Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 08-22~ ' • SPECIAL MEETING OF THE_MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 22, 1985 Special Meeting of the Meridian City Council called to order by Mayor Grant Kingsford at 5:30 P.M.: ` Members Present: Bill Brewer; Ron Tolsma; Bert Myer51; Bob Giesler: . ~ Others Present: James Kiser, Tom Cole, Lloyd Howe,iDean Mayes, Jr. Dua:~ne~~ Rasmussen, Olive Davis, Gary Schaffer, Al Lance, Steve Anderson, 4ves Hoalst, Bill Barkell, Gary Smith, Wayne Crookston, Walt Morrow, Bob Spencer, Bob Hammons, Miriam Barr, Jerry Adcamp,iChannel 7 News, Channel 2 News, Channel 6 News, Ronda Lowe; ~ Mayor Kingsford, one item that I failed to announce at the regular meeting that due to the Holiday the next regular meeting of the City Council will be held on Tuesday, September 3, 1985: ' Mayor Kingsford, I will begin by stating the purpose:lof this meeting, this is a Special Meeting asked by the Developing Company of Price & Claremont, after some negotiating with the Comrtittee.~, to have the Committee then make a recommendation to us tonite. At this time I will call on Mr. Walt Morrow to make that presentation, who was a member of that Committee. ~ , ~~ ~ Mr. Morrow,had prepared a written statement which included the Committees recommendation, Mr. Morrow read this statement for the record. (This statement is attached and made a part of these;minutes as Exhibit ~~A~~ ~ ~ ;~ i Mayor Kingsford, are•there any questions by the Council of Mr. Morrow in regards to this recommendation of the Committee? There was no response. Being no questions I would entertain a motion to accept the Committees statement and recommendations as part of Claremont Comprehen- sive Plan Amendment Application record. ~ The Motion was made by Brewer and seconded by Myers `o accept the Comm- ittees statement and recommendation as part of the C~laremont Comprehens~ive Plan Amendment Application record~. ~_ ~ Motion Carried: All Yea: 1 ~ ~ ' 1 Mayor Kingsford, at this time I would like to thank the Committee for the many hours they spent in these negotiations. ~ ;~ Mayor Kingsford, the next item we need to cover is to accept the proposed Development Agreement into the Claremont Application,~record. E The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Gieslerito accept the proposed Development Agreement into the Claremont Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment record.(Development Agreement on file at City Hall) ~~ Motion Carried: Al1 Yea: Mayor Kingsford, the next item we need to cover is to note Mr. Rasmussen's letter of understanding of one point of the Development Agreement and a l .i ` MERIDIAN CITY UNCIL ~ AUGUST 22, 19 PAGE # 2 ~ Motion to to accept the letter into the Claremont Ap,plication record. Myers, can I get an explanation of that? Mayor Kingsford explained that if they do not take out building permit~ they would get the money back with the exception of E$25,000.00 which would be used for de-annexation and administrative costs. Attorney Crookston, verified this. i Mayor Kingsford, I would also at this time ask Mr. Rasmussen to clarify~ one other point. , Mr. Rasmussen, apparently there was a question with ~regard to the particular refunding you are referring to right now;' we be.liev:e the __._ agreemnt speaks for itself and we are not asking for a refund in the event that the agreement is followed as written. , Mayor Kingsford, it was just a matter of clarity as to whether you picked the permits whether the money had to be refunded and~we want that point clarified. If you build we keep the whole thing , if you don't we keep the $25,000.00. ~ Mr. Rasmussen, that is correct. Mayor Kingsford, does that cover that point adequate~y Counselor? Crookston, I think the question here really relate to the release provision in the document and pertains not to just the $25,000;.00 but pertains to monies that would be paid to the City and then if for some reason after; the building permit has been taken out, if for some:reason the City arbitrarily decided the developmerit should not go forward then the City has the obligation to refund all monies even though ~the agreement provides that the City get those if they take a building permit out. If there is some arbitrary decision by the City that~stops the devel- opment the the developers get all their money back except $25,000.00. however, if the developers take out the building permit, it is paid fori, issued then for some reason they decide not to build!k then it is not an act of the City that keeps the projectfrom going forward then the City keeps all the money that has been paid ,: Mayor Kingsford, is that your understanding Mr. Rasm~ssen? Mr. Rasmussen, I agree with that. The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Giesler to accept Mr. Rasmussen's letter into the Claremont Comprehensive ~Plan Amendment Application record.(Letter• on File) ~ Motion Carried: All Yea: Mayor Kingsford, the next item would be consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions on the Claremont Comprehensi~e Plan Amendment Application. Are there any questions of the Council ~n these? There was no response from the Council Members. MERIDIAN CITY~UNCIL AUGUST 22, 19 PAGE # ~ I ~ ~, The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Brewer; that the Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves the Findings of Fact'and Con- clusions as prepared on the Claremont Development Co~pany's Application to Amend the Comprehensive Plan. ' Motion Carried.: Giesler; Yea: Myers; Yea: Tolsma; Yel: Brewer; Yea: Mayor K.ingsford, the next item is Council action is needed to authorize the Mayor & City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement and that the agreement be dated the day it was approved. ~ The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Giesler;~to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign and attest the Development Agreement that has been signed by the other parties and that said a~greement be dated August 22, 1985. Motion Carried: Giesler; Yea: Myers; Yea: Tolsma; Ye;a: Brewer; Yea: Mayor Kingsford, we now need to take action on the A~pplication to Amend the Comprehensive PLan. ~~ The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Giesler that the City approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Cla~remont Development Company. Motion Carried: All Yea: i Mayor Kingsford, the next item would be to instruct~the City Attorney to prepare an Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive P;~an. The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Myersthat the City Attorney prepare an Ordinance to Amend the Comprehensive ~Z~an. Motion Carried: Giesler; Yea: Myers; Yea: Tolsma; Ye~: Brewer; Yea: Mayor Kingsford, we need to advise another applicant, Upland Industries, that they are welcome and we are open to discussion ~ith Upland Industries for a proposal on a similar agreement. Councilman Tolsma, I would also like to thank Mr. Mor,row and Mr. Giesler for the many hours they spent on this agreement, working on it, also the people from the Price & Claremont Companies. I t~hink the agreement came very well and hopefully everything will move smoothly in the futur•e. Mayor Kingsford, I would certainly echo those comments. Councilman Brewer, I would also echo those comments,' one thing I would like to make a comment on, I am extremely proud to b;e a part of this, I did not actually serve on the Committee, I am proud :of the professional way it was handled and I admire a small town like th'e City of Meridian for having the expertise and the people who will take the time to do it. Mayor Kingsford, I would like to thank our Attorney ;for all the time he has put in and Mr. Niemann and everyone else who has been involved in this. MERIDIAN CIT UNCIL AUGUST 2 2 , - 19 PAGE # 4 ~ - ~ • i Being no other business on the Special Meeting the Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Myers to adjourn at 5:50 p.m. Motion Carried: All Yea: ~~ ~ (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) ~ I I I APPROVED: ' ATTEST: ' \ ~1 Jac Nieman`, City Clerk pc. May, r & Council ', P & Z Commission Atty, Eng, Ward Stuart, Fire, Police Kiebert, Mitich, Valley News, Statesman Hallett, ACHD, ACC, ACZ, CDH, NIMD, APA, BRA ~ File (2) Mail (2) • EXHIBIT "A" • RECOMMENDATION The Study-Negotiating Commitee would like;'to have these remarks and the recommendation made a part of;~the record in the Claremont Development Company Application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. We, the Study-Negotiating Committee, were appointed by the City Council to study the report of Dr. Richard Slaughter and to negotiate with the Developers and to make a report to the City Council which report was to be included in the Findings of Fact and Conclusiqns. We have Reviewed the Study submitted by Dr. Slaughter,and have met with him regarding the Study, and in particular the costs of providing City services to a mall located at Eagle Road and I-84. The major concern of the Committee was the lack of tax revenues that would be generated by a regional shopping center at that location, or for that ;atter at any location, to offset the additional costs to ~he City of providing public services, particularly police and fire protection. ~~ :~'The Study reflects that the annual polici protection costs for the center and the possible spin-off development, when in full operation, could be $250,000.00. The annual fire protection costs for the same amount of development were estimated to be anywhere from $350,000.00 to , I EXHIBIT "A" ~ ~ -~ • • :i $450,000.00. Costs for capital improvements ~or those two services would be over and above those amount.s. It should be specifically noted that these figures include servicing, not just the shopping center alone, but also projected spin-off development Likewise, from the material submitted or;given to the Committee by Dr. Slaughter, the highest proje~ted revenues to the City from property tax on the mall and State revenue sharing of sales tax created by the mall weri shown to be $205,500.00. With some spin-off development ~ncluded, the projected revenue was estimated to be approximately $251,000.00 and this was assuming that all development went on the tax rolls in one year. :; The Committee met with the Developers to'explain and discuss the financial problems associated with their ~ proposed shopping center. The Study points out, and the discussion with the Developers revolved around, the fact that not all of the costs would be created by~the shopping center alone. Therefore, the discussions began from the - position that the Developers should not be expected to cover the entire deficit between the income and the costs. ~. The Committee realized that spin-off development would create some of the costs and should, in som4 fashion, contribute to funding those costs. Also, the Committee was concerned with the possibility . • • that the proceedings to enable the constru~'tion of a regional shopping center at Eagle Road and I~ 84 could be fruitless; that is, the area could be annexed, zoned, and the Comprehensive Plan changed, and yet sti;l have no shopping center and the City would still be ~obligated to provide services to the area. The Developers have always recognized this problem as indicated by their~ Application statement of a willingness to have the are d'e-annexed if they were not successful. Therefore, some means had to be devised which would give the Developers a chariCe to succeed and yet if they failed the City would not be stuck with having to provide public services to the area but without substantial income from the area to fund those,) services. The Developers, of course, were concerned with the amount of funds they could give to the City to help off-set costs and still have an economically feasible project. Like wise, they were concerned with being given a chance to succeed and have their center constructed. After many, many hours of discussions and ~meetings, the Committee believes that an accord has been s.~ruck. The Developers have tendered a proposed Developme;t Agreement. It is our understanding that the City Council and the City Attorney have been given copies of the proposed Agreement and have reviewed it on an individual basis prior to this meeting. _~~ ~• i ~ We believe that the proposed Developmeni Agreement tendered by the Developers addresses the concerns referred to above and others which we, the Committee arid Developers, felt should be included in such a proposal.~ Under the proposed Development Agreement, the Developeri are provided an opportunity to have the shopping center constructed but if they do not succeed the City will not be required to continually provide an undeveloped area with ~ity services. Likewise, if the Developers appear to be suc,ceeding and eventually are successful the City will have' additional funds with which to provide services to the area. The Committee recognizes that the proposed Agreement does not provide for funding all of the additional costs of providing public services to the Area. In that regard the Committee recommends that the spin-off development be required to contribute its share of costs, in'some fashion, so that all additional costs of services are funded either through taxes paid by the development or by ontributions from the developers. The Committee believes that the Develope~s and the development should be given a chance to succe~ . We believe that our community wants growth. However, we recognize the City presently does not have a tax means'of funding services for new growth. It is our hope tha~t the State Legislature will see that if the State of Idaho wants . , ~ .~~ • • growth it must provide a means to fund the services that t that growth requires. If the City does not take the chance that some day, in the near future, the Legislaute will enable cities to fund growth then the City might as well close-up shop now, as by the year 1990 or 2000 the expected normal growth in our area, even without a shopping center, will either bankrupt the City or the City will be unable to provide the services. Assuming the mall were constructed and as;uming it was completed in 1988, the Committee determined that the funds ~. contributed by the Developers pursuant to the Development Agreement, plus accrued interest, would likel,y allow the City to provide the neaessary services to th~e shopping center up to approximately 1993. Beyond that point in time the City will need additional revenues to fund! the services the mall alone would need. That is why it is hoped, and somewhat counted on, that the Legislature wil~l provide a ~ means for the City to increase its budget and ;evenues. The Committee believes, that even though ~evenues to cover the costs, in the long run, are not ass~urred, the City should move forward. If growth is entir,;ely held-up until the Legislature acts, growth could be detained for some time. Therefore, the Committee, based upon the proposed ~~ Development Agreement, recommends that the City Council: ~ , ~ .` • • . l. Accept this statement and our recommendation into the record of the Claremont Developmen~ Company Application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment; 2. Accept the proposed Development Agreem'~nt into the record of the Application and to ultimately enter into that agreement; ~ and based upon the above two recommendations 3. Approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions on the - Application; and 4. Approve the Application to Amend the M;ridian Comprehensive Plan. THE STUDY-NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE ~ ~ .~J ~ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING' ,~ AMBROSE, FIT2GEHALD BCROOKSTON Attorneya end Counaelora P:O.BoxA27 Meridlan, IdaAo 838~2 Telephone 888-1481 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a special meeting at 5:30 o'clock p.m, on the 22nd day of August, T985, at the Meridian City Hall, 728 Meridian Street, Meridian, Idaho. The purpose of said meeting shall be for the Study-Negotiating Committee, which was appointed in the Claremont Development Company's Application proceedings,for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, to give a recommendation to the City Council pertaining to the Application; f An additional purpose of said .meeting is for the City Council of the Citg of Meridian to take action on the Claremont Developmemt Company's Application for a Comprehensive Plan ~,Amendment including acceptance of the Study-Negotiating Committee's recommendation, including that recommendation in the record of the Application, to consider and take action on Findings of Faat and ConoluSions pertaining to the Application,,, and to make a Dec.ision on said Application. No public Comments will be heard or taken as said meeting. DAfiED This 21st day of August, 1985. ~ ~ PR~ DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ~~ ~' SHOPPING CENTERS / INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE PROPEFTIES - 35 CENTURY PARK-WAY ~ SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84/15 • TELEPHONE (801) 486-3911 August 22, 1985 City of I~teridian Study Committee anc3 Meridian City Council Attn: Mr. Ron Tolsma Meridian, Idaho 83642 Gentlemen: ; It has come to our attention that a que~stion has arisen regarding a certain provision contained in ou~r proposal dated August 20, 1985 previously submitted to the Study Com mittee. That provision is as follows. Page 6, paragraph J, lines 3 through 12, read in their pertinent parts as follows: '~ "In the event cievelopers do not apply for such building permit all said f unds previously paid, and all accrued interest then held in such escrow or trust account shall be retu`rned to developers, save and except TWENT,~Y FIVE THOUSAND and no/100 DOLLARS ($25,000.00), which the City shall retain for administering developers application(s) and fund!~s, and developers shall have no further obligation hereunder except for deannex~ation responsibilities and the release of liability provisions set forth below." ~ It is the understanding of Developers that` those funds and fees alluded to in said paragraph do not include~`any costs or fees which have been, or will be, incurred resulting from Developers request f or the Comprehensive Plan Change, Annexation and Zoning, but saicl fees in said paragraph refer to thos~e costs and fees incurred or charg~d by the City in administering ~hose payments to be made by Developers and any subsequent deannexation costs, expenses, and fees which may be incurred by the City. We hope this resolves any questions you mFay have had with respect to our proposal. ;~ Sincerely yours, PRI ~ine Rasmu en rector Site P,cquisition A SUBSIDIARY OF PRICE INDUSTRI ~ ~.~ BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL CLAREMONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY'S APPLICATION TO AMEND THE MERIDIAN CQMPREHENSIVE PLAN . FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSfiONS The above entitied applicatio.n to amend the Meridian comprehensive plan having come on for hearing and the City Council having heard any and all tes~imony that was ~ submit~ted, including the review of some of the record from ,,,prior Comprehensiye P1an Amendment and Annexation requests . which concerned a regional shopping ce~nter, and having '~' ,du:ly , e'orisidered° ' all the evidence, officially noticed evidence,,, and f~cts, the Comprehensive Plan itseTf, the , ~: .. ~ Local Planning Act of 1975, the City C'ouncil makes the ` following; FZNDINGS OF FACT AMBROSE, FITZGERALD SCROOKSTON Atlorney~ and Couneelora P.O. Boz 427 Meridlan, ldaho 83842 Telephone~81 1. That the appTication was submitted by Claremnnt Developmen_t Comp~any and is not an amendmen~t proposed by the Commission or the City Council. 