Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutClaremont Development1 Claremont u J G 11 1 I I I I I I I I 515- 116th. Ave. N.E. Suite 108 Bellevue, WA 98004 (206) 453-1883 January 16, 1985 Planning and Zoning Commission City Hall Meridian, Idaho Gentlemen: On behalf of Claremont Development Company, Inc. I am pleased to present this.application for annexation approval, a comprehensive plan change -and a zoning ordinance amendment. Very truly yours, Claremont Development Company, Inc. 4 Phil Davidson PJD/co APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION APPROVAL, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE AND ZONING AMENDMENT Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Filing Information I. GENERAL INFORMATION Meridian Mall (Proposed Name of Subdivision) NE corner Eagle Road and Interstate 84 and both sides of Union Pacific (General Location) Railroad in area east of Eagle Road. (Attached) (Legal Description - attach if lengthy) (Attached) (Owner(s) of Record) (Name) (Telephone No. ) (Address) (IA —mont Dpvelonment Company (206) 453-1883 (Applicant) (Name) (Telephone No. ) ' 515 - 116th Ave. N.E., Suite 108, Bellevue, WA 98004 (Address) ' Toothman-Orton Engineering Company 1342-5511 (Engineer, Surveyor or Planner) (Name) (Telephone No. ) ' 1802 N. 33rd Boise,'*Idaho 83703 (Address) _ City of Meridian ' (Juri.sdiction(s) Requiring Approval) Regional shopping center and commercial/industrial uses ' (Type of Subdivision -Residential, Commericial, Industrial) } 50 200 Acres of Land in Contiguous Ownership. (Accepted By:) (Fee) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I II II 11 APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION APPROVAL, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE, AND ZONING AMENDMENT CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO TO: THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1. CLAREMONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., 515 - 116th Avenue N.E., Suite 108, Bellevue, Washington 98004, herein called the "Applicant", petitions the City of Meridian for approval of three actions: to annex certain properties to the City; to change the Comprehensive Plan; and to amend the zoning ordinance. The properties are described generally as follows Tract A: the undeveloped land in the northwest quarter of Section 16, Township 3 North, Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian, which is the northeast corner of Interstate 84 and Eagle Road. The proposed use is a regional shopping center. Tract B: the undeveloped land in the southwest quarter of Section 9 of the same township. This property lies near land being develop- ed by Upland Industries on the north and Franklin Road on the south which is the north boundary of Tract A. This property is proposed for land uses which will complement both the industrial area to the north and the shopping center to the south. 2. Exhibit "A" discusses how the annexation impacts the City's Compre- hensive Plan. 3. Exhibit "B" shows a concept plan for water and sewer line exten- sions. 6-J 1502 1 4. Exhibit "C" includes individual legal descriptions, an overall legal description, a 1" to 300' scale sketch of the annexation route and let- ters from individual property owners requesting annexation. 5. Some suggested text for amendments to be made to the Comprehensive Plan are included in Exhibit "D". 6. Photocopies of deeds for the parcels included in the annexation are included in Exhibit "E". 7. Names, addresses and parcel numbers for all owners (based on tax records) in and within 300 feet of the annexation are included in Exhibit "F". 8. The following schedule indicates the existing and proposed land use controls for the two tracts. EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USE CONTROLS Proposed Comp. Plan Zoning Proposed Tract Acres Designation Existing Proposed Use A 110. Regional AP -1&R3 CG Regional Shopping Shopping Center Center B 90 Eastern AP -1&M-1 IL Industrial/ Industrial Commercial Review Area (A) Tract A contains approximately 110 acres and is owned or controlled by the Applicant, Claremont Development Company. The existing zon- ing in Ada County is AP -1 and R3 and the requested zoning is C.G. (B) Tract B contains approximately 90 acres and is owned by others who are joining in this request for the three actions. The property is zoned AP -1 and M-1; the requested zoning is IL. The intended use is commercial/industrial. 6-J 1502 2 9. The City and the surrounding areas are not served by a regional shopping center and Tract A is well situated for such a development. Several major retailers have expressed interest in locating a store at this site and prior to the City Council public hearing, commitments from major retailers will be forwarded. Tract B is located immediately to the north of the regional shopping center site and extends northwardly to the area being developed in- dustrially by Upland Industries. In such a location, it is ideally situated to contain industrial/commercial and related uses. are: 10. The public need for and benefit from approving the three actions (A) Provide for the orderly growth of the City of Meridian and its en- virons; (B) Make readily available to the residents of the City of Meridian a variety of shopping facilities and services that can only be furn- ished 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 Meridian residents; and (E) Provide an alternative regional shopping center site whereby major retailers would have a choice of sites within the City. 11. The current designation of a single site for a regional shopping center within the City has been in effect for several years. This location, as well as the downtown Boise location, has not proven viable in attracting the interest of major retailers. It is probable that this part of Ada County is situated in one of the largest metropolitan markets in the entire nation not presently served by a regional shopping center. The size of the population 6-J 1502 3 within the metropolitan area and the trade area would indicate that given a suitable location, the major retailers would come into the market. 12. Upon annexation of the property and the amendment of the Comprehen- sive Plan, the -Applicant concurrently requests that the zoning on Tract A be changed to C.G., General Retail and Service Commercial and on Tract B to I.L. The Applicant will extend water and sewer service to the site without cost to the City and work with the City to make available all necessary easements for the purpose of furnishing such utilities. At this time we are not submitting a market study justifying the regional shopping center, as this would be a needless repetition. There is interest by major retailers in locating at sites other than downtown Boise and, as expressed earlier, we will file letter com- mitments from major retailers prior to the City Council public hearing. Present plans call for the regional shopping center to consist of: 1) a two-level enclosed mall with a total retail area of appro- ximately 1.3 million square feet to be developed in at least two phases, 2) a convenience center of approximately 200,000 square feet, and 3) office buildings and miscellaneous support facilities of approximately 150,000 square feet. 13. It is the Applicant's intent to commence development within six months of receiving final approval and to complete construction within 18 months thereafter. In order to eliminate the adverse impact of untimely de- lays that are the history of regional shopping mall development in the region, the Applicant is willing to enter into an agreement, before final approval, addressing that and other concerns. The concerns listed below are suggested for resolution in such an agreement. 6-J 1502 4 1. Timely start of construction after approval, the Applicant believes 18 months is satisfactory. 2. Police protection requirements. 3. Fire Protection requirements. 4. Water and sewer construction requirements. 5. Water and sewer hook-up fees requirements. Performance would be guaranteed with our irrevocable application for deannexa- tion and rezoning in the event of failure. 14. During the process of hearings and consideration of this applica- tion, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council or the Applicant may find it beneficial to supplement this application to clarify issues that arise. 15. Claremont Development Company, Inc. submits that approval of the three actions will benefit the City by enhancing and stimulating the economy through the creation of construction and permanent jobs in the proposed cen- ter; providing a realistic alternative regional shopping center site that falls within the Urban Service Planning Area of Meridian; establishing Meridian's eastern planning limits with a commercial and industrial base that will be able to compete with similar development in west Boise; and stopping the migration of Meridian shopping dollars to the retail markets of Boise and Nampa -Caldwell. 6-J 1502 5 EXHIBIT "A" IMPACT OF THE ANNEXATION ON THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The following is a discussion on the various components of the Plan which are impacted by the Applicant's annexation. COMPONENT A - POPULATION The Ada County Demographic and Employment Distribution study, presented in the current Meridian Comprehensive Plan, established the following projections for the Meridian USPA traffic zone. 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 6,349 8,920 12,223 16,042 20,562 25,150 These figures compare with the City limits census tabulations of 5,256 in 1976 (special census) and 6,654 in the 1980 general census. The population projec- tions in this study were based on the analysis that Meridian would capture 13.1 percent of the total population of Ada County between 1980 and 2000. We note that the population expansion of Meridian has fallen below those pro- jected. This is, no doubt, due in a large measure to the current economy. The effect of this unrealized growth is that the operational costs of public services and public utilities are spread over a small base of rate payers. The estimated employment of the regional center (t 2,500), together with secondary and tertiary employment, may reach as high as 5,000. Many of these positions will, however, be filled from the present unemployment ranks in Treasure Valley. 6-J 1502-a 1 There will be a temporary population influx of a modest scale during the con- struction activities. As this wanes, the impact will be replaced by permanent employees associated with the regional shopping center. This influx will to a large degree, be absorbed by the present Treasure Valley housing market. Meridian should realize a portion of this population increase, particularly in view of the large number of available residential lots. The regional shopping center and industrial development will have a signifi- cant combined impact on future population projections. As the general economy of the Treasure Valley market area improves and the area's labor force returns to pre -recession levels, the full impact of these developments will be reali- zed. Any major activity center of the magnitude represented by these two develop- ments, will produce a ripple -effect of land use and zoning changes if permit- ted to do so. The initial impact on population age and sex should remain relatively unchan- ged. In the long term the Claremont shopping center and industrial develop- ments should provide increased job opportunities for all Meridian residents. Income will obviously be the demographic factor most rapidly affected. Con- current construction on the shopping center and the proposed developments would create 870 to 1,000 jobs. These jobs could commence as early as 1986. This will provide significant relief to Treasure Valley's severely depressed construction industry. As full employment is again realized, through construction activities and the subsequent retail job opportunities, the median effective buying income of Meridian residents should increase measurably. 6-J 1502-a 2 COMPONENT B - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The greatest impact the project may have is both positive in nature and highly desirable at this time. The full economic impact of the project would be dif- ficult to quantify without applying some sophisticated regional analysis tech- niques, but an impression of the economic magnitude of the project can be assembled by use of some basic economic estimates. The economic impact of construction a $100 million retail center in Meridian and Ada County will be beneficial. Some of the benefits are summarized below. 1. A $100 million project would employ up to 1,000 construction per- sonnel with an estimated annual payroll of $25 million. This payroll would produce about $2 million in State income taxes and approximately $525,000 in sales taxes. These revenues would return to the City of Meridian as State -provided services or tax subvention income to the City budget. 2. The assessed value for Meridian is $155 million which means that a $100 million (80 percent of which is assessed value) center would in- crease total assessed value in the City by almost 52 percent to $235 mil- lion. 3. 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). The City may select one of two options for payment of these taxes. One option permits tax prepayment of one-half the amout due ($1.15 million) which would result in the City receiving tax income in addition to interest income (about $100,000 the first year) if this option were chosen. The second option is pay-as-you-go which, be- cause of State law, has the effect of reducing the present levy by about 15 to 20 percent in addition to increasing the first year tax revenue by about 18 percent of the present City budget (general fund of $1 million). 6-J 1502-a 3 11 4. The center would employ an estimated 1,500 full-time and 500 part- time personnel in new jobs. This would produce $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. 5. A regional scale retail center would produce approximately $275 million in gross sales the first year. This would result in $11.5 mil- lion in sales taxes that would return to the City as State services or tax subvention income. 6. Current State property tax laws, i.e. the one percent intiative and the 50-50 residential tax limitation, have served to push the tax burden from residential 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. 7. The proposed regional shopping center will attract shoppers to Meridian, the additional shoppers will provide new business opportunities for existing business in the City and in the surrounding area. The center will have all the economic impact of a large industry. For example, it would employ as many personnel as Hewlett-Packard does today, about one and one-half times Morrison-Knudsen's Boise staff, about three times that of Idaho Power, and about two times Mountain Bell's Boise staff. The economic impact of the center is extensive and vitally important to the City. It could well be the economic influence needed for the City to achieve the goals stated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Other sites outside Meridian are in competition and by acting now, the City could obtain the ma- jority economic benefits for itself. 6-J 1502-a 4 COMPONENT C - LAND USE This proposal requires some land use changes. The existing land uses in the proposed annexation area is predominately agricultural with the exception of Commerce Park 'Subdivision. Adjacent properties include industrial, railroad and agricultural uses. The proposed land uses are light -industrial and commercial. We believe the proposed land use changes are a positive step toward meeting many of the economic growth and orderly development goals of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the land use changes will have the follow- ing impacts. 1. The land use policies in the area of Eagle Road, Franklin Road. the UPRR and the Eastern Industrial Review Area encourage the interchange at I-84, industrial development below the bench. This proposal enhances both of those goals and would make optimum use of the I-84 interchange. 2. The shopping center will suffer less than residential uses from the adverse characteristics of proximity to I-84 and to the future Eagle Road interchange. 3. The proposed regional shopping center, a commercial use, located on what is now agricultural land will create a landmark that will signifi- cantly enhance the economic stature of Meridian. Meridian will be viewed as an important economic entity in Treasure Valley and southwest Idaho. 4. The soils within the annexation area are well suited for buildings. Large pavement areas are acceptable with minimal chance of frost heave. 5. The area is well located with respects to the industrial areas and the railroad, and will soon have unrestricted transportation routes. 6-J 1502-a 5 COMPONENT F - PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES All utilities needed to support this proposed regional shopping center will be designed and built to meet current state and local standards and to comply with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The description presented here is a conceptual plan for those utilities. We anticipate and welcome constructive input from the City, the Meridian Fire District, the Irrigation District, the Ada County Highway District and other public and private utilities that are impacted by this proposal. We will then use that input as we develop the con- cept into design plans. This concept plan has been developed with attention to the Comprehensive Plan (and supporting plans), to previous water and sewer studies completed by. the City Engineer, and with an understanding of the existing water and sewer lines in the area of the proposed center. Sanitary Sewer The entire annexation route lies within the Urban Services Planning Area. Sew- er service can be provided by extensions from existing sewers located on the east side of Meridian, see Exhibit "B". Such extensions are the developers responsibility. A study by J -U -B Engineers, the City's consultant, dated July 21, 1981, con- sidered existing sewer main capacity and routing to the Applicant's site. The study concluded that 0.2 mgd capacity could be provided to the site with a reserve capacity of about 1.0 mgd for adjacent lands along the sewer exten- sion. The recommended route of the extension lies north and parallel to the UPRR between Locust Grove Road and Eagle Road, after which it turns south across Franklin Road to the shopping center site. The northerly portion of the annexation can also be served by existing City sewer lines. 6-J 1502-a 6 Sewage Treatment Facilities In accordance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, this proposal anticipated that all development will be required to use the City's sewage treatment plant. Accordingly, users will be bound by the City Sewer User Ordinance which requires both hook-up and user fees for said service. Since specific develop- ment concepts do not exist for all the parcels, the discussion below is based on the proposed center's impact on the Comprehensive Plan. The City of Meridian has a sewage treatment facility with a design capacity of approximately 21,000 P.E. (population equivalent). Current utilization of the plant capacity is approximately 7,000 P.E. The estimated treatment capacity required by the site is approximately 1,500 P.E. and the biological and soils loading anticipated will be well within the existing treatment plant capacity for those parameters. When connected to the existing system, the center will utilize about 7.1 per- cent of the current plant equivalent user capacity. While this allocation seems insignificant, it will probably be the City's largest single user. This addition to the treatment plant will have some economic benefits. The obvious benefits include additional hook-up and user fees for a treatment facility that is only about one-third used. If our estimates of equivalency rating prove accurate, the Center will contribute fees equal to about 1,500 persons. This additional use and rate base will help to spread the operation- al costs and to achieve some economy of scale. We have not estimated what the actual hook-up fees will be; that computation is stipulated in the sewer use ordinance. If an estimate is useful we have provided the listed estimate of flow, organic material (BOD520°0 and solids from the fully developed Center. Flow = 200,000 gallons/day BOD520 % = 300 lbs/day S.S. = 250 lbs/day 6-J 1502-a 7 We recognize that regardless of what final estimate is used to estimate the initial fees, fairness requires that adjustments should be made after use is established and loadings are measured. Site Drainage The site, in its natural configuration, drains to the west and north and lies within the Five Mile Creek drainage. Runoff is minimal due to low rainfall rates (11 inches annually) and agricultural uses which maintain absorptive ground surfaces. Development of the center would likely increase the amount of runoff by con- version of a portion of the site to paved and roofed surfaces. Conceptually, the storm drain system will include site drains, conduits and equalization basins as needed to meet current regulatory requirements. We propose to inte- grate these facilities with landscaping so they are inconspicuous. Water Supply and Fire Protection The water system extensions proposed are in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Master Water Plan. This proposal also conforms to the recommenda- tions made by the City's consulting engineering firm for water service on a similar proposal, see J -U -B Engineering, Inc. correspondence of July 9, 1981. This concept, as modified for this request and to incorporate water system improvements made since 1981, is shown on Exhibit "B". The proposal includes eight -inch line extensions to the City with interties at Eagle Road, Locust Grove Road and Franklin Road. These lines will be supplemented by a well and storage reservoir located at a high point on the site. Details of design and use of the well and storage reservoir will be completed later. The minimum goals will be to provide fire protection flows for the duration required for proposed buildings. During design, water supply avail- able from the City and the existing well will be balanced against a storage volume to meet the required full demands. Domestic requirements are small by comparison to fire demands. Also, the design details such as controls, meters, 6-J 1502-a A valving, cross connections control, stubs for extensions, etc. must be worked out with the City to conform to local standards and to assure smooth integra- tion into the City's system. Other Public Utilities The site lies within the service area of Idaho Power Company, Mt. Bell Tele- phone Company and Intermountain Gas Company. The public utility franchise enjoyed by these companies authorizes and permits extension to and through the site. Final utility corridors have not as yet been confirmed; however, it is anticipated that existing facilities and rights-of-way will be utilized. Public Safety The design of the buildings within the center would be in accordance with the life safety code. Site traffic would be channeled within on-site corridors designed to facili- tate efficient movement and a minimum of directional conflict. Highway entrances to the site would be controlled by intersections. Site lighting would be provided to enhance nighttime usage and offer a measure of protection to evening shoppers. Internal security for the regional shopping center will be provided by the mall management. We would expect only limited service from the City. We pro- pose to contract with the City for specific services. Solid Waste Disposal Solid waste generated by the center would be transported by contract hauler to the Ada County landfill disposal system. 6-J 1502-a 9 COMPONENT G - TRANSPORTATION In February, 1982, the Idaho Transportation Department decided to build a new interchange at I-84 and Eagle Road, and to make application to the Federal Highway Administration for an additional interchange a I-84 and Cloverdale Road. The Eagle Road Interchange is being designed now. The proposed developments are planned for inward orientation, and will inter- face with the City's transportation system at several new points. From Eagle Road there will be an entrance to the shopping center site and entrances to both tracts from Franklin Road. The Idaho Transportation Department has planned for expansion of Eagle Road from Franklin Road to the City of Eagle in its long-range programs. The pro- ject will have little effect on the construction of the area transportation system. However, the project will affect the functioning of the system and the manner in which the traffic flows in the area. The new I-84/Eagle Road inter- change will affect the transportation system far greater than the proposed development themselves. Of greater concern is the effect the proposed developments will have upon streets such as Eagle, Overland, Franklin and Meridian Roads. The table below will illustrate that effect. Average Traffic Year 2000 Year 2000 Artery On Link Proj. Traffic w/Project* Change Eagle Road Overland to Franklin 15,200 ADT 22,500 ADT +45% Franklin Rd. Cloverdale to Meridian 15,600 ADT 18,740 ADT +20% Overland Rd. Cloverdale to Meridian 13,033 ADT 15,000 ADT +15% Meridian Rd. Victory to Franklin 11,650 ADT 13,500 ADT +16% Source: "I-84 Interchange Location Study, Combined Location Study and Environmental Assessment, Project I-84-1(4)43," Idaho Transportation Department, January, 1982. *Full development of the shopping center proposal at northeast quadrant of I- 84 and Eagle Road. 6-J 1502-a 10 A similar proposal was a part of the State's analysis and was included in com- puter modeling of the effect of the project. While the proposed regional mall will bring some additional shoppers and traf- fic to Meridian, the road system in the existing commercial areas, Cherry Lane and East First Street, will not require major revisions. The I-84/Eagle Road interchange will assist in diverting shopping center -bound traffic directly to the site without undue burden on the local street system. To further help, the Idaho Transportation Department will designate Eagle Road as State Highway 55 and will remove such designation through the heart of Meridian upon completion of the new interchange. COMPONENT J - HOUSING Existing and future housing considerations are a vital part of community plan- ning. Meridian has developed a well balanced program for housing standards and has made provisions for safe, sanitary and adequate housing. Housing construction has played a large part in maintaining the economy. Since 1978, however, the housing industry has been on a down swing, due to the eco- nomy. A new regional shopping center would employ approximately 1,500 full-time and 500 part-time persons. It is estimated that for every four new jobs created by a major industry, there is one more job created within the community for support services. .This means the total new jobs associated with the center will be about 2,500. The industrial development impact will of course be an additive to this figure. The residential lot inventory for Meridian as of December, 1, 1981, was +350 fully developed lots, + 400 partially developed lots and +2,600 approved, un- developed lots. This, together with the large lot inventory in surrounding communities and the County, and the additional lands zoned residential within the City, should accommodate this growth with minimal new lands rezoned. 6-J 1502-a 11 There would, however, be a need for construction of housing on the existing and proposed lots. Due to the rising cost of land development and housing construction, higher density, planned residential development should be encouraged. The current trend of housing is toward more patio homes, town houses, condominiums and apartments utilizing the terrain in a harmonious environment, thereby reducing development costs. Recent decisions by the Planning and Zoning Commission have resulted in re- duced housing square footage requirements, and the approval of innovative manufactured housing. Decisions of this nature are positive and will help ensure affordable housing units. COMPONENT K - COMMUNITY DESIGN (COMMUNITY IDENTIFICATION) The Comprehensive Plan discusses the importance of creating an attractive visual and functional identity for the City of Meridian. The Applicant's pro- posed annexation will create a uniform shape to the southerly and easterly limits of the City. The quality developments that will occur in the annexation area will provide a pleasing entrance to the City for people motoring west on Interstate 84 or Franklin Road or north on Eagle Road. The annexation gives the City the ability to control develoment in the Eagle Road corridor between the Upland Industries development and I-84. Developments occurring in the industrial portion of the annexation or at the regional shopping center site will be enhanced through extensive landscaping, building orientation and setbacks, and other measures. These measures will reduce any potential conflicts with adjacent land uses. For example, unsightly views of service entrances, storage areas and loading docks will be screened. The center will do the most to create a positive identity for the City. The location of such a major land user generator in Meridian will change the shop- ping habits of many residents of the metropolitan area. People who formerly 6-J 1502-a 12 were oriented to other retail centers including downtown Boise, will now pat- ronize Meridian Mall. This, will help create a sense of identity for the City and instill pride in its residents. 6-J 1502-a 13 11 0 EXHIBIT "B" WATER AND SEWER CONCEPTUAL LAYOUTS (This exhibit is in the evelope attached to the back cover of this appliation) 1. 2. 3. 4. EXHIBIT "C" LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND ANNEXATION REQUESTS Contents Lien Authorization Agreements Individual annexation Requests and Descriptions Complete Annexation Description Annexation Map Scale: 1" = 300' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LIE14 STATEMENT We, Edward L. and Shirley G. Bews, husband and wife, owners of that certain real property described in Exhibit A which by this reference is incorporated herein as if fully set forth, which is the site property the subject of that application for annexation approval, comprehensive plan change and zoning amendment to the City of Meridian, Idaho, submitted by Claremont Development Company, Inc., a Washington Corporation, and do hereby irrevocably grant, convey, and give to the City of Meridian, State of Idaho, a lien against said property above described for payment of all costs incurred by said City including any and all engineering, publication and attorneys fees relateu to that applicatin for annexation approval, comprehensive plan change and zoning amendment submitted herewith. LIEN S`1'ATENENT I I I I I I DATED This /day of January, 1985. Lam" EDWAR L. BEWS SHIRLEY,G. BEWS STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada jj i On this /1 day of January, 19135, before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Edward G. and Shirley G. Bews, known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that they executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, the day and year above written. Notary Public for4t4aho Residing at LIEN STAMiENT i a Exhibit A parcel of land lying in portions of the L� of the NWS of Section 16, all in T3N, RIE. B.M., Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the said E', of the NW4 of Section 16 thence North 89020106" West 497.74 feet along the Northerly boundary of the said Eh of the NW4 of Section 16, which is also the centerline of Franklin Road, to a point, also said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING: thence continuing North 89020'06" West 740.88 feet along the said Northerly boundary of the E� of the NW4 of Section 16 to a point; thence South 0018'08" East 516.55 feet along a line Easterly of and parallel to the Westerly boundary of the said E-� of the NWS of Section 16 to a point; thence North 79021108" West 117.09 feet to a point on the said Westerly boundary of the Ell of the NWS of Section 16: thence South 0018'08" East 2 158.55 feet along the said Westerly boundary of the E� of the NWS of Section 16 to n point marking the Southwest corner of the said Eh of the NP►'i of Section 16, thence South 89014145" East 1,346.64 feet along the Southerly boundary of the said E� of the NW4 of Section 16 to a point marking the Southeast corner of the said E' of the NWS of Section 16; thdriCe Forth 0004137" West 1,717.97 feet along the Easterly boundary of the said.E's of the NWS of Section 16 to a point; thence North 85024137" West 499.35 feet to a point; the North 0004137" West 904.75 feet along a line Westerly of h� parallel to the said Easterly boundary of the Ek of the NWS of Section 16 to the point of beginning, comprising 70.42 acres, more or less. LIEN STATEI4ENT We, First Interstate Bank of Idaho, N.A., Trustee of Cora Campbell Allen Trust and Howard E. Allan `frust, owners in trust of that certain real property described in Exhibit A which by this reference is incorporated herein as if fully set forth, which is the site property the subject of that application for annexation approval, comprehensive plan change and zoning amendment to the City of Meridian, Idaho, submitted by Claremont Development Company, Inc., a Washington Corporation, and do hereby irrevocably grant, convey, and give to the City of Meridian, State of Idaho, a lien against said property above described for payment of all costs incurred by said City including any and all engineering, publication and attorneys fees related to that applicatin for annexation approval, comprehensive plan change and zoning amendment submitted herewith. LIEN S`fATEI°ENT II II II II II n II II II II II II II 11 DATED This 17th day of January, 1985. FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF IDAHO, N.A. TRUSTEE OF CORA CAMPBELL ALLEN TRUST and HOWARD E. ALLEN TRUST FRED H. R WER - VIC DEN SENIOR TRUST OFFICER STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss County of Ada ) On this 17th day of January, 1985, before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Fred H. Rohwer known to me to be the Vice President and Senior Trust Officer of First Interstate Bank of Idaho, N.A., whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of First Inter- state Bank of Idaho, N.A. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, the day and year above written. llotclry Public for Ida o Residing at LIEN STATEMENT EXHIBIT "A" TO OPTION ACUt LMI:NT This Option covers the following described real property in Ada County, Idaho: SWk of the N14k of Section 16, Township 3 North, I{uuJ;u 1 1`.,Lut of tlw Iiuiuc Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. LXCLPT a parcel of lund bciiq-, oil the EaLlte:rly side of the ceuitt-iline of the Tisk Road Survey of Crade Scpiiration No. 1 as shown on the: pluns of said Interstate 80N, Project No. 1-80,1-1 (29) 45 Highway Survey and being; it hurtioii of the SWti of tho 1841 of Suction 16, Tu nfifill) 3 North, Rane 1 East, hulue Meridian. described as iolluws, to wit: beginning at the Southwust corner of tl.c SWkNW� of Section 16, Town8hip 3 North Range 1 Last, Boise Meridian; r ence Nurrh 001'37" West along; tilu Weut Iiia: of nuid SWiNW-t a distance of 363.b9 fL'et to u puicit co- incident with Statie,n 28+00.00 of the Fisk Road Survey of Crude Separation No. 1 as shown on the plans of said Interstate 80N, Project No. I -80N-1 (29) 45 Hi ►hwu Survey; t -hence North 89036123" Last15.0 feet; thence South 2`46'30" East 367.0 feet, wore or less, to a point in the South Bile of nuid SW-ttJW-t; thence Westerly alonE nuid South line 38.0 feet, more or less, to the place of beginning. i EXHIBIT "A" TO OPTION ACUt LMI:NT This Option covers the following described real property in Ada County, Idaho: SWk of the N14k of Section 16, Township 3 North, I{uuJ;u 1 1`.,Lut of tlw Iiuiuc Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. LXCLPT a parcel of lund bciiq-, oil the EaLlte:rly side of the ceuitt-iline of the Tisk Road Survey of Crade Scpiiration No. 1 as shown on the: pluns of said Interstate 80N, Project No. 1-80,1-1 (29) 45 Highway Survey and being; it hurtioii of the SWti of tho 1841 of Suction 16, Tu nfifill) 3 North, Rane 1 East, hulue Meridian. described as iolluws, to wit: beginning at the Southwust corner of tl.c SWkNW� of Section 16, Town8hip 3 North Range 1 Last, Boise Meridian; r ence Nurrh 001'37" West along; tilu Weut Iiia: of nuid SWiNW-t a distance of 363.b9 fL'et to u puicit co- incident with Statie,n 28+00.00 of the Fisk Road Survey of Crude Separation No. 1 as shown on the plans of said Interstate 80N, Project No. I -80N-1 (29) 45 Hi ►hwu Survey; t -hence North 89036123" Last15.0 feet; thence South 2`46'30" East 367.0 feet, wore or less, to a point in the South Bile of nuid SW-ttJW-t; thence Westerly alonE nuid South line 38.0 feet, more or less, to the place of beginning. City Clerk City of Meridian Meridian, Idaho 83642 We the iindersigned hereby request annexation to the City of Meridian for the property described on "EXIiIBIT All attached hereto. We are requQstiiig zoning for "C -G COMMERCIAL". STA•IT 01' I VA110 ) County of Acta ) On this First Interstate Bank of Idaho, N.A., Trustee of Cora Campbell Allen Trust and Howard E. Allen Trust B Y : �t AVicle A. C. Peck, President Senior Trust Officer ss. 3rd day of July , 1984 , before me, a Notary Public in and Igor said S'-•!te, personally. appeared A. C. Peck Kx%k Vice President , known to me to be the persoii,, whose nal"OV HHx subscribed tc the foregoing instrulier-1- and acknowledged to me that 'khe)y executed the same. IN WITNI:SS WIII?REOU, 1 have liereurnto set my hand and notarial seal the day and yrnr in this certificate first above written. Notary Public for Idaho Residing at Boise, Idaho EXHIBIT "A" '110 OPTION ACU'LRENT This Option covera the fullowing described real ' property in Ada County, Idaho: SWk of the NWS, of Section 16, Township 3 NUrLIL, IWLil;e 1 1-:.wC of the BUIUC Meridian, Ada County, Iauhu. E"XCEPT a parcel of land be iLq-, oit L11C Eau Lerly ' side of the centt:1.'1l11C of the Fisk Road Survey of Crude SLparation No. 1 as shown on the plana of said Interstate ' 80N, Project No. 1-80a-1 (29) 45 Highway Survey mitt' heir(; n purtioti of the SWk of the NW1, of SuC t iur► 16. Tuwuu h 11) 3 North, R-an(�e 1 Laat, buiue Meridian, LICUeribed the as fol lows, to wit: Be ginning; at SOutllWeut corner of tLC SWkWL of Section 16, Township 3 North, lunge 1 Last. Boise West ' Meridian; r levee North 00E.37" alum}; tipu Wcut lint: of quid ::WkNW't a distULICC of 363.b9 fcct CU U IroiLLC CU- incident with 'Statiun 28+00.00 of the ' Fisk kuad Survey of Crude Separation No. 1 us ahown on tLe plans of said Interstate BUN, Project No. I -80N-1 (29) ' 45 Hishwa Survey; thence North 89038'23" 15.00 2u46'30" East feet; thence South ' East 367.0 feet, more or less, to a point in the South line of iiaid SWkNW•k; thence Westerly along acid South line 38.0 feet, more or leso, to ttie place of beginning. City Clerk City of Meridian Meridian, Idaho 83642 We the undersigned hereby request annexation to the City of Meridian for the property described on "TiXllTBTT A" attached hereto. We are requesting zoning for "I -L Industrial" STATE OF IDAHO) ) ss. County of Ada ) On tlh is /6 -4 day or , /9S'<f , he forc me, Notary Public in and for said State, persoiial.l.y appeared ��Gu2rd ,(. rf7CGu� and 2 5 known to me to be the persons whose names arc suhscribcd to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have licreunto set my hand and notarial seal the day ;ind yenr in th i.s cert i f i.c.ri to first above written. r A Notary Public for Idaho Residing at t�1-0142� 11 i Part of the Sli SA, Section 9, T. 3 N., R. 1 E., B. M., in Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point 1078 feet East of the SW corner of the SW's of Section 9, T. 3 N., R. 1 E., B. M.; thence East, 1611.98 feet, more or less, to the South ' section corner of Section 9, T. 3 N., R. 1 E., B. M.; thence North, 1072.69 feet to the South side of Railway right-of-way; thence West along the South side of Railway right-of-way, 1744.68 feet, which point is 945.3 feet East of the West section line of Section 9, T. 3 N., R. 1 E., B. M.; thence South 7° 00' East, 1089 feet to the place of beginning. _ t=.d,12C�E, ! e;� 1 City Clerk City of Meridian Meridian, Idaho 83642 We the undersigned hereby request annexation to the City of Meridian for the property described on "I:XIIIIIIT A" attached hereto. We are requesting zoning for "C -C COMMERCIAL". STA'rE Or IDAHO) ) ss. County of Ada ) Un this /6 -' day of _ZED )/,/9sy, haforo me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared R-jzyah d .� . V?eUj3 and EA 1 f•. I C�e S , known to me to be the persons whose: names are subscribed to the foregoing instrument rind acknowledged to me that they executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my Band and notarial seal the day and year :in this certificate first above written. Notary Public for Idaho - - _ Resid i.ng at {� y 7 t i i Form No. 1056.4 All Po llcy Forma A WJIC 1� I /�nJ The land referred to in this policy is situated in the State of Idaho County of Ada and is described as follows: A parcel of ]and lying in the Ik theast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 16, Tounship 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise -Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and mare particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the said Northeast quarter of the lZrthwest quarter of Section 16; thence North 89020106" West 234.24 feet along the Northerly boundary of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 16 to a point, which is also the centerline of Franklin Road, also said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing North 89020'06" West 263.50 feet along the said Northerly boundary of the Northeast quarter of the Norti,�%est quarter of Section 16 to a point; thence South 0004'37" East 904.75 feet along a line Westerly of and parallel to the Easterly boundary of the said Northeast quarter of the Northwest quartet' of Section 16 to a point; thence South 85024137" Fast 264.35 feet to a point; thence Porth 0004'37" West 922.84 feet along a line Westerly of and parallel to the said Easterly boundary of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 16 to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Except bitch and Road rights-of-way. City Clerk City of Meridian Meridian, Idaho 83642 we the undersigned hereby reduust annexation to the City of Meridian for the property described on "EXHIBIT All attached hereto. We are rctluesting zoning for "C -C COMMERCIAL". STATE Ul' IDAllo) ) ss. County of Adr! ) Oil this dny of _J?el`, heforu mo, Notary Publ is in and 1'or• sa:itl 5trite, personally appeared 12 j4 P 4 A BeW S and S Wei, a. :S known to me to be t1W persons who -:e names .11•c sui)scribed to. -the foregoing instrument t111t1 acknow10dc,cd to me that they executed the same. IN WIT'NI SS WHEREOF, l h,►ve her•etinto set my hand and notarial seal the clay and year in this certificate first above written. r. Notary Public for I aho Residing at elm eeol Exhibit A parcel of land lying in portions of the Eli of the NW�- of Section 16, all in T3N, R1E. R.M., Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the said Eli of the NW'i of Section 16 thence North 89020'06" West 497.74 feet along the Northerly boundary of the said Eli of the NW'a of Section 16, which is also the centerline of Franklin Road, to a point, also said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING: thence continuing North 89020'06" West 740.88 feet along the said Northerly boundary of the Eli of the NW4 of Scction 16 to a point; thence South 0018108" East 516.SS feet along a line Easterly of and parallel to the Westerly boundary of the said Eli of the NW'a of Section 16 to a point; thence North 79021'08" West 117.09 feet to a point on the said Westerly boundary of the E' of the NW'x of Section 16: thence South 0018'08" East 2,158.55 feet along the said Westerly boundary of the Ek of the NWIt of Section 16 to n point marking the Southwest corner of the said E',i of the NW'a of Section 16; thence South 89014'45" East 1,346.64 feet along the Southerly boundary of the said Eli of the NW'a of Section 16 to a point marking the Southeast corner of the said Eli of the NW4 of Section 16; thence North 0004137" West 1,717.87 feet along the Easterly boundary of the said Eli of the NWS of Section 16 to a point; thence North 85024137" West 499.35 feet to a point; thence North 0004'37" West 904.75 feet along a line Westerly of Itid parallel to the said Easterly boundnry of the rtj of the NWS of. Section 16 to the point of beginning, comprising 70.42 acres, more or less. -t�'Ar-2,CAE I..._ A - 2 City Clerk City of Meridian Meridian, Idaho 83642 The mndcrsigned, her'ehy reductit annexat io►r to the City of Meridian for Lot 1, Islocl( 1 of COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION. We are requesting, zoning for "I -L Industrial". STATE 01' HA110) ) ss. County of Ada ) On this z7- / cl�iy o C _� , /%��/, before me, a Notary Public in all' I'or' ti;i id State , personally appeared ;I n cl —_--- known to me to I)e the persons who,.e n.imel, ►►'e subscriber] to the foregoing inst r'umeirt ;.11)(1OL knuwl c(l)'ed to me 111'"t they executed the same. IN WI`T'NESS WHERIiOF, 1. 110" hereunto set my hand and notari,i.l seal the dcly ,i ' y�':i►' in this cer•til'icate first above written. r �..rJ Notary 1'Llb i iC for 1, afro IZctiidinE; at 7 . Ix 1 Y n J W 1 v v► • . r 10 On G2 3-JO,00.00 5 Ou %. •sd860U a i W 2 IY I I ti I I I I i ) _on ,o0 on I I Y C+� I I Y n I� .I ..on 00 llo t 00 00 .00 s I 1` . it. I U o a ` e Y ).00',0 .00 S ' I ~ m I u W= •y rad Sc CAP Q )moo 00 .00 t n M'00._, 9L d6B379V3"-L- 4 3 1l nn•,r r vW 2I2 R SIC M fIO o Id N fG•CY 0 7.OI.IZ. 10M .+ 2 IY I I ` e Y ).00',0 .00 S ' I ~ m I u W= •y rad Sc CAP Q )moo 00 .00 t n M'00._, 9L d6B379V3"-L- 4 3 1l nn•,r r vW 2I2 R SIC M fIO o Id N fG•CY 0 7.OI.IZ. 10M .+ City Clerk City of Mur' i(.l 1;111 Meridian, Idaho 83642 The Undersigned, hereby request annexation to The City of Meridian for Lot 2, 111oc'( 1 of COMMERCE PARK SMIDIVISION. We are requesting zoning for "I -L Industrial". X7 d STATF 01' IDA110) ) S5. COUnty of Ada ) On this clay of' _ ,�9��, before me, a Notary Pub I*Lc in rend for said State, personally appeared and known to me to be the per•sons whose nanleS arc SubsCribcd to the foregoing instrument ;Incl acknOwlcclt.Cd io me that they executed the same. IN WTTNI.:SS W11FRYOF, I h,1Vc hCreulltO Set my hand and notarial seal the clay ,md ye,1r in this certi.l'.ic:ate first above written. Nr+t,1r•y 1'ubl.iC I'crr• Idt.I 10 W ® 7! o R*I a ~ pt H$�iNR8 W 2222251 F:CIry cc i V Q+ tfT► `- � v � nn ct �>nct ��.vu,vo.00s �_ �• •ry,,.,B 01 tYt r� � '•I ti I� ,J _ N cl \ �r W ® 7! o R*I a ~ pt H$�iNR8 W 2222251 F:CIry cc i V Q+ tfT► `- � v � nn ct �>nct ��.vu,vo.00s �_ �• •ry,,.,B 01 tYt r� � '•I ti I� ,J cl \ �r X �• � no no t I N I _ •,on rG UG G� �' �Q O I w. 9• •G• � W ® 7! o R*I a ~ pt H$�iNR8 W 2222251 F:CIry cc i V Q+ tfT► `- � City Clerk City u I., Mer id illi MUI'idl;lil, IClalro 83612 The undur'siV.ned, hereby I•C(Iurst ;iIII ex;at ion to the City of Meridian for Lot 3 and Lot 4 , Block 1 , and Lot 5 ;!nd Lot 6, Block 2 of COMMI;RC1: PARK SU.I.i- DIVIS10N. We are requesting zoiiirig, .Cor "I -L INDUSTRfAL". STATE Of: IDAIIO) ) ss. County of Ada ) Ori this /.,Zzzday of _ _ , ml , before Cme, a Notary Puhl.iC in ;incl Cor s;, id �;t;lte, Personally appeared known to nle to be tire. PCI'tiolrs w110 -;C irnmC-; nr•c' suhscr.ihed to t)IC foregoing instrument Arid ;ic1mowIedl,.c(-I to me that they executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOY, I liAVC IWI-L'tiiito set my hand and notarial seal the day and vc:lr in this cert.i.ficate first ,,errrrrrrr above written. T,� ,'lln `�!!,'•�, ILI Not;lry Puil ��,00 ,o�,,. I; e i d ell g :.a t "'���,,,,,,�;, ;,,,••�'. � I 1 all •3.J0,00.00T 1ApAN 'ly wi 0 no A 0 S / .. r• � A 0 N v J v s .. 1 al 0 w • �� Str O " I • ' O � « •o O �N) L I I • I .0000. ,40 to R ------- --- m no on no s m co > ➢Stet'• s 0000.Ms as .t► I I �I � , � CC'C► N1 BION _nwnu_ City Clerk City of Meridian Meridian, Idal►o x'3642 The undet-s igned, herchy reduest ;ir►nexat i.on to the City of Meridian For I,ot I and Lot 2,--B I ock 2 Of COMMERCE PARC SUBDIVISION. WO ;ire r•c(luesting zoning fur "I -L INDUSTRIAL". STATE 01: I DAl 10 ) ) ss. County of ATI ) On thist� _Lqday of' SIqB�( before me, a Notary Public in and 1-0r• ,,1 id State, personally appeared _1`l6lTH �. S4 ►� and , known to me to be the persons whose namrs ar•c suhscribed to the foregoing instrument and ;►cknowleclreLl to me that they executed the same. IN WITNEiSS WHEREOF, I Il;lve I►rr'cunto set my hand and notarial seal the day mid year in this certificate first above written. . Notary Public for Idc1 g. Rus.iding at-3o►sF TO �•- ►d 19 1 8to �x�. Y Ire Ga •c• pa t t6 / • 4 •1 n - i� r P rf i ij. O I ^ � F- i4i14� �, �;�� ter► r� ,h E t a a� A� 9 Q� 1 nn nn .nn �Oft enc), nOW �. 7-X70,00.003' lip vav D Y Ire Ga •c• pa t t6 / \ P rf i ij. Y Ire Q +--------------� I '` ,�• Ii. I U n I I Ga •c• pa t t6 / \ i O I ^ � F- i4i14� t q??9?R F P 7 77 P nn nn .nn Ir vav D � • I I I ,_nn nn An �• Q +--------------� I '` ,�• Ii. I U n I I m4 T LFe:+: Q ^ dna 13 1 F- i4i14� t q??9?R F P 7 77 P W Ir vav D � • moi+•-nS m4 T City Clerk City of MCI•idiart Meridian, Idaho 83642 The wide is i fined , he rely i•c(lues t annexa t ion to t)►e City of Meridit►n fur Lo�� _ltloClc 2 of COMML;ItCI! PARK SUBDIVTS]ON. We rr re requCst i.rt�; zon i.ng for FL -I INDUSTRIAL'. STATE 01: I UAI 10 ) County of Ada ) On this 1173-1,Iv clay or -SwLy 1g8y , before rne, a Notary PubliC in and Igor said SL;►te, personally appeared �E�t1i �. Std-i►J �►rl�l known . to me to be the persons WhOSe mimes are subscribed to the C 0 r C g 0 i11g inyt ruIII C:nt and NC1,nowl edged to mo that tltoy executed the same. IN WITNI?SS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and n,)tarial seal the day and r this certificate first f• '•r above writtel). - i1' +•- lam' Notary c for Idahh6' !'.:'!'�'! Residing at pb�SE TO. u��°l �Q� gyp• ye'ow�•1� a 11 tir iY .•C t J v •C �n � J � F 1 � � .� a t �.j a .. '�y- 6' Jill, onct nncz .topnnp _? nn An •nn t I I _ �I w I � i r+ no' •� N nn 'An - I I I I 7 nn nn nn t — ( �— I �R n I I o e II- 1 nn nn no t an ■. r� t U ye'ow�•1� a 11 tir iY .•C t J v •C �n � J � F 1 � � .� a t �.j a .. '�y- 6' Jill, onct nncz .topnnp _? nn An •nn t I I _ �I w I � P Poo rt no' rl nn 'An - I I I I 7 nn nn nn t — ( �— I �R n I I o h II- 1 nn nn no t i v 1-0 C4,;7: x. t R2 R ui J m.f V;l a }A] af, ►— i:oy1>r� d '49,7,449. w777ARY A[ 77 7 -H—To u 11 n n n CLAREMONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER EAGLE RD. - I-84 A tract of land in the SWI -4 of Section 9, and the NW4 of Section 16, all in T.3 N., R.1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particu- larly described as follows: Commencing at the section corner common to Sections 8, 9, 16 and 17, T.3 N., R.1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho; thence North along the section line common to said Sections 8 and 9, 1298.53'feet to the Real Point of Beginning, said point bears N.89°56'30"W., 25.00 feet from the southwest corner of COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION according to the official plat thereof on file in the Ada County Recorder's Office, Boise, Idaho; thence North along said section line, 935.55 feet to a point, thence East, 38.14 feet to the northwest corner of said COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION; thence N.82°51'14"E. along the boundary line of said COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION, 54.03 feet to a point; thence S.87054'18"E. along said boundary line, 435.74 feet to a point; thence N.44007'21"E. along said boundary line, 12.31 feet to a point; thence N.88021'11"E. along said boundary line, 220.15 feet to a point; thence S.88028118"E. along said boundary line, 143.92 feet to the northwest corner of Lot 4, Block 2, of said COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION; thence South, 433.61 feet to the southwest corner of said Lot 4; thence S.89056'24"E., 285.00 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 4; thence North, 426.28 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 4; thence S.88028'18"E. along the boundary line of said COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION, 371.81 feet to a point; thence S.79°29'17"E. along said boundary line, 181.13 feet to the northwest corner of said COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION; thence South along said boundary line, 888.84 feet to the southeast corner of said COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION, said corner also being on the north right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railroad; thence Easterly along said north right-of-way line, 956 feet more or less to a point on the east boundary line of the SE4SW4 of said Section 9; thence Southerly along the east boundary line of said SE4SW4, 1257 feet more or less to the one-quarter corner common to said Sections 9 and 16; thence N.89020'06"W. along the section line common to said Sections 9 and 16, 234.24 feet to a point; thence S.0°04'37"E., 922.84 feet along a line westerly of and parallel to the easterly boundary line of the NW4 of said Section 16; Page 1 of 2 thence S.85°24'37"E., 235.00 feet to a point on said easterly boundary line of the NW4 of said Section 16; thence S.0°04'37"E. along said easterly boundary line, 1717.87 feet to the southeast corner of said NW4; thence N.89°14'45"W. along the south boundary line of said NW4, 1346.64 feet to the southwest corner of the SEI,4NW4 of said Section 16; thence Westerly along the south boundary line of the SW4NW4 of said Section 16, 1346 feet more or less to the southwest corner of said SW4NW4; thence Northerly along the west boundary line of said SW4NW4, 1326 feet more or less to the northwest corner of said SW4NW4; thence Easterly along the north boundary line of said SW4NW4, 1348 feet more or less to the northeast corner of said SW%;NW4 and the southwest corner of the NE4NW4 of said Section 16; thence N.0°18'08"W. along the west boundary line of said NE4NW4, 831 feet more or less to a point; thence S.79°21'08"E., 117.09 feet to a,point; thence N.0°18'08"W., 516.55 feet along a line easterly of and parallel to the west boundary line of said NE4NW4 to a point on the north boundary line of said NE4NW4; thence Westerly along the section line common to Sections 9 and 16,276 feet more or less to a point which is 1078 feet East of the southwest corner of the SW4 of said Section 9; thence N. 7000' W., 1089 feet more or less to a point on the south right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railroad, said point is 945.3 feet East of the west section line of said 9; thence Northerly, 200 feet to a point on the north right-of-way line of said Union Pacific Railroad; thence Westerly along said north right-of-way line, 945 feet more or less to the Real Point of Beginning. Said tract of land contains 200 acres more or less. Page 2 of 2 71 I I I I I I I I 7 ' ANNEXATION MAP Scale 1" = 300' (This map is in the envelope attached to the back cover of the this Application. EXHIBIT "D" COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS In order to amend the existing Comprehensive Plan, the following line items changes are offered as guidance. The Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council may find that other changes to the Comprehensive Plan may be needed in addition to, or in lieu of, those provided below. 1. (Page 7) AMENDMENT OF POLICY DIAGRAM. Though the Policy Diagram is defined on page 6 to be a "general guide for land use decision -making --not as a legalistic, literal and definitive map," and is --"not intended to be used as the sole, authoritative means for decision-making," it appears the following changes are appropriate to the Meridian Policy Diagram: (a) Designate the northeast quadrant of the Interstate 84/Eagle Road intersection as a Regional Shopping Center location. (b) Designate the land north of Franklin Road as Eastern Industrial Review Area. 2. (Page 12) III --POPULATION GROWTH. Change the third line in the fifth paragraph in this section to designate more than a singular regional shopping center site as follows: "or when a proposed regional shopping center becomes a reality, or as industry locates within the area." (Underscored portion is the suggested addition). 6-J 1502-b 1 3. (Page 18) EASTERN INDUSTRIAL REVIEW AREA. Subsection 3 of the above section should be amended to read as follows: "---bench, the contiguous residential area to the east, and the proposed site of a regional shopping center in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 84 and Eagle Road." (Emphasis added to proposed change). 5. (Page 19) COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY CENTERS). Regional Shopping Center. The text of this subheading should be amended to read as follows: "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. Sites for possible regional shopping centers have been designated in the northeast quadrant of the I-84/Kuna-Meridian inter- change and in the northeast quadrant of the Eagle Road/Interstate 84 in- tersection." (Emphasis added to proposed change). 6. (Page 20) REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER. We would suggest that the preamble be amended to read as follows: "Meridian is encouraging, and has in the past encouraged the de- velopment of a regional shopping center. As the geographic center of Treasure Valley, Meridian possesses ideal locations for such a center. Such a regional shopping center would have a significant impact upon the economy and environment in Meridian. Such a center would provide a wide variety of retail enterprises and supporting commercial uses such as office complexes, medical clinics, motels and entertainment facilities. Therefore, Meridian is encouraging the development of a regional shopping center near the Meridian/Kuna Road freeway interchange or at the north - 6 -J 1502-b 'r) east quadrant of the Eagle Road/Interstate 84 intersection, or at both such locations." In addition, we submit that Policies under this heading be amended, at least in part, and it is suggested that Policy No. 1 be amended to read as follows: "1. It is the policy of the City of Meridian to encourage and sup- port the development of a Regional Shopping Center at either or both sites listed above. Either site could become a core commercial activity center within Meridian's Urban Service Planning Area, as well as the Treasure Valley."; and Policy No. 2 might appropriately be amended to read as follows: "2. The evaluation of a regional shopping center development shall be primarily based upon its consistency with the land use policies of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as well as the future air quality plan of northern Ada County." 7. (Page 31) POLICIES. Sub -paragraph number 4 should be amended to read as follows: "4. In order to preserve the integrity of residential neighbor- hoods and at the same time better serve regional shopping center loca- tions, industrial review areas, community shopping center, and Old Town, the Policy "Diagram identifies circular and perimeter arterial traffic patterns which intend to enhance, serve, unify and give shape to Meridian's Urban Service Planning Area." 6-J 1502-b 3 8. (Page 32) ARTERIAL TRANSPORTATION CONCEPT PLAN. A large asterisk should be added in the northeast quandrant of the Eagle Road/Interstate 84 intersection and the legend needs to be amended to read "Regional Shopping Center Locations". 9. (Page 34) REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER. The heading here should be changed to read "REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTERS". The next two sub -paragraphs thereunder should be renumbered to 1 and 2, and a new paragraph numbered "b" should be added as follows: "b. The proposed regional shopping center location in the north- east quadrant of the Eagle Road and Interstate 84 intersections should be adequately served by existing arterials. When developed, the location and number of curb cuts and private access roads to the regional shopping center property should be reviewed by the City Engineering staff to pro- vide for orderly traffic movement into and out of the regional shopping center." 12. (Page 35) RURAL AREAS. It is suggested that the definition section under Rural Areas recognize that lands that have historically been in agricultural activity go through a transitional stage where they still retain some agricultural character but are not utilized for intensive highly developed agriculture. It is suggested that the last sentence be amended as follows: "It is intended these lands be kept in agricultural production as long as economically feasible; however, where community growth needs and increased traffic at access creates pressure for new industrial or com- mercial development, it must be recognized that such land can no longer 6-J 1502-b 4 economically continue to be identified or used as agricultural land to the exclusion of orderly growth and development." 13. (Page 52) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (CIP). 2. Transportation Improvement Program. Second designated item under this subheading should be amended to read as follows: "Frontage Road from Eagle Road west to Kuna/Meridian Road (to ser- vice a possible Regional Shopping Center location)." 14. (Page 53) OTHER PROJECTS. 2. Support and encourage development of Commercial Activity Centers. The first subject therein should change to read as follows: "A Regional Shopping Center at either location referred to in the Plan. " 6-J 1502-b 5 J 1 1.1 11 EXHIBIT "E" Deed for Parcels Within the Annexation Submitted as Proof of Ownership -7 j I I I I I I hull, VAIXI: ti III It'll) f Ilosilk-litmJ prillIll-Wol 10-1t, 1, 6 lit kx4iliprow hArk WWiV4V1IAJj I i Ulu o$4 fwl 14141ta u"Olifil ji'vi p TO JIMA.: AND '141 11411,11 11,, -"l Iii'lovi'l. 1116. At"i-I Ill.'it Ili villitiva Is I h tv fruill .411 1 lit 111i'lli .,I&, I.. ri It 0414{IWt Ll,v4 Ill u 1611 .,Ili J11111 , IVIIII Ilw 111,111 iji 1,o% Ild clioll,01 r.,lhlnl011 .I., 1b, I At Ir is A t0wir inir. still., it P-81 Violu. I. qf I. d All, 01 �;;;i . ' �� ;' u A4 1 .4 10 L& III Y.11 A" (Ii,aA.Ilad aril W.1 tij PiGril I 111 lilts COMPAPoli Ul AIJA LI,%,hIV ist"ilt. -.140 D.N.. sob I W. -.I(" 61 flow, Nd,uhn I-lov lo.woll'o I I II I I I I 11. i 41' It 11161 Itritu u•4l 140 tlIlk l.1 ,'. 1.','41:1: 41111 1.1 il)A YAJlh:l , 1 ,.• , tL I .,I, I N1t' 1141 I'll, it IA:; 'f. (lI('lliil.:i-IN ,Intl UTA,Ilk t. 'IIUI.::Ld1, 1411..1.,4:,,1 ..n.l 4,;44•, l;L I:r*11tur h • du h1,11,11y y Mint, h*rynul, cull *1141 cuuvvy until uuUAI,ll J . tll.l ',. ttl r.Al(Il! ;I. Irf.L:;liN, I1J ,111,1 w114•, !h)91"A".rrs,whuit, currrntutWru"Is 1.414/.41 t1,1y, I'.1'. 114,x t1UU/, lw•1:,4•, 1%1.11114, p11G/ the 14411Uit11i1 dvarl0l.ud prun1INu*, In +41.1 Luv�l; Iduh't, W.w•IL:' 1 Llil.li I ,11141 1 441 111U1'I. 1 .11141 lulu t� .III/) ( U[ 141L,l'{'. 1, l'Upn'40 14'1• I••Ilk :iUli111VIItIIItll ,ICI 11t1I11�) 111 1111• Mitt 111411loth I I11tN1 141 �hiUI4 d';1 .4l VI.•It:1, .IL 1j,4,)u ]721, I{l:cwidu u At141 l'uul,ty, Jdal,u, TU IIA V4 AND 'IYI IIULII tltn surd l,rurnlu4•*, will, Owls, 1114Irul-wouncua us1w Ihv Iiuld l;ruutvu I1 thu i or hely* 41114 wI*Iuwl lurevvr. And the .r.141 Unultnr a du hereby rvva11u11t W *1111 with tha Bald Gruntvla Ih.at UIIr, ur4Uw uwncct In Iry pimply til mid 14rurni4luil; jhAI UIe)' lira ((01 Irnm411InCUIllbr411Cud 0KC01)t Iji,1 L:4i:ult •I1441 4aSQ6hiUtalt:i 4nd that t hey will w*rr4nt and de(vud thu tl.uu4: 1r,tln till I:Ilvlul clam* >•hul+w•trR (llelet►: ___ �, 1779 % � 4 I r— yiloku 1'Iv r,,: l', fllrllul :hili 01 t Lt ,-..1--..._►_..�._...----_ _—__ _.— 111.414.1 'lic•It�,1: un ATA'I't: OV IhAll . CUUNfif thy iI yy :ilAll: Of tUArIC LUUNI'Y Uj,,,,- ,.. , Un Zhu 7 {� Jar of J. �4.( l'v/ r I A.,.Ly <.rt.lr M•t tl.a u4ltruo til •• 4N11 !tf In. W4 ••' 11(vn 1114 • nu4rr puLhe 111 u4J for In• ra.d SWILL. per• tho r+yu.n �f f��� i •� All S,II``1 �Ir MM1 I<t�n,t1,1 `� y.1 t1�.4• 1.11 tta �•, �I ll;IA Q111kilq.ti (114 ►1A`:,L4u; lilts tit #*041.6 10 r wit der tit �. 1.1.rLs•. . 1% au ; 19� f , .r n.; •.7Dts. •nJ dull r.. •IJt4w1 I• U.- .t '� � •.( 11.4.1. vl 1'a... ►n4,Ka IWO tJ t,• 1144 1. -r,. -n 1. 011"M. "ami,!. r JUNN BASiIUA 64,1 ifft� M4 Iha witlun 11u1ruuur4l, and r Lu..+i••Ir •J 14• _ — 44114,E ' tlu!y• 1 urcutr.t 41,..&.4,1 1 1►.LOt,4u Ile" 1.6; i .� �.'I , + u 1.1 +i1�4' 1 1 �/ � u! �/ "..w•_.✓ rl. /�_/�i rte l't.tt4U4, I:aptlra I �I �.: 1•. I • �� , .411. '`,: ' t 4 1 •. .41,.. •t �� �QGF�Q 1• I t I 411 ' I' 1 1IlU:i7'L`tl' b 111iW11 Vii, .. ly1WYEit5 T1111". CQMPANY Ut' IUAIIU, K pgrpincl►hip, �� � UM/k,,. unar:l; + that Curlui�► 'l'ruul A{;ruuuwlll Jutud 11cCGb�>I• ��� j�l�'� X11 �+rYn�PC, ' dour huruby (rdult rusl cuuvly ul►tu OITIj V. 6'fY.4; Q C,�►'Y �., �t4Kxaa V. STEIN. huebund mud WitF, whory currant 4kgdr4U �9 volt 990,;4 box 9347, boiaa, iJuhu 637U7, Klt G�Ynj:gul Fh req} tja prrw►i,,eul il► Ada Cuuuty, ldaof CO Y}�i i ',,1' I,«x Nta1} x;134 �F•;T., I.ot 1 &Lot 2 in Ulack 2 ul CQ MggCg VAW qlJgAxy -to the official pl.Yc theraof, U10 in Ovak �4'p; ?$Ots. ff:�'I� ot-.. +'�" f 3721 anJ 3722, ano «alallddd by all 4ffj4$VjC, r��A�dA¢ NI��Cµ �y•��}' ; ! :ydl �lY lnatruwunt Nuwber 11107039, rgcof4p V i1 ,GA4FPCY � ahRl• , Tu have and to l•uld tl►a uuid prywildof With their appmFwa`nco. 0 unto the ruid Crantua, their hairy and This CU"Vey Fin Ce ib Made puruuant to the powvrY coafarrgll upoq Tr'uYton by tllu inure 111VOLiuned Truul AYrpemisat and ill Wada wifalout wYr- ruut or cc.wunaut as to Condition of Title. M$'"T UIIPANY U '1 600, STATE OF 1 UAIIU ) ' CQUNTY (IF AUA )eb (.111 Chir 701 Uuy of July, 1982, befuru me, the unJerlli6nud Notury Public for the State ui ldahu, pureonaily appuarud KicjiuN W. Mullunip, known by wu to Lou Chu uuchoricad agent for La, ymr# Title Cuulprny of 1Jaho, a parincrahip, end the par`on Who Yu4- 6cribud duld pat'tnurehip';► 113111c to Ow fornboing in#truowt, anal, i ackaowledg; 4 to mt. that hu uxecucuJ Chu rauld in Reid partuarllh}j�1N .: .Ilk Mt; , Air Notary Public for Idaho K.•sidinb ut buioa, ldul►o A� l;wnl,, Walw. N. • Nryu•al W 1 RIF, OAII Ir Y 1U f. UMI llA 7 L 00 drikilvr is , Ju 1V/11IItANIFY DI -A-3) ';1411.;:1 I;fb I'u►' 1'0;00 Ilwllv,'1, I'll .J11 C 'iltl:rl. n: l iI,IJai 'i,1 L'J. II a 1, if. I .111"a ;ri 1++, 1JU11i; 'l . :Ht ItC,-' ,I,Iuld Di, "IA :iO4)[:aIll, loAt' I;brl ;:i: hl rIf- .,n: 10 I.,111,A J•. YAM I, At.") hhul+x A111mIM;:, hurcby I(,nUl, buraulll, pull ttu,l c.,Wvuy uBlu ;11:1711 u, all:1:i, at IIill I':I I«,1 rl^.Itllly•, .tl I;ult.0,. 1411 mi. u,.,ll lt',1 I'�'I,•w1 tlu+ lcrantuu , whwu curn,ut w.1'lla,.r III t't�..1 Ul J llu I:,x 'J tb/, l:,lru, i,llla, tit/U/, thu 1'Jltlwilig Ju1cr1L4:11 I,ruullar, iu iul7 co-AlIty IJNIIuI IoNA-nd; b IA,1 1 in liluck ul liullal.'a I'urN. 'iu1x11Vlbllyl, iJtCc,ClJ1lU' to 'ill ul(It I1J,11 Ilull•ul 1111.11 111 Ik,ult 1+1 UI I'IJIu at I'il utl �%�I IuiJ 1 l IV.l..t l;uwu l:dl illd'l , 11A4'.VIJ(, l u , UI'1'l•lil t4XV11 Wit) 1 .hub:Aa'Ill.y, Ct'b111 Vut I if ruvi) 11141N1)1�' t Ju1Ut.,litnl,, lantl l•.I.,tu.,l,i;l .,I' c'ucul'l1; anJ IlOcnU'dt 1;UI:11C1' lu tll.'tt. l►y'lall) , Imw J ul '1't'u.l tLU otl :i, Iu n,Il10C «I , I'//H, 111 1't,vut' 'If Ilull: of 1,l.,IN,, II.A. ',l:t Ix,l.a'Ill'1.11'%, iWMI rUl'uru d till ,;Vllmili'1' /.1, 1 1, I 1971, ud luhtcullt•nt N•I• 7)Jlbl,t,. • 1"vltilA.1 4)l &L I C.,tanl ,l y, 141114), l,l within flk vu i5) bujill•I;u ll,lyW •iflty 1110 : :��; 1'l•t.4)1 •lll till)t,f ,/ rcL unvu 'llicu ul' .1 I1.1•J u Y l' 'l'cunl. of Ivvn J.tlu l4)11,wLill (.1.tla0c 11�'il'lll lt, l�,Wy1.1'h 71111 (Allllhlll'/ (11' 111.11111, with (;1'tllitur 1101'011) .Ill ./ •� l/a'Ik1lCl.l1'y :,l•curtu,: I,,1.111v;,1 1,f 1110 hila ul $HJ,lid0,uu, (itNI11Ul' .II'r4utl iy r1•'31 •":. 1.,W L: ,t lh.v.) 1,1 It.:.lelvuy•u1r0 u► bu l:A,:culcJ nnJ 1-4'curJ1.•11, ►'ulualJll4; ►Ill. 4101 4)i 'lYuyt racu,JuJ .,� 111utnJ'�nl IA1. 71S'1G6'/,>rJl {• 1 i d all fl}, .�. i Ani .Lu.lo(Y, 14#114i •�. � V Lerv�ren TILk 4 IML 1 '�� L NAII 1 1- Iii -t r' , ft Jul W t AV luA r t,. p Q >t "1'tl 11AV): AN11 '1'U IlUlat Iho nuid pnnur,.+, with th,•ir uppurtu„un,a+w uuLAO 1 u raid lilautuv "'"• 11 huirr Will unrul:un lura•lr•r. AWJ lhu ,iu'1 I;,..'lurhi 1141 ht•rtdly 1•uvuuaul 141 Il114 with the "id l:raiii1ru th:11 )toy ,Irt•lhu uwrxr :; w fcv nlnydu 4)t niti,I pruuu,wyi that kouy pru Irpr (roil, All ,i.J 1.1.1;11;1 ♦pd k►At lhuy will N.Irrimi, ulul Jululiq llty 1w10u 11't'lll all lulvlui 0xilui M ,hl,l►xlaj j ' PAW I W ll+llw' ee /'IWilil�'r.TY(tilY`f... �... ___..��____. .,I/ 6'w�,.1:i�/1'il�a�:.l�t.•.L�•• ,,...,�;,.t.. .-.;.�.i�� �. r..i �t-s..>r. _.__.w..._.. (��t..l-.4.i.�.,/.- .��►L.4i[�i�.►1....... r': I 1111 r1 Yil.�1.. _ _. � _ ... � _— -- _.1J�d>,•lii.�:,ll" !ha1,•f-....r ' u ',5 `r ATAT9 Uy I1lAIIU, LUUN l Y uY MAIN , Up hurt /-S,— 4.1 ar tit l III,, •1" , 111111 S l A l l UI II 111111, t l 11 ". ; 1 , it t 1•'IV (t'�, 111•'(;l I-L'M :., J,„I 1.,1 It,...,J St -L.. I..'r• wu,lly �l,YturrJ 11;(01111 l;, lrll(.I. ;ul,l I,lil:1� ”" m., ►', u., ••, ry int WY I I-v,h•J lt: al.d W I I , 111, 1 H«rw" ,• 1 11 t ,o.4), t I.,,Id.. ,.. I.1 %,-.1 11,1,. 144n lljk,i+lMi 01111 I11lriA .Il111Ui:. ll, 1p�:,1,•01.1 LI,I.u.J el. 'll Au.r ., ,,: 4)u ,'• I• 11., rl„n . wl , i. u, ,f : ttu•.yp t4 ry1 1.. Iw tl.. IMrWII b11UW /.«,,. I , q 1 � r„�. 11 ,•J...lul,u,l•1 wS11.n• r,.11•..,1�'n„I...I,,.LIIIa.I ,la.. �11L(cr11wJ ,ty. t1i �II�LJ I�< 1. all, ,.,,r/L,1r. J b. u�. ,L1, • ly � •� , !: .1 r,I 1'r . - Pat' , iy r 5)4i,4w,o tl„I L,w,. 1 1 1 t o•tt � 1 1 l' I , � 14 NJu,Y at I'r, l ., Iu.Lu , I . J•... , I Cumau t;avltl• "__� .,,... rye y•,., '_:'f'»._. �.,.-.-^�,.�_. ... _.. -•,K WniiicnA'J'*Y uc;t:u Vour Value 11"01vvJ �CtAtta" 1'It41'Kltcigh. A PA4100"1111' J�Ietltu( F !:N 00 btu0lty Yfbl►l, Wrook., NU Iw11 1w16vey WWW DpV;y UUl'p6Y GigWANY, 1h(;4j 441 }alma 1Purpur4ttuo r Of gr4u1+0 h-1 Vtl► 41f0}tr Mut1►v, ►4ql►y 4'4106+{ F �` l+� !14440wow jowl Prratw414 AUA f;7tptal� lllsl►W k+•��li �� I , wr a,,bLucK 1, ft►I URCr PAU liUbUIV1611W. nccotdlull to Llio t plilulp� Plat 0104e01, 11104 to buu� 111 Wl PI4t0 If r4l�« )MI F + �lJorilli of A44 Gu40iy, lJohul 1 51 � • ' 4UWKCT TU «aruiwutM, rlrrtrlctlu160, CaV�16aale enJ ltllhtM Wt �i ,i 1' MM NI reCurdr , I'!1 gl ' ` r ' fw I, I _t IIAV$ 4NU TO IIU1.11 lhu said Nruluu s, with Ihelr oppurtaimme't Itutlr the "id (haat," , Itr buirit said 000lylto (ursvvr. And Ow ►aid Gruuwr Ju.•r he'.#by cuvouout W 4414 ` with W0 sold Grsuwo , that thy aru Ulf uwaer s is (,w sit16ple w " prutaises; that wsy 1IrmopIu It excul't tlr• 1919 trx•'r rhlch ora ant yvL Juu ono Pry4lbjU. 0164 $but to* y will war,'16169 „lid JOIC1141 :be rarre #rush #11 .ewlul c:Wj" Wh*baWYOr. PA;, j; I y Il, 1`x]9 j(tWJ1A11 1'Mifi'I.ttl'11`rt A PAR14", 1: OTATti Of IIlA1I0, COUNTY Ur AJa 00 444 17th ar of May I,") prlrrr of. • ov" is ooll IV( Mr 414 etrb, &"I. wa.ur .ryr.•d ': •' . tiy��r�� jov!• {o /wr W Lo tiM, Y!f►rb � rOw. 11rwr lb 1pt�iy►�" W (♦.r rlu.ui II.,Vuu,ru►, r11J r.►rwrl-.:,..1 w �,M M111,ru:Iy r+rcY1r11 Nr rrwr. bu.lau 41W-41 4'ut4 "4165►l' . 1JrLu CFyuw ►yltr► N��4/42 4P v COI" 11" ONWI AI.TH LAND �fF�pp, ,� � .��j ` '� • � T �, ,fir _ ' _ 6TATC UY ILAIJU. COUNTY U 1 ►rnor arulr t►o1 la/r (Ivxrwpr4 rw �+.1 lif! ! N t'� /, 11111 1 a 1 r► �11.17wW rr+t �r O'rlodl � �,t ti Ihi�•r Irr ,d '����• /.^T Ir , rM all 44ce, bw /vlr t«"8404 N p"ii ul 1hrr� M Yrlls , �''• � �`. f rate t, For Vdue Roadvsd WARRANTY DEED DALE J0kUA:i and JLAN ,luno,%:+, i„rr ; and wl 1'0 ; the rra>:tara , do hereby Mat. bargain, sell and oonver unto and rAILMEN J. 4AYE3 , hushahrl and wi i c , ()h1.17 (;/ *dr,Yk the rraaWo. tM fallowbW dosw*M promises. in. ... ..... Acta............. County Idaho, to wit: I'avt of the S� SW}, Section 9, f. 3 N., H. 1 1.., B.M.. in Alin County, Idahn, nenre harLlcul:rrly rl.,rrlt,cd au follows: Beginning at a point 1078 feet East of the iu corner of the ;Wk of iect'_on 9, 1. 3 H., h. i E., b.rt., thence RAet, 10+11,98 foot, more or less to the South i Section corner of Section 9, T, 3 N., R. I E., B.M.; thence North, 1072.69 feet to the South side of R.iilw,qy Right of Way; thenet West along the South side of RAilway right of way, 1744.68 feet, which point Is )45.3 feet East of the West section line Ot 31ctLon 9, T. 3 N., h. 1 E., B.M.; thence bouth 7'01)' East, 1089 f':et to the place of beginning. SUBJECT T0: Mortgage dated April 6; 1955, executed by DALE JORDAN and JEAN JORDAN, husband and'wife, to THE FEDERAL LAND SANK OF SPOLANE, a corporation, recorded April 8, 1955 under Instm nt No. 375182, records of Ada County. Idaho. which the grantees herein assume and agree to pay. TO 1Vt/2 AND TO IWW Ills saM Iiia ss. with their abpo'tme m sets do said Oran%* s, their Min ass/ sashes t'w om Aad dw said Qea dor a &a bee" ee+eaant to awl tit►ssii Olssalse 9.6a t be1 are die swsseis b fee simple el add praestaes : Mlat tfl.y save beta hese Solaaasiranw , exeept rsne-al taxes for the year 1967 and the wMortgage described above, ) asi tits! tied' w1N wars+ast pd wiled ft abe from m ad 11av Claims Vt.Idsei~. JW ' DMsdi liebrdsrjr 8;' 1963 � V :!r ..F v11IMM w- +tp►r ++.•w.. 4rXTA7U of MAM-05VVW Ar Ada .. , t . a tar .1- ,.. i N :' 11 �• .Af WMYNy� :�r.J r lrlra�aimwy %MrlMtlt>fisM�irMr�wllf � i 111 eM�r fM� t*a hRl7�Nrk wM a1�'�IM NMt� el M,re�rRrf IfCVO41f lil•f rM1uvAwr.[ ':�. .�. f/Q 7•vf a�ewd;4L+lCLL; JOI A�I''il��S JLA:'Q ; A n^ 11111INA" ,..i •'deck A Ilk.Pt S JOR1�A1�j;zheisbaitd Itkf� ti ts, this 13th day of Feb. M 1963 . d.r.slw tma a.y.et».a.a in n..k of Dees. tl Page 7 tis6ow%Osielirwa.as viewa are V RP7 TII >hIA3 �e«tw 1►t Dow MIN am aekwa 1 "a a Coll — e .ae.d.r --- lt theys:_ny Nw tldA.. •he a III. Cr 14TA' i Pi/1Y1 ` '1/ri 4,'4.. 10111111111 11470 •d.v1, (/(.3/i %t.•rh't ) r Rr:�es:w•:• J •; l.r Ali_ .'v ic,�i..r jj,: buil i.remibe::, with their nppurt-, ' eaaocea our.., lt,r i:mid GrauLe:bk�, :heir hsirs arta assigns forever: T r Sa., r, a } Aud t10 sru:,i ;je.uLQL-1 is nwreuy euvenmat to mud with the sa'd 'j, CUUNTY W 4&-� Grantees, thur- they ure 0, ,,wr,rr in fee simple of said remises; X that they are free frim all eucumuranced September, 1969, before a Notary Public, personally p'; = , n"f I,ARftOADU, to me kli0Mi1 to 1>! • ,t �� M lA and ttlat ;icy W!111 war:•anc an- defend the same from all lawful the persons who executed the foregoing deed, ackaowltdaed to .qe# i4h a ��tg w A f< a A h Y U I L 411 e F'aL.c�'�t• t.1 �• - 1 ����' • - r'nr value ns:uc.ved, Juii uuuturura and CAiiMkN F. LARitOlIDQi 'f '''z s wipe, Lice urauLortc, du Hereby graut, Lurpulu, sell and c(,nvey unto JGBN K. LAiihuNDU and MARY 1-nRRa1Wa, We: Ul'untAtS, the fo;low. 'ink{ 1 ' Y}v . • ;� debariLed premiars, in ti,ia r:-juuty ldS,W), to wit: t ir,� i:;:,iu� at Lite t,urL1, qunrt-r turner of ;ectiop 1 �r ' 1 .,V.,R.19.,b.M.; V.d(4CC hoot& an the t4dt b,un.arl of Lhe I+'.�.� .W said section a distance y 'a A, O,G-)� re:dt t, au iron pipe; thence Nb5020' *� feet to an iron pipe; the ?." trl�.rlt:e N CiV 905.00 feet to t+tuu41nr; of saki Section 16; thence a 690 icl se,i? t.urLr. L,.)uudury a distance of 498.85t� e: r, ,;r>rr. or 1e:s: , Lu the point t)f beglnaing, e.:r--s, more or :bus, and sub- a1.: exit' iuw J!"ItAd, duan and utilities + •; l.r Ali_ .'v ic,�i..r jj,: buil i.remibe::, with their nppurt-, ' eaaocea our.., lt,r i:mid GrauLe:bk�, :heir hsirs arta assigns forever: T r Sa., r, a } Aud t10 sru:,i ;je.uLQL-1 is nwreuy euvenmat to mud with the sa'd CUUNTY W 4&-� Grantees, thur- they ure 0, ,,wr,rr in fee simple of said remises; X that they are free frim all eucumuranced September, 1969, before a Notary Public, personally p'; = , n"f I,ARftOADU, to me kli0Mi1 to 1>! • ,t �� M lA and ttlat ;icy W!111 war:•anc an- defend the same from all lawful the persons who executed the foregoing deed, ackaowltdaed to .qe# i4h ��tg clalmu wtu,ta:nC:vItr. Dau tel CARWLN F. LARRONDO s � Idaho, restding 0II R T r Sa., r, a } STAlY O rakHO) CUUNTY W 4&-� •e ; X Un this day of C•r'-"?"'--%— September, 1969, before a Notary Public, personally p'; = , n"f I,ARftOADU, to me kli0Mi1 to 1>! • ,t �� appeared JOS LAi;ROIiU and CARD N F. the persons who executed the foregoing deed, ackaowltdaed to .qe# i4h 4sct they executed the same. Ae s Notary Public in ead1for ZOO Idaho, restding 0II R T r Sa., r, a 1,14 .0 •e ; '751UUt�V WARRANTY UEEU CUKA t:AMN11L•1-:. A�L".'J, thisrancor, doer hereby 9 Y 9ivq� grant, aliurt ane unto THE BANK OF IUAI1O, N.A., ars Trustt:u undue t1.0 .%.)AA CAMPBELL ALLLN TRUST AGREEMENT doted 1L79, the yrantuo, whose current ai r is : �• •,:�' uddres6 1:. 1'. c). Lu;. .7;7, buibo, Idaho 63705, the followi>[� Sf' i4 du:iuriLt:a l,ruml b,.o: <ua Cuu11ty, ldahu, to -wit: c;t,41,tor's ur,... t -.r 57.51 tntt;rusL in and to the follow4h 5W 1,'4 ut :,,: :.fir 1/4 ut Suctiun 16, Tuwnship 3 tl,, kur,,� 1 1..,4t ut thu buisu Muridian, Add l:utnty, ia.,t,u. 1.X,:LPT a !parcel of land being " ter, the l:a ; < t l; :,tau ut thu c-t.:nLurlinu of the ;..1: 1Si. I!c,«d :"rV<c', C,l r�raau St-q-Aration Nu. 1 an .I,u.+n k,1: tt.0 1.1u;,s ut seta Inturaitatu 60N, project iltyhwuy Survey and being a ;rr 1,vt chit, ul tf,u ::W 1/4 Ut thu 17W 1/4 of Suction 1, 11, J ::vitt,, Hanyu 1 Lu6t, boibe Muridian, c lubcrit,ud at, tulluwb, to wit: buginniny at the .,uaLl,wc:st curnul ut thu SW 1/4 NW 1/4 of Section. 1 v , Tuwr,sh i; J Nur tel , Hunyu 1 East , Boise MeridiAn�." t<un.t NUrtr, u-11'37" WuSt along the West line , ul :i.4 td SW 1/4 IJP' 1/4 a diutancu of 363.69 feet u u ;.uinnt cutr,c,dunt with Station 2U+00.00 of t t,, •.t,c; 1- is): k(.ua Survey of 4ruclu Separation No. 1 r�r -S zihu.+r, ur, t1iL pluns of suid Interstate 80N, t 1 ut :+u. 1-UUN-1 (1`J) 45 Hiyhway Survey; thenal t), U9'3a'tJ" Labt UU fc-ut; thence South'<' :`4v'JO" E,%SL Ju7.0 feat, mart: or less, to a E.uir+t its ttiu SuUtlr lirtu ut said SW 1/4 NW 1/41 r hul,::u Westerly ulony said South linu 36.0 feetg u,uru or loss, to the placu of beyinning. ' 1•'lsic Head Survey Station Reference: 24+36.11 26+UU.OU. vex; The; buurir,ys as shown, in thu above land descriptigp-` ur,lt:sy uLthurwlSu notud, aru from the Idaho Plane Couratr,utu F16Lum, bused on thu transverse meraatox,� l,ruJuct tw, cur U,u 19ust lonu of Idaho. To convert LU yeuauLic Luartnyb, u curruction of 0024152" Fw` ;Bust Lu SuLtru<:tud from. all Nurtheast and Southwe L-warinys and addCd to all Nurthwest and Southeast},"I Luurinys. :r,t with all appurtunances. ?}e,t 640 V 44 q 640 V STATL OF 1LjA110 County of Add TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premisum, with 064' appurtenances unto the said Grantee, its heirs and designs doom hereby covenant to forever. And the said Grantor appoarud CUBA CAMPBELL ALLLN known to me to be the person whose name is buLacribad to tho within instrument, and and with the said Grdtitou, that she is the owner in fee simple of udid prumiaou; that they are frau from all incumbrancea and that she will warrant and defend ths-1. same from all lawful claims whatsoever. fg PATED: Of 1979. _Zj/'74day Residing at Boise, Idaho 640 V STATL OF 1LjA110 County of Add BUFF On this /-'I # I day of "r, /-, K. - 1979, before met ry.`Wt a notary public in and for the adii State, personally appoarud CUBA CAMPBELL ALLLN known to me to be the person whose name is buLacribad to tho within instrument, and acknwwledywd to me that she eXoCULud the same. y. fg Notary Pu is for Idaho Residing at Boise, Idaho STATE OF IDAHO, COUNTY OF ADA I hereby certify that this instrument was filed for record at the request of ELAM, BURKE, JEPPESEN, EVANS & BOYD minutes s o'clock at t day 1,rg. in my 9? !*yy M.0 of 0 4,Lz: -off in! B of L)eeds at tea. recorded oak ice, and d r 2j, ]?ago 10, JOHN CAST112A Ex 0 tici Recorder tf L4C2 6 Fees Kail to: j ,4 pr J ;.Y ;,k!8 r i �! Y 1.A�1ltl 49 VC. P tr d� lrr�n►,or a.'�14 hens�3; ��,, .. * era. bat��in. dell rqd convoy"4 41 " r :"EUWAEtO L. ' BIKWS and Sl1XECLkY C: lihws, husband ' 52U6 Sorry .lrcloI b 8 ? to,gSae. lda o' 3, 04. /+ 'i J t t Cho to M Eln+►tn �` 110Win dt�eribtd plremttts, in t4 a A porcivtl i,f the NE 1/4 NW 1/4, + , / Se c t loft 16. T. N .: Il. � ��� '." •� $, Ada CuunLy, Idaho, mora particular! ll a h y�.; describedM ipll9 8rglunJtrg al a bradb cap tnatkinY the Nurthw bt cPcgir u Suction 16. T. 3 N �r r t.henrc South tl1°" U .. '•., ; `'•d'13.''��,?�!►i., 'Ub t:abC 1.143.51 fuel alun Jt' S5 of Chu m 1 NW 1/4 ut :,eitltm 16.'whit'h to albo ajan8 tNQrthA t 0u FAKMInG'1'UN ESI'A' � fE5 Nu. 1. a subdIViblun. ar f t'aax.5� ut Chu Ad.t iuunty Kecurdvr, doLbe 41rd}roCa;pvQ� at,d 1710, .,nd wl�i,•1, iti al,u the cenLurllnen„uWk 45 Qi 4*& ; p; � trwrking tlu N„reh�acC curncr „. f Franklkn Road* al; ,, t Chu bb1J YAHMENCTON;"j;li Ct3� FAIR sai.t Nulnt being Lilo cool (tu1nC of an innlLt TAT Q thence ..lung the tulluwltt Cu tS uutaaa d[td dlatancda �&��A r R :untinuing SuuLh d9'2U'Uu" boundary ()f Sac tloFt f Elie NW 1/4 of ioll 161 120.00 fast al?AS 9 chance Suulh U"3Y'S4" ivt•st 20U.0U tout alogK uY1fAR' 'W �daNl`a Parallel With Circ E.tatvrly buundacy of Plio adld (� a �!► y�' thuace South 6912U'U6” East 5.00 teaC dlon •lin*,� ;; F Parallel with the bY buupdary of ald Northerly Y L MW t,, thence South' U°79154”W2()3 te.00 Eeot along a lltw„� parallej ulth Cha cold Eabterly boundary pf rPAM, 1N 0!'1. thence North 89°2U' 6” , ✓"; �; and parallel With the aelilWebL 11H.00 foot ala K1 o n(i a ,lits. ' Northerly haugdary of 'tom b` Suction 16 and the Nurtharly boundary of Lot's FAMINGTON E:STATkS NU. 1 to a point 4f $� Luc 1 u p t �++rking the 6opt !' f the aa1J Wock 3 of FAkM1NUTQt� k 'TATES bn thence North 0'39'54" Sabt 203. of FAMINCTON ESTATE: U0 teak r�N�1E. K thence sclrth 89'10'001, Wobt 7.0 tt of 1rAbtlliNG 4 A0� 41pa1R thg^si►� " ` pF, j TUBI 81iTA'fx� NQ. �¢t a Poinc�mart tp* ' t < pt 1 of cloak oE�+the` rel AitlltlE O TF . thence N6rth .039954"1,ei.c ,100 r ,• f •.5 4iI►;yvr�J;9 p',Ifjj; 4 TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises, with their appurtenances unto the &oid Gran t tic it heirs and aasicns forever. And the said Grantor a do hereby tcivenan4 I with the said Grant.eb ,that they a► c the owner. infe*&lmPI#of&&idP"M1MW-0WI1b9JM from all encumbrances , pnd that t hey will w&rrart and defend the same from all lawful -"ma whataoaver. Qatad: February 7. 198U � j'A Joe Larron4o Carmen F. Larrondo `„ YTATL Or IDA O, C LINTY OF ADA aTATZ Or IDAHO. COUNTY Or On Shia i� d 7 rsr or , Feb rue ry . t& HU, 1 h•wM ».ar,► th.r tate lMeen.►wr co a 1144tN; Were me. a awry (ru►lhe'u+ •M for ss.a ah.h., Nr"Nalir the request of FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CQ ,� v p this �� `+► V/ at JQlS,; T,ARItON W Apef•. C"MEN F. I.AKKUNDO. my else. sad ��r fas�rliA I�r lit ► .• , �r�'rf ItQ r t si lieda at MA , � i •': ' i' eL JOHN BAS I " ` y.� ''�IMrir11 1� ►we 1• tht�gri•a r whew nas• u are �,; i r '•'is►krih•�ti;r%w'S �h►a Zrvmeel. aM aehu•wWaed is �ygo "� 4Mt�► r , til ;.. •sec►ht•d She aaau. by �; j., :y t l►w �ahlle rens aOQ .. ref `�3 11�MMai �t s B ise . 1 Wtl pt �tdM��d {�. BYIy�'S j! . i.. 5206 Gori eato' Circle• . it0lNrr 1 f a• AW rnerican Titt�+1-"a ,,. -- i EXHIBIT "F" Notification List, Names, Addresses and Parcel Numbers for all Owners in and within Two Feet of the Proposed Annexation R152-726-0100 Lot 1, Blk. 1 Commerce Pk. Sub. P.A. - NA 8152-726-0120 Lt. 2, Blk 2 Commerce Pk. Sub. P.A. - NA R152-726-0140 Lot. 3, Blk. 2 Commerce Pk. Sub. P.A. - NA 8152-726-0160 Lt. 4, Blk 2 Commerce Pk. Sub. P.A. - 3500 Commercial R152-726-0180 Lt. 5, Blk. 2 Commerce Pk. Sub. P.A. - NA R152-726-0200 Lt. 6, Blk. 2 Commerce Pk. Sub. P.A. - NA R152-726-0020 Lot 1, Blk. 1 Commerce Pk. Sub. P.A. - NA R152-726-0040 Lot 2, Blk. 1 Commerce Pk. Sub. P.A. - NA 8152-726-0060 Lot 3, Blk. 1 Commerce Pk. Sub. P.A. - NA R152-726-0080 Lot 4, Blk. 1 Commerce Pk. Sub. P. A. - NA 5110-932-5460 Par. #5460 of SW's Sec. 9, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - NA 5110-931-5380 Par. #5380 of E111SW Sec. 9, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - 550 N. Eagle i SW's, SEC. 9, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. Stein, Keith D. & Cath4rine F. Box 9367 Boise, ID 83707 Stein, Keith D. & Cathirin F. Box 9367 Boise, ID 83707 i Stein, Keith D. Box 9367 Boise, ID 83707 Jackson, John D. & Becly L. Box 9427 I Boise, ID 83707 I Nelson, Donald J. & Ka in H. Box 8007 Boise, ID 83707 Nelson, Donald J. & Karin H. Box 8007 Boise, ID 83707 Coors Distributing Co. 5253 Kendall Boise, ID 83704 Davis Supply Co., Inc. P. O. Box 8103 Boise, ID 83702 Nelson, Donald J. & KarL H. Box 8007 Boise, ID 83707 Nelson, Donald J. & Karn H. Box 8007 Boise, ID 83707 I i Dobaran, Joe & Dobaran, 1 John & Arvella j Rte. 5, Cloverdale Boise, ID 83705 I Albertson's, Inc. Box 20 Boise, ID 83726 Cont. SW's, Sec. 9, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. 5110-933-6330 Par. #6330 of SWSW Sec. 9,T. 3 N „ R. 1 E. P.A. - 3250 Franklin 5110-934-6750 Par. #6:750 of S' SW Sec. 9, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - 3710 E. Franklin Burke, Richard N. c/o J. Neville Box 1286 Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Mayes, Oren C. & Carmen J. 3710 E. Franklin Meridian, ID 83642 S.E. li, Sec., 9, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. 5110-943-8580 Niblett, Delbert R. & yeah L. Par. #8580 of S.E. 4010 E. Franklin Sec. 9, T'_3 N., R 1 E. Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - NA 5110-943-8460 Par. #8460 of S.E. Sec. 9, T.3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - 4010 E. Franklin 5110-943-8780 Par. #8780 of S.E. Sec. 9, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - NA 5110-941-7800 Par. #7800 of Wi S.E. Sec. 9, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - NA Niblett, Delbert R. & ieah L. 4010 E. Franklin Meridian, ID 83642 Carstens, Willy & Friecla 5522 Franklin Boise, ID 83705 Dobaran, Joe & Dobaran,, John & Arvella I Rte 5 Cloverdale I Boise, ID 83705 S.E. �t, Sec. 8, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. 5110-841-7230 Elixir Industries Par. #7230 of N'�"S.E. 17809 S. Broadway Sec. 8, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. Gardena, CA 90248 P.A. - 10535 N. Eagle I S110-844-9220 Green, Jack W. (trustee) Par. #9220 of SESE 3070 E. Franklin Rd. Sec. 8, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - NA S110-844-9320 Par. #9320 of SE Sec. 8, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - NA 5110-844-9330 Par. #9330 of SE Exc. R/w Sec. 8, T. 3N., R. 1 E. P.A. 3140 E. Franklin 5110-844-9340 Par. #9340 of SE Exc. R/W Sec. 8, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - 3160 E. Franklin Green, Glenn E. etux 3070 E. Franklin Rd. Meridian, ID 83642 Ross, Donna L. 3140 E. Franklin Rd. Meridian, ID 83642 Kusler, Elizabeth 3160 E. Franklin Rd. Meridian, ID 83642 (Cont) SE'k, Sec. 8, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. S110-844-9310 Par. #9310 of SE Sec. 8, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - 3070 E. Franklin R651-058-0010 Lt. 1, Blk 1 Olson & Bush Ind. Pk. P.A. - NA R651-058-0020 Lt. 2, Blk. 1 Olson & Bush Ind. Pk. P.A. - NA R651-058-0030 Lt. 3, Blk. 1 Olson & Bush Ind. Pk. P.A. - NA R651-058-0070 Lot 1, Blk. 2 Olson & Bush Ind. Pk. P.A. - NA R651-058-0080 Lt. 2, Blk. 2 Olson & Bush Ind. Pk. P.A. 3131 Lanark R651-058-0090 Lot. 3, Blk. 2 Olson & Bush Ind. Pk P.A. - NA NW's Sec. 16, T. 3 N. Slll-622-3000 Par. #3000 of NWNW Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P. A. - 3585 E. Franklin 5111-621-2652 Par.#2652 of E' NW Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - NA i I Green, Glenn E. etux I 3070 E. Franklin Rd. Meridian, ID 83642 Olson, Cecil & Bush, Dajvid C. (cont) Marcum & Hunemiller Box 386 Meridian, ID 83642 Olson, Cecil and Bush, 'David C. (cont.) Summers H. Dean etal Box 579 Boise, ID 83701 Olson, Cecil & Bush, David C. (dont.) Marcum & Hunemiller Box 386 Boise, ID 83642 Olson, Cecil & Bush, David C. 1920 Canal Boise, ID 83705 Stoddard, Bruce W. & Virginia M. 4821 Mountain View Boise, ID 83704 j Olson, Cecil & Bush, Did C. (cont) Marcum & Hunemi�er Box 386 Meridian, ID 83642 R. 1 E. Langlois, Mary Jean etaGl (cont.) Robinson, F1oyd,Jr. etux 3585 E. Franklin Rd. Meridian, ID 83642 Bews, Edward C. & Shirley G. 5206 Sorrento Cir. Boise, ID 83704 5111-621-2950 Lamb, Daniel R. Par. #2950 of NEW Attn: Minegar, Cathi j Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. Box 4272 P.A. - 3600 E. Franklin Boise, ID 83711 5111-621-2300 I Lamb, Daniel R. Par. #2800 of NENW Attn: Minegar, Cathi Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. Box 4272 P.A. - 3585 E. Franklin Boise, ID 83711 QcIC ont.) NA Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. Slll-621-2600 Koger, Grove A., Jr. Larrondo, Mary Lot 3, Blk 1 Par. 42600 of NENt9 (cont.) Bews, Edward L Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. 5206 Sorrento P.A. - NA 8579-150-0030 Boise, ID 83704 i & ILenore Slll-622-3400 3335 E. Franklin Bartschi, Ralph P. & La�onne J. Par. #3400 of NWNW 3475 E. Franklin Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. Meridian, ID 83642 i P.A. - NA 3315 E. Franklin Montvue Pk 5111-622-3100 j Holloway, Harold E. & AeAnna B. Par. #3100 of NWNW 3545 E. Franklin Sec. 16 T. 3 N., R. 1 E. Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 3545 Franklin 5111-621-2500 Fortin, Lawrence E. & .nna C. Par. #2500 of NENW 3975 E. Franklin Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. Meridian, ID 83642 Ij P.A. - 3975 E. Franklin 8579-150-0005 Bartschi, Ralph P. & LaN4onne J. Lot 1, Blk 1 3475 E. Franklin Rd. Montvue Pk Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 3475 E. Franklin 8579-150-0010 Hoffbauer, Arles F. et# Lot 2, Blk 1 3435 E. Franklin Road Montvue Pk Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 3435 E. Franklin R579-150-0020 Koger, Grove A., Jr. & Alen E. Lot 3, Blk 1 3385 E. Franklin Rd. Montvue Pk Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 3357 E. Franklin 8579-150-0030 Burkhardt, Howard L. i & ILenore Lt 4, Blk. 1 3335 E. Franklin Montvue Pk Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 3335 E. Franklin R579-150-0040 Calkins, Randall L. &T�nya i L. Lot. 5, Blk. 1 3315 E. Franklin Montvue Pk Meridian, ID 83642 j P.A. - 3315 Franklin R579-150-0050 Hatvani, Karoly L. Lot 6, Blk 1 3285 E. Franklin Rd. Montvue Pk Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 3285 E. Franklin 8579-150-0060 Malcom, Clifford A. & L nore Z Lot 6, Blk. 1 30 S. Eagle Rd. Montvue Pk. MERIDIAN, ID 83642 P.A. - 30 S. Eagle I 8579-150-0071 Layne, Donald L. & Roberta K. Par. #0071 of Lot 8/Blk 1 3250 14ontvue Montvue Pk. Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 3250 Montvue 4 - (cont.) NA 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. R579-150-0075 Par. #0075 of Lt. 8, Blk 1 Montvue Pk P.A. - 3300 Montvue R579-150-0080 Lt 9, Blk 1 Montvue Pk P.A. - 3360 Montvue 8579-150-0090 Lot 10, Blk. 1 Montvue Pk. P.A. - 3410 Montvue R579-150-0100 Lt. 11, Blk 1 Montvue Pk. P.A. - 3460 Montvue 8579-150-0110 Lot 12, Blk. 1 Montvue Pk P.A. - 210 E. Montvue R579-150-0121 Lt. 1, Exc. Tax 1, Blk 2 Montvue Pk. P.A. 3225 Montvue R579-150-0125 Tax 1 of Lt. 1, Blk 2 Montvue Pk. P.A. - 3295 Montvue 8579-150-0130 Lt. 1, Blk. 3 Montvue Pk. P.A. 3405 Montvue R579-150-0140 Lt. 2/Blk. 3 Montvue Park P.A. - NA R579-150-0151 Lot 1 Exc. S 261', Blk. 4 Montvue Pk P.A. - NA 8579-150-0153 Par. #0153 of Lt. 1, Blk. 4 Montvue Pk. P.A. - 215 E. Montvue R579-150-0155 5.140' of Lt. 1, Blk. 4 Montvue Pk P.A. 325 E. Montvue - 5 - Watson, Howell Omar & # 3300 Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 Richter, Max R. & Diane L. 3360 Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 Nelson, Warren B. etux 3410 Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 Timmons, Johnnie E. et*x P. A. Box 257 Lyndon, KS. 66451 Kinsey, Bernerd R. 210 E. Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 i Samuelson, Leroy etux P.O. Box 412 Meridian, ID 83642 Corn, Samel E. & Betty,L. 3295 Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 i i Shaffer, Gifford R. et x Box 361 Meridian, ID 83642 L. Shaffer, Gifford R. etux Meridian, ID 83642 Bqx 361 Shaffer, Gifford R. E 4oberta E. Box 361 Meridian, ID 83642 Ostrander, Diane S. 325 E. Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 Ostrander, Diane S. 325 E. Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 i I I ' (cont.) NW's Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. t 8579-150-0161 Sutherland, Mel C. ' Lt. 2 Exc. N. 122', Blk 4 320 Montvue Montvue Pk. Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 320 Montvue ' R579-150-0165 Jensen, Douglas & larr ine N. 122' of Lt. 2, Blk 4 230 Montvue 'Montvue Pk. P.A. - NA Meridian, ID 83642 j 8579-150-0170 Jensen, Douglas & Lorraine ' Lt. 3, Blk. 4 230 Montvue Montvue Pk. Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 230 W. Montvue i ' R579-150-0180 Reynolds, Willis A. et�x Lt. 1, Blk. 5 320 Montvue ' Montvue Pk, P.A. - 320 E. Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 R579-150-0191 i Ruyf, Gerald A. Lt. 2 & E. 40' of Lt. 3 Blk 5 360 Montvue Montvue Pk. Meerielam, ID 83642 P.A. - 360 E. Montvue I ' R579-150-0201 Matlock, Delbert E. & �heryl K. Lt. 3, Exc. W. 140' & Exc. E. 40' 3555 Montvue Blk. 5; Montvue Pk. Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. 3555 E. Montvue R579-150-0205 Hoalst, Weslee W. & Ro$e Marie W. 140' of Lt. 3, Blk. 385 Montvue j ' Montvue Pk. Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. 385 Montvue ' R579-150-0210 Richey, Virgil C. etuxl Lt. 4, Blk. 5 365 Montvue Montvue Pk. Meridian, ID 83642 ' P.A. - 365 Montvue 8579-150-0220 i Richardson, Ray C. etu4 Lt. 5, Blk. 5 390 S. Eagle ' Montvue Pk. Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 390 S. Eagle. ' R579-150-0231 Ward, David W. & Jeanette M. S' of Lt. 6, Blk. 5 340 S. Eagle Rd. Montvue Pk. Meridian, ID 83642 ' P.A. - 340 S. Eagle { 8579-150-0235 Hickman, Kelvin Gale &`Vickie N. � Lt. 6, Blk. 5 290 S. Eagle Rd. ' Montvue Pk. Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. 290 S. Eagle - 6 - __ i I I (cont. ) NW14 Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. 8579-150-0241 N. 1i Lt. 7, Blk. 5 Montvue Pk. P.A. - NA R579-150-0245 S'liLt . 7 , Blk 5 Montvue Pk. P.A. 250 S. Eagle R579-150-0250 Lt. 8, Blk. 5 Montvue Pk. P.A. 180 S. Eagle 8579-150-0261 Lt. 9 Exc. S. 205', Blk. 5 Montvue Pk. P.A. - NA 8579-150-0265 S. 205' of Lt. 9, Blk. 5 Montvue Pk. P.A. 225 W. Montvue 8579-150-0270 Lt. 10, Blk. 5 Montvue Pk. P.A. - 285 W. Montvue All of Farmington Estates No. 1 All of Farmington Estates No. 2 Rich, William E. & Yvo ne (cont.) Coffin, David . & Adelen 250 S. Eagle Rd. Meridian, ID 83642 Coffin, David W. & Adelen 250 S. Eagle Rd. Meridian, ID 83642 I Miner, Larry B & Clari e L. 180 S. Eagle Meridian, ID 83642 i Corn, Samuel E. etux 3295 Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 1 Hein, August M. etux 225 Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 Burtner, Edwin R., Jr.j & Madeline C. 285 Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 Bews, E. L. & Shirley 5206 Sorrento Cir. Boise, ID 83704 Bews, E.L. & Shirley (. 5206 Sorrento Cir. j Boise, ID 83704 NE'�a, Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. 5111-612-0600 Chaffin, Evan W. etal' Par. #0600 of NE & NWSE Ocamica, Tom J. & Marie Sec. 16, T. 3 N. R. 1 E. c/o J. Robert Tullis gcont) P.A. - 4335 E. Franklin P.O. Box 8329 Boise, ID 83707 1 SW's, Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. Slll-632-5400 State of Idaho N. of Int. 80 SW's Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - NA Slll-632-5500 Oliason, Emilia etal N. SSW South of I -80N Oliason, Emilia/Life 4st. Exc.Rd. on W. Side 603 E. Pine Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 1020 S. Eagle i - 7 - SE's Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. 5111-642-7920 Ada County Par. #7920 of NW/SE by Tax Deed Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - NA R755-500-0270 Freeman, George T. & Dorothy M. Lot 11, Blk 2 925 Rolling Hills Rolling Hill Sub. Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - NA R755-500-0280 Freeman, George T. etu� Lt. 12, Blk. 2 925 Rolling Hills Rolling Hill Sub. Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 925 Rolling Hills i R755-500-0160 Jamison, John E. & Thetese J. Lt. 16, Blk. 1, Exc. R/W 950 Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Sub. Meridian, ID 83641 P.A. 950 Rolling Hills R755-500-0155 Cornell, Ida M. j S. 130' of Lt. 15, Blk. 1 1070 Rolling Hills ' Rolling Hill Sub. Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 1070 Rolling Hills R755-500-0151 Clapp, Wesley E. Lt. 15 Exc. S. 130', Blk. 1 1030 Rolling Hills Rolling Hill Sub. Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. 1030 Rolling Hills NES, Sec. 17, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. Slll-711-0090 Taylor, Leon E. & Norm* G Para #0090 of NENE Exc. R/W Rte 3, Stewart Rd. Sec. 17, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. Kuna, ID 83634 P.A. 15 S. Eagle i 8327-316-0030 Shepherd, Terry K & Ma�jorie M Lt. 6, Blk. 1 3076 Springwood Greenhill Est. #3 Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. 3076 Springwood R327-316-0025 Juhasz, C. Don & Pamel# Lt. 5, Blk. 1 3088 Springwood Greenhill Est. #3 Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. 3088 Springwood R327-316-0020 Stork, Robert A. & Dia;na L. Lt. 4, Blk. 1 5421 34th Ave SE Greenhill Est. #3 Lacey, WA 98503 PA. -NA R327-316-0015 Lt. 3, Blk. 1 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. - NA - 8 - Jenkins, Howard B & Sh'ron J Pearl Rt. Eagle, ID 83616 r (cont) NES, Sec. 17, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. R327-316-0010 Jenkins, Howard B. & Sharon J Lt. 2, Blk. 1 Pearl Rte Greenhill Est. #3 Eagle, ID 83616 P.A. - NA R327-316-0005 Jenkins, Howard B. & Sharon J. Lt. 1, Blk. 1 Pearl Rte Greenhill Est. #3 Eagle, ID 83616 P.A. - NA R327-316-0095 Jenkins, Howard B. & SIharon J. Lt. 1, Blk 2 Rte. 5, Blk. 2 Pearl Rte Greenhill Est. #3 Eagle, ID 83616 j P.A. - NA R327-316-0170 I I R327-316-0100 3044 Autumn Way Mayes, Dean, Jr. & Michelle L. Lt. 2, Blk. 2 P.A. - 3044 Autumn Box 593 Greenhill Est. #3 Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - NA Greenhill Est. #3 Meridian, ID 83642 R327-316-0105 Stevens, Dan R. & Marl J. Lt. 3, Blk. 2 Lt. 18, Blk. 2 3137 Springwood Dr. Greenhill Est. #3 Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. 3137 Springwood i R327-316-0110 Johnstone, David G. & Barbara L. Lt. 4, Blk. 2 3101 Springwood Dr. Greenhill Est. #3 Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 3101 Springwood P.A. - 3134 Autumn R327-316-0185 Jenkins, Howard B. & Sharon J. Lt. 19, Blk. 2 Pearl Rte Greenhill Est. #3 Eagle, ID 83616 P.A. - NA R327-316-0115 Menlove, Steven T.&.+leyT. Rte. 5, Blk. 2 3065 Springwood Greenhill Est. #3 Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 3065 Springwood R327-316-0170 Chetwood, Lawrence H. Shirley S. Lt. 16, Blk. 2 3044 Autumn Way Greenhill Est. #3 Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 3044 Autumn R327-316-0175 Fowler, Jerry R. Lot 17, Blk. 2 3050 Autumn Greenhill Est. #3 Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 3050 Autumn R327-316-0180 Harting, Robert D. & MoLrgaret A. Lt. 18, Blk. 2 3134 Autumn Way { Greenhill Est. #3 Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 3134 Autumn R327-316-0185 Jenkins, Howard B. & Sharon J. Lt. 19, Blk. 2 Pearl Rte Greenhill Est. #3 Eagle, ID 83616 P.A. - NA (cont) NE's Sec. 17, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. R327-316-0190 Lt. 20, Blk 2 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. - NA R327-316-0195 Lt. 1, Blk. 3 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. - NA R327-316-0200 Lt. 2, Blk. 3 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. - NA R327-316-0205 Lt. 3, Blk. 3 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. 3157 Autumn R327-316-0210 Lt. 4, Blk. 3 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. - 3133 Autumn R326-316-0215 Lt. 5, Blk. 3 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. 3091 Autumn R327-316-0220 Lt. 6, Blk. 3 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. - NA 8544-301-0010 Lot 1 Magic View Sub. Amd. P.A. - 603 S. Eagle 8544-301-0020 Lot 2 Magic View Sub. Amd. P.A. - 3050 Magic View 8544-301-0110 Lot 11 Magic View Sub. Amd. P.A. 625 Eagle R544-301-0120 Lot 12 Magic View Sub. Amd. P.A. - NA R544-301-0130 Lt. 13 Magic View Sub. Amd. P.A. - NA Jenkins, Howard B. & Sharon J. Pearl Rte Eagle, ID 83616 Greenhill Estates Sub. No. 3 Water Corp. I 3137 Springwood Boise, ID 83642 Dahlstrom, Merrell B 5 Nadene 11600 Alejandro St. Boise, ID 83709 Stranger, Bruce R. & i azel D. 3157 Autumn Way Meridian, ID 83642 Williams, Richard C. & Cherol A. 3133 Autumn Way Meridian, ID 83642 Pantaleo, Raymond A. Betty J. 3091 Autumn Way Meridian, ID 83642 Brown, Blaine E. & Jeapn Ann 5288 Chaps Boise, ID 83709 i i Gardner, Gerald J. 603 S. Eagle Meridian, ID 83642 Moore, Richard L. & Barbara L. 3050 Magic View I Meridian, ID 83642 Laier, Ronald F. etal 1112 Manitou Boise, ID 83706 Post, James A. & Rosetta Rt. 1, Box 152-B Beulah, ND 58523 I Flying H Farms etal Box 4368 Whittier, CA 93003 i (cont) NE114 Sec. 17, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. 8544-301-0140 Lt. 14 Magic View Sub. Amd. P.A. - NA Slll-623-3800 SW/NW Exc. deed to St.of ID Lt. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - NA SE4 Sec. 8,T. 3 N. R. 1 E. S110-841-7700 Par. #7700 of SE Sec. 8, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - 10535 N. EAgle Flying H Farms etal Box 4368 Whittier, CA 93003 First Interstate Bank Trustee Box 5757 Boise, ID 83705 Alum A Form C/o Elixir Industries 17809 S. Broadway Gardena, CA 90248 Xf A G E N D A MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MAY 6, 1985 ITEM: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1985: 1. REQUEST BY CLAREMONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR COUNCIL TO SET HEARING DATE ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.(HEARING SET 6/3/85) 2. PRE -TERMINATION HEARING WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELIQUENCIES:(APPROVED) 3. APPROVE THE BILLS: (APPROVED) 4. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN FLAG MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: (APPROVED) 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN LEASE AGREEMENT WITH LEE ROY NELSON FOR USE OF PARK PROPERTY NEXT TO SPEEDWAY: (APPROVED) 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO EXCUTE BASEBALL FIELD AGREEMENT WITH ROUNDTABLE: (APPROVED) 7. RESOLUTION # 99:(APPROVED) 8. FLOYD AYERS, DISCUSSION ON BOND REFUNDING(AUTHORIZED MAYOR & CITY CLERK TO PROCEED) 9. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MAY 6, 1985 - Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council called to order by Mayor Grant- Kingsford rantKingsford at 7:30 p.m.: Members Present: Bill Brewer, Ron Tolsma, Bert Myers: Members Absent: Bob Giesler: Others Present: Kevin Robertson, Earl Ward, Bruce Stuart, Steve Anderson, George Wendt, Ray Richardson, Roy Porter, Arley Nuss, Lloyd Howe, Al Lance, Kenny Bowers, Bob Mitich, Jim Johnson, Robert Davis, Terry Smith, Bill Barkell, John Schmek, Dick Williams, Mo Alidjani, Larry Chitwood, Gary Schaffer, LeeRoy Nelson, Stan Hobson, Don Wimberly, Bob Spencer, Duanne Rassmusen, Wayne Crookston, R. D. Bischoff, Ronda Lowe: Rick Orton Minutes of the previous meeting held April 15, 1985 were approved as written: Mayor Kingsford introduced Mr. Roy Porter the new Police Chief who was attending his first Council meeting: Item #1: Request by Claremont Development Company for the City Council to set a hearing date on their Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Mayor Kingsford, any discussion or questions of the Council? Tolsma, I received this letter written by Claremont Development Company that states it is their intention to present letters of commitment from major tenants to the Mayor and Council no later than May 27, 1985, May 27 is a National Holiday, is there any adverse comment making this May 24th? Mr. Alan Lance, 1370 Eggers Place, Meridian, Idaho representing Claremont Development, it is my understanding May 27th is a Monday if we could amend that to read not later than May 28th and make every reasonable effort to beat that deadline. Tolsma, so May 28th, also you stated you would like some input on how we would like the letters to read, this could possibly be Eagle Road and I-84 only, three mass merchandisers with 100,000 square foot minimum per each, and be ready to start construction if and when architectural drawings are submitted and approved and building permits issued. Myers, this sounds reasonable to me, this would give us something to go on. Mayor Kingsford, what they are asking for gentlemen is to have the Council set a public hearing for June 3rd, which according to our schedule would require us to publish that not later than this Friday. It is still my contention as it has been gentlemen that the applicant approached the City and stated they would not ask for anything from the City until they present- ed commitments, which they have violated already, in the application it states before they get to public hearing before the City Council that they would transmit those to the City Council, that has not happened, I am still of the opinion that those should happen before we set a public hearing. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MAY 6, 1985 PAGE # 2 I think if you gentlemen place this on the public hearing agenda, you are putting yourself out on a limb that you are going to saw off. They can come in with the proposals they have already shown us and if you turn it down it will be the egg on your face not theirs where it belongs. It is your decision. Myers, what happens if we set this public hearing with these stipulations and those letters are not here by when they say and then we cancel hear- ing, do we have any problems with that? Crookston, you can always cancel a public hearing, the problem you have is getting the notice out that it has been canceled. Myers, maybe we should set a earlier date for the letters to be in if they rather than May 28, if they want a public hearing. If they come up with the letters we have no problem, if they don't it is like already has been said they stated they would have them before they even came before us and here they are before us and everything is going and they have not done anything yet. Mayor Kingsford, there is no doubt in my mind Mr. Myers that the timing for this request has to do with the ICSC Convention taking place in New Orleans on May 12-17, I might also mention to that before Councilman Giesler left it was his desire that request not be noticed until commitments are here. Brewer, it is my understanding the reason Claremont Development has made this request is in order to address a timely fashion as far as advertising, and to the proceedings that occur through the summer and to their anticipat- ed success. I can not find any problem with myself in being positive, in trying to show these people that we are interested in what they can poss- ibily do. I still believe the closer a regional shopping center is to Meridian the better it will be for Meridian regardless whether it occurs at Eagle Road or Meridian Road and the interchange. I have no problem with granting permission to put them on the agenda for this hearing and if they show positive letters of commitment that is fine but I think it should be contingent upon that and thereby be defunct if they are not able to produce. Myers, why the June 3rd date, why couldn't we say if we have these letters by May 28th we will put you on the June 17 calender, this would only delay two weeks? Lance, as you may be aware, first of all we requested we be placed on the meeting for the 20th of May, it was my impression that the members of the Council and the Mayor wanted additional time to study the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the recommendation of the Planning & zoning Commission as a compromise measure at that time we selected June 3,1985 and asked to be placed on the agenda .tonite for the consideration of the Council for the June 3rd hearing.I have been authorized to orally amend our letter to reflect that those letters of commitment will be provid- ed to the Mayor and City Council no later than Friday May 24, 1985 at 5:00 p.m. In the event that the letters of commitment are not forthcoming by that time, I suggest that you do have the authority and the power and possibly the responsibility to cancel the hearing that is scheduled for June 3, 1985. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MAY 6, 1985 PAGE # 3: Mayor Kingsford, is there any other questions or discussion? There was none. The Motion was made by Brewer and seconded by Tolsma that the Claremont Development Company be placed on the agenda for June 3, 1985 based upon their ability to give us adequate tenancy letters by May 24, 1985,before 5:00 p.m.: Motion Carried: Brewer, Yea: Tolsma, Yea: Brewer, Yea: This Public Hearing to be scheduled to be held at the Meridian Primary School. Item #2: Pre -Termination Hearing Water/Sewer/Trash Deliquencies: Mayor Kingsford, this is to inform you in writing, if you choose to, you have the right to a pre -termination hearing, at 7:30 p.m. May 6th, 1985 before the Mayor and Council, to appear in person to be judged on facts and defend the claim made by the City that your water/sewer/trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes a hearing? There was no response. Due to their failure to pay their water bill or present any valid reason why the bill has not been paid, their water shall be turned off on May 14, 1985. In order to have their water turned back on, there will be an additonal fee of $10.00. They are hereby informed that they may appeal or have the decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth Judical Distric Court, pursuant to Idaho Code, even though they appeal the water will be shut off. The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Myers to approve the turn- off list of delinquent water users. Motion Carried; All Yea: Mayor Kingsford announced the overdue amount of bills was $2,837.25: Item #3: Bills: The Motion was made by Brewer and Motion Carried: All Yea: seconded by Tolsma to approve the bills. Item #4:Authorization Mayor to excute Flag Maintenance Agreement with the Chamber of Commerce: Mayor Kingsford, are the any questions of the Council on agreement? There were no comments: The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Tolsma to authorize the Mayor to sign the Flag Maintenance Agreement with the Meridian Chamber of Commerce: Motion Carried: Tolsma, Yea: Myers, Yea: Brewer, Nay: • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MAY 6, 1985 PAGE # 4: Item #5: Authorize the Mayor to execute Lease Agreement with LeeRoy Nelson for use of Park property next of Meridian Speedway: Mayor Kingsford, any questions of the Council? No response: - The Motion was made by Brewer and seconded by Tolsma to approve and auth- orize the Mayor to sign the Lease Agreement with LeeRoy Nelson for the park property located next to the Meridian Speedway: Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #6: Authorize the Mayor to execute Baseball Field Agreement with Roundtable: Mayor Kingsford briefly explained this agreement and asked if the Council had any question. There were no questions: The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Myers to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with Roundtable for the Baseball Field. Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #7: Resolution #99: Mayor Kingsford explained this Resolution was reserving Fund Balance of the General Fund and Enterprize Fund for the Building Fund and authorizing transfer of these reserved funds to the Building Fund. The Resolution had a place to insert a date when the transfer was to be made and the Mayor advised the Council this should be when the funds are available. The Motion was made by Brewer and seconded by Myers to approve Resolution #99 with the change that funds be transferred when they become available. Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #8: Floyd Ayers, Discussion on Bond Refunding: Mr. Floyd Ayers, of Kirchner Moore & Co. was present and gave the Mayor and Council a presentation on the savings to the City of Meridian if they were to refund the Water & Sewer Bonds which were outstanding. He explained the process involved to accomplish this and advised he needed Council approval to proceed with the transaction which would be at no cost to the City at this time. The Motion was made by Brewer and seconded by Myers to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to negotiate with Mr. Floyd Ayers in reference to the refunding of the Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds. Motion Carried: All Yea. Department Reports: Kevin Robertson, I would like to publically thank the Mayor and Council and the City Attorney's Office for the support given me while Acting Chief and also the personell of the Meridian Police Department for their support and cooperation. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MAY 6, 1985 PAGE # 5 Department Reports Cont"d: City Attorney Crookston; the Council needs to grant the Mayor approval to sign the two letter agreements involved in the property exchange, one the agreement with the Methodist Church involving the gas pump and the other with United First in regards to the parking spaces. The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Tolsma to authorize the Mayor to execute the agreements with the Methodist Church and United First. Motion Carried: All Yea: Councilman Tolsma asked the Police Chief to investigate the starting of an accumulation of junk cars at the old Creamery Building. Being no further business to come before the Council the Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Tolsma to adjourn at 8:20 p.m. Motion Carried: All Yea: (Tape on file of these proceedings) ATTEST: Jac PC: NiemAnn,Aity Clerk klayor &Council P&Z Commission Ward, Stuart, Fire Police, JUB, Kiebert, Atty.,Mitich, Hein Statesman, Valley News ACHD, ACC, ACZ APA, CDH, NMID Mail (2) File (2) APPROVED: GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR i SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING' SEPTEMBER 30,1985 Special Meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission called to order by Chairman 'Bob Spencer at 5:30 P.M.: Members Present: Jim Johnson, Moe Alidjani, Jim Shearer, Tom Cole: Members Absent: Walt Morrow: Others Present: Ed Bews, Rick Orton, Al Lance, Steve Anderson, Gary Schaffer, Miriam Barr, Wayne Crookston: Chairman Spencer, the purpose of this meeting is to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and make a recommendation to the City Council on the Claremont Development Annexation & Zoning Request. Are there any comments or questions of the Commission? Cole, the Findings are very well prepared,. The Motion was made by Johnson and seconded by Cole that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves the Findings of Fact and Conclusions as prepared on the Claremont Development Company request for annexation and zoning: Motion Carried: Roll Call Vote: Cole, Yea: Shearer, Yea: Johnson, Yea; Alidjani, Yea: The Motion was made by Johnson and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the property contained in the Applicant's Application be conditionally annexed and conditionally zoned and that Parcel 1 receive conditional zone of (RSC) Regional Shopping Center Business District and that Parcel 2 receive the conditional zone of (I -L) Light Industrial; that the conditions of the annexation and zoning be 1) compliance with Development Agreement, 2) compliaince with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and 3) performance of representations made in Applicant's Application and testimony and evidence; that the annexation and zoning be made final and an ordinance passed approving said annexation and zoning, if, with- in eighteen months from the date the City Council approves, if it approves, the conditional annexation and zoning, the Applicant has paid for and the City has issued a building permit as referrenced in the Development Agreement: that upon the annexation and zoning being passed uncondition- ally that the annexation and zoning and the land still be subject to the Development Agreement, that the Applicant and its partner comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that Applicant and its partner comply with the representations made in the Application and their testimony and evidence, particularly the measures to limit adverse effects on Mont Vue Subdivision: that all development be subject to Site Planning review; that the requirements of the Ada County Highway District and the State Department of Transportation be met, the require- ments of the Central District Health Department be met,'and that all conditions hereinabove stated both run with the land and be personal to the Applicant and its partner, Price Development Co. Motion Carried: All Yea: + <14ERIDIAN P & Z SEPT. 30, 1985 PAGE # 2 Being no further business to come before the Commission the Motion was made by Alidjani,and seconded by Cole to adjourn the Meeting at 5:37 P.M. Motion Carried: All Yea: APPROVED: BOB SPENCER, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: Jacf-N�ieb(ann/City C pc MayorA Council P & Members At ., Eng., Fire, lice, Ward, Stuart, Hallett, Statesman Valley News, ACHD NIMD, ACC, ACZ, CDH, APA,BRA Mitich,.Kiebert Mail (2) File (1) I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN Be SPENCER, Commission Chairman W. MORROW J. JOHNSON M. AL IDJ AN I J. SHEARER T. COLE Dates September 23, 1985 7: 30 p• m, Places Meridian Primary School 48 West State Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 COMPUTERIZED TRANSCRIPTION BY TUCKER & ASSOCIATES 605 West Fort Street, Boise, Idaho 83702 (208) 345-3704 C v In D FAA witnesses Page 1, Duaine Rasmussen 2 2., Ed Burtner 4 No Exhibits. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Edi 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I MERIDIAN, IDAHO Monday, September 23, 1985, 7:30 p.m. CHAIRMAN SPENCER: The hearing is conducted -- the hearing request by Claremont, Price Development Companies for annexation of zoning for approximately 200 acres at the corner of I-84 at Eagle Road. The zoning request is for approximately 110 acres of CG, general commercial zoning, and 90 acres of I -L, light industrial zoning. This public hearing will be conducted using the Meridian Rules of Procedure according to No. 446. All persons wishing to testify or speak before the Zoning Commission at a public hearing must have printed his name, signed his name, and written his residential address thereafter on the sign-up sheet provided by the Commission. No person shall be permitted to speak before the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing until such person has been recognized by the Chairman. Allpublic hearing proceedings shall be recorded, and all persons speaking in such public hearings shall speak before a microphone in such a manner as will assure that the record -- recorded testimony or remarks will be accurate and trustworthy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P" When the public hearing is quasi judicial in nature or one after which the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to make findings of fact, each person must be sworn or affirmed that his testimony will be true and accurate. At this time I will open the public hearing. First item is that we have four letters to place in testimony, all`of the letters opposed to the annexation. Next I would like to call the representative of Claremont, Price. State your name, residential address, and spell your name, please. MR. RASMUSSEN: Duaine Rasmussen, D -u -a -i -n -e, R -a -s -m -u -s -s -e -n, 35 Century Park Way# Salt Lake City, Utah. DUAINE RASMUSSEN* called as a public witness, was first duly sworn# and made the following statement: MR. RASMUSSEN: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, my name is Duaine Rasmussen of Price Development Company in Salt Lake. I represent the Price, Claremont applicant here this evening. We have submitted an application to you in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 written form and respectively request that you act positively upon that application. Our stance is not to present lengthy testimony here this evening, we believe that most of the major issues have been addressed before this body and before the City Counsil• The application is in compliance with the comprehensive plan recently adopted by the City Counsil of Meridian* we have drawings with us showing the annexation route, in the event there are any questions with regard to that, and also the utility plans. Again, we would request that you act positively on the application. And we would also respectfully request that if there is any way that you can expedite this request on to the City Counsil if you chose to act favorably upon it, we ask you to do so. CHAIRMAN SPENCER: Mr. Rasmussen, your original application dated January 16, 1985 requested a zone of CG, general commercial, on the 110 acres. Since that time the city of Meridian has amended the Zoning and Development Ordinance to add the zone RSC, regional shopping center. Since the ordinance was changed after the filing for annexation and zoning request, and through no fault of yours, the CG zone is no longer appropriate for a regional shopping center. Do you wish this 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 Commission to consider your application as being for RSC zoning? MR. RASMUSSEN: Yes, we do. It is very clear that we sought the approval of the regional shopping center on the original application. CHAIRMAN SPENCER: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SPENCER: One other person that signed up to speak, Ed Burtner. State your name, residential address, and spell your name, please. MR. BURTNER: Ed Burtner, B -u -r -t -n -e -r, 285 Montvue Drive, Meridian, Idaho. ED BURTNER, called as a public witness, was first duly sworn# and made the following statement: MR. BURTNER: I am one of those who is opposed to this proposition. I think probably the feelings of probably the majority of the people on Montvue Drive will parallel my feelings. We feel like we're going to be sitting in the middle of an island out there, which we will be with the new highway, Eagle Road, which most of us were opposed to in the first place also= however, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 that's already going, and we know it. But now we'll have the big highway on that side, to the south.of us. To the east of us, we'll be completely surrounded by commercial development which will be mostly concrete, two story, as we understand it, lots of blacktop. It's going to -- lots of vehicles, as we understand. Something as many as -- was mentioned 36,000 cars a day will be in that area. We don't feel that this is going to be helping our environment one bit out there. Most of us in that area are retired or close to retired. We don't feel like we want to be completely surrounded by something like this. Most of us have been there most of our lives, or for the last 50 or 20 years, 21 some of use And we just think there are better opportunities, such as out there on Meridian Road, and most of us can't understand the thinking of the people. The people seem to think that it's going to help the Meridian people here, the businesses. Two miles to the east of us is where that's going to be. And how many people are going to come down Meridian Road when it's just -- stop off the interstate at Eagle Road? I would like to add my objection to the letters which you say you have already received. Thank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 you for the opportunity to speak to you. CHAIRMAN SPENCER: Are there any questions for the Commission of this witness? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SPENCER: Thank you. That's all I have signed up to speak. Is there anyone else who would like to speak before we close the hearing? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SPENCER: If not, I'll close the hearing. Commission, any discussion? (No response. ) CHAIRMAN SPENCER: If not, I need a motion on findings of fact. MR. MORROW: I instruct the City Attorney to prepare the findings of facts and conclusions of law. CHAIRMAN SPENCER: The motion has been made to instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings of facts and conclusions of law. All in favor? (Chorus of ayes.) CHAIRMAN SPENCER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SPENCER: Motion carries as unanimous. Is there any other business? MR. JOHNSON: I would like to move the findings of facts and conclusions reflect our recommendation for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 approval of the RSC zoning and also include the development agreement. CHAIRMAN SPENCER: Motion has been made to sections that are recommendations that reflect approval of the annexation zoning including the development agreement. All in favor? (Chorus of ayes.) CHAIRMAN SPENCER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SPENCERS Motion carries unanimous. Any other business? (No response.) (Discussion off the record.) MR. MORROW: I move that we have a special meeting, Monday, September 30th at 5:30 to prove the findings of facts and conclusions. MR. JOHNSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SPENCER: Motion has been made to have a special meeting Monday, September 30th at 5s30 to prove findings of facts and conclusions. All in favor? (Chorus of ayes.) CHAIRMAN SP$NCER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SPENCER: Motion carries. Anything else on the board, Commissioners? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 (No response.) (Discussion off the record.) CHAIRMAN SPENCER: Correction on the motion on a special meeting of findings of facts and conclusions. It's to the approval or disapproval of the findings of facts and conclusions at the meeting that will be held. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SPENCER: I have a motion to adjourn this meeting. MR. MORROW s Second. CHAIRMAN SPENCER: Motion has been made and seconded to adjourne All in favor? (Chorus of ayes.) CHAIRMAN SPENCER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SPENCER: Meeting is adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 7:40 p.m.) -00000- -W44 DI S • • 1 \ tio 10 0 40 f I, Dee Ann Wagner, an Idaho Shorthand Reporter, do hereby certifys That I'm the reporter who took the proceedings had in the above -entitled action in machine shorthand and thereafter the same was reduced into typewriting under my direct supervisionf and That the foregoing reporter's transcript contains a full, true, and accurate record of the proceedings had in the above and foregoing cause, which was heard at Boise, Idaho, IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand this 30th day of September, 1985. Dee Ann Wagner, Court Reporter MERIDIAN CSJY., OUNCIL NOVEMBER 4, 1985 Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council called to order by Mayor Kingsford at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Bill Brewer; Ron Tolsma; Bert Myers; Bob Giesler: Others Present: Mr. & Mrs. Oren Mayes, Cora Allen, David Allen, Lloyd Howe, Bob Mitich, Kenny Bowers, Roy Porter, Gary Smith, George Wendt, Terry Smith, Alan Lance, Bill Barkell, James Kiser, Larry Chetwood, Richard Williams, Moe Alidjani, Gary Schaffer, Miriam Barr, R. D. Bischoff, Betty Bischoff, Jim Johnson, Steve Anderson, James Shearer, Bob Spencer, Duaine Rasmussen, Cynthia Giesler, Bobie Giesler, Chelsie Giesler, Ronda Lowe, Wayne Crookston, Kieth Jacobs, The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Brewer to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held October 21, 1985 as written: Motion Carried: All Yea: Mayor Kingsford read a Proclamation declaring the Week of November 3- 9, 1985 as Key Club Week. Tyler Smith, President of the Key Club was present to receive a copy of the proclamation. Item #1: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Annexation & equest by Claremont -Price Development Company: Zoning Mayor Kingsford, are there any comments or questions of the Council? There was no response. The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Brewer that the Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves the Findings of Fact and Concl- usions on the Claremont -Price Annexation and Zoning request. Motion Carried: Roll Call Vote: Brewer, Yea: Tolsma, Yea: Myers, Yea: Giesler, Yea: Item #2: Resolution #102: Conditional Annexation & Zoning for Claremont - Price Annexation & Zoning request: Mayor Kingsford, are there any comments or questions of the Council on Resolution #102: There was no response. The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Brewer to approve Resol- ution #102 on the Conditional Annexation and Zoning of the Claremont - Price request. Motion Carried: Roll Call Vote: Brewer, Yea: Myers, Yea: Giesler, Yea: Tolsma, Yea: Item #3: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Annexation & Zoning request by Chester & Lorriane Hosac: Mayor Kingsford, are there any comments or questions of the Council? MERIDIAN CI'T'Y' COUNCIL DECEMBER 16, 1985 Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council called to order by Mayor Grant Kingsford at 7:30 p.m.: Members Present: Bill Brewer, Ron Tolsma, Bert Myers, Bob Giesler: Others Present: Miriam Barr, Bill Barkell, Gary Schaffer, Wayne Crookston, Bob Spencer, Ronda Lowe; The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Brewer to approve the Minutes of the previous Meeting held December 2, 1985 as written: Motion Carried: All Yea: Mayor Kingsford read a Proclamation declaring the Week of December 15-21, 1985 as "National Drunk and Drugged Driving Awareness Week". ,item #1: Price/Claremont Settlement: Mayor Kingsford advised the Council that the recent payment made by the Price/Claremont Development Company was not in aggreement with the Development Agreement they had signed and even the Council had approved this verbally it was necessary to approve for the record. Price/Claremont had submitted a letter of credit along with $25,000.00 instead of the $450,000.00 the agreement called for. This letter of credit expires on June 4, 1986: The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Myers to approve the Letter of Credit and the $25,000.00 received from Price/Claremont Development Company in lieu of the $450,000.00 cash until June 4, 1986 at which time it has to be renewed or renegotiated. Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #2: Air Quality Ordinance: Myers, I have visited with one of our Board Members Mr. Michelson and he advised that the Ada County Commissioners do not have this on their Agenda until Wednesday, December 18, 1985, therefore I would make a Motion to table this item until our next meeting or until Ada County takes some action. The Motion was seconded by Tolsma. Motion Carried: All Yea: Department Reports: Mayor Kingsford, on the January 6, 1986 meeting the Faye Brewer Applic- ation for a re -zone comes up for a hearing, what is the Council desire to have a Hearing Officer or not? It was the consensus of the Council to have a Hearing Officer. Brewer abstained from this discussion. DECEMBER 6, 1985 MAYOR COUNCIL ATTACHED IS THE LETTER AND PRICE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY REVIEW: THE CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED FOR THE RECORD AT COUNCIL MEETING. JACK NIEMANN CITY CLERK DOCUMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE ON DECEMBER 4, 1985 FOR YOUR HAS ADVISED THIS SHOULD BE THE DECEMBER 16, 1985 CITY 3 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 21. 1985 Meeting called to order �y Mayor Grant Kingsford at 7:30 P.M.: Members Present: Bill Brewer; Ron Tolsma, Bert Myers: Members Absent: Bob Giesler: Others Present: Lloyd Howe, Chet Hosac, Cora Allen, David Allen, Clyde Rockharm, Carmen Mayes, Oren Mayes, George Wendt,Ruth Deward, Alan Lance, David Powell, James Kiser, Betty Bischoff, R. D. Bishoff, Ryan Anderson, Roy Porter, Kevin Robertson, Gary Schaffer, Kenny Bowers, Gary Smith, Miriam Barr, Bob Hammons, Rick Orton, Dean Mayes, Jr., Lee Nelson, Wayne Crookston, Ronda Lowe, Bob Spencer, Arley Nuss, Steve Hosac The Minutes of the previous Meeting held October 7, 1985 were approved as written: tem #1: Public Hearing Annexation & Zoning Request by Claremont Develop- ent Company: Mayor opened the Public Hearing, is there anyone from the audience who wishes to testify on this application? Ruth DeWaard, 525 West Washington Ave, Meridian, Idaho. Mrs. DeWaard was sworn by Attorney Crookston: Mrs. DeWaard, we have owned property in the Meridian Area for many years and I would like to go on record that I favor this request. There was no further testimony from the public. Mayor Kingsford stated that there had been two letters received that were to be entered into the record. One from M.L. Sutherland, 320 W. Montue Drive and one from James W. Kiser, 5000 Fairview Ave. Boise, Idaho, Attorney for the Nahas Site Developers. Mayor Kingsford also read a letter from the Price Development Company signed by Carl Olson, Vice President of Development requesting that the developer presentation and response to public testimony be deferred until later date due to Mr. Rasmussen being unavailable. (These letters are on file with these minutes.) Being no further testimony Mayor Kingsford closed the Public Hearing. The Motion was made by Brewer and seconded by Tolsma to have the City Attorney review the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that this request be brought up on the November 4, 1985 meeting. Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #2: From the,iTable, Annexation & Zoning Request w/Preliminary Plat for Chester & Lorriane Hosac. --� J. A hi a+1G o o o 0 0 0 0 4 m - cJ0 -s .o O O c N n Q� ( .; a n U) - �• z N (D r+ Lr -� O (D H On O 3 O rf A Cl z _ O Q 'S H + C) O m 8 C1 O o 0 4 m 2 `+ _ n > 3 3 mQ -t. O 3 0+ z (D C+ C+ Ln -1 -. •' n 0 r 0- 0 r, J. N b iL � � a tzj Z CL N• �' O e+ J OL Nb cu r+ H cn z L� W N J r cn y -:E — rD v rIr H +T (Z > (D rr < � i 3 t� r O ✓` OO d Jl H `< 7 O_ • r+ N f -n ?1 O J J c Z = O n d J C7 (D (D J. 0 N C I IL Q d r+ flJ C+ ..a. N 7 S 0. C -h -V 0 ��•� 0 0 i •T c+ (D :3 =3 C I N d (D 0 7 n c+ o (D r+ 0) >3a C N ct co o O O :3 W Z N m c+ o f o > m =3 J [< b�0- 0 �- o H m b7 r 0 J. A hi a+1G o 3 r 4 m - cJ0 -s .o O O c N n Q� ( .; a n U) - �• z N (D r+ LA N O (D H On O 3 O rf A Cl z A O Q 'S H + C) O m 8 C1 O o 0 4 m 2 `+ n =• (D b mQ -t. O 3 0+ z (D C+ C+ Ln -1 -. •' n 0 r 0- 0 r, J. N b iL � � a tzj Z CL N• �' O e+ J �' Nb cu r+ H cn z L� W N J r cn y -:E r H +T (Z > (D 1 3 t� r O ✓` OO hi s o m r O (D Z -s .o n • ( .; y z m c) D H (D On _ O H + C) O Z. C1 O b I J. YEA J -t. a 1-3 zoo A H V n (D r O r, D CL c ti tzj Z CL �' z >ar Nb H cn hi s o m r O (D Z -s .o n • ( .; y z m c) D H (D On _ O H + C) O OF C1 O b I J. YEA J a 1-3 zoo A H n (D r O Z H D CL c ti tzj Z CL �' z >ar Nb H cn z L� H Z cn �V -:E H H (Z > (D N, 3 t� r d Jl H 7 mO ?1 z y r — 1 ii ITEM: A G E N D A MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING APRIL 8, 1985 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD MARCH 7, 1985: (APPROVED) MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING HELD MARCH 11, 1985: (APPROVED) 1. PUBLIC HEARING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST BY CLAREMONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: (ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS) 2. PUBLIC HEARING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDEMENT PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS) 3. PUBLIC HEARING, AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING & DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMI S SION: (ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS) 4. PUBLIC HEARING, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RUSSELL MARTENSEN DBA MERIDIAN MOBILE HOMES FOR A MOBILE HOME SALES LOT: (ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS) 5. PUBLIC HEARING, REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING BY MOE ALIDJANI: (TABLED UNTIL MAY 13,1985) 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ON REQUEST BY LEROY FENSTERMAKER FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. (APPROVED) MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING APRIL 8, 1985 Regular Meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning called to order by Chairman Bob Spencer at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Walt Morrow, Moe Alidjani, Jim Johnson, Tom Cole: Members Absent: Jim Shearer: Others Present: Loren Hornbaker, Edegthe Hornbaker, Loren Hornbaker Sr., Mrs. Andrew T. Wolfe, Vera Hornbaker, Bruce McDonald, Hartzel Phelan, Aline De Nardi, Belva Kerby, Donna Kesner, Gary Schaffer, JaAnne La Crasse, Blanche Wolfq Richard Parcells, Peggy Haars, Gary Haars, Patrica Ruy£, Gerald Ruyf, Richard Orton, Daisey Snyder, Opal Farrington, Kim Fabucius, Martin Fabuciu$,Elaine Smith, Lawrence Smith, Mary Jensen, R.D. Bischoff, Betty Bischoff, Ila & Bill Thompson, Phil Davidson, Lillian Reaman, Herbert Reaman, Robert Giesler, Charlotte Low, Fern McKague, Roy McKague, Robert Davis, William Polk, Alan Lance, Carl Olson, Duaine Rasmussen, Howard Foley, Bert Myers, Phillip Hanson, Shirley Peterson, r.R, Peterson, Lloyd Howe, James Kiser, D. J. Russell, Laura Conner, Delmer & Nell Ouderkirk, Steve Anderson, Paul McKague, Mary Rhoades, Leonard Rhoades, Wayne Crookston, Ronda Lowe, Rusty Martensen , Denise Giesler The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Alidjani to approve the minutes of Special Meeting held March 7, 1985 as written: Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by JOhnson to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting held March 11, 1985 as written: Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #1: Public Hearing, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Claremont Development: Chairman Spencer, this hearing will be conducted under the provisions of City Ordinance #446 and there will be a three minute time limit on the testimony established., I will now open the meeting for the Public Hearing. Mr. Phil Davidson,515-116th Ave, N.E. Bellevue,Wa. President of Claremont Development was present to represent this request. Mr. Davidson was sworn by Chairman Spencer. Mr. Davidson, I am happy that our application was given favorable consider- ation in March for further study and am enthused to be here tonite repres- enting Claremont Development Company and The John Price Company of Salt Lake City and to tell you a little more about our project. Our goal here tonite is to seek approval of our Comprehensive Plan change and to have it forward- ed on to the City Council. We have quite a few members of our group here tonite some who are speaking experts. Mr. Bill Polk of John Graham & Co. will be telling you some more about our project as you see it up here, indicating the drawings that they had brought. He will also be speaking on economics , land use population and design. Mr. Rick Orton of our MERIDIAN P &Z APRIL 8, 1985 PAGE # 2 Engineering Firm will be speaking on the transportation and utilities aspect of our development. We also have our Legal Counsel and two rep- resentatives of Price Development. Mr. Bill Polk, John Graham & Company of Seattle , Washington. Mr. Polk was sworn by Chairman Spencer: Mr. Polk, explained the concept of the drawings, this would be a two story marLl with six major department stores, one on each corner with small shops in between, there will also be a convience center located away from the mall. There is ample room for parking, this plan will probably be modified before construction, the population study shows enough to support the mall, Meridian has plenty of sewer capacity to support the population growth, will be 1000 construction jobs, assessed valuation will go up 550, will employ 1500 full time employees and 500 part time employees there is ample residential lots for home building, platted or to be platted, business will benefit from growth. $200,000.00 more per year in property taxes. Richard Orton,Jr. 134 East State Meridian, Idaho Mr. Orton was sworn by Chairman Spencer. Mr.Orton explained the route the water and sewer lines would take to the project and advised if not enough water was available a well would be drilled and if necessary a small storage tank would be installed to meet the demands. All drainage would be retained on site, solid waste would be handled through Sanitary Service either with dumpsters or compactors, would have no problem with transportation as site would have ingress and egress both on Eagle Road and Franklin Road.All public safety and building codes would be met, would have own security force. Mr. Bill Polk, at the last meeting where we appeared you asked the dev- eloper to inventory the existing businesses and asked the developer to provide some kind of explanation as to what the impact would be on the existing business in the City of Meridian. We have done that and I would like to read part of the summary of this to you. 1. A regional mall in Meridian would capture sales now being lost from Ada County from the Meridian sales area: 2. Lost sales are estimated to be 100 million dollars for Ada County and 4 million doflars for the Meridian sales area. 3. any increase in total retail sales would go to well run existing Meridian retail outlets, those supplying needed specialty goods at a regional mall. 4. approximately 880 of the existing Meridian businesses would not be affected by a regional mall, there could be some impact on 12% of the businesses. 5. there would be no trip or traffic conflict between convient shopping present Meridian retailers and comparision shopping at a regional mall. Generally there is additional growth and most of the existing business does better. This has been found in shopping center after shopping center and you can control what kind of sprawl come out of the shopping center. Mr. Phil Davidson, I have a few closing comments, we feel we have a violable project here as the John Price Development has demonstrated MERIDIAN P &Z 'APRIL 8, 1985 PAGE #3 in the past they are able to build for major department stores, we feel the Meridian market place is no exception. It is a known fact that there are several major tenants that remain firmly committed to Price Develop- ment Company. Even though we have this confidence we what to give the City comfort by the fact should we would be willing to de -annex the subject properties should we run into a problem and not be under construction in eighteen (18) months from the date we receive approval. We also enter into a Annexation agreement with the City. Our reason for being here tonite is threefold, first of all we need public imput,we realize there are two subdivisions close to this location we plan to meet with them in the near future; second, we would like to see this matter sent on to the City Council with Planning & Zoning blessing; third; we would ask if there is anyway you could expedite the approval process, we would like to know tonite if there is anyway we could get a Special Meetin scheduled should it be decided tonite to have the City Attorney preparUhe Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Chairman Spencer, at this time I would like to mention we have one item of written testimony which at this time it will be entered into the record in its entirety by this reference. (Copy of this testimony attached to these minutes as Exhibit A) Gerald Ruyf, 360 Montvue Drive, Meridian, Idaho Mr Ruyf was sworn by Chairman Spencer. Mr. Ruyf, I am in opposition to this shopping center, how many of the people here would like to have this next to their house, would you like to live next to the shopping mall. This entire area is homes,subdivision here Niontvue Drive people who have moved here to be in the open and get away from the sprawl that comes with a regional shopping mall, my home is located where there would be a shopping mall on two sides. They talk about the possibility of having to dig a well, when they do what happens to the water table, what happens to my well, or my neighbors wells. In the winter time when the inversion hits and people come to do all this shopping, what happens then, you were last year remember how bad it was, Channel 2 did a study on small particle emission and what it does to respiratory systems how many people will they bring from out of state, how many of you are aware of the Nahas report which talked about the impact of a shopping mall at this site on the people of Meridian, the figures I have here on the report done by Camerios Ltd Research Group that a project like this would cost the City of Meridian $604,710.00 annually above anticipated revenues from such a development, now where do those dollars come from. Alan Lance, 1370 Eggers Place, Meridian, Idaho Mr. Lance was sworn by Chairman Spencer: Mr. Lance, we have been for some time debating the issue of a shopping center in this area, we have now the opportunity to add to the possible sites that would benefit the City of Meridian, the site located at Eagle Road and I-84, in the number of years we have debated this issue we have never before met with a developer who had produced tenants, which would indicate he could develop a site, we now have that before us. We would MERIDIAN P&Z APRIL 8, 1985 Page #4. ask you to give favorable consideration to this proposal, and recommend to the City Council approval of our request for a Comprehensive Plan change. Howard Foley, 2875 Autumn Way, Meridian, Idaho Foley was sworn by Chairman Spencer: Mr. Foley, I came this evening to speak on behalf of the Meridian Chamber of Commerce and to state again what I understand to be a long standing position of the Meridian Chamber. First the Meridian Chamber led in the initial argument over the Eagle Road Interchange and was supportive of that interchange, we did that with the idea in mind that the leakage that occurs in our commercial community, lost dollars and lost merchants with- in our community results as a function that leakage, that leakage by the admission that we have or the studies we have commissioned through Boise State University and other institutions tells us that our problem in some respects is lack of shopping, lack of goods and services and in some regards lack of attitude on the shoppers that there are the sufficient goods and services in our community, to attract shoppers to our community, I think that has produced the Chamber position that we have encouraged a Regional Shopping Center, we have encouraged fair and open competition for those Regional Shopping Centers for the merchants and the goods and services that will be brought to our community and revenues that they will produce. On a personal note I would like to respond about the statements that have been made about increased traffic and pollution and things that are going to occuiV I think that is a forgone conclusion, at the time the State decid- ed to put in an interchange at Eagle Road there was already going to be that increased traffic, that increased pollution and you are going to have the problems that are associated with traffic of that sort. I live in one of those subdivisions and I understand the impact that is going to occur, but I think it is necessary for the City of Meridian to establish our own identity, and our commercial growth. There were no other speakers on this hearing, Chairman Spencer closed the public hearing. Is there any discussion by the Commission? There was none. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Alidjani to instruct the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions on the application by Claremont Development Company for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Motion Carried: All Yea: It was the concensus of the Commission not to make a recommendation until after the Findings of Fact and Conclusions were completed. There was discussion on Claremonts request for a Special Meeting. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Alidjani to hold a Special Meeting on April 25, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. to consider Findings of Fact and Conclusions on Claremonts request. Motion Carried: All Yea: Chairman Spencer excused anyone who wished to leave. MERIDIAN P & Z. APRIL 8, 1985 PAGE # 5 ITEM # 2: Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposed by the Planning & Zoning Commission: Chairman Spencer opened the Public Hearing and advised the public that since this Amendment was proposed by the Planning & Zoning Commission there would no one presenting the Amendment. Chairman Spencer advised the audience that all the hearings would be conducted under the provisions of City Ordinance #446. Mr. Lance and Mr. Foley who had signed up to testify at this hearing both announced that being they had testified during the previous hearing they would pass their testimony. Bob Davis, 6631 Hummel Drive, Boise, Idaho: Mr. Davis was sworn by Chairman Spencer: Mr. Davis, my business will be affected by a shopping mall, increase competition does not bother me, I welcome the opportunity to compete. If they fail then they will fail no matter where the mall is. No matter where the location, it will take the same amount of water, sewer and services, the only difference is the response time, this is not sign- ificate. We need a Regional Shopping Mall in Meridian, don't care where the location is. I would love the competition, we have been talking about the subject for so long, lets get it going. Chairman closed the Public Hearing, any comments from the Commission? There were none. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole to instruct the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as proposed by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Johnson that Findings of Fact and Conclusions reflect recommendation of approval by the City Council. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole that these Findings be included at the Special Meeting scheduled for April 25, 1985. Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #3: Public Hearing: Amendments to the Zoning & Development Ordinance as proposed by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Chairman Spencer opened the Public Hearing. The was no testimony on this item, Public Hearing was closed. The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Morrow to have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions on the amendments to the Zoning & Development Ordinance as proposed by the Planning & Zoning Commission. ,MERIDIAN P & Z. APRIL 8, 1985 PAGE # 6 Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Johnson that the Findings reflect recommendation of approval to the City Council. Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #4: Public Hearing: Request for a Conditional Use Permit by Russell Martensen for a Mobile Home Sales Lot: Chairman opened the Public Hearing. Russell Martensen, 6949 Grunder, Boise, Idaho: Mr. Martensen was sworn by Chairman Spencer: Mr. Martensen, I am seeking approval for a permit to operate a Mobile Home Dealership across from the Meridian Speedway on the North portion of the John Dobaron property. I have been in business for five years and believe this is a good location located between Boise & Nampa. Chairman Spencer, any questions of the Commission? Morrow, have you addressed the comments made by Nampa -Meridian Irrigation and Mr. Earl Ward and the City Engineer: Mr. Martensen, I have not seen these comments, would like to look these over and get back to you, but will comply with the regulations. There was no other testimony, public hearing was closed by Chairman Spencer. Morrow, this does make good sense, good location, good half -way point, should generate some business. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Alidjani to have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusion on the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Mobile Home Dealership by Russell Martensen with the stipulations of Earl Ward, City Engineer and Nampa -Meridian Irrigation. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Morrow that Findings reflect recommendation of approval to the City Council for the Conditional Use Permit. Motion Carried: All Yea: Chairman Spencer, announced Item #6 would be brought before the Commission and Item #5 would be left to last. Item #6: Findings of Fact and Conclusions on Annexation & Zoning with a Conditional Use Permit for Leroy Fenstermaker. MERIDIAN P & Z. APRIL 8, 1985 PAGE # 7 Chairman Spencer, any comments or questions of the Commission? Johnson, in #18 of the conclusions it states applicant shall be required to make annual report to the City and mail copies therof to the property owners within 300 ft. Why the extra burden on the applicant? Why not just to the City? There was discussion on this item. The motion was made by Johnson and seconded by Morrow to delete the requirement of the mailing of copies to the property owners within 300 feet. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Johnson that the Meridian Planning & zoning hereby adopts and approves the Findings of Fact and Conclusions on the Fenstermaker request as prepared by the City Attorney with the deletion of the requirement that annual report be mailed to property owners within 300 feet. Motion Carried: Cole, Yea: Shearer, Absent: Johnson, Yea: Alidjani, Yea: Morrow, Yea: The Motion was made by Johnson and seconded by Alidjani that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the Fenstermaker annexation and zoning request be granted and that the Applicant's request for a conditional use be considered after due consideration by the Council of the Applicants' request for a variance. The Commission makes no recommendation on the variance but if granted the Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit, how- ever, conditional as stated in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #5: Public Hearing, Annexation & Zoning Request by Moe Alidjani: Chairman Spencer opened the Public Hearing and advised there would be a three minute time limit on the speakers under the provisions of City Ordinance #446. Spencer, the Commission has received two items of written testimony to be entered into the record which I will do at this time. (Copy of this testimony attached to these minutes as Exhibit B) Mohamad Alidjani, 2023 Turnberry, Meridian, Idaho. Mr. Alidjani was sworn by Chairman Spencer. Mr. Alidjani, some of us have business which no one likes to have next door or next to their house, somewhere we have to go with our business I have located apiece of property, it is eleven acres, it does have some problems, ingress and egress, really you can not.do anything with that piece of property, basically that was our concern and I am trying to develop the property to Industrial Business Park. Of course the name or the nature of the business might not be to presentable or some people might not like to talk about it. I would be very glad MERIDIAN P & Z. APRIL 8, 1985 PAGE # 8. to explain what I have planned for this property. You keep your garbage in your cans for one week, I dump them and garbage would not stay in my trucks for more than 24 hours. I assure you we try to keep a clean type business. At present time I am located next to residential area and the only thing they have against me, is the fact that my trucks are in the area, they do not have anything against my business. What I plan for the property is to maybe get some different entrances and have a decent Industrial Park with maybe a mechanics shop, maybe a transfer station, which I don't know if you understand what a transfer station is or what they do. What a transfer station is,is nothing more than box to box transfer of trash. Transfer station is transfering trash from one unit to another, not piling trash up and letting it set. Chairman Spencer, any questions of the Commission? Cole, this will allbe done inside of a building? Alidjani, Yea: Morrow, do you have any problems with the recommendations that have been submitted? Alidjani, No problems with comments or recommendations. Johnson, for my own information what will you actually do with the trash, how long will it be there, etc. ? Alidjani, probably not more than 24 hours before it is taken to the land fill. Trash would be hauled in here and transferred to larger unit and hauled to landfill. Johnson, why is this done , what is the advantage? Alidjani, the advantage I have is it is 32 miles roundtrip to the landfill, it is more cost efficient as far as fuel and maintenance are concerned only to make one trip rather than four or five trips per day. Morrow, do you think this will in the long term have an effect on trash rates, would this forstall increase or make increases less? Alidjani, if the transfer station works, I feel it would have some effect on the trash rates, could have positive effect on rate incr- eases in the future. For your information they do use chemicals and daily washing in transfer station to keep clean and control odors. Richard Parcells, 1095 No. Locust Grove , Meridian, Idaho. Mr. Parcells, was sworn by Chairman Spencer: Mr. Parcells, first off I wish to say this is my first visit to the Meridian Planning & Zoning and if such poor plans are to come out of these meeting as the one as Mr. Alidjani has brought up here, then MERIDIAN P& Z. APRIL 8, 1985 PAGE # 9. this will definitely not be my last. Anyone who lives in the neighbor- hood knows the amount of traffic we have on Locust Grove Road and this is going to complicate the problem, would be dangerous situation. This is a neighborhood,I am sure the residents would like to keep it a neighborhood, I do not believe a trash site or whatever you want to call it belongs in our neighborhood, I believe my neighbors feel the same way. I am against this and will fight approval of this. Johnson, where is your property on this diagram? Mr.Parcells,indicated his property on the diagram. Johnson, are in the City Limits? Parcells,no. Johnson, the reason Mr. Alidjani does not pickup your trash now is because you are not in City Limits. JoAnne LaCasse, 1215 No. Locust Grove Road, Meridian, Idaho Ms. LaCasse was sworn by Chairman Spencer. Ms. LaCasse, right up the street from me, I live next to Mr.Parcells, I have a junk car lot and a drive-in theater and it is so loud we can not sleep to four o'clock in the morning and I was wondering what kind of noise this conveyor or grinder or whatever would make the noise worse in the neighborhood, I am also wondering if my property is zoned Industrial. Spencer, You residents are not in the City as yet but the Comprehensive Plan for that area is Light Industrial. Ms. La Casse, I am against this request: Loren Hornbaker 1190 N. Locust Grove,Meridian, Idaho 83642: Mr. Hornbaker, was sworn by Chairman Spencer: Mr. Hornbaker, why can't this go into one of the Industrial Parks, what are their restictions on this type of operation in their park. Alidjani, they have no restrictions, it is just the price of the prop- erty, and I can not afford that kind of price. Hornbaker, being one of the land owners, I feel it will decrease the value of my property immensely if you come into our area, if it were a Light Industrial business like the Tool Company on the corner I would favor it. You can't tell me a person is going to take a build- ing enclosed, transfer garbage that has been around for a week and live with it in that building, work with it without having the windows or doors have the stench go out to the neighborhood. Morrow, are currently in the City Limits? I take it you are opposed to this? Hornbaker, No to the first question, yes to the second question. MERIDIAN P &Z APRIL 8, 1985 PAGE # 10 Vera Hornbaker, 1190 North Locust Grove, Meridian, Idaho Mrs. Hornbaker stated her husband had voiced her opinion. Betty Wolfe, 1470 North Locust Grove, Meridian, Idaho Mrs. Wolfe, Mr. Hornbaker has voiced my opinion. Morrow, Mrs. Wolfe are you in the City Limits? Mrs. Wolfe, no. Blanche Wolff, 1030 North Locust Grove , Meridian, Idaho Mrs. Wolff was sworn by Chairman Spencer: I have a petition that has fifty signatures on it that I would like to read, We the undersigned, who are residents of the East Pine, North Locust Grove, East Fairview area, oppose the zoning request presented by Mohammad Alidjani for the portion of S � of the NW4 of Section 8, T. 3N.,R.lE., Boise -Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, also known as : 1740 E. Pine Street, Meridian, Idaho, on the short term grounds that the pro- posed use of that property would and could drastically affect the quality of life and livability due to possible odor and noise from garbage trucks and transfer operations as well as increased truck traffic on connecting roads. In the long term such a business could reduce the alternative uses for which our parcels of land might be used, thereby deprive us, the undersigned, the right of choice to secure the best and most profitable use of our land. Petition was presented for the record. (Petition on file with these minutes as Exhibit C). Morrow, do you know how many of the people who signed the petition live in the City Limits? The answer was none. Johnson, the fifty signatures, do you know how many residents that represents, are there more than one signature at an address? Mrs. Wolff, yes, there are husband & wife signatures. Johnson, more like twenty five different residents then? Mr. Johnson's question was not answered. Gary Haar, 1280 North Locust Grove, Meridian, Idaho. Mr. Haar, I will pass,what has been said is pretty much what I would say. Chairman Spencer, that is all the people I have signed up to testify does the Commission wish to question any of the people who testified? There was no response from the Commission. Chairman Spencer closed the public hearing. MERIDIAN P &Z APRIL 8, 1985 PAGE # 11. Morrow, it seem to me what needs to be done here is we need some study work done by Mr. Alidjani in terms of, obviously there is a neighbor- hood problem, and I think some of those issues need to be addressed. It seems to me some studies should be in order in terms of traffic, some study should be done in terms of odor problems, the distance these homes are from the proposed site. It seems to me at this point Mr. Alidjani you should give us some more data, by which we can make a decision. Johnson, I think what Mr. Morrow is saying, in lite of the opposition, and there is a lot of opposition, I think what he suggesting is not presenting this information now, but tabling this matter and trying to answer these questions after some study has been done, I don't feel in my mind that I can resolve the issue tonite. It is obviously a very controversial thing and so I can'make a decision now, I want to go out there and see the location of all the property and get a better feel for the property rather than look at the map. Mr. Alidjani, informed the Commission that the property located South and East of this property was zoned Industrial and this property was adjacent to the property on the East. That this property could be considered a landlocked Industrial piece of ground.. Morrow, with respect with what Mr. Johnson is stating, I also feel uncomfortable trying to render any kind of decision on this tonite. Cole, I was wondering if maybe we could not get some of the answers to these questions and include it in a special meeting, have him do some research, maybe get some information from other locations, get some stat_ments from them, maybe notorized statements from adjacent property owners, some information as to how their operation works, what their problems are. -= Morrow, in a Industrial Zone a solid waste transfer station is a permitted use, if he wished to buy a lot in an Industrial Park or some other property that was zoned industrial that is directly across the street from some of you now, that is already zoned, he could start building the station tomorrow, he would not have to go through this process, I think you should bear this in mind. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Johnson to table the application by Mr. Alidjani for Annexation & Zoning until the regular meeting in May, 1985. Motion Carried: Morrow, Yea: Johnson, Yea: Cole, Yea: Alidjani abstained. Being no further business to come befor the Commission the Motion was Made by Johnson and seconded by Morrow to adjourn at 9:35 p.m. Motion Carried: All Yea: (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) ATTEST: nn,/city cle APPROVED: BOB SPENCER, CHAIRMAN JAMES W. KISFR ATTORNEY AT LA\+' i1000 FAIR\'IFx% A\'I- (FAIRV1EH AT MTN. \'IFN' DR.1 BOISE. IDAHO 83706 208 376-8100 April 8, 1985 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meridian City Hall Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Proposed Amendments to Meridian Comprehensive Plan to allow a Regional Shopping Center at Eagle Road and I-84. Sirs: I write to you as the attorney for Simida Corporation (a subsidiary of Melvin Simon & Associates) and Glenbrook Properties (a subsidiary of the R. T. Nahas Company). As you know, these two entities jointly own the Regional Shopping Center Site located at Meridian Road and I-84. Except for a variation in the annexation route to the Eagle Road site, this application for Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Annexation of the Eagle Road Site is nearly the same application as filed by Quong-Watkins Properties in 1981 and denied by the Meridian City Council two years later, on March 7, 1983. This letter is to protest in writing the Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. For purposes of this protest and in support of this protest, my clients hereby incorporate all of the record, testimony, evidence and exhibits which were introduced into the Quong-Watkins hearings during 1981 and 1982 and hereby make that body of material part of the record for this hearing. Especially to be included in this record for the hearing to be held April 8, 1985, are the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as adopted by the Meridian City Council on March 7 , 1983. Since nothing significant has changed regarding the Eagle Road site other than the names of the players, it is respectfully submitted that this Application should be denied as the preceeding application was IF deni d. EXHIBIT "A" Donald R. Miller 6315 W. Vernon Av. Phoenix, Az. 85035 City of Meridian Planning and Zoning. Commission Mr. Jack Nieman, City Clerk Meridian, Idaho 83642 Honorable Sirs: Concerning the Public Hearing regarding the application of Mr. Mohammed Alidjani for annexation and zoning of the real property, located at 1740 E. Pine St., Meridian, Idaho; generally described as a portion of S 1/2 of KW 1/4 of Sec. 8, T 3N., R. 1E., Boise - Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. Said purpose of which is to build a waste treatment plant or pumping station. Our property, generally described as a portion of the S. 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 89 Township 3N, Range 1E, Boise - Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. More particularly described as follows: Beginning at the brass cap marking the SW corner of the said NW 1/4 of Sec. $,thence: North 88 57'50" East (formerly described as N 89°00' E in Instrument No. 756596) 687.40 feet along the Southerly boundary of the said S 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 8, which is also the center line of E. Pine St. to an iron pin, thence: North 0°41'00 W. 350.00 feet along a. line Easterly of and parallel to the Westerly boundary of the said NW 1/4 of Sec. 8, to z point, also said point being the REAL POINT OF BLGINjt1NG, thence: North u°41'00" West 206.71 feet along a line Easterly of and parallel to the said Westerly boundary of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 8 to a point, thence: North. o9°19' East 20`,.71 feet to a point, thence: South 690 W West 200.71 feet to a point, thence: South 0°41'00" East 20;;.71 feet along a line Easterly of and parallel to the said 14'esterly boundary of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 8 to the POINT OF BEG11 N G . Said --ropert-y more generally known as 1800 E. Pine St. In other words, right in the middle of the property in question. A rezoning of the said property for Mr. Llidjani for stated purpose of locatinE- c. waste treatment plant or pumping station will be by its tier nature make the value of the property it surrounds "go down the toilet", in a manner of speaking. EXHIBIT "B" (1) -2- 1-r. Alidjani and the Cit`' of Meridian have nothing to loose by this rezoning, Mr. Alidjani makes a profit, and the City of Xleridian gains an Industrial Sewage Facility, of which the useage fees would go on into the next century. Mr. and Mrs. Donald R. Miller loose the value of their investment of said 1800 E. Pine St. As the nature of said property, located at 1800 E. Pine St., is Residential, it is our belief that the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission can come to the same conclusion as we did. We would not want to have to try and sell our property that would have as its nearest neighbor, a sewage processing station, which would become public knowledge as soon as the surrounding property is rezoned and construction begins. This letter is not to say we are against rezoning of Mr. Alidjani's property, because the City of Meridian, of the County of Ada, and the State of Idaho would claim right of eminent domain, and in all probability condemn said residential property to get the much needed waste treatment facility for the eastern section of the industrial impact area of Meridian. All that we are asking is that some consideration be given, by the powers that be, to help in disposing of said property to clear the way for progress that is much needed in the impact area. Sincerely Yours, Mr. and Mrs. Donald R. Miller Dom:: k jr. cc Tom: Clark G.R.I. Wright Fatterson Real Estate Meridian, Idaho file I April 8, 1985 '. Meridian City Council Meridian, ID 83h42 We are owners of 20 acres near the proposed sight for the solid waste transfer depot. We feel that such a projectAn the proposed area would not be'condvci-ve to good planning for East Meridian citv limits or of anv ben- efit to anv land owners in the area. We would like to ¢o on record opposing the construction of the solid waste transfer depot in the area that is requested. Sincerely, Harry,ensen Mary Jensen 2075 East Fairview Meridian, ID 83642 EXHIBIT "B" (2) ,e 'uh undersic_-,,-neLq W - 1_0 a:.— i"ine, 1,,orth Locus,t �v - a .1*I _', 0 - L � -- -. s vrc- zor10�tLrovcaiwL- _, -ph _1Lqu_-. T)r es ent-ed by - .ohr.. am. Ld -:1ic! -f Or t'-, c or -U -_', o_ -L! 0.1 0. U: -4 of secticn 8, 37L,' - boi se,-'._er4L Li f vount,,,,T , L.,1_0 also hnov.,n -,L : 1740 -Cine S. s idaho, o ` terr� grous that `h n L. '-he I! or' U n p -.-.c),, -y i. o J cL,11v L:.-C'ect thae -,)ro:p.osed u,,.. o --'L' ui�_L Jid or could v _L 1, L, .1 I' -; - 77 LI -I ., due to poo.—ILble odor and noise fro, -:a garbL_E;e trucl,.s t1r1u­ trL.Ils-fer oj0perations a-- -;fell as `Lncre�..Sed 61- -- - tc;r-_ , " ' ro, ds. in ",c lo-,-- c�uc­i C�. �rUC 4-ra- fic o- U_L__ - L, U - � U - V -L�, c U,_ I L L,_,�, b-L� -11 e s �,, c LI U r -, L PLI"Cels of " L L, 07%-, Cis- r IV;_- U ST, U, 7 1 C) r C -L C C 1"; U bil,.: rie _U_ "n (I o t 4- � 7 7m .......... fil SPECIAL MEETING OF MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING APRIL 25, 1985 Special meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Bob Spencer. Members Present: Walt Morrow, Jim Johnson, Jim Shearer, Tom Cole: Members Absent: Moe Alidjani: Others Present: John Schmek, Lloyd Howe, Robert Giesler, Al Lance, Duaine Rasmussen, Rick Orton, Wayne Crookston, Miriam Barr, Don Wimberly, Channel 7, Channel 2. Item #1: Findings of Fact Claremont Development Application to Amend the Comprehensive Plan: Chairman Spencer, Commission have you read the Findings of Fact and Conclusions? Commission stated they had. Chairman Spencer, is there any discussion? Cole, on page 13 and page 39 regarding the statement improvements would include a well and reservoir this was not brought up at the hearing. Crookston, this was part of the application. Johnson,on page 48, #25 starting with by this statement, however, the Commission does not indicate that it would necessarily approvg a zoning request by Claremont, that is basically what we are doing here so I do not see any reason for that sentence to be in here. Spencer, explained this was only on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request,separate application would have to be made for Zoning after this approved. This answered Johnson's question. Johnson also had a question on the options for recommendation. Spencer explained this would have to be after the Findings were voted on. There were no other questions or comments. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Johnson that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves the Findings of Fact and Conclusions as prepared on the Claremont Development Company's application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Motion Carried: Morrow, Yea: Johnson, Yea: Shearer, Yea: Cole, Yea: Johnson, on the recommendation A,I do not remember this being part of P&Z discussion, I am referring specifically to the irrevocable commit- ments from major retailers. Spencer, their application refers to commitments before hearings by the Council. MERIDIAN P &Z: APRIL 25,1985 PAGE # 2 Johnson, was the word irrevocable in that? The application just refers to letters of commitment before City Council Public Hearings. There was discussion as to whether the word irrevocable should be omitted. Morrow, it seems to me irrevocable is a bit inflexible, but by the same token we ought to word it in such a manner that either they produce the letters of commitments at the City Council level or the deal is over and done with and until they can produce the letters of commitments then the City Council does not have to address the issue and it seems to me that we ought to put them on notice at this point that this is what is going to have to happen. Cole, the Council is going to request it and if they do not have it at the time that they go before the Council, they are just wasting the Council time. It was the consensus of the Commission that the word irrevocable be deleted. Spencer, I think we should have the letter of commitments in our motion. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian hereby recommends to the Meridian City Council that the application of Claremont Develop- ment Company to amend the Meridian Comprehensive Plan be approved if and when Claremont Development Company can provide commitments from three (3) major retailers which commitments are satisfactory to the City Council. __-- Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #2: Findings of Fact on P & Z Application to amend the Comprehen- sive Plan. Spencer, have the Members of the Commission read these Findings and are there any questions? Cole, on page #2, Item 4 they make reference to the fact that there was no public comment. As I recall Mr. Bob Davis testified on this proposal and testimony was in favor. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions reflect this change. Motion Carried: All Yea: Spencer, I have a comment, while I agree that the Comprehensive Plan is intended to be general in nature and should not contain specific sites and details of development. I have concerns"about deleting the the regional shopping center sites from the Plan. I believe the hear- ings on Claremont, the plan and facts on Claremont, Upland and Qoung all point out that the site of the regional shopping center is a major if not the most important component of our planning process at this 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 Myers; Bob Giesler: Others Present: James Kiser, Tom Cole, Lloyd Howe, Dean Mayes, Jr. Duainet Rasmussen, Olive Davis, Gary Schaffer, Al Lance, Steve Anderson, Wes Hoalst, Bill Barkell, Gary Smith, Wayne Crookston, Walt Morrow, Bob Spencer, Bob Hammons, Miriam Barr, Jerry Adcamp, Channel 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 of this meeting, this is a Special Meeting asked by the Developing Company of price & Claremont, after some negotiating with the Committee, 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 "All) 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 to accept the Comm- ittees statement and recommendation as part of the Claremont Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application record. Motion Carried: All Yea: 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. The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Giesler to accept the proposed Development Agreement into the Claremont Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment record.(Development Agreement on file at City Hall) Motion Carried: All 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 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 22, 1985 PAGE # 2 Motion to to accept the letter into the Claremont Application 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 $25,000.00 which would be used for de -annexation and administrative costs. Attorney Crookston, verified this. 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 believe 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 adequately 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 development 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 for, issued then for some reason they decide not to build, then it is not an act of the City that keeps the project from going forward then the City keeps all the money that has been paid Mayor Kingsford, is that your understanding Mr. Rasmussen? 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 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application. Are there any questions of the Council on these? There was no response from the Council Members. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 22, 1985 PAGE # 3 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 Company's Application to Amend the Comprehensive Plan. Motion Carried: Giesler; Yea: Myers; Yea: Tolsma; Yea: Brewer; Yea: Mayor Kingsford, 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 agreement be dated August 22, 1985. Motion Carried: Giesler; Yea: Myers; Yea: Tolsma; Yea: Brewer; Yea: Mayor Kingsford, we now need to take action on the Application 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 Claremont Development Company. Motion Carried: All Yea: Mayor Kingsford, the next item would be to instruct the City Attorney to prepare an Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Myers that the City Attorney prepare an Ordinance to Amend the Comprehensive Paan. Motion Carried: Giesler; Yea: Myers; Yea: Tolsma; Yea: Brewer; Yea: Mayor Kingsford, we need to advise another applicant, Upland Industries, that they are welcome and we are open to discussion with Upland Industries for a proposal on a similar agreement. Councilman Tolsma, I would also like to thank Mr. Morrow and Mr. Giesler for the many hours they spent on this agreement, working on it, also the people from the Price & Claremont Companies. I think the agreement came very well and hopefully everything will move smoothly in the future. 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 be 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 the 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 CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 22, 1985 PAGE # 4 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) APPROVED: GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR ATTEST: Jac} Nieman �,CitFyCl�er Maydr & Council P & Z Commission Atty, Eng, Ward Stuart, Fire, Police Kiebert, Mitich, Valley News, Statesman Hallett, ACRD, 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 Conclusions. We have Reviewed the Study submitted by Dr. Slaughter and have met with him regarding the Study, and in particul r 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 i regional shopping center at that location, or for that matter at any location, to offset the additional costs to the City of providing public services, particularly police and fire protection. °The Study reflects that the annual polic 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 $35 ,000.00 to EXHIBIT "A" $450,000.00. Costs for capital improvements for those two services would be over and above those amounts. It should be specifically noted that these figures include servicing, not just the shopping center alone, but als projected spin-off development Likewise, from the material submitted or given to the Committee by Dr. Slaughter, the highest proj cted revenues to the City from property tax on the mall and State revenue sharing of sales tax created by the mall were shown to be $205,500.00. With some spin-off development included, 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 b 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 some fashion, contribute to funding those costs. Also, the Committee was concerned with toe possibility that the proceedings to enable the constru tion of a regional shopping center at Eagle Road and 1-84 could be fruitless; that is, the area could be annexe', zoned, and the Comprehensive Plan changed, and yet sti 1 have no shopping center and the City would still be obligated to provide services to the area. The Developer have always recognized this problem as indicated by thei statement of a willingness to have the are c they were not successful. Therefore, some me devised which would give the Developers a cha and yet if they failed the City would not bE having to provide public services to the are, substantial income from the area to fund thos Application -annexed if ns had to be ce to succeed stuck with but without 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 qi chance to succeed and have their center constructed. After many, many hours of discussions and meetings, the Committee believes that an accord has been truck. 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 propo ed Agreement and have reviewed it on an individual basis rior to this meeting. We believe that the proposed Development Agreement tendered by the Developers addresses the concerns referred to above and others which we, the Committee and Developers, felt should be included in such a proposal. Under the proposed Development Agreement, the DeveloperE 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 City services. Likewise, if the Developers appear to be succeeding and eventually are successful the City will have additional funds with which to provide services to the area. The Committee recognizes that the propos d 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 contributions from the developers. The Committee believes that the Developers and the development should be given a chance to succeed. 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 that the State Legislature will see that if the State of Idaho wants growth it must provide a means to fund the services that that growth requires. If the City does not take the chance that some day, in the near future, the Legi laute 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 assuming it.!was completed in 1988, the Committee determined that the funds contributed by the Developers pursuant to the Development Agreement, plus accrued interest, would likely allow the City to provide the necessary services to the 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 ii hoped, and somewhat counted on, that the Legislature will provide a means for the City to increase its budget and revenues. The Committee believes, that even though revenues to cover the costs, in the long run, are not as urred, the City should move forward. If growth is entirely 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 Ci y Council: 1. Accept this statement and our recommendation into the record of the Claremont Development Company Application for a Comprehensive PlanAmendment; 2. Accept the proposed Development Agreement 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 SPECIAL MEETING OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MAY 31, 1985 Special Meeting of the Meridian City Council called to order by Mayor Grant Kingsford at 5:05 p.m. Members Present: Bill Brewer, Ron Tolsma, Bert Myers, Bob Giesler: Other Present: Olive Davis, Gerald Ruyf, Patrica Ruyf, Al Lance, Gary Schaffer, Bob Wherry, Richard Orton, Bill Barkell, Duaine Rasmussen, Howard Foley, Jane Van Auker, Sherry Lance, Dave Lewis, Jim Johnson, Roy Porter, Deanna Hancock, Wes Hoalst; There were several others present whom did not sign the register. Mayor Kingsford advised the purpose of this special m eting was for the Council to make a decision on whether to hold the hearing scheduled for June 3, 1985 on the Claremont Development Company req est for a Compre- hensive Plan Amendment. The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Brewer hat do to the Public outcry and the mass of people that wish to testify at the hearing, even though the letters we received do not contain the coimnittments that we specified or the designated site that we specified, we holdthe Public Hearing as scheduled at the Meridian Primary School Oil June., 3, 1985 at 7:30. p.m. Motion Carried: Brewer, Yea: Tolsma, Yea: Myers, Yea Being no further business to come before the Special M was made by Myers and seconded by Tolsma to adjourn a Motion Carried: All Yea: ATTEST: ty erk Mayor/& Council P & Z Commission Atty, Engineer, Stuart Fire, Police, Ward, Hein, Mitich, Valley News Statesman, ACRD, APA, ACZ,ACC, CDH, NIMD File (1) Mail (2) APPROVED: Giesler, Yea: ting the Motion 5:08 p.m.: KINGSFORD, MAYOR SPECIAL MEETING OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MAY 31, 1985 Special Meeting of the Meridian City Council called order by Mayor _ Grant Kingsford at 5:05 p.m. Members Present: Bill Brewer, Ron Tolsma, Bert Myers,1 Bob Giesler: Other Present: Olive Davis, Gerald Ruyf, Patrica Ruyf, Al Lance, Gary Schaffer, Bob Wherry, Richard Orton, Bill Barkell, Duaine Rasmussen, Howard Foley, Jane Van Auker, Sherry Lance, Dave Lewis, Jim Johnson, Roy Porter, Deanna Hancock, Wes Hoalst; There were several others present whom did not sign the register. Mayor Kingsford advised the purpose of this special meeting was for the Council to make a decision on whether to hold the hearing scheduled for June 3, 1985 on the Claremont Development Company request for a Compre- hensive Plan Amendment. The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Brewer that do to the Public outcry and the mass of people that wish to testify at the hearing, even though the letters we received do not contain the comnittments that we specified or the designated site that we specified, wa hold the Public Hearing as scheduled at the -.Meridian Primary School on June 3, 1985 at 7:30. p.m. Motion Carried: Brewer, Yea: Tolsma, Yea: Myers, Yea; Giesler, Yea: Being no further business to come before the Special Meting the Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Tolsma to adjourn a 5:08 p.m.: Motion Carried: All Yea: APPROVED: ATTEST: N ty Cler Mayor/& Council P & AZ Commission Atty, Engineer, Stuart Fire, Police, Ward, Hein, Mitich, Valley News Statesman, ACHD, APA, ACZ,ACC, CDH, NIMD File (1) Mail (2) R r_ -b (thief of Police MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 728 MERIDIAN STREET MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 PHONE (208) 888-6678 The intent and purpose of this report is to show the impact a regional shopping mall located in the city limits of Meridian would have on the Meridian Police Department. As preparer of this report I would like it clearly understood that I nor the Meridian Police Department object to the construction of a regional mall in Meridian, or do we support any one developer or mall site over the others. I would also like to say at this time that the Meridian Police Department encourages and supports any development that can increase economic growth and be an asset to the quality of life in this community. Hopefully this report will benefit those who are faced with providing the resources that will allow the Meridian Police Department to deal with the demands that will result from this type of growth and development in our community. Respectfully, Sergeant Kevin Robertson Meridian Police Department At the time of this report there are three proposed sites for a regional shopping mall in the Meridian area. Those sites are located at the intersection of Meridian Road and I-84, Eagle Road and I-84 and Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue. The construction of a regional shopping ~ mall at any one of these locations or any development of the same magnitude in the City of Meridian will result in an increase in services that the Meridian Police Department must provide. If the three proposed malls are to be approximately the same size when completed, that increase in calls for service would be about the same irregardless of the location of the mall. However, the location of the mall will have some bearing on the number of officers needed to maintain the current level of patrol coverage, public and officer safety, and a reasonable response time to emergency situations. In order to attain a data base to estimate the increase for police services a regional mall would generate the police departments in Chubbuck, Idaho Falls, and Nampa, Idaho were contacted. Those three cities currently have the largest shopping malls in the State of Idaho. The statistics from the Meridian Police Department were also used. It is important to note that none of the three malls mentioned above are as large as the malls projected for Meridian and none of them are located in an area with the population base that this area of the state has. Also the statistics and information I received are just on the malls themselves. Statistics on the increase for police services that was generated from additional development that was a direct result of the mall were not available. The information I did receive does give an indication of the number of calls per year per store we could expect from a regional mall. That ratio of calls per year per store and the types of crimes reported is consistent with what is being reported -by the existing businesses in Meridian at this time. The average number of calls per . year per store averages about three per store. With a mall the size of some of the ones proposed for Meridian this could result in an increase of 250 to 300 calls per year. This does not include traffic accidents and enforcement, calls to assist citizens, non -reportable incidents and crimes in which a citizen is the victim instead of a business. In order for the Meridian Police Department to maintain a high level of service with that type of increase in calls for service we would need to increase the personnel by six to eight officers. Due to the fact that some of the more common types of crimes reported by businesses require follow-up by investigators, we would need to increase our investigator staff by two people. The remainder of the personnel would be used to increase the patrol division to a level that would allow us to maintain a proper level in patrol coverage, response times, etc. There is also the possibility that we would have to add another records clerk. 4 ■ That large of increase in personnel is obviously going to have a large impact on the police department budget. Using the figures from the 1984/85 budget to estimate the increase in salary, benefits, training, equipment, four additional vehicles, fuel costs and maintenance, insurance on the vehicles and liability insurance, etc. the police department budget would increase approximately $250,000.00 a year. Y .,Council Members, Citizens .of mer ian and interested- perti On eleven septembee niAteen eighty four , in an arictle .a Ppearing .in the Idaho statesman, Phil Davidson of the Clairemont Contruct Vas quoted aw saying, IT•s a. resurrection of -the ` do w Qu�Q fiat♦:_. 1­-,-aQree _ and re submit to the Meridian city council its faaksx Finding of of facts and conclusions From the hearing on Nov: 22 on the Quong proposals,. and the entire _.Camir..os .8tud ,1982 thisy.a.retg a�, proposal. Inthe same article Mr. Davidson stated 1� be wo,aLd was not asking for anything from 11 local officials until he could come up with firm commitments... Ther-counE-i�.. asked twice bor ` considerations and ` there are no firm commitments. I ..have in my Pc . s i on .petitions gathered surin g.,.a Six - On June first 198�rftjd- . These petitions contain the desires of the not special interet groups.- PPle, - _ ._.. 9 p Four hundred seventy eeven�People stated they did not want a regional mall at 1 84 and . Eagle road... -For hundred seventeen stated they would Ike to see a mall at I 84 road. and meridian If the Price,-Clairemont people are sincre. in their_: dee.ire the best they can for the - to. d© people" of Meridian and the surrounding arm Let them go to the Nahas= Simon- people forma joint venture, on the site which will cost the least to the citizens of __me.r.id3,an.;:,, The -site at I 84 and Meridian Road. Break ground together as quickly ,,as possible aind get a mall before Boise. Bring all the people of the town back to a united front,_. Unless of course this is not gossible, becaAme it. _. would conflict with price-intrests at Cloverdale and West park Fin- DATE: June 3,1985 George & Lois Vasil TO: Meridian City Mayor and Meridian City Councilmen 5352 Meridian, North Eagle Meridian, FROM GEORGE AND LOIS VASIL - Meridian Idaho 1 WE FAVOR A YES VOTE FOR THE PROPOSED MALL TO BE BUILT AT I-84 and Eagle Rd for the following reasons: 1. THE MALL WILL BRING NEW BUSINESS TO MERIDIAN. People will shop and spend their money where the businesses are located. New business will give Meridian the " shot in the arm" for increased budget, school funds, city service funds. 2. THE MALL WILL BRING INCREASED EMPLOYMENT TO MERIDIAN. People will have jobs (building the mall and working in the mall when it is completed.) Meridian people will work and spend their money near home. Working people are happy and contribute much to community spitit. 3. THE MALL WILL GIVE MERIDIAN A LARGER TAX BASE FOR ALL THE SERVICES AND give the property owners "tax relief". Now every need for funds means property tax increases. THIS IS ONE OF THE WAYS TO RAISE THE FUNDS FOR SCHOOLS THAT WE DESPERATELY NEED. 4. THE MALL MEANS MERIDIAN WILL NO LONGER BE A "BEDROOM CITY" for Boise. Meridian will be its own city and people will come spenmd their money here as well as the people who live here will spend their money here. 5. THE MALL WILL, MEAN AN INCREASE IN BUSINESS FOR THE EXISTING Meridian Merchants. They will improve their shops, and merchandise to bring the,- shoppers in the Mall to their doors. Meridian can look to rebuilding the downtown area in a mixed plan to include business and offices. 6. THE MALL WILL NOT DEVALUATE PROPERTY. Commercial business increases property value as business grows. WE LOOK TO THE DAY THAT MERIDIAN WILL DEVELOPE ALL THE WAY OUT FRANKLIN AND FAIRVIEW TO EAGLE ROAD AND BE A BUSINESS CENTER FOR THE COUNTY. 7. THE OFF RAMP AT E-84 and Eagle Road WILL BE BUILT NEXT YEAR Your decision does not change that. The increase in traffic means more people shopping in the NEW MERIDIAN MALL. The traffic will not congest the central part of Meridian and we will n.ot have to continue"waiting and waiting for Nahas to do something. " 8 THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO BUILD A REGIONAL MALL IN THE MERIDIAN IMPACT AREA. Boise has announced that they will now look to building mall in the suburbs of Boise and they certainly will not build it near to Meridian where Meridian can get some of the business. VOTE IRS N THE PROPOSED MALL AND LETS MOVE AHEAD: sB PETITICN WE THE UNDERSIGNED, CITIZENS CF THIS CCVklm: Y Our Support for aregional shopping center to be built as the N.E. corner of I - 84 and Eagle Rd. We encourage the City Council of Meridian to move as quickly as possible in approving the application currently before them for their consideration. NAME (Print) NfPN9n) AMRESS DATE 6-3 9-s- 141 -U )V, 4),,V4 m kD, Aeyse 6-3 --d5 0 ?.2 vqq m PEI'ITIGN WE THE UNDERSICNED, CITIZENS C&' THIS CMI NITY, IMVby register our support for a regional shopping center to be built as the N.E. corner of I - 84 and Eagle Rd. We encourage the City Council of Meridian to move as quickly as possible in approving the application currently before them for their consideration. PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED, CITIZENS OF THIS COMMUNITY, hereby register our support for a regional shopping center to be built as the N.E. corner of I - 84 and Eagle Rd. We encourage the City Council of Meridian to move as quickly as possible in approving the application currently before them for their consideration. NAME (Print)( NAME (Sign) ADDRESS DATE PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED, CITIZENS OF THIS OUIMNITY, hereby register our support for a regional shopping center to be built as the N.E. corner of I - 84 and Eagle Rd. We encourage the City Council of Meridian to move as quickly as possible in approving the application currently before them for their consideration. NAME (Print) NAME (Sign) / ADDRESS DATE `t 1c SLI I U to no I I pr� � G� 1 S � �°� �-c 4,4, _ CP a -� Q b7 PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED, CITIZENS OF THIS CU41UNITY, herby register our support for a regional shopping center to be built as the N.E. corner of I - 84 and Eagle Rd. Vub enoouraye tl►e City Lbuncil of Meridian to move as quickly as possible in approving the application currently before them for their consideration. NAME (Print) NAME (Sign) ADDRESS DATE PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED, CITIZENS OF THIS Ca-ZI NITy, herepy register our support for a regional shopping center to be built as the N.E. corner of I - 84 and Eagle Rd. We encourage the City Council of Meridian to move as quickly as possible in approving the application currently before them for their consideration. (Print) NAME (Sign) ADDRESS DATE �ao�D,�. j 4- h �� Y)�/, juz ---- =-- �/c %t c x-12 P, I (-, /z 11v- PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED, CITIZENS OF THIS OUWNITY, hereby register our support for a regional shopping center to be built as the N.E. corner of I - 84 and Eagle Rd. We encourage the City Council of Meridian to move as quickly as possible in approving the application currently before them for their consideration. NAME (Print) NAND ( yn) /ADDRESS DATE X17- PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNIM, CITIZENS OF THIS OQM MITY, hereby register our support for a regional shopping center to be built as the N.E. corner of I - 84 and Eagle Rd. We encourage the City council of Meridian to move as quickly as Possible in approving the application currently before them for their consideration. NAME (Print) NAME (Sign) ADDRESS DATE 'Tam PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED, CITIZENS OF THIS COMMUNITY, hereby register our support for a regional shopping center to be built as the N.E. corner of I - 84 and Eagle Rd. We encourage the City Council of Meridian to move as quickly as possible in approving the application currently before them for their consideration. NAME (Print) NAME (Sign) ADDRESS DATE 4AIl Mtn /S e z - es- PETITION WE THE UNDERSICNED, CITIZENS OF TRIS COMMUNITY, hereby register our support for a regional shopping center to be built as the N.E. corner of I - 84 and Eagle Rd. We encourage the City Council of Mexidian to move as quickly as possible in approving the application currently before them for their consideration. NAME (Print) (Sign) ADDRESS DATE PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED, CITIZENS O, THIS OU44UNITY, hereby register our support for a r ` ppo regional 5i,.�iYf�ii�y center to be built as the N.E. corner of I - 84 and Eagle Rd. We encourage tie City Council of iuridian to move as quickly as possible in approving the application currently before them for their consideration. NAME (Print) NAME(Sign) ADDRESS DATE h -j__ z G - -7 ,6FS i i '� r• Ir i _ .+� -, - mm, i 1 OW4 gr3�69 40 Y;;,3 r 0 PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNM, CITIZENS OF THIS CUIZUNITY, hereby register our support for a regional shopping center to be built as the N.E. corner of I - 84 and Eagle Rd. We encourage the City Council of Meridian to move as quickly as possible in approving the application currently before them for their consideration. NAME (Print) (Sign) ADDRESS 7 HATE ---5 576 �7 PLTITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED, CITIZENS of THIS COMMUNITY, hereby register our support for a regional shopping center to be built as the N.E. corner of I - 84 and Eagle Rd. We encourage the City Council of Meridian to cove as quickly as possible in approving the application currently before them for their consideration. NAME (Print) INAME� (Sign) ADDRESS HATE i 13G` l ocX\\ 1p /a��5 ■ PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED, CITIZENS OF THIS CWUNITY, hereby register our support for a regional shopping \ eg Aping center to be built as the N.E. corner of I - 84 and Eagle Rd. We encourage the City 00uncil of Meridian to move as quickly as possible in approving the application currently before them for their consideration. NAME (Print) NAME (Sign) ADDRESS DATE PETITICN WE THE UNDERSIGNED, CITIZENS OF THIS OW43NITY, herl register our support for a regional shopping center to be built as the N.E. corner of I - 84 and Eagle Rd. We encourage the City Council of Meridian to move as quickly as possible in approving the application currently before them for their consideration. NAME (Print) IME (Sign) ADDRESS DATE G-3 8a (o -,'�r HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live OFFICIALS JACK NIEMANN, City Clerk A. M. KIE¢ERT, Treasurer CITY OF MERIDIAN COUNCILMEN RICHARD D. NICHOLS, Chief of Police BILL BREWER RONALD R. TOLSMA BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works, Supt. 728 Meridian Street J. E. BERT MYERS WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney EARL WARD, Waste Water Supt. MERIDIAN, IDAHOROBERT GIESLER KENNY BOWERS, Fire Chief 83642 BOB SPENCER Phone 888-4433 Chairman Zoning & Planning GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor June 3, 1985 To Mayor & Councilmen: With a Proposed Shopping Mail within the Meridian Area, as Fire Cheif of the Meridian City -Rural Volunteer Fire Department, we beleive we would not be able to provide the necessary Fire & Medical Protection that this development would require. With the current strain on the Volunteers, we feel the addition of Full Time Personell to solve this strain with Paid and Volunteer Department. With a Mall this size this could increase our calls by 15% to 20% annually. With the influx of people and development these figures could increase dramatically. In order for the Meridian City -Rural Volunteer Fire Department to maintain a High level of service with this increase in calls we would need to increase the personnell and the Equipment. Some of the Projected Costs of trying to maintain the same levels of service are listed below. New East Side Fire Station $450,000 to $500,000 Remodel & Add Upstairs to existing Station $400,000 Spare Hose & Misc Equipment $ 20,000 1500 GPM Pumper Truck $145,000 Telesquirt Truck $250,000 Squad Truck $ 40,000 2 Equipt Cars $ 22,000 15 Firefighters & Officers @$25,000 Per Man ($375,000) Secretary Wages & Benifits $ 18,000 The Annual Budget will be aproximately $800,000 Plus.., if the above project is implemented. Kenny Bowers, Chief Meridian City -Rural Volunteer Fire Dept. 31 P.O. Box 557,815 East First • Meridian, Idaho 83642 • 208888-2817 TO: Meridian Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors May 28,1985 FROM: Meridian Chamber of Commerce Shopping Center Fact -Finding Committee RE: Report for Board Action We believe that all three current sites (Fairview and Eagle Road; Eagle Road and I.-84; Meridian Road and I-84) are excellent locations for a regional shopping center and that the City of Meridian should open all doors possible to each developer. It is our opinion that the free enterprise system should be allowed to dictate the location of the center. e su these three sites and encourage the city wcouncilrtoany makenanyf necessary comprehensive plan changes to allow the system to work, and not to take a protective attitude toward any particular site. It is our recommendation to the Board that this statement be read verbatum at the June 3, 1985 public hearing by Meridian Chamber President Howard Foley. Bob Davis, committee member, is detailing said report on May 30, 1985 at the regularly scheduled Board of Directors meeting. fit.✓ RobVktj Davis Committee Chairman vi ..+ A7 tet 14/ lot e l- r J,#,w -Z 1� Ild V T -niE =>aVaLOP1KW4- ota A gpKflpVS&wO SHoAPtKt6- MALC.. Avjz) A%Crtq ► to t4 R. V LYS .yam"' 76e C,4 E32- leea,m%ovy PFJ )tyvkecrA1v r � S 9 4�S /V • /I+'! E`t /1O 1.4Am ecli Ar 2J, 37 P-MfcC#-meq AlA;di&-#jt7 IAds oP- le 673 �e.nn q.0(3 uses ��}h ,�nerd�l�e lat 41 Ci. xo Kms, ✓�-�+-'� Sv p po er T art o P©sa-o /K A U. A140 M�F.RJDJAPJ 1RoAp L\13' k Qpt:�, r ev, L -,-M+ n � Pt4u Oto,?/ IV, a7 - q4 Aj 7-g4Aj W/ (?k S:).o ir,-, 4 jQi"�t'o�Gof� / Ja X 7 '20? )/AL .i- �o w- "rHO-r, *:lQ4*pb"'10 A4,14-4 A -r :r -?Li %' ,/Yl 101ftJ Q 0 GC G�G t��J i -Olf-Old7--a 1/,17 YJ e CA-) Z'7t 4VC MAA� CL - OMAI V Pkv A T" -roc-- P EVELo pm awr- or- A p R o poste= S "Pj+t w*u-•- M,aL-c. orb Mc10i,40J 1 I• SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF A RErI()P?AL SHOPPING MAIL AT I -R4 AND MERIDIAN ROAD IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ill I SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL SHOPPING MALL'AT 1-84 AND MERIDIAN ROAD I• SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF A REClotjAL _SHOPPING MALL. .AT 1-P4 AND MERIDIAN ROAD �lx IN THE CITYOf MERIDIAN 7 2 I SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL SHOPPING MALL AT 1-84 AND MERIDIAN ROAD I • SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL SHOPFIN", MAIL NT 1-84 AND MERIDIAN ROAD r� IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IIA S�f`CI.0 2- t A-ze-� I SUPPORT DEViLOPMENT OF A REGIONAL SHOPPING MALL AT 1-84 AND MERIDIAN ROAD I• SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF A _HEC I MI AL S}30F' � .I ^<G MALL AT 1-R4 AND MERID I Av ROAD IN THE CITY of NIE R ID I .AN n 5ILL i-- -- (oS3a ---- I SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL SHOPPING MALL AT 1-84 AND MERIDIAN ROAD I- SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF k REGIONAL SHOFTINI^ MAIL AT I -P4 AND MERIDIAN ROAD / "91 IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN I SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL SHOPPING -< f 4-p —AL—_ X=W- Ida'— =ZZ IDIAN � C MALL AT 1-84 AND ME IDI OAD — A I• SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL SHOPPING MALL AT I -A4 AND MERIDIAN ROAD rid IN THE CITY Off' MERIDIAN tl�z SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL SHOPPIN :5-V7 L7- SUPPORT 7 r sw mm IN w I SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL SHOPPING MAI i. AT I- R4 AND MERIDIAN ROAD IN THE CITY Of MERIDIAN b. w // • r • A I SUPPORT rtvELOPM�TT OE O'F A REGIONAL SHOPPING MALL AT lr84 & MERIDIAN I. SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL SHOPPING MAI I., AT 1. P4 AND MERIDIAN ROAD IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN? f �! . 2,2G 7 ( lvlkl/3-7"7 771- o f_orq I - � U U u I S PPORT DEVELOPMEN OF OF A REGIONAL SHOPPING MALL AT 1-P4 & MERIDIAN RO�MERIDIAN I SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL SHOPPING MALL AT 1-94 AND MERIDIAN ROAD IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ' � , f77)9�� c rte. A ,(mit-v I SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF OF A REGIONAL SHOPPING MALL AT 1-84 & MERIDIAN RDf",MERIDIAP !i I SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL. SHOPPING MAI T.. AT 1--R4 AND MERIDIAN ROAD E IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN' 0 7 �5' 624 � MrAW,.1. "`- SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT O'm OF A REGIONAL SHOPPING MALL AT 1-84 & MERIDIAN I SUPPORT DEVELOPMI;NT Oe A t1EI,71UNHl. — IN THECITYOv. MERIDIAN -A7 v 4- 33 C-1 11 - - - WL,• aw 0 MA/0-14F I, SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF B, REGIONAL SHOPP.IN,^ MALL AT 1-84 AND MERIDIAN ROAD IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN -t----3 3 Yj �� L �. 1 • .TS ,fi : � POP 4z�r 1AJ � ,,., l.. 4-C�-- 4 ORT DEVELOPMENT OF A Ry['T NAT gwQPPING MALL AT 1 -84 -AND MERIDIAN ROAD I SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF .A_REGIMAL_S_HOPPINCI MM:N11 ATI --R4 AND MEllIDIAN ROAD IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN PORI OEVELOPMENT & OF A REGION SHOPPING MERID4, RIS. MALL AT 1-$4 & ,� I SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL SHOPPING MAI1 AT I --R4 AND MERIDIAN ROAD 3 IN THE CITY Off' MERIDIAN G I SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF OF A REGIONAL SHOPPING MALL AT 1-84 & MERIDIAN RD A4ERIDIAt I SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF _A REGIONAL_ HOPPIN" MMAI.L .AT 1-84 AND MERIDIAN ROAD IN THE CITY Off' MERIDIAN `.._s G 11931 b7a e- p 4:511. C �2i inti ti� I SUPPORT DEVELOPMEVGF A REGIONAL SHOPPING MALL AT 1-84 AND MER DIXN ROAD I SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF A RErIO�JAL SHOPPING MAIL. ?1T 1-84 AND MERIDIAN ROAD v IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN -�—.d.r _ / i � 6 'iiiiiiiiiiii i, (19D 7sw �a V .� FA �. ., , •ter''' r� I UPPORT AEVELOPMENT OP A REGIONAL SHOPPING MALL AT 1-84 AND MERI TAN ROAD FA I SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL SHOPPING; MAI.1 AT I --R4 AND MERIDIAN ROAD / `/ IN THE CITY 01:' MERIDIAN a popse /m-, - - �� -- m I i l o SzJ&-r7- %!9 �i A-) �3i yllc� /�.f7' --- I SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF OF A REGIONAL SHOPPING MALL AT 1-R4 & (MERIDIAN R�/!►iERIDIAP I SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF _A REGIONAL SHOPPING' MAI I. ATI—R4 AND MERIDIAN ROAD 17 IN THE CITY Off' MERIDIAN, �N 06 11 • k( 11W.W p -- - - - - I- SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF N RECIONAL SHOPPING MAIL AT 1-A4 AND MERIDIAN ROAD IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ...110, liez SSS 5 1W O'lol 2e3 4417-alwly a2OL Spl?1rqLO(,t-jc--qQ E)g' MOM ,LLJ� � -C) �� �r�:.y ►--v-� V V WN ■ 1 1. 