Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 03-01. ~ ~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENQA TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MiNUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 15, 1994: 1. FINAL PLAT: ENGLEWOOD CREEK SUBDIVISON: TABLED AT FEBRUARY 15, 1994 MEETING: (DENIED) 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: VARIANCE REQUEST F~R SALMOIV RAPIDS SUBDIVISON(FORMERLY LANDFALL): (APPROVED~ 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: CONDfTiONAL USE PERMIT FOR KING STREET STATfON SUBDIVISION WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT: (APPR~VED) 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR KING STREET STATfON SUBDIVISION: (APPROVED) 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REZONE REQEUST FOR SCOTTSDALE ESTATES SUBDIVISIUN WfTH A PRELIMiNARY PLAT: (APPROVED) 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND GONCLUSIONS OF LAW: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SCOTTSDALE ESTATES SUBDIVISION: (APPROVED) 7. ORDINANCE: #633 - SPORTSMAN POINTE SUBDIVISION #5: (TABLED~ 8. ORQINANCE: #634 - VALERI HEIGHTS SUBDiV1SION: (APPROVED; ORDINANCE NUMBER CHANGED TO #633) 9. FINAL PLAT: SPORTSMAN P41NTE #5 SUBDiVISiON: (TAB4ED) 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FOR DORADO DEVEIOPMENT AND MICHAEL AND CYNTHiA SCISC~E: ITABLED UNTIL MARCH 15, 1994 MEETING) 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONtNG WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ELK RUN SUBDIVISION #2 BY THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP AND JUB ENGINEERS: (APPRUVED; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE) ~ • 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SPORTSMAN POINTE SUBDIVISON #4 BY THE WESTPARK COMPANY AND J.J. HOWARD ENGINEERS: (APPROVED) 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TUTHILL SUBDIVISION #2 BY THE DICK CON CORPORATION AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING: (APPROVED; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE) 14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOCUST GROVE CENTER BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FiNDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FOR GLENN AND MILDRED NYBORG: (APPPROVED; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE REZONE ORDINANCE) 16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FOR ROBERT AND FRAN WHITMIRE:lTABLED UNTIL MARCH 15, 19941 17. PROCLAMATION: PURCHASING MONTH: 18. WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: (APPROVED) 19. APPROVE BILLS: (APPROVED) 20. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: ~ • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1, 1994 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Grant Kingsford at 7:30 P.M.: Members Present: Ron Tolsma, Bob Corrie, Walt Morrow, Max Yerrington: Others Present: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Shari Stiles, Wayne Forrey, Kathleen and Scott Weber, Roger and Gini Allen, Matt Hibbs, William Aura, Raleigh Hawe, Eileen Allison, Walter Andt, Jean Moore, Rabert Moore, Elizabeth Gwin, Karen Blayney, John Baker, Larry Roberts, Terry Nyborg, J. Clouss, Marlene Clouss, Terry McCarthy, Clark Bu~kett, Van Elg, Mike Sciscoe: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 15, 1994: Kingsford: Are there any changes to those minutes? Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I move they be approved. Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Bob to approve the ~ebruary 15th minutes, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: FINAL PLAT: ENGLEWOOD CREEK SUBDIVISION: TABLED AT FEBRUARY 15, 1994 MEETING: Kingsford: Council members have you reviewed the work on that? Questions or comments, is the engineer present? Would you come forward please. It is the concern of the Council and myself, the change in the map and approvals and so on. We have a whole series of maps here that kesp changing. Jewell: May I come up and take a look? Tolsma: This is a secondary map, this was done January 13, which they had a bridge through here. This is from February 18th and the culdesac and through street here. Jewetl: That was one of the reasons it was tabled because we had not resolved the issue pertaining to this. This is the original and we discussed it with several of the agencies (inaudible). Since then we submitted it (inaudible) it has been submitted to the various agencies for comments. You should have received them. There is a bridge there, prior to the development of this (inaudible? this went • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 2 s through then ACHD came back and said well we want you to put a stub in here and then we acquired this piece and (inaudible) to develop in here. (Inaudible) we have communicated with the Highway District and as of last week I guess we still didn't have comment back from the Fire Department. Pretty much everybody was in agreement. Kingsford: Other questions for the engineer? Corrie: I have a question, in the minutes of last Council you did state that there would be a street across that according to the preliminary plat. Then you stated that at the request of the City Engineer that they eliminate that. Did you request they take that street out Gary? Smith: No Corrie: I didn't think so. Jewell: No, they didn't request it, we requested it that we take it out. Corrie: It looks to me like you've got a considerable, little bit different plat here than you had the original plat and you've got the one in February and then the one, I don't know what is this one now? Jewell: That just shows the relationship of this new development with this. This was one of the concerns of eliminating to see what was happening there and so this is the preliminary plat in there. This is not part of the subdivision, this is another subdivision it is also ours but it will be developed at a different time. The only reason this is here it to show the relationship on how the streets will go through there. Corrie: This is yours then, this is going to be your subdivision? Jewell: Also at a later date, but that has nothing to do with Englewood. The only thing it has to do with is the street tieing on. Corrie: What are you doing here then? Jewell: This would be for a common area to go across there for pedestrian through (inaudible). We want to provide access for pedestrians to come across here. • • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 3 Yerrington: Are you planning a foot bridge across there or anything? Jewell: My understanding is we've been requested to put one in, yes. I guess one of the concerns was because of school kids going back and forth as far as access. Kingsford: Mr. Smith, could I ask you to make some comments, we are back to culdesac lengths again and how this fits in. I realize that down the road when some of these things hook up lengths will be different. ( have some concerns about the lengths particularly now for (inaudible). Specifically on Vallum Avenue and into the culdesac that arrives at something in the neighborhood of 900,000 feet. Smith: Well, Mr. Mayor I gusss we get back to the same issue as to what point, from what point do we measure a culdesac? And in this particular case we are iooking at a phase, the first phase of a plat that has been previously reviewed by the City. If it didn't go any farther as far as development is concerned we would have a I guess you could consider it a long culdesac or a culdesac in excess of our allowed length from the ordinance. And that would basicalty be you would enter from Ustick road and wind back to the end of it. In other words you would have to turn around and come back and it would be a culdesac even though you had stub roads off of it that don't go anywhere unless the development is completed. Jewell: Excuse me Mr. Mayor, the preliminary plat showed the entire development, which was approved by the City and this is just the first phase of it. The second phase there are no long culdesacs, this will be a through street that will eventually come out on Ten Mile. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I have a comment, I'd like to have Wayne Forrey give me a comment on this. We had discussed that lot for a fire station or a well lot and I still haven't got any information back from Ada County Highway District whether they would allow us to go out on Ustick or not. Talking with the Fire Chief that lot is big enough but we don't whether Ada County would let us go out that way. Have you heard anything on that yet? Forrey: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Corrie, I have not. I'm not sure if the Highway District will or not. We'd have to make an official request to the Highway District. You know there was some confusion on the location of that !ot for a well lot and its, If I'm looking at the same drawing it would be the northeast corner, Lot 2 actually Lots 1 and 2. The applicant has stated in writing that is going to be donated to the City for an either or a well lot or a satellite fire station. So if it is • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 4 . acceptable to the fire department we should, and if this plat is approved and the City obtains ownership of that lot we should make a request or perhaps the final plat could be approved subject to the Highway District granting suitable access to the Fire Department so we know if that is a workable lot or not. If its not workable for the fire department then we do need a well lot. However, Gary Smith in conversation with Gary he indicated that it was paramount that the City have a well facility very near this intersection and so his stated preference would be to have that as a well lot and then the City would continue to negotiate with other developers in this area for a satellite Fire station. Is that correct Gary? Smith: I would be very interested in a well lot there. Forrey: We do have some other projects in this area, we have the ability to negotiate for a satellite fire station. Morrow: Mr. Corrie, was your concern there direct access onto UstiCk or access onto Niemann Drive? Corrie: Ustick Morrow: The way the plan is drawn it appears to be a landscaped berm. Corrie: Yes, its a 20 foot berm. Morrow: So, in essence if you were going to access directly to Ustick you would be compromising the landscaped berm and so on and so forth. Corrie: That is correct. Morrow: I don't know that we need direct access to Usitck when you are #hat close to the access on Niemann Drive and turning the corner. Food for thought. Jewell: Mr. Mayor, we've already accepted the fact that we are going to provide access for the well lot off of the interior street and not Ustick Road. Kingsford: Gary, looking at those dimensions would that satisfy the State's requirements for a well, I was under the understanding it had to be 100 x 100, is it just lot coverage that they require? Smith: Well, the lot shows 103 x 110 so that is enough for a well lot. • ~ Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 5 Kingsford: The one that I'm looking at Gary is 89 x 103. Tolsma: What is this Lot 1 here? Corrie: That is the berm. Kingsford: This is 110 on this lot but its only 89.06 here. Jewell: (Inaudible) Kingsfiord: You are satisfied it does meet 100 x 100? Any other comment, questions from the council? Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I guess my comment would be to Gary, do you feel that there is a significant difference in the plat that without that road going through there #hat this should be submitted to us again? Personally I think it is, but that is from a layman's term here. Smith: There has always been a as we thought a matter of interpretation as to haw closely a final plat has to comply with what is approved as a preliminary plat. In the past that has been left up the Zoning Administrator as far as accepting a Final plat off of a previously approved preliminary as to whether it complies or not. In the past the modifications to the final have been minor. Generally speaking the roadway alignments stay the same, the number of lots stay the same, the size of the lots stay the same and there are minor variations between the preliminary plat that is approved as far as dimensions go, but they are very minor. Its really, I don't know if it is written anywhere Councilman Corrie, as to how change is acceptable, but in days gone by and years gone by the final ptat was pretty much an overlay of the preliminary with the final dimensions assigned to the lots. Instead of having a lot that is 85 feet frontage you have a lot that 84.6 so you have very minor differences. And generally speaking the final overlays the preliminary. Morrow: How many differences are there here that we are talking about besides the road? Smith: I think the number of lots is the same, I believe the only major deference is the discontinuation of the Niemann Drive across Nine Mile Creek. There were some modifications in the curvature of that landscaped isle of Lot 1, Block 3 1 think that varies a little bit of what the preliminary was but those sorts of things are going to vary. When you get into detailed design on a subdivision you are • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 6 going to have some minor variations. • Morrow: I understand that, in your opinion do the changes that have been made constitute a substantial difference? Smith: Well, its discontinue a through street, I guess in terms of looking at this phase as compared to what was presented on the preliminary plat there is a significant difference because of the discontinuation. Plus at the time of the preliminary, this piece that is shown to the south and east of this first phase wasn't being discussed and of course this has come about 1 think since the preliminary of Englewood was submitted. This same developer has apparently obtained this piece and can tie that into Englewood Creek now and I'm assuming that is the basis for showing the discontinuation of Niemann Drive, but that aside if that didn't Jewelt: Excuse me, may I interrupt you? We're discussing something that reafly has already been taken place. Thirty copies of the revised plat as you said was resubmitted to the City shortly after the last hearing that we had and was re- distributed to all the agencies. That has already been done. Kingsford: We're aware of that, but the issue is if you substantially change from the preliminary plat on which the~e is a public hearing, under our ordinance it requires that you go back to a preliminary plat and a new hearing. What we are discerning here is does this constitufie a significant change from that plat? I think that is a determination that the Council needs to make. Jewell: The other thing on that side street, the one that is stubbed in was by the request of Ada County Highway District. That isn't something that w arbitrarily did. Kingsford: We are talking about the continuation of Niemann drive. Tolsma: f Inaudible) this has no bearing on the dead end street. Kingsford: Mr. Forrey would you offer any comment at all having been Zoning Administrator? Forrey: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council and Councilman Morrow to answer your question. Let me preface my answer by saying I fully understand every decision the Zoning Administrator makes there is a dollar sign to it, at the same time we promote cost effective and fow cost housing and affordable ~ • Meridian City Councii March 1, 1994 Page 7 housing. We also want adequate access, schools parks etc. and all of that has a big dollar sign to it. To answer your question directly I do feel it is a substantial change, because the circulation pattern has changed from the representation made to the public which the public had an opportunity to address and 1 think often times the Commission or the Council unfairly is criticized because sometimes there is a change and someone sees something and then when its built, well how come the park wasn't this big or I thought there was supposed to be a berm. Its important that the Zoning Administrator watch for these types of things and this is one there is enough of a change and unfortunately it is a costly one. I apologize for that, I understand the economics here, but there is enough of a change from what the applicant tendered to the City and a preliminary plat is a statement of intention. The intention was to have a through street across Nine Mile Creek and the public looked at that and made comments and the fire district, our staff, etc. And now we have a change, I think in the interest of good response to the public we ought to let them have a chance to comment on this alternative. !t might be perfectly acceptable but I think the public should have the chance to review a revised layout and then take it from there. Morrow: Mr. Mayor on the basis of Mr. Forrey's advice and I have the sense that Mr. Smith is uncomfortable or that this does constitute a major change, I would move that the Englewood Creek Subdivision plat be remanded to P& Z and redrawn as a preliminary plat showing the new configuration of the road and begin the process again. Is that in essence how that would go about? Kingsford: I believe that is correct. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Its been moved and seconded, moved by Walt, second by Max to deny this plat and remand it back to Planning and Zoning for a public hearing, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea Forrey: Thank you Mayor and Council, just for point of clarification. I don't know if this if this is the case, if the applicant chose to re-design this final plat to closely align with the approved preliminary plat, if they agree to do that, would it be your objection to the staff proceeding to get that back on a future Council agenda as a revised or new final plat submittal? Kingsford: Well, that would be the final plat that we already had hearings then I ~ • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 8 suspect a vote would be in order. Forrey: That may be of interest to the applicant. Morrow: I have no objection to that, so moved. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to allow the applicant to come back forward to the City Council on the final plat as was laid out in the original plat, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: VARtANCE REQUEST FOR SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVISION (FORMERLY LANDFALL): Kingsford: Has Council reviewed those findings7 Morrow: t have, 1 only have one suggestion in terms of the findings with respect to description of the approved fencing, "rod iron" should be "wrought iron", that's all. Kingsford: Entertain a motion. Morrow: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with the correction of wrought iron, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea: MOTION CARRIED: All yea Kingsford: Next item on the agenda would be a vote on the variance, entertain a motion. Morrow: So moved • • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 9 Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the variance for Salmon Rapids Subdivision, atl those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea fTEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT FOR KING STREET STATION SUBDIVISiON WtTH A PRELIMINARY PLAT: Kingsford: Has Council reviewed those findings? Ron, do you have any questions or comments? Is there a motion then? Morrow: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for King Street Station, roll call vote. ROLL CAIL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, To{sma - Yea: MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Entertain a motion on the Conditional Use Permit. Yerrington: So moved Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve the Conditional Use Permit for King Street Station, 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: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR KING STREET STATION SUBDIVISION: Kingsford: Any questions or comments? L~ Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 10 ~ Corrie: Mr. Mayor ! witi move the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law be accepted. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Ron to approve the Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law for the variance request on King Street Station, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All yea Kingsford: Entertain a motion on the variance. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I move we approve the variance request. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to approve the variance request of zero lot for King Street Station, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All yea ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REZONE REQUEST FOR SCOTTSDALE ESTATES SUBDIVISION WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT: Kingsford: Any comments on that? Crookston: I have a comment really in regards to the Conditional use in the #indings there were references made that the parking as they have it designed does not meet our ordinance, it says that. Kingsford: Mr. Crookston, can I interrupt you~ are you talking about the item that we just finished? Crookston: Yes, I'm sorry. Our ordinance requires where they have separate lots that the parking be adjacent to the use, the parking as they have it laid out now is a separate parking lot basically on the outer boundaries of the design for the entire area. They need to be aware that its in the findings that there is a reference to • • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 11 that and they have to redesign their architecture. Findings require that the parking be set so that it is adjacent. The problem that comes about is our ordinance says that the parking has to be adjacent to the use and since this is divided into 20 lots then the parking has to be adjacent to the use on that lot. I don't think the applicant is aware of that, that is how the findings read. I think that needs to be brought out by the Council. Kingsford: Is the applicant in the audience? Etg: Yes, Mr. Mayor my name is Van Elg I'm with Briggs Enginee~-ing. Kingsford: Are you clear on what legal counsel just addressed. Elg: Yes, we weren't aware of that. I guess the one thing that I might offer is the uses include a common lot for this entire development that will be owned by each of the residents that own these structures. That common lot being part of this development 1 believe woufd make these parking spaces contiguous with that common lot. Which is part of the use of the development itself. Its not specific it doesn't say it has to be adjacent to the residence it just says it has to be adjacent to the use. This is a planned unit development. Crookston: It hasn't been processed as a planned unit development. Elg: True, its a subdivision plat. Its a townhouse development. Kingsford: Well, based on the findings that have been approved t think you need to get with our Zoning Administrator and possibly with legal counsel and determine that. It might be that you will have to re-design the parking or submit for a variance to that. Are we all on the same ship. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for rezone request for Scottsdale Estates Subdivision, has Council reviewed those findings? Are there any questions? Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I move we accept the Findings of Fact and Conciusions of Law for Scotsdale estates Subdivision. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Ron to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Scottsdale Subdivision, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea ~ • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 12 MOTION CARRIED: Ail Yea . Kingsford: Next item would be to have the ordinance drawn. Corrie: So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to have the Attorney prepare the zoning ordinance, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea 1TEM #6: FfNDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUStONS OF LAW: VARiANCE REQUEST FOR SCOTTSDALE ESTATES SUBDIVISION: Kingsford: Has Council reviewed those findings? ls there a motion? Yerrington: So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to approve the Findings of Fact an Conclusions of Law for a variance request for Scottsdafe Estates Subdivision, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea~ Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: AI{ yea ITEM #7: ORDINANCE #633 - SPORTSMAN POINTE SUBDIVISION #5: Kingsford: Item #7 will have to be tabled tonight, that has an annexation problem. So item #8 will be Ordinance #633 annexing Vateri Heights Subdivision. fTEM #8: ORDINANCE #633 - VALERI HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION: Kingsford: Gary would you like to update the Council on the problem with Sportsman Pointe annexation or Wayne Crookston either one. Crookston: Yes, that particular property was initially requested to be annexed in ~ Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 13 • 1992, the total amount of the property a portion extended south of the Urban Service Ptanning Area Boundary at that time and today we cannot, our ordinance prohibits us from annexing any property that is outside the Urban Service Planning Area. So, there was a hearing at the Planning and Zoning level on the entire property then the fact that we cannot annex the property that is out of the Urban Service Planning Area Boundary was brought to the attention of the applicant, he changed his mind and then asked the City to proceed to annex that part of the property that was within the Urban Service Planning Area. What was proposed to be annexed was now that we have amended the Urban Service Planning Area and enlarged it the applicant wanted that land annexed again but it hadn't gone through the proper procedures because it was tabled. So, that is why we cannot pass an annexation ordinance because it hasn't finished the hearings on it. Kingsford: Mr. Berg, has the applicant been notitied of that? Berg: Yes Kingsford: Okay, next item on the agenda is Ordinance #633. An Ordinance of the City of Meridian annexing and zoning certa+n real property which is described as a portion of the southwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 11, T. 3N, R. 1 W, B.M., Ada County, Idaho and providing for an effective date. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have Ordinance #633 read in its entirety? Entertain a motion. Morrow: So moved Crookston: You need suspension of the rules. Morrow: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve Ordinance #633 with suspension of the rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: AII yea tTEM #9: FtNAL PLAT: SPORTSMAN POINTE #5 SUBDIVISION: ~ ~ Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 14 Kingsford: That is voided too for the same reason as item #7. ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FOR DORADO DEVELOPMENT AND MICHAEL AND CYNTHIA SCISCOE: Kingsford: At this time I'll open the public hearing on that issue and invite the applicant or his designated representative to speak first. Michael Sciscoe, 2210 North Meridian Road, was sworn by the Attorney. Sciscoe: Yes, we were going through the procedure here, but we were on vacation we had Wayne Crookston put together the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law because we are having some questions on what was happening in your procedure. We're new at this, we are not professionals at developing property, but at our initial rezone request we were looking at the property to put it, there was a house residing there already and then to put our business there also. In our search we looked at the property we were residing at now and it happened to be the property next to us to the north being zoned commercial general, we look at the possibility and potential to do it there. Well, before purchasing the property we came to Wayne Forrey and made sure it would at least be possible or relatively possible, not an impossibility. It seemed to be fitting in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan at that time and it still does and we went ahead and purchased the property because it looked fairly positive and willing to take that risk. Well after the first hearing in November we found that the board didn't have any objections of going to Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at that time. Between that and the December meeting Wayne called us and informed us that there was problem with us rezoning it to CG simply because of the density and the potential for the kinds of businesses that could go on there afiter we left if we chose to sell the property at a later date. Wayne and I discussed the potential for making ifi commercial neighborhood or CN. That being able to work for what we planned to do with the layout of our property. We were told at that meeting it was postponed to January to see if the property would work out as CN. At the January meeting Wayne discussed thfs with the board and it was brought forth by Mr. Crookston that he was concerned about residence being on commercial property. If I understood you right Wayne its not legal for residents to live on commercial property. Crookston: That is correct. Sciscoe: That, for a new residence or for an existing residence on the property? Is there a distinction there between he 2 in the law? • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 15 ~ Crookston: You can convert a residence to a use to another use, but the problem was you were going to have a business use in a property that you are not going to be living on. You were still dividing it, you wanted to rezone the entire parcel initially to CG and then to CN but you were going to live in a portion of it that had always been a house and you were still going to use it as a house. So it made sense to leave that as a residential zone. Sciscoe: So, is there a problem with us having that whole property zoned CN and living in that house? Crookston: Our ordinances do not allow living in a commercial zone. Sciscoe: Then may t ask why the people to the north of us are tiving in a residences in a CG zone? Crookston: I can't answer l don't know the circumstances there Mike. Sciscoe: Well that has been confusing to me because they just bought the property a couple of months or so before we did and then they are being allowed to live in a cornmercially zoned area and that is what gave us the assumption that we would be able to do the same thing also. Crookston: t think, are you talking about as what I know as the Ambrose home? Sciscoe: It may have been. Crookston: I believe that was under a Conditional Use. Sciscoe: Wayne, do you know anything as far as the zoning on that? Forrey: Is this the engineering office. 1 don't know the history other than that was Steve Hosac's office at one time. I don't know Mike. Sciscoe: I believe the Bocho plat showed a CG and that is why I was questioning that. Crookston: I have not looked at it Mike so I can't. Sciscoe: Well, we had some other concerns with the facts and findings outside of that. 1 think some of the discrepancies Wayne you guys have already dealt with as far as Dorado's property was not 7.21 to be rezoned LO but just that .54 I • • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 16 believe it was. And we also are having a little bit of a problem wi#h the 30 feet carriagment of the 35 foot landscape setback. The way our property is laid out if we were to rezone it with our home R-8 and the rest of the property CN, Wayne and I were going to go over there this Friday and lay it out and show you where our problem was, is that if we use the area that is left for the business conforming to the setback requirements on the sides and back in this with the 35 foot landscape it wouldn't leave much for a building at all just because of the layout of the property and where the house is located on it. 1 think at this time would like to request that we be able to work on it al little more these details either with Wayne or with Wayne Forrey to get these things resolved in order to make things work for everybody. Kingsford: That is fine, but we need to go ahead with the public hearing. Other people would like to offer testimony and then table it at that point. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Raleigh Hawe, 530 Blue Heron Lane, was sworn by the Attorney. Hawe: One of the questions that I have on this particular piece of property is that its an entrance price of property which there is going to be a collector street or there is a proposed collector on the James Court lane. Now whether or not that will remain James Court as it would connect tot he Willow Oak lane I believe that goes on he east side of my property, I don't know. In any event throughout the hearings we have and regarding this property and other pieces of property adjacent to this there is going to be a collector in an east-west direction coming off of Meridian road. It is my understanding that Meridian road for some time is to be a 5 lane arterial I guess. That is the only question that I had on that. At this time that curve that is in there that is something less than 60 feet that is coming off of that Meridian Road entrance right now. I suspect its someplace around 30 or 40 feet, but I don't know. Kingsford: Thank you Raleigh, anyone else from the public? (End of Tape) Sciscoe: I only had one other concern and that was I didn't know about this meeting until Wayne Forrey gave me a call at home until 6:00 this evening. And 1 know Bob Angell of Dorado Development would have liked to know too. So, I'm not sure where the communication breakdown was. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Sesing none I will close the public • • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 17 hearing. Entertain a motion to table. Morrow: So moved Yerrington: Do we need a date certain of 2 weeks? Kingsford: We need to deal with at least 2 weeks. Morrow: It would appear to me that really this is a candidate that probably may end up back at P& Z because we are dealing with several different issues here which would make it substantially different then the proposal that is before us. And so it seems to me that 2 weeks is not an adequate time to table maybe 30 days or until our first meeting in April. Kingsford: Well, I think certainly in 2 weeks they're going to know what direction they are going to need to head. 1 think that staff needs to give them advice as to where they are headed with it and I would think that 2 weeks ought to be ample for that. Morrow: In 2 weeks what they'll do is they will request either to bring it up off the table or start from scratch. So moved to table for 2 weeks. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to table this for 2 weeks until the next regular scheduled meeting 2 weeks, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ELK RUN SUBDIVISION #2 BY THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP AND JUB ENGINEERS: Kingsford: At this time I'll open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his designee to speak first. Gary Lee, JUB Engineers, 1750 Summertree, Meridian, was sworn by the Attorney. Lee: The application before you this evening is for an annexation and zoning and preliminary plat for Elk Run Subdivision #2. The first phase of Elk Run was • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 18 • completed last summer. The homes are under construction at this time and we wish to continue the development to the south of phase 1. The number 2 portion will consist of about 16 acres, it will be a single family residentiat development as was Elk Run #1. The property is bounded by Highway 69 along the east side Kennedy Lateral along the south and west boundaries and Calderwood Street along the north. Which is also adjacent to Elk Run #1. The proposed rezone is for a small portion of R-8 which amounts to about .7 of an acre which lies just north of Calderwood Street and is situated between Calderwood and the present Elk Run #1 Subdivision. There are 2 additional lots in there that when Elk Run #1 was initially plated the land wasn't available so we are now including that with this phase 2. The remainder of the property about 15.5 acres will be rezoned R-4. The net effect will be 42 additional single family units and that results in a density of about 2.6 per acre. There will be 2 common lots along Highway 69 for a buffer between the Highway and the subdivision. There will be a landscaped berm that will be held in common by the Homeowners association and they will operate and maintain that common berm. Sewer and water facilities are available through the Elk Run #1 development that will be extended to and through this development and will allow for future expansion of the sewer facilities to the south. Of course all facilities will be underground utitities for the entire development, all public streets, Calderwood will be designated as a collector street as required by ACHD. It will ultimately connect with a street that will run to the east and find its way into he Meridian Greens development as well. I guess it is slated to go onto the west past this development for future highway transportation needs. As in phase 1 the developer is also the home builder in this project. He'll be offering fully landscaped yards with their units, all lots will be totally fenced. There will be a homeowners association as I mentioned previously to maintain the open space. I believe that is the conclusion of my presentation, if you have any questions I'd be glad to answer them. Tolsma: On this ACHD recommendation, about the road going South Covey Avenue, going across the canal to the south. Lee: That has been taken care of and we revised the original preliminary plat that was submitted to P& Z and at that public hearing it was presented as an extension to the southwest boundary it will cross Kennedy and provide access. Tolsma: The plat map I have doesn't show that, but this new one does. Lee: The one that was revised, and this right before the public hearing. That was the first one that was sent out. At the end of December we revised that based on ACHD comments. ~ Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 19 Tolsma: The one with the stub street is now the plat. ^ Kingsford: Any questions for Mr. Lee? Thank you, is there anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Seeing none I will close the pubfic hearing, Council members. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I have a question I guess for Gary Smith. There was 2 items on your January 8, 1994 annexation, zoning and preliminary plat memorandum. One was what is the piping status of the Kennedy Lateral, I understand that will be done, it will be piped. Okay, and how about #11, it says a policy decision question exists concerning extension of a City Water tine along east side of Highway 69 this needs to be addressed by City Council, I don't understand what was that? Smith: Councilman Corrie, we continue to have a question come before my office as to extension of sewer an water lines and public right of ways that are adjacent to subdivision especially on section line roads or collector roads that don't have access to sewer and water lines. And it really becomes a prominent issue on property that is on a corner of a section line road. In the past I have requested, recommended that the develaper extend the sewer and water lines adjacent to thief property. So that as street improvements are made the utilities are there and subsequent developers can then pick them up in a more or less orderly fashion and hook on, But it continues to be a very hot item for discussion and it doesn't seem to matter which developer t'm talking to its always the same argument, I'm to getting any benefit out of this why should I put this line in the street? They bring the line down to their entrance to their subdivision and that is really as far as they feel they are obligated #o extend the line, but our policy has been to extend into and through the development and again even though this roadway is adjacent to the development 1 guess I need some direction as to whether this is to and through the development or if its to the development and into the development and then to its interior streets extended to its boundary. So that the adjacent property owners can pick them up, I'm getting a little bit frustrated hearing the same argument and I continue to give everyone the same answer so that I'm trying to treat everyone the same. But its a real sore spot and I brought it up on this one because its, and its come up several times since then. In fact it comes up every time we have a corner property or a property that develops adjacent to a section line road. Kingsford: Isn't that our ordinance Gary? My recollection of the ordinance is that it is to and through. Smith: Yes, well, I believe that is correct Mr. Mayor, but the argument is this • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 20 roadway part of the subdivision. ~~ U Morrow: You are talking about the section line roadway? For example in this case or for the sake of argument would they not put curb and gutter and sidewalk and those things? Smith: Not on this particular one. Morrow: No, but 1 mean on, you are asking for a policy on a normaf situation their entrance might be at point A and point B is at the end of their property so they are required to put in the curb gutter and sewer I mean curb gutter and landscaping down to point B and assuming that there is another parcel of property adjacent to that, that person would come back and tear up part of those improvements to extend the sewer and water lines to his property? Smith: lts a possibility~ Councilman Morrow, but in this particular case the water lines across the street on the other side of a highway, it happen quite often because water an sewer are on opposite sides of the road that its not even involved in the roadway work because the devetopment is only working on their side or their half of the road if they are indeed improving the roadway. A lot of these section line roads, the developers are not being required to install any improvements other than maybe a sidewalk and the highway district then comes back with their impact fees for expansion purposes and builds the curb and gutter. But, it still in a 1ot of cases the line that would say front their property witl be on the other side of the street. Morrow: And so what we are requiring them to move that on the other side of the street down to a line that is equal to their property, is that wha# we want? Smith: We leave the water line on the side of the street where it belongs, but I guess the question is when the next developer comes to and wants to develop on the south side of Elk Run #2, where does he go to get the water? Well he has to go up to where the entrance is into Elk Run #2 which is I don't know what the dimension is so many feet north of their south boundary. So, what is our policy going to be, do we stop the water at their entrance and let the next gut come and get it or do we extend it down to where the next guys property will be? Morrow: I think it ought to be the next guys property. Smith: That is my question. ~~ Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 21 Corrie: That is what you want us to telf you. • Smith: I don't know specifically what the ordinance says Mr. Mayor, I do know our policy has always been that we extend these lines through the subdivision so the adjacent property owner when or if they develop has that utility available and they can hook onto it, but these section line roads have just been a problem all the way. Some developers don't have as much of a problem as others but generally it depends on the size of the development because if you are talking a section line road you are talking about a 12 inch diameter water line. There are quite a few dollars involved there of which they don't see any immediate benefit. Even though they do have the availability of a late comers agreement but they can recover some costs that is always a question mark because you don't know how long its going to take, how much they are going to get back. So there are some uncertainties there. And I don't know whether I really expect an answer from you tonight but 1 did want to bring it up as an item. I think it needs to be resolved somehow and it will need to be resolved for this particular development and I have several more developers that are beating on my desk about this same requirement. Corrie: Mr. Mayor can we resolve that since its part of this, how do we do that, can we do it afterwards, or in between I'll leave that up to your expertise. Kingsford: Well, its been our policy and I think we've been consistent on that at least the areas that I'm aware of that it be extended through. Being on the opposite side of the street hasn't had any bearing at least to my knowledge to date. So to be consistent I think we need to stay with that. I think its probably too bad that the City isn't flushed to extend that ourselves and be the recipient of latecomers fee back I think that remove some of the hassle, but we are not flush. Morrow: I think the counselor indicated that the ordinance states to and through and using that as a guideline ! don't think there is any debate on the issue. That is just the way it is. Kingsford: To and through when you are on the opposite side of the street still constitutes a problem but I think that our policy has been that and it remains consistent. I guess maybe a vote of affirmation for our policy to date is regardless of which side of the street's on is in order. Morrow: So moved Tolsma: Second ~ ~ Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 22 Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to continue the policy of extending water lines and sewer to and through regardless of the side of the street, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea Kingsford: Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this subject? Seeing none I will close the public hearing, Council members. Tolsma: (Inaudible~ You wrote here, have they made any attempts on the School District's side or is this part of the development agreement? Forrey: At this point it would have to be a part of that development agreement. As of 2 weeks ago the School District was still negotiating with Marty Goldsmith in that Section 19 and nothing has happened yet. I think that in time it will be solved because there is a lot of development in that section that +s going to be held up so something will happen. At this point we don't have a letter from the School district stating that they have solved the problem enough to accept these new students. And this, the sewer drainage boundary is such that the School District, the school site that is in Section 19 the chi{dren on the other side on the west side of Elk Run would be going to a different grade school do this is at the very west edge of that elementary school boundary which would be 3/4 of mile to the east in the middle perhaps just south of Meridian Greens or in there by the Gotdsmith property. So it is on the outer fringe of that or the service area of that school. Kingsford: Thank you, any other questions? Walt Morrow: Mr. Mayor, on page 13 in the findings of facts I think that I'd like to see and to show this off tot he Council, it says at a value and then it says 85,000 as represented in the application of subdivision approval, I think I'd like to see the words not less than if its the Council's wish. So that is clear to anybody who reads the document that our intent is that those homes be not less than 85,000 in value as per the presentation. Kingsford: Well that is the next issue, counselor if there has been no appreciable change in the testimony its the Council's desire to accept the findings with that amendment if that would be appropriate, would you like to make that motion? Morrow: Yes . Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 23 Yerrington: Second ~ Kingsford: Moved by Walt second by Max to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as prepared for P& Z to change on page 13 item 15 to say the value of not less than 585,000 as represented in the application of subdivision approval, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Next item then would be to direct the counselor to prepare and ordinance for annexation and zoning. Yerrington: So moved Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to have the City Attorney prepare an ordinance of annexation and zoning, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARlNG: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SPORTSMAN POINTE SUBDIVISION #4 BY THE WESTPARK COMPANY AND J.J. HOWARD ENGINEERS: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Greg Johnson, 2433 Canada Road, Melba, was sworn by the Attorney. Johnson: This request is for a 13.26 acres. it is annexing for a 36 residential single family lots which is a density of 2.1 per acre. It is bounded on the north side by Overland road on the east its bounded by South Locust Grove and on the west and south its bounded by the Nine Mile Drain. In the conclusions of law item #13, on page 11, it addresses ditches, canals and waterways and then at the end of that paragraph it says however the Nine Mile Drain must meet the Ada County Pathway design. I have a question, am I being asked to provide a bikepath along the Nine Mile Drain? • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 24 ! Kingsford: I believe that is correct, Mr. Forrey is that your view? Forrey: Mr. Mayor members of the Council, Greg, in our Comprehensive Plan the Nine Mile Drain is not designated by the City as a pathway, but in the Ada County Pathway plan it is. And so because it stated in the findings that it compiy with the Ada County Pathway plan and because our Comprehensive Plan endorses that plan indirectly yes it would be a pathway development. Johnson: I have met with the Nampa Meridian Irrigation trying to make the Nine Mile Drain into a water amenity with a walk path along it. I am meeting with no success. they have informed me that their easements and their right of way will not be improved and that they will maintain them as they have in the past. They are considering allowing me to put the requested access path from this phase to the phase just to the south of it into the park that we are building so that these people will have access to that park and I think I will get that although their negative on it now I think there are some things I can do to appease them on that by providing better cleaning access for them, but they have not promised even that. I'm struggling I need some help from the City to help work through it with them or we're not going to be able to get any type of an improvement in there. I hate to see it left as a weed patch between lots that is what I would like to no# have. We were proposing to grade it and maintain it in the association, maintain the whole thing #or them, but I'm really not getting any results out of them. t would just like some direction. tf we can have some joint meetings with staff, maybe we`II win 1 don't know. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, question here Wayne, with respect to this. Now the Ada County Pathway design is designed by who, who came up with it that this should be a pathway on Nine Mile Creek? Fo~rey: It is listed in the Ada Planning Association list of potential pathways in the County and it listed Nine Mile Creek. Morrow: But they have not ever talked with Nampa Meridian to get any input from Nampa Meridian. If Greg is experiencing nothing but trouble from Nampa Meridian, maybe Nampa Meridian doesn't know that. Forrey: They do and Greg is exactly right the City had the same difficulty, in fact during the Comprehensive Plan and said here is the waterways and here is our community desires for pathways they said well we witl give you Ten Mile, we'll give you ~ive Mile Creek, the south slough, Jackson Stub Drain but don't touch anything else. They kind of reluctantly said this is what we will let you put a • • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 25 pathway on. Ada County's pathway plan is the same thing, they have designated pathways and the irrigation district has said well we'll see. So, I can see that the developers here is caught in the cross fire between a stated community desire and a operational philosophy of an irrigation district that is not oriented to multiple use. They still view that as a agricultural amenity and not a multiple use amenity as we do. Morrow: Okay, and the thing of it is it's basically their property ad they're the ones in the driver seat there. Forrey: To further complicate this, the Bureau of Reclamation, which has some responsibility in this, has instructed the City to go ahead and include the pathway designation on Nine Mile Creek. So, there is even more convulsion. I think Greg is right, it needs some focus from staff, the irrigation district and possibly from he Mayor too then to help clear the way for what we ultimately, and that is good development which would include a pathway. Corrie; Wayne, does the Bureau of Reclamation have power over the Nampa Meridian Irrigation district? Forrey: I believe they do, and there is an agreement between the 2 and 1 don't know if it is maintenance only or what. Yes, I think they should be party to this discussion. Johnson: I would like to work through that further if we are not able to reach the agreements with the Nampa Meridian Irrigation or the Bureau of Reclamation I want to be able to work out something so that it doesn't prohibit us from developing this parcel. Kingsford: Well, this is a preliminary stage so certainly. Johnson: The other item that I would like to discuss is item 15 o page 12, we have requested a minimum house size of 1500 square feet and I had made the comment that these houses should range between 5120,000 and 5165,000, rather than put that in there as a further regulation I would like to simply regulate it as we have in the past in Sportsman Pointe Subdivision as 1500 square foot minimum living area. The reason being that the 1500 square feet is very clear and its easy to enforce, with values ftuctuating up and down that is a very hard thing to regulate within the CC&R's. Kingsford: Do they really fluctuate up and down? ~ ~ Meridian City Councii March 1, 1994 Page 26 i Johnson: They have before, right now they have been going up, but they could go down. That is all I had. Morrow: 1 have a question, on Gary Smith's comment under #6, he says, " what significance does the ditch show on paralleling the east and north side of Nine Mile Creek have, what wil) its status be?" Can you enlighten us with respect to that? Johnson: The ditch on Nine Mile Creek, I believe you are referring to the irrigation ditch. That only supplies this parcel and will be eliminated with this development. Morrow: Okay, under Wayne Forrey's comment on the following page, he is talking about the property that is being left out on the corner of Locust Grove and Overtand, he is making you aware that it is not commercial property that it is residential and can only be accessed through your subdivision. Johnson: I am not the owner of that parcel, we purchased this parcel ground from that person, they have remained in ownership and are aware of that comment. Morrow: Is there going to be provision made? Johnson: They currently access off of Locust Grove road and plan to continue to do that. Morrow: Wayne, my question here would be is that at some point in the future when this property is obviously developed and given the fact that is it bordered by 2 section line roads and there are minimum setbacks from the intersection from egress and egress on those types of intersections does this piece of property have access to either Overland or South Locust Grove Road at that point in time? Forrey: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Morrow, I think it will always definitely have frontage, the question then is future ACHD policy and trying to look into crystal balls is tough, but we know this Locust Grove is going to someday have an overpass to link the community ov~r interstate 84. We know that Overland is going to be a 5 lane facility at some point reasonabfy soon. At some point in the future Locust Grove south of the tnterstate through this area will probably be a 3 lane or 4 lane facility maybe in the moderate terms. So, maybe if you factor all of that in and you've got a little island like this between a subdivision and a major intersection I think good planning would say let's get some alternate access and here is a chance we could do that. It would be wonderful if Greg owned the property and incorporated it into his project if he doesn't we are at a bit of an impasse. At some poin# in the future a City Council in Meridian wifl be debating a ~ Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 27 n U project on this intersection and it will be a tough piece to develop given all of the traffic and the physical constraints with it. It would just be nice to have a back door to get out, that is what stimulated that comment. Morrow: I can be sensitive to that given our last meeting where the gentleman testified with respect to the ingress egress problems in the Crestwood area. I guess what I'm driving here at is that we don't get into that same situation. Kingsford: Any other questions? Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Seeing none I will close the public hearing, Council members. I would assume there is nothing appreciably changed there with the exception to the amendments that he has requested. Crookston: That is correct. Kingsford: Two issues stand on the findings that P& Z prepared. Tolsma: (tnaudible) Kingsford: Is it the Council's desire to make amendments to the P& Z findings? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I'm not exactly sure, I don't have a problem with the 1500 feet or S 120,000 those things do equal pretty close together in today's market. And I'm not exactly sure how you structure that sensitive to the Nine Mile Drain and Nampa Meridian and I think that we should do something about that but I yield to the Counselor in what form that we ought to get that amendment together so that it states what we are after. Kingsford: Should it be in appropriate Counselor, to say something along the lines given an agreement ean be reached with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and Bureau of Reclamation? Crookston: That would be fine. Kingsford: Is there a motion? Morrow: So moved with that wording. Corrie: Ques#ion Mr. Mayor, now I Kingsford: We are out of order here, is there a second? . Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 28 Yerrington: Second ~ Corrie: Are we striking the 5120,000 or are we going to leave that in? Kingsford: I believe I heard Mr. Morrow say that he didn't have a problem with striking that. Morrow: That is correct. Kingsford: The motion then is to amend the findings and conclusions of P& Z to allow for Nine Mile Drain to be a pedestrian path so long as an agreement can be reached with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and the Bureau of Reclamation and to strike the S 120,000 - S 165,000 and have that be 1500 square feet minimum, rotl cali vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All yea Kingsford: Preliminary plat, is there a motion on the prefiminary plat~ Yerrington: So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to approve the preliminary plat for Sportsman Pointe No. 4, all those in favor? opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TUTHILL SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY THE DICK CON CORPORATION AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING: Kingsford: At this time I'll open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Brian Smith, 1280 South Ashley, was sworn by the Attorney. Smith: The application before you is for Tuthill Estates No. 2, its a 14.4 acre with 49 total lots, 48 of which are buildable lots which gives you a density of 3.3 • • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 29 dwellings per acre. Minimum lot size is in conformance with the R-4 zoning which is what we requested for this that lot size will be 8,000 square feet. The minimum building size will be 1,400 square feet. The utility services for this subdivision will come from the north through Parkwood Meadows which will include sewer and water, the sewer will be extended through the subdivision to serve Kentfield Manor to the south. Access to the subdivision for vehicular traffic will be to the west to North Ten Mile Road to Tuthill Estates No. 1 to the north through Parkwood Meadows also ties into Ten Mile Road. There will also be a pedestrian access that heads south through which we are extending the sewer. This pedestrian access will connect Kentfield Manor and provide for additional means for children access to the schools. Nine Mile Creek flows atong the eastern boundary of this subdivision and as with the previous applicant we are also in the process of working with both Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and the Bureau of Reclamation to resolve this pathway issue. I'd like to say we also ran into similar responses and difficulties if you will. We have reviewed the comments by the City Engineer and we wilt comply with all of them and agree to all of them. We also reviewed the comments from Wayne Forrey and would like to address I guess in relation to those comments on page 6 of the Findings of Fact. There is a statement of condition of approval of the preliminary plat should be a re-design to include an access street and a bridge to the east over Nine Mile Drain to link various existing subdivisions together. I discussed this with Wayne prior to the Planning and Zoning meeting January 11 th, and I believe if I came from the meeting correctly that we had decided that the access to the south would be sufficient for the children. I would like to discuss that or have that amended as part of the findings of facts. Getting back to the pathway design, it seems that there is an issue as to the ownership of that easement between Nampa Meridian and the Bureau of Reclamation. I believe they think its federally owned and might be correct in that assumption, but I really don't know its outside my area. We too would ask that possibly the findings of fact be amended to say something similar to the verbiage of the previous applicant. We are wiling to work with the City and Nampa Meridian and the Bureau of Reclamation to provide this. Two problems that have come up, the first one I have already mentioned with the ownership of the land and the way Nampa Meridian to give up part of their easement for a pathway. The second of which is the existing subdivision of Parkwood Meadows to the north that also borders Nine Mile Drain, there is no such pathway and we are a little bit wary of providing a path that begins in the middle of nowhere and ends in the middle of nowhere to the south, but as I said we are willing to work with City and the other agencies to resolve this issue and ensure that this subdivision is a nice subdivision for people to live in. With that if there are any questions I will field them at this time. . • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 30 Kingsford: Any questions for Mr. Smith? Thank you Brian, is there anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Seeing no one I will close the public hearing, Council members. Morrow: A question of Gary Smith, Gary a11 your recommendations they have agreed to all of yours, are you comfortable with that? Eng. Smith: Yes, 1 guess the only question that I had on my comments, was I asked the status of the ditch shown on this portion of the south boundary. Typically the (inaudible) sheets the preliminary plat show the ditches but they aren't always labeled as to what the status is whether they will be continued, whether they will be continued, whether it is a local ditch to be abandoned or what it is. So, I just asked those questions. Morrow: And Mr. Smith did not address that to your satisfaction? Eng. Smith: t didn't hear and answer. Smith: We haven't addressed that with him yet, but I believe if it the one I'm thinking of it is a waste ditch for the field to the south of us which is being turned into a subdivision. Is that the one you were thinking about? Eng. Smith: I think it probably is. Smith: It runs along the southern boundary of Tuthill NO. 1 and that is a waste ditch for irrigating the field so it will be abandoned. Eng. Smith: Well, if its irrigating the fields to the south presently or is that under development. Smith: Presently its under development, I don't know if it sunder construction right now, but there are plans, that is KentField Manor. Morrow: I have a quesfiion of Wayne Forrey, in terms of Mr. Smith's comments on the bridge over Nine Mile and linking, can you enlighten us? Forrey: Yes, Mr. Mayor and Councilman Morrow, I did meet with Brian Smith and we looked, we got out preliminary plats of everything around there and there is a linkage for automobiles in that area. The main concern of myself and the School District has been pedestrian linkage and in the findings of fact and also in my comments it talks about linking to meet the School District's needs and • • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 31 requirements and as long as the sewer !ot #9 8 which is that access to the south. As long as we can have pedestrian use on that, I think that is what Brian and I spoke about at our meeting the other evening then that satisfies the concern and so we would not need the bridge. That was the School District need to get school children south or to the east. The second thing, the Bureau of Reclamation did provide a letter to the City indicating to use the Nine Mile Drain as a pathway they also hinted that in the future they may provide funding for acquisition on these pieces that we have fos#. So, Brian's comment about a pathway in the middle not going anywhere, that is a valid comment Brian but in the future we might see a program like the IST where we can go back and acquire and re-develop and that type of thing. So, ultimately it might connect into something. So, I would encourage us to hold tight on that pathway and get every bit we can. Morrow: That property you are talking about in terms of purchasing is now owned by Nampa Meridian? Forrey: Presumably yes Morrow: But that property has not been incorporated into subdivisions on the north or south side? Forrey: That is correct tEnd of Tape) Kingsford: Mr. Morrow Kingsford: I would move that we accept the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with the additional verbiage pertaining to item 13, page 11 with respect to the Nine Mile Drain must meet the Ada County Pathway design, subject to a workable agreement with Nampa Meridian, our staff and the Bureau of Reclamation. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with the amendment on item 13, page 11 to come to the agreement or to try to reach an agreement with Nampa Meridian and Bureau of Reclamation on Nine Mile Drainage, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea ~ ~ Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 32 MOTION CARRiED: All yea Kingsford: Next item is to ask the Counselor to prepare appropriate ordinance. Yerrington: So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to have the City Attorney prepare a zoning and annexation ordinance for Tuthill Subdivision, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, could we take a small break before we tackle the next item? Kingsford: Some of these guys have a limited capacity. (FIVE MINUTE RECESS) Kingsford: Call the meeting back to order. ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOCUST GROVE CENTER BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Kingsford: At this time I will ask the owner or his representative to come forward and begin. Kathleen Weber, 600 North Maple Grove Road, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Weber: Mayor Kingsford, Council Members and Ms. Stiles, I am Katleen Weber, a general partner of Avest and CEO of Stor-It rental storage units of Boise. Thank you for this opportunity to give some background information about AVest, Stor-It rental storage and our communications with neighbors in regard to the application before you tonight. Assisting me in showing you plats tonight is Stor-It's construction property manager, Scott Weber. After I comment, Mr. Allen will go over your presentation packets and the corresponding supplement packet. Also, after my remarks and those of Mr. Allen I would like to have you meet Mr. Larry Durkin and joint venture partner in shopping center developments. He is here • ~ Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 33 tonight to make a few comments. Also, Mr. Bill Slight of BRS Architects is here tonight if you have any technical questions you would like to ask. The approval process began on this 40 acre parcel at the northeast corner of Locust Grove and Fairview ~4venue in Meridian approximately a year and a half ago. We are glad to be here tonight presenting our project. What we have before you tonight are 2 applications. O~e application is fo~ annexation and a CG zoning for this entire property. The second application is a request for a conditional use permit for a rental storage complex on a portion of the property. We are bringing both these applications at the same time so we can hopefully begin storage construction this spring. We fully understand that the conditional use permit for storage is contingent upon the annexation and zoning application approval. We have some pictures of the South Shore Development in southeast Boise and recent Stor-It developments in which Avest partners are involved. As background information for our conditional use permit for storage I have some detailed plats for landscaping, elevation, loop road incorporation, bike paths, entry design on Fairview and buffering concepts that were discussed with neighbors. I'll read in nine comments concerning communication with neighbors around the project. We have been doing projects in the valley for over 32 years. The most recently compteted project is the Southshore Shopping Center in southeast Boise. Even though it was zoned and approved long before the surrounding neighborhoods developed in this area, it was re-designed after neighborhood meetings to conform the neighbors needs and expectations. The Locust Grove property wilt be developed in the same manner. Southshore is a true asset to the neighborhood it serves. It is a 200,000 square foot foot shopping center on approximately 18 acres with Kmart and Albertsons anchors and is a joint venture with some of the same people that are participating in this project. Mr. Larry Durkin of Dakota Development and the majority owner of Southshore Partners, Mr. Roger Allen. You have been provided a copy of the resume for Mr. Allen and a resume of Mr. Durkin's company, Dakota Development. Dakota Development's projects inciuding 59 Shopko stores, 2 Kmars, and 23 other shopping center developments around the country. Also included in our supplement is a letter from the Mayor of Boise, Mayor Coles, coneerning the spirit of cooperation with which the Southshore shopping center was developed and his opinion of its benefit to the City of Boise. May I read this short letter into the records? The letter is addressed to Larry Durkin of Dakota development. Dear Larry, I wanted to congratulate you on a project well done with the Southshore Development on Parkcenter boulevard. This is one of those projects where the neighborhood had developed around the commercial zoning and from the time you stepped into the development of the project there had been a lot of controversy surrounding the idea of a 200,OOQ square foot shopping center being constructed at that location. However, because of your ability to work with the neighbors and provide solutions to their needs we ! ~' Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 34 now have a very nice shopping center providing services to a growing neighborhood area of our community. I want to thank you for your integrity in developing this project and following through with everything you said you would do at the neighborhood meetings. Accordingly I would be happy to be a reference for you in any other part of the country where you are developing. As I recognize you have projects with national tenants throughout the country. Very truly yours H. Brent Coles. Mayor of Boise. Avest have been in the storage business in the Boise valley fo~ 20 years. I have been with the company the last 10 years. During that time Stor-It has grown from a 900 unit 2 location business to 4200 units and 4 locations. These are pictures of our State Street location and our newest annex to our Maple Grove location. Space for living and working is a highly valued commodity. Today people and business need rental storage to utilize their space more effectively. We provide space to the neighborhoods and community - a convenient place to store extra items such as snowmobiles, boats, motorcycfes, and out-of-season toys that might otherwise be stored in yards, already too full garages, or on City streets. We provide temporary and permanent small business inventory space. Avest owns, supervises construction phases, and operates all of our own facilities. We do not build and sell we are here to to be a part of the Meridian community and witl be sensitive to the concerns of ou~ neighbors. The front elevation shows our typical front fencing of vinyl coated black fencing with brick sandstone piltars, landscaped groupings of low shrubs, evergreens, grass and deciduous trees. You will note from the side elevation and this would apply to the back of the complex and the plan view that the perimeter is a single sided, landscaped, low profile buildings. All access doors, lighting and traffic are on the interior of the project. Because of our storage design, Stor-tt's neighbors on State Streefi have told us that storage make a good neighbor. And I want to show you why neighbors in Mirage Meadows have also decided that they would like storage as a neighbor. The bottom 3 pictures on the neighborhood picture chart show the backyards and views of some of the Mirage Meadows neighbors. This chart shows what kind of privacy the neighbors would have is storage were built on the site instead of housing. We have 2 letters of support from residents in Mirage Meadows who would be directly impacted by our storage facility stating that they are in support of our development. They believe that this project will screen out much of the traffic noise generated on Fairview and provide maximum privacy for their backyards. We believe that, too! Stor-tt doesn't have dogs, children, lights, or any other neighborly competition for visual, auditory or actual space. What Avest heard form the neighbors adjacent to our land, and what we will be most sensitive to, is that the neighbors want to retain their privacy from people, businesses, traffic, potlution, and noise. Both the storage complex and proposed retirement center on the northeast corner of the property, would serve this buffering purpose. Since our meetings with ACHD they have ~ Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 35 ~ requested a loop road be incorporated into the project. This next plat shows that detail. This loop road will provide internal flow within the project without putting any further demands on Locust Grove or Fairview. This blue line is a proposed bike pedestrian pathway for the surrounding neighborhood access and emergency accesses that ACHD has recommended. ACHD has also agreed to the closure of Applewood making it a 20' paved, bike, walking, and emergency vehicle pathway. Kingsford: Kathleen, can I interrupt? Looking now at Locust Grove I see some additional, those are curb cuts right? Weber: Yes they are, and those are in compliance with the curb cuts that ACHD specified in there letter. Kingsford: I thought there was the illusion there might only be one, and I wanted to make that clear. Weber: The curb cuts along Locust Grove those are in the very preliminary stage, those will come into effect when we come for the conditional for that area. This also shows the storage entry located 250' back from Fairview. This shows the access to the stoarges off the toop road and as a shared access with the Shoshoni Building. The plat you are looking at right now has had some revisions based on meetings with Shoshoni owners and they are agreeable to this new plat that Billy Ray Strite has drawn that I woufd like to submit here tonight. Its' kind of an incorporation of our meetings with the Shoshoni owners knowing what ACHD was expecting for that entrance off of Fairview into our project and we incorporated all of that. Finally, I'd like to call your attention to a detail landscape design for the entrance to the storage facility. As we discussed earlier this landscaping design continues around the perimeter of the complex. It includes grass, deciduous trees such as sweet gum, golden locust, evergreens such as spruce, and pine, shrubs such as juniper, flowering quince and flowering plum. That's all the plats I have at this time. Thank you Scott. Avest has actively communicated with and listened to as many residents in the Locust Grove Fairview Avenue as possible over the past few months. I will give you nine brief summary comments they have made regarding this project. We have had numerous meetings with the neighbors and made concerted efforts to address their concerns and reach compromises that benefit both of us. Comment #1: The city received 15 letters prior to our neighborhood meetings. Eleven of those people who wrote but did not attend our neighborhood meetings, were sent follow up information from us. These letters are in your City files. Comment #2: Two neighborhood meetings were held December 27th and December 28th. We sent out 130 invitations to these • Meridian City Gouncil March 1, 1994 Page 36 i mee~ings with response envelopes. From this mailing we received 2 return letters. These neighbors received further information from us. The first ne+ghborhood meeting held December 27th discussed concerns of the Mirage Meadows neighbors, 21 attended representing 13 residences. On Tuesday December 28 the focus was on the Locust Grove ne+ghbors concerns. Mr. Larry Sate from ACHD attended this meeting to make us aware of ACHD's plans for Locust Grove. Mr. Sale answered questions and told neighbors that our project is not driving the expansion of Locust Grove. Locust Grove is ptanned as a 5 lane minor arterial by 1997 or 1998 regardless of development of Avest's 40 acre parcel. 19 attended this meeting representing 11 residences. Please note that this was combined total for both meetings of 19 different residences and we have incorporated many of their ideas and suggestions into our final plans. Comment #3: Mirage neighbors on Oakcrest who were unable to attend either of the earlier neighborhood meetings were personally visited at their homes. As a resutt, another 13 neighbors were shown maps and received explanations of what the neighborhood meetings were about and were given an opportunity to share their ideas for buffering uses along their praperty lines. These neighbors were informed that notes from the neighborhood meetings were on file at City Hall for them to review if they wished. Comment #4: Letters were recently sent to the Mirage subdivision owners modifying our original proposal to reflect their additional requests and asking if they felt a need for more information or another neighborhood meeting with those that are directly affected by our storage development. Two have responded to this mailing, Mr. Rama and Mr. Miller, both were in favor of storage. Comment #5: Ms. Karen Blayney of Mirage Meadows subdivision expressed some personal concerns specific to her residential lot. After a lengthy phone conversation, she was sent a landscape plan and letter to confirm our intentions to deal directly with those issues that specitically concerned her. WE asked for comments regarding the plan. Comment #6: On February 22nd another meeting specifically with the neighbors on Locust Grove adjacent to the project was held. Six people attended, Mr. and Mrs. Moore, Mr. and Mrs. Clouss, and Mr. and Mrs. Mansayon. Mr. Allen will summarize this meeting and discuss how we have addressed their concerns in our planning. Mr. Botkin of Locust Grove phoned and stated that he has no specific concerns and would no be able to attend this meeting. So we have actual communication with 4 out of 7 neighbors. Comment #7: On february 24th Avest representatives me with Mr. Don Bryan on his property to look over his water situation and note his concerns. He asked that we be sure his water ditch is clear and we have afready taken steps to do this. Comment #8: Avest has met with he architect for the Shoshoni building owners. This commercial buitding is on the eastern boundary of the property. Billy Ray Strite, of BRS Architects designed this entry and is here tonight. He can answer any questions you may have regarding this shared access. This current plan meets the requirements of ACHD s Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 37 u as weil as Stor-It an the Shoshoni owners. From all these meetings we feel confident that we reached preliminary agreements with the Mirage neighbors, Ms. Blayney, Locust Grove residents, Mr. Bryan and the Shoshoni owners. We will continue this process as our project proceeds. Finally, Comment #9: The supplement to the presentation packet also contains some important correspondence from adjacent land owners in support of our project. There is a letter from Mr. Jon Barnes, President of Properties West, Inc., and I believe current Rresident of the Homebuilders Association for the valley, expressing his support of the applications before you tonight. Also, there are letters from 3 land owners in the Chateau Meadows subdivision of Meridian, expressmg their first-hand knowledge of Stor-It's Methods of operation in the Boise community over the past years. I present these as letters of recommendation. In summary, I would like to say that Avest wants to be an active member of this community and neighborhood, we want to be a good neighbor not just to those families who directly touch our property, but to those people who are less directly affected, too. Mr .Allen, Mr. Durkin and I have made an effort to be available and to listen to everyone who has wanted to express an opinion or gather more information about the proposed project. Even those who have come from a number of blocks away. We want the entire to develop in a pleasing, upscale manner. We feel that our project, on the fringe of this newly developing Meridian neighborhood will both serve as a gathering place and a convenience to this neighborhood. Thank you for this opportunity to present this background information, I would like to now turn over the discussion to Mr. Allen and defer an questions you might have to him. Kingsford: Can I ask if possible w limit remarks so that everyone has opportunity to speak. Roger Allen, 6904 Randolph Drive, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Allen: I'm Roger Allen, general partner of Avest Limited Partnership the applicant here tonight. Four points that I wish to cover, 2 of those points I hope that you have in packets that have previously been presented to you. One of them addresses the annexation and ioning and conditional use permit application. FoHowing the Mayor's suggestion I'm going to just refer you to that packet, It does discuss 5 important issues that we feel are important in your consideration and deliberation about our ~pplication. The second supplement that as presented to you and i hope you have in your packet, does anyone not have these, 1 have some extras. They contain a lot of supplemental information that has come about since our presentation to the Pfanning & Zoning Commission back on January 11 th. There are 2 items in that, that I would like to address primarily concerned with the neighbors and also ACHD recommendation and requirements, also I will ~ ~ Meridian City Councii March 1, 1994 Page 38 conclude then with a couple of points one addressing staff comments in your staff report packet and then I would like to give just a brief summary of what we are asking you to approve tonight and what we are agreeing to. I might also add Mayor that this is exactly the same material and presentation that was made at the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing and if I'm not mistaken most of these people were at that meeting. We have worked closely with them o general meetings and on a one to one basis. These are the major issues that we identified in this first packet. What are the highest and best use for the 40 acre parcel? Is a shopping center supportable this site? How should the balance of the site be developed? Why annex and zone the property now? And the neighbors concerns. 1 have various overheads on that and I will leave them up for you to view. There is one in the second portion that I would like Kathleen, I know I'm way out of order here, but we are going to mind what the Mayor told us. Because we are asking this evening for a Conditional use permit approval for the rental storage portion I'd like you to view this one overhead on the benefits of the rental storage proposal. These are the things that we hope that you will take into consideration in your deliberation concerning our Conditional Use Permit. The rental storage business is a quiet business it is very low demand on City services, it adds value to the City's tax base in terms of real property taxes, City Impact fees might be imposed and of course ACHD impact fees. We have little or no impact on schools, it provides community employment with the company and by the services that we make use of. Storage are very low traffic generators, storage use helps the appearance with neighborhoods by providing indoor storage of goods and providing a place for recreational vehicles to be parked other than front yards and on city streets. Avest builds inward design complexes and that is a point that 1 hope if you don't understand what I'm saying there that you will inquire. All of our complexes use a single sided building for perimeter security. It gives an attractive appearance on the outside, there is no chain link or razor wire. They generate little or no noise and all lighting is contained within the complex. We used to use the high lights throughout the facility now we put all of those down below the eaves so no tight is escaping the interior of the project. All buildings are low profile single story and Avest insists on attractive well designed and maintained sites. So I hope you will take those factors into consideration in your deliberation on the conditional use permit. Kathleen on the supplemental package you will find those overheads, you might just put the first page up there. That is the cover page you have on that packet, it is updated material and modification as a result of input from meetings with our formal neighborhood meetings and agendas and so forth, small neighborhood meetings, direct phone conversations with neighbors. We've had a number of conversations that way, letters of support, the ACHD requirement summary that I would like to look at in just a second and adjacent land developers we have met both with Wingate Subdivision • • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 39 Dan Woods, Shoshoni property owner Jim Boyd, Dove Meadows and nine across the street with Roger Crandfemire. The main purpose of those meetings were to address ACHD concerns about traffic flow in the Mirage Meadows, Wingate and Dave Meadows and we feel that we have a solution to tMose. Scott if you would put up that other plat it would show the surrounding area and how that has been resolved. In the additional information, the 2 areas that I would like to comment on have to do with the neighbors and just briefly some of the agreements that we have reached with the neighbors. This particular overhead addresses what we feel is really the City and the greater neighborhood of Meridian and we have received letters from neighbors, from current storage customers, phone calls have been logged on a Meridian phone. It has been interesting we do have an ad in the yellow pages stating a site at Locust Grove in anticipation of this and also as a market study that about 25% of our phone calfs at our Maple Grove office are from people calling on that particular line. So there is definitely a need for rental storage ! know that Meridian has four I believe are located on the south side of Meridian and there also located in and near industrial and commercial areas. we find that a lot of our customers are women and others who don't particularly like to go into industrial area and we feel that having a storage facility on the north side would be beneficial. The next one there Kathleen has to do with Mirage Meadows, we have proposed to the Mirage Meadows people the seven there, east of Applewood which is a transitional use. We presented alternatives housing and road connections and so forth and the storage was an acceptable transition. We haven't heard from anyone other than I think was Mrs. Blayney who had some concerns and we are not for sure where we stand with her, but we have tried to work with her and submitted additional information to her. Storage is a good transitional use and its often preferred and 1 have some examples of that where people have actually elected to have storage used as a transitional use as opposed to apartments or higher density use property. The Mirage Meadows neighbors west of Applewood which don't really border on the rental storage portion we have received no negative comments from them. In fact jokingly they said maybe you could extend storage on down to our area so that we would have the privacy and the quiet that the buildings would provide and landscaping. These are concerns that address those people and 1 guess if we were to categorize our neighborhood meetings, we had a great deal of concern for those adjacent to our property. Those in Mirage Meadaws are approximately 400 to 450 depending on the fina{ configUration of the shopping center portion of our application, they are that distance 400 to 450 feet from the shopping center area where it would even begin to have, we provided some transitional use. So, that was one group of concerns, the other group and probably the (inaudible) are those homes directly across Locust Grove from our site. The one on the rights shows a very close proximity at the homes that are along there. The first two there on either side of ~ • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 40 Carol Street, those face onto Carol street and so we are dealing with a sideyard situation for them on Locust Grove. The next 4 are really our major concern because they do border on what would be part of the shopping center proposal and then there is one up at the very top that faces across into what would be the retirement center and there we feel like we can adequate berming, and landscaping on that side of the road. The problem becomes and if you look at the overhead the positive out of the special meeting that we had with these neighbors traffic would ffow much better with four lanes. They had a real concern about the traffic getting in and out of their driveways and I think with the 4 lanes and actually 5 lanes with a center turn lane that won't be as much a problem. The widened road would provide greater separation to the shopping center, the wider the road gets the further it pushes the shopping center to the east. And another question or problem that they were concerned about with stacking room at Fairview and Locust Grove in just brief comment to that ACHD requires approximately 250 feet before you can have an entrance near a major intersection like Locust Grove and Fairview. So in the 250 feet we can stack approximately 36 automobiles and so that will be 36 automobiles coming through each change of the light and the main concern that was expressed was the access out from Carol Street. Now Carol Street is 400 feet from Fairview and Locust Grove so the stacking in there before those peopte would be limited in their abiiity to get in and out of Carol Street I think has been more than adequatefy addressed. Suggested solutions that came out of this meet+ng that we had specifically with the Locust Grove people, driveway adjustments. We talked about combining driveways so that you don't have a driveway here and a driveway here, where there were 2 adjacent if they could bring thase together the advantage of that is you could increase the berming and landscaping that can be done along there. I want you to keep in mind that ACHD, Larry Sale attended a number of the meetings, 2 different meetings and addressed their concerns and basically it boiled down that Locust Grove is scheduled for a 5 lane load to begin 1997 -1998 somewhere in that time period. And as they do that the people along Locust Grove namely those who face directly on it are going to be impacted there is just no way that they are not going to be impacted. And I drove out Locust Grove here just this last week and between Fairview and McMillan 1 counted 5 different subdivisions in that area that will join in and the traffic will flow into Locust Grove just out to McMiUan and so the traffic on Locust Grove is going to increase and I think ACHD is correct in planning ahead and looking ahead for that. They are going to be impacted and and need to address those issues. One suggestion from Larry Sale was to design the turn arounds so that they are not backing out onto Locust Grove and most of them have quite large yards so that would be a possibility. Careful alignment of entrances across from the center we talked about that and I think that we have come to an agreement that if we can adjust our exits from the shopping center • • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 41 along their lot lines that then we could do berming across the street and deflect some of the lights as they are coming out of the entrances to the shopping center. Basically we will not line our exits from the shopping center up with the homes directly across the street, we'll try to pface those so they are between the lot lines it allows a lot more room for landscaping and berming. Kingsford: Roger, did I hear you wrong, did you say that you would be wiling to do berming off your site. Allen: Yes, in fact the next item the developer will provide berming material, we talked about this we could either work it out with ACHD at the time they are doing their excavation. We of course would be doing considerable earth moving at the time. We have volunteered and put it on public record of course that we will prpvide the berming material across the street. The only thing we ask them in that case that it requires some planning ahead and that is why we held this meeting this early, we could be a year to 2 years off from coming forward with our application for the shopping center, and for them to think about where would they like their berming, where would they iike it placed and so forth. We are willing to do that and the last item that we discussed and that I'll mention is the landscaping allowance from the shopping center devetopers that we would place in a trust fund at the time we begin the shopping center development, 511,000. That was derived from the fact that and I skimmed over an earlier overhead from the factor that I'm sure the peopte across Locust Grove and they even suggested well why don"t you build a 12 foot berm along Locust Grove and then put the shopping center on the other side of that. That won't work, you know that isn't realistic and in the packet of information you have we tatked about a 2 to 4 foot berm and landscape and landscaped entrances that go deep into the parking lot, not just along Locust Grove and as we thought about that why not transfer some of this berming and the screening across the street and if we are going to do that why don't we pay for some of that. We determined that to the first 2 homes on Carol and either side of Carol Street that we would allow a S 1,000 landscaping sprinkling however they want to use it as tong as it was in the genera{ area of landscaping. The next 4 homes which we feel are more directly impacted would be 52,000 each and then a 51,000 for the last. 1 realize that is a very smaii amount but maybe it would be helpful and we do want that on record. Kathleen wouid you go directly to the one concerning that staff comments, there are only a few comments that I would like to address. Responses to Gary Smith's comments, now these are from your staff and I'm sure you have their comments and their letters in your packet. Item #1 a legal description that of course we will comply with, that is coming forward from W&H Pacific and wili be submitted right of way. Item #2, #his item has been resolved, we didn't spend any time on it but • • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 42 it involves some of the road layout and the first plat back here, the tying in of Oakwood, Apricot, Applewood and whatever the names of the roads will be in Wingate Subdivision. Those have all been through ACHD and I think if you for verification of that if you look at the ACHD comments that they make no mention of this and in their previous letters to P& Z they did those have been addressed and resolved and basically their comments I guess we skipped over those. Item 3, 4 and 5 we'll just simply comply with those. The other comment from staff was Mr. Wayne Forrey, he addressed pedestrian path access I think we have covered enough of that and gone through it. The park site we have some information there if you would like to explore that. We don't feel that is an appropriate site for the park site we have made gestures to pay our fair share whatever that might be, whether determined by impact fees, as I understand you are studying to impose on developers where agreeing to pave roads now or in the future as they may come along. To do whatever we can do to help identify a neighborhood park and pay our fair share. The traffic study in your ACHD you'fl notice they are requesting a traffic study not for the conditional use permit for the rental storage but for the time we come forward with the shopping center, and of course we understand that. Detail plan for rental storage we have submitted now most of this material you have it in packets. Item #6 at the bottom, a variance for on site home security home guard that has been requested or is in the process of being requested. We understand why we need that. Development agreement will be entered into between the developer and the City. This is what we feel we are requesting, annexation of the 40 acres with a CG zone, a conditional use permit to build a rental storage complex and we understand that all construction and development will be subject to the CU PUD and Wayne has corrected us on that and we are in agreement to it. And design review including neighborhood involvement, stafif direction, agency approval, Planning & Zoning public hearings, City Council public hearings and app~oval, what we are saying there is that we understand your annexation, your action on item a and item b. I should say that item a is not carte blanche approval for anything other than item b which we are requesting at this time with the conditional use permit and that was submitted with the necessary information for that. What we are agreeing to is to meet all cbmmerciaf development at entryway requirements both at current and future in your Comprehensive Plan, pedestrian walkways w911 be provided as fo{lows and we have mentioned those, the CU permit for the shopping center and a full traffic study as per ACHD requirements. Detailed plans including landscaping plans have been submitted and will be submitted with each application as we come forward with thase. A variance permit wiil be requested as mentioned for the resident managers quarters, we will enter into a development agreement with the City. We will help identify and work on the park problem, the shopping center portion will be developed as a commercial planned development as per Mr. Crookston's CJ Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 43 . comments. We concur and agree to abide by all of the other requirements and conditions of approval. That concludes my remarks, I woutd like to relinquish my remaining minutes Mr. Mayor.