Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLangly Associates AZOFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, Jr., Clty Clerk - JANICE L. GASS, Clty Treasurer ' GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Enylneer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waata Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI S. STI LES, P al Z Adm. KENNETH W. BOWERS, Flre Chief W. L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887.4813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-221 I GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALO R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW P 8 Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MOE ALIDJANI JIM SHEARER CHARLIE ROUNTREE TIM HEPPER TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: Ma,.y 2 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 4/17/95 HEARING DATE: 5/9/95 REQUEST: Annexation and Zoning of 73 5 acres to C-G BY: Langl~Associates Inc LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: SE corner of I-84 and Eagle Road Interchange JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P/Z -CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z -TIM HEPPER, P/Z GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C -MAX YERRINGTON, C/C -WATER DEPARTMENT -SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT -POLICE DEPARTMENT -CITY ATTORNEY -CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: CITY OF MfERtDIAI~ APPLIATION FOR ANNEXATION APPROVAL & ZONING OR REZONE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION I. GENERAL INFORMATION FILING INFORMATION I-84 Center (PROPOSED NAME OF SUBDIVISION) SE Corner of I-84 and Ea le Road Interchange (GENERAL LOCATION) Attachment 3 (LEGAL DESCRIPTION - ATTACH IF LENGTHY) Attachment 1 (OWNER(S) OF RECORD) (NAME) (TELEPHONE N0.) (ADDRESS) Langly Associates, Inc Russell C Keithl (206) 39~-6600_ (APPLICANT) (NAME) (TELEPHONE NO ) 999 Lake Drive, Suite 300, Issa uah, WA 98027 (ADDRESS) Baylis Brand Wagner Rich Wagner (206) 454-0566 (ENGINEER, SURVEYOR OR PLANNER) (NAME) (TELEPHONE N0.) 10801 P~1ain Street, Bellevue, WA 98004 (ADDRESS) City of Meridian and Ada County Highway District (JURISDICTION(S) REQUIRING APPROVAL) Commercial (TYPE OF SUBDIVISION - RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL) +50 73.5 ACRES OF LAND IN CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP. (FEE} (ACCEPTED HY:} ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST I-84 CENTER SE CORNER, EAGLE ROAD AND I-84 The following information is provided as a portion of the submittal for the application to have the City of Meridian Annex and Zone the subject property. The information is organized in the sequential order established in the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. Applicant: Langly Associates Inc. 999 Lake Drive, Suite 300 Issaquah, WA 98027 206-391-6600 (fax 206-391-9031 Contact Person Russell C. Keithly 2. Owners: Attachment I 3. Notarized request for zoning amendment: Attachment 2 4. Legal Description: Attachment 3 5. Legal Description of public roads and easement abutting the property: Attachment 4 6. Present land use: The property is predominantly utilized for agricultural purposes. There is one single family home on the west side of the property (the Rackham residence). The approximately 400 lineal foot entry road crosses the eastern most portion of an acreage that has one single family home (the Delores Hartman residence). 7. Proposed Land Use: It is proposed that a retail center of approximately 700,000 square feet be developed on this site. The type of center proposed is a relatively new concept called a "Power Center." Attachment 5 is a generic description of a Power Center prepared by the international real estate consulting firm of Jones Lang Wooten. The categories of tenants anticipated to be located in the 1-84 Center are found in Attachment 6. The examples of specific stores are for explanatory purposes only. s • Annexation and Zoning Request Page 2 8. Present District: SW corner of site is designated Commercial in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Balance of the site is designated Mixed~Planned Use Development. The entire property is designated Rural Transition (RT) by Ada County. 9. Proposed District: General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G). 10. Characteristics of subject property which make the zoning amendment desirable: The property is located at one of the most prominent intersections in the area. I-84 currently has approximately 63,000 trips per day at Eagle Road. Eagle Road north of I-84 has approximately 23,000 trips per day. State Highway 55 becomes Highway 95 and is the major North/South highway in the state. Eagle Road/Highway 55 is currently five lanes from Overland Road to Fairview Avenue. During 1995 this highway will be expanded to five lanes from Fairview north, past the City of Eagle. At the completion of that construction, Eagle Road is expected to become the major North/South thoroughfare in Treasure Valley. The above facts are acknowledged in the Comprehensive Plan by prioritizing the commercial development of the property in the immediate vicinity of and including the subject property. Section 5.15V of the Comprehensive Plan states: The mixed-use area in the vicinity of the Overland Road/Franklin Road/Eagle Road/I-84 interchange is a priority development area. 11. Necessity or desirability of development pertaining to the zoning amendment and its harmony with adjacent development: A unique opportunity exists for the City of Meridian and the Boise Trade Area in general in having such a large, contiguous undeveloped parcel of property available at such a key intersection. This property is ideally situated to not only serve the immediate Meridian trade area but to also serve the entire region. It is projected that this development will serve a trade area of approximately 500,000 people. And because the vast majority of these people will utilize I-84 to access this development, it will have relatively little impact on the local streets in the area. • • Annexation and Zoning Request Page 3 Relative to adjacent development, three sides of the site are bounded by an interstate freeway and major arterials. This use is very compatible with the proposed St. Luke's Medical campus immediately across I-84. It will provide significant shopping and dining opportunities for the patients and the families of patients utilizing the St. Luke's Medical facility. The value of these services to the St. Luke's Medical facility will only increase as full hospital facilities are added to the St. Luke's campus. There are large lot single family residences abutting the subject property to the East. Almost without exception, the houses are a significant distance from the subject property with pastures adjacent to the subjects' boundary. A solid, privacy fence will be constructed along all property Imes which abut residential properties. 12. Map at scale one (1) inch equals one hundred (y 00) feet of the property concerning the zoning amendment: Attachment 7. 13. Vicinity maps: Attachment 8. 14. Mailing Addresses: Attachment 9 Fee = 40 X $1.29 = $51.60 15. A statement of how the proposed zoning amendment related to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan: See number 10 above. 16. Fee Calculation: $400 + ($15 X 71.3) _ $1,469.50 • ATTACHMENT 2 REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION, ZONING AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGNATION OF AGENT The undersigned ("Owners") are the owners of certain real property in Ada County, Idaho legally described in Attachment 3 attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (the "Property"). The Owners have entered into an agreement to sell the Property to tangly Associates, Inc., a Washington corporation, or its assignee ("tangly"), and tangly intends to develop the Property for retail purposes. The obligation of tangly to purchase the Property is contingent upon annexation of the Property in to the City of Meridian, a zoning amendment to permit the Property to be developed for retail purposes (as permitted under the comprehensive plan currently appt~cable to the Property), and a conditional use permit for the retail development proposed by tangly. To facilitate the transactionlboeedefor reta~wurposes, the Owners to permit the Property to be de e p P hereby request the following: 1. Annexation of the Property into the City of Meridian, Idaho. 2. A zoning amendment to permit the Property to be used for retail purposes (as permitted by the comprehensive plan currently applicable to the Property). 3. A conditional use permit to permit retail development on the Property in accordance with the retail development plans proposed or to be proposed by tangly. The Owners hereby appoint and designate tangly as their agent, representative and attorney-in-fact to seek annexation of the Property into the City of Meridian, Idaho, a zoning amendment to permit retail uses on the Property, and a conditional use permit to approve retail development in accordance with the development plans proposed by tangly. By this appointment and designation, tangly ~s fully authorized on behalf of the Owners to file applications and requests with Ada County, Idaho and the City of Meridian, Idaho with respect to the above-referenced matter, to appear before, meet with and negotiate the terms and conditions regarding such matters, and to otherwise proceed on behalf of the Owners to obtain the annexation, zoning amendment and conditional use permit. • • Attachment 2 Page 2 This appointment and designation shall remain fullyo ntment and such time as the Owners have revoked this aopriate planning designation by written notice delivered to the app p agencies of Ada County and City of Meridian. Until revocation, Ada County and the City of Meridian and its agents, reointmentti and employees, and public officials may rely on this hereunder without designation and the powers and authority of Langly further consent, approval or acknowledgment from the Owners. In connection with the foregoing, the Owners certify that they are the true and lawful owners of the Property and are fully authorized to sign this appointment and designation. Effective as of the ~~day of /N=~ , 1995. DORIS I(ATHLE N OLIASON FAMILY TRUST /~ irgi ~ ennison rus ee STATE OF i~--.~.L- ss. COUNTY OF I certify t at I know or have satisfactory evid a d sa d pegson Jennison is the person who appeared before me, acknowledged that said person signed this instrument, on oath stated that said person wathe ownrere of tthe real t property sdesce bed in acknowledged it as Attachment 3. ~ h Dated this day of , 1995 (Signature of Not ry) (Legi y Print or tamp name of Notary) ~ ~ Nota ublic in and for the State of .~~ ` /~ rY P residing at ~ My appointment expires - ~-" ATTACHMENT 2 • REQUESTANOD CONDITIONAL' USE PERMMENDMENT AND DESIGNATION OF AGENT The undersigned ("Owners") are the owners of certain real property in Ada County, Idaho legally described in Attachment 3 attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (the Property ). The Owners have entered into an agreement to sell the Property to Langly Associates, Inc., a Washington corporation, or its assignee (Langly ), and Langly intends to develop the Property for retail purposes. The obligation of Langly to purchase the Property is contingent upon annexation of the Property in to the City of Meridian, a zoning amendment to permit the Property to be developed for retail purposes (as permitted under the comprehensive plan currently applicable to the Property)Lan d a conditional use permit for the retail development proposed by g y To facilitate the transadeveloeedefor reta~ pu poses, the Owners to permit the Property to be p hereby request the following: 1. Annexation of the Property into the City of Meridian, Idaho. 2, A zoning amendment to permit the Property to be used for retail purposes (as permitted by the comprehensive plan currently applicable to the Property). 3. A condidance withthe ret ~ development plans proposed the Property in acco or to be proposed by Langly. The Owners hereby appoint and designate Langly as their agent, representative and attorney-in-fact to seek annexation of the Property into the City of Meridian, Idaho, a zoning amendment to peromve retail uses on the Property, and a conditional use permit to app development in accordance with the development plans proposed by Langly. By this appointme to fie aeS1gcations and I requests w th rAda on behalf of the Owners pP Idaho with respect to the County, Idaho and the City of Meridian, above-referenced matter, to appear before, meet with and negotiate the terms and conditions thegOwners to obta ntt the annexationt zoning proceed on behalf of amendment and conditional use permit. • Attachment 2 Page 2 This appointment and designation shall remain fully effective until such time as the Owners have revoked this appointment and designation by written notice delivered to the appropriate planning agencies of Ada County and City of Meridian. Until revocation, Ada County and the City of Meridian and its agents, representatives, employees, and public officials may rely on this appolntment and designation and the powers and authority of Langly hereunder without further consent, approval or acknowledgment from the Owners. In connection with the foregoing, the Owners certify that they are the true and lawful owners of the Property and are fully authorized to sign this appointment and designation. Effective as of the ~ --7 day of ~ ~ ~,~! , 1995. RACKHAM L.L.C., a limited liability company STATE OF Tl~~(- ~ ) COUNTY OF Dl~, ~ ss. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that RACKHAM L.L.C. is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that said person signed this instrument, on oath stated that said person was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the owner of the real property described in Attachment 3. Dated this ,o~~r1 K. ~ '.. .•`' w ..~•....~~ rC '.•. y. . ~ °°°~ T B O F 1~ D,~ r°rrun+r~~°~~, ~ ~ T~ day f tij I~~C' ~~ , 1995 ~~ ~~~~ (Signature of Notary) (Legibly Print or Stamp name of Notary) Notary public in and for the State of T1~ ~ N residing at `~ a i ~ L Dtl N My appointment expires (- ~Z - q • ATTACHMENT 2 REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION, ZONING AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGNATION OF AGENT The undersigned ("Owners") are the owners of certain real property in Ada County, Idaho legally described in Attachment 3 attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (the "Property"). The Owners have entered into an agreement to sell the Property to Langly Associates, Inc., a Washington corporation, or its assignee ("Langly"), and Langly intends to develop the Property for retail purposes. The obligation of Langly to purchase the Property is contingent upon annexation of the Property in to the City of Meridian, a zoning amendment to permit the Property to be developed for retail purposes (as permitted under the comprehensive plan currently applicable to the Property), and a conditional use permit for the retail development proposed by Langly. To facilitate the transaction between the Owners and Langly, and to permit the Property to be developed for retail purposes, the Owners hereby request the following: 1. Annexation of the Property into the City of Meridian, Idaho. 2. A zoning amendment to permit the Property to be used for retail purposes (as permitted by the comprehensive plan currently applicable to the Property). 3. A conditional use permit to permit retail development on the Property in accordance with the retail development plans proposed or to be proposed by Langly. The Owners hereby appoint and designate Langly as their agent, representative and attorney-in-fact to seek annexation of the Property into the City of Meridian, Idaho, a zoning amendment to permit retail uses on the Property, and a conditional use permit to approve retail development in accordance with the development plans proposed by Langly. By this appointment and designation, Langly is fully authorized on behalf of the Owners to file applications and requests with Ada County, Idaho and the City of Meridian, Idaho with respect to the above-referenced matter, to appear before, meet with and negotiate the terms and conditions regarding such matters, and to otherwise proceed on behalf of the Owners to obtain the annexation, zoning amendment and conditional use permit. • • Attachment 2 Page 2 This appointment and designation shall remain fully effective until such time as the Owners have .revoked this appointment and designation by written notice delivered to the appropriate planning agencies of Ada County and City of Meridian. Until revocation, Ada County and the City of Meridian and its agents, representatives, employees, and public officials may rely on this appointment and designation and the powers and authority of Langly hereunder without further consent, approval or acknowledgment from the Owners. In connection with the foregoing, the Owners certify that they are the true and lawful owners of the Property and are fully authorized to sign this appointment and designation. Effective as of the day of By Dolores M. Hartman 1995. / -1 / ' ~ -----~ / .- . ~ ~~ _,' STATE OF 114 }~0 ) ss. COUNTY OF RSA ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Dolores M. Hartman is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that said person signed this instrument, on oath stated that said person was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the owner of the real property described in Attachment 3. Dated this j 3~' day of m~}R~,.~ _, 1995 ~. ignature of Notary) ~Q•~~ {Legibly Print or Stamp name of Notary) _`~~ Notary public in and for the State of I DA ~~ AU9V~G residing at ~Ot SF, fD sTq~ °F ~0~~ My appointment expires $ -17-ap°n • • ATTACHMENT 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OLIASON PROPERTY North one-half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 3 North, Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian, in Ada County, Idaho; together with all water rights and ditch rights thereunto belonging including Certificate No. 2254 for 60 shares in the New York Canal Company; EXCEPTING THEREFROM the property taken by the State of Idaho for the construction of Interstate Highway Project No. I-80N-1 (28) 45 between Station 2428+40.52 to Station 2455+60.04 described in that Judgment and Decree of Condemnation dated July 29,1965, recorded August 20, 1965 as Instrument No. 619430, records of Ada County, Idaho; and EXCEPT THEREOF the property taken by the State of Idaho for the construction of that a certain public highway known as Interstate 84, Project IR-84-1(12)45 between Highway Station 2423+86.30 to 2448+64.82, described in that Second Judgment and Decree of Condemnation dated June 25, 1990, recorded July 2, 1990 as Instrument No. 9034963, records of Ada County, Idaho. RACKHAM PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1 A parcel of land in the SW quarter of the SW quarter of Section 16, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, .B. M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Section Line common to Sections 16 and 17 in T. 3N., R. 1 E., B. M., and 1,325.8 feet North of the Section Corner commons to Sections 16, 17, 20 and 21; thence South 88°37' East, 740.5 feet to the Real Point of Beginning; thence South 88°37' East, 599.0 feet; thence South 0°12' West. 363.6 feet; thence North 88°37' West, 599.0 feet; thence North 0°12' East, 363.6 feet to the real Point of Beginning. Said parcel contains 5.00 acres. • Attachment 3 Page 2 Parcel No. 2 A parcel of land in the SW uarter of the S#W quarter of Section 16, Township 3 North, Range 1 East B. M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Section Line common to Sections 16 and 17 in T. 3 N., R. 1 E, BB. M., and 1,100.8 feet North of the Section Corner common to Sections 16, 17 20 and 21; thence South ° 'East 755.43 feet; thence South $$~ ~ East, 28.24 feet to the Real Point of Beginning; thence South 88°37' East, 570.76 feet; thence South 0°12' West, 504.55 feet; thence North 79°59' West, 284.06 feet; thence North 75°20' West, 197.68 feet; thence North 60°34' West 112.37 feet; thence North 363.64 feet to the Real Point of Beginning. Said parcel contains 5.92 acres, more or less. PARCEL NO. 3 A parcel of land in the SW quarter of the SW quarter of Section 16, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, B. M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Section Line common to Sections 16 and 17 in Township 3 North, R. 1 E., B. M., and 1.100.8 feet North of the Section Corner common to Sections 16, 17, 20 and 21; thence South 78°03' East, 755.43 feet; thence South 88°37' East 28.24 feet; thence South 50.96 feet' thence North 88°37' West, 28.14 feet; thence North 78°03' West 77.43 feet; thence North 51.11 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said parcel contains 0.9 acres, more or less. • . Attachment 3 Page 3 PARCEL NO.4 A parcel of land in the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise, Meridian, in Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Section Line common to Sections 16 and 17 in Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise, Meridian, and 1,325.8 feet North of the Section Corner common to Sections 16, 17, 20 and 21; thence South 88°37' East 740.5 feet; thence South 0°12' West 363.6 feet; thence North 78°03' West 755.43 feet; thence North 225.0 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING PARCEL NO. 5 A parcel of land in the SW 1 /4 of the SW 1 /4 of Section 16, T. 3 N., R. 1 E., B. M., in Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Section Line common to Sections 16 and 17, in T. 3 N., R, 1 E., B. M., and 887.0 feet North of the Section Corner common to Sections 16, 17, 20 and 21; thence North along the Section Line common to Sections 16 and 17, a distance of 162.69 feet; thence South 78°03' East, 755.43 feet; thence South 88°37' East, 28.14 feet; thence South 312.68 feet; thence North 60°34' West, 72.07 feet; thence North 77°59' West, 209.34 feet, thence South 74°13'West, 103.96 feet, thence North 83°08' West, 102.65 feet, thence North 50°39' West, 385.0 feet to the Real Point of Beginning Said parcel containing 5.00 acres, more or less. • Attachment 3 Page 4 HARTMAN PROPERTY The east 140.00 of the following described property: Commencing at the southwest corner of the southwest quarter of Section 16, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, B. M., thence South $8°34' East 1102.57 feet to the Real Point of Beginning; thence North 0°10' East 492.65 feet; thence South 79°59' East 234.23; thence South 0°12' West 458.75 feet; thence North 88°34' West 230.1 feet to the Beginning; except the South 30 feet thereof for County Road. • ATTACHMENT 6 CATEGORIES OF TENANTS Category Membership Warehouse Discount Department Store Hareware and Garden Store Major Grocer Major Clothing Minor Clothing Electronics Computer Furniture Shoes Sporting Goods Pets Books Music/Video Catalogue Store Crafts Drugs Home Supplies and Linens Restaurants • Sample Tenants1 Costco, Sam's Club K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Target, Shopko Home Base, Home Depot, Eagle Hardware and Garden, Ernst Home and Nursery Cub's Food, Waremart, Albertson's Marshall's, T.J.Maxx, Burlington Coat Factory, Ross Clothestime, etc. Future Shop, Circuit City, Good Guys, Smith's Comp USA, Computer City, Office Max Smith's, Levitz, IKEA Payless Shoes, Volume Shoes Gart Sports, Sportmart, Sports Authority Petsmart, Petco Barnes & Noble, Hastings, Crown, Tower Books Virgin Records, Blockbuster Music, Hollywood Video, Tower Records Best Ben Franklin, Michaels, Fabricland Walgreens, Drug Emporium Home Express, Cost Plus Imports, Linens and Things. TGIFridays, Red Robin, Olive Garden, Red Lobster 1 For explanatory purposes only • • 7 The power center most resembles the regional mall in terms of its size and general type of merchandise offering, and specific points of comparison between the two appear in Table 3. Inventory and Pace of Openings The National Research Bureau (1V~RB), publisher of the Census of Shopping Centers and The Shopping Table 3. Comparative Elements Power Centers $4.00-$10.00 per square foot versus Many anchors o~ti~t~ their overt stores and 2% - 3°0 of sales. sites; others pay rent in the 53.00 to $5.00 per sf range versus 2% of sales. Merchandise Emphasis Commodities; value-oriented goods; Current fashion and accessory items for moderate-price general merchandise; person and home. deep, narrow assortments of specific goods. Cross-Shopping Minimal Extensive; facilitated by enclosed, climate- controlled environment. Small Shop Tenant Space 8% -12% of total center GLA 40% of total GLA Anchor Operating None 10 years for new malls Covenants General Range of Rents Anchors Small Shops Cash on Cash Returns Total Projected Returns (IRR) Nature of the Investment Ease of Replicability/ Vulnerability to New Competition $12-$20 per square foot versus 4% of Rent levels are typically $25-530 per square sales. foot in new centers, versus 6% of sales; CPI adjustments or steps are common. 