2. That the two speci.fic parcels of property to which t~he application pertains are the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 3 North, Range 1 East,, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, hereafter referred to as Parcel 1, which 3. • • AMBROSE, FITZGERAID &CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counseloro P.O. Box ~27 Merldian, Idaho , 63812 Telephone 888~M81 . is commonly known as the Northeast quadrant of the intersections of Eagle road and I-84, which the application proposes to be designated as a site for a regional shopping center and which contains approximately 110 acres, and P.arcel 2, which~is the undeveLope.d land `in the Southwest Quar-ter of -Section 9, Township 3 North,~ Rarige 1, East, .Boise Meridian, Ada_County, Idaho, hereafter referred to as ,Parce,l 2, which'~:the a_ppTic.ation proposes t,o be designa~ed a.s part of the Eastern Industrial Review Area and which ~contains appoximately 90 acres. ~ 3.. That the two specific parceTs ineluded in the application are. contained within Meridian's Area of Impact ~ as recently n•egotiated between the City an.d Ada County; the two parcels, even though within Meridian's,Impact Area, are still in the County not yet having been annexed and therefore are governed by the Ada County Comprehensive Plan-Rura1 Area ~Policies; that in the present applica,tion , for. a Meridian Comprehensive Plan Amendment there is also an applieation for annexation; that upon annexation, if and ; when such occured, the two parcels would be governed by the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and Meridian's Zoning and Development Ordinances; the parcels are included~ within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area. . 4. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan Policy Diagram appears to designate the area within which parcel 2 is 2. • • ~ AMBAOSE, FITZGERALD ~ &CROOKSTON~; , Attorney~ and Counselors P.O. Box 127 Merldlan,ldaho 83842 Talephone B88J481 located as being in the "Eastern Industrial Review Area" or at the minimum adjacent thereto. The Meridian Comgrehensive Plan does not designate Parcel 1 as being contained or included in any particular area. It is east of the rural residential reserve of the Locust Grove Neighborhood and is south of what is probably intended to be part of the Eastern Industrial Review Area. The Plan also designates onTy one site for a regional shopping center, that being at the I-84/Meridian Road Interchange. In order to develop Parcel 1 as a regional shopping~ center the Applicant's proposed amendments pertaining to a regional shopping center must be approved. 5. That there is a residential su.bdivision directly south of the area of Par.cel 1 planned for a regional shopping c.enter and there are residential subdivisions west of Eagle Road. 6. The application has been processed under the Amendment Provision and Procedures of the Plan as set forth on pages 54, 55, and 56 of the Plan and the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title.67, Chapter 65, Idaho C.ode. 7. Pursuant to the Amendment Provision and Procedures " of ~ the Plan, the Planning and Zoning' Commission has `recommerided•to the City Council that the~ application be . ~, ~ approved; that the Fi:ndings of Fact and Conclusions of the Planning,~and Zoning Commission are hereby incorporated 3 • • <. herein by this reference as if set in full~hereat; the City Council hereby finds that the Application .itself ineets the requirements of the Amendment Provision and Procedures. 8. No changes have been made in th_e Application or Pr.oposed Amendment since it was submitted by the Applicant to the Commission and no changes have been;made at the City Council level. , AMBiiOSE, FITZGERALD ~CROOKSTON Attorneys;and Counselora P.O. Box 427 Merldian, Idaho 83842. Telephone 8B&4181 9. The Application addresses the Amendment requirements under Amendment ~Provision and Procedures set forth at page 54 of the~Plan; the Applicant's reasons why the Plan should ~_• be amended are stated in Finding 11, below,.. ., _ 1Q. The Application, in general terms, requests that Parcel 1 be identified and designated in the Plan as a site -~for a`regiqnaT~;shopping center and eventually be zoned CG and that Parce:l 2 be designated to be inaluded in the .. _. , _; , ~~E~astern~Industrial Review Area and eventually be zoned IL. The Council takes notice that the.Planning and Zoning Commission has approved an amendment, which amendment is now before the Council, to the Zoning Ordinance which specifically adds a Regional Shopping Center (RSC) zone district and tha~t if the Applicant's appliaation for zoning is approved the zoning Parcel 1 would likely receive would be a RSC. The .Application continues in Exhibit E in ~ sp:ecific terms to request specific changes to the Polic~ D.iagrain~and to many of the policies and objectives of the 4 • • various components of the Plan such that the Plan's focus on a single designation of a regional shopping center site is cfianged to a two site designation focus. Many of the specific requested changes do not deal with the regional shop.ping center~, portion of the Plan, but with other components,of-the Plan that would be effected by a two site designation, one at Eagle Road and I-84 and one at Meridian iRoad.and I-84,. ,However, the requested changes are mainly a result of two site designations. ~ - ~, . ~"~~ %~~`11. Tlae' applicant's reasons why the Plan should be amended a`re stated in the application as follows: "The public need for and benefit from approving the three actions (Comprehe.nsive Plan Change, Annexation and Zoning) (A) Provide for the orderly growth of.the City of Meridian and its environs; (B) Make readily available to the residents of the City of Meridian a variety of shopping facilities and seryices that can only be furnished by a regional shopping center; (C) Attract a regional shopping center to the City which would generate a large volume of business; (D) Provide a place of employment for~Meridia-n AMBROSE, FITZGERAID 8 CROOKSTON Attorneys and Couoselors. P.O. Box !27 Merldlan, ldaho 838r2 Telephone 888-1t8] residents; and (E) Provide an alternative regional shopping center 5 • C~ site whereby major retailers would~:have a choice of sites within the City." 12. That the Plan, in dealing with Commercial Activity Centers of which a regional sh.opping center is one, states as follows under Commercial Activity Centers at pages 19 & 20: _ 't l AMBROSE, FITZGERALD SCROOKSTQN ~ , t ~~ Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Boz 427' ' Meridlan, Idaho 83842 Telephone 888~4461 > . "REGIONAL SHOPPING GENTER: As the largest of the Commexcial Activity Centers; it .is designed to serve Ada County and the surrounding counties which make up the Treasure Valle.y. In all cases, the locations of Commercial Activity Centers should be guided by performance and development standards. These standards con- sider, among other aspects: Traffic Volume and Type Trip Generation Impacts on Arterial Street System Proximity to Other Commercial Development Impacts on Neighborhood Resi.dential Areas Accessibi:lity of Site Parking Demands Pedestrian Circulation Available Utility Systems ~ Aesthetics (Design Considerations) ~ : Drainage 6 . C~ Meridian is encouragi.ng the potential development of a Regional Shopping Center near the Meridian/ Kuna Road Freeway interchange. When it becomes a r.eality, it will have a significant impact upon Meridian and has the potential of becoming Meridian's new Central Busine.ss District. The ~ proposed pri"vate development program calls for over a million-square-foot shopping center, which will provide a wide variety of retail enterprises and supporting commercial uses (such as office complexes, multi-family residential units, medical clinics, motels and entertainmemt facilities). POLICIES ~~. ,, .~, `I, ~; It is the pol.icy of the City of Mexidian , . ~ ~ to encourage and support the development ,~~ ,- y of a Regional Shopping Center as the core , commercial activity within Meridian's Urban Service Planning Area, as well as the Treasure Valley. ° 2. The evaluation of the Regional Shopping Center development shall be primarily based upon its consistency with the land use policies of Meridian's Comprehensive AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counseloro , P.O. Box 127 Merldian, Idaho 838l2 Telephone 888-W81 Plan, as well as the future ai.r quality plan of Northern Ada County. 7 AMBBOSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON' Attorneys and Counaelors P.O. Box ~27 Merldlan, Idaho 83612 Telephone 888H481 . . 3. As the specific plans are prepared and implementation and construction timetabTes are established, the eval.uation and review o.f the Regional Shopping Center ~:development shall be conducted through an Environmental Impact Analysis procedure. 13.~ That the Applicant addressed the;.pertinent items in'c.luded in paragra:ph"12 above. . , . ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~. , 14. That although items eontained in paragraph 12 ~ dealih.g~'with~the'location standards for commercial activity centers :a-re thirteen in number, they really deal with the following seven items, to wit: a> Traffic, vehicular or pedestrian; b)'Proximity to other commercial development; c) Impact on neighborhood residential ar;eas; d) Available utitlity systems; e) Aesthetics; f) Use impacts upon other adjacent uses; .and g> Dr.ainage. A discussion of each of these areas is appropriate. ~ A) • TRAFF~IC 1. The evidence procluced by the Applicant does address the traffic~issue. This is ' noted from the evidence a,t the hearing and the Tr.ansportation discu~ssion contained in applicant June 3, 1985 submittal. The traffic impact will be the addition of an average of 36,000 daily trips to the site ~ ~ • i. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON . Attomeys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Merldlan, Idaho e3s~z Telephone 888-4~81 and a high of.52,480. Th~,is traffic will not only impact the roads but also the Police Department. However, regardless of what location is developed the traffic impact would be similar from such a development. 2. The Applicant states that the Eagle Road/I-84 Intercharrge is~ being designed; that there would be an entrance from Eagle Road and Franklin Road to the pro- posed shopping center; t',hat there would be an entrance from Fran;klin Road to Par- cel'2; that the Department of Transporta- tion has long range plans;for expansion of Eagle Road from Franklin Road to the City of Eagle; that the shopping center would have little effect on th~e construction of the area transportation system; that the center would affect the~functioning of the area transportation,system as far as ~, traffic flows are considered; that the road syst,em in Meridian's present com- mercial area would not require major re- visions in that the Eagle Road/I-84 In- terchange woul.d divert shoppers from East 9 AMBROSE, FI7ZGERAID $CHOOKSTON Attomeys end Counselora P.O. Box ~27 Morldian, Idaho 83812 TaleDhone88B-~481 ,, ~~ • . First and ~ieridian Road. 3. That the traffic evidence sumbitted by the Applicant supports, and is in line w-ith the traffic study and findings re- lating to the Upland Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The traffic impact would be greater under applicant's proposal since Applicant states it would be larger. The Traffic impact findings of the Upland Appliaation are noted below because they must be considered as minimums. The ~: ~ ~, , foTlowing findings from the City Council ~ . Findings of Fact on Uplands Application - - , _ are noted therefore~ noted: ~ ~_ ~ " ~ ~. ' ~ , "; ,~_TR~AFF~IC ~ ~ . ,-- ~, , ; 1. That the testimony submitted by the ~ ~ Applicant concludes that their " location is excellant be.cause of its location on two major arteriels Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road. However, their evidence admits that ~ vast improvements would have to be ~ made to those two arterials over - and above improvements already planned for Eagle Road due to its l~ • •~ AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 8 CROOKS70N; Attorneys and Counselors P:O. Box 427 Meridlan, ldaho 83842 teleDhone 888J161 inclusion in the State Highway system as a result~~of the Eagle Road/I-84 Interchange. 2. That ad.ditionally the Applicant a- dmits that vast improvements would ~ ~ have to be made to'Fairview Avenue. ,. Fairview Avenue is already heavily , ~ , . - burdened along its route where com- , r ;„ mercial activities,have been developed. ,; - _ _ . ~ '~ ~~ ~'3~. That besides the above improvements - Applicant's evidence makes several assumptions of road improvements in ~ their study areas as a result of residential needs. These assumed imgrovements included six (6) lanes on Fai.rview Avenue four. (4) lanes on Franklin Road, four (4) lanes on ~ Eagle Road between the proposed interchange and Ustick Road, four (4) lanes on Cloverdale Road be- tween Overland Road and Franklin Road; and four (4) lanes on Five Mile Road between Overland Road and Franklin Road. No:evidence was 1 1 . . • ' AMBROS~, . FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON nt~omeysand . Counselorb P,O. Box 427 Meridlan, Ideho ; 83842 - ; TaleDhone 888~4181 submitted from the Ada County High- way Department or the State of Idaho Department of Transportation that these assumpt!ions of improve- ments due to residential growth were val:id or that the improvements could or would be made even if finances were not a problem. 4.: That in the traffic study area bounded by Meridiah Roan on the West, Ustick Road on the North, Maple Grqve on the East, and Over- land Road on the South, vast ~ improvements needd~to be made...... 5. That the Ada County Highway District is under the same 1$ bud- get and tax restraints as the City of Meridian;..... b. That the shopping center would gen- erate 37,200 trips per day and that , the automobile would be used almost - exclu.sively for those trips; that . , , ! comparing Figure 5.1 (p. V-2, . ~ Testimony) which supposedly shows the exp.ected' level of traffic in 12 • ~ •~ . ,~. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attomeys and Counaelors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 TeleDhone888-4481 I~: ~ . ,` ; _. i' 1983 without a shopping center at AppTicant's location with Figure 5.6 (p, V-12, Testimony> whieh supposedly shows the expected level of traffic if the shopping center were built, a great increase in traffic levels is shown. Comparing the figures on Fairview Auenue from Cloverdale Road to Eagle Road there w.ould be an increase of 41,490c daily trips due to•the shopping center; likewise on Eagle Road from Fairview Avenue to Franklin Road there would be an i.ncrease of 27, 320 daily trips likewise there would be significant increases in trip traffic on the other arteriels in the study area due to the plaae- ment of a.shopping center at Ap- plicant's location. ...... 8., That the Ada County Highway Dis- trict conducted a bond election in approximately 1983 to aide the Dis- trict in financing needed improve- 13 ~ " •' ments to the roads within the Dis- trict; that said election did not succeed. , AMBROSE; FITZGERAID - SCROOKSTON Attomeys end Counaelors P.O. Box ~27 Meridlan, Idaho 83842 TelepAOne 8B8J481 14. Ttiat the roads in the area, particularly Fariview Avenue and - Eag1e Road are not: in good repair; , .,'.. ; ~ that Eagle Road is now a narrow two ,, - l,ane road; ttiat the Eagle Road/I-84 ~ . ~ ~ '~ ., ,; ~ i , ; " , ~. . ~~ , . , . <Interchange project will bring some -, __ ~ improvements to Eagle Road; that Fairview is a four lane road; that ~f the closer you get~to Boise and ~ exist.ing commercial development it is extremely over-burdened and in- ~ ~ ~ ad~equate; that Franklin Road has recently been improved but is stiTl only two lanes; that Cloverdale Road and Five Mile.Road were re- , cently improved and resurfaced but are still only two lanes; that no evidence wa-s submitted by the Applicant as to how the road im- provements would be financed. 15. That the City of Meridian does not 14 AMBROSE, ~~ FITZGERALD , & CROOKS70N Attorneys and Counselora P.O. 8oz 427 Meridlen, ldaho 83842 Telephone 888-4181~ • •' have jurisdiction over the roads nor does it have financing responsibility." It, however, is found that there would be less use of Fairview Avenue and more use of I/84 under the Applicant°s groposal than under the Upland Proposal. B) PROXIMITY TO OTHER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS 1. That the Applicant's`mall location is , over three~ miles from 1Cherry Plaza and ' a little more than two miles from down- town Meridian; that it is three miles from the retail shops at Fairview Avenue and Five Mile R'oad; that it is a little over two miles fxom retail shops at Five Mile and Overl.and Roads. 2. That the Ap.plicant's testimony at the hearing indicated that its center would not have an adverse impact on the re- tail fa.cilities located in Meridian; the study done by Ada-Data for Ap- plieant indicates that 88$ of existing Meridian Retailers would not be affect- ed by a Regional Mall., ~ 3. The Study of Dr. Richard Slaughter, 15 ~ • • AMBHOSE„ FIT2GERALD & QHOOKSTON Attorneys and Counaetora P.O. Boz 427 Merldlen, ldeho 83642 TeleDhone 688~4r81 referred to as the Slaughter Study, points out that part of the Applicant's proposal includes a convenience center which would directly compete with many of Meridian's existing convenience stores; also the Slaughter Study states that some of the spin-off development, which could be as high~as 3 to 1, would compete directly with existing Meridian i ' merchants of convenience items and ~I - ~ states that "the Council should expect that by 1995 there will be substantial . '~ . migration of Meridian business from ist ~ stree"t and the Cherry PTaza to Franklin ., _ and Eagle Road." ~ ` ~~ `'4-. That it must also be noted that when - ~ Karcher Mall was built it did draw ~ business away from the downtown areas ~~ ~ ' ~ ~ of N,a~~mpa ~an~d' Cald~well . ° 5. That iri the Comprehensive Plan at page 15 under Economic Polices it is stated in part as folTows: ~~ . ....,.. 4. Positive programs should be under- taken to support exisitng industrial 16 . • AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON, Attorneys and Counselore PA,BOx427 Meridlan, Idaho 83842 TelephoneB88J181 ,, , , ~ , ~ ~ ~ • , ~ ~ , ' , ' ~ ~,° : . . . . . _ 10......whexe possible, existing com- . ~ ~, . ~ _ _ ~' ~ - ~ " mercial development should be and commercial areas to ensure their careas, public services,..... 6", It is the policy of the City of Meridi.an to support shopping facilities which are effectively integrated into , _ , existing residential areas, and plan ~. ~. , ~ for new shopping cente~rs as growth and _ . development warrant. encouraged to consolidate." That even though these policies are listed under the Economic Policies they do pertain to a shopping center in proximity to other commercial develop- ments. 6. That Applicant's iocation is quite - distant from existing Meridian retail buisness.~ C) IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL AREAS l. In the area where the Applicant pro- poses to locate a regional shopping center ther~e.is a residential sub= 1 7 ~ AMBROSE, FITZGERALO 8 CROOKSTON Attorneys.an0 Counselors F.O. Bozl27 Meildlen, tdeho 83842 Telephone 888-4181 i~ ~ • ~ division directly North and two sub- divisions on the West side of Eagle Road. 2. That t.here was testimony at ttie public hearings objecting to a shopping center at the proposed location. ' 3. That the Comprehensive Plan Economic Policy quoted above reg.arding proximity of shopping centers to,other commercial developments states that it is the policy of the City to support shopping fa.cilities that are effective.ly in- -- ~,~~ tegrated into existing'r_esi.dential - .. . ~ ~. . , . areas. _ , ,4. That the development bf the I-84 Eagle ,. . - ' ~ ~ . ` ~ ; '~' ~ ' , Roa.d Interehange wi11 impact the .. , adjacent residential~~areas and such construction is alread'y a foregone fact; that adding a regional shopping ' center would increase the adverse impact. D) AVAILABLE UTILITY SYSTEMS 1.The Applicant in its application states as follows regarding the various utility components., 18 ~ ~ ~ ~ .AMBROSE,! • I FITZGERAID' ' &'CROOKSTON Attorneys and Couhselors P.O. Box 12~ Morldian, Idaho 83812 ,~ ;, TefeDhone 888-t481 a) Sewer 1. The sewer extension would be in the Urban Service Plan.ning area; the ex tension would be :from the eastside of Meridian; and t'hat it would be along much of the annexation route. 