0 wl'-�-w� � � i f 0 \ _ r i OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNED FOR 1-84 1 NAME CIA A - -� -s 7 AN D EAGLE ROAD ADDRESS I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNED.FOR 1 -84 -AND EAGLE•ROAD I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNED FOR 1-84 AND EAGLE ROAD NAME ADDRESS Ph J lz:.t �ATA' F,K I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNED FOR 1-84 AND EAGLE ROAD I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNED FOR 1-84 AN D EAGLE ROAD ?IT A U10 ADDRESS 431 cep re) o� C� Ze mi e 5 I OPPOSE TFE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNTED rOR 1-P4 AND EAGLE ROAD I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNED FOR 1-84 AND EAGLE ROAD NAME ADDRESS -,'---z---ag - /K40, 1 I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOP�INr MALL PLANNED FOR 1=84 AND EAGLE ROAD I vA k AND EAGLE ROAD NAME ADDRESS 1 ; I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNED :FOR 1-84 AND EAGLE',ROAD, I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNED FOR 1-84 AND EAGLE ROAD NAME —&J/6a i PF- romm. ADDRESS w71�M f // f IVL" 13 Y710 C,1110 p E ..,j tD _ J�-�- _�z 7-1 o I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNED FOR 1-84 AND EAGLE:ROAD PH - I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPINC MALL PLANNED POR 1-84 AND EAGLE ROAD , � I OP ` M ""I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNED FOR I-84 AND EAGLE .i,D a 9 7 6 i9v ?vim A�l os _ PTS0<1 D t Z 0I�- c,,.L s 7� cJ 14� z fj FOR 1-84 AND EAGLE ROAD OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNED FOR 1-84 AND EAGLE ROAD NAME ADDRESS I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNEDfOR 1-84 AND EAGLE ROAD NAME_ ^.E W 4 r - M—IA AN D EAGLE ROAD ADDRESS bt1 1�S T1�Rw�,n�? iDi Por) r y� c e29`� 5 w 7 �UF --I 9 I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNED:FOR 1-84 AND EAGLE -ROAD / �iQ�f , Vii. /�1c7?<�.rs�✓.., _ �� ��C Si,Z - l�✓LL- N"v y e h ell - S 0 4091E S� AN 944,& i 0 NAME_ ADDRESS 7 Mar I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNED -,FOR 1-84 AND EAGLEIROAD I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNED FOR 1-84 NAME .*T D EAGLE ROAD ADDRESS 57- 7 e -d /� 33 /-- -Z� ±!A. _fin-�2. 7 A -JO 17� Oc��-1<j I -OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNED FOR 1-84 AND EAGLE ROAD I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNED FOR 1-84 AN D EAGLE ROAD ��.MAIM WWAM ! _ ADDRESS �cc - ----- ---- ------ iel�a I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNED. -FOR 1 -84 -'AND EAGLE•ROAD I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNED FOR 1-84 AN D EAGLE ROAD NAME MCi/VI.LiiA 1 AO/YLJ s4�Gu�t �a�n Cn ADDRESS I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNED FOR 1-84 AND EAGLE ROAD NAME_ �AO 1 ADDRESS La 1_ ♦t v'= - � /to I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNED FOR 1-84 AND EAGLE, 'ROAD OPP6St-THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL P AND EAGLE ROAD NAME e,�LC n, �( ED FOR 1-84 ADDRESS 421 I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNED FOR 1 -84 - AND EAGLE ROAD /-NAME ADDRESS ca, as"O Dr. .;2 8 flAoSo-i FxLal, \Z7 cam. �Q . Q �_ -7C_ OF, CJAJ42 W 0 0..0 I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING MALL PLANNED FOR 1-84 AND EAGLE ROAD /L19A Itk- . - ADDRESS Z3Z5 s3 /e lk /2Z _?OIL I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING,MALL PLANNED-rOR D EAGLE ROAD Ae, / �( �/ PETITION WE THE FOLLOWING MERIDIAN BUSINESSES RECOGNIZE THAT GROWTH IS ESSENTIAL TO OUR BUSINESS SUCCESS. FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS WE HAVE HOPED FOR THE GROWTH RESULTING FROM A REGIONAL MALI, AT I-84 AND MERIDIAN ROAD. HOWEVER, WITH THE INABILITY OF THE DEVELOPER TO SECURE ANCHOR TENANTS TO THIS LOCATION, WE MUST, THEREFORE, MAKE THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT THAT A REGIONAL MALL AT THIS LOCATION IS NOT FEASIBLE AND WILL NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED. WE, THEREFORE, PETITION THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ALLOW FOR A REGIONAL MALL AT I-84 AND EAGLE ROAD AND TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO INITIATE FAVORABLE FINDINGS OF FACT. BUSINESS NAME SIGNED BY TITLE � � �� . .1�[��L �.;.a1 � �i� ✓LCL a I l� ' ��1Ui.. 1..� / I� ®' r , WE TH OLLOWING MERIDIAN OUR BUSINESS SUCCESS. PETITION BUSINESSES RECOGNIZE THAT GROWTH IS ESSENTIAL TO FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS WE HAVE HOPED FOR THE GROWTH RESULTING FROM A REGIONAL MALL AT I-84 AND MERIDIAN ROAD. HOWEVER, WITH THE INABILITY OF THE DEVELOPER TO SECURE ANCHOR TENANTS TO THIS LOCATION, WE MUST, THEREFORE, MAKE THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT THAT A REGIONAL MALL AT THIS LOCATION IS NOT FEASIBLE AND WILL NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED. WE, THEREFORE, PETITION THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ALLOW FOR A REGIONAL MALL AT I-84 AND EAGLE ROAD AND TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO INITIATE FAVORABLE FINDINGS OF FACT. 4-L t- 0-7 X �/ PETITION WE THE FOLLOWING MERIDIAN BUSINESSES RECOGNIZE THAT GROWTH IS ESSENTIAL TO OUR BUSINESS SUCCESS. FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS WE HAVE HOPED FOR THE GROWTH RESULTING FROM A REGIONAL MALL AT I-84 AND MERIDIAN ROAD. HOWEVER, WITH THE INABILITY OF THE DEVELOPER TO SECURE ANCHOR TENANTS TO THIS LOCATION, WE MUST, THEREFORE, MAKE THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT THAT A REGIONAL MALL AT THIS LOCATION IS NOT FEASIBLE AND WILL NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED. WE, THEREFORE, PETITION THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ALLOW FOR A REGIONAL MALL AT I-84 AND EAGLE ROAD AND TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO INITIATE FAVORABLE FINDINGS OF FACT. BUSINESS NAME MUM, 40rPPA7.MMTfflC a�1 i' i /7/3-Nh Ct"fi �r/wNc/� PETITION WE THE FOLLOWING MERIDIAN BUSINESSES RECOGNIZE THAT GROWTH IS ESSENTIAL TO OUR BUSINESS SUCCESS. FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS WE HAVE HOPED FOR THE GROWTH RESULTING FROM A REGIONAL MALL AT I-84 AND MERIDIAN ROAD. HOWEVER, WITH THE INABILITY OF THE DEVELOPER TO SECURE ANCHOR TENANTS TO THIS LOCATION, WE MUST, THEREFORE, MAKE THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT THAT A REGIONAL MALL AT THIS LOCATION IS NOT FEASIBLE AND WILL NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED. WE, THEREFORE, PETITION THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ALLOW FOR A REGIONAL MALL AT I-84 AND EAGLE ROAD AND TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO INITIATE FAVORABLE FINDINGS OF FACT. BUSINESS NAME i - i TITLE �MF, Claremont � April 30, 1985 Meridian City Council City of Meridian 728 Meridian Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 0 RE: I 84/Eagle Road Gentlemen: This letter shall serve to confirm that Price Development Company and Phil Davidson of Claremont Development Company, Inc. have a written contractual relationship concerning (i) the acquisition of the Bews and Allen Trust parcels and adjacent property located near the intersection of Interstate 84 and Eagle Road and (ii) the development of a regional enclosed mall and related uses thereon. Such relationship is created by written legal instruments between Price Development Company and Phil Davidson, which relationship was first publically disclosed in December 1984. � Based on such written instruments and other contracts, Price Development Company and Phil Davidson have control of the property in question. It is our intent to develop a six (6) anchor regional mall on the subject property to serve the greater Ada County area. Sincerely, Claem It Develo ment Company, Inc. By: ' Price Dev _ nt Company By: cc: Steve nderson 515 -116th. Ave. N.E. Suite 108 Bellevue, WA 98004 (206) 453-1883 f HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live OFFICIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN JACK NIEMANN, City Clerk A.M. KIEBERT, Treasurer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. 728 Meridian Street WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney EARL WARD, Waste Water Supt. MERIDIAN, IDAHO KENNY BOWERS, Fire Chief 83642 Phone 888-4433 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor LIST OF SPEAKERS June 3, 1985 PUBLIC HEARING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 1. Phil Davidson 21. Robert Gass 2. Bill Polk 22. Leland Hansen 3. Richard Orton 23. Steven Smart 4. Phil Hanson 24. Kenny Bowers 5. Fred Bruning 25. Steve Gratton 6. Duaine Rasmussen 26. Dick Williams 7. David Lewis 27. Weslee Hoalst 8. George Vasil 28. Al Marsden 9. Robert Davis 29. Alan Lance 10. Marvin Bodine 30. Steve Anderson 11. Gerald Ruyf 31. Doris Oliason 12. Bernerd Kinsey 13. Delbert Matlock 14. Cheryl Matlock 15. John Schmek 16. Patricia Ruyf 17. Patrick Harbert 18. Kevin Robertson 19. Howard Foley 20. Bobbi Layne COUNCILMEN BILL BREWER RONALD R. TOLSMA J. E. BERT MYERS ROBERT GIESLER BOB SPENCER Chairman Zoning 8 Planning CITY COUNCIL and PLANNING and ZONING City of Meridian A.: County, Idaho ORDINANCE VERBAL • PUBLIC SIGN-UP SHEET WERYONE MUST SIGN THIS SHEET IF THEY WISH TO SPEAKI PRINTED NAME SIGNED NAME RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS �l fflwzE am INEVEMM W—M-41) MEN, wrjlm�' FNA i N MIA MM I WON PRINTED NAME CITY COUNCIL and PLANNING and ZONING City of Meridian Ada County, Idaho ORDINANCE 446 VERBAL TESTIMONY of SPEAKERS at PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET E"VEHYONE. MUST MGN THIS SHEET IF THLY ''41311 TO SPEAK! SIGNED NAME RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS q, TO SPEAK YES NO 1-7 - ., euv'F 36o Mogi ✓u_ =:2t Q p% LT 9'ii�-i I �. i . , I NAME Lai, c CITY COUNCIL and PLANNING and ZONING City of Meridian Ada County, Idaho ORDINANCE 446 VERBAL TESTIMONY of SPEAKERS at PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET EVERYONE MUST SIGN THIS SHEET IF THEY ''WISH TC SPEAK! SIGNED NAME RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 4An � HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live OFFICIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN COUNCILMEN BILLBREWER JACK NIEMANN, City Clerk RONALD R. TOLSM A A M KIEBERT, Treasurer J. E. BERT MYERS RICHARD D NICHOLS, chief of Powe 728 Meridian Street ROBERT G ESLER BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works, Supt. WAYNEG.CROOKSTON,JR.,Attorney MERIDIAN, IDAHO BOBSPENCER EARL WARD, Waste Water Supt. 83642 Chairman Zoning & Planning KENNY BOWERS Fire Chief Phone 888-4433 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor June 3, 1985 To Mayor & Councilmen: With a Proposed Shopping Mall within the Meridian Area, as Fire Cheif of the Meridian City -Rural Volunteer Fire Department. we beleive we would not be able to provide the necessary Fire & Medical Protection that this development would require. With the current strain on the Volunteers, we feel the addition of Full Time Personell to solve this strain with Paid and Volunteer Department. With a Mall this size this could increase our calls by 15% to 20% annually. With the influx of people and development these figures could increase dramatically. In order for the Meridian City -Rural Volunteer Fire Department to maintain a High level of service with this increase in calles we would need to increase the personnell and the Equipment. Some of the Projected Costs of trying to maintain the same levels of service are listed below. New East Side Fire Station $450,000 to $5U0,000 Remodel & Add Upstairs to existing Station $400,000 Spare Hose & Misc Equipment $ 20,000 1500 GPM Pumper Truck $145,000 Telesquirt Truck $250,000 Squad Truck $ 40,000 .2 Equipt Cars $ 22,000 15 Firefighters & Officers @$25,000 Per Man ($375,000) Secretary Wages & Benifits $ 18,000 The Annual Budget will be aproximately $800,000 Plus.., if the above project is implemented. Kenny Bowers, Chief Meridian City -Rural Volunteer Fire Dept. SHOPPING CENTERS I INDUSTRIA: AND OFFICE PROPERTIES 35 CENTURY PARK -WAY . SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 • TELEPHONE 18011486 3911 June 4, 1985 Councilman President Bill Brewer City of Meridian Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Bill: First of all, I want to take the opportunity to thank you and members of the City Council for your patience and diligence in reviewing the matter regarding the location of a regional shopping center at the corner of Eagle Road and I-84. I was sincere in my compliment to you and members of the Council last ewIvning for the professi-bnal and forthright manner in which individual members have handled their responsibility relating to the serious questions currently before them. Although I was somewhat hopeful of a different outcome of last night's hearing, I certainly understand the position of the Council Members in wanting to have all the proper financial facts in front of them prior to making a decision on this issue. I am hopeful that we can now move forward as quickly as possible as a group and resolve the issues with regard to police protection, fire protection, and the City budget matters that were raised in last evening's hearing. Mr. Fred Brunning and I had a discussion this morning with Councilmen Tolsma and Giesler to discuss a possible format for both the Council and developer to proceed. Among other things, I believe we arrived at a decision on the following items: A SUBSIDIARY OF PRICE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION Councilman President Bill Brewer June 4j, 1985 = Page 2 1. We will submit a list of qualified consultants to review the issues of fire and police funding and manpower. 2. The City Council will select a sub -committee consisting of two (2) City Council Members and one (1) member of the Planning and Zoning Board. The sub -committee will be charged with L final selection of a consultant and providing a scope of services to be performed. Price should have the right to review and agree to the scope of services. 3. The consultant would be assisted in fact gather -%ng by members of the City staff and members of the sub -committee as dictated by the Council. 4. The report is to be concluded as quickly as possible by the consultant for review sometime within, or immediately following, the two (2) week period now open for public testimony. In any event the study should be concluded by June 18th. 5. Following the submittal of a final report, we will expect to sit down with members of the Council and determine whether or not the financial impacts to the City of Meridian attributable to this proposed development are able to be mitigated by the developing entities. 6. Price Development Company is willing to contribute up to $5,000.00 for a study of the issues described above by an outside professional consultant. If the Council finds that more than Councilman President Bill Brewer June 4r 1985 Page 3 $50,000.00 is necessary, please feel free to contact us for authorization to spend an amount over $5,000.00. 7. If the consultants submitted by us are not acceptable to the Council, you are to notify us of the problem and we will work with you to find a party acceptable to both sides. Bill, I believe this letter outlines a very sound course for _ us to pursue in resolving the various issues surrounding this regional mall development. We stand ready to assist you and other Council Members in achieving this goal. I have attached, to this letter, a list of financial consultants whom we believe are experts in their field and have a history of consulting with other cities to resolve the financial issues currently facing the City of tier idian. Please keep us advised as to your progress and any inputyouu might require from ourselves or Claremont Development Company. In the event that I am unreachable at the phone number listed below, please feel free to contact our local counsel, Mr. Alan G. Lance of Foley & Lance, Chartered, Meridian, Idaho. Councilman President Bill Brewer = June 4j -1985 Page 4 We hope this is the beginning of a long and successful relationship between Price Development Company and the City of Meridian, Idaho. Sincerely yours, PRIC;e4;t OP t�OMPP►rTY J D �smssen DR:db Enclosure 1. Dale Miller The Phoenix Group 1139 34th Avenue Seattle, Washington 98122 (206) 324-3060 2. Wayne Wedin Wayne Wedin Enterprises, Inc. #1 Civic Center Circle Brea, California 92621 (714) 525-4047 (213) 694-8800 3. Jim Baker Mike Merz Boise State Research Center (208) 385-7572 4. Echo Northwest Ed Whitelaw Eugene, Oregon (50 3) 687-0051 5. John Thompson b Associates 95 1st Street, Suite 215 Los Altos, California 94022 (415) 941-2550 _ Chief of Police MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 728 MERIDIAN STREET MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 PHONE (208) 888-6678 The intent and purpose of this report is to show the impact a regional shopping mall located in the city limits of Meridian would have on the Meridian Police Department. As preparer of this report I would like it clearly understood that I nor the Meridian Po11,ce Department object to the construction of a regional mall in Meridian, or do we support any one developer or mall site over the others. I would also like to say at this time that the Meridian Police Department encourages and supports any development that can increase economic growth and be an asset to the quality of life -in this community. Hopefully this report will benefit those who are faced with providing the resources that will allow the Meridian Police Department to deal with the demands that will result from this type of growth and development in our community. Respectfully, Sergeant Kevin Robertson Meridian Police Department _ At the time of this report there are three proposed sites for a regional shopping mall in the Meridian area. Those sites are located at the intersection of Meridian Road and I-84, Eagle Road and I-84 and Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue. The construction of a regional shopping mall at any one of these locations or any development of the same magnitude in the City of Meridian will result in an increase in services that the Meridian Police Department must provide. If the three proposed malls are to be approximately the same size when completed, that increase in calls for service would be about the same irregardless of the location of the mall. However, the location of the mall will have some bearing on the number of officers needed to maintain the current level of patrol coverage, public and officer safety, and a reasonable response time to emergency situations. In order to attain a data base to estimate the increase for police services a regional mall would generate the police departments in Chubbuck, Idaho Falls, and Nampa, Idaho were contacted. Those three cities currently have the largest shopping malls in the State of Idaho. The statistics from the Meridian Police Department were also used. It is important to note that none of the three malls mentioned above are as large as the malls projected for Meridian and none of them are located in an area with the population base that this area of the state has. Also the statistics and information I received are just on the malls themselves. Statistics on the increase for police services that was generated from additional development that was a direct result of the mall were not available. The information I did receive does give an indication of the number of calls per year per store we could expect from a regional mall. That ratio of calls per year per store and the types of crimes reported is consistant with what is being reported by the existing businesses in Meridian at this time. The average number of calls per _ year per store averages about three per store. With a mall the size of some of the ones proposed for Meridian this could result in an increase of 250 to 300 calls per year. This does not include traffic accidents and enforcement, calls to assist citizens, non -reportable incidents and crimes in which a citizen is the victim instead of a business. In order for the Meridian Police Department to maintain a high _ level of service with that type of increase in calls for service we would need to increase the personnel by six to eight officers. Due to the fact that some of the more common types of crimes reported by businesses require follow-up by investigators, we would need to increase our investigator staff by two people. The remainder of the personnel would be used to increase the patrol division to a level that would allow us to maintain a proper level in patrol coverage, response times, etc. There is also the possibility that we would have to add another records clerk. i That large of increase in personnel is obviously going to have a large impact on the police department budget. Using the figures from the 1984/85 budget to estimate the increase in salary, benefits, training, equipment, four additional vehicles, fuel costs and maintenance, insurance on the vehicles and liability insurance, etc. the police department budget would increase approximately $250,000.00 a year. �SW�, SEC. 9, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. F -I c- _�lOn ,96in, Keith D. & Catherine F. Lot 1, Blt:. 1 Box 9367 Commerce Pk. Sub. Boise, ID 83707 F.A. - NA R152-726-0120 Stein, Keith D.,&_ Catherin F. Lt. 2, Elk 2 Box 9367 Commerce Pk. Sub. Boise, ID 83707 P.A. - NA R152-726-0140 Lot. 3, Elk. 2 Commerce Pk. Sub. P.A. - NA R152-726-0160 Lt. 4, Blk 2 Commerce Pk. Sub. F.A. - 3500 Commercial R152-726-0180 Lt. 5, Elk. 2 Commerce Pk. Sub. P.A. - NA ein, Keith D. Box 9367 Boise, ID 83707 Jackson, John D. & Becky L - Box 9427 Boise, ID 83707 /W-1son, Donald J. & Karin H. / Box 8007 Boise, ID 83707 Nelson, Donald J. & Karin H. R152-726-0200, L*. 6, Elk. 2 Box 8007 Commerce Pk. Sub. Boise, ID 83707 P.A. - NA 8152-726-0020 -...-Coors Distributing Co ' Lot 1, Elk. 1 5253 Kendall Commerce Pk. Sub. Boase, ID 83704 P.A. - NA R152-726-0040 as Supply Co., Inc. Lot. 2, Pik. 1 Box 8103 Commerce Pk. Sib. SPG. Boise, ID 83702 P.A. - NT: lson, Donald J. & Karin H. R152 -72E-0060 r,KQ Lot 3, Elk. 1 t Box 8007 Commerce Pk. Sub. Boise, IL 83701, F.A. - NA Karin H. R152_726 -x,080 >elson, Donald J. & Lot 4, Elk. 1 Box 8007 Con-^=rce P)_. Ste. Boise, ID 83707 5110-93'-546C ,,vi,baran, Joe & Dobaran, ^60 of SW�4 Par. 0^y John. & Arvella SeC, q, T ? �., R. 1 E. �. Pte. 5, Cloverdale P A. - Nr Boiisa, ID 83705 5110-931-55380 �bertson's, Inc. Par. #5350 of E�SW Bcx 20 Sec. 9, "_,. 3 N.,1 E. R''_ se, ID 8372E P.A. N.bac-.e - 1 - Lt. sA, sec. 9. T. 3'N., R. 1 5110-933-6330 Par. #6330 of SWSW Sec. 9,T. 3 N.,R. 1 E. P.A. - 3250 Franklin 5110-934-6750 Par. #6750 of SSW Sec. 9, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - 3710 E. Franklin Burke, Richard N c/o J. Neville Box 1286 Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Mayes, Oren C. & Carmen J- 3710 E. Franklin b Meridian, ID 83642 S.E. 14, Sec., 9, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. 5110-943-8580 Par. #8580 of S.E. Sec. 9, -T..3 N., R 1 E. P.A. - NA 5110-943-8460 Par. #8460 of S.E. Sec. 9, T.3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - 4010 E. Franklin S110-943-8780 Par. #8780 of S.E. Sec. 9, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - NA 5110-941-7800 Par. #7800 of N� S.E. Sec. 9, T. 3 N., R• 1 E. P.A. - NA Niblett, Delbert R. & Reah L. E' 4010 E. Franklin Meridian, ID 83642 iblett, Delbert R. & Reah L. 4010 E. Franklin Meridian, ID 83642 Carstens, Willy & Frieda 5522 Franklin Boise, ID 83705 Dgbaran, Joe & Dobaran, /Yohn & Arve l l a / Rte 5 Cloverdale Boise, ID 83705 S.E. �X, Sec. 8, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. 5110-841-7230 Par. #7230 of N�S.E. Sec. 8, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - 10535 N. Eagle 5110-844-9220 Par. #9220 of SESE Sec. 8, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - NA 5110-844-9320 Par. #9320 of SE Sec. 8, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - NA 5110-844-9330 Par. #9330 of SE Exc. R/w Sec. 8, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. 3140 E. Franklin 5110-844-9340 Far. #9340 of SE Exc. R/W Sec. 8, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - 3160 E. Franklin -2- Elixir Industries 17809 S. Broadway Gardena, CA 90248 Green, Jack W. (trustge) 3070 E. Franklin Rd. Meridian, ID 83642 i. Green, Glenn E. et 3070 E. Franklin Rd Meridian, ID 83642 Ross, Donna L. 3140 E. Franklin Rd. Meridian, ID 83642 Kusler, Elizabeth 3160 E. Franklin Rd. Meridian, ID 83642 Cont) SEk, Sec`, T. 3 N., R. 1 Z. S110-844-9310 Par. #9310 of SE Sec. 8, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - 3070 E. Franklin • Green, Glenn E. etux ,,3070 E. Franklin Rd. Meridian, ID 8364,2 R651-058-0010 Olson, Cecil & Bush, David C. Lt. 1, Blk 1 / (cont) Marcum & Hunemiller Olson & Bush Ind. Pk. 1. Box 386 P.A. - NA Meridian, ID 83642 8651-058-0020 Olson, Cecil and Bush, David C. Lt. 2, Blk. 1 };! (cont.) Summers H. Dean etal Olson & Bush Ind. Pk. Box 579 P.A. - NA Boise, ID 83701 R651-058-0030 Olsoni Cecil & Bush, David C. Lt. 3, Blk. 1 (cont.) Marcum & Hunemiller Olson & Bush Ind. Pk. Box 386 P.A. - NA Boise, ID 83642 R651-058-0070 Olson, Cecil & Bush, David C. Lot 1, Blk. 2 „( 1920 Canal Olson & Bush Ind. Pk. Boise, ID 83705 P.A. - NA R651-058-0080 Stoddard, Bruce W. & Virginia M. Lt. 2, Blk. 2 L r" 4821 Mountain View Olson & Bush Ind. Pk. Boise, ID 83704 P.A. - 3131 Lanark R651-058-0090 Olson, Cecil & Bush, David C. Lot. 3, Blk. 2 (cont) Marcum & Hunemiller Olson & Bush Ind. Pk Box 386 P.A. - NA Meridian, ID 83642 NW' -4 Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. S11.1-622-3000 Langlois, Mary Jean etal Par. #3000 of WW X (cont.) Robinson, Floyd,Jr. etux Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. 3585 E. Franklin Rd. P. A. - 3585 E. Franklin Meridian, ID 83642 Slll-621-2652 Bews, Edward C. & Shirley G. Par.#2652 of E� NW 5206 Sorrento Cir. Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. Boise, ID 83704 P.A. - NA Slli-621-2950 Lamb, Daniel R. Par. #2950 of NEN14 Attn: Minegar, Cathi Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. Box 4272 P.A. - 3600 E. FFranklin Boise, ID 83711 S11.1-621-2800 Lamb, Daniel R. Par. #2800 of NEW i Attn: Minegar, Cathi Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. Box 4272 P.A. - 3585 E. Franklin Boise, ID 83711 -3- ©nt.) NA sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. I E. 51.11-621-2600 • �._.._..�_�_ Par. #2600 of NENW Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - NA • Larrondo, Mary (cont.) Bews, Edward L. 5206 Sorrento Boise, ID 83704 5111-622-3400 Bartschi, Ralph P. & LaVonne J. Par. #3400 of NWNW `, 3475 E. Franklin Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - NA 5111-622-3100 Holloway, Harold E. & DeAnna B. Par. #3100 of NWNW 3545 E. Franklin Sec. 16 T. 3 N., R. 1 E. Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 3545 Franklin 5111-621-2500 Fortin, Lawrence E. & Anna C. Par. #2500 of NENW 3975 E. Franklin Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 3975 E. Franklin 8579-150-0005 Bartschi, Ralph P. & LaVonne J. Lot 1, Blk 1 3475 E. Franklin Rd. Montvue Pk Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 3475 E. Franklin 8579-150-0010 Hoffbauer, Arles F. etux Lot 2, Blk 1 3435 E. Franklin Road Montvue Pk Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 3435 E. Franklin 8579-150-0020 k Koger, Grove A., Jr. & Ellen E. Lot 3, Blk 1 �g 3385 E. Franklin Rd. Montvue Pk Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 3357 E. Franklin 8579-150-0030 . Burkhardt, Howard L. & Lenore Lt 4, Blk. 1 3335 E. Franklin Montvue Pk Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 3335 E. Franklin 8579-150-0040 Calkins, Randall L. & Tanya L. Lot. 5, Blk. 1% 3315 E. Franklin Montvue Pk Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 3315 Franklin 8579-150-0050 Hatvani, Karoly L. Lot 6, Blk 1 3285 E. Franklin Rd. Montvue Pk Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 3235 E. Franklin 8579-150-0060 Malcom, Clifford A. & Lenore Z Lot 6, Blk. 1 30 S. Eagle Rd. Montvue Pk. MERIDIAN, ID 83642 P.A. - 30 S. Eagle R579-150-0071 Layne, Donald L. & Roberta K. Par. #0071 of Lot 8/Blk 1 3250 Montvue Montvue Pk. Meridian, ID 83642 P.A. - 3250 Montvue 4 - :cont. ) NA 16, T. 3 H., R._ 1 E. 8579-150-01075 • Par. #0075 of Lt. 8, Blk 1 Montvue Pk P.A. - 3300 Montvue 8579-150-0090 Lt 9, Blk 1 Montvue Pk P.A. - 3360 Montvue 8579-150-0090 Lot 10, Blk. 1 Montvue Pk. P.A. - 3410 Montvue 8579-150-0100 Lt. 11, Blk 1 Montvue Pk. P.A. - 3460 Montvue 8579-150-0110 Lot 12, Blk. 1 Montvue Pk P.A. - 210 E. Montvue R579-150-0121 Lt. 1, Exc. Tax 1, Blk 2 Montvue Pk. P.A. 3225 Montvue 8579-150-0125 Tax 1 of Lt. 1, Blk 2 Montvue Pk. P.A. - 3295 Montvue 8579-150-0130 Lt. 1, Blk. 3 Montvue Pk. P.A. 3405 Montvue 8579-150-0140 Lt. 2/Blk. 3 Montvue Park P.A. - NA 8579-150-0151 Lot 1 Exc. S 261', Blk. 4 Montvue Pk P.A. - NA RS',9-150-0153 Par. #0153 of Lt. 1, Blk. 4 Montvue Pk. P.A. - 215 E. Montvue 8579-150-0155 S.140' of Lt. 1, Blk. 4 Montvue Pk P.A. 325 E. Montvue - 5 - Watsoreowell Omar & Ray L. 3300 MOritvue Meridian, ID 83642 Richter, Max R. & Diane L. 3360 Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 t Nelson, Warren B. etux 3410 Montvue,, Meridian, ID 83642 Timmons, Johnnie E. etux P. A. Box 257 Lyndon, KS. 66451 Kinsey, Bernerd R. 210 E. Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 Samuelson, Leroy etux P.O. Box 412 Meridian, ID 83642 Corn, Samel E. & Betty 3295 Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 Y Shaffer, Gifford R. et Box 361 t Meridian, ID 83642 Shaffer, Gifford R. etux Meridian, ID 83642 Box Shaffer, Gifford R. E Berta E. Box 361 Meridian, ID 83642 Ostrander, Diane S. t 325 E. Montvue fir/ Meridian, ID 83642'' Ostrander, Diane S.I. 325 E. Montvue B Meridian, ID 836426 V • (cont.) NWIS Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. 8579-150-0161 Lt. 2 Exc. N. 122', Blk. 4 Montvue Pk. P.A. - 320 Montvue 8579-150-0165 N. 122' of Lt. 2, Blk 4 Montvue Pk. P.A. - NA 8579-150-0170 Lt. 3, Blk. 4 Montvue Pk. P.A. - 230 W. Montvue 8579-150-0180 Lt. 1, Blk. 5 Montvue Pk. P.A. - 320 E. Montvue R579-150-0191 Lt. 2 & E. 40' of Lt. 3, Blk 5 Montvue Pk. P.A. - 360 E. Montvue 8579-150-0201 Lt. 3, Exc. W. 140' & Exc. E. 40' Blk. 5; Montvue Pk. P.A. 3555 E. Montvue 8579-150-0205 W. 140' of Lt. 3, Blk. 5 Montvue Pk. P.A. 385 Montvue 8579-150-0210 Lt. 4, Blk. 5 Montvue Pk. P.A. - 365 Montvue 8579-150-0220 Lt. 5, Blk. 5 Montvue Pk. P.A. - 390 S. Eagle R579-150-0231 S'� of Lt. 6, Blk. 5 Montvue Pk. P.A. - 340 S. Eagle 8579-150-0235 N. '� Lt. 6, Blk. 5 Montvue Pk. P.A. 290 S. Eagle - 6 - • Sutherland, Mel C. 320 Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 Gilbert, Robert D. & Lynn J. 230 Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 Gilbert, Robert D-'& ynn J. 230 MontVue Meridian, ID 83642 4 Reynolds, Willis A. etux 320 Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 Ruyf, Gerald A. 360 Montvue lyeri??an, ID 83642 Matlock, Delbert E. j Cheryl K- 3555 Montvue Meridian, ID 83642! Hoalst, Weslee W. & se Marie 385 Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 Richey, Virgil C. etux 365 Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 i Richardson, Ray C. etux 390 S. Eagle r Meridian, ID 83642 Ward, David W. & Jeanette M. 340 S. Eagle Rd. b Meridian, ID 83642 Hickman, Kelvin Gale & Vickie 290 S. Eagle Rd. Meridian, ID 83642 NFi�t Sec. 16, T. Iwo (cont. ) 8579-150-0241 N. 11 Lt. 7, Blk. 5 Montvue Pk. P.A. - NA 8579-150-0245 S12Lt.7, Blk 5 Montvue Pk. P.A. 250 S. Eagle 8579-150-0250 Lt. 8, Blk. 5 Montvue Pk. P.A. 180 S. Eagle 8579-150-0261 Lt. 9 EXC. S. 2051, Blk. 5 Montvue Pk. P.A. - NA R579-150-0265 S. 205' of Lt. 9, Blk. 5 Montvue Pk. P.A. 225 W. Montvue 1 8579-150-0270 Lt. 10, Blk. 5 Montvue Pk. P.A. - 285 W. Montvue All of Farmington Estates No. 1 All of Farmington Estates No. 2 5111-612-0600 Par. #0600 of NE & NWSE Sec. 16, T. 3 N. R. 1 E. P.A. - 4335 E. Franklin 5111-632-5400 N. of Int. 80 SW'a Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - NA 5111-632-5500 N. 11SW South of I -80N Exc.Rd. on W. Side Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - 1020 S. Eagle U Miner, Gary B. & Claric 3L.- 250 S. Eagle Rd. Meridian, ID 83642 Coffin, David W. & Adelen 250 S. Eagle Rd. Meridian, ID 83642+S i Miner, Larry B & Clark a L. 180 S. Eagle Meridian,ID 83642 Corn, Samuel E. etux 3295 Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 Hein, August M. etux 225 Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 Burtner, Edwin R., Jr. & Madeline C. 285 Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 Bews, E. L. & Shirley G.' 5206 Sorrento Cir. Boise, ID 83704 Bews, E.L. & Shirley G, 5206 Sorrento Cir. Boise, ID 83704 NE'i, Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. Chaffin, Evan W. etal Ocamica, Tom J. & Marie c/o J. Robert Tullis (con P.O. Box 8329 Boise, ID 83707 Sw;i, Sec. 16, T. 3 N-, R. 1 E. State of Idaho Oliason, Emilia etal Oliason, Emilia/Life Est. 603 E. Pine Meridian, ID 83642 - 7 - 1 • S111-642-7920 Par. #7920 of NW/SE Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - NA R755-500-0270 ' Lot 11, Blk 2 Rolling Hill Sub. P.A. - NA R755-500-0280 Lt. 12, Blk. 2 Rolling Hill Sub. P.A. - 925 Rolling Hills R755-500-0160 Lt. 16, Blk. 1, Exc. R/W Rolling Hills Sub. P.A. 950 Rolling Hills R755-500-0155 S. 130' of Lt. 15, Blk. 1 Rolling Hill Sub. P.A. - 1070 Rolling Hills R755-500-0151 Lt. 15 Exc. S. 130', Blk. 1 Rolling Hill Sub. P.A. 1030 Rolling Hills 5111-711-0090 Par. #0090 of NENE Exc. R/W Sec. 17, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. 15 S. Eagle 8327-316-0030 Lt. 6, Blk. 1 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. 3076 Springwood R327-316-0025 Lt. 5, Blk. 1 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. 3088 Springwood R327-316-0020 Lt. 4, Blk. 1 Greenhill Est. #3 PA. -NA R327-316-0015 Lt. 3, Blk. 1 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. - NA SEAg Sec. 16 T. 3 W. , R. 1 Ada County by Tax Deed Freeman, George T. &Dorothy M. 925 Rolling Hills Meridian, ID 83642 Freeman, George T. a ux 925 Rolling Hills Meridian, ID 83642 Jamison, John E. & Ih ese J. 950 Rolling Hills ° Meridian, ID 83641 Cornell, Ida M. 1070 Rolling Hills Meridian, ID 83642 Clapp, Wesley E. 1030 Rolling Hills Meridian, ID 83642 1 NVx, Sec. 17, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. Taylor, Leon E. & No G Rte 3, Stewart Rd. Kuna, ID 83634 Shepherd, Terry K & Marjorie M 3076 Springwood Meridian, ID 83642 Juhasz, C. Don & Pamela 3088 Springwood Meridian, ID 83642' Stork, Robert A. & Dianna L. 3100 Springwood Meridian, ID -83642 Howell, Michael B. & P gy Joe 1661 Shoreline - Suite 1 9 Boise, ID 63702 8 - c {cont) Rgi+, Sec. 17, T. �., R. 1 E. R327-316-0010 Lt. 2, Elk. 1 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. - NA R327-316-0005 Lt. 1, Blk. 1 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. - NA 8327-316-0095 Lt. 1, Elk 2 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. - NA R327-316-0100 Lt. 2, Elk. 2 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. - NA R327-316-0105 Lt. 3, Elk. 2 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. 3137 Springwood R327-316-0110 Lt. 4, Elk. 2 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. - 3101 Springwood R327-316-0115 Rte. 5, Elk. 2 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. - 3065 Springwood R327-316-0170 Lt. 16, Elk. 2 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. - 3044 Autumn 8327-316-0175 Lot 17, Blk. 2 5 Greenhill Est. #3 3050 Autumn R327-316-0180 Lt. 18, Elk. 2 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. - 3134 Autumn R327-316-0185 Lt. 19, Blk. 2 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. - NA r 1 LJ Jenkins, Howard B. & Sharon J Pearl Rte Eagle, ID 83616 C Jenkins, Howard B. & Sharon J. Pearl Rte Eagle, ID 83616 Jenkins, Howard B. & Shgron J. Pearl Rte Eagle, ID 83616 r Bachus, Donald L. & Byrl A. 3161 Springwood Meridian, ID 83642 Stevens, Dan R. & Mary - 3137 Springwood Dr. Meridian, ID 83642 Johnstone, David G. & Barbara L. 3101 Springwood Dr— Meridian, ID 83642 Menlove, Steven T. & GAyle T- 3065 Springwood Meridian, ID 83642 Chetwood, Lawrence H. 4 Shirley S. 3044 Autumn Way Meridian, ID 83642 Fowler, Jerry R. 3050 Autumn Meridian, ID 83642 Harting, Robert D. & Margaret A. 3134 Autumn Way Meridian, ID 83642 Jenkins, Howard B. & Sharon J. Pearl Rte i Eagle, ID 83616 (cont) $@C. 17, T. 3 R R327-316-0190 Lt. 20, Blk 2 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. - NA R327-316-0195 Lt. 1, Blk. 3 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. - NA R327-316-0200 Lt. 2, Blk. 3 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. - NA R327-316-0205 Lt. 3, Blk. 3 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. 3157 Autumn R327-316-0210 Lt. 4, Blk. 3 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. - 3133 Autumn R326-316-0215 Lt. 5, Blk. 3 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. 3091 Autumn R327-316-0220 Lt. 6, Blk. 3 Greenhill Est. #3 P.A. - NA 8544-301-0010 Lot 1 Magic View Sub. Amd- P.A. - 603 S. Eagle 8544-301-0020 Lot 2 Magic View Sub. Amd- P.A. - 3050 Magic View 8544-301-0110 Lot 11 Magic View Sub. Amd- P.A. 625 Eagle 8544-301-0120 Lot 12 Magic View Sub. Amd- P.A. - NA 8544-301-0130 Lt. 13 Magic View Sub. An'd- P.A. - NA 10 - Jenkins, Howard B. & Sharon J. Pearl Rte AS. Eagle, ID 83616 Greenhill Estates No. 3 Water Corp. 3137 Springwood Boise, ID 83642 Dahlstrom, Merrell Bk& Nadene 11600 Alejandro St. Boise, ID 83709 Stranger, Bruce R. & H el D. 3157 Autumn Way Meridian, ID 83642 Williams, Richard C. &,Crherol A. 3133 Autumn Way Meridian, ID 83642 Pantaleo, Raymond A. & Betty J. 3091 Autumn Way Meridian, ID 83642 0 Brown, Blaine E. & Jean Ann 5288 Chaps Boise, ID 83709 Gardner, Gerald J. 603 S. Eagle Meridian, ID 83642 Moore, Richard L. & r ra L. 3050 Magic View Meridian, ID 83642 Laier, Ronald F. et 1 1112 Manitou Boise, ID 83706 Post, James A. & Rosetta, 1611 Old Village Way Oldsmar, Florida 33557 Flying H Farms etal Box 4368 Whittier, CA 93003 (conn iE�t aC ,X71 T. 3 N., R. T 3 E. 8544-301-0140 Lt. 14 Magic View Sub. Amd. P.A. - NA Sill -623-3800 SW/NW Exc. deed to St.of ID Lt. 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - NA SE'4 Sec. 8,T._3 N. R. 1 E. 5110-841-7700 Par. #7700 of SE Sec. 8, T. 3 N., R. 1 E. P.A. - 10535 N. EAgle Flying R Farms etal Box 4368 Whittier, CA 93003 First Interstate Bank Trustee Box 5757 Boise, ID 83705 "!,w Alum A Form C/o Elixir Industries 17809 S. Broadway Gardena, CA 90248 TOOTHMAN-ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY DAVIS C. TOOTHMAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS RICHARD F. ORTON, JR. 1802 NORTH 33RD STREET BOISE, IDAHO 83703 TELEPHONE (208) 342-5511 September 5, 1985 File: 1502 Mr. Jack Neimann City of Meridian 728 Meridian Street Meridian, ID 83642 Dear Jack: Re: Announcement letters - Claremont Development Enclosed are the receipts for certified mail for the Notice of Public Hearing announcements sent to owners of record of land within 300 ft. of the proposed shopping development. Also attached are copies of the two PAUL S. KUNZ DON G. PAYNE enclosures for your records. The return receipt (green cards) will be returned to your office so that you can check them against the receipts and determine that everyone has received them. 7Ve yours, TOOTH - TON E G EERING MPANY Richard F. Orton President RFO:mr Encs. • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at 7:30 o'clock p.m, on September 23, 1985, at the Meridian Primary School, 48 W. State Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, for the purpose of considering the application of Claremont Development Company to annex and zone a portion of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, H.N., Ada County, Idaho, a more particular description of which is on file in the City Clerks office, City of Meridiani that the requested zone is (C -G) General Retail and Service Commercial, however, the City is considering the adoption of a new zone (RSC) Regional Shopping Center Business District and since Applicants' intended use is for a regional shopping center this application for zoning is being processed under the basis that the new RSC District will be adopted and if the property is zoned after adoption of the RSC District, said property would receive that designation) a regional shopping center is allowed in the RSC District and such is the intended use of the property. The Application additionally requests annexation and zoning of a portion of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, B.M., Ada County, Idaho, a more particular description of which is on file in lthe City Clerks office, City of Meridian. The requested zone is (I -L) Light Industrial. This hearing is being held pursuant to Title 67, Chapter 65 Idaho Code and the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. Any and all interested persons may testify or present documentary evidence. A more detailed description of the parcels of land involved is on file in the City Clerks office and is available for inspection. DATED this11day of August,1985. Jacc - em nn, City Clerk .' SWA NWA i SEI NWA ii REV. /-13415 oTA-t ?S PAIOw O ANNEXATiOAI AF041 CLAREMOA/T LeVELOPMEA/T COM, .w r. SM.., R. iE., a.M., AMA. COwv7y, / TOOfNNAN-ONION EMO/NE[ /fOE M istc ffNEET ' /01st, dl 11 T:Z,6,GT ,! NW! SW* _O"S ato�d__ - ZONE _ 3x.ST. ZGNS i-!-1 NEA SWA OLOOK 2 7 C NYN I O� 2 COMM RCE PARA' SUED/PIS/ON ecocK S Irg I .I OM/ON /AC/i/C NA/LNOAO O h SCALE: /'•300' ,III 1I I SWA SWA SEA SWA , i �ROPo'E ZONC .-L TRA GT IV �ARGGL P�-i ;II ---- - I �bR:.tL NWA NWA NE4NW ZGNL I :14 I� 1 Ex!bT. ZaHG R-5 "Rtac.T A l� A-2— �. N i W4 ZONE GG ZON! C.cl Ex -M-.. 7GWC �C-rJ 4. A..:, T A .' SWA NWA i SEI NWA ii REV. /-13415 oTA-t ?S PAIOw O ANNEXATiOAI AF041 CLAREMOA/T LeVELOPMEA/T COM, .w r. SM.., R. iE., a.M., AMA. COwv7y, / TOOfNNAN-ONION EMO/NE[ /fOE M istc ffNEET ' /01st, t, r , .y 5 ,k r ✓ .. Y � j ,�� SC NOTICE TAI HXR88Y 9�EN tt t the ng ..Of the Cit pf b { Cciaiai zsfl . Yeh' fi- } Tt>3{} o'�c.ock 'pm;..`�i Sepeiber .985, 'at the rtr i stat R 3c no1 a Av nu , Meridian, TA abo", fd , the e�4'ta E co afd riri lainV bf .rr+eeic�it i7e` ` 1 a the' app x h n+ex and` ,aon-:apDto�` �f ta%$t �?ciarteJr - tnshlp 3' Ncsrth, R"90 1. £aBt,G H.M� Adis GOtlYbtitr , ` .. T� , iri . of which 11 -`on 3t1e i C2, 4ft1i' tut. the #eQues a� ;- * .• r +I Go tet aix and.'-. -Comnieeelai r ►w$ve ,� z 4 rlr � �'< cnsit3erinq theoi�n of a new :off: EIl &egitt F'" .* Center -bus nesse as 'co AppliW. �aot , nt# 5 a >; a regi ons ' eh84 t center this ai pp eat cx� h be ng proc�eeed uAd r the basis °het the it ri r .. adopted 4nd> if' then: propert 1s 'atlu7e after ado M Di riasaid , p�'ctpe�;�.y would receive that regional igbopptqq.comte.jr Bksaa owed :fie this R w C is the :#mended useh' of the �; m r pX€apty. The �A.P��"i�a�tios a �, s ragas ts' :aaaexatigh and won ng of.'- -'.A pprtanf `^ anhi.g 3'•;Noxtfi, Ttaagt "Asti, •B.l�i` , :Ada ithi " particular, : deisdript� on .a€ wTiich ffi 'ern iti.tle �� `�i r 4e, office, pity of Mae .seas f-= AMMQSk 5 i Z��e �IVrW�]Yr!1 - , r= ^ • Atfq►O�y�and September 4, 1985 Ada County Commissioners Ada County Zoning COUNCILMEN BILL BREWER RONALD R. TOLSMA J. E. BERT MYERS ROBERT GIESLER BOB SPENCER Chairman Zoning & Planning Public Hearing on the attached application has been scheduled for September 23, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. at the Meridian Primary School, 48 West State Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. Any comments on the attached application for Annexation & Zoning will be welcomed. Jack Niemann City Clerk & Zoning Adminstrator City of Meridian, Id. 83642 • • TREASURE F H U B`VALLEi' 0 A Good Place to Live OFFICIALS JAM. EMAT,Trea MERIDIAN KI A. M. KIEBERT, Treasurer Treasurer CITY OF BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney 728 Meridian Street EARL WARD, Waste Water Supt. KENNY BOWERS, Fire Chief MERIDIAN, IDAHO ROY PORTER, Police Chief 838¢2 GARY SMITH, City Engineer Phone 888-4433 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor September 4, 1985 Ada County Commissioners Ada County Zoning COUNCILMEN BILL BREWER RONALD R. TOLSMA J. E. BERT MYERS ROBERT GIESLER BOB SPENCER Chairman Zoning & Planning Public Hearing on the attached application has been scheduled for September 23, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. at the Meridian Primary School, 48 West State Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. Any comments on the attached application for Annexation & Zoning will be welcomed. Jack Niemann City Clerk & Zoning Adminstrator City of Meridian, Id. 83642 i ar) A 0-3 z L4 o a o oL4 �.: r o 0 0 0 5 9 5 tr 1 2 N C �3 ::r O N O IH- a rr K a (D n 3 to n 0 n E Q, V H• C. (D (D �• w ro � w w a rt H oa�tr7 z0acea a re a a o to E rt (D b rt rt P. (D rt rt O v K ro n R R n:� 7K w 1 a o r 9 f v- m (DW7(D O O H•roIa a a rt w B z E �° o a: rt rctac bn t7� rt O (D rt bd (D H• H• P. K ro to K 7 A a (] a (D K (1+ to z O n z K H N H• rt to x V) 7 M N O z G n W K H• ct O `G [T� O G r O 'J H• w O :3 K Z (D C) ,-. o to 7 O r Lo H. La t5 a ro H ct (n E �t, H• n a rt (n K K O a m 0 �o a (n (D roK M `G H- H• m (n :s H+ K H• (D H- n (n (D RJ N rt M K K (ED k 9 FO-+ ra-� H- K N R. (D rt rt P. H � O 7� (Ute ti K rt tY K �a~ Z n Ki el ((DD 0 1(D-1 `a rt . I z Iri d ro r) a H• (n ~ z H• a w o ftj M rt H a ro rr • Fl - En c a P•o rorta O z r O rt bC H+ (n rt O ro of �vK C rt ~ v H H- K i O rt • `G N 0 h7 H n r� IV G 3 m G) ~ rt rt r7 H. �• W � a art 0 a � f m o K k of � U) rt a o K a W. E m B 1-- l'o M N (D rt H• (n m 0 (D • rt K A+ K (D rt 0 O O 11 f z a C rt K H• H� O az H (n � w ro g � G rt :j rt H• 7 � H• La In w K m R� .O G N (D O (n O rt I m ro �t O n rt "G H- U) r O n w rt w a G7 H O z r x O ro ro H z u� n t� z H M z Io n c y to 3 H H- M > ro o z < H tij X CD 1-3� b H OH z I-Qj n a M a O tri H E r z O 6, ro z H 110 :z H z z sr y N tri zz•• H (A z t1i �ro (7 tyrJ I bd H ,tid (!� N H W O- z 00 Ln En tri ro 1-3 tri bd t� H kD 00 Ln 3 -j (D N K OD H• aM H• m • A. H• H a 0 :3 OD En LA) rt M. N L4 o a o oL4 m 5 9 5 tr ::r O N O IH- N K a (D n to n 0 n E H• z Io n c y to 3 H H- M > ro o z < H tij X CD 1-3� b H OH z I-Qj n a M a O tri H E r z O 6, ro z H 110 :z H z z sr y N tri zz•• H (A z t1i �ro (7 tyrJ I bd H ,tid (!� N H W O- z 00 Ln En tri ro 1-3 tri bd t� H kD 00 Ln 3 -j (D N K OD H• aM H• m • A. H• H a 0 :3 OD En LA) rt M. N NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a special meeting at 5:30 o'clock p.m. on September 30, 1985, at the Meridian City Hall, 728 Meridian Street, Meridian, Idaho, for the purpose of taking action on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions on the Application of Claremont Development Company for annexation and zoning of a portion of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, B.M., Ada County, Idaho, a more particular description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office and is available for inspection during regular business hours., DATED thi —�1! day of September, 1955. n, ,tity Clerk M8ROSE. ZGERALD +OOKSTON aMys and nmoolorn Boa 127 Jun. Id&W 8161? ,..no 8861101 TOOTHMAN-ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY DAVIS C. TOOTHMAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS PAULS.KUNZ RICHARD F. ORTON, JR. 1802 NORTH 33RD STREET DON G. PAYNE BOISE, IDAHO 83703 TELEPHONE (208) 342-5511 October 3, 1985 File: 1502 City Clerk & City Council City of Meridian 728 Meridian Meridian, ID 83642 Gentlemen: Re: Certification of Mailing - Claremont Annexation & Zoning As above date we have mailed the "Notice of Public Hearing" supplied to us by Jack Neimann, City Clerk for the City of Meridian. This notice is being mailed to all owners of record in and within three hundred feet of the proposed annexation. Very truly yours, TH -ORTON EN N OM NY Richard F. Orton President State of Idaho ) ss. County of Ada ) On this a4-oe, day of�,, in the year of 1985, before me personally appeared Richard F. Orton, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the above instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. c Notary Public - State of Idaho at Boise, Idaho 4/9/86 Commission Expires s I& GIV,41t A :m� 43 r titt k 21, 1905 At, -,the Mftidiaii: City Y ri"I or,"Lth4.,,,,--'p qoso,, of 'Co -ASO *4k_",!. Allom ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUEST CLAREMEONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY EAGLE ROAD & I 84 C O M M E N T S 1. Ada County Highway District: See Letter Attached: 2. Central District Health: See Attached: 3. Earl Ward: No Comments at this time: 4. Public Hearing held before P& Z Commission September 23, 1985: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact & Conclusions: 5. Special Meeting of P& Z held September 30, 1985, Findings of Fact approved and recommendation of approval by Council made. 6. Nampa Meridian Irrigation: See Attached; Received after Public Hearing before P&Z. 7. Copies of letters received as testimony at P&Z Public Hearing Attached: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 318 EAST 37TH STREET BOISE, IDAHO 83714 Inter -Department Correspondence To: Ada County Highway District Commission Date: September 19, 1985 From: Development Services Subject: MERIDIAN ZONE CHANGE EAGLE/I-84 Shopping Mall FACTS & FINDINGS: 1. To construct a 1.3 million square foot shopping mall on the northeast quadrant of Eagle Road and I-84. RECOMMENDATIONS: If the Rezone is accepted and development proceeds, the ACRD would recommend the following: 1. Submit to the District for review and approval site access, drainage and irrigation plans. 2. Submit to the District for review a traffic impact analysis to determine street classifications, width, access locations, traffic signal locations. 3. Provide full street improvements on all public roads abutting and within parcel. 4. Improvements to the dedicated right-of-way to be designed and constructed to ACHD standards and specifications. 5. All street construction plans shall be signed and stamped by a registered professional engineer in accordance with Idaho Code 52-1218. 6. Obtain written approval from irrigation/drainage jurisdiction for storm runoff into irrigation/drainage system(s). 7. Relocate all obstructions outside of the proposed street improvements. Prior to relocation, obtain written permission from the applicable jurisdiction. 8. Relocate all irrigation/drainage structures outside of the public right-of-way. Prior to relocation, obtain written approval from the applicable jurisdiction. Rezone # Conditior Preliminc CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION 1455 North Orchard Boise, Idaho 83706 REVIEW SHEET 1. _ We have no objections to this proposal. 2. We recommend denial of this proposal. Return to: Boise Eagle Meridian Kuna ACZ 3. _ Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can caiment on this proposal. 4. _ We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this proposal before we can comment. 5. _ We will require more data concerning the depth of (high seasonal ground water)(solid lava) from original grade before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal. 6. _ We can approve this proposal for individual sewage disposal to be located (2,4) feet above solid lava layers. 7. _X We can approve this proposal for: Central sewage Interim sewage Individual sewage _ Camunity sewage system andVCer►\/X-Central tral water Individual water _ Cannunity water well. 8. Plans for x Central sewage Ca amity sewage system Sewage dry lines, and Central water Ca u ity water must be submitted to and approved by the Regional Health and Welfare Environmental Services Field Office. 9. Street runoff is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. 10. _ This department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. 11. _ If restroom facilities are to be installed then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. 12. We will' plans be submitted for a for an (food establishmen )(beverage estab iI 4fnent)( g pools or sgrocery store). c 13. X 2f�'1 G✓ ��f.12� Ry n v Y, 0)9ir-K, M 4/2a r, -n YYiy5t hof ' eB-y►���dzxl � I/�1� Alt.�.� To: City Council of Meridian, Idaho Dear Sirs: I have been a property owner and resident of Subdivision for the past seventeen years. There is no purpose served by stating the reasons for our desire to live in a quiet area which we have been able to enjoy during that period, because you seem determined to spoil our community if you can. This is merely to inform you that we do not favor proposed changes which will result if a shopping center is allowed next to our subdivision. You do not need to wreck our quiet community, then offer your sincere sympathy. Sincerely, kl Gifford R. Shaffer 3405 Montvue Drive Meridian, Idaho 83642 September 23, 1985 JAMES W. KISER ATTORNEY AT LAW 6000 FAIRVIEW AVE. (FAIRVIEW AT MTN. VIEW DR.) BOISE, IDAHO 83706 208 376-3100 September 23, 1985 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meridian City Hall Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Price/Claremont Request for Annexation and Zoning Dear Planning and Zoning Commission: On behalf of Glenbrook Properties and Simida Corporation, the joint owners of the Meridian Road Shopping Center site, I write to object to the Price/Claremont application for the annexation and zoning of the Eagle Road site. In support of this objection we would like to make as part of record before this body all testimony, documents and findings of fact and conclusions of law set out in all the numerous previous hearings regarding the Eagle Road site. Specifically we would like to make the most recent studies done by Richard Slaughter a part of the record for this hearing. i iXrq,6s W. Kiser OA>forney at Law JWK: km n City of Meridian REFERENCEt Proposed Mall,,,,, Planning and Zoning Committee Eagle Road 1-84' September 23, 1985 fiL i�- ntlemen Please refer to our testimony given at the April, 1 5 Coil 4seting. This testimony was backed up by independent sta emartte: by eridian Fire and Police representatives. In addition, we preeetited titions signed by over 477 opposing an Eagle -I-84 Mall site. 'Our sition remains adamantly unaltered. We do not oppose orderly commercial growth in Meridian. In fact we vigorously support it, but not at the expense of our fellow%busineer ople and neighbors and ;our own loss of peace and tranquillity of our es. We believe that commercial growth is appropriate where t�*ri sently exists zoning, services and proximity to the existin "basi- ss district. We suggested at the Council Meeting that the Developer et with Mr. Nahas and together develop the Nahas:site in Meridian. We have been told that Mr. Nahas representatives have proposed this o the developer but.such proposals have been ignored. Viv Dr. Slaughters multi -thousand -dollar study shows that prehibi- e public costs will obtain to support this private enterprise vene; the proposed site will be smaller than projected due to our fal- ering economy; the site is incompatible with the Meridian Co .rehen- plan, being neither compact nor contiguous; the City`s ill not be ab to raise funds to cover new costs and services without +gems in ovation or new forms of public taxation for years to odme"and prob- ably most importantly, OLDER COMMERCIAL AREAS WILL LOBE SALEt,"the proposed site completely by-passes the core of the City Of.Meridiant The developerd representatives have repeatedly misrepresented to you, to the Council, to the Chamber of Con wrce, to the subject ares home owners, to the media that they held firm committments from Major anchor tenants, and only when forced to do so, did they present the alleged"Committment" letters which turned out to be form letre,e» pres'sions of interest or courtesy, with the exception of one or two smaller 0sTective tenants, some three-four years old. s as indicated that they are doing very well at their pro- se Boise location and have no intention of moving. That.sta is a v on store, even if they were committed to Eagle Road. M like to ask you "who can become excited about even going ne a "B" store?"There is nothing exciting or innovative in the De 's proposals, even if they did have proper tenants. I, if the developer is so committed to Meridian, - xhy did he , erecarge sign board on Franklin Road proclaiming that Westparlt is tof the new Boise Regional Shopping Mali. For thees._.4nd othes, we do not believe the developer is acting, in got�d.' faith now Jogheepast. We believe that they are using Meridian as= a pa orce the hand of Boise City and will leave Meridian1holding th B " Vere���}���' �,,�c�t, rn zr 00 Ln zd u w mart a.o tv w H• H• n G w w G' E ti; z m n O G. C rt N w tt p �- trJ � =rO t - v rt p b (D n n r• U) LC +-• b< R x c �- w n w m rt �(D� d o n t� G 1 G7 0r z r: H• rt ri p' rt (D H• b r n n ti H sr n a. rt (D O m w a. 0) rt z O t✓ o n Z n v rt K n H• rt (D v K R' E 'D r t�J ti ~3 7d r �rl rt > .. P) w w o+ 0 (D v a rt Oy rt ti w � > = H• G x p3, rt N rt n b r• tr. Er d b< CA b 3 z CL w w O O G' G r O R x to ti O z H. m G w G G O O z t=J w m n w n w 10 rt h z v, ro 4 H X .� ri w O rt m 0 W C.Ul a. � b � o v, � OOi (D (D O" ti m w LT c e H a z ro H 4 n H• oo •v O H• p G rt F oo rt L7 p H z ' G (D tt, G G = 0Q H• t•( 0Q R �P p F R' w a. a. rt O v , a z p w C N o' n z a rA+ H a C7 N �; O (D H• H. v, is !' :U N < z p H p G m0 H O # O trJ H C•. O (D H� M t-- U. E ti z U. t7 b m H• .d ..� CO 0 O 14 O w a Oro Q 3 rt 04 r•h P. b rt n m F-Im m rt rt rt z H• C w n n n 7 p" tD rt rt w rt rt H• (D F (D 14 F - (n O n • (n t�n O C 'C w �3 La to 3 H rD w a is ro n a o r D7 F C1. R z H• O N R w O En rt F. ::5 rt ti 3 H V ►3 it En tri ro H td tri N 00 Ln S v R N K cr, aR w tc � a H• d � m to w rt M X. N a t, c r -- v' -7 CL r. .. F .. •- L v c •• r c a �- G r_ 3 ►- 2 n 3 3 C, C' L 't «r C C tr tr. tD ;l7 C) tS E Z •3 Ga Ca tz r• C G O CL R G �C G R r G a C r c n OR ►� tt O a a O O m 5 5 8 C a G A a H r K h �- n H is R C c n tT rt w rt rr �. r r+ " h rt C a h f CL a n 3 R C) tT 3 +� rL rt 3 f) t, O v :rO L cn 11C h ? K = aA' r O H. u$ A G G t a W. R > t t f A V. - r C R r• r+ V. r• C K a 7C O N- r a, �(tI t7 - rt t; i- tC r rt to 0 K t 3 r t1 a m a rc* 4 < T h ~ £ tt C G rt C C_ rT rt n O H tc E a C is O r 5 La t% O - a h R to n O R r r rt tT ft H H r K T O V n h O M, w tS K tt to to to E O is O is > G K A n F w R K 4 U O r ►� r rt G m `" R rt 8 w t% O N N o Fr n a tj t' rt C K lT OC r.� O t3 H•9 O Q. 5 K z fC C) 0 V :7 O r • �o O P. H rt w E *t. Q rt Er tt n O a t o C ] tG a' U. 2 'L' tt f) K t H- tC tr 5 ti r• ¢ r. E d ' � H• CD w a' b rt rt ti a tt 5 f_ a rt H• ti ro x K 0 rt rt 9ro 0 tlM d N fkD rt > rs n . � Nb r C Hz En ~ ro I a K RnO V rt t -' w ro rt t'' N trJ NH H. rt ►� V. O 11, O •• ►tiCr; tr z D Er O ' G ;oz Lt D E t•� tl-r K v x r _� _ a �i i td H O K v < ~ rY ® m tLj n ►- r r � CP ac O � to U) N H w tr apo O. rn zr 00 Ln zd u w mart a.o tv w H• H• n G w w G' E ti; z m n O G. C rt N w tt p �- trJ � =rO t - v rt p b (D n n r• U) LC +-• b< R x c �- w n w m rt �(D� d o n t� G 1 G7 0r z r: H• rt ri p' rt (D H• b r n n ti H sr n a. rt (D O m w a. 0) rt z O t✓ o n Z n v rt K n H• rt (D v K R' E 'D r t�J ti ~3 7d r �rl rt > .. P) w w o+ 0 (D v a rt Oy rt ti w � > = H• G x p3, rt N rt n b r• tr. Er d b< CA b 3 z CL w w O O G' G r O R x to ti O z H. m G w G G O O z t=J w m n w n w 10 rt h z v, ro 4 H X .� ri w O rt m 0 W C.Ul a. � b � o v, � OOi (D (D O" ti m w LT c e H a z ro H 4 n H• oo •v O H• p G rt F oo rt L7 p H z ' G (D tt, G G = 0Q H• t•( 0Q R �P p F R' w a. a. rt O v , a z p w C N o' n z a rA+ H a C7 N �; O (D H• H. v, is !' :U N < z p H p G m0 H O # O trJ H C•. O (D H� M t-- U. E ti z U. t7 b m H• .d ..� CO 0 O 14 O w a Oro Q 3 rt 04 r•h P. b rt n m F-Im m rt rt rt z H• C w n n n 7 p" tD rt rt w rt rt H• (D F (D 14 F - (n O n • (n t�n O C 'C w �3 La to 3 H rD w a is ro n a o r D7 F C1. R z H• O N R w O En rt F. ::5 rt ti 3 H V ►3 it En tri ro H td tri N 00 Ln S v R N K cr, aR w tc � a H• d � m to w rt M X. N AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS 1530 WEST STATE -P. O. BOX 427 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 GRANT L. AMBROSE (1915-1968) JOHN O. FITZGERALD. P.A. WAYNE G. CROOKSTON. JR., P.A THIS FIRM INCLUDES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS November 5, 1985 Phil Davidson Claremont Development Co. Suite 108 515 116th Ave. N.E. Bellvue, Washington 98004 Dwaine Rasmussen Price Development Company 35 Century Park Way Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 TELEPHONE 888-4461 AREA CODE 208 RE: Development Agreement with the City of Meridian Gentlemen: I am writing to you in my capacity as City Attorney for the City of Meridian and at the request of the Mayor and City Council. This will confirm the events and discussions held between Mr. Rasmussen and the City Council and myself. Prior to the November 4, 1985, City Council Meeting, Mr. Rasmussen informed the Mayor and the City Council that the Developers, for one reason or another, were not going to, or were not able to pay the $450,000.00 which was due upon the Council's passage of Resolution 102 conditionally annexing the Eagle Road/I-84 shopping center site. Mr. Rasmussen felt that the Resolution should be passed or passed subject to the payment of the $450,000.00 but even so the Developers would not make the required payment. Mr. Rasmussen requested that the Developers be afforded thirty to forty-five days within which to make the required payment. He stated that he would be willing to state on the record at the November 4, Council Meeting, that any delay was at the request and desire of the Developers. After discussions between Mr. Crookston and the Mayor and Council and also after discussions between Mr. Crookston and Mr. Lance and Mr. Rasmussen it was agreed between Mr. Crookston, for the City, and Mr. Lance and Mr. Rasmussen for the Developers, that Resolution 102 would be passed without comment by Mr. Rasmussen on the Developers request for delay, that the payment of $450,000.00 would thus be due on November 4, 1985, but that since the Development Agreement required the payment of 128 interest on all unpaid amounts, the City would send a default notice, although not required under the Development Agreement, requesting payment in 30 days; and the City would not terminate the annexation and zoning application. Under the above procedure the Resolution would be effective, as desired by the Developers and the City, the $450,000.00 would be due on November 4, 1985, as desired by the City, and the Developers would have 30 days to make the $450,000.00 payment plus the accrued interest, as desired by the Developers. The above events, and particularly the agreement to pass the Resolution and send a default letter, transpired and were entered into by the City in light of the Development Agreement requiring 128 interest on all amounts past due and on the provisions of paragraph M of the Agreement, which provides that the failure to make a payment when due constitutes the Developers consent and request to terminate the processing of any permit or application, and to afford the Developers an opportunity to. keep their annexation and zoning application in effect and to make the required payment. Additionally, the grace period was to afford both parties to have the opportunity to prepare and enter into appropriate escrow agreements to control the holding of the funds. Pursuant to the accord made just prior to the November 4, 1985, City Council Meeting YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that under the Development Agreement, YOU, Claremont Development Company, and Price Development Company, jointly and severally are in default of the sums of FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND AND N0/100 DOLLARS ($450,000.00) which payment was due November 4, 1985, which bears interest at the rate of 128 per annum from November 4, 1985 and DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE FOR THE ABOVE AMOUNT. YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that you have until December 4, 1985, to make payment of said FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND AND N0/100 DOLLARS ($450,000.00) plus accrued interest at 128 per annum; that under the terms of the Development Agreement,' upon your failure to make said payment on or before December 4, 1985, your Application for Annexation and Zoning shall be terminated. YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that if you fail to make the required payment on December 4, 1985, Demand is hereby made for the TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND N0/100 DOLLARS ($25,000.00) due the City, in any event under the terms of the Development Agreement. Very Truly Yours, Wayne G. Crookston, Jr. City Attorney City of Meridian WGC/mks CC: Grant P. Kingsford, Mayor, City of Meridian Allen Lance ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUEST CLAREMEONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY EAGLE ROAD & I 84 C O M M E N T S 1. Ada County Highway District: See Letter Attached: 2. Central District Health: See Attached: 3. Earl Ward: No Comments at this time: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 318 EAST 37TH STREET BOISE, IDAHO 83714 Inter -Department Correspondence To: Ada County Highway District Commission Date: September 19, 1985 From: Development Services Subject: MERIDIAN ZONE CHANGE EAGLE/I-84 Shopping Mall FACTS & FINDINGS: 1. To construct a 1.3 million square foot shopping mall on the northeast quadrant of Eagle Road and I-84. RECOMMENDATIONS: If the Rezone is accepted and development proceeds, the ACRD would recommend the following: 1. Submit to the District for review and approval site access, drainage and irrigation plans. 2. Submit to the District for review a traffic impact analysis to determine street classifications, width, access locations, traffic signal locations. 3. Provide full street improvements on all public roads abutting and within parcel. 4. Improvements to the dedicated right-of-way to be designed arca constructed to ACRD standards and specifications. 5. All street construction plans shall be signed and staged by a registered professional engineer in accordance with Idaho Code 52-1218. 6. Obtain written approval from irrigation/drainage jurisdiction for storm runoff into irrigation/drainage system(s). 7. Relocate all obstructions outside of the proposed street improvements. Prior to relocation, obtain written permission from the applicable jurisdiction. 8. Relocate all irrigation/drainage structures outside of the public right-of-way. Prior to relocation, obtain written approval from the applicable jurisdiction. MERIDIAN ZONE CHANGE EAGLE/I-84 Shopping Mall September 19, 1985 Page 2 9. Submit a site drainage plan showing that site drainage will not flow onto Ada County Highway District right-of-way. 10. Any work within ACRD right-of-way requires a permit. For information regarding the requirements to obtain a permit, please contact Quality Control at 344-6111, extension 430. CU, DR, or PDC file number required. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: 1. Recommendations are made to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission as condition for compliance. SIGNATURE OF STAFF SUBMITTING: Allan F. Samuels, P.E. • CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION 1455 North Orchard Boise, Idaho 83706 Rezone # Conditior Preliminc REVIEW SHEET Return to: Boise Eagle Meridian Kuna ACZ 1. We have no objections to this proposal. 2. We recommend denial of this proposal. 3. — Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this proposal. 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this proposal before we can ccmment. 5. _ We will require more data concerning the depth of (high seasonal ground water)(solid lava) from original grade before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal. 6. _ We can approve this proposal for individual sewage disposal to be located (2,4) feet above solid lava layers. 7. _X We can approve this proposal for: Central sewage Interim sewage Individual sewage _ Ca►munity sewage system andCen\tral water Individual water _ C aunty water well. 8. Plans for x/Central sewage Cam pity sewage system Sewage dry lines, and Central water _Carmunity water must be submitted to and approved by the Regional Health and Welfare Environmental Services Field Office. 9. Street runoff is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. 10. _ This department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. 11. _ If restroom facilities are to be installed then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. 12. We will plans be submitted for a for an(food establis )(beeg esta ishment)( ' g pools or s grocery store). Z=1 c 13. lam UXt;ari ban w -D— gdo- MaIA IY',5 11 Reviewed V bate' 0 Is S,, • c '= 5 �c•� K h c c c rt 9 B 8 t a a IEr K 4 rt a C a h h r rr �c rt •c r rt �" rDt a 0 to C to U- r r, r• rt C 4 'C Q 4 .x. f G � R r tr 3 Ll 3 •, .`�. K t 1 4 t-• a =C 0 C r r. S n •; �. R r+ u. r, h R 7c O r a R n C s •r m O r 'fl 0' ti R G n VC Ct R O h u R h V n OL or h O R n n G E athr D C rt R n wR v *- K T tr K = =r h K 01 N V E K n 4 O a C) a' R FS a u a � h �• C �► •� rt rn N 1�n~ 0 Lo tt a D #L p rt a •D H rt V. N O E a' �t �• LC to R: Oc K x r) K r M a a IE 0, ►� K r ct r- �v «- M LD a s O Q c V rt K �1 N W C) tD Ir r+" r P.� t�o1 •. K I- tr a �t }~Y+ Q D :3 d tj �'' R rpt hd i.• R. C) H H z rIn G to rt~ •'' N• a tr rt a �' C) a •c rt N tri in 1• rt r v D O .. r Z p::3 •- C r tr C) IEr K Gl y n tg� K v r• tr G O ►� K ct c; • C .a0 r; H W t. 0 x 0 0 0 a Cr m A rt r~ Ct' F+• W d A • • to f7 toC Hz 0z0 bz r0 = U) t1i tri 7u �;l n 00 cro H FC, to tri 0 .. 1zj H x tri M C) r t� 0 v z v H i OD lP c C] y h, t7 tv zz � 0 Q. y y b H � H °z tri Rn 4 a [ri C o tr1 1- E r z r �o OD Ln K 0 N c z H Z C') PRICE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY SHOPPING CENTERS / INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE PROPERTIES R3mo35 CENTURY PARK-WAY • SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 • TELEPHONE (801) 486.3911 October 21, 1985 The Honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford and Mr. Uack Niemann, City Clerk - City of Meridian 728 Meridian Street, City Hall Meridian, Idaho 83642 RE: PUBLIC HEARING EAGLE ROAD & I-84 Gentlemen: On behalf of Claremont Development Company and Price Development Company, we regret to advise you that as a result of a death in the immediate family of Mr. Duaine Rasmussen, Director of Land Acquisition, he will be unable to attend the Public Hearing scheduled for this evening, October 21, 1985. Because of the on-going and extensive involvement of Mr. Rasmussen in this project, we request that the developer presentation and response to public testimony received during tonight's Public Hearing, be deferred to a later date in view of Mr. Rasmussen's circumstances. Thank you for your kind consideration. Sincerely, PRICE DEVELOP T COMPANY Carl Olson, Vice President Development CO/kaf cc: Rex Frazier Phil Davidson Al Lance, Esq. Duaine Rasmussen A SUBSIDIARY OF PRICE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION October 219 1985 Mr. Mayor and Councilq In regard to the request by Claremont Development) I feel that I would have no problems with it after reading the findings. If we should receive different testimony tonight in our public hearings I would need the chance to go over that information before voting. Thankst Councilman Giesler JAMES W. KISER AT-rORNEt' A -r I_vw .>000 A\ E. 1PAiR%11-Al Ar>rrv.vrr:w on., BOISE. IDAHO 83706 '08 376-3100 October 21, 1985 Honorable Grant Kingsford Mayor of Meridian Councilman Bill Brewer Councilman Bob Giesler Councilman Ron Tolsma Councilman Bert Myers City Hall Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Eagle Road Annexation and Zoning Gentlemen: I write to you as attorney for the developers of the Nahas Regional Shopping Center site at I-84 and Meridian Road. In particular I write for the record in these proceedings to object to the granting of the annexation and zoning of the proposed Price/Claremont lands at Eagle Road and I-84. In support of this objection we would like to incorporate as part of this record all prior evidence, testimony and documents which have been introduced in opposition to this Eagle Road site in prior proceedings before Planning and Zoning and the City Council. We would also like to incorporate the Richard Slaughter study and the City Council's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered in the Quong/Watkins proceedings. Furthermore, we object to the annexation on the grounds that it violates Idaho Code 50-222 in two respects. One, this annexation does not provide for the "orderly development" of the City of Meridian because: (a) It is outside Meridian's original sewer facilities plan. (b) It is 2-1/2 miles from Meridian's core. i Page 2 October 21, 1985 (c) It has no present police or fire support and the City has no financial reserves to provide those services even with the Price "Development Agreement" with the City. (d) It will create an enclave of Ada County property of nearly one square mile surrounded by City limits and I-84. (e) According to the various studies performed, specifically Richard Slaughter's, development of a Regional Shopping Center at Eagle Road will bankrupt the City in the early 19901s. Two, Idaho Code 50-222 is violated because this annexation property is connected to Meridian only by a shoestring of land. A layman's view of the annexation map included as part of the application will show that the vast majority of the land proposed to be annexed has no connection or relation to the present City limits of Meridian. We also would contend that conditional annexation and zoning, conditioned on some future performance by a developer, will not pass legal muster, and that any ordinance so provided will be void from the beginning. Finally, since all evidence in this and other proceedings clearly shows that the City simply does not have the financial capability to provide for the services necessary for development at Eagle Road, then this annexation and zoning violate Idaho Code 50-1006 which provides in part: Page 3 October 21, 1985 "Neither the City Council nor any department or officer of the corporation shall add to the corporation expenditures anything over and above the amount provided in the annual appropriation bill for the year. . .and no expenditures for any improve- ment to be paid shall exceed in any one year the amount allocated for such improvement in the annual appropriation bill." Jas W. Kiser K: da M. L. SUTHERLAND 320 W. MONTVUE DRIVE MERIDIAN, ID. 83642 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MERIDIAN 728 MERIDIAN ST. MERIDIAN, ID. 83642 GENTLEMEN: OCTOBER 8, 1985 I HAVE RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 21ST, 1985 FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION OF CLAREMONT DEVELOPMENT CO. FOR ANNEXATION AND RE -ZONING OF THE PROPOSED SITE FOR THE REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER AT EAGLE ROAD AND THE FREEWAY. I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND THAT MEETING, BUT I WANTED TO FORMALLY NOTIFY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT I AM IN FAVOR OF THE REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER BEING CONSTRUCTED AT THIS LOCATION, AS LONG AS THE MONTVUE PARK SUBDIVISION IS NOT ANNEXED INTO THE CITY. I LIVE IN THE MONTVUE PARK SUBDIVISION RIGHT NEXT TO THE PROPOSED SHOPPING CENTER SITE AND I WOULD RATHER SEE A WELL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THERE THAN TO END UP WITH AN UNDESIRABLE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THAT LOCATION. THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE IS THAT THE SUBDIVISION REMAIN IN THE COUNTY AND NOT BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN CONSIDERING MY COMMENTS. VERY TRULY YOURS, 'lee M.L. SUTHERLAND V Co LAI j t OFFICIALS JACK NIEMANN, City Clerk A.M. KIEBERT, Treasurer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney EARL WARD, Waste Water Supt. KENNY BOWERS, Fire Chief 1. Phil Davidson 2. Bill Polk 3. Richard Orton 4. Phil. Hanson 5. Fred Bruning, 6. Duaine Rasmussen 7. David Lewis 8. George Vasil 9. Robert Davis 10. Marvin Bodine 11. Gerald Ruyf 12. Bernerd Kinsey 13. Delbert Matlock 14. Cheryl Matlock 15. John Schmek 16. Patricia Ruyf 17. Patrick Harbert 18. Kevin Robertson 19. Howard Foley 20. Bobbi Layne HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN COUNCILMEN BILL BREWER RONALD R. TOLSMA 728 Meridian Street J. E. BERT MYERS ROBERT GIESLER MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 BOBSPENCER Phone 888-4433 Chairman Zoning 8 Planning GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor LIST OF SPEAKERS June 3, 1985 PUBLIC HEARING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 21. Robert Gass 22. Leland Hansen 23. Steven Smart 24. Kenny Bowers 25. Steve Gratton 26. Dick Williams 27. Weslee Hoalst 28. Al Marsden 29. Alan Lance 30. Steve Anderson 31. Doris Oliason %101: ^ yrs } a s �r sea* ., NOTIeE `' ' Ptd �C HEAR Or , " y . Y _ racc�rz�E -zs xnggY 4avEN � tba►t Meridian will': '2�11c herxa "° : 30`�p' ocJc p.. 3, 'T 1985, at. the Mery, t dian Pz mac,: l� 'Y4 W. State tree , k i .* ,5 y�y�y. p f 4 �4 �S t�'.Jrl1tifr f ?�i�i.F 4$ Idaho, for the p r - ae of cons de �.n 'tom Gi„# ✓�� Devel©p�-e :Cony k dY;t a Cpm F� an Mer Tile�1G$ti fl23f. L'�ire�cnt41 tha.`areh�ensfwe Pa12411, 'iri.• savary« ;+qte b1uairtez o See�ticx <1$:r►wnahip ..taaxgk�,n .� E ft4i .nated ire the e4n,eive Y` Y fy ceezw,anc t%. the s is l+e este i atfipa 1 �t Flan atad ch hge 'Vir�p ius •pbrti'c�ns a at regional sl i ppiriq. tenter sit,��e' 1s °a�8 ��t,.'i R V land north- of Ficanl�I n Road in S�ct�. tri , tx ii' e� p , z� � X ��, r Ea t, A•Y h� s,gieted gr -Part q texf idttstfI3�w Area . ✓� �i 2� �` r �' `+ i',-' xaa v pureant bb 'it,,et the Rev°sed and ..Cbmpi1arr3i bldld th a idiorr 0 ti��a' tetiy .greaeit docu de$ezatlorrf tie^lree� a` lamed inupsld� ' y4 -�, t" a f i, 3' tZ .q y4Y •✓�,. Y �`' �. 1�' ale ks sof ice 'end i avwi�. U f)' in'speoti�a �r rTw��•y(��,y},�) 1rjn- .�.il„`r'.vYVJf.y �.t•.a +}: ?3' ✓T' rTYrA'i�i�Y�'.i 4` f .f,gO'1 ' I{A1BY1W”. T . y�Y *:i�OpKBTAN ,r • t3C zFI.O,'IW 427 COU,6iwm 'A e Thi 1lS•M01 � s � , 4, _ i PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED, do hereby petition the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho to allow Claremont Development Company to proceed with Public Hearing on June 3, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. to consider Claremont Development Company's Application to Amend the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. NABS (Print) NABE (Sign) ADDRESS DATE 1��j4j�w" )a g< � //�py 17 e, /Ywy®��r/1��(�,�t,,i��-� f/�o�s�L,�� c�.� g G✓.to�a 1-v S �3/��'.� �--s � °- 1 Viz'� -�,, �lo� NAME (Print) NAME (Sign) ADDRESS DATE NAME (Print) NAME (Sign) ADDRESS DATE i PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED, do hereby petition the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho to allow Claremont Development Company to proceed with Public Hearing on June 3, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. to consider Claremont Development Company's Application to Amend the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. NAME (Print) NAME (Sign) V J� ' 13 ADDRESS DATE O L_ (� .?77 -el 734 n 7oae,--1.Ai )CSG a t� C- X�� 33/ r� ��---Ram-- 1 Poo, NAME (Print) NAM (Sign) ADDRESS DATE NAME (Print) NAME (Sign) ADDRESS DATE i 0 PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED, do hereby petition the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian? Idaho to allow Claremont Development Company to proceed with Public Hearing on June 31 1985 at 7:30 p.m. to consider Claremont Development Company's Application to Amend the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. NAME (Print) NAME (Sign) ADDRESS DATE ICT G 1013 /)1 �z , 1, q 5Y 4/,' IT1 IV, Al. /4 e-rc ( r-) f .4 Ij i M ek-4 b 10�t xj i 7' '7 3y lel NAME (Print) NAME (Si J �5/.e. ✓ It— �1tit � tM.- 31 -10 II wnea -d . 3 DATE zg� t , /EQ�v✓�Uill �/ ���� Fa 719 5- :�r /- kS NAME (Print) NAME (Sign) ADDRESS DATE - - a PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED, do hereby petition the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho to allow Claremont Development Company to proceed with Public Hearing on June 3, 1985 at 7:30 p.m* to consider Claremont Development Company's Application to Amend the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. j Y NAME (Print) NAME (Sign) // ADDRESS DATE 3// X985 GEwrom 641 C�eYqqj� A2,0 � 7 1 �C /f VP/? Alt Bz4ac-fir tko S33 Clad. � d ///?-Y d 3/��' ,A/o-Sr^R ,F D- s- Ver --) s o T,76 �' M F,e i or, 14IOv 2®. naMpa g3 675 l I eA1,Q I4'v r -J r3&4/1- 4 3G4'Z._ 4J • 8 3 7v ,/ '�-, 2-K(3 ?J,717 ; IV,+ h i'1f - 27 X36 r F MAKE (Print) NAME (Sign) ADDRESS DATE p2 / /d /Fc� �i 1 / g-57 -5-- 31 - �b\ \ VQIAA � ttn'l\ / pl"-Qut-Z-4 �- ,N c� A `�.� • Y s+. S t Na( Lwti •331 � �; v`.� U� r, c` o-� pcf, 3 ] o y �-D-e5 S- 3'-85— S- —;F5- 1-- 3 /- e — NAME (Print) NAME (Sign) ADDRESS DATE -DIANA *7qo FL 32. C a.,- v 4- qa� � / x� - ret<-e�� J-r/W ` l yd l+ Id eAl .4)-ptj 2i ► v�. y���� �l' SRT Utt�'���►' "��iq � i3 a,/Sac�o�AY 3 PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED, do hereby petition the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho to allow Claremont Development Company to proceed with Public Hearing on June 3, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. to consider Claremont Development Company's Application to Amend the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. NAME (Print) NAME (Sign) ADDRESS DATE M-P-12,/�,rvn/ 6 4,,,,� xYo3 pfu, 2511 C. ah J, A- 74-11<� 0 �4 �Nt/u� ao f 4ia� AAtj 9375 1so��a/i 1l'v/ gas- s249 6- % - I 1 0 NAME (Print) NAME (Sign) C lay) -;z -,s 2- ADDRESS DATE e F3e), x G 3 W MA 1'v1 22 3v Si&l c t 'CAWt���Z 11y/ 17, ,5 r -o,` t- /&/:� ld� /'- t d -q Oa IO/V- 1 / se vV 7� NAME (Print) MAKE (Sign) ADDRESS DATE L)A9LEA/E 4>774,6 a4e , 9�0 S�3i/RJ— — r-er,� Ry 74 AUI�ES Rh*., 1 e. kms' cLo� Fr �rAl L �INCeIVt 0� 31 & NM 3 3S THOIWwOrs s _ 1- 8� Om EGA A rnciz�OMWINa- i CO n//,' /e,,, z7 '11r �• ► Yl c� a �i- `i'0.`M � �'� o .5�3% V' /a A ,E T 1-{i 1t6E1' cv C-4111 4* -1 #-3 7– s = 3 95– CftA"ilkLo1'1'Ei= FrcttaR l �l4XI�1 e- 3 017 q T4 -v 13 pcse ��Q sh 0, t1, KAnL- G- bte 34 to Sense-+ 8o )se- ►D s/,3/ 0 camiros 173W Madison, Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312)7827427 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Ronald C. Nahas and City Council of Meridian, Idaho FROM: Camiros, Ltd., Chicago, Illinois DATE: November 19, 1982 SUBJECT: Cost/Revenue Analysis Eagle Road Shopping Center Since the preparation of our report assessing the cost/revenue impacts of the proposed Quong/Watkins annexation, it has been brought to our attention that there may be additional costs associated with the annexation. In addition, more information on shopping center size has been made available to us which will impact the revenue picture. Sewer and Water Costs. The city Water Department estimates that the annexation would require the eventual addition of three persons to the staff along with extra equipment. According to Mr. Bruce Stewart, Chief of the Water Department, the equipment needed would include an additional pickup truck, a three-wheeler for meter reading and a trailer. Not all additional men and equipment would be required immediately. The need for additional manpower and related equipment will grow with the development of the land involved in the annexation. However, up to a third of the total will be needed as soon as water mains are installed. The Sewer Department also projects the need for additional man- power to maintain equally extensive additions to the city's sewer inter- ceptor system. Mr. Earl Ward, head of that Department, foresees the need for one additional man as soon as the shopping mall is developed. His Department will also require an additional pickup truck. Assuming water and sewer services are extended to the proposed annexation area, projected marginal costs for operation and mainten- ance are as follows: city and regional planning; zoning, comrnunity development and design Page 2 November 19, 1982 Water Service: Manpower - 3 persons $44,100 Annual Equipment Depreciation 2,300 Additional Equipment 6,500 Maintenance Subtotal Sewer Service: $52,900 Manpower - 1 person $16,700 Annual Equipment Depreciation 900 Additional Equipment 4,300 Maintenance Subtotal $21,900 Total Sewer and Water Marginal Cost $74,800 Beyond these marginal costs of providing sewer and water services from an operational standpoint, the city must consider added capital expenditures and the impact the annexation will have on the retire- ment of existing bonds for already existing sewer and water invest- ments. The revenue derived from the water and sewer customers result- ing from this annexation should ideally cover their proportional share of these costs. Employing the utilization factors generated by Potter Engineering for Quong/Watkins Properties, we have estimated annual sewer and water revenues from the annexed area to total approximately $92,000 when fully developed. Deducting the marginal cost for operations and maintenance of $74,800, leaves approximately $17,200 available for their annual contribution to a reserve for bond retirement, depreciation and the as yet unknown cost of the new capital investment that the annexa- tion would require. Prior to full development, the revenue will, of course, be much less and may not produce any excess over the added operations and maintenance costs. Shopping Center Size. For the purpose of our analysis of the revenues generated by the proposed Eagle Road shopping center, Camiros used the size most referred to in Planning Commission deliberations -- namely, 1,200,000 square feet. Since the report was written another 0 0E CU 0 Page 3 November 19, 1982 new size estimate has come up in the Planning Commission's findings. 0 That number is 1,275,000 square feet. However, we have also received • a copy of the public relations brochure for the proposed Eagle Road shopping center which suggests preliminary plans contemplate a two phased project. The concept plan indicates that Phase 1 could end cu up somewhere between 850,000 and 930,000 square feet in size. V In effect, the size is preliminary and conceptual at this point. Phase 1 could vary considerably from current estimates. Phase 2 sizing is even more hypothetical. Indeed, it may never be realized at all. The one thing which is logical regarding this issue is that whom- ever builds the regional shopping center will strive to take full advantage of available market. Furthermore, the mall (again wherever it ends up) will probably be a phased undertaking. Wherever it is built it will be approximately the same size. Phase 1 sizing will be based on a three to four department store configuration. Such configura- tions almost invariably lead to sizing in the 750,000 to 900,000 square foot range. Taking the average of this range, or 825,000 square feet, seems to us to be a more logical sizing on which to base project revenues. The Phase 1 Eagle Road project would generate $33,623 annually based on a five-year average. If a Phase 2 is realized, then additional revenues will accrue to the city. Please note that this $33,623 figure represents an average gain to the city of $19,072 since $14,551 of the $33,673 can be gained regardless of development activities based solely on the five percent allowable increase. We apologize for one addition and one typing error in the original report. On page 17, Table 6: The total reads: $1,164,000 - $1,214,000 It should be: $1,014,000 - $1,037,000 On page 24, Table 12: The "Five Year Average Gain" Under with Shopping Center Development" It should be: $38,836 If you have any questions about th not hesitate to contact us. / Ja Pr the "New Growth reads: $33,836 new information, please do es A/Gour'uechon ipal Consultant Camiros 173W Madison, Chicago, II1inois 60602 (312)7827427 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Joseph Glaisyer Mr. Bill Brewer Mr. Grant Kingsfort Mr. Rick Orton Mr. Ron Tolsma FROM: Camiros, Ltd. Chicago, Illinois DATE: November 26, 1982 SUBJECT: Cost/Revenue Relationship Quong/Watkins Annexation In previously submitted reports, our explanation of the revenue effect of the proposed annexation has been incomplete and therefore, perhaps misleading. Following our presenta- tion to you at the meeting held November 22, 1982 we discovered that certain of our figures did not paint a completely accurate picture of the revenue gain attributable to the annexation. This appears to be the result of incomplete information provided us regarding the application of the fifty percent rule within Idaho. We are sorry for this situation but want to assure you the results of the analysis do not change even with greater revenue effect. The purpose of this memorandum is to present you with the complete picture of the revenue effect of the proposed annexation. It also gives us the opportunity to provide you with a more direct comparison of the cost -revenue impacts of the two mall proposals by indicating the cost -revenue effect of the Eagle Road shopping center under a Phase I configuration, and the proposed Treasure Valley shopping center under its Phase I configuration. Methodology This memorandum addresses property tax only. Other aspects of our original analysis stand. Total annual cost to the city of the Quong/Watkins annexation with development remains as originally estimated at $688,000. Sales tax receipts are $159.00. The only adjustment is the above-mentioned recalcu- lation of property tax revenue. Idaho law HB 389 provides local government with two means of calculating how much it can raise its revenues from property taxes. These alternatives are referred to as the "5 percent method" and the "new growth method". Under the 5 percent method city and regional planning; zoning; community development and design I ii Quong/Watkins Annexation November 26, 1982 Page 2 a city can increase its revenue from property tax sources by 5% over the amount collected the previous year.(l) This allowable increase is independent of any new growth that may have occurred in the community. Addendum Table 1 below shows the effect of applying the 5 percent method to City of Meridian property tax revenue collections. The alternative new growth method is provided to allow Idaho local governments to increase property taxes by more than five percent for those times they experience substantial increments of new growth. ADDENDUM TABLE 1 APPLICATION OF THE FIVE PERCENT METHOD Average Increment of Yearly Growth = $14,551 Source: CAMIROS, LTD. The amount of new growth must exceed ten percent of the (�xirt- ing tax base measured by assessed value. if it is less than ten percent the straight 5 percent method produces .more revenue. Total allowable property tax revenue under. the "new growth" alternative is as follows: R = P + (2 + T) (1)If the previous year's total is less than the total ccllected in either of 1978, 1979 or 1980 then any of these years can be used as a base year. But usually, the prior year will provide the best advantage. 0 0 V Total Collectible Base Year Tax Budget Property Year X 5% Revenue Increase Tax Revenue 1 $ 262,936 $ 13,146 $ 276,082 2 276,082 13,804 290,606 3 290,606 14,530 305,136 4 305,136 15,256 320,392 5 320,392 16,019 336,411 Average Increment of Yearly Growth = $14,551 Source: CAMIROS, LTD. The amount of new growth must exceed ten percent of the (�xirt- ing tax base measured by assessed value. if it is less than ten percent the straight 5 percent method produces .more revenue. Total allowable property tax revenue under. the "new growth" alternative is as follows: R = P + (2 + T) (1)If the previous year's total is less than the total ccllected in either of 1978, 1979 or 1980 then any of these years can be used as a base year. But usually, the prior year will provide the best advantage. 0 0 V z O H H W Z � N z � H Ri x H r+ 3 v \ N C7 rd z Oa a H w H z0 wa w O> H WO Q x w w z z W U H C7 3 z O H xw 0 a O 3 W U] N z Q 1-4W P4 PQ a 4 z H O W Ha i; H U D FC W H 0::�FC3 ao m H z < H �C7WW H HZ X X fZ z HHFC FC O H 9 E-1 Z IM waOO a H O H x h U H W 0 W H Ha32dP 0 x Z Ln UFCFC" H W a zx MZ0E-4 aHE-4H��3 OW3>CC7 H a X W aF:4z3 0 H z W U <Z amz < H a O H U P4 Ol 01 M 00 l- 00 l0 00 Ln O a*A N r --I M lqr 01 � d1 s7' O O1 O O ri N N r-'1 r --I ri r1 v} N %.0 lD N r i 00 O M m rl O 110 r --I M lqr l0 O Ln O l0 l0 m O N M N N M M M v} M Ln Itr m O 00 M O Ln r -I O 00 M rl ch oo m o l0 r1 H Ln l� r- Ql H M In N Ln Itr IRT r i o0 M O M lD ch oo m o r-1 r1 H N N N ri O Ln Ln Ln Ln 0 0 O o 0 CD ,-I Ln rn o C) r- r, r -I Ln O O co l0 M O r- dl r -I M M Ln ri N M d' Ln rd O 4 4J N 3 O 1-1 v v ro a .r., m CT X Rf +J v a O >4 a N I v -r♦ 44 v m ro v H 0 b 1�0 v� � M •ri ca � II 4J Ln z M Q)� N M � iJ} . r{ k 4J M 01 N ,:s N ri kD 124 C-4 N v � >v ,. p X (aro 4J O � i s >1 O -) >4 a O O � b) �4 rt P4 v >i O � Q) .� � a a r1 N z 0 H E� W z z In z H E� 3 2 E4 Oz (Di n; O Hw z> w O Q E4 x W Cl E-4 x w U 0 z xH 3w C7 00 U) Mzo a aow <zu H O �C H W E+ Ga U �D Z wax Q W E4 Q Pa H lc> l< 3 U) z U)W0a OaHa aD F4 EzawH H H W z D xFCHz0 O F H x Ea 0 H �C < E4 3 E+ W E+ a::)zC) CQ 0 0 0 a H x H x H U H W 0a3 axzdP 04 z V) U H < w -- maxzOEp aHEiH3 O w 3 a E-1axW aF:4z3 O E-1 o< W 1.4 E+ U) DW WAC H3Qa x 0 a U a CQ H C4 O E4 U w :D W ti E+ W CLl C4 a w N l0 l0 00 01 N w O (— U1 t- 00 O vN v N N v M v N l0 l0 00 O M o r- O l0 r -i M V C14 o Ln o I'D l� Cid O N M N N M M M QI- N M M M M U) . in Ln O O o r- (3) r -i r-♦ M O C14 C) qcT Ln tv C O N r- M l- 00 O r1 M N N M M M ow :J f]a Ln O cn m Lr) o o a) Ln —i O N i - M (- fit' r -i 00 r -i M dr In In r•i r -i r� H r -i v a) v >iu 4.1 v 04 N �4 �4a, >+-) (1) O Lr) 41 a) -P x .,-I M i~ O d-) ft rd rz; 41 � '� r 04M4 cin rn a)i4�4 �4+a) 3 N r-� a) 04 W .H O O ?, O M rO ro 4J C) Ln Ln Ln Ln o O O O O i N 0 Ln o O o O m r -I ri M O N O dw Lr) M Vr 00 N [- l0 I- 00 0 r -i [� N N M M V)- r -I N M ";1' t!1 O 4 W 3 O 3 O G (1) ro t~ a U) M O r-4 x ro -P d, >4 m Rr ^ O 1O P4 y4 N ro � O a) ro 4-1 4-) O ro � �4 4-) � •ri � 3 I U O U) . in i0r- 0)>1 044 44 4J 4J 4-4 •r•I O U D F •ri �. 4J �r. O 4 9 3 +J �i O ro •I-) a) >4 x I~ +J 0) a) a) r -I i~ U ow :J f]a Ln O cn t31 C •ri :> � w a) •lii J >~ 0vn3v.0 'J 41 H "(a N Z x ami a)�'r-�aGi� ro � ro�°i0 ro v a) v >iu 4.1 v 04 ro �4 �4a, >+-) (1) O Lr) 41 a) -P x .,-I M i~ O d-) ft rd rz; 41 � '� .14 04M4 cin 41 0 �i a)i4�4 �4+a) 3 N 4-I a) 04 W .H O O ?, O M rO ro 4J a Q r- ro i4 ro C) O f Nr -I v a) Lf) •ri �4 a) l0 ro 'l r --i S4 ro �4 N A d-) i N H 14 is O �4 ro >IO x •4 >•rirov+JOm w►lP4 r -I v N M dr v v I U O F Quong/Watkins Annexation U) November 26, 1982 0 Page 5 .� Where: R = Total allowable property tax revenue, P = Prior year property tax revenue, G = Market value of new growth for assessment purposes, and T = Prior year tax levy. In effect, this alternative allows local governments to take the prior year's property tax base and add to that base the product of one-half the increment of new growth times the prior tax levy. The net gain attributable to the increment of new growth is then calculated by subtracting the total tax allowable under the 5 percent method from the total allowable property tax resulting from the application of the new growth formula. That is; New Growth Method - 6Percent Method = Net Gain from New Growth Quong/Watkins Property Tax Revenue Effect Applying the above methodology to the two options for the Quong/Watkins annexation produces contrasting estimates. Under Land Use Scenario 1, which assumes construction of a 1,200,000 square foot shopping center, the new growth alternative produces more revenue than does the 5 percent method. Under Land Use Scenario 2, which assumes the regional shopping will not be built at the Eagle Road site, the 5 percent method produces more revenue. Addendum Tables 2 and 3 indicate these impacts. With mall development (Land Use Scenario 1) the average net gain over five years attributable to the annexation is calculated to be approximately $110,000. Without Mall development U) Quong/Watkins Annexation 0 November 26, 1982 ■.■. Page 6 E CO (Land Use Scenario 2) the 5 percent method is a superior revenue producer. Therefore, there would be no net gain in revenue to the city attributable to the annexation under Land Use Scenario 2. Comparison of Treasure Valley Mall and Eagle Road Mall Under First Phase Configurations. Almost all regional shopping centers are developed in phases. The proposed Treasure Valley Mall is planned as a phased development with phase 1 estimated to be 750,000 square feet. It is very likely that a mall at Eagle Road will also be phased. The published brochure for that project indicates on the face of the site plan that it will indeed be phased. The first phase appears to constitute four department stores and approximately 300,000 square feet of mall area. Total phase 1 size is estimated at 885,000 square feet. If this assumption is reasonable, then a comparison of the cost/revenue relationships of the two competing sites is more illuminating than a comparison of the Treasure Valley Mall to the entire Quong/Watkins annexation. Addendum Tables 4 and 5 indicate the five-year revenue impact of the two malls assuming the following: 1) phase 1 sizing for each mall, 2) associated spin-off development, and 3) equal market value per square foot. As can be seen from the Tables, the average revenue gains attributable to the two proposals are much closer in value than the comparison of a phase 1 Treasure Valley Mall to a phase 2 Eagle Road Mall plus all the ancillary land which is part of that annexation proposal. Average revenue from the Eagle Road site is greater by $10,000 because the overall size is greater. If the projected sizes were the same and a W P z w U c� H H a a O X, UJ Q a O a W a Q W O P4 a a 0— E --'z o xa H O �a W xw E-+ M 0 443 (Do 3 N 2 Q+ W W a0x m E-4 Ea -+03 H E-+ r� Q U W Z H U) wa< Ca as x C-) (a, a4 W a z �Hda H W Bei � � H H Ea-+� E-4 4 am Ox rCEixH E-1 U W °a�' a dP O In U v x O E-+ U w W xzUU) H > pq W �+ I— N to N to Cn 00 m to 0o O N N IP r- 00 O M to Cil Ln k.0 kD k to V) - N M M M N to to N r -i 00 O M Cil r•i O to r-1 M cr to O Ln O to I� a1 O N M N N M M M M dl 00 N V' I— l- 00 M lfl m ri 00 'd' 00 ri cr C� 00 lD lfl M In to Co O M M M M C VY M Ol d' N M moi' O C' N moi' N I- u1 lw M r -I 00 O> N rn C:) Lr) in Ln Ln 0 o O O O O Cil 00 N -W d' r- 00 M In r -•I 00 ':T 00 Ln v o 00 to 'd' M Ul l0 00 r -i M M M M M r-{ N M ICT Ln 00 LO M to ro O a) r4 4 3 O 3 s~ Q) rO f~ Tr x m s4 a) P4 O a Q) I 4-I a) is rn ror-i Q) •rl M AS M 0)1/J- 4 -)n v M (1) N x+ 0 4-) to :3 M rl f!) C11 > r1 N 0 a.J N V)- 14 : cd N Ol ai a) ro }4 " 4-J x fo rt rd 4J 0 En �a a)�4 �4 (qQ) u-,va4 0 >1 0 -) 0\0 �4 040 O 0 �4 Ln •rl �-4 bl 0 a4 Q) 4 4-) I > r -I �4 O M >+ O S4 ;5 > •rl 4 01v s4 4-3 waa -1C-4m b 4J a N O �4 H :~ ro U 0 a w Ei z W U U z H w a O x w a a w x a W I E+ Q W O a O W. a OE z aw ox Ei 0 wa � W xw Ei q °w UO I 3 z W H a W [� a0x CQ Ei z H E-+ O H �:D H Q U W 2, H U) waa oaaa r - w a zw z H < a ZD Ei a HUCA� x X H N H O Ei W Q CA O Ei X H Ei U < W O W H Ei a i a opo O Ln U a O E4 U G-4 w J X w ( E1 W W LYi O O r- ri 00 O M l0 M N O l� N 01 r 01 O Cl) to 00 r- Lr) Lr) Ln Ln N N M M M N l0 �0 N r-4 00 O M C11 r -I O l0 r -i M d' k.0 O Ln O t0 r- m O N M N N M M M ca• M N l0 M M dl 00 M O N M r1 Ln ri 00 U1 LO N d Ln O O M M M M M O N l0 M M �.0 Ir r- O V Ln t.0 N r-♦ r -I N O O1 00 N l0 r- t- 00 l0 ri rl ri r -I N r -i r1 O Ln Ln U1 LO O O O O O O N l0 M M d 00 M O N C) Lr) r -i 00 �o M N qczr Lr) r L11 M M M M H M r -I N M dr Ln H M Ln LIl ra 0 v •S= 3 O 3 v s~ 14 v ra -rl Ld 4J v 04 O 04 ro v I v 4-I v ro 34 N N 00 z} o v- �Ln •ri N (� M 4 u s~ v l0 d' v r-+ U C`1 •ri tn� x+ 4-) ',D N M U)0) (� H N w �0 N -P v yr v � x � E~ N v X 4-) Mb �O •ri >i d-) U) �4 �-4 v ro v 4-1 >i O 4-) O s4 3 s4 04 O °�� 0 04 - I > r 1 �4 0 �>10�4 > •r•i ..Ci waa a U) O U v U 0 L Quong/Watkins Annexation November 26, 1982 Page 9 the cost of land, construction and personal property were held constant, then revenues would be the same. Since it will ultimately be the market that will determine the size of the regional mall complex, it is reasonable to assume that in actuality, the size will be the same regard- less of site since adequate land is available at either site. It is safe to assume, therefore, that the potential revenue effect of the two sites to be very nearly equal. However, for the purpose of this comparison the Eagle Road site will be assumed to be larger since the developer of that site has projected a large scale phase 1. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the revenue effects of the three possibilities which produce more revenue than the straight 5 percent method. They are: Quong/Watkins Annexation with a Mall at 1,200,000 square feet. - Eagle Road Mall at 885,000 square feet (phase 1), and Treasure Valley Mall at 750,000 square feet (phase 1). Figure l illustrates the annual budget increases given new growth in the form of the three alternatives. It also shows allowable annual increase under the 5 percent method. This chart duplicates the presentation panel submitted at the public hearing on this matter November 22, 1982. Figure 2 takes the analysis a step further to indicate the comparative gains attributable to each of the alternatives discussed above. It shows for five years the total revenue gain which can be said to be directly attributable to each of the three alternatives. In summary, the average revenue effect is as follows: - Eagle Road site (Phase 1) $ 63,700 - Treasure Valley Site (Phase 1) $ 53,700 Summary of Cost/Revenue Relationships The conclusions we draw from this analysis of costs versus revenues are the same even though the revenue values are 0 0 E CU V 140 120 100 c80 H ., ea 4t 2( FIGURE 1 0 1 2 3 4 ,800 $19,300 $18,800 5 (YEARS) ANNUAL BUDGET INCREASE USING NEW GROWTH METHOD OUONG/WATKINS ANNEXATION WITH MALL PHASE 1 EAGLE RD. MALL PHASE 1 TREASURE VALLEY MALL I �--- ------ - $113 00 i 1 $71, $82.1 00 • I � % � I $21 111111111111llllllllillli�i�IIIIIiII1111111�111111111111111111i1T111111111111111l AXIMUM SUDG INCREASE U NG 6% MET D 0 1 2 3 4 ,800 $19,300 $18,800 5 (YEARS) ANNUAL BUDGET INCREASE USING NEW GROWTH METHOD OUONG/WATKINS ANNEXATION WITH MALL PHASE 1 EAGLE RD. MALL PHASE 1 TREASURE VALLEY MALL s 140 120 lob 0 80 0 N 8C 4C 2C FIGURE 2 Too Boo 700 0 1 2 3 4 6 (YEARS) ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX INCREASE USING NEW GROWTH METHOD OUONG/WATKINS ANNEXATION WITH MALL _. PHASE i EAGLE R0. MALL �•• PHASE 1 TREASURE VALLEY MALL $120, $100,000 $69 00 ... m— "" $8 ...' somom � S6 $oo 00•���.mm.�•�"• some ..,.... i Too Boo 700 0 1 2 3 4 6 (YEARS) ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX INCREASE USING NEW GROWTH METHOD OUONG/WATKINS ANNEXATION WITH MALL _. PHASE i EAGLE R0. MALL �•• PHASE 1 TREASURE VALLEY MALL Zi Quong/Watkins Annexation O November 26, 1982 Im Page 12 E different. In summary, costs exceed revenue at a ratio of (� 10 to 1 for the Eagle Road site. This ratio only improves to approximately 6 to 1 when considering the entire annexation. The costs of servicing an Eagle Road Mall under a phase 1 profile are almost the same as the costs under the 1,200,000 square foot configuration. Police costs are reduced by the annual salary for an extra detective, but beyond that, all costs remain. However, it is the magnitude of the excess of costs over revenues which is the telling factor. Figure 3, Summary Cost Revenue Relationships, illustrates this fact. It presents both the relationship of the proposed annexation with and without mall development and the comparison of the two mall sites under phase 1 configurations. The estimated net deficits of the Quong/Watkins annexation assuming mall development or of a phase 1 Eagle Road mall are of a magnitude ($577,940 and $604,710 respectively) that appear unmanageable given present urban service levels in Meridian. Even the likely deficit from the annexation assuming no mall is substantial (over $70,000 annually). The existing, already approved, regional shopping center site remains the best alternative from a cost revenue viewpoint. Ir ri) H En O U O N 0 1L`+109$ :II0Ld31 OW LLS$ :lIJIA3a 0 0 o O o o O 0 0 o O o 0 0 t� �.D N wT M N -4 Vy An A^ 4/1 i!? y/? VT ( S21d-1100 SONVsnOHl NI ) } w W W J I UL.. J Z n LL Q Lu UL_ 0 1- > U Z Z w W00. -F .-a a Z o Ul tl D --oNO W N d . J N Q a_ O= W Q W O U -N > 2�=r- - -w d H N v 3 C w F- UL Z n U_ UL LL O F -- o V N I Z U'O� uj OE oc Z o a a o NO LLJ ui a , J to J d Ln = W 000oo ►-> = Q = oo tLJ CL UJ N \/ 3 0 N J /1 Z Q Z Y Z F Lu F- O i Q — F- CL 3 F- 0 LLJ QOJ X=UJ .