9.0% - 9.5% 10.5% - 11.5% Primarily an investment in the "credit' income created by anchor tenants, whose rents constitute 80%-90% of the power center's net income. Limited upside potential in rents due to extremely high breakpoint sales levels in anchor tenant percentage rent lease clauses. Regional Malls 7.0% - 8.5% 10.5% - 12% Investment in the performance of the mall shops as supported by the stability and sales of the anchors. Mall shops generate 80%- 90% of a typical regional mall's net operat- ing income. Medium to high; numerous retailers Lo~~~; most major markets and submarkets potentially available to co-anchor are well served by regional malls. new power centers; relatively few power centers have been built to date. Center Directory, estimates that at the end of 1992 there were 217 shopping centers in the U.S. designat- ed as "power centers"; they contained about 78 mil- lion square feet of GLA (gross leasable area), or an average of 360,000 square feet per center. During 1993 a reported 16 new power centers opened, adding about 7,000,000 square feet of GLA to the nation's power center inventory (see Table 4). Jones Lang Wootton Realty Advisors • • 8 Table 4. U.S. Power Center Inventory Area in Average Size in Number Square Feet Squaze Feet 1992 Inventory 217 78,200,000 360,000 1993 Additions 16 6,700,000 419,000 1993 Total 233 84,900,000 364,000 Thus power centers account for about six-tenths of one percent of the nation's inventory of 39,000 shop- ping centers, and they account for about 1.3 percent of the nation's total GLA. Power centers seem to be opening at a pace of about twenty per year, and large power centers -those exceeding 400,000 square feet on opening day, exclu- sive ofperipheral pad development -account for 40% - 60% of these openings. Sales Trends The 217 power centers reported to be in business by the NRB registered estimated sales of $18.0 billion, or $231 per square foot in 1992. This sales figure equates to 2.4% of the nations $747 billion in shopping center sales. Large power centers -those exceeding 400,000 square feet in size -achieved 1992 sales estimated at $8.8 billion. These sales were 3.9% of the estimated $225.8 billion in large center sales registered that year. Power center sales appear to be growing by $2-3 bil- lion per year - 6% to 10% of the total sales growth being registered in the nation's shopping centers, according to NRB. Large power centers account for about $1.5 billion of this growth - or about 17% of large center sales growth. Development Trends A few patterns emerge from examination of recent power center development activity: ^ new power centers are being developed at a pace of about 20-25 per year, and 10-12 of those are large - scale (exceeding 400,000 square feet of GLA at opening); ^ the year-end 1993 estimated inventory of 233 power centers is about one per metropolitan area - leaving ample opportunity for the development of additional poever centers during the next few years; ^ the power center is growing. NRB, as noted above, estimates that the average size of all power centers in 1992 was 360,00 square feet. NRB further esti- mates that those opening in 1992 averaged 390,000 square feet, while those opening in 1993 averaged 420,000 square feet; ^ most power centers are being developed new. Typically they are located adjacent to or near a regional mall in order to take advantage of estab- lished shopping patterns and the presence of retail critical mass; ^ several power centers have emerged from commu- nity shopping centers that have been repositioned into power centers (or at least re-merchandised to accommodate power center retailers); ^ some older regional shopping centers are being recycled into power centers (or are being consid- ered for such), including: Thomas Mall, Phoenix, AZ Anaheim Plaza, Anaheim, CA Westland Mall, Denver, CO Shoppers World, Framingham, MA Meyerland Plaza, Houston, TX some downtown department stores are being con- sidered for adaptive reuse as power centers. Afew - the former Goldblatts' building in Downtown Chicago (now home to Filene's Basement and oth- ers) and the former Hecht Company store in Silver Spring, Maryland -already accommodate a power center retailer or two; the Alexander's store build- ing in Downtown White Plains, NY is currently being redeveloped as a major urban power center. Jones Lana ~~'ootton Realty Advisors .6 • • Table 1. PROFILE OF A LARGE INSTITUTIONAL INVESTMENT GRADE POWER CENTER- ELEMENTS Anchors Discount department store or warehouse club Building supply/home improvement store Consumer electronics store Off-price apparel store Bookstore Deep discount dn-g store Warehouse food store or super grocery store Sporting goods, office supply or computer hardware/software store Anchor Subtotal Large In-Line Shops Auto parts Home fashions Subtotal Small in-line shops (8% -10% of total space) Total Space Comparative Analysis Although the power center evolved from the com- munitycenter, and is similar in scale to some region- al malls, it leas become distinctive in its own right. Table 2. TYPICAL SIZE RANGE (SF) 100,000 - 170,000 90,000 - 100,000 25,000 - 30,000 25,000 - 30,000 15,000 - 30,000 25,000 - 30,000 50,000 - 80,000 25,000 - 45,000 355,000 - 515,000 10,000 - 15,000 10,000 - 15,000 20,000 - 30,000 40,000 - 45,000 415,000 - 590,000 Table 2 delineates some points of comparison bettiveen power centers and other types of centers. Power Center Neighborhood Community Regional Mall Center Center Size Range (SF) 250,000- 30,000- 100,000- 400,000- 700,000 150,000 350,000 2,000,000+ Merchandise Deep Convenience Convenience Current fashions Emphasis assortments goods and goods and and accessories services general merchandise Anchors "Big Box" discount Supermarket Discount Full-line stores and and drug department department "category killers" stores store stores Site Size 25-80 acres 3-15 acres 10-35 acres 40 - 200 acres Typical Design Open-air "L", Open-air Open-air "L", Enclosed mall "U", or strip "L" or strip "U" or strip Jones Lang ~~ootton Realty Advisors • • 5 SECTION I THE POWER CENTER retail formats alluded to above: - the price-oriented discount department store or warehouse club and - the very narrowly focused but deeply merchan- dised "category killers"; During the past several decades, the shopping center industry has grown to about 39,000 centers encom- passing an estimated 4.7 billion square feet of gross leasable area and registering an estimated $750 bil- lion inretail sales. Traditionally, four basic definitions have categorized these thousands of centers: neigh- borhood (supermarket-anchored), community (dis- count department store-anchored), regional (full-line department store-anchored), and super-regional (four or more department stores). Definition More recently a form of center has emerged that has attracted the attention of consumers, retailers, investors and developers alike -the "power center". Most closely resembling a community center in its physical design and merchandising emphasis, the power center has not yet been formally defined by the real estate industry; however, a workable definition would likely include these elements: A power center is a grouping of retail stores that: ^ collectively totals at least 250,000 square feet; ^ includes at least one major anchor containing 100,000 square feet or more, that is either a dis- count department store or warehouse club; includes at least four smaller, category specific anchor tenants of 25,000 square feet or more. These anchor stores will typically have a narrow focus but deep selection in specific merchandise lines such as building supplies/home improve- ment goods, consumer electronics, off-price apparel, sporting goods, books, personal computer hardware and software, office supplies, toys, pet supplies, deep discount drugs, bulk foods, or tapes and records; ^ should contain a minimum of smaller shop space (10 percent or so of the center's total gross leasable area); and ^ will typically be configured in an open-air strip, "L" or "U" shaped layout. While discount stores and open-air centers have been around for a long time, the power center introduces some unique characteristics to non-regional mall retailing: ^ a very clear merchandising emphasis on the two ^ the introduction of large space layouts for certain categories of retailers which had previously relied heavily upon smaller formats in regional malls for their real estate needs. These include book stores, sporting goods stores, and record and tapes stores; and ^ significant size: power centers containing 500,000- 600,000 square feet of gross leasable area are not uncommon, and some are larger than that. Physical Profile The profile of a typical large, institutional-grade power center can be seen in Table 1 (on Page 6). Trade Area The size of a power center's trade area will be influ- enced bythe same factors which define any shopping center's market: ^ type, size and scale of the center; ^ number and size of anchor stores; ^ size and location of nearest "sister" units of anchor stores; ^ road systems, accessibility patterns, travel times and major geographical features. A new power center in the range of 300,000-350,000 square feet would be expected to serve a trade area (i.e. the area from which 70%-80% of its sales origi- nate): ^ extending roughly six miles in any direction; ^ containing 60,000-70,000 households; ^ having 200,000+ residents; and ^ with income levels in excess of $35,000/per house- hold. Larger centers and more mature centers would typi- cally have trading areas containing more residents than this. Jones Lang ~'~'ootton Realty Advisors MAGIC RT NIE1lY °~-=~. ., ATTACHMENT 4 • R1 3 R1 Area to be Annexed The legal descriptions for those portions of the areas to be annexed that are in State and County Right-of-Way are being prepared. The entire area to be annexed is indicated by the diagonal cross hatches above. • ATTACHMENT 5 ~r~a~pr~~4od~Q ~~ ~~4~'i .~~~G` rrys - ~~g99 ~~J~. ,~~FQ ~~ ~N(~ G~O~MC~G3 ~C~~4C~G3~ Jones Lang ~~'ootton Realty Advisors 173000336 - WARRANTY DEED FOR VALUE RECEIVED, RECEIPT OF WHICH IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED,. DORIS KATHLEEN OLIASON DOES HEREBY AND HEREWITH GRANT, _ BARGAIN, SELL AND CONVEY UNTO DORIS KATHLEEN OLIASUN AS TRUSTEE OF THE DORIS KATH N OL~ASON FAMILY TRUST, IN - TRUST, THE FOLLOWING REAL PROPERTY, TO WIT: HER INTEREST IN: ~, TEAT P~RT OF THE N # OF THE SWI OF EC. ~, T3N, R1E, OF B.M., LYING SOUTH OF INTERSTATE BO N., ANC EAST OF EAGLE ROAD AND THE ON RAMP TO INTERSTATE 80 N. AT EAGLE ROAD, ALL iN ADA COUNTY IDA DATED : (V ~~24~ !G. /~' 1/ ., t ~.EL ~~~c,~c~ DORIS KATHLEEN OCIASON STATE OF IDAHO ) COUNTY OF ADA ) ON THIS DAY OF C~c.~.a-~,-~i 1991,. BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO PERSONALLY APPEARED DORIS KATHLEEN OLIASON, KNOWN TO ME TO BE THE PERSON WHO EXECUTED THE. ABOVE.. SIGNATURE, AND SHE ACKNOWLEDGED EXECUTING THE SAME. ~ ~ ~ •. DATED : /O - / 6 - `~~ ~~ ` • ~~~µ I ~, _: IDAHO NOTARY PUBLIC` ~ ' ~' •~ `~ .• COMMISSION EXPIRES:8-~4-1,9~~d!':. ~- ~. / .f ~~ w B pis- .,1 ..... J. D:.~,~~. `.. ,,.ate - <<. 11~ S i ~ •i ul III / ~g l l 11111 LU it ~ 3 FEE ~_~ _. ~1.9'~~ ~~ ~~/'~"" ~: RECDi.:, `_.: r rp FEE . __ ... ~ -_ __ _, c: ~ .~ ? ,: ~::,~i::.i::~. v ~- J. t r JJ~. ~_ I 1 - 'S'II'lil'i iii f't'i ~i:i t i :: 10•_00 .'~~.y..--_ REt:.~~,... PERSONAL, RCPR[:SCN'i'ATIVE'S DI:EU The undersigned, VIRGINIA J°t~(WISOIJ, as surviving Personal Representative of tha Estate of. Emelia T-. Uliason, deceased, pursuant to ..the Decree of Uis'_ribution dated t•iay ~!~y 199.1 , does I~ereby grant and convey, without warranty, 60~ thereof to Doris Oliason of 603 E. Pine, ~Mer~ tan, a o 83642, 35o thereof to - Virginia Jennison of 4511 N. Linda Vista Lane, Boise, Idaho 83704, and 5~ thereof to .Kenneth 1:. Oliason of 5110 Hill Road, Boise, Idaho 83703, all of decedent! s-erne=lip, t f interest in and to the - following described real property situate in Ada Count•••, Idaho: North One-half ~;f the Southwest Quarter of Section iG, •focanship 3 North, Range ]. East of the Boise tferidian, in Ada County, Idaho; together ~.~ith all t.ater rights and ditch rights thereunto belonging including Certifica::e t1o. 2254 for 60 shares in tl~e New York Canal Company; EXCEPTING THEREFROiI the property ta~:en by the Stage of Idaho for the construction of Interstate highway Project r7o. I-80N-1(23)45 bettaeen Stati.en 2•l?8+40.52 to S~ation 2455+60.04,. described in that Judgment ana Decree of Condemnation dated .7uly 29, 1965, recorded August ~.0, 1965 as Instrument No. 619430, records of Ada County, Idaho; and EXCEPT THEREOF the property ta~:en by the State of Idaho for tl~e construction of ttlat a certain oub7.ic highway known as Interstate 84, Project IR-84-1(12)45 __ between Highway Station 2423+86.30 to 2448+64.8, described in that Second Judgment and Decree of Cor;derr~- na~ion dated June 25, 1990, recorded July 2, 1°90 as Ir:str_ument r7o. 9034963, records of Ada County, Idaho. ..,_ :.DATED this /3 "~f~ day of t~fay, 1994. ,:..:~.~,.w.~.. ~ ........w.,.~_,,,, . ......... ... . /~ ~ , VIRGIid~'A JEf1*7ISOtd/as Survivi.rq Personal Repres~r'tative of the Estates of Emelia F. Olias~ri, t)eLeased I'IRSOti~1!_ 1~.E!'Ri~SI~:~'I'.\'I-l~'L:'~ UE1:(_> - l .~ _9 ~ • i~~z~uu~.~;;~u STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. Cosnty of Ada ) On this /3 day of !day, in the year 1994, before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for said State, personally' appeared VIRGItJIA JEtJi]ISON, Surviving Persona3 Representative of the Estate of Emeli~~ P. Oliason, deceased, known er identified to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrutr~ent and aci:nc:wledged to me that she executed the same as such Personal Representative. It1 WI1'P]ESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official sezl, the daf and year in this certificate first above written. ,~~~~~~irrrir ~.~'' ~ . J Q ,c j'•~.,, .' • .~. . ~~Z ° - _ , ~- • .~ ~ ~ - -, c n ~ ,, ,~ GYM t] •-~ y .ublic' forIdaho Res~.linq at Boise, Idaho ~ My Commission Expires:~r 99 - - ' I'E:RS~)~'.~I. R~fRFSF~'"t':~"l~l~'T~'S l~t~r~n ~~~ ~: r ~. ~'-i ~.: `~ WARRAN'T'Y DEED~soos8s8 ~ - For Value Received ROY L. VANCE and NORIVIA G, VANCE, husband and wife, NELSON D. REYNOLDS and DELORES REYNOLDS, husbant: and •a-ife, KEITH C. CHASE and TRUDY CHASE, husband and wife, and BURTON L. WRITE and JERRILYN L. WRITE,. husband and wife, the grantorg , do hereby grant, hargain, cell and comt:y unto LAWRENCE H. R3CKHAM and J'DEANNE F. RACKHAM husband and wife, the grantee s ,whose current adttrecc is 1260 South Eagle ttd. :t _ridian, Idaho 33642 the followi: ;,described premises, in qQq Cuanty ldahu, to-wit: A parcel of land in the,SW 1/4 of the SWl/4 of Section 16, T. 3 v„ R. 1. E„ _ B. 14,, in Ada Couity, Idaho, more particularly described as folio;es: Beginning at a point on d)e Section Line common to Sections 16 an3 17, :n T. 3 V„ R, 1 E,, B, b4,, and 887.0 feet Noah of the Section Corn_r common to Sections 16, 17, 20 and 21; thence North along the Section Line common to Sections 1G and 17, a ci.~tance of 162.69 feet; thence `oath 7803' East, 755, 43 fee:; thence S~~th 88°37' East, 28.14 feet; thence South 31~ 68 feet; thence North 6034' West, 72.07 feet; thence ,lorth 77°59' West, 209.34 feet; thence South 74°13' West, 103.96 feet; thence North 83°OH' R'esT, 1t~2, 65 feet, thence North 50°39' West, 385.0 feet to tt,e Real Point of B~ginr~r.~, Said parcel containing 5, 00 acres, more or !ass. _ 1 I. TU lIA~'ti A!1) TO HULL) Ihr ..!J (•rct:u~rt. wttlt '!:ru :{•"~a:rn:n;_~ ..^tu 1hr cotJ l~r~ct.•tS Lr:i::r ttrit[ and ua:Fac forr~rr. :\nJ th~• ~-uJ (~r.+r.L+rS J.+ 4.:;!~y ';.:.,,^t It, ~~ J , with Ihr [JIU t~rantCC$, [h.,l t!t:V ~IIl,r ow nt,S to Icr tun; !, ~d v~., ::rn,~.. 11:_1 .:'x~ .,:,• Urr . in„n an i:,run,hran~r~ except taxes for ]9i9 anti th~rt:~ftcr, - i , ant: that Ct:y wdl warr:,nl and .1t•1rr.J tt;c vr.•t from a!I 4w L:1 , s:t:. i~ `..t.,+:,: .~ ~ ~t ~• \oei:mbcr 1, 1973. ~C~ `~ S~Z.~~'G ~ ~ u . (CJs- ~e15 S /C~-•, , -~~ ~/. ~ ~ ~ . _ . ~ ~ i ~T\T}:OF IU-l10, COL'VTY OF AC:3 _~~ fir}' !,F !l~>N0. ,-::'XTY +~F~~/~ , l Un lhs ~ 7 day of Noy, I!~~ S . I p; rc.~r a i!r a nn:arp uhlie in and rnr card ~ta•r h.~Lac m I h..r.Dy r~ r•~, .' s• .• :nctru t a. d.-~ .~~d at~ 1 1. ~.- r•nuc•t '" /'~~~ , . q p .,~p,•arrt Roy L:•.Vance, Norm,t v. Vance, . r%'~- [~J/~` ~~~~`~ \eisoti ll; iZeyitioliLti, 0.lores Remolds, ~j/ ~ / j :~~itit Oi;G:ia~„e, ~Trudv C,tase, Burton L. 1~'aire•~, c ~ L: -1'Jaite ,h,. ~/~J ~ day:a ~l ~1,n m,• ~F::~J~1/u!r reroraee :r. -~ G<- , , ~tir C~~ z n f1~ ~ - „f 1+.•rds al page i i~ .i.npW`i~:,+'mc n t+~'e,;~5s;~.`~, why; n:mr$ art: W~~hi i~~ ll~~ilhiit ins3umrnt, and acl.no..lyd~ed to i -n.r th.it ~_~--'` (}]~3¢ c ~ eseeufe.l the came. ~i, ~ 1'• .. :, C•'\OQ`: _ Hoary [`uh'ir i R,aid:i~-Sr E.. ~.f Bo>,se .Idaho i ; ~•~ _ ~ - •i Fees S >LII to: :,•. .~. ... _ . "t JJHN BASTiDA e-O!9cio liecnrder . • ~. r WA1V'1'Y ~ ... . nom ~.~ vala. Itooetved ~g+ti ~ ~y~'1 JUAN I,. 1.3Kt~LIN, Jlt, and I~ONA J, tS8K1lIdIN~ hu~hruld and w fo, ~" ~""~'^' ~ ~" hHrlW Arinft b"~Ily NII ills l6hyw YMIA~ LAWItltNdl311, IIAt11iIlAM and J'Lit3ANNIJ t+, ItAt1k11AM~ lulllwn and wlto, d10 t~nntees ' wttoae current addrer to p. O. 1lox 8873, gotse, Idaho 83707, the tolk-Mas deecrlbed pe+eatla~ to ADA j ~b Idahq, tawll: legal attached 1b NAVg AND '1~p AOLD the sai.. the! r belts and aeataea t "'lam ~r apparteoanoe~ auto tb. ia(d Grantees rf~:b the raid Grantees , that ~ And the raid Grantors do 6ereb- eovenant to and from aU locumbeasoea except taxes for~197~d dtereatte~ of aald Or+reutar= that they an trw I i 1 • and that they wtU warrant and detead the same from aU Lwtol ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ Junc 22, 1976. ar"ra A- ou~rr A-~° a. w. .~ r ar ~ Juno , alb, ~"~ ~'' • aa+q' pt Ib ie wM fq ~ n11 -teMr ~p- `~'~ nrn.t~ Jdut L. t?aketln, lr. art~t 1. Eikvlln, j'~~1:+:. w t»;ev ta+~+es--~- =mss BrC~ ~: -~--~+^i r iii ;ii eW ~ W ~..ide.d f. ~1'!t"~'R `~ :, -they ~ ~ ""'` ry J _ _ a'. ~ /~ w -~--~~ ~-_,,y~r,,,r,~ -- ~ emu. AMTP A- lPANO, CppNrt p- ~ MwM ~~,Irs1 -wN el p / s' ,.teew ~..t // JLd-Md~ ~! P.p .._ :~':Ii~J DAS1'tDA /~ r r... t !~'~ r w,ov. ~", Y_~a ., D • ~~ ~ ~.. y.~._~.._._...,r.. _. • , ,,,, , ~~~ ~ ' ' ' ugh ~ ~.. s:~,~~ i , PAaceL No l: ' Township 3pNordi,t~a~e In the SW quarter ~ the SW 9uarter of Section !6 " cbscrlbed as follov~e: ~ 1 East, B' M• ~ Ade County, ldoho~ more pnrtlcularly 8gtlnnln ~~t o point on iho 8nt;tlon 1.lno common to 8eotlonw I6 nntl t ;~,'~; In T. 3 N. ~ It. 1 ~. ~ 0, M. - and 1.9Z~. A foot North of tho !~octlon ' 1 ,, ~ nton to ~ctlontt t~ ~7 ZU and ?ll tltettco Gornar comM ~' ~ ~~oud~t A 8°3~j' Bast; ~~. $ ~~ meal point of 8e nnln r , 7 WWce~~ ~ teey ~~ 8i 8. thence • ~' ~rth Op b tom: d~enoe , !2' East, 363.6 tees to tho Real Point of BeginNng. Said panel contains 5.00 acres. PARCEL N0. 2: 'ibwnshlp 9 No t1i~ Rases !n ~o SW a~~A al tho t~1W ~~, • d°ecrlbod an foliowst ~ 1 6est~ 8. M., de Gounry-gldahor norocpArtlcularly ,., t` `~~ ~~ttnln at A ` !n T. J N, ~ !t, 1 ~ B. ~olnt an the 8actlan Lira common to Secdone 16 rind 17 y that t0 8ecdtms ! - '' and I l00 a feet North of the Section Corner com- ' ~, South 78~ 1 ~ 20 and 21; thence ' ast 755.43 tcer dtenr• ti South 88°37' East, 28 24 teat to the h ~• ~~ ~°~3j' Bast. S7b.76 feet; them Pbdttt °t Beginning; thence ~i": North 79"59WW~ 504.55 tocr thence a•• ' , Nom 6~4' West' 197.68 Iceq d~icn~ce ordt 363.64 [eet ~ 112.37 feet; thence '~~ the Real Point of Beginning. Said ... ;t .` ~.~ ' .N~' ! ., . a~ i; ', , . , ,c. ~' ~, parcel contains 5.92 aczies, more or less. PARC)rL NO. 3; Townehi 3parcci of land in d-e SW qua~r ~ the SW P North. Range 1 Easy B. M. Ada r quarter of Secdon 16, described as tollows: ~ ..ounty, Idaho . more Pardcularly >ieginning at a polnEt on the Soction Llno com In Township 3 North R Corner common co Sections !d 8~7M2b a~ 211.8 [eet Satth 78°03' East. 755.43 toe South 88037 ~ ~aG c.~ .24 fee t: thencot~ce ~~yy~~,, nco ~ thonco Nor~tlt 8N~7~ West. 28. !4 toot; thence North 78 ai West 755.43 tear thence North Sl. l l teec to the Point of &`glnN--g. ~~ Said parcel contains U.9 scree, more ur Iese. mon to Secdone 16 and 17 , North of the Section :.:~. 4::...~ {. :.' WARRANTY llEED h'ul• V~Jur it~•c~•ivedllLtlltY A.. Illllllat and SIILItItY R. Hlllllat, husbanrl and wife, the R~onb~rg du hereby sent, bnrpwio, call and convey unto I.At~RLpCE H. RACF;IIAt•1 alld J'DL'At111E F. IIACI:IIAt•1, IIUSballd and wife, of 1260 South Eagle Road. ticridlan, Idaho 33642 the ytr;intee s, the tollowins described premleer, to•vvit:..........A~is1.......„ .......................... County ldoho, to wit: A parcel of land in the Southwest Quarter of the 5outllwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 3 tlorth, Range 1 East, (3o1sr., Meridian, 1n ,Ada County, ldallo, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Section Line colnnlon to Sections 16 end 17 1n Township 3 North, Rango 1 East, Bo1so, Morldlan, end 1,325,8 feet North of the Section Cornor canmon to Sections 16, 11, 20 and 21, thenco South 88037' East 740.5 feet; thence South Oo12' West 363.6 feet; thenc3 North 78°03' West 755.43 fact; thence North 225.0 feet to the POINT OF OEGiIiNING. TOGETHER WITFI all and singular the tenemen+s, hereditaments, and appurtenances thereunto belonging or 1n anywise appertaining and SUBJECT to all easements for ditches, irrigation purposes. roads and other utilities or easements appearing on said land and subject to recorded. covenants and restrictions on said real .property. SUBJECT to a Mortgage to secure an indebtedness of ;35,000.00. recorded June 4, 1971 as Instrument No. 772321. Official Records. Dated June 3, 1971. Mortgagor: JONti L. ESKELitI, JR. and OONA J. ESKELIN, husband and wife; Mortgagee: -NN'IE FEDERAL SAVINGS AIID LOAN ASSOCIATION OF NAMPA, a corporation. r~., ~ - ~-: • ,"' - ,Q... 1 .~ ~~ ii.~l~. '. LU Yin -•e .Y TO NAVE ANU TO 1t0LD the raW ptwnfsa, with theta appurlenslleea unto the add l3raaens , their heln read useirltr fot'ewr. And the raid Urantors do hereby oovenaat to and with the rafd Grantee s, that t hr y are the owners In tee simple of raid premieer; that taW premises are lace from. all fnatatbraneea and that iM y will warrant and defend the some from all lawlul claims whalsaver. Oatad: August 8, 1915. , ~ ~. ~• / f - - '~E •, ~ ,, .,. .. ~'iATC 0/ IUAil0, COUNTY 0I Ada o• ua • • r;i' er .t' Au us t . le 75. trt~r• w.. • ,wtsry wNk M •.I ~«..li st.l., P....eNlr •nya HEHi;Y A. NUIiER and SHERRY R. IIUBER Itltsbend en! wl te. ~ww-• • w.• 1. M 1h• 1,•NM : oM So e•,n• f ego we.rn.~ ~+ It,• •I~AI. IrNry~,•wl, en1 uM.•wl•Ir•a r• ~. rtw• tllay •e.sYleil r~. een;e ~M~L~„",~~`~Nv4ry WIlia it..w/.~ K Ito 1 se , I4A. tTAT6 0I IDAHO. COUNTY 0I lc,(.`. 1 Mnyr q-tllr tAet tUls isNrnmest wM awe ter veer! at IM rpwet of ti'.:; ,-1'c~'~C;ri !II.E ~~. M • .: t Ie1nyM. MH ~~ ~ • .floe IR. Itii. ,~ f ~(' Mr ~ CCa c.~.~.a..... ~ , Ie ~/ '~ ~. Mr .III.., uwl Mltr renNN M D..II/ .f ..r• et r.r. Me•OIIMte Ileeerrlel _.~.~..::~.~.C .... /'eN 1 Mell M; ~~ ~.° ~s: -a ~ WARRANTY DEED 9009868 wife, NELSON D. REYNOLDS and DELORES REYNOL~R h send and witeulCEITH a C. CHASE ate TRUDY CHASE, husband and wife. and BURTON L. WAITE and JERRILYN 4 WAiTE husband and wife, the tranttss .eb herc~y srnt, hrrF:lin, cell and corrvcy unto LAWRENCE H. RACKHAM and J•DEANNIB Pe RACKHAM husband and wife. he paatttes .~Ipwe currfnt aJtlrexs is 1260 SoutA E~YIe ud. Meridian, Idaho a7642 tbs (tllbteitt8dtyeribed premtrs, in ; r ~ ~,,. - AL1A , Ctwnty lda-o, to-wll A panel of land in the, SW 1/4 of the SWl/4 0[ Secdoo 16, T, 3 N„ R, 1. E„ Be M,e ie Ada Coulry, Idaho, mole particularly descriLed as follows: Begitudo6 at a point oft the Section Line common to Sections 16 and 17, in T. 3 N„ Re 1 E., B. M., and 887.0 feet North of the Section Comer common [o Stxtloas 16, i17, 20 and 21; thence North along the Section Line common to Sections L6 and 17, a distance of 162, 69 feet; tbeatce South 78°OQ' East, 755.43 feet, thence South 88°37' East, 28.14 feet, thence South 3 G8 feet; thence North 60`34' West, 72.07 feet; thence ~ North 77059' West, 209.34 feet thence I South 74°13' West, 103, 96 feeq thence " Nordt 83°08' West, 102.65 feet thence North 30039' West, 385.0 feet to the Real Point of Beginning. I Said pulrrJ. containing 5.00 acres, more or less. Ir j TO 11Atr'F 44p TO HnLf) 'hr ._iJ p i;ti ;`c;r .pl•urtrnana~ untu thr .a1J Clranlrcg , LT>!