(End of Tape? Kingsford: Roger, I want to advise you we had shorter sessions in a 2 hour class. Larry Durkin, 380 East Park Center Blvd, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin, I'm President of Dakota Development and I'll try to be more brief than Roger. I read the findings of fact and I just want to jump right to a couple of the points that were brought up in there. The Southshore shopping center in southeast Boise has been a tremendously successful and well received development. Some of the comments in the staff report that I received people were concerned about traffic and people were concerned about adjacent property values. There has been no decrease in any of the property values next to or in the neighborhood of the Southshore shopping center. in fact they have continue to increase at the same level the Boise market. In addition since we firs# announced the building of the shopping center, there hasn't been a house on the market for sale longer than 10 days sinca we announced the shopping center and that is through last week. I received a call from Elizabeth Gwin and she expressed some concerns about this and I did relay that information to her and happily will provide names and phone numbers of the parties that I know have sole their homes in the neighborhood of the Southshore shopping center. We're had praise from the City staff of the City of Boise, for that center we've had praise from the Pier Point homeowners association which is immediately adjacent to the center and we do attend their annual meetings each year and address concerns that come up from time to time and intend to do so with this development as well. The property values haven't decreased, the traffic hasn't increased in fact we are providing a service to the area where previously people had to drive great distances to find the type of shopping that would offer them and I will go into that in a minute. But again on the property values, prior to building the shopping center there was a 280 unit across the street as of last Friday they still enjoy a 99% occupancy rate, the rents haven't decreased and their occupancy has remained strong. Why should we build a shopping center here? We all want to build successful centers all of our centers have 100% occupancy rate now and I don't want to start a trend any different. We hired a Eagle, Idaho consulting firm called Craig Smith and Associates and we said we would like to develop a shopping center here before we go any further you go out and tell us if you think that is a market and they developed a sunrey, conducted a survey of over 500 Meridian residents in early October to determine where they bought their groceries, wfiere they bought their general merchandise where you would typically buy at a • • Meridian City Councii March 1, 1994 Page 44 discount department store like Shopko or Target and it wasn't surprising to find that the grocery shoppers the majority of the Meridian area people shop at Albertsons's because there isn't a lot of other choice. About 44-% of the more than 500 people surveyed travel all of the Meridian and go to Waremart to do their grocery shopping either as a first choice or a second choice. Our development woutd likefy include a grocery store which would keep more of the shopping Meridian, but what was really a surprise to me was the general merchandise discount department store shopp+ng habits. As Vou saw from our Company resume we do a lot of discount store development for Shopko, Kmart, Walmart and others. The oniy general merchandise discount store that you have in Meridian is the Payless Drug Store that is classified as a discount store. Well, the study shows that less than 5% of the Meridian discount store shopping was done at Payless, 95°~ of the shopping was done outside of the area at Shopko, Target and Kmart which is in the C+ty of Boise. We are convinced that the study that a center will be successful here, that a general merchandise discount department store like a Shopko, Target, Kmart, will be very successful here. It will bring in high volume and sales and in fiact it will decrease the travelling requirements for the people of Meridian. Right now the average shopper in Meridian travels to a general merchandise discount store twice a month, to do they are traveling all the way into Boise to one of the companies that I mentioned. The center will decrease the travel, so we are convinced that a center will be successful, our services it will offer will be unique with the exception of food shopping, are not presently offered in the City of Meridian. So, with that I keep my comments and am willing to answer any comments or questions. Kingsford: Any questions for Mr. Durkin? Thank you, anyone else from the public. J. Clouss, 1915 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the Attorney. Clouss: Mr. Mayor and City Council, there are a few statements that I would like to talk about as far as what they have made tonight. I've got some concerns about the larger road bringing more traffic there are ideas are that a larger road wi{! flow more traffic. It basically makes, people collect to larger roads because traffic is easier to travel south its just going to put more traffic in front of my house. That is going to make it harder for me to get out of my driveway. The letter that was written from the Mayor of Boise, I think I might be wrong about this but I don't think so 1 believe he was employed by Dakota Development at one point in . time before he became the Boise Mayor so I don't know if that is a conflict in interest or whatever, they have brought that up a couple of times that they have read letters from the Boise Mayo~. Also, 1 have some concern about the center • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 45 C~ line of Locust Grove Road being moved. When we originally talked, Mr. Sales was talking about moving the center line maybe to the east which would when they did widen Locust Grove would basically effect my side of the road less if they do that. Now I think what is going on or the last word that I got is that they are going to leave the center line the same and they are just going to expand the easement ad take the right of way away from my side as well. Now {'m getting request to put more berming on my side of the road which is going to take more of my front yard, so I'm going to get eaten from the Locust Grove expansion and also from this berming idea that we've got going on. I still think we can berm that side of the road with the development and things facing Fairview. I realize you need some curb appeal and some line of sight to the road but we are going to be on the end of the development up along Locust Grove I think we can do better than the 2 to 4 foot berming, so that would be a concern to me. I also have a concern about basically zoning the 40 acres to commercial at this point, to be honest with you we could have done a lot worse in developers than what we have gotten that bought that piece of property. At least the developers at Avest are at least listening to us and we are holding meetings and we seem to be at least communicating. So we could have done a lot worse, I'm still nervous about maybe a major tenant not coming in, these folks seeing better use of their investment somewhere else, sell their property off. If it is zoned commercial maybe the next time we won't get such a nice, communicatable developer, but I would like to see some sort of a contingency on here on your planning and zoning to say if this development is sold that basically goes back to the agricultural zoning that it currently is and that they start again and apply fior zoning and we go through this again. The one comment that Mr. Durkin about property value, our house has been on the market in this day and age and I don't feel that it is overly priced in fact its less than it should be. Its been on the market for like a year, we've had a lot of showings but very few offers when they find out that there is a shopping mall going across the road. There are very few people interested in living across the road from a shopping center, its just cut and dried. We are about 96% of appraisal is what we've got on a current offer on our house and that is contingent on the sale of theirs. A{I of tfiose stipulations have to go in. So its by any means not sold and we are even below our appraisal and our appraisal is low. I mean our appraisal is lower than the standard appraisals in the area, its approximately S55 a foot and they are building for S80 to 585. Our home is 5 year old, its S65 approximately is the appraisal value of our house. So, 1 would like you to consider those concerns and do what you can to heip up out. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Terry McCarthy, 1385 South Carol Street, was sworn by the Attorney. • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 46 • McCarthy: I've lived in Meridian at the current address since November of 1982 and I have watched the City of Meridian grow. 1 feel that when the homeowners in this area bought they looked at that piece of property there at Locust Grove and Fairview and assumed at least the north half of it would be residential and the southern half of it would probably go commercial as with the rest of the property adjacent to Fairview. That intersection has very heavy bus traffic all times of the day that is going to be impacted by this development. There is going to be a whole lot more traffic due to the development. The developer as they stated has 3 different plans that they want on this property. One is the storage units, as they said there are 4 different storage units within the City of Meridian at this time. Two of them are quite large and a couple of them are small. I think that the City Council should consider market saturation in considering this portion of the development. 1 feel the size of the shopping center is iarge for the size of the City at this time. You look around you see that Spouse Reitz moved out of Cherry Plaza, as they mentioned Payless very little of the peopie they surveyed had shopped regularly at Payless. That tells me that the draw is not there for that type of a service at this point. They have ta{ked about the long range pfans including a retirement center. I know that according to the Idaho Business Review Western Health Care is building a nursing home at the corner of West Pine and Linder Road, it will service approximately 150 people. I feel that there is also a possibility of market saturation. Western Health Care is supposed to open in late 94 early 95. There is also a retirement center in Mirage Meadows so we've got one fairly large development that is going on in that area and one small place that already exists for retirement homes, so those things need to be considered in approving this development. Thank you. Kingsford: I might just comment with regard to Wester Health Care, the owner of that or the guy who hopes to develop it called me a couple of weeks ago and jumped the gun on putting that in the business review and in fact wasn't sure he had that land tied up. 1 will consider your comments that is not a done deal. as they had indicated. Anyone else from the public? Matt Hibbs, 1655 East Meadowgrass, was sworn by the Attorney. Hibbs: Just a few comments I agree with Mr. Clouss we could do worse with developers, a friend of mine +s one of them that sent a letter in from Chateau Meadows and they are personal friends with the Weber's and they speak highly of them, so I don't have a problem with the developer. A lot of my neighbors and t speak for at least 2 other families that couldn't make it tonight, are concerned about the park situation. I looked at the proposed City plan and saw a parksite up on Ustick and 1'm wondering when that witl happen. But, at the last meeting that • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 47 ` J t attended which was when there was an accidental notification of this development. Ms. Weber had asked, indicated that anyone that had attended would be contacted and I have not received any contact on that. And so I just wanted to put that out. That is it. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Karen Blayney, 2000 North Applewood Avenue, was svvorn by the Attorney. Blayney: I just wanted to come and say that I'm still opposed to zoning this 40 acres commercial. For 16 years I lived close to a shopping center and I saw the increase in the traffic and the noise and the litter and all that other stuff. When I bought the property out here in Mirage meadows about a year and a half ago kind of knowing that probably the area along Fairview would be commercial but I was told it was going to be residential. And I just got tired of ~N the traffic and noise that this other shopping area brought to my last so I moved out here thinking I was going to get away from it, but it kind of followed me. Its just kind of like a headache being close to it. Its not these developers specifically but its like the developers all make these developments sound like its going to be good for us, but I have seen the bad side of it and I've already got not good feelings about living close to a shopping center. I just want to go on record as being totally opposed to this fand being zoned commercial, thank you. Kingsford: Anyone else? Elizabeth Gwin, 1515 South Carol Street, was sworn by the Attorney. Gwin: The big question I have is in the Comprehensive Plan it says in here I think it is in your land use policies that it is your policy to protect and maintain residential neighborhoods property values and to improve each neighborhoods physical condition and enhance its quality of life for residents. I have a big problem with the protecting and maintaining our property values because it doesn't seem to be the case. Jay, his property has been on the market just as he said and I think that is a good example. He is not in what is supposed to be a sellers market right now he hasn't been able to sell his property for even as much of the appraisal, a lot of property's are getting offers for over the appraisal. We have our property for sale right now, I don't know we have got a lot of lookers but not to many takers. 1 haven't questioned the realtor about why because they didn't seem to think that the business that we are adjacent to right now is any problem because its strictly a 9 to 5 business and I haven't been able to contact him and ask him if it is because of this 40 acre devetopment or not. But I have a real C~ Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 4$ . problem, when Mr. Durkin said it didn't affect property vaiues when obviousty Jay has a real nice home there that is sitting there and he has an offer under the appraisal value, when we have a market for that type of a home. That is the only question 1 have is what wi11 you do to help us maintain our property values. I don't know what you promised that with your policy but that is your policy. tf you could give me some answers on that I'd like to know what you will do specifically to make sure this development doesn't detract from our property values there. Another question I have is I am opposed to the annexation and rezoning of this property and one thing with he storage units that I don't think was brought up is we really don't have a lot of control over what is stored in those units. There are laws but people tend to break laws and I have read a couple of articles where peopte have stored hazardous materiats that they didn't want to dispose of because it costs a lot to dispose of hazardous waste. 1'm not saying that would happen, but what if it does and we have a spill over there. The City has wells around and some of these chemicals are really potent. I believe the chemical perk is one of those that they are having trouble with down in Garden City and I know that it takes really a small amount of something like that if it gets in the aquifer. 1 would like to see that addressed, what can be done to insure that we are not going to have that problem with pollution, because so far the wetls in our subdivision have been in good shape when they have been tested and we've had ours tested in 86 and I think some of the houses have been sold in the last few years in the back of the subdivision and their wells have been fine easy sell so we need to protect that. Another thing, I wanted to also state that don't think that there is less opposition to this just because we have fewer people in attendance. A lot of the people have just began to feel real helpless about this development whether or not they could affect the outcome on this especiaNy after the Planning & Zoning meeting and rather abusive treatment they received there. So, that is part of the reason that people are not in attendance tonight. So there is still quite a lot of opposition to this. That is all I have to say, thank you. Bob Moore, 1835 North Locust Grove was sworn by the Attorney. Moore: I'll keep this very brief Mr. Mayor and fellow Councilman, I want to pass out a letter to you that contains some of our concerns regarding this development. As Liz just mentioned I think there is a great deal of apathy in our neighborhood regarding this development. 1 think AVest has been a very fine, a very professional job here in representing to you what they honestly feel is going to be done. I feel like I should embrace Mr. Durkin and Mr. Allen for saving our neighborhood it sounds to me like they are going to greatly improve our property values and there is probably no concern that we should have. However, I guess I'll just keep it brief here and let you know that my home sits on a 1/2 acre it is i Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 49 ~ right across North Locust Grove from this devetopment. My wife and I have lived there for 23 years and raised 4 children and we spent most of that 23 years improving our property and our home. I don't mean this to be an attack on the City Council or Planning Commission but rather a plea from ourselves and our neighborhood to be heard and to reject this application based on the following facts. The effects of the existing growths and traffic has a{ready tremendously affected our lives. And if that isn't enough we are now being asked to make further concessions alter our driveways what have you to accommodate this additional traffic. All that is going to do is further degrade our neighborhood and further erode my front yard. Our neighbors as Jay just spoke lost the sale of his home, he indicated that it had been reduced from appraisal about 6%. I now see other homes such as Liz and other homes for sale in the area. I see families leaving there and I think this is a sad day for that neighborhood and for the City of Meridian we are being forced out of there. As I mentioned traffic in front of our home is already a major problem. And it is a safety problem I have to back out on North Locust Grove to get out ofi my driveway. And in addition to that the traffic noise and the speed has virtually forces us our of our front yard. ACHD is now proposing additional widening of our street and Jay had the concerns I do that the widening is going to take place on both sides of the center line that and its going to take even more property off of our front property line and reduce our front yards. Its just absurd. I am gang to skim over this because some of it is probably a little bet redundant with the testimony you have heard tonight. I want to mention here that I do feel that the widening ot the road on North Locust Grove is like loosening your belt when you gain weight it doesn't address the problem. No one with ACHD or Meridian reafiy addresses the probiem with that traffic, and f think there is a lot of research done on traffic calming and would like to see you gentleman read and pursue some of that research. I understand that maybe you have but I think there is some good material out there that you should look at regarding traffic calming and traffic planning. And I see in the Statesman this week that ACHD is addressing that in Boise and in other parts of Ada County where they have created these problems by this so called traffic planning, now they are trying to go back in and figure out what they can do to calm the traffic. But anytime roads are widened its a proven that the traffic just simpiy fills that road up, it increases traffic. It doesn't solve the problem. The shopping center is just not compatible with this neighborhood for the following reasons, the majority if not all of the homeowners are very much opposed to this development. The increased noise from the parking lot is one of the reasons. Those noises as this lady just mentioned a minute ago she lived across from a shopping center for 16 years she knows all about parking lot sweepers, soil removal equipment, boomboxes, public address systems such as what we have at the Idaho Athletic Club, { live 2 b{ocks from there and 1 can here it everyday in the summer time. • Meridian City Counci! March 1, 1994 Page 50 \J And the garbage and delivery trucks are a real problem also. The City of Meridian Police Department keeps a pinhole and they have up until January. The pin map shows the areas of various crimes and traffic accidents. The Cherry Plaza Shopping Center area was completely fuN of pins for theft, assault, traffic accidents, vagrants and various other crimes including possible gang activity. The proposed center is considerably larger than what Cherry Plaza is so in my mind that is just going to increase the problem that Cherry Plaza has now. Also the glare of lighting from automobiles, signs in parking lots, we are looking right into those lights. And I'm not convinced anything can be done about it. During Planning Commission's review of the application there was considerable opposition show by the neighborhood and other citizens as Liz mentioned. And I have to say that we were absolutely appalled by the Chairman's reaction to that testimony and for the most part the entire Commission. Mr. Johnson boasts of not being an elected official and seemingly answers to no one. I saw him intimidate people, bring people to tears and seemed to pride himself in his arrogance, and I'm not sure that our concerns were ever heard. In addition Mr. Johnson doesn't live in the City of Meridian, I understand that he doesn't have to sit on the Commission, but it seems to me that he should be a resident. The Comprehensive Plan states that any new development cannot reduce the quality of life or devalue the property of any resident. It also states that the public should be aware and involved in the City's planning decision. We as neighbors in that area are aware, we are involved and as a neighborhood we are opposed to this development. There seems to be a mindset that this project is going to regardless of the so called findings of fact and regardless of the neighborhood opposition and regardless of the alternatives. Approval of this shopping center is an injustice, it is our quality of life, our home, our property and our right to exist as a peaceful neighborhood and that is at stake. No personal group has the right to increase and well being at the expense of another persons property and quality of life. This shopping center proposal would do both. As an alternative Meridian already has a lot of property set aside for commercial development in areas that do not impact established homes and residences. Those areas are shown on the Comprehensive P1an and shouid be ideal for a shopping center. In closing I would like to say is please don't force us out our homes that is what you are doing if you approve this project. Thank you Kingsford: Anyone e{se from the public? Don Bryan, 2070 North Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the Attorney. Bryan: Well, this is kind of a rerun for me since I have attended all the others. My neighbors were stating they have been through this with Planning and Zoning. so I will be brief on this one because this is the one that means the most to say the • • Meridian City Councii March 1, 1994 Page 51 least. You know most of my concerns. I'm concerned with the traffic and the light glare as well as anybody else. And the water contamination with the storage units, but my biggest concern is irrigation water and the storm drainage water. Dixie Lane, 1'm afraid I'm going to be in here this summer as soon as irrigation water comes in. We've got 3 developments going in, 2 directly behind me that is affecting my lateral and this project here. One is in the middle of being done, phase one which isn't affecting the ditch that 1'm on. The other one 1 don't know where it stands with Mr. Woods, there is approximately 2 to 3,000 feet of ditch its not tiled they are going to have to tile as a stipulation of their developments. Well, they are not going to tile them until the last dog is dead or whenever they go to that phase of the development. Well that ditch, nobody takes care of that ditch and that is what is going to happen with this project. i talked with Mr. Allen and he assured me he would take care of it and I just wanted to get it on record that has been agreed upon. I would request that as soon as they, if and when they proceed with this development on the storage facility I would like to see them tile the entire length of ditch on their property as an initial of starting their project. Because as soon as the people move out of that house and the acreage that irrigates out of that ditch its going to go to weeds again. And Dixie Lane is kind of a funny little lane, it used to be a private lane and the only reason you would approve the Woods' development Kearney Meadows 2 years ago was that Dixie Lane was an emergency access to their development with break down ballards and access road through the back of their subdivision. And now all the sudden we have a bike path and a walking path and we can do away with that lane. I wonder how that came about to do away with that emergency access that backs deveiopments. Unless that is something that has been taken care of in the past. Another one of my concerns I talked t everybody about you guys at the workshop last week about my concerns with the titing of the ditch and as it becomes part of the property owners on the 42 lots that are going to be on my ditch after it is buried. And each one of those people are responsible for that ditch where it enters their property and leaves their property. Now, how am I going to be able to find a pluggage or something in that lateral if I have to go to 42 homeowners and find out which one has got a hole board in it and pumping water out of it. That is one of my concerns. 1 would like to know at what extent this conditional use permit would give them as far as the loop road and are they going to devetop the loop road with the storage facility and if they do to what extent and what is going to become of the proposed retirement center parcel which abuts me, is that going to become a weed patch or is going to stay agricultural until it gets developed. I would tike to get that on record what is going to happen to that, how that is going to be maintained. Also, we have a ditch, I talked to Mr. Allen about it, there is a ditch running through that property we may, or he may be able to terminate but there is a lot of water that comes down that I use sometimes, that is going to have • • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 52 to be resolved sometime down the road. And also, at the initial meetings that we had, Mr. Allen proposed a thought of a 15' setback behind those Mirage Meadows homes, he has a 15' foot setback before he can build a building and he is either going to have to landscape that area and mait~tain it or give it over to an easement to the property owners that its affecting. He was talking about turning that land over, that 15' area turning it into part of their backyards as an easement. I don't knpw if that is legal or feasible or if they can do that, maybe they decided not to do that, but if they do then my lateral comes back down the property tine back inside their yards and I can foresee some problems there. They start digging holes for landscaping and swimming pools or jacuzisis they are going to run into a big pipe if it dossn't have any water in it they will just tear it out and put their hot tub in. So that needs to be addressed, and find out what happened to that 15' easement and if he is going to keep it or what. And also there is a kind of a no mans land on one spot that affects his development is his corner, northeast corner is a 4 way corner of those 4 properties and my lateral comes across Dixie Lane at that point and it dog legs because the other developer that did it first since he was first he moved the ditch and now it comes down and dog fegs over to Mr. Allen's land that is going to have to be corrected and buried properly on that pixie Lane culvert and he assured me he would do that. 1 just want to state it for the record. I believe that iS all I have? Kingsford: Those are real good points Don, thank you. Anyone else from the public? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Counselor, there is no doubt #here are additionaf findings in the developers portion and others from the adjacent landowners. We need to prepare findings. Tolsma: So moved Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Walt to have new Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea ITEM #15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FOR GLENN AND MILDRED NYBORG: Kingsford: At this time I'll open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. • • Meridian City CouncN March 1, 1994 Page 53 Terry Nyborg, 57 60 View Drive, was sworn by the Attorney. Nyborg: Mr. Mayor, Councilman, this an apptication for a change in zoning from R-4 to L-O. Its on the northwest corner of Cherry Lane and Linder, and it includes the lot on the corner which is now L-shaped and surrounds the fiarm house that has been there for about 40 years. Its about .8 of an acre. The proposed use for the property is a satetlite real estate office. The user of the land has agreed to comply with all of the stipulations for landscaping and any other stipulations that the City might have. That is really all f have, are there any questions? Kingsford: Are there any questions for Terry? Morrow: I have a question about access to your property, we heard last testimony about the last presentation, this is one of those areas that is a section line road and it appears that it is 250 feet from the section line road for access by ACHD, the property is of size that its not a problem? Nyborg: No, that would be a problem. If you talk about frontage only of 250 feet from center of intersection. There is about 200 feet of actual frontage on Cherry Lane and there is or~ly about 110 feet on Linder. Now, if you went to the center of Linder road it still wouldn't e 250 feet, it would be close. The existing driveway is on the western edge of the property. Morrow: I guess my question there wouid be is how do you access the property? Does the driveway, the curb cut that is there, have grandfather rights? Kingsford: I'm sure it does, you're not talking about removing the house or anything there? Nyborg: No, we are changing the access. Kingsford: The access would be the same as it exits? Nyborg: Right, it would be on the western edge of the property. Kingsford: The curb cut is there, they have done improvements past that haven`t they? Nyborg: Well, no the sidewalk actualty ends maybe 6' past the curb cut and the sidewatk probably ends about the end of the property line. • ~ Meridian City CounGil March 1, 1994 Page 54 Morrow: So, I guess part of my question here is this property its already improved at, its in the transition is it not from where we are going to get ready to do the cheery Lane widening? {ts right on the edge of that. Nyborg: I think Cherry Lane is as wide as its going to get. Linder is also widened, the 110 feet of Linder that abuts this property is also widened and improved with sidewatk. So I don't think the intersection changes. I haven't gone to ACHD and asked that question. KKingsford 1 think it was their intent when they did that intersection to carry it out to the appropriate distance past. I don't think they are going to re-do that. I saw those plans too and I wouldn't swear to that but {'m just really confident that is the case. Nyborg: Linder is already 5 lanes there as is Cherry lane for the width of this property. Now there isn't, Kastle Falls subdivision approval is, I don't know if you have approved the plat (End of Tape). I don't know if the plat for that portion of the subdivision that is adjacent to this property is approved or not. I don't think that there is provision for a road our ofi Kastle Falls into this property. The very preliminary plat I saw { don't believe it contained that. Yerrington: They show on the drawing a well on this lot, do you have your own well? Nybarg: It is currently both those homes are served by one joint well. The home which is not part of this which actually enters onto Linder and then this is my fiathers home and the one well serves both homes. There is a weli on the property and neither house at this time is hooked to water or City sewer, but the user in this case is aware and in fact demanded that it be hooked to City water and sewer so he would comply with your requirements. Yerrington: Do you know how deep the well is or what size? Nyborg: Its a 16 inch and approximately 200 feet deep it was drilled. My father has a well log, my guess it was dritled in about 1970 maybe or maybe even a little bit before that. {End of Tape) 20 feet deep adjacent to this well but it has been filled in its fiffed in about the water line so that somebody can't so that kids can't fall in. There is an i~rigation well that is just to the north of this that is to be included in the Kastle Falls development and t think its to provide their irrigation water. Its a 12 inch well about 70 feet deep and it was drilled in the late 60's or early 70's as well. ~ • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 55 Kingsford: Is your dad in Arizona? Nyborg: He is Kingsford: Would you tell him for me that he has to come back and personally present this. Nyborg: Well, I think I got eiected to do that. If that is a requirement, he would probably do it. Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Nyborg? Thank you Terry, anyone else from the public that would tike to offer testimony on this issue? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. I would suggest that there is no significant change in the findings. Morrow: I would move that we accept the P& Z findings. Tolsma: Second Kingsfiord: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Entertain a motion to have the Attorney draw up the rezone ordinance. Morrow: So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to have the City Attorney draw up the rezone ordinance, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea ITEM #16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FOR ROBERT AND FRAN WHITMIRE: Kingsford: At this I wiii open ~e public hearing and invite the owner and his • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 56 . designee to speak. Seeing no one at all 1 will ciose the pubiic hearing, Counselor does the informatian from P& Z stand? Crookston: It does Kingsford: Does Council wish to have any additional information or do you wish to approve those findings? Morrow: I would wish to see a proposal by the owners or it there are any questions on behatf ofi the Council or whatever it seems to me like they should have someone here representing them and make a presentation. Kingsford: Entertain a motion to table Morrow: So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Watt, second by Ron to table the request for rezone until the next meeting, all tMose on favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I will probably not be here for that tabled meeting. Just for the record on page 6, item 8 it says as a condition of zoning if there is room the properfiy shall meet the requirements of the setback and on the discussion and recommendation it says the applicant must meet that 30 foot setback I guess my question would be is there any problem with those 2, one says if there is room, the other says they must do it? ITEM #17: PROCLAMATION: PURCHAStNG M(~NTH: Kingsford: I will not read that proclamation, that was done by the Governor and other Mayors and I did send that along to the requesting agency. fTEM #18: WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: Kingsford: You are hereby informed if you choose to you have the right to a pre- determination hearing and be judged on the facts and defend the claim made by the City that your water/sewer/trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel, this service will be discontinued on March 16th, 1994 unless payment is received ~ • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 57 in full. Is there anyone from the public that would like to contest their water/sewer/trash delinquency~ For the record I did visit during Mr. Yerrington's break with a lady that had 2 young children. I did take it upon myself to strike a deal with her not to turn that off she wilt be in the morning to visit with Mr. Berg and or myself with regard to payment of that bit! it +s Connie Clark. !s there anyone else from the public that would like to contest their sewer/water/trash delinquency? They are hereby informed that they may appeal and have the decision of the City reviewed by the 4th Judicial Court pursuant to Idaho Code and the water will be shut off. The amount of the turn off list is 519,415.06, entertain a motion to approve the turn off list? Yerrington: So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved and seconded to approve the turn off list with exception of Ms. Clark, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRiED: All yea ITEM #19: APPROVE BILLS: Tolsma: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Bob to approve the bills, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea ITEM #20: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Kingsford: Chief Gordon: Nothing Kingsford: Mr. Chairman, have you been adequately reprimanded? Johnson: In the fear of sounding arrogant and abusive, I think 1'tl pass. ~ ~ Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 58 Kingsfflrd: Gary Smith: Nothing Kingsford: Shari Stites: Nothing Kingsford: Mr. Forrey Forrey: One short item, its in regards to the comments about the Planning & Zoning Commission and I think inappropriately directed at the Chairman. That meeting was very emotional, you can't predict emotion, you can predict City policy, you can predict facts and zoning issues and that is what the Commission has to tive with and balance that emotion and i thought the Commission as a whole and particularly the Chairman handled that meeting as well as to be expected because I suspect if it was possibte to carry a weapon there would have been weapons and they woutd have been used. People were very emotional and the Chairman kept a fid on it. There were some folks that were very unhappy with the fact that the Comprehensive Plan has a red circle near their home that our old Comprehensive Plan indicated that there could be commercial development there and that the Commission was upholding the larger issue of the community and the larger public interest that says that is an area we should plan for a commercial development. So, I feel sorry that the Chairman had to take all of that heat but I guess it comes with the territory, but just an observer I thought the Commission as a whole did a good job. It could have been very ugly but it was very professionally handled. Sorry you had to hear it that way Mr. Chairman. Tolsma: The person that made the comment was not a resident of the City of Meridian either. Kingsford: f did review those at the request of several of the people there and I iistened to the tapes and I don't think they were treated nearly as bad as Jim treats me as a general rule. Jim we appreciate you. Don you are a department head, to have anything you'd (ike to say here. Bryan: I am? Kingsford: I feel like you should be, I telt you what, we discussed this all at my table over dinner at the City level to set us a drainage district and laterals and so on it is dire needed in this county and it becomes more needed as we have more • ~ Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 59 development. And so we can put together that drainage committee and maybe extend that 2 laterals and I would certainly appreciate all your input. We haven't had I don't think adequate review of that, because of your involvement we appreciate that we are taking a lot better look at setting some standards and having inspections. So we appreciate your input on that. Forrey: One last item while you are on that subject with Don. At the work session there was discussion with Don about setting a standard for irrigation. The Highway District has a standard but t think Gary you thought of a cadillac version. Just for the Council's knowledge the Highway district does have a standard for irrigation projects to be constructed and developers probably wouldn't like that because they would view is as excessive. But that is something we could lay our hat on here for the future. Kingsford: Certainly it would be a good idea to take a look at that. Mr. Crookston Crookston: Nothing Kingsford: Mr. Morrow Morrow: Nothing Kingsford: Mr. Ye~rington Yerrington: Yes, I have something. How about another break. The Chief and I have been talking about putting up some 2 hour parking signs to the City Hall here as well as 2 hour parking signs within our 2 parking lots on each side of the building. The Highway District will put up the signs in front of the building with no problem, but we will have to buy 4 signs to put on each side of the building. On each entrance as well as the entrance coming in. The price of those signs are S32 a piece the post would cost 57.50 a piece, total expenditure to do this would be 5158. Morrow: And that shoutd come from the Pofice Department, not the Fire Department, Parks Department or Sewer Department or the General Fund Department. Yerrington: We didn't open this yet to the public for discussion Mr. Morrow. Kingsford: Max came in and he and I discussed that and it was my recommendation that we stay somewhat standard and stay at 2 hours. For a ~ ~ Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 60 person that let's say because of new meal conducts a little business I think its appropriate that the City try to provide parking for that. I think you are going to run into some real problems trying to enforce 1 hour parking. But what I think Max is after and I certainly concur with those folks that are in businesses a block away that decide they wili park here all day. Yerrington: I caught 2 of them at the library the other day. Tolsma: How are we progressing on our parking lot across the street with the building that is supposed to be demolished? Kingsford: Well, that is something, have you put together that meeting yet with the Nazarene Church? Forrey: Na I haven't Kingsford: I'm anxious for that Forrey: We'll know soon, I just want to get some time to get it done. Kingsford: Where are we at with design and so forth at the Old Mill? Forrey: That is designed and it needs to go back to Hubble for, it has some red line on it. It has been designed (inaudible) Kingsford: I would entertain a motion for Mr. Yerrington on that amount, what was the dollar amount? Yerrington: 5158, So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to approve of purchasing 4 signs and posts to install at each entrance of our parking lots, any discussion? Morrow: Out of who's budget does the S 158? Kingsford: I think it would be a good idea to take it out of newest Councilman's salary. I think it ought to come out of General fund it is. Any more discussion, all those in favor? Opposed? • • Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 61 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Anything else Max? Bob Corrie: Yes, I will be out of town in 2 weeks on Council night, and I notice that the big vote is on that night, can I do that by conference call if you set me up a phone I will be happy to. I'm sorry. Morrow: That is really brave of you. Corrie: That is all I have, other than to thank those who have given the candy each time. Kingsford: Ron Tolsma: Our activities committee, I have several names now of various softball player teams and (inaudible). I've got to get a hold of Mr. Forrey to see how the design on Tulley Park. The APA meeting the other day, our APA grant runs out September the 31 st if we don't have that pathway completed than the money used for that path goes back in that fund. Which Boise City is sitting there waiting to grab it. Forrey: Councilman ~orrie called APA today in fact they said June 1 st. Corrie: They moved it up and we are trying to decide now who we can talk to. Morrow: I'm not familiar with what those funds are for. Tolsma: We received a 5180,000 grant from that Ice Tea funding to put a walkway path from Linder Road on the public park property all the way following the drain ditch to Meridian road and that project has to be completed by June 1 st. There has to be somebody interested to accept something like that. That will connect our 8th street park along Tulley park . Kingsford: We try to make along that way so you people who had your drivers license taken away you'll be abte to drive your 3 wheeler. Morrow: I might make a suggestion that in your committee you include Walt Casey and at least one of the Western Ada Recreation Directors. Tolsma: I'm trying to get hold of Mike Prentice. I have some co-ed softballers and • ~ Meridian City Council March 1, 1994 Page 62 the little league. Kingsford: Entertain a motion Corrie: Sa moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTIQN CARRIED: All yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:00 P.M. ~TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) ~ ~' ~ GRANT P. KiNGSFORD, M . ATTEST: ~~~~GC~-.-~.s~S . 1~" > WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., Cl Y LERK ~CQ~v~ ~'~~' ~~G c~~ • • .~--/-- ~~- ~~~ ~'~v March 1, 1994 Mayor Kingsford Meridian City Council Re: PRQPOSED SHOPPING CENTER AT FAIRVIEW & NORTH LOCUST t:,120VE My name is Robert Moore. I have a home at 1835 Nortln Locust Grove Roa.d, directly across the street from the proposed center. Our home sets on one-half acre. My wife and I have lived there for 23 years raising a family of four children. We nave spent the majority of our adult lives working ~o improve ~:~ir property and home. This is not mean.t as an attack on the City Council or Planning Commission, but rather a plea from ourselves and this neighborhaod to reject this application based on the follc;wing facts: Effects of existing growth and traffic have already tremendously effected our lives, and if that isn't enough, we are naw being asked to make additional sacrifices to accommodz::te a development that will further degrade our neighborhood, o-.tr property values and our quality of life. Our neighbors have lost the sale of their home just ;~y word of the development. In addition, their property value is now 6~ lower. !: now see other homes in the area up for sale, ho:~~es whose faniilYes are leaving because of this proposed center. What a sad day it is for this neighborhood and the city of Mer::dian. Traffic in front of our home is already a major safety problem. We have been strangled from access to our prope:~ty and virtually forced out of our £ront yard by traffic speed and noise. A.C.H.D. is now proposinq additional widening to our street which will further encroach on our property. A large paru of traffic planning is based on myth and incorrect assumptions. Example: Idaho Athletic Club on Fairview, the traffic gerierated by that facility creates a tremendous parking and traffic safety problem, even though Fairview has five lanes. ~ • ~ Page -2- Traffic plannera are not plannets at all, they are traffic facilitators or road buildera. It is proven that bigger roads simply fill within capacity within a year or two, which results in the plannera congratulating themselves. I challenge the Commission to insist on traffic calming for this area. ANC.H.D. is now doing traffic calming studies for many areas in Boise that have felt the effects of their so-called traffic planning. Widening roads on North Locuat Grove is like loosening your belt as you gain weight. A.C.H.D. and the city of Meridian is not dealing with the real problem. We must have plana for traffic calming in this area. Shopping Center is not compatible with this neighborhoad area for the following reasons: The majority, if not all of existing home owners, are very much oppvsed. Increased noise from parking lot sweepers, snow removal equipment, boom boxes, public address systems, garbage and delivery trucks. Crime. The city of Meridian Police Department, up until January of this year, has kept a pin map showing various crime and traffic accidents. The Cherry Plaza Shopping Center area was completely full of pins for theft, assault, traffic accidents, vagrants and various other crimes, including possible gang activity. The proposed center is considerably larger and would generate much more crime and traffic. Glare of lightfng from automobiles, signs and the parking lot will be shining directly into our homes. During Planning Commission's review of this applicat:.on, there was considerable opposition shown by the neighborho~~d and other citizens. We were absolutely appalled by the attitude of the Commission and its chairman, Mr. Johnson. He boasts ~•.~f not being an elected official, answers seemingly to no one anci takes great pleasure in his arrogant, intimidating, abrasive attitude towards anyane that comes before the Planning Commission. I also would like to add that Mr. Johnson does not even live in i~he city of Meridian. The comprehensive plan states that any new development cannOt reduce the quality of life or devalue the property of any residence. It also states that the public should be aware, involved and supportive of the city's planning decisions. We are aware, we are involved and we as a neighborhood are opposed to this type of development. , , , ~ ~ ~ Page -3- There seems to be a mind set that this project is going through regardless of the so-called findinqs of fact, and regardless of neighborhood opposition and regardless of alternatives. Approval of this shopping center is an injuatice, it is our quality of life, our home, the value of our property and our ~ right to exist as a peaceful neighborhood that is at stake. No person or group has the right to increase their worth and well being at the expense of another person's property and quality of life. This shopping center proposal will do both. Alternatives: Meridian already has a lot of propert~~ set aside for commercial development in areas that do not impact established homes and neighborhoods. Those areas are shown on your comprehensive plan and would be ideal for a shopping center. Please do not force us out of our homea by approving this application. Res~e ull , ~ ~ Robert & Jean Moore 1$35 North Locust Grove Rd. Meridian, ID 83642 ~.J MARCH 1994 PUR~'HASING MONTH ~ WHEREAS: The purchasing and materials management profession has a significant role in the quality, efficiency, and profitability of business and government throughout the United States; and WHEREAS: The purchasing and materials management profession works for private and public, and profit and non- profit organizations; and WHEREAS: In addition to the purchase of goods and services, the purchasing and materials management profession engages in or has direct responsibility for functions such as executing, implementing, and administering contracts; developing forecasts and procurement strategies; supervising andJor monitoring the flow and storage of materials; and developing working relationships with suppliers and with other departments within the organization; and WHEREAS: The purchasing and materials management profession has tremendous influence on the economic conditions in the United States, and an accumulative purchasing power running into the billions of dollars; and WHEREAS: The National Association of Purchasing Management- Idaho Southwest, Inc., and other associations around the globe are holdinq activities and special events to further educate and inform the general public of the role of purchasing within business, industry, and government. Therefore, I, Grant Kingsford, Mayor of the City of Meridian, issue this proclamation claiming March 1994 as PURCHASING MONTH for the city of Meridian. I encourage all citizens to join me in commemorating this observance. [y ~' lW$ ~.'Y'~ Kingsford `•' `~~ -. Ma or of Meridian daho ~y ,;%F'°~'~~:"`"~ '~-~,; Y ~ ~ ~._~~ .,,~, .~ ~ ~ ~ }~,r~~~~c `~ «,.... ~ ~G~ '~' ~ V x a * •~~- ~i~r~~ ~~~ ~ ,:;~ ~ .~M r _. i ;au ~~:)> ~ ~;y~ ~.:a~c)a Y'' ~] >' y ~ ~~}'~ ~ ; ~ e ? ` ~r ~~ ~`~~ . 4.Y;~~~g~t~'!~~` ~~ S'•' ai ( ~ t `_~ ~ + National A~ciation of Purchasing Management - Idaho Southwest, Inc. P.O. Box 7972 Boise, TD 83707 February 18, 1994 Mayor Grant Kingsford City of Meridian City Hall 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Mayor Kingsford, The National AssoCiation of Purchasing Management-Idaho Southwest, Inc., invites you to proclaim March 1994 as Purchasing Month for the City of Meridian. NAPM-Idaho Southwest, Inc., is affiliated with 35,000+ national members. Our local members represent a full spectrum of manufacturing, government and service operations whom are collectively responsible for several billion dollars in annual purchases. The primary purpose of NAPM is to further the qrowth and professionalism of our members. Through education and recognition, the association strives to enhance and strengthen its members' purchasing skills and abilities. Please contact me if you would like additional information; I can be reached at 342-4551 or 466-4551. Thank you for your time and consideration. ~, ..Sincer ~lY. _ ~~ ~-~ ~ ~~ Sherry Jenki Public Relatio s Chair NAPM-ISW, Inc. cc: Jerry Anderson, Kay McGinley, NAPM-ISW PURCHASING MONTH Chartered Since 1980 ~ • ORtGINA~. BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ANNEXATION AND ZONIN(~ AND CONDTTIONAL USE A PORTION OF TIiE S.W. 1/4 OF THE S.W. 1/4 SECTION 5, T.3 N., R.l E., B.M. MI~:RIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGfB OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OP' LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on March 1, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridiari, Idaho, and the City Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicants appearing through Kathleen Weber and Roger Allen, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: ~ FINDINC~S 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 1, 1994, the first publication ot which was fi~teen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the March 1, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidenae; and that copies af 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AVLST PAC~E - 1 ~ ~ reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 40.45 acres in size. 3. That the property is presently zoned by the county as R-T (Rural Transition~; that the Applicant requests that the property be zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) and has requested a conditional use permit to allow storage units. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used mostly as residential property with some being used agriculturally; that the property to the north is used residentially as R-8 zoned property; that the land to the west across Locust Grove Road is not in the City of Meridian and is used as residential property similar to what the City zones as R-4; the property to the south across Fairview Avenue is agricultural or vacant land; the property to the east is a commercial building with several different types of uses. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. That Roger A11en, who is the general partner of the limited partnership that awns the property, is the Applicant; that the owner has consented ta the application and has requested this annexation, zoning and conditional use and the application is not at the request of the City of Meridian. 7. That the ~,pplicant's annexation and zoning application stated that the present use of the land is agricultural with the original house and out-buildings intact; that the proposed use a.s for a commercial shopping center, rental storage facility and transitional uses; that a possible transitional use was stated to FINDINGS 4F FACT AND CONCLUSTONS OF' LAW - AVEST PAGE - 2 ~ • be a retirement center; that the land is presently zoned by Ada County as Rura1 Transitional (RT); that the Applicant lists the following as characteristics that make it desirable to be zoned C- G: ~'a. From a traffic planning standpoint, the location o~ this site makes it highly functional ta receive commercial uses. The site is located at the intersection of a principal arterial and a major collector that is signaled. b. The continued growth of residential developments around this site is increasing the dema.nd for a commeraial site to keep place with neighborhood need. c. It is the intent of the planning ef~ort in this area to cluster commercial development thus avoiding strip development. This site is of adequate size to accommodate Commercial and Multa.ple Use(s)." 8. That one of the Applicant's representatives, Kathleen Weber, stated at the Planning and Zoning hearing that the development would compare with the South Shore project in Boise; that berming at the back of the building goes up six feet on the building; that they would screen out the noise from the traffic; that there would be a retirement center next to Mirage Meadows; that their storage buildings provide a single sided, one story landscaped buffer for maximum baakyard peace and quiet; that they intend to close Apple Street; that they would meet the Ada County Highway District site speoa.fic requirements; that bike lanes and walking paths would be incorporated into the development with sidewalks possiblg within the berming along Locust Grove; that ACHD will decide the alignment of Carol street but AVest would work with both ACHD and the neighbors regarding this concern; that each and every part of the project will have to go through conditional use FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLU3ION8 OF LAW - AVEST PAI~E - 3 i ~ hearings and design rev.iew and such will be required; that there would be a 400 foot buffer for Mirage Meadows from the rear of the proposed shopping center; that the requirements for approval regarding irrigation and the comments of Gary Smith would be met; that regarding the widening of Locust Grove Road such would be in the hands of ACHD but they would participate with berming sidewalks and landscaping; that they agree to pay impact fees and/or make a monetary donation to the City for purchase of property that .is more suitable for parks; that Kathleen Weber's testimony before the City Council was basically the same. 9. That one of the Applicant's representatives, Roger Allen, stated at the Planning and Zoning hearing that the Cit~r would maintain control over development of the property through requa.red design review and conditional use permit approval; that the project would have a 12 to 16 million dollar value; that they would pay impact fees, whatever those might be; that there would be a minimum of twenty feet of berming all the way around the shopping center and it would be nicely landscaped, sprinkled and sodded; that there would be sidewalks along Fairview Avenue; that they would like to pursue a retirement center in the northwest portion of the property; that for the neighbors across Locust Grove, there would be landscaped berming six to eight feet high; that in the back there would be clusters of at least three trees every 40 feet; that in the area next to Mirage Meadows they were proposing to have the neighbors backyards extended to the back of the storage buildings and it could be for the use of the neighbors if the neighbors would FINDINt~S OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AVEST PAC~E - 4 • • maintain the property; that pedestrian walkways would be provided; that they would provide a pedestrian walkway along what is now Dixie Lane; that they would provide detailed plans for landscapi.ng, drainage, building and other needed information for each conditional use application; that they would help the City identify some alternative neighborhood parks and agree to pay all City imposed impact fees for the purpose of adding to and maintaining its parks, bike paths, libraries, etc. That Mr. Allen testified further at the City Council hearing that the exits from the property would not align with the homes on Locust Grove Road; that they would do some berming along Locust Grove Road on the west side of the road; that they would enter into a development agreement; that they desired a General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G~ zoning and the shopping center would be developed as a commercial planned development. That regarding the proposed conditional use for a storage facility, the Applicant presented, as part of the information packet presented at the Planning and Zoning level, a section dealing with the conditional use; that section provides a list of benefits of rental storage, some layout drawings of how the storage portion would fit into the entire development, a layout drawing for the storage area which included a loop road, a layout drawing showing the entrance into the storage area, a site study showing how the line of vision from a two story house would interfere with privacy into existing adjacent homes, a biographic sketeh of Stor- It Rental Storages, a statement of Elements Important to Meridian, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLU3IONS OF LAW - AVEST PAGE - 5 • ~ a statement of Elements Important to Stor-Tt Rental Storage and Customers, and a statement as to Landscape Design; all such statements and representation are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 10. The Applicant's representative, Larry Durkin, testa.fied that previous developments they had done, such as Southshore in Boise, had been very successful; that property values had not declined around Southshore; that residential rental vaaancies had not increased; that the development in Meridian would increase the ability of Meridian resi.dents to shop in Meridian. 11. As stated above, the Appli.cant submitted two bound packets of information for support and clarification of the applications, one to assist the Planning and Zoning Commission and one which updated the first, for the City Council; that in the first packet of i.nformation, the Applicant states that the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for multiple use including a community shopping center; that infrastructure i.s in place for a shopping center; that the City will maintain control over development of the property through required design review and conditional use permit approvals; that the Comprehensive Plan anticipates a aommunity sized shopping center at this location; that all physical ingredients for a major shopping center are present at this site; and that the infarmation lists the benefits of a shopping center, including providing physical i.mprovements of additional widening of Locust Grove, bike lanes, a minimum 20 foot landscaped berming along Locust Grove, sidewalk along Locust Grove, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUBIONS OF LAW - AVEST PAGE - 6 i ~ preferably in the berming, and modern landscaping and buffering. 12. That the updated packet of material that was subm.itted to the Council, sets forth matters relating to neighborhood meetings and negotiations between the Applicant and the surrounding neighbors; with regard ta the Locust Grove Road neighbors the Applicant states several solutions to thea.r concerns that could be done on their side of the road and on the shopping center side of the road which included the Ada County Highway District plans to widen Locust Grove Road to five lanes; that this would be necessary before the shopping center would open; that shopping center entrances on Locust Grove Road would be located between lot lines in Doris Subdivision; that for the berming and landscaping along Locust Grove Road there would be landscaping along the shopping center portion, the berming would be two to four feet high to retain automobile lights within the parking 1ots, the bermllandscape area would be twenty feet wide the full length of the shopping center, there would be extended and wi.dened landscaping at entrances on Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove Road, and there would be landscape islands in parking seations per City requirements; that the berming and landscaping at the possible retirement center would be six to eight feet high and twenty feet wide. 13. That with regard to the neighbors in Mirage l~eadows the Applicant stated that there would be minimum impact and the neighbors would be at least 400 feet from the rear of the shopping center; that with regard to the neighbors east of Applewood street FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AVEST PAGE - 7 ~ . the storage would be a transitional use; that with regard to the neighbors west of Applewood street, the Applicant stated that they expressed a desire to storage as a transitional use alsa and Applicant would provided adequate buffering and transitional use in this area; that Applewood would become a twenty foot wa.de walking and bike path and that traffic would be limited to emergency vehicles. 14. That with regard to the other neighbors, the Applicant stated their concerns and stated how they felt its development would assist the community at large. 15. The Applicant also included in the packet a summary of what the comments of the neighbors were, copies of the minutes of the meetings between the Applicant and the neighbors, and copies of the letters that the Applicant had sent to some specific neighbors. The Applicant states with regard to Locust Grove Road residents' meeting, that it would contribute S11,Q00.00 dollars for landscaping on the west side of Locust Grove Road. 16. The Applicant also submitted copies of letters that it had sent to abutting land owners which explained things that the Applicant was willing to do to the soften the impact of the development on the adjacent property owners and their homes. The Applicant also submitted letters of support for the development. 17. That in the packet the Applicant sets forth the Ada County Highway District (ACSD) requirements and what it was willing to do with regard to ACHD requirements; that such are incorporated herein as if set forth in fu11. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AVE3T PA(3E - 8 i ~ 18. Applicant also set forth in the packet submitted to the Council a response to the City of Meridian Staff comments; that such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the Applicant stated that it would enter into a development agreement with the City. The Applicant set forth its position with regard to a neighborhood park which was that it did not feel that such was appropriate. 19 Applicant further set forth in the packet of materials submitted to the City Council its desires for the northwest corner of the property and that was for a retirement housing center. 