2. That the sewage treatment plant has a capacity of 21,0~00 population equivalency, (P.E.); that the present use by the City is 7,000 P.E.; that the proposed center would use 7.8$ of the capacity. 3. That the benefit to the sewer system from Applicant's proposal would be additional hook-up and user fees and a spreading of:;the costs over a greater economic scale; that an estimate of fees generated was given by the Applicant as sewer service fees of $1<20,000.00 and sew er hook-up fee.s of' $401, 250. Add- itional findings pertaining to sew- er will be made un.der paragraph 16Dy. b) Water Supply and Fire;Protection 1. T:hat the water lin,e extension would 19 • I . , ;, ~ ~ I, ~ , ~. ~ '` AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON A'ttorneys and Counselora P:O. Box 427 Merldlen, Idaho 83642 Telephone~988i181 ~ ~' comply with the City's Master Water Plan; that it woul,d be an 8 inch line extension; that the water route would basica~`lly be along the anriexation route. 2. That besides water lines, improve- ments would include a well and a ~ reservoir and that minimum fire flows would be met for fire protectio~i: ~ 3-. T:he Applicant estimated the water ~; , i . , service fees to be $100,000,00 and " ' th,e water connecti;on fees to be 230,300.OO;addit.ional findings per- taining to water w.ill be made under paragraph 16 D). c) Other Utilities Applicant stated that gas, electricity, and telephone were available or would ' be . ~ d) Public Safety Under this category th;e Applicant ~ addressed life safety code, some police concerns regarding traffic, site light- ing, and security, but did not add.ress - impacts on the Meridian Police Depart- 2 n. • •~ ,r ~ AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & Cfi00KSTON ~Attorneys~and Counselors P.O. Box 127 Merldian, Idaho 63812 Telephone 8BBJ481 ment or fire de.partment and such will - be discussed further in pargraph 16 'D). e) Solid Wa.ste Disposal. ,~ The Applicant indicated this would be .- , handled by the contract hauler. :__~ ~2.. That the Applicant includes applica- , tion for annexation but the City has ~ ~ not yet committed to supply public services to the area; aost data for public services to this location was submitted in a prior application for annexation for Parcel l~and the aom- mission wi11 discuss such in a different section of these Findings. E) AESTHETICS The Applicant submitted no evidence de- tailing the aesthetic effect of locating a mall at its site other: than its general site plan; a requirement. of such at this juncture may be prematur;e. ~ F), USE IMPACTS UPON OTHER A,DJACENT USES 1. The majority of the land surrounding Parcel 1 is residential on the North and West with agricul,ture being the predominent use on the East. The Inter- 21 . • state is abutting on the South. 2. The majority of the land surrounding Parcel 2 is agricultural and indust- rial. 3. No specific evidence >was submitted by the Applicant on the impact of its pro~ po.sals on adjacent uses. One resident testified that the impact on his land would be adverse, as far as the shop- ping center was concerned. 4. At the hearing John Polk testified the shopping center should not have an adverse impact on Downtown Meridian its retail. This is discussed in find- ~ ing 14 B, PROXIMITY TO OTHER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. 5. At page 30 of the Slaughter Study it states: . °A regional center will create a new ~` economic core which will draw other _ development to it. This spinoff ~~~ ~ ~. develogment will be between one and ~ , , three times the amount of the original .. ~ , AMBROSE, _ development, over a 15-20 year period. FITZGERALD 6CROOKSTON T,~le more open land surrounding the Attorneys and' Counselora ' P.O. Box 127 Meridlen, ldaho 2 2 838A2 ` Telepfione889-1Y81 !•~ '• ~ AMBROSE, m ~ ~ ~ ~ F,17ZGERALD : ' fk "&CROOKSTON ~ Attorneys nnd Qounaeloro . , ,F.O: Boz427 • , Merldlan, ldaho 83842 Telephone 888-4481,, original site, the greater the spinoff The Nahas site would generate the least spinoff of t:he three locations, and the Price site the most. Spinoff development will not look~to ot~er markets for business, but will s.erve the existing market. All such ~ development around the mall will be drawn from existing business elsewhere in Ada and Canyon counties, or would locate elsewhere if there were no mall to serve normal growth. G) DRAINAGE The Applicant indicated that the land drains to the North and West and that drainage would be taken ca.re of by the use of site drains, conduits and equilization basins whieh would be inte- grated into the landscaping. Drainage would also be of greater concern to the Ada County Highway Department than the Gity of Meridian but appears to be , ~ adequately addressed. ~ 15. The Local Planning Act of 1975 ind'icates in Section ~67-6508 ~that the Plan should be based on the following ' 23 AMBROSE, FITZGERAID 8 CROOKSTON Attorneys end Counselore P.O. Box 427 Merldian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 888~4181 • ~ components: population, economic development, land use, natural resources, hazardous areas, public ,services, facilities, and utilities, transportation, recreation, special areas or sites, housing, community design, and implementation. 16. That most of the important items referred to in paragraph 15 and set forth in 67-6508, Idaho Code, have ~ been addressed by the Applicant; that these items need to be addressed by an applicat.ion to amend~ a comprehensive plan as they are the integral components of the original plan; any proposed a_mendment effects these components. It is felt, however, that this app.lication to~ amend the Plan ~ for locating a regional shopping center and industrial property would not effect the following components: Natural Resources, Hazardous Areas, Recreation, Special Areas or sites, and Implementation. The other components would be effected and should be addressed. and in most cases were addressed by the Applicant and are discussed below. a) POPULATION 1. That the POPULATION GROWTH section of the Plan begins with the following , ~ statement: ,. , . , "Encourage orderly growth for a self- sufficient community, but discourage unplanned growth within or adjacent to 24 • ~ the City and the Urban 'Service Planning ~ Area (USPA)." (Plan, p,.12) Likewise; one of the policies as stated . at page 12 is "Unimproved or unrealized land within the Mexidian City limits and Urban Service Planning Area should be utilized in order to maximize public investments, curtail urban sprawl and ~ protect existing agricultural lands from unnecessary infringement." ~ 2. Th~e Applicant states that population projections contained in the Plan have not been realized; that due to this unrealized growth, costs of public ~'" utilities and services,are higher on a ~~ ~~~ `"` ~' per aapita basis than they would be if i ~ the population were greatsr; that em- . ~ ~ ~~ . : , . ~~~ ~~ ployment from the shopping center could ~ _ be approximately 2,500 and together y with secondary employment could be as - high as 5,000 but that many of these positions would be filled from the ranks of the unemployed; additionally the Applicant states there would be a AMBROSE, FITZGERALD temporary inf lux of people relating to &CROOKSTON Attorney@and ' Counselors e.o. eox.2~ 2 5 Me~icia~, IdaAo 83612 Telephone 888-4481 AMBROSE, FI7ZGERALD BCHOOKSTON Attorneys erid Counselora P.O. Box 427 Merldian, ldeho 83812 Telephone 888~1181 . , • construction activities. 3. Applicant stated th.at ~the long term effect of the shopping center and the ~ industrial employment would have a significant iinpact on future population ~ projeetions but the initial impact on population should remain unchanged; that the largest impact of the shopping center would be an increase in buying income and increased job opportunities for Meridian residents, 4. That the impact of Applicant's proposals, or for that matter a regional shopping center at any other site, are not going to be that great as far as population alone is concerned; the results of increased population such as sewer and water, police and fire protection and transportation, are of greater concern. b') ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1. The Plan encourages economic development. It contains the following policies as to general economic development: ` 26 " AMBROSE, FITZGEHALD ~ RCROOKSTON Atlorney9 and Counselore P.O. Box 127 Merldlan, ldaho 83812 Telephone 888~4181 .:, • p, 15 "The City of Meridian shall make every effort to create a positive atmosphere which encourages in- dustrial and commercial enter- prises to locate in Meridian. It is the policy'of the City of ~ Meridian to s~et aside areas where commercial and industriaT interest and activities are to ` dominate, . Stripping of industrial and com- mercial uses ~ are not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan." 2. The Plan, at page 14, as its initial ~ statement on Economic Development states as follows: p.14 "Stimulate, encourage and give perference to those types of eco:nomic activities and develop- ments which provide opportunities ~ for the employme:nt of Meridian citizens and area residents and- reduce the need for persons to commute to neighboring cities. 2~ AMBROSE, FIT2GERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counseloro P.O. Box 427 Meildian, Idaho 83842 Telephone888-4~81 `~ , • .The City of Meridian and its residents view the economic enter- pr•ises of industry, retail com- mercial and personal services as an integral part of a planned community. The City's physica.l development, economic stability, social stratification and in- stitutional effectiveness for dealing with public needs are dependent upon such economic opportunities." 3. That the Plan lists three commercial ~ activity centers, the largest being a Regional Shopping Center and states as follows at page 19 of the Plan. p.19 "REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER: As the largest of the' commercial activity centers, it is designed to serve Ada County and the surrounding counties which make up the Treasure Valley." 4. That the Plan goes on to detail the considerations and standards for the location of a commercial activity 2~ I. • .. J .~ AMBROSE, fITZGERALD SCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counseiora P.O. Box 427 Meridlen, Idaho 83842 Telephone~888-4481~ . . center. These have previously been stated~and discussed a~bove in Finding 14. 5. That the Plan goes on to state where the Regional Shopping Center is to be located and deals with specific policies ali of whieh have been mentioned in these Findings. The Applicant's proposed Plan Amendment does not remove the Meridian/Kuna Road I-84 designation as a site for a Regional Shopping Center but does add its location as a second site. The amendment also does not alter the policies that pertain to a Regional Shopping Center. Of significance in these policies and statements are the expressed goals that the regional ~ shopping center could become the central business district of Meridian and that it aould be the core com- mereial activity within Meridian's Urban Service Planning Area. 6. That the Applicant's Appli;cation states as follows pertaining to the economic 29 ~ • ~ AMBROSE, FITZGERALD SCROOKSTON ' Attomeys and Counseloro P.O. Boz 427 IiAerldian, Ideho e3s~z TeleDhone B88JI81 development impact of a $100,000,000. 00 mall located at its site: a. A$100 million project would employ up to 1,000 construction personnel with an estimated annual payroll of $25 million,. This payroll'would produce about $2 milTion in State income taxes and approximately $525;000 in sales taxes. These reveunes would return to ~ the City of Meridian as State-provided services or tax subvention income to the City budget. . b. The assessed value~for Meridian is $155 million which means that a$100 million (80 percent of which is assess- ed value) center would increase total assessed, value in the City by almost 52 perce.nt to $235 million. c. A$100.million center would generate at least $180,000 the ,first year in new property taxes to the City of , ,; Meridian, (This would be $190,000 the ; second year and $200,000 the third year for a total of about $2.3 million over ten years). . 30 AMBROSE,. FITZGERALD SCBOOKSTON Attorneys and Counaelora P.O. Box 127 Meridlan, Idaho 83842' Telep~one 888i481 "• ~ d. The center would emp.aloy an estimated T,500 full-time and 500' part-time personnel in new jobs. This would pro- duce $25.5 million in annual salaries, up to $2,500,,000 in State income taxes and $800,000 in sales taxes. These new revenues would return to the City as State services or tax subvention income e. A regional scale retail center would produce approximatley $275 ~ million in gross sales,~the first year. , This would result in $11.5 million in ~, sales taxes that would return to the , _ 3- ' ~: City as State services or tax snb- vention income. ~~~ f. Current State prop;~erty tax laws, i. e. the one percent intiative and the . --, . 50-50 residentail tax limitation, have served to push the tax burden from residentail to commercial. An increase of this magnitude will help to reduce the mill levy for all property in Meridian and therefore will provide tax relief to businesses. , I g. The proposed regional shopping 31 ~J center will attract shoppers to Meridian, the additional shoppers will provide new business opportunities for exisiting business in the City and in the surrounding area. 7. That the above stated revenue bene- ~ AMBROSE, FITZGERALD' BCROOKSTON Attomeys and : Counaeloro P:O. Box.127 Merldlan, ldaho 83812 Telephone 888~4481 ,~~~ ~~ _~ ~,. • fits to the City will be discussed be- low but at this juncture it should be pointed. out that "tax-subvention income" does not aid the City financially and State provided services likewise do not ~ pay for City expenses. 8. The Slaughter Study shows the folow- ing: "NIARKET SIZE , "The following sections assume approval of the pending annexation and zoning request or some other action by September 1985, and subsequent mall construction during 1986 and 1987, with a mal`1 opening in the fall of 1987 or the spring-summer of 1988. The local market should support a mall of about 800,OU0 square feet with three or ~; ~ £our anchor stores.by 1988 and 1.0 million ~~` ~ square feet by 1990-91 if the economy 32 • ;. , .„ ~ __ _ . ,, . ,_ ; ; AMBROSE, FITZGERALD. BCROOKSTON Atrorneysand COUfIS610f6~ P.O. Box 427 Merldlan, ldaho 83812 Telephone 88&4~81, ~~ continues to grow. Anticipated total sales are $88 million in 1985 if the mall were in existence today, and $128 million in 1990, in 1985 dollars. Sales recaptured from other markets are estimated to be $29 million in 1990. The Price location at I-84 and Eagle Road - a... °w.ould attract the most sales because of its proximity to Boise and its variety of access routes. In this respect both the Nahas and Upland sites would be hampered, either by increased distance from Boise, or relative difficulty of access. The Nahas site is two miles further from Boise than Eagle Road, and the Upland site would suffer as the arterial roads become in- creasingly congested." INDUCED GROWTH AND EMPLOYMENT Construction of the mall should create 550 }obs over a two year period, with a$17.5 million annual total economic benefit. Total ongoing economic impact i~ 1990 should be about $10.5 million, from $4.2 million new payroll. The total benefits is equal to four-tenths of one percent of Ada 33 . . county personal income. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridlen, Idaho 83842 Telephone 88&4481' Net new employment will be.414 jobs at the mall, and 950 jobs total in Ada county in 1990. 4OO ma11 jobs in 1990 will be due to mar- ket growth between 1985-90,,. 1000 mall jobs in 1990 will be shifted from Karcher Mall in Canyon county and the older retail areas in Bois.e. 9. That the~Plan also states as economic development policies, as follows at page 15: p.15 "Positive programs sliould be unde- taken to support existing industrial and commercial areas~to ensure their continued vitality, such as:. a. Detailed Design Studies. b. Econ.omic Feasibility Studie5. c. Zoning changes to assure desired economic development. It is the policy of the City of ~ Meridian to support shopping facili- ~ ties which are effectively integrated into existing residential areas, and plan for new shopping centers as 34 °• • growth and development warrant." C) LAND OSE The Compre.hen.sive Plan identifies con- sistency with land use policies of the Plan as a major guideline in the eval- uation of a regional shopping center. l. That the Plan identifies three land uses that are not in compliance with the goals and objectives of the Plan; polluting industries, strip commercial industrial,and scattered residential (sprawl or spread); that urban sprawl is defined as scattered development which is not contiguous to the urban- ized part of the municipality. Sprawl is characterized by significant amounts of vacant land intermixed with ,parcels of Urban development----formless dis- persal of a congested urban area with little or no regard for the inter- relationships of such factors as AMBROSE, , FITZG ERALD 6CROOKSTON Allorneys end Counselorp ' P.O. Boa 427 Meridlen, tdeho 83812 Telephone 888-4481 logical transportation,~; employment, ` health and recreational needs. ~ 2. That the Flan does not presently : designate the area within which Parcel 35 s ~ 1 is located for any particular use; that Parcel 2 is probabl'y located in what could be designated as the Eastern Industrial Review Area or is at least ad:jaeent thereto. • 3. That at present there are a sig- ,. , ,. nificant number of parce,ls between ~. ,. =.Parcels 1 and 2 and Meridian that are r. , ~ ~vacant. ~ h t th A lication states ttie AMBROSE, FITZGERALO BCROOKSTON ANo[neysand Counselors P.O. Box 427 Merldian, IdeAo 838r2 Telephone 988-4461 , , ,` ,~., , 4. T a e PP ; ~ ' J ~ . ~ '• .j~ ~. .~ ` . adjacent properties include industrial, ,~-, railroad and agricultural uses; that contrary to Applicant's statement much of the adjacent property includes ~ residential land. 5. That the Application states the land ~~ use changes contemplated by the pro- posals will have the following impacts: a.enaourage the intexchange at I- 84 and Eagle R.oad and industrial developoment below Franklin. b. tYie shopping center would suffer less than the existing resident- ial area as a result of prox- • imity to I-84 and the future 36 ~ ,- AMBROSE, , FITZGERAID &;CROOKSSON _ Attorneyssnd Counselora P.O. Box 127 Meridlan, IdaAo 83842 Telaphone 888~1481 ' ~, Eagle Road Interchange. c.that the shopping center would be a landmark enhancing the stature of Meridian. d. the proposed industrial develop- ment will be enhanced by its proximity to the railroad. 6. The Slaughter Study reflects that Applicant's loaction "is almost completely surrounded by undeveloped land; development at that location will enhance the commercial value of any location on Fran~klin Road either East or West of Eagle Road, and on Eagle Road between Fairview and Over- land. In the absence of strong public policy to the contrary, all of that , land should be expected to develop commercially, while the surrounding land away from the two arteriels will develop residentially; "the Study further reflects that the Upland and Nahas sites would not be expected to h.ave the same growth and development impacts surrounding those two sites. 37 AMBBOSE, fITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Atromeys~and Counselora P.O. Box 427 Merldlen,ldaho 83642 7elephone 88B-4d81 •. I - . ,~. : ~ ~` L. • D) PUBLIC SERVICES, FACILITIES, AND ,~ UTILITIES This component has~previ.ously been dis- cussed as part of the lo,cation stand- ards for a commercial activity center. However, at this juncture in discussing the planning components.the existing polic.ie.s pertaining to Public Services, Utilities, Facilities should be noted and the cost impact of providing those services stated. . 