- Z Lu F- > F -O ZW Z :) Z 3 p uJdQv Ui J N N J Z Q o O ]L Z o F- O N Q'-' Lu O UJ \ Q D N W C> X J - Z. W v F- o Z Z Z :> Z . cc LLJ O' Q M W ir D 2 LL w z COST/REVENUE EAGLE ROAD -SHOPPING CENTER Camiros, Ltd. Chicago, Illinois #� Cal iros 173 W Madison,Chbago,Illinois 60602 (312)7827427 November 12, 1982 Mr. Ronald C. Nahas Glenbrook Properties P.O. Box 257 Glenbrook, Nevada Dear Mr. Nahas, Enclosed are six copies of Cost/Revenue Analysis of the Proposed Eagle Road Shopping Center prepared at your request. As you will note from review of this document, the annexation and development of the proposed Eagle Road mall is projected to cost the city of Meridian approximately $650,000 annually. Thiscce ostsnof $688,000et loss to tannually he city rand laslimited from rrevenue gainojected of c $38,000. If the annexation is approved but no shopping center is built, the city will still suffer an annual loss. Under these circumstances, annual net loss is estimated to range from $46,500 to $65,000. Our experience indicates that itis quite unusual for a commercial shopping ao pe proposed at Eagle Road to generate municipal costs in excess of the revenue it produces. Indeed, the usual cost revenue relationship of malls to their host municipality is one of substantial revenue surplus. The unique circumstance in the Meridian case is due to Idaho tax law. As indicated in the report, Idaho has placed a property tax cap upon budget in- creases by local governments. While there is some flexibi- lity to account for new growth, it is nowhere near adequate to cover the costs involved in servicing major new develop- ments like regional malls. Further, the mula which does As a result, the would accrue to in Idaho. state allocates sales tax by a statewide for - not recognize the host community of that tax. revenues generated by a mall in Meridian Meridian wherever the mall were to be located city and regional planning; zoning; community development and design Mr. Ronald C Nahas November 12, 1982 While there is no revenue bonus for the host municipality, a mall such as the one planned for Eagle Road would generate a host of service costs which must be borne by the munici- pality. Key among these is the provision of police and fire services which account for the major component of costs which will be incurred by the City of Meridian. The situation in Idaho is unique. On the one hand, there is no significant tax revenue benefit to a community which hosts a shopping mall, yet there are significant costs. Unless such facilities are located in an area where existing police and fire capacity is available, and can serve the mall without massive increases in infrastructure, they are very difficult, if not impossible, for Idaho communities to incor- porate. Evaluation of a community's infrastruture indicates that the best opportunity for this condition -is to locate malls as close as possible to downtown locations since that is normally the area where it is easiest to expand police and fire services. Considering the above premise, if one were to choose a location to minimize local service costs, one would seek to locate a mall within downtown Boise or as close to downtown Meridian as possible. It is also easier for a community operating under a revenue cap (as are Idaho municipalities) to accommodate smaller size shopping centers which grow incrementally over time. Such facilities place a smaller initial demand upon local services and, hence, have less impact. They give the host community time to accommodate the new service requirements and are generally less disruptive. I hope that the above information and the findings of the enclosed report serve your needs and help the City of Meridian make a more informed decision on this matter. Should you have additional questions please call me directly. Sincerely, Jacques A. Gourguechon AICP Principal Consultant JAG/MCC Enclosures COST/REVENUE ANALYSIS of the proposed EAGLE ROAD SHOPPING CENTER Camiros, Ltd. Chicago, Illinois November 1982 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose of This Analysis 2 Land Use Proposals 4 Study Procedure and Key Assumptions 5 2. SERVICE COSTS 12 Capital Costs 12 Operating Costs 13 3. REVENUES 20 Sales Tax 20 Property Tax 21 4. SUMMARY: COST/REVENUE IMPACTS 25 LIST OF FIGURES Watkins Annexation 3 Figure 1. Proposed Quong/ 7 Figure 2. Corridor Land Use Scenario 1 8 Figure 3. Corridor Land Use Scenario 2 10 Figure 4. Prime Convenience Commercial Sites LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Characteristics of Eagle Road Regional 5 2. Shopping Center Assumption for Corridor Land Use With -Shopping Table Construction of the Eagle Road 9 Center, Land Use Scenario 1 Assumption for Corridor Land Use Without Table 3. Eagle Road Shopping Center, Land Use 11 Table 4. Scenario 2 Additional Police Requirements Assuming Development 15 Eagle Road Shopping Center Additional Police Requirements Without 16 Table 5. 6. Mall Development Capital Cost for Fire Protection With 17 Table Eagle Road Shopping Center Development Table 7. Fire Service Operating Costs With Road Shopping Center Development 18 Table 8. Eagle Projected Sales Tax Receipts of Eagle 21 Table 9. Road Mall Application of the Five Percent Method With 22 Table 10. Application of New Growth Method - 23 11. Shopping Center Development Application of New Growth Method - Without 23 Table Shopping Center Development Growth Table 12. Comparison of Five Year and New Methods of Property Tax Computation With and Without Shopping Center Development 24 1. INTRODUCTION On August 25, 1982, Quong-Watkins Commercial Properties of Orange, California presented a revised annexation request to the City of Meridian, Idaho. That request includes the annexation of 21 large parcels of land and a number oflocated previously platted lots. The Quong-Watkins property, at the northeast quadrant of the point where Eagle Road crosses over I-84, is included in this annexation. The Quong-Watkins property is composed of three of the above mentioned large parcels and approximately forty lots in the Farmington Estates Subdivision. The stated purpose of this proposed annexation is to enable the Quong/Watkins site to be brought into the City of Meridian so that the owners can attempt to develop a regional shopping center on that site. To that end, their site needs to be within the boundaries of a municipality which can provide sufficient water and sewer service, public safety services (police and fire), the appropriate zoning along with other land use permits and local govern- ment services. In order to gain the annexation, the proponents have had to arrange a circuitous path across fifteen separate parcels of land in order to make their site contiguous to city boundaries. This corridor of annexati nextendsent over 1.4 miles between the point of contiguity with p resite. boundaries and the nearest point on the Quong/ t The entire annexation plan involves approximately 347 acres of land, 110 of which represent the Quong/Watkins site itself. IL �r The proposed annexation request is shown on Figure 1, i€ Proposed Quong/Watkins Annexation, on the following page. This graphic depicts the proposed Quong/Watkins Shopping Center site, the required corridor of annexation necessary to make the site contiguous to the city, existing municipal boundaries, and the location of the already approved and annexed Treasure Valley regional shopping center site. PURPOSE: OF THIS ANALYSIS The .City of Meridian must consider a wide range of issues with regard to this proposed annexation. Certainly, development of a regional shopping center at Eagle Road would have significant impact on the city's comprehensive plan and its related growth and development policies. Also important are the impacts created by shifting the major commercial focus of Meridian from the Meridian-Kuna Road corridor to an Eagle Road location. Traffic patterns will be impacted and existing residential neighborhoods severely encroached upon. In addition, a whole host of public facilities or capital improvements would require either duplication, expansion, or extension. Many of these impacts have been identified in previous analysis reports.l Previous studies have also addressed the cost -revenue I impacts of alternative mall locations.2 The purpose of this analysis is to reexamine the cost -revenue implications of the proposed Quong/Watkins annexation including those of the current proposal for the Eagle Road Shopping Center. There are numerous reasons for such an examination. First, it is important to understand how municipal ser- vices can be provided to the proposed area of new growth. Second, the cost of meeting those obligations are substan- tantially more critical in 1982 than prior years because of the current tax climate in Idaho. 1 "A Regional Shopping Mall for Meridian - Assessment of Community Impacts" Camiros, Ltd. Chicago, Illinois, Sept. 1980 2 Ibid. Chapter 3. Il r�� CUSTICKTAI). MUNI9Ip1p L PROPOSED QUONG WATKINS ANNEXATION MERIDIAN, IDAHO PROPOSED SHOPPING `CENTER SITE CORRIDOR OF ANNEXATION TREASURE VALLEY MALL SITE FIGURE 1 ��1 �• nmiiin p� flul ,' I �� � ' - � � lion. �..._ - � - . � _ _ -� - - PROPOSED QUONG WATKINS ANNEXATION MERIDIAN, IDAHO PROPOSED SHOPPING `CENTER SITE CORRIDOR OF ANNEXATION TREASURE VALLEY MALL SITE FIGURE 1 terms of total gross leasable area Third, the magnitude in Center has required ro ,,,posed Eagle Road Shopping of the p P revenues and req requiring a reassessment the corridor of annexation is Finally, east from the city's service costs. parcels running the freeway. All Of a string of P made UP and jumping north and south of ercial uses. boundary uirements this land is proposed to be zpublicoservice req pa will also have P the city• These p implications to importance and resultant cost imp of such imp lications are this study was Because cost -revenue impity of the city, to the future fiscal integrity of service needs, the prepared to identify the mag revenues resueaithat prep and anticipated new It is hop marginal costs, Watkins annexation•this analysis proves the proposed Quong/ Council as it prepares to make this the use o information resulting useful to the City important decision. LAND USE PROPOSALS nests annexation formally req would, assum- The Quong/Watkins proposal "CG" zoning district which and rezoning to Wide range of commer lEaglenRoad esite. ross inglY► permit a purpose is to gain such annexation and the corridor ofannexation and at the a regional shopping While the statedto attempt to build Meridian zoning should look at the broader range of center, the c Y with their attendant cost potential land currences and revenue implications- are granted, two scenarios with regard e the regional shoppig center. n If the annexation and rezoning are possible wx They are: successful in operties will be Quong/Watkins Pr, one regional center the Boise attracting support to its Eagle Metropolitan market can Road site, and - Quong/W atkins Properties will be unsuccessful in its efforts. along the corridor the use of land at Eagle Road Under each possibility A regional mall ment (mainly commercial), of annexation will vary• parcels included in the corridor en rate spin-off develop will g will locate on p some of which If the regional mall locates elsew ere, of annexation. -4- these parcels will have much reduced land use potential, and therefore different cost -revenue implications. This analysis covers both alternatives. STUDY PROCEDURE AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS Obviously, the realization of a regional mall at Eagle Road would cause the most substantial cost -revenue impacts. Modelling those impacts requires the use of a number of assumptions about the size, nature and operational characteristics of such a center. While these may differ somewhat from other accounts of what is being proposed or from.what may actually end..up;in the ground, it is believed that these assumptions will be representative of what might possibly,be realized at the site. Land -Use Assumptions Key assumptions for a regional mall at Eagle. Road are summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1: CHARACTERISTICSEETE-MUNPAL COST-REVENUAGLE ROAD EEGIONAL ASSESSMENTPPING( Gross Floor Area 1,200,000 sq.ft. Gross Leaseable Area 950,000 sq.ft. Composition 5 Department Stores 300,000 sq.ft. Mall Market Value for Assessment Purposes:(3) Land $ 4,400,000 Building 60,000,000 Personal Property 9,600,000 Total: $74,000,000 Estimated Annual Sales $120,000,000 Source: CAMIROS, LTD. T3)Market value is calculated here on a cost basis. In actual practice, the county assessor will use a combination of methods leaning increasingly toward an income approach to value once a center has been in operation over a number of years. Since no operational data is available, the cost basis provides the best available method of pro- jecting market value for assessment purposes and this may well be the method the assessor uses when a center is first opened. Should a regional center actually be realized, itis reasonable to anticipate spin-off commercial development on some of the "corridor" parcels which front on Eagle .Road.. The closer such lands are to hwillional center the more..intensively-tea around the proposed Eagle addition, parcels immediately rather in - be in with I-84 can also anticipate tense development should a mail easonableeto assume thattion. As a gauge of intensity, it is r roducing from $80 to such development would be capable of p $100 per square foot. in center goes -elsewhere in the If the regional shopp g market, these same parcels will be subjected to ican duced level of developmre - market, pressure. However, gven e it is likely that those immediately Eagle Road interchange, develop as com- adjacent to theWithout the eregional edraw lof a shoppwil ing center, mercial uses. of development can be -expected to be less however, this typea roductivity of $30 to $50 per square foot. intensive, having Puse Figures 2 and 3, which followniWathout thedshoppingncenter,os or these corridor parcels with and Pros ects for Develo ment Alon Overland Road ar- The prospects for commercial development whichodoenot front on Eagle cels in the annexation in center does materialize Road are minimal. If a shopp g at the Eagle Road site, the chances are slight and the type of commercial development would belarelreducedf the aeven locates elsewhere in the market, prospects further. The basic reason for this ssessmenidian isttostheefact t northwestwith the direction of growth in industrial, office and . For Overlandll 1Roadttoabecomeraco mitted to the northeast. as the requested zoning suggests continuous commercial strip, growth of the magni- can happen, would require a level of new capacity for new tude that would: 1) exceed the holdings of growth in the no and noo�htoee3tablishtwhat wouldidan, and 2) enable the private sect amount to an entirely new urban service sector south of MM DRRIDOR -LAND USE SCENARIO 1 rzzflzzA 'H EAGLE ROAD WOPPING CENTER .. 'nom r• , Vr _ — ._. : - — � ..j• f � � j I I I` I ,. .. v �- • f `' LlTT ;:; .•+.bars•..::;. fe a. . I I 1:' I ate; Fr, > ^• CORRIDOR LAND USE SCENARIO 2 COMMERCIAL `""° `S WITHOUT EAGLE ROAD SROPPNG CENTER:�"' ;:;;;: ESTATE RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL LAND USES MERIDIAN, IDAHO NTERSTATE HIGHWAY ® EXISTING PIPELINE COMPANY TREASURE VALLEY MALL SITE !•AhhOC q I-84. Projections for growth in the 'Boise Metropolitan area indicate that this is not likely to happen. -- Growth projections for the Boise metropolitan area indicate a slow down in rate of growth which now charac- terizes the area. There is nothing in this growth atmos- phere to suggest Meridian is about to experience a surge of residential growth of the magnitude that would warrant opening up an urban service area south of I-84 capable of supporting urban density housing numbers that would in turn create a market for extensive commercial zoning along Overland Road. Figure 4 locates prime sites for.commercial development in the Boise market. Virtually all of these sites are better located for community convenience and shoppers goods type commercial use than are'the corridor sites along Overland Road. The following two tables, Tables 2 and 3, summarize these land -use scenarios in terms of those assumptions necessary to project municipal costs and revenues. Table 2: ASSUMPTION FOR CORRIDOR LAND -USE WITH CONSTRUCTION OF THE EAGLE ROAD SHOPPING CENTER - LAND USE -SCENARIO 1 Shopping Center - Market Value - Estimated Annual Sales Commercial - Gross Leasable Area - Market Value - Estimated Sales Residual Land -Use - Residual Market Value 110 Acres $ 74,000,000 $120,000,000 67 Acres 350,000 sq.ft. $ 40,500,000 $ 28,000,000 122 Acres Residential $ 291,700 TOTAL, -MARKET VALUE $114,791,700 Source: CAMIROS, LTD. Qa Elm z :w ©m■ SCALE IN MILESIFEALLis (PRIME CONVENIENCE `COMMERCIAL SITES :'.BOISE METROPOLITAN MARKET `MERIDIAN, IDAHO k 4 camiros Chicago minas 6os02 PROPOSED ANNEXATION PRIME SITES TREASURE VALLEY MALL SITE mi: .^son= A WARM ■���� W ILA, ■ SIX (PRIME CONVENIENCE `COMMERCIAL SITES :'.BOISE METROPOLITAN MARKET `MERIDIAN, IDAHO k 4 camiros Chicago minas 6os02 PROPOSED ANNEXATION PRIME SITES TREASURE VALLEY MALL SITE mi: .^son= A Table 3: ASSUMPTIONS FOR CORRIDOR LAND -USE WITHOUT EAGLE ROAD SHOPPING CENTER LAND -USE SCENARIO 2 Commercial - Gross Leasable Area - Market Value - Estimated Annual Sales Residual Land -Uses - Residual Market Value TOTAL MARKET VALUE -11- 24 Acres 122,500 sq.ft. $ 10,878,000 $ 6,125,000 271 Acres Residential and Agricultural $ 648,000 $ 11,526,000 2 SERVICE COST This analysis is concerned with annual operating costs that will be incurred by the City of Meridian under the proposed annexation and development of a regional shop- ping center at the Eagle Road site. Typically, these service requirements include police, fire, ambulance, water and sewer, and road maintenance services. CAPITAL COSTS New growth often creates demands for major capital im- provements as well as operational demands. In the case of the proposed annexation, major capital costs would be required to extend water and sewer facilities to the sub- ject parcels. In addition, the City of Meridian would have to construct a new fire station on the east side of the city and Eagle Road would need to be widened to handle in- creased volumes of traffic. The city has had a long standing policy requiring devel- opers to pay for the extension of water mains and sewer in- terceptors. Therefore, the capital cost for sewer and water extensions would have to be assumed by the developers of the subject parcels should they be annexed. Engineering data has not been made available for this analysis so no cost estimate is possible. -12- In terms of magnitude, however, it'can be assumed that sewer service south of I-84 would require extension of interceptors approximately 13,000 feet and would have to include a 200 foot auger under I-84.(4) Two possible exten- sion routes to serve the Eagle Road site are under very initial stages of evaluation. The Five Mile Creek route involves approximately 7800 feet of sewer interceptor while the Pine to Franklin route could involve over 10,000 feet of sewer. The provision of water service south of I-84 would re- quire a new well and, most likely, a new water storage tank. No sizing studies or cost estimates are available for such capital improvements but certainly a new well and pump house alone could cost over $100,000. Road widenings along Eagle Road between Fairview and Overland will be required with special circulation lanes and signals at the entrances to the shopping center. The petitioner, Quong/Watkins Properties, has stated that they would provide a new fire station at their expense. No details concerning the specifications, design or timing of this proposed donation have been made available for this study. OPERATING COST The assessment of added operating demands and associated costs are the critical issue in an assessment of cost -revenue relationships. This is so because these costs represent what will be annual as opposed to one-time demands on city finances. In light of the tax freeze philosophy new current in Idaho, any additional burdens on the municipality should be given careful scrutiny. Methodology The most accurate means of estimating projected costs and revenues for municipal services is the case study approach: Under this type of methodology, projected public expenditures are estimated using information pro- vided by local public officials. —(A) No detailed studies have been carried out on this issue to date. Therefore, route and distances must be taken as initial concepts only. s` -13- p��e. An important objective in case study methodology is the identification of the marginal costs of providing necessary services. Marginal costs are the actual) increased expenses caused by the service demands of the project. aid by the City repre- sent actual costs which will have to be p evrelant Of Meridian in addition to existing cost of operating relevant departments. To forecast marginal cost, the existing capa- city for each service unit is ascertained to'determisting whether additional service demands can be met by facilities, equipment, and- personnel without overcrowdiexing or overloading. The service demands on existing capacity can be most accurately estimated by the managers of each operating department. The critical question of how much excess ser- vice capacity is available aathus entered the indiv duals analysis. The expertise an experience who manage and administer public services issinvaluable in this process and makes this app roach flar or to other modeling approaches. The methodological approach used in the cost side of this analysis projects service demands for a typical one- year period referred to here as the "analysis" year. This approach illustrates the costs that can be expected from the annexation on an ongoing basis. In thereal world from year application, costs will, of course, vary trends, equip - to year. They are subject to inflationary ment replacement, changing levels of service and so on. Operating cost affecting the city budget include: - Police Services, - Fire Protection Service medical treatment), and - Quick Response Unit (emergency - General Government Services. Police Services Police service in the City of Meridian is provided by a an police force operating on a continuous patrol and ten mWhile it is assumed that a regional respoan police call basis. mall operator will employ private security personnel to handle routine problems in the mall, increased police service -14- to the will be needed to answer calls for service traffic llthe and in to deal with problems created by in vicinity of the shopping center. anticipates The Meridian police chief, Dapolicecinvolvement to the range of problems requiring P car thefts, fighting shoplifting, purse snatching, include: and traffic accidents. The drunk and disorderly behavior, under - Chief is of the opinion tVe� the aC1ty a is currently manned and is operating o Experience at similar shopping centesedionlaafactorte lofor- Experien rage 2 calls per day bas and to service will avel000square foot of GLA. To resp 0.699 calls per 1000 sqall d and to provide patrol serviadditionalmmen andar this nee need for Chief Nichols anticipates a orted in Table 4 below. equipment as rep Table ADDITIONAL POLICE REQUIREMENTS ASSUMING EAGLE ROAD SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT Annual Cost Man power $ 111,600 6 Patrolmen 19,500 1 Detective Equipment 1050 2 Patrol Cars IONAL COST: $ 141,350 TOTAL ADDIT ource: CAM1xuo, L1L. The Chief also is of the opinion that the department to properly would need to upgrade its communication iequipmentprudent to training. while no dollar figure handle this increased workload and that it would beee Chief to invest more money in equipment needs, th is available for communibudgetsshould be upgraded by $3200.00 feels that the training annually. -15- The proposed annexation would require additional police service without development of the mall as well. Even with- out any further development than exists at present, additional patrolmen and equipment would be needed. Estimates of the range of additional costs under these circumstances are shown in Table 5. Table 5 ADDITIONAL POLICE REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT MALL DEVELOPMENT A. B. C. Assuming No Further Development Manpower 2 Patrolmen Eauipment 1 Patrol Car TOTAL: Assuming All Residential Development Manpower to 3 Patrolmen Ea_uipment 1 Patrol Car TOTAL: Assuming Mixed -Use Development Manpower 3 to 4 Patrolmen Equipment 1 Patrol Car TOTAL: Source: CAMIROS, LTD. -16- Annual Cost $ 37,200 5,125 $ 42,325 $37,200 -.$55,800 5,125 $42,325 - $60,925 $ 55,800 - $74,400 5,125 $60,925 - $79,525 In summary, annual police service costs are estimated as follows: $ 144,550 With Shopping Center Development: Without Shopping in Center Development: $ 45,525 to $ 82,725 (Depending upon degree and type of development) Fire Protection Services pr district service is provided by a combined city - Fire p volunteers, a part-time rural fire district force manned by The pr cities fire chief and a full-time fire marsh' 11•available city for cities has the best fire insurance rating, (7), provides with volunteer fire departments. servicep(4R )nin addition quick response medical emergency tn fire control services. Since the department is financed on a cost-sharing trict, Meridian's current The projected 1982 - 1983 proposed Eagle Road Shopping Center would generate The prop a factor of .055 some 52 calls for service annually However,uthegbig marginal cost calls/1000 sq.ft• of GLA. of allowing a mall to develop at Eagle Road is its teof�het on the organization of the department. According gshopping Fire r at the Eaglethe Roadesitepment of a would require. Meridian to center at the g and to go develop a substation on the east side of the city from a volunteer basis to a full-time basis. Table 6 below indicates the required capital costs associated with this change. predominantly volunteer and is basis with the rural fire dis- fire protection budget is low. budget is $89,573. Table 6 CAPITAL COST FOR FIRE PROTECTION WITH EAGLE ROAD SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT 000 East Side Substation Main Station Improvements Ladder/Pumper TRuck Squad Truck 2 Equipped Automobiles TOTAL: Source: TD. -17- $ 400,000 - $450, 300,000 250,000 40,000 24,000 $1,1j4,000 ..1,214,000 D("�/ :2,0 0 Quong/Watkins Properties have indicated a willingness to cover part of these costs that would be created by their proposed development. They would cover the per costoobethe housed east side substation and a ladder/$650,000 to $to be 0 in that substation. If realized, Y. the cit would be covered leaving $514,000 to be covered by Continuing operating costs associated with manning sub - and managing a full-time department represents a very stantial increase to the current budget. The fire co�of sioner estimates that a full time department working officers and two stations would requre fifteen cost offullthistime new manpower plus firefighters. Themarginal the cost of operating and 7. maintaining additional equipment is shown below in Table FIRE SERVICE OPERATING COSTS WITH EAGLE ROAD SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT Estimated Annual Cost Manpower $ 450,000 15 Firefighters and Staff 20,000 1 Department Secretary Equipment Operational Cost 16,000 Building Overhead and Maintenance 60,000 TOTAL: $ 546,000 ounce: The fire commissioner is of the opinion that the present fire department could handle fire control services and QRU calls if the regional shopping center goes elsewhere and development is predominantly low densityresidential. In summary, the marginal cost of fire protection and QRU cost implications of the proposed annexation are as follows: -18- �,; }_h Chopping Center Development: the annual cost over the next $546,000 plus general revenue 20 to 30 years of retiring bond to cover $514,000 of new capital and equipment purchases. Without Shopping Center Development: AMM General Government Costs A development of this mag. tiesdandlencumberll costsf einspection, with additional responsibil o erating expenditures. plan review, and other ongoing P a technique termed This cost can be calculated utilizing the "employment anticipation uponexperience 11tilizes citiesl d up regression equations baseP Center in Applying this method to the Eagle Road Shoppingin center dicates a general cost of $557.00 for the shoppithe ng along. With associated commercial developmein► centerrginal cost is estimated at $762.00. Without shopp g development, the marginal cost of general government services is calculated at $72.00. With Shoppin Center Development: -------- Without Shopping Center Development: SUMMARY OF SERVICE COST With Shopping Center Development: Without Shopping Center Development: -19- $762.00 $ 72.00 $688,100.00 $61,000.00 to $79,600.00 3 REVENUES Normally, a major shopping mall such as that proposed for Eagle Road can be assumed to generate significant local revenues. Key among these revenues are property taxes and rebates from sales and utility taxes and, to a small degree, licenses and permits. In Idaho, tax laws have conspired to limit these revenues most significantly. This is illustrated in the following presentations of the pro- perty tax and sales tax revenues generated by the mall -- such revenue sources being the only ones which could create a significant annual revenue stream. SALES TAX Industry standards indicate that the proposed mall should generate sales in the vicinity of $100 per square foot GLA. This yields 950,000 x $100 = $95,000,000 in total sales. However, since a major portion of shopping center sales will result from changes in shopping patterns within Idaho, cer- tain of the above revenue is already being generated in the state. Estimates indicate that only 50 percent of the shopping center's sales will be new "Idaho" sales. Therefore, only 50 percent of those sales, or $47,.500,000 should be in- cluded in estimates of new sales tax revenues. Calculation of Mall Generated Sales Tax Returned to Meridian: A three percent sales tax is levied within Idaho and is col- lected by the state. The state disburses ten percent of the total sales tax revenue to the counties based upon a legisla- tive formula. Under that formula Ada County receives 14.556% -20- 4 of the ten percent county allotment, and the City of Meridian receives 0.567g)8% of Ada Counnty's share. This is demonstrated below. Table 8 PROJECTED SALES RECEIPTS OF EAGLE. ROAD MALL $ 144,991,983 Idaho Sales Tax Receipts FY 81 1,425,000 Estimated New Receipts from Mall Total 146,416,983 10% Returned to All Counties 14,641,698 Ada County Share (14.556% of Above) 2,131,245 Amount Actually Received by Ada County FY 81 2,103,182 Increased County Revenue Due to Mall $ 28,063 Allocation of Meridian Share of Increased Sales Tax Revenue Due to Mall: 0.56708% x $28,063 = $159.00 urce: AMI 0S, LTD. PROPERTY TAX Collection of property tax in Idaho is governed by Idaho HB 389 which places several limitations on itscolltcol- Specifically, Meridian, or any other city, -may either lect 5 percent more of the previous year's collection or 1/2 of new value which may have been added to the tax base in that year. The larger the tax collected, the less likely it is that 1/2 of the valuation added through one year's new growth will exceed the 5 percent increment• to above limitations the calculation of new property tax gains Meridian is shown below using each of the alternative taxing methods for a five long period. pactlofpbothdthesalternateen iven to demonstrate the . methodologies upon Meridian's tax base. (5)Spin develoopment wouax sourid not cesdsince uce nsales nwill anot new revenue f represent new dollars spent in the state. -21- Five Percent Method: Provides for a five percent in- crease each year over the he ge1978,reatr oft1979oandhe dllar1980unor f ad valorum taxes from years the year preceding the current tax year. Tabl�o9,illus- trates the application of this method to the p P osed ro ject. Table 9 APPLICATION OF THE FIVE PERCENT METHOD Year Base Year Tax 5% Revenue Budget Increase Year x 1 262,936 13,146 2 276,082 13,804 3 290,606 14,530 4 305,136 15,256 5 320,392 16,019 Average Increment of Yearly Growth = $14,551 Source: CAMIROS, LTD. New Growth Method: Provides for increasing thead valorem ding taxes certified for 1978, 1979, is g or the year growth fac- the current tax year, whichever is greater, by g for determined by applying the current year tax rates to 1/2 of the increase in market value for assessment purposes. With Shopping Center Development: Total New Market Value = $ 114,800,00057,420,000 1/2 New Market Value = Without Shopping Center Development Total New Market Value = S 11,526,nnn5,763,000 1/2 New Market Value = Table 10 illustrates the application of the new growth method to the proposed project assuming a shopping center is built at Eagle Road. -22- Table 10 APPLICATION OF NEW GROWTH METHOD - WITH SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT Tax Year Revenue Basis Factor Budget Increase 1 $57,400,000 y .0019711 $113,135 2 372,071`, ?' .05 18,804 3 394,875 y .05 19,744 4 414,619 X .05 20,731 5 435,350 X .05 21,768 Average Increment of Yearly Tax Growth With Shopping Center Development: $38,836.00 1Levv percentaae 2Prior year property tax revenue if using 5% alternative plus tax increment from prior year gained through growth method. (e.g. $262,936 + $113,135 = $375,071) Source: CAMIROS, LTD. Table 11, below, shows the five year revenue impact of the annexation using the new growth method assuming a shopping center will not be built at the Eagle Road site. Table 11 APPLICATION OF NEW GROWTH METHOD - WITHOUT SHOPPING OPMMVR nPURT.()PMENT Tax Year Revenue Basis Factor Budget Increase 1 $ 5,763,000 X .0019711 $ 11,359 2 274,2952 .05 13,715 3 288,010 .05 14,400 4 302,410 .05 15,120 5 317,530 .05 15,877 Average Increment of Yearly Tax Growth Without Shopping Center Growth $ 14,094 1Levy percentage 2Prior year property tax revenue if using 5% alternative plus tax increment from prior year gained through growth method. (e.g. $262,936 + $11,359 = $274,295) Source: CAMIROS, LTD. -23- As can be seen from the above analysis, the new growth approach to property tax generation yields more than would be provided through the five percent method assuming the shopping center is realized. However, this gain from the new growth method rapidly dissipates over time. If the city annexes the land involved and the shopping center is not realized, then the new growth method is not as produc- tive as the straight 5% method. Table 12 below illustrates the three revenue possibilities. Table 12 COMPARISON OF FIVE YEAR AND NEW GROWTH METHODS OF PROPERTY TAX COMPUTATION WITH AND WITHOUT SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT Source: CAMIROS, LTD. -24- New Growth With New Growth Without Year Shopping Center Shopping Center Year Five Percent Development Development 1 $ 13,146 $ 113,135 $ 11,469 2 13,804 18,804 13,715 3 14,530 19,744 14,420 4 15,256 20,731 15,120 5 16,019 21,768 15,877 Five Year Average Revenue Gain: $14,551 $33,836 $14,094 Source: CAMIROS, LTD. -24- 4 SUMMARY: COST/REVENUE IMPACTS The proposed Quong/Watkins annexation, if approved, will result in a negative cost to revenue relationship for the City of Meridian. The magnitude of the annual operating loss the city would sustain depends on the nature of the land -uses which are realized on the parcels of land involved. Since all parcels are requesting commercial zoning, the potential for severe imbalance is very definitely a possibility. The cost/revenue impact of the two main land use sce- narios for the annexation are summarized below. Land Use Scenario 1: Annexation and development of Eagle Road Shopping Center and Induced Land -Uses: Cost Revenue $688,000 $38,836 Land Use Scenario 2: Estimated Annual Net Loss ($649,164) Annexation but no shopping center development, Some marginal commercial at interchange: Cost Revenue Estimated Annual Net Loss $61,000 to $79,600 $14,551 ($46,449) to ($65,049) -25- There are two basic reasons for the magnitude of this negative cost/revenue relationship. First, Idaho tax law is structured to inhibit local governments from increasing revenue to accommodate large increments of new growth. Generally, the larger the increment of growth, the more difficulty it will have in paying its own way. Second, the closer new development is to an existing municipal service area, be they police patrol beats or fire station response zones, the easier and cheaper it will be for the municipality to serve. The Quong/Watkin annexation contains the potential for an extremely large regional shopping center located a sizable distance from existing service facilities and beyond existing operational service areas. The size and location of the major use behind the annexation make it highly inefficient from a cost/revenue standpoint. Indeed, it is difficult to see any way that adequate police and fire department services could be maintained given these new levels of service demand. -26- BEFORE THE MERIDIAN.PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CLAREMONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ANNEXATION AND ZONING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on September 23, 1985, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian Primary School, 48 W. State Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the applicant appearing and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of the public hearing on the annexation and zoning use was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for September 23, 1985, the first publication of which was 15 days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the September 23, 1985 hearing; that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That notice of the public hearing is required to be sent to property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E, AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Bos 477 Meridian, Idaho 63642 Telephone 6664461 Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that this requirement has been met. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z Comm.) received both oral and written testimony. 4. That the property included in the Application for Annexation and conditional use is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is generally described as being in the northwest quarter of Section 16, Township 3 North, Range 1 East of Boise -Meridian which is basically the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Eagle Road and I-84, and hereafter referred to as Parcel 1, and the southwest quarter of Section 9, T. 3N. R 1E., B.M., which is basically in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road and which shall hereafter be referred to as Parcel 2. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 7. That the entire parcel of ground is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area as defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. AMBROSE. FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Altornaye and Couneek" P.O. Box 427 Meridian, klaho $3642 Towhone 6661461 8. That the application for annexation requests AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys end Counselors P.O. Boa 427 Merldlan, Idem t13t142 Telephone tleB IId1 that parcel 1. be annexed and zoned (C -G) General Retail and Service Commercial with the proposed use being a regional shopping center and that Parcel 2 be annexed and zoned (I -L) Light Industrial with a proposed industrial use; that Parcel 1 is presently zoned by Ada County as AP -1 and R3; that Parcel 2 presently carries Ada County zoning of AP -1 and M-1. 9. That the Applicant is not the owner of all the property contained in the annexation and zoning Application; that the Application does contain requests for annexation and zoning by the individual owners; that all parcels involved in the annexation have requested to be annexed and zoned by the City and the City, if it does annex the properties involved, would be doing so at the owners request and the City would not be taking any unilateral action to annex said parcels. 10. That the Applicant submitted this Application for annexation and zoning on January 16, 1985, as part of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request; due to the requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the ordinances of the City of Meridian, the City had to first consider the Comprehensive Plan Amendment prior to taking any action on the annexation and zoning. 11. That the City, both before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, held extensive hearings and a substantial amount of evidence was submitted on the Applicant's Comprehensive Plan Application; that the AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 3CROOKSTON Attomaya and Counselor• P.O. Boa 127 Meridian, IdWo 83112 Talaph-1161111 Comprehensive Plan Application process concerned and answered most of the issues and problems that are involved in this annexation and zoning application; that there were really two substantial issues that were presented during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment procedure: (1) whether the City wanted a regional shopping center at Eagle Road and I-84 and (2) the cost to the City of providing the necessary public services; that both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council prepared and adopted Findings of Fact and Conclusions on the Applicant's Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application; also, the City and the Applicant and its partner, Price Development Company, entered into a Development Agreement; that the Development Agreement, while it does not dictate that the City must annex and zone the property as requested, it does control some of the actions of the City and the Applicant and its partner, if annexation occurs. 12. That the Findings of Fact of both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council pertaining to the Applicant's Comprehensive Plan Application are, by this referrence, incorporated herein as if set forth in full hereat, even though not attached hereto as additional Findings; likewise, the Development Agreement is also, by this referrence, incorporated herein as if set forth in full hereat even though not attached hereto. 13. That the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application of Applicant's was granted and the Comprehensive Plan now allows a regional shopping center to be constructed in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Eagle Road and I-84; that other amendments were made to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan that also indicate and allow for two sites for a regional shopping center. 14. That the Comprehensive Plan Amendment recently adopted by the City includes the northeast quadrant of Eagle Road and Franklin Road in the Eastern Industrial Review Area. 15. That the Application requests that Parcel 1 be zoned (C -G) General Retail and Service Commercial; that the City has adopted a new zone, (RSC) Regional Shopping Center Business District; that the representations and the evidence submitted by the Applicant and its partner indicate the proposed use on Parcel 1 is a regional shopping center; that the representative of the Applicant and its partner appearing at the public hearing on Monday, September 23, 1985, indicated that the Applicant's Application could and should be amended to request the new zone (RSC) Regional Shopping Center as the development intention on Parcel 1 is to construct a Regional Shopping Center. 16. That the Applicant and its partner, Price Development Company, have indicated and acknowledged that there is a likelihood that they may not be able to actually construct a regional shopping center on Parcel 1; that they have submitted AMBROSE, FITZGERALD letters from possible tenants in such a center that express an i CROOKSTON Attomeys and Counselor P.O. Box 427 MaAdlan, Idaho 0642 Telephone 666.44111 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attomeys and Counsews P.O. Box 421 Maldlan, Idstto 83642 ToNphone 666 4461 interest in the location but have not submitted binding commitments from major retailers to a shopping center on Parcel 1. 17. That the Findings and Conclusions on the Comprehensive Plan indicate that it is not in the best interest of the City to annex Parcel 1 and 2 if nothing is going to be built thereon; that if the area is annexed the City would immediately, upon the annexation, be required, at'a minimum, to provide police and fire protection services. 18. That the Applicant and Price Development Company agreed in the Development Agreement that Parcel 1 and 2 would be conditionally annexed and zoned and if so annexed and zoned that the annexation and zoning would not become final unless a building permit was applied and paid for. 19. That the Commission received comments from the Ada County Highway District and from the Central District Health Department; that those comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full hereat even though not attached hereto. 20. That at the public hearing on this annexation and zoning a representative of the Applicant spoke in favor of the Application and one person testified against the Application; that several letters were submitted in opposition to the Application; that the opposition comes primarily from those persons residing in the Mont Vue Subdivision which is located in the southeast quadrant of Eagle Road and Franklin AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Moddlan, Idaho 83642 Telephone 888-4461 Road; likewise, during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment proceedings most of the opposition to Applicant's proposal came from residents of Mont Vue Subdivision; however, there have been residents in that subdivision testify in favor of a regional shopping center on Parcel 1 during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment hearing; that much of the concerns of the residents of Mont Vue Subdivision opposing the annexation and zoning of a regional shopping center relate to the increase in traffic; that there will be an increase in traffic in any event, shopping center or no shopping center, due to the freeway interchange that is going to be constructed at Eagle Road and I-84; that the Applicant made representations as to measures it would undertake to alleviate adverse impacts on Mont Vue Subdivision. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the applicant's property. 2. That the City has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged the annexation and zoning application by the guidelines, Jr . AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attomays and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Talophona 868.4461 standards, criteria, and policies contained in Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That the Commission may take judicial notice of its own and the City Council's proceedings, governmental statutes, ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 5. That the Conclusions of both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council pertaining to Applicant's Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application are hereby incorporated herein as if set in forth hereat even though not attached hereto, as additional conclusions. 6. That all land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicants and the owners of the various parcels and is not at the request or initiation of the City of Meridian. 8. That the annexation and zoning of RSC for Parcel 1 and I -L for Parcel 2 would be in compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinances; that immediate annexation and zoning would be in the best interests of the City of Meridian if the City were. assured that actual AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 3CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Ida" 83642 Telephone 666.4161 construction of a regional shopping center would occur; that the evidence submitted by the Applicant only indicated a sincere interest in Parcel 1 as a site for a regional shopping center; Applicant presented insufficient evidence on when a regional shopping center would actually be constructed; that if the City immediately annexed Parcel 1 and 2, the City would immediately be required to provide City services to the area; that it is not in the best interest of the City to obligate itself to provide City services until actual development is imminent. 9. That since annexation is a legislative function, the City may place conditions on annexation or, where appropriate, conditionally annex and zone a parcel of land. 10. As evidenced by the Findings of Fact and Conslusions of both the Commission and the Council, the City has serious concerns over the cost of providing City services when there is no assurance development will occur; likewise, there is concern over the cost of providing City services if development does ocur. 11. The Commission, however, concludes that a regional shopping center on Parcel 1 should be afforded an opportunity to succeed and if successful, would be in the best interest of the City. 12. That the Development Agreement provides a means of allowing the Applicant and its partner to succeed in developing a regional shopping center and yet does not obligate AMBROSE. FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, IdaAo !3642 Telephone 66&1461 the City to provide public services unless construction is apparent; that this means is conditional annexation and zoning; that also, the Development Agreement provides the City with supplemental funds with which to provide City services if development does occur. 13. That the comments of the Ada County Highway District and the Central Health Department are reasonable and the Applicant should be required to comply therewith; that traffic problems are of great concern to the Commission and although the State Department of Transportation submitted no comments, any requirements it may impose should be met. 14. That upon annexation and zoning, the land would be subject to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and development would have to comply therewith. 15. That the Applicant has made development representations in its Application and in the testimony and evidence it has submitted; that it is reasonable that Applicant be required to honor those representations, most of which, however, are included in the Development Agreement. 16. That the Applicant has made representations as to how development could be conducted and constructed such that the impact on Mont Vue Subdivision would be reduced as much as possible; it is reasonable to require compliances with those representations. 17. That the City has recently enacted and approved a Site Planning Review provision as part of the Zoning Ordinance; Section 11-2-410 C SITE PLANNING REVIEW; that any development should be subject to site planning review. 18. Therefore, based on the Application, the testimony and evidence, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions adopted by both the Commission and City Council, these Findings and Conclusions, the Development Agreement, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, it is ultimately concluded that Applicants property should be conditionally annexed and conditionally zoned, Parcel 1 being zoned RSC and Parcel 2 being zoned I -L and that such is in the best interest of the City; that the conditions of the annexation and zoning should be those contained in the following Recommendation. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL Commissioner Cole .-/A..—)—Voted Commissioner Shearer *4 Voted Commissioner Johnson -)eL--4Voted Commissioner Alidjani •,c Voted Commissioner Morrow Voted Chairman Spencer (Tie Breaker) Voted AMBROSE, FITZGERALD QCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Merldlen, Nebo B3B42 Telephone 8894461 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meddlan, Idaho 83642 Telephone 88&4461 RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the property contained in Applicant's Application be conditionally annexed and conditionally zoned and that Parcel 1 receive the conditional zone of (RSC) Regional Shopping Center Business District and that Parcel 2 receive the conditional zone of (I -L) Light Industrial; that the conditions of the annexation and zoning be 1) compliance with Development Agreement, 2) compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and 3) performance of representations made in Applicant's Application and testimony and evidence; that the annexation and zoning be made final and an ordinance passed approving said annexation and zoning, if, within eighteen months from the date the City Council approves, if it approves, the conditional annexation and zoning, the Applicant has paid for and the City has issued a building permit as referrenced in the Development Agreement; that upon the annexation and zoning being passed unconditionally that the annexation and zoning and the land still be subject to the Development Agreement, that the Applicant and its partner comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that Applicant and its partner comply with the representations made in the Application and their testimony and evidence, particularly the measures to limit adverse effects on Mont Vue Subdivision; that all development be subject to Site Planning Review; that the requirements of the Ada County Highway District and the State Department of Transportation be met, the requirements of the Central District Health Department be met, and that all conditions hereinabove stated both run with land and be personal to the Applicant and its partner, Price Development Co. MOTION: AMBROSE, FITZGERALD dCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Merldlan, Idaho 63642 Telephone 9664461 APPROVED__ DISAPPROVED AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho INW2 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL CLAREMONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY'S APPLICATION TO AMEND THE MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled application to amend the Meridian comprehensive plan having come on for hearing and the City Council having heard any and all testimony that was submitted, including the review of some of the record from prior Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Annexation requests which concerned a regional shopping center, and having duly considered all the evidence, officially noticed evidence, and facts, the Comprehensive Plan itself, the Local Planning Act of 1975, the City Council makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the application was submitted by Claremont Development Company and is not an amendment proposed by the Commission or the City Council. 2. That the two specific parcels of property to which the 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 9 l AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 II Meridian. Idaho 83642 Teiephone 888-4461 Is 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 Parcel 2, which is the undeveloped land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1, East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, hereafter referred to as Parcel 2, which the application proposes to be designated as part of the Eastern Industrial Review Area and which contains appoximately 90 acres. 3. That the two specific parcels included in the application are contained within Meridian's Area of Impact as recently negotiated between the City and 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 -Rural Area Policies; that in the present application for a Meridian Comprehensive Plan Amendment there is also an application 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 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys an0 Counselors P O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Telephone 886-4461 located as being in the "Eastern Industrial Review Area" or at the minimum adjacent thereto. The Meridian Comprehensive 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 only 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 subdivision directly south of the area of Parcel 1 planned for a regional shopping center 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 Code. 7. Pursuant to the Amendment Provision and Procedures of the Plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended to the City Council that the application be approved; that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the Planning and Zoning Commission are hereby incorporated V AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 8 CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Telephone 8864461 • • herein by this reference as if set in full hereat; the City Council hereby finds that the Application itself meets the requirements of the Amendment Provision and Procedures. 8. No changes have been made in the Application or Proposed Amendment since it was submitted by the Applicant to the Commission and no changes have been made at the City Council level. 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. 10. The Application, in general terms, requests that Parcel 1 be identified and designated in the Plan as a site for a regional shopping center and eventually be zoned CG and that Parcel 2 be designated to be included in the Eastern 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 that if the Applicant's application for zoning is approved the zoning Parcel 1 would likely receive would be a RSC. The Application continues in Exhibit E in specific terms to request specific changes to the Policy Diagram and to many of the policies and objectives of the 4 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys end Counselors P.O. Boz 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 8881481 various components of the Plan such that the Plan's focus on a single designation of a regional shopping center site is changed to a two site designation focus. Many of the specific requested changes do not deal with the regional shopping 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 Road and 1-84. However, the requested changes are mainly a result of two site designations. 11. The applicant's reasons why the Plan should be amended are stated in the application as follows: "The public need for and benefit from approving the three actions (Comprehensive Plan Change, Annexation and Zoning) (A) Provide for the orderly growth of the City of Meridian and its environs; (E) Make readily available to the residents of the City of Meridian, a variety of shopping facilities and services twat 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 Meridian residents; and (E) Provide an alternative regional shopping center 5 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 3 CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Boz 427 Meridian, Idaho 63642 Telephone 668-4461 0 • 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 shopping center is one, states i as follows under Commercial Activity Centers at pages 19 & 20: "REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER: As the largest of the i Commercial Activity Centers; it is designed to serve Ada County and the surrounding counties which make up the Treasure Valley. In all cases, the locations of Commercial i Activity Centers should be guided by performance and development standards. These standards con- i' I sides, among other aspects: ii Traffic Volume and Type I Trip Generation Impacts on Arterial Street System Proxiir,ity to Other Commercial Development Impacts on Neighborhood Residential Areas Accessibility of Site Parking Demands Pedestrian Circulation Available Utility Systems Aesthetics (Design Considerations) Drainage i AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 127 Meridian, Idaho 83612 Telephone 8881161 • • Meridian is encouraging the potential development of a Regional Shopping Center near the Meridian/ Kuna Road Freeway interchange. When it becomes a reality, it will have a significant impact upon Meridian and has the potential of becoming Meridian's new Central Business District. The proposed private 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 entertainment facilities). POLICIES 1. It is the policy of the City of Meridian i� to encourage and support the development jii 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 Plan, as well as the future air quality plan of Northern Ada County. 7 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Telephone 868.4461 • • 3. As the specific plans are prepared and implementation and construction timetables are established, the evaluation and review of the Regional Shopping Center development shall be conducted through an Environmental Impact Analysis procedure. 13. That the Applicant addressed the pertinent items included in paragraph 12 above. 14. That although items contained in paragraph 12 dealing with the location standards for commercial activity centers are 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 areas; d) Available utitliy systems; e) Aesthetics; f) Use impacts upon other adjacent uses; and g) Drainage. A discussion of each of these areas is appropriate. A) TRAFFIC 1. The evidence produced by the Applicant does address the traffic issue. This is noted from the evidence at the hearing and the Transportation, discussion 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 3 AMBROSE.. FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Telephone 8661461 0 • and a high of 52,480. This 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 Interchange is being designed; that there would be an entrance from Eagle Road and Franklin Road to the pro- posed shopping center; that there would be an entrance from Franklin 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 the 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 system in Meridian's present com- mercial area would not require major re- visions in that the Eagle Road/I-84 In- terchange would divert shoppers from East X • AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridien, Idaho 83642 Telephone 8884461 • First and Meridian Road. 3. That the traffic evidence sumbitted by the Applicant supports, and is in line with 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 Application are noted below because they must be considered as minimums. The following findings from the City Council Findings of Fact on Uplands Application are noted therefore noted: "TRAFFIC 1. That the testimony submitted by the Applicant concludes that their location is excellant because 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 10 • AMBROSE, F ITZG E RA LD b CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Telephone 888.4461 • inclusion in the State Highway system as a result of the Eagle Road/I-84 Interchange. 2. That additionally 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- 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 improvements included six (6) lanes on Fairview 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 11 • AMBROSE. FITZGERALD 6CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Telephone 888-4461 C� submitted from the Ada County High- way Department or the State of Idaho Department of Transportation that these assumptions of improve- ments due to residential growth were valid 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 Meridian Roan on the West, Ustick Road on the North, Maple Grove 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;..... 6. That the shopping center would gen- erate 37,200 trips per day and that the automobile would be used almost exclusively for those trips; that comparing Figure 5.1 (p. V-2, Testimony) which supposedly shows the expected level of traffic in ■L • AMBROSE, FIT7GERALD d CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 8881481 • 1983 without a shopping center at Applicant's location with Figure 5.6 (p. V-12, Testimony) which 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 Avenue from Cloverdale Road to Eagle Road there would be an increase of 41,490 daily trips due to the shopping center; likewise on Eagle Road from Fairview Avenue to Franklin Road there would be an increase 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 place- 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 • AMBROSE. FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Telephone 808-4461 • ments to the roads within the Dis- trict; that said election did not succeed. 14. That the roads in the area, particularly Fariview Avenue and Eagle Road are not in good repair; that Eagle Road is now a narrow two lane road; that the Eagle Road/I=84 Interchange project will bring some improvements to Eagle Road; that Fairview is a four lane road; that the closer you get to Boise and existing commercial development it is extremely over -burdened and in- adequate; that Franklin Road has recently been improved but is still 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 was 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 & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Telephone 88&4461 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 1/84 under the Applicant's proposal than under the Upland Proposal. B) PROXIMITY TO OTHER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS 1. That the Applicant's mall location is over three miles from Cherry 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 Road; that it is a little over two miles from retail shops at Five Mile and Overland Roads. 2. That the Applicant's testimony at the hearing indicated that its center would not have an adverse impact on the re- tail facilities located in Meridian; the study done by Ada -Data for Ap- plicant indicates that 88% of existing Meridian Retailers would not be affect- ed by a Regional Mall. 3. The Study of Dr. Richard Slaughter, 15 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 3CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Telephone 8884481 • 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 merchants of convenience items and states that "the Council should expect that by 1995 there will be substantial migration of Meridian business from lst street and the Cherry Plaza 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 Nampa and Caldwell. 5. That in the Comprehensive Plan at page 15 under Economic Polices it is stated in part as follows: n 4. Positive programs should be under- taken to support exisitng industrial 16 AM BROSE, FITZGERALD 6CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 89842 Telephone 8884"1 and commercial areas to ensure their careas, public services...... 6. It is the policy of the City of Meridian to support shopping facilities which are effectively integrated into existing residential areas, and plan for new shopping centers as growth and development warrant. 10 ...... where possible, existing com- mercial development should be 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 location is quite distant from existing Meridian retail buisness. C) IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL AREAS 1. In the area where the Applicant pro- poses to locate a regional shopping center there is a residential sub - 17 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD b CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 89842 Telephone 8884481 division directly North and two sub- divisions on the West side of Eagle Road. 2. That there was testimony at the public hearings objecting to a shopping center at the proposed location. 3. That the Comprehensive Plan Economic Policy quoted above regarding proximity of shopping centers to other commercial developments states that it is the policy of the City to support shopping facilities that are effectively in- tegrated into existing residential areas. 4. That the development of the I-84 Eagle Road Interchange will impact the adjacent residential areas and such construction is already a foregone fact; that adding a regional shopping center would increase the adverse impact. D) AVAILABLE UTILITY SYSTEMS l.The Applicant in its application states as follows regarding the various utility components. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD d CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Telephone 888-4461 a) Sewer 1. The sewer extension would be in the Urban Service Planning area; the ex tension would be from the eastside of Meridian; and that it would be along much of the annexation route. 2. That the sewage treatment plant has a capacity of 21,000 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 $120,000.00 and sew er hook-up fees of $401,250. Add- itional findings pertaining to sew- er will be made under paragraph 16D). b) Water Supply and Fire Protection 1. That the water line extension would 19 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 8881481 comply with the City's Master Water Plan; that it would be an 8 inch line extension; that the water route would basically be along the annexation 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 protection. 3. The Applicant estimated the water service fees to be $100,000.00 and the water connection fees to be 230,300.00;additional findings per- taining to water will 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 the Applicant addressed life safety code, some police concerns regarding traffic, site light- ing, and security, but did not address impacts on the Meridian Police Depart - 20 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Telephone 888-4481 • ment or fire department and such will be discussed further in pargraph 16 D). e) Solid Waste 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; cost data for public services to this location was submitted in a prior application for annexation for Parcel 1 and the com- mission will 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 premature. F) USE IMPACTS UPON OTHER ADJACENT USES 1. The majority of the land surrounding Parcel 1 is residential on the North and West with agriculture being the predominent use on the East. The Inter - 21 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 3 CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Telephone 888.4481 • 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- posals 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 development will be between one and three times the amount of the original development, over a 15-20 year period. The more open land surrounding the 22 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho &W2 Telephone 888-4481 • • original site, the greater the spinoff The Nahas site would generate the least spinoff of the three locations, and the Price site the most. Spinoff development will not look to other markets for business, but will serve 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 care of by the use of site drains, conduits and equilization basins which would be inte- grated into the landscaping. Drainage would also be of greater concern to the Ada County Highway Department than the City of Meridian but appears to be adequately addressed. 15. The Local Planning Act of 1975 indicates in Section 67-6508 that the Plan should be based on the following `A] AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 63842 Telephone 888.1481 • • 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 application to amend a comprehensive plan as they are the integral components of the original plan; any proposed amendment effects these components. It is felt, however, that this application 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 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 8834481 • 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 Meridian 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. The 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 capita basis than they would be if the population were greater; that em- ployment from the shopping center could be approximately 2,500 and together 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 temporary influx of people relating to 25 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 8881481 construction activities. 3. Applicant stated that the long term effect of the shopping center and the industrial employment would have a significant impact on future population projections 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, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 127 Meridien, Idaho 83812 Telephone 8881181 • 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 set aside areas where commercial and industrial 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 economic activities and develop- ments which provide opportunities for the employment of Meridian citizens and area residents and reduce the need for persons to commute to neighboring cities. 27 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 888-4481 The City of Meridian and its residents view the economic enter- prises of industry, retail com- mercial and personal services as an integral part of a planned community. The City's physical 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 28 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 8884181 center. These have previously been stated and discussed above 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 all of which 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 could be the core com- mercial activity within Meridian's Urban Service Planning Area. 6. That the Applicant's Application states as follows pertaining to the economic 29 • AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Telephone 8884461 U 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 million 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 percent 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 6CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 8362 Telephone 888.4461 • d. The center would employ an estimated 1,500 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 City as State services or tax sub- vention income. f. Current State property 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. g. The proposed regional shopping 31 • AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 93842 Telephone 888.4481 • 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- 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: "MARKET 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 mall opening in the fall of 1987 or the spring -summer of 1988. The local market should support a mall of about 800,000 square feet with three or four anchor stores by 1988 and 1.0 million square feet by 1990-91 if the economy 32 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone BB8J481 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 would 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 jobs over a two year period, with a $17.5 million annual total economic benefit. Total ongoing economic impact in 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 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Boz 427 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Telephone 8604461 county personal income. Net new employment will be 414 jobs at the mall, and 950 jobs total in Ada county in 1990. 400 mall 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 Boise. 9. That the Plan also states as economic development policies, as follows at page 15: p.15 "Positive programs should be unde- taken to support existing industrial and commercial areas to ensure their continued vitality, such as: a. Detailed Design Studies. b. Economic Feasibility Studies. 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 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian. Idaho 83842 Telephone 8884481 growth and development warrant." C) LAND USE The Comprehensive Plan identifies con- sistency with land use policies of the Plan as a major guideline in the eval- uation of a regional shopping center. 1. 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 logical transportation, employment, health and recreational needs. 2. That the Plan does not presently designate the area within which Parcel 35 • AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 888.1181 • 1 is located for any particular use; that Parcel 2 is probably located in what could be designated as the Eastern Industrial Review Area or is at least adjacent thereto. 3. That at present there are a sig- nificant number of parcels between Parcels 1 and 2 and Meridian that are vacant. 4. That the Application states the 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.encourage the interchange at I- 84 and Eagle Road and industrial developoment below Franklin. b. the 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. FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Merldlan, Moho 83842 Telephone 888.4481 LJ 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 Franklin 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 have the same growth and development impacts surrounding those two sites. K;A • • D) PUBLIC SERVICES, FACILITIES, AND UTILITIES This component has previously been dis- cussed as part of the location stand- ards for a commercial activity center. However, at this juncture in discussing the planning components the existing policies pertaining to Public Services, Utilities, Facilities should be noted and the cost impact of providing those services stated. 1. That the pertinent fire protection policies at page 38 of the Plan state as follows: p. 38 "To insure adequate protec- tion for new developments, provi- sion shall be made for satellite fire stations which have a staff of fire fighters equipped with the appropriate fire fighting facili- ties. Improvements regarding the jointy used central Meridian fire station 11 (City and Rural Fire Districts) AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON should be reviewed periodically Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Boz 127 38 Meridien, Idaho 83642 Telephone 8884181 • AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Boz 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 88&4481 • because of the growth and develop- ment within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area. Adequate water supply and water pressure should be available to provide fire protection for urban - type development within the Urban Service Planning area." 2. That the pertinant police protec- tion policies at page 38 of the Plan state as follows: "Police protection within the City limits and police protection furnished by the Ada County Sheriff's Department 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 fire and police protection requirement for a regional mall and the additional • e, AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 888.4481 costs of providing those services. 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- partment 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 Planning Area. All new developments shall be phased as to their connection to the numicipal central water system within the Urban Service Planning Area. 40 • AMBROSE,- FITZGERALD d CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Telephone 8884481 u Adequate water supply should be available for fire protection. b) The supplying of water by the City is a proprietary function of the 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 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 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 3 CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Moho 83642 Telephone 888.4461 sewer system. b) The supplying of sewer by the City is a proprietary function of the 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) TRANSPORTATION This component has previously been part- ially discussed as part of the location standards for commercial activity centers. However, at this juncture of the Findings the existing Plan policies should be noted and discussed. 1. That the level of service of the 42 • AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 8881461 • transportation 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 role 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- pliant's proposal. 3. That the plan has as one of its transportation policies "Efficient and safe access should be provided to and from shop- ping centers, 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 Idaho as administered by the Idaho Depart- ment of Transportation. However, certain 43 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho &9842 Telephone 8884481 • improvements 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 1: The Plan contains housing policies and the following policies are included therein 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 44 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho !,9842 Telephone 888.4481 reliance on Boise's Metropolitan economic and employment center." .......... "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 construction; there are several -residential subdivisions that have been platted and could soon be available for further development and sales of lots for housing. 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 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 63642 Telephone 886 4481 • • within Ada County and its surrounding enviorment." 2. The Application states 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 page 20 that air quality should be a primary evaluation factor for the development of a regional shopping center. The Applicant failed to address this area before the Commission but before the City 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 Plan reference is made to the regional shopping center at 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, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Boz 427 Merldlan, Idaho &3642 Telephone 8661461 Proposed Regional Shopping Center, Northeast of the I-84/Meridian Road Intersection" or such other single reference terminology; that the Applicant's requests would change such 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 approved 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 of the Quong Application as support for the objection. The objection incorporated all the record, testimony, evidence and exhibits of the Quong proceedings, particularly the Findings of Fact and Conclusions made by the City Council. The City Council did not receive the same objection during the proceedings and hearings held before it but the Council believes that the Quona record and decision should be addressed in these findings because the Quong Application and this Application pertain to the same proposed site for a regional shopping center. The Council 51ri AMBROSE, FITZGERALD i CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Boz 427 Meridian, Idaho &1842 Telephone 8884461 • • 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 similarities and some dissimilarities between the Upland proposal and the Quong proposal and 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 conclusions. 20. There are similarities between all 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) All are within 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) All 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 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Boz 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 8581481 E 49 Slaughter Study; e) All being the same approximate size and value, would create approximatley the same amount of reveue to the City of Meridian in the form of property tax, sales tax, and water and sewer revenues; f) All sites would create additional costs and expenses for the City albeit one site may create more than another, and probably the less costly site would be the Nahas site, but which costs 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 dissimilarities are as follows: a) The Nahas and Upland sites are already in the City limits and the City 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 and Counselors P.O. Box 127 Meridian, Idaho 83812 Telephone 8881161 • • 50 Meridian's present retail corridor but probably only a little bit more than the Upland site but the Upland site is on a proven retail corridor, Fairview Avenue; the Claremont site would likely involve more spin-off development. 22. That there are some significant factors different in the Claremont Application than there were in the Quong Application; that these factors are as follows: a) All the land included in the Claremont Application 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- plication; c) The Claremont Application has the sewer and water extensions running along the route of annexation; d) That while annexation is not the question at hand, the Claremont Application includes an Annexation Application that is not con- voluted and only includes land that would be serviced by extension of water and sewer lines. 23. That in the City Council's Findings and 50 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Boz 427 Meridian, Idaho &3842 Telephone 8864481 • • 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 $178,700.00 in property taxes and $21,800 from sales tax revenue sharing for a total of $200,500.00; that the above figures 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 more 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 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho •3842 Telephone 8884481 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 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 revenues, and the adverse affect the development of a shopping center would likely have on the existing 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 Annexation route is more direct and does not involve land that would not be serviced with water and sewer. The annexed property would likely be considered as allowing more orderly development, 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, FITZGERALD d CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 127 Meridian, Idaho 83812 Telephone 888.1181 • • shopping center. The Slaughter Study pointed out, however, that the Applicant's plans for the area include a "Convenience Center" which would be in direct 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 convenience 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 confined. 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 since the 1978 Meridian Comprehensive Plan was adopted which may indicate a review of the single shopping center designation is warranted and that is the addition of a second interchange on I-84 in the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area. 53 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 8. CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Boz 427 Meridian, Idaho 8982 Telephone 888.4481 • 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 shopping 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; also many of the letters were hardly timely one being dated December 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 speciality item stores. 30. The Slaughter Study, in its Conclusions, makes some remarks pertaining to the benefits and risks of mall 54 AMBROSE, FITZGERALO BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, klaho 83842 Telephone 888.4481 • • construction; the Council finds those statements are very relevant and in general sum up the "between a rock and a hard 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 Construction There are a number of economic benefits which can be identified for the Treasure Valley area from construction of a regional shopping mall: In strict economic terms, the major growth benefit will 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 currently lost to Idaho because Oregon does not have a sales tax. Psychologically, a mall could serve as a partial catalyst for further economic development. Corporate administration is the third most important economic base in the region, behind agriculture and government. Their continued presence in this area depends at least in part on 55 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 3CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 888-4481 • • the desirability of living here. In addition, industrial location decisions are made by mid and senior level management, who have been documented to be sensivite to the availability of local amenities more than minor differences in tax and wage levels. A quality shopping facility is one of the items currently missing in Ada county's locational offerings. 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 studies on which many of the proposals rely were done. As a result, a mall built in 1986-88 may not be as large as currently proposed. The resulting economic benefits would thus be smaller than currently envisioned, though public capital and service costs would be about the same. The Meridian Comprrehensive Plan calls for contiguous, compact development. Growth occurring as a 56 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Merldlan, Idaho 93842 Telephone 3684461 • 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 commercial development has already been approved. The Council should expect to have to accomodate growth along 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 closer the older areas are to the mall site, the greater the impact will be. While 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 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridien, Idaho W642 Telephone 888.4481 other city services. is Unless the tax laws are changed or an innovative funding approach found, the city will not'be able to raise the funds to cover the new costs. 31. That although reference to the below may have inferentially been stated in other 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 economic self-sufficiency for existing and future residents, reduces the 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. .......e. 4. The following land use activites are 58 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Merldlan, Idaho GW2 Telephone 868.4461 E • not in compliance with the basic goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 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 planned community. The City's physical development, economic stability, social stratification and in- stitutional effectiveness for dealing with public needs are dependant upon such economic opportunities. To accomplish the above objective, the Comprehensive Plan provides for INDUSTRIAL REVIEW AREAS, COM- MERCIAL ACTIVITY CENTERS and MIXED-USE RE- VIEW AREAS." 59 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 3 CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselons P.O. Box 127 Maddlan, Idaho 83642 Telephone 8864181 INDUSTRIAL REVIEW AREAS "The Comprehensive Plan intends to prepare for Meridian's business and employment future by reserving land for industrial, retail, commercial and office uses and so removing them from the categories of land on which residential development can be proposed." p. 26 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, POLICES "2. Every effort shall be made by the City of Meridian to encourage com- mercial and industrial growth and development which furthers employment and economic self-sufficiency and re- duces Meridian's present reliance on Boise's Metropolitan economic and employment center." p. 53 OTHER PROJECTS "2. Support and encourage development of Commercial Activity Centers. Regional Shopping Center " • • 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 development within and outside of the City of Meridian. The Comprehensive Plan is recognizably the primary step in identifying the quality of life the City residents desire and relating goals to its capacity to achieve particular end results. 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 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A Comprehensive Plan is an official docu- ment, by local governments and public agencies, which serves as a policy guide for decisions concerning the physical development of a community. It indicates, AMBROSE, I in a general way, how the community may FITZGERALO BCROOKSTON develop in the next 20 to 30 years. Attorneys and Counselor P.O. Box 427 61 Meridien, Idaho •3842 Telephone 8884181 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho &3842 Telephone 8881481 • • The essential characteristics of the Com- prehensive Plan are that it is comprehen- sive, general, long-range and 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 and 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. Finally, as a pro- cess (not a product), the Comprehensive Plan is an ongoing process for directing change that occurs inevitably 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 areas of 62 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 3 CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 93842 Telephone 9884481 C� residential and industrial developments, areas should be set aside as Commercial Activity Centers and their development carefully guided." p. 18 "ECONOMIC POLICIES 1. 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 commercial and 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 assure de- sired economic development. 6. It is the policy of the City of Meridian to support shopping facili- 63 C1 p.6 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meddlan, Idaho 83842 Telephone 8881481 • ties which are effectively integrated into existing residential areas, and plan for new shopping centers as growth and development warrant. 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." POLICY DIAGRAM "With the anticipation of growth and development pressures during the next decade, the Comprehensive Plan summarizes the potential distributions 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 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83042 Telephone 8881481 • • if all the land were developed, and pro- vides a flexible framework for further de- tailed land use decisions. The Policy Diagram is to be used as a gen- eral guide for land use decision -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 sole, authoritative means for decison-making. Rather, it is but one of the many tools which 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 not be filed away but should be continually reviewed and up- dated. The recommendations within the Com- -rehensive Plan should not be interpreted a unalterable commitments, but rather a irection at a given point in time. It is ecommended by the Meridian Planning and Dning Commission that at least a yearly 65 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho !3642 Telephone 6684461 • • review shall be held of the Comprehensive Plan to update and/or reaffirm the Plan to fit the changing needs as well as unfore- seen planning problems and opportunities. 33. That it is noted the Applicant 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 which concerned itself with meeting with the Applicant and its co -developer, Price 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 Applicant and its co -developer, Price Development Company, was entered into the public record regarding this Application. 35. That under the proposed Development Agreement, the Applicant and its co -developer, Price Development Company, recognize that the construction of a regional shopping center at their location is not a certainty and H. N. • that if it is not contructed that the City should not be required to service the land 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 center. 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 funds to provide the necessary public services; the Agreement 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 contribute funds for only their portion of the additional costs; that the proposed Development Agreement provides that the developers would pay approximately three-quarters (3/4) 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. AMBROSE, I 37. That comparing the cost projections, both capital FITZGERALD aCROOKSTON outlay and operating maintenance, set forth in the Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho &W2 Telephone 8884481 67 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Boz 427 Merldlan, Idaho 83842 Telephone 8884181 • Slaughter Study, such finanical aid by the developers will in no way cover the entire costs or even come close. 38. That the City under the proposed Development Agreement, the City in no way would bind itself to take any particular action 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 can 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 should 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. N- M • CONCLUSIONS 1. 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 amend the Plan was initiated by the Applicant and not by the Commission or the City Council. It is noted that the Application contains three requests: 1.) To amens the Meridian 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 Plan 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 AMBROSE, Comprehensive Plan, the Meridian Comprehensive FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Plan shall be amended prior to the consideration Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Boz 427 Meridian, Idaho !9542 Telephone $884151 .• AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON 0 • 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 above; that since the Application already requested a Comprehensive Plan amendment there was no need for the Commission to inform the Applicant to request an amendment and the Commission and City Council have moved forward on that Comprehensive Plan Amendment alone due to the above requirements. 3. That the Council may take judicial or offical notice of existing conditions in the City, County and State and of governmental 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 adopting, amending or repealing a Comprehensive Plan is a legislative 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. Attorneys and 70 Counselors P.O. Box 427 Merldlsn, Idaho 89842 Telephone 8854481 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 3CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, ldsho 83642 Telephone 888.4461 Ll • 5. That'the Application itself is concluded to meet the requirements of the Amendment Provision and Procedures of the Plan. 6. That paragraph K. of the Amendment 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 discrepancy or dis- parity between the conditions in the area and all or part of the Plan." Such a requirement was more restrictive than required under the Local Planning Act and the Commission recommended an amendment to Section K which deleted the idea that an amendment could only be granted to correct an error or change in actual conditions. 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 desires and goals of the citizens and the Council and 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 i CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 8881481 • • 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 for land use decision -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 decisions; i.e., the Plan policies and objectives cannot be willy-nilly disregarded when there is an apparent conflict between the Plan and a proposed use. 8. That the Council and Commission have the duty to continually plan; that the Council and Commission treat amendments proposed by private entities as part of that planning duty and function; the City cannot, and should not, be the sole initiator of possible amendments; the City treats amendment applications as a means of bringing possible and necessary planning changes to light. 9. At the time the Plan was initially adopted there was only one interstate interchange and now there is an additional one planned for the Eagle Road/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 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD itCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridien, Idaho 83842 Telephone 885-4481 • • 10. As was similarly concluded in the Upland Industries Application to amend the Comprehensive Plan, it is likewise here concluded that the above referenced changes warranted a review of the Plan, and amendment of the Plan if deemed appropriate, regardless of whether the Applicant 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 those changes above warrant adopting 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 shopping center would have to be adopted to allow 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 goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan as it exists and the various planning components of 67-6508, Idaho Code. 13. That pertaining to the commercial activity center 73 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 89842 Telephone 88&4481 • location performance and development standards contained in paragraph 12 of the Findings it is concluded as follows: a. TRAFFIC Based upon the traffic study submitted by Upland Industries Corporation 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- plicant's development on existing roads in their present condition dictate that the Application be denied; Applicant has, how- ever, recognized that most, if not all, of the road improvement costs in the area of 74 •. b. C. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 888.4481 • 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 comments 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 Plaz za j it is con- cluded 'that Applicant's location would be detrimental to the existing retail of the City of Meridian. IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL AREAS That there would be a detrimental impact on 75 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD aCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Moho 99842 Telephone 9554481 • 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 capacity 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 ase and there is remaining capacity, the City already has annexed an area that would require a treatment facility capacity in excess of 50,000 P.E. and 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 be borne by the Applicant but the impact on the sewer treatment plant and the fact the City has already committed, by an - 76 r AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 888-4461 • e. f. • vexation, to serve such a great area, are of great concern to the Council. That the Council's concerns over water service 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, relieves 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 industrial portion of the proposal. AESTHETICS That the aesthetic impact of a development at Applicant's site was not detailed in the evidence but such is not felt to be detri- mental to the Application and site plans would be subject to review. USE IMPACTS UPON OTHER ADJACENT USES That there would be some adverse impacts 77 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meddlan, Idaho !.1642 Telephone N6.4461 n LJ 9- U upon the residential uses immediately adjacent to Applicant's proposed site for a regional mall 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 facilities which are effectively integrated into existing residential areas." Likewise, it must be noted that there will already be an adverse impact on the adjacent residential areas due to the forth -coming Eagle Road/I-84,. Interchange. This last fact reduces, but 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 Industrial Review Area. DRAINAGE That drainage is not a problem or a draw - 78 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Telephone 8864181 back to the development of a regional mall at Applicant's location or the industrial development. That as far as the location of a regional shopping center it is concluded that the site itself, without considering needed traffic improvements, the fiscal impact on the City including sewage treatment, fire and police protection 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 problems and cost of providing municipal services and loss of existing Meridian retail are problems which are of concern to the Council and will be discussed further below in these Conclusions. 14. That since the Local Land Use Planning Act requires the City to consider several components in developing a comprehensive plan, it is felt that the impact an amendment would have on those components must likewise be examined or at least 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, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 127 Meddlan, Idaho 83842 Telephone 8884461 Plan pertaining to population and the other population policies quoted 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. That the Applicant did detail the impact its development would 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 encourage indust- rial and commercial enterprises to locate in Meridian and that areas should be set aside where commercial and industrial AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Atlon»ys Wid Coun"W* P.O. Box 127 83642 Tohphone 8684181 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- 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 1990,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 shopping 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 M. AMBROSE, FITZGFRALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 8:1842 Telephone 888-4461 0 • become a core commercial 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. C. LAND USE That the Applicant's location would not create or be strip commercial, however, it could be considered to be or create sprawl in that there is a great amount of undeveloped ground between developed Meridian and Applicant's site which like- ly would be developed by spin-off retail- ers. d. PUBLIC SERVICES, 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 .M • AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho SW2 TelephoneBOB4481 • the costs for police and fire 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 mall site, the geographic extension of the City limits, expected satel- lite development and existing de- sign and staffing of the police and fire departments." "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 over the next several years as the community grows." "Additional costs for fire services will be about $650,000 capital ME AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Merldlan, Idaho 83842 Telephone 8884481 • • costs for a new station 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." The 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 sharing. Additional re- venues from a $70 million mall in 1990 would be $137,100 and from a $116 million mall there would be $200,500. The Applicant and his co -developer, Price Development Company, have offered to pay their share of the increased costs. Over a term of years they would give to the City $750,000.00 and donate land. The interest on the fund by 1990 would AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 03842 Telephone 8884181 e. • • create a total fund, if invested 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 $400,000.00 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 prohibtive in re- lation to the possible revenues. However, the City Council when they considered the Upland location had before them the same costs figures regarding the Quong site and yet did not outright deny that ap- 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 8s AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 888.4481 • • That this component has previously been discussed under the specifics of Ap- plicant's Parcel 1 as a site for a re- gional shopping center and those con- clusions should be reviewed as they are applicable here as Applicant's site, if developed, would have a severe impact on the transportation 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 Meridian 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 sufficent house lots available,or capable of being available, to meet the possible demand. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselom P.O. Box 127 MsAdlan, Idaho 03012 Telephone 0884181 • • 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 1 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 the 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 another would not increase or decrease 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 development, land use, housing, or air quality and certainly regarding economic development would have a beneficial impact; that there would be an adverse impact on 87 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attomsys and Counselors P.O. Boz 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Ulophone 868401 • • 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 population and in general under community design Applicant's development of a regional shopping center on Parcel 1 would tend to violate the policy against urban sprawl, and would shift the emphasis of the City to the East spreading it out; that considering the cost findings contained in the Quong application, public services, facilities and utilities would be more adversely 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 Commission a representative of the Nahas site did object to the present application based on the record and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions in the Quong Application concerning 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 the factual situations concerning the Eagle Road/I-84 site when it was presented by Quong as compared to this AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Maddlan, Idaho !13842 Telephone 858.4481 presentation. Those factors which make it different are included in Findings 22 and 25. 18. That the Council concludes 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 components 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 theme, 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 by the Plan at page 2: "The goals, objectives and policies herein express- ed underline and shape the character and orienta- tion of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. They deal with three major concerns of the people of Meridian 1) Orderly growth and development; 2) Economic growth and balance; and 3) Improvement of the quality of life." 20. That throughout the Plan the theme and desire for economic growth and jobs and self-sufficiency is repeated. One of the major means the Plan states as achieving the AMBROSE, FITZGERALD i CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 888.4481 • • 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 possibly the single designation of a regional shopping center, appropriate. Whether there is one site designated or two or more, the desire of the people of Meridian is for a shopping center and 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 would like to have a regional shopping center located in Meridian. It can likewise be judicially noticed that there are and will be differences of opinion as to where such a center should be located or what site has the better likelihood of drawing tenants and of actually being developed. 22. It is of great concern to the City Council that possibly the process for allowing a regional shopping center to be located at Applicant's site, including a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, annexation and zoning, could be exercised 90 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 421 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Telephone 888401 • • 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 concern. Under the proposed Agreement the City would not finally annex or zone the property until a building permit was applied and paid for. Thus the City would have no obligation to provide services until construction 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 conditional 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 chance to have a regional shopping 91 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 8 CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho t1W2 Telephone 856 401 • • center, 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 Council concludes that the facts presented by the Applicant and the officially noticed facts, are sufficient to amend the Plan; that the facts, particularly that there 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 principal 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 the Claremont site were developed it would have less of an adverse impact on traffic in the Downtown area, and that it is located on the major transportation arteriel, I-84, in Treasure Valley, and that there has been a reversion procedure set up in case the mall is not constructed, present cogent reasons for designation of the Eagle Road/I-84 site as a regional shopping center site. 24. That even though the Council has concluded 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 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho &3642 Telephone 868 -WI • 1) the traffic improvements necessary and the costs thereof; 2) the possibility of loss of retail business downtown and the 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 concludes, 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. 25. It is concluded that the possibility of achieving a regional shopping center and the benefits referred to in the Slaughter Study outweigh the risks also mentioned 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 contribute enough revenue to sufficiently cover the increased costs of public services not contributed by the mall and the applicant. It is a gamble that the State Legislature will see the plight of the cities and pass 93 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Merldlan, Idaho 83842 TeNPhone 8054181 is • legislation that will allow cities to -receive revenue from development that impacts the cities rather than spreading the revenues to the state, County or other cities that are not even remotely impacted by the development. It is a gamble that the Legislature will see that in order to allow growth there must be a means of funding the necessary services. It is concluded the gamble is worthwhile if success is achieved; however, if the mall is not constructed there would be no obligation to provide City services. 26. The Council additionally concludes that the statements, policies, and goals in the Plan and included in Finding 31 and 32 outweigh the possible deleterious impacts of a regional shopping center at Applicant's site. 27. The Council concludes that it should'aecept-the offers made in the proposed Development Agreement on the basis that the offer is frelly and voluntary made and constitutes a gift to the City and can in no way bind the City to take any particular action for or against the Applicant and its co -developer, Price Development 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 concluded that the conditional annexation and zoning and reversion process contained in the Development Agreement is in the best interest of the City and allows the City a procedure which could possibly lead to the construction of a regional shopping center without much risk 94 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD d CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Merldien, Idaho 101842 Telephone 8884481 • or commitment to provide services unless the center is actually going to be constructed. 28. The Council, by concluding the Plan should be amended and the Development Agreement accepted, is in no way making a comment on or deciding the Applicant's other requests 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 as 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 drawbacks, the most important of which, the Council concludes, is the failure 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 City of Meridian or at one of the three proposed sites, and that all sites and developers should be afforded the opportunity to succeed. 30. The Council concludes that that portion of the Applicant'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 The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves 95 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 MerWlan,ldaho 83842 Telephone 888.4161 F-1 L these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN GIESLER COUNCILMAN MYERS • VOTED VOTED COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED COUNCILMAN BREWER VOTED MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)VOTED W. Exhibit "A" • • Police and Fire Protection Cost This report will not attempt to list costslme extentr either �thlice e a cual costs will be a r fire services down to the last patrol -car or fire truck. To large The first year capital matter for administrative discretion and budgetary y expense may be a matter for negotiation between the city and the developer. The cost of these services is a matter ervi es is desirble within oof policy as much as objective need. The city has the option of determining what level ability to pay, and which among competing solutions is most preferred. For these reasons, this report will not attempt to specify an exact cost or a net deficit/surplus due to a shopping center. Such a specification could be misconstrued 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 identified as fully as possible. The cost of providing police protection for a mall development hlower haa been variously estimated from almost nothing to over $250,000 pe yar estimate is based on the experience of a number of other malls around the country, with very low call rates. The higher estimate is a calculation of what it would take in Meridian to provide a seven day a weer 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 staffing level of 1.3, and Meridian is staffed at a level of just over 1.2 officers per thousand. On the basis of that criterion, Meridian would appear to be understaffed at the current time. Such criteria are, of course, not the only way such a decision 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 rural communities with neither property crime nor a large traffic problem, and a population 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 country 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 general criteria. On the other hand, Meridian is developing some unique characteristics which must already be stretching the abilities of its police department. 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 does not need patrol. The potential is there, however, for greatly increased patrol needs as these areas fill in. 1 • • What kind of problems would a mall en��eThe aanswers to this question, would a mall, in itself, necessitate an expanded police departm the city from interviews and testimony previously submitted to the Council, arquest much', and it doesn't'. It doesn't necessitate an endepartment, fo ar hour secuvr n y, authorizes requires the mall operators to main g ood mall Security to deal on a preliminary basis with shoplifting and on-site traffic, adjusts patrol patterns to drive through mtances of gaud and l other cis himes mall responde to when needed, is able to followup on in security cannot handle, and that there is little spinoff development. Unfortunately, several of the 'provideds'do not apply in Meridian's situ - ation with a mall at either Eagle Road location. A number of important factors are different: were deemed not necessary • All of the situations in which additional police were either cities in which the mall was located within abuilbuilt-up long experience area or communities of at least 30,000 population. One respondent, in mall development, indicated that in one instance of a one million squuar foot mall the patrol pattern had simply been adjusted and no additional police When informed of the geographic location of the mall, the size of the community and the size of the police department, he commented, "� y have a problem."20 All have police/population ration higher • All are more compact geographically than Meridian. If the Eagle Road site is annexed, Meridian will be over nine miles from its northwest city limit to its southeast. Most routes of access between the two will from one side to the other require leaving the city: For an emergency call, response 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 arca around Franklin Road and Eagle Road is not currently patrolled. Any patrol at all would require not patrolling some part of the city which currently has protection. Even with mutual aid backup from the county, the potential for situations occurring or being created where police need to be in two or three places at the same time should not be ignored. If the city were to refuse further annexation and follow a practice of infilling existing land, the police department would need to be increased-only slowly over time. If the department were currently staffed at a higher level, and if thh mall were to be built contiguous with the existing 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 the capacity to 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 residential development occurs, the eeppi� nt's needs will increase to at least the level estimated by the Chief of Poliand very likely beyond that level. nterview with Wayne D. Wedin. `q • • The city will very likely find itself with about twenty police officers by 1991. The additional cost, '" 1985 lbela leastincluding the 5250! eS e�tted,by dement, and operating expense, by 1990 wil department, and could be higher. Fire 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 meets at least the 1982 version of the Uniform Fire Code and the Uniform Building Code. If mall construction were the only result of an annexation decision, and if the mall were within about two miles of an existing fire station with adequate equipment and personnel, and if traffic congestion were not expected to be a problem, then no further cost should be anticipated. A second element to be considered is that the mall annexation is not the only annexation undertaken by Meridian to the west of the city. The Upland industrial site, as and when developed, presents a similar, though lesser, problem. The problem is not that the site itself or anything built on it is dangerous, but that it is so far from the existing fine station, and that other development will take 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 fire 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 construction period, when the fire protection systems are not in place. The implication is that any new capacity should be built and manned early, up to two years prior to receiving new tax revenue from the mall. • The most calls to the mall after opening are likely to be for medical aid, simply because there are so many people there. A quick response unit, perhaps modeled on the existing unit, should be either part of a fire station or located on the mall site. If located on the mall site, it should have the ability to go off site as needed. • 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 construction 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 construction does not cavy the same requirement. • Upgrading the department to professional status, building a new station, having an adequate number of engines and ladder trucks, and having adequate fire now, communications, etc., Ould result in improvement of the city's fire rating from five to four. Attempting to meet a mall expansion with a new station and volunteer staff could result in losing one or two rating classes. Failing to expand at 3 • all would almost definitely result in losing at least two rating classes by the time significant spinoff development has taken place. - Expanding the department along the lines of a mixed professional - 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 area 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 insuranceFor the premiums for all property in Meridian would be about $150,000 per year. mall property itself the difference could be sizeable, depending on 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 equipment. • If mall security were to be cross -trained as volunteer firemen, they would not be able to leave the mall site for calls elsewhere in the city. To do so would leave the mall unprotected from a security standpoint. • 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-time. Neither they nor their employeers will look favorably on the time required for training, nor will their employeers, managers not located in this area, want them subject to departure 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 city of Meridian. - Meridian has mutual aid agreements with other fire protection 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 equipped, 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, vacations, sick leave, and so on, for a total of twelve personnel. In addition, a quick response unit might be wise and a person is needed somewhere in the system to handle communications. Minimum capital expense would be $650,000 for station, engine, equip - ment, and furnishings. About $10,000 will be needed the first year for maintenance and operation, and $350,000 - $420,000 for personnel, without a quick response unit. The lower figure would presume a non-union department and control of Firemen's Retirement Fund (FRF) expense. The total fust year expense is about $1 million, and ongoing costs would run about $375,000 - $445,000. About $3,000 of that amount per firefighter can be levied outside the I% limit for excess FRF costs. Boise's current total expense for its least costly fore personnel is $34,000 each. Conversion to a professional or professional -volunteer department would also require remodeling of the existing fire station, at a cost estimated to be 4 $400,000. The payroll cost would depend on the mix of professional and volunteer firefighters. BEFORE THE :SIE :IDIAN PLANNIN^ AND ZONING C0111ISSION CLARF?10NT DEVELOPII'E11"' C0,1PANY' S APPLICATION TO _011END THE =_`E <IDIAiN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled application to amend the Meridian Comprehensive Plan having come on for public hearing and the Plan- ing and Zoning Commission having heard any and all testimony that was submitted, including the review of some of the record from prior Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Annexation requests which concerned a regional shopping center, and having duly considered all the evidence, officially noticed evidence, and facts, the Comprehensive Plan itself, the Local Planning Act of 1975, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the application was submitted by Claremont Development Company and is not an amendment proposed by the Commission or the City Council. 2. That the two specific parcels of property to which the application pertains are the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Town- ship 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise -Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, (hereafter referred to as Parcel 1) which is commonly knoini 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 Parcel 2, which is the undeveloped land in the South;aest Quarter o AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 3 CROOKSTON AMBROSE, FITZGERALD l CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Boz 427 Maddlan, Idaho &9842 Telephone 888.4481 Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise -Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, (hereafter referred to as Parcel 2) which the application proposes to be designated as part of the Eastern Industrial Review Area and which contains approximately 90 acres. 3. That the two specific parcels included in the application are contained within Meridian's Area of Impact as recently negotiated between the City and 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 -Rural Area Policies; that in the present application for a Meridian Comprehensive Plan Amendment there is also an application 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 located as being in the "Eastern Industrial Review Area" or at the minimum adjacent thereto. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan does not designate Parcel 1 as being contained or included in any particular area. It is east of the rural residentail 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 only one site for a regional shopping center, that being at the PAGE 2 • I-84/Meridian-Road Interchange. 7 In order to develop Parcel 1 as a regional shopping center the Applicant's proposed amendments per- taining to a regional shopping center must be approved. 5. That there is a residential subdivision directly south of the area of Parcel 1 planned for a regional shopping center 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 Code. 7. Pursuant to the Amendment Provision and Procedures of the Plan, the Application was found to merit further study after the requisite and duly noticed public hearings were held; the Findings of Fact and Conclusions pertaining to the question of whether the application merited further study are incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full hereat; the Application itself was found to meet the requirements of the Amendment Procedures. 8. Subsequent to the determination that the Application merite further study the Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 8, 1985, as required by Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the Plan; that no changes have been made in the Application or Proposed Amendment since it was submitted by the Applicant to the Commission. 9. The Application addresses the Amendment requirements under Amendment Provision and Procedures set forth at page 54 of the AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON PAG E 3 Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 8.9642 Telephone 88B-1481 W AMBROSE, FITZGERALD d CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 113642 Telephone 666.401 0 • Plan; the Applicant's reasons why the Plan should be amended are recited in the Commission's earlier Findings of Tact when it determined the Application rerite6 further study and are stated in Finding 11, belo,; . 10. The Application, in general terms, requests that Parcel 1 be identified and designated in the Plan as a site for a regional shopping center and eventually be zoned CC= and that Parcel 2 be designated to be included in the Eastern Industrial Review Area and eventually be zoned IL. The Application continues in Exhibit E in specific terms to request specific changes to the Policy Diagram and to many of the policies and objectives of the various components of the Plan such that the Plan's focus on a single designation of a regional shopping center site is changed to a two site designation focus. I.1any of the specific requested changes do not deal with the regional shopping 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 Road and I-34. However, the requested changes are mainly a result of two site designations. 11. The applicant's reasons why the Plan should be amended a stated in application as follows: "The public need for and benefit from approving the three actions (Comprehensive Plan Change, Annexation and Zoning) are: (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 PAGE 4 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD i CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meddlan, Idaho 63642 Telephone 668-4461 0 • services 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 Meridian residents; and (E) Provide an alternative regional shopping center site whereby major retailers would have a choice of sites within the City." 12. That the Plan, in dealing with Commercial Activity Center; of which a regional shopping center is one, states as follows unde3 Commercial Activity Centers at pages 19 & 20: PAUE 5 ,,REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER: As the largest of the Mo—mmercial Activity Centers; it is designed to serve Ada County and the surrounding counties which make up the Treasure Valley. In all cases, the locations of Commercial Activity Centers should be guided by performance and development standards. These standards consider, among other aspects: Traffic Volume and Type Trip Generation Impacts on Arterial Street System Proximity to Other Commercial Development Impacts on Neighborhood Residentail Areas Accessibility of Site Parking Ddmands Pedestrian Circulation Available Utility Systems Aesthetics (Design Considerations) Drainage Meridian is encouraging the potential development of a Regional Shopping Center near the Meridian/Kuna Road Freeway interchange. When it becomes a reality, it will have a significant impact upon Meridian and has the potential of becoming Meridian's new Central Business District. The proposed private 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. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD i CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 8884481 multi -family residential units, medical clinics, motels and entertainment facilities). POLICIES 1. It is the policy of the City of Meridian to encourage and support the development of a Regional Shopping Center as the core commercial activity within Meridian's Urban Service Plan- ning Area, as well as the Treasure Valley. 2. The evaluation of the Regional Shopping Centdr development shall be primarily based upon its consistency with the land use policies of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan, as well as the future air quality plan of Northern Ada County. 3. As the specific plans are prepared and implemen- tation and construction timetables are establish- ed, the evaluation and review of the Regional Shopping Center development shall be conducted through an Environmental Impact Analysis procedure. 13. The Local Planning Act of 1975 indicates in Section 67- 6508 that the Plan should be based on the following 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. 14. That the Applicant only specifically addressed three items included in paragraph 12 above, those being the impact on arteriel streets, availability of utility systems, and drainage. The Applicant through its comments on transportation and arteriel streets inferentially discussed traffic volume and type and trip generation. The Applicant did not address proximity to other commercial development, impact on neighborhood residential areas, PAGE 6 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 3CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Merldlen, Idaho 83642 Telephone 888.4481 0 • accessibility of the site, parking demands, pedestrian circulation, or aesthities. 15. That although the items contained in paragraph 12 deali with the location standards for commercial activity centers are 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 residentia areas; d) Available utility systems; e) Aesthetics; f) Use impacts upon other adjacent uses; and g) Drainage. A discussion of each of these areas is appropriate. PAGE 7 A) TRAFFIC 1. The evidence produced by the Applicant does not fully address the traffic issue. This is noted from the traffic study submitted by Upland Industries during its application to amend the Comprehensive Plan. More detailed comment by the Applicant in this area would have been helpful. 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 Interchange is being designed; that there would be an entrance from Eagle Road and Franklin Road to the proposed shopping center; that there would be an entrance from Franklin Road to Parcel 2; that the Department of Transportatic long range plans include expansion of Eagle Road, from Franklin Road to the City of Eagle; that the shopping center would have little effect on the 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 system in Meridian's present commercial area would not require major revisions in that the Eagle Road/I-84 Interchange would divert shoppers from East First and Meridian Road AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors PAG E 8 P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho &W2 Telephone t1B8 4441 u 3• That since the Applicant did not submit a detailed traffic study a review of the traffic study and findings relating to the Upland Comprehensive Plan is instructive since the center proposed by the Applicant would be only approximately one mile away and similarly locate on Eagle Road and of similar size if not in fact larger and therefore have an even greater traffi impact. The following findings from the City Councils Findings of Fact on Uplands Application are noted: fTRAFF IC 1. That the testimony submitted by the Applicant concludes that their location is excellant because of its location on two major arteriels , Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road. however, their evidence admits that vast improvments would have to be made to those two arterials over and above improvements already planned for Eagle Road due to its inclusion in the State Highway system as a result of the Eagle Road/I-84 Interchange. 2. That additionally the Applicant admits that vast improvements would have to be made to Fairview Avenue. Fairview Aven is already heavily burdened along its route where commercial activities have been developed. 3. That besides the above improvements, Applicant's evidence makes several assumptions of road improvements in their study area as a result of resident. ial needs. These assumed improvements included six (6) lanes on Fairview Avenin 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 betweei Overland Road -and Franklin Road; and foul (4) lanes on Five Mile Road between Overland Road and Franklin Road. No evidence was submitted from the Ada County Highway Department or the State o: Idaho Department of Transportation that these assumptions of improvements due to AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON PAGC� 9 Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 63842 Telephone 8684461 residential growth were valid or that th improvements could or would be made even if finances were not a problem. 4. That in the traffic study area bounded b Meridian Road on the West, Ustick Road on the North, Maple Grove Road on the East, and Overland Road on the South, va improvements need to be made...... 5. That the Ada County Highway District is under the same 1% budget and tax restraints as the City of T.tieridian;... 6. That the shopping center would generate 37,200 trips per day and that the automobile would be used almost exclusiv for those trips; that comparing Figure 5.1 (p. V-2, Testimony) which supposedly shows the expected leVel of traffic in 1983 without a shopping center at Applicant's location with Figure 5.6 (p. V-12, Testimony) which 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 Avenue from Cloverdi:le-Road to Eagle Road there would be an increase of 41,490 daily trips due to the shopping center; like- wise on Eagle Road from Fairview Avenue to Franklin Road there would be an in- crease 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 placement of a shopping center at Applicant's location. F. That the Ada County Highway District conducted a bond election in approximate: 1983 to aide the DfLstrict in financing needed improvements to the roads within the 'District; that said election did not succeed. .y AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Boz 427 Meridien, Idaho 83842 Telephone 8684481 PAGE 10 Pi 0 14. That the roads in the area, particularly Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road are not in good repair; that Eagle Road is now a narrow two lane road; that the Eagle Road/ I-34 Interchange project will bring some improvements to Eagle Road; that Fairview is a four lane road, that the closer you get to Boise and existing commercial development is extremely over -burdened and inadequate; that Franklin Road has recetnly been improved but is still only two lanes; that Cloverdale Road and Five Mile Road were recently improved and resurfaced but are still only two lane roads; that no evidence was submitted by the Applicant as to how the road improvements would be financed. 15. That the City of Meridian does not have jurisdiction over the roads nor does it have financing responsibility." That since there was no evidence submitted by the Applicant showing a different traffic impact, it.must be assumed that the traffic situation at Eagle Road and I-34 would not be too different from that at Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue; the traffice impact would be severlly adverse just as it would for the Upland Industries site at Eagle Road and Fair- view Avenue. B) PROXIZIaTY TO OTHER C014MERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS 1. That the Applicant's mall location is over three miles from Cherry Plaza and a little more than two.miles from Downtown Meridian; that it is three miles from the retail shops at Fairview Avenue and Five Mile Road; that it is a little over two miles from retail shops at Five Mile and Overland Roads. 2. That the Applicant's testimony at the hearing indicated that its center would not have an adverse impact on the retail facilities located in Meridian; that John Polk indicated a study had been performed supporting the above and, recited a short summary of the report but the full study was not put in evidence. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON PAGE 11 Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Boz 427 Meridian, Idaho &W2 Telephone 8884481 3. That there was no evidence submitted contrary to Applicant's statement, however, it is noted that there has been testimony in a prior annexation and comprehensive plan amendment application (QUONG) in which opponents to that application testified that a regional mall built along Eagle Road would be detrimental to retail trade in downtown Meridian. 4. That is must be also noted that when Karcher Mall was built it did draw business away from, the downtown areas of Nampa and Caldwell. 5. That in the Comprehensive Plan at page 15 under Economic Policies it is stated in part as follows: 4. Positive programs should be undertaken to support existing industrial and commercial areas to ensure their continued vitality.... 6. It is the policy of the City of 14eridian to support shopping facilities which are effectively integrated into existing residential areas, and plan for new shopping centers as growth and development warrant. 10. ...where possible, existing commercial development should be encouraged to consolidate." That even though these polices are listed under the Economic Policies they do pertain to a shop- ping center proximity to other commercial developments. 6. That Applicant's location is quite distant from existing Meridian retail business. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON PAGE 12 Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Merldlan, Idaho 93842 Telephone 888.4481 C) IMPACT ON NE IG11BORHOOD RE S MFNT IAL AREAS 1. In the area where the Applicant proposes to locate a regional shopping center there is a residential subdivision directly North and two subdivisions on the West side of Eagle Road. 2. That there was testimony at the public hearing objecting to a shopping center at the proposed location by a resident of the subdivision North of the proposed shopping site. 3. That the Comprehensive Plan Economic Policy quoted above regarding proximity of shopping centers to other commercial developments sta that it is the policy of the City to support shopping facilities that are effectively integrated into existing residential areas. 4. That the development of the 1-84 Eagle Road Interchange will impact the adjacent residential areas and such construction is already a foregone fact; that adding a regional shopping center would increase the adverse impact. D) AVAILABLE UTILITY SYSTE14S 1. The Applicant in its application states as follows regarding the various utility components. a) Sewer 1. The sewer extension would be in the Urban Service Planning area; the extension woull be from the eastside off4eridian; and tha- it would be along much of the annexation route. 2. That the sewage treatment plant has a capacity of 21,000 population equivalency (P.E.); that the present use by the City 7,000 P.E.; that the proposed center woull use 7.1% of the capacity. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON PAGE 13 Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Marldlan, Idaho 83842 Telephons 898-4481 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 economical scale; that no estimate of fe to generate was given by the Applicant. b) 'dater Supply and Fire Protection 1. That the water line extension would comp with the City's Master Water Plan; that it would be an 8 inch line extension; that the water route would basically be along the annexation. 2. That besides water lines, improvements would include a well and a reservoir and that minimum fire flows would be met for fire protection. c) Other Utilities Applicant stated that gas, electricity, and telephone were available or would be. d) Public Safety Under this category the Applicant addressed life safety code, some police concerns regarding traffic, site lighting, and securii but did not address impacts on the Meridian Police Department or fire department. e) Solid Waste Disposal The Applicant indicated this would be handle( by the contract hauler. 2_ That the Applicant, other than in the area of sewage treatment, did not address the impact of its development on the utility systems or the related costs; that discussion of these impacts, as indicated by evidence in other porceedings, will be discussed further below. 3. That the Applicant includes application for annexation but the City has not yet committe4 to supply public services to the area; cost AMBROSE, FITZGERALD QCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Merldlan, Idaho 8.9642 PAGE 14 Telephone 8884461 0 • data for public services to this location was submitted in a prior application for annexation for Parcel 1 and the commission will discuss such in a different section of these Findings. E) AESTHETICS The Applicant submitted no evidence detailin; 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 premature." F) USE ItVACTS UPON OTHER ADJACENT.USES 1. The majority of the land surrounding Parcel 1 is residential on the North and West with agriculture being the pre - dominent use of the East. The Interstat is abutting on the South. 2. The majority of the land surrounding Parcel 2 is agricultural and industrial. 3. No specific evidence was submitted by the Applicant on the impact of its proposals on adjacent uses. One resident testified that the impact on his land would be adverse, as far as the shopping center was concerned. 4. At the hearing John Polk testified that the shopping center should not have an adverse impact on Downtown Meridian and its retail. This is discussed in a previous finding. 5. The likelihood of adverse impact on adjacent residential subdivisions is great; there would not likely be adverse impacts on other adjacent uses. G) DZAINAGE The Applicant indicated that the land drains to the North and West and that drainage woul be taken care of by the use of site drains, conduits and equilization basins which would would be integrated into the landscaping. Drainage would also be of greater concern to the Ada County Highway Department than th City of Meridian but appears to be adequatle addressed. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho SW2 Telephone 888-4461 • • 16. That most of the important items referred to in paragraph 13 and set forth in 67-6508, Idaho Code, have been addressed by the Applicant; that these items need to be addressed by an application to amend a comprehensive plan as they are the integral components of the original plan; any proposed amendment effects these components. It is felt, however, that this applicatic 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. PACE 15 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 the City and the Urban Service Planning Area (USPA)." (Plan, P.12) Likewise, one of the policies as stated at page 12 is as follows: "Unimproved or unrealized land within the Meridian City limits and Urban Service Planning Area should b utilized in order to maximize public investments, curtail urban sprawl and protect existing agricultural lands from unnecessary infringement." 2. The 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 capita basis than they would be if the population were greater; that employment from the shopping center could be approximately 2,500 and together 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 temporary influx o AMBROSE, FITZGERALD i CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 McNdlon, Idaho 53842 Telephone ei% 4oi PAGE 16 • • people relating to construction activities. 3. Applicant stated that the long term effect of the shopping center and the industrial employment would have a significant impact on future population projections 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 result of increas 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: P.15 "The City of :ieridian shall make every effort to create a positive atmoshpere which encourages industrial and commercial enter- prises to locate in Meridian. It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set aside areas where commercial and industria: interest and activities are to dominate. Stripping of industrial and commercial 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 economic activities and developments which provide opportunities for the empl6yment of Meridian citizens and area residents and reduce the need for persons to commute to neighbozing cities. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 888.4481 PAGE 17 The City of Meridian and its residents view the economic enterprises of industry, retail com- mercial and personal services as an integral part of a planned community.The City's physical development, economic stability, social stratification and institutional 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 afd 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 center. These have previously. been stated and discussed above in these Findings. 5. That the Plan goes on to state where the Regiona Shopping Center is to be located and deals with specific policies all of which 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 sig- nificance in these policies and statements are the expressed goals that the regional shopping center could become the dentral business district of Meridian and that it could be the core commercial activity within Meridian's Urban Service Planning Area. 6. That the Applicant's Application states as follows pertaining to the economic 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 million in State income taxes and approximately $57.5,000 in sales taxes AMBROSE, FITZGERALD d CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 127 Merldlan, Idaho $3612 Telephone 666-4161 PAGE 18 These revenues 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 assessed value) center would increase total assessed value in the City by almost 52 percent 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). d. The center would employ an estimated 1,500 full-time and 500 part-time personnel in new jobs. This would produce $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 approximately $275 million in gross sales the first year. This would result in $11.5 million in sales taxes that would reutrn to the City as State services or tax subvention income. f. Current State property tax laws, i.e. the one percent initiative and the 50-50 residential tax limitation, have served to push the tax burden from residential 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. g. The proposed regional shopping center will attract shoppers to Meridian, the additional shoppers will provide new business opportunities for existing business in the City and in the surrounding area. 7. That it is noted that evidence submitted during the Upland Industries and Quong proceedings indicated that similar economic benefits would result from a shopping center located at any of the three sites being proposed. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD i CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone ON 4461 PAGE 19 0 • 8. That the above stated revenue benefits to the City will be discussed below 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 dxpenses. 9. That the Plan also states as economic developmen policies, as follows at page 15: p.15 "Positive programs should be undertaken to support existing industrial and commercial areas to ensure their continued vitality, such as: a. Detailed Design Studies. b. Economic Feasibility Studies. C. Zoning changes to assure desired economic development. It is the policy of the City of Meridian to support shopping facilities which are effectively integrated into existing residenti areas, and plan for new shopping centers as growth and development warrant." C) LAND USE The Comprehensive Plan identifies consistency with land use policies of the Plan as a major guideline in the evaluation of a regional shop- ping center. 1. That the Plan identifies three land uses that are not in compliance with the goals and objections of the Plan; polluting industries, strip commercial or industrial and scattered residential (sprawl or spread); that urban sprawl is defined as scattered development which is not contiguous to the urbanized part of the municipality. Sprawl is characterized by significant amounts of vacant land intermixed with parcels of Urban development ----formless dispersal of congested urban area with little or no regard for the interrelationships of such factors as logical transportation, employment, health and recreational needs. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON PAGE 20 Attomeys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Merldlan, Idaho 63642 Telephone 8884481 • 2. That the Plan does not presently designate the area within which Parcel 1 is located for any particu lar use; . that Parcel 2 is probably located in what could be designated as the Eastern Industrial Review Area or is at least adjacent thereto. 3. That at present there are a significant number of parcels between Parcels 1 and 2 and Meridian that are vacant. 4. That the Application states the adjacent propert include industrial, railroad and agricultural uses; that contrary to Applicants statement much of the adjacent property includes residential land. 5. That the Application states the land use change contemplated by the proposals will have the followin impacts: a. encourage the interchange at I-84 and Eagle Road and industrial development below Franklin. b. Uhe shopping center would suffer less than the existing residential area as a result of proximity to I-84 and the future Eagle Road Interchange. C. that the shopping center would be a landmark enhancing the stature of Meridian. d. the proposed industrial development will be enhanced by its proximity to the railroad. d) PUBLIC SERVICES, FACILITIES, AND UTILITIES This component has previously been discussed as part of the location standards for a commercial activity center. However, at this juncture in discussing the planning components the existing policies pertaining to Public Services, Utilities, Facilities should be noted. 1. That the pertinent fire protection policies at page 38 of the Plan state as follows: "To insure adequate protection for new developments, provisions shall be made for satellite fire stations which have a staff AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho &3842 Telephone 888.4481 PAGE 21 of fire fighters equipped with the appropriate fire -fighting facilities. Improvements regarding the jointly used central Meridian fire station (City and Rural Fire Districts) should be reviewed periodically because of the growth and development within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area. Adequate water supply and water pressure should be available to provide fire protection for urban -type development within the Urban Service Planning Area." 2. That the pertinant police protection policies at page 38 of the Plan state as follows: "Police protection within the City limits and police protection furnished by the Ada County Sheriff's Department in the areas outside the City limits, but within the Urban Service Planning Area, should be assessed for deficiencies according to the recommended service ratio of 1.6 to 1.8 policemen per 1,000 persons." 3. That the pertinent water supply policies at page 39 of the Plan states as follows: 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 Planning Area. All new developments shall be phased as to their connection to the muricipal central water system within the Urban Service Plan Area. Adequate water supply should be available for fire protection. 4. That the pertinent sewer policies at page 40 of the Plan state as follows: All new subdivisions, and large commercial development projects planned developments and industrial shall be required to AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors Meridian, Box 427 PAIGE 2 2 McNdlan, Idaho 83842 Telephone 888.4481 • I • connect to the municipal sewer system. e) TRANSPORTATION This component has previously been partially discussed as part of the location standards for commercial activity centers. However, at this juncture of the Findings the existing Plan policies should be noted and discussed. 1. That the level of service of the transportation 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 role 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 Applicant's proposa 3. That the plan has as one of its transportation policies "Efficient and safe access should be provided to and from shopping centers, 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. f) HOUSING 1. The Plan contains housing policies and the following policies are included therein at page 26 of the Plan: "Every effort shall be made by the City of Meridian to encourage commercial and industrial growth and development which furthers employment and economic self-sufficiency and reduces Meridian's present reliance on Boise's Metropolitan economic and employment center. The development of housing for.all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged.' 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 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attomays and Counsokwe P.O. Box 427 Moddlan, Idaho $3642 TslaPhons 6884461 housing should be considered and utilized. 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 within Ada County and its surrounding enviorment." 2. The Application states that Applicant's proposals would create a uniform shape to the Southerly and Easterly portion of the City limits. 17. That the Plan references at page 20 that air quality should be a primary evaluation factor for the development of a regional shopping center. The Applicant failed to address this area. 18. That throughout the Plan referance is made to the regional shopping center at 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 Proposed Regional Shopping Center, Northeast of the I-84/Meridian Road Intersection" or such other single reference terminology; that the Applicant's requests PAGE 23 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Moho 83842 Telephone 88B-4481 0 • would change such 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 approved the Quong Application and the City Council denied it. The Commission has 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 relies on the record and findingsof the Quong Application as support for the objection. The objection incorporates all the record, testimony, evidence and exhibits of the Quong proceedings, particularly the Findings of Fact and Conclusions made by the City Council. The Commission 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 owners and developers of the Nahas site objected to the granting of the Upland Industries Corporation's Application to amend the Comprehensive Plan_ based on Quong record. The Commission, in its Findings on the Upland Application noted some similarities and some dissimilarities between the Upland proposal and the Quong proposal and also made some comparisons between those two sites and the Naha: site. The Commission is fully aware of all the prior records, PA CE 24 proceedings, findings and conclusions. 20. There are similarities between all 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) All are within 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) All would ultimately most likely, regardless of of location, be of similar size, be valued the same for property taxes, achieve the same armount of retail sales and create the same number of construction and permanant jobs; e), All being the same approximate size and value, would create approximately the same amount of revenue to the City of Meridian in the form of property tax, sales tax, and water and sewer revenues; f) All sites would create additional costs and expenses for the City albeit one site may create more than another, but which costs could outstrip the reveune 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 dissimilarities are as follows: a) The Nahas and Upland sites are already in the City limits and the City 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 FTZGERALD Meridian's present retail corridor but probably BCROOKSTON only a little bit more than the Upland site but the Upland site is on a proven retail corridor, Attorneys sed Fairview Avenue. Counselor P.O. Box 427 MerMlen, hicho &%42 PAGE 25 Tcicphonc!l88 "m 22. That there are some significant factors different in the Claremont Application than there were in the Quong Application; that these factors are as follows: a) All the land included in the Claremont Application is now included in Meridian's Urban Service Planning Area; b) The Claremont Application does not involve land South of I-84; c) The Claremont Application has the sewer and water extensions running along the route of annexation; d) That while annexation is not the question at hand, the Claremont Application includes an Annexation Application that is not convoluted and only includes land that would be serviced by extension of water and sewer lines. 23. That in the City Council's Findings of Fact and Conclusi on the Quong Annexation, which application involved the same site for a regional shopping center as the Claremont Application, there were several findings and conclusions relating to the costs of providing City services to the site and to the revenue that would b produced; that the Applicant produced no evidence which was contrary to those findings and which might have made the cost -revenue pictur appear brighter; the Applicant in its Application did indicate that a "$100 million center would generate at least $180,000 the first year in new property taxes to the City of Meridian." This statement by Applicant,is not born out after review of the Quong record and findings. 24. The Quong Findings indicate that the costs for utility services and police and fire protection to the Claremont site would AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON by far exceed the revenue that the City would derive from the Attomeys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Marldlan, Mato W642 PAGE 26 Telephone 118844E1 shopping center at that location; the Applicant submitted no evidencl that contradicted the Quong record, findings and conclusions. 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 reasonable and would not aid the orderly development of the City; that of primary focus is the irregularity 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 revenues, and the adverse affect the development of a shopping center would likely have on the existing retail community of the City of Meridian." That some of the reasons for denying the Quong Annexation have been removed in this, the Claremont Application, Although, the annexatioT is not before the Commission at this time, and this should not be construed as a ruling or decision on the annexation, the Claremont Annexation route is more direct and does not involve land that woul not be serviced with water and sewer. The annexed property would likely be considered as allowing more orderly development, although the actual shopping center site still would be a pennisula to the City. Likewise, some evidence was submitted that Meridian's presen retail would not be as severly impacted as adversely as indicated in the Quong record. 26. 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. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 8 CROOKSTON PAGE 27 Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Boa 427 Meridian, Idaho 831142 Telephone 855-Wl 27. That there has been at least one major change since the 1973 Meridian Comprehensive Plan was adopted which may indicate a review of the single shopping center designation is warranted and that is the addition of a second interchange on I-84 in the Meridia Urban Service Planning Area. 28. 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 the Applicant submitted no evidence which would indicate that if the amendment were granted that a regional shopping 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. 29. That although reference to the below may have inferential been stated in other findings the following goals, policies, and objectives in the Plan are specifically noted: PAGE 28 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 113642 TNephone 688.4461 p. 8 ''GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Goal 3: To encourage the hind of economic growth and development which supplies employment and economic self-sufficiency for existing and future residents, reduces the 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-leridian intends to plan for the periodic reviewing, monitoring and updating of land uses within the Area of Impact and the Urbar AMBROSE, FITZGERALD d CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 8881181 PAGE 29 Service Planning Area 4. The following land use activities are not in compliance with the basic goals of the Comprehensive Plan: a) ... b) Strip commercial and strip industrial." p.14 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT "Stimulate, encourage and give nerference 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 persons to commute to neighboring cities." "The City of Meridian and its residents view the economic enterprises of industry, retail com- mercial and personal services as an integral part of a planned community. The City's physical development, economic stability, social stratification and institutional effectiveness for dealing with public needs are dependant upon such economic opportunities. To accomplish the above objective, the Comprehensive Plan provides for INDUSTRIAL REVIEW AREAS, C01tIERCIAL ACTIVITY CENTERS and MIX.ED-USE REVIEW AREAS." I.'DUSTRIAL REVIEW AREAS "The Comprehensive Plan intends to prepare for Meridian's business and employment future by reserving land for industrial, retail, cor..Lmercial and office uses and so removing them from the categories of land on which residential development can be proposed." p.26 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, POLICIES 2. Every effort shall be made by the City of Meridian to encourage commercial and industrial growth and development which furthers employment AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meddlen, Idsho 8.9642 Telephone 888.4181 0 • and economic self-sufficiency and reduces Meridian's present reliance on Boise's Metropolitan economic and employment center." p.53 OTHER PROJECTS 2. Support and encourage development of Commercial Activity Centers Regional Shopliing Center 11 30. The following statements of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan are noted: PAGE 30 p .1 F ORWARO "The Comprehensive Plan is primarily a policy document identifying policies to guide future development within and outside of the City of Meridian. The Comprehensive Plan is recognizably the primary step in identifying the quality of life the City residents desire and relating goals to its capacity to achieve particular and results It was developed with a broad base of community- 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 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A Comprehensive Plan is an official document, by local governments and public agencies, which serves as a policy guide for decisions concerning the physical development of a community. It indicates, in a general way, how the community may develop in the next 20 to 30 years. The essential characteristics of the Comprehensiv Plan are that it is comprehensive, general, long- range and represents a process --not a product. Comprehensive means that the plan encompasses all areas of thecommunityand all functional element wh1ch bear on physical development. General means that the plan summarizes polici-es—anci proposals and does not develop detailed site plans. Lon. -range means that the*plan looks beyond Messing current issues toward the AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 MWWI&n, Idaho 63642 Telephone 6881161 PAGE 31 aspects of problems which the community may face in the future. Finally, as arod cess (not a product), the Comprehensive Plan is an ongoing process for directing change that occurs inevitably in a community --not a document that is written once, for all time." p.14 "C0111MERCIAL 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 sup- portive. In order to coordinate with the sup- portive areas of residential and industrial developments, areas should be set aside as Commercial Activity Centers and their development carefully guided." P.18 "ECONOMIC POLICIES 1. The City of Meridian shall make every effort to create a positive atmoshpere which en- courages industrial and commercial enterprise to locate in Meridian. 2. It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set aside areas where commercial and industr: interest and activities are to dominate. 4. Positive programs should be undertaken to support existing industrial and commercial areas to ensure their continued vitality, such as: c.Zoning changes to assure desired economi development. 6. It is the policy of the City of Meridian to support shopping facilities which are effectively integrated into existing residential areas, and plan for new shopping centers as growth and development warrant. �s .a] AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 MerMlan, Idaho SW2 TeNphone aes4a1 PAGE 32 P).. The City of Meridian intends to establish Commercial Development Design Guides wii.ich: a. Provide for the grouping of commercial buildings on a single parcel of land in sucl a manner as to create a harmonious, efficiei and convenient retail shopping environment;' p .6 . POLICY DIAGRA-4 "With the anticipation of growth and developmen pressures during the next decade, the Comprehensive Plan summarizes the potential distributions of land use activities within the Urban Service Planning Area that are based upon policy recommendations. The Policy Diagram attempts to make general designations of appropriate and compatible land use, expresses the ultimate growth of the Meridian community if all the land were developed, and provides a flexible framework for further detailed land use decisions. The Policy Diagram is to be used as a general guide for land use decision -making --not as a legalistic, literal and definitive map. As applications and proposals of land uses are submitted, the Policy Diagram is not intended t be used as the sole, authoritative means for decision-making. Rather, it is but one of the many tools which are available for public officials as they exercise their responsibility regarding the health, safety and welfare of the general public. p.50 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW If the Comprhensive Plan is to be useful and effective, it should not be filed away but should be continually reviewed and updated. Thi recommendations within the Comprehensive Plan should not be interpreted as unalterable com- mitments, but rather as a reflection of the best foreseeable direction at a given point in time. It is recommended by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission that at least a yearly review shall be held of the Comprehensive Plan to update and/or reaffirm the Plan to fit the changing needs as well as unforeseen planning problems and opportunities. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD i CROOKSTON Attomeys and Counselor P.O. Box 427 Merldlan, Idaho 63542 Telephone = 44al 0 • 31. That from the testimony the Commission 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 possible but that there are differences of opinion as to where it should be located. 32. That the testimony at the public hearing held April 8, 1985, was generally in favor of the Application, although, there was not much testimony given. One resident of the subdivision Nortt of the proposed site of the shopping center testified strongly against the application. PAGE 33 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD i CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 63642 Te phone 8881461 • CONCLUSIONS 1. 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 Planning and Zoning Commission has authority to amend the Plan. 2. That Claremont Development Company's Application to amend the Plan was initiated by the Applicant and not by the Commission ox the City Council. It is noted that the Application contains three requests: 1) To amend the Meridian Comprehensive Plan 2) To annex two parcels of land and 3) To zone the two parcels. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Mieridian reads in part as follows: 11-2-417 ANNEXATION AND ZONING UPON ANNEXATION. "...If the annexation shall necessitate an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission shall advise the Applicant to request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment prior to further consideration of the Annexation." 11-2-416 D.2. "If the adoption of a zoning amendment application requires an amendment to the 1•teridian Comprehensive Plan, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan shall be amended prior to the consideration of the zoning amendment and the procedures provided in Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code, shall be followed on the amendment to t -ie Comprehensive Plan and, until the Comprehensive Plan is amended to allow the Zoning amendment, no action will be taken on the zoning amendment." Idaho Code, Section 67-6511 is in accord with the above; that since the Application already requested a Comprehensive Plan amendment PAGE 34 was no need for the Commission to inform the Applicant to request an amendment and the Commission has moved forward on that Comprehensive Plan Amendment alone due to the above requirements. 3. That the Commission may take judicial or official notice of existing conditions in the City, County and SEate and of governmental actions, policies, and ordinances and of its own prior findings in other land use applications and those of the City Council. 4. That the function of adopting, amending or repealing a Comprehensive Plan is a legislative 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 Tor in the Act. 5. That the Application itself is concluded to meet the requirements of the Amendment Provision and Procedures of the Plan. 6. That paragraph K. of the Amendment 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 discrepancy or disparity between the conditions in the area and all or part of the Plan." Such a requirement was more restrictive than required under the Local Planning Act and the Commission recommended an amendment to Section K which deleted the idea that an amendment could only be AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON PAGE 35 Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 8884481 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD d CROOKSTON Attorneys and Couneelore P.O. Box 427 Merldlan, Idaho 83842 Telephone 088401 • granted to correct an error or change in actual conditions. The recommended amendment was approved by the City Council and the above is no longer a requirement to amend the Meridian Comprehensiv Plan. The Plan may now be amended to reflect "good planning" and the desires and goals of the citizens and Council and 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 Finding number 30 reflect that the Plan "summarizes policies and proposals and does not develop detailed site plans." The comment to the Policy Diagram indicates that the Diagram is not "intended to be used as the sole, authof itative means for decision -making ---not as a legalistic, literal and definitive map." The Plan therefore should be liberall construed but still maintained as the functional guideline for land use decisions; i.e., the Plan policies and objectives cannot be willy-nilly disregarded when there is an apparent conflict between the Plan and a proposed use. 8. That the Commission has the duty to continually plan; tha the Commission treats amendments proposed by private entities as part of that planning duty and function; the City cannot, and shoul not, be the sole initiator of possible amendments; the Commission treats amendment applications as a means of bringing possible and necessary planning changes to light. 9. At the time the Plan was initially adopted there was only one interstate interchange and now there is an additional one PAGE 36 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD i CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counedon P.O. Box 127 Meddlan, Idsho !9612 Telephone 6661161 planned for the Eagle Road/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. 10. As was similarly concluded in the Upland Industries Application to amend the Comprehensive Plan, it is likewise here concluded that the above referenced changes warranted a review of the Plan, and amendment of the plan if deemed appropriate, regardle of whether the Applicant had submitted its Application. The Application brought to light and focused in on the need to review the Plan. The Commission now is required to assess not only the Application but also whether those changes above warrant adopting 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 desireable. 11. That the part of the Application pertaining to a regional shopping center would have to be adopted to allow 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 13, the Application itself, the facts presented in the hearings or officially noticed, and the goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan as it exists and the various PAGE 37 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD i CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 127 Meridian, Idaho 83612 Telephone 6664181 0 • planning components of 67-6503, Idaho Code. 13. That pertaining to the commercial activity center locati performance and development standards contained in paragraph 12 of the Findings it is concluded as follows: PAGE 38 a. TRAFFIC Based upon the traffic study submitted by Upland Industries Corporation and concluding that the Claremont porposal 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 apparently 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 Applicant's development on existing roads in their present condition dictate that the Application be denied. That assuming the road improvements necessary could be financed, governmentally or privately, the site would have excellant accessibility for a regional shopping center. b. PROXIMITY TO OTHER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS That due to experiences of I:archer Mall in drawing business from downtown Nampa and Caldwell and due to the Applicant's site being more than two miles from existing retail in Meridian, it is condluded that Applicant's location would be detr.irinental to the City of Meridian. C. IMPACT ON : EIG14BORIi00D RESIDENTIAL AREAS That there would be a detrimental impact on the surrounding residentail neighborhood if Applicant's location were developed as a regional shopping center; that this impact is of concern to the Commission but it also realizes that the Plan indicates that shopping centers are to be integrated into residentail areas. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD t CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselor P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho &3642 Telephone 8&614&1 PAGE 39 d. .AVAILABLE UTILITY SYST24S That the City has present physical ability and capacity to provide service to the area; that even though the addition of the shopping center would add 1,500 population equivalence (P.E.) to the sewer use and there is an approximate remaining capacity, the City already has annexed an area that would require a treatment facility capacity in excess of 50,000 P.E. and the 1,500 additional would use up 10.71% of the remaining capacity; that the sewer line extension is not of much concern to the Commission as that would be borne by the Applicant but the impact on the sewer treatment plant and the fact the City has already committed, by annexation, to serve such a great area, are of great concern to the Commission. That the Commission's concerns over water service 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. That the other utilities of gas, electricity and telephone apparently are available; that while not being utilities, fire and police protection are of concern to the Commission and will be discussed further below. There was no evidence provided on the utility requirements of the industrial portion of the proposal. e. AESTHETICS That the aesthetic impact of a development at Applicant's site was not detailed in the evidence but such is not felt to be detrimental to the Application. f, USE IMPACTS UPON OTHER ADJACENT USES That there would be some adverse impacts upon the residentail uses immediately adjacent to Appliant's proposed site for a regional mall and this would be particularly 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 AMBROSE. FITZGERALD A CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 8884481 the Plan states in the Economic Policies at page 15 that Meridian should "support shopping facilities which are effectively integrated into existing residential areas." Likewise, it must be noted that there will already be an adverse impact on the adjacent residential areas due to the forth- coming Eagle Road/I-34 Interchange. This last fact reduces, but does not remove, the concern the Conmiission 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 Industrial Review Area. g. DRAINAGE That drainage is not a problem or a drawback to the development of a regional mall at Applicant's location or the industrial development. That as far as the location of a regional shopping center it is concluded that the site itself, without considering needed traffic improvements, the fiscal impact on the City including sewage treat- ment, fire and police protection and the possible revenues to offset those costs, and the possible loss of retail commercial establish- ments from downtown Meridian, is probably a good location for a regional shopping center However, the traffic problems and cost of providing numicipal services are problems which would have to be resolved. The possible loss of retail, is also of concern in that the Plan also recognizes Meridian wants to retain it identity. - 14. That since the Local Land Use.Planning Act requires the City to consider several components in developing a comprehensive plan, it is felt that the impact an amendment would have on those components must likewise.be'examined or at.least.there.must bean examination of the components effected by the ariendment';.that_these components deal with more than just location of a shopping center PAGE 40 site. Therefore it is concluded as follows; a. POPULATION That under the lead-in paragraph of the Plan per- taining to population and the other population policies quoted in Finding 16a, it is felt that a regional mall development at Eagle Road and I-84 would not necessarily be orderly growth and would tend to induce urban sprawl. That the Applicant did detail the impact its development would have on the aoo_ulation of Meridian and it is felt that the population would increase and the center would add a net gain of employment to Meridian and contribute to Meridian gaining self-sufficiency; however, a mall at any other location in Meridian would do the same. b. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT That a regional mall developed at Applicant's site would meet the general policies of the Plan regardin economic development. The Plan indicates that every effort should be made to encourage industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in Meridian and that areas should be set aside where commercial and industrial activities are to dominate. Applicant's proposal definitley would meet those goals and objectives, if it were developed. The proposals would add jobs, both during construction and upon operation. It would tend to reduce the need to commute to neighboring cities. It would add at least approximately $160,000,000.00 to the retail sales in Meridian. 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 dame. That as far as specifics under economic development one of the major goals of the Plan for commercial activity centers is that the regional shopping center could become the central business district of Meridian and that it would be the core commercial activity within Meridian's Urban Service'.Plafting Area. The proposed amendment does change the above goal and indicates that the Claremont site or the Nahas site could become a core commercial activity AMBROSE, center. It is felt that the development of a mall FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON at I-84 and Eagle goad could shift the emphasis of the City from the East First Street corridor to Acton ewW Eagle and Fairview and make "Oldtown" oldtown. g couneelom P.O. Box 427 PAGE 41 Tehphom 8884481 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O.BOX 427 PAGE 42 Meridian, Idaho 63642 Telephone 886-Wi c. -LAND USE That the Applicant's location would not create or be strip commercial, however, it could be considered to be or create sprawl in that there is a great amount of undeveloped ground between developed Meridian and Applicant's site. d. PUBLIC SERVICES, FACILITIES AND UTILITIES That portions of this component were discussed in these conclusions dealing with Parcel 1 as a location for a regional mall, however; additional comments need to be made and, as this component includes more than just sewer, water, gas, electricity, and telephone, the undiscussed facets need to be mentioned. The Nahas representative, in objecting to this Application, relied on the record in the Quong Application which contained extensive findings as to the cost to the City of providing sewer, water, police and fire services to the site now being considered. Those findings, particulary regarding fire and police protection, indicate that the cost of providing services to the Applicant's site far exceed the revenues to be gained from a shopping mall at that -site. Claremont provided only one comment that would tend to make the fiscal picture a little Brighter and that was that they concluded in the first year the additional property tax to the City from Applicant's mall would be $180,000.00. That state- ment, however, is not borne out after comparing the Quong $90,000,000.00 facility to Claremont's $100,000,000.00 facility. The Quong Finding found that the capital improvement costs for police and fire would be anvwhere from.a logia of $694,000.00 to high of $1,203,060.00 and that the annual costs would be anywhere from a low of $201,072.00 to a high of $566,281.00. The annual revenues were found to be anvwhere from aglow of'$100,160.00 to a high of $208,995.00. That the City Council concluded in the Quong conclusionsthat the costs of providing municipal services to the Eagle Road/I-84 site were prohibitive in relation to the possible revenues. However, the City Council when they considered the Upland location had before them the same costs figures regarding the Quong site and yet did not outright deny that application AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridien, Idaho 83612 Telophons 888.116, • 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. e. TRANSPORTATION That this component has previously been discussed under the specifics of Applicant's Parcel 1 as a site for a regional shopping center and those conclusions should be reviewed as they are applicable here as Applicant's site, if developed, would have a severe impact on the transportation 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 Meridian 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 tc a favorable extent in that it would aid the house construction industry; that there are sufficent house lots available to meet the possible demand. g. COPgiUNITY DESFGtd That it is felt the design of the City would be changed as the result of a regional shopping center on Parcel 1 in that it would create a shift of the City to the East towards Boise. ..15. That the impact on the air quality of Northern Ada Coun is stated by the Plan to be a standard in evaluating the development of a regional shopping center. It is concluded that 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 another would not inctease or decrease 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. PAGE 43 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD d CROOKSTON Attorneys end Counselors P.O. Box 127 Meridian, Idaho •3!142 Telephone 586441 • 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 population, economic development, land use, housing, or air quality and certainly regarding economic development would have a beneficial impact; that there would be an adverse impact on 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 population and in general under community design Applicant's development of a regional center on Parcel 1 would tend to violate the policy against urban sprawl, and would shift the emphasis of City to the East spreading it out; that considering the cost f contained in the Quong application, public services, facilities and utilities would be more adversely effected by a regional mall locat4d at Eagle Road and 1-34 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, 17. That a-representative,6f•the Nahas site did object'to- the present application based on the record: and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions in the Quong Application concerning this same site; that it is concluded, as the City 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 th PAGE 44 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attorneys ww Couneekwo P.O. Box 427 MWNMA, Wates 83642 TONOM a OU -4461 • factual situations concerning the Eagle Road/I-84 site when it was presented by Quong as compared to this presentation. Those factors which make it different are included in Findings 22 and 25. 18. That the Commission concludes 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 components 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 theme, of the Plan is that Meridian wants growth and development which is orderly and balanced. This is evidenced by Finding 29. Likewise, it is evidenced by the Plan at page 2: "The goals, objectives and policies herein expressed underline and shape the character and orientation of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. They deal with three major concerns of the people of Meridian: 1) Orderly growth and developement; 2) Economic growth and balance; and 3) Improvement of the quality of life." 20. That throughout the Plan the theme and desire for ec growth and jobs and self-sufficiency is repeated. One of the major) means the Plan states as achieving the above was, and is, the development of a regional shopping center in Meridian. Much of thel Plan's focus is upon a regional shopping center. The Plan specifically located the site for such a center as the Meridian Roal I-84 intersection. This site designation may have been contrary to PAGE 45 c AMBROSE, FITZGERALD aCROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 127 Merldlan, Idaho 8812 Telephone 8891181 the idea that the Plan is a general guideline and not a legalistic, definitive document but at the time of adoption of the Plan it was the only "site" in "sight." The area has changed. The development of an additional interchange, the extension of the Urban Service Planning Area and the extension of water and sewer lines make re- evaluation of the Plan, and possibly the single designation of a regional shopping center, appropriate. Whether there is one site designated or two or more, the desire of the people of Meridian is for a shopping center and 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 shoppi center must receive serious consideration. 21. It can be, and is, judicially noticed that the people of the City of Meridian would like to have a regional shopping center located in Meridian. It can likewise be judically noticed that the are and will be differences of opinion as to where such a center should be located or what site has the better likelihood of drawin tenants and of actually being developed. 22. The Commission concludes that the facts presented by the Applicant and the officially noticed facts, are sufficient to amend the Plan; that the facts, particularly that there 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 principal 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 the Claremont site PAGE 46 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Attorne" and Counwkws P.O. Box 427 MWkUn, Idaho SM2 TNephone 8891461 • were developed -it would have less of an adverse impact on traffic in the Downtown area, and that it is located on the major trans- portation arteriel, I-84,in the Treasure Valley, present cogent reasons for looking further into the designation of the Eagle Road/ I-84 site as a regional shopping center site. 23. That even though the Commission has concluded in Conclusion 22 that the Applicant has presented sufficient evidence to support an amendment, to the Comprehensive Plan, there are several items of great concern to the Commission which must be specifically and strenuously pointed out. These items are; 1) the traffic improvements necessary and the costs thereof; 2) the possibility of loss of retail business downtown and the shift of emphasis of the City to the East; 3) the possibility of creating ox contributing to urban sprawl; 4) the possibility that the City would have two or three sites capable of being developed as a regional shopping center and yet no center; and 5) the cost of providing City services. 24. That certainly, only one site in Meridian, if any, is going to be developed as a regional shopping center; that the traff' and cost of City services problems are going to exist whichever site, if any, is developed and thus those concerns are greatly nullified assuming the residents want a center at any cost. 25. That it has previously been concluded that the Plan is a plan and should not dictate exact locations and that the designation of Meridian Road/I-84 as the only site for a regional shopping cent may have been in error; that the Commission takes judicial notice PAGE 47 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD i CROOKSTON Attom"s and Counaabn P.O. Box 427 McAdlan, Maho 83642 TOWWW aal""I of its own initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment which removes all designations for regional shopping centers and makes the location of such a center a zoning matter. The present Commission now believes that the designation of one site for a regional shopping center was a mistake and should now be corrected. By this statement, however, the Commission does not indicate that it would necessarily approve a zoning request by Claremont to have their respective sites zoned for a regional shopping center as the Commission still has concerns over that site as stated herein. 26. The Commission concludes that since it believes the designation of regional, shoppin,.centers should be a zoning matter and taken out of the Comprehensive Plan arena, that the Applicant's application should be granted. 'This conclusion is made even though the Commission recognizes the site has its drawback's and which have been referred to herein. The Commission, however, in addition to its position on the zoning and regional shopping centers, concludes that the statements, policies, and goals in the Plan and included in Finding 30 outweigh the possible deletorious impacts of a regional shopping center at Claremont's site. 27. The Commission concludes that even though the Applicant' site has its drawbacks it also concludes that all three sites have their drawbacks, the most important of which, the Commission con- cludes, is the failure to have the existing site developed when it has been capable of being so developed for such a long time. The Commission believes that the other sites should receive a chance to see if they can prove their merit. The Commission concludes that t PAGE 48 AMBROSE, FnZGERALD ACROOKSTON Attorneys and Coun"lon P.O. Box 427 MorkHan, Maho 03"2 Telephone SSM 61 citizens of Meridian and the Area of Impact want a regional shoppin mall in the City of Meridian or at one of the three proposed sites and that all sites and developers should be afforded the opportunit to succeed. 23. The Commission concludes that that portion of the Applicant's proposal to have Parcel 2 designated as being included in the Eastern Industrial Review Area meets the policies and guide- lines of the Plan. PAGE 49 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD aCROOKSTON Anonmya and Counselm P.O. Box 427 MWWlan, Waho 03642 TNaphona 6664181 i 0 APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions, ROLL CALL Commissioner Morrow Commissioner Alidjani Commissioner Johnson Commissioner Shearer Commissioner Cole Chairman Spencer (Tie Breaker) PAGE 50 Voted i/tj Voted, - S Voted Voted 'V,&A Voted_;e Voted — RECO11MENDATION A The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian hereby recommends to the Meridian City Council that the Application of Claremont Development Company to amend the Meridian Comprehensive Plan be approved if and when Claremont Development Company can Provide i.rrewoe"Ia commitments fromj major retailers which commitments are satisfactory to the City Council. APPROVED AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Acounsy,,,.;,,an° PAGE 51 P.O. Boa 427 Morldim, Idaho WW2 T4Nphono aMM01 DISAPPROVED T, ■ . PRICE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY SHOPPING CENTERS / INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE PROPERTIES E134w35 CENTURY PARK -WAY . SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115. TELEPHONE (801) 486-3911 June 4, 1985 Councilman President Bill Brewer City of Meridian Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Bill: First of all, I want to take the opportunity to thank you and members of the City Council for your patience and diligence in reviewing the matter regarding the location of a regional shopping center at the corner of Eagle Road and I-84. I was sincere in my compliment to you and members of the Council last evening for the professional and forthright manner in which individual members have handled their responsibility relating to the serious questions currently before them. Although I was somewhat hopeful of a different outcome of last night's hearing, I certainly understand the position of the Council Members in wanting to have all the proper financial facts in front of them prior to making a decision on this issue. I am hopeful that we can now move forward as quickly as possible as a group and resolve the issues with regard to police protection, fire protection, and the City budget matters that were raised in last evening's hearing. Mr. Fred Brunning and I had a discussion this morning with Councilmen Tolsma and Giesler to discuss a possible format for both the Council and developer to proceed. Among other things, I believe we arrived at a decision on the following items: A SUBSIDIARY OF PRICE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION Councilman President Bill Brewer June 4j, 1985 Page 2 1. We will submit a list of qualified consultants to review the issues of fire and police funding and manpower. 2. The City Council will select a sub -committee consisting of two (2) City Council Members and one (1) member of the Planning and Zoning Board. The sub -committee will be charged with final selection of a consultant and providing a scope of services to be performed. Price should have the right to review and agree to the scope of services. 3. The consultant would be assisted in fact gathering by members of the City staff and members of the sub -committee as dictated by the Council. 4. The report is to be concluded as quickly as possible by the consultant for review sometime within, or immediately following, the two (2) week period now open for public testimony. In any event the study should be concluded by June 18th. 5. Following the submittal of a final report, we will expect to sit down with members of the Council and determine whether or not the financial impacts to the City of Meridian attributable to this proposed development are able to be mitigated by the developing entities. 6. Price Development Company is willing to contribute up to $5000.00 for a study of the issues described above by an outside professional consultant. If the Council finds that more than Councilman President Bill Brewer June 4, 1985 Page 3 $58,000.00 is necessary, please feel free to contact us for authorization to spend an amount over $5,000.00. 7. If the consultants submitted by us are not acceptable to the Council, you are to notify us of the problem and we will work with you to find a party acceptable to both sides. Bill, I believe this letter outlines a very sound course for us to pursue in resolving the various issues surrounding this regional mall development. We stand ready to assist you and other Council Members in achieving this goal. I have attached, to this letter, a list of financial consultants whom we believe are experts in their field and have a history of consulting with other cities to resolve the financial issues currently facing the City of Meridian. Please keep us advised as to your progress and any input you might require from ourselves or Claremont Development Company. In the event that I am unreachable at the phone number listed below, please feel free to contact our local counsel, Mr. Alan G. Lance of Foley & Lance, Chartered, Meridian, Idaho. Councilman President Bill Brewer June 4F 1985 Page 4 We hope this is the beginning of a long and successful relationship between Price Development Company and the City of Meridian, Idaho. Sincerely yours, PRICE LOP M COMPANY J D e smussen DR:db Enclosure v �l .tt VY�: 1r_IIIDal e Miller ThPhiGroup 2.10 nue ingt n 98122 0 Wayne Wedin Enterprises In #1 Civic Center Circle Brea, California 9262 (714) 525-4047 \(213) 694-8800 3.im Baker Ike r rz i earch Center (2 08 3 2 4. Echo Northwest Ed Whitelaw Eugene, Oregon (50 3) 687-0051 5. John Thompson & Associates 95 1st Street, Suite 215 Los Altos, California 940 2 (415) 941-2550 C - J, -� Ch 0 f f RESOLUTION NO.,,`0 2— A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, PROVIDING FOR THE CONDITIONAL ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 16, AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, BOTH IN TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE -MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO. WHEREAS, the owners of the land described in Exhibit "A", which Exhibit is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full hereat, have requested that the City of Meridian annex and zone their property, which request has been presented to the City by Claremont Development Company and Price Development Company, hereafter jointly referred to as "Developers"; WHEREAS, it has been requested by the owners and the Developers that that portion of the land contained in Section 16 be zoned (RSC) Regional Shopping Center and that portion of the land contained in Section 9 be zoned (I -L) Light Industrial; WHEREAS, the City has fully processed the annexation and zoning request and has prepared and adopted Findings of Fact and Conclusions pertaining to said annexation and zoning; 1enoal. GLIULD UOKSTON no" aid 600427 knn.'d n nom{, +M 8864"1 WHEREAS, the City and the Developers have entered into a Development Agreement pertaining to annexation, zoning, and development of the land; WHEREAS, it is not in the best interest of the City to finally annex and zone the property until such time as actual development in the form of a regional shopping center is imminent and apparent; WHEREAS, it is likely development would not occur if possible retail tenants are not assured of municipal services; WHEREAS, if the land is finally annexed and .zoned and yet no development occurs, it may be in the best interest of the City to de -annex the undeveloped land; WHEREAS, the action of annexation by a City is a legislative function and thus may be conditioned upon certain events or occurrences; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 50-222, Idaho Code, annexation can only be accomplished by means of approval and passage of an ordinance; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That upon compliance with and under the appropriate terms and conditions contained in the Development Agreement and in the City Councils' Findings of Fact and Conclusions on the Claremont Development Company Anrsexation an-' GERALD Zoning Application, hereafter referred to as the 'Findings", 00"TON Mvs OW ,no*" son -U? 'an, Now :aN7 •w WiM1 including but not limited to the payment of $450,000.00 at the time of passage of this resolution, and application and payment for a building permit fee for a regional shopping mall containing a minimum of 750,000 square feet within 18 months of the passage of this resolution, the City of Meridian shall finally annex, by ordinance, the property described in Exhibit "A" and will zone that portion of the land contained in Section 9 (I-L) Light Industrial and that portion of the land contained in Section 16 (RSC) Regional Shopping Center Business District; Section 2. That the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement and the conditions of the Findings shall control and guide the annexation and zoning, development, and if necessary, de-annexation of the property described in Exhibit "A"; Section 3. That the property described in Exhibit "A" shall be deemed to have been annexed and zoned subject to conditions precedent which shall be those set forth in the Findings at paragraph 19 of the Conclusions, and if ultimately finally annexed and zoned, shall be subject to de-annexation as called for in the Development Agreement and the Findings; Section 4. That if the land is finally annexed by Ordinance, the terms and conditions set forth in Section 3 shall both be attached to the property and shall be personal to the Developers; that the above terms and conditions shall survive the passage of this resolution and any annexation and zoning ordihaneE_. Section 5. That it is the intent of this Resolution that the 1 land in Exhibit. "A' be conditionally annexed and zoned by means of this Resolution and that final annexation and zoning would not occur until such time as an Ordinance is passed and approved by the City Council. PASSED BY THE COU1lNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this f -=a- day of P be -r-1 ,1985. ATTEST: JACK-1Q-EbiANN, /CITY CLERK MROSE, CERALO JOKSTON -mys W 'noloom 608417 'an. Waft M4! W" I APPROVED:. GRANT P. KINGSFORD, MAYOR CLAREMONT DEVELOPN.ENT COMPANY, INC. ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER EAGLE RD. - I-84 A tract of land in the SW-4of Section 9, and the NW14 of Section 16, all in T.3 N., R.1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particu- larly described as follows: Commencing at the section corner common to Sections 8, 9, 16 and 17, T.3 N., R.1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho; thence North along the section line common to said Sections 8 and 9, 1298.53 feet to the Real Point of Beginning, said point bears N.89°56'30"W., 25.00 feet from the southwest corner of COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION according to the official plat thereof on file in the Ada County Recorder's Office, Boise, Idaho; thence North along said section line, 935.55 feet to a point thence East, 38.14 feet to the northwest corner of said COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION; thence N.82°51'14"E. along the boundary line of said COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION, 54.03 feet to a point; thence S.87°54'18"E. along said boundary line, 435.74 feet to a point; thence N.44°0721"E. along said boundary line, 12.31 feet to a point; thence N.88°21'11"E. along said boundary line, 220•.15 feet to a point; thence S.88028'18"E. along said boundary line, 143.92 feet to the northwest corner of Lot 4, Block 2, of said COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION; thence South, 433.61 feet to the southwest corner of said Lot 4; thence S.89056'24"E., 285.00 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 4; thence North, 426.28 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 4; thence S.88°28'18"E. along the boundary line of said COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION, 371.81 feet to a point; thence S.79°29'17"E. along said boundary line, 181.13 feet to the northwest corner of said COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION; thence South along said boundary line, 888.84 feet to the southeast corner of said COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION, said corner also being on the north right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railroad; thence Easterly along said north right-of-way line, 956 feet more or less to a point on the east boundary line of the SE4SW4 of said Section 9; thence Southerly along the east boundary line of said SE4SW4, 1257 feet more or less to the one-quarter corner common to said Sections 9 and 16; thence N.89°20'06"W. along the section line common to said Sections 9 and 16 234.24 feet to a point; thence S.0°04'37"E., 922.84 feet along a line westerly of and parallel to the easterly boundary line of the NW4 of said -.Section 16; Page 1 of 2 . 