~Z heirs anJ assigns forrvrr.••AnJ the ~r1J Grndvg J11 hereby covenant to anJ with theatiiGRaaateeg, that 6ayaiHhe ownrB in Irreimplc ut v1J prruuvcs: that thry arc free from au ~rkes except taxes for 1979 and thereafter, and that t91e) will w~trant and drfenJ the ume from a0 lawful : - hatcurv -x'tl~Q er 21, 1978. 'SQ 1 p 9.A,, ~.~ .ZC !/u..,. ~.. 3LCTF. OP Illl-)lel, GOVNTY OF Ada sTATF. OF ID.aHO, ML'~Tl' Un t-ie ~'~ der of NOV. . 1?7$ . 1 b«nb c1f ltve :hi• im ~tI WMie in end fer uid %te1r, peni..nallY 'S.• r.+lueet .• brrele e». e Y Ly~' _°o~~^d _RoJ.i:,,.Vance, Norma C. Vance, Kepi{" El"t`~~~~Trudy Chase, Burton i. Wait~.~ Y~`'~~4 ~L~~.,'Watte, knOVY ~ 111. ~a~~., wllo~ . NIn1A are .1mRy.61110 4etjuweilt yew/ erlulswfedRed M me tA~t ~ 'I t; - e:ecutad t-e aloe. >s'. ~ .:.11w 16'a _~~`/dar of ~ b~1e 1ny elr leeerdM in~017 f • , of yyo JOHN EASTIDA ~a-01Reio Itenrder ~%Id~'~~ f 3_f ,,.-• - • Boise . tee-. r«. R m i< .. ...n, ~ ,' _ . ,~ ~ 4 _i QUITCLAIM DEED 89303i~ -; For Value Received Oolorzs M. Nartrna~ do hereby convey, release, remise Grid forever quit claim unto William E, and Dolores M, Harman / . the fcilo«'ing described premises, to-wit: 352D c. w=rlsnd ~oz~, tfzridian, ~ 3042 CO*i SW COR SW QTR SEC 16 3N lE,TH S 88*34'E 1102.57 FZ TO 4~R~ TH N 0*10' L' 492.65 FT,TH S 79*59'E 234.23 FT,TH S 0*12'W 458.75 FT,TH N 88*34'W 230.1 FT TO BEG ~. ~''~t~ - . ~'' `. ~ _ _ . .. 'Together «'ith their appurtenances. Dated: ~, ~ ,~ Lj S2.~TE OF ID.a:? .COL\'T1' OF ~ Oa the / ~~j ~~~ ` da} of ~' ;/~:'..~_ .191, r . r .. LeiOfe :1P.~ h nG:arV ~Ub11C in ar,d for Salo ~:ate, persona.. appear .. ~ ~' ~ . .r / ~ ~~ 1 I ~ •~ .j..., f t ` •. + - ~ -• •I;hCU~tn me w is the Gerson w~i:o na^e iced tb ~^~ v.':i~~.3in ..._: ru.:.a-.. ~.ad ack: o•~. i~ , e.. to .r jr~•~- - - • __ _•^.gv'~i ~ nit ~~ ...anG C:....... `Xj~l.'2G ,~ i ,~ ,-' ~ Si:~TE OF ID.yi?O. COl'\ i~' OF ~"'/ I hereoy certif.: t :at t:;is i.._:rumea: w'as`tied ier„recc:d at n the reques of ~.~ 7}~ ~~!/ .Lr"~>,i at (~ ~ minutes p:~: ~ o'c:ocK fJ~:., th:s ~C~ ~ caS of ~ .,tint--E~ i 19 ~CI, in m>• office. and dc;}• recorded :n n of Feeds 3• ~a_e ~; ~•iail LC I / _.- a. C1 _. _._.... ~: ._ •_ ,. ~},~ C. L, J ~ i. ~ Y ~ r~~ 1 :~ rp 1/, ~ ~ ait.a ~ ,,{{ ..K '+: • d.r:. 1 ~ /~ ~ 1 , w~, ~ ; :'7939599 ' -.>~~ t,. A v.! + t i Z .y •, ->z .2 • r. ,:e. ?; k~,~'Afr „ate „rw y T j` ' Yj~'~1 < 11IL?iIAL~'1 NF.AI~.'.'11JNlti?iER ~ ~:.119~ d111yE }S' ~ 3~,"a' ~rS 1~ Y ~ ~~ 4 ~'ative. ;o! "the 8state.y of ~RnTB : M~ ' ~ Ordtr •issusd lro~m 'th~,~ niatriati±~dour~ ~ ' ~'/,~ ,.. ~ y, Ois icy; of ..ths $ta ~ ~ CYr41v*.}: gi~naeats«~" ulVisiOnf,~'otthsr;~gyll~c~' rantox,t_ !or .and is aoi}~~~i~x lf,, iliii Y~iiMYi~;• 15j ~'2 a jS~ ~ v r~ • }' , Y ~.~Y..grafi~r.M a w ,~, 4 r~ ~~ ~ iX t: !!~~ {Gq~ ~~ "; 1. ~ ~, ;rr i,; . ~ . +i ,~,~~~,/; ~f~ •{$~ k Y A ' ~1 ~,~ ~ ~1 Ida ~ ' 4; . ~ ~~x~~ ~~~~+~ ~ ~ `:~`~ 1 ZONin OsC ,~}~ A j to-witf r ,1 ~X "! r .fit ,r~ ,' ~ ~~ ~ r~ . ~. ;.~ - S k ~1r~.rA)i.• Il./Tt/Y~i4j ". 31~g li ~fH;r li.• al $ ~.i:,•r sax mo./9, bsinp~.z~~l'~-oiyr'~its~+ st puartor .. p!; Ssation i`q~.?E1'1~iP:e r ~ ' '',fast .oil ~= ~' :"16Y7'•~~' lt!-~ Atit ~l jn1 'qP%~ r, Jt ~•~/~ t'.- ~, F 7 ., 4 ~ a ., r .7~' 1 .Y 1 r/ .:Q31 ut~s ~. ~, '~1°i~ IR. >! ~,, ~ P~'~ , ~fl~f ~+,7~ ~'•'•' 1 t N~ u~ • A~t (f ~, ~ _ ~.:~ll ry ~v-~~,i,pN ,r4 t1 f2~ •) I ~t Ai 1~~ . 11~.~ ~~onai 11~pxGGGi p' "~;~~r~."t},)•~ {.r~~~=F~~;~' t + ;~ ansavnn~~ r~ A~SSnt~tt'b!#~a: s/tabr' O! 1~1i'l~11. t' ~' ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~~ a ' i'i~tat ,~raritt~n. ' ~l - Y <<~;: ; 1 1 „~,. ~ 7 r L .. k~l~ i 4 a ~ i ~^.YVOq ~ • AL '~ { ~ :a ~~~• `•~~~ '.`_, „s!~ +icr f~l C.7. ~,f1 t~ r~... Ir.:~t ~: "'^~!b;a„Y.••n.N''• _ ~ - .tY y s~ ~ I d~ ~r 11 a6 } y ~ ~ , :: A :. t~. ~.r,. s ;' .; M.~- .;~+~ . ~ia;ir H°ti. • ~ ~• i 1 t _ .l . `_ t 461 1891 :`' ., :. ,, A tract ut land located in the 5W 1/4 of the SM 1/4 Section 16. - '~' T. 3 N.~ R. i E.g'M. laying 1n Ada County State of Idaho • ';` ,;~~awre, parLiculary described as tollowss _ ~ ~ ; ~, t~; ~~•',Comaencing at the section corn~r••~cosmon the ~Section~:~16. ~~ '~" 'a `~;`17. 20 and 21. T. 3 N.. R. 1 E.•:, B.M thence. 5.88°`34' E. '~ ' ~- •~ :;along the south boundary •11ne.of!~ Section~l6.;~T. 3:; N.. A.:1• E., , tiY, r 4~•B.M: a distance of 1102.57 teet;`to the real point-,of~beginning; ,.'•; `~ ~',~, ~:thencs N 0. 10' E. a dlstance~ of 492:65 t~et to ~a~~pointi thence ~,~ <, r;y`R'':5 79' S9' E. a distance 'ot 234:23 ,feet; to a ,polnt:~ thence S 0' ~~, ~y;~~~,,;12 ' W a distance of 458.:75-te~t to a po1~t;.,thence:;N.88 .34 M. ~ l s ~~~'~ „• a,distance of 230.10 feet to the real,_point of beginning.. N 9 ~ ~ '4 ~..r ~', r y y ~ 0 i 1~ N i ~ ,~ % r ~~ {p`rQ ,' 3 ~~' r ,. ~ r t 1 s n. i ~ Wt 1.. ~~ f~ a Y , X , t . e ~ ~i is Y;~. .~~.y~..... ~ qM iE.~• ~ ? ~"~ 1 ,L~ +~t 111 1" ,;~ ~ ~ r. ~ r r~r7 ~i ilk~g ..~ t ?. ~-. "' sTA1~ OF 10A110. E0UN11 ~111pA, M, 4"`Nr } ' ~~ ~ i ' r 55,x°'' `~ ~:,~ 3 ~'>~ it /y <~ r,ti ~y r~!,ata~«~wn,nona~~l: ' ,~,. . r 8"A1 w: Rita ~K==', , a ,~ _ E' M,`~r et ,~s; .: t5 ~ '., _ / :.: • ~ i~* is ~~ WARRANTY DEEI) ~ydSZBO ~~~ _ ~, ~~ c~.li/q in the . ~` THIS INDENTURE, Mado this ,.7/•~ day of ~ ~ ~ 7~ `,F4 between CARRYL H . .:# year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sevonty one, .: s. WINES and MARION WINES, husband and wife, MARION A. WIIJES and IONA WINES- roes of the first part, and •<,x husband and wifo, and RUTH M. WINKLER, a widow, the pa ' ILLIAM E. HARTMAN and DOLORE3 HARTMAN - husband and wife, t1~e parties of the ' ": ~. W ~_ second part. ~ ••° WITNESSETH, 'T'hat the said parties of the first part. for and in consideratiou• ;:,,,; ~fi.. y 4fi •, ~ DOLLARS 1S10.00), lawful money of the„s'•r ~•~, ' of the sum of TEN AND NO/100 ------- ica and other wsluable consideration to them in hand paid 1pI-~3 ~; } United States of Amer ;.. ;; the said parties of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, , : ,_ .,: '+ ., have granted, bargained and sold, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, ' ~, f.• f' ~. ~;, •: convey and confirm unto the said pa~tiee of the second part- and to their hairs and ,_ ns forever, all of the following described real estate. situated in the County ~i :~ ~,.=j assig ,~ .4 , ..: tO~Witt :_ i =~,~;~ of Ada • State of Idaho. ~ ~ ~' , .~ ~~ • of the 8W} Section 16~ ~,~ ~;A, A tract of land Located in the SW} ourty. State of ' ~- T. 3 N.. R. 1 E. ~ 8. M. laying .in.ASla !3 , :~E ' `. ~. r Idaho more particularly described as follows: •~ • ~ ~.: ~ : ~-: Commencing at the section aornee co h' oe S 88•ti3~ a8 6along .. ZO and al • T. S N.i R. 1 8. • B. M. thu south boundary line of Section 16• xet of beginn ngi the oe 8 ~ j a distance of 937.67 feet to the real ~ said Section 16• T. 3 N•I ;•` '_. ~` 88. 3~' E. alone said south boundary ins thenoe N ?~~ R. 1 8. ~ B. M. a distance of 261.90 feet tine tp°henoe N 79• S9' "~ `; , ,~,, .•; :~,~ ~~. . 0. 10' E. a distance of 191.65 feet to a po i W. a distance of 19.3 feet to a points thenoe N 7S• 10' W. a y •'*'`-i 197.68 feet to s points thence N 60. 34' wna~ of 1 9a3~ . ,.. dUta-nce of ~, .. ~ of 191./A feet to a points thenoe N 77• S9 V~1• a dUta feet to a points they ce g~1 a dig no of OA 68 feet to a tpoint~ a ~ '•' 'Y points thenoe N 83 08 10 feet to a points thenoe 8 thenoe 8 1. 13' W . a distance of 110. 46. 03' C. a distanco of 261.30 feet to a points thenoe 8 96. Ot' t ~ '' int of beginning . ,_ . ~ ; E. a distance of 517.00 feet to the real p~ ~ s ,: `'- '~ ~ ~- - " eU91E0T'1'C drainage easement reootded in the records of Ada t Idaho, as Instrument No. 11S3S0• and accruing tax+o and M Coon Y ~ ~ ' assosaments for 1971 and future Years. v. h WARRANTY DLCD - 1 • , a, ~•- • ~ .. .. •. . '~• • ,'~ ,4•.- TOGETHER, Wlth all and singular the tenements, hereditaments and ;~ ' b . appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise Appertaining, the reversion and , t • •, reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof; and X11 ~ ••' • . i,~,~i° estate, right title and interest in and to the said property, as well fs~ law as ini;• ~ ~ , equity, of the said parties of the first part. .`j° ~: ,-,,P TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, All and singular the above mentioned and. h ~•F described premises together with the appurtenances unto the Farties of the aeC~id •••,r~° ~# part, and to their heirs and assi Ina forever. :' . 1 r.'M.. , 4- . ", ~ F ~i ~' And the parties of the first part, and their heirs, shall and will warrant • ` and by these presents forever defend the premises in the quiet and peaceable .,~ , • ' ~~ possession of the parties of the second part, their heirs and assigns, againt~,tba. • _, , • r t . . ~ ' ~ person and', parttes of the first part, and their heirs, and against all and every ' '~~ ~ ,.?.~ persons whomsoever, lawfully claiming the same shall and will Y/ARRANT and by , ! thew presents forever DErEND. , .~,~ „;;~• • ' IN W:TNE88 WHEREOF, The said parties of the ifrst pert have hanu~t0 . ,;~ •~'~ ,, ~aL•~~ • set their hands the day and year first above written. ; ~:. rt,. ' .'M~rrr~~~5~~r)yyy~--- ~ s• ~ • y .~ . CARRYL H. WINE8 ;li; • ."': ~ ~~1,~i~L ~~ ~ MARION WINEB ~ ~~~' ~. •,~ ' ' MARION 6., WINE ... ~+ . ' x_ ~"~~ r IONA WINES -~ . •;; ~ ~ ~ ' " .ice . - ~ r• RU H M. WINKLER - ~3 . k , }-`• ~~. •'rt ~:' .`,. ~ Y A; y~ ac • .~.~f 'N Wf RRANTY DEED 2 ~~' :. ^ ~. ~ - ~.~~ ' ~c ,,i ..} :,~i • ~~ -., y • ' ; ,a _- • lay -~ •~`^~ .; _ ..~ ... A:'i STATE OF J t-a- ) ~ : ~ "z•} County `"C ~`'.`-`J; as. ~ , ~•~ ,~ ,,{ On this day of ~' ' as ~ n in the yenr 19 71 ,before me, ~~ • ""- ~~ the undarsipnod, n Notary Public In and for raid 8tnte, personally appeared ~i ~~ r ~ ~ ~' CARRYL H. WINEB and MARION WINES, husband and wife, known to ms to be•th0`~ •,y": persona whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged , ~ ~. •''~ me that they executed the same. ~ ~ `' IN WITNEBB WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my "• ';~ `• •,.r~~ . ,• official seal, the day and year in this certificate first above written. . ~;' e. ; ~: ~'~ ` .~.'• Notary Public for the State of ,..%:~ • Residinq~ponrNwgnpeNw,wn,7s,ian ~' STATE OF _ - • ~f ,~4..' County of ) ..~: :.,•: ~~, y:,,kn On this ~~.d~day of~~ in the year 19 71 ' ~.` "~'` ,before AIOi• ~?~:~•~ the undersigned, a Notary Pub!!c in and for said State, personally appeared ~ ~ ; .3 ;r. MARION A. WINEB and IONA WINEB, husband and wife, known to me to be the ipna~`.'.~ ' ~•. ~::~ whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me ~ t ^..1 '~-/ they executed the acme. , . , , , ~' ;~ . IN W1TNE88 W H)';REOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixod my off~`c.~el~ A y'; aenl, the day and yenr in this certificate first above written. ~ ,,:•.,itr ~,~'. '' ' , ~~ a Notary Public f he Stato of .r' r' i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Residing at; "~ 1MXRRANTY DEED - 3 '' 4+ . ', ~. ~ ~ ~„A , 1'• jam. ., ~` ~ 4 • 1 ~~* ~ `. ! • • ~{ _" • 1 ~ ~ ~. ilr.'. i'~ ~A • '' • • ~ - ...: • ~~:~; :. . .:.~~ d' '~'~ !h ~ I' STATE OF lob Iii a ) ~ ; as. ~ ' ~ County of Ad ~M s ) ' .. On this ~9 ~ day of __~'~~~~ in the year 19 71 , bofore ms,~ •t~ the undersign©d, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared :,,c= RUTH M. WINKLER, a widow, known to me to be the person whose name le~subsctibed :~%t ' . ;, ` •, to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that she executed the eatge ~; ' ':y IN WITNESB WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed pt}~ offlolal? seel, rho day and yoar in this csrtiffoate fiat above written. ,,. ~ 9~ • .. • ~. .~ ~ ~:. r. Notary Public for the State of 2dN , ..,:,'' r' Residing at: ~Q(/A/C/~ ~ Shc~lw , .. :> •+ w .. t ir'i .r • ~ c '•~ - r. !s ~4 t .. .1{ ~ i lj~• ~•f . .. .~.W . ' 1 .. ,,, i ~ "~ r ~ ~ H: ~ ~.! `, .~.-::. ! e, i '~ ~~ ' ,4 .', ~.J ~ ~~ • ' i 4 i r. :;r`~ , ~ ~ '~ ' ~~~~ ~r r ~ ;:.. J ~ , •~•~, ~'t ~ ~ ::TATE OF IDAFIO, COUNTY OF AL~y .:. ~, +: d f d N th ff F i ~ ° '~ ,~ Z or dea e nrunt o e s ~ ~ - - ~ l Z ' ~ ' y.;F. •; ' olook M. ~/ ~ey oR.Q~ 11.,. i° ..1~.MM. peN~o ' r CLARUI~E A P AIOIIdIR• ~ :'~`; . 6 ~ M .•t #. WARRANTY DEED - 4 :• "3 Nohr• •j6r/ ~' ~ ~ ~~}}~. :, ..: v~1: tit '",~~ yyt--COatldiJilITY PBOPEBTY'i-GEEEMENT , ._ P.seua ..+ tx..t. b ar..-rort c•.o..s. seh. . ,~1~ °~` `~ i~-- ~ .~ ~' 893031 _ a~ ~ •, .. ,o-?~~s~ j~.~ 3 / *,, `-~ ' , CObiMiJNITY PROPERTY. AGREEbfENT _ ;' w ~F t~ , ~ BETWEEIr HUSBAND aND WIFE y _N~_ •, ~~ .:29th June 19~-. ~r< ~THI3"AGRIr:.'iENT biar and entered into th! d1y of ~`~ ~~~ n3 ~~~~°'^''~ wilMliam E ~ Hnrtmar , husband and ~ '= .. '. Dolores M: Hartman ~ ~ ' wife, relat[ve to community property and.disposidon thereof `"- . upon tlie;deatl:,o[~ather , -the pat:i~ hereto as provided by Section i5~r201, Idaho Code. '~~' h rY _x ~• ~- ~~su ~VTTNESSETH ~„?"T ~~ ~ ; f.; ~•. r• r, ~ fl @ t ~. - ` fatties were roamed - . , November 21 1948 ^nd ever Y~s~"~ stnct, have' been and now are husband and wife. < ~~ ` .:~_ 4,^~;~,: , • 2.. ,We cerl3fy that the following described real and persot:al property was acquired by to from rr ou; joint efforts while married and while living together as husband and wife in a community property. a • State, and that no-Part of said property owned by either of us Prior to this marriage, or which ~ ._. . . elther. of, us have acgttired since by gift, devise or as an heir at Iaw of any person and that the ~ :°'same ts'the community property of the parties hereto. __ .. _ .~. - _ 8 '•-The legal description of said real property covered by this agreement is as follows: ~' 3520E . Overland,. Y.eridian, Idaho 83642 `: Cori sw CCs sw cTx~sl:c 16 3N lE, Td S 88.3'' E 837.67 rr :ro ~~;=:~ S 88.34' •E264.90 FT,TH n o•lo' E 492.65 FT,TH N 79'59' w 49.33 ~. Ts Y 75.20' w 197.68 FT, Td N 60.34 W 184.44 Fr, Ili N 77.59' w 209.34 ET,='H 5 74.13' w _ 103,96 Fr,TS N 83.08' w 102.55 i1','~ s 1.13' w 140.10 Fr,~ s 56.03' E 261.30 FT,Td S 36.04'.-E 517 FT TO ~G and COK Sw COR Sw CTR SEC 16 3N lE,TH S 88.34'E 1102.57 y'S ~ t?3; I:i N 0.10' E 492.65 Fr,Tit s 79.59' 234,7) FT,TH S o•12'w 458.75 FT,Tti N 88.34~w 230.1 ~ ro a:,; 4: The personal property affected by this agreement {s described as follows: ' all personal property, in rludiag out not limited to, automobiles, flrniture and other household goods, haul: accounts of any k±ad, stocks, bonds and investments of any kind, and all sanaer of chattels ~l:atsoever, now in the rossessioa of the parties to this agreerent_ or each of the, or ncouired by them or either of-them in the future, i3 now and will remain eomctaity trorerty and shall Lass under this agreement. 5. That upon the death of either of the parties hereto the property described herein shall Best in the sun-Itor absolutely subjeM to the L'abtlities imposed by Section 15-G-701, Idaho Code. IN WIT\ESS WHEREOF, The parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year llrst above written. AM Coun•A. ! ,t RMuast of TIME ~ y M rti oaTE ~•- ~q_~9 ~or!~: I3ASTtoa ~7RE OER .! C O ~ i~C j~ ~/ OeDuty /.1' C ~ ~ ~~~ Husband ~~ ~ J {Cite STATE 0: IDAHO, ss. Countp of ~' On.thi ~~ day of_ ~ ~ 19J^ before me the undersil;ne.i, a ~ ~-~7"y/Lpr't ' ~ ~~~~ ~"~~~' ~ p said Notary•Pgblia.•in and for ld , • ersonally appeare• Stag `a~1~s~•'Q• p-S ~n hnsliand an • • ~=-+-~~~ m ~/`~ ni;e, kno«-n to me .o be the persons «•hose namt3 ~. 3 i ~ ~ •. ~... • ~~ :• are substribed'to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same. • , r= . .f • ~ J ' f' • ~ . r ~ \otary Puhlia :ur Idaho, .:,. ,..,:.~-t.-._-._.,~. .•. -.~. -,-, n.) at /~~_''/~ Idaho ~ ~ „ r., 4 - -- ; ..~ . ; - ~~ J ~ J J :J L : 9-'.~~~GZ~br~s ~ -o MAR 2 7 1991 State of Idaho aq~ JUN 15 P(~ 12 50 Q CERTIFICATE OF DEATH State File ND 1 i~" a+. •<w•\•re ozw.run.tow•y sw nsn•w wl.•r•w w.arae Aewwa.r-.. twu.r weAarr.•re 'rt+•uw.•+a.r.~,ow...e.,•,.N.,..+. Local Rea. ND. • irE[w eT~(T M OEfSDENi - A•NE r• /' ),,~,-- ,,LL ~t wr EEa,~~ / ~ - r ~~^^~+~" ~V~ . / /d ~Denf HQ/t#irnit [ E'(LtG T1T' N 90cu Y iEC R W,F~EOa DE~YLN roan. i• VI s ,'O/ICJi /~ / ~ ~ _ L U D 4 •fi .. Eu e•1•nw DNDER r •EaR y1OEN I D+T WE a e+T!a• raven DN"+•n ewlrr+EKE K+E .. aR . ray br•••In : eo Nor uta •• .'WYJE/((IL( eW T.~aa ~J Q D SDEDEM EYERNUE MNED ~~ rpYRK _ 'FNER ~ E p~[~ °t °C"E" (t) [~ InpstisrN • y,~y,~L tensed Nwsirq PrivaN 16) Q lcenseD 5rsrer Nplne li Q N " ~ ~ "~ ^NO Ome (5) d Rssge-.e (n [y 7 Olna (SE»cry)___ 121 CEtilJutpaGent (3) COW • fg ~' • -•CRM NANF AND ADDRESS II v •'r+ilar +r•er naw /eras arw-v.vear! (`Tr. IJ•/A Ora E°fa:ON V OE4•N Irk«^ y ~+"w f Q ' ~~ _ o.i•ae Sanoiri,~n V e lue enteR 1. // S can~ae wive t3~iee iN .~ z . siM17AE n+TUS - aEaar. r-•er SuRtwx.p sewu n.•a t+• +r•aw nw+r uuNl s usw DCCINaTCN rc•• •nv s .r. a •.:AD ~eES e.5•AESS ~ a ~ o aarr Msnwe P SR•rhl av.y wm •'C - a ~~oae l~rv te e~ Lb.lonee : ~fvu W ~y , .~. °' "" "• "•.•., -~ urea /~ yj I ^ i ~ s 1 / . cty~ RE STpENCE SI4E colwriy C1M1. rDwA OR Eou*rM y siRE Av •+WUR t t e ~, Idol:v Ada .. l~irid_ian 2'J ae# Ovea.la~ Rood I ~, 8 42 w ~ «yoE Gn Ewls+ AS DECEDENT a ..' <«e oRgrN,,;e.e+a re> +. _ • ~ - a...•aan w.r• e.e. `t DE:EDEA•SEDUfJS':N a y ^ e M Necl• 4M 1aeN 4•n. s 1 CYO "'^O :Ienw nE1N •K ~iarhr (i •r+r aN Wve Ta ras~f ~ ; i~ res LINO _ . ESD+ceyl __ - QLfCf7,O1L77j ' EYmsr•:a7'SecDne+•y .Dt)I tw+ge rr~w3.r J EY•(R ._ AAaaF 6rR'we~aGE a•]r••fR ._ r~Y. u 9E• A.NE t ~ i'U W7 e:/ 1~Q/: {"CIf! f'1 a S { I M . . . [/1~J011 t APJI/!1P . fJRe s ll/1oOLl/LC rtaTORMAht $ Marf }uaPwr NAKrAD aDdrE~ N~a• aan Aiwr~ ~. i.a ~•.~ A.rraar ^Ir or ar• S.T : c ..v ,. l!lr.~• lh.luaP,o ; ,~,ni-t•-, u11..f•~ _ ~~~V fae# Ovealarrl ~'tG:~rl. 1"e~~a.<r.m. Ic!alio BT.~r2 uE: N0o Or a5e05•: W r-^ACE :f aSVOY•4A ~. > ~y r"+•n r n [++~ IE:tia' X - :.. a k -. 5.•t nat CC m L48 ta h • - ~ -- rh u ro a n o,n Ir ya ~ m A I .. CDonatwn Co . T rsaectrr~ - _ a. r ~icid<nn LenefPiLf; ~a, ~"e~,<c<an, Ic'alw r R E ' ^' ' - Gw• ,. ~Af S E O YwrCE ErC[• f OA /[wiC . ~ wG a5 SU • (F rSE AuarSE e .r r,+~wl•• [ a•.: a::..i SS'Y rtC'• I• ACfp r1.~ FW P 2Q L J C mP SP/ tV< --C PA ~O • ~ yy _ ItV 7Y - L ~ ~ _ l ~ ~ ~ y ~ r ~!-r r`~ L _ ~ .-._~7 -' -"-":«'_"] 6 f~ •[c.r. 1 E UE DE r'KwO~. ~_FJ C[ V.aAw• :•y L .ASE REEEwRFJ LG;JrOAER, ~ I q ~^ _ _ r Natu'a! ~NDmrC.^P .._ $rO:! ._ 4c'0!^' / /~ ' M ~ d 8 ~ 'f ) : / •Vf~ V1 aic , ;_~e5 ,D ..rt-D.r,9 -.,e5:.,,:,~•• .. a°::,~..: s-:.t,t.~.t~- • t / . . !~/ Z7 /ART 1 En:Ta t't 0%uases. ~nlurrs a ccr..n2a:rs 1^.al :aesW :ee CeN'+ k aee w In mcp d •.~.q Ix^ V ra•eaG n .s. 'ar•y a^ts: - -ate ^Y•.. snoca, a nee•1 aa.Ar•s Erse Dory one ce~u en eacn \ne 5e~.e~- ^ •sr IYMEDI ry7E GT115E rTMr /' ~ ~`.I Y r wseeu ~ °acn - ^ / ~ ,~ Clip- ~ ( ./~ ~,~}'~j7y ~"E) rnwergn Desr!rf !v(' Y4__ __'• -- =1_______.. ________ V ___ n;f m ram s -T ~- $eeueMWly nL Cw•erlMf, e I +^Y. N\D•nq b rmr•r•AWe E .----_--- -.- DuE D ro as • rc.a•vr.ar .» Caul Enler UNDERETINIi _ "- CAUSE Imse+ae w rnyrry - ~ - fN! NR IM re UI Me l [ 2wrtrnq n aeetnl 45E OvE m.a •r a re•.rora• an ------.__._._ _- ___ _._.. _._._ .. __ _ . __ __. ° 27 PART N. DIAer SlgrNlleenl COnDrllOn\ <ne•.DU[nq q CtaM Dul r•n1 •es,.n~~+~ Ea• +wY••1'W C+~ae D.ln .n _ Two •• l'^~~ --~ ~- --- ~wl ~! ! ='~ ~ • ~ . •E I ~ ! L ~PNYSICIAN - Te n•e Iva: a nr ano.,+..Dt ctrn xrwre, a: me .^e .ee a _ , a.e • < n,• r. . ra,..... a a r• .....,., r - 1 LiCURONER - M IV DwE a a ~o^ awn ~w•ts:ya:o- ^'••. ao-c- E.an a.,,••r. a: rv -t _.. n s . e. e a .. _• _..... n +~.-a wa 5m+••wu u•vr Gwn•• • _ -__ ______ ___ ._ ...._.__. ._- - __. $ru•Ar e[AwDr•.F vaFR:+dR .. .~a -. r ••• ~ ~ ME O•:X+RF tS G+CEN•l(Rr _ .. _ _..-_.. 4m : "end f Di ~ P:D / f jf 6 ~ / n . c Zeu, ., a~f ~e ~cevnT o , i^n2 5 S ~i,ee, Idc, D•rE Ca tu'u4• ,ue : w~ *. ._...e.. .. ..-T-_.~_ , . - •uR Y rt_a. '.th••tiF ...N •.~u .a__=V. _ I o .._. _ _ _ _ _ Q Yes ~' -Cr"^ r-Fasse~ser - ~vteesvan . ND ~ _..a..,er 121': ~Rhtw! r; ;:,,.,C 1•eTS'~1*'~'~~ .. .. . . (tl )._RevreweD O^q.. 1. v.Dna.~c a•+c Q~;n_ '••Lv~ ! - eEGrS.vAU55,' E e.s ...~ (~ -. ., .. l .' ~ L4u'Ci'yW t~.ra~~.L~ v of lN</. ~f~ S^.°pr•~s /~ / ~: :.:. -. -~ ~.:, r ., State of Idaho. ) I.,;;. ~' t'" 's_~ County of P.da ) ; ~;_ _ - _ .. ~. ~ c~ ;:a THIS IS TO CERTIFY Thd;, this is a certified•c~oy of a certifica±e filed wikh ~;.E. Depa~tmef+t of Nza~th aru,I t;elfare udder°Iiiie~~y. Idaho Code. '{1 - '^ .. > APR t~•8 19}2~ ~b.~' C!i' •~ i ~ -- Date Issued _ State Reg-Istrar ~f vital Stat slits ,' '~ ~- • • Langiy Associates, Inc. 999 Lake Drive Suite 300 Issaquah, WA 98027 (206) 391-6600 FAX 391-9030 April 13, 1995 Shari Stiles Planning Director/Zoning Administrator City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Re: I-84 Power Center Dear Shari: Langiy Associates, inc. recently made application for Annexation Approval and Zoning and a Condition Use Permit for the subject project. Relative to this project, Langiy Associates, Inc. agrees to pay all applicable sewer, water, trash and other City of Meridian fees associated with the proposed use. also confirm that I have read both applications and the contents of these applications are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and beliefs. Sincerely, ,_ ;_ ~- Russell C. Keithly +~ .Gl-iai:~man and CEO S'1-ATE OF l~ ~`~ . ) ss. COUNTY OF ~~~ 1~~~"1 ) certify that I knov~ r have satisfactory evidence that RUSSELL C. . ," ~~~TyLY is the ~ersen ~nrho appeared before me, and acknowledged that said person signed this instrument, on oath stated that said person was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Chairman and CEO of LANGLY ASSOCIATES, INC. to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: ~ J L~~ ~~> r l r ~ , j pnn name NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of - residing at ~.~~?,~1- y appointment expires ~ ~ ; ~_.~ \word\rck\tem p\sti lesan n ze•3~dd • 9~:bT S6~ bz add • I 1 CERTIFICATION OF HEARING NOTICE SIGN 1, Debbie Becker (Briggs Engineering, Inc,), do hereby certify that a hearing notice sign for Conditional Use Permit for Langly & Associates was placed at the subject parcel on April 2~, 1995. w De bie Becker STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) On this 24, }~ day of A,.pr~L, 1995, before me, the undersigned, personally appeared Debbie Becker ,known to me to be the person whose ~ name is ; subscribed to the within instrument, who, being by me first duly sworn, did depose and say that she executed the foregoing instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed my official seat the. day and -year in this certificate first above wrytten. ~~i~t~roi~r~Dr, ~ f ~e°~ 11 Af1f 'ode ; Moon` s~~.oooe ~L~~'°a~ t ~ ~---~--•...,, •o~ ° ~ Yom'! a ;~ ~~TA~~ ~s r Notary Pubii or Idaho ,,~ ; .-~ r° ~ ~ ~ .Residing at ~l~E t0 '; ~'U~L~G ,~ My Commission Expires ~ 2~ ~~'? • m~o~ ~y A~ee~e®em° D,~ 4°io ~aair.r~aar~a , 950116 20 ' d J,l I ~ Nd I Q I ~I~W 01 W(J~I~ L~ : bt S66Z-bz-add • ATTACHMENT 9 • I-84 CENTER MAILING ADDRESSES 1. 2385 South Eagle James F. Griffin 705 West 9th Street Boise, ID 83702 2. 3285 East Overland HCM Investments 1281 Oriole Boise, ID 83709 3. NW 4 NE 4 Hwy. Sec. 21 3 M 1 E Bruce Pickett James M. Ballantyne Jr. 10250 Whispering Cliffs Drive Boise, ID 83704-1907 4. 3905 East Overland Bruce R. Pickett James M. Ballantyne Jr. 10250 Whispering Cliffs Drive Boise, IS 83704-1907 5. William P. and Susan M. Bienapfl 4225 East Overland Meridian, ID 83642 6. Blue Moon Trust 3110 East Overland Road Meridian, ID 83642-6612 7. Randolph H. and Faith A. Exley 3140 East Overland Meridian, ID 83642 • • Attachment 9 Page 2 8. 1545 South Eagle Warner and Marilyn Sheldahl 1901 South Ten Mile Road Meridian, ID 83642 9. SW4 NW4 EXR/W Sec. 16 3 M 1 E Jeff Hall St. Luke's Regional Medical Center, LTD. 190 East Bannock Boise, ID 83702 10. 4335 East Franklin J. Robert Tullis P. O. Box 8329 Boise, ID 83707-2329 11. Ray M. and Kimberly A. Keller 1545 South Jade Meridian, ID 83642 12. 