20. The Applicant set forth in the packet of intormation a summary of what it was requesting and what it was agreeing to; that such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 21. There were property owners appearing at the Planning and Zoning hearing to make comments on and object to the application; that such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; there were property owners at the hearing before the City Council and they stated in substance as follows: a. J. Clous stated that the development would cause more traffic; that Mayor Brent Coles had been an employee of Dakota Development and therefore he questioned the i.mport of Coles' letter in support of the application; that the berming of Locust Grove Road on his side of the road would cause him to lose land; that he wants more that 2-4 feet of berming; that he wants contingency zoning so that if this development does not come to fruition the zoning would revert back to agricultural. b. Terri McCarthy stated that she assumed that the north 1!2 of the property would be residential; that the City should consider market saturation of storage places. c. Matt Hibbs stated that he wondered about the park FINDING3 OF FACT AND CONCLU3IONS OF LAW - AVEST PAGE - 9 ~ • situation and that he had not been ~notified as the Applicant had stated he would be. d. Raren Blayney stated that she was still apposed to the commercial zoning; that she had lived next to a shopping center before and it was not satisfactory; that she was told before she moved to her new house that the north 1/2 of the property would be residential. e. Elizabeth Gwin stated that the Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, states that residential land should be protected; she does not fe~l that her residential land is be.ing protected; that there was no control over what would be stored in the storage units; that she was apposed to the development in the fashion proposed. f. Bob Moore submitted a letter voicing his objection; that he testified that he was apposed for the reasons stated in the letter including traffic, lowering of property values, noise, and that he desires traffic calming. The letter specifically includes objections relating to growth and traffic, lowering of property values, traffic in front of his home, loss of land for the widening of Locust Grove Road, a desire for traffic calming for the area, the shopping center would not be compatible with the neighborhood, increased noise, increase in crime, glare from headla.ghts, that approval af the project would be an injustice to the people in the nea.ghborhood, and that there were other areas where the shopping center could be located. g. Don Bryan testified that the traffic and light glare would be bad; that he had concerns over irrigation delivery to his property and concerns over drainage; he wanted the ditch that delivered irrigation to him to be tiled before construction started and was concerned over what happened to the ditch even after it was tiled. 22. That the Meridian Police Department, Meridian City Engineer, Ada County Highway District, Meridian Planning Director, Central District Health Department, and the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments; that those comments are incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. 23. The City Planner, Wayne Forrey, commented that the annexation and land use request of C-G complies with the current FINDING3 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AVEST PAt~E - 10 . . Comprehensive Plan with the exception vf a neighborhood park and the updated landscape/screening and development review standards which apply to this area of the City; that tha.s site is adjacent to residential subdivisions and pedestrian access must be provided for interconnection; that an acceptable pathway/pedestrian access concept design plan must be submitted to the City and to ACflD prior to final annexation approval; the Comprehensive Plan indicates a need for a neighborhood park site in this area; that the Applicant must specify types o~ anticipated transitional uses for City analysis; that ACHD has requested a traffic study to be included in the development agreement or conditional use 'permit conditions pertaining to the shopping center component of the project; that the Applicant needs to submit detailed rental storage site development plans; that a variance would be required for a security guard's dwelling; that as a condition of annexation approval, a , development agreement addressing subdivision access, linkage, screening, buffering, transitional land uses, traffic study and recreation services, must be entered into prior to annexation approval; that the project will be subject to a development review and Zoning Administrator and Buildings inspector cheaklists. 24. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning the Planning Director has commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park sites to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the City and designated in an FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSTONS OF LAW - AVSST PAGE - 11 • i approved development agreement. 25. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 26. 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 a.s defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 27. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 28. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increage; that there are pressures on land previously used far , , agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots and other uses. 29. That the following pertinent statements are made in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan: A. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economia Development Goal 5tatement Policies, Page 19 1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to create a positive atmosphere which enaourages 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 cammercial uses are not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION3 OF LAW - AVEST PAGE - 12 ~ ~ 1.6 It i.s 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. B. Under LAND USE 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS, Page 21 Commercial and retail areas are established along major arterials, (East First Street, Cherr~r Lane, Fairview Avenue, Franklin and Meridian Roadsj and include small cammercial center and individual businesses. Uses include retail, wholesale, service, office, and limited manufacturing. 2. GENERAL POLICIES, Page 22 The following land use activities are not in compliance with the basic goals and policies af the Comprehensive Plan: a. Strip commercial and strip industrial. b. Scattered residential (sprawl or spread). 3. COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY CENTERS, Page 25 a. Community Shopping Center - As a retail commercial enterprise, it is designed to serve a multi-neighborhood area and can be both complimentary to and competitive with a Regional Shopping Center. b. In all cases, the locations af Commercial Activity Centers should be guided by performance and developments standards. These standards consider, among other aspects: 1. Traffic Volume and Type 2. Trip Generation 3. Impacts on Arterial Street System 4. Proximity to Other Commercial Development 5. Impacts on Neighborhaod Residential Areas 6. Accessibility of Site 7. Parking Demands FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AVEST PAGE - 13 . • 8. Pedestrian Circulation 9. Available Utility Systems 10. Aesthetics (Design Considerations) 11. Use Impacts Upon Other Adjacent Uses 12. Internal Circulation Design 13. Drainage 4. 5. c. A Community Shopping Center is defined as having between 100,000 and 200,000 square feet of gross floar area, and between eight to 30 acres of site area. COMMERCIAL POLTCIES, Page 26 a. 4.6U Community shopping centers will be encouraged to locate at arterial intersections and near high-traffic intensity areas. b. 4.7U Community shopping centers must be planned for future integration of adjoining residential uses. MIXED-PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT, Page 28 Mixed-use Area at Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue Plus Area North of Fairview Avenue. These areas are within Ada County, but nearly surrounded by the City of Meridian. The area is characterized by large rural lots, and a sparse development pattern. In order to stimulate planned development in these areas, the following policies apply: a. 5.16U All development requests wi11 be subject to development review and conditional use permit processing to ensure neighborhaad compatibility. b. 5.17U A variety of coordinated, planned and compatible land uses are desireable for this area, including low-to-high density residential, office, light industrial and commercial land uses. c. 5.18U Existing residential progerta.es will be protected from incompatible land use development in this area. Sareeniz~g and buffers will be incorporated into a11 development requests in this area. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AVSST PAGE - 14 CJ ~ d. 5.19U A planned community shopping center is anticipated near the Locust Grove Road/Fairview Avenue intersection. C. Under TRANSPORTATION, Page 42 1. Existing Conditions a. Cherry LanelFairview, East of Meridian Road, is listed as a principal arterial b. Locust Grove Road is listed as a M.inor arterial. D. Under COMMUNITY DESTGN, at Page 71 1. Entryway Corridors c. Fairview Avenue (East entrance}. 2. Entrance Corridors Goal Statement - Prvmote, encourage, develop and maintain aesthetically pleasing approaches to the City af Meridian. 3. Policies, Page 71 a. 4.3U Use the Comprehensive Plan, subdivision regulations, and zoning to discouraqe strip development and encourage clustered, landscaped business development on entrance corridors. b. 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. 4. Neighborhood Identify Goal Policies, Page 72 a. 6.4U Limit the conversion of predominantly residential neighborhoods to nonresidential uses, and require effective buffers and mitigation measures through conditional use permits when appropriate nonresidential uses are proposed. 30. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive P1an, Land Use, Rural Areas, page 28, it states as follows: "Land covered by this policy section has charaateristics which generally a11ow for agricultural and rural residential FINDING5 4F FACT AND CONCLUSTONS 4F LAW - AVEST PAGE - 15 • • 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." 31. That Section 6.3, af the LAND USE sectian 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. 32. 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." 33. That the property is included within an area designated on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a commercial area; that the commercial area is in an area that is listed as Mixed/Planed Use Development area. 34. 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: (C-G1 General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of the (C-G) District is to pravide 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 develapment and encourage clustering of commercial development. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AVEST PAGE - 16 • • 35. That Section 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, B, Commercial, lists commerci.al uses allowed in the various zona.ng districts of the City; that Shopping Centers, Community, are not listed as allowed uses in the General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G} district; that Shopping Centers, Neighborhood, are not listed as allowed uses in the General Retail and 5ervice Commercial (C-G} district; that individual department stores, retail stores, restaurants, and storage facilities, indoors or outdoors, are allowed uses in the C-G di.strict; that planned commercial developments, are an allowed use in the C-G district. 36. That Planned Development is defined in 11-2-403 B, at page 20 of the Zona.ng Ordinance baoklet, 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 aorrespond to lot size, bulk, densi.ty, lot coverage required, open space or type of resid'ential, 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 Develogments, or in which the proposed use of interior and exterior spaces requires unusual design flexibility to achieve a completely logical and oomplimentary conjunction of uses and functions. This PD classification applies to essential public services, public or private recreation facilities, institutional uses, community fac.ilities ar a PD which includes a mix of residential, commercial or industrial uses." 37. That under 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, A Residential, a Planned Unit Development - General Planned Residential, is an allowed conditional use in the C-G district; FINDINGS ~F FACT AND CONCLUSTONS OF LAW - AVSST PAGE - 17 • i under B 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. 38. That in 1992 the Tdaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of pola.tical subdiva.sions of the state, including school districta, ta deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial addita.onal costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdi.vision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its ourrent residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to aurrent and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population, and the housing for that population, does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population daes not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 39. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS Ot~ LAW - AVEST PAGE - 18 • ~ development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all lots in the City, because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 40. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide," 41. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, aommercial or industrial uses to screen the va.ew from residential praperties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (2Q') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 42. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows: "Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision;" 43. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such ae utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open spaae corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landsaaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state}, linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AVEST PAC,~E - 19 • ~ 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, draa.nages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identi~ication within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhaods, park areas and recreation facilities." 44. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: "Bicgcle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transpartation system (which is dista.nct and separate from the automobile~ can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada Countv (as prepared by Ada County Highway Distr.ict) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisians within developments." 45. That 11-9-607 A, of the Subdivision Ordinanae, states in part as follows: "The C.ity's policy is to encourage developers of land development and construction prajects 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." 46. That 11-9-607 E, of the Subdivision Ordinance, atates in part as follows: "A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditianal 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 distriet regulations qoverning use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSTONS OF LAW - AVEST PAGE - 20 u ~ 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." 47. That 11-9-607 F, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in part as follows: 1. Planned Developments - Planned developments shall be subject to requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and also subject to a11 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." 48. As stated above in Paragraph 9, the Applicant submitted material on the conditional use application for storage units in the bound material on the annexation and zoning; that such material on the conditional use is incorporated herein b~r this reference as if set forth in full; that the Applicant submitted no other materials on the conditional use request and did not specifically address the conditional use for the storage at the public hearing; that as found above, the Planning Direator stated that the Applicant needs to submit detailed rental storage site development plans and that a variance would be required for a security guard dwelling residence. 49. That under the Meridian Zoning Ordinance storage facilities, whether indoors or outdoars, are a permitted use in the C-G zone; that-outdoor storage is a conditional use in the C-N and C-C zones; that indoor storage is a permitted use in the C-G zone, but is not stated to be a permitted or conditional use in the C-N and C-C zones; that such may be permitted in those zones under a aonditional use under the provisions of 11-2-407 D, USES NOT FINDIN(~S OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AVEST PAt3E - 21 ~ • SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED OR LISTED IN DISTRTCTS. The current Camprehensive Plan, recently adopted, does state that in the Mixed- Use Area at Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue development requests will be subject to development review and conditional use permit processing to ensure neighborhood compatibility.; that Applicant states, in the packets of information submitted, that the required storage use is an allowed use in the C-G zone, which they have applied to have the property zoned, but they applied for a cond.itional use permit, apparentl~r in accordance with the new Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 50. 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 11-2-41? of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a legislative functian. 3. That the City Council has judged these annexation, zoning and conditional use applications under ldaho Code, Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian City Ordinances, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AVEST PAGE - 22 • ! Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submi.tted 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, Tdaho 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 with the consent of the property owner, and is not upon the initi.ation of the City of Meridian. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative functa.on, the City has authority to place conditians upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The Citv of Idaho Fa11s, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development ti.me schedules and requirements, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways. 10. That this Application has been submitted prior to the adoption of the proposed amendment ta the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that as a condition of annexation the Applicant must agree FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AVEST PAGE - 23 ~ ~ that the Meridian Comprehensive Plan shall apply to the land and any development and this must~ be agreed upon in a development agreement that must be entered into prior to passage of. an annexation ordinance. 11. As stated by the Planning and Zoning Commission, this Application has been difficult for the Council to decide because of the opposition to the Applications; that the Council understands the objections and sympathizes with them on an individual basis; that the duty of the Council, however, is not to be controlled by the interests of individual property owners and their concerns; that the duty of the Council is to assess the applications on the basis of the overall good of the City and its citizens; that the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinances of the City have measures to try and insure that adjacent property owners are impacted by development as little as possible; that it is with this duty and background that the Council has undertaken to make these Findings and Conc].usians . 12. That the Applicant's proposed use of the property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the current Comprehensive Plan which controls this application, states, in the LAND USE seetion, under 5.19U, that a community shopping center is anticipated near the Locust Grove Road/Fairview Avenue intersection. 13. The Applicant has stated and represented that its intention is to construct and operate a community shopping center, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AVEST PAGE - 24 ! ~ • but the Applicant has requested zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G}, which does not allow for a community shopping center. 14. 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. 15. That the Applicant and the City are therefore caught in a no-man's-land situation, i.e., the Comprehensive Plan aalls for a community shopping center at Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue but the Zoning Ordinance only allows for a coramunit~r shopping center in the Community Business District and not in the General Retail and Service Commercial {C-G) district; the Applicant has not requested the land to be zoned, Community Business District; that a shopping center could be allowed i.n the C-G district under a Planned Development; that the Applicant has stated that he would develop the area of the property planned for a shopping center under a planned development procedure. 16. That it is concluded that the City could annex the property and zone it C-G but the Applicant could still not construct a community shopping center; however, once the property was zoned C-G, the Applic~ant 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OP' LAW - AVEST PAGE - 25 • • mandates of the Comprehensive Plan and the testimony of those objecting to the development of the groperty in a cammercial manner. 17. That it is concluded that since the Applicant has represented in the packet of information submitted to the City that, "The City will always control the development through the Canditional Use Permit and Design Review approval process.", and since Kathleen Weber indicated that each and every part of the project will have to go through conditional use hearings and design review and such will be required, and since the Comprehensi.ve Plan, under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Area at Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue, in 5.16U, states that all development requeats will be subject to development review and conditional use permit processing to insure neighborhaod compatibility, and since Roger A11en stated that ". .. the shopping center portion will be developed as a commercial planned development ...", and the City should have control over any uses that are to be placed on the land, it is therefore concluded that the development of that portion of the land not to be used for storage is conditioned on being developed as a Commercial Planned Development, which is allowed in the General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) district. 18. Therefore, it is conaluded that since the Applicant has stated that he is agreeable to developing the praperty as a community shopping center under a commercial planned development process, the property should be annexed and zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G), but only cagable of being developed FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLU3IONS OF LAW - AVEST PAt~E - 26 C~ as a planned commercial development. storage shall be addressed below. • The development of the 19. 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. 2. The concerns of the owners of property along Locust Grave of having lights, particularly automobile headlights, shine into their yards and homes. 3. Payment by the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, of any impact, development, or transfer fee, adopted by the City, as agreed to by the Applicant in statements by its representative during the public hearing. 4. Addressing the subdivision access linkage, screening, buffering, transitional land uses, traffic study and recreation services. 5. An impact fee to help acquire a future school or park sites to serve the area. 6. ~n impact fee, or fees, for park, police, and fire serviaes as determined by the city. 7. Appropriate berming and landscaping. 8. Submission and approval of any required plats. 9. Submission and approval of individual building, drainage, lighting, parking, and other development plans under the Planned Development guidelines, including plans for the storage units. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AVEST PAGE - 27 • i 10. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements with the existing residential development. 11. Establishing the 35 foot landscaped setback required under the Comprehensive Plan and landscaping the same. 12. Addressing the comments of the Planning Direator, Wayne Forrey. 13. The sewer and water requirements. 14. Agreeing that the Meridian Camprehensive Plan is applicable to the land and any development. 15. The annexation and zoning of the land. 16. Traffia plans and access into and out of the development. 17. Meeting the representations made as part of the appliaation and hearing process. 18. 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. 20. That Section 11-2-417 D of the Meridian Zoning Orda.nance states in part as follows: "If property is annexed and zoned, the City ma~r require or permit, as a condition of the zoning, that an owner or develaper make a written commitment concerning the use or development af the subject property. If a comtaitment 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. ..."; that since the above section states that the development agreement shall take effect upon the adoption of the ordinance annexi.ng and zoning the parcel and since no development agreement has been agreed on, or even discussed, it is concluded that the development agreement is information that the City Council needs prior to the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AVSST PAQrE - 2$ • ~ final action on the annexing, zoning and conditional use applications, which is the annexation ordinance, and therefore pursuant to 11-2-416 F 2. the City Council may continue the matter from meeting to meeting until the development agreement is executed by all necessary parties. 21. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the property is in the be~t interests of the City ot Meridian, but it is concluded that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of paragraph 19 are met and the annexation and zoning is conditioned upon meeting the requirements of paragraph 19 of these Conclusions. 22. That regarding the conditional use permit request for storage units, it is concluded that Roger Allen, a representative of the Applicant, stated that Applicant desired to develop the shopping center under a commercial planned development, but he did not state that Applicant also desired to develop the storage under a commercial planned development; that the Planning and Zoning Commission concluded that if the Applicant agreed to develop the all of the property as a commercial planned development and enter into a development agreement, the property would then be annexed and the Applicant could pursue the development of the storage units as part of the commercial planned development; that it is concluded that under a conditional use and a development agreement, the same controls on the storage units could be had by the City as under a planned unit development for the storage. 23. That it is concluded that 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSI~AiB OF LAW - AVEST PAGE - 29 ~ • Compiled Ordinances of the Cit~r of Meridian sets forth the standards under which 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 City Council aoncludes as follows: a. The use, would not in fact, constitute a conditional use under the Meridian Zoning Ordinance since storage is stated to be a permitted uae in the C-G district, but the new Comprehensive Plan states that all development requests in the Mixed-use Area at Locust Grove Road and Fairvi.ew Avenue will be subjeat to development review and conditional u,~e permit processing to ensure neighborhood compat9.bility, and therefore the conditional use application is deemed to be appropriate, as is the granting of such conditional use. b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, if the requirements in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of I,aw are met, but the Comprehensive Plan requires a conditional use permit to a11ow the use. c. The use apparently would be designed and constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity as long as development is undertaken to meet the representations of the Applicant and those that may be required by the City under design revi.ew. d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses as long as development is undertaken to meet the representations of the Applicant and those that may be required by the City under design review. e. The property has sewer and water aervice available. f. The use would nat 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 ar noise. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AVEST PAGE - 30 ~ • h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use will be required and the parking ordinance shall be met including the preparation of a parking plan and landscaping. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 24. It is concluded that the conditional use should be granted if a development agreement is entered into regarding the development of the storage units and such is hereby made a condition of the granting of the conditional use permit for the storage units; that such a development agreement could be made a part of the development agreement required as a condition of approval for the annexation and zoning of the property, and such makes logical sense since there will be no annexing and zoning until the development agreement is entered into for the annexing and zoning. 25. That the requirements of the Meridian Police Department 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. 26. That all ditches, canals, and waterways sha11 be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled, the property sha11 be subject to de-annexation. 27. That the Applicant wi11 be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains wi11 serve the land; that the development of the property sha11 be FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCI,USIONS OF LAW - AVEST PAGE - 31 _ _ __ __ _ _ ~ ~ - subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the development agreement. 28. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained, witli approgriate ~ buffering and head light qlare reduction for the property to the west of Locu~t Grove Road. 29. That these conditions ~shall run with the land and bind the applicant end its assigns. , ~ 30. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial ,(C- G), and the issuance of a conditional use permit would be in the best interest o~ the City of Meridian. 31. That if these conditions of approval are not met; the ~. property shall not be annexed and tMe conditional t~se permit shall not be granted. APPROVAL OF P'I1TDI1iG8 O!' F~1CT AND CONCLUSION8 ~ The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approvea these Findings of Fact and Conc].usions. < ROLL C.ALL , COUNCILMAN M4RROW VOTE COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON VOTE COUNCILMAN CORRIE VOTED -_- COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED A9AYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BRBARER~ VOTED 1~~NDINt3S OF 1~'ACT A~t~ COIQCLUSI01~8 OF LAi~ - AVEST PAC~E - 32. ~ ~ DECIBIOIi The City Council of the City of Meridian hereby decidea that the property set forth in the application ~is approved for annexation, zoning and issuance o# a conditional use permit under the conditions set forth in these Findings of Faat and Conclusions of Law, including that the Applicant develop the land whic~ was represented not to be land for storage as a commercial planned unit development and that the Appla.cant enters into a development aqreement, for both the land that was repres~nted not to be used for storage and for land to be used for the storaqe facility, as outlined in the Conclusions of Law, prior to an annexation and zoning ordinance being paased; that an annexation and zoning ordinance, and the iseuance of a conditional use permit, shall not occur until a development sgreement is entered into as that agreement is information that the Council needs to de.cide whether to pass an annexation and zoninq ordinance and issue a conditional use permit or deny the applications; that if the Applicant i~ not agreeable with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions and ~is not agreeable with enterinq into a development agreement, the property will not be ar~nexed. There shall be no development or use, whatsoever, of the propert~r set forth in the Application as being used for other than storaqe, even if annexed and zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G~, unless done as a planned commercial development and such is approved by the City of Merid~an prior to commencement af conBtruction. MOTION: ~ APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT A~TD CONCLUSTOI~S OF LAW - A'VEST PAC~S - 33 ~ ~ 3! 1194: PUBLIC HEARING PRESENTATION BY KATHLEEN WEBER, GENERAL P.ARTNER AND REPRESENTATIVE FOR AVEST,LTD. MAYOR KINGSFORD, COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND MS. STILES, I AM KATHLEEN WEBER A GENERAL PARTNER OF AVEST AND CEO OF STOR-IT RENTAL STORAGES OF BOISE. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPQRTUNITY TO GNE SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT AVEST, STOR-IT RENTAL STORAGES, AND OUR COMMUNICATIONS WITH NEIGHBORS IN REGARD TO THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. ASSISTING ME IN SHOWING PLATS TONIGHT IS STOR-IT'S CONSTRUCTION/PROPERTY MANAGER, SCOTT WEBER. AFTER I COMMENT, MR. R4GER ALLEN, WILL GO OVER ~OUR PRESENTATION PACKETS AND THE CORRESPONDING SUPPLEMENT PACKET. ALSO, AFTER MY REMARKS AND THOSE OF MR. ALLEN WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU MEET MR. LARRY DURKIN, AVEST'S JOINT VENTURE PARTNER IN SHOPPING DEVELOPMENTS, HE IS HERE TONIGHT TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS. ALSO MR. BILL STRITE ~JF BRS ARCHITECTS IS HERE TONIGHT IF YOU HAVE ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK. THE APPROVAL PROCESS BEGAN ON THIS 40 ACRE PARCEL AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOCUST GROVE AND FAIRVIEW IN MERIDIAN APPROXIMATELY A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. WE ARE GLAD TO BE HERE TONIGHT -- PRESENTING OUR PROJECT. WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT ARE TW~ APPLICATIONS. ONE APPLICATION, IS FOR ANNEXATION AND A"CG" ZONING FOR THIS ENTIRE PROPERTIT. (SCOTT PLEASE OUTLINE THE PROPERTY) THE SECOND APPLICATION, IS A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RENTAL STORAGE COMPLEX ON A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. ( SCOTT PLEASE POINT TO THE RENTAL STORAGE PORTION OF THIS PROJECT) WE ARE BRINGING BOTH THESE APPLICATIONS AT THE SAME TIME SO WE CAN HOPEFULLY BEGIN STORAGE CONSTRUCTION THIS SPRING. WE FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT THE C.U. PERMIT FOR STORAGE IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ANNEXATION AND ZONING APPLICATION APPROVAL. • ~ WE HAVE SOME PICTURES OF THE SOUTHSHORE DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH EAST BOISE, AND RECENT STOR-IT DEVELOPMENTS IN WHICH AVEST PARTNERS ARE INVOLVED. AS BACKGROUND INFORMATION, FOR OUR C.U. PERMIT FOR STORAGES, I HAVE SOME DETAILED PLATS FOR LANDSCAPING, ELEVATION, LOOP ROAD INCORPORATION, BIKE PATHS, SHARED ENTRY DESIGN OFF FAIRVIEW, AND BUFFERING CONCEPTS THAT WERE DISCUSSED WITH NEIGHBORS. I'LL READ IN NINE COMMENTS CONCERNING COMMUNICATION WITH NEIGHBORS AROUND THE PROJECT. (SCOTT WILL YOU PUT UP THE PICTURES OF SOUTHSHtJRE) WE HAVE BEEN DOING PROJECTS IN THE VALLEY FOR OVER 32 YEARS. THE MOST RECENTLY COMPLETED PROJECT IS THE SOUTHSHORE SHOPPING CENTER IN SOUTHEAST BOISE. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ZONED AND APPROVED LONG BEFORE THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS DEVELOPED IN THIS AREA, IT WAS RE-DESIGNED AFTER NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS TO CONFORM TO THE NEIGHBORS NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS. THE LOCUST GROVE PROPERTY WILL BE DEVELOPED IN THE SAME MANNER. SOUTHSHQRE IS A TRUE ASSET TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IT SERVES. IT IS A 200,000 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER ON APPROXIMATELY 18 ACRES WITH KMART AND ALBERTSONS ANCHORS AND IS A J~INT VENTURE WITH SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE THAT ARE PARTICIPATING IN THIS PR4JECT. (MR LARRY DURKIN OF DAKOTA DEVELOPMENT AND THE MAJORITY OWNER OF SOUTHSHORE PARTNERS, MR. ROGER ALLEI~ YOU HAVE BEEN PROVIDED A COPY OF THE RESUME FOR MR. ALLEN AND A RESUME OF MR. DURKIN'S COMPANY, DAKOTA DEVELOPMENT. DAKOTA DEVELOPMENT'S PROJECTS INCLUDE 59 SHOPKO STORES, 2 KMARTS AND 23 OTHER SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENTS AROUND THE COUNTRY. ALSO INCLUDED IN YOUR SUPPLEMENT PACI~ET IS A LETTER FROM THE MAYOR OF BOISE, MAYOR COLES, CONCERNING THE SPIRIT OF COOPERATION WITH WHICH THE SOUTHSHORE SHOPPING CENTER WAS DEVELOPED AND HIS OPINION OF ITS BENEFIT TO THE CITY OF BOISE. MAY I READ THIS SH~RT LETTER INTO THE RECORDS? t~~~rlc.'~ UF 711F AfAI'Cjtt 41. 1fltl;N'1' CU1.ES MAYUIt • .:.t~ ~ ~~ f ~~s~- ~l .1 Bais~ i~tY 0~ ~•iaci~ .~` _~. ;~i Augus~ 17, ~993 Lerr~y Durkin Dako~a Dave ~ o~m~+n~ 380 E. rark Center ~oulev;~r~cl ~ois~, ID 83706 De~-r Larry s i COI~NCIL MI:MMt,~tr. SAItA I;AKf:lt ANNI::CTl1'LS UAUti{tA"1'I! ruuNaG rResiocrrt ~f. ~Rtir,Ml: MAt~I~ !'AI~I.A I~CHiNKY CAIt(-1.YN 7'i'.1i1'lil.lN(~ CUUNCII.,!'N(LTY.?1 M~~~~~ W~:~~~~~%~t~:~•~i I wgn~ed ta co~ngrA~ultita y~u or~ ~ j~+}~ weli dcne with the SouGhahOr~ Development on Park C~nt~r Boulevd~~. Tr-ia w~sg ane ot tho~e Nrv j~cts w~ier~ the neighbC,YhoOd hc~q t~BV@lOp6d ~-~., ftround the cammsrcial zc,n~i~y qnd, at the t~ma you atepped ifito th~ c~evelopmont ot tl,~ prvject, thore ?~ad baen A lot of contrav~~~y eu~'roundir-g th6 idea c,~c a 200, Oo0 aguare fo4t shoppittg cgnte~r being construatod at thai. lac:a~ian. tiowev~~'~ laecause or yaur dt7~lltY t0 , work with tho naiyttUcrrZ,oad and pr~vido 5~lu4iun~ to t~heir needs, w6 now hav~ a very nfcc ~hop,~ir~y center ptovJ~Qilty ~Ntvlce5 to a yruwit~y i~e~~ytik+orhaad are~ ai o-,r aommunity. I w~nt to thank yau fur yuur integrity in Q~Y~slu~riny this pra~ect and following ttirouyh with ev~rythi~tg yuu ~said yau would fl0 dt t11~ naighborhood meetings-. Acc:ordinq7.y~ I wt,uld we happy to b~ d refe~rence ~or you iti any ~~.her part of the: ~c~untry where ~rau are devalc~p~ng, ~c I xcvoyni.^.e y~u have proj~ct~ Wi~~~ t~atiane~l tenants thr+aughaut the aountry. vnry truly youra~ _!~'/ ,~; ~~~,, . ~ ~ H. B t Coles Mayor ~Z~~/ 1 i C'1't'Y 11At~t. • tb0 N<~Itl'tl c~Al•{7'C-I.lsO1fI.W.VA~tu • ttu. llUX bUl] • Itcll;ih, 1t)AI1c7R374)~O8G0 •'L(lY~:fM4•1122 An /;qurr! (>plK~rlur~ify ~;rny(~;1'E~r ,., . .. • • (SCOTT PLEASE BRING FORWARD THE STOR-IT PICTURES) AVEST HAS BEEN IN THE STORAGE BUSINESS IN THE BOISE VALLEY FOR 20 YEARS. I HAVE BEEN WITH THE COMPANY THE LAST 10 YEARS. DURING TH~ TIME STOR-IT HAS GROWN FROM A 900 UNIT - TWO LOCATION BUSINESS TO 4200 UNITS AND 4 LOCATIONS. THESE ARE PICTURES OF OUR STATE STREET LOCATION AND (JUR NEWEST ANNEX TO OUR MAPLE GROVE LOCATION. SPACE FOR LIVING AND WORKING IS A HIGHLY VALUED COMMODIT~. TODAY PEOPLE AND BUSINESS NEED RENTAL STORAGES TO UTILIZE THEIR SPACE MORE EFFECTIVELY. WE PROVIDE SPACE TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITY--A CONVENIENT PLACE TO STORE EXTRA ITEMS SUCH AS SNOWMOBILES, BOATS, MOTORCYCLES, AND OUT-(~F-SEASON TOYS THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE ST4RED IN YARDS -- ALREADY TOO-FULL GARAGES -- OR ON THE CITY STREETS. WE PROVIDE TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SMALL BUSINES5 INVENTORY SPACE. AVEST OWNS, SUPERVISES CONSTRUCTION PHASES, AND OPERATES ALL OF OUR OWN FACILITIES. WE DO NOT BUILD AND SELL- -WE ARE HERE TO BE A PART OF THE MERIDIAN COMMUNITY AND WILL BE SENSITNE TO THE CONCERNS OF OUR NEIGHBORS. (SCOTT, PLEASE SHOW THE LANDSCAPING/ELEVATION RENDERINCr THAT WE ANTICIPATE FOR THE STORAGE ON THIS SITE.) THE FRONT ELEVATION SHOWS OUR TYPICAL FRONT FENCING OF VINYL COATED BLACK FENCING WITH BRICK SANDSTONE PILLARS, LANDSCAPED GROUPINGS OF LOW SCRUBS, EVERGREENS, GRASS AND DECIDUOUS TREES. YOU WILL NOTE FROM THE SIDE ELEVATION~AND THIS WOULD ALSO APPLY TO THE BACK OF THE COMPLEXyAND THE PLAN VIEW~THAT THE PERIMETER~IS A SINGLE SIDED, LANDSCAPED, LOW PROFILE BUILDINGS. ALL ACCES5 DOORS, LIGHTING AND TRAFFIC ARE ~FN THE INTERIOR OF THE PROJECT. . • BECAUSE OF t~UR STORAGE DESIGN, STOR-IT'S NEIGHBORS ON STATE STREET HAVE TOLD US THAT STORAGES MAKE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. AND I WANT YOU TO SHOW YOU WHY THE NEIGHBORS IN MIRAGE MEADOWS HAVE ALSO DECIDED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE STORAGES AS A NEIGHBOR. THE BOTTOM THREE PICTURES ON THE (NEIGHBORHOOD PICTURES CHART -- SCOTT WILL ITOU PUT THAT ONE UP) SHOW THE BACKYARDS AND VIEWS OF SOME OF THE MIRAGE MEADOWS NEIGHBORS. (SCOTT NOW IF WE COULD SEE THE TRANSITIONAL USES CHART. THE CHART SHOWS WHAT KIND OF PRIVACY THE NEIGHBORS WOULD HAVE IF STORAGES WERE BUILT ON THE SITE INSTEAD OF HOUSING. ~ x P4~ ~ ,.. WE HAVE TWO LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM RESIDENTS IN MIRAGE MEADOWS WHO WOULD BE DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY OUR STORAGE FACILITY STATING THAT THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF OUR DEVELOPMENT. THEY BELIEVE THAT THIS PROJECT WILL SCREEN OUT MUCH OF THE TRAFFIC NOISE GENERATED ON FAIRVIEW AND PROVIDE MAXIMUM PRIVACY FOR THEIR BACKYARDS. WE BELIEVE THAT, TOO! STOR-IT DOESN'T HAVE DOCiS CHILDREN LIGHTS OR ANY OTHER "NEIGHBORLY" COMPETITION FOR VISUAL AUDITORY OR ACTUAL SPACE. WHAT AVEST HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORS ADJACENT TO OUR LAND, AND WHAT WE WILL BE MOST SENSITIVE TO, IS THAT THE NEIGHB4R5 WANT TO RETAIN THEIR PRIVACY -- FROM PEOPLE, BUSINESSES, TRAFFIC, POLLUTION, AND NOISE. (SCOTT PLEASE BRING FORWARD THE ENTIRE PROJECT PLAT) BOTH THE STORAGE COMPLEX AND A PROPOSED RETIREMENT CENTER ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER tJF THE PROPERTY, (SCOTT WILL YOU SHOW WHERE EACH C~F THOSE ARE) WOULD SERVE THIS BUFFERING PURPOSE. SINCE OUR MEETINGS WITH ACHD THEY HAVE REQUESTED A LOOP ROAD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT. THIS NEXT PLAT SHOWS THAT DETAIL. (SCOTT PLEASE PUT UP THE PROPOSAL TO ACHD PLAT) THIS LOOP ROAD WILL PRO~IDE INTERNAL FLOW WITHIN THE PROJECT WITH OUT PUTTING ANY FURTHER DEMANDS ON LOCUST GROVE OR FAIRVIEW. (SCOTT WILL YOU TRACE THE LOOP ROAD SO EVERYONE CAN SEE WHERE IT IS) THIS PLAT ALSO SH4WS ( SCOTT WILL YOU ALSO TRACE THE BLUE LINE AS I DESCRIBE IT) THIS BLUE LINE IS THE PROPOSED BIKE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY FOR THE SURROUNDING • • NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESS AND EMERGENCY ACCESSES THAT ACHD HAS RECOMMENDED. ACHD HAS ALSO AGREED TO THE CLOSURE OF APPLEWOOD (SCOTT CAN YOU PLEASE SHOW APPLEWOOD) MAKING IT A 20' PAVED, BIKE WALKING AND EMERGENCY VEHICLE PATHWAY. THIS ALSO SHfJWS THE STORAGE ENTRY LOCATED 250' BACK FROM FAIRVIEW (NOW SCOTT PLEASE SHOW THAT CLOSE UP VIEW OF THIS ENTRY) THIS SHOWS THE ACCESS TO THE STORAGES OFF THE LOOP ROAD AND AS A SHARED ACCESS WITH THE SHOSHONI BUILDING. THE PLAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW HAS HAD SOME REVISIONS BASED ON MEETINGS WITH SHOSHONI OWNERS AND THEY ARE AGREEABLE TO THIS NEW PLAT THAT BILLY RAY STRITE HAS DRAWN THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT HERE TONIGHT. (SCOTT PASS THEM OUT) FINALLY, I'D LIKE TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO A DETAIL LANDSCAPE DESIGN FOR THE ENTRANCE TO THE STORAGE FACILITY. (SCOTT WILL YOU PLEASE PUT UP THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN) AS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER THIS LANDSCAPING DESIGN CONTINUES AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE COMPLEX. IT INCLUDES GRASS, DECIDUOUS TREES SUCH AS SWEET GUM, GOLDEN LOCUST, EVERGREENS SUCH AS SPRUCE AND PINE, SCRUBS SUCH AS JUNIPER, FLOWERING QUINCE AND FLOWERING PLUM. THAT'S ALL THE PLATS I HAVE AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU SCOTT. AVEST HAS ACTNELY COMMUNICATED WITH AND LISTENED TO AS MANY RESIDENTS IN THE LOCUST GROVE-FAIRVIEW AVENUE AS POSSIBLE OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS. I WILL GIVE YOU NINE BRIEF SUMMARY COMMENTS THEY HAVE MADE REGARDING THIS PROJECT. WE HAVE HAD NUMEROUS MEETINGS WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND MADE CONCERTED EFFORTS TO ADDRE5S THEIR CONCERNS AND REACH COMPROMISES THAT BENEFIT BOTH OF US. COMMENT #1. THE CITY RECENED 15 LETTERS PRIOR TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS. ELEVEN OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO WROTE BUT DID NOT ATTEND OUR NEIGHB~RHOOD MEETINGS, WERE SENT FOLLOW UP INFORMATION FROM US. THESE LETTERS ARE IN YOUR CITY FILES. i • COMMENT #2. TWO NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS WERE HELD, DECEMBER 27TH AND DECEMBER 28TH. WE SENT 4UT 130 INVITATIONS TO THESE MEETINGS WITH RESP4NSE ENVELOPES. FROM THIS MAILING WE RECEIVED 2 RETURN LETTERS. THESE NEIGHBORS RECEIVED FURTHER INFORMATION FROM US. THE FIRST NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 27TH DISCUSSED CONCERNS OF THE MIRAGE MEADOW NEIGHBORS - 21 ATTENDED REPRESENTING 13 RESIDENCES. ON TUESDAY DECEPvIBER 28, THE FOCUS WAS ON THE LOCUST GROVE NEIGHBORS CONCERNS. MR. LARRY SALE FROM ACHD ATTENDED THIS MEETING TO MAKE US AWARE OF ACHD'S PLANS F~R LOCUST GROVE. MR. SALE ANSWERED QUESTIONS AND TOLD NEIGHBORS THAT OUR PROJECT IS NOT DRIVING THE EXPANSION OF LOCUST GROVE. LOCUST GROVE IS PLANNED AS A 5 LANE MINOR ARTERIAL BY 97 OR 98 REGARDLESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF AVEST'S 40 ACRE PARCEL. 19 ATTENDED THIS MEETING REPRESENTING 11 RE5IDENCES. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS WAS A COMBINED TOTAL FOR BOTH MEETINGS OF 19 DIFFERENT RESIDENCES AND WE HAVE INCORPORATED MANY OF THEIR. IDEAS AND SUGGESTIONS INTO OUR FINAL PLANS. COMMENT #3. MIRAGE NEIGHBORS ON OAKCREST WHO WERE UNABLE TO ATTEND EITHER OF THE EARLIER NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS WERE PERSONALLY VISITED AT THEIR HOMES. AS A RESULT, ANOTHER 13 NEIGHBORS WERE SHOWN lYIAPS AND RECEIVED EXPLANATIONS OF WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS WERE ABOUT AND WERE GIVEN AN ~PPORTUNITY TO SHARE THEIR IDEAS FOR BUFFERING USES ALONG THEIR PRQPERTY LINES. THESE NEIGHBORS WERE INFORMED THAT NOTES FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS WERE ON FILE AT CITY HALL FOR THEM TO REVIEW IF THEY WISHED. COMMENT #4. LETTERS WERE RECENTLY SENT TO THE MIRAGE SUBDIVISION OWNERS M4DIFYING OUR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL TO REFLECT THEIR ADDITIONAL REQUESTS AND ASKING IF THEY FELT A NEED FOR MORE INFORMATION OR ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WITH THOSE THAT ARE DIItECTLY AFFECTED BY OUR STORAGE DEVELOPMENT. TWO HAVE RESPONDED TO THIS MAILING, MR. RAMA .AND MR. MILLER, BOTH WERE IN FAVOR OF STORAGE. • i COMMENT #5. MS KAREN BLANEY OF MIRAGE MEADOWS SUBDNISION EXPRESSED SOME PERSONAL CONCERNS SPECIFIC TO HER RESIDENTIAL LOT. AFTER A LENGTHY PHONE CONVERSATION, SHE WAS SENT A LANDSCAPE PLAN AND LETTER TO CONFIRM OUR INTENTIONS TO DEAL DIRECTLY WITH THOSE ISSUES THAT SPECIFICALLY CONCERNED HER. WE ASKED FOR HER COMMENTS REGARDING THE PLAN. COMMENT #6. ON FEBRUARY 22ND ANOTHER MEETING SPECIFICALLY WITH THE NEIGHBORS ON LOCUST GROVE ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT WAS HELD. 6 PEOPLE ATTENDED, MR. AND MRS MOORE, MR. AND MRS CLOUSS AND NIR. AND MRS. MANSAYON. MR. ALLEN WILL SUMMARIZE THIS MEETING AND DISCUSS HOW WE HAVE ADDRESSED THEIR CONCERNS IN OUR PLANNING. MR. BOTKIN OF LOCUST GROVE PHONED AND STATED THAT HE HAS NO SPECIFIC CONCERNS AND WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING. SO WE HAVE ACTUAL COMMUNICATION WITH 4 OUT OF 7 NEIGHBORS. COMMENT #7. ON FEBRUARY 24TH AVEST REPRESENTATIVES MET WITH MR. DON BRYAN ON HIS PROPERTY TO LOOK OVER HIS WATER SITUATION AND NOTE HIS CONCERNS. HE ASKED THAT WE BE SURE HIS WATER DITCH IS CLEAR AND WE HAVE ALREADY TAKEN STEPS TO DO THIS. COMMENT ~#8. AVEST HAS MET WITH THE ARCHITECT FOR THE SHOSHONI BUILDING OWNERS. THIS COMMERCIAL BUILDING IS ON THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY. BILLY RAY STRITE, OF BRS ARCHITECTS DESIGNED THIS ENTRY AND IS HERE TONIGHT. HE CAN ANSWER ANIT QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE REGARDING THIS SHARED ACCESS. THIS CURRENT PLAN MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF ACHD AS WELL AS STOR-IT AND THE SHOSHONI OWNERS. FROM ALL THESE MEETINGS WE FEEL CONFIDENT THAT WE REACHED PRELIMINARY AGREEMENTS WITH THE MIRAGE NEIGHBORS, MS. BLANEY, LOCUST GR4VE RESIDENTS, MR. BRYAN, AND THE SHOSHONI OWNERS. WE WILL CONTINUE THIS PROCESS AS OUR PROJECT PROCEEDS. `i w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, z :~ . d `~ ~ ~'. l~ -~ ~- ~ ~ 4~ ~ Q ~ a ~ ~J ~ ~-- T ~ ~ ~ ' ~ I ``\ 7 V I _ ._ L'~S ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ t_fJ G3 P Q O/'r D ; ~`~ ~""~"` 1 i . ;' L~S ~' ~ U,1l~LK /IUG Pl~TN ~ ~l ~- ~ W A ~ 0 ~ ~ '~1 J ~h ~ ~ Y ~ ' ~ ,.,_..,._r ~ ~ ~ J ____-- ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ Q ~ ~ a ~ C~l l~S ""'~ PEV1f`N ~Rtrrt : ONIY • nm ~daGi~v~ t~c ,"~:lTfiic~~+ 1 ~,,, ,., ~„ ~%,V../',~, ,, ~~ rr-., /~ 4~i~~: __ .. _ _._. .. _ . _. __ ..~..,.,..~ ~- _ __. ~.. ~....... _ ~ _ _ - ~r~ ~~l.~r l ~ ~ Y? i~--^. . ~ j~f~;~.: ~1,:,; _-;.~;~ , y ~ ~ .: ' '. ~ ~ FINALLY, COMMENT #9. THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE PRESENTATION PACKET ALSO CONTAINS SOME IMPORTANT CORRESPONDENCE FROM ADJACENT LAND OWNERS IN SUPPORT OF OUR PROJECT. THERE IS A LETTER FROM MR. JON BARNES, PRESIDENT OF PROPERTIES WEST, INC., AND I BELIEVE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE HOMEBUILDERS ASSOCIATION FOR THE VALLEY, EXPRESSING HIS SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATIONS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. ALSO, THERE ARE LETTERS FROM THREE LAND OWNERS IN THE CHATEAU MEADOWS SUBDIVISION OF MERIDIAN, EXPRESSING THEIR FIRST~HAND KNOWLEDGE OF STOR- IT'S METHODS OF OPERATION IN THE BOISE COMMUNITY OVER THE PAST YEARS. I PRESENT THESE AS LETTERS RECOMMENDATION. IN SUMMARY -- I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT AVEST WANTS TO BE AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF THIS COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD--WE WANT TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR NOT JUST TO THOSE FAMILIES WHO DIRECTLY TOUCH OUR PROPERTY, BUT TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE LESS DIRECTLY AFFECTED, TOO. MR. ALLEN, MR. DURKIN AND I HAVE MADE AN EFFORT TO BE AVAILABLE AND TO LISTEN TO EVERY4NE WHO HAS WANTED TO EXPRESS AN OPINION OR GATHER MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT--EVEN THOSE WHO HAVE COME FROM A NUMBER OF BLOCKS AWAY. WE WANT THE ENTIRE AREA TO DEVELOP IN A PLEASING, UP5CALE MANNER. WE FEEL THAT OUR PROJECT, ON THE FRINGE OF THIS NEWLY DEVEL4PING MERIDIAN NEIGHBORHOOD, WILL BOTH SERVE AS A GATHERING PLACE AND A CONVENIENCE TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THIS BACKGROUND INFORMATION, I W4ULD LIKE TO NOW TURN OVER THE DISCUSSION TO MR. ALLEN AND DEFER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE TO HIM. ~ ~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 15, 1994: 1. FINAL PLAT: ENGLEWOOD CREEK SIJBDIVISON: TABLED AT FEBRUARY 15, 1994 MEETfNG: 2. FINQINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSI(~NS OF LAW: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SALMQN RAPIDS SUBDIVISON(FORMERLY LANDFALL?: 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR KING STREET STATIf3N SUBDIVlSlON WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT: 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR KING STREET STATION SUBDIVfSION: 5. FINDiNGS OF FACT AND C~NCLUSIONS OF LAW: REZONE REQEUST FOR SCOTTSDALE ESTATES SUBDIVISIC?N WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT: 6. FINDINGS ~F FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SC~TTSDALE ESTATES SUBDIVISION: 7. ORDiNANCE: #633 - SPORTSMAN P~INTE SUBDIVISION #5: 8. ORDINANCE: #634 - VALERI HElGHTS SUBDIVISION: 9. FINAL PLAT: SPORTSMAN POINTE #5 SUBDIVISION: 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FOR DORADO DEVELOPMENT AND MICHAEL AND CYNTHIA SCISCOE: 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ELK RUN SUBDIVISION #2 BY THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP AND JUB ENGINEERS: 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONfNG WITH A PRELlMINARY PLAT FOR SPORTSMAN POINTE SUBDIVIS(?N #4 BY THE WESTPARK COMPANY AND J.J. HOWARD ENGlNEERS: ~ ~ MERIDIAN CITY C(?UNCiL AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 1994 - 7:3~ P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ~rovec[,~ - MINUTES OF PREVIfJUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 15, 1994: 1. FINAL PLAT: ENGLEWOOD ~REEK SUBDIVlSON: TABLED AT FEBRUARY 15, 1994 MEETING: ~~~ ~F¢~~r~g~ ~P~o!/~4L flt~vl~ i~pPt/C~iI~~~E ~E'~'uf3~r~T ~FlN~L ~L~T ~~~~u~ NR~y 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND C~NCLUSIONS OF LAW: VARIANCE REQU S FOR SALMON RAPIDS SU DIVISON(FORMERLY LANDFAL~):, , ~f p, P~a'~''c. f`F ~ G'/G ~vPti ~ l~~vici~. c~. .4e-t f~ ,E~ /e cli ~~ 3. FINDINGS QF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR K{NG STREET STATION SUBDIVISION WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT: 4. FiNDINGS OF FACT AND C~NCLUSIONS OF LAW: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR KiNG STREET STATION SUBDIVISION: 5. FINDINGS fJF FACT AND CONCLUSI~NS OF LAW: REZONE REQEUST FOR SCOTTSDALE ESTATES SUBDIVISiON WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT: 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SCOTTSDALE ESTATES SUBDfVISfON: 7. ORDINANCE: #633 - SPORTSMAN POiNTE SUBDIV SION #5: C~an~e.! ~ 1/oi d~ tB,S'ub~i~ tr~ /~/f~ 8. ORDINANCE: #634 - VALERI HElGHTS SUBDiV1S10N: ~,P~rovc.oCr- 9. FINAL PLAT: SPORT$MAN POINTE #5 SUBDIVISION: ~ancet /~/mtcL -- ha.,~~t.`t 6~°~r~ (,tnne~ecG 14. PUBLIC HEARiNG: REQUEST FOR REZONE FOR DORADO DEVELOPMENT AND MICHAEL AND CYNTHIA SCISCOE: -~b/E~ uh,tit he~~ C~IC ~~eti~ 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ELK RUN SUBDIVfS10N #2 BY THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP AND JUB ENGINEERS: 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATIDN AND ZONtNG WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SPORTSMAN POINTE SUBDIVISON #4 BY THE WESTPARK COMPANY AND J.J. HOWARD ENGtNEERS: ~ ~ 13. PUBLlC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TUTHILL SUBDIVISI(JN #2 BY THE DICK CON CORPORATION AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING: 14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOCUST GROVE CENTER BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: C~~~f ~ffe'~ne~ ~i, ~repa~e y+ec~ ~~~ ~ e fL 15. PUBUC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FOR GLENN AND MILDR ED NYBORG: a~prov~ FlF' ~ C'fG 16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FOR RQBERT AND FRAN WHITMIRE: 17. PROCLAMATION: PURCHASING MONTH: 18. WATERISEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCiES: 19. APPROVE BILLS: 20. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: ~ • . oxniNAxc~ No. 6 3 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 of the NW 114 of 5ection 11, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of said City to annex to the said City real property which is hereinbelow described: A parcel of land located in the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 11, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the corner common to Sections 2, 3, 10, and 11, T.3N.,R.1W.,B.M.; thence South 00°00'05" West, 1328.42 feet to the North 1/16 corner; thence South 00°00'04" East, 190.00 feet the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING (TNT.TIAL POINT). Thence South 89°20'1?" East, 491.10 feet to a point in the center of Eight Mile Lateral; thence along the centerline of Eight Mile I,ateral South 39°34'48" East, 408.84 feet to a point; thence 114.49 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 300.00 feet, a central angle of 21°52'00", and a long chord bearing South 50°30'48" East, 113.80 feet to a point; thence South 61°26'54" East, 9.02 feet to a point; thence departing said centerline South 80°16'00" West, 344.57 feet to a point; thence North 88°01'37" West, 507.99 feet to a point on the section line common to said Sections 10 and 11; thence North 00°00'04" West, 438.22 feet to the point of Beginning comprising approximately 6.73 acres. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - WELKER Page - 1 • . Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho: Section 1. That the above and referenced real property described as: A parcel of land located in the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 11, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the corner common to Sections 2, 3, 10 , and 11, T.3N.,R.1W.,B.M.; thence South 00°00'05" West, 1328.42 feet to the North 1/16 corner; thence South 00°00'04" East, 190.00 feet the REAL POINT OE BEGINNING (INITIAL POINTj. Thence South 89°20'17" East, 491.10 feet to a point in the center of Eight Mile Lateral; thence along the centerline of Eight Mile Lateral South 39°34'48" East, 408.84 feet to a point; thence 114.49 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 300.Q0 feet, a central angle of 21°52'00", and a long chord bearing South 50°30'48" East, 113.80 feet to a point; thence South 61°2b'54" East, 9.02 feet to a point; thence departing said centerline South 80°lb'00" West, 344.57 feet to a point; thence North 88°O1'37" West, 507.99 feet to a point on the section line common to said Sections 10 and 11; thence North 00°00'04" West, 438.22 feet to the point of Beginning comprising approximately 6.73 acres. is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and is zoned Low Density Residential District (R-4); that the annexation and zoning is subject to the conditions referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as adogted by the Meridian Council on the request for annexation and zoning. Section 2. That the groperty sha11 be subject to de- annexation if the awner shall not meet the following requirements: ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - WELKER Page - 2 • ! a. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains wi11 serve the land. b. That the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted January 4, 1994. c. That any develapment plans will have to show adequate access and will have to meet City requirements and those of the Ada County Highway District. d. That, as a condition of annexation, 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 the following, among other items: 1. Inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 2. The Applicant and owners of the property, and if required, any assigns, heirs, executors ar personal representatives, pay, when required, any impact development fee or .transfer fee adopted by the City, if appliaable under the development fee or transfer fee Ordinance. e. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, and 11-9-605 M. which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways. f. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. g. That if these conditions of approval are not met the property shall be subject to de-annexation. h. Meet the requirements and canditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. Section 3. That if Applicant shall fail to meet the above conditions the property shall be subject to de-annexation, which conditions subsequent shall run with land and also be personal to ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - WELKER Page - 3 ,. , ,, ~ ~ the owner and Applicant. Section 4. That the City Clerk shall cause one (1) copy of the legal descripta.an, and map, which shall plainly and clearly designate the boundaries of said property, to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, Ada County Assessor, and the State Tax Commission within ten (10) days following the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and apgroval as required by law. PASSED by the City Council and approved by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this lst day of March, 1994. APPROVED: ~ R-- GRAN P. IN RD ATTEST: .~,~~ ` i - WILLI.AM G. BERG, J.-- CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO,) • ss. ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - WELKER Page - 4 ! ~ County of Ada, ) I, WILLIAM BERG, City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, fu11 and correct copy of an Ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OR LAND LOCATED IN TAE SW 1I4 OF SECTION 11, T.3N.,R.1W.,B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE", passed as Ordinance No. 633 , by the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the / s% day of y'd?QhCIv , 1994, as the same appears in my office. DATED this Cs~ day of ~~G~~'Cji- , 1994. City Clerk, City o Ada County, Idaho STATE OF IDAHO,) : ss. County of Ada, ) .~ - ~~ ~v ~4~ K p o ~,~ ~t r~' ~.,,,, 'Fa ~' .~' '.~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ # ~ ~~r ~ q p9 .wT tti~' „~'~l 'V` ~~v~~r , ~n On this 1 dag of ~e~Ct~y, 1994, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personal.ly appeared WILLTAM G. BERG, JR. known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. . i . ,~ SEAL Notary Pub i fo aho ,~~te1~if~~ Residing at Meridian, Idaho ~~~.~E ~, ~•.,~r M~y commission expires 08/02/99 ~~ C ,,,•~~~ ~~~,~,, '- 9 y p 2 Q ~ . :> os~R~ ` 1 • ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ :~~ A~~`~~ . ~ . : 4 ~; ; J' ~~ .~, ,, "~~'~PE O~ e~.., , ~~<<~ii~~ir-~~~~ ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - WELKER ~ +' . . UtIR~~R ,,~ ; ~,~r~~^ ;,,~.,~,RO ,;. u ~ Y ~ Y ati~s~ t~ ~~~-- C~ /~~ ' 9'i t~Rfl ~ fli~ 1 ~ /S P~g__ 5,..~..- . REC~~:u,i :;~ ,~a_ ~;~ EST Of • •ORiGINAL ORDINANCE NO. 634 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING AND CHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF MLRIDIAN WHTCH IS DESCRTBED AS A PORTION OF TAE NE 1i4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of Merida.an, Idaho, have cancluded that it is in the best .interest of said City to amend and ahange the zoning from R-4 Low Density Residential to R-15 Medium High Density Residential, far the following described parcel: From the common carner ot Sections 11, 12, 13 c~ ~ 2~ 1~# $ and 14, T. 3N. , R.1W. , B.M. , a distance of ~_~, , 2638 feet on a bearing of South 89°49' Bast ~~.(~ dtG~~~ to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this , ~l~ , ,.;~';~;~ description: ' -; ~ ~•~~'`~ ' Thence South a distance of 788.8 feet; 601S~ iD Thence North 65°57' West, a distance of 386.0 r, feet; '9`~ i~~fi 2~ ~i~'i ;, : ~y~ J ~ T en e North 00°05' East, a distance of 183.0 F ~ ri ~,.,. _.....~.. - ' r j . RfCO~~~.~;, .'.a ,.~.. .._ ~';~T Or Thence North 09°10' West, a distance of 155.45 feet; Thence North 23°13' West, a distance of 84.9 feet; Thence North OQ°12' East, a distance of 218.0 feet; Thence South 89°49' East, a distance of 411.0 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian, Ada Caunty, Idaho: Section 1. That the aforementioned real property which is REZONE ORDINANCE - SCOTTSDALE ESTATES Page 1 ~ ~ described as follows: From the common corner of Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., a distance of 2638 feet on a bearing of South 89°49' East to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description: Thence South a distance of ?88.8 feet; Thence North 65°57' West, a distance af 386.0 feet; Thence North 00°05' East, a distance of 183.0 feet; Thence North 09°10' West, a distance of 155.45 feet; Thence North 23°13' West, a distance of 84.9 feet; Thence North OQ°12' East, a distance of 218.0 feet; Thenae South 89°49' East, a distance of 411.0 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING be, and the same is hereby rezoned from R-4 Residential to R-15 Residential, and Section 11-2-425, Official Zoning Maps is hereby amended to reflect the same. This rezoning is subject to the conditions referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as adopted by the Meridian City Council on the request for rezone. Section 2. The Applicant shall tile all ditches, canals and waterways. The Applicant shall submit to the City a deed restriction that states only single-family dwellings may be constructed on the land. Section 3. That if Applicant shall fail to meet the above conditions the property shall be subject to rezone back to R-4. Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as required by law. PASSED by the Meridian City Council and approved by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this ~.~ day of /~2ahClt. , 1994. REZONE ORDINANCE - SCOTTSDALE ESTATES Page 2 ~ • APPR VED: R -- G T . KIN ATTES : ~~ ~~ ` ~~ Go~avop,~~ !'~r LLIAM G. BERG, JR -- CITY CLERR V.+ ~`"o ~ , ~t G ~~~~A ~' ~ ti '~O !~~ T 1 st • ,,rQ ~ STATE OF IDAHO, ) CO~~~,~ ~ ~o : ss. County of Ada, ) I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, full and correat copy of an Ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CTTY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING AND CHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN WHICH IS GENERALLY DE5CRIBED AS A PORTION OF TAE NE 1i4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE"; passed as Ordinance No. 634 , by the City C~,ouncil and Mayar of the City of Meridian, on the -~ day of /1~'~it,G~i.~ , 1994, as the same appears in my office. DATED this ~~day of __~~~j'~' ~ , 1994 . ~ / ° City Clerk, City o M idian Ada County, Idaho -. v `-~~ ~+~° p,o«; +f~'a ~.t ~7 ~ ~ G S~~L a ~ o , pd ~3T ls~• ~4 9 C~~'~T~t ~ ~~P REZONE ORDINANCE - SCOTTSDALE ESTATES Page 3 ~ ~ STATE OF TDAHO,) • ss. County of Ada, ) On this 15 day of March , 1994, be~ore me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared WTLLIAM G. BERG, JR., known to me to be.the person whose name is subscribed ta the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. TN WITNE5S WHEREOF, I have hereunto set iay hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. ,',~~~~nr~rrr.~~~~ r . `,~~ \~' G . ~ s,r~ A~ \~~`Q~ ~' a I ~ . ~ ~ SEAL ` ~ ~,r~ ~~ - :~r~ ~ ~~ , s ~b ~ ~ ~- ~' `` : ~ :,~~-~ ~~~•` '.~1~~~~~~. , ~~~~JI/Iltil~ti~,` ` ~ ary PulYiic for ldaho iding at Meridian, Idaho commission expires 08/02j99 REZONE ORDINANCE - SCOTTSDALE ESTATES Page 4 ----- __.. _ __ _ _ ---_-~_ - __ __ -- _ - ,.---. . . _ __ - - --4 ~ ' ~'" ; r ~:-r w`.4 Y , .ti,/ , • ~ ~J , : . ___.. _ ..__. .. _ ... ~ __ 1 ' _ .~_.___- _ - -- . _.. _ _ -_-__.. _... ___._..._.__. . a~ . .-~~~ - .