4. thence S.85°24'37"E., 235.00 feet to a point on said easterly boundary line of the N144 of said Section 16; thence S.0°04'37"E. along said easterly boundary line, 1717.87 feet to the southeast corner of said NW -4; thence N.89°14'45"W. along the south boundary line of said N1J%, 1346.64 feet to the southwest corner of the SE14NW4 of said Section 16; thence Westerly along the south boundary line of the SW4NW%4 of said Section 16, 1346 feet more or less to the southwest corner of said SW%NW'4; thence Northerly along the west boundary line of said SW!NWIa, 1326 feet more or less to the northwest corner of said SW4NW%; thence Easterly along the north boundary line of said Sw4NW%, 1348 feet more or less to the northeast corner of said S;74NYA% and the southwest corner of the NE4NW4 of said Section 16; thence N.0018108"W. along the west boundary line of said NE14NW4, 831 feet more or less to a point; thence S.79°21'08"E., 117.09 feet to a point; thence N.0°18'08"W., 516.55 feet along a line easterly of and parallel to the west boundary line of said NE4NW14 to a point on the north boundary line of said NE4NW4; thence Westerly along the section line common to Sections 9 and 16, 276 feet more or less to a point which is 1078 feet East of thesouthwest corner of the SWI of said Section 9; thence N. 7'00' W., 1089 feet more or less to a point on the south right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railroad, said point is 945.3 feet East of the west section line of said 9; thence Northerly, 200 feet to a point on the north right-of-way line of said Union Pacific Railroad; thence Westerly along said north right-of-way line, 945 feet more or less to the Real Point of Beginning. Said tract of land contains 200 acres more or less. Page 2 of 2 ,1534&35 PRICE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY SHOPPING CENTERS, INDUST# n AND OFFICE. PROPERTIES 35 CENTURYPARr WAY. SALT LAKE C17 UTAH 84115 * TELEPHONE (801) 486-3911 ' liay 28, 1985 City of lieriaian -- Idayor Grant Kingsford I•ieriaian, Idaho 83642 Re: I-84, Eagle Rd. Proposed Shopping Center Development Dear Mayor Kingsford: On behalf of Price Development and Claremont Companies, we hereby submit the following as relates to our earlier package _ submittea to you last Friday, May 24th, 1985. Since the time of our submittal, we have had a chance to talk with the I•iayor and members of the City Council regarding the package we submitted to City Hall as requested last Friday afternoon. Ile were under the impression at the time of submittal that the Council wanted to see letters. from the -major tenants to review ano confirm their authenticity prior to our June 3rd hearing. The Iiayor has expressed a desire, after conferring with the City attorney, to make the letters a matter of public record. Although there are several business reasons not to make these commitments public, we have chosen to allow the Council to make our submittal a part of our application. The commitment letters contained in the package are from: Lamonts, (a division of Pay & *Save`, Corp); M6ntgomery Hard; Sears, Roebuck, & Co.; Z.C.14.I.; and Shopko. Although we were unable. to obtain new letters from some of the tenants, we have submitted earlier letters from some of the department -stores stating their. commitmentto Price Development Co. They have stated and re -stated their commitment to our Company in the Ada County market. We are _ confident that these letters are confirmation of our ability to deliver the major tenants to a regional shopping center in Ada County. We are pleased to be able to meet with the City Council on June 3rd and to fully explore the approvals necessary for a project at Eagle Road. We therefore request that the letters be made a matter of public. record and a formal supplementation to our application. Lie thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely yours, ICE DEVELOPMENT COEIPAMY (Difaine Rasmussen j A SUBSIDIARY OF PRICE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION May 241 1985 City of Meridian Mayor Grant Kingsford Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: I-84, Eagle Road Proposed Shopping Center Development Dear Mayor Kingsf ord: Claremont and Price Development Companies hereby submit our evidence of tenant commitments to our project at Eagle Road and I-84, currently under consideration by the Meridian City Council. Price Development Company has had long-standing commitments from major tenants interested in locating a store in Ada County. We have enclosed, for your review, confidential letters stating the terms of those commitments. The economic terms of the commitments have been deleted for business purposes and at the request of the major department stores. Some of the letters date back to Price's initial involvement on Cloverdale Road and these commitments, as stated publicly, remain to Price Development Company today. We have also attached copies of recent news articles from the Idaho Statesman in which representatives of major department stores have again restated their commitment to Price Development Company. We have enclosed in our package a letter from Rainier Mortgage Services indicating a willingness to finance our project based on the strength of the letters submitted to you. It is sometimes difficult for someone outside of the shopping center industry to understand the terms of a commitment letter and therefore, we chose to submit a letter from our lender indicating their commitment to the project. There are other major tenants committed to Price Development Company who could not meet today's deadline. We will continue to monitor these people and deliver prior to June 3rd any letters that we may receive. Also because of the volatile nature of this particular project, some tenants are unwilling to reduce their commitment to writing. However, we stand ready to arrange a conference call with members of the Council with at least two (2) department store representatives to facilitate a more accurate picture for the Council to review. Mayor Kingsford May 24, 1985 Page 2 Mayor Kingsford, we would like to emphasize the confidential nature of these letters and request you to treat them as such until such time as Price Development Company chooses to make this information public. We are trusting you and members of the Council with this confidential information so you will have a strong basis to back a decision on June 3rd regarding the Eagle Road project. We have also enclosed a list of telephone numbers where you may contact the signatories of the enclosed letters. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sipcerely yours, 4DMKONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Phil Davidson Claremont Fir. F. F. Ashenfelder (Chip) Montgomery Wards Telephone Number (312) 467-7284, Chicago F:r, Milo Carlston Vice -President Z.C.M.I. Corporation Telephone Number ( 801) 321-6106 Cal Hendricks Vern Netzer Pay IN Save Telephone Number (206) 621-6600 Richard P. Evans Shopko Telephone Number (414) 497-2211 Fir. Dean Hills Regional Real Estate Manager Sears Telephone Number (312) 875-2500, Chicago The above persons may be contacted regarding these ' companies' commitment to the John Price Company and the Eagle Road and I-84 project. f• Rainier Mortgage Services 1110 Second Avenue. P. O. Box 990, Seattle. Washington 98111, (206) 621-5333 May 23, 1985 Mr. John Price President Price Industries Corporation 35 Century Park -Way Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 Re: Regional Mall Eagle Road and Interstate 84 Ada County, Idaho Dear John: We at Rainier Financial Services are pleased with our association with Price Industries Corporation and its' affiliates over the years. We are impressed with the success Price Industries has demonstrated and the excellence and capability you put forth to conceive, develop, and complete major retail developments. Members of our staff have reviewed with Price Development Company, your real estate subsidiary, the proposed mall to -be constructed at Eagle Road and Interstate 84 in Ada County. We are willing to take an appli- cation to provide the financing needed for this development. As a result of our discussions and review, we are convinced the major tenants are committed to the regional mall, which Price Development Company plans to develop. We are impressed with the developments you have completed in the Inter- mountain area, and the ability you have in attracting successful, viable anchors. With your developments including Z.C.M.I., JC Penney's, Sears, The Bon, Mervyn's, Target, Shopko, Beall's, and WalMart, you have put together a very successful track record. As we are aware, you have delivered anchor tenants to projects, based on a gentlemen's understand- ing of a 'done deal', prior to any formal documentation. It is because of the track record of Price Development Company, and their ability to deliver the anchor tenants, that we are willing to proceed with you on your development in Ada County. We have reviewed the commitment letters from the anchor tenants, which are acceptable in the industry, and are satisfied with their commitment. We will proceed with the loan approval process subject to our typical underwriting reviews and appropriate loan documentation. RAMPMORTGAGE SER"CEO A Division of Rainier Financial Services Company Mr. John Price May 23, 1985 Page 2 We look forward to being involved with you on another successful Price Development Company project. Sincerely, Jeavid E. Thatcher nior Vice President DET/yo/33a CORPORATION General Offices: 1511 Sixth Avenue * Phone (206) 621-6600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 May 21, 1985 Mr. G. Rex Frazier Executive Vice President Price Development Company 35 Century Park -Way Lake City, Utah 84115 RE: Regional Shopping Center Site Eagle Road & Interstate 84 Boise, Idaho Dear Mr. Frazier: Price Development Co. (hereinafter referred to as "Developer") owns a regional Shopping Center -site at the intersection of Interstate 84 and Eagle Road in Boise, Idaho, consisting of approximately eighty (80) acres, which they plan to develop as a regional Shopping Center. The Developer has promised to Lamonts that Lamonts may locate a store in the Shopping Center, and Lamonts has advised the Developer that it is interested, providing the project contains all of the elements deemed essential by Lamonts. Shopping Center Development The basic concept of the Shopping Center shall be a two-level, mall type, and having at least four (4) major retail stores, plus 350,000 square feet of mall shops, and having a total square footage of GLA of approximately 1.3 million square feet in the Shopping Center. Land Lamonts shall bP Drovided fee simple interest in its parcel Major Retail Department Stores Developer agrees that in Phase I ; the Shopping Center will con- tain at least two (2) of the co -major retail department stores as follows: J C Penney, ZCMI, or Sears. Real Estate Taxes Lamonts will pay its real estate taxes and assessments on land, PAWN SAVE DRUGS 0 ERNST HOME CENTERS 0 LAMONTS 0 SPORTSWEST 0 BI -MART a YARD BIRDS • VON TOBEL'S Mr. G. Rex Frazier -May 21, 1985 Page 2 building and improvements within its parcel. Developer shall secure a separate tax parcel for Lamonts. Lamonts Store Lamonts shall construct a family apparel store containing approx- imately up to 60,000 square feet of gross building area in accord- ance with plans and specifications to be mutually agreed to by Lamonts and Developer. Opening Date Current market evaluation indicates support for a Phase I opening date of 1987-88. Operating Covenant Lamonts shall covenant, to operate as a "Lamonts" store for a period beginning on the date Lamonts first opens its store for business, for a number of years. Parking Ratio The parking ratio shall be based on a ratio of 5.0 cars for each 1,000 square feet of gross building area of all buildings in the Shopping Center, including mezzanines. Tnsuranne Lamonts will pay its pro rata share of the common area mainten- ance public liability and property damage insurance. On/Off-Site Improvements Lamonts shall pay its pro rata share of all on- and off-site work. This work includes, but is not necessarily limited to, perimeter streets, access roads, landscaped parking lot, lighting, curbs around the building areas, mall areas, utilities (electrical, water, sewer, storm drain, telephone, etc.) Auto Ingress and Egress Developer insures four-way direct ingress and egress from the inter- section of Interstate 84 and Eagle Road. Zoning The Developer shall secure the necessary zoning to permit the planned Shopping Center and shall file all the necessary environ- mental impact reports as required by the governmental agency(s) having jurisdiction. Common Area Maintenance Developer shall maintain the parking area and other common faeil ities of the Shopping Center. Lamonts will pay its pro rata share of the expenses of all common area expenses within the Shopping Center. The expenses to be prorated shall be subject to Lamonts audit. Mr. G. Rex Frazie, May 21, 1985 Page 3 Enclosed Mall Maintenance For the term of the REA, so long as the Develop6r shall operate same, and Lamonts is operating its store, Lamonts'-will pay an annual contribution per square foot to be negotiated. Promotional Fund Lamonts will agree to contribute as its share to the Promotional Fund. TT*i l i1-icc, All utility charges for Lamonts building will be paid by Lamonts. Hook-up fees and inspection fees shall be part of on-site work. Notwithstanding the nature and extent of our negotiations, there is no Lamonts commitment unless and until a final agreement, if it ever occurs, is evidenced by due execution and delivery in escrow of all necessary documents. Very truly yours, Cal Heidricks Vice Chairman klv r Sears, Roebuck and Co. PACIFIC COAST ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE (, ALHAMBRA. CALIFORNIA p1802 ( \ December 17, 1981 Mr. John Price Price Development Co. 35 Century Park Way Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 RE: Boise Mall Boise, Idaho Dear John: You (hereinafter referred to as "Developer") have represented to us, Sears, Roebuck and Co. (hereinafter referred to as "Sears"), that you own land at the intersection of Interstate 84 and Cloverdale Road in Boise, Idaho comprising approximately seventy five (75) acres, which you plan -Ito develop as a regional shopping center. The Developer has.proposed to Sears that it locate a store in this shopping center and Sears has advised the Developer that is is interested, provided the project contains all of the elements deemed essential by Se'ars. Since there is mutuality of interest, this business letter has been drafted for the purpose of setting for the obligations that Sears and Developer intend to assume respectively in the effort to cause the shopping center to become a real- ity. However, neither party shall have any liability to the other unless and until definitive contracts and agreements have been negotiated and executed by the parties. Shopping Center Development The basic concept of the shopping center shall be a single -level, enclosed, mall type, and having at least four (4) major retail stores, plus 2S0,000 square feet of mall shops, and having a total square footage of GLA of approximately 700,000 square feet in the shopping center. Land Sears shall be provided fee simple interest in its parcel free from all liens, including any and all liens resulting from the temnor?ry or Permanent financing of the center. Total parcel Sears Participation Mr. John Price December 17, 1981 Page 2 t On/Off Site Improvements All on and nff g4t-! work. incli,4ing the capital cost for common facilities, This work includes, but is not necessari_y limited to, perinivter streets, access roads, landscaped parking lot, lighting, curbs around the building areas, mall areas, utilities (electrical, water, sewer, storm drain, telephone etc.). All work shall be performed in accordance with the Technical Specifications attached hereto as Exhibit "B". Developer Shopping Center Coordination The Developer shall prepare and submit to Sears for its approval a site plan and general architectural concept for the shopping center which will include but not be limited to (a) the location, initial planned floor area and height of all build- ings; (b) the location and size of all parking areas, roadways, entrances, exits, walkways, escalators, elevators, and other common facilities; (c) a color and materials board to provide for compatible colors and materials in the shopping center; and (d) the proposed layout for any future expansion of the shopping center. Major Retail Department Stores As a material inducement for Sears to enter into this shopping center, Developer represents that the initial phase of the shopping center, if a phased project results, will contain Sears and at least two (2) of the following co -major retail department stores: Bon Marche, Penney Is, ZCMI�plus not less - than 200,000 square feet of mall space. Each major shall covenant to operate under their respective trade name for a period - of years not less than the period of Sears covenant. . Preferred Tenancies Sears shall have approval of tenant categories within 150 feet of the Sears store entrances to the enclosed mall. Sears will submit a list of such preferred cate- gories to Developer, and Developer agrees to cause the mall stores to be leased in accordance therewith. Real Estate Taxes Sears will pay its real estate taxes and assessments on land, building, and improvements within its parcel. Developer shall secure a separate tax parcel for Sears. Subject to CAP established under common area maintenance portion of this business letter as it relates to common area taxes not taxes on Sears building or building pad. Mr. John Price December 17, 1981 Page 3 Opening Date Sears shall use its best effort, without overtime pay, to open its store Fall, 1984 provided Developer has fulfilled all Developer obligations and sixty-five (6S) per cent of the Developer's gross leasable mall area and two other major department stores are open for business, and provided further that the Developer delivers a certified building pad, plus necessary utilities, to Sears on or before 13 months prior to the scheduled opening date. Operating Covenant Sears shall covenant, subject to its usual conditions, to operate as a "Sears" store for a period beginning on the date Sears first opens its store for business, for a number of years no longer than any other major covenants to operate and in no event longer than fifteen (15) years. Sears hours of operation shall be at the sole and absolute discretion of Sears. Sears Facilities Sears will build Sears building pursuant by Sears. Parking Ratio to plans and specifications established The parking ratio shall be based on a ratio of 5.0 cars for each 1,000 square feet of gross building area of all buildings in the shopping center, including mezzanines. Insurance Sears will pay its pro rata share of the common area maintenance public liability and property damage insurance and shall have the right to withdraw from or reenter into same at the end of any policy year on a 60 day prior written notice. Insurance payment included in CAM costs and subject to CAP established for common area main- tenance expenses as outlined in this business letter. Assessments Developer shall assure Sears that there are no additional or proposed assessments affecting Sears parcel, and shall defend and indemnify Sears from and against any assessments and/or liens arising out of or from any on or off site work or other eventuality for which Sears has not assumed any direct contractual liability. Sears Store Sears shall construct a single -story department store and TBA building containing approximately 115,000 square feet of gross building area. Sears shall have the right to increase or reduce its store size as market conditions demand. Mr. John Price December 17, 1981 Page 4 Plot Plan Developer shall furnish Sears a sepia (reproducible) and two prints of each plot plan. Common Area Maintenance The Developer will operate, light, and maintain the common area of the center in a first class, clean condition according to the standards set forth in the REA. Sears shall pay its pro rata share up to a maximum of 15t per square foot per year of the retail store GLA, with an escalation provision of up to 4¢ every five years for common area maintenance. Buyer shall at its sole and absolute discretion have the right to withdraw from or reenter the common area maintenance program by giving the Developer six months notice. The expenses to be prorated shall be sub- ject to a management fee not to exceed 3%, excluding taxes, utilities, and insurance. Enclosed Mall Maintenance 4� Buyer shall pay per year toward enclosed mall maintenance for the term of the REA so long as the Developer shall operate same and Sears is operat- ing its store. Merchants Association Buyer agrees to join the Merchants Association, subject to acceptance of mutually agreeable bylaws, for a period of one year, contributing a - - per year towards its operation and promotion. Auto Ingress and Egress Developer insures that a four way interchange will be constructed at Cloverdale Road at no cost or expense to Sears. Traffic studies made by a competent traffic engineer satisfactory to Sears, shall be made to maximize the ease of ingress -egress at the shopping center. Said traffic studies shall be subject to Sears review and approval. Zoning The Developer shall secure the necessary zoning to permit the planned shopping center and shall file all the necessary environmental impact reports as required by the governmental agency(s) having jurisdiction. Site Engineering and EIR Reports All site engineering data available to the Developer and EIR reports, as filed, shall also be made available to Sears. Mr. John Price December 17, 1981 Page S Utilities All utility charges for Sears building will be paid by Sears. Hookup fees and inspection fees shall be part of on site work. rnnrPccinnc Any concessions or interests granted to any other major shall be granted to Sears. This provision shall survive this letter agreement. Notwithstanding the nature and extent of our negotiations, there is no Sears commitment unless and until a final agreement, if it ever occurs, is evidenced by due execution and delivery in escrow, of all necessary documents. Such commit- ment is subject to the final approval of Territorial and Headquarters Chicago management and officers of Sears. At this time, approval has not been granted to pariticpate in the Boise, Idaho project. Until such time as all executed documents have been released from escrow, any ..,.expenditures made by you (including options, purchases, fees, zoning, etc.) shall Abe at your sole risk and Sears may, in its sole and absolute discretion, terminate the negotiations at any time. Based upon your proposal, the prospects for the Boise project look promising; however, we wish to make our position and method of procedure clearly understood in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding. The content of this letter is confidential and shall not be released to any third party. Any newspaper or other publicity releases of any kind whatsoever must have the prior written approval of Sears, Roebuck and Co. Contact the undersigned for specific approval. ` Very truly yours, H. Dean Hills Regional Real Estate Manager red W. uning Territorial Real Estate Manager HDH:B:1 ACKNOWLEDGED AND ACCEPTED: PA By C- C Sears MerChandlse Group 900 SO FREMONT AVENUE ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802 Mr. Fred W. Bruning Price Development Company 2808 Via Anacapa Palos Verdes, CA 90274 October 29, 1984 RE: Boise, Idaho This letter is to confirm our interest in the development of a retail Regional Mall in Boise, Idaho. As we discussed, we are most interested in the Cloverdale site of Price Development Cempany provided the,site is properly zoned with the traffic access and utility issues resolved to�our satisfaction. We understand that Price and others continue in the pursuit of other sites for a Regional Mall in the market area. We have repeatedly stated our reasons for not considering downtown Boise and we remain committed to a surburban site. It is our conviction that the trade area will support only one Regional Mall for the forseeable future and it is Sears desire to participate in such Regional Mall development. Please keep us appraised as to your progress of the zoning and development of your sites. ASW:hl cc: G. D. Bosak Very truly yours, i�AY A. S. White Territorial Real Estate Manager A SEARS. ROEBUCK COMPANY Corporate Offices February 1, 1985 Mr. John Price Price Development Company 35 Century Park -Way Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Montgcmery V;ard Corpotarn Offices '.'oncgomery• Ward Plaza C`.jcago. L'lmois 60671 312-467.2000 RE: Boise (Meridian), Idaho Interstate 80 and Eagle Road Proposed Shopping Center Dear John: It is with great pleasure that I write you this letter of interest in becoming a part of a shopping center to be built at the subject location. As you know, Dick Donavin and I have been very enthusiastic about this trade area for many years. I'm pleased that finally something is going to happen. As with any letter of interest, any statement we make is subject to: 1. Successful zoning of the site to permit the shopping center as planned by the developer. 2. Negotiation of a mutually acceptable business letter with the Developer and a Reciprocal Easement Agreement with the Developer and department stores. 3. Approval of the management of Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated. Again, thanks for this opportunity to become a part of this trade area. Sincerely yours, s fe der Real Es ate Manager Western Area FFA/rmv cc: Fred Bruning Dick Donavin Montgomery Wand a Mabll company SHOPKO STORES, INC. 2300 SOUTH ASHLAND, GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN 54303. MAILING ADDRESS P.O. BOX 3650 • PHONE (414) 4972211 May 23, 1985 Mr. G. Rex Frazier Executive Vice -President Price Industries Corporation 35 Century Park -Way Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 Dear Rex: I understand that Price Development is proposing to develop a regional mall at the Northeast corner of I-84 and Eagle Road in the Boise area. Since we plan on joining your developments in Twin Falls and Pocatello, we would also be interested in investigating the possibility of joining your Eagle Road project. As you know we would require 9 to 10 acres of land to accomodate our 90,800 square foot store. Please keep in mind though, that Shopko's entry into this project will be contingent upon the approval of Shopko's executive committee and Super Valu Stores, Inc. I would also appreciate it if our interest were kept as confidential as possible. In the meantime, if you have any questions do not hesitate to call. _ S' ely, chard P. E ns Director of Real Estate r OAKLEY S.EVANS PRESIDENT ZIONS COOPERATIVE iNIERCANTILE INSTITUTION SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84137 Mr. John Price Price Development Company 35 Century Park -Way Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Dear Mr. Price: November 22, 1982 RE: ZCMI Store Boise, Idaho By this letter, I would like to re-confiri.tr=our commit- ment to your regional mall development to le co-anchored with Sears, Roebuck and Company and J. C. Penney Company. We feel that it is in the best interest of the community for ZCMI to locate in such a suburban development. Any rumor of our interest to consider locating downtown is unfounded. Please proceed with your intended development program, ' so that ZCMI can open a store as soon as possible. I trust the above clarifies ZCMI's position. Sincerely, ZCMI n P k�I�en". a s VA -4--•1 — -- g fflr� �Iz a w s« « via'. moll a MY 11 V IM] 11 g ISO 11� �ys 0 � maa _;-��3�E$C j « « E::...auLL o« a RIv0� o E etcn }' X-Ifig. fpm ~vM _ -M � 8�� ���wi_t tilt. IMM gY _� v-a���� -4112 CL3--c- evv9 �aE y -W -mg Y��� � Y p E ci.�°..Wo4 a 'NUMIL d — eoSac���$� c 3w w li s *r oe �m €8a r� Y $o.rs� •—Y�E�a�4 �h3v°5 Y Ile 0. $T w u oCy o SCL go 0 wO E Ycc If _ s mil ell cup 0 0SidY t �_� I g _ ' 1 ��+�OwYY7 a�Y« � -4<uv3 d �.7a3zu:«< AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS October 14, 1986 M E M O R A N D U M To: Mayor, Grant P. Kingsford City Clerk, Jack Niemann Councilman Geisler Councilman Myers Councilman Tolsma Councilman Brewer From: Wayne G. Crookston, Jr. RE: CLAREMONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND PACIFIC COAST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Gentlemen: I have been handed a proposed Development Agreement by Mary Gibbons who is apparently representing Pacific Coast Development Company. My comments are as follows: 1. The Development Agreement is basically the same as the Development Agreement entered into by the City with Claremont and Price. There are however some important exceptions and these are noted below. 2. In paragraph H, item number 1, the phrase "and the issuance of building permits" has been added. This would indicate that the $450,000.00 is not payable until building permits are issued. This is a significant difference in that the $450,000.00 would not be in the hands of the City nor would it be accuring interest. This is the most significant change in the Agreement. 3. In paragraph H of the Agreement, item number 2, the due dates for the periodic payments have been advanced one year. 4. In paragraph I, the building permit fee would now be based on ®1,500,000 gross square feet whereas in the previous Agreement it called for 850,000. This would of course mean that the initial fee for the building permit would be substantially greater. 5. On the last page, page 12, paragraph T, there is an entirely new addition. I have no problem with the statement that the City has received $25,000.00 and that no further monies would be released from escrow, however, it speaks of an escrow and we 1530 WEST STATE -P. O. BOX 427 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 GRANT L. AMBROSE (1915-1968) JOHN O. FITZGERALD, P.A. TELEPHONE 888-4461 WAYNE O. CROOKSTON, JR., P.A. THIS FIRM INCLUDES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS AREA CODE 208 October 14, 1986 M E M O R A N D U M To: Mayor, Grant P. Kingsford City Clerk, Jack Niemann Councilman Geisler Councilman Myers Councilman Tolsma Councilman Brewer From: Wayne G. Crookston, Jr. RE: CLAREMONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND PACIFIC COAST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Gentlemen: I have been handed a proposed Development Agreement by Mary Gibbons who is apparently representing Pacific Coast Development Company. My comments are as follows: 1. The Development Agreement is basically the same as the Development Agreement entered into by the City with Claremont and Price. There are however some important exceptions and these are noted below. 2. In paragraph H, item number 1, the phrase "and the issuance of building permits" has been added. This would indicate that the $450,000.00 is not payable until building permits are issued. This is a significant difference in that the $450,000.00 would not be in the hands of the City nor would it be accuring interest. This is the most significant change in the Agreement. 3. In paragraph H of the Agreement, item number 2, the due dates for the periodic payments have been advanced one year. 4. In paragraph I, the building permit fee would now be based on ®1,500,000 gross square feet whereas in the previous Agreement it called for 850,000. This would of course mean that the initial fee for the building permit would be substantially greater. 5. On the last page, page 12, paragraph T, there is an entirely new addition. I have no problem with the statement that the City has received $25,000.00 and that no further monies would be released from escrow, however, it speaks of an escrow and we have no knowledge of what that instructions to the escrow holder. be a new passage and not needed. • escrow is or the terms or The last sentence appears to 6. There are no notaries and I think that this would have to be an Agreement that would have to be notarized. 7. As to the draft, that was delivered to me it is the same one that was previously forwarded to us. It is made payable to Orange Coast Title Company and not to the City of Meridian. This apparently is pursuant to some escrow arrangement that they have in the back of their minds but of which we have no knowledge. I believe that it should be made payable to the City of Meridian and immediately negotiated unless the City goes along with the idea in the Development Agreement in paragraph H 1. which says that the $450,000.00 would not be paid until the issuance of building permits. As you will recall, however, the idea of the $450,000.00 to be paid up front was to show good faith and ability and also allow fund to be developed and accruing interest so that costs of City services could be funded. 8. Again there are no escrow instructions included and there is no indication as to what the Title Company would do with the draft or when it would do anything or when any money would be released to the City of Meridian. 9. Also the "draft" delivered to me is not an original. Which I assume it should not be if it is held by Orange Coast Title Company. 10. Also, back to the Development Agreement, Pacific Coast would be given 18 months from the date of the Contact to pursue their development and within which period they would have to obtain their building permits. That would be approximately April of 1988. DATED this day of , 1986. Wayne G. Crookston, Jr. MEPIDIAN CITY COUNCI� J«^IIARY 5, 1987 PAGE' # 4 Councilman Tolsma and Giesler concurred with the Mayors suggestion. The Motion was made by -Giesler and seconded by Myers to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as prepared for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Motion Carried: Giesler, Yea: Myers, Yea: Tolsma, Yea: Brewer, Yea: The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Tolsma to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Greenleaf Friends Academy for a Day Care Center and School conditioned upon the traffic patterns being resolved with the City Engineer, Police Chief and the City Council. Motion Carried: All Yea: Mr. Phil Davidson, Claremont Development Company was present. Davidson, our current agreement with the City of Meridian calls for the unwinding of our conditional annexation and zoning eighteen months after we were granted the conditional annexation and zoning which was November 4, 1985. so therefore as of May 5, 1987 our agree- ment would be terminated. We are still pursuing various alternatives for the development of this property . What we are asking for tonite is for the Council to let that agreement rest until the 4th of May 1987 and in between if we come up with an alternative we will be in to see you. -If leaving the agreement stand is going to cause any problems in the next couple of months you could get back to us with either a letter or notice of default. Tolsma, we met this afternoon and I would have no problems letting ride until May 4, 1987. Do you see any problem with that Counselor? Crookston, along the lines you are thinking about, you could either let it run until May 4, 1987 or set a date certain unless the City decided to act sooner. Giesler, where do we stand as far as the default of the funds, do we really have a problem with that at this time? Crookston, the agreement itself does not call for a notice of default. procedure but it is customary under this type of agreement to send a letter. We did this prior when the City had not received the Letter of Credit so we have kind of established a prior procedure. The agree- ment is in default at this time due to the fact that the payments have not been recieved. If it is the City's wish to terminate the agree- ment because the payments have not been met according to the terms of the agreement, I think it is appropiate to send a default notice and then if they do not correct within that period of time then the City can terminate the agreement. There was more discussion on this item: (Tape on file) Crookston, if the Council decides to go until May 4, 1987 the only letter that would be necessary would be a letter advising them that CITY COUNCIL • JANUARY 5, 1986 PAGE # 5 the agreement terminates on that date, more or less as a matter of courtesy. This would not require a default note in this case. The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Myers that the City Attorney draw up a letter to Claremont Development'Company advising them that the development agreement terminates on May 4, 1987 and there will be two payments and interest due should development proceed. Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #4: Request by Cecil Cherry & Sons to continue until February meeting consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on their request for a Conditional Use Permit: Mayor Kingsford, Mr. Cherry sent a letter and I believe all the Council Members have received a copy saying he is out of town and would like this continued until the February meeting. The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Brewer to continue the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the request for a Cond- itional Use Permit by Cecil Cherry & Sons until February 2, 1987: Motion Carried: All Yea. Item #5: Pre -Termination Hearing: Water/Sewer/Trash Delinquencies: Mayor Kingsford, you have been informed in writing, if you choose to, you have the right to a pre -termination hearing January 5, 1987 before the Mayor & Council, to appear in person to be judged on facts and. defend the claim made by the City that your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent, you may retain Counsel. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes a hearing? There was no response. Due to their failure to pay their water bill or to present anyvalid reason why the bill has not been paid, their water shall be turned off on January 13, 1987. In order to have their water turned back on, there will be an addit- ional fee of $10.00. They are hereby informed that they may appeal or have the decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth Judical District Court, pursuant to Idaho Code. Even though they appeal, the water will be shut off. The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Brewer to approve the turn-off list. Motion Carried: All Yea: Mayor Kingsford, the amount of the delinquencies amounts to $6979.37: Item #6: Approve the Bills: The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Tolsma to approve the bills: Motion Carried: All Yea: Claremont 0 0 December 10, 1986 Mr. Ron Tolsma Mr. Bob Giesler Mr. Walt Morrow % Mr. Jack Niemann City Clerk City of Meridian 728 Meridian Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 RE: I —$sF/ EAGLE ROAD MERIDIAN, IDAHO Gentlemen: If groundbreaking ceremonies mean anything, this is the proper time of year to say..."Yes, Virginia, there truly will be a Mall at Westpark!" I think we all agree that Meridian does not have to be precluded from having a project, even if Boise should happen to win this first round. We still have the superior location—and with that will come major tenants who might not necessarily be Mall candi- dates but could serve the community well. We are now in the process of updating our demographic study and preparing a new site plan. Both should be ready on or before December 19. If we're crowding the holidays too close to be able to meet with the Special Committee, we'll make arrangements to be in Meridian right after the first of the year. Hope you all have a wonderful holiday season. Best regards! CLAREMONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Phil Davidson MOO PD:el cc: Crookston /1 1 Rohwer n �A C Fisher O / Healy L 515416th. Ave. N.E. Suite 108 Bellevue, WA 98004 (206) 453-1883 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL • • NOVEMBER 17, 1966 PAGE #2 I test # 2: i' Eagle A .y ,... Mr. Phil Davidson, Claremont Development Company was present. Davidson, I believe an apology is in need to the Mayor & Council, there is no doubt that we made a bad error in judgement in the last group we got involved with. They came to us from California and they took a look at Westpark and at the Eagle Road Site and they agreed with us that there was no question that Eagle Road should be the spot for a Regional Mall. We signed an agreement with them and for a short time they became our partner. We checked them out from a financial stand point and from a expertise stand point and they checked out good. I think it this case they just did not give it the time to get the job done. I -did not follow it up close enough to be over here with them. I do apologize for that, not showing up for the meetings, there was no excuse whatsoever. I want to tell you tonite, with your approval, that we are planning to move full steam ahead on this thing. I met with the property owners today and they are willing to continue to work with us. I had a financial partner in town with whom I am working on four center in Washington with.and he is all in favor of proceeding. I would propose that I get up here as quickly as possible and set down with the Committee that worked on the Development Agreement last time and work out a new agreement where we are given specified dates for pe-rformance as we move along. I would be more than will- ingly to come back in the next couple of weeks and meet with the Committee and meet approximately one month from tonite have come up with a plan and show you what we have in mind. Mayor Kingsford, Does the Council have any questions of Mr. Davidson? Brewer, basically what you are saying is that the negotiations will be starting all over again just as they did with Mr. Price? Davidson, I would say that would be fair, that we would go for the development agreement again and make sure it agrees with what we have in mind. Brewer, as long as it is along the same lines as before with the financial agreements and such , I believe the Committe would be willing to spend some time again. Davidson, we have no objection to paying our fair share of the cost of extra services that we are going to have to bring in, if we are n-o7ttalking about a 1,500,000 square foot center some of the dollars figures and other items might change. We would be willing to set down with the committee and discuss these items. There was discussion that if the size went under 750,000 square footage the Comp Plan would have to be again amended as that is minimum size for a Regional Shopping Mall. Mayor. Kingsford, I would recommend to the Committee and you Mr. Davidson that you include Mr. Crookston in at least some of the meetings so there is not a paper work shuffle back and forth that take up a lot of time. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL • • NOVEMBER 17, 1986 PAGE # 3 Giesler, I am disappointed in what has transpired but would be more _. than happy to set down and try to work a solution out. We would like to be kept informed as to what is going on, we have been putting this off and extending the time for three months now and would like to get going on this if something can be worked out. Davidson, I can assure you, we will keep in touch. Mayor Kingsford, who was the head of the Committe before, was that you Mr. Tolsma, would you be willingly to head this up again so Mr. - Davidson knows who to contact? Mr. Tolsma advised he would again head the Committee. Mayor Kingsford, Mr. Davidson if you would then contact Mr. Tolsma and make arrangments for the meeting and again I would like you to ----�- include Mr. Crookston. Department Reports: Brewer, I would like to mention one more time for the record there apparently has been no response to the letters that have been sent to Mr. Jim Johnson in reference to the property at the corner of Carlton and East First Street, there needs to be definately a change in the Conditional Use Permit or a new zoning. I would like to see something happen. Tolsma, one thing I would like to bring up is I have had some public comments from residents of the condition of the Russ Johnson property as well as the amount of disrepaired vehicles and other accumulation that is located on the Dobaron property. These properties are located at the entrance to the City and do not present a good image. The City Clerk was instructed to write a letter to these owners regarding the appearance of their property. Mayor reminded the Council and Attorney of the AIC Legislative Dinner which is scheduled this Thursday, November 20. Mayor Kingsford also advised the Council of the Special Meeting scheduled for 5:00 p.m. on Monday the 24th of November to open the bids for the Water & Sewer Extension across the Freeway. Being no further business to come before the Council the Motion was made by Brewer and seconded by Tolsma to adjourn at 7:45 p.m.: Motion Carried: All Yea: (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ATTEST:- ack /Niemann/ City Clerk. Distribu (see back) GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL • • OCTOBER 20, 1986 PAGE # 2 Item #3:Ordinance #470: Amendments to Zoning & Development Ordinance: Mayor Kingsford, an Ordinance amending the Zoning & Development Ordin- ance of the City of Meridian by amending Section 11-2-408 B-4 to delete the requirement that the R-40 Residential District can -only be located in Old Town; by amending Section 11-2-409-A, residential zoning schedule of use controls, to allow lower density residential uses in districts zoned for higher density; by amending Section 11-2- 410-A, zoning schedule of bulk and coverage controls to delete from the R-4, R-8 and R-15 residential maximum lot coverage requirement that portion of the lot covered by a garage or carport; by amending Section 11 -9 -605 -B -3-a, so that Meridian's highway and street width designations conform to those of the Ada County Highway.Districts; and providing an effective date, is there anyone present who wishes Ordinance #470 read in its entirety? There was no response. The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Tolsma that the rules and provisions of 50-902 and all rules and provisions requiring that Ordinances be read on three different days be dispensed with and that Ordinance Number 470 as read be passed and approved: Motion Carried: Giesler, Yea: Myers, Yea: Tolsma, Yea: Brewer, Yea: Item #4 � Eagle Road Mall �'to A,4ib ine3it: Mayor Kingsford, the Council Members have been given a copy of the agreement that Pacific Coast Development submitted to the City Attorney for review. I do not know whether you have had time to review this but you will note the changes that have been made from the original agreement. It would be my recommendation that the Committee who negotiated the orginal agreement be reactivated to look these changes over and see if there is reason to change these from the or!.Cj'1nal agreement. There was discussion on this agreement. Additional costs were discussed to change the agreement. It was the consensus of the Council that the Committee be reactivated and they study over the proposed agreement and meet with the parties involved to see if an agreement can be reached. The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Giesler to table the Eagle Road Mall Site Agreement until the November 17, 1986 meeting. Motion Carried: All Yea: Department Reports: Mayor Kingsford thanked Mr. Ward for his accomplishments at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Councilman Myers & Councilman Brewer also concurred. Mayor Kingsford, I have visited with Councilman Brewer and the City Engineer, Mr. Smith and they have agreed to serve as the City of Meridian's representatives on the APA Board, I need to have the Council's approval on this matter. • • AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS 1530 WEST STATE -P. O. BOX 427 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 GRANT L. AMBROSE (1915-1968) JOHN O. FITZGERALD, P.A. THIS FIRM INCLUDES WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., P.A. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS September 9, 1986 M E M O R A N D U M TO: GRANT P. KINGSFORD, MAYOR JACK NIEMANN, CITY CLERK FROM: WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR. RE: PROPOSAL BY CLAREMONT DEVELOPMENT AND WEST COAST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY TELEPHONE 888-4461 AREA CODE 208 Pursuant to your request I have reviewed the changed Development Agreement between Claremont Development Company and Pacific Coast Development and the City of Meridian. I have the following comments: 1. The initial Agreement was entered into by Claremont Development Company and Price Development Company and it indicates that the Development Agreement was not assignable. Therefore the City would have to consent to the assignment of Price Developments interest to Pacific Coast Development and it may require Price's consent. 2. The Earnest Money Draft submitted with the proposal and the Agreement as changed does not meet the requirements of the initial Agreement. 3. That there is now due under the initial Agreement the sum of $27,500.00 which was due and payable on July 1, 1986 and carried interest at 12% which should be paid at this time. 4. Under the Agreement the $450,000.00 is now due. Apparently the draft is suppose to cover the $450,000.00 but there is no explanation as to how that works or whether the City can negotiate the draft at this time or what the conditions for negotiation are. 5. There are no escrow instructions included to know what Orange Coast Title Company is to do with the Draft or how the City of Meridian would obtain the funds. 6. The Draft idea does not fit the Agreement and there is no indication how they intend for this procedure to work. 7. There is no indication on the draft as to who the maker of the Draft is. I assume that it is Pacific Coast Development Company but that is not indicated on the draft itself. 8. The Development Agreement is not an earnest money and the draft should not reflect this. 9. There is no indication as to who Pacific Coast • • Development Company is and that would need to be ascertained. 10. The Agreement as changed has deleted any interest payments which the City was relying upon to help build its fund to provide City services. 11. It should be noted that the initial Agreement indicated that the developer would have 18 months from the conditional annexation and zoning to obtain its building permits. The initial Agreement was dated August of 1985 and therefore it should be pointed out to Claremont and Pacific Coast Development Company that the building permits would have to be issued by February of 1987 leaving only approximately six additional months before those fees would have to be paid or the application would be terminated. 12. On the Development Agreement as changed there is a notation on the last page, page 11, noting $27,500.00 has been paid by John Price Company. That is not correct and such should be pointed out to Claremont and thus therefore would be no credit. 13. There is also no notaries for any of the signatures contained on the Agreement. These notarizations should be required. 14. The earnest money draft and the proposed Development Agreement are entitled Exhibits "C" and "D". We should have copies of any other documents that pertain to their arrangements for financing. In summary it appears as though Claremont and Pacific Coast have tried to change the Agreement to integrate their "Draft" into the previous Development Agreement and at this juncture it does not appear to have been completed in a satisfactory fashion. The City would need much more detail as to their proposal and how the Draft idea would work and who Pacific Coast Development Company is. DATED this 9th day of September, 1986. Wayne G. Crookston, Jr. "Exhibit C" 1515 EARNEST MONEY DRAFT OFFICE Santa Ana DATEAupust 25,1986 Upon presentation of this draft, properly endorsed on the reverse side hereof, pay to the order of Orange Coast Title Company Four Fundred and Fifty Thousand ($450,000) dollars . Development This draft in given in payment of earnest money pursuant to SrIW Agreement XIUM(AM dated August 25 19' 86 , made to City of Meridan Ada County, Idaho PAYABLE THROUGH: Bank of San Clemente 121 Avenida Victoria San Clemente, Ca. 92672 #122234864 0406-710312049 Escrow # 5501 Douglas P. Blankenship By; ( ori ed signature) Date in Escrow Sept '2, 1986 EXHIBIT "D" • DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Development Agreement (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this ` �5 _ day, of ' August, 1986, by and between CLAREMONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY and PACIFIC COAST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; (jointly referred to herein as "Developers") and the CITY OF MERIDIAN, Ada County, Idaho (referred to herein as "City"). W I T N E S S E T Hs A. The City recognizes and acknowledges that the Developers are attempting to develop a regional shopping mall and related improvements at the intersection of Franklin Road and Eagle Road in Ada County, Idaho: B. The Developers recognize and acknowledge that as a result of such regional shopping mall and the associated spin-off development, the City will incur increased costs to provide public services to the project area, including fire and police protection, and may incur additional costs of city administration. C. The Developers recognize, acknowledge and agree that sewer and water services are provided by the City as a proprietary function and such services have charges and fees that make those services self -funding. Developers agree that the fees for such services are reasonable as set forth in the City ordinances and schedules and agree to pay the same as required by such ordinances and schedules in effect when such fees are actually paid by Developers. D. The Developers recognize, acknowledge and agree that certain'existing laws of the State of Idaho prevent the City from receiving certain tax benefits that could other- wise be derived without such laws and that the new revenues to be received by the City as a result of a regional shop- ping mall are not substantial. Therefore, the income to be derived by the City from the proposed project will fall short of funding the estimated costs and expenses of provid- ing the required increased public services. E. ,The Developers and the City recognize, acknowledge and agree that it is beneficial to the proposed project that city services be maintained at reasonable and adequate levels, both for the proposed project and the remainder of the City, and that the proposed mall will benefit from such public services. F. The Developers recognize, acknowledge and agree that without additional aid from non -tax sources the City could not provide, nor fund, the public services necessary for a regional shopping mall; that without additional funds from non -tax sources it would be financially difficult for the City to provide the public services required by the proposed project. G. The Developers and the City recognize, acknowledge and agree that not all of the estimated costs and expenses referred to above will accrue to the City as a result of Developer's proposed project and that some of those costs -2- and expenses will be the result of spin-off development performed by'others. H. 'The Developers, therefore, agree to pay to the City their fair share of the costs and expenses of funding and providing the necessary public services to the regional shopping center in the amounts stated below and agree to pay the same as their free and voluntary act, when and as due: 1. FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND and NO/100 DOLLARS ($450,000.00) at the time the City Council passes a resolution for conditional annexation and zoning of the property contained in the Developers' application. 2. THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED and N0/100 DOLLARS ($337,500.00), under the following payment schedule: $ 27,500.00 on July 1, 1986; $ 55,000.00 on January 1, 1987; $ 55,000.00 on January 1, 1988; and $200,000.00 on January 1, 1989, for a total of $337,500.00. Any of the foregoing sums (including the $450,000 described in para- graph 1 next above and any portion of the $337,500 described in this paragraph 2) not paid when due shall bear interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date so due to the date of actual pay- ment. PROVIDED HOWEVER, that in the event Devel- opers apply for a certificate of occupancy prior to January 1, 1989, any portion of the $337,500.00 which remains unpaid at the time such certificate is issued, together with any accrued interest, shall be paid by the Developers prior to the issuance of such certificate, and the City shall have no obligation to issue such certificate prior to the payment in full of all principal and accrued interest. 3. Additionally, Developers agree, as their free and voluntary act, to deed to the City legal title, free and clear from all encumbrances and liens of any nature whatsoever, one-half (1/2) acre of land to be used for, or used to fund, necessary addi- tional fire protection services. There shall be no charge to the City or payment by the City for said land, said land shall be deeded to the City -3- at the time the first building permit is granted, and said one-half (1/2) acre shall be taken from land contained in, or immediately adjacent to the land contained in, the application and shall have convenient access to either Eaale Road or Franklin Road. It is understood that such one-half acre may be "converted" by the City for an alternative fire station location or converted to cash for purposes of upgrading existing fire protection facilities. Developers shall have the right to repurchase such 1/2 acre if the City ever elects not to construct its fire station thereon. The purchase price phall be $17,000 plus 2% per annum calculated from the date of issuance of the first building permit to the date of (i) payment or (ii) to the date which is .48 months following such date of issuance, whichever first occurs. Such repur- chase right shall be contained as a deed re- striction in the recorded deed used to convey 'title to such 1/2 acre to the City. It is understood that the foregoing payments and the conveyance of the property described above are not in lieu of any fees required by the ordinances, resolutions or policies of the City but are in addition thereto. In the event.a building permit is issued at a time when all or a portion of the above described $337,500.00, or any accrued interest thereon, has not been paid, then it is understood that the City shall have no obligation to issue a certifi- cate of occupancy until all such sums have been paid in full. I. When Developers apply for the first building permit of whatsoever nature associated with the planned regional shopping mall, Developers shall pay a permit fee which, under the then prevailing schedules, would be paid for the construction of buildings containing1,500,000 gross square feet. Such sum shall be credited to Developers account and the fees for all permits requested by Developers -4- L • 0 or its contractors shall be deducted from such credit until used in full: Thereafter, Developers shall pay for any additional permits as such are issued. It is agreed that such sum may or may not be the total ultimate amount paid by Developers in building permit or other related fees. Any difference between the actual sum due the City and the amount of such credit shall be settled between the parties at the time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first phase. Any interest earned by the City on the building fee credit advanced by Developers pursuant to this paragraph shall be retained by the City. Any subsequent additions to the project over 1,500,000 square feet shall require the payment of all building permit fees in accor- dance with the City's then prevailing fee schedule. In no event shall the aggregate building permit fees paid by Developers be less than'the fees which would have been charged for a regional mall containing 750,000 gross square feet of buildings. v. The Developers and City further recognize, ac- knowledge and agree that the development of the regional shopping center is highly probable but is not a certainty; that Developers agree to perform the above acts and make the above payments upon the assurance from the City that all funds paid by Developers prior to the grant of the firzt building permit will be held.;in an independent escrow and said funds shall not be released -5- from such escrow or trust account or otherwise used for any purpose until the Developers have applied for, and the City has issued, the first building permit. In the event Devel- opers do not apply for such building permit all said funds previously paid, then held in such escrow or trust account shall be returned to Developers, save and except TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND and NO/100 DOLLARS ($25,000.00), which the City shall retain for administering Developers' application(s) and funds, and Developers shall have no„further obligation hereunder except for any de -annex- ation responsibilities and the release of liability pro- visions set forth below. In the event the building permit is applied for, all of said funds, principal and•interest, shall be the funds of the City and may be used to defray the expenses of providing public services to the City in general, and in large part, to the regional shopping center. There- fore, in the event such building permit is granted, the funds previously and thereafter paid by Developers shall be retained by the City and the City shall have no obligation, legally or equitably, to refund any of said funds for any reason to the Developers, i.e., if the building permit is applied for and issued but for some reason the regional shopping center is not constructed, City shall have no obligation to refund or repay any of said funds to Develop- ers or any other entity or person. All funds and monies and land paid or given to the City by Developers after the grant of the first building permit shall, likewise, be the funds Q. . (a r of the City without restriction. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the event the first building permit is issued, the funds described herein paid by Developer to City and, then, the project is not con- structed solely because of the arbitrary refusal of the City to issue some other necessary approval or consent, then in that event, the City shall refund to Developer all such funds less the $25,000 described above (for City adminis- tration expenses). Y.. The Developers agree that they shall have eighteen (18) months from the date of conditional annexation and zoning, if such occurs, to apply for a building permit. That upon application and issuance of the building. permit, the annexation and zoning, if previously conditionally approved, shall cease to be conditioned; and Developers specifically agree that if they fail to apply for, and pay for, the building permit, City shall have no further obliga- tion or duty to process Developers' application or request for permits and this Agreement shall constitute Developers' request to withdraw all of their applications; the City shall, however, be bound to repay the funds as provided above. If the Developers do apply for and pay for the building permit the further provisions contained herein shall apply. L. The Developers recognize, acknowledge and agree that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the annexation and zoning processes must be followed, including appropriate due - -7- process and hearing requirements, and that City cannot assure Developers that their application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, annexation and zoning will.be approved as Developers have requested. Developers further recognize, acknowledge and agree that by agreeing to do the above acts and paying the above payments they have in no way bound the City to act in any particular fashion or to pass any partic- ular ordinances or resolutions, and the City is free to process the Developers Comprehensive Plan Amendment, annex- ation and zoning applications under the City Ordinances without the City agreeing, in any fashion to take any particular action on said applications, either favorable or unfavorable, to the Developers, it being understood that the City can, in no way, pre -judge or pre -determine the decision on said applications; it is understood that the City will process said applications and in as timely a fashion as possible. M. Although Citi► agrees to process all applications in a timely fashion, the City shall have no obligation to continue to process any application or permit if Developers have not met their obligations hereunder; that by Developers failure to pay any amount required hereunder such failure shall act as Developers consent and request to terminate the processing or issuance of any permit or application. N. Developers recognize, acknowledge and agree, as above stated, that their development of a regional shopping center is highly probable but not a certainty, and along those lines agree and consent that such annexation and zoning shall be approved conditionally, if approved, and that the conditions shall be the application and issuance of the building permit; that when the building permit is applied for (and paid for) the annexation and zoning, suitable for a regional shopping center, shall be final and unrestricted; PROVIDED HOWEVER, in the event the building permit is applied for (and paid for) and Developers have not constructed a regional shopping center (defined to mean a retail project containing a minimum of 750,000 square feet of building floor area) within four (4) years of issuance of the building permit, this Agreement shall constitute and shall be Developers consent and request for de -annexation, rezoning and a change in the Comprehensive Plan to reflect a return of the property to its prior condition, as then appropriate, it being understood that the TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND and NO/100 DOLLARS ($25,000.00) retained by the Cite of the amounts paid by Developers under this•ASreement shall be used to help defray the costs of de -annexation and other processes and Developers shall have no obligation to pay any other of the costs associated therewith. O. Developers hereby release the City from any and all liability to Developers arising either under this Agreement or as a result of approval or denial of Developers' applications requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, annexation or zoning, or any other liability whatsoever, SAVE AND EXCEPT, the City's obligation to refund monies -9- previously paid hereunder and as requested hereunder, except the $25,000.00 to be used for city administration expenses. In addition, Developers shall indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from any claims or actions which may be brought by any party owning land included within Developers' annexation application or their successors -in -interest but not to any other third parties not signatory to this Agree- ment or to such annexation application. P. This Agreement is not intended to limit, and does not so limit, the obligations of Developers in complying with all ordinances of the City of Meridian or in their application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, annexation and zoning with regard to sanitary sewer, sewage treatment facilities, site drainage and water supply and fire protection. Q. By their signatures hereto the signatories of each respective Developer and the Mayor of the City, each person- ally warrants that this Agreement has been dully authorized by appropriate resolution and that each such signatory is authorized to sign this Agreement on behalf of the entity so represented by such signatory. R. If any party hereto defaults in any manner or fails to fulfill any and all provisions of this Agreement, and if the non -defaulting party places this Agreement with an attorney to exercise any of the rights of the non - defaulting party upon such default or failure, or if suit be instituted or defended by the non -defaulting party by reason of, under or pertaining to such default or failure, then the -10- nor. -defaulting party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses from the defaulting party. S. This Agreement shall not be transferrable or assignable in any fashion whatsoever by any of the parties hereto. To the extent an assignment or transfer of the Developers interest herein does bccur by lata or is otherwise permitted by the City, this Agreement shall be.binding upon any successor to Developers. CLAREMONT DEVELOPME14T COMPANY, a Wasa,-Z- n corporation By: Its ,.PACZF C C'QA`'.T,1)EVFL&MF.N1 ' �'a ' Cal i,V6'r_M a. corporat ion 2Z By: = ------ ------ f? ------ I CITY OF N•ERIDIAN, Ada County, Idaho, a municipal corporation TTES'T' : S By. I ' Its 1 lS L_ It is hereby agreed that the $27,500.00 paid by John R. Price Company is credited toward the $25,000.00 stated herein, and no further monies shall be released from the escrow fund until permits are applied for, and approved by the city of Iferidian. The Project shall proceed forward as long as it is an economically viable project with Permits being requested and issued on that basis. -11- MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL • • OCTOBER 6, 1986 PAGE # 2 & Development Ordinance as they were proposed. Motion Carried: All Yea: Item # 3:% Escrow{ Prg t : 'the , Xa�gl� Road rMr 7:1 S4te Mayor Kingsford, I see that a representative isnot present but they have been in contact with the City Attorney and I will ask him to explain where we are on this item. City Attorney, I received a call from Mr. Mary Gibbons about five o'clock this afternoon and he has been delayed in Salt Lake with plane troubles, they are now talking about'a letter of credit with the development agreement basically the same as before. He advised me that there would be something in my office tomorrow on this. The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Giesler to table this until the next meeting which would be October 20, 1986: Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #4: Pre -Termination Hearing: W/S/T Delinquencies: Mayor Kingsford, You have been informed in writing, if you choose to, you have a right to a pre -termination hearing, before the Mayor & Council, to appear in person to be judged on facts and defend the claim made by the City that your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain Counsel. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes a pre -termination hearing? There was no response. Due to their failure to pay their water bill or to present any valid reason why the bill has not been paid, their water shall be turned off on October 15, 1986. In order to have their water turned back on, there will be an additional fee of $10.00. They are hereby informed that they may appeal or have the decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth Judicial Court, pursuant to Idaho Code. Even though they appeal the water will be shut off. The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Tolsma to approve the turn-off list as prepared. Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #5: Approve the Bills: The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Brewer to approve the bills: Motion Carried: All Yea: Department Reports: Mayor Kingsford, Councilman you received a copy of a request from Craig Cook who is asking if the City would hgve any objection to a indoor soccer field at the Huico Building along with a beer license for that location. There was discussion on this. The Council was advised this would require a Conditional Use Permit and a Variance MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL,* • SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 PAGE # 2 Item #2: Escrow Agteement on Eagle Road Nall.Site: Mayor Kingsford, I hada call from Mary Gibbons at about 5: 50 p.m. and he had some bad luck he totaled his car coming down Highway 55 and will not be able to attend tonite, I advised him the Council willing we would continue this item until the next meeting. The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Brewer to continue this item until the October 6, 1986 Meeting: Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #3: Water & Sewer Extension across the Freeway: Mayor Kingsford, this is the subject of the Special Meeting held last We diiesday, just a few thoughts, the extension at this time has some goon implication for us, we have a major user which is building out there, this is an opportunity we have not had before as a certain amount of the cost would be funded now, this is Western States Equipment. Pursuant to other discussions I have had there is no doubt in my mind that there will be at least one other development over there. I have had some assurance from the City Engineer that the Treatment Plant if we were to redirect the money budgeted this year for a Secondary Clarifier that this could be delayed for another year. I have every confidence that we will be able to budget next year to complete that secondary clarifier. We have a opinion from our former Auditor and a certain amount of advise from Bond Counsel that the money we saved from the refinancing of the Bonds can be used for construction. Some of the owners have not yet committed themselves to this project, if we obtain all the owners we will not be spending a large sum of money, the amount will depend on how many agreed to participate. Under the Latecomers Agree- ment we will be reimbursed for what we spend. Are there any questions or comments from the Council? Myers, how soon would this project be starting? Mayor Kingsford, as soon as the irrigation water goes out it is my understanding, we have some drawings that should not need a great deal of updating, the project will have to be done sometime during the time the irrigation water is out, after October 15 and completed by April 15. Giesler, what is the dollar amount we are looking at? Mayor Kingsford, it depends which developers help us out and which formula we use, if we use the formula advanced by JUB Engineers, you get into the larger land owners their share is greater. This is what we do not know now we know we have one party. The latest estimate for the project was around $400,000.00. Western Equipments s$ase. was around $70,000.00 and Van Aucker's was the same. Councilman Brewer, this looks like a real chance and a real investment in Meridian's future to have this opportunity, one that I have not seen before in my time on the Council. Also I think it is an opportunity to give some of the developers a vote of confidence that we have not been able to do prior. If that secondary clarifier can be put off another MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL • SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 PAGE # 2 Item #4: Escrow Agreement oA Eagle.:Mall Site: Marvin Gibbons who was representing the developers of this project was present to update the Council on this Item: Gibbons, we felt the ten days was sufficient to get the Escrow Agreement to the City but ran into some mail problems, they were sent out last week, we had a backup copy that was sent out today and I would like to request a two day extension for delivery of the document. Mayor Kingsford, we could have a Special Meeting or at the discretion of the Council extend to the next meeting, you could authorize myself, the City Clerk & the City Attorney to review the documents and condition approval on that. Brewer, there is no time factor on their part:if I understand, they are trying to meet our requirements - Mayor Kingsford, that is correct, we gave them until this meeting to have the material. The Motion was made by Brewer and seconded by Giesler to extend the grace period with the Mall at Eagle Road in getting the Escrow Agreement final- ized until the next meeting which will be September 15, 1986. Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #5: Pre -Termination Hearing: Water/Sewer/Trash Delinquencies: Mayor Kingsford, You have been informed in writing, if you choose to, you have the right to a pre -termination hearing before the Mayor & Council, to appear in person to be judged on facts and defend the claim made by the City that your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain Counsel. Is there anyone present who wishes a hearing? There was no response. Due to their failure to pay their water bill or to present any valid reason why the bill has not been paid, their water shall be turned off on September 16, 1986. In order to have their water turned back on, there will be an additional fee of $10.00. They are hereby informed that they may appeal or have the decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court, pursuant to Idaho Code. Even though they appeal, the water shall be shut off. The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Myers to approve the turn- off list. Motion Carried: All Yea: Mayor Kingsford, the amount of the delinquencies amounts to $8,583.60: Item #6: Approve the Bills: The Motion was made by Brewer and seconded by Giesler to approve payment of the bills: Motion Carried: All Yea: MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL • AUGUST 18, 1986 PAGE # 3: Plaza. U The Motion was made by*Tolsma and seconded by Myers to approve Resolution #108,Conditional Annexation of the C & O Construction property. Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #4: Appointment of New Member to EDC Board: Mayor Kingsford, Mr. Morgan Edwards has resigned from the EDC Board and I have approached Tom Hammond to replace him. I would like to nominate him for this position, this term expires March, 1989. The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Giesler to appoint Tom Hammond to the EDC Board to fill the term vacated by Morgan Edwards. Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #5: Update on Better of U edit for Eagle road Mtll, Mayor Kingsford, the letter you have came in today, I do not know whether you have had time to read it, it is a little confusing. I visited with the individual from First Interstate and Mary Gibbons who is representing a developer in California. What they are proposing and what I told him I would ask the Council to do tonite is to extend their ability to preform through the first meeting in September. What they are proposing doing instead of a letter of credit is they are setting up an escrow account with escrow instructions basically that meet the contract we had prior to this, the only thing that would be changed would be the developers name, Price Development would be eliminated and it would be Claremont & Pacific Development. The Motion was made by Brewer and seconded by Tolsma to grant Claremont Development Company & their development partner until the first Council meeting in September to work out and complete an escrow agreement on the the development agreement for the Eagle Road Mall Site. Motion Carried: All Yea: Department Reports: City Attorney, we appeared in Court today on the Amyx situation and the trial date was vacated due to other trail being scheduled at the same time and now a new date will have to be set. Mayor Kingsford, the next meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 2, 1986 due to Monday being a Legal Holiday. Mayor Kingsford, we also need a motion by the Council to approve the schematic drawing for the new City Hall and to proceed with the design development of this project. The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Brewer to approve the schenatic drawings and proceed with the design development of the new City Hall project. Motion Carried: All Yea: MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL . JULY 21, 1986 PAGE t Item, Approve Audit Engagement: Brewer, we would appreciate Council approval to engage a firm for our annual audit, we received several quotes on this we have come to the conclusion on Messuri, Bates & Gibbons who have submitted the lowest quote for this service. The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Giesler to engage the fire: of Messuri, Bates & Gibbons to preform the annual audit for the City of Meridian and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the engagement letter. Motion Carried: All Yea: fie,. r;�tr+one item of business that needs taken care of tonite that urert I not"-6m the agenda, for public information there was a letter of credit due today from Claremont Development in reference to the location for a regional mall at Eagle Road and I-84.They were not prepared to issue that letter of credit today, however we met with these people today, primarily from First Interstate Bank, their main concern was they were not able to expedite the letter of credit in the time that had been given them, it was discussed that we might give them additional 30 days to give them the opportunity to excute the letter of credit. They were able to extend a letter to us affirming the discussion, so we have before us here a letter which each member had before the meeting tonite, I think it stipulates what we discussed this morning and in brief it gives them a thir- ty day reprieve and an opportunity to have that letter of credit by the second meeting in August which would be the eighteenth. The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Giesler to extend the deadline for a letter of credit to the August 18, 1986 meeting. Motion Carried: All Yea: Crookston advised that the approving of the extension should not also include the other conditions of the letter. Brewer, for the record then, the granting of this extension does not necessarily mean we are approving of the items stipulated in the letter. htevs 1, ;& 3, we are just giving them a extension to August 18, 1986. Department Reports: City Engineer, I have received a request from the State Highway Department to see if we had, if we had any, for an update on our functional trans- portation plan. I met with the State Engineer and we discussed what we have and he made some recommendations. The City Engineer explained these recommendations to the Council. It was the concensus of the Council that these changes be included in the City Engineers report and that they had no further recommendations. Being no further business to come before the Council, the Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Tolsma to adjourn at 8:10 p.m.: Motion Carried: All Yea: a Fffst Bank Mayor Grant P. Kingsford Meridian City Councilmen 728 Meridian Street Meridian, ID 83642 First Interstate Bank . of Idaho, N.A. Trust Department P. O. Box 57 Boise, ID 83757-0550 (208) 383-5000 July 21, 1986 Re: Eagle Road Mall Site Dear Mayor Kingsford and Meridian City Councilmen: This letter will confirm my earlier conversations with council members Bill Brewer and Ron Tolsma and City Clerk, Jack Niemann, in which I expressed to them that First Interstate Bank of Idaho, N.A., Trustee of the Cora Campbell Allen Trust and Howard E. Allen Trust, is in the process of applying for and obtaining a letter of credit required by the City of Meridian pursuant to that certain development agreement dated August 22, 1985 by and between Claremont Development Company and Price Development Company and the City of Meridian. Unfortunately, it is impossible for such a letter of credit to be prepared by 5:00 o'clock p.m. this day. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the City of Meridian allow an additional 90 days for the letter of credit to be obtained. In order to assure the City of Meridian that a letter of credit is actually being pursued, I would request the City of Meridian to delay any action on the zoning of the Eagle Road mall site for a period of 30 days, or until the second City Council meeting on August 18, 1986, at which time I will report to the City Council the progress that has been made on the letter of credit. The Trustee strongly believes there is the opportunity to develop a regional mall on the Eagle Road site. In order to accomplish this goal, three changes would be necessary to the development agreement dated August 22, 1985. These are: 1. Price Development Company would have to be elimi- nated as one of the "developers". 2. Claremont Development Company must have the ability tA to assign the development agreement and/or joint venture (� such development. 30 1 �� F • 0 July 21, 1986 Page Two 3. The development agreement would clearly allow for the construction of buildings containing up to 1,500,000 gross square feet. In addition, the letter of credit would provide for the Trustee's approval, in some form, prior to the first building permit being applied for and would allow a substi- tution of a comparable letter of credit, satisfactory to the Meridian City Council. As trustee of the Cora Campbell Allen Trust and the Howard E. Allen Trust, I am hopeful that we can keep the Eagle Road mall site available for the development of a regional mall. Therefore, I am willing to make this commit- ment to that project. I would respectfully request the council to allow the 90 days to satisfy the City of Meridian's requirement for a letter of credit. If you have any questions or need any additional infor- mation, please contact me. FHR/MWF:cdc Very truly yours, Fred H. R wer Vice President and Senior Trust Officer Claremont • City of Meridian Honorable Grant Kaysford, Bill Brewer, President of Ron Tolsma, Councilman Bob Giesler, Councilman Bert Meyers, Councilman Gentlemen: June 30, 1986 Mayor Council As you are aware, our joint venture partner on the Eagle Road, I- 84 Development Project has elected not to renew the letter of credit that was posted on December 4, 1985. As a consequence, the joint venture previously existing between Claremont Development Company, Inc. and Price Development Corporation has been terminated and Price Development Corporation has publicly announced its intention and desire to pursue development of a Regional Mall at another location. As I have previously expressed, I believe the location at Eagle Roar, and I-84 is the only viable site in the entire Treasure Valley for a Regional Mall, Consequently, Claremont Development Company, Inc. fully intends to continue to pursue those measures necessary to develop the property. Therefore, I respectfully request that any action concerning the development agreement or alteration of the comprehensive plan contemplated by the Meridian City Council, be tabled and/or held in abeyance for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days so as to allow further efforts toward the development of a Regional Mall in Meridian. As this course of action will not result in any cost to the City of Meridian, and will further provide the City with the opportunity to locate the project within the City's limits, we feel this course of action is most prudent and economically desirable for all parties concerned. Sincerely yours, CLAREMONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANYP 3MC. Phil Davidson, President Q PD : ch 3� D e�� 515 -116th. Ave. N.E. Suite 108 Bellevue, WA 98004 (206) 453-1883 OFFICIALS JACK NIEMANN, City Clerk A. M. KIEBERT, Treasurer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney EARL WARD, Waste Water Supt. KENNY BOWERS, Fire Chief ROY PORTER, Police Chief GARY SMITH, City Engineer June 17, 1986 • HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY • A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 728 Meridian Street MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83842 Phone 888-4433 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor Mr. Phil Davidson Claremont Development Company, Inc. 515 -116th Ave. N.E. Suite 108 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Dear Phil, COUNCILMEN BILL BREWER RONALD R. TOLSMA J. E. BERT MYERS ROBERT GIESLER BOB SPENCER Chairman Zoning 8 Planning As you are aware the Price Development Company did not renew the letter of credit with the City of Meridian on June 4, 1986. This item was brought before the Meridian City Council at the regular meeting held June 16, 1986 and the Motion was made and duly passed to have the City Clerk send a letter to Claremont Development Company, Inc. asking that they advise the City of Meridian if they have any intention of proceeding with the Eagle Road Mall Site and renewing the letter of credit. The Motion also incl- uded that Claremont Development Company, Inc. has until July 1, 1986 to respond to this letter. Sincerely, ac<Mi a gKh — ity C rk ityf Meridian, ID. 'pc: Mayor & Council Attorney File OFFICIALS JACK NIEMANN. City Clerk A. M KIEBERT, Treasurer BRUCE D STUART, Water Works Supt. WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney EARL WARD, Waste Water Supt. KENNY BOWERS, Fire Chief ROY PORTER, Police Chief GARY SMITH, City Engineer • HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY • A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 728 Meridian Street MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone 8881433 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor July 10, 1986 Mr. Phil Davidson Claremont Development Company, Inc. 515 -116th. Avenue N.E. Suite 108 Bellevue, Washington 98004 re: Eagle Road Mall Site: Dear Phil, COUNCILMEN BILL BREWER RONALD R. TOLSMA J. E. BERT MYERS ROBERT GIESLER BOB SPENCER Chairman Zoning 6 Planning The City of Meridian is in receipt of your letter dated June 30, 1986 containing a request for deferral of any action on the development agreement or the comprehensive plan pertaining to the Regional Mall Site at Eagle Road. After due consideration and the technicalities involved it is the consensus of the Mayor and Council that the City of Meridian must have a letter of credit for the amount as stated in the Development Agreement. This letter of credit must be received by 5:00 p.m. on July 21, 1986, to prevent the Meridian City Council from returning the property involved to its prior status. Sincerely, For the Mayor & Council ity Clerk pc: Mayor & Council Attorney Claremont • City of Meridian Honorable Grant Kaysford, Sill Brewer, President of Ren Tolsma, Councilman Bob Giesler, Councilman Bert Meyers, Councilman Gentlemen: June 300, 1986 Mayor Council 1] As you are aware, our joint venture partner on the Ragle Road, I- 84 Development Project has elected not to renew the letter of credit that was posted on December 4, 1985. As a consequence, the joint venture previously existing between Claremont Development Company, Inc. and Price Development Corporation has been terminated and Price Development Corporation has publicly announced its intention and desire to pursue development of a Regional Mall at another location. As I have previously expressed, I believe the location at Eagle Road and I-84 is the only viable site in the entire Treasure Valley for a Regional Mall. Consequently, Claremont Development Company, Inc. fully intends to continue to pursue those measures necessary to develop the property. Therefore, I respectfully request that any action concerning the development agreement or alteration of the comprehensive plan contemplated by the Meridian City Council, be tabled and/or held in abeyance for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days so as to allow further efforts toward the development of a Regional Mall in Meridian. As this course of action will not result in any cost to the City of Meridian, and will further provide the City with the opportunity to locate the project within the City's limits, we feel this course of action is most prudent and economically desirable for all parties concerned. PD: ch 515 -116th. Ave. N.E. Suite 108 Bellevue, WA 98004 (206) 453-1883 Sincerely yours, DIS DS7>iAOPMSDIS CONP11/Y1� I/C. Phil Davidson, President Q \j 313 OFFICIALS JACK NIEMANN, City Clerk A. M. KIESERT, Treasurer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney EARL WARD, Waste Water Supt. KENNY BOWERS. Fire Chief ROY PORTER, Police Chief GARY SMITH, City Engineer June 17, 1986 • HUB OF TREASURE L'ALLEI' • A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 728 Meridian Street MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83842 Phone 888-4433 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor Mr. Phil Davidson Claremont Development Company, Inc. 515 -116th Ave. N.E. Suite 108 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Dear Phil, COUNCILMEN BILL BREWER RONALD R. TOLSMA J. E. BERT MYERS ROBERT GIESLER BOB SPENCER Chairman Zoning 6 Planning As you are aware the Price Development Company did not renew the letter of credit with the City of Meridian on June 4, 1986. This item was brought before the Meridian City Council at the regular meeting held June 16, 1986 and the Motion was made and duly passed to have the City Clerk send a letter to Claremont Development Company, Inc. asking that they advise the City of Meridian if they have any intention of proceeding with the Eagle Road Mall Site and renewing the letter of credit. The Motion also incl- uded that Claremont Development Company, Inc. has until July 1, 1986 to respond to this letter. Sincerely, rk Meridian, ID. pc: Mayor & Attorney File Council ,a C � • PRICE DEV&PMENT COMPANY SHOPPING CENTERS / INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE PROPERTIES E34w35 CENTURY PARK-WAY • SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 • TELEPHONE (801) 486-3911 June 4, 1986 Mayor Grant Kingsford City of Meridian Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Proposed Regional Niall at Eagle Rd. and I-84 Dear Mayor Kingsford: I am writing this letter to inform you that Price Development Company will not be renewing the letter of credit currently posted to the City of Meridian covering offsite improvements related to the annexation of the regional mall site located at I-84 and Eagle Road. As you know through reports in the media and communication from our office, the major tenants have selected another site in the Treasure Valley market for the location of a regional mall. Therefore, we will no longer be pursuing the annexation and zoning of the Eagle Road site. We would like the citizens of your community to know that the City Council did in fact do all they could with regard to seeing a regional mall develop within their area of impact. It was a real pleasure working with members of the City Council, the Planning and Zoning Com mision, the Chamber of Commerce and other groups within the City of Meridian to try to accomplish the building of a regional mall within the Meridian area of impact. I believe if the leaders in your community continue to exhibit the same attitude toward new growth and development that was expressed with Price Development Company, your city can do nothing but prosper in the future. Obviously, sometime in the near future when the interchange is at Eagle Road, that corner will hold great development possiblities that could benefit your community. If there is anything that we can do to assist you by way of input with regard to the studies that we have done on that site, please do not hesitate to let us know. A SUBSIDIARY OF PRICE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION •� J City of Meridian June 4, 1986 - page 2 - we regret not being able to develop a regional mall on the site at Eagle Road, however, we believe all parties worked together in good faith but were unable to bring together all the right elements for development at the right time. We look forward to a continued relationship with the Meridian City Council and to work closely with your Chamber of Commerce to bring development to the Treasure Valley. Sincerely yours, PRI�EVELOPMERXT COMPANY la�ine Raussen Direct of Site Acquisition DR: of MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL • • JUNE 16, 1986 PACE 4 -7 increased by Sanitary Service to the required $500,000.00, and that the Mayor & City Clerk be authorized to excute this agreement. Motion Carried: All Yea: The -1 a.yar.4& it =discussed the: d3 f ► Motion Carried; All Yea: 01 t Being no further business to come before the Council the Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Brewer to adjourn at 9:00 p.m.: Motion Carried: All Yea: (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR ATTEST: Jac Nieman City Clerk p . Mayo & Council P&Z Commission Atty, Eng, Fire, Police, Ward, Stuart, Mitich, Keibert, Valley News, Statesman Hallett, ACHD, ACC, NIMD,CDH,ACZ, Mail (4) File (4) 1 PRICE DEV&PMENT COMPANY E3 SHOPPING CENTERS / INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE PROPERTIES ' 35 CENTURY PARK -WAY *SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 • TELEPHONE (801) 486-3911 December 4, 1985 Meridian City Meridian City Hall Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Eagle Rd. and I-84 Gentlemen: In fullfillment of paragraph H.1. of that certain Development Agreement dated August 20, 1985, between Claremont Development Company, Price Development Company, and the City of Meridian, we enclose the following: 1. An irrevocable standing letter of credit issued by First Security Bank, N.A. to the City of Meridian, as beneficiary, in the amount of $468,375.00; and 2. A check in the sum and amount of $25,000.00. The $25,000.00 check represents that portion of the $450,000.00 described in paragraph H.1. which the City may retain for administrative and related expenses pursuant to paragraphs J. N, and P of said Development Agreement. The letter of credit represents the balance of the $450,000.00 ($425,000.00) plus interest of said $450,000.00 at 12% per annum for the period from November 4, 1985 to June 4, 1986 ($31,500.00), plus a 2 1/2% contingency ($11,875.00) to cover any other developer obligation to the City under the agreement. The cash and letter of credit described above is the substantive equivalent of, a fullfilled obligation to pay, the $450,000.00 required under paragraph H.1. and is provided as a means of avoiding the complexities of, "an independent escrow or trust account", required under paragraph J. Since the City will retain the $25,000.00 regardless of outcome, it now has such sums in hand. A SUBSIDIARY OF PRICE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION City of Meridian December 40, 1985 Page 2 Since the City must return the balance of the $450,000.00 plus interest in the event a building permit is not requested, the letter of credit secures the developers' obligation should a building permit be requested and issued pursuant to paragraph J. We appreciate the City's understanding, cooperation, and patience over the last month. Sincerely yours, PRICE PEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT e Rasmu en rector 9)L --Site Acquisition Enclosure cc: Claremont Development Corporation Alan G. Lance Wayne Crookston h � rp 2 e . ��fie�1'all .�1C ���. h � lk.. LX �.Wi,� �:•.yy�� ld{'..:. +x e-� es K 1'w"ry�iAb i' �' V'Si8 i�7��f'i' ""/�i•.£9k � '�llbwFY.�. � s'Cv�r H�' u eP"[" ,ipy. 71• .. tL:.. s't�A�V: ..ms`s i� .r -�yj� •.+� � rR� � v,' tY'Pr �. ` �` ,L .Uv � ' � iia f a. _ •.Y1a'..x. LY ae.3°..f4...�n.. �„_.. ^[�.a:..4 77 K�,y i,'"`� y -:yam. � siN. �•a � ,� ,,�, a+- ,-, .�` > TrkP 1 Te X Y 6 WF Utah National Association INTERNATIONAL DEPARTMENT • POST OFFICE BOX 30004, 79 SOUTH MAIN STREET SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84130 Telex Number Cable Address 388 431 FSBU IRREVOCABLE STRAIGHT DOCUMENTARY CREDIT Advising Bank Beneficiary City of Meridian Meridian City Nall Meridian, Idaho 83642 Gentlemen: Issuing Bank Date of Issue in Salt Lake City December 02, 1985 Advising Bank Applicant — Price Development Company 35 Century Park Way Salt Labe City, Utah 84115 Amount U.S. $468,375.00 ( FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY EIMU THOUSAND THM HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE AND N0/100 U.S. DOLLARS) Expiry Date JUM 04, 1986 At our office We hereby issue in your favour this documentary credit which is available by payment of your draft(s) drawn onus at sight bearing this Letter of Credit number accompanied by the following documents: Your signed statement reading precisely as follolrrs: "We certify that 1. Applicant has applied for and has been granted the first building permit for its project at Eagle Road and Interstate 84; 2. The funds described in paragraph J of that certain Development Agreement between Applicant and Beneficiary dated August 20, 1985 are, therefore, to be released to Beneficiary; and 3. Applicant has not paid over to Beneficiary such funds thus entitling Beneficiary to draw upoia the accompanying letter of credit." The wording 'Mayor of the City of Meridian" must appear under your signature. The above statement must be titled "Affidavit". The original letter of credit must acoanpany drawing. This document consists of 1 signed page(s). We hereby agree to honor each draft drawn under and in compliance with the terms of this credit, if duly presented (together with the documents as specified) at ourofficeon or before the expiry date of this credit. Yoursyer uly, I� ure t; Signature Multiple Drawings Drawing of Partial Amount it Permitted #Dt Permitted Advising Bank's Notification Place, Date, Name and Signature of the Advising Bank L-247 R 4/84 7Y ' Paagic Coast Develoent DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and - entered into this 25th day of August, 1986, by and between CLAREMONTIDEVELOPMENT COMPANY and PACIFIC COAST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, (jointly referred to herein as "Developers") and the CITY OF MERIDIAN, Ada County, Idaho (referred to herein as "City"). WI T N E S S E T H: A. ThelCity recognizes and acknowledges that the Developers are attempting to develop a regional shopping mall and related improvements at the intersection of Franklin Road and Eagle Road in Ada County, Idaho. B. The Developers recognize and acknowledge that as a result of such regional shopping mall and the associated spin-off i development, the City will incur increased costs to provide public services to the project area, including firl and police protection, and may incur additional costs of city administration. C. The Developers recognize, acknowledge and agree that sewer and water services are provided by the City as a proprietary function and such services have charges and fees that make those services self -funding. Developers. agree that the fees for such services are reasonable as set forth in the City ordinances and schedules and agree to pay the same as required by such ordinances and schedu es in effect when such fees are actually paid by I 629 Camino de los Mares. Suite 206 • San Clemente. CA 92672 • (714) 661-7604 • (714) 6611-7400 -Page 1 a loop . 00" / ' Paagic Coast Develoent DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and - entered into this 25th day of August, 1986, by and between CLAREMONTIDEVELOPMENT COMPANY and PACIFIC COAST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, (jointly referred to herein as "Developers") and the CITY OF MERIDIAN, Ada County, Idaho (referred to herein as "City"). WI T N E S S E T H: A. ThelCity recognizes and acknowledges that the Developers are attempting to develop a regional shopping mall and related improvements at the intersection of Franklin Road and Eagle Road in Ada County, Idaho. B. The Developers recognize and acknowledge that as a result of such regional shopping mall and the associated spin-off i development, the City will incur increased costs to provide public services to the project area, including firl and police protection, and may incur additional costs of city administration. C. The Developers recognize, acknowledge and agree that sewer and water services are provided by the City as a proprietary function and such services have charges and fees that make those services self -funding. Developers. agree that the fees for such services are reasonable as set forth in the City ordinances and schedules and agree to pay the same as required by such ordinances and schedu es in effect when such fees are actually paid by I 629 Camino de los Mares. Suite 206 • San Clemente. CA 92672 • (714) 661-7604 • (714) 6611-7400 -Page 1 • Developers.! - I -. D. The Developers recognize, acknowledge and agree- that- . -certain existing laws of the State of Idaho prevent the City from receiving certain tax benefits that could otherwise be derived without such laws and that the new revenues to be received by the City as a result of a regional shopping mall are not substantial'. Therefor-, the income lo be derived by the City from {the proposed project wily fall .short of funding the estimatled costs and expenses of providing the required increased public services. E. The Developers and the City recognize, acknowledge and agree that it is beneficial to the proposed project that city services be maintained at reasonable and adequate levels, both for the proposed project and the remainder of the City, and that the proposed mall will benefit from such public services. F. ThetDevelopers recognize, acknowledge and agree that without ad itional aid from non -tax sources the City could not provide, no4 fund, the public services necessary for a regional shopping maill; that without additional funds from non -tax sources it would be financially difficult for the City to provide the public services required by the proposed project. G. The Developers and the City recognize, acknowledge and I agree that not all of the estimated costs and expenses referred to above will accrue to the City as a result of Developer's proposed • • project and that some of those costs and expenses'will be the result of spin-off development performed by others. H. The Developers, therefore, agree to pay to the City their fair share of the costs and expenses of funding and providing the necessary public services to the regional shopping center in the amounts stated below and agree to pay the same as their free and voluntary a t, when and as due: 1. FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND and NO/100 DOLLARS (4450,000.00) at the time the City Council passes a r1solution for conditional annexation and zoning of t e propert tained in the application, d the issuance of building permits, 41e,s �f 2. THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED and N0/100 DOLLARS ($337,500.00), under the following payment schedule: Page 3 $ 27,500.00 on July 1, 1987 W" Jy $ 55,000.00 on January 1, 1988 �i k 7 $ 55,000.00 on January I, 1989 /�� k-1 j ,000.00 on January 1, 1990 4t/b for a total of $337,500.00. Any of the f regoing sums (including the $450,000.00 descr� bed in paragraph 1 next above and any portio of the $337,500.00 described in this paragraph 2) not paid when due shall bear interest at the rate of:12$ per annum from the date so due to the date of actual payment. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that in the event Developers apply for a certificate of occupancy prior to January 1, 1990, any portion of the $337,500.00 which remains unpaid at the time such certificate is issued, together with any accrued interest, shall be paid by the Developers prior to the issuance of such certificate, and the City shall have no obligation to issue such certificate prior to the payment in full of all principal and accrued interest. 