3650 East Overland James Robert Throneberry 424 Cherry Lane #86 Meridian, ID 83642 13. Ronald Todd Barr Subrina Jo Lewis 3620 East Overland Meridian, ID 83642 14. David and Reva Stear 1345 South Jade Meridian, ID 83642 15. Gary R. and Deborah K. Fulton 1315 South Jade Meridian, ID 83642 16. Randall D. and Teresa A. Ledbetter 1285 South Jade Meridian, ID 83642 • Attachment 9 Page 3 17. Alan Clay and Susan D. Miller 1275 South Jade Meridian, ID 83642 18. Rodney J. and Carolyn E. Fontaine 3730 East Onyx Street Meridian, ID 83642 19. Robert N. Stewart 3760 East Onyx Street Meridian, ID 83642 20. Ray Harlin Holaday 3810 East Onyx Street Meridian, ID 83642 21. Max Steve Byrd 3850 East Onyx Street Meridian, ID 83642 22. Alan R. Wineburger 3880 East Onyx Street Meridian, ID 83642 23. David R. Johnson 1280 South Topaz Meridian, ID 83642 24. John Mitchell and Janice Griffin 1290 South Topaz Meridian, ID 83642 25. David G. and Shirley J. Fulton 1300 South Topaz Meridian, ID 83642 26. David Robert Jr. and Shelia F. Cox 3780 East Overland Meridian, ID 83642 27. Robert B. Whitney 3775 East Onyx Meridian, ID 83642 28. Michael A. and Diana L. Kruse 3825 East Onyx Meridian, ID 83642 ~ ~ Attachment 9 Page 4 29. Daryl W. Smith 1295 South Topaz Meridian, ID 83642 30. Donald D. Robbins Linda M. Penne 925 South Rolling Hills Drive Meridian, ID 83642 31. Randy and Mary J. Schindel 1005 South Rolling Hills Drive Meridian, ID 83642 32. Daniel R. Meyers Belinda A. Murphy 1045 South Rolling Hills Drive Meridian, ID 83642 33. 1095 South Rolling Hills Drive Hermis and Charlotte A. Sparks 5114 South Black Cut Road Meridian, ID 83642-6802 34. James L. and Pamela Rogers 1115 South Rolling Hills Drive Meridian, ID 83642 35. Robert A. and Karen Lee Nelson 1185 South Rolling Hills Drive Meridian, ID 83642 36. Steve C. and Haynes Pamela Bell 1235 South Rolling Hills Drive Meridian, ID 83642 37. Elvin L. and Dixie Scrivner 1285 South Rolling Hills Drive Meridian, ID 83642 38. Kenneth R. and Marge S. Higgs 3330 East Overland Meridian, ID 83642 39. Jerry L. Tibbetts 3376 East Overland Meridian, ID 83642 • Attachment 9 Page 5 40. Dan Contrell State of Idaho Transportation Department P. O. Box 8028 Boise, ID 83707-2028 • i NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., on October 17, 1995, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Langly Associates, Inc., for annexation and zoning of approximately 73.5 acres of land located in the SW 1/4 SW 1/4 of Section 16, T.3N, R.1 E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located on the SE corner of I-84 and Eagle Road Interchange. The Application requests annexation with zoning of C-G. A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 28th day of September, 1995. WILLIAM G. BERG, J ., TY CLERK • NOTICE OF HEARING • NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., on May 9, 1995, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Langly Associates, Inc., for annexation and zoning of approximately 73.5 acres of land loca#ed in the SW 1/4 SW 1/4 of Section 16, T.3N, R.1E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located on the SE corner of I-84 and Eagle Road Interchange. The Application requests annexation with zoning of C-G. A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 17th day of April, 1995. WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., LERK • ~ ORDINANCE NO. 719 ssoss~s~~ ~~ :n .. ,. V. H~~ r.. J. ~,-++~ Lr.rN1~ U ~V1.~+i:. :~7V'O~ Ci ~~5 ~. 29 ply ~; sa AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AN4~ ~'Q'N~,I ~~1I (~ REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LA~f~S ~,~j D 'TH ` NW 1/4 AND THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 3 NO~~H, RANGE-:-..EAST OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; A~~.c,~._„~- ,~~4L~~,r ~;: EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of said City to annex to the said City real property which is described in Section 1 below: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho: Section 1. That the real property described as: A parcel of land located in the NW 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of Section 16, Township 3 North, Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Section 16, T.3N., R.lE., B.M., thence S 89°22'54" E 818.95 feet to a point on the South line of said Section 16, the Real Point of Beginning of this description; Thence N 0°37'06" E 25.00 feet to a point on the Northerly right of way of Overland Road; Thence N 36°52'54" W 485.74 feet to a point; Thence N 66°51'55" W 261.30 feet to a point; Thence N 0°24'05" E 140.10 feet to a point; Thence N 51°28'56" W 384.81 to a point on the West line of said Section 16, being the East line of Annexation Ordinance #660. Thence N 0°49'23" W (formerly N 0°41'32" W) 1766.71 feet along the Easterly boundary of Annexation Ordiance #660 to the West 1/4 corner of said Section 16; Thence S 89°23'35" E (formerly S 89°14'47" E) 149.48 feet along the Easterly boundary of Annexation Ordinance #660 to a point; ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - LANt~LY/POiiER MALL Page 1 Thence N 0°45'08" E 54.75 feet (formerly N 0°45'13" E 54.92 feet) along the Easterly boundary of Annexation Ordinance #660 to a point on the Southerly boundary of Annexation Ordinance #659 which is also the Northerly right of wag line of 'I-84; Thence N 89°09'38" E 758.53 feet along the Southerly boundary of Annexation Ordinance #659 to a point; Thence S 85°45'08" E 438.46 feet to the Southeast corner of Annexation Ordinance #659; Thence S 85°44'30" E 1176.86 feet along the Northerly right of way of I-84 to.a point; Thence S 89°54'21" E 172.98 feet along said Northerly right of way to a point en the East line of the SW 1/4 of said Section 16; Thence S 0°13'49" E 1299.59 feet along said East line to the Northeast corner of Jewel Subdivision; Thence N 89°23' 14" W ,1339.40 feet to the Northwest corner of Jewel Subdivision; Thence S 0°31'36" E 1326.93 feet to the West 1/16 corner common to Sections 16 and 21, T.3N., R.lE; Thence N 89°22'54" W 513.59 feet along the South line of said Section 16 to the Real Point of Beginning of this description. is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and shall be zoned C-G General Retail and Service Commercial; that the annexation and zoning is subject to the conditions referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as adopted by the Meridian Council on the request for annexation and zoning. Section 2. That the property shall be subject to de- annexation if the owner shall not meet the following requirements: a. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer at his expense and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land. b. That the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted January 4, 1994. ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - LANGLY/POKER MALL Page Z • c. That, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address inclusion into development of the property the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, and L of the Revised and. Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and other matters; that the property may be de-annexed if the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement are not satisfied. d. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 1.1-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, 11-9-605 M. which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways, and 11-9-606 B 14. which pertains to pressurized irrigation. e. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the Applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. f. Meet the requirements and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. g. There shall be no development or use, whatsoever, of the property other than a Planned Commercial Development. Section 3 . That the City Clerk shall cause one (1) copy of the legal description, and map, which shall plainly and clearly designate the boundaries of said property, to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, Ada County Assessor, and the State Tax Commission within ten (10) days following the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as required by law. PASSED by the City Council and approved by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this 19th day of December, 1995. ANNE%ATION ORDINANCE - LANGLY/POWER MALL Page 3 • APPROVED: ~~ ~ MAYOR -- GRANT P. KINGSFORD ATTEST: _ ;. L IAM G. BERG, JR - CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO,) ss. County of Ada, ) `tttttlllttllft-rrrrr ~ O ~"+ r. c, - `3~~3.~ p!. rr~ I ,< ~~~rrrrrllll tltilttt~\` I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of an Ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NW 1/4 AND THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE."; passed as Ordinance No. 719 , by the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the 19th day of December, 1995, as the same appears in my office. DATED this 19th day of December, 1995. ~~ City Clerk, City of i an Ada County, Idaho ``tttttunlurrrrrr `~G t~0 ~~~'~~ - _, ~~, "~ ... "`~ ~ C!?~#I ~ ~r~r'r~r; el I,tltttt~ ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - LANGLY/POTTER MALL Page 4 • • STATE OF IDAHO,) 1 SS. County of Ada, ) On this ~~ ~. day of December, 1995, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written • ~16~j10t~~~~I,, O ~' CJ ~~. .. oa9 .~ s y ' i ,..~y (1 `.. ~ SEAL `' `, Q) (! ~ = f1+ U 6w+ G A ~ a © Cs~Le ~ o to Public f Idaho ding at M idian, Idaho My Commission Expires 4-25 - ?_oob ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - LANGLY/POWER MALL Page 5 • ' ~ ~~' -~ - N.bA'oq'~8'E.758.53 s. s5 ~ `~~ ~. 7 ~; 45od E. 43S.4b~ ~ sa.~s S 85'gt~'~~ -_~ s. ~x~5~•~---------------------------------------------------------- E rilc.sc~ ~. -4B'---------------- ---------- - - - -- - - - ----- i I _._ ~ _ -_ _ .--- ~ tt33 _,..- - --- 4 _ --- -------1-~ --------------- ~ ---- --~- ---------- ~_ dC' - ----~ -___ -__- ..._ -- -----._ ---~__-' m _-~ _-- ._...._---~"" l -- -- - ~_. - +-_~- j --- ~ , '~ i 0 ~ = i i ~ ~V - - ~w>rtz. MA.U. ~-NNEX ~ Z ; ,;~~" i~iTloN ;. fir- - - .o ~ - 1 ~~ i ~ ~ ~ _ ~~ ~/;/ ~!(~ --- ~, i ~, •. ~101~1'4I • '~~ ,,~ _,, , _ ,~~ ~, ~` N:Bq°28~l4~ W. I~q'1.40~ \ ~ T '~~ p \ --- - d~l'___.___._.I~ p/' c ~' ~'(S ~ w /;-~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .Fi \~' ~_,, ~% ~m - - , ~ ~, :~ ~' q_\~ o'$1'c~ f, 25,00' _______________.__---__-_--___-J hW. co- tiEe. IbiT3N, a I Eeyr= _ _ _=~ - •~~ ihb map u made !mm dua capyriahrod br Ade ~Y. ~ ~v sMU mu be -ia6k fw brm,.ade° w miss d rhic mep. ~ harira Ibis dir6imer mey 6e a.~T+pkd (nxly. iinweve., use in enY ~id kxm nquuef the writPon permhsion d hi County. „ i 1 ='~OJ T / ,, - =` - - °-- ~ ~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: DECEMBERi'~ 1995 APPLICANT: LANGLY 8< ASSOCIATES ITEM NUMBER; 5 REQUEST; TABLED DECEMBER 5 1995 -ORDINANCE #719 - LANGLY 8~ ASSOCIATES ANNEXATION AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: n , CITY FIRE DEPT: ~ V CITY BUILDING DEPT: //~~ ~~~ V"~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION; SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: DECEMBER 5 1995 APPLICANT: ITEM NUMBER; 8 REQUEST; ORDINANCE #719 LANGLY >9i ASSOCIATES ANNEXATION AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION; SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: •~~u_~~+ nN~ t~ OTHER: l,,~l Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. CITY OF 1~1[ERID~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ? ~ ..~, :.~~ ;:. PUBLIC WO ..:a .~~~>{~ a ~`~~~..~~ '<: ~~; r RIGS DEPARTMENT ~ , ~: . LETTER OF TRA~~TSMITTAL December 4, 1995 ~ ~ . To: Michael Marks, L.S. Briggs Engineering, Inc. . .1111 So. Orchard St., Suite 600 , Boise, Idaho $3705 From: Bruce A. Freckleton _ Assistant to City Engineer Subject: I-84~ Center -Annexation Legal Description Enclosed are the followin . Ct}PIES ._ DATE. ~ ~~ T- ~ ~ ~ r H -~ y ~:._ ' D~ESCRIF'I' ° ~ .~ ~ - ~_ k~~~T 1 Ea. 5!5/95 P & Z Comments 1 ~• 12/4/95 Map detailing area to tie included in Annexation Legal Description l ~• 8/2/94 Annexation Ordinance No. 659 1 Ea. 8/2/94 Annexation Ordinance No. 660 . These are transmitted: . / For your / For action o For review o For your use ^ As requested information specified below and comn~t Remarks: Michael; Please revise your Legal Description for Annexatimn to include the areas indicated on the enclosed map. At this point in time, -the property included in your legal description is non- contiguous to the Corporate City Limits of the City of Meridian. Please refer to the enclosed two Ordinances that your legal needs to be contiguous to. - Please call if you need additional information or if you have any questions. Thanks. Copy to: File 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho ~~us~ e~ i-z'll l rax (zp8) 887-1297 .. fir.: _~~ ~ ~ ~' .. DESCRIPTION OF KECEiVED ~ _ _. • Powell iuwu. DEC 0 41995 , December 1, 1995 ~IpN GTY A parcel of land located in the SW 1/4 of Section 16, Township 3 North, Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of Section 16,. T.3N., R.1 E., B.M., thence S 89°22'54" E 1332.53 feet to the west 1/16 corner common to Sections 16 and 21, T.3N., R.1 E.; Thence N 0°31'36" W 25.00 feet to a point on the northerly right of way of Overland Road, the Real Point of Beginning of this description; Thence N 89°22'54" W 51,3.52 feet to a point; Thence N 36°50'18" W 485.10 feet to a point; Thence N 66°51'55" W 261.30 feet to a point; . Thence N 0°24'05" E 140.10 feet to a point; . Thence N 51°28'56" W 195.30 to a point on the easterly right of way of the Eagle Road Interchange; Thence N 8°45'OT' E 562.00 feet along said right of way to a point on the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4;' Thence N 89°23'14" W 64.42 feet along the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 and along said easterly right of way to a point on a curve; Thence along said right of way on a curve to the right 1364.97 feet, said curve having a radius of 1050.47 feet, a central angle of 74°26'58", tangents of 798.06 feet and a chord of 1270.95 feet which bears N 43°13'38" E to a point; Thence N 82°04'01" E 940.65 feet along said right of way to a point on the southerly. right of way of I-84; Thence N 85°25'08" E 236.03 feet along •said southerly right of way to a point; Thence S 89°43'13" E 460.90 feet along said southerly right of way to a point on the east line of the SW 1/4 of said Section .16; Thence S 0°13'49". E 1099.26 feet to the northeast comer of Jewel Subdivision; Thence N 89°23'14" W 1339.40 feet to the northwest comer of Jewel Subdivision; Thence S 0°31'36" E 1301.92 feet to the Real Point of Beginning of this description. Said parcel of land contains 81.59 acres, more or less. LETTER ~ OF BRIGGS ENGINEERING, Inc. 1111 So. Orchard St, Suite 600 Boise, Idaho 83705 PHONE (208) 345-2881 FAX N0: (208) 345-2950 TO ~'~IE ARE SENDING YOU ^ WE ARE RETURNING TRAASMITTAL DATE /~- / " 9S ID N0. ~•~~ ~ ~ JOB NAME ~~-~'~-~ ~'~~ JOB ADDRESS qTY, STATE ^ SHOP ORA W1NG5 ^ CHANGE ORDER ^ COPY OF LETTER ^ PLANS ^ OR/G/NALS ^ F/NAL PLA T ^ SPEC/F/CA TIONS ^ COMPUTER D/SK ^ O T/-/ER L~YENCLOSED ^ UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA ^ FEDERAL EXPRESS ^ COURIER THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW ^ FLa4 APPROVAL ^ APPR01~£D AS SUBM/T1FD ^ RES7lB,f//T CA~/ES FA? APPROVAL ^ FGW YOUR INFU?MA170W ^ APRR01~£D AS NOTID ^ SUBA//T CQ°/ES FGYP DYSIR/BUIIA~V ^ AS RE(XJESIID ^ RETURNED FA? CGYtREC11GWS ^ RETI/RN CQ4RECIID PR/NTS ^ FG)4 RENEW AND CANMENT ^ PRILE ^ FGW B/OS DUE ^ REMARKS ifs COPY TO ~~~~~ SIGNED DESCRIPTION OF POWER MALL December 1, 1995 A parcel of land located in the SW 1/4 of Section 16, Township 3 North, Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of Section 16, T.3N., R.1 E., B.M., thence S 89°22'54" E 1332.53 feet to the west 1/16 corner common to Sections 16 and 21, T.3N., R.1E.; Thence N 0°31'36" W 25.00 feet to a point on the northerly right of way of Overland Road, the Real Point of Beginning of this description; Thence N 89°22'54" W 513.52 feet to a point; Thence N 36°50'18" W 485.10 feet to a point; Thence N 66°51'55" W 261.30 feet to a point; Thence N 0°24'05" E 140.10 feet to a point; Thence N 51°28'56" W 195.30 to a point on the easterly right of way of the Eagle Road Interchange; Thence N 8°45'07" E 562.00 feet along said right of way to a point on the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4; Thence N 89°23'14" W 64.42 feet along the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 and along said easterly right of way to a point on a curve; Thence along said right of way on a curve to the right 1364.97 feet, said curve having a radius of 1050.47 feet, a central angle of 74°26'58", tangents of 798.06 feet and a chord of 1270.95 feet which bears N 43°13'38" E to a point; Thence N 82°04'01" E 940.65 feet along said right of way to a point on the southerly right of way of I-84; Thence N 85°25'08" E 236.03 feet along said southerly right of way to a point; Thence S 89°43'13" E 460.90 feet along said southerly right of way to a point on the east line of the SW 1/4 of said Section 16; Thence S 0°13'49" E 1099.26 feet to the northeast corner of Jewel Subdivision; Thence N 89°23'14" W 1339.40 feet to the northwest corner of Jewel Subdivision; Thence S 0°31'36" E 1301.92 feet to the Real Point of Beginning of this description. Said parcel of land contains 81.59 acres, more or less. Michael E. Marks, L.S., No. 950116 • • Meridian City Council December 19, 1995 Page 9 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Mr. President, when is that tabled to? Morrow. January 16. Tolsma: Do we want to have the findings prepare for that time or before that time? Morrow. My wish would be to have them prepare before that time so we could review them prior to that meeting. ITEM #5: TABLED DECEMBER 5, 1995: ORDINANCE #719 - LANGLY & ASSOCIATES ANNEXATION: Morrow. I believe that was tabled pending resolution of the legal description issues, was that completed Gary? Smith: Yes Morrow: And it was to your satisfaction? Smith: Yes Tolsma: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NW 1/4, AND THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 16, T.3N, R.1E OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anybody from the audience wishing to have Ordinance #719 read in its entirety? Seeing none is there a motion? Morrow. Mr. President, I would move that we approve Ordinance #719 with the suspension of rules. Yerrington: Second Tolsma: It has been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance #719 with suspension of the rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Corrie -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ,, • • Meridian City Council December 5, 1995 Page 17 might, does that include then the next item the annexation as well? Morrow: I am sorry it would. Kingsford: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea (Inaudible) Kingsford: My understanding from Walt's motion is the staff is going to take a look at what is going to be necessary to monitor what do we do in case that is does draw down wells and so forth and I think that it would be appropriate that we take a look at Marty's suggestion that Water Resource if they will monitor it. So we are not asking you to do anything. ITEM #8: TABLE NOVEMBER 21, 1995: ORDINANCE #719 - LANGLEY AND ASSOCIATION ANNEXATION: Kingsford: We have asked to have that tabled to the 19th as well because we just got the legals today. Crookston: It is my understanding that the legals we just got are not correct. Kingsford: Well I thought engineering was an exact science Gary, I expect that out of the Counselor. Smith: Land surveying is not it is an art. Kingsford: I have heard that too. Well, let's make every effort to see that gets done and get ready for the next meeting too because you are talking about a pretty good size change that would be nice for the citizens of Meridian to not have to fork out if we can get someone else to. We need a motion to table that to the December 19 meeting. Yerrington: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Bob to table the Ordinance #719 Langley and Associates annexation to the December 19 meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? • • Meridian City Council December 5, 1995 Page 18 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST OF 30 ACRES TO C-G BY MICHAEL PRESTON: Kingsford: Council reviewed those findings. Any questions of the Council for staff? Is there a motion on those findings? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we hereby adopt and approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written on the annexation and zoning for Michael Preston, C-G, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Corrie -Yea, Tolsma -Absent MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the Meridian City Council hereby decides that based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law above stated that the annexation application is denied and the City Council shall not consider annexation and zoning of this property until more definite plans of development are submitted. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the decision, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: Kingsford: I guess my initial question is it appropriate to approve of a variance of something that hasn't been annexed. • Meridian City Council November 21, 1995 Page 13 property, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea • Turnbull: I would like to know if there is any clarification needed on the square footage requirement? Kingsford: There would be if in fact and our engineer will be checking if they do meet that minimum lot size from your fence property line there would not be a requirement for a variance. ITEM #7: ORDINANCE #719 - LANGLY & ASSOCIATES ANNEXATION: Crookston: Mr. Mayor, that ordinance has not been prepare because we do not have an accurate legal description from the applicant. It is my understanding that they are putting that together. Kingsford: I would entertain a motion to table ordinance #719. Yerrington: So moved Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to table Ordinance #719 until the December 5 meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 30 ACRES TO C-G BY MICHAEL PRESTON: Kingsford: I am sure the public that has interest in this may wonder what is going on, when the Council dealt with this last time we had improper material. We were reading from one set of music was reading from another and I have no idea what the residents out there were reading. But Mr. Preston brought that back to the Council, the majority of them though that it would be appropriate to re-hear it. So at this time I will open that public hearing and invite Mr. Preston or his designee to begin. Michael Preston, 420 Bitterroot, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Preston: Thank you for the introduction and I want to keep this brief, I don't want to go • Meridian City Council November 8, 1995 Page 20 Crookston and I did hand deliver the CC&R's on phase 1 and phase 2 of Los Alamitos that speak about the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District or the homeowners. Smith: You hand delivered them to? Goldsmith: To Rick Clinton. Smith: Recorded copies? Goldsmith: Yes sir. Kingsford: Other questions of the Council? Is there a motion on the request for phased construction? Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we enter into anon-development agreement for the 10 lots subject to the meeting by Mr. Goldsmith and verification by him to our staff of all of the staff conditions that have been discussed and that upon satisfactory completion of that I v~routd authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest to that non-development agreement. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the non-development agreement subject to all of the staff requirements being met and authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest after that has been completed, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #14: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST OF 73.5 ACRES TO C-G BY LANGLEY AND ASSOCIATES: Kingsford: Questions of the Council? Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for the annexation and zoning request of 73.5 acres to C-G by Langly and Associates. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the findings of fact and conclusions of law for the annexation and zoning request of 73.5 acres to C-G by Langly and Associates, roll call vote. 4. Meridian City Council November 8, 1995 Page 21 ROLL CALL VOTE: Corrie -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Morrow -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Morrow. Mr. Mayor, the Meridian City Council of the City of Meridian hereby decides that the property set forth in the application is approved for annexation and zoned general retail and service commercial C-G with a conditional use permit issued on the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law. That if the applicant is not agreeable to these findings of fact and conclusions of law and is not agreeable with entering into a development agreement the property should not be annexed. There shall be no development or use whatsoever of the property for anything other than a planned commercial development with conditional use permit required for these specific uses. Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve of the decision as read, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #15: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL PROJECT OF APPROXIMATELY 700,000 SQUARE FEET BY LANGLY AND ASSOCIATES; TABLED OCTOBER 17, 1995: Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the findings for this conditional use are part of the findings for the annexation and zoning request. So Counsel advises me that all we need to do is a motion for the approval of the conditional use permit for the retail project and I would make that motion. Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the conditional use permit for a retail project of 700,000 square feet by Langly and Associates, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #16: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST OF 40.17 ACRES TO L-O AND C-G BY JIM BALLANTYNE: MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: NOVEMBER 8.1995 ,,// APPLICANT: ITEM NUMBER; '1.3I ~~~Y REQUEST; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST OF 73 5 ACRES TO C-G BY LANGLY 8 ASSOCIATES AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: C~Z•1u1-~il.~~ FINDNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OFLAW ~i~ „r~J.~ ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION; SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: ~~-~L ~~~~ OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. . ~Op~( BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL LANGLY ASSOCIATES. INC. ANNEXATION AND ZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE NE CORNER OF OVERLAND AND EAGLE ROAD SOUTH WEST OUARTER OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH RANGE_1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, STATE OF IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on October 17, 1995, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing through Russell C. Keithly, and the City Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony, and having duly considered the matter, the City Council makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT A. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the public hearing scheduled for October 17, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that this application was heard before the Planning and Zoning on May 9, 1995 and was tabled to June 13, 1995, and at the June 13, 1995, meeting additional comments were received and the Commission moved to have Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared for the July 11, 1995, meeting; at the July 11, 1995, meeting the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 1 •. matter was tabled again because the Ada County Highway District Commissioners would not be acting on the matter until the end of August, 1995; the ACHD comments were finally received on August 24, 1995, and the matter having been duly considered at the May 9, 1995 and June 13, 1995, hearings and the public having been given full opportunity to express comments. and submit evidence; and copies of all notices being available to newspaper, radio and television stations, the City Council hereby takes action on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. B. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 73.5 acres in size. C . That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as R-T (Rural Transition); that the Application requests that the property be zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) and has requested a conditional use permit to allow retailers; that the Applicant has stated in its Application that it is proposed that a retail center of approximately 700,000 square feet be developed on this site; that the type of center proposed is called a "Power Center"; that Attachment 4 to the Application is a generic description of a Power Center; the Applicant listed the categories of tenants anticipated to be located in the center in Attachment 5; the Application is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. D. Adjacent to this development is the I-84 Interstate freeway and major arterials of Eagle and Overland Roads; that to FINDINGS OF-FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 2 • a the north, across the freeway, is the proposed St. Luke's Medical campus; that to the east and abutting the subject property are large lot single family residences; to the south is land used agriculturally; and to the west is land used for an interstate on and off ramp. E. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. F. That Langly Associates, Inc., is the Applicant; that the owners have consented to the application and have requested this annexation, zoning and conditional use and the application is not at the request of the City of Meridian. G. That the owners are the Doris Kathleen Oliason Family Trust, Virginia Jennison, Trustee, Rackham L.L.C., a limited liability company, and Dolores M. Hartman, who have granted permission for the annexation and zoning request. H. That the Applicant's annexation and zoning application stated that the present use of the land is agricultural; there is one single family home on the west side of the property, the Rackham residence. An approximately 400 lineal feet entry road is proposed to cross the eastern most portion of an acreage that has one single family home, the Delores Hartman residence. I. That the proposed use is for a commercial retail center, called POWER CENTER; that the Applicant lists the following as a characteristic that make it desirable to be zoned C-G: "The property is located at one of the most prominent intersections in the area." I-84 at Eagle Road, and Eagle Road/Highway 55. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGL - 3 J. That Russell Reithly, the Applicant's representative, testified at the Planning and Zoning hearing that Overland Road would be five lanes at their property; that there would be separate buildings for deliveries; that the larger tenants would be in the eastern portion of the project; that there would be an architectural committee and guidelines; that the Meridian codes would be exceeded; that there would be a two to four foot berm with a four to six foot fence; that there would be as much buffering as they could put in; that there would be a wall so that there would be no view of Interstate 84; that the entry road would be 400 feet long with a three to four foot berm plus a rock wall; that the wall along Interstate 84 would be at least six feet high; the highest building would be 30 feet, except for parapet walls; he showed pictures of the concept of the buildings; there would be metal siding, an agrarian theme, roofs and masonry would have varied colors; that this was a mixed/planned use development area which had a priority for development in the comprehensive plan; that traffic projections were submitted to the Ada County Highway District; that traffic would be from a four mile radius, but they will pull from a large trade area; that Overland would be five lanes, but not to meet their schedule; their intersection would be signalized; that there would be no access to the site from $agle Road; that they would put in what the Meridian Fire Department wanted and would pave if required; that they had no concerns with the Meridian staff comments; that construction would be started by spring; that there would be stores by Christmas of 1996; that they FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGL - 4 have no tenants now but they would be lined out before construction commenced; that it was likely that there would be no firm commitments and no names would be released until annexation and zoning were completed and commitments signed. He specifically stated, in part, that most of their property is designated mixed planned use development area, that there is a great variety that is allowed and we believe what we are doing is probably the least impactful and economically most beneficial to the community. K. That Mr. Keithly testified before the Council that the traffic analysis done by Bell Walker, and their traffic engineer, are convinced that a single point of access will handle the traffic but that it is not their choice; that a second point of emergency access into the site which is a road running parallel with Eagle Road, will remain as an emergency access, although the turning movements conflict; that with regards to his earlier testimony he included items that were specifically related to the conditional use; he stated that extensive hydrologic studies will be done and that ground water conditions can be dealt with accordingly; that the developer felt that more space being converted from retail to office was not a viable solution in combating the traffic issue; that while retail puts more total trips on your streets it puts far fewer trips versus none during the a.m. peak; that if the spaces were to be made for offices, there would be a tremendous amount of conflicting trips during the a.m. and p.m. peaks; that a retail center during the critical periods provided less traffic than an FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 5 office center. L. There were several property owners in the immediate area who testified at the May 9, 1995, hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission about the Application; the testimony can be summarized as follows: 1. Robert Cox, testified that he was a fifteen year resident; that he lived in Jewell Subdivision; that. there was insufficient infrastructure in Ada county; that Five.~Mile Creek cuts the property; that emergency service was inadequate; traffic was too high; that sidewalks should be required; that reduced speed limits were needed; power lines were inadequate; sewage could be a problem; private well and septic systems should be protected; that the lands drains to Jewell~Subdivision; that lighting is a problem; that police and fire were insufficient to handle the development; that the costs for infrastructure would be prohibitive; that he had negative connotation of the property; that the southwest or southeast quarters of Overland and Eagle would be a much better location; that this parcel should be City park instead. 2. Jim Rogers testified that he represented about 40 residents on the Rolling Hill/Jade/Onyx/Topaz area; that a petition and written statement were presented to the Commission; that the neighbors who signed the petition are united in their opposition to Langly Associates, an out of state developer; that the negative aspects of this kind of development is vandalism, gangs, mall rats, bomb threats; that this will certainly place an additional workload on the Meridian City Police as well as other emergency response groups; that the objective stated in the Comprehensive Plan of the preservation of the Meridian Old Town Business District will be only devastating to this existing infrastructure; that the massive impact of traffic, light, noise and air pollution; that the suggested buffer is not of significant distance and the residents believe there to be a better place where this development can be located. 3. Karen Gallagher, of the Ada County Highway District, testified that the District had just received the traffic study from the Applicant on FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 6 May 5, 1995 and requested the Commission to table it until the Commission's next regularly scheduled meeting, June 13, 1995. At the June 13, 1995, hearing, Ms. Gallagher stated that the District had. not acted on this application, that it was tabled in order to accommodate people from the public who would like to speak but she did have staff recommendation update. 4. David Lewis testified that he is in support of the I-84 Power. Center; that the Center will produce commerce for the City of Meridian and offered his written testimony to be included in the record, which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 5. Katherine Mooney testified that she represented Mr. Griffen, owner of the southwest corner of Eagle Road and Overland Road, consisting of 80 acres, and offered Mr. Griffen's written support of this development,whi~ch is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 6. That Pam Haynes testified that this development borders her property which was purchased 11 years ago and believes this annexation will have a definite impact on her and the developer is only out for a profit. 7. Cameron McGough testified that the section of Overland Road between Locust Grove and Cloverdale, those two ( 2 ) miles, are not in the 5 year plan; that the draft of the Ada County Highway District's transportation study needs to be thoroughly looked at and at this time accesses are inadequate and obvious spin off will occur. 8. Virginia Jennison, trustee of Doris Kathleen Oliason Family Trust, owner of the North 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 16, testified as to the history surrounding the land/farm her parents had started on in 1919 and that she is in support of this development and believes it will help the tax base in Meridian and do a lot for the community. 9. Kenneth Higgs testified to being in favor of the Center; that the taxes raised by this Power Center will help the City. 10. Bob Mitchell, former general manager of the Boise Town Square Mall testified in support of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANt~LY PAaL - 7 proposed development; base; that he suggeste landscaping as in the impact to the residents bad as they think. that this broadens the tax d that by the creative use of Town Square Mall, that the in this area will not be as 11. Randy Schindel and Kimberly Keller testified regarding the crime issue that comes to a facility of this size; that although they are in favor of seeing growth, with growth comes crime; that Ms. Keller testified that one entrance won't handle the traffic . 12. Jim Ballantyne testified that development is certainly coming and sympathizes with those residents who see their lives impacted by this development; that a wise decision needs to be made regarding the traffic patterns and the least impact possible on the community. 13. Richard and Barbara Lavender, land owners at Overland and Eagle Road, Fred and Molly Nakaji, residents of Wilton, California, and Christopher Repus, a resident of Elk Grove, California, but a former resident of Boise and a current land owner in Meridian, submitted written testimony in favor of this project, which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. M. There were several property owners in the immediate area who testified before the City Council about the Application; the testimony can be summarized as follows: 1. That Robert Nelson testified before the City Council stating that he has no problem with the Oliason's developing their property, but that he does have a problem with a shopping center with a single entrance; that something with less traffic impact such as an office complex, light industrial, would be more ideal; that he would like to see this tabled until plans can be compared as to which location would serve Meridian the best. 2. That Larry Strow, of the Transportation Department testified that there are some concerns at the Eagle interchange; that a condition be made of the Council's approval that the installation of another signal and possibly in the distant future another left turn lane be instituted to help work out some FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 8 of the congestion problems; he indicated that these opinions are based on Bell Walker's projected traffic report but that the Idaho Transportation Department has done no work at all in looking at what the potential build out for this project in this area might be or how it would affect the interchange. 3. That Jim Rogers testified before the Council adding to his earlier testimony before the Planning and Zoning Commission; he stated that that he is a registered professional geologist in the State of Idaho with 20 years experience; he addressed the storm water run off; that since the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District will not allow non- treated run off to be placed into the Five Mile Creek that a retention basin will most likely be required; that at the present time the static ground water level in the property just east of the development, is at a high elevation area at 25 feet below ground surface; that in the lower areas to the south of the development the ground water surface is at about 10 feet below ground surface; that if the developer puts in a retention basin that means in some cases there will probably not be more than 5 feet of soil between the bottom of the basin and the regional ground water table in that area; that since no detailed studies of ground water hydrology have been made in this area, there is no idea which way ground water moves which means if the developer retains the water in a storm water basin such, as in Fred Meyers at Five Mile and Overland, a real potential exists for parking lot contamination to enter the ground water system; that real property located on the east, south and west of this proposed development all depends on water wells for their local water supply and regardless of which way the water table moves a very real danger exists for water pollution to enter the domestic wells, which in the upper part of the Rolling Hills Subdivision are about 90 feet in depth and in the Jewel area some wells are a bit deeper; that the property owners in the Rolling Hills and Jewell Subdivisions request that the developer be required to have a complete hydrological study completed as well as a series of ground water monitoring wells be placed around the east, south and west side of the proposed development to facilitate long term monitoring; that the Jewell and Rolling Hills Subdivisions are on septic tanks and currently have a good buffer FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 9 • between the tanks and the water table. 4. That Betty Bermensolo, spokesperson for the Southwest Ada County Alliance, whose boundaries are south of the freeway all the way to Runa, east to Cole/Curtis area and west to Ada County/Canyon County line testified at length and her testimony, which is in the minutes of the meeting, is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that her testimony included that the developer of this project was asked to present this proposed development before the Alliance's board of directors, but had not done so and that the area would lend itself better to the use of medical office space. 5. That James Ballantyne testified that he is in favor of this project; that it is a way for the school system to get more tax dollars to build much badly needed schools. 6. Pam Rogers testified stating that the reason Meridian's bond issues have been defeated is that the taxpayers telling Meridian City to slow down development; to let services such as schools and roads catch up; that the development of more subdivisions brings in more students indicating a need for a higher tax base such as this proposed development. 7. Jack Miller testified that progress is something nobody likes, but it's here and it isn't going to change; that this mall proposal by Langly and the mall approved at Fairview and Eagle will be beneficial to the City of Meridian by bringing in some tax revenues before it's too late to do something about it. N. That the Meridian Police Department, Meridian City Engineer, Ada County Highway District, Central District Health Department, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and the Idaho State Transportation Department submitted comments; that those comments are incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. O. That the comments of the Ada County Highway District, FINDINGS OF-FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 10 have been incorporated herein as if set forth in full, but the Facts and Findings included the following: 1. From the Facts and Findings, general Information, it is stated in paragraph d. that the site's exposure to the Interstate Highway makes it highly desirable for the type of land use being proposed, however the site's .single point of connection to the arterial system causes severe problems of traffic dispersal. It would be much better if the project were to be located on a site that has direct access to two (or More) arterials instead of one. In paragraph G. it is stated that this project is forecast to cause 13,145 trips per day on Overland Road east from the Eagle Road intersection and 13,217 trips per day west of Eagle Road. Although the traffic volumes are within maximum desirable thresholds on the roadways, the inordinate number of turning movements at the site's driveway and the Overland/Eagle intersection require special intersection design. 2. The report stated several alternative actions, which included alternative G. and I. Alternative G. was to accept the project with the regular impact revenue that will be coliected, recommending to the City of. Meridian that the developer be required to construct the site related improvements to Overland Road and to the Overland/Eagle intersection, including the additional lane on each leg of the intersection. This action will replace the lost unused capacity at the intersection, but will make no provision for. other growth in the area. An alternative to this option would be to establish for the four square mile area a separate impact fee benefit zone and commit all of the impact fee revenue from the new zone to construct arterial improvements only within the zone as development projects into the balance of the Meridian area, since it would take revenue that currently go to the construction of those projects. And Alternative I. was to require the developers of all property in the impact area (and District wide) to replace a pro-rata share of the then available unused capacity of all intersections and roadways. The unused capacity would be quantified, including a reserve for background District wide traffic and adjusted downward as each property in the effected area is developed, so there would be no unused capacity in the system when the area is 100 percent developed. 3. The ACRD staff recommended that a combination of G. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 11 • and I. be adopted for this and future applications in the area. Accept the development(s), requiring the developers to make whatever improvements to the system are necessary to mitigate their site related impacts and replace any unused capacity in the system that their development uses up. Use regular impact fee revenue to make needed capacity improvements as funds are available and the commission budgets funds for the uaprovements. This will result in the public having to cope with deficient levels of service in some cases until revenue is available to .make .the required improvements. 