1. That the pertinent~fixe protection poTicies at page 38 of the Plan state as foTlows: ~ ,p. 38 "To,insure adequate protec- tion for new dev.elopments, provi- sion shall be made for satellite fire stations whic:h have a staff of fire fighters equipped with the appropriate fire fighting facili- ties. Improvements regarding the jointy used centr•al Meridian fir-e station (City and Rural Fire Districts) should be reviewed periodically 38 ~ ' '~ AMBROSE; - FITZGERAID BCROOKSTON i Attorneys and Counseloro P.O. Box 427 , Meridlen, Idaho 83842 Telephooe 688-4l81. because of the growth and develop- ment within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Ar~ea. Adequate water supply and water pressure should be avaiTable to provide fire protection for urban- type development within the Urban Service Planning axea." 2. That the pertinant:police protec- tion policies at page 38 of the Plan state as follows: - "Police protection within the City limits and poiice protection furn.ished by the Ada County Sheriff's Departme:nt in the areas outside the City limits, but with- in the Urban Service Planning Area, should be assessed for deficiencies according to the recommended ratio of 1.6 to 1.8 policemen per 1,000 persons." 3. Of great concern to the City ~ Council is the f ire and police , .,, ~ protection requirement for a , ' regionaT mall and.the additional ' ,` 39 ~± :~ , costs of providing those s.ervices. The Slaughter Study deals in depth with the police and fire Department.and the Council agrees with the comments contained there- in and hereby adopts those comments as findings. A copy of the Study's Fire De- pa.rtment comments is attached hereby as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorp- orated herein as if set forth in full. 4. That the pertinent water supply policies at page 39 of the Plan states as follows: a) The monitoring and review of the Meridian municipal water system should be continued because of the potential for growth and development within the Urban Service Flanning ~: AMBROSE,.. FITZGERALD BCROOK$TON Attorheys~~and Couneeloro P:O. Box 427 Merldlan, Idaho - 83842 Telephone 889-4481 Area. All new developments shall be phased as to their connection to the numicipal central water system within the Urban Service PTanning Area; , , ; 40 - ' ; ,, , ,< <.. - ~ ' , ;:, ~' : . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ Adequate water supply should be , ~ - ~ , . . ~' ~ avaiiable for fire protection. AMBBOSE, FITZGERALD &bROOKSTON Altorneys an0 Counselors P.o. eox a2~ Merldlan, Idaho 83842 Telephone~888-4181 • b) The suppTying of water by the ' City is a proprietary function ~ of the City and the rates and ~ ~ charges therefqre are required to sufficient to pay for the cost of providing that service; the City can adjust the rates and charges to cover t.he costs. The Applicant will be required - to pay the appropriate con- nection and service charges and fees and they should be suf- ficient to cover the cost of providing the water service to the Applicant and the develop- ment. 5. That the pertinent sewer policies at ~page 40 of the Plan state as follows: a) All new subdivisions, planned developments and large com- ~ mercial and industrial develop- ment projects shall be required to connect to the municipal 41 . Y~~ sewer system. b) The supplying of sewer by the City is a propr.ietary function of t-he City and the rates and ~ charges therefore are required to sufficient to pay for the cost of providing that service; the City can adjust the rates and charges to cover the costs. The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate con- nection and service charges and fees and they should be suf- ficient to cover the cost of providing the "sewer service to the Applicant and the develop- '. ment. - ' . - E) TRAN.SPORTATION - This component has previou~sly been part- : ia11y discussed as part of the location standards for commercial aativity centers. However, at this juncture of the Findings the existing Plan policies should be noted and discussed. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON l. That the level of service of the Attorneys and Counseloro ~ 2 PA. Box 427 Me~ldlan, Ideho 83842 ; Telephone 98&4181 • ' • ~' transp9rtation system greatly influences the development and physical organization of the planning area and the City. 2. That Fairview Avenue; Franklin Road, Overland Road, and Eagle Road, all roads which play an extremely important.rqle in Applicant's development, are designated as Principal Arterials as is the Kuna/Meridian Road South of Franklin Road which also would be an integral part of the Ap- plian€'s proposal. 3. That the plan has as one of its transportation policies "Efficient and safe access should be provided to and from shop- pin.g eenters, since it is~crucial to the economic success of the centers, as well as to the maintenance.and efficient traffic movements on. the public road-ways adjacent to the development." 4. The Applicant has indicated that "all ~~ of the Eagle Road and Interchange improve- ments are to be funded through the Federal Highway Administration and the State of AMBHOSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attorneys and Couneelora P,O. Box 427 AA'eridlan, Idaho 838~2 Telephone 88B~4~81 Idaho as administered by the Idaho Depart- ment of Transportation. H.owever, certain 43 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys end Counselors a.o. eox an Merldian, Idaho 83842 TeleDhone 888-4481 ;~, • • , . _ ~ ~ i~mprovements requested by..;...(Applicants) .~ ~ are their responsibility. While those have not been specifically identified, we believe they include the free access right lane off Interstate I-84 westbound and signalization required on the entrance located on Eagle Road." Likewise, the applicant has indicated "All improvements on Franklin Road in the area of the mall will be the developer-'s responsibility." 5. That while the transportation cost impacts are not the burden or responsibil- ity of the City they are of great concern to the City as is the transportation flow and impact of great conern, to the City. F) HOUSING l. The Plan contains housing policies and the following policies are included therei.n at ,page 26 of the Plan: "2. Every effort shall be made by the City of Meridian to encourage commercial and industrial growth and development which furthers employ- ment and economic self -sufficiency and reduces Meridian's present ~4 • ~ reliance on Boise's Metropolitan economic and employment center." AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counseloro P.O. Box 027 Meridlan, ldaho 838A2 TeleDhone.8BB-4481 ...... ... "4. The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be en- couraged." - 2. That the Application indicates that there would be sufficient residential lots ~ to provide needed houses for any expected increase in population and that due to high construction costs higher density housing should be considered and utilized. 3. There is an inventory in the City of residential lots that are available for immediate house constructi,on; there are several residential subdivisions that have been platted an.d could soo'n be available ~ for further development and sales of lots for housinq. G) COMMUNITY DESIGN 1. The Plan states as its lead-in policy for community design at page 48 as follows: "Create a visual and functional ~ identity for the City of Meridian 45. . • ~ ; I. ., ' , _}', AMBFiOSE, FITZGERALO BCROOKS70N Attorneys and Counselors P:O. Box 427 Merldian, ldeho 83842 7elephone988-4481 within Ada County and~its surrounding enviorment." 2. The Application state,s that Ap- ~ plicant's proposals would create a uniform , shape to the Southerly and ~Easterly portion ~ of the City limits. , '' 17. That the Plan references at pa~ge 20 that air- quality. sh,ould be a primary evaluation factor for the ,development~of a regional shopping center. The Applicant fa-il.ed to address this ar.ea before the Commission but ` ~ 9 . . befor$ the Gity Council filed a statement that indicates a regional shopping center at the proposed site would create the same or less air quality problems than any other site located in Ada County. 18'. That throughout the Pl.an reference is made to the regional shopping center a.t the Meridian Road/I-84 Interchange; that particularly at page 7 of the Plan, the Policy Diagram indicates that a regional shopping center site is designated in the Northeast Quadrant of the Meridian Road/I-84 Interchange. The Application would add an additional site at the Northeast Quadrant of I-84 and Eagle Road but would not remove the Meridian Road site. That the Plan, in many places other than in the portion dealing with the commercial activity centers and the Policy Diagram, refers to "the Regional Shopping Center" or "the 46 ~~ ~~ ,, AMBROSE, FITZGERqLD &CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counaelora P.O. Boz 427 Merldian, IdaAo 83842 Telephone 888-4~81 'Proposed ;Re.gional Shopping Center, Nor,theast o~f the ,I-84./Meridian Road Intersection" or such other single 'reference terminology; that the Applicant's requests would ~ch'ange su.ch references to refer to two sites or make the _wording such that it would apply to two sites for a regional shopping center. 19. That the City of Meridian has considered Applicant's proposed site for a regional `shopping center under a prior application for annexation of the site. This was the Quong Application. The Planning and Zoning Commission appr.oved the Quong Application and the City Council denied it. The Commission received an objection to the present application filed by a representative of the owners and developers of the Meridian Road/I-84 regional ~ shopping center site, (Nahas site), which relied on the record and findings o£ the Quong Application as support for the objection,. The objection incorporated all the record, testimony, evidenee and exhibits of the Quong proceedings, particularly the Findings of Fact and Conclusions made by ' the Gity Council. The City Council did not receive the same objection during the proceedings and hearings held before it but the Council believes that the Quong record and decision sh_o.uld be addressed in the.se findings because the Quong Application and this Application pertain to the same proposed site for a regional shopping center. The Council 47. 4 '~ ~ ~ reviewed the Quong proceedings during the Upland Industries, Application proceeding to amend the Comprehensive Plan and is fully knowledgeable and aware of the Quong record. ~The Council, in its Findings on the Upland Application noted some siinilarities and some dissimilarities between the Upland proposal and the Quong proposal an'd also made some comparisons between those two sites~and the Nahas site. The Council is fully aware of all the prior records, proceedings, findings and conc.lusions. 20. There are similarities between al.l three sites upon which regional shopping centers have been proposed which are herein referred to as the Nahas site, the Upland site, and the Claremont site; these similarities are as follows: ~ ~ a, AMBROSE, FITZGER/1LD &CROOK$70N Atlomeys and Counselors P.O. Box 427. Merldlan, Idaho 83842 Telephone 888~4481 a) Al1 are with-in Meridian's Area of Impact; b) All are within Meridian's Urban Service Planning. Area; c) Only one of the sites, if any, will be ~ developed; d) Al1 would ultimatley most likely, regard- ~ less of location, be of similiar- size, be valued the same for property taxes, achieve the same amount of retail sales and create the same number of construction and perman- ant jobs; this is reflected in the 48 • •1 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD SCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counseloro P:o. aox a27 Meridlen, Idaho 83812 Telephone 888J481 Slaughter Study;. ~ e) Al1 beinq the same approximate size and ~ value, would create approximatley the same amount of reveue to the City of Meridian in the form of propexty tax, sales tax, and s• . water and sewer revenues; : ~ f) All sites would create additional costs and , yi : i 'te ma expenses fox the. C.i.ty albe.~t on.e,. si y ~ ~ , create more than another, and probably the o . , ~' s ' - ' less costly site would be the Nahas site, v i ;. '. but which eosts could outstrip the revenue to the City as a result of'the shopping center. 21. ~ That there are dissimilarities between both the •Nahas site and the Upland site when compared to the Claremont site; these dissimiTarities are as follows: a) The Nahas and UpTand site's are already in the City limi"ts and the Ci;ty has previously committed to provide City ~services to those ~ two sites; such is not the case with the Claremont site; " b) The Nahas and.Upland sites already have water,and sewer lines adjacent to the property; . c) The Claremont site is the most distant from 49 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attorneys end Counsetore P.O. Box 427 Merldlan, Idaho 83642 Telephone 988~4481 '• ~J i ;, ' Meridian's present retail corridor but ~~'~ probably only a little bit more than the ~" ~ Upland site but the Upland site i.s on a . ;~ . .. , , proven retail corridor, Fairview Avenue; ~ the Claremont site would li-kely involve more spin-off deve'lopment.~ i 22. That there are some significant f~actors different in~~ the Claremont Application than there were in the Quong A_pplication; that these factors a,re as follows: a) Al1 the land included in the Claremont Applieation is now included in Meridian's Urban Service Planning Area; b) The Claremont Application does not involve land South of I-~84 as did the Quong Ap- plicatio:n; ' ' c)~ The Claremont Application has the sewer and ~ water exte:nsions running along the route of ~ :an,nexation; d) That while annexation is not the question ~~ at hand, the Claremont App;lication includes ~ an Annexation Application~that is not con- voluted and only includes land that would ~ be serviced by extension of water and sewer lines. i , 23. That in the City Council's Findings and 50 • ~ ~~ AMBROSE, FITZGERALO BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridlan, Idaho 83812 TelephoneB88-4481 Conclusions on the Quong Annexation, which application involved the same site for a regional shopping center as the Claremont Application, there were several findings an conclusions relating to the costs of providing City services to the site and to the revenue that would be produced; that the Applicant produced no major evidence which was contrary to those findings and.,which might have made the cost-revenue picture appear brighter; the evidence indicates that the revenue from a$70 million center would be $137,100.00 which includes property taxes of $110,400 and state revenue sharing from sales tax of $26,700.00; that the revenue from a$116 million dollar shopping center would be $T78,700.00 in property taxes and $21,800 from sales tax revenue sharing for a total of $200,500.00; that the above figu'res are approximate and are based on the Slaughter Study; that one factor which has changed from the time the Quong Application was decided, is that the property tax one year growth factor, where the City can increase its budget by ~ore than 5$, has been increased from 50$ to 80$; this change in growth ,factor does not significantly change the revenue picture. 24. The evidence indicates that the costs for police and fire protection to the Claremont site would by far exceed the revenue that the City would derive from the shopping center at that location. 51 . . ,:. ~ 'Y A. AMBROSE, FITZGERAID & CROOKSTON ^ Attorneys and Counselors P.O. $ox 427 Meridlen, ldeho 83842 Telephone888-~481 ~~. -+ , 25. That the City Council ultimately concluded regarding the Quong Annexation as follows: "It is concluded, finally, that the annexation is not in the best interest of the City of - Meridian; that the annexation would not be rea- ,~ sonable and would not aid the orderly development ' r of the City; that of primary focus is the ir- regularity of the annexation route, the lack of . ~' sewer and water service to the area south of the freeway, the cost to the City without offsetting ~v."F .' revenues, and the adverse affect the development. ~ of a shopping center would likely have on the I existi.ng retail community of the City of Meridian ' That some of the reasons for denying the Quong Application have been removed in this, the Claremont Application. Although, the annexation is not before the ~ Commission at this time, and this should not be construed as: a ruling or decision on the annexation, the Claremont Ann,exation route is more direct and does not involve land th,at would not be serviced with water and sewer. The ; - an,nexed property would likely be consi;dered as allow.ing more orderly deveTopment, although, the actual shopping center site still would be a pennisula to the City. ~ 26. The Applicant submitted evidence which indicated 12$ of Meridian businesses would be adversely impacted by a 52 AMBROSE, FITZGEFALD ' &GROOKSTON Atlorneys and Counseloro P.O. Box 427 Merldlan, Idaho 83842 Telephone888-r461 ._• • :,s:hoppinq c:enter.: The STaughter Study pointed out, however, ~ that ~`the~ Applicant's plans for_ the area include a "C,onvenience Center" which would be in dir,ect competition ~ _ , , to the existing retail of Meridian; likewise the Slaughter Study points out that while the mall retail of comparison shopping would not be in direct competition with Meridian's predominant existing retail of convenien.ce goods, the associated spin-off development would be more convenience oriented and the City should expect to see a migration of existing Meridian business to the mall area; the Slaughter Study also indicates that most spin-off development would occur at the Applicant's site and the least at the Nahas site; that this would be due in large part because the Eagle Road/I-84. site is generally surrounded by open, vacant land and the Nahas site is more confimed. 27. That there is one advantage that the Claremont ; site likely has over the Nahas site and possibly the Upland site and that is that if it were developed the adverse transportation impact on Downtown Meridian;would be less. ~ 28. That there has been at least one major change si~nce the 1978 Meridian Comprehensive Plan was adopted which may indicate a review of the single shopping center designation is warranted and that is tYie addition of a second interchange on I-84 in the Meridian Urban Service P'lanning Area. 53 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 127 Merldlan, ldeho 83842 Telephone.88&4467 • ~'~ .;' ~ 29. That the Applicant has requested the City to amend its Comprehensive Plan to designate its Parcel 1 as a site for a regional shopping center; that before the Commission the Applicant submitted no evidence which would indicate that if the amendment were granted that a regional shqpping center would actually be constructed at that location other than a statement it would file letter commitments from major retailers prior to the City Council hearing; that before the City Council the Applicant did submit several letters from major retailers and copies are included in Applicant's submittal dated June 3, 1985; a review of those letters reveals that they are either commitments to Price Development Company without any specific site designation, are commitments of less than 90,000 square feet, commitments to a totally different site, or are conditional commitments based upon other stores commitments for which there were no commitments; aiso many of the letters were hardly timely one being dated D,ecember 17, 1981. The commitment letters included one from a major store which expressed interest in the site and they - subsequently publicly stated it was not interested in the Boise market at any site. The Applicant did submit many letters of interest from small and special;ity item stores. ' 30. The Slaughter Study, in its Co-nclusions, makes some remarks pertaining to the benefits and risks of mall 54 • • con'struction; the Council finds those statements are very relevant and in general sum up the "between a rock and a har'd spot" position the Council is in regarding this Application, or any mall to be located in the City; those statements are therefore hereby adopted as findings and set forth below: ,.