviate the problem for 2 or 3 years or to put it off for 2 or 3 years. My
personal feeling is that the people who are causing this need the developers should be the
ones that pay for the separated grade crossing and collectively or however. No further
comments.
Corrie: Council, any questions? Thank you, anybody else wish to testify? Seeing none
I shall close the hearing. Council, since we have heard the public hearing on the
conditional use we can also take the annexation and zoning request discussion at the
same time I suppose if you want to. Or we can have the discussion on the public hearing
right now.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I think it would be .my preference before I have any discussions
concerning this to see if there is any additional testimony with respect to the annexation
and zoning request. I would like to hear that if there is any additional.
Corrie: Mr. Crookston?
Crookston: I am not sure where we actually stand on the annexation and zoning. The
agenda does not say that there is to be a public hearing tonight, I think we need to
determine where exactly we are on that before we go back to the annexation and zoning.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, that being the case then, let me throw out for Council thought or
conversation or debate my thoughts her with respect to what we are hearing. I think first
of all that we have seen significant changes in the presentation from what was originally
presented to us some months ago. And so I think that requires some further action. I think
also that from my perspective I will not support any compromise of the St. Luke's site. And
so I agree with Mr. Tolsma that when we originally were part of that annexation we
visualized that site to be a closed site. I would site in case the V.A. Center in Boise, the
St. Alphonsus Center in Boise and then the St. Luke's facility that is in Boise that has
several public roads transecting that campus. It seems to me here that we approved it as
one lot with a campus concept not to dissimilar that will be coming before us as a Council
and it needs to stay one lot. With respect to past actions we have basically required that
things that come before us with respect to annexation and zoning have some sort of plat
plan or some better defined plan of how that project is going to be developed. We are not
seeing that here. Obviously with the change in representation from Mr. Forrey to Briggs,
it seems to me that it makes sense at this point that we take a step backwards perhaps
remand this project to P & Z and in a sense maybe start over. I think that there is a lot of
confusion certainly in my mind and the public's mind and the neighbors mind and I think
Meridian City Council
January 16, 1996
Page 16
that we need to start addressing those issues and bring some clarity to this. So, those are
my thoughts as I see this project where we stand now. I would offer that to my fellow
Councilman and we will determine what direction we want to go.
Bentley: Yes, in the short time I have had to review the documents I see this has been
dragging along for at least 18 months that I can document. As the testimony has shown
tonight we have got we finally got some ideas of some specific plans but there hasn't been
any all along. I too agree with Mr. Morrow that we should remand it back to Planning and
Zoning for complete action in starting over including all the fees.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree, any comments?
Rountree: I just state that I don't think that would be a step backwards.
Corrie: Mr. Tolsma?
Tolsma: I agree with my fellow Councilman, I think it has changed dramatically since we
have first seen it, like he said it has been 18 months. We would have to go back and
review the findings of fact and conclusions of law (inaudible) there are just so many things
that have been brought up and delayed so long that we might as well start over.
Corrie: Mr. Crookston, what would your suggestion be, well let's open this up. Do we hear
any motions.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we remand the request for a conditional use permit
for mixed planned business and residential uses by E. L. Bews back to P & Z.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to remand back the request for a conditional
use permit back to Planning & Zoning, any further discussion? All those in favor of the
motion signify by Aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: How about the annexation and zoning request?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we remand the annexation and zoning request for
the 74 acres by E. L. Bews back to P & Z also.
Rountree: Second
Meridian City Council
January 16, 1996
Page 17
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded that we remand the annexation and zoning back to
Planning & Zoning, any further discussion? Motion on the floor, all those in favor say Aye?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: TABLED DECEMBER 19: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FULL
SERVICE RESTAURANT, LOUNGE AND MICRO -BREWERY BY SANDPIPER
RESTAURANTS:
Corrie: Council, we have the findings of fact and conclusions of law on that, any
discussion?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, that was originally tabled awaiting a presentation by a representative,
I still want to hear that presentation.
Corrie: Very well Mr. Morrow, is the representative of Sandpiper here? Shari?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I had a conversation with Landon Exely of the Sandpiper this
afternoon. He is in Laguna Beach and is unable to be here. However he indicated they
have had traffic study which ACHD has basically prepared however we don't have their,
ACHD has approved it we do not have their report. Part of it was for McDonald's to move
a curb cut. Presently the approval for that curb cut removal or moving is stuck at
McDonald's Headquarters. Mr. Exely would like to wait to make a presentation so he
makes sure what you see as a conditional use permit is what is going to be there.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move to table to our first meeting in February.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we table this conditional use permit until February
6th meeting, all those in favor say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR SALMON
RAPIDS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION:
Corrie: Council, you have those findings in front of you, any discussion? Hearing none I
will entertain a motion if you so desire.
MAY 41995
i NAVA A. e
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE
I4
STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA
LARRY DURKIN; SUSAN )
EASTLAKE; VICTORIA )
RICHINS and ROBERT )
RICHINS, JR.; J. DIANE )
SOULE, D.V.M. and PETER )
J. ANDERSON; and JOHN P_ )
TATE, )
Petitioners, )
VS. )
THE CITY OF BOISE and THE)
BOISE CITY COUNCIL; SSB )
PROPERTIES.; and ROBERT )
AHMANN, )
Respondents. )
Case No. CV -OC -95-01348 *D
ORDER
1 i,
The petitioners are residents of the City of Boise who seek
review of the procedures used by the City in its handling of a
rezone application made by SSB properties to allow it to build a
commercial tire store on a lot located on Broadway Avenue. The
petitioners have filed a petition for judicial review of Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered by the City Council on
February 21, 1995. The petitioners have moved to stay a public
hearing on the
rezone and application
for a development
agreement
MAY 16 195 16:39
2083859599
PAGE. 06
0
which is currently scheduled for May 8, 1995 before the Planning
and Zoning Commission. They have also challenged the legal
sufficiency of the Notice for the Public Hearing.