4. The report included Site Specific Requirements, that included the following: a. The access road shall have three southbound traffic lanes and two northbound traffic lanes. The existing (southbound) lanes shall include two left turn lanes, and one right turn lane. b. Dedicate 54-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Overland Road. The owner will not be compensated for~this additional right-of-way. c. None of the above roadway improvements described above will be eligible for impact fee offset or reimbursement. R. The Assistant City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, commented that an annexation perimeter legal description for the proposed site be submitted and it shall include all portions of the adjacent Public Rights-of Way contiguous to the Corporate City Limits; that one half (1/2) of all other adjacent right-of-way shall be included in the perimeter legal description; that any existing irrigation or drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance; that any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems shall be removed from their domestic service except for purposes such as landscape irrigation, per City Ordinance; that off-street parking shall be provided and/or as detailed in site-specific requirements per City FINDINC33 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LAN(,~LLY PAdL - 12 Ordinance; that paving and striping, lighting, and signage shall be in accordance with City Ordinances; that a drainage plan designed by a licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted for all off-street parking areas; determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist; that water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by computer model; that a 100' x 100' well site shall be donated to the City of Meridian at the proposed site and shall meet all the criteria of the State of Idaho Department of Water Resources and the City of Meridian; that the Applicant will be required to construct 12 inch diameter water mains from the City's current points of terminus in Overland Road and Eagle Road to and through the proposed site creating a "loop" crucial to the water serviceability of this site; that sewer service will be via the Five Mile Trunk Sewer main currently under construction for the St. Luke's West Medical Center and that Applicant will be responsible to construct any lateral lines from the point of St. Luke's serviceability to and through the proposed site and that assessment fees for water and sewer service shall be determined during the building plan review process; that "Late Comers" fees will also be charged against this parcel to help reimburse the installation. L. That the Idaho Transportation Department commented that the developer be aware that no access will be permitted to I-84 or Eagle Road, both of which are full control accesses. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 13 • M. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. N. That the parcel of ground requested to be annexed is presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area (U.S.P.A.) as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. O. That the property could be physically serviced with City water and sewer, if applicant extends the lines. P. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots and other uses. Q. That the following pertinent statements are made in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and are specifically applicable to this Application: 1. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY CENTERS at page 17 Retail, commercial and office development are frequent partners within Commercial Activity Centers. In order to support residential and industrial developments, areas should be set aside as Commercial Activity Centers and their development carefully guided. Various commercial activity centers are designated on the generalized land use map. Planning policies pertaining to commercial activity centers are presented in the land use chapter of the plan. MIXED-PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT AREAS at page 17 Mixed use is a planning category which refers to the coordinated development of several major uses as part of a single project, such as specialty FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGB - 14 • • retail/commercial, variable density residential, offices, motels, industrial, service, commercial, and public and semi-public uses. Certain areas have been designated for mixed-planned uses. The development of mixed and planned compatible land uses should be ca=efully guided through specific project plans, in accordance with the mixed-use policies contained in the Land Use chapter of the Plan. Economic Development Goal Statement Policies, Page 18 1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to create a positive atmosphere which encourages industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in Meridian. 1.2 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set aside areas where commercial and industrial interests and activities are to dominate. 1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new commercial or industrial developments should be harmonized with the natural environment and respect the unique needs and features of each area. 1.6 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to support shopping facilities which are effectively integrated into new or existiag residential areas, and plan for new shopping centers as growth and development warrant. (Emphasis added.) 2. Under LAND USE EXISTING CONDITioNS, Page 21 Commercial and retail areas are established along major arterials, and include small commercial center and individual businesses. Uses include retail, wholesale, service, office, and limited manufacturing. Area of Impact, Page 22 Comprehensive Plan Map The proposed future land use delineations for the impact area are shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map - Generalized Land Uses, The land use elem®nt FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 15 a ~ is based upon these objectives: 1. Mixed-planned uses along the I-84 corridor, which are attractive and compatible with high- volume traffic corridors. (Emphasis added.) COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY CENTERS, Page 25 In all cases, the locations of Commercial Activity Centers should be guided by performance and developments standards. These standards consider, among other aspects: 1. Traffic Volume and Type 2. Trip Generation 3. Impacts on Arterial Street System 4. Proximity to Other Commercial Development 5. Impacts on Neighborhood Residential Areas 6, Accessibility of Site 7. Parking Demands 8. Pedestrian Circulation 9. Available Utility Systems 10. Aesthetics (Design Considerations) 11. Use Impacts Upon Other Adjacent Uses 12. Internal Circulation Design 13. Drainage COMMERCIAL POLICIES, Page 26 4.6U Community shopping centers will be encouraged to locate at arterial intersections and near high-traffic intensity areas. (Emphasis added.) MIXED-PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT, Page 27 Franklin. Overland/I-84 Mixed Use Policies 5.8 Development in these areas should be based on functional plans and proposals is order to ensure that the proposed uses conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and are compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. 5.9 The integrity and identity of any adjoining residential neighborhood should be preserved through the use of buffering techniques, including screen plantings, open space and other landscaping techniques. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 16 • • 5.10 Development should be conducted under Planned Unit Development procedures and as conditional uses, especially when two or more differing uses are proposed. 5.11 The character, site improvements, and type of development should be harmonized with previously-developed land in the area, and where located adjacent to or sear any existing residence or residential area, shall be harmonized- with residential uses, and all reasonable efforts shall be made to reduce the environmental impact on residential areas, including noise and traffic reduction. 5.13 Clustering of uses and controlled access points along arterials and collector streets will be required. 5.14U Because these areas are near I-84, Franklin and Overland Roads, high-quality visual appearance is essential. All development proposals in this area will be subject to development review guidelines and conditional use permitting procedures. 5.15U The mixed-use area fn the vicinity of the Overland Road/Franklin Road/ Eagle Road/I-84 interchange is a priority development area. (Emphasis added.) Rural Areas, page 29 Land covered by this policy section has characteristics which generally allow for agricultural and rural residential activity due to the existence of irrigation systems, soil characteristics and relative freedom from conflicting urban land uses. Where community growth creates pressure for new development, it must be recognized that agricultural land can no longer economically continue to be identified or used as agricultural land to the exclusion of orderly city growth and development." FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 17 • 3. Under TRANSPORTATioN, Page 43 Existing Conditions a. Eagle Road, North of Overland, is listed as a principal arterial b. Overland Road, East of Linder, is listed as a Minor arterial. 4. Under COMMUNITY DESIGN, at Page 70 Community Identification Goal Statement Create visual quality and functional identity for the City of Meridian and its surrounding environment. Policies 1.1 All commercial and industrial developments should be reviewed by the City for adequate site planning. 1.3 Open space areas within all development should be encouraged. 1.4 Major entrances to the City should be enhanced and emphasized. Unattractive land uses along these entrances should be screened from view. Special Community Desiqn Areas Goal Statement 2.1U Require businesses and government to install and maintain landscaping. 2.5U Encourage the use of attractive open space, landscaping, lighting, and street furniture for the benefit of the public. Entryway Corridors Entryway corridors are arterial roadways entering the community that introduce both visitors F IND INQ~3 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LAN(iLY PAQ~S - 18 • and residents to Meridian. City-designated gateway arterials include the following streets: a. I-84 (East and West entrances) f. Eagle Road (North and South entrances) g. Overland Road (East and West entrances) Entryway corridors are a community's front door. It is acknowledged that the corridor's trees (or lack thereof), commercial signage, and site character provide the first, and oftentimes the most lasting,. impression of the entire community. Therefore, the entire community and, most specifically its governing bodies, have the right and the responsibility to guide the development and redevelopment that occurs along entryway corridors. Entrance Corridors Goal Statement Promote, encourage, develop and maintain aesthetically-pleasing entrances to the City of Meridian. Policies 4.4U Encourage landscaped setbacks for new development on entrance corridors. The City shall require, as a condition of development approval, landscaping along all entrance corridors. Oualitv of Environment Goal Statement Pol-_ 5.2U Ensure that all new development enhances rather than detracts from the visual quality of its surroundings, especially in areas of prominent visibility. Neivhborhood Identify Goal Policies, 6.4U Limit the conversion of predominantly FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 19 residential ,neighborhoods to nonresidential uses, and require effective buffers and mitigation measures through conditional use permits when appropriate nonresidential uses are proposed. R. That the property is included within an area designated on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a Mixed/Planned Use Development area and a commercial designation is just to the southwest of the parcel. S. That the requested zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial, (C-G) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. 11. as follows: "IC-G1 General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of the (C-G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. All such districts shall be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial development."; that although not requested by Applicant, Regional Shopping Center Business District is defined in 11-2-408 10. as follows: "(RSC1 Regional Shopping Center Business District - The purpose of the (RSC) District is to provide for and permit the establishment of general and retail business uses that are intended to, and will serve, the entire region of the Treasure Valley; to permit business uses that would be of a larger scale than in the Community Business District; to permit the development of a regional shopping center or mall with adequate off-.street parking facilities and associated FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGL - 20 • site amenities to serve customers and employees; to prohibit strip commercial; and encourage the clustering of regional commercial enterprises. All such districts shall be located in close proximity to major highway or principal arterial streets. All such districts shall be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian." T. That Section 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, B, Commercial, lists commercial uses allowed in the various zoning districts of the City; that .Shopping Centers, Community, are not listed as allowed uses in the General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) district; that Shopping Centers, Neighborhood, are not listed as allowed uses in the General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) district; that retail stores, restaurants, and outdoors, are allowed uses in commercial developments, are an and are listed as a conditional Center district. individual department stores, storage facilities, indoors or the C-G district; that planned allowed use in the C-G district use in the Regional Shopping U. That Planned Development is defined in 11-2-403 B, at page 20 of the Zoning Ordinance booklet, as follows: "An area of land which is developed as a single entity for a number of uses in combination with or exclusive of other supportive uses. A PD may be entirely residential, industrial, or commercial or a mixture of compatible uses. A PD does not necessarily correspond to lot size, bulk, density, lot coverage required, open space or type of residential, commercial or industrial uses as established in any one or more created districts or this Ordinance." and a Planned General Development is defined as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGS - 21 "A development not otherwise distinguished under Planned Commercial, Industrial, Residential Developments, or in which the proposed use of interior and exterior spaces requires unusual design flexibility to achieve a completely logical and complimentary conjunction of uses and functions. This PD classification applies to essential public services, public or private recreation facilities, institutional uses, community facilities or a PD which includes a mix of residential, commercial or industrial uses." and a Planned Commercial Development is defined as follows: "Any development in which the principal use of land is for commercial purposes." V. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its iunpact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAG$ - 22 • increase in population, and the housing for that population, does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students; that the industrial and commercial developments do provide taxes for providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation] services for people that are here, and which will come here. W. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all lots in the City, because of the iunperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. X. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." Y. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY FAGS - 23 residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." Z. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows: "Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision;" AA. That Section 11-9-605 R states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi-improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value., especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to .the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." AB. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: FINDINGS OF-FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 24 • "Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments." AC. That 11-9-607 A, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in part as follows: "The City's policy is to encourage developers of land development and construction projects to utilize the provisions of this Section to achieve the following: 1. A development pattern in accord with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 5. A more convenient pattern of commercial, residential and industrial uses as well as public services which support such uses." AD. That 11-9-607 E, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in part as follows: "A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in the Section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations of the district or districts in which said PD is located. The approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide for such exceptions from the district regulations governing use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this Section." AE. That 11-9-607 F, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in part as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION8 OF LAW - LANC~LY PAGE - 25 1. Planned Developments - Planned developments shall be subject to requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and also subject to all provisions within this Ordinance. 8. Financial Guarantees - The developer shall post financial guarantees for all approved on-site improvements if required pursuant to 9-606 C." AF. As stated above in Paragraph C, the Applicant submitted materials on the conditional use. application for location of buildings, parking and loading areas, service roads, traffic access and traffic circulation, open spaces, storm retention areas, utilities, signs and yards; that such material on the conditional use is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full; that the Applicant submitted materials on the conditional use request but did not specifically address the conditional use at the public hearing. AG. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS A. 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. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGB - 26 • B. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a legislative function. C. That the City Council has judged these annexation, zoning and conditional use applications under Idaho Code, Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. D. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. E. That the Council may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. F. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present pity limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. G. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant with the consent of the property owners, and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. FINDIN(~3 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANQ~LY PA(~S - 27 H. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). I. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply. with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways. J. That this Application has been difficult for the Commission and City Council to decide because of opposition to the Applications; that the Commission and City Council understand the objections and sympathizes with them on an individual basis; that the duty of the Commission and City, however, is not to be controlled by the interests of individual property owners and their concerns; that the duty of the Commission and City Counsel is to assess the applications on the basis of the overall good of the City and its citizens; that the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinances of the City have measures to try and insure that adjacent property owners are impacted by development as little as possible; that it is with this duty and background that the Commission and City Council has undertaken to make these Findings and Conclusions. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 28 • R. That the Applicant's proposed use of the property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. L. The Applicant has stated and represented that its intention is to construct and operate a 700,000 square foot retail shopping center and has stated that the area is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a Mixed/Planned Use Development area which requires planned use development; the Applicant has requested zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G), which does not allow for a community shopping center but does allow for a commercial planned development; the Applicant has requested a conditional use for a retail project of 700,000 square feet. M. That the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its meeting on January 4, 1994, but has not amended the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan; thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance may not address provisions for the use. N. .That the Comprehensive Plan calls for Mixed/Planned Use Development at the northeast corner of the intersection of Overland and Eagle Roads; that a shopping center could be allowed in the C-G district under a Planned Development procedure; that FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 29 the Applicant suggested that it would develop the area of the property planned for a shopping center under a planned development procedure, when it applied for a conditional use permit. O. That it is concluded that the City could annex the property and zone it C-G but the Applicant could still not construct a community shopping center, because under 11-2-409 a community shopping center is not an allowed use; but under C-G zoning, a Planned Commercial Development is a permitted use, which would allow the Applicant to develop a 700,000 square foot commercial center. P. That it is concluded that since the Applicant has suggested that it would develop the property as a planned commercial development and since the Comprehensive Plan, under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Area at Franklin, Overland/I-84, in 5.14U, states that all development requests will be subject to development review guidelines and conditional use permit processing, and the City should have control over any uses that are to be placed on the land, it is therefore concluded that the development should be conditioned on being developed as a Commercial Planned Development, which is allowed in the General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) district. Q. Therefore, it is concluded that since the Applicant has FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGL - 30 stated that it is agreeable to developing the property as a retail center under a commercial planned development process, the property should be annexed and zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G), but only capable of being developed as a Planned Commercial Development. R. That, as a condition of annexation and the zoning of C- G, with development under the Planned Commercial Development standards and guidelines, the Applicant is required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address, among other things, the following: 1. Inclusion into the development, including but not lim ited to, the requirements of 11-9-605 a. C, Pedestrian Walkways. b. G 1, Planting Strips. c. H, Public Sites and Open Spaces. d. K, Lineal Open Space Corridors. e. L, Pedestrian and Bike Path Ways. f. M, Piping of Ditches and 11-9-606 a. Bicycle Pathways. b. Storm drainage. (See Section S. 3. below.) c. Sidewalks and Pedestrian Walkways. d. Greenbelt. e. Pressurized Irrigation. 2. The concerns of the owners of property in Jewell Subdivision concerning sidewalks, drainages, lighting, noise, and buffering; that also of concern to the City is having lights, particularly automobile headlights, shine into the yards and homes in Jewell Subdivision and other adjacent homes and measures shall be FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 31 • • undertaken prevent this. 3. Payment by the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, of any impact, development, or transfer fees, adopted by the City, as agreed to by the Applicant in statements by its representative during the public hearings. 4. Addressing access linkage, screening, and buffering. 5. An impact fee, or fees, for park, police, and fire services as determined. by the City. 6. Appropriate berming and landscaping. 7. Submission and approval of plats for the property. 8. Submission and approval of individual buildings, drainage, lighting, parking, and other development plans under the Planned Development guidelines. 9. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements with the existing residential development. 10. Establishing a 35 foot landscaped setback and landscaping the same. 11. Addressing the comments of the Planning Director. 