~ ~, Benefits and Risks of Mall Canstruction ' There are a number of economic benefits which can be ~identified for the Treasure Valley area from ~con:struction of a regional shopping mall: ,'~~ '; In strict economic terms, the major growth benefit wiTl come from its "import substitution effect", the extent to which a shopping center located in Meridian or Boise might recpature sales currently going to other markets in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific coast areas. Those sales will have the same effect on the local economy as,any other new export business. The mall may also succeed in recovering from eastern Oregon some of the sales aurrently lost to Tdaho because Oregon does not have a sales tax. AMBHOSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Atromeys end Counselore. P.O. Box !27 Meildian, Ideho 838~t2 Telephone 888-~481 Psyehologically, a mall could serve as a partial catalyst for further economic development. Corporate administration is the third most important economic base in th'e region, behi:nd ag,riculture and government. Their continued presence in this area depends at least in part on 55 ~ ,. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P:O. Box 427 Merldlen, IdaAo 83812 Telephone 888-~d87 ~~ the~~desixabilit.y of living here. In addition, industrial .~ location~ decision's are made by mid and senior level ~~ . . manag.ement,, wh.o have~ been doeumented to be sensivite to the , 1 .,~f , ~ .; ..~ , , availability of local ameniti.es more than m~inor differences in,~tax and wage levels. A quality shopping facility is one of ,the items currently missing in Ada county's locational off.erings, A mall located on one of the sites available to Meridian, especially those on Eagle Road, would strengthen the economic draw of the existing Upland industrial site on Eagle and Fairview. „ ~ For Meridian, a mall would improve income flows and tax revenues over time, drawing existing business and residential growth away from Canyon county and eastern portions of Ada county. ' Mall development would not~., however, be undertaken without some risk: The economic climate has changed since the market st,udies on which many of the proposals rely were done. As a re:sult, a mall built in 19:86-88 may not be as Iarge as currently proposed. The resu.Tting economic benefits would thus. be smaller than currently envisioned, though public capital and service eosts would be about the same. 1 The Meridian Comprrehensive Plan calls for contiguous, eompact development. Growth occurring as a 56 ~ •: AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKS70N Attomeys and Counselora P.O: Boz 427 Meridlan, ldaho ess~z Telephone 888~4481 other city services. ~ Unless the tax laws are changed o;r an innovative funding approa.ch found, the city will not be able to raise the funds to cover the new costs. ! 3T. That although reference to the below may have inf~erent.ialiy been stated in ot.her findings the following goals, policies, and objectives in the Plan are • ~specifically noted: , p. '8 "GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ~' ~~ Goal 3: To encourage the kind of economic . ~ growth and development which supplies em- ~. ployment and economia self-sufficiency for : existing and future resident.s, reduces the i present reliance on Boise and strengthens ~: the City's ability to finance and implement - public improvements, services and its open space character." p. 9 "LAND USE: POLICIES ~ 1. The City of Meridian intends to plan ~ for the periodic reviewing, monitor- ing and updating of land uses within the Area of Impact and the Urban Ser- vice Planning Area. ......... ~ 4. The following-land use activites are ; 5B • • AMBFtOSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Atrorneys end Counseloro P.O. Box 427 Merldlan, Idaho 83842 TeleDhone 888~4~81 ~,, result off mall development will be anything but, unless the mall is located on the Nahas site. If either Eagle Road site is selected the Council should expect future growth along Franklin and Overland, west and east from Eagle Road. Pressures for this growth will be present regardless of the current city limits or zoning, and will significantly slow infilling in parts of the city in which residential , and commerci.al developmen.t has alread-y been approved. r The Council should expect to have to accomodate growth aTong Franklin Road by annexing all of the land between Meridian Road and Eagle Road not currently inside the city limits. Within a few years it may be necessary to annex all land between Meridian Road and Eagle Road north of~I-84 and south of the current city limits. To the extent the mall becomes an economic magnet, attracting spinoff development to it, older commercial areas will lose sales. Unless the mall is bounded by an existing retail center, the closex the older °areas are to the ma1T site, the greater the impact will be.. ~hile the mall itself will not compete directly with ' ;°.existing Meridian business, relocation and expansion to the Franklin-Eagle Road area should be anticipated. ~ An Eagle Road site will definitely result in major short-term increases in fire protection costs, and over time will result~in increases in costs for police and ' 57 ;J ,i • 2 < AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CFi00KSTON Attorneys and Counaelors P.O. Box 427 Merldian. Idaho 83842 Telephone 988=4~81 4 ~ • not in c9mpliance wit~h the basic , goals of the Comprehe,nsive Plan. a) .,.... „ . ~` ~~ ~ a'~'` - ~ ~ ~ b) Strip commercial and strip indust- , } , rial."' p. 14 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT "Stimulate, encourage and give perference to those types of economic activites and developments which provide`opportunities for the employment of Meridian citizens and area residents and reduce the need for per- sons to commute to neighboring cities." "The City of Meridian and its residents view the economic enterprises of industry, retail commercial and personal services. as an integral part of a pTanned community. The City's physical development, economic stability, social s,tratifi~cation and in- stitutional effectiveness.for dealing with public needs axe dependant upon sueh . economic opportunities. To accomplish the . above objective,, the Comprehensive Plan . provides for INDUSTRIAL REV.IEW AREAS, COM- MERCIAL ACTIVITY CENTERS and MIXED=USE RE- . VIEW AREA$." 59 .~ • ~ INDUSTRIAL REVIEW AREAS ....... "Th.e Comprehensive Plan i~ntends to prepare ~ for Meridian's business and employment future by reserving land for industrial, ~ retail, commeraial and office uses and so . ; removing them from the categories of land ' on which residential development can be , " proposed." p. 26 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, POLICES 1 ....... "2. Every effort shall be made by the 1 City of Meridian to e.ncourage com- mercial and industrial growth and development which furthers employment ; ° and economic self-s~fficiency and re- duces Meridian's pre~sent reliance on ~- ~ , J Boise's Metropolitan economic and ;. , ~ employment center." '~., .,' p. 53 OTHER PROJECTS ~ ~ I ..... "2. Support .and encourage development of ~, Commercial Activity,Centers. Regional Shopping Center AMBROSE, FITZGERAID ~~ 8 CROOKSTON . . . . . . . Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Boz 427 Merldlan. ~Idaha ~ 6. O. ' 83642 • . Telephone 888-4481 ~ ~ •. AMBROSE, FITZGERAID BCROOKSTON A-tomey.s end Counseloro P.o. eox an Merldian. Idaho 83842 Telephone.888~4481 '32.. The following statements of the Meridian Comprhensive Plan are noted: p. 1 FORWARD "The Comprehensive Plan is primarily a , policy document identifying policies to guide future dev:elopment within and outside ~ of the City of Meridian. The Comprehensive ~: ~ Plan is recognizably the primary step in identifying the quality of~life the City ~, ,';i;~~~ / ~~ residents desire and relating goals to its capacity to achieve particular end results. ~ :, . i:- It was developed with a broad base of com- , munity-wide citizen input and is both sensitive to the changing needs of the ~ community and recognizes a commitment to preserve the values identified by the City . ~residents. ;NATURE OF THE COMPREHENSZVE PLAN ~ A Comprehensiv.e Plan is an~ official docu- ', ~ ment, by local governments and public ti agencies, which serves as ~a policy guide for decisions concerning t:he physical development of a community. It indicates, in a general way, how the community may develop in the next 20 to 30 years. ~ G1 f '' ~ ~ , I,I _^'•. I' ; The essential characteristics of the Com- ~, ,. ~ , , ~ ~. ~ ,,~, - , , ' ~ ~,. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD B.CROOKSTON Aporneys and Counselora P:O. Box 427 Merldian, Ideho 83842 2elephone 888J481 ~ _ . prehensive Plan are that it is comprehen- ti ,, ,~ 1 sive, general, long-range ana represents a process--not a product. Comprehensive means that the Plan encompasses all areas of the community and all functional elements which bear on physical development. General means that the Plan summarizes policies an,d pro- posals and does not develop detailed site plans. Long-range means that the plan looks beyond the pressing current issues toward the aspects of problems which the commuity may face in the future. F'inally, as a~ pro- cess (not a produet), the Comprehensive Plan is an ongoing process for directing ch~ange that occurs inevita!bly in a com- munity--not a document that is written once, for all time." p. 14 "COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY CENTERS Retail commercial and office development are frequent partners within Commercial Activity Centers. Both general categories often share locational needs and often prove mutually supportive. In order to coordinate with the supportive ar-eas of 62 ~ • residential and industrial developments, ' areas should be set aside as Commercial , Activity Centers and their development . , carefully guided." p. 18 "ECONOMIC POLICIES. l. The City of Meridian.shall make every effort to create a'positive at- , ~ mosphere which encourages industrial .. and commercial enterprises to locate in Meridian. 2. It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set aside areas where ' commereial a~nd industrial interest and activities are to dominate. . ....... 4, Positive programs should be under- taken to support existing industrial , ' and commercial areas to ensure their , ~ continued vitality, such as: , . ,' ~ +, . ...... ~~ c. Zoning changes to assnre de- .. .. - ' sired economic development. ; ....... 6, It is the policy of the City of AMBROSE, FITZGERALO scaooKSroN , Meridian to support shopping facili- Attorneys and „ Counaeloro P.O. Box 427 , ' Merldlan, ~a8no 6 3 e3s~z TelepAOne 888~1481 • • `• ties whieh are effectively integrated into existing residential areas, and plan for new shopping center.s as growth and development warrant. , AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counaeloro P.O. Boz 427 Merldlan, Idaho 83642 Telephone 888~48.1 ....... 8. The City of Meridian~intends to establish Commercial Development Design Guides which:~ a. Provide for the grouping of commercial buildings on a single parcel of land in such a manner as to create a harmonious, efficient and convenient retail shopping environ- ment." i POLIGY DIAGRAM "With the anticipation of growth and development p.ressures duri:ng the next decade, the Comprehensive Plan summarizes the potential distribution's of land use activities within the Urban Service Plan- ning Area that area based upon policy re- commendations. The Policy Diagram attempts to make general designations of appropriate and compatible land use, expresses~the ultimate growth of the Meridian community 64 ~ ~~ , ~ if all the land were developed, and pro- ~. vides a flexible framework for further de- . . a .. , ='` ~ • . ~' ' . , ~~ _,, t~a.iled Tand use decisions. ;- The Policy Diagram is to be used as a gen- ~ . , , _ . ~ ~ , .~~ . , ;. , ;'" + „ ; - eral guide for land use dec.ision-making-- ~` not as a legalistic, literal and definitive map. As applications and proposals of land uses are submitted, the Policy Diagram is not intended to be used as the so1e, authoritative means for decison-making. Rather, it is but one of the many tools wtiich are available for public officials as they exercise their responsibility regard- ing the health, safety and~~ welfare of the . general public._ p. 50 COMMERCIAL PLAN REVIEW ~ If the Comprehensive Plan is to be useful and effective, it should n~ot be filed away ~ but should be co.ntinually ~reviewed and up- dated. The recommendatiorn~,s within the Com- prehensive,Plan should not be interpreted ~ as unalterable commitments,, but rat-her a direction at a given point in time. It is. recommended by the Meridian Planning and AMBROSE, , , FITZGERALD a,cAOOKSTOr, Zoning Commission that at least a yearly Attomeys and Counseloro P.U. Box 427 Merldian, Ideho 83842 Telephone 888~4481 6.5 ~ i AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCHOOKSTON Attomeys aod Counaelors P.O. Box !27 Merldien, Idaho 83842 Telephone 888-4481 ~ review shall be held of the Comprehensive ~ Plan to update and/or reaffirm the R1an to ~, fit the changing needs as we11 as unfore- seen planning problems and.opportunities. 33. That it is noted the Appliaant has applied for CG zoning; that an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance has been proposed that would be RSC, Regional Shopping Center. 34. That the Applicant, in its Application, Pages 4 and 5, indicates its willingness to enter into an agreement which address police and fire protection and water and sewer requirements and concerns. The Council appointed a Negotiating Committee whieh concerned itself with meeting with the Applicant and its co-developer, Priae Development Company, to address the above items. The Committee has made its recommendations to the Council, which was that the City Council approve and enter into the Development Agreement, the Negotiating Committee approved; that the recommendation and the proposed Development Agreement, signed by the ~Ap;plicant and its co-developer, Price Development Company, ' wa~s entered into the public record regarding this Application. ' 35. That under the proposed De~elopment Agreement, the °Applicant and its co-developer, P,rice Development Company, recognize that the construction o,f a regional shopping center at their location is no.t a certainty and 66 ~ _ . , , . . ,' ,t . . r _ y AMBROSE, FITZGERALO BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O: Box 127 Meridlen, Idaho 83842 TeleDhone 88B~4481 • . that if it is not contructed th,at the City should not be required to service the iand with public services. Thus, the Agreement calls for a conditional annexation, if any, and calls for a de-annexation procedure if the developers get past the point of requesting a building permit and yet still do not complete construction of the regional shopping csnter. ~ ~, 36. That under the proposed Development Agreement the Developers recognize that if they do construct a regional ~shopping center, the City will not have sufficient tax ~'fiinds to provide the. necessary public services; the '; Agree'.men:t also recognizes that not all of the public ,. .; ~,, ~ . services necessary to service the entire development eventually achieved in the area will be the.result of the mall or caused by these developers. Thus, the developers have voluntarily agree to contribut~e funds for only their portion of the additional costs; that the proposed Development Agreement provides that the developers would pay approximately three-quarters t3/4> of a million dollars plus provide the City some land that could eventually be used for a fire station or sold to fund the purchase of other land for a fire station which sum and land would be given to the City over a period of years. 37. That comparing the cost projections, both capital outlay and operating maintenance, set forth in the 67 • e , . , .,. ' , ' AMBROSE, FI7ZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Merldlan, Idaho 83842 Telephone 888~4481 . . ., Slaughter Study, such finanical aid by the developers will in ~no way cover the entire costs or even come close. ~~ 38 ' ~ That t~h;e City under the proposed Development Agr;eement, the City in no way would bind itself to take any °par~t~icular', ac~t~ion either on this Application, for a ; Comprehensive Plan change, or on subsequent Applications for annexation, zoning, or development; the proposed , Agreement does provide that all due process requirements must be met and that the City ean~in no way pre-determine or pre-judge an application; however, in the event certain things do occur the developers have agreed, on a voluntary basis, to pay their share of the cost impacts. 39. That from the testimony the Council has heard pertaining to this application, the Upland"Application, and the Quong Application and from the attitudes of the people expressed to the Commission and from the newspaper and broadcast media reports, it can be judicially noticed that the people of Meridian and Ada County desire to have a regional shopping mall, regardless of where it is, as soon as posssible but that there are differences of opinion as to where it sfiould be located. 40. That the testimony at the public hearing held before the City Council, June 3, 1985, was generally in favor of the Application, although, there was testimony that was presented against the application. 68 • ~. CONCLUSIONS .~ , AMBROSE, FITZGERAID &CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselora P.O. Box 427 Meridlan, Idaho 83842 Telephone 888-~481 l. - That all the procedural requirements of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, hereafter refered to as ~the Plan, and of the Local Planning Act, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, including all notice and hearing requirements, have been met; that the City Council has authority to amend the Plan. 2. That'Claremont Development Company's Application to amen.d the Plan was initiated by the Applicant and not by the Commission or the City Council. It is noted that the Application comtains three requests: 1.) To amend the Merid.ian Comprehensive Plan 2) To annex two parcels of land and 3) To zone the two parcels. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Meridian reads in part as follows: 11-2-417 ANNEXATION AND ZONING UPON ANNEXATION "...If the annexation shall necessitate an amend- ' ment to the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission shall advise the Applicant to request a Compre- hensive Pl.an Amendment prior to further consid- ~~ eration of the Annexation." ~ 11-2-416 D 2. - "If the adoption of a zoning amendment applica- tion requires an amendment to the Meridian , Comprehensive Plan, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan shall be amended prior to the consideration 69 ~ • , ~7 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attomeys and Counselora P.O. Box 427 Merldlan, Idaho 63812 Telephone 988JI81 , of the zoning amendment and the procedures pro- ~ vided in Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho code, shall , be followed on the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and, until the Comprehensive Plan is amend- ed to allow the Zoning amendment; no action will be taken on the zoning amendment." . Idaho Code, Section 67-6511 is in'accord with the abave; that since the Application already requested a , Co,mprehensive Plan amendme,nt there was no need for the Cotnmission to inform~the Applicant to request an amendment , , ;; ,: ~'and~t~he Commission and City Council have moved forward on that.Comp.rehensive Plan Amendment alone due to the above . ; . ' requirements. 3. That the Council may take j:udicial or offical notice of existing conditions in the City, County and State and of government.al actions, policies, and ordinances and of'its own prior findings in other land ,use applications and those of the Commissions. ~ 4. That the function of adoptin:g, amending or repealing a Comprehensive Plan is a legi,slative function. Burt vs City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.2d 1075 (1983). That even though this is a legislative function, the Local Planning Act requires that Findings of Fact and ~ Conclusions be made for any application provided for in the Act. 7~ • ~. AMBROSE, FIT2GERALD SCROOKSTON Attorneysand Counseloro P,O. Box 427 Merldlan, IdaAo . 93812 Telephone 888-~481 5, That the AppTication itself is concluded to meet the~requirements of the Amendment Provision and Procedures of the Plan. ~~ 6. That paragraph K. of the Amendmen:t Provision and Procedures of the Plan used to provide, in ~part as follows: "K. Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan may be granted only to correct an error in the. Plan or because of substantial change in the actual conditions of an area which results in a material discreparicy or dis- ~ parity between the conditions in the area and all or part of the Plari." Such a requirement was more restrictiye than required under the Local Planning Act and the Commission recommended an,amendment to Section K which deleted the idea that an amendment coul.d only be granted to correct an error or change in actual con.ditions. The recommended amendment was approved by the City Council and the above is no longer a requirement to amend the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The Plan may now be amended to reflect "good ;planning" and the t ~•de;sires and goals of the citizens and the Council arid ° Commission, as the citizens representatives. ~. 7. That the Plan is what it says, it is. It is a Plan. The portions of the Plan set forth in Findings number 32 reflect that the Plan "summarizes policies and proposals 71 ~~ . ~ , , AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counaelors R:O. Box 427 Mertdlan. Ideho 83842 Telephone888-4I81 .; ~ and does not develop detailed site plans." The comment to the Policy Diagram indicates that the Diagram "is to be used as a general guide €or land use decis~ion-making---not as a legalistic, literal and definitive map." The Plan therefore should be liberally construed but still maintained as the functional guideline for land use decis.ions; i.e., the Plan policies and objectives cannot be w~illy-nilly disregarded when there is an apparent conflict between the Plan and a proposed use. ,~ . J"y 8. That the Council and Commission have the duty to .cqnt'i:nu-ally; plan; that the Council and Commission treat amendments proposed by private entities as part of that -:, plarining~duty and function; the City cannot, and should not, be the sole initiator of possible amendments; the City treats amendment a.pplications as a means of bringing . possible and necessary planning changes to,light. 9. At the time the P1an was initially adopted there was only one interstate interchange and.now there is an additional one planned for the Eagle Ro:ad/I-84 intersection; also at the time of initial adoption of the , Plan much of the Eagle Road/I-84 area was not in the Urban Service Planning Area; likewise, sewer ;and water had not been extended to Eagle Road. It is concluded that these changes and others noted in the Findings, are substantial changes. ,. ~2 • . ~ •~ 10.~ As was similarly concluded in the Upland • yIndustries Application to amend the Comprehensive Plan, it . is likewise here concluded that the above referenced cli'a~nges~ warranted, a review of the Plan, and amendment of the Plan if deemed appropriate, r-egardless of whether the ,~. ~~~ ~ Appl^icant had submitted :its Application.~ The Application „ brought to light and focused in on the need to review the Plan.~ The Council now is required to assess not only the Application but also whether thos.e changes above warrant ado~pti.ng the proposed amendment and whether the changes of the Application itself are in the best interest of the Plan and the City, and whether they are desirable. ; 11. That the part of the Application pertaining to a regional shoppin.g center would have to be adopted to a11ow the development intentions of the Applicant as set forth in the Application. 12. The main focus of the assessment of that part of the Application pertaining to the designation of a site for a regional shopping center is dictated by those factors mentioned in Findings of Fact, paragraph 12 and 15 the ' Application itself, the facts presented in the hearings or officially noticed, and the goaTs, objectives, and policies of the Plan as it exists and the various planning c.omponen~t.s of 67-65U8, Idaho Code. ~ AMBROSE, FITZGEFALD 13... That .pertaining to the commercial activity center B,CROOKSTON Attorneys and . Counselora P.O. Box 427 7 3 Merldlan, ICaho 83812 Telephone 8BB-4~81 • • location performance and development standa~rds contained in paragraph 12 of the Findings it is concluded as follows: a. T.,RAFFIC Based upon the traffic study submitted by ~, Upland Industries Corporati~on and con- cluding that the Claremont,proposal would have a similar, if not a greater, impact on the traffic of the area, it is concluded that the Applicant's site, if developed, poses a severe impact on the roads in the area and that vast improvements would have to be made to those roads and highways the cost of which improvements were not specifically addressed; that due to the 1$ restrictions and the public's attitude on bond issues, those costs could not ap- parently be borne by the Ada County Highway District; that unless contributions to the costs of road improvements were made by the Applicant, the traffic impact of Ap- ~ i plicant's development on e'xisting roads in`_ their present condition dictate that the ; AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attorimeys and Counselore P.O. Box 427 Meridlan, tdaho 83842 Telephone 8HB-4481 Application be denied; Applicant has, how- ever, recognized that most, if not all, of the road improvement costs in the area of ~4 ANIBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attorneys and~ Couneelors P.O.Boz427 Meridian, ldeho 8384Y Telephone988-4487 • c. • the Mall, particularly on Eagle and Frank- lin Roads, would be the responsibility of the Developers. That assuming the road improvements necessary could be financed,, governmentally or privately, the site would have excellant accessibility for a regional shopping center. PROXIMITY TO OTHER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS That due to experiences of Karcher Mall in drawing business from downtown Nampa and Caldwell and due to the Applicant's site being more than two miles from existing re- tail in Meridian, and due to the aomments in the Slaughter Study that the Eagle Road/ I-84 site would create more spin-off ~ development, would have a convenience center as part of the Plan,, and the City should expect retail migration from East First Street and Cherry Plazza, it is con- cluded that Applicant's location would be detrimental to the existing retaiT of the City of Meridian. IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL AREAS That there would be a detrimental impact on 75 t ~ ~? the surrounding residential,neighborhood if Applicant's location were developed as a regional shopping center; that this impact is of concern to the Council but it also realizes that the Plan indicates that shop- ping centers are to be integrated into residential areas. .' d. AVAILABLE UTILITY SYSTEMS That the City has present physical ability ,. . ~ . and eapacity to provide sewerage to the area; that even though the addition of the shopping center would add approximately 1,500 population equivalence (P.E.) to the sewer use and there is rem~aining capacity, the City already has annex;ed an area that would require a tr.eatment facility capacity in excess of 50,000 P.E. a'nd the 1,500 additional would use up 10.71$ of the re- maining capacity; however, many of those previously annexed areas are not developing;, that the sewer line extension is not of much concern to the Council as that would AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counseloro P.O. Box 127 Merldlan, Idaho 83842 Telephone 888~4I81 be borne by the Applicant but the impact on the sewer treatment plant and the fact the City has already comrnitted, by an- 7~ AMBROSE, FITZGERALD SCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counseloro P.0.80x427 Merldlan, Idaho 83842 Telep~one 988-4181 . • nexation, to serve such a great area, are - •~ of qreat concern to the Council. ' That the Council's concerns over water . ,~ s:ervice are met by the fact.the Applicant , . •: . ~ . _ ~- '~would extend the lines and provide a well ,. ~:. and storage reservoir, although fire flow ~ requirements would have to be met, . The fact that the sewer and water systems are proprietary functions of the City, how- ever, r,elieves much of the Council's con- cern over the water and sewer impacts of Applicant's proposed development. That the other utilities of gas, electrici- ty and telephone apparently are available; There was no evidence provided on the utility requirements of the ind.ustrial portion of the proposal. „ e. AESTHETICS That the aesthetic impact of a development at Ap:plicant's site was not detailed in the evidence but such is not f~elt to be detri- mental to the Application and site plans would be subject to review. f. USE IMPACTS UPON OTHER ADJACENT USES That there would be some adverse impacts 77 • upon the residen'tial uses i~mmediately adjacent to Applicant's proposed site for a regional mali and this would be particular- ly true due to the increase of traffic on the roads servicing the shopping center and the subdivisions. However,'it must be borne in mind that the Plan states in the Economic Policies at page 15 that Meridian should "support shopping f acilities which are effectively integrated into existing residential areas." Likewise, it must be noted that there will aiready be an adverse impact on the adjac.ent residential areas due to the forth-coming Eagle Road/I-84 Interchange. This last fact reduces, but J does not remove, the concern the Council has regarding the impact of Applicant's proposal on adjacent land uses. The industrial proposal would not be an impact on adjacent uses and would be compatible with the industrial uses already existing in the Eastern Iridustrial Review AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Atlorneys end Counselors P.O. Box 127 Merldlan, Idaho 83812 Telephone 888-4181 Area. g. DRAINAGE That drainage is not a problem or a draw- 78 . ' ~ I~' S' ' . AMBRpSE', FITZGERALD 8 CROOKSTON Atromeys and Counselora P.O. Box 12T Meridlan, Idaho e3e.s Telephone BBB~4481 back to the development of a regional mall at Applicant's location or the industrial `~ development. That as far as the location of~ a xegional shopping center it is concluded that the site itself, without considering needed traffic improvements, t~he fiscal impact o.n the City including sewage treatment, fire and police ~ p`rotectio.n and the possible lack of revenues to offset those costs, and the possbile loss of retail commercial establishments from downtown Meridian, is.probably a good location for a regional shopping center. The traffic problerns and cost of providing municipal services and loss of existinq Meridian retail are problems.which are of ' concern to the Council and will be dis.eussed further below in these Co.nclusions. ~, 14. That since the Local Land Use Planning Act requires the C'ity to consider several components in developing a comprehensive plan, it is felt that the impact ,~an amendment would have on those components must likewise i be examin~ed or at Teast there must be an examination of the - components effected by the amendment; that these components ~deal with more than just location of a shopping center site.,~ Therefore it is concluded as follows: a. POPULATION ~ That under the lead-in paragraph of the 79 ~ ~ - ~ ,, ;~ AMBROSE, FITZGEFALD 6CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Merldlan, Ideho 83842 Telephone 888-1481 U ~ Plan pertaining to ,population and the other population policies quo•ted in Finding 16a, ~ it is felt that a regional mall development at Eagle Road and I-84 would not neces- --~ ,sarily be orderly growth and would tend to , induce urban sprawl. - 1 That the Applicant did detail the impact its d:evelopment woul.d have .on the pop- ulation of Meridian and it is felt that the population would increase and the center would add a net gain of employment to Meridian although not near as much of a net gain as the Application claims, and con- tribute to Meridian gaining self-suf- ficiency; however, a mall at any other location in Meridian would do the same. b. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ; ` That a regional mall developed at Ap- plicant's site would meet the general policies of the Plan regarding economic development. The Plan indicates that every effort should be made to e,ncourage indust- rial and commercial enterp.rises to locate in Meridian and that areas should be set aside where commercial an.d industrial 8~ • •. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Atlomeys end Counaelora P.O. Box 427 Merldlan, Idaho 83842 T.eleptione BBB-1d81 activities are to dominate., Applicant's = proposal definitely would meet those goals .; and objectives, if it were~developed. The - ', proposals would add jobs, both during con- _ - - .4~ .~ . ~ ': .struction and upon operation. It would tend ' . ' to reduce the need to commute to neighbor- ing cities. It would add $88 million in - ' ' `'~ sales, if it were in existence today and - . $128 million by 199O,to the retail sales in Meridian. In 1990 it would recapture $29 million in lost retail sales. It would add to the property tax base and increase the income of Meridian residents. However, a regional shopping center at another -location in Meridian would'do the same. That as far as specifics under economic development one of the major goals of the Plan for commercial activity centers is that the regional shoppi.ng center could become the central business district of Meridian and that it would,be the core commercial activity within Meridian's Urban Service Planning Area. The proposed amend- ment does change the above goal and in- dicates that the Claremont site could 81 ~. ~:: I ~\ ,'° I AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Alrorneys and Counaelors P.O. Box 427 Meridien, Ideho 838~2 Telephone 888~418] become a core commerci.al activity center. It is felt that the development of a mall at I-84 and Eagle Road could shift the ' emphasis of the City from the East First •~~ Street corridor to Eagle and Fairview and make "Oldtown" oldtown. , _ G. , LAND USE ~ „,~#That the Applicant's Iocation would not ~ ~ create or be strip commercial, however, , r it could be considered to be.or create sprawl in that there is a great amount of undeveloped ground between developed U Meridian and Applicant's site wh.ich like- ly would be developed by spin-off retail- ers. d. PUBLIC SERVICE$, FACILITIES AND UTILITIES That portions of this component were dis- cussed in these conclusions dealing with Parcel 1 as a location for a regional mall, however; additional comments need to be made pertaining to police and fire protection and the cost of funding those two services. .~ The Council concludes, as did the Slaughter Study, at pages 29 and 30, that g2 - ~ ~ ~ the costs for poiice and f ire. protection: - ~ "are not caused solely~by mall con- , ~ struction, nor do they relate to costs of protecting the mall itself. They arise from the location of the ma1T site, the geographic extension of the City limits, expected satel- lite development and existing de- sign and staffing of the police and fire de.par.tme.nt-s." "These costs apply to either of the Eagle Road locations. The location on Meridian Road., if combined with restraint in future annexation, would avoid most of this expense." "Additional costs of police,ser- vices will range from possibly nothing in FY 1986 to at least ~ $250,000 in 1985 dollars by 1991. Some of these costs should be under taken in any event ove;r the next several years as the community ~; grows." ~' "Additional costs for fire services AMBROSE, FI72GERALD W111 be about $650,000 capital QCROOKS70N Attorneys and CounSelora ' „ P.O. Box 427 8 3 Merldlen,ldaho 83842 Telephone 888-1.181 ~ i. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD SCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselora F:O. Box 127 Meridlan, ldaho e3s.z Telephone 888-4481 ,~ eosts for a new stat.ion ~ plus $400, 000 to-remodel the existing station Ongoing costs would be $350,000 to $450,000. Without mall con- . struction on Eagle Road', the exist- ing station and volunteer arrange- ment might continue for several more years.°' T:he Revenues to cover the above capital costs and ongoing costs are not available. Only a portion of the revenue is available from property taxes and state sales tax revenue s.haring. Additional re- venues from a$70 million mall in 1990 would be $137,10U and from a $116 million mall there would be $200,500. The AppTicant and his co-developer, Price Development Company, have offered to pay their share of the increased costs. Over a ter:.m of years they would give to the City $750,000.00 and donate land, The interest on the fund by 199U would 84 . , , . ~ ' , , ° ' ~; ~ ~ , AMBROSE, FITZGERACD &CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 127 Meridlan, Idaho 838~2 Telephone 888-4481 s, t , , e. , • create a total fund, if inves.ted at 10$, of approximately $1.2 million, which could be used to defray some of the capital and on going costs of the mall and associated develop- ment. Certainly, the above funds would not cover the total ad- ditional costs when annual cost accrue at approximately $4U0,000.00 per year. That the City Council concluded in the Quong conclusions that the costs of pro- viding municipal services to the Eagle Road/I-84 site were prohibtiye in re- lation to~the possible revenues. However, the City Council when they con.sidered the ; Upland location had before them the same costs figures regarding the Quong site and yet did not outright deny that ap- t. plication based on costs but.indicated they would give Upland an opportunity to provide evidence that a shopping mall would actually be constructed on Upland's site at Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue. TRANSPORTATION ~ "05 • • ~That this component has previously been discussed under the specifics of Ap- ~ plicant's Parcel i as a site for a re- " gional shopping center and those con- ~. ~ ~ .; , , „ - , - - c1u'sions should be reviewed as they are , , , . ; ~ ~ applicable hexe as Applicant's site, if " ~, '' deveToped, would have a severe impact on , the trarisportati.on of the City and the ~. , , Urban Service Planning Area. However, it is concluded that the development of any other site as a regional shopping center would create a similar impact:; that if the City of Meridiam desires to have a regional shopping center the traffic issues will have to be addressed and solved. ' f . HOUSING That the development of Applicant's site , as ,proposed would impact the housing situation in Meridian but to a favorable extent in that it would aid the house construction industry; that there are suf.ficent house lots available,or capable AMBROSE, of ~being available, t.o meet the possible FITZGERALD 8 CROOKSTON aema n d. Attorneys and Ci0Uh~910f8 P.O. Box 427 Merldlan, Idaho e3s4z 8 6 TeleDhone 888-4181 ~ ' ' ; , ij_ ' ~. t ; 1, ~ AMBROSE, ~ , : F.ITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attomeys and' ` Counbetora, PA. Box 427 Merldlan, Idaho 83842 Telephone~88B~~4481 ,• •. g. COMMUNITY DESIGN That it is felt the design of the City would be changed as the result of a ~ regional shopping center on Parcel l in that it would create a shift of the City , to the East towards Boie. 15. That the impact on the air quality~of Northern Ada County is stated by the Plan to be a standard in evaluating t.he development of a regional shopping center. It is concluded that more evidence on this standard would have been beneficial but that the new auto emissions testing program should help the air quality; that the development of one site over anoth~er would not inerease or decxease the air quality and thus the lack of evidence is not deemed detrimental to the Application; that the development of any regional mall in Meridian is going to adversely impact the air quality. 16. That in light of the above conclusions on the various planning~ components and the air`' quality it is concluded that on the whole Applicant's amendment would not . have~ a great adverse impact on population, economic ~.. ~ :deve~]:opme,nt, land use, housing, or air quality and certainly reg.axding economic development would. have a beneficial . , impact; that t'here would be an adve~rse impact on . 