3. Additionally, Developers agree, as their free and voluntary act, to deed to the city legal title, free and clear from all encumbrances and liens of any nature whatsoever, one-half (1/2) acre of land to be used for, or used to fund, necessary additional fire protection services. There shall be no charge to the City or payment by the City for said land, said land shall be deeded to the City at - the time the first building permit is granted, and s#id one-half (1/2) acre shall be taken from land cgQntained in, or immediately adjacent to the land contained in, the application and shall have convenient access to either Eagle Road or Franklin Road. It. is understood that such one-half (1/2) acre may be "converted" by the City1for an alternaive fire station location or converted to cash, for purposes of upgrading existing fire protection facilities. Developers shall have the right to repurchase such one-half (1/2) acre if the City ever elects not to construct its fire station thereon. The purchase price shall be SEVENTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($17,000.00) plus two percent (2$) per annum calculated from the date of issuance of the first building permit to the date of ('i) payment or (ii) to the date which is forty-eight (96) months following such date of issuance, whichever first occurs. Such repurchase right shall be contained as a deed restriction in the recorded deed used to convey title to such one-half (1/2) acre to the City. It is understood that the foregoing payments and the conveyance of the property described above are not in lieu of any fees required by the ordinances, resolutions or policies of the City but are in addition thereto. In the event a building permit i is issued at a time when all or a portion of the above described THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED and NO/100 DOLLARS ($37,500.00), or any accrued interest thereon, has not been paid,- then it is understood that the City scall have no obligation �o issue a certificate of occupancy until all such sums have been paid in full. _ _- I. When Developers apply for the first building permit of whatsoever nature associated with the planned regional shopping mall, Developers shall pay a permit fee which, under theFthen prevailing schedules, would be paid for the construction of buildings containing ,500,000 square feet. Such sum shall $SO,00V be credited to Developers , and the fees for all permits requested by Developers or its contractors shall be deducted from such credit 'until used in full. Thereafter, Developers shall pay for any additional permits as such are issued. It is agreed that such i sum may or may not be the total ultimate amount paid by Developers in building permit or other related fees. Any difference between the actual sum due the City and the amount of •such credit shall be settled between the parties at the time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first phase. Any I interest earned by the City on the building fee credit advanced by I Developers pursuant to this paragraph shall be retained by the City. Any subsequent additions to the project over 1.500,000 square fee shall require the payment of all building permit fees in accordance with the City's then prevailing fee schedule. In no event shall the aggregate building permit fees paid 'by Developers be less than the fees which would have been charged for a regional mall containing 750,000 gross square feet of buildings. J. The;Developers and City further recognize, acknowledge and agree that the development of the regional shopping center_ is.. highly probAble, but is not a certainty; that Developers agree to perform the above acts and make the above payments upon the assurance from the City that all funds paid by Developers prior to the grant of the first building permit will be held in an independent escrow, and said funds shall not be released from such escrow or trust account or otherwise used for any purpose until the Developers have applied for, and the City haslissued, the first building permit. In the event Developers do n�*t apply for such building permit, all said funds previously paid and held in such escrow'or trust account shall be returned to Developers, save and except TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND and No/100 DOLLARS ($25,000.00), which the City shall retain for administering Developers' application(s) and funds, and Developers shall have no further obligation hereunder except for any de -annexation responsibilities and the re ease of liability provisions set forth below. In the event the uilding permit is applied for, all of said funds, principal and interest, shall be the funds of the City and may be used to defray the expenses of providing public services to the City in general, and'in large part, to the regional shopping center. Therefore, in the event such building permit is granted, Page 6 the funds previously and thereafter paid by Developers.'shall be retained by the City and the City shall have no _obligation, legally or equitably, to refund any of said funds f1 r any reason _ to the Developers, i.e., if the building permit is applied fbr-and issued but for some reason the regional shopping center is not constructed, City shall have no obligation to refund or repay any of said funds to Developers or any other entity or person...Al'1 funds and monies and land paid or given to the City by Developers after the grant of the first building permit shall, likewise, be the funds of the City without restriction. Notwitstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the event the first building permit is issued, the funds described herein paid by Developer to City and, then, the project is not constructed solely because of the arbitrary refusal of the City to issue some other necessary approval o+ consent, then in that event, the City shall refund to Developer all such funds less the TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00)1 described above (for City administration expenses). K. .The Developers agree that they shall have eighteen (16) month from the date of this ntract and zoning, if !such occurs, i to apply for a building permit. That upon application and issuance of the building permit, the annexation and zoning, :if previously conditionally approved, shall cease to be conditioiiedf and Developers specifically agree that if they fail to apply for, and Page 7 I t • pay for, the building permit, City -shall have no further obligation or duty to process Developers' application or request _ for permits and this Agreement shall constitute Developers'.- . evelopers'. . _request to withdraw all of their applications; the City shall, however, be bound to repay the funds as provided above. it the Developers do apply for and pay for the building permit the further provisions contained herein shall apply. , L. The r evelopers recognize, acknowledge and agree that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the annexation and zoning processes must be followed, including appropriate due; process and bearing requirements, and that City cannot assure De+elopers that their application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, annexation and zoning will be approved as Developers have requested; Developers .further recognize, acknowledge and agree that by agreeing to do the above acts and paying the above payments they have in.no way bound the City to act in any particular fashion or to pass any particular ordinances orresolutions, and the City is free to process the Developers Comprehensive Plan Amendment, annexation and zoning applications under the City Ordinances without the City agreeing, in any fashion to take any particular action on said applications, either favorable or unfavorable, to the Developers, it being understood that the City can, in no way, pre -judge or pre -determine the decision on said applications; it is understood I f _ i Page R i that the City will process said applications and in .as timely a _ fashion as possible. M. Although City agrees to process all applications in a timely fashion, the City shall have no obligation tb continue to process any'application or permit if Developers have not met their obligations, hereunder; that by Developers' failure to pay any amount required hereunder such failure shall act as Developers consent and request to terminate the processing or issuance of any permit or application. N. Developers recognize, acknowledge and agree, as above i stated, tha� their development of a regional shopping center is i highly probable but not a certainty, and along those lines agree and consent that such annexation and zoning shall be approved conditionally, if approved, and that the conditions shall be the •application and issuance of the building permit.; that when the building permit is applied for (and paid for) the annexation and zoning, suitable for a regional shopping center, shall be final and unrestricted; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, in the event the building permit is applied for (and paid for) and Developers have not constructed a regional shopping center (defined to mean a retail project containing a minimum of 750,000 square feet of building floor area) within four (4) years of issuance of the building permit, this Agreement. shall constitute and shall be Developers consent and request for de -annexation, rezoning and a change in -the Comprehensive Plan to reflect a return of the property to its prior condition, as then appropriate, it being understood that the- _TWENTY-FIV4 THOUSAND and NO/100 DOLLARS ($25,000.00) retained by I the City ofthe amounts paid by Developers under this Agreement shall be uled to help defray the costs of de -annexation and other processes and Developers shall have no obligation to pay any other of the costs associated therewith. O. Developers hereby release the City from any. and all liability to Developers arising either under this Agreement or as a result of approval or denial of Developers' applications requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, annexatipn or zoning, I or any other liability whatsoever, SAVE AND EXCEPT, the City's obligation to refund monies previously paid hereunder and as requested hereunder, except the TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00) to be used for city administration expenses. In addition, Developers shall indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from any claims or actions which may be brought by any party owning land included within Developers' annexation application or their successors -in -interest but not to any other third parties not signatory to this Agreement or to such i annexation application. P. This Agreement is not intended to limit, and.does not so Page 10 limit, the obligations of Developers in complying with all ordinances of the City of Meridian or in their application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, annexation and zoning with regard-to- -sanitary egardto-sanitary seer, sewage treatment facilities, site drainage and water supply and fire protection. Q. By,their signatures hereto the signatories of each respective Developer and the Mayor of the City, each personally warrants that this Agreement has been duly authorized by appropriate resolution and that each such signatory is authorized to sign this Agreement on behelf of the entity so represented by such signatory. R. If any party hereto defaults in any manner or fails to fulfill a ny and all provisions of this Agreement; and if the .non -defaulting party places this Agreement with an•attorney to exercise any of the rights of the non -defaulting party upon such default or- failure, or if suit be instituted or defended by the non -defaulting party by reason of, under or pertaining to such default or failure, then the non -defaulting party shall be entitled to�recover reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses from the de4aulting party. f � S. Thij Agreement.shall not be transferrable or assignable in any fashion1whatsoever by any of the parties hereto. To the extent an assignment or transfer of the Developers interest herein does Page 11 I occur by law or is otherwise permitted -by the City, this Agreement shall be binding upon any successor to Developers. T. IT TS hereby agreed that the TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLNR$' ($25,000.0) to cover the City of Meridian's cost for administer ng Developers' applications) and funds has been ;received by the City of Meridian. No further monies shall be I released from escrow until permits are applied for and approved by the City of Meridian. The project shall proceed forward as long as it is an economically viable project with permits being requested and issued on that basis. CLAREMONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Washington corporation By 1 Its PACIFIC COAST DEVELOPMENT a Californi orpo tion By Its i CITY OF MERIDIAN, Ada County, Idaho, a municipal corporation -f4 cert 4r G IV. Ni lirl'ts Page 12 1 McARTHUR, BERRY & COMPANY Commemlal Real Estate Business Brokerage 104 South Capitol Boulevard Boise, Idaho 83702 X208)338-8000 February 23, 1988 Mr. Jack Niemann City Clerk & Finance Officer City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Jack: Your' letter of February 18 to the Trust Department of First Interstate Bank was perfect. Believe it or not, that letter is a giant step forward in our getting the parcels annexed into the City. Thanks so much again. Very yours, Richard W. McArthur McArthur, Berry & Company, Inc. RWM•mkp cc: Honorable Grant P. Kingsford, Mayor HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live OFFICIALS JACK NICEGA S,TreasurerNN, City Clerk JANICE GASS, Treasurer CITY OF MERIDIAN BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. EARL WARD, Waste WaYNE G. ter p Attorney 33 EAST IDAHO KENNY BOWERS, Fire Chief ROY PORTER, Police Chief MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 GARY SMITH, City Engineer r Phone 988-4433 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor February 18, 1988 First Interstate Bank of Idaho N.A. Trust Department P.O. Box 57 Boise, Idaho 83757-0550 ATTN: Donna Obenchain The City of Meridian has been asked to write a letter regarding the estimated amount the property taxes would increase on the Mayes property located at 3710 East Franklin, Meridian, Idaho 83642, if they were annexed to the City. Based upon the appraised value we have been given on the amount of $70,563.00 times the present City of Meridian mill levy in the amount of .002723 less the Rural Fire levy of .00071 the estimated net increase in property taxes would be $142.04. These mill levies are the ones for 1987-88 Fiscal Year and could increase by 5% in each of the future fiscal years as per Idaho Code 63-2220. The above increase has been computed on the assessed value we were furnished and the present use of the property. Sincerely, Nisi Cy erk & Finance Officer ty of Me dian, ID. pc. Mayor COUNCILMEN BILL BREWER RONALD R. TOLSMA J. E. BERT MYERS ROBERT GIESLER WALT MORROW Chairman Zoning & Planning FRFirst interstate Bank Mayor Grant P Meridian City 728 Meridian Meridian, ID Kingsford Councilmen Street 83642 Firs! Interstate Bank of Idaho. N.A. Trust Department P O Box 57 Boise, ID 83757-0550 1208 383.5000 G'J July 21, 1986 Re: Eagle Road Mall Site Dear Mayor Kingsford and Meridian City Councilmen: This letter will confirm my earlier conversations with council members Bill Brewer and Ron Tolsma and City Clerk, Jack Niemann, in which I expressed to them that First Interstate Bank of Idaho, N.A., Trustee of the Cora Campbell Allen Trust and Howard E. Allen Trust, is in the process of applying for and obtaining a letter of credit required by the City of Meridian pursuant to that certain development agreement dated August 22, 1985 by and between Claremont Development Company and Price Development Company and the City of Meridian. Unfortunately, it is impossible for such a letter of credit to be prepared by 5:00 o'clock p.m. this day. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the City of Meridian allow an additional 90 days for the letter of credit to be obtained. In order to assure the City of Meridian that a letter of credit is actually being pursued, I would request the City of Meridian to delay any action on the zoning of the Eagle Road mall site for a period of 30 days, or until the second City Council meeting on August 18, 1986, at which time I will report to the City Council the progress that has been made on the letter of credit. The Trustee strongly believes there is the opportunity to develop a regional mall on the Eagle Road site. In order to accomplish this goal, three changes would be necessary to the development agreement dated August 22, 1985. These are: 1. Price Development Company would have to be elimi- nated as one of the "developers". 2. Claremont Development Company must have the ability to assign the development agreement and/or joint venture such development. '30 1 �� July 21, 1986 Page Two 3. The development agreement would clearly allow for the construction of buildings containing up to 1,500,000 gross square feet. In addition, the letter of credit would provide for the Trustee's approval, in some form, prior to the first building permit being applied for and would allow a substi- tution of a comparable letter of credit, satisfactory to the Meridian City Council. As trustee of the Cora Campbell Allen Trust and the Howard E. Allen Trust, I am hopeful that we can keep the Eagle Road mall site available for the development of a regional mall. Therefore, I am willing to make this commit- ment to that project. I would respectfully request the council to allow the 90 days to satisfy the City of Meridian's requirement for a letter of credit. If you have any questions or need any additional infor- mation, please contact me. Very truly yours,- Fred H. R wer Vice President and Senior Trust Officer FHR/MWF:cdc Claremont July 6, 1987 Mayor Grant Kingsford and Meridian City Council City of Meridian 728 Meridian Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 RE: I-84/Eagle Road Ada County, Idaho Gentlemen: We are in receipt of Mr. Crookston's 6-17-87 letter which formally terminates our Development Agreement with the City. While things did not work out well for any of us as far as our regional mall proposal was concerned, we were given the opportunity to meet and work with a lot of terrific people in your com- munity. Our heartfelt thanks goes out to the many that "stayed in our corner" until the very end. While a regional mall is now beyond possibility at Eagle Road, the property (with an interchange) should still be considered vital in Meridian's future expan- sion plans. A master plan of the entire 110 acres with uses compatible to those found in a regional mall could provide a sensational focal point at the entrance to Meridian. To back up our enthusiasm, we have decided to continue our option on the 70 acre Bews property. We will also continue to work with the owners and/or future optionees of the Bank 40 acres so that harmonious and not hodge podge develop- ment can occur. We stongly urge you to consider annexing the Bews 70 acres right now so that the City can take an active role in the plan we have in mind. Kindest regards, QEMONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Phil Davidson PD:ls cc: Bews Rohwer 515 -116th. Ave. N.E. Suite 108 Bellevue, WA 98004 (206) 453-1883 q QP , ( ) (�.Ic I e First Interstate Bank F'J� of Idaho, N.A. Trust Department P. O. Box 57 I�_399 Boise, 0550 /bL�j�: (208) 383-5000 8 5000 Bank June 18, 1987 Mayor Grant P. Kingsford Meridian City Councilmen City Hall 728 Meridian Street Meridian, ID 83642 RE: Eagle Road Mall Site Account #31-0910-00-5 Dear Mayor Kingsford & Councilmen: As you know we have had the approximate forty acres located on Eagle Road and I-84 under option with Philip Davidson of the Claremont Development Corporation for some time and have been working with you regarding the possible development of this site. It is my understanding that Phil Davidson has not corresponded or communicated with any of you for sometime and therefore I thought I should bring you up to date. I wish to inform you that we no longer have an option agreement with Phil Davidson and all other relationships with Mr. Davidson regarding this property have been terminated. However, we as Trustee, the Allen Trust beneficiaries, and Mr. Mel Fisher, our attorney, wish to sincerely thank you for the cooperation and courtesies extended to us in the past. Once the Eagle Road improvements and the highway interchange are completed we feel that this will be a very unique piece of property for future development, and we will look forward to possibly working with the City of Meridian on this project again sometime in the future. Very truly your , Fred H. Rohwer Vice President & Senior Trust Officer FHR:bw cc: Mr. Melville Fisher Attorney -at -Law Mr. David Allen Mr. Donald Allen °t AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS • 1530 WEST STATE -P. O. BOX 427 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 GRANT L. AMBROSE (1915-1968) JOHN O. FITZGERALD. P.A. THIS FIRM INCLUDES WAYNE 0. CROOKSTON, JR., P.A. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS July 2, 1987 Jack Niemann City Clerk Meridian City Hall 728 Meridian Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Jack: TELEPHONE 888-4461 AREA CODE 208 Please find enclosed a copy of the Default Notice that was sent to Claremont Development Company for your records. WGC/mks enc. Very truly yours, Wayn, „ T nrJrCa►;� - AMBRUsz. .4 t ZUERALD ,Y t 1tOOKSTON ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS 1510 WEST STATE -P. O. BOX 427 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 aawNr L. A1.1Eaose 11913-19”) JOHN O. PITZOSRALD. P.A. TELEPHONE Eae-4461 WAYNE O. CROOKSTON. JR.. P.A. rROPNbOILMAL uORMRATNUO AREA CODR 200 June 17, 1987 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Phil Davidson Claremont Development Company 515 --116th Ave. N.E. Suite 108 Bellvue, Washington 98004 Dwaine Rasmussen Price Development Company , 35 Century Park Way Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 RE: Development Agreement Eagle Road Shopping Mall; Notice of Default Dear Phil and Dwaine: I am writing to you in my capacity as City Attorney for the City of Meridian and pursuant to instructions from the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian. Even though the Development Agreement entered into between the City and Claremont Development Company and Price Development Company, dated August 20, 1985, does not require a notice of default and states that a failure to meet the requirements of the Agreement on the Developers part shall be treated as the Developers request to withdraw your applications and terminate said applications for a comprehensive plan change, annexation and zoning pertaining to the above referrenced matter, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that you are in default of the Development Agreement entered into between the City of Meridian and Claremont Development Company and Price Development Company in the following particulars: 1. Failure to pay FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND and NO/100 DOLLARS ($450,000.00), which was due November 4, 1985, and bears interest from that date at 128 interest until paid. 2. Failure to pay TWENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED and N0/100 DOLLARS ($27,500.00), which was due July 1, 1986, and bears interest from that date at 12% interest until paid. 3. Failure to pay FIFTY-FIVE THOUSAND and N0/100 DOLLARS ($55,000.00), which was due January 1, 1987, and bears interest from that date at 128 interest until paid. 4. Failure to apply for, and pay for, and obtain a building permit by May 4, 1987 for an 850,000 gross square foot building. YOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER NOTIFIED that you have ten (10) days from the receipt of this notice to correct the above defaults. If you fail to correct the above defaults within said ten (10) days, the City shall treat the Development Agreement as your request to terminate your applications. Even though Price Development Company has notified the City. of Meridian it is no longer involved in the above project and is no longer involved in the Application. This notice is being sent to, and notice given to, Price Development Company since it is- signatory to the Development Agreement. wGC/mks Very truly yours, Wayne G. Crookston, Jr. City Attorney Meridian, Idaho ....O -Low- W - - -- KHRID'AN CITY COUNCIL JUNE 16, 1987 PAGE # 6 procedure now rather than fight it on end after you have already got the unit built and somebody comes in'and says the procedure was not followed. I think you would save yourself a lot of problems down the road. Brewer, The Council, I think should take this advise, I hate to do this to you, Mr. Prindle but.I think one of the Attorney's best comments is in the long run it maybe a lifesaver for you to. It was the concensus of the Council that this should go through the Variance procedure and it would be expedited as soon as possible, It could be on the July 7, 1987 meeting. Department Reports: Mayor Kingsford; "It probably would be_just as well to bring that up now, it is past the eighteen month time frame that we talked about and I asked the City Attorney to come up with what we needed to do with regard to that termination. City Attorney: Technically it terminated May 4, 1987 so it ran more time than we allotted them,.. under the agreement it provides that if they fail to meet a payment that, can be treated as their request to with- draw their applicatio{a; in the past however, do to some of the circum- stances we have run into we did on one occasion send them what was en- titled a default notice although the development agreement did specif-- ically require notice -of default we did do that on one occasion, on the last occasion the Council decided not to send a default notice but send a courtesy letter to M.V Davidson. I see it being handled one of two ways, ,which I would prefer the first, either send them a default notice saying you are in default of the agreement you haven't -paid giving the same time as before, the other way is to send them a letter stating that their failure to meet the terms of the agreement the City is terminating the application. Mayor Kingsford, I think we are talking about a different thing in this instant, it is not a matter of them not meeting a monetary payment, this time it is a time that they agreed to, that eighteen -month period has elapsed and so it is not a monetary failure, it is the time they asked for has elapsed, they have not picked up a building permit. I would like to see us go with the second one and just say in there by failure to pickup a building permit by the time `specified we deem the agreement terminated, if that is the wishes, of the Council. City Attorney: The only reason I prefer the other way is we have treated it under the default procedure before. A default could be a payment or other things like a failure to pickup a building permit. The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Giesler that the City Attor- hey sand a letter to Mr. Davidson of Claremont Development Company that they a`re in default of the Development Agreement not only on the time specified but also on the monetary portion and give them ten days to - respond to the City Attorney's letter. Motion Carried: All Yea: r • jFRW ,' interstate Bank First Interstate Bank • of Idaho, N.A. Trust Department P. O. Box 57 Boise, ID 83757-0550 (208) 383-5000 August 18, 1986 Mayor Grant P. Kingsford Meridian City Councilmen 728 Meridian Street Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Eagle Road Mall Site Dear Mayor Kingsford and Meridian City Councilmen: This letter will follow up Fred H. Rohwer's letter to you of July 21, 1986. As Mr. Rohwer is currently out of town, I have been requested to report to you the progress that has been made on the letter of credit. On July 29, 1986, Mr. Rohwer received an interoffice correspondence from George Telford, Vice President/Manager of the commercial banking department for First Interstate Bank of Idaho, N.A. In that interoffice correspondence, Mr. Telford acknowledged that the request for bank credit accommodations presented on behalf of the Cora Campbell Allen Trust and. the Howard E. Allen Trust appeared to be a bankable request. Mr. Telford requested a review of a "rough draft" of a letter of credit arrangement and the terms and conditions that attached to the letter. In addition, the Bank would anticipate the pledge of the real property owned by the trust estate and the land must appraise for a minimum of $750,000. In discussing the terms and conditions to attach to the letter of credit with the developers of the property, guarantees, assignments, first rights of refusal, substitu- tions, and various other matters were discussed. It became clear to us as trustee, that it would be easier, quicker and more consistent with the development agreement if the developer would obtain the letter of credit or other August 18, 1986 Page Two suitable collateral consistent with the development agree- ment. This would avoid the restriction of the real property being pledged as collateral and would eliminate numerous conditions of concern to us as trustee. It is our understanding that the developer will offer an escrow acceptable to the city of Meridian in lieu of the letter of credit. The escrow appears to be more consistent with the development agreement while still providing the adequate collateral and assurance to the city of Meridian for the performance of the development agreement. Therefore, if the escrow is acceptable to the city of Meridian, the trust department will no longer pursue the letter of credit. If you have any questions or need any additional infor- mation, please contact me. Very ttu ' yours t rlen A. Nelson senior Trust Officer AAN/MWF:cdc AGROBE. 'GERALD •WKBTON .,no"" w. 48? ,&an.kMft K3w 4W «.,,.1 • • RESOLUTION NO./02— A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, PROVIDING FOR THE CONDITIONAL ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 16, AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, BOTH IN TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE -MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO. WHEREAS, the owners of the land described in Exhibit "A", which Exhibit is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full hereat, have requested that the City of Meridian annex and zone their property, which request has been presented to the City by Claremont Development Company and Price Development Company, hereafter jointly referred to as "Developers"; WHEREAS, it has been requested by the owners and the Developers that that portion of the land contained in Section 16 be zoned (RSC) Regional Shopping Center and that portion of the land contained in Section 9 be zoned (I -L) Light Industrial; WHEREAS, the City has fully processed the annexation and zoning request and has prepared and adopted Findings of Fact and Conclusions pertaining to said annexation and zoning; — 71ae" 44,7, ,BROSE GERAL6 VOUTON ,Mw&W '"68" OOX 127 ,on, khft .UNJ ,y N�dMI • WHEREAS, the City and the Developers have entered into a Development Agreement pertaining to annexation, zoning, and development of the land; WHEREAS, it is not in the best interest of the City to finally annex and zone the property until such time as actual development in the form of a regional shopping center is imminent and apparent; WHEREAS, it is likely development would not occur if possible retail tenants are not assured of municipal services; WHEREAS, if the land is finally annexed and -zoned and yet no development occurs, it may be in the best interest of the City to de -annex the undeveloped land; WHEREAS, the action of annexation by a City is a legislative function and thus may be conditioned upon certain events or occurrances; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 50-222, Idaho Code, annexation can only be accomplished by means of approval and passage of an ordinance; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That upon compliance with and under the appropriate terms and conditions contained in the Development Agreement and in the City Councils' Findings of Fact and Conalusions on the Claremont Development Company Annexation and Zoning Application, hereafter referred to as the "Findings", ,uROSE, tiERAID OOKSTON M,s YW mN10H sus "r ,.n. IAYN •*t -40404461 • • including but not limited to the payment of $450,000.00 at the time of passage of this resolution, and application and payment for a building permit fee for a regional shopping mall containing a minimum of 750,000 square feet within 18 months of the passage of this resolution, the City of Meridian shall finally annex, by ordinance, the property described in Exhibit "A" and will zone that portion of the land contained in Section 9 (I -L) Light Industrial and that portion of the land contained in Section 16 (RSC) Regional Shopping Center Business District; Section 2. That the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement and the conditions of the Findings shall control and guide the annexation and zoning, development, and if necessary, de -annexation of the property described in Exhibit "A"; Section 3. That the property described in Exhibit "A" shall be deemed to have been annexed and zoned subject to conditions precedent which shall be those set forth in the Findings at paragraph 19 of the Conclusions, and if ultimately finally annexed and zoned, shall be subject to de -annexation as called for in the Development Agreement and the Findings; Section 4. That if the land is finally annexed by Ordinance; the terms and conditions set forth in Section 3 shall both be attached to the property and shall be personal to the Developers; that the above terms and conditions shall survive the passage of this resolution and any annexation and zoning ordinance. Section 5. That it is the intent of this Resolution that the land in Exhibit' "A" be conditionally annexed and zoned by means of this Resolution and that final annexation and zoning would not occur until such time as an Ordinance is passed and approved by the City Council. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this day of ,1985. ATTEST: JACK NIEMANN, CITY CLERK HROSE, OERALD JOKSTON M. 10tlq w �waMi APPROVED:. GRANT P. KINGSFORD, MAYOR CAONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. • ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER EAGLE RD. - I-84 .f.e.til101�"4 A tract of land in the SW4 of Section 9, and the NW4 of Section 16, all in T.3 N., R.1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particu- larly described as follows; Commencing at the section corner common to Sections 8, 9, 16 and 17, T.3 N., R.1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho; thence North along the section line common to said Sections 8 and 9, 1298.53 feet to the Real Point of Beginning, said point bears N.89°56'30"W., 25.00 feet from the southwest corner of COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION according to the official plat thereof on file in the Ada County Recorder's Office, Boise, Idaho; thence North along said section line, 935.55 feet to a point. thence East, 38.14 feet to the northwest corner of said COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION; thence N.82°51'14"E. along the boundary line of said COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION, 54.03 feet to a point; thence S.87054'18"E. along said boundary line, 435.74 feet to a point; thence N.44007'21"E. along said boundary line, 12.31 feet to a point; thence N.88021'11"E. along said boundary line, 220..15 feet to a point; thence S.88 28 18 E. along said boundary line, 143.92 feet to the northwest corner of Lot 4, Block 2, of said COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION; thence South, 433.61 feet to the southwest corner of said Lot 4; thence S.89°56'24"E., 285.00 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 4; thence North, 426.28 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 4; thence S.88°28'18"E. along the boundary line of said COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION, 371.81 feet to a point; thence S.79°29'17"E. along said boundary line, 181.13 feet to the northwest corner of said COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION; thence South along said boundary line, 888.84 feet to the southeast corner of said COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION, said corner also being'on the north right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railroad; thence Easterly along said north right-of-way line, 956 feet more or less to a point on the east boundary line of the SE4SW4 of said Section 9; thence Southerly along the east boundary line of said SE4SW4, 1257 feet more or less to the one-quarter corner common to said Sections 9 and 16; thence N.89*20'06"W. along the section line common to said Sections 9 and 16, 234.24 feet to a point; thence S.0 04 37 E., 922.84 feet along a line westerly of and parallel to the easterly boundary line of the NW4 of said Section 16; Page 1 of 2 thence S.85°24'37"E., 235.00 feet to a point on said easterly boundary line of the NW4 of said Section 16; thence S.0004'37"E. along said easterly boundary line, 1717.87 feet to the southeast corner of said NW4; thence N.89014'45"W. along the south boundary line of said NW4, 1346.64 feet to the southwest corner of the SE4NWy of said Section 16; thence Westerly along the south boundary line of the SW�4NW4 of said Section 16, 1346 feet more or less to the southwest corner of said SW4NW14; thence Northerly along the west boundary line of said SW -.,NW' -4, 1326 feet more or less to the northwest corner of said SWI-4NW%; thence Easterly along the north boundary line of said SW4NW14, 1348 feet more or less to the northeast corner of said S►J4NWh and the southwest corner of the NE4NW4 of said Section 16; thence N.0018108"W. along the west boundary line of said NE4NW4, 831 feet more or less to a point; thence S.79°21'08"E., 117.09 feet to a point; thence N.0 18 08 W., 516.55 feet along a line easterly of and parallel to the west boundary line of said NE4NW4 to a point on the north boundary line of said NE4NW4; thence Westerly along the section line common to Sections 9 and 16, 276 feet more or less to a point which is 1078 feet East of the southwest corner of the SWI of said Section 9; thence N. 7000' W., 1089 feet more or less to a point on the south right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railroad, said point is 945.3 feet East of the west section line of said 9; thence Northerly, 200 feet to a point on the north right-of-way line of said Union Pacific Railroad; thence Westerly along said north right-of-way line, 945 feet more or less to the Real Point of Beginning. Said tract of land contains 200 acres more or less. Page 2 of 2 RANCH MANAGER: PHIL DAVIDSON This is a branch: headquarters are located at 3000 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA. Headquarters D -U -N -S 07-630-6737. The manager has authority to mak* Purchases of supplies. Bills are paid generally from headquarters. This branch is a commercial developer of shopping centers. FACILITIES: Leases 637 sq. ft. on 1st floor of 2 story concrete block building in good condition. Premises neat. LOCATION: Central business svc+ion on well traveled street. 05-01(9A0 /13) 05; 082 FULL DISPLAY COMPLETE COPYRIGHT 1985 D&B INC. - PROVIDED UNDER CONTRACT FORAI EXCLUSIVE USE OF SUBSCRIBER 074-000635L. DUNS: 05-536-9276 DATE PRINTED ]TTER HILL LIMITED MAY 01 J985 RATING BRANCH 0 116TH AVE NE DEVELOPERS EMPLOYS 2 TLLEVUE WA 98004 SIC NO. TEL: 206 453-1883 65 52 RANCH MANAGER: PHIL DAVIDSON This is a branch: headquarters are located at 3000 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA. Headquarters D -U -N -S 07-630-6737. The manager has authority to mak* Purchases of supplies. Bills are paid generally from headquarters. This branch is a commercial developer of shopping centers. FACILITIES: Leases 637 sq. ft. on 1st floor of 2 story concrete block building in good condition. Premises neat. LOCATION: Central business svc+ion on well traveled street. 05-01(9A0 /13) 05; 082 FULL DISPLAY COMPLETE COPYRIGHT 1985 D&B INC. - PROVIDED UNDER CONTRACT F0;IVE USE OF SUBSCRIBER 074-000635L. ' r'QNYTNr MR. ROY WOOD *IN DATE* DUNS: 07-630-6737 UTTER HILL LIMITED (SUBSIDIARY OF GENSTAR CORPORATION, SAN FRANCISCO, CA) 100 GENG RD 7ORMERLY: 3000 EL CAMINO EAL> ILO ALTO CA 94306 TEL: 415 493-7100 DATE PRINTED MAY 01 1985 LAND DEVELOPERS SIC NO. 65 52 KIEF EXECUTIVE: GEORGE F MICHALS, PRES IYMENTS (Amounts may be rounded to nearest figure EPORTED PAYING HIGH NOW PAST RECORD CREDIT OWES DUE SUMMARY RATING -- STARTED 1970 PAYMENTS SEE BELOW EMPLOYS 18 HISTORY INCOMPLETE FINANCING SECURED in Prescribed rangesi- SELLINO LAST SALE TERMS WITHIN 2/05 Ppt 1000 -0- -0- 2-3 Mos Ppt 1000 250 -0- N7 1 Mo 1/85 . Ppt 750 750 -0- 4130 1 Mo 084 Ppt 250 -0- -0- 6-12 Mos Ppt 50 -0- -0- 6-12 Mos 5/84 Ppt 1000 N30 INANCE 1/26/84 On Nov 26 1984 principals were absent. ]BLIC FILINGS �C FILING 4/16/85 FinRncipg Statement #85001557 filed 01-03-S5 with Secretary, State of CA. Debtor: Sutter Hill Limited, Palo Alto, CA. Secured Part': Security Pacific Mortgage Corp, San Frapri=co, CA. Collateral: specified chattel paper. contract ,i4hts including Proceeds and products. 3/19/85 Financing Statement #84-305366 filed 12-27-84 with Secretary, State of CA" Debtor: Sutter Hill Limited, Palo Alto, CA. Secured Part,: First Interstate Bk, San Francisco, CA. Collateral: specified limited interest. 3/13/85 Financing Statement #84307913 filed 12-31-84 with Secre+ar,. State of CA, Debtor: Sutter Hill Limited, Palo Alto, CA, Secured Part,: Security Pacific Mortgage Corp, San Francisco, CA. Collateral; specified chattel paper, contract rtlhts including Proceeds and products. 2/18/84 Financing Statement #84133834 filed 06-04-84 with Secretary, State of CA. Debtor: Sutter Hill Limit*d, Palo Alto, CA. Secured Part/: Security Pacific Mortlage Corp, Palo Alto, CA. Collateral: specified equipment, fixtures, farm pr"durts/cr»ps and products. 2/18/84 Financing Statement 084133825 filed 06-04-84 with Secretary, ��� 0�� SUTTER HILL LIMITED MAY 01 1985 PAGE 002 ', State wi I Q. Debtor: Sutter Hill Limited, Palo Alto, CA. Secured Party: Acurity Pacific Mortgage Corp, Palo Alto, CA. Collateral: chattel paper, inventor,, equipment including Proceeds and Products. 2/18/84 Financing Statement #84133836 filed 06-04-84 with Secretary, State of CA. Debtor: Sutter Hill Limited, Palo Alto, CA. Secured Part/: Security Pacific Mortgage Corp, Palo Alto, CA. Collateral: chattel paper- inventor,, equipment including Proceeds and Products. 1/26/84 Financing Statement #83-223586 filed 10-19-83 with Secretary, State of CA. Debtor: Sutter Hill Limited, Palo Alto, CA. Seo/red Part,: Security Pacific Mortgage Corp, San Francisco, CA. Collateral; chattel Paper, contract rights, fixtures, inventory, machinery, equipment including Proceeds and Products. 1/26/84 Financing Statement #H87167 filed 11-10-83 with Secretary, Stat� of OR. Debtor: Sutter Hill Limited, Palo Alto, CA. Secured Part/: Ward Cook Inc, Portland, OR. Collateral: equipment, fixtures including proceeds and products. 1/26/84 On Mar 7, 1980, one filing was made against Sutter Hill Limited b, the Mercantile Bank of Canada, Vancouver BC, Canada. The file number was 043121 with collateral of accounts receivable, equipment, fixtures, inventory and Products. On 08-10-81 financing statement #81-142252 was filed with the Secretary, 5tate of [a|if^rnia listini Sutter Hill Limited, Palo Alto, CA, as debtor and The Mercantile Bank of Canada, West Toronto, Ontario, Canada as secured part/. Collateral is listed as equipmAt and Products. No notices of termination filed as of Aug 28 1984. [3TORY 1/26/84 GEORGE F MICHALS, PRES MICHAEL G ALTHDUSE, V PRE!:.; W THOMAS IRELAND, SR V PRES DAVID E M[KlE, SR V PRES MARK PLUMLEY, V PRES-FIN DIRECTOR(S): THE OFFICER(S) Incorporated California Apr 26 1961. Authorized capital consists of 200,000 shares common stock, $1 par value. Business started 1961 b, otherp. Presen+ control succanded 1970, 100% of capita\ Ftock is owned b/ pa/`+ot nonpan,. Antecedents on officers are unknown. 7ERATION 1/26/84 Subsidiary of Genstar Corporation, San Francisco, CA, started 1970 which operates as a management company For subject. Parent company owns 100% of capital stock. Parent company has 30 other subsidiaries. Intercompany relations: Intercompany loans exist. Land developer. Terms of sale are on a lump sum Payment basis. Sells to businesses. Territory : Western United States, Nonseasonal. EMPLOYEES: 18 including officers. FACILITIES: Leases 5,000 sq. ft. on second floor of two stor, concrete building in good condition. LOCA[ION: Central business section on main street. 05-01(9A0 /13) W000 052975646 022 082 , FULL DISPLAY COMPLET[ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Development Agreement (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this day of August, 1985, by and between CLAREMONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY and PRICE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, (jointly referred to herein as "Developers") and the CITY OF MERIDIAN, Ada County, Idaho (referred to herein as "City"). W I T N E S S E T H: A. The City recognizes and acknowledges that the Developers are attempting to develop a regional shopping mall and related improvements at the intersection of Franklin Road and Eagle Road in Ada County, Idaho. B. The Developers recognize and acknowledge that as a result of such regional shopping mall and the associated spin-off development, the City will incur increased costs to provide public services to the project area, including fire and police protection, and may incur additional costs of city administration. C. The Developers recognize, acknowledge and agree that sewer and water services are provided by the City as a proprietary function and such services have charges and fees that make those services self -funding. Developers agree that the fees for such services are reasonable as set forth in the City ordinances and schedules and agree to pay the same as required by such ordinances and schedules in effect when such fees are actually paid by Developers. D. The Developers recognize, acknowledge and agree that certain existing laws of the State of Idaho prevent the City from receiving certain tax benefits that could other- wise be derived without such laws and that the new revenues to be received by the City as a result of a regional shop- ping mall are not substantial. Therefore, the income to be derived by the City from the proposed project will fall short of funding the estimated costs and expenses of provid- ing the required increased public services. E. The Developers and the City recognize, acknowledge and agree that it is beneficial to the proposed project that city services be maintained at reasonable and adequate levels, both for the proposed project and the remainder of the City, and that the proposed mall will benefit from such public services. F. The Developers recognize, acknowledge and agree that without additional aid from non -tax sources the City could not provide, nor fund, the public services necessary for a regional shopping mall; that without additional funds from non -tax sources it would be financially difficult for the City to provide the public services required by the proposed project. G. The Developers and the City recognize, acknowledge and agree that not all of the estimated costs and expenses referred to above will accrue to the City as a result of Developer's proposed project and that some of those costs -2- and expenses will be the result of spin-off development performed by others. H. The Developers, therefore, agree to pay to the City their fair share of the costs and expenses of funding and providing the necessary public services to the regional shopping center in the amounts stated below and agree to pay the same as their free and voluntary act, when and as due: 1. FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND and N0/100 DOLLARS ($450,000.00) at the time the City Council passes a resolution for conditional annexation and zoning of the property contained in the Developers' application. 2. THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED and N0/100 DOLLARS ($337,500.00), under the following payment schedule: $ 27,500.00 on July 1, 1986; $ 55,000.00 on January 1, 1987; $ 55,000.00 on January 1, 1988; and $200,000.00 on January 1, 1989, for a total of $337,500.00. Any of the foregoing sums (including the $450,000 described in para- graph 1 next above and any portion of the $337,500 described in this paragraph 2) not paid when due shall bear interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date so due to the date of actual pay- ment. PROVIDED HOWEVER, that in the event Devel- opers apply for a certificate of occupancy prior to January 1, 1989, any portion of the $337,500.00 which remains unpaid at the time such certificate is issued, together with any accrued interest, shall be paid by the Developers prior to the issuance of such certificate, and the City shall have no obligation to issue such certificate prior to the payment in full of all principal and accrued interest. 3. Additionally, Developers agree, as their free and voluntary act, to deed to the City legal title, free and clear from all encumbrances and liens of any nature whatsoever, one-half (1/2) acre of land to be used for, or used to fund, necessary addi- tional fire protection services. There shall be no charge to the City or payment by the City for said land, said land shall be deeded to the City -3- at the time the first building permit is granted, and said one-half (1/2) acre shall be taken from land contained in, or immediately adjacent to the land contained in, the application and shall have convenient access to either Eagle Road or Franklin Road. It is understood that such one-half acre may be "converted" by the City for an alternative fire station location or converted to cash for purposes of upgrading existing fire protection facilities. Developers shall have the right to repurchase such 1/2 acre if the City ever elects not to construct its fire station thereon. The purchase price shall be $17,000 plus 2% per annum calculated from the date of issuance of the first building permit to the date of (i) payment or (ii) to the date which is 48 months following such date of issuance, whichever first occurs. Such repur- chase right shall be contained as a deed re- striction in the recorded deed used to convey title to such 1/2 acre to the City. It is understood that the foregoing payments and the conveyance of the property described above are not in lieu of any fees required by the ordinances, resolutions or policies of the City but are in addition thereto. In the event a building permit is issued at a time when all or a portion of the above described $337,500.00, or any accrued interest thereon, has not been paid, then it is understood that the City shall have no obligation to issue a certifi- cate of occupancy until all such sums have been paid in full. I. When Developers apply for the first building permit of whatsoever nature associated with the planned regional shopping mall, Developers shall pay a permit fee which, under the then prevailing schedules, would be paid for the construction of buildings containing 850,000 gross square feet. Such sum shall be credited to Developers account and the fees for all permits requested by Developers -4- or its contractors shall be deducted from such credit until used in full. Thereafter, Developers shall pay for any additional permits as such are issued. It is agreed that such sum may or may not be the total ultimate amount paid by Developers in building permit or other related fees. Any difference between the actual sum due the City and the amount of such credit shall be settled between the parties at the time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first phase. Any interest earned by the City on the building fee credit advanced by Developers pursuant to this paragraph shall be retained by the City. Any subsequent additions to the project over 850,000 square feet shall require the payment of all building permit fees in accor- dance with the City's then prevailing fee schedule. In no event shall the aggregate building permit fees paid by Developers be less than the fees which would have been charged for a regional mall containing 750,000 gross square feet of buildings. J. The Developers and City further recognize, ac- knowledge and agree that the development of the regional shopping center is highly probable but is not a certainty; that Developers agree to perform the above acts and make the above payments upon the assurance from the City that all funds paid by Developers prior to the grant of the first building permit will be held in an independent escrow or trust account which bears the highest rate of interest obtainable by the City and said funds shall not be released -5- from such escrow or trust account or otherwise used for any purpose until the Developers have applied for, and the City has issued, the first building permit. In the event Devel--- opers do not apply for such building permit all said funds previously paid, and all accrued interest then held in such escrow or trust account shall be returned to Developers, save and except TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND and N0/100 DOLLARS ($25,000.00), which the City shall retain for administering Developers' application(s) and funds, and Developers shall have no further obligation hereunder except for any de -annex- ation responsibilities and the release of liability pro- visions set forth below. In the event the building permit is applied for, all of said funds, principal and interest, shall be the funds of the City and may be used to defray the expenses of providing public services to the City in general, and in large part, to the regional shopping center. There- fore, in the event such building permit is granted, the funds previously and thereafter paid by Developers shall be retained by the City and the City shall have no obligation, legally or equitably, to refund any of said funds for any reason to the Developers, i.e., if the building permit is applied for and issued but for some reason the regional shopping center is not constructed, City shall have no obligation to refund or repay any of said funds to Develop- ers or any other entity or person. All funds and monies and land paid or given to the City by Developers after the grant of the first building permit shall, likewise, be the funds • of the City without restriction. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the event the first building permit is issued, the funds described herein paid by Developer to City and, then, the project is not con- structed solely because of the arbitrary refusal of the City to issue some other necessary approval or consent, then in that event, the City shall refund to Developer all such funds less the $25,000 described above (for City adminis- tration expenses). K. The Developers agree that they shall have eighteen (18) months from the date of conditional annexation and zoning, if such occurs, to apply for a building permit. That upon application and issuance of the building permit, the annexation and zoning, if previously conditionally approved, shall cease to be conditioned; and Developers specifically agree that if they fail to apply for, and pay for, the building permit, City shall have no further obliga- tion or duty to process Developers' application or request for permits and this Agreement shall constitute Developers' request to withdraw all of their applications; the City shall, however, be bound to repay the funds as provided above. If the Developers do apply for and pay for the building permit the further provisions contained herein shall apply. L. The Developers recognize, acknowledge and agree that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the annexation and zoning processes must be followed, including appropriate due -7- process and hearing requirements, and that City cannot assure Developers that their application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, annexation and zoning will be approved as Developers have requested. Developers further recognize, acknowledge and agree that by agreeing to do the above acts and paying the above payments they have in no way bound the City to act in any particular fashion or to pass any partic- ular ordinances or resolutions, and the City is free to process the Developers Comprehensive Plan Amendment, annex- ation and zoning applications under the City Ordinances without the City agreeing, in any fashion to take any particular action on said applications, either favorable or unfavorable, to the Developers, it being understood that the City can, in no way, pre -judge or pre -determine the decision on said applications; it is understood that the City will process said applications and in as timely a fashion as possible. M. Although City agrees to process all applications in a timely fashion, the City shall have no obligation to continue to process any application or permit if Developers have not met their obligations hereunder; that by Developers failure to pay any amount required hereunder such failure shall act as Developers consent and request to terminate the processing or issuance of any permit or application. N. Developers recognize, acknowledge and agree, as above stated, that their development of a regional shopping center is highly probable but not a certainty, and along those lines agree and consent that such annexation and zoning shall be approved conditionally, if approved, and that the conditions shall be the application and issuance of the building permit; that when the building permit is applied for (and paid for) the annexation and zoning, suitable for a regional shopping center, shall be final and unrestricted; PROVIDED HOWEVER, in the event the building permit is applied for (and paid for) and Developers have not constructed a regional shopping center (defined to mean a retail project containing a minimum of 750,000 square feet of building floor area) within four (4) years of issuance of the building permit, this Agreement shall constitute and shall be Developers consent and request for de -annexation, rezoning and a change in the Comprehensive Plan to reflect a return of the property to its prior condition, as then appropriate, it being understood that the TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND and N0/100 DOLLARS ($25,000.00) retained by the City of the amounts paid by Developers under this Agreement shall be used to help defray the costs of de -annexation and other processes and Developers shall have no obligation to pay any other of the costs associated therewith. O. Developers hereby release the City from any and all liability to Developers arising either under this Agreement or as a result of approval or denial of Developers' applications requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, annexation or zoning, or any other liability whatsoever, SAVE AND EXCEPT, the City's obligation to refund monies MM previously paid hereunder and as requested hereunder, except the $25,000.00 to be used for city administration expenses. In addition, Developers shall indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from any claims or actions which may be brought by any party owning land included within Developers' annexation application or their successors -in -interest but not to any other third parties not signatory to this Agree- ment or to such annexation application. P. This Agreement is not intended to limit, and does not so limit, the obligations of Developers in complying with all ordinances of the City of Meridian or in their application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, annexation and zoning with regard to sanitary sewer, sewage treatment facilities, site drainage and water supply and fire protection. Q. By their signatures hereto the signatories of each respective Developer and the Mayor of the City, each person- ally warrants that this Agreement has been duly authorized by appropriate resolution and that each such signatory is authorized to sign this Agreement on behalf of the entity so represented by such signatory. R. If any party hereto defaults in any manner or fails to fulfill any and all provisions of this Agreement, and if the non -defaulting party places this Agreement with an attorney to exercise any of the rights of the non - defaulting party upon such default or failure, or if suit be instituted or defended by the non -defaulting party by reason of, under or pertaining to such default or failure, then the -10- non -defaulting party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses from the defaulting party. S. This Agreement shall not be transferrable or assignable in any fashion whatsoever by any of the parties hereto. To the extent an assignment or transfer of the Developers interest herein does occur by law or is otherwise permitted by the City, this Agreement shall be binding upon any successor to Developers. CLAREMONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Wascorporation By: a n Its PRICE DEVELOPM T COMPANY, a UtahIrpora on By: I s CITY OF MERIDIAN, Ada County, Idaho, a municipal corporation TTES : By: I s Aw I s -11- STATE OF :ss. County of I� ) On this d y of August, 1985, fore me, the undersigned, a Notary u lic in nd for s �jd to , personally appeared he of the corporation that exe uted this instrument an -a the persons who executed the instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, affixed my official seal, cate first above written. My Commission Expires: A,- &L I have hereunto set my hand and the day and year in this certifi- -12- STATE OF UTAH ) :ss. County of Salt Lake ) On this 20th day of August, 1985, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, person- ally appeared Martin Peterson the Vice President of the corporation that executed this instrument and the persons who executed the instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, the day and year in this certifi- cate first above written. Residing at My Commission Expires: -13- STATE OF IDAHO ) :ss. County of Ada ) On this day of LA -i— , 1985, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Publ' in and for said State, personally appeared GRANT P. KINGSFORD and JACK NIEMANN, known to me to be the Mayor and Clerk of the CITY OF MERIDIAN, Ada County, Idaho, the municipal corporation that executed this instrument and the persons who executed the instrument on behalf of said City, and acknowledged to me that such City executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, the day and year in this certifi- cate first above written. My Commission Expires: Notary Public for Id ho Residence: Meridian, Idaho -14- II II II '!If i' .a► I I �:, � ' � �' III�I I Illhll II Ill�llllljl l RI ;I I�,U. Cse�x a:i7, t31::IIC:►at f ir:�t • 1' 'moridlan, Idraho 83641 1!I •' '208 88$=2&I7,�I'�I 4 1 I 'I ll,4i lid�il,�� Ilj Ii�l1,�l�llp I ' ' Itll I. 111 I I I I V'I'II ,I III'1�Ill III I• I' M,:ay '28, 1985 I To: Meridiari'Chamber of Commerce i "1 I• ;Board ,o4 Directors I.I f r i l Ij I II II II I, 1 FROM: Merid�an Chamber of Commerce $hopping Center. pact-1i'j.n,dirnq CgmmittOO ,1 I ,i� � '.� � I: I I,' I Iy;ll� ilk IIIII� I; y�. E Report! for Board Action I ,III LI t'nJill,IIII 11 R I,lIyI,III��NI`��11�I� I � We! II! be "! .1ieie that �' all three � current sites' (Fairview Land ''Eagle) Riaid ' are iexpellent,IAhtl1,1+lNti,r1oads 1-84) Iifiilii,ldIll ii) 'locations ''furl ,a ,Iregional shopping, center land that the! City �o Meridilan shoulld �;open:',':al'l `!doors"'ypost` ibl el ,tto 'eac,h � developer:11,1,1,11, Ls, our opinion I'that the free 'entd'rpriso ; system shot id be allowed it Il I I)il,,)IIII�IjI 'ta' di'ct'ate �l� he,l1.l;aha'tion +of Il+'the ,;'aente>"t.'' �.' We support I,any,'one of I, these ;,three 'eki. ep' Wand . encourage the city councill,,tq make any n cc s�a� ry com�rohonrsivo plan clzanyas to allow LIAO, sxstb�n d' wor�CV .1.4- 4.A� 1.U�C- -d 1 n � t cul GL7., Il ls��.'k'� I; ` I .'iri.lil II �II� 11j1!��I and'' Ino It Lo tedw �e v Arca Lcatr t.a.V'o a L. u e it ! i's' our reconunendation to 'the Board that this statement be 'read verba,tum .t the June' i3, 1985 public hearing by: Merildiani Chamber!! ' 1 I!i! r; Pres ident Howard" Foley . Bob.,; Davis,, committee I,member, is detailing said report 'on May 34, 1985' lat the ' regularly scheduled Board of ;Directors `t + li1QElta.Y1CJI� I I I If 1 I , 1 I'III,Ii': toil I I � e �$t it I I,'I I 1, Iw,Illllll�I��I I /� ..AA�� 1.��. I Ill II1111 I I'1 I I 1 I Rob t Davis ,I I! I iI I '1 ', I! 1 I II IV ':II,L1 Br I I'I 91 I it I I I I i 1 I iI i' i peanna Hancock II , i �I� pllil I IhI �,lt) Ilii IIIID; �l !I' 1 I 1 I1'I l 11 II /,il I �lii) I" , 11 (I JI � i+ 1. t I 1 � �r I ' II � I Vi •' � rf..Ii 1 � rr ;,f t'±I IIII II`� I, I�(�it11 �'41II�I�1� Ir � � : j��.l 1 11 I' ilt 1l1 ) III �I' I I II II ` I I j I!I I l L tri' I I II )I I 1 i � �, ' �� I it i f ' 1I'' 1W 1 itAl it 11111 l,p!ilI'll ltll t, -.. teve ��A;:dersonll; i i Committoe Chairman o� Before: MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL Location: 728 Meridian Street Meridian, Idaho Time: 7:30 P.M. Date: JULY 22. 1985 Items to be discussed are as follows: RECOMMENDATION BY COMMITTEE TO CITY COUNCIL ON SHOPPING MALL: OTHER ITEMS PERTAINING TO THE MALL. Dated this 20th day of July 1985: MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JULY 16, 1985 Special Meeting of the Meridian City Council called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Council President Bill Brewer: Members Present: Ron Tolsma, Bob Giesler: Members Absent: Bert Myers: Others Present: Lloyd Howe, Bill Clawson, Al Lance, James Kiser, R.D. Bischoff, Betty Bishoff, Duaine Rasmussen, Bob Wherry, Gary Schafer, Rick Orton, Phil Davidson , Miriam Barr: Council President Brewer, it is the consensus of the Meridian City Council along with the recommendation of the Mayor that the Study Committee be reappointed to complete the negotiations with the developer and make a recommendation to the Council. We believe this is the best way to proceed as the Committee is familiar with the Study as they have been involved with Dr. Slaughter in the preparation of the completed study. The study committee was Ron Tolsma, Bob'Giesler and Walt Morrow. The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Tolsma to reappoint the Study Committeewhich was composed of Mr. Tolsma, Mr. Giesler and Mr. Morrow to negotiate with the Developer and make a recommendation to the Council as soon as possible. Council President Brewer, as soon as the recommendation is received we will have no objection to scheduling a Special Meeting to act on their recommendation. This Meeting can be held after the necessary notification under the law is met. Councilman Giesler, I believe the Study is well prepared and if any one has ideas on how to arrive at a solution to the problems involved you are welcome to contact on a personal basis. Council President Brewer, welcomed Gary Montgomery State Representive. Being no further business to come before the Council the Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Giesler to adjourn at 8:45 p.m.: Motion Carried: All Yea: i'WV ack Jiemanh, )City Cle pc: Mayor K011 ouncil P & Z ission Att , Fire, Police APPROVED: BILL BREWER, COUNCIL PRESIDENT Eng., Ward, Stuart, Statesman, ACHD Hallett, Mitich, NIMD, APA, ACC, Kiebert, Valley News ACZ,CDH, BRA, File MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JULY 22, 1985 Special Meeting of the Meridian City Council called to order by Mayor Grant Kingsford at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Bill Brewer, Ron Tolsma, Bert Myers, Bob Giesler: Others Present: Richard Williams, Rick Orton, Al Lance, Bill Clawson, Gary Schaffer, Terry Smith, Olive Davis, Bob Wherry, John Schmek, Tom Cole, R. D. Bischoff, Betty Bischoff, Bob Gass, Steve Gratton, Rich Terrell, Lloyd Howe, William Pitman, Richard Slaughter, Mark Freeman, Sherry Lance, Walt Morrow, Wayne Crookston, Miriam Barr, Bob Spencer, Mayor Kingsford, on the agenda tonite is the Regional Shopping Center issue, Councilman Tolsma has asked for a Special Meeting tonite on that issue, I would like to thank the Committee for the efforts the have put in, they have put in a great many hours and would also like to thank Mr. Rasmussen and the Price/Claremont people for their consideration and time they have spent with the Committee working on those items. At this time I would like to make this recommendation to the Council and the Committee, I suppose the Co*;mittee would have to handle this but I suggest they have a person designated to talk to the press and media, again this is only a suggestion. At this time I will defer to Councilman Tolsma who did ask this meeting be scheduled. Councilman Tolsma, the Committee has had discussion with the Price/Claremont people on the ongoing costs and other items that were brought up by Dr. Slaughter in his presentation and at this time the Committee is very optimistic in negotiations held to this point. At this time with the rest of the Council approval I would like to make the Motion that the City Attorney prepare the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment while the Committee continues to negotiate several key factors or key points not yet addressed by the meetings we have been having and that these items be included in the Findings. Motion seconded by Councilman Giesler. Motion Carried: Brewer, Yea: Tolsma, Yea; Myers, Yea; Giesler, Yea: Mayor Kingsford asked Mr. Rasmussen if he would like to make any comments. Mr. Rasmussen, I appreciate your remarks Mr. Mayor and Council and as far as Price and Claremont Development Companies are concerned we are very appreciative of the time this Committee has put forward. It is our job to come to a community and spend this kind of time but these men have obligations of their own and businesses to run and they have been very gracious in granting us the time that they have so far and we look forward to concluding these negotiations very optimisticly and very quickly as soon as we can. We stand ready and available to meet with you at your convenience, as soon -as possible to conclude these things and welcome this call for the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by your City Attorney. I might also add to expedite things we ought to have the Attorney involved in the negotiatiQa, we would welcome his presence in these meetings. w . 1 � MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JULY 22, 1985 PAGE J2 Mayor Kingsford, Council.have you any recommendation on my suggestion for a spokesman? Councilman Giesler, as a member of the Committee I would recommend that Mr. Tolsma be the spokesman for the Committee, Mr. Morrow concurred. Being no further business to come before the Council the Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Giesler to adjourn at 7:37 p.m.: Motion Carried: All Yea: APPROVED: GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR T: Jagk NienYann,/ City Clerk per MayoV & Council P Z Commission ty, Eng,Police, Fire "Ward, Stuart, Keibert, Mitich, Valley News, Statesman, Hallett, ACHD,CDH,APA,NMID, ACC ACZ, BRA. File: (1) Mail: (2) MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JULY 16, 1985 Special Meeting of the Meridian City Council called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Council President Bill Brewer: Members Present: Ron Tolsma, Bob Giesler: Members. Absent: Bert Myers: Others Present: Lloyd Howe, Bill Clawson, Al Lance, James Kiser, R.D. Bischoff, Betty Bishoff, Duaine Rasmussen, Bob Wherry, Gary Schafer, Rick Orton, Phil Davidson , Miriam Barr: Council President Brewer, it is the consensus of the Meridian City Council along with the recommendation of the Mayor that the Study Committee be reappointed to complete the negotiations with the developer and make a recommendation to the Council. We believe this is the best way to proceed as the Committee is familiar with the Study as they have been involved with Dr. Slaughter in the preparation of the completed study. The study committee was Ron Tolsma, Bob'Giesler and Walt Morrow. The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Tolsma to reappoint the Study Committggwhich was composed of Mr. Tolsma, Mr. Giesler and Mr. Morrow to negotiate with the Developer and make a recommendation to the Council as soon as possible. Council President Brewer, as soon as the recommendation is received we will have no objection to scheduling a Special Meeting to act on their recommendation. This Meeting can be held after the necessary notification under the law is met. Councilman Giesler, I believe the Study is well prepared and if any one has ideas on how to arrive at a solution to the problems involved you are welcome to contact on a personal basis. Council President Brewer, welcomed Gary Montgomery State Representive. Being no further business to come before the Council the Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Giesler to adjourn at 8:45 p.m.: Motion Carried: All Yea: APPROVED: BILL BREWER, COUNCIL PRESIDENT ack Jieman'h, )City Clerk pc• ayor & Council Eng., Ward, Stuart, Statesman, ACHD • P & Z ommission Hallett, Mitich, NIMD, APA, ACC, Att , Fire, Police Kiebert, Valley News ACZ,CDH, BRA, File i ITEM: A G E N D A MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JULY 15, 1985 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JULY 1, 1985: (APPROVED) 1. SENIOR CITIZENS 2. REQUEST BY UPLAND INDUSTRIES FOR EXTENSION IN FILING FINAL PLAT ON TREASURE VALLEY BUSINESS CENTER PHASE I: (APPROVED) 3. PRESENTATION BY DR. RICHARD SLAUGHTER: 4. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JULY 15, 1985 Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Grant Kingsford: Members Present: Bill Brewer, Ron Tolsma, Bert Myers, Bob Giesler: Others Present: James Kiser, Kenny Bowers, Dale Ryan, George Wendt, Roy Porter, Dal Rich, Terry Smith, R.D. Bischoff, Betty Bischoff, Don Wimberly, Bill Clawson, Bill Barkell, L. E. Gray, John Schimik, LeeRoy Nelson, Bob Hammons, Duaine Rasmussen, Rick Orton, Al Lance, Phil Davidson, Helen Alidjani, Moe Alidjani, Fred Martin, Gary Smith, Bruce Stuart, Lloyd Howe, Wayne Crookston, Howard Foley: The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Giesler to approve the Minutes of the previous Meeting held July 1, 1985 as written: Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #1: Senior Citizens: Mr. Dale Ryan, President of the Senior Citizens was present to thank the City of Meridian for filing the application for a Community Block Grant which was received and enabled the Senior Citizens to install air conditioning in the dining room and kitchen area of the Center. Mr. Ryan asked the Mayor & Council to give them some consideration in the coming budget year if at all possible. Item #2: Request by Upland Industries for an extension in filing the Final Plat on Treasure Valley Business Center, Phase I: The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Myers to grant Upland Industries an extension to December 31, 1985 for filing the Final Plat on Phase I of the Treasure Valley Business Center. Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #3: Presentation by Dr. Richard Slaughter of the Mall Study: Dr. Richard Slaughter presented a synopsis of the findings of the study prepared by his firm on different aspects that the construction of a Regional Shopping Mall would have on the City of Meridian. (COPY OF THIS STUDY ON FILE WITH THESE MINUTES AND AT CITY HALL The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Giesler to accept the study as presented for the record. Motion Carried: All Yea: Department Reports: Gary Smith, City Engineer, I have received a request from William Holstein, 870 West Franklin Road, Meridian, Idaho to connect to the City Water System. Mr. Holstein is in the City Limits but cannot hook to the sewer as it is not available at this time. City Ordinance does MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JLUY 15, 1985 PAGE # 2 not allow use of one without the other therefore the Council needs to approve this request. The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Tolsma to allow Mr. William Holstein, 870 West Franklin to connect to the City Water upon payment of the applicable fees. Motion Carried: All Yea: Being no further business to come before the Council the Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Tolsma to adjourn at 8:16 p. m.: Motion Carried: All Yea: (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS:) APPROVED: GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR ATTEST: ac4 Nlemaign, Cyty Clerk pc: Mayor & C'91uncil P & Z CQrftmission Atty, Fire, Police Eng., Stuart, Ward Mitich, Kiebert, Valley News, Statesman BRA, ACC,ACZ,APA,CDH NMID, Hallett File (4) Mail (2) ,JAMES W. KISER ATTORNEY AT LAW 6000 FAIRVIEW AVE. (FAIRVIEW AT MTN. VIEW DR.) BOISE. IDAHO 83706 208 376-3100 August 20, 1985 Honorable Grant Kingsford Councilman Ron Tolsma Councilman Bill Brewer Councilman Bert Meyers Councilman Bob Giesler Mr. Wayne Crookston, City Attorney City Hall Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Open Meetings of the Select Committee and the City Council Regarding Comprehensive Plan Changes, Annexation and Zoning Dear Mayor, City Council, Select Committee Members and City Attorney: Idaho Code Section 67-2342(1) states that: "All meetings of a governing body of a public agency shall be open to the public and all persons shall be permitted to attend. . ." Idaho Code 67-2341(3)(d) provides that a "public agency" includes any "subagency" of a public agency. Idaho Code 67-2340 provides: "The people of the State of Idaho in , creating the instruments of government �i•�" that serve them, do not yield their C sovereignty to the agencies so created. Therefore, the legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that the formation of public olicy is public business and shall not be conducted in secret." Page 2 August 20, 1985 Gentlemen, last night I attended the Meridian City Council meeting only to find that the Select Committee and the representatives of the Price -Claremont developers, including their attorney, were meeting inside. The public and I were -excluded from that meeting by a physically locked door. It is my opinion that these constant, secret meetings violate not only the open meeting act itself but they also violate the intent and spirit of the act. Since these Select Committeee meetings are specifically intended to yield a decision on various shopping center site issues, I presume that the City has complied with the Idaho Code and of Supreme Court decisions which require that aarecording be madeof all these meetings. I hereby request a copy for the Select Committee meetings since July 15, 1985. I will pay cost of those reproductions of these recordings. If no recordings were made, I strongly request that any future meetings of the Select Committee be duly recorded and minutes kept as required by law. Since the Idaho Code is clear that meetings must be public and notice given, I specifically request that I (and the public) be given notice of each and every Select Committee meeting in the future and that I (and the public) be allowed to attend each and every one of those- eetings if we so elect. Sin rely, / w. Rise JwX:da GLARY L. MONTGOMERY DISTRICT 14 11- SE', ADA COUNTY V4--Ffny O, BUSINESS PHONE (208) 342-3563 .n "4Q House of Representatives State of Idaho June 6, 1985 Grant Kingsford, Mayor Meridian City Council 728 Meridian Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Suburban Mall at I-80/Eagle Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council: COMMITTEES REVENUE AND TAXATION JUDICIARY, RULES AND ADMINISTRATION As a state legislator representing western Ada County, I wish to express my genuine support for the shopping mall as pro- posed by Price Development Company at the I-80/Eagle site. It is my sincere conviction that construction of the mall could well be the most beneficial development in the "Meridian Community" in this decade. It will provide much needed additional tax base for our school district and provide the Meridian area with a sorely needed injection of economic activity. I understand your concern regarding the impact on the cost of local services. The solution seems readily available. As a precondition to granting the necessary change in the comprehen- sive plan, the Council can require Price Development Company to commit in writing to pay its fair share of the added cost of pro- viding local services. The news reports indicate that you now have the matter under further study. I understand the need for sufficient infor- mation gathering to provide the basis for an informed decision. I trust that we will not fall prey to the same kind of intran- sigence, continuing studies and indecision which has plagued down- town Boise. I recall Senator McClure relating an incident in which President Reagan and his aids were discussing a major issue in the oval office. There were difficult questions to resolve. One aid proposed that they study the matter further. President Reagan replied: "We have studied the matter enough - it's time to make a decision!" Grant Kingsford, Mayor Meridian City Council June 6, 1985 Page 2. I sincerely hope that we can work with Price Development Company in a cooperative manner and make the decisions which are necessary to change the comprehensive plan and make a new regional shopping mall in the "Meridian Community" a reality. This action, coupled with the construction of our new high school, will make Meridian a leader among progressive communities in the state - an exciting place to live and work. Sincerely yours, 7ger GarL. nty GLM: mrs cc: Valley News JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2 ADA AND CANYON COUNTIES, IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 June 14, 1985 Grant Kingsford, Mayor of Meridian Dear Mayor Kingsford: Many of our patrons have called in the last f-ew days to ask whether Meridian School District would benefit if the proposed mall were to be located in our school district. One could argue how much of the benefit will be in the form of school tax relief and how much in increased revenue for the school district, but there is no doubt that it is to the school district's advantage to have the mall located within our boundaries. The proposed mall represents about ten percent increased assessed valuation for our school district. The increase in student population which could be attributed to the proposed mall would likely be about the same for our district whether the mall is located in Meridian or in Boise School District. The question is whether our school district will enjoy the increased assessed value to help fund the demands of an increased student population. A public school district depends upon a healthy local economy. I'm impressed with the support our Meridian merchants have expressed for the proposed Meridian mall location and I'm certain that our merchants see an economic benefit in a Meridian mall location. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. I understand that the impact upon City government may differ from that upon our school district. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, e -,- Nick Hallett Q DQ = DQUQ BOX 308 EAGLE, IDAHO 83616 12 June 1985 Mayor Grant Kingsford City of Meridian City Hall Meridian, Idaho Dear Mayor Kingsford: I was afforded the opportunity to provide testimony at the June 3rd hearing on a mall at Eagle Road. At the same time I listened to the testimony provided by others as they view the impact of this form of commercial development. As a result I would like to put comments in this letter into the public record as favoring changes to the Meridian comprehensive plan allowing this commercial development to proceed. I offer these comments both as a consultant who has spent many years studying and working for local governments but also as an elected official in the City of Eagle who is acutely aware of the related issues of growth, public services, and public costs. The first comment was introduced in my public testimony but is important enough to bear repetition. Laws in the State of Idaho are not written to favor local governments. This is painfully true as it relates to the authority of local governments to raise revenues to support local growth. The only discretion allowed local governments is through a combination of enterprize funds, intergovernmental contracting for services, and negotiations with developers. It is my opinion that the Meridian City Council can use this discretion to insure that growth will pay its way. The combination is complex and difficult which will require an explicit committment by the City Council to support growth for Meridian as a general policy. If the Council choses not to face this complex solution then it will have also ch to not support growth in commercial as well as indust development. In the long term, of course, state law should -,r/ be changed to provide more authority to local governments. _�11► CONSULTING SERVICES: PLANNING & REAL ESTATE STUDIES. MARKET & ECONOMIC ANALYSIS. OPINION SURV BOX 308 • EAGLE, IDAHO 83616 HOME 12061 939-0653 New growth coming to Meridian must pay the legally specified amounts of public taxes. It is characteristic of state law, not of new growth that the full benefit of these taxes do not accrue to the local government. On the other hand it is a fact that a $100 million mall would pay almost $750,000 per year in property taxes to the City and the School District the first years. This amount probably covers the reasonable public costs associated with a development of this scale. A $100 million industrial plant would pay the same taxes and provide a similar impetus to growth in the City of Meridian. A $100 million development proposal of any sort would bring with it all of the same issues that you now face with the retail center which makes this center one of a kind and in the same class as the Upland site. It is a challenge to City and School District elected officials to find ways to creatively use the taxes that would actually be paid to offset any adverse impacts of growth. The School District, to the apparent satisfaction of residents including myself, has accomodated to the growth resulting from Hewlett-Packard under the same state laws that you now face with growth at Upland and at Eagle & I-84. It is as easy for an inside view to be biased as for an outside one. A developer would bring a business view to any potential development and that view would naturally be expected to have some biases. Most developers will reasonably compromise this bias in the interest of the public good and community good will. City departments should probably take the same approach to compromising the bias they must hold for any change to the status quo. It is reasonable for police and fire to expect an increase in service requirements because of growth. It is probably unreasonable for them to expect budget increases that would be regarded as excessive by other communities in the west who have experienced similar types of growth. It would be prudent for the Council to regard both the developers and the City departments views as biased, and to counsel with the actual experience of other local governments who have seen such growth come into their communities. The consultant study that you have commissioned should materially assist you in resolving the issues noted above with the possible exceptions of items 7 to 9 in your "Meridian Shopping Center Study Analysis Requirements". Those items introduce a large amount of speculative information into what should otherwise be a "hard date" study. For example, the impact of any commercial development, including retail, on downtown is very speculative. The specific impact can only be determined by knowing exactly how each merchant will react to change in sales; whether a mall (comparison retail) and other retail now in Meridian (convenience retail) would be as complementary as experience in other cities has proven to be; and the relationship between a mall and other development now occurring or planned for the Meridian area. The same general observation would apply to satellite development induced by a mall. Any such development would depend on the area economy which is highly unpredictable, the financial structure of underlying land deals, and whether plans for Eagle Road and the interchange will produce a workable setting for further development of any sort. Good research begins with a well thought out question. In the present case before you, the question is whether to allow a specific developer to begin work on a specific site. In more precise terms the question is "What does the public revenues and expenditures balance sheet look like for development at I-84/Eagle Road?" A related question is "Are there equitable public or private actions that can be taken to redress any revenues/expenditures imbalance for a mall at Eagle Road?" The City of Boise took it upon itself, without the benefit of any experience, to chose the "best" location for a regional mall. Unfortunately developers, major retailers, and residents unilaterally disagreed. It would be a mistake for you to ignore this experience and chose the "best" location for a mall in Meridian. Your only job is to insure that the public ledgers are in balance. Developers and retailers will determine the most workable location. Then the developers, retailers, and city working together will together select the "best" location. I sincerely hope this letter will be useful in the decisions you are about to make. This letter is based on almost twenty five years of experience with this issue, and working for both governments and private business. Good luck. Sincer ly, r f� hit Hanson 14 Mr. Mayor, city councilmen, thank you for the opportunity to present my concerns at this hearing tonight. When the State of Idaho completes the interchange construction at I-84 and Eagle Road in .1987-88, the whole hub of the valley will shift to that area. As a person who has seen the effect of these new interchanges in other states, I can say from experience that the area from Overland Road to Fairview Road on both sides.of Eagle Road and I-84 will be the commercial, industrial, and retail center of the county. Meridian has a unique opportunity to reach out and grab this area and provide for the present and future citizens of Meridian a strong economic base, new Jobs and the quality of life we all live in Idaho for. Approximately three years ago a similiar hearing was held concerning this same subject and the same site. However there are some major differences between the two hearings. 1st.- The interchange will be built- and Eagle road will be maintained by the State of Idaho. 2nd. -Boise- after 20 years has finally admitted what most of us have known all along- that a major retail shopping center will never be built in downtown Boise. 3rd. -The Developer- Clairmont/.Price Development Company is a strong, results oriented developer, with a proven track record. ie. -Idaho (Largest Retail developer), Utah -(largest retail developer), also in the top 5 in Wyoming, Arizona, and Nevada. 4th.- The Developers have secured a financial source to underwrite and finance the building of the shopping center. 5th.- The Clairmont/ Price Development Company has the backing and support of not only 5 major anchor stores, but in addition over 60 other smaller stores ready and willing to enter the area. Now there is one item that is similar, and that is Mr. R.T. Nahas, trying to appear as a "good old boy" again. If you remember, it was approximately three years ago, Mr. Nahas promised a major and exciting announcement by September. Well three Septembers have come and gone and no Nahas. Well here he is again still blowing smoke. Let's review his track record. the last dozen years with the proper zoning and the backing of the cit council- he has promised everything from green cheese to the moon but all he has been able to produce is a sign in a corn field. Mr. Nahaus PATIENCE IS NOT GOLDEN! Now the issue of cost to the community seems to be of major importance, which it should be. We should look at all aspects of cost and benefits. By developing the area into a major retail shopping center and coupled with the Upland Industries industrial park the tax base for the Meridian school district will be greatly expanded. But the tax liability to each of the districts property owners will be reduced, because both present and future development will share all debts. Yes, the cost to the city to provide services to the total area, both retail and industrial, will increase, but when you compare the increase to the potential ecomomic gain to the area and the prospects of the 1986 Idaho legislature initiating a local option tax bill to help defray these costs, it would be devestating to Meridian to lose this shopping center to Boise. It would religate Meridian to a lower middle class bedroom community forever. We are all aware that a good school system, economic prosperity, and quality of life are directly related to jobs provided by a growing, viable business community. The opposite is an area where school bonds do not pass, many young people leave the area looking for jobs, and senior citizens are so unsure of their financial future that they are against almost every item where the city must initially spend tax money for any type of service enhancements. Which type of community Meridian is and shall become is in your hands tonight I strongly request that you the city council of Meridian work with not against the Clairmont/ Price development companies and bring a major retail shopping center to this valley located at Eagle Road and I-84. Thank you. •c,Vo-i d� fr . � q 4 ti -MR. DWYANE'S 581O Arney Lane Doise, Idaho 83703 343.1652 June 14, 1985 Mayor and City Council City of Meridian Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Sirs: I want to strongly recommend that the Meridian Mayor and City Council support the proposed Regional Shopping Hall at 1-84 and Eagle Road. I would suggest you work with the developer to get the mall built in order to protect the City of Meridian. This seems to be a mutual goal of the people, as witnessed by the outcry in favor of the mall at the June 3, 1985 hearing. We must have a mall! Without it we will always remain the commercial prisioner of Boise, while our compar- ison shopping dollars Flow to Salt Lake City, Portland and other cities of the North west. Our Childr'ela also leave to find careers in otlier areas. Without the mall we can only remain Boise's bedroom C0111111L1111.ty, with Lill of the associated expense and no commerci,ll base to support it. With talc mall we can proceed to grow, with a fail- mixture of commercial and •residential growth that can provide jobs, retain shopping dollars, and pay a fair share of municipal and school taxes in our community. Sometimes leaders MUST lead. It is not wise to allow yourself_ to listen to Mayor I?a1•dley or to a developer that cannot perform, like Mr. Nahas. It's clear t11at if the mall is not approved at Road and 1-84, it will go to Boise. I further give as my perso11al reason for strongly recommending support 01' this 11141 1 , the I'act that I have written to the developer utuprescntative requesting locations in the mall for 2500 squal•e feet Lor Mr. Uwyane's High I',asllion clothing store and fol, 1.500 square feet for a Mary Kay Cosmetics store. Please give your posit ive suppol-t to t11e Comprellens:i.ve Plan Anunendment cliange to allow the mall to be built at Eagle Road and 1-84. ,illcerely, Juanita ]Alis 5810 Amey Lade Boise, Idaho t'� r To: The Meridian City Council Dear Sirs; At the June 3, 1985 city council meeting you agreed to tabled, delayed, or postponed for two weeks a decision on approving a request to change the city's comprehensive plan to allow a regional shopping mall at Eagle Road and Interstate 84. This delay was, as I understood, for the purpose of determining the cost benefit ratio of both police and fire protection for this area -period! Then after reading Mr. Kingsfords comments in the Valley News about expanding information needed I became concerned, and as I have found out rightly so. It as come to my attention that you are now trying to cover your previous mistakes and lack of foresight to cost impact to the city and county when you approved and annexed both the Nahas site and the Upland Industries property. Lets face facts it will cost the city for your mistakes, but do not try and force all new development to pay for your oversite. Yes Mr. Price should pay his fair share, but so should all parties concerned with the increases required for adequate services. In my original testimony I indicated that a plus for the Eagle Road and I-84 mall site was the fact that the state of Idaho and the Federal Highway system was paying for the interchange and the expanded services to Eagle Road and related intersections. What has not been brought out is that when the state assumes responsibility for Eagle road as part of Highway 55, Fairview ave. west of Eagle road reverts back to Ada county and the city of Meridian and so does all of Main street in Meridian. Expanding on this fact, and using one of your own concerns. If the Nahas site is developed into a large mall, Main street would have to be upgraded to four to six lanes to handle the added traffic and so would Franklin road, who will have to pay for this improvement and upkeep. The answer is all of the citizens of Ada county and all the citizens of Meridian. Now lets take this issue one step farther. With the development of the Upland Industries industrial park and let us say the Nahas site the city will be forced to provide both major increased fire and police protection services to opposite ends of the city. You will still need to build a second fire station and add police cars and people to man the fire and police services. Since I am on the subject of comparative cost lets look at the cost of several regional mall sites, and who will have to pay for the improvements and service upgrading. My figures come from several sources and are pro�ably off slightly, but not much. I. Westpark- Approximately 17 million dollars- Upgrade sewer, fire and police protection, and to expand and improve all roads in This includes new on and off ramps at the Interstate, improve Franklin, Emerald, Maple Grove, Fairview, and Cole Roads. Who will have to pay? City of Boise, Ada county residents State of Idaho citizens. How? Higher Income tax, Higher sales tax, Higher county tax, local option tax, etc. Who looses. Meridian school district, and all county residents. increase the area. access on (all) and property and.ci ex r,NAD 5 2. Cloverdale Road and I-84- Approximately 9 million dollars.- Upgrade and extend sewer system, add police and fire protection and expand and improve all roads. In addition add a second interchange off ramp to I-84 between Boise and Meridian. Who will have to pay? City of Boise, Ada county citizens (all) and state of Idaho citizens. How? Higher income tax, higher sales tax, Higher county property tax, local option tax, etc. Who looses? All Ada county residents, All state of Idaho residents. all city residents. 3. Eagle Road- 1-84 - Approximately 1.3 million dollars. Upgrade and extend sewer system, add police and fire protection. Who will have to pay? City of Meridian, Ada county residents (all) State of Idaho citizens. How? Local option tax, higher property tax (maybe) Who Looses? since this is the least expensive location there is no looser. 4. Nahas site- Approximately 7-9 million dollars. Expand and upgrade sewer system, increase fire and police protection, expand and improve all road in the area. Who will have to pay? City of Meridian, Ada county residents (all) and State of Idaho residents How? Higher income tax, Higher sales tax, higher county property tax local option tax, etc. Who looses. Meridian- all aspects to include the present downtown business district, All ada county residents, and all residents in the state of Idaho. Again my figures come from several sources, the state highway department, the federal highway department, Ada county highway department, Ada planning association data and various testimony at many hearing over the past several years. No matter where the regional mall is built it will cost money initially to provide services, but the best and only choice inorder to preserve both the integery of the present downtown Meridian business district and not cost all citizens of this area anymore than necessary is Eagle Road and I-84. ,32iY ca :s .- LC. v co a 3100 O � MIIW d J a x W 'q!! aAOUD 3ldVW 0 r-+ p p p 'Clu 31101 3AW . tko cu 0 +4 w H .0 .r+ 0 a .-1 U) +-1 0 r-1 r cd )� Q r -I r- �; In •ra b4 a� cd Qa +J rn s •r+ u, a) b V, 0 y E~ W a) 1" • r -i (L) cu o o v 0 LH n H 0U u 'OU 3IV0 3AOIO 4 r1 0 • H cn •rl #r! +J •r+ :9 t~ P • H N a) :••i r-1 In y� -A 10 v, b4 W Ti E- +wtoWU 'q 31p�/3 Pll to Qa 4-) H H o N CD a) 9� +•J V .� to U bD H s1 rl a) N a) t�4 1 qa 3AOaE) Lsnoo- fl 1 r40 t)4 0 U a . iK I~i o z o aJ +J Ita 0 J = 9 y. m Y J Q S a:0 Q d > V > 101uaIN 'qd N TO: The Honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. I, tiie unaersignea, residing at !Oks �! do hereby suurr;it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Development Cojiipany's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passea by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu .ias proviaea a monopoly within t•eriaian's area of impact. That monopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and uusinesses, and a uiminution of the tai: base with which we could assist in supporting the school district. Aouitionally, an imrediate change of the Mleridian CorYreheasive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations witri the developer so as to adequately auaress and protect the interests of the citizenry of this community. Tnerefore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. DIL E Y ' u11y sub itt a TO: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Fieridian. I, tree unaersi nea, resiain at 377ySas�0a« c V ereb�-�*��-� g g i_r R-09!ahereby subr,;it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Development CoiLitpany's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The existing Comm rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu aas proviaed a rionopoly within Neridian's area of impact. That iiionopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and businesses, ana a diminution of the tax base with which we could assist in supporting the school district. Auuitionally, an irarieaiate change of the h eridian Cor,rrehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with tale developer so as to auequately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of this community. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the A11plication for the change. DI'&TL : 4/1(Y/B S- Respe pully s-,�ibmitteu, 4 TO: The honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Fleridian. I, the uncersigneu, residing at J -V 4AWL44"& do hereby submit the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Development Cor,pany's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passeu by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu Lias providea a monopoly within I eridian's area of impact. That I,ionopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and ousinesses, and a diminution of the ta,: mase with which we could assist in supporting the school district. Aduitionally, an immediate change of the I-ieridian Lol:Lprehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to aueq uately address anu protect the interests of the citizenry of this community. Therefore I request your irantediate approval of the Application for the change. Respectfully submitted, -CEDED TO: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Heridian. I, tree undersigned, residing at /9so fP,.�/� Cfr � do hereby submit the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Developruent Cor„pany's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu iias providea a monopoly within I•ieridian's area of impact. That monopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and Lusinesses, anu a 6iminution of the ta,,: base with which we could assist in supporting the school district. Aouitionally, an irrrieaiate change of the Eleridian Cor:,prehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to adequately audress ana protect the interests of the citizenry of this community. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. DLTE : (9 _/ (� Pl` Respectfully submitted, �v TO: The Honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. I, the undersigned, residing atooh �✓ l,rr�/L� hereby suomit the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Development Company's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu rias provided a monopoly within Leridian's area of impact. That monopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and uusinesses, and a diminution of the tax base with which we could assist in supportin�j the school district. Additionally, an immediate change of the t•ieridian Coraprehensive Plan costs the City nothing ana would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to adequately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of this cor.imunity. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. ^ Respectfully submitted, 410: The honorable krayor Grant Kingsford; andv City Council, City of Keridian. yf c(3S I, tile unoersignec , reziuin5 at ""�1 i OLdo hereby suu;,.it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Levclop;;ent Cu;,,I..any's Application for a Change to the current Co;,iprehensive Plan whici; was unaniriously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Cor -.,,mission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable Ln,A iias provicaeo a monopoly within 1.'erician's area of impact. ThLt ;:.onopoly nas caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs anu L,usinesses, anu a uir:inution of the tG,: base with which we could assist in supporting the school district. tluc.itionally, an ir.,meaiate change of the Lerioian Co;.;prchensive Plan costs t -he City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the oeveloper so as to aaecluateiy audress ana protect the interests of the citizenry of tLis cor,munity. Thererore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. D!. T is : -/ 3 —9�E Respectfully submittea, TO: The honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. I, tiie undersigned, resiuinc; at �'do hereby suar„it t1he followinci written testimony in favor of Claremont Levelopr,ent Cor,,t:any's Application for a Change to the current Coiiirreiiensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Coraj:rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable ai.0 i,as proviueo a monopoly within L-eriaian's area of impact. rl'tle t I„onopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and LUJ1nE-SJEs, anu a uir;;inution of the ta”: :✓ase with which we could assist in supporting the school district. hduirionally, an immediate change of the Keridian CoLiprehensive Plan costs tiie City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations wits; the developer so as to adequately audress ana protect the interests of ttie citizenry of this cor,;munity. 2'tierefore I request your imrcieaiate approval of the Application for the change. DIC”, Respectfully submitted, TO: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Leridian. I, the undersigned, resiuing at /,�f/'/o hereby suL;,.it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Levelopr,ent Cor,i��any's Application for a Change to the current Co;uprenensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing CoLiprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable ar.:a ;gas provioeo a r,onopoly within Leriaian's area of inpact. TnLt r,onoi.oly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and Luslnesses, anu a diminution of the ta,,: base with which we could assist in supporting the school district. iauuitionally, an ir,raediate change of the 1.:eridian Co:,: ,rchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to aaequately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of t1iis community. Therefore I request your immeaiate approval of the hpplication for the change. Dlt",TL : Respectfully submi'9te6, aUN TO: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. I,Z3 I, ti,e undersigned, resiuing at do hereby suL;,,it tiie following writter, testimony in favor of Claremont LevciopL,ent Cur„l.•any's Application for a Change to the current Coioprei;ensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plun has proven to be unworkable :,as proviueo a ruonopoly within t•:eridian's area of irapact. �i't"lcit i:,onopoly nas causea economic stagnation, loss of jobs anti Glisincsses, anu a uiIl,inution of the to}: ;.lase with which we COUlu assist in supporting the school district. E,caL,ition aIly, an immediate change of the Leridian Co::;rrchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations witi-i the developer so as to aae4uately auaress anc protect the interests of the citizenry of this community. Tnerefore I request your immediate approval of the Rpi.-lication for the change. Di, TL zI<?& Respectfully submitteu, s�Q2Jvn-4�1� TC: The honorable f`ayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Leridian. f - I, the undersignea, residing atdo hereby su►),,:,it the following writter, testimony irmeaiate chance of the in favor of Claremont Levcicpi:,ent Coi„j,any's Application for a Change to tine current Coiupreiiensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The existing Cmiprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable 8r.0 i,as provided a monopoly within t.:eriaian's area of inpact.. rinz.,t i:,onopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs anu L,usinesses, ano a dir.inution of the ta,: :;ase with which we could assist in supporting the school uistrict. .c.c.itionally, an irmeaiate chance of the I.:Eridian Co.:,prchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations witii the aeveloper so as to aaequately aaaress and protect the interests of the citizenry of ti.is community. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the hpplication for the change. DILT L Respectfully submitted, TO: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. I, the unaersigneu, resiuinc:: at ao hereby suur,.it the following writter, testimony in favor of Claremont LeVLlopi,,ent Coi;,Iany's Application for a Change to the current Co;:,prenensive Plan which was unanimously passea by the Planning anu Zoning Cor:imission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu i,a provlueo a raonopoly within Leriaian's area of impact. 'rout iionopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs cine Lusincsses, anu a uir,,,inution or the told: Uase with which we coulCa assist in supporting the school district. Auuition aIly, an ir.,mediate chan4e of the Leridian Cor,,prehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would pernit the City to go forward with negotiations wits the developer so as to aaequately audress and protect the interests of the citizenry of this cor,-Imunity. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. DLTL : r Respectf ully submitted, TO: The honorable kiayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of hieridian. I, tiie unaersigneu, resiuing atz2 do hereby suu;,.it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont DeVLlopr:,ent Co;ah:any's Application for a Change to the current Co;iiprehensive Plan which; was unanimously passeu by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing CoLiprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable :,as proviuea a Lionopoly within P:eriaian's area of impact. �iliat ;;,onoj.oiy has causea economic stagnation, loss of jobs and L,usinesses, ano a uiminution of the ta.: wase with which we could assist in supporting the school district. j-,uuitionally, an ir,,mediate change of the l-:eridian Co;.qrchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to adequately acdress and protect the interests of the citizenry of this community. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the h.pplication for the change. Respectfully submitteu, TO: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. I, ti,e undersigned, residing atL do hereby suur,it the following written testimony in i1vor of Claremont Lev(-.Iopi:,ent Cot„l-any's Application for a Change to the current Cot:�prei;ensive Plan which was unanir,,ously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Coi,+rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable Ln.., :gas proviuea a taonopoly within I:eriaian's area of impact. Tljut t,onopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and Lusinesses-, Gnu a uitninution of the ta,: rase with which we could assist in supporting the school uistrict. E uuitionally, an immediate change of the Leridian Cot,,prchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to adequately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of tLis community. Tnereiore I request your immediate approval of the hpplication for the change. I'. LTL : `, Respectfully submitteu, V. W%,: The honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; an0 City Council, City of Meridian. I, ti,e unaersigneu, resiuinc at 9Zuyu.G_�Kez/c )Acio hereby , suL.;At the folluw`inl� writter, testimony in favor of Claremont DevLiopa:,ent Cu.,,I_any's Application for a Change to the current Co.<<preirensive klan which was unanimously passeu by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comm rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable ar.0 ,arL, proviueu a r,ionopoly within E-erioian's area of impact. 'inLt i..unoroly nas cau ec, economic stagnation, loss of jobs and L,azA, E s(_. , anu is uir;,inUtion of the ta.: base with which we coU16 aJsis . in supportin(j the school uistrict. i%uuitionally, an iri,n eoiate change of the Lerioian Lo,:i�rci.ensive Plan costs the City nothinc, and would permit the City to go forwara with negotiations wita the developer so as to auequatcly auuress anc protect the interests of the citizenry of tt. s cor..,Munity. Therefore I request your inizediate approval of the hpi,lication for the change. Respectfully submitteu, a 1 TO: The honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Keridian. I x :50 -.Su <<.c : /� tile unaersigned, resiuing at y DY -do hereby suu;;,it the followinc written testiraony in favor of Claremont Developr„ent Cor„I:any's Application for a Change to the current Coa:iprehensive plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Corij:rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable ar:u :,as proviuea a r,tonopoly within L-eriaian's area of impact. 'l'llat r„onopoly nas causeu economic stagnation, loss of jobs and sausi.,esses, ano a uir,inution of the ta,.: ;)ase with which we could assist in supporting the school uistrict. i,uc:itionally, an ir;mediate change of the t.:eridian Lor,:rrchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the Cit} to go forward with negotiations witZ the developer so as to auequately audress and protect the interests of the citizenry of this cor.:munity. `i'tiereiore I request your immediate approval of the hpplication for the change. D',TL : spectf ally submitted -<CO TO: The honorable iiayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. I, ti,e unaersigneu, residing at :° 2-- do hereby suu;,.it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont DevElopr,ent Cor.,I.any's Application for a Change to the current Co,apreiiensive Plan which was unanimously passea by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Cor,iprehensive Plan iias proven to be unworkable and i,as proviaeo a monopoly within i:eridian's area of impact. 1'ijLt r:,onoroly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and i,usinesses, and a uin;inution of the ta-4: rase with which we could assist in supporting the school district. i,uc itionally, an it„r„ediate change of the Leric ian Coi,:rrchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations witi-i the developer so as to auecivatcly address anti protect the interests of the citizenry of ti.is cor.;munity. ` nereiore I request your immediate approval of the hpplication for the change. Dl,1L: Respectf ully submitted, e' den_ aa�5 TO: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. I, tile unaersignea, resiuinc at <77-)60- ' do hereby suL);;,it the following written testimony in'favor of Claremont Leve:iopi,,ent Cor„I,any's Application for a Change to the current Co;nprei;ensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Cor,il:rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable Lnu ;,as proviueo a iuonopoly within l:eriaian's area of ir,-ipaet. Tiiat ;;;onopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and L,uslnesses, anu a uin;inution of the ta,,: base with which we could assist in supporting the school uistrict. huuitionally, an ii.,meaiate change of the Leridian Co;:,prchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward wits, negotiations with the aeveloper so as to auequatcly acdress and protect the interests of the citizenry of this community. Tnererore I request your imrc,e6iate approval of the Application for the change. llLTL : < Respectfully submittea, TUs The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. 10, tiie un"crsigneu, resiuin5 do hereby suw<<.it the following writter, teEtimony in favor of Claremont Levclopi,,ent Cu:.,I.any's Application for a Change to the current Co;.,;�rei,ensive Elan wnich was unanimously passes by the Planning anu Zoning Commission, The cNisting Coi,iprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable :,a; proviUeU a Lionopoly within 1.:eric+ian's area of impact. 'ri,at ;ounarc,ly nas causeu economic stagnation, loss of jobs and Lu 3i.►EssE .-,. anu a cAiu.inu:tion of the tal ruse with which we cauls ass,is . in cupportinc} the school district, huuitionally, an ir.,mediate change of the Ecridian Lo;. �,rchensive Elan costs the City nothing and would permit the Cite to go forward with negotiations witY the developer so as to aaeyuatcly aou'ress and protect the interests of the citizenry of tl, s cor n►unity. 111nererore I request your ir►rne6iate approval of the , hp�,lication for the change. Respectfully subrtitteu, 117: The honorable k ayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Leridian. 1, ti,e onuersigneu, resiuini at 19bQ- C- ir4A s&2&4 do hereby suo.,• t the followinc; written teEtimony in favor of Claremont LtvcloPrient Co. 1—any's Application tar a Change to the current Co.,rrei;ensive Flan wnicii was unanimously passeu by the Flanning anu Zoning Cor mission. 2'r,e G �15tirtCj Coi,+rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable ai o ijaii proviuea a i,,onopoly within Eerioian's area of impact. IfILt j-unopoly nas causes economic stagnation, loss of jobs anti �,Uvi.7�ssc , unci a c4lwAnution of the tai: :ease with which we could asci ,: in supportincj the school uistrict. i,uuitionaliy, an ir.,meaiate change of the 1•:eri6ian Lco;,,prchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would perr.,it the Cite to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to w aaec uatc:ly address and protect the interests of the citizenry of ti.is coriniunity. Tne r e ore I request your imrciediate approval of the hp}�licatioh for the change. O'd kespectf ully subrrmitteu,���` r IV: The honorable payor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. I, the unc crsigneu, resiuing at / dao hereby swuI..it tie toilowinc; written testimony in favor of Claremont Devc.Lopi.,ent Cu,,j,anyls Application for a Change to ti:e current Co;.,i�reiiensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Comriission. The c—Nisting Coi,tjrel ensive plan has proven to be unworkable an- 4a proviuea a r,tonopoly within d,;erioian's r.rea of impact. 5LI'LL ;.,unCeuly rias causeu econor,ic stagnation, loss of jobs and Susi+s€ :,ee, Gnu to uil:inution of the tG,4: base with whici; we coulu assizt in euoportinc; the school c:istrict. +.uc:itivnally, an iL'Imeuiate chance of the i.:Er oian Gu, xci:e. sive Plan costs the Cite nothing and would permit the City to coo forwaro wTitii negotiations witi7 the oeveloper so as to auequa.te:ly aouress ana protect the interests of tr.•e citizenry of tLis Tnerciore I request your immediate approval of the I-.pi.,ltcatiun for the change. �3S kespe ly su tea, TO: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of kieridian. I, tip: unacrsignea, resiuinc at �` �'C�,w hc.%in� co hereby suis.At tijE fo lowinc writter, testimony in favor of Claremont LLeveiopi.,ent Cu.,,I.any's Application for a Change to ti:e Current Co.,,prei,ensive Plan v;nich was unanimously passou by the Planning ar,u i. on ny Cor:r.,ission. Trie existing Coi,+rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable proviueo a i,,onopcly within E'ericiian's area of impact. `iirut i:,unopoly nas causeu economic stagnation, loss of jobs and LusinF-E: sE , imu a ui..;lnutlori of the ta,.: Uase with which we COU1C.t assist iri supportincj the school district. i c+c,itlonally an iii, ieoiate chance of the Leriaian Lc);..rrchenzivc Plan costs tine City nothinc, and would permit the City to go forwaru witii negotiations with the aeveloper so as to LUe: Uatcij aouress and protect the interests of the citizenry of tt.1S co7:;munity. 'i`hereiore S request your immediate approval of the i-p,plication for the change. �/ Respectfully subm,itteu, TO: The honorable kiayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of meridian. I, the unaersigneu, resiuing at ��[�%„e_� do hereby suo,,.it the following writter, testimony in favor of Claremont iievc:topr:ient Co;,,I,any's Application for a Change to the current Co„,preilensive Plan which was unanimously passea by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing CoLij:rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable ;las proviueu a i,ionopoly within L-eriaian's area of inpact. 'L'tlut r,ono :oly has causeu economic stagnation, loss of jobs and i,usinesses, anu a uin:inutiorl of the ta-.: ;ase with which we could assist in supporting the school aistrict. I uULitionally, an ir.,riediate change of the l:eriaian Co:.q,rchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations wita the developer so as to auec uately aciuress and protect the interests of the citizenry of ti.is community. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the lipplication for the change. Respectf ully subr,itted, To: The honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. I, the undersignec, resiuing at ao hereby 10, suur,.it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Levelopr,ient Cor,il,any's Application for a Change to the current Coirnpreliensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The e::isting Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable ar:+ iias proviueo a wonopoly within l,:erician's area of inpact. 'l'i)ut r;.onoroly has caused economic st&gnatien, loss of jobs and ✓UJ1rieSSEs, anu a dir;,inution of the ta% cease with which we could assist in supporting the school uistrict. tiuuitionally, an ir. mediate change of the Leridian Cor::prehensive Plan costs the City nothinc, and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to aaequately audress and protect the interests of the citizenry of ti.is community. Tnerefore I request your immediate approval of the P:pr-lication for the change. D.'. L : i — %✓? '�� Respectfully submitted, TO: The honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. I, the undersigned, resiuinr: at . �r�I�QU���o hereby subl..it the followincj written testimony in favor of Claremont Levclopi,,ent Co;,il:any's Application for a Change to the current Co:,iprehensive Plan which was unanir.,ously passea by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu i,as provided a i,ionopoly within l:eriaian's area of impact. lriut Monopoly nas caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and usin�sscs, anu a diminution of the tai: ease with which we could assist in supporting the school district. ,kuc,itionally, an ir.;r,;ediate change of the Leridian Co,,,prchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would peruit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to aaequatcly address and protect the interests of the citizenry of tins community. Tnerefore I request your imicediate approval of the application for the change. ;NOV 11 W,TL: LOv4 Respectfully submitteu, TO: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. I, ti.e unaersigneu, residing at o hereby 01 suu,,.it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Levelopr:,ent Co,,,Pany's Application for a Change to the current Co,,ipreiiensive Plan which was unaniriously passeu by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable an.: iAas provided a raonopoly within m'eridian's area of impact. Ti7ut I,onoroly nas causecl econonAc ste.gnation, loss of jobs and L,u slnesse-s. anu 4 uiminution of the ta.: uase with which we could assist in supporting the school uistriet. Acacitionally, an imr..ediate change of the Leridian Co,,,rrehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations witiz the developer so as to auequateiy address anc protect the interests of the citizenry of ti.is cor.-;munity. Tnerefore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. Iii ,, 2 L : YLe- 13 P 06 Respectfully submitteu, TO: The honorable payor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. I, ti;e undersigneu, resiuinc; at no hereby suu:..it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Developr:ent Coialany's Application for a Change to the current Co.:,prenensive Flan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Cor;I:rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable 4r.0 i,as provicaea a Iaonopoly within Leriaian's area of it„pact. �.L,Iiztt i:.onopoly nas caused economic st&gnation, loss of jobs and uusincsses, anu a uirainution of the ta,,: :.ase with which we could assist in supporting the school uistrict. l,uuitionaIly, an irinediate chance of the Leridian Co<<<prchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations wita the developer so as to adequately ac.aress anti protect the interests of the citizenry of this cor,.munity. Thereiore I request your immediate approval of the hpI,,lication for the change. L�,Tb : Respectfully submitteu, V?X 0 1 TO: The honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of rieridian. I, tI'e undersigned, resiuing at 5mgAJ� C 0`oo hereby suuL,it the following written testimony in f7aavvo'r of Claremont LeVLIopi,,ent Co.,,l.any's Application for a Change to the current Co;,ipreiiensive Plan which was unaniniously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable 4uu i,ai� proviuea a r,ionopoly within Leriaian's area of impact. Mat monopoly has causeca economic stagnation, loss of jobs an6 L,usinesscs, ana a uir;,inution of the ta:: base with which we could assist in supporting the school uistrict. E,uuitionally, an imniediate change of the Keridian Co,,:prchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations witri the developer so as to auequately acdress ana protect the interests of the citizenry of tt.is cor,imunity. Ther of ore I request your immediate approval of the hpplication for the change. Respectfully subfiiitte6, SUN 41 TO: The honorable payor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. I, the undersigned, resiuini; at m � -/��C�e`- hereby sudl,;it the following written teEtimony in favor of Claremont Levciopr,ient CQ,r'l.any's Application for a Change to the current Col,iprehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing CoLiprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable Ln -i .gas proviueo a ruonopoly within E-eridian's area of impact. a -fiat I;;onoYoly Pas causea economic stagnation, loss of jobs and L,Llsinesses, anu a uiu.inution of the tu.: base with which we could assist in supporting the school district. t.c+c.itionally, an immediate change of the Leridian COL;Prchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the Cite to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to auequatcly address and protect the interests of the citizenry tf is community. Therexore I request your immediate approval of the hpplication for the change. ly submitted, TO: The honorable iayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. I, the undersigned, residing at 3rS'by a C do hereby suur,.it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Levclopr: ent Coi„I.any's Application for a Change to tLe current Co;;iprenensive Plan which was unanimously passeu by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable Lnu ;,as provided a iaonopoly within I:eridian's area of it„pact. Th -r) t i::onoroiy rias caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and L,usinessc , ano a diminution of the tai: ease with which we could assist in supporting the school district. Aucnitionally, an immediate change of the Leridian Coi„prehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations wits the developer so as to adequately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of tLis community. Thereiore I request your immediate approval of the hpplication for the change. DLT .: SUN 1419a /9 - e4 Respectf ully submitted, TO: The honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. / I, tile unaersigned, resiuine at G 2 L.6o hereby suu;;,it the following written teEtimony in favor of Claremont Levciopr,,ent Cor,,I:any's Application for a Change to the current Co;.,preirensive Plan which was unanir,ously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable an -4 :►as proviuea a Lonopoly within Eeriaian's area of inpact. 1114it r,onoroly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs an6 iusinesses, anu a uirninution of the tG.,: base with which, we could assist in supporting the school cistrict. t�&uuitionally, an irimediate change of the I•ieridian Co;::prchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to aaequately address and, protect the interests of the citizenry of tLis community. Therefore I request your intmediate approval hpr-lication for thechange.change. DL i'L : 611 1 ci.� Re?,7u ctf l y u Mi ea, TO: The honorable Layor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. y () I, tr;e unaersigneu, resiuing at 117e-- C4LAn do hereby sub, -,it the following written teztiraony in favor of Claremont Levclopr:;ent Cur,,I.any's Application for a Change to the current Coi.,prei,ensive Plan which was unanimously passeu by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing CoLiprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu nas proviuea a r,,onopoly within E-eriaian's area of impact. Tiiz:t rionopoly has causeu economic stagnation, loss of jobs and businesses, anu a uir<<inution of the tai: rase with which we coulu assist in supporting the school uistrict. E�uc.itionally, an immediate change of the EF-ridian Co.,:prchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the ueveloper so as to aclequateiy audress ana protect the interests of tr,e citizenry of tl,is community. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the hpplication for the change. �,►��'A W.Tl.: Respectfully subm tted, TO: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. c f�, 1�r-'. /,S,;) Q I, the undersigned, resiuine at hereby suu;;,it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Developr:,ent Cor,,I:any's Application for a Change to the current Co7uprehensive Plan which was unanimously passea by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable ar.�., .,as proviueo a i,ionopoly within t.eridian's area of impact. That monopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and LusiiiEsses, anu a diminution of the ta,. :;ase with which we could assist in supporting the school district. E�uaition ally, an immediate change of the Leridian Co7,,prEhensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the aeveloper so as to adequately address ana protect the interests of the citizenry of tLis community. Therefore I request your immediate approval of t_he hpplication for the change. Dlt,TL : C'/r!'/ $ 5 Respectfully submitted, TO: The Honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. �l I, the undersigneu, residing at `-SLS Lao hereby submit the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Development Company's Application for a Change to tl:e current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu i,as provided a monopoly within I.eriaian's area of impact. Tbat monopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and uusinesses, and a diminution of the tai: vase with which we could assist in supporting the school district. aduitionally, an immediate change of the Ieriuian CoLii,rehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to adequately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of this community. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. Respectfully submitteu, TO: The Honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. I, tiie undersigned, residing at o3 ?9 7iioQA(wiag( do hereby submit the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Deveiopment Cor,,pany's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning ana Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu ,gas proviaea a monopoly within leridian's area of impact. rl'hat monopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and businesses, ana a diminution of the tax base with which we could assist in supporting the school district. tiaaitionally, an immediate change of the I•ieridian Cor,,prehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to adequately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of this community. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. Dr�TE : �5�-- Respectfully submitted, -71/ XI J TO: The Honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. I, the undersigned, residing atcOrS l�V. c�(,lLP2p� hereby subr,it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Development Coripany's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu ;las provided a monopoly within Meridian's area of impact. That monopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and ausinesses, and a diminution of the tax ease with which we could assist in supporting the school district. Aaaitionally, an immediate change of the EAeridian Coi.,prehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to adequately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of this community. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. DI,TE : � 419 Respectfully submitted',�� C TO: The Honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. �.y� I, the undersigned, residing at /,580 .S,04,ek-,iwdo hereby subR,it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Development Company's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu iias proviaea a monopoly within 1�ieridian's area of impact. That monopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and uusinesses, ana a diminution of the tai: base with which we could assist in supporting the school district. Additionally, an immediate change of the 1•ieridian Coi.,prehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to adequately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of this community. Therefore I -request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. Irraw, Respectfully submitted, JUN 1419 TO: The Honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford, and City Council, City of Meridian. I, the undersigned, residing at �-t6 do hereby suur„it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Development Corl',pany's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable and Pias proviaea a monopoly within I•eridian's area of impact. That monopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and Lusinesses, anu a uiminution of the tax base with which we could assist in supporting the school district. Auuitionally, an immediate change of the I-Ieridian CoLiprehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to adequately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of this community. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. D I,TF.: Respectfully submitted, �VnA 4:f� TO: The Honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. I, the uncaersigned, residing at I L? do hereby submit the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Development Coripany's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Coriprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu nas provided a monopoly within T• eridian's area of impact. r.ehat iiionopoly has causea economic stagnation, loss of jobs and businesses, ana a diminution of the tax base with which we could assist in supporting the school uistrict. Additionally, an irameaiate change of the Neridian Cor;;prehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to adeczuately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of this community. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. riiiTF:: ♦A.i.� Respectfully submit tea, 14 TO: The Honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of meridian. I, the undersigned, residing at 1hOy (A). � I do hereby submit the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Uevciopr,ent Coiiipany's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu rias proviuea a monopoly within I- eriaian's area of impact. That monopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and businesses, ana a uiminution of the tax base with which we could assist in supporting the school district. Additionally, an immeuiate change of the Keridian Cor,,rrehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to adequately auuress and protect the interests of the citizenry of ti.is community. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. Respectfully submitteu, kawll C TO: The Honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian.A I, the unuersignea, residing at do hereby submit the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Development Company's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu has proviaed a monopoly within t-eridian's area of impact. 'l'hat r;1onopoly nas caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and ousinesses, anu a aiminution of the tax mase with which we could assist in supporting the school district. A6uitionally, an immediate change of the Keridian Coiaprehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to aaequately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of this community. Theref ore I request your immediate approval Application for the change. T'R'ITE : Irs--- of the 'EN® Respectfully submitted, jVN TO: The Honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of meridian. I, the unuersigneu, residing at /roe/ ChOIC60i ao hereby submit the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Development Company's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comb rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu :las proviuea a monopoly within 1•.eridian's area of impact. That 7«onopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and Lusinesses, and a uininution of the tai: ;rase with which we coulu assist in supporting the school district. Huuitionally, an immediate change of the I,:eridian Cor,prehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to adequately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of ti,is community. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. ?-ECT-00 �3^ �S Respectfully submitted, UN 4 RM r' MA /l SITE- /q7— ERGLE- 0& 1 O -T �� Ufi�/,fi'cy e.ots�S i4i�1,0 ADDED �bu�E � F'/REQ ECT r PICK64 vp Zy A/ar �2oP� owN Eie.S TO: The honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and �ty Council, City of Nieridian. the unaersignea, residing at ����C�9'KA�, ao hereby suurait the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Development Cor,,lany's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Pian has proven to be unworkable anu nas proviaea a monopoly within i-ieriaian's area of impact. That iionopoly nas caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and c:usinesses, anu a Giminution of the tai: base with which we could assist in supporting the school district. Aouitionally, an immediate change of the I•.eridian Co,,,I.rehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to coo forward with negotiations with the developer so as to adequately aaaress and protect the interests of the citizenry of this cor.,munity. Therefore request Application for the change. D!, T L; : 611ilYr- 61431f-i- your immediate approval of the REcEWE n TO: The honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. I, the undersigned, residing at 17" Gl/A y6A u do hereby submit the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Development Company's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable ar,Li iias proviued a monopoly within h eridian's area of impact. Tiiat monopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and ousinesses, anti a diminution of the tax base with which we could assist in supporting the school district. Auuitionally, an immediate change of the t-ieriaian Coi,,prehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to auec uately atauress and protect the interests of the citizenry of this community. Tneref ore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. Dlt',, T : Respectfully submitteu, l TO: The Honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. I, the undersigned, resiaing at % %% 1'6 hereby suomit the following written testiraony in favor of Claremont Developr;ent Coizi any's Application for a Change to the current Coruprehensive Plan which was unanimously passea by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu :ias proviuea a monopoly within leridian's area of impact. That ikionopoly rias caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and businesses, ana a diminution of the tax base with which we could assist in supporting the school district. Acuuitionally, an immediate change of the Eleriuian C;oi,,prehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to adecuately auaress and protect the interests of the citizenry of ti,is community. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. Di,TL : Respectfully submitted, RECEIVED 14 1985 ��,��� TO: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. I, tr►e undersigneu, residing at Z5 -S 7&-,i do hereby submit the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Development Coz„,pany's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Flan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Corart,ission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu :ias proviueu a monopoly within 1 eridian's area of impact. That r,-ionopoly has causeu economic stagnation, loss of jobs and businesses, anu a ciminution of the tai: base with which we could assist in supporting the school district. Auuitionally, an ir,r,►ediate change of the 1•.eridian Coi,,prehensive Plan costs tr,e City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations wits, the developer so as to adequately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of this cor,munity. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. DIt"'IT ; : 9 -i �-0 Respeclly bmitte ,® 141985 Qe'f•) �y�.s TO: The Bonorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of keridian, I, the undersigned, residing at do hereby suur;it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Development Coripany's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comi-irehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu :;as proviaea a monopoly within Leridian's area of impact. That monopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and businesses, ana a diminution of the tax base with which we could assist in supporting the school district. Auuitionally, an iii1imediate change of the Y:eridian Cor,1j.rehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to auequately address anti protect the interests of the citizenry of this cor.,,munity. 'therefore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. L'i,TE, : ����� Respectf ully submitted TO: The honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. I, the undersigned, residing at �413o,E JJ- k,'j,;uo hereby submit the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Development Company's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The edxistiny CoLi rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu f;as proviued a monopoly within Leridian's area of impact. That monopoly has causeu economic stagnation, loss of jobs and ousinesses, and a diminution of the tai: base with which we could assist in supporting the school district. huuitionally, an immediate change of the Kleridian Comprehensive Plan costs tr,e City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to adequately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of this community. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. D.1",, T L. IRECIVIM Respectfully submitted, N 14 9 4 TO: The Honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Fieridian. I, tine undersignea, residing at a�S C 33X—'' do hereby subr<<it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Development Cor;ip-any's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu ;nas providea a monopoly within Leridian's area of impact. That iiLonopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and ausinesses, anu a uirainution of the tax ease with which we could assist in supporting the school district. Auaitionally, an immediate change of the Ueridian Cor,L1.rehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to adequately address ana protect the interests of the citizenry of this community. !'herefore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. $pectfully submitter, TO: The Honorable payor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. , I, tie unuersigneu, residing at /✓�08��'"co hereby suur,;it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Develops-aent Cor,,I>any's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Cor:,�;rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu :;as proviueu a monopoly within I-:eridian's area of impact. 'Iliat iiionopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and uusiriesses, anu a diminution of the tux ease with which we could assist in supportinij the school district. %uuitionally, an immediate change of the I-:eridian Cor,+rehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to adequately address ana protect the interests of the citizenry of tris community. Tneretore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. DiI'TB : Respectfully submitteu, TO: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. I, the unaersigneu, resiuing at 7//✓��&L �/°�. gkchereby suoL,it tiie foilowinc; written testimony in favor of Claremont Deve.io J.,ent Cur:,i.any's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passea by the Planning anu Zoning Con:uiission. Tale existing Cor„jrehensive Plan i,as proven to be unworkable aims iias proviueu a r,ionopoly witiiin I�:eriaian's area of impact. Tl3ut :.iunopoly has causes+ econorL,ic stagnation, loss of jobs and uusinesses, anu a uin:inution of the tax .::ase wits, which we souk assist in supportincj the school uistrict. r�uuitionally, an immeoiate change of the Neridian Lor,:rrchensive Plan costs ti,e City nothing anu e, oulo perriit the City to go forward with negotiations with the oeveloper so as to LQe ;Lately auoress anu protect the interests of the citizenry of tt.is cor.,munity. Tacrefore I request your immediate approval of the Api,lication for the change. Dl,, TL : 1wspectfully s bmitteur TO: The Honorable 1-ayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. t I, trie undersigneu, resiuing at �����. ao hereby suu;,.it the: following written tcztimony in favor of Claremont Devc:Iopr,,ent Co,.,I-any's Application for a Change to the current Co;,,preiiensive Plan which was unanimously passea by the Planning anu Zoning, Cor:r,ission. ire existir,, Cor,,j.rehensivc ! Ian as proven to be unworkable i,as proviueu a i,,onopoly witiiin Lerioian's area of impact. i:,unopoly has causes, econor„ic stagnation, loss of jobs anu L;usinesses.,, ana a uirninution of the ta.: i::ase wits, which we souk' assist in supportin�j the school ciistrict. «uc.ir.ionally, an it„mediate change of the t•:ericAian Co.,_prchensive Pian costs the City nothing ana ,,oulu peri,iit the City to go forwaru with negotiations with the developer so as to aae uatc:ly address ana protect the interests of the citizenry of tris corimunity. ` ncrefore I request your immediate approval of the Lpplication for the change. Ui:ri'L; : Respectfully subiuitted, i 4- 110: The honorable payor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. I, the uncersigneu, resiaing at �.E.�S GiBs'o.J co hereby suOL,it tree foilowinc written testimony in favor of Claremont Levelopr,,ent Coi,,1.any's Ipplication for a Change to tine current Coriprenernsive Plan wiiich was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Cor.,raission. The e..istirig Coi,:,L;rehensive Plan ijas proven to be unworkable Lf',U ;aas proviueu a r„onopcly within Leriuian's area or impact. i,,onoi;oly has causes: econoriiic stucnation, loss of jobs and c;usi,;,esses, and a uiminution of the ta,: uase with whicil we could assist in supporting the school 6istrict. 't. cUuitionally, an irimeuiate change of the I-1Eriuian Co.,Yre erisivc Flan costs the City nothing anti woulsi permit the Citi tO go forwar& with negotiations witI the aeveloper so as to aae quatcly address and protect the interests of the citizenry of ti:is cor:,Munity. liicreiore I request your immeaiate approval of the t,pj,lication for the change. iiialL: Respeclly sub3iiitteu, R_����: TO: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; ano City Council, City of kieridian. ,95- �L% I, tine undersigned, resiuing at/I o hereby suu;..it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont DeVelopl:,ent Corp-any's Application for a Change to tine current Co;,,preiiensive Plan which was unanimously passeu by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing, Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable ;iaS proviaeo a r„onopoly within t,:eriuian's area of impact. r iiut iaonoroiy has causeu economic stagnation, loss of jobs anu 1,LiF. in sses, anu a c:iminution of the tG.: base with which we eoulu assist in supporting ttie school uistrict. AuLAitionally, an ir,irieaiate change of the EaEridian Co;-i,re-hensive Plan costs the City nothing and would perr,,it the City to go forwara with negotiations with the caeveloper so as to aUequate117 auuress anu protect the interests of the citizenry of ti.is community. Tnererore I request your immediate approval of the i.pplication for the change. Li, 2L Respectfully submitteu, 'ice �T1.w TO: The honorable kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. I, ti,c unucrsigned, resiuinc atdo hereby suer..it the followinc; written testimony in favor of Claremont LevLlopr,,ent Cu „l.any's Application for a Change to the current Co��prei,ensive Flan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The Cxisting Cor,,prehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable ui.L4 ,ab provioea a r,,onopoly within 1:erician's area of impact. rirjLt I,unoruly nas causeo economic stkgnation, loss of jobs and Luyincssc r anu a uir,.inution of the ta,.: mase with which Fre could assist in suptortincj the school district. hc+uitionally, an it-Ir,eoiate change of the i.:Eric,ian Lor.ci�,rEliens ive Plan costs the City nothing ano would permit the Cite to go forwara with negotiations with the cieveloper so as to auequa'tcly acaress and protect the interests of the citizenry of ti.is commi unity. ` nerciore I request your immediate approval of the k+jAication for the change. ` DI'.TL- 6'1� Respectfully submitted, C�� IV: The honorable payor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Feridian. I, t1,e uncersigneu, resiuinc at 21 1 %rte Cr'r• do hereby bui,:,, t ti -ie followinc writter, testimony in favor of Claremont Lcvc.iopr:,ent Cul.l.any's Application tar a Change to the current Co.,,preliensive Plan which was unanimously passers by the Flanning anu Zoning Commission. '1't,e mist rL .j Coi,q renensive Plan has proven to be unworkable provicieu & i,�onopely within i-,erician's Brea of impact III&L 1,,unuJ.,01y na:, cau ecl economic stagnation, loss of jobs and ung: c uir.,inution o.i the tad,: :ease with which we coulG ass'is in eupportinc,; the school uistrict. f=ai.it.iunally, an ir.,meaiate change of the l.:Eriaian Lo;,,YzEiscrisive Flan costs ti,e City nothing and would perrc�it the City to go forwaru witii negotiations wita the oeveloper so as to aueYuatcliy auoress anc protect the interests of the citizenry of ti.is cor., munity. Tnerciore I request your immediate approval of the i,ppl cation for the change. Iii`.'1'L S x/13 ds Respectf ully submitteu, V�u W: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Councils City of heridian. I, ti,e unucrbigneu, resiuing at Z/.2/ Tumerre Cirdedo hereby uur;,it the tollowincs writter, testimony in favor of Claremont Devr:lopraent Cu,;l.any's hpplication for a Change to the current Co:.,r.re!iensive Man wnich was unanimously passed by the P=lanning anu zoning Commission. The e:;istiny Coi,+rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable 4r �, isaEi provicea a iuonopoly within t�:erioian's area of impact. rliti.t i::unoruly n`s causer, economic stagnation, loss of jobs and i✓ j ;incsscL, anG a uir„inution of the tot base with whicla wr: coulo aissi t in supportin:, the school district. -,LA(.itionally, an ir;,raediate chance of the t.:sridian Lo:I.i�rcljensiv€ Plan costs the City nothing and would perr«it the City to go forward with negotiations with the oeveloper so as to auequately aucaress and protect the interests of the citizenry of tLiz cor.,munity. Therciore I request your irir,ie6iate approval of the hp�lication for the change. Lt•TL:. Respectfully submitted, RECF TO: The honor able payor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. _ 7 � I, t,'c Lnc;er:.;igneu# resiuinc at [�1 ti./ Sao hereby �,u►;.,-it ti,v iullowinc; writter, tcEtimony in favor of Claremont Lcvc corm;Enr Cu;.I-any's iipj.lication for a Change to tiie current Co;,,r•rcjjensive -lan wnici, was unaniTiiously passeu by the Planning anu Zoning Cor-mission. Tne cxistiricj Coi,+renensivc plan i,as proven to be unworkable i.;iia .tri£: proviuc'a a i,tonopoly within ',ericicn's area of impact. "Liiut :_uno oiy rias cauEeu econoliiic stu9naticn, loss of jobs anu ,."IZ'i;tCs:if.E" anu a UiLlinutiori 01 trie ta". ease With whici; We coulu �;ssist in Eupportincj the school uistrict. 1.auitional;iy, an ir,r:eoiate change of the Leri6ian, Lo;.,e-rci;ensive plan costs the Citi' nothing and would permit the---_ Citi' tC go forwaru with negotiations wita the oeveloper so as to GaegL tLl auuress and protect the interests of the citizenry of this cor.:munity. ` ` nerciore Y request your intmediate approval of the I.pi,lication for the change. L'i,T Respectfully submitter,, � a� TO: The honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of r.eridian. I, tile unaersigneu, resiuing at 2220 11. 10 T`ilerx Mereidbarhereby sudr,:it the followincs written, testimony in favor of Claremont Leve::topr:,ent Co;,,J.any's Application for a Change to the current Co;,prei,ensive Plan which was unanimously passea by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable ai.0 ;,as proviueo a i,,onopoly within E'eriaian's area of impact. Iiiat iionoroly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs anu L,usin sses, anu i diminution of the ta;: rase with which vie could assist in supporting the school uistrict. E;ucitionaIIy, an in,riiediate change of the Keridian Co;,,prchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations witii the developer so as to aoec1uately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of tLis cor,munity. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the hpplication for the change. DIt", TL : 6/13/85 Respectfully submittec+, TO: The honorable payor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. I, tiie uncersignec, resiuing at do hereby suu:;,it the following written teztimony in favor of Claremont Devcioprient Cor,,I:any's Application for a Change to the current Coi,preiiensive Plan which was unanimously passeu by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable Ln�., iias proviaea a i,ionopoly within E-eriaian's area of inpact. 'i'riL:t i,onoroly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and L,usincsses, anu a uiminution of the ta,,: :.ase with which we could assist in supporting- the school cistrict. Ac;c,itionally, an ir.,mediate change of the Leridian Coi.,i-rehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations witii the developer so as to auequately audress ano protect the interests of the citizenry of this community. �i'iierefore I request your immediate approval of the i,pplication for the change. D,,TL-:: Respectfully submitted, __ J T): The honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. I, ti;e unaersigneo, residing at 46/ >,.j.�T-)k""`dohereby suu:..it the followincj written testimony in favor of Claremont DEvc:lot)i.ient Coi„I:any's Application for a Change to the current Co,:,preiiensive Plan which was unanimously passea by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing CoLq�rehensive Plan I -A -as proven to be unworkable Ln,.4 ;,as proviueo a iaonopoly within t:eriaian's area of impact. TtiLt ir;onopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and Lusin ssEs., ano a uirllnutlon of the tal: I-Jase with which we COU10 assist in supporting the school uistrict. E�c.c.itionally, an in;r„ediate change of the I.'.eridian Co.,prehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to adequat(;137 address and protect the interests of the citizenry of this cor.imunity. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the i-.pplication for the change. Di',T .: Respectfully submi ted, REOF!a "7 TO: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. I► tile undersigned, resiuinc at 30 0p a" o hereby suu;,:it ti -ie following written testimony in favor of Claremont Levclopr:ient Cor,,I:any's Application for a Change to the current Co;:ipreiiensive Plan whic:i was unanir,-tously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Cor,.j:rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable i.nu Ilas proviuea a i;,onopoly within l:eriaian's area of impact. 'l'I7ut I:;ono ,oly teas causeu economic st&gnation, loss of jobs and L,u.siriEsses, and a diminution of the ta:: Abase with which we could assist in supporting the school district. Auc.itionally, an immediate change of the I Iridian Coi,,I.rchr_nsive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations witil the developer so as to adequately audress and protect the interests of the citizenry of this community. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the hpplication for the change. D!, TL —�� Respectfully submitted, TO: The honorable payor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. I, the uncersigneu, resiuinc; at bo hereby suu;„it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Devc:lopi,tent Cor,,I,any's Application for a Change to the current Co;;iprenensive Plan which was unanir;,ously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The e::istirccj Coi,,I:rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable iias proviueo a i,ionopoly within t•:eriaian's area of impact. �.r,ut I,onopoly has causeu econor,:ic stagnation, loss of jobs anti L,Lisi csses, Gnu a uir,,inution of the ta-.: base with which we could assist in supporting the school uistrict. i,uuitionaIIy, an ir.,mediate change of the Leridian Co;,,prchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations w i til the developer so as to adequately auuress anc protect the interests of the citizenry of ti.is cor„munity. Wherefore I request your imraeaiate approval of the Lpplication for the change. DLt'L : Respectfully submitted, L TO: The honorable mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of rieridian. I, tiie unaersignea, resiuing at 935 -Le) t�t al do hereby sui,r,.it the following writter, testimony in favor of Claremont Levelopr+ent Coi,il:any's Application for a Change to the current Coy, preiiensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Coral:rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu .,as proviueu a r,onopoly within l:eriaian's area of impact. rl'ilUt i:;onopoly has causeu economic stagnation, loss of jobs and i,usinEsses, anu a uiminution of the ta,: base with which we could assist in supporting the school district. i,uuitionally, an it„r,+e&iate change of the l:eridian Co:::prchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the aeveloper so as to aaecuately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of this cor,imunity. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. D,'. TL : Respectfully submitteu, fs- RECtD TO: The honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; ano City Council, City of !Meridian. I, ti,e uncersigneu, resiuin(�, at do hereby suo.,.it ti -ie following written testimony in favor of Claremont DCVLlot:r:,ent Cu,,,I.any's Application for a Change to the current Coi,,prei)e•nsive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Cor,iprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable and ;las proviuea a r,,onopoly within I:eriaian's area of inpact. rir)ut i,onopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and L,usinesscs, anc. a diminution of the ta:x i✓ase with which) we COu16 assist in supporting the school district. huuitionaIly, an immediate change of the l.:eridian Co,,prEhensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to adequately aodress and protect the interests of the citizenry of tris community. Therefore I request your imr,ediate approval of the i,pplication for the change. DL�2L Respectfully submitted, -VtV.CEEO TO: The honorable !Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. �,?_ _, I, the unaersignea, resiuing at �� �� --ao hereby suol,.it tiie following writter, testimony in favor of Claremont Leveiopr;,ent CoI,,I:any's Application for a Change to the current Col:,prenensive Plan which was unanimously passeu by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Coiaprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu rias proviuea a i,,onopoly within i:eriaian's area of impact. rl'tlut I,;onopoly has causeeconomic stagnation, loss of jobs anti L'li:iiriesses, ano a uir: inutioii of the tai: ;lase with which we coulu assist in supporting the school uistrict. huuitionally, an ii -',mediate change of the Leridian Col:,prehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forwara with negotiations with the aeveloper so as to aaequately auaress ana protect the interests of tte citizenry of ti.is cor.imunity. Wherefore I request your immediate approval of the hpplication for the change. DJ.""TL : </ Respectfully submitte(A TO: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. I, tiie undersigned, resiuin�. at 935 Cn.,.�oll�a, do hereby suur,.it tiie followinc; written testimony in favor of Claremont Leveloprrent Coi,il.any's Application for a Change to tie current Co;,,preiiensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Coi,+rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable ar.0 i,as proviueu a monopoly within 1:eriaian's area of impact. rltlzst i„onopoly has causes economic stagnation, loss of jobs and Luslnesses, anu a uiminution of the ta;: :;ase with which we could assist in supporting the school uistrict. Acuuitionally, an immeaiate change of the Keridian Loi.,j,rchensive Plan costs the City nothinca and would perr,iit the City to go forward with negotiations with the aeveloper so as to auequately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of tris cor;munity. The reiore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. Respectfully submitted, Pe4e,,, k4c,,L,40- Qv, prdr-I TO: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. I, the undersigned, resiuinc; at do hereby suu,;.it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Leve:lopr;ent Cor«hany's Application for a Change to the current Cor:,prenensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning aru Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable i r:u iias provicaeo a r,,onopoly within t:eridian's area of impact. Il•1`lat monopoly has caused econor:ic stagnation, loss of jobs and L.usin-.sses, and a uirainutior, of the tai. ,:rase with which we could assist in supporting the school uistrict. i�uuitionally, an iriimediate change of the i•:eridian Cor„prcherlsive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the Cite to go forwara with negotiations witrl the developer so as to auequately aadress and protect the interests of the citizenry of this cor munity. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the hpplication for the change. TJi arl l:: r 11,311 / UJ Respectfully submitted, .�_.. TO: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. I, the undersigned, resiuin5 at���.:� edo hereby suur,:it the followinc written testimony in favor of Claremont Levelopr,ent Coi,,I:any's Application for a Change to the current Co;;preiiensive Plan which was unanimously passea by the Planning anti Zoning Commission. I,he existing CoLlpreliensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu ,,as proviueo a monopoly within Meridian's area of impacto, ln.it i:;onoroly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and i✓usinesscs, Gnu a diminution of the tel,: base with which we could assist in supporting the school district. i�uuitionally, an immediate change of the Keridian Cor„prehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the oeveloper so as to adequately acdress and protect the interests of the citizenry of tiiis community. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the hpplication for the change. Respectfully submitte6, /40�440W .4p, 4,�e— RE IIJEJ) TO: The honorable payor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. I, the unaersigned, resiciing at !�9aJ- 1 do hereby suur„it tike following written testimony in favor of Claremont DevelopiI,ent Cot,,I.any's Application for a Change to the current Coi,;prehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable i,as proviuea a monopoly within 1:Eridian's area of impact. rl'17ut i,anopoiy has cause economic stagnation, loss of jobs anu iLusincsses, anu a oiminution of the ta,d: rase with which we coula assist in supporting the school uistrict. tiucitionally, an immediate change of the Keridian Goi,,prchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would perrc,it the City to go forward with negotiations witil the developer so as to adequately audress ana protect the interests of the citizenry of t1,is cor.imunity. Wherefore I request your immediate approval of the hpplication for the change. I'i1,T L : � /3 V -S Res ctful y subm' u, TO: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. I, ti,e unuersigneu, resiuinl: at do hereby suL;;,,it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Develop,,,ent Co,,q.any's Application for a Change to the current Co,,,prenensive Plan which was unanimously passeu by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Cohq�rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu ,,as proviueu a monopoly within t:eriaian's area of impact. Tn.1 tt i;�onopoly nas causecl economic stagnation, loss of jobs and L,usinEsses, anu a ulminution of the ta.. &-dase with which we could assist in supporting the school district. i,uc.itionally, an it„r,,eaiate change of the l:eridian Co,,:i,rchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to aaec�uately audress and protect the interests of the citizenry of ti,is cor.,munity. Thereiore I request your immediate approval of the hpplication f%or the change. Respectfull b ,itte6, RFCTIVD TO: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. I, tc,e undersigned, resiuing at }� do hereby suu;,,it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Levelopr:,ent Co;;,l:any's Application for a Change to the current Co;:,preiiensive Plan which was unanimously passeu by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Cor,iprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu ;,as proviuea a r;ionopoly within t•:erician's area of impact. that i;;onopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and: L. usincsses, anu a diminution of the tG�: base with which we could assist in supporting the school district. uuitionally, an immediate change of the 1.:eri6ian Co;,,prchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would pern,it the Citi- to go forward with negotiations witiz the developer so as to aueyuately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of this corimunity. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the hpplication for the change. Respectfully submitteu, REM D JU 14 TO: The Honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of N;eridian. �1el I 7Oel- � I, the unuersigneu, resiuing at do hereby suuri,it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Development Coi:,pany's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passeu by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable :gas provided a monopoly within I,,eridian's area of impact. That i,,onopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and businesses, and a c,iminution of the tax base with which we could assist in supporting the school district. Acxuitionally, an immediate change of the II:eriuian Coiaprehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to acre uately aduress and protect the interests of the citizenry of tt:is community. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. DI-,A'L' : Respectf ully submitted, REGEIVEV fN14 TO: The honorable payor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. I, the undersigned, resiuincy at 2627 6:r.a.�a��� do hereby suu;,.it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Levclopi,,ent Coi„I:any's Application for a Change to the current Co;;iprehensive Plan which was unanimously passea by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable ;ias proviueu a monopoly within I:eriaian's area of ir,pact. rl'ilUt i,onoroiy has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and i.usincsscs, anu a uir inution of the ta;: uase with which we could assist in supporting the school uistrict. t,uuitionally, an it„r,,ediate change of the Leridian Co:.;prchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations witi; the developer so as to aaequately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of tiis cor.:munity. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the hpplication for the change. LirTL: Respectfully sub itteu, C < RIECED TO: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Keridian. I, ti,e unaersigned, resiuin5 at 93 SW �`�' do hereby suu;„it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Levelopi.tent Coi,,Iany's Application for a Change to the current Co;;ipreiiensive Plan which was unanimously passeu by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Cor,iprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable cr:u ;,as proviueo a I,ionopoly within I:eriaian's area of impact. 11`iiLt Iiionopoly nas caused economic stGgnation, loss of jobs and i.usinEsses, &no G uiminl:tion of the ta;. ,rase with which we coulu assist in supporting the school uistrict. i�uuitionaIly, an ir,,meuiate change of the I:eridian Coi.,j.-rchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to auequately audress and protect the interests of the citizenry of ti.is cor,;munity. `1'nerciore I request your immediate approval of the ,application for the change. Di,1' L : Respectfully submitteu, TO: Tile honorable I•:ayor Grant Kingsford; ano City Council, City of !Meridian. I, t1,e uncaersignec, resiuing at �7� ` 4G3t'f%� do hereby costs suu;..it t1,e followin, written to--timony in favor of Claremont Devc.lopr,;ent Co;,ii.any's i application for a Change to tl;e current Co;;;preiiensive Plan which was unanir;-iously passeu by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The e.:istiny Coi,;j:rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu :,as proviueu a monopoly within ?:Erlaian's area of impact. l-riUt j;,onojDly has causec economic stagnation, loss of jobs anu c-,usinessez, anu a uiLlinution of the ta,: ;.ease with which we: coulu assist in supporting the school 6istrict. iuuitionaliy, an ir;,r,,ediate change of the t•.Eridian Co;,:r:rchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward witi, negotiations with the developer so as to aaequatcly auaress and protect the interests of the citizenry of tris comimunity. ` nerci ore I request your immediate approval of the 1-.pplication for the change. Respectfully subm-i-ttpu, RECE!!�D J TO: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of keridian. n. I, the unaersigneu, resiuing at�do hereby suur,„it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Developi,,ent Coral:any's Application for a Change to the current CoiLiprei;ensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Comprehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu ;,as provicueu a i,tonopoly within l:eriaian's area of impact. That i:,onoroly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and LUsiriesses, ano a uiminution of the tG,,: rase with which we douln assist in supportincj the school uistrict. ii, uuitionally, an imr„eaiate change of the I•,eridian Co,,,prehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations witi-i the developer so as to aue:ivately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of tLis cor,:munity. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the hpplication for the change. D�,'f L : Respectfully submitted, TO: The honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of heridian. I, tr;e undersignea, resiuing at %� '� do hereby suu;,,it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Levelopi:,ent Coi,;I,any's Application for a Change to the current Co.aprehensive Plan which was unanimously passea by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Cord, rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu ;,as proviueo a monopoly within i,:eridian's Area of impact. �Inat r,onoroly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and :.usinesses, ano a uiminution of the ta,: base with which we could assist in supporting the school uistrict. Auuitionally, an ir,,mediate change of the neridian Co.,,prEhens ive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to aaequately aouress and protect the interests of the citizenry of ti,is cor„munity. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. DIt,TL: Respectfully submitted, TO: The honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. I, the unaersigneu, resiuing at OO/ do hereby suoi,,it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Levclopi,;ent Coz,,I any's Application for a Change to the current Co:..preiiensive Plan which was unanimously passeu by the Planning anu zoning Commission. The existing Comj;rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu Lias proviueu a monopoly within I,:ericnian's area of impact. ar"]ut i.onopoly has cause6 economic stagnation, loss of jobs and c,usinesscs., anu a uir;,inution of the ta,,: :lase with which we coulu assist in supporting the school uistrict. huuitionaliy, an immediate change of the Eeridian Co;,gprchensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forwara with neQutiations with the aeveloper so as to auec uately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of tiiis cor.,munity. Therefore I request your ininediate approval of the Application for the change. Dl' 1'i: : Respectfully submitteu,/ � �J 41985 TO: The Honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. I, the unaersigneo, resiuing; at r ao hereby Y e eK suu:,.it ti,e following written tEEtimony in favor of Claremont Levc:lopraent CuI,,I:any's Application for a Change to the current Co.uprenensive Flan which was unanir.,ously passeu by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. J,he existing CoI,,+rehensive Flan has proven to be unworkable Ln,., i,as provioea a I,ionopoly within i',eriaian's area of ir;pact. rl'ilut is;onoroly nas caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and LUSiIJ S5eS, anU Z: oirlinution of the tu/: base with which we cou16 assist in supporting; the school district. t uuitionally, an ii -.,mediate change of the Leridian Cu;::prchensive plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward witi-, negotiations wits the developer so as to adequately address ansa protect the interests of the citizenry of ti.is community. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the h,pi.lication for the change. D� 3 _ l��i'L : '� Respectfully submit u, "COVED TO: The honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of ieridian. I, tiie uncersigneu, resiuing at-��►�CY�t do hereby suu,..it ti -ie following written testimony in favor of Claremont Devc:lopi.,ent Co;.,1.any's hpplication for a Change to ti:e current Co,,,rrehensive Plan which was unanir.�ously passea by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing C01,;1:ret;ensive plan Yias proven to be unworkable ,,as proviGea a monopoly witi-iin i:eriaian's area of impact. ,ir,at r.,onopoly has causea economic stagnaticn, loss of jobs anu i,uslnesses, and a uiminution of the ta.. ;.)ase with which we could assist in supportinci the school district. huuitionally, an irr,meaiate change of the Leridian Coi,,rrehensive plan costs the City nothinc, and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations witiz the aeveloper so as to auec;uately auaress ana protect the interests of the citizenry of tilis community. Therefore I request your immeaiate approval of the hpplication for the change. Iiia l L Respectf ully subr,itteu, rr qurcQ YY?. Dur tem `O? NEU TO: The Honorable Kayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. I, the unaersigneu, residing at o hereby suur,,it the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Developr-;ent Coi;ilany's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passeu by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Coiiiirehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu aas proviueu a monopoly within Leridian's area of impact. .L,hat ii,onopoly nas caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs anu ousinesses, anu a uiWinution of the ta,. mase with which we could assist in supporting the school uistrict. Auuitionally, an immediate change of the i•eridian Cor<<prehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to aue yuately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of ti,is cor.,imunity. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the i..pplication for the change. L[a�fL : Respectfully subr:,itteu, PMEAMM TO: The Honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Pieridian. I, the undersigned, resiuing at 700E r►ut�?611 do hereby subatit the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Development Cola,+any's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Flan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. 7'he existing Comprehensive Flan has proven to be unworkable anu :ias provided a monopoly within t, eridian's area of impact. Tliat rctonopoly has causeu economic stagnation, loss of jobs and businesses, and a uiminution of the tax base with which we coulu assist in supporting the school district. Aduitionally, an immediate change of the 1-ieridian Cor<<prehensive Plan costs tree City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to auequately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of tiiis cor.,munity. Tnerefore I request your immediate approval of the lipplication for the change. DiTI: Qom. 13, 19trs i Respectfully submittea, TO: The Honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford; and City Council, City of Meridian. T, the unaersigned, resiuing at ,% �d hereby subs; it the following written testiraony in favor of Claremont Development Cor,,pany's Application for a Change to tl,e current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning commission. The existing Coi,girehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu iias proviueu a monopoly within l:eridian's area of impact. That iaonopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and businesses, anu a diminution of the tai: base with which we could - assist in supporting the school district. AcAuitionally, an immediate change of the t•ieridian Comprehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to adequately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of this community. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the hpplication for the change. D,TE Ftes c. ully subriittea, TO: The Honorable hayor Grant Kingsford; and t y City Council, City of Keridian. I, the unuersigneu, residing at )A,) do hereby submit the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Development Cor; I any's Application for a Change to the current Comprehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Commission. The existing Cor+l:rehensive Plan has proven to be unworkable anu ;;as provided a rcionopoly within 1•:eriaian's area of impact. �zhat r«onopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and L;usinesses, ansa a uiroinution of the ta,,: base with which we could assist in zupporting the school district. tiUuitionally, an imuieaiate change of the I-ieriaian Cor,,prehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to adequately address ansa protect the interests of the citizenry of tris cor:�,munity. Therefore I request your immediate approval of the Application for the change. Dr1D: Respectfully submitteu, TO: The Honorable haayor Grant Kingsford; ano City Council, City of Meridian. I, the undersigned, residing at X10 1,.1 do hereby suomit the following written testimony in favor of Claremont Development Cotapany's Application for a Change to the current Co,nprehensive Plan which was unanimously passed by the Planning anu Zoning Coriraission. The existing CoLq.rehensive Flan has proven to be unworkable anu .ias provided a monopoly within 1,.eridian's area of impact. ,that i,►onopoly has caused economic stagnation, loss of jobs and businesses, anu a diminution of the tax. mase with which we could assist in supporting the school district. Auuitionally, an immediate change of the i•eridian Col,prehensive Plan costs the City nothing and would permit the City to go forward with negotiations with the developer so as to adequately address and protect the interests of the citizenry of this community. Therefore I request your imitiediate approval of the &pplication for the change. Respectf ully submitted, RichardF. Orton 134 E. State Meridian, ID 83642 June 11, 1985 Honorable Mayor & Council City of Meridian 728 Meridian Meridian, ID 83642 Honorable Mayor & Councilmembers: Re: Proposed Mall at Eagle Road Obviously I am professionally involved in the mall at Eagle Road and I-84, but I am also a Meridian citizen and hope that my personal opinion, supporting the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, merits your consideration. I have lived in Meridian virtually the entire "Mall Wars" period, since 1971. The real issue seems to be where the major retailers will build. Other issues confused the question; the mall should be part of a plan to renovate downtown Boise, the mall should be located to satisfy the professional planners, the mall should be close.to (or in) a business district, the mall should be open, the mall should be enclosed, a citizen's committee should direct the mall's design, etc. Clearly we have been talking to, not listening to, the developers and retailers. Their message is that they must have a suburban site with good transportation services, and one that has some proximity to the center of their perceived market. Put differently, they want a site that has the best possible opportunity for success. All other criteria are secondary. The Eagle Road site seems to satisfy the retailers. It also meets most of Meridian's commercial growth goals without significant impact on other planning strategies and without significant impact on existing homes or businesses. Eagle Road is the only site in Meridian's influence that is good for both the City and the retailers. There are other sites that the retailers want, even prefer,.but a regional mall at either of the other sites ou�side Meridian.would have a serious and lasting adverse impact on Meridian. At best, if we lose the mall, we can expect to shoulder many of the costs such as schools, county police protection, and the burden of residential growth without the commercial base to support those costs. More probably, we'll shoulder those additional costs and lose the opportunity to shed our bedroom community image. I want, and I know you want, what's best for Meridian. It's best that we get the mall. Please support the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and let us get on with annexation, zoning and construction. cyrkn VL Richard F. rton MAYOR, COUNCILMEN, LADIES/GENTLEMEN. LAST FRIDAY NIGHT, MAY 31, 1985, 660 MERIDIAN HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS GRADUATED - THE LARGEST GRADUATING CLASS IN THE HISTORY OF IDAHO. WHERE DO THOSE GRADUATES GO AND WHY - YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN - WHEN THEY ENTER THIS OUTSIDE WORLD? FOR SURE, MANY LEAVE MERIDIAN FOR ELSEWHERE AND EVERYWHERE. SOME ARE EDU- CATED LOCALLY AND THEN THEY TOO DEPART FOR JOBS TO PLACES YET TO BE IDENTIFIED. WHAT'S AT STAKE HERE, TONIGHT. LET'S RECAP A MINUTE TO THE CROSSROADS WHERE MERIDIAN NOW STANDS. FOR SOME 20 YEARS, SOME OF BOISE'S ILLUSTRIOUS LEADERS HAVE ATTEMPTED TO THROTTLE IT'S CITY'S INNERCORE WITH THEIR VERSION OF A DREAM. WHO PAID THE BILLS - WE ALL DID. WHO SUFFERED THE LOSSES - WE ALL DID. AND WHO HAS LEFT THE VALLEY FROM 1965 TO 1985; AMONG MANY OTHERS - YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN DID. AND OVER THE YEARS WHILE THE POLITICIANS AND PLANNERS PUSHED ASIDE THE CRITICISMS AND COMMON SENSE, IT HAS BEEN ESTI- MATED THAT $100,000,000 ANNUALLY LEAVES THE VALLEY BECAUSE NO REGIONAL MALL EXISTS. ON FEBRUARY 1982, MANY MERIDIANS TESTIFIED THE EXTREME IMPORTANCE OF THE EAGLE ROAD/I-84 INTERCHANGE; AN INTERCHANGE WHIG THE BOISE POLITICIANS - NOTEABLY MAYOR DICK EARDLEY - DESPERATELY WANTED TO CONTROL. FOR WHOEVER CONTROLLED THE INTER- CHANGE COULD DICTATE KEY PLANNING ELEMENTS WITHIN THE PATHWAY OF A CITY'S FUTURE - IN THIS CASE, THE FUTURE OF MERIDIAN. THAT NIGHT EARDLEY TESTIFIED "A DELAY" HE SAID, "MORE STUDY" HE SAID, "NEW INFORMATION" HE SAID. EARDLEY LOST, AND THE APPROVED EAGLE ROAD/I-84 INTERCHANGE BELONGED TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND IT'S FUTURE. CONCURRENTLY, ANOTHER REGIONAL MALL DREAM HAS FERMENTED IN ADA COUNTY - THE 12 YEAR OLD DREAM AT I-84/KUNA-MERIDIAN ROAD. AND EVER SO OFTEN, WHENEVER A GLIMMER OF OPPOSITION ARISES - LIKE 3 YEARS AGO SEPTEMBER - THAT DEVELOPER DELIVERS A ROUSING RAH -RAH -RAH SPEECH "ON WHAT HE DOESN'T HAVE BUT WHAT HE IS GOING TO GET" AND THEN DISAPPEARS BACK WEST TO THE LAND OF MILK AND HONEY. NOW, WE ALL KNOW BOISE'S DREAM HAS BUSTED AND THE DILAPIDA- TED 12 YEAR OLD "PATIENCE IS GOLDEN" SIGN SWINGS IN THE BREEZE AMONG THE ANNUAL SCATTERED CORN CROPS - YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR. THIS RECENT FRAGMENTATION IS FAR REACHING AND CONCRETE. THERE WILL BE A SUBURBAN MALL IN WESTERN ADA COUNTY. AND WHERE BEFORE, THOSE SAME BOISE CITY POLITICIANS WHO FOUGHT SO DESPE- RATELY AGAINST ANYTHING HAPPENING AT EAGLE ROAD/I-84, ARE NOW h CLAMORING TO RIGHT THOSE THEY'VE WRONGED AND TO APPEASE THE DEVELOPER THEY OFFENDED WITH DEEDS AND WORDS "STRAWMAN PRICE" EARDLEY SAID. WHY IS BOISE ALL OF A SUDDEN SO DESIROUS OF A SUBURBAN MALL? WHY ON MAY 28, 1985, DID BOISEAN LAWYER JAY WEBB STATE IT WOULD BE A TRAVESTY, A TRAVESTY, FOR BOISE TO LOSE THE REGIONAL MALL TAX BASE TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN "AND WHY JUST LAST WEEK WAS A RESOLUTION PLACED BEFORE THE BOISE CITY COUNCIL" TO ENCOU- RAGE A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER INSIDE BOISE'S CITY LIMIT'S AND TO OPPOSE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL MALL CENTER IN THE MERIDIAN AREA." TIMES ARE CHANGING AND COMMON SENSE DICTATES THAT THE GRADUATING CLASS OF 1995 AND THE LEADERS OF THIS COMMUNITY WILL HAVE WITNESSED THOSE CHANGES - WHETHER IT BE A $100,000,000 CONSTRUCTED MALL WITH A $100,000,000 SALES BASE PRODUCING SOME 3,000 JOBS - AND CONTROLLED BY MERIDIAN OR WILL IT GO ELSEWHERE - LIKE YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN? IT HAS BEEN SAID "THAT A BATTLE IS A SERIES OF MISTAKES AND THE PARTY WHICH BLUNDERS THE LESS - EMERGES VICTORIOUS". THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IS AT A CROSSROAD OF REMAINING THE SUBMISSIVE CHILD IN THE BEDROOM OF BOISE OR THE VICTOR IN IT'S STRIFE FOR PROVIDING NEW FINANCIAL DIRECTION FOR IT'S CITIZENS AND A FUTURE TO YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN - A CHOICE OF YOUR CHOOSING, TONIGHT. THANK YOU. l S Mr. Mayor, city councilmen, thank you for the opportunity to present my concerns at this hearing tonight. When the State of Idaho completes the interchange construction at I-84 and Eagle Road in .1987-88, the whole hub of the valley will shift to that area. As a person who has seen the effect of these new interchanges in other states, I can say from experience that the area from Overland Road to Fairview Road on both sides of Eagle Road and I-84 will be the commercial, industrial, and retail center of the county. Meridian has a unique opportunity to reach out and grab this area and provide for the present and future citizens of Meridian a strong economic base, new Jobs and the quality of life we all live in Idaho for. Approximately three years ago a similiar hearing was held concerning this same subject and the same site. However there are some major differences between the two hearings. 1st.- The interchange will be built- and Eagle road will be maintained by the State of Idaho. 2nd. -Boise- after 20 years has finally admitted what most of us have known all along- that a major retail shopping center will never be built in downtown Boise. 3rd. -The Developer- Clairmont/ Price Development Company is a strong, results oriented developer, with a proven track record. ie. -Idaho (Largest Retail developer), Utah -(largest retail developer), also in the top 5 in Wyoming, Arizona, and Nevada. 4th.- The Developers have secured a financial source to underwrite and finance the building of the shopping center. 5th.- The Clairmont/ Price Development Company has the backing and support of not only 5 major anchor stores, but in addition over 60 other smaller stores ready and willing to enter the area. Now there is one item that is similar, and that is Mr. R.T. Nahas, trying to appear as a "good old boy" again. If you remember, it was approximately three years ago, Mr. Nahas promised a major and exciting announcement by September. Well three Septembers have come and gone and no Nahas. Well here he is again still blowing smoke. Let's review his track record. Over the last dozen years with the proper zoning and the backing of the city council- he has promised everything from green cheese to the moon but all he has been able to produce is a sign in a corn field. Mr. Nahaus PATIENCE IS NOT GOLDEN! Now the issue of cost to the community seems to be of major importance, which it should be. We should look at all aspects of cost and benefits. By developing the area into a major retail shopping center and coupled with the Upland Industries industrial park the tax base for the Meridian school district will be greatly expanded. But the tax liability to each of the districts property owners will be reduced, because both present and future development will share all debts. Yes, the cost to the city to provide services to the total area, both retail and industrial, will increase, but when you compare the increase to the potential ecomomic gain to the area and the prospects of the 1986 Idaho legislature initiating a local option tax bill to help defray these costs, it would be devestating to Meridian to lose this shopping center to Boise. It would religate Meridian to a lower middle class bedroom community forever. We are all aware that a good school system, economic prosperity, and quality of life are directly related to jobs provided by a growing, viable business community. The opposite is an area where school bonds do not pass, many young people leave the area looking for jobs, and senior citizens are so unsure of their financial future that they are against almost every item where the city must initially spend tax money for any type of service enhancements. Which type of community Meridian is and shall become is in your hands tonight I strongly request that you the city council of Meridian work with not against the Clairmont/ Price development companies and bring a major retail shopping center to this valley located at Eagle Road and I-84. Thank you. log 7 C/�� June 10, 1985 TO: Meridian City Council RE: Selection of the proposed Shopping Mall Site Sites available for selection by Meridian: Eagle Rd. & I-84 Meridian Rd. & I-84 Proximity to area population center - by Freeway travel Eagle Rd. is two miles closer. Surroundings - the Eagle Rd. site is bounded on the north by Montvue Subdivision, on the west by Magic View and northwest by Green Hills Estates. The Meridian Rd. site is bounded on the north by the Meridian Speedway and commercially zoned areas, and on the west by open fields. Area Impact: It is apparent that any shopping center, when once established, attracts a number of satellite business that like to cuddle up as close as possible to its boundaries to enjoy the warmth of the economical benefits generated by the traffic it creates. This expansion at either of the locations would undoubtedly be to the north to be closer and eventually join the commercial or industrial areas that are either in place or are being provided for. Such expansion on Eagle Rd. Mould be through the residential subdivisions noted above. These are residential areas, filled with quality well established homes, many of which are owned by long time occupants who are retired, or are planning to retire and live out their "Golden Years" right where they are. The com- mercial atmosphere created by this expansion would destroy the tranquil country living that is now enjoyed and would lower the appeal and the property values to a point where it would be impossible to realize but just a portion of the present values. Such an expansion on Meridian Rd. would be through commercial property that at the present is very poorly developed. The increase in potential customer traffic would give the present downtown retailers the opportunity to improve, update and expand. It would attract new businesses to the downtown area. Downtown Meridian could become an attractive and bustling extension of the Mall itself. Traff is : It is now in the works to construct a four way interchange at Eagle Rd. and I-84. Also to rebuild and widen Eagle Rd. to five lanes at the present, with right-of-ways for two more lanes in the future. State Hiways 69 and 55 will be relocated from 1st Street in Meridian to Eagle Rd. The long range plans are to make this the major connector for the central and northern parts of the state. Directly across the Eagle Rd. from the proposed :mall site there are two access roads to the Magic View subdivision. To the north of this and west of Eagle Rd. Green Hills Estates subdivision has two accesses to Eagle Rd. In the southeast corner of the intersection of Eagle & Franklin Rds. lies the Montvue Subdivision. The access to this subdivision is on Eagle and approximately two hundred feet south of the Franklin intersection. In addition to this; between Franklin Rd. and the proposed mall site, approximately 1/6 of a mile, there are six accesses to private residences on Eagle Rd. With the additional traffic created by Hiways 55 and 69, the eventual extension of the road to the far north, and a large percentage of the projected mall traffic of thirty-five thousand cars a day, plus the local traffic all thrown together on this section of road, can you possible visualize the chaos that will be created. Downtown Meridian will soon be rid of the Hiways 55 and 69. Traffic thru town will consist of local traffic and shoppers. 'With the mall at Meridian Rd. the traffic would be increased by local area shoppers going to and from the mall. They would be going through the downtown business districts. It has been said that Meridian does not want this additional traffic. It would require many more traffic lights. There would be far too much congestion. Meridian has, what appears to be, an -almost perfect situation to solve this congestion. First Street and Meridian Street originate and terminate at almost the same locations. First Street one-way north, Meridian Street one-way south, synchronized traffic lights and - what's the problem. With the mall at Eagle Rd. all this mall shopping traffic would be removed from downtown Meridian. There would be no congestion. There would be no traffic. There would be no reason for business expansion, no need for new retailers. With the traffic gone, there will be no potential customers. Downtown Meridian will be quite and peaceful. Look to the west a few miles to Karcher mall. Karcher is approxi- mately one-third the size of this proposed shopping center. It is easy to see how much the area around the mall, and in fact the mall itself, has expanded in the years that it has been established. Look now to the downtown areas of both Nampa and Caldwell. There you see no expansion, no improvement, no incentive to locate a business there.. Look at the merchants who have in fact relocated from these downtowns to the mall area. This is a shopping center one-third the size of the one proposed here, and two towns each of which was twice the size of Meridian. Look to the east to Boise. (The city with a hole in it.) Note the businesses that have gone to the non -adjacent shopping centers, or have gone to the dogs, or have quit. -2- With all this in mind, is it feasible to believe that Meridian can disconnect itself from the regional shopping center and still survive? It is very possible that with the shopping center on Eagle Rd. it will become to be known as "East Meridian," while downtown Meridian as we know it now will be called "Old Town." With the advent of Eagle Rd. being the chosen site, my property will be for sale. It would be the ideal location for the new city hall, right in the center of the action, not on the edge of a ghost town. Respectfully, Ray Richardson 390 South Eagle Rd. Meridian, ID 83642 -3- June 7. 1985 Mr. Grant 'Kingsford Mayo. City Hall 728 Meridian Meridian, ID 83642 Dear Mayor Kingsford? I have been watching the latest events with regards to a regional shopping mall at 1-84 and Kona or Eagle Roads. Although I have remained publicly vninvolved in the Boise mall project, I have strong reelings about your situation and I wish to briefly share my thoughts. Ny wife and I moved to Boise seven years ago from a town of 15,000 in Wisconsin. Just prior to our coming, a developer sold they on the idea of a shopping mall on the edge of town. The mall was constructed and the downtown literally died. As a result, I feel the entire city has been sapped of its personality and leadership. I feel the same thing could very easily happen to Meridian which is struggling now to maintain its identity due to the influx of many outsiders. Although both developers have offered to pay for an impact study (after all, wouldn't we all if we knew there was so much potential money to be made?), I would urge you to contact all the mayors of cities in communities where the developers have built urban malls to see what happened to the personalities of these cities and their downtowns. I wish you the best in a most difficult task. jSInq3,y, Gerald H. Schroeder 2017 Harrison Blvd. Boise, ID 83702 Mr. Mayor, city councilmen, thank you for the opportunity to present my concerns at this hearing tonight. When the State of Idaho completes the interchange construction at I-84 and Eagle Road in 1987-88, the whole hub of the valley will shift to that area. As a person who has seen the effect of these new interchanges in other states, I can say from experience that the area from Overland Road to Fairview Road on both sides of Eagle Road and I-84 will be the commercial, industrial, and retail center of the county. Meridian has a unique opportunity to reach out and arab this area and provide for the present and future citizens of Meridian a strong economic base, new Jobs and the quality of life we all live in Idaho forr. Approximately three years agora similiar hearing was held concerning this same subject and the same site. However there are some major differences between the two hearings. 1st.- The interchange will be built- and Eagle road will be maintaine-d_ by the State of Idaho. 2nd. -Boise- after 20 years has finally admitted what most of us have known all along- that a major retail shopping center will never be built in downtown Boise. 3rd. -The Developer- Clairmont/ Price Development Company is a strong, results oriented developer, with a proven track record. ie. -Idaho (Largest Retail developer), Utah -(largest retail developer), also in the top 5 in Wyoming, Arizona, and Nevada. 4th.- The Developers have secured a financial source to underwrite and finance the building of the shopping center. 5th.- The Clairmont/ Price Development Company has the backing and support of not only 5 major anchor stores, but in addition over 60 other smaller stores ready and willing to enter the area. Now there is one item that is similar, and that is Mr. R.T. Nahas, trying to appear as a "good old boy" again. If you remember, it was approximately three years ago, Mr. Nahas promised a major and exciting announcement by September. Well three Septembers have come and gone and no Nahas. Well here he is again still blowing smoke. Let's review his track record. Over the last dozen years with the proper zoning and the backing of the city council- he has promised everything from green cheese to the moon but all he has been able to produce is a sign in a corn field. Mr. Nahaus PATIENCE IS NOT GOLDEN! Now !the issue of cost to the community seems to be of major importance, which it should be. We should look at all aspects of cost and benefits. By developing the area into a major retail shopping center and coupled with the Upland Industries industrial park the tax base for the Meridian school district will be greatly expanded. But the tax liability to each of the districts property owners will be reduced, because both present and future development will share all debts. Yes, the cost to the city to provide services to the total area, both retail and industrial, will increase, but when you compare the increase to the potential ecomomic gain to the area and the prospects of the 1986 Idaho legislature initiating a local option tax bill to help defray these costs, it would be devestating to Meridian to lose this shopping center to Boise. It would religate Meridian to a lower middle class bedroom community forever. We are all aware that a good school system, economic prosperity, and quality of life are directly related to jobs provided by a growing, viable business community. The opposite is an area where school bonds do not pass, many young people leave the area looking for jobs, and senior citizens are so unsure of their financial future that they are against almost every item where the city must initially spend tax money for any type of service enhancements. Which type of community Meridian is and shall become is in your hands tonight I �tronply request that you the city council of Meridian work withirnot againstrthe Clairmont/ Price development companies and bring a major retail shopping center to this valley located at Eagle Road and I-84. Thank you. May 28, 1985 City of Meridian 728 Meridian Road Meridian, Idaho 83642 Honorable Mayor and Council: I have been a resident of the Meridian area for the last fourteen years and have watched the growth that has taken place during that period of time. Interestingly enough, there were rumors of a large shopping center to be developed at Meridian Street and the freeway at that time. I keenly feel the need for a central shopping area in the valley. It is so frustrating to drive from small shopping area to small shopping area to pick up one or two items at each location. I encourage you to allow Price to develop a central shopping area at the corner of Eagle and the freeway. This unusual opportunity should be taken advantage of, which would aid in continued growth of the Meridian area and the opportunities that come with this growth. I, like many of you, have children who need the opportunity to provide for themselves and it would be nice if that opportunity was available in the Meridian area. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Frank Barker 2180 Cadillac Drive Meridian, Idaho kw k- \< Testimony of Support Regional Mall, I-84 and Eagle Road, Meridian June 3, 1985 Mayor Kingsford and Meridian City Council: We wish to go on record in complete support of a regional mall at I-84 and Eagle Road in Meridian. Although we reside in Boise, this is a regional issue, one that is vital to all Treasure Valley residents. Our reasons are many and based upon observing and following the "mall situation" since moving to Boise several years ago. We firmly believe Eagle Road and I-84 is the most sensible location for a regional mall. Our main reason for urging the Council's support of the Eagle Road project is that, for the first time, tenants have committed to a site in mass. This reinforces what has been evidenced all along, that retailers will go where it is feasible for them - economically and demographically - not where political groups dictate. Available to them is an annexed site at Meridian Road and I-84, and they have chosen Eagle Road. If the Meridian City Council rejects the Eagle Road site tonight, it is altogther possible that major department store retailers will sever efforts to offer the Treasure Valley, and this region, the economical benefits and opportunities of a regional shopping mall. What's right for every other community - large and small - across America can't be wrong for this area. Malls are a common entity all across Idaho and America and this area has waited far too long for such a common thing. Eagle Road makes sense for a regional mall. The retailers have spoken. Let's not make the same mistakes Boise has made; mistakes that have led nowhere. Instead, Council, you have before you the opportunity to move this community, this valley, this state, forward to prosperity with the convenience of shopping here at home. "Here's lookin' at you," Meridian City Council. `�✓%?rtl ��- iYf7/bii Mr. and Mrs. Grant Jones 3583 Veranda Way Boise, Idaho 83706 JIAV E 3 , l 9 9s To : Ner.'c/,a o C','�ly Co H h c,' /fieIOki Q lqaII ire s kb ww� flk.. G1 der i h s �,�vri � fie c o1•wl�►'u.��,'a,�, � a. Ye9lo�ce( 5koppAmc, Mott)at '1�t �aq� lid. 1-8y S�o. AS �fo to /'i4a. ChuK w -e a Le- tecd /o/_ gee/ vtq co-o-"tu 4 ou . ,a 5, i o -A 2l Wad '"m 1�l wJ v a G % tv0. AQ ej o s- � a� a 1� o s 5 b i - he a/ wt ct! l) "n dac") rr 4 wn vH a l o�( lac al Jkd . T- sq . � t�.�.a wt o `( sit 4 -,c ecta, too.w -� w; ll o-�2z v� v{ , 5i�u t -k4 kaa 6VAr he2n coWsraLe.2d a,.►ct coe w/'d all !-o b--j--4v ro,.v d zero a.AJ m -tR1a,4J rtitall wdl b.e. 'It % e J ;A dW,'A �y , Dl'a W f4x I&r %hr oP /IU K411,1rtitall Sr� .tio { s �o,� a�f�t, v� a--5fo-neo tr e fd . / Z- S q h f-Gi a.o d s Q -L It 01-7 ett-m ►-vbW�®/ , �wr �fti9� C&ol m i G��/�1w✓1* i x f o SSi �&- 4 rnor e IQ/0.1 s evnk CaA,4..ed k,� -1c k,&;,e� f'" 'Si'ta . T4.L 5 i` 3L� LCVl{�( ►�-oT �o oy� covv, yvt,'�i .�,y �tv GJ�.I vl 1nw� 4J�,C WN 41i l � i ✓►� !`o Covvt �v„p n�w-a.0 �aJ a. N2A l l Sit. (fe r A M, 5461'e 5 tt A. _ C�1t/Vl, L`Gtc _ Pd. 1''x"1 We wvud 4 6,.. 4 7�c� Cbw r e_C 4 a_ 5;-L r4L'I� �1 . (/ 71(� /CC,L /dZ9o�.�ceaa�61iJ'� t11 v / 44C 6 r e Ga.un2, V 0 1�/ CO-66AM dre�j0�I , � 50- ren( ,1 'Sci of �U ! LR. U dA- Q) `o cct�(,� per! 0,,�4 S i L I'v o.'O ( vtd 5 n&r 1- DoT � 3o i s.e wvi�Q lgfVl d i a ul qA u�l( aA /U a 9 COLIQI At I! l � bl o. -w i K PfO& r� (� V (fie +�0-1 vla? Le ma -I¢, 1 all f2J2n(t"J w401 u,1a;. W oY ti + ate 15 1o1,v; d I - JA o,- svvlal u ".W6 at ViAa�O-r VII -All 0.4nd W-0- ' u as oun 5�e� �^ ►ro�O e A 0-7nd1' ; J�a,�1 a,t 4 e n -A n e d-eJ w . +� a. 5,t, e�v� C� �va c�c� w o IA, o e 5 P I -A t (nom bktq (.t ZW V7-21( �W l` 5 j - c irp so �- C�.t al /� �Se2 cl vv�a� 0✓' �i � 0vl� V4 A hp-y,m C avo-�C e� . 3217 CrescetAf IF,m Dr, 73ei5r , rb 83706 c� 0 '7 D K r► s� eh W a` ��--7-7o�, NAMES W. KISER ATTORNEY AT LAW 6000 FAIRVIEW AVE. (FAIRVIEW AT MTN. VIEW DR.) BOISE. IDAHO 83706 208 376-3100 June 12, 1985 Honorable Grant Kingsford Mayor City Hall Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Eagle Road Dear Mayor Kingsford: Since the Meridian City Council's approval of the Eagle Road application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment is contingent upon commitments from major tenants, I would like to make the enclosed news article from the Idaho Statesman a part of the hearing record. This article shows that one of Claremont's "commitments" from Montgomery and isn't a commitment at all. Sin e�, (I Jay- W. Kiser J :da closure G. _�� store plans Or Meridian -Wards won't locate at Eagle Road site By RANDY STAPILUS The Idaho Statesman A spokesman for Montgomery Ward & Co., one of the depart- -ment-store companies that had Uritten a letter of interest in a proposed shopping-cehter site at gagie Road and Interstate 84, "Jiald Tuesday that the firm does not now plan to locate a new store Jn the Boise area. ::. Charles Thorne, manager of -media relations for Wards, said bite firm "denied that it has an in- .:;; rest in establishing a retail 4r.tore in Meridian." He said later, AsI think the comment applies to je whole area." ?z Wards was one of five retail ►alns expressing vailying de- Mees of interest in a proposed 1.3 illion -square -foot regional shop- .Zng center at the Eagle' Road te, which Price Development . of Salt Lake City'and Clare- ont Development ' of Bellevue, ,,Wash., hope to develop. Meridian City Council approval is needed to proceed with the project. The council on June 3 con- ducted a public hearing on that ,,V, roposai, but put off a decision on ,the matter for at least two weeks .until an analysis of the costs and J*nefits of the center could be prepared. On Feb. I, F.F. "Chip" Ashen- IbldCr, western real estate man- ager for Wards, wrote John Price, president of the Salt Lake City firm, a "letter of interest in becoming part of a shopping cen- ter to be built at the subject loca- tion (Eagle Road and I-84). As you know, (another Wards offi- cial) and I have been very en. t�husiastic about this trade area 'for many years. I'm pleased that --finally something is going to hap - :Re. . The letter also said that state- ;tnent was subject to the develop- er's obtaining proper zoning of the s'fte, to negotiation of acceptable business terms and to approval by Wards management. Thorne said Tuesday, however, that the letter was "subject to inarket research and subsequent management decisions. Those -studies indicated that the Boise 't -Market is not at this time compat- able with the long-range retail strategies of the company, and the decision was made not to pur- ' sue the development of the retail store." Ashenfelder was on vacation Tuesday from his Chicago office Ond could not be reached for com-