__ ' __ ~4 5 6 7! b 9 of ~. CREST WOOD I 2 i~6 ~5 ~ ~ i 0 ~ 3 14 21 l4 15 0 C~ II 9 , ~ -S- ~ y ~' C S~ ~ `' i2 4 13 + f7 ~' . ~ (l ~ CE'cST W000 CIR. ,` OO 5 ~2 • ~ 23 24 25 26 13 1 • 6 W I f ~ ! -~ ~ a ~0 ~ AC~ , 9 ~ ~ DR _ ~w i . ~ ~ 5 4 3 2 I~ ' 2 BARRETT ST. 10 II 12 3 • 4 x 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 I 5 H- ~ 9 10 II 12 13 14 ~5 4,• 7 2 ~ 3 ~ 6 8 FULMER CT. ~~ 24 23 22 ~I 0 ~~ 4 8 ~ },, 18 k / ~ I 4 ~ ~,' - 5 9~ ~ ~'n~ N 9 ~.'J 3 0 3! ~ h~OO 6 ~ 7 . ~p ~ W , 25 26 2T 28 29 HANOVER CT S ~ ! 1 Z~" ~,r . ~,g 12 3 40 39 38 37 36 ~r ~~33 - a t' ~ 14 ~,q ~~ ~ ~ . *s {6 ~ 7 ~e 15 JO 14 ~J u' ~ •,I q~ 43 44 ^ "/ 1 ~ Je ~/~t s~ O cR ~ P£NNW000 ST. ~ FF s3 Ny~~4 8 N s9 I 2 f ~~r_ 5 °- t i 0 12 13 J a 2~ 2' s p SJ 1 • > ST • -.~s e s ~j 3 6 r w 9 ~4 -- ~ 2d ' ~6 s ~~ _ Q 8 IS = ~9~ 17 ~ 18 ~ Y T Is J r~ ~ - (y 19 ~2 ~'\ / V ~ ` ; i ~ 20 ~3 s F~,~~r 21 --- e 7 zz e ~R, za ~ c.,p ~' • 24 ~ ~ NO G ~c.~ • ~ ~o ' ~ lv ri n •~ ~- 2~ 1z 13 4 ~~p~ 20 14 ~i ~ s le 7 s ST 18 13 T n R T / ' 7 8 9 16 8- ~_ : 1 O ~1 ',, . • 8 ~Z .» ry s ti • • __ .---- ~ _ _ - -- . .. M' _, ,._.___. __'__~~.___.' ~_ '_"..._.~ r_ ' _ ..__.... <t.-~va .,_-... tM~r~p , ~: - ~ , ~ , ~. ' -1,~ - r -13- ->Z- 1 e~a~ rLANNiNt~ A9C~N. R -~ • ~ Nov os ~ - 2 .. . _. _.. n° • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~---------"`^"' . •.. z.~r ~ OR1GlNA~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 `y~~%~f`~~[.4~/ _ r, f- -: ;~~~;, J. L'.~:~~ .,' , ..ti~ BUlS~ ~~ AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 633 f, ~ ~_, ~; ' S`i {~1~~ c: ~~ ~~~`l .: {~ ~N AMENDED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIA~dc~l7~l~~£INf' G CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS AR~0~~0N`OF~TH~ ~W 1/4 of the NW ll4 of Section 11, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Ca.ty Council and the Mayor of the Cit~t of Merid.ian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of said City to annex to the said City real property which is hereinbelow described: ~, tract of land in the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 11, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as fallows: Commencing at the section corner common to Sections 2, 3, 10 and 11, T.3N., R.1w., B.M., thence South along the seation line common to Sections 10 and 11, 1328.37 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 89°20' East along the North boundary of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 11, 332.03 feet to a point on the approximate centerline of a certain canal; thence South 40°04'40" East along said centerline, 716.11 feet to a point; thence South 58°45'30" East along said centerline, 67.90 feet to a point; thence South 80°14'50" West, 348.42 feet to a steel p.in; thence North 88°00' West on a line between two certai.n,ditches, 508.04 ~eet to a point on the section line common to said Sections 10 and 11; AMENDED ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - WELKER Page - 1 • • thence North along said section line, 628.32 feet to the Real Point of Beginning. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho: Section 1. That the above and referenced real property described as: A tract of land in the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 11, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described a's follows: Commencing at the section corner common to Sections 2, 3, 10 and 11, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., thence South along the section line common to Sections 10 and 11, 1328.37 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGTNNING; thence South 89°20' East along the North boundary of the Sauthwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 11, 332.03 feet to a point on the approximate centerline of a certain canal; thence South 40°04'40" East along said centerline, 716.11 feet to a point; thence South 58°45'30" East along said centerline, 67.90 feet to a point; thence South 80°14'S0" West, 348.42 feet to a steel pin; thenae North 88°00' West on a line between two certain ditches, 508.04 feet to a point on the sectian line comman to said Sections 10 and 11; thence North along said section line, 628.32 feet to the Real Point of Beginning. is hereby annexed ta the Citg of Meridian, and is zoned R-4 Residential District; that the annexat.ion and zoning is subject to the conditions referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as adopted by the Meridian Council on the request for ~MENDED ANNEXATION ORDINAPICE - WELKER Page - 2 ~ annexation and zoning. • Section 2. That the property shall be subject to de- annexation if the owner shall not meet the following requirements: a. 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. b. That the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted January 4, 1994. c. That any development plans will have to show adequate access and will have to meet City requirements and those of the Ada County Highway District. d. That, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant sha11 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 inclusion into the subdivision af the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G, H 2, K, L of the Revised and Compiled ~rdinances of the City of Meridian. e. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time sahedules and requirements, and 11-9-605 M. which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways . f. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. g. Meet the reguirements and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ancl meet the Ordinanaes of the City of Meridian. Section 3. That if Applicant shall fail to meet the above conditions the property shall be subject to de-annexation, which conditions subsequent shall run with land and also be personal to the owner and Applicant. ~ Section 4. That the Cit~r Clerk shall cause one { 1) copy of the legal description, and map, which shall plainly and clearly designate the boundaries of said property, to be filed with the Ada AMENDED ANNEXATION ORDTNANCE - WELKER l~age - 3 • u County Recorder, Ada County Assessor, and the State Tax Commission within ten (10) days following the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE:. There being an emergency, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as required by law. PASSED by the City Council and apgroved by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this ~~~day of March, 1994. APPROVED: R-- GRANT P. IN F D ATTEST: ,,,~ Q~ ~~RJ k oaPOa~ ~I V ,±° ... '~'0 7 ~ ~, , ~ x WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. - CI CLERIi ,'~ G ai~~~ m # ~, ~ w ~ o G~r i~~• o ti~ ~ 4 ~°~~wtr , ~a STATE OF TDAHO,) : ss. County of Ada, ) I, WILLIAM BERG, City C1erk of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, do,hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of an Amended Ordinance entitled '•AN AMENDED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SW 114 OF SECTION 11, T.3N.,R.1W.,B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE", passed as Ordinance No. ,~~~~~ by the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the ,f,~ - AMENDED ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - WELKER Page - 4 • • day of ~G~~C~ , 1994, as the same appears in my office. DATED this j~~ day of STATE OF IDAHO,) : ss. County of Ada, ) ~GC~-~- I~ Ada~ County, , i9s~. On this i5 day of March, 1994, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within and foregoing, instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREDF, T have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written . .. /f '~~,.•~~«ni.,,~~ ~ _ // ~.• ~~, ~ ~ . .,~ .~``~~ ~'°~~-~~' '°- ~~ ~.~ °4c+ c3' ~ ~ ~' ,~~'~' ~ ~ ~~~~ " SEAL : ~ : .. ,~~ „ s z ~ ~ ~ ~ +~ ~. `~~~ ~~ ~' ? ~ a. w i ~' ~. I ~f~ ~. F + ~ ,. . i'' I~~ ~~a+'~L`~.^4`+'n'N . ... y a. I', °+ '~~ g ~ ``t` I ~. I~/ ~ } ~~IIIIiEl1~~ la.c =or laano t Meridian Idaho ~n expires p~~02~gg AMENDED ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - WELKER Page - 5 ~ ~ .~.._~.- : ~ r C~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ -_ J ~ . ~ ~~ N 1 'V • ~ ' .! ~ H~ I ' 1 ~ I~ --~;~_--- ~ ~ ;o =-- -- =-~- - _~_ i ~t~ '~ ~~ ~~~~ ,b ' `1 ~ ,z_~,, • , "v ~ _...a ; ~, ,N ,_J ~ ~:. ~K`; ` ~~ -- l ~~~~, ~o ~- ~ ~ ',?,z. _ r-- ---- ~ - ~,,~ ~ "°* } +w3c~o~ . •;'l1%' .• - ` i . '~ ~ { i - _,~- . . . ~ ~I - _ ~;~ .'-~, _ .+~ , - ., . -r' ~. , v " ' , ~ ' ~ s ` ~ ' ~ I • , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ . ~ f ~ . . ~ ~ c,. " c' • ~ ~ ~ J '%!~.~, > . ~ ~ . ~~~ ~ -~ ` .^. ; v ; ~ ~, ~`, v~ „„ \\ ` ~ _ Z 11 ^ , - • - _ _ +~ { a I~ • ~ I ~ i ` ~s ~. n . ~ ` . ~` ..4~~ , -, ~ Z Q Q 1 ' e; l. •' W W ~ , ~o . ^ ~ ~/ (~- ~ ` , -. -..~ ' ~ ~ `` • . . L ' : ~ . ~ ~ V l~' i . y ~ ' \ 3 . J ~ s . . ~ I -- --- - - -~ V -- - -- -'- i \ ~, :a, ~ J • . .^, / J! _L_.. . }tT' ` !OM .. • ~ ,\ . R + , .~ ' ' • t' ___' '~ ~ ~ ~~~ _ ~~ ~ . . . ~ ~ . , "" ~ ~ Q' r • ~ ,L , ' - .w ~ ..'_'.~\ l.\I , , , ' ~'rDM ; . . . J .~ ` •~~ , , \ ~ ~ _, . 1+~•~ ~_~_ - ~~ . ' . . .-~I~•.O'yi~'~ . ~~~, . ~~ `,` ~ ' ' 1 ~+! ' ~ _ ~ 1 . _ ~ ~, t - ' •.t ^ I I / 4 ~ . 'I ~Ar£pAt ~ ~~ t ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ k ~ U ~~' ~ Z 2 ~ ~ ~ U Q ~ U~ j 0 c -qr ~ ~ .1 i 1• ~ ii .i - - - - rI !I ;~I / ,' ~ ~, ;,~ ; ,,; , `~,r, i y ' /~ I ~ ~ ~~; ii i r"~ i~( QPy ~ ~ I ~~ i ~ P y 1 ~ ` ~-------- ~ { .ro) 3NV' 334-'.c~ j I {~; ~ i;i I:~ ('~ +;~ I ' ,~ - - i~ a~ ~-_-__- l ; ~' , i~ r' I~ ~ `~; ~ 1, I; ~ '. Wi. :, ~ ~~ W' ~~~ ; `" ' ~ 1 ~ ~~~ . I ~ ~ . ~ . ~~,~ ~~,,e~.~ t , ~ 9 9 ~t ~ ~ PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET NAME: PHONE NUMBER: -°~~~ ~ ~ !~ ~ ~ 8~.~.o.c c=~--- ---- _ `'~~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~o °j _ i . -- ----°L~~~-'~---------------------____--- S ~ ~ :~Z O ~____--_ -- -N ~~-~'''~--L~~~..----------------- -~ ~ ~ _ ~G ~~ _____--------- - ~ -~° - --- ~ _~~..__----_-w________ $~Mn~~ ~ _______ , Tb ~,,,~ r. rece~ved Cf~ rn~ ~ `~ ~~/-Q~ ~~~~ 3/ 1 J94: PUBLIC HEARING PRESENTATION BY KATHLEEN WEBER, GENERAL PARTNER AND REPRESENTATIVE FOR AVEST,LTD. MAYOR KINGSFORD, COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND MS. STILES, I AM KATHLEEN WEBER A GENERAL PARTNER OF AVEST AND CEO OF STOR-IT RENTAL STORAGES OF BOISE. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNIT~ TO GNE SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT AVEST, STOR-IT RENTAL STORAGES, AND OUR COMMUNICATIONS WITH NEIGHBORS IN REGARD TO THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. ASSISTING ME IN SHOWING PLATS TONIGHT IS STOR-IT' S CONSTRUCTION/PROPERTY MANAGER, SCOTT WEBER. AFTER I COMMENT, MR. ROGER ALLEN, WILL GO OVER YOUR PRESENTATION PACKETS AND THE CORRESPONDING SUPPLEMENT PACKET. ALSO, AFTER MY REMARKS AND THOSE OF MR. ALLEN WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU MEET MR. LARRY DURKIN, AVEST'S JOINT VENTURE PARTNER IN SHOPPING DEVELOPMENTS, HE IS HERE TONIGHT TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS. ALSO MR. BILL STRITE OF BRS ARCHITECTS IS HERE TONIGHT IF YOU HAVE ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK. THE APPROVAL PROCESS BEGAN ON THIS 40 ACRE PARCEL AT THE NORTHEA5T CORNER OF LOCUST GROVE AND FAIRVIEW IN MERIDIAN APPROXIMATELY A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. WE ~ARE GLAD TO BE HERE TONIGHT -- PRESENTING OUR PROJECT. WHAT WE HAVB BEFORE YOU TONIGHT ARE TWO APPLICATIONS. ONE APPLICATION, IS FOR ANNEXATION AND A"CG" ZONING FOR THIS ENTIRE PROPERTY. (SCOTT PLEASE OUTLINE THE PROPERTI~ THE SECOND APPLICATION, IS A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT FOR A RENTAL STORAGE COMPLEX ON A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. ( SCOTT PLEASE POINT TO THE RENTAL STORAGE PORTION OF THIS PROJECT) WE ARE BRINGING BOTH THESE APPLICATIONS AT THE SAME TIME SO WE CAN HOPEFULLY BEGIN STORAGE CONSTRUCTION THIS SPRING. WE FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT THE C.U. PERMIT FOR STORAGE IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ANNEXATION AND ZONING APPLICATION APPROVAL. • • WE HAVE SOME PICTURES OF THE SOUTHSHORE DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH EAST BOISE, AND RECENT STOR-IT DEVELOPMENTS IN WHICH AVEST PARTNERS ARE INVOLVED. AS BACKGROUND INFORMATION, FOR OUR C.U. PERMIT FOR STORAGES, I HAVE SOME DETAILED PLATS F~R LANDSCAPING, ELEVATION, LOOP ROAD INCORPORATION, BIKE PATHS, SHARED ENTRY DESIGN OFF FAIRVIEW, AND BUFFERING CONCEPTS THAT WERE DISCUSSED WITH NEIGHBOR5. I'LL READ IN NINE COMMENTS CONCERNING COMMUNICATION WITH NEIGHBORS AROUND THE PROJECT. (SCOTT WILL YOU PUT UP THE PICTURES OF 50UTHSHORE) WE HAVE BEEN DOINC PROJECTS IN THE VALLEY FOR OVER 32 YEARS. THE MOST RECENTLY COMPLETED PROJECT IS THE SOUTHSHORE SHOPPING CENTER IN SOUTHEAST BOISE. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ZONED AND APPROVED LONG BEFORE THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS DEVELOPED IN THIS AREA, IT VVAS RE-DESIGNED AFTER NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS TO CONFORM TO THE NEIGHBORS NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS. THE LOCUST GROVE PROPERTY WILL BE DEVELOPED IN THE SAME MANNER. SOUTHSHORE IS A TRUE ASSET TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IT SERVES. IT IS A 200,000 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER ON APPROXIMATELY 18 ACRES WITH KMART AND ALBERTS4NS ANCHORS AND IS A JOINT VENTURE WITH SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE THAT ARE PARTICIPATING IN THIS PROJECT. (MR LARRY DURKIN OF DAKOTA DEVELOPMENT AND THE MAJORITY OWNER OF SOUTHSHORE PARTNERS, MR. ROGER ALLEN) YOU HAVE BEEN PROVIDED A COPY OF THE RESUME FOR MR. ALLEN AND A RESUME OF MR. DURKIN'S COMPANY, DAKOTA DEVELOPMENT. DAKOTA DEVELOPMENT'S PROJECTS INCLUDING 59 SHOPKO STORES, 2 KMARTS AND 23 OTHER SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENTS AROUND THE COUNTRY. ALSO INCLUDED IN YOUR SUPPLEMENT IS A LETTER FROM THE MAY4R OF B(~ISE, MAYOR COLES, CONCERNING THE SPIRIT OF COOPERATION WITH WHICH THE SOUTHSHORE SHOPPING CENTER WAS DEVELOPED AND HIS OPINION OF ITS BENEFIT TO THE CITY OF BOISE. MAY I READ THIS SHORT LETTER INTO THE RECORDS? • ~ (SCOTT PLEASE BRING FORWARD THE STOR-IT PICTURES) AVEST HAS BEEN IN THE STORAGE BUSINESS IN THE BOISE VALLEY FOR 20 YEARS. I HAVE BEEN WITH THE COMPANY THE LAST 10 YEARS. DURING THAT TIME STOR-IT HAS GROWN FROM A 900 UNIT - TWO LOCATION BUSINESS TO 4200 UNITS AND 4 LOCATIONS. THESE ARE PICTURES OF OUR STATE STREET LOCATION AND OUR NEWEST ANNEX TO OUR MAPLE GROVE LOCATION. SPACE FOR LIVING AND WORKING IS A HIGHLY VALUED COMMODITY. TODAY PEOPLE AND BUSINESS NEED RENTAL STORAGES TO UTILIZE THEIR SPACE MORE EFFECTI~ELY. WE PROVIDE SPACE TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITY--A CONVENIENT PLACE TO STORE EXTRA ITEMS SUCH AS SNOWMOBILES, BOATS, MOTORCYCLES, AND OUT-OF-SEASON TOY5 THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE STORED IN YARDS -- ALREADY TOO-FULL GARAGES -- OR ON THE CITY STREETS. WE PROVIDE TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SMALL BUSINESS INVENTORY SPACE. AVEST OWNS, SUPERVISES CONSTRUCTION PHASES, AND OPERATES ALL OF OUR OWN FACILITIES. WE DO NOT BUILD AND SELL- -WE ARE HERE TO BE A PART OF THE MERIDIAN COMMUNIT~ AND WILL BE SEN5ITIVE TO THE C4NCERNS OF OUR NEIGHBORS. (SCOTT, PLEASE SHOW THE LANDSCAPINGlELEVATION RENDERING THAT WE ANTICIPATE FOR THE STORAGE ON THIS SITE.) THE FRONT ELEVATION SHOWS OUR TYPICAL FRONT FENCING OF VINYL COATED BLACK FENCING WITH BRICK SANDSTONE PILLARS, LANDSCAPED GROUPINGS OF LOW SCRUBS, EVERGREENS, GRASS AND DECIDUOUS TREES. YOU WILL NOTE FROM THE SIDE ELEVATION AND THIS WOULD ALSO APPLY TO THE BACK OF THE COMPLEX AND THE PLAN VIEW THAT THE PERIMETER IS A SINGLE SIDED, LANDSCAPED, LOW PROFILE BUILDINGS. ALL ACCESS DOORS, LIGHTING AND TRAFFIC ARE ON THE INTERIOR OF THE PROJECT. ~ • BECAUSE OF OUR STORAGE DE5IGN, 5TOR-IT'S NEIGHBORS ON STATE STREET HAVE TOLD US THAT STORAGES MAKE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. AND I WANT YOU TO SHOW YOU WHY THE NEIGHBORS IN MIRAGE MEADOWS HAVE ALSO DECIDED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE STORAGES AS A NEIGHBOR. THE BOTTOM THREE PICTURES ON THE (NEIGHBORHOOD PICTURES CHART -- SCOTT WILL YOU PUT THAT ONE UP) SHOW THE BACKYARDS AND VIEWS 4F SOME OF THE MIl2AGE MEADOWS NEIGHBORS. (SCOTT NOW IF WE COULD SEE THE TRANSITIONAL USES CHART. THE CHART SHOWS WHAT KIND OF PRNACY THE NEIGHBORS WOULD HAVE IF STORAGES WERE BUILT ON THE SITE INSTEAD OF HOUSING. WE HAVE TWO LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM RESIDENTS IN MIRAGE MEADOWS WHO WOULD BE DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY OUR STORAGE FACILITY STATING THAT THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF OUR DEVELOPMENT. THEY BELIEVE THAT THIS PROJECT WILL SCREEN OUT MUCH OF THE TRAFFIC NOISE GENERA.TED ON FAIRVIEW AND PROVIDE MAXIMUM PRIVACY FOR THEIR BACKYARDS. WE BELIEVE THAT, TOO! STOR-IT DOESN'T HAVE DOGS CHILDREN LIGHTS OR ANY OTHER "NEIGHBORLY" COMPETITION FOR VISUAL AUDITORY OR ACTUAL SPACE. WHAT AVEST HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORS ADJACENT TO OUR LAND, AND WHAT WE WILL BE MOST SENSITIVE TO, IS THAT THE NEIGHBORS WANT TO RETAIN THEIR PRNACY -- FROM PEOPLE, BUSINESSES, TRAFFIC, POLLUTION, AND NOISE. (SCOTT PLEASE BRING FORWARD THE ENTIRE PROJECT PLAT) BOTH THE STORAGE COMPLEX AND A PROPOSED RETIREMENT CENTER ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY, (SCOTT WILL YOU SHOW WHERE EACH OF THOSE ARE) WOULD SERVE THIS BUFFERING PURPOSE. SINCE OUR MEETINGS WITH ACHD THEY HAVE REQUESTED A LOOP ROAD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PR~JECT. THIS NE~T PLAT SHOWS THAT DETAIL. (SCOTT PLEASE PUT UP THE PROPOSAL TO ACHD PLAT) THIS LOOP ROAD WILL PROVIDE INTERNAL FLOW WITHIN THE PROJECT WITH OUT PUTTING ANY FURTHER DEMANDS ON LOCUST GROVE OR FAIRVIEW. (SCOTT WILL YOU TRACE THE LOOP ROAD SO EVERYONE CAN SEE WHERE IT IS) THIS PLAT ALSO SHOWS ( SCOTT WILL YOU ALSO TRACE THE BLUE LINE AS I DESCRIBE IT) THIS BLUE LINE IS THE PROPOSED BIKE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY FOR THE SURROUNDING ~ ~ NEIGHB~RHOOD ACCESS AND EMERGENCY ACCESSES THAT ACHD HAS RECOMMENDED. ACHD HAS ALSO AGREED TO THE CLOSURE OF APPLEWOOD (SCOTT CAN YOU PLEASE SHOW APPLEWOOD) MAKING IT A 20' PAVED, BIKE WALKING AND EMERGENCY VEHICLE PATHWAY. THIS ALSO SHOWS THE STORAGE ENTRY LOCATED 250' BACK FROM FAIR.VIEW (NOW SCOTT PLEASE SHOW THAT CLOSE UP VIEW OF THIS ENTRY) THIS SHOWS THE ACCESS TO THE STORAGE5 OFF THE LOOP ROAD AND AS A SHARED ACCESS WITH THE SHOSHONI BUILDING. THE PLAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW HAS HAD 50ME REVISIONS BASED ON MEETINGS WITH SHOSHONI OWNERS AND THEY ARE AGREEABLE TO THIS NEW PLAT THAT BILLY RAY STRITE HAS DRAWN THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT HERE TONIGHT. (SCOTT FASS THEM OUT) FINALLY, I'D LIKE TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO A DETAIL LAND5CAPE DESIGN FOR THE ENTRANCE TO THE STORAGE FACILITY. (SCOTT WILL YOU PLEA5E PUT UP THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN) AS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER THIS LANDSCAPING DESIGN CONTINUES AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE COMPLEX. IT INCLUDES GRASS, DECIDUOUS TREES SUCH AS SWEET GUM, GOLDEN LOCUST, EVERGREENS SUCH AS SPRUCE AND PINE, SCRUBS SUCH AS JUNIPER, FLOWERING QUINCE AND FLOWERING PLUM. THAT'S ALL THE PLATS I HAVE AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU 5COTT. AVEST HAS ACTNELY COMMUNICATED WITH AND LISTENED TO AS MANY RESIDENTS IN THE LOCUST GROVE-FAIRVIEW AVENUE A5 POSSIBLE OVER THE PAST FEW MONTH5. I WILL GIVE YOU NINE BRIEF SUMMARY COMMENTS THEY HAVE MADE REGARDING THIS PROJECT. WE HAVE HAD NUMEROUS MEETINGS WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND MADE CONCERTED EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS AND REACH COMPROMISES THAT BENEFIT BOTH OF US. COMMENT #1. THE CITY RECENED 15 LETTERS PRIOR TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING5. ELEVEN OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO WROTE BUT DID NOT ATTEND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, WERE SENT FOLLOW UP INFORMATION FROM US. THESE LETTERS ARE IN YOUR CITY FILES. • ~ COMMENT #2. TWO NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS WERE HELD, DECEMBER 27TH AND DECEMBER 28TH. WE SENT OUT 130 INVITATIONS TO THESE MEETINGS WITH RESPONSE ENVELOPES. FROM THIS MAILING WE RECEIVED 2 RETURN LETTERS. THESE NEIGHBORS RECENED FURTHER INFORMATION FROM US. THE FIRST NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 27TH DISCUSSED CONCERNS OF THE MIRAGE MEADOW NEIGHBORS - 21 ATTENDED REPRESENTING 13 RESIDENCES. ON TUESDAY DECEMBER 28, THE FOCUS WAS ON THE LOCUST GROVE NEIGHBORS CONCERNS. MR. LARRY SALE FROM ACHD ATTENDED THIS MEETING TO MAKE US AWARE OF ACHD'S PLANS FOR LOCUST GROVE. MR. SALE ANSWERED QUESTIONS AND TOLD NEIGHBORS THAT OUR PROJECT IS NOT DRIVING THE EXPANSION OF LOCUST GROVE. LOCUST GROVE IS PLANNED AS A 5 LANE MINOR ARTERIAL BY 97 OR 98 REGARDLESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF AVEST'S 40 ACRE PARCEL. 19 ATTENDED THIS MEETING REPRESENTING 11 RESIDENCES. PLEASE N~TE THAT THIS WAS A COMBINED TOTAL FOR BOTH MEETINGS OF 19 DIFFERENT RESIDENCES AND WE HAVE INCORPORATED MANY OF THEIR IDEAS AND SUGGESTIONS INTO OUR FINAL PLANS. C(JMMENT #3. MIRAGE NEIGHBORS ON OAI~CREST WHO WERE UNABLE TO ATTEND EITHER OF THE EARLIER NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS WERE PERSONALLY VISITED AT THEIR HUMES. AS A RESULT, ANOTHER 13 NEIGI~iBORS WERE SHOWN MAPS AND RECEIVED EXPLANATIONS OF WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS WERE ABOUT AND WERE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE THEIR IDEAS FOR BUFFERING USES ALONG THEIR PROPERTY LINES. THESE NEIGHBORS WERE INFORMED THAT NOTES FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS WERE ON FILE AT CITY HALL FOR THEM TO REVIEW IF THEY WISHED. COMMENT #4. LETTERS WERE RECENTLY SENT TO THE MIRAGE SUBDIVISION OWNERS MODIFYING OUR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL TO REFLECT THEIR ADDITIONAL REQUESTS AND ASKING IF THEY FELT A NEED FOR MORE INFORMATION OR ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WITH THOSE THAT ARE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY OUR STORAGE DEVEL~PMENT. TWO HAVE RESPONDED TO THIS MAILING, MR. RAMA AND MR. MILLER, BOTH WERE IN FAVOR OF STORAGE. • ~ COMMENT #5. MS KAREN BLANEY OF MIRAGE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION EXPRESSED SOME PERSONAL CONCERNS SPECIFIC TO HER RESIDENTIAL LOT. AFTER A LENGTHY PHONE CONVERSATION, SHE WAS SENT A LANDSCAPE PLAN AND LETTER TO CONFIRM OUR INTENTIONS TO DEAL DIRECTLY WITH THOSE ISSUE5 THAT SPECIFICALLY CONCERNED HER. WE ASKED FOR HER COMMENTS REGARDING THE PLAN. COMMENT #6. ON FEBRUARY 22ND ANOTHER MEETING SPECIFICALLY WITH THE NEIGHBORS ON LOCUST GROVE ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT WAS HELD. 6 PEOPLE ATTENDED, MR. AND MRS MOORE, MR. AND MRS CLOUSS AND MR. AND MRS. MANSAYON. MR. ALLEN WILL SUMMARIZE THIS MEETING AND DISCUSS HOW WE HAVE ADDRES5ED THEIR CONCERNS IN OUR PLANNING. MR. Bf~TKIN OF LOCUST GROVE PHONED AND STATED THAT HE HAS N4 SPECIFIC CONCERNS AND WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING. SO WE HAVE ACTUAL COMMUNICATION WITH 4 OUT OF 7 NEIGHBORS. COMMENT #7. ON FEBRUARY 24TH AVEST REPRESENTATIVES MET WITH MR. DON BRYAN ON HIS PROPERTY TO LOOK OVER HIS WATER SITUATION AND NOTE HIS CONCERNS. HE ASKED THAT WE BE SURE HIS WATER DITCH IS CLEAR AND WE HAVE ALREADY TAKEN STEPS TO DO THIS. COMMENT #8. AVEST HAS MET WITH THE ARCHITECT FOR THE SHOSHONI BUILDING OWNERS. THIS COMMERCIAL BUILDING IS ON THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY. BILLY RAY STRITE, OF BRS ARCHITECTS DESIGNED THIS ENTRY AND IS HERE TONIGHT. HE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE REGARDING THIS SHARED ACCESS. THIS CURRENT PLAN MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF ACHD AS WELL AS STOR-IT AND THE SHOSHONI OWNERS. FROM ALL THESE MEETINGS WE FEEL CONFIDENT THAT WE REACHED PRELIMINARY AGREEMENTS WITH THE MIRAGE NEIGHBORS, MS. BLANEY, LOCUST GROVE RESIDENTS, MR. BRYAN, AND THE SHOSHONI OWNERS. WE WILL CONTINUE THIS PROCESS AS OUR PROJECT PROCEEDS. . . , ~ • FINALLY, COMMENT #9. THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE PRESENTATION PACKET ALSO CONTAINS SOME IMPORTANT CORRESPONDENCE FROM ADJACENT LAND OWNERS IN SUPPORT OF OUR PROJECT. THERE IS A LETTER FROM MR. JON BARNES, PRESIDENT OF PROPERTIES WEST, INC., AND I BELIEVE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE HOMEBUILDERS ASSOCIATION FOR THE VALLEY, EXPRESSING HIS SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATIONS BEFORE ~OU TONIGHT. ALSO, THERE ARE LETTERS FROM THREE LAND OWNERS IN THE CHATEAU MEADOWS SUBDNISION OF MERIDIAN, EXPRESSING THEIR FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF STf~R- IT'S METHODS OF OPERATION IN THE BOISE COMMUNITY OVER THE PAST YEARS. I PRESENT THESE AS LETTERS RECOMMENDATION. IN SUMMARY -- I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT AVEST WANTS TO BE AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF THIS COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD--WE WANT TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR NOT JUST TO THOSE FAMILIES WHO DIRECTLIT TOUCH OUR PROPERTY, BUT TO THO5E PEOPLE WHO ARE LESS DIRECTLY AFFECTED, TOO. MR. ALLEN, MR. DURKIN AND I HAVE MADE AN EFFORT TO BE AVAILABLE AND TO LISTEN TO EVERYONE WHO HAS VVANTED TO EXPRESS AN OPINION OR GATHER MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT--EVEN THOSE WHO HAVE COME FROM A NUMBER OF BLOCKS AWAY. WE WANT THE ENTIRE AREA TO DEVELOP IN A PLEASING, UPSCALE MANNER. WE FEEL THAT OUR PROJECT, ON THE FRINGE OF THIS NEWLY DE~ELOPING MERIDIAN NEIGHBORHOOD, WILL BOTH SERVE AS A GATHERING PLACE AND A CONVENIENCE TO THIS NEIGHBORHtJOD. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THIS BACKGROUND INFORMATION, I WOULD LIKE TO NOW TURN OVER THE DISCUSSION TO MR. ALLEN AND DEFER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE TO HIM. • ~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. C1TY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES QF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 15, 1994: 1. FINAL PLAT: ENGLEWOOD CREEK SUBDIVISON: TABLED AT FcBRUARY 15, 1994 MEETING: 2. F{NDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SALM~N RAPIDS SUBDfVISON(FORMERLY LANDFALL): 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ~OR KING STREET STATfON SUBDIVISiON WiTH A PRELIMlNARY PLAT: 4. FINDINGS ~F FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR KING STREET STATION SUBDIVISi~N: 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIQNS OF LAW: REZONE REQEUST FOR SCOTTSDALE ESTATES SUBDIVISI4N WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT: 6. FINDINGS (JF FACT AND CONCLUStONS UF LAW: VARIANCE REQUEST FC)R SCOTTSDALE ESTATES SUBDIVISI~N: 7. ORDINANCE: #633 - SP~RTSMAN POINTE SUBDiViSiON #5: 8. ORDINANCE: #634 - VALERI HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION: 9. F1NAL PLAT: SPORTSMAN POINTE #5 SUBDIVISION: 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FUR REZONE F4R DORADO DEVELOPMENT AND MICHAEL AND CYNTHiA SCiSCOE: 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ELK RUN SUBDiVIS10N #2 BY THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP AND JUB ENGINEERS: 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SPORTSMAN POINTE SUBDIVISON #4 BY THE WESTPARK COMPANY AND J.J. HOWARD ENGINEERS: ~ ~ ~ / • ~ ~ r ~~ ~ ______. _ ~ _ ~~ , . _ .~ _ ~ ~!_ _____ _ _ :~ ~_-_ ______. , _ . -. ;~ _ __ ,~ -- ~-"~~~~~~ ~s .~____.__ ~ ~~--~----- ~ l __.. _._~~-~ .~..~ ~ ~oo ~, G''2eel~.. ~ 6 ~ - ~~ - ` ~r~~' -- ~ - -- -_--__--.~ ~~,°W~ ~.L_~~~v ~~Lll~ #l -- ~ .~___-_---- --_____ ~- + ~ _.~___ -_-_ .~~--- --- -~~--~- _ ______-.-- /~ _ ~', re ~~~ l~f r1r_ ~~.~~ ~ ---- ~ ~ ~ ~ _._____.___.._~~~'..~ ~ .____ ~---_.__ ~. - _.__._- - ~~ ~- .~ -- ___-___--_______--_ ~_ __. ~ -- - ~ __/``=_._~ ~ ~ __ ______.~ ,._ ~ _._____._- ~A _-_____.-- ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~'+--- ~------- ---- - ~__ ,______________---- --- ;~,__________._ _____.~...__._______ _._.---._ ~r_______ ___ ___-------------- ----- ___ ____ ~--- ---- _---- _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ ~-~ _~ ~ • ~ ~~ -----.--___,.__.._.._--- __ _.~____..~______.___ :--~~'T ~---.____ _~ ____.._.~.___ ______~_ - --_-- ------._~~ _ ~ ~ _, s"~~ ~"~~x~ _ .~._ ~._._.__ - •~ __~_-- .~ __---___...__.__ _______._________ .~______ _ _ ______ ~ ~_"_._..___ ,~~_....~.._.._... 1 _--_.__~ - ---- - --.__ ,!~ ._.__~ .~~...~._~-_.~._._._._.__....._..~_. ~.~~-._._~..~_ .~ _~..._. _ ""_ .~_" '__'_` - ~6 /~ /~ ~ ~ ~ Aiyi -----___-- ~- _-__.. _ ---______ ___ __.____._.~ -----.[~~ -_ ~_ ~~sa~ E~~~ ,~ . _ ~~ ____________ -~----__________,__ -- ----- -- ___ .--- -----__.__.____.__ _____~... __.___ {~ .~ -- ._._-_____~~___ ------------___.7 ~~ure.~ t~ _ . __. _____ _____ ___.___ _~.._._-- ___.___.~.__._______ _______. ~ _. _ ----__ _ .________ _ __ ~_..- - -__. ____ ._~_~ ,___.__~~..---~.________._ ~,633 - - - .~ ~_.________.__~._______.___---.--____.________----- - - -__~______________ ~ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __. __.~. ___._...__ .~...._~_ . _..._._...__. r____~__..___ » j _. _._._.__. . _ __ _ _ __.._.~'t~~.~ _~~~ ___-~1~~Z_.~-~u~ L~ee~•r.~~- - _ ___ _ __ __ . _ __ _~_ ----------~', .~________ _..__ _. ._ _-.-- ---- - _ _ _ _ .. . _ _ -- _ __ _ _-- - __ __---~._.___ - __~.__-__ __ _ ~..~,~------ ~ ~/ _ _ __ ~ - --- - ~"~~ 1 ~--- -~ - --___ _ . _ __ ~ _ _1 _ __ __ __ _._~ . ______.__ ._ ___. ___ _ _._ _ ____ ~ _____~ __.___ _~. ~ .~ __________ - -- --__ -. _ _ _ _ ~~~ Lee~ --~ ~2 -~ - -.-- --_ _ _~ _ _ _ _ ____ _ ___ _ _,.___ _ ___ ___ _ _ _ __ .__..__ _ __~ . -*~ .~ ~ ._____ __ _ ___._ __ _ ~~ ~~ . _____ _ _ __ _.__ _ __ _ __ ____ __~. __ ---._ _ _.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ ----- __ _.____r_. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ - L'?~~i'~~,e_..~~;~~ ~ ~~~ .~ . ---~`~ ~ ~ -~ -- -- - ~ ~~ ~s~~ - ~ __--- ---- _____ ~ ~ ~ ~,~Z,~~ z~,.~.o o-~.. ~ ~ ~ _ , ~ ~~~- _ _ _ .~ _`_~~f~~-~.-~.. ~~~tc. ~! ` ~ ' ~ _ ~~~y ~ J~o~ -- ~ w ~ ~~~~~~ ~~ ~- -- ,~ - ---~`1i~rG ~~~- ~~`~ ~ ~~~r,~~ 3~ --.~ __~~--~~~ /_~ _.. ~~'~ ~ -- ~ ,~- ~ a ~~.~,e° ~ ~ ~--__ _____ ~ _ . ____.__ __ ___ ___ _ ~ ~'~,r1??~'7~ ~- ~/ ~ r` C~~ • ~~ ~ . `~.,1 c~ -~ ~~ --~ _.._._~~ "`~/(~ - - - . , - _ _._ . J _ f-_ _-__ - ~"~,^. ~ . ~i~~ ~~'~~'~ G~i°~'.c- °-i. ---- r ~ ~ _ ~ ______._ ~~ = ~~ z~y ~~~~~ ~ ____ : __ _ _ ~ ~i~. =- ~'°~..~- ~~ ___._____.-- -------- --___~__-__ _ . ~. __ __~-~ - .- --.__._.____ _ __ _ : -- _ . _ _ __ . rrr~~~ ~~-_ c~a.~?u e.~ . __ __ ~, _. __------ _._.___ ~ ' .~n~. -__ ____-__ ~ --- ---.-- ~_~ ~~_ _ e-~ ~ ~ __._ ~, . ~ _- r~--- ._..._______ ~~~'j s~~~~- - ~ ___--____~~ ~- - -~2~!~'~~~~~ - u~ a~~ ______ r~.. ~, ~ --- -- - - ~ _ --- -- _.__.____ ______ ~ , -----~-- __-_~' ~~~`__~- -- _ _ ~?~ ~%- hzo2e 2~'~~,C~cJ ,`~ `i _ _~~~.l~~~~~~ ~ ~ -~'z ~ ~ ~ . ~ -- . -- -- -- ------_-._--_------- __ ___- _ - ------ - ___~.~~~ _ _ _ ° ' ~ k. ~ __~~ r~,~D . ~- /iir 1~~,~.r cr~ . ~ if~~--G`(.~E ~ _~~ ~, -------- - ~ -- - ----- _ .__ __- _ ~ _~ _ __ _ '~ ~ _ ~-. - ---- ----~- - f'~~~ ~~~ -- _ tfi ~ _________ ~ ~ ~ • - ~ ,~ - -__-- _____ _ ~' ~~',p °,5~- ' Cl Li a.tc.a-~.) _ _.~ ~ . .~ ~ _~-_-_______ --. ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ _ ;,, „ _ ` ~~ ___.__~ _ ~ - _ ;,~,,~- ____ i~'~ ________ ._ ~- __ ___ _~______ ~_ ~ _ `~ -__ _^ ~_~-_ ~ f~-~ -- __ ~ - ~'' - ~ - ------_._---__ _ ~ 1~ _ -~ - - ~. ~ _ __ ~ ~~ _ _______ _____ ___.___ ~ ~ '`~_ ____ ~f ' ' -~~-- .___._--_---__ _. _ ~%G L~i%~~ --- 7~~in-f ,~li~lQ~'~~~v -_~'~_-_ , ~`~/~iox~ -~` G~l~~c..~~v J' - - ~ ~-. _ _ ------ /'?~.,t u~~~nJ G~-~ ~- __ _____________________ L~?~;~~~ ~~z~ ~;~. --_ ~- _ -----__- ---~-~~ ~ ___._.-. ~ _-~ .Y---------_-_____-_ _._ --- --- ~ - -- . ~ ;~ __~._._.._ L'!_.__ _ ___ ~~~~'?,.-x~e~_ - _ _~-r.~-~v,a-z,e_ l~ __~` % ~' G- ~-~.- ----- -- ------- - ~., - - _ __.~- ----------~___ ___ _._.__ - - -- -- _ - ~-..- ~~ ._ ____.__ _____________ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ . ._ --~~~------ - ~G" ~ _ _____.___ ._--.---__ - r_ ~ ~ . __---_._.___._._._______ _ _.__ _ ._ _____.__. ~ f~_ y~o ______ ._- ___. _ ____.~ ___.______~ ___ _ __ _____ ~~ `~ 2~D~ _ .________.__ -.-~-- - ----!_ _~_ _ ~ ~~Y~~ ~ ~ _ _- - ~ ____~ _ _------_.---,---.-----. ___.___ _ ~-__ _._ _ ----- .____-- _ _ . ~ ~~ ~- _ --------- --- ---- ~~ ~ ~ ~-~'~-~- ~ ff Z-v~....~~ ~-.- ~,___ ~ ~- ~__ ---- .~- _~ _ _---- ~_ ~.; __--- ---_ ----__ ___ ~ _-___ _ _. --- _ _ - ~~-~ -~ ~_---___ ______ _ ____ - ___ _ ~~ _.___~__~_______~._________ __~__.. i . . . .. . . - -- -- . _ __ _ _ T' . ~ • • ~ ~ ~ ~I W f~ /~" ' " " ~ . .~_._.____._...__________ _~ _. _...--~ ~ ~.r_.~_ ~ ___.~_. ~~_~ ~..~~ ______..._. ___~.~ _~____._..~.~_..._~, --~~ _.-------. _. _------------ _~ _ _._ ._ __. _ . _ / 1'L~ , -------- ----...~~.._~_.__ --- __/ ___._- ~ ~ ~ . .~__..._____.~__.______.~___~_. ._.____.,__ _ ___------____-. r _, __~.._.~~_~ ~ .~ ~_ ~ ~ ---'---'-"------ _ c ~__i~J4! ~ ` _-~ ~ •-- Q~~ ~ ~zv~ ~ ._ ___________~__ .G~>_ _ ..___..~~ -.___,-__,,~~~!.~~~~2_ ~ _ ' ~ ~ ___.________-------______.- - - -~'L _ ~~/e_~"~ ` !_ _ _ _ ~ _.___._---~-__...~_._.____ ~%~ -- ~-' '~ ~~1_ ~-~? ~'_`_'~'__ G~i.?'~r ~ ~~~ _~.~' ~ -- ~ !~. . ~ ~,~~~J ~ _-~~~.~..--_____. _ __ _ ________ ~ ~ __~__ _ ~_ ____Y____ ____ _ --- .~- ~ , ~ . 32 °~' 2 ~ _~ ~ ~ _ _--___ _ ____---_._.____._ ~_,__.____._ ______~______.~__~ _._______________ __ ` ~__---~ i~. °'° _.~~.~ v --- - -_I ~ - -~__~ ~ _~ ___.___~ --- ~ -~~ °h ~ ~i ~ ____.________________. _ __.__~._.. ___.__..__- - --,__ -~~-- _._. G~~--~ ~- Q~O~YOi/a~ -- ~ ,___~_----___ __--------/~~ ---_~__ _.__-- _.________-_.~__ _ __~ __ ------._ _____~ "-_ __~ ~ ___~ _ __ __. ______- _-_____ __..__ _________. ~__1~ ~ ~ ~-- -Y~