87 ." - •`, ,; ` ~ ;_ . transportation and that has previously been discussed but that adverse impact would be the same if any regional mall were developed and will have to be resolved whichever site is developed; that specifically under pop'.ulation and in _ ~general under community design Applicant's development of a ,~~;reqional,~shoppin,g~.center on Parcel 1 would tend to violate ~~'It;h!e poTicy `against urban sprawl, and would. shift the . emphasis~.of ,~th~e Gity to the East spreading it out; that considering the cost findings contained. in the Quong ~ application, public services, facilities and utilities would be more ad~versely effected by a regional~mall located at Eagle Road and I-84 rather than at Meridian Road and I-84 even though the latter site would likewise adversely impact the public services, facilities and utilities provided by the City of Meridian to a certain extent. 17. That before the Commissio;n a representative of the Nahas sit.e did object to the present application based on the record amd the Findings of Fact and Conclusions in the Qu,ong Application conce_rnimg this same site; that it is concluded, as was concluded in the Upland Findings and Conclusions that the Quong record and Findings of Facts and Conclusions do not necessarily dictate a denial of this Application; that there are significant differences between AMBROSE, the factual situations concerning the Eagle Road/I-84 site FITZGERAID ~ acROOKSTOr, When it was presented by Quong as compared to this Attorneys and Couneelora P.O. Bax 127 ' Meridlan, tdaho 638A2 ' Telephone 888-448? ss . • AMBROSE, ~ITZGERALD~ ' 3CROOKSTON Attorneye.and Counseloro ?.O. Box 127 Maridlart, idaho 63842 Telephone 888-4481 presentation. Those factors which make it different are included in Findings 22 and 25. 18. That the Council co:ncludes that, even though the Applicant's proposal pertains specifically to two parcels, the Application effects the entire plan. The change from a single site designation of a regional shopping mall to a two site designation would effect many of the aomponents of the Plan and their policies. The original Plan is so oriented to the present Meridian Road/I-84 site that a change to add an additional site would ripple through the Plan. 19. That one of the major themes, if not the most prominent t-heme, of the Plan is that Meridian wants growth and development which is orderly and balanced, This is evidenced by Finding 31. Likewise; it is..evidenced bg the Plan at page 2: "The goa-ls, objectives and policies herein express- ed' underline and shape the character and orienta- tion of Meridian's Comprehensive Pl.an. They deal with three major concerns of the people of Meridian • 1> Or•derly growth and development; ' 2) Econoinic growth and balance; and . , 3) Improvement of the qua;lity of life." "~_`- 20., That throughout the Plan the theme and desire for e.conomic growth and jobs and self-sufficiency is repeated. ~ ;, ~ i .. • One of the maj.or means the Plan states as achieving the 89 ~ ' ~' . AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys end Counselors P.O. Box 127 Merldlan, Ida~o 83812 TelepAone 888-«81 ~s ! above was, and is, the development of a regional shopping . center in Meridian. Much of the Plan's focus is upon a regional shopping center. The development of an additional interchange, the extension of the Urban Service Planning Area and the extension of water and sewer lines make re-evaluation of the Plan, and possib.ly the single designation of a regional shopping center, appropriate. Whether there is one site designated or tw.o or more, the desire of the people of Meridian is for a shopping center a:nd the fact that the Plan strenuously endorses a regional shopping center as a means to achieve economic growth, jobs and self-sufficiency cannot be easily disregarded and any proposal that would, in fact, be developed as a regional shopping center must receive serious consideration. 21. It can be, and is, judicially noticed that the people of the City of Meridian wouid like to have a regional shopping center located in Mexidian. It can likewise be judicially noticed that there are and will be differences of opinion as to where such a c.enter should be located or what site has the better likelihood of drawing tenants and of actually being developed. 22. It is of great concern to the City Council that possibly the proc.ess for allowing a regi.onal shopping center to be located at Applicant's site, including a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, annexation and zoning, could be exercised 9~ • •. , , - 7 _. r , AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKS70N AtSorneys and Counselora P.O. Box 427 Meridlen, tdaho 83842 Telephone88B-4481 fruitlessly; i.e., there really is a basis and benefit for going through the process if., in fact, a shopping center is constructed but if one is not constructed then there really is not a basis for or benefit from amending the Plan or annexing and zoning the property. The Council can visualize the benefits of a regional shopping center but it also does not want additional service costs when the proposed site sits idle and vacant. ~ The proposed Development Agreement referred to in the Findings resolves the Council's above coricern. .Under the proposed Agreement the City would not finally annex or zone the property until a buildi.ng permit was appl,ied and paid for. Thus the City would have no obligation to provide services untiT constru.ction was almost a certainty. Also, under the Agreement, even if annexation and zoning did become final by the issuance of a building permit and yet a shopping center was still not constructed, the property would be de-annexed and rezoned and the Plan changed to reflect the status as it was prior to Applicant filing its Application. The Council concludes that such a procedure of ~~.condi`tional annexation and~ zoning and possible reversion to the present status is in the best interest of the City as it ~ allows for the Applicant and his co-developer to proceed, ~ gives the City a good ctiance to have a regional shopping 9I ,~ ~, ~ eenter, and yet, if. such is not built, the City has not incurred unnecessary costs or committed to,serve an area that is not in fact developed. 23. The Coumcil concludes that the fac•ts presented by the Applicant and the officially noticed facts, are suff.icient to amend the Plan; that the facts, particularly that thexe has been a site designated for a regional shopping center for some time and yet it has not developed, that the Claremont site is serviced by two prineipal arteriels, that there will soon be an Eagle Road/I-84 Interchange, that sewer and water are getting closer to the eastern edge of the Urban Service Planning~ Area, that if AMBROSE, FITZGERALD SCROOKSTON Atlomeys and Counseloro P.O. Box 427 Merldlan,:ldeho 83842 Telephone 888-~181 - the C-laremont site were developed it would have less of an ad~erse impact on traffic in the Downtown area, and that it , is located on the major transportation art.eriel, I-84, in ~ ~Treasure.Valley,~ and that there has been a reversion grocedure set up in case the mall is not constructed, .. .. , , :, . ~~ p_resent . cogent reasons for designation of the Eagle Road/I-84 site as a regional shopping center site. 24. That even though the Council has concl_uded in ConcluSion 23 that The Applicant has presented sufficient evidence to support an amendment to the Comprehensive plan, there are several items of great concern to the Council which have previously been mentioned but which must be specifically and strenuously pointed out. These items are: 92 ,_. _ _~--~_~_ , ..._. -- ~ ~ ' \ ~ ~ ~ ~ , . : ~. ' \ ~ I 1 0~ , oJn ~ r~ ci Cyti~ a~Y ~yr°~ lot~ 3. ~50 ~,re a 5~ 011° ge~t • ~~p. 9 1A+`~eC,~Y'~ a~°~ e ~ 0 5 e t~A~c 5~~ ~b~ ~~11 eqUl a~'c a5 -~-- ,- ---- -- __ .. ,. ~gOZ e~tii°e e,p`I Q,e e as s ~~a ,~eaa5 de' a`~,°. ey ~° rar~ . . . _ _._ _ a55 W icb _ _ o a va 0a 4 -- -- ~ aa,~,o la~ ~ Q~o aya s ea at~a e°'~ ~sy,ts 2~g ~: ,~ t~o ~e~ ~ a~,a ~0 5 aao4 be- ~1 ~ ~'~~ O~ W CZYA~ i v~ y~ay Y°~° •~ 1~yr~ aol 9 g~ ~~ ' CZ~~I. O gA~' ~ 4g~~ 0~~~ 9' t'~e ra°. G o~ e~ ial a 13' ~ `~~'~ C~ A~ Z~ ~~ R~ ~~' $o~ ~ p~a~' atil° . Mes ,~,ati ~~' vA~ ~t1~5 ~gE ~ vN~~ ~Q,~`tS ~G ' '~ ~ 9~,~' ~Q, ' ti~. o r p,vg ~.~'~yC E Z5 ~G $ 4~R4 ,S~ R~ C~~~~S~y~i E I 5~ re C ~p ,• °~~. . pg~ ~G S ~~~yOZ ~`~E ~~~t~ 2Y,E ~ gE ,~,.yS, ~t,~E, ` 2 0 ;. ~ ~5 . ~~yC~1. R,~tiS. ~ gE . .~04i ~g S~ 9ZtsG 'S~C s •5Y~ ,~tyG ~ ty ol~,o . ~RG ~~~o ~~c1~ ,op0 ~:~ 4~~1 ~SC~ $0~~ 440~ ~ ' ~ . . ~~ ~ t1 ~, Y' R~ 5~2 AN~ ~ 4 R W 2~1. y'4 ~,~~ - . A ~:PgO .~~R ~10 2~g 19~ ~ ~~~y~E Qy,gZ ~,t1~ ~e~ , ~ . ~ ~ , - . Z ~ 5 0~, Wp, 1 ~ ~s . A.L ~~. ~ e~o ~yo ;.. , .P~ ~~y~ ~ g 5~ ~.Lp ,~Ot1 ~SS 5, e ~ y~a ae ~ . . ~~ ~. -~ A~~ CZ2 p,vG~ p~~~" ~~Z~ 'Q. `~g ~~~~ ~,a'~c ~~1 ~o~y , ~ ' , ~~~ ,~~g A~~ A~Y ~~,~~y ~~,~~yG ~s3y ara 4 , a~~e ~ ~~,e o,~ ~ I' - r.. - • 5, 5 c~~ OZ '~~. ~. nC~ a1' 1r i i as 1 , . r. , `~'`S~ pS 4' A44 ~ R~ - a. e~9e s°`~ O~a'oray o~ee a5 a ov~'~ i ~ . ° . ~ ; , .~p $~~~ ~ svC ar e e ~ a44 ~ ~!~i,~y ~e 4 yey ~ w ac e5 . .. / ., ~Ay~ p ce a 4ay5a9 1or a 5e1o ar ~e ~~ e~~e v~ ~ne a , .. ~ay~ ~ yt5 ~o~ ve a ~DO •~a5e yt~ a ~b ~" 4aY iys~e / ;, - .~ :~ O p ~; 4, , y5 2~ ~ C ea wb ,~o ai ' ri.~~n ve `v4 ~i.4a 11; 1 1~`~~ o'~v 1a~ a~a •~e5 • ov51 ~e'~1 ./ .' ,y ~e ~~r e cy~ o~r~ ~e J y~a1o a1 4~y We~e e~l~a , y~~ o~ r, _. W c'~~' si~' S`~'a ~.~ a t~ be 4 r~ t~' ev ~' x~ o~ te~ ~ ~ , .. ~br ,~ i.4a~, ~,~'al w~'1. ~ ~at~ a4 w~,i.~Y' of. ~es1 e4a~~e ;` ~~. • l : ~t h, ., 4~y a 5a1e 1a~o ~y a~e e~ a~e~o 3~ `~ ~o ~re ~' s~ ~ . yal ea '~? Zaa'~' vya ~o~: ~e ~ e C a'~ ~ 5 Q ~' I i < '~ ' The purp . , . , ~' ~ ~~'e `Qe 1 r~ ~ay~'a o~ ~ 1ea~'e o'~'~aio ~r / 1 f a a~,l a5 o O ~ve5 ~e '~ a11~ sy~~ aey~s~ ,~ . prior is~ ". ,, r t r a an,d liens ` ` - _ . ~o~,a va~,+~ ~ev ~~yey ~yo~, U~~,o : a , e~t ~ f aci l i t ' \ ~ ~ .. , , , ~~9 ~be ily ~~, ~ . ay a a5'' e~ ~ ,' i e s: 4 t a~ ,._• aa ra or r~ f~ - i Proximately~, ~ , ;~ " : t't' ~e~ £ ~ ai;ce a~,5 a of, orr ~a a ~ea~ , . Se y. , ir- y~c 1e ~y a c /• ~ . A ~o 'p ,~~,e or5 ~ 5 a r ae~,o ~ativ ~ee~e o f. ora O~ a sec ~a ira i~Y ~~•' '~Y' / C i t Py ~f the , . ,_. 2 ra'~ rity a~,ce y~,o, ~o W Aq a.~irg , / Y H a l l, 7 28 ~~~ ~ .. ae~ i y~~ o c1~ 8 slo~ ~~s o ra r : ~ business hours, ~ ' - ,~~,e ~ ti~'.or 4 ar ~ ~be ! ' charges . ,po~'a t~4ty ~~' ~~s ~ ~~ ~eae °~a1 v~'~~ ~ \ This Summary o f a44a acC° ' Ci ty Counci l o f ar ' ; ~,~{ August 19. 198.5. ~ . ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DATED thi5 19th c ' ~ Tt AMBROSE, FITZGERA~D 8 CROOKSTON; Attomeys antl Counselore P.O. Box 427 Merltllan, ItlaAo 63842 lephone ggg.~~81 , t1~eP~SP ~ ' `~'G~~(.SSON ' GP~~ , ' e sP~ ' P~~O~~0s0~O~e ' GpJ~ * p$'I P ~ ~ ~~~~~ MO~~e~~,z~, ~ te~eQ~o~e AMBROSE, fITZGERACD' SCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counseloro P.0.8ox 127 Meridlan,idaho 83812 ' Telaphone888J481 r~ ~ ~ ; 1),;the traffic improvements necessary and the costs thereof; 2) the possibility of loss of retail business downtown and ,~~~~ th.e shift of emphasis of the City to the East; 3) the possibility of creating or contributing to urban sprawl; 4) the cost of providing City services. As above indicated these items are of utmost concern to the ,City and further attempts should be made to resolve these issues. However, the Council eoncludes, as pointed out •in the Slaughter Study, that the actual construction of a regional shopping center would be a catalyst for other development which could ~: .be in a ratio of as much as 3 to 1 in relation to the mall; that since one of the most important goals and policies of the Plan is to achieve economic development', the possibility of achieving that economic development cannot be rejected, particularly, where there ~are safeguards to protect against unnecessary costs. 2.5. It is concluded that the possibility of achieving a regio,nal shopping center and the benefits referred to in the Slaughter Study outweigh the risks also me,ntioned therein. (See Finding 30) To a certain extent it is a gamble. It is a gamble that the spin-off development will~in some fashion a contribute enough revenue to sufficien~tly cover the increased costs o.f public services not con,tributed by the mall a:md the a.pplicant. It is a gamble that the State Legislature will see the plight of the cities and pass 93 ~ ~i • legislation that will allow cities to~~receive r-evenue from development that impacts the cities rather. than spreading the revenues to the stat.e, County or other cities that are not even remotely impacted by the development. It i~. a gamble that the Legislature will see that in,order to allow grawth there mu~st be a means of funding the necessary , . "services.~ It is conc,luded the gamble is worthwhile if :_success ~`is~ achi.eved~; however, if the mall is not constructed _~ •~ there would be~ no,obligation to provide City~services. ~ ~ , ~ ~'~ .' - ~ ~ .~ ~'`~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~26. The~~Council add.itionally concludes that the ; stateme;nts,.~:po;licies, and goals in the Plan and included in Finding 31 and 32 outweigh the possible deleterious impa~ts of .a re:gional shopping center at Applicant's site. 27. The Council concludes that it•. shoul~dr ~ccep~~r~the offers made in the proposed Development Ag•reement on the basis that the offer is frelly and volun:tary made and constitutes a gift to the City and can in no way bind the City to take any particu.lar action for o~r against th~ Applicant and its eo-developer, Price D~velopment Company, in that the City can in no way pre-judge in any proceedings prior to full hearing and presentation by all interested `parties. It is con.cluded that the conditional annexation and zoning and reversion process contained in the Development _Agreement is.in~ the best i.nterest of the City and allows the City a procedure which could possibly lead to the AMBROSE, FITZGERAGD " COI1S'trUCt1Q11 Of 3~Q lOIlal S~'10 CJ a,cROOKSroN g ppin center without much risk Attorneys and Counseloro P.O. Box !27 Merldlen, ldaho ' 83812 Telep~one 8B8~4r81 94 • ! • or commitment to provide services unless, the center is actually going to be constructed. -. 28. Th.e Council, by concluding the;PTan should be , amended and the Development Agreement accepted, is in no way making a comment on or deciding the Applicant's other request.s of annexation and zoning; those procedures must be conducted, heard, and ultimately decided and these Findings " ~'{and Conclusions shall not be construed in any fashion a,s a ~ decision thereon or even an indication of the outcome. 29. The Council concludes that even though the Applicant's site has its drawbacks it also concludes that all,three sites have their d'rawbacks, th.e most important of which, the Council concludes, is the fail~ure to have the ~existing site developed when it has been capable of being so developed for such a long. time. The Council, concludes that the citizens of Meridian and the Area of`, Imapct want a regional shopping mall in the Gity of Merid',ian or at one of the three proposed sites, and that alI site~s and developers should be afforded the opportunity to succeed. 30. The Council concludes that that portion of the Appiicant's proposal to have Parcel 2 designated as being included in the Eastern Industrial Review ~Area meets the policies and guidelines of the Plan. : APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS AMBROSE, FITZGERALO SCROOKSTON The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves Attorneys end . Counselora . P.O. Box 427 Merldlen, ldaho , a3s~z 9 5 Telephone,8B8-4181 ~ , •~<: these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ~ ~ ROLL CALL + COUNCILMAN GIESLER VOTED - COUNCILMAN MYERS VOTED ~ ~ COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED ; ~+-;. ~ COUNCILMAN BREWER VOTED , . y. ~,. r ~ . MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)VOTED . „ . AMBROSE, FITZGERALD SCROOKS70N Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Boz 427 MerlGlan, ldaho 83842 Telephone 888~1461 96 • Exhibit "A" • Police and Fire Protection Cost , This report will not attempt to list costs for either police or tire serv~ces down to the last patrol car or fire wck. To a large extent, the actual costs will be a matter for administrative discretion and budgetary reality. The first year capital expense may be a matter for negotiation between the city and the developer. The cost of these services is a matter of policy as much as objective need. 'The city has the option of determining what level of services is des'vable within its ability to pay, and which among competing solutions is most preferred. For these reasons, th~s report will not attempt to specify an exact cost or a net~deficiVsurplus due to a shopping center. Such a specification could be misconswed and might be misleading. The final determination is best left to a working session where the necessary choices can be worked out. The environment within which those decisions are made, however, is heav - ily impacted by construction of a regional shopping center, and will~be idendfied as fully as possible. ~ The cost of providing police protection for a mall development has been variously estimated from almost nothing to over $250,000 per year~ The lower esvmate is based on the experience of a number of other malls around the country, with very low call rates. The higher estimate is a calcularion of what it would take in Meridian to provide a seven day a week patrol, good call response, and detective ~ support to the mall area. ~ The national average for staffing of police departments is 2:3 officers per thousand population, including administrative personnel. The average across Idaho is 2.16 officers per thousand. Boise has a staf~ng level of 1.3, and~Meridian is staffed at a level of just over 1.2 officers~ per thousand. On the basi:`s of that criterion, Meridian would appear to be understaffed at the curnent ti;r`'ne. Such criteria are, of course, not the only way such a decis~ n should be made. The averages are no doubt boosted by the fact that small towns of 300 with one policeman will have an average of 3.3 officers per thousand, and communities of 1,500 with a department of four will also raise the average. In ni; al communities with neither property crime nor a large traffic problem, and a populatiorr in the 3,000 - 10,000 range, a somewhat smaller ratio might be very adequate. Meridian may well be at a point where the nature and size of its population, together with the availability of county backup (Meridian is almost in the middle of the Ada county sheriffs patrol area), allows a small force to be very`effective. Thus, its current force of twelve may be adequate, despite the gener4l criteria. On the other hand, Meridian is developing some unique cha acteristics which must already be stretching the abilities of its police deparimen~~ Annexation to the west, east, and south have enlarged the city limits considerably in the last few years. At the moment, much of that land is unoccupied, and dces not need patrol. The potenoial is there, however~ for greatly increased patrol needs as~these a~as fill in. , 1 • I • What kind of problems would a mall create, and why would a mall, in itself, necessitate an expanded police department? The answers to~this question, from interviews and testimony previously submitted to the Council, are 'not much', and 'it dcesn't'. It doesn't necessitate an expanded dep~-tment, nrovided the city requires the mall operators to ma.intain good twenty-four hour security, authorizes mall security to deal on a preliminary basis with shoplifting and on site traffic, adjusts patrol patterns to drive through the mall occasionally, is ab~e to respond when needed, is able to followup on instances of fraud and other cnmes mall securiry cannot handle, and that there is litde spinoff development.