At the hearing, it was conceded that at least one of the
plaintiffs did object to the approval of the rezone application.
While standing questions were raised as to the remainder of the
plaintiffs, the official record has not yet been produced and the
Court has no means to resolve the question. Since at least one
of the plaintiffs has previously objected, the Court will address
the issue presented.
Because the Commission hearing is scheduled for May 8, 1995,
the Court granted the petitioners' Motion for an expedited
hearing. At the hearing, over the petitioners' objection, SSB
presented testimony and argument. The City indicated that it
wished to remain neutral and did not provide either evidence or
argument. In support of the petitioners' Motion, the Affidavit
of Wayne Gibbs, the director of Community Planning and
Development for the City of Boise Was submitted.
At this point, there is only a narrow point of law before
the Cuurt. The Court is not addressing the merits of the
proposed rezone nor of the development agreement. Under I.C. §
67-5279 (2)(c), an agency action is subject to judicial review
and appropriate relief if it; appears that an action is made upon
unlawful procedure.
From the record, it appears that the Planning and Zoning
uRVER .Page 2
May 1r, IqS 1F:-�q 2083859599 PAGE. 07
• 0
Commission Staff reviewed an application for rezone filed uy SSB
Properties Inc. The Staff recommended a denial of the
application. The Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended
denial of the application to the City Council. The city council
reviewed the application which had been modified to include some
more detailed sketches, to remove some curb cuts and to
illustrate the planned landscaping strip. After the public
hearing on the rezone request, the City Council voted to approve
the rezone application with a development agreement and signed
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law submitted by SSB
Properties, Inc. There is no dispute that the developer did not
submit a development agreement with the rezone application and
neither the Planning Department nor the Planning and Zoning
Commission rPquirad one previously. .The City Council determined
that the development agreement should be entered into at its
hearing on January 31, 1995.
Under the Boise City zoning ordinances enacted by the City
Council, a procedure has been established for development
agreements. Boise City Code § ll -08-09 provides that:
2. In the event of a determination by the Council that a
development agreement should be entered into, the council
shaZZ remand the matter back to the Commission, with the
Council requiring an application for a development agreement
to be submitted by the applicant, unless the applicant has
already done so and a publio hearing was held under
subsection 1. above. The Council shall, upon remand, direct
the Commission on the specific issues to be addressed by the
development agreement. The commission shall then proceed as
specified in this section. (emphasis added).
ORDER Fuge 3
MAY 16 '95 16:40 2083859599 PAGE.08
• 0
There is no dispute that the Council decided that a development
agreement should be entered into and that the applicant had not
already submitted one. Under the mandatory language used by the
Council in its ordinance, the matter was required to be remanded
back to the Planning and Zoning commission subject to whatever
directions the council decided to impose. The use of the
mandatory "shall" rather than the discretionary "may" is
dispositive. The rules of construction of an ordinance are the
same as applied to the construction of a statute. State v. Roll,
118 Idaho 936, 939, 801 P.2d 1287 (Ct. App. 1990), Jackman v.
Hammersley, 72 Idaho 301, 305, 240 P.2d 829 (1952). Where a
statute is plain, clear, and unambiguous, it speaks for itself
and must be given the interpretation the language clearly
implies. Cameron v. Minidoka County Highway District, 125 Idaho
801, 803, 874 P.2d 1108 (1994), Grand Canyon Dories v. Tax
Commission, 124 Idaho 1, 5, 855 P.2d 462 (1993). The record
reflects that the Planning Director advised SSB Properties Inc.
that the request for rezone was approved "with the requirement
that you submit for approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commiesion an application for a Development Agreement, as
provided in Section 11-8-9 of the Boise City Code. The rezone
cannot be finalized until the Development Agreement has been
approved by the commi33ion and the Council." Letter of Wayne
Gibbs, February 3, 1995, Affidavit of Wayne Gibbs, Exhibit E.
The letter is consistent with the ordinance and with the purpose
ORDER Page 4
• 0
of the development agreements in general as atatod in 11-08-09 A
which is that, if in the opinion of the Council or the
Commission, a requested rezone's approval alone does not satisfy
the requirements for a rezone but that, a development agreement
with somewhat stricter requirements may be required. The
ordinance clearly mandates that, if it is the Council itself
which determines that a development agreement is required, then
the matter must be remanded to the Commission.
The legal notice attached as Exhibit G to the Affidavit of
Wayne Gibbs gives notice that a hearing will be held before Lhe
Planning and Zoning Commission on SSB's request for approval of a
development agreement on May 8, 1995. It appears that the entry
of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law was premature
since the rezone with the development agreement has not been
submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission and that a public
hearing on the development agreement has not been held and the
Council has not received or reviewed any recommendations from the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Any public hearing must be held
on the draft agreement and the rezone request. Boise City Code
11-08-09(F).
Because the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law were
entered prematurely in violation of the Council's own ordinances,
they are sat Aside_ The motion for stay is granted until the
City Council has the opportunity to remand the case with any
specific directions it wishes to provide for the development
ORDER Page 5
MAY 16 '95 16:41 2083859599 �PAGE. 10
agreement. The case is remanded to the City Council for further
proceedings.
It is so ordered. ,
Dated this day of May, 1995
r
Deborah A. Bail
District Judge
oRDER Page 6
MAY 16 '95 16:41 2083859599 PAGE.11