~i Unfortunately, several of the'provideds' do not apply in Meridian's situ - arion with a mall at either Eagle Road locadon. A number of impo ~ant factors are different: • All of the situations in which additional police were deemed not necessary were either cities in which the mall was located w~thin a built-up area or communides of at least 30,000 population. One respondent, with long experience in mall development, indicated that in one instance of a one million squane foot mall the patrol pattern had simply been adjusted and no additional police wene needed. When informed of the geographic location of the mall, the size of the community and the size of the police department, he commented, "They have a~`problem"20 • All have police/populadon ratios higher than Mendian. ~~ • All are more compact geographically than Meridian. If the Eagle Road site is annexed, Meridian will be over ni ~e miles from its northwest ciry limit to its southeast. Most routes of access between the two will require leaving the city. For an emergency call, response from one~side to the other would be at least ten minutes, even if traffic congestion is not increased. With ten patrolmen, the Meridian department cannot maintain more than two patrols at any one time, if all times of the day and week are to be covered The area~ around Franklin Road and Eagle Road is not currently patrolled. Any patrol at all would r+equire not patrolling some part of the city which curnently 1%as protection. Even with mutual aid backup from the counry, the potential for situations occurring o~ being created where police need to be in two or three places at the same time should not be ignored ~ If the city were w refuse further annexation and follow a pra'ctice of infilling existing land, the police department would need to be increased only slowly over time. If the departrnent were cumently staffed at a higher level, and if th~ mall wene to be built condguous with the exisdng city, no immediate increase~(would be needed. If the mall is built on an Eagle Road site, however, the Council should expect something like the following: ~ • During construction in 1986 and 1987 the needs should be minimal, though not zero. ~~, • With the opening of the mall in 1987 or 1988 the department should have thc capaciry a patrol the area at least on a part time basis. This level might require three or four officers and a couple of cars. • As the spinoff commercial and nesidential development occurs, the deparpnent's neods will incrcase to at least the level esemated by th~Chief of Aolice. And very likely beyond that level. terview with Wayne D. We,din. 2 • ' • • The city will very likely find itself with about twenty ~p~olice officers by 1991. The additional cost, in 1985 dollars, including salaries, benefits, equipment, and operating expense, by 1990 will be at least the $250,000 estimated by the department, and could be h~gher. Er,e Department Fire services present much the same type of decision problem as do police services: the mall itself is not deemed to be a major problem, provided it is fully sprinklered, has a central alarm system, and in all other ways m~ts at least the 1982 version of the Uniform Fire Code and the Uniform Building Caie. lf mall construction were the only result of an annexation decision, and if the mall were within about two miles of an existing fu~e station with adequate equipment and personnel, and if traffic congesdon wene not expected to be a problem, then no further cost should be anticipated. ~ A second element to be considered is that the mall annexadon is not the only annexacion undertaken by Meridian to the west of the city. The Upland industrial site, as and when developed, presents a similar, though lesser, p~ oblem. The problem is not that the site itself or anything built on it is dangerous, but that it is so far from the existing fire station, and that other development willitake place around it. The mall simply extends the new area, greatly speeds the timing of development, and is more likely to involve high density commercial and residential spinoff. ~ When consideration is taken of annexations to the west and northeast, together with the proposed annexation to the southeast, plus the possibility of development on land annexed to the south, it is difficult to expect that a new fin station will not be built in the near future. Factors to be considered in making a decision: • The period of greatest fire risk for a mall is during the conswcdon period, when the fire protection systems are not in place. The im`plication is that any new capacity should be built and manned early, up to two y,eus prior to receiving new tax nevenue from the mall. • The most calls to the mall after opening aze likely to be ~for medical aid, simply because there ane so many people there. A quick response unit, perhaps modeled on the existing unit, should be either part of a fir~e station or lncated on the mall site. If located on the mall site, it should have the abiliry to go ot~'site as rteeded. ~ • The fire rating bureau prefers that a station be located within 1 1/2 miles of a possible fire location. That criterion, however, does not apply with full force to a fully sprinklered facility. Retail conswction over 12,000 feet of floor space is generally required to meet the Uniform Building Code, whether or not the construction takes place in the city. That requirement reduces, but does not eliminate, the need for additional fire protection. Residential construcdon does not carry the same requiremen~ ~ • Upgrading the department to professional status, building a new station, having an adequate number of engines and ladder trucks, and having adequate fine flow, commun~cations, etc., ~~ result in improvement of the c'ity's fire rating fc+om five to four. Attempting to meet a mall expansion with a new station and voluntar staf~' could result in losing one or two radng classes. Failing to expand at ;~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ all would almost definitely result in losing at least two rating cla ~ es by the time significant spinoff development has taken place. , • Expanding the department along the lines of a mixed p~ofessional - volunteer arrangement might work, but it also might create administrative problems, since the two types of departments function in very different ways, with very different systems of compensation. At the very least, the department would need professional administrative support for the fire chief. ' • The difference in insurance premiums between a four rated anea and a seven is about 16% for residential and 25% for commercial, depending on the company and other risk factors. As a rough estimate, assuming one third of property is commercial and two thirds residential, the difference in insurance premiums for all property in Meridian would be about $150,OOO~per year. For the mall property itself the difference could be sizeable, depending o4 construction of the mall. • While the risk of a fire at the mall not being contained by the sprinkler system is very small, any fire that was not so contained would require a great deal of manpower and equipmen~ ' • If mall secunty were to be cross-trained as volunteer fi emen, they would not be able to leave the mall site for calls elsewhere in the ciry. To do so would leave the mall unprotected from a security standpoin~ '~ • Neither suburban residents nor mall employees are likely to make good candidates for volunteer firemen. Suburban residents will not be~home during the day and may be working in Boise or elsewhere. Mall employees~'for the most part will be minimum wage and may be part-dme. Neither they nor their employeers will look favorably on the time requined for training, nor wili their employeers, managers not located in this area, want them subject to departu~ ~at any time to answer calls. • BSU student volunteers would not be likely to work. BSU is not a residential campus, Boise-Meridian is not a small, compact town, and there is very little cultural identification between BSU and the ciry of Meridiari: ~ • Meridian has mutual aid agreements with other fire protecdon districts in Ada County. Those agreements can provide backup assistance in~the event of a major fire. The other services are also thinly manned and equipp~ d, however, and should not be counted on for primary fire protection. A new station, minimally configured, near the mall location, should have one engine and associated equipment, with three fire crews of three men each, plus one more person per crew to cover vacadons, sick leave, and so on, for a total of twelve personnel. In addidon, a quick response unit might be wise and a person is needed somewhere in the system to handle communications. ~' ~ Minimum cap;tal expense would be a650,000 for station, engine, equip - ment, and furnishings. About 510,000 will be needed the first year for maintenance and operation, and $350,000 -~420,000 for personnei, without a quick response uni~ The lower figure would presume a non-union department and control of Firemen's Retirement Fund (FR~ expense. The total first year expense is about ~1 million, and ongoing costs would run about ~375,OOU -$445,000. About ~3,000 of that amount per fire~ghter can be levied outside ~the 191'v limit for excess FRF costs. Boise''s current total expense for its least cosdy fire personr~l is 534~000 cach. Conversion to a professional or professional-volunteer department would ~Iso ~+equire nemodeling of the exispng fu~e stadon, at a cost estima`t~d to be '1. 4 .~ ~ ~ i , t would de nd on the mix of professional and volunteer ~400,pp0. The payroll cos Pe t firefighters. ~ 5 _:~. -~; . ;,• • ORDINANCE N0. 450 Pursuant to .Idaho Code, Section 50-901 A, the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho hereby publishes a Summary of Ordinance No. 450 and provides to the public the following in- formation pertaining to said Ordinance as required by Seetion 50-901 A: The City of Meridian duly adopted and passed Ordinance No. 450, on August 13, 1985, the Tit18!of which reads as follows: ° .~' AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF`THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ~ IDAHO, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF WATER ~ AND SEWER REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS' IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $1,542,U00 FOR THE PURP;OSE OF REFUNDING THE CITY'S WATER AND SEWER REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, ' SERIE~S AUGUST 1, 1977; PROVIDING;~THE COVENANTS, j TERMS'"AND CO,NDITIONS UNDER WHICH SUCH REFUNDING BONDS AND ANY ADDITIONAL PARITY BONDS SHALL BE ISSUE'D; AP.POINTING A TRUSTEE; AND APPROVING THE - ~ x'SALE'OF SUCH REFUNDING BONDS. , Which Ordinance as an emergeney Ordinance becomes ef- fective upon its passage, approval, and:publication. That the principal provisions of t:he Ordinance provide that the City shall i,ssue and sell its bonds in the principal amount of $1,542,000.~0-0 and.the proceeds of said sale shall be used to purchase securities, as al- lowed by law, which sha1T be placed in an escrow account at the Idaho First National Banl~~and which s;ecurities shall be liquidated at appropriate times to pay the City!s bonds, as they come due, which were previously issued ursuant t~o Ordinance No. 306 of the City of Meridian; that the revenues of the Gity of Meri_dian's Water and Sewer facilities are pledged to the repayment of the bonds. ~~ That the Ordinance additionally contains provisions for definitions; reeitaTs and author.ity f,or the refunding and the issuances and sale of bonds; a de,~scription of the bonds incldding denomination, interes't rate, and maturi•ty, redemption prior to maturity and a form of the bonds; approval of an Escrow Agreement; creation of special funds and accounts for the hand.ling of the bond proceeds, AMBROSE, FI7ZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attameysand Counselor5 P.O: Box 127 Meridlan, Idaho. 83642 Telep~one988=4~81 S~ ,.'' '~~-=i . ' ,•. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON, AttOrneys~enE Counaelors P.O. Box 427 MerlGlan, Idaho 83812 TelepAOne 888-t~81 ; securities, and payment of the bonds,:including principal and interest; general administration of the funds; that the bonds have a lien against the revenues of the sewer and wate.r facilities; that the bonds are n.ot a general obligation of the City and that general taxes or levies of the City shall not be obligated to repay the bonds,; covenants of the City as to the operation of the sewer and water facilities and the use of the bond proceeds; appointment of a Trustee, paying agent and registrar for the hoiders of the bonds which tru'stee is the Idaho First National Bank; default provisions and remedies of bond- holders; amendment procedures an.d requirements; that the Ordinance.itself is not repealable until all the bonds issued thereunder have been fully paid, cancelled, and discharged; and a declaration of an emergency and pro- viding the Ordinance shall take immediate effect upon its passage, approval and publication. ~ That the Ordinance provides, in the form of a penalty, as do other ordinances of the City, that in the event a water or sewer user fails to pay for the water or sewer, his services shall be terminated by the City. The purpose of this Ordinance is to reduce the debt service on prior issued re:venue bonds which were also issued as pledges an.d liens on the revenues of the City's water and sewer faeilities. There will be a net savings to the City of ap- proximately 290,000 over . the life of the bonds. A cppy of the fu11 Ordinanae 450 is availab'le at the Meridian City Hall, 728 Meridian Street, Meridian, Idaho, during regular business hours. A reasonable fee may be ch~°arged to cover copy charges. This Summary of Ordinance 450 was approved by the Mayor and ty City Council of the City of Meridian by res'olution on August 19, 1985. DATED this 19th day of August, 1S ~ RESOLUTION NO. 100 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF AN ESTIMATE OF FOR ALL PURPOSES FOR THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1985 THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1986, AND GIVING NOTICE OF PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION BILL. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO: Section 1. That the following classified estimat bable amount of money necessary to be raised for all p City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, for the fiscal ye 1985-1986 be published in the Valley News, a publicati the issue of August 22, 1985, and August 29, 1985, and Hearing said estimate and probable levy required to ra published therewith. Section 2. That a statement of of Meriiiian for the 1985-1986 fiscal • E EX.PENSES AHO, FOR D ENDING LIC HEARING CITY OF f the pro- oses in the of September, beginning with e Notice of Public said sum be the probable reverile of year is as follow5• ~ Payments for Services------------------- 198,83:0.00 ~ Budget Total---------------------------- $2,393,385.00 Franchise Payments---------------------- 39,50;0.00 Permits & Licenses---------------------- 75,375.00 Court Revenue--------------------------- 24,00~0.00 Federal Revenue Sharing----------------- 58,30;0.00 State Revenue Sharin ~ g------------------- 94,00.0.00 Taxes & Penalties----------------------- 392,33';0.00 State Sales Tax------------------------- 17,50'0.00 Sundry Sources-------------------------- 85,20:0.00 Enterprise, Water & Sewer--------------- 1,388,35',0.00 Liquor Apportionment-------------------- 20,00;0.00 the City Section 3. That the probable amount necessary for:fall purposes for the City of Meridian for the said fiscal year ending September 30, 1986 is as follows: ~, Legislative----------------------------- Executive------------------------------- Adminis€rative-------------------------- Office Equipment------------------------ Health & Accident, All Funds------------ Public Employees Retirement, All Funds-- Supplemental Accident, Al1 Funds-------- Election & Miscellaneous---------------- Social Security, All Funds-------------- Federal Unemployment-------------------- Legal Fees,'including pass thru--------- 9,60O.Oa 8,400.00 25,00~0.00 2,200.00 70,542,00 63,034.00 29,468.00 500.00 51,332.00 4,000.00 35,50~.00 • I • Other General Salaries------------------- 52,000.00 Other General Government----------------- 24,000.00 Printing--------------------------------- 3.000.00 General Government Buildings------------- 8,0~00.00 Police Administration-------------------- 40,2~20.00 Police Patrolmen------------------------- 189,930.00 Police Office---------------------------- 6,0`00.00 Police False Arrest---------------------- ,~ 6,500..00 Police Investigator---------------------- 25,0`00.00 Police Building & Structure-------------- 8,1~00.00 Police Communications-------------------- _ 4,2100.00 Police Personnel Training & Reserves----- 7,$,50.00 Police School Patrol--------------------- 25,5~00.00 Police Legal Fees------------------------ 30,0`00.00 Animal Shelter & Control----------------- 18,100.00 Fire Control----------------------------- 102,100.00 Fire, QRU-------------------------------- 17,1435.00 Building Inspections--------------------- 23,000.00 Electrical Inspections------------------- 6,780.00 Street Lighting-------------------------- 33,1;00.00 Engineering, All Funds------------------- 12,000.00 Recreation Playgrounds------------------- 19,500.00 Recreation Programs---------------------- 6,500.00 Insurance, All Funds--------------------- 43,8~40.00 Water Administration--------------------- 65,0,00.00 Sewer Administration--------------------- 148,9~44.00 Water Pumping---------------------------- 35,0;00.00 Sewer Lift & Pumping--------------------- 5,500.00 Water Treatment & Expense---------------- 143,9~65.00 Sewer Treatment Plant-------------------- 116,8~50.00 Water Customer Accounts------------------ 40,3~00.00 Sewer Customer Accounts------------------ 30,0~00.00 Bond Redemption-------------------------- ~ 315,995.00 Capital Outlay--------------------------- 101,1~50.00 Revenue Not Available For Operations ~ Water & Sewer Hookup Fees---------------- 118,750.00 Contract-Sanitary Service---------------- 260,0~00.00 Total Budget-----------------------------$2,393, ~5.00 Section 4. That the estimated assessed valuation of the said City of Meridian is $191,221,654.00 ~` Passes by the City Council and approved by the of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this 19th day of Au APPROVED: P. ATTEST: ~~J' Ja k N~emann ~ity Clerk ~r of the City , 1985. . RESOLUTION N0. 101 ~ A RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING A GENERAL CITY ELECTIONI`, TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1985, DESIGNATING THE POLLING PLACES, DES- IGNATING THE RESISTRAR AND DEPUTY RESISTRAR AND ORDERING THE CITY CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE OF SUCH ELECTION. ~ BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF T~HE CITY OF P~IERIDIAN IDAHO, THAT: ~ SECTION 1. The general city election will b.e held in and for the City of Meridian, on the 5th day of November~`, at which time there will be elected two Councilman to serve fo~r a term of four years, or until the election and qualification o;f their successors. SECTION 2. The following are designated as ~he polling places for such election: FOR fPHE FIRST PRECINCT: MERIDIAN FIRE STAT FOR THE SECOND PRECINCT: AMERICAN LEGION HAL~ SECTION 3: That Jack Niemann, City Clerk, i;s hereby designated as Registrar and Marilyn LaGrand as Deputy Registrar for the First and Second Precinct. SECTION 4. The Clerk, for and on behalf of `he Mayor and Council, shall give Public Notice of the time and place o:f holding such general city election by posti.ng such notice in three public places or publishing such Notice in at least two issues~,~.of the Valley News, a newspaper printed and published in the City of' Meridian, Idaho, the first publication of such Notice to be made not less than 45 days previous to the date of such city election and the last public- ation not more than 15 days prior to the election; the Notice so published shall state the places of registration~~and the name of the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar, and the requirements for registration of electors at such city and such o'ther information as may be necessary to give full facts of such e~lection and regist- ration; said Notices to contain such informatiorn~in accordance with the requirements of Section 50-436 of the Idaho ~ode. PASS'ED By the Council Mayor this 19th day o . l~ ` GRANT KINGSFORD, MA nd APPROVED By the August,1985. 0 Y,O