12. The sewer and water requirements. 13. Agreeing that the Meridian Comprehensive Plan is applicable to the land and any development. 14. Traffic plans and access into and out of the development. 15. .Meeting the representations made as part of the application and hearing process. 16. And any other items deemed necessary by the City Staff, including design review of all development, and conditional use processing as required under the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 32 • • S. That also as conditions of annexation, the Applicant shall submit to the City and have approved by the City Council prior to submitting any plats, conditional use applications, or building plans, the matters set forth below; it is to be noted that some of these items below have been dealt with, or partially dealt with, in the paragraph above but the below paragraph shall be controlling: 1. A plan, with dates of completion, for buffering all adjacent residences. 2. A hydrologic study, with dates of completion, for the area included in the annexation and zoning request. 3. A plan, with dates of completion, for storm water runoff, dispersement and/or storage and a drainage plan designed by a licensed architect or engineer for all off-street parking areas. 4. A plan, with dates of completion, for location, drilling and construction of ground water monitoring wells and well houses, one for each of the fours sides of the development. 5. Submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist to be submitted before submittal of any plats, conditional use applications, or building plans. 6. Prior to submittal of any plats, conditional use applications, or building plans, donate to the City of Meridian a 100' x 100' well site at the proposed site .and meet all the criteria of the State of Idaho Department of Water Resources and the City of Meridian. T. That as a condition of annexation and zoning the Applicant shall plat the property and submit applications FINDINGS OF-FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGS - 33 • therefore to the City, submit conditional use applications for all development on the property, that all buildings and/or structures shall be subject to design review, and that Applicant shall meet all of the comments of the staff of the City. U. Also, as a condition of annexation and zoning, the Applicant shall meet all of the requirements of the Ada County Highway District and the Idaho Department of Transportation. V. That Section 11-2-417 D of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance states that a development agreement should be recorded in the office of the Ada County Recorder and take effect upon the adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the property, or prior if agreed to by the owner of the parcel. That it has been the experience of the City that development agreements are difficult to enter into prior to the annexation ordinance being passed; that it is concluded that the development agreement shall be entered into prior to the preliminary plat being approved. W. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the property is in the best interests of the City of Meridian and should be enacted. X. That regarding the conditional use permit request for retailers, it is concluded that Russell Keithly, a representative of the Applicant, stated that Applicant desired to develop the retail center under a commercial planned development; that the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGL - 34 • CJ Planning and Zoning Commission concluded that if the Applicant agreed to develop the all of the property as a commercial planned development and enter into a development agreement, the property would then be annexed and the Applicant could pursue the development; that it is concluded that under a conditional use and a development agreement, the same controls on the retailers could be had by the City as under a planned unit development for the developer. Y. That it is concluded that 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the City Council concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, not constitute a conditional use as under the Meridian Zoning Ordinance planned commercial development is a permitted use in the C-G district, but since the Comprehensive Plan states that all development requests in the Mixed Use Areas on Franklin, Overland and I-84 will be subject to development review and conditional use permit processing to ensure neighborhood compatibility, the conditional use application is deemed to be appropriate, as is the granting of such conditional .use. b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, if the requirements in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are met, but the Comprehensive Plan requires a conditional use permit to allow the use. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAST - LANGLY PAGE - 35 • • c. The use apparently would be designed and constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity as long as development is undertaken to meet the representations of the Applicant and those that may be required by the City under design review. d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses as long as development is undertaken to meet the representations of the Applicant and those that may be required by the City under design review. e. The property will have sewer and water service available if the Applicant extends the lines. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of .the community. g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use will be required and the parking ordinance shall be met including the preparation of a parking plan and landscaping plan. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. Z. It is concluded that the conditional use permit should be granted, but as a condition of the conditional use permit a development agreement should be entered into regarding the development of the retail uses and such is hereby made a condition of the granting of the conditional use permit. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGL - 36 • • AA. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer's office, Meridian Fire Department, Central District Health Department, and the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, shall be met and addressed. AB. That Applicant and the City should address the requirements and policies listed on Page 27 of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for the of mixed-planned use development and all proposed uses shall obtain conditional use permits and all buildings and structures shall be subject to design review. AC. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled, the property shall be subject to de-annexation. AD. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the development agreement. AE. That proper and adequate access to the property is a problem; that the Ada County Highway District has approved the development with only one road for ingress and egress; it is concluded that this one road will allow development, but at least one more access for ingress and egress would make the development more acceptable to the .City and Applicant should take all FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LA1~P - LANGLY PAGE - 37 measures to obtain additional access; it is concluded that this additional access should not be a condition of annexation, but that all efforts to obtain the access should be undertaken and performed . AF. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. AG. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G), and the issuance of a conditional use permit would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. AH. That if these conditions of approval are not met, the property shall either not be annexed and the conditional use permit shall not be granted or the property shall be de-annexed and the conditional use permit revoked. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN CORRIE COUNCILMAN TOLSMA COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON COUNCILMAN MORROW MAYOR RINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 38 ~ ~ DBCISION The Meridian City Council of the City of Meridian hereby decides that the property set forth in the application is approved for annexation and zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) with a conditional use permit issued, under the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; that if the Applicant is not agreeable with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and is not agreeable with entering into a development agreement, the property should not be annexed. There shall be no development or use, whatsoever, of the property for anything other than a Planned Commercial Development with conditional use permits required for the specific uses. MOTION: APPROVED:~~~ DISAPPROVED: FINDIN(38 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANdLY PAQS - 39 Meridian City Council October 17, 1995 Page 26 • Morrow: Can we have a short presentation from the applicant? Kingsford: Is the applicant present, Englewood Creek? It was notified, not present. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would like to hear a presentation from the applicant, if the applicant is not here I would suggest that we table this to our November 8 meeting. Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to table this to the November 8 meeting request that the applicant make a presentation at that meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 73.5 ACRES TO C-G BY LANGLY AND ASSOCIATES: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public and invite the applicant or his designee to speak first. Russell Keithly, Langly Associates, 3633 136 Place SE, Suite 205, Bellevue, WA, was sworn by the City Attorney. Keithly: How long are you going to allow Mr. Mayor? Kingsford: Try to keep it brief. Our comments speak to three minutes but I know this is a large project but try and keep it brief. Keithly: Byway of background on Langly and Associates is a Bellevue based developer, we are 11 years old. Our primary are of development is Seattle, we have done projects in Portland and Denver and this is our first attempt to do a project in Idaho. We have done similar projects to what we are proposing. The most similar one is in Issaquah, Washington. It is approximately 550,000 square feet of retail and 650,000 square feet of office about 1.2 million square foot project. Getting directly into this project, and I am not sure how to deal with this. I think it is important that I talk from the site plan so you understand it without blinding the audience. I guess there is just no way to talk to you. Kingsford: Maybe Mr. Keithly you can come over here and speak into this microphone and the audience can see that as well as the Council or take the hand held over there. Keithly: First, I think you are all familiar with this site location, it is at the intersection of I-84 • Meridian City Council October 17, 1995 Page 27 • and Eagle Road and Overland Road is here. tt is in an area that your comp plan has set up as a priority area for commercial development and approximately a year and a half to two years ago we started looking at this area we obviously agreed with that and took a position on this particular site for a retail center. Getting to the specifics of the site, first, on site relative to utilities similar, (inaudible) come to approximately the point at which the west bound on ramp intersects the freeway. We will be bringing the sewer from that point over to our project. Water is currently in Overland Road to our west, we will bring the water to this site, city water and we have been requested and agreed to then take the water under the freeway to the St. Luke's site so you will have a loop system. Transportation has been a significant issue, we have agreed prior to opening our project to widen Overland Road to 5 lanes to the intersection from our point of entry and approximately 500 feet beyond our point of entry. Our site is accessed with a 5 lane road which includes a right turn only lane which feeds into a lane that then feeds into Eagle Road so exiting the property will be a straight shot onto Eagle Road. Two left tum lanes out of our property if you wish to go Eastbound Overland, two left tum lanes into our property off of Overland Road. The traffic analysis done by Bell Walker, Gary Funkhouser and a single point of access is not our choice but we and our traffic engineer are convinced that it will handle the traffic. We have what is not shown a second point of emergency access into the site and when Eagle Road was constructed there was a property here and a property here they were given access with a road that basically parallels Eagle. That road will stay in place and will become the emergency access. It intersects Overland Road far too close to Eagle Road to be used as a commercial access. The turning movements conflict but it can be used as an emergency access. We currently have an agreement with ACHD, we had anticipated being in front of you with this meeting approximately in June. We had significant delays in negotiations with ACRD which are generally resolved. You will notice in your report on page 9, 4C of the findings ACRD has indicated that we will not get an off set against impact fees for the improvements that we are doing on Overland Road. We believe that is an incorrect contravention of their own ordinance and at the point in time that we are assessed we, I want you to know we plan to appeal that decision if that decision remains in place. Other that than we are in general agreement with ACRD. On page 33 of the findings of fact, item SB states that proper adequate access is a problem. Again, I am not sure why that is there other than to encourage us to find other means of access. We are convinced that given the size of our project and the traffic projections that the access (inaudible) there simply isn't another way to get into the project without going through a residential subdivision which obviously they (inaudible) and we don't think is appropriate. Any access between, we are only 1200 feet from the intersection of Eagle and Overland and our traffic engineer believes if we put an ingress and or egress point closer to Eagle that it will create more problems because of conflicting turning movements that we can get the most traffic moving through it (inaudible). The site design issues, one of their things that is in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan is their concern about Meridian entry way corridors in which the east • Meridian City Council October 17, 1995 Page 28 end of Overland is considered (inaudible) divided median it is burned on both sides and for the first, until we get to the creek at this point we will have a stonewall on top of the berm, extensive landscaping so we will have an elaborate very attractive entryway which will be your first impression of this project from the east. We have (inaudible} staff relative to the buffers around the site. Yourdevelopment guidelines really only provide fora 4 foot buffer, we had on this plat 12 to 24 feet of buffers. There is in the conditions of their approval a reference to a 35 feet in the comprehensive plan which we aren't able to find as a target goal. But in working with staff we have agreed to increase these buffers which we are showing at 12 feet to 20 feet that will allow us approximately a 4 to 5 foot bean with a 3 to 4 foot fence on top of the berm which will give us an 8 foot solid buffer from all residential neighborhoods with extensive landscaping. Your ordinance requires a high number of 3 inch diameter trees and we will use a lot of those in that area. Our landscape architects believe we can do an extensive amount of landscaping in the 20 feet. and inconsistency in the conditions, and 1 hope f am misunderstanding is we did not show a fence along the freeway, we do not believe a fence is appropriate. We believe again a 4 to 5 foot berm and extensive landscaping is appropriate. A fence is simply going to be another wall with a wall behind it where the buildings are. We think extensive landscaping will be more attractive there and that is what we have shown on our plan. We have chatted with staff, we are not showing any pathways at this time, we do have the creek running along here. We have left a buffer and we are more than happy to provide a pathway there and to commit to that. There doesn't appear to be any other appropriate spots for pathways that might ultimately connect with other paths in an overall trail system. Some things that we have done perhaps a little different than is called out for in your guidelines. We have aggregated our landscaping in the parking lots, our experience and we have done large projects like this. Instead of lots of little planter islands all over it is to make fairly and consistent long areas of planters so that we can get them large enough so we can keep the trees growing. The little ones the cars run into the trees and they are not effective. So you can kind of see throughout the site we have lines of trees which break up visually as you are looking across the parking lot. We have reasonably extensive tree plantings within the parking lots. There is a little misunderstanding on our building designs. There is an indication in the findings of fact that we plan to use metal siding. That is not the case, we plan to use (inaudible) metal roofs and sloped roofs on the site. Basically all of the buildings are masonry and they are planned to be concrete mason units which is blocks, split face block (inaudible) which from a distance really has, we tend to use the brick colors and have very much the appearance of brick. It is a larger block than brick but (inaudible) is the material that we plan to use in general. But we do like to get some roof structures to break it up, to break up the (inaudible) and we are trying to get an agrarian, this is a farm, this has been a farm and field to it and we think the standing seam metal roofs help do that with some roof effects. (End of Tape) page 4 of the findings of fact it indicates there will be separate buildings for deliveries, I hope I didn't say that. I am sorry, we plan to screen all of the delivery areas with solid walls, if you look at this • Meridian City Council October 17, 1995 Page 29 • structure here is where a truck would pull behind so when a truck is at the site you cannot see it from roads or parking lots. But all the delivery and trash areas will be screened, but the indication there will be separate buildings for deliveries is not correct and would not be practical. I already touched on the fact that we have never planned a wall along I-84 we think berm and landscape is more aesthetically pleasing. The findings of fact indicate a plan of Spring of 1996 construction start for the Fall of 1996 completion, those dates went by the way as we got slowed down about 6 months in the ACRD process. Best case now we are looking for a Fall of 961Spring of 97 construction start for this project with a mid to late 97 occupancy. One other point of clarification on page 28 of the findings of fact there is kind of a blanket statement that the development agreement will include and this is number 51 believe on page 28, impact fees for parks, police and fire. We are not aware of any impact fees currently in place for that specifically and don't wish to agree to anything that open. If there is something we are certainly willing to discuss it and do what is appropriate. But again we are not aware of that. One thing we would like to work with as we get to the final findings on this you and hopefully the City Attomey is we are getting a conditional use permit that has the specific site plan. We have specific tenants in mind for many of these buildings but as we actually complete our marketing and whatever some of these sizes will undoubtedly change that is our experience. What we hope you will do is give your staff some flexibility to modify this site plan within reason as we actually bring tenants in and that is typically how we have worked in other jurisdictions. This is our best estimate of what it is going to look like that specific tenants will change that site plan hopefully in minor ways. That is a real rush job. Kingsford: Does the Council have any questions? Thank you. Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Robert Nelson, 1185 Rolling Hills Drive, was sworn by the City Attomey. Nelson: I don't have a problem with the Oliason's developing their property, what I have a problem with is a shopping center with a single entrance. I think we can allow the Oliason's to develop something there with less traffic impact. Such as an office complex, light industrial. 1 realize this won't make them as much money but a single entrance to a mall is ridiculous. Boise Town Square Mall and these are ACHD's numbers develops 45,000 trips a day, the mall itself, it has 4 entrances onto 3 arterials. ACHD says it will take 25% of their budget for the next 20 years to con-ect the problems at the Boise Town Square Mall. The power mall is going to develop 25,000 trips per day with one entrance. Now I had a little problem trying to decide with 25,000 vehicles looked like so I took a design length of 20 feet times 25,000 and came out to 94.7 miles worth of traffic. That is roughly from Mountain Home to Ontario trying to squeeze in one entrance. They say they are going to have an emergency entrance. How are you going to keep that open once the public finds out that entrance is there, how are you going to keep them out of it? I think Meridian City Council October 17, 1995 Page 30 you are putting your emergency people at a great risk. I question the profitability of it. With the traffic congestion and everything else I am going to avoid that thing like the plague. I think a lot of other people will do the same thing. And again how many shopping centers do you see with only one entrance. Last Wednesday's announcement gave you an alternative. I think it has better location, the one at Fairview and Eagle and better access. You can afford to be a little bit choosy gentlemen. You can get a mall that will enhance Meridian not detract from it. I would like .to see you table this thing until the other gentleman comes in with his plans and you can compare them and take a look at which will do the best for Meridian. Thank you. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Lany Strow, ITD, 8150 Chinden Blvd, 6120 N. Drake, Garden City, was sworn by the City Attorney. Strow: We have some concems, we being the Transportation Department, has some concerns at the Eagle interchange. At the time of build out at this mall we feel that there is going to be some intolerable congestion and we would like for Langly and Associates to meet with us and work out some of these congestion problems then they can be taken care of fairly easy with the change of signals, that are already there. The installation of another signal and possibly in the distant future another left turn lane. We would urge the Council to make this a condition of their approval. Morrow: Have you studied this entire proposal and the traffic flows and that would be the sum of what ITD's comments would be? Strow: Yes, I didn't bring details with me, I didn't think this was a technical type meeting. Our assumptions are based on Bell Walker's projected traffic. Morrow: My point here is long ago someone from ITD wrote a synopsis of what was going to happen at Boise Town Square Mall and unfortunately nobody paid any attention to that either he or she who wrote that nailed it right on. Of course today we have a major mess there. The point of my question is that your projections are far reaching and you feel that in the build out of that area those things can accomplish good smooth traffic management. Strow: The build out for this project, not the entire area. That is two different things, if you make assumptions on what is going on at the other quadrants of Overland and Eagle Road no, what we are asking for tonight will not handle all of those. We are addressing only the power center, projected traffic volumes. Morrow: So ITD has done no work at all in looking at what the potential build out for the • Meridian City Council October 17, 1995 Page 31 area might be and how it would affect that interchange? Strow: No Jim Rogers, 1115 Rolling Hills Drive, was swum by the City Attorney. Rogers: Members of the Council, Mr. Mayor,.we had hoped to have a larger tum out by the Rolling Hills and Jewell Subdivision people here tonight but after the statement by your Meridian City Planner in the Idaho Statesman that this was a done deal it was difficult to generate much interest. I hope this isn't the case. We do have some general things. You received a letter from us, us meaning the residents of the Jewell and Rolling Hills Subdivision outlining in very good detail what some of our concerns are. I vwill just summarize some of them. Bob Nelson a neighbor summed up our traffic concerns very well but these traffic studies made by the Ada County Highway Department and Ada Planning clearly indicates traffic input on the area what will be needed to meet this impact. The approval of the Langly proposal will open a Pandora's box for development in this area requiring a massive infusion of money into the Ada County Highway Department to pay for road improvements. Which is as we have seen in other parts of the County lag development by 5 to 10 years. Other items of concern which we have, if approval is made for this development the buffer proposed by the developer is adequate. His plan showed a 12 foot wide buffer initially. Tonight he says he is since changed that. A 12 foot wide buffer narrower than one lane of traffic on Overland Road and a 20 feet is less than 2 lanes. As a minimum we would like a 50 foot wide 10 to 12 foot high ma~tained landscape buffer required as part of the approval. This would provide complete isolation between the neighborhood and the development. The neighborhood mainly the east side of the development and the south side of the development. Lighting and signs should be minimal with low level, non glare parking lot lights. Delivery should be restricted to late a.m. only. The large building proposed for the northeast comer of the development should be relocated to the northwest comer which would place it at the Eagle interchan~ area on the property. And a restriction placed on the developer that no structure greater than 12 feet high will be constructed within 200 feet of the eastern and southern property lines of that development. Storm water run off has not been adequately addressed by the developer. Nampa Meridian Irrigation District has stated they will not allow non-treated run off to be placed into the Five Mile Creek because of existing irrigation water rights down stream from. this development. If this is the case the retention basin will most likely be required. Run off from over 70 acres of hard surface land during 1 hour thunder storm event will be sign cant as anybody who has been in the down town Boise mall area can attest to during a thunder storm. Water is 6 inches deep in some places in that area. The Meridian City Planner and some of her statements has indicated that this would not be a problem. I will address this issue as a registered professional geologist in the State of Idaho with 20 years experience as an engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer • • Meridian City Council October 17, 1995 Page 32 in private, State and Federal Government. Much of my experience is in development of ground water and surface water resources that the US Bureau of Reclamation and the US Forest Service. At the present time the static ground water level in the property just east of the development, which is a high elevation area at 25 feet below ground surface. In the lower areas to the south of the development the ground water surface is at about 10 feet below ground surface. If the developer puts in a retention basin that means in some cases there will probably will not be more than 5 feet of soil between the bottom of his basin and the regional ground water table in that area. No detailed studies of ground water hydrology have been made in this area. Therefore we have no idea which way ground water moves. If the developer retained the water in a storm water basin as Fred Meyers has done in the area of Five Mile and Overland a real potential exists for parking lot contamination to enter the ground water system. Real property located on the east, south and west of this development all depend on water wells for their local water supply. Regardless of which way the water table moves a very real danger exists for water pollution to enter our domestic wells. In addition, a recent issue of the civil engineering states under the resource conservation recovery act regulatory consequences can arise with this type of water treatment system. For instance retention pond, infiltration basins, (inaudible) created wetlands and other facilities not intended to contain. or manage hazardous waste could be characterized or identified as hazardous waste treatment storage and disposal facilities. Parking lots create some of the most toxic run off due to oil, automobile oil leaks and other forms of heavy metal pollution. These issues are serious have long term legal consequences for the City of Meridian. If water well contamination takes place due to this development the City of Meridian as well as the developer have been forewarned of the potential of failing to address the issue and can be held liable by the property owners who depend on these wells for their domestic needs. We would request that the developer be required to have a complete hydrological study completed as well as a series of ground water monitoring wells be placed around the east, south and west side of the development to faalitate long term monitoring by the developer. This study should be completed prior to approval by the City of Meridian. In summation, very real problems exist with the development of this property. Very limited access near a major intersection. Malls of this size in other cities require at least 4 points of ingress and egress. Potential ground water problems, inadequate site planning by the developer and major traffic problems on Overland, Eagle and the Eagle/I-84 interchange created not only by this proposal but by other developer who already have property for sale in the immediate area and who will be requesting annex and a rezoning if this is approved. Meridian does not have to take the first offer of the developer. This city can afford to be selective and wait for a developer who comes in with fresh ideas. This developer offers nothing new in the way of malls. His ideas are old and tired and he is already whining about impact fees. Meridian already has another developer proposing a similar mall in the area of Fairview and Eagle. The area is already zoned, has utilities and good road access. Let's look at his proposal before making any decisions concerning this one. In a • Meridian City Council October 17, 1995 Page 33 C~ recent court case Lenardis vs. City of Greenville, the Court of Appeals of South Carolina. The Court stated in part an adverse economic impact on an individual property owner is not the controlling inquiry a zoning takes where the interest of the individuals are subordinate to the public good. I would emphasize the last part of this and this Council's decision should be for the public good not that of the developer. I would request that this application be denied or at least tabled until the issues we have discussed be addressed. Thank you. Morrow: What is the average depth of wells in the area? Rogers: About 90 feet, that is the upper part of the Rolling Hills Subdivision. They are a little bit shallower and some of them are a little bit deeper in the Jewel area to the south of the subdivision. Morrow: And educate me a little bit on water strata, you are talking about the surface ground water being at depths of 10 to 25 feet. Rogers: That is the static water table, in other words if you lower a plumb down the well you will find water at about 25 feet on the upper level and about 10 to 15 feet on the lower level. Morrow: Okay, the ground water table that the water from this parking lot drainage system would percolate into is that (inaudible). Rogers: That would be what is called the shallow ground water system in Ada County. That is the water table that is considered generally less than 300 feet in depth. We are not sure in our area where that ground water table exists, obviously it is less than 90 feet and deeper than 25 feet. Because the ground water is always at a little bit of pressure so it will rise in your well casing. This is one reason we are asking that this hydrologic study be done in the area of this mall, we don't know where it is and if he excavates or he disposes of his wastewater or storm water run off in and area for instance that has a lens of gravel in it or something like that, that would allow access of this water into the water table, this then will pollute that as they have found out very fast in the Boise Town Square mall area. We don't know, as I say there is no information available as to what the water table movement in this area and that is why we are asking that this be accomplished and that there be monitoring wells placed along the periphery of his property. So if we do see a contamination flume moving then something can be done about it immediately and not wait until everybody wells goes bad because of heavy metal contamination oil or some other problem. Asphalt is not waterproof, asphalt by design is generally put in with about a 2 to 4% of an air void in it, it is what we call flexible pavement. That asphalt will allow water to move vertically from the top of the parking lot into the sub strata. So anywhere within • Meridian City Council October 17, 1995 Page 34 C~ that 73 acre area this surface water can find a path into the ground water system. Morrow: Does ground water work such that there are different strata of ground water and do, is it possible for water from one strata to get into another strata? Rogers: Usually if it is a perch system like you are talking about where you find water at different levels in the ground. Generally a perch because there is no path from one to the other. In other words we are looking at a vertical migration path. Based on work I had done back in the 70's for what was then called the Ada County of Government out of Boise is that there is not a perched water table in this system down there that these water tables exist in the pervious gravels probably within the 35 foot area below the ground surface in there. Morrow: So that within that 35 foot area by percolation one water strata has access to the other. Rogers: Right Morrow: But once you go below that at the 90 foot depth that may not be the case. Rogers: That is true, generally like I say about 300 feet that there is a impervious layer that separates the shallow aquifer from the deep aquifer which most of the cities get their water from, most of the cities get their water out of the deep aquifer system below 300 feet. There is not an interconnection between those two aquifers. The state has very strong or rigid requirements on if you drill through these on sealing and casing so there is not a zone for water to move from one to the other. Our shallow water aquifer systems recharges generally from irrigation in the area, the canal system and things like that. Morrow: Thank you Kingsford: Rolling Hills Subdivision, is that on central sewer or septic tanks? Rogers: It is all septic tanks. In fact Mayor the entire area both the Jewell and Rolling Hills Subdivision are septic tanks. We are not overly concerned about the septic tank problems in the area because most of our septic tanks are within 10 feet of the ground surface and we have a good buffer between the septic tanks and the water table. There has, as far as I know there has never been an indication that septic tank effluent has ever percolated down into the water tables that we know of. The water tests that I have done on my well shows we have high quality drinking water out there still. There is no contamination, a little bit of fluoride but that is about it. Meridian City Council October 17, 1995 Page 35 Kingsford: Other questions for Mr. Rogers? Thank you, anyone else? Betty Bermensulo, 1970 Canonero, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bermensulo: I am here tonight has spokesperson for the Southwest Ada County Alliance which is a neighborhood group that has its boundaries south of the freeway all the way to Kuna, east all the way to Cole/Curtis area and west all the way to Ada County/Canyon County line. I understand that is probably the largest neighborhood group that has ever existed and I don't intend to try to be responding to all of the issues both in Meridian and in the Boise area of impact. However, our board of directors, we have 8 board or directors, we are a group that has monthly meetings that are attended by Meridian, Kuna, Boise residents and I would like to talk to you a little bit about some of the reasons that we have for feeling it important to present our concerns to you tonight. Number one as the spokesperson for the Southwest Ada County Alliance I felt if very important to contact the developer and ask that he come to our neighborhood group and put before the group as a whole this proposal. This has been going on for several months and the reason I haven't been here earlier is because I had hoped the developer would try to present this proposal to the group. As yet, although I have had a conversation with the developer this hasn't taken place. I do feel that a development that goes in or a proposal that is considered with this much impact to an area should start with a neighborhood that it is going to impact or a neighborhood group that is inexistence in that area. That is my feeling, but I think it can certainly speed the process for both developers and end up with a better project for the entire area. 1 would like to start though by saying that the board of directors in looking at some of the information that was presented to me in the mail by the developer voted unanimously in opposition this proposal. One of the reasons as I indicated is that we felt that we had offered and yet not been given an opportunity to share this proposal with interested citizens. Secondly, I think that everyone is concerned about the development going in along Overland and I was apprised last month of a change in plans for widening that was to occur along Overland between Meridian Road and Locust Grove. Now there is a great deal and we have somebody here from ACRD so if anything has changed since these things happened I hope someone will speak up. At the present time the 1996 date of expansion of widening of the road of Overland between Meridian Road and Locust Grove has been revised so that there is no longer a date of actually doing this work. I think that is troubling since there is so much commercial build up already on the north side of Overland as well as on the south side with Sportsman Point. I think that it doesn't seem to be enough that we could get impact fees from the development and still be assured that this road widening will occur. I was told at the transportation improvement plan presentation that these funds that were allocated for this expansion in 1996 had been deemed more appropriate in another area. That concerns me because we have a developer here tonight that certainly would be paying a great deal in the way of impact fees but we are not really assured that once the impact fees are generated will that road r~ LJ Meridian City Council October 17, 1995 Page 36 improvement actually go forward. That is one thing that really concerns me, there is certainty, Overland is a long road and we are still undergoing what seems to be a change in what the widening between Five Mile where Fred Meyers sits to Cloverdale or for that matter all the way to Eagle, is it going to be three lanes, is it going to be 5 lanes. There has been some movement to the three lanes only recently and I don't, I think that again we are talking about substandard road system that would be very used road if a mall of this magnitude went into place. If you look at the pasture land and I have in front of me the, a colored rendition of the proposal, and I guess it is overpowering to me how little green you see. I guess it was Mr. Rogers right before I think, was excellent in bringing forward our concerns about turning that much pasture land into asphalt and not being very concerned about the amounts of storm water detention area that maybe the Department of Environmental Quality should mandate. If it is ACRD I would really be concerned in knowing if they have assigned whether or not this is an adequate amount of detention area that is earmarked for a project of this size. So, I ask that question if there is someone that could provide me with that information. I~did ask Shari to look into the availability, is it a percentage, is it 10%, is it 5%, 3%, but how much should be there considering the amount of asphalt that is going to be replacing recharge from all of that pasture land. Also taking it in to perspective with how much is being removed by the existing development on the north side of the freeway now with the medical center. So, I too am very concerned about contamination of our shallow aquifer, I think this and again I didn't know a lot of the things Mr. Rogers brought up but I think we ought to be very careful in going ahead with something that hasn't bee scxutinized more fully. Now, this mall is located at the furthest, almost the furthest boundary of Meridian's impact area. It abuts up against at least over 20 to 25 existing acreage. I would invite the Council members to drive down behind Fred Meyers on a nice warm day and some of those parcels that are up against the creek which is up against the back side of Fred Meyers. What you will hear is the air conditioners in Fred Meyers and you will be amazed at how easily you hear the street sweepers at night time. Granted there is a lot of highway traffic, maybe you would say you wouldn't notice it but I think that no one needs to be subjected to even this additional impact if there is a way around. Now Meridian has another choice and that is the one that everybody read about and everyone was excited about that I talked to. An opportunity for a change for us to have traffic impact minimized because we have a road, Eagle and Fairview at a point where they could better handle the demands of the mall. So, the mall location at Fairview and Eagle certainly in our estimation seems to have less impact on a rural community and less concerns in terms of vital issues such as water pollution. That seems to be one of the things that people keep asking for is that infrastructure and certainly trafFc being in place is certainly a complaint these days of being in place at time the growth goes in. We have an opportunity to see that is actually is a reality in this case. Again 1 would echo what has been said before, Meridian is fortunate to have an alternative here. I urge you to consider that alternative before you approve the one that is being looked at tonight. As far as recommended uses, you don't come to a neighborhood alliance meeting without the r~ LJ Meridian City Council October 17, 1995 Page 37 • neighbofiood coming forward and giving some of these suggestions or comments to the developer, the earlier the better. But also we also say it is a nice time to say what would you like to see there. It is not my land, I don't pretend to say that they should do it the way that we are indicating. It seems that medical office space business satellite office space would be a perfect location. It is a 9 to 5 operation, it is certainly a lower trip generator and it still would afford a great opportunity for the developer to have a return on his investment. Probably with a lot less heartache. I would say. that I mention this to developer and it was disturbing, his comment to me was when I mentioned why wasn't there more office space, because I felt that the proposal that I viewed in this building that was done in Washington was very creative. I hope that the Council had an opportunity to look at it, it had a mixture, a real solid mixture of retail and office and it had a great deal going for it. 1 am very disappointed that Mr. Keithly didn't go further. I understand he is from this area and I am very disappointed that he didn't attempt to go further with the proposal that we see tonight. It looks like a lot of asphalt, I don't think there is nearly enough concern given for a creek, high water area. I really feel that we could see a much better proposal coming from this developer. So, I guess these are the items that I really wish we had an opportunity to bring before the City Planning and Zoning Commission but we still had hoped that we would have the opportunity to meet with this developer and I feel that it might have been time well spent had we had that opportunity, should that opportunity even have been one that the City had I hate to say mandated but had required considering the sensitivity of this project. But I appreciate your interest and concern in looking at some of the things that we have brought up and I hope that you give it a great deal of concern before you make a decision. Thank you. Kingsford: Thank you, anyone else from the public? James Ballantyne, 10250 Whispering Cliffs Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Ballantyne: I am before you as a concerned citizen and a strong supporter of the school systems. And although looking at the color of my hair you might think that I vote against most of the bond issues. I have in fact voted for all of the bond issues for Meridian School District and have actively campaigned for those bond issues. I understand the agony of the homeowners in Rolling Hills because of a similar problem that exists in my neighborhood, Whispering Cliffs the north end of Five Mile Road. Which is being proposed, in fact I think it is past the proposal stage now that it be connected with Chinden being maybe a major arterial to the north. So I do empathize with the agony of the homeowners. However, this County and Meridian has to address projects that will give money to the schools We have consistently been turning down the bond issues, need commercial development in order to up the tax base. I am not a hydrologist, although I did have knowledge in geology so I cannot address the contamination of the water tables, but 1 will say that there is a safe water source in that neighborhood. City water in fact is • Meridian City Council October 17, 1995 Page 38 coming in. I would be in favor of this project having done development myself. Addressing the competitive nature of the other mall to the north on Fairview, 1 have owned land on Fairview. The real attraction of this type of a mall is not an arterial like Fairview which is strictly a local arterial, but is the Interstate. That is the reason why these malls did not locate on minor arterials but they aim at the Interstate. I think it would be a mistake to turn down this project. It is a chance for the school systems to get some more tax dollars and the Meridian School District does in deed need this. So I am making a plea on behalf of the school kids to please I encourage you to approve this mall. Thank you. Pam Rogers, 1115 Rolling Hills Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Rogers: I just want to say as a parent of a student at Meridian High School that I feel the reason why Meridian's bond issues have been defeated is the people, the public, the taxpayers are trying to tell Meridian City, Boise City and Ada County to slow down development. Let your services such as schools and roads catch up. Everything on the agenda has been subdivisions being approved. What does that bring in, more students. I think that the reason why the bond issues for Meridian City schools are being defeated are people are trying to say please slow it down. That is all I have to say. Kingsford: Anyone else? Jack Miller, 940 Ash Street, Kuna, was sworn by the City Attorney. Miller: As a land owner, I own in Kuna, but out in the proposed mall, since 1978 I have watched Paul Quong development be turned down which was a great tax base for the City of Meridian as well as the education system and all the other social services. I think this represents a great opportunity for Meridian because now you have an opportunity to get both of them. You have the site that is already approved down there on Fairview and Eagle and Langly and Associates mall out there should be approved as well. I think that can be done tonight. From a personal stand point I empathize with the people that live in location where the proposed mall is to go because just across the street from me, the reason we moved to Kuna was for the peace and quiet. About six months ago we found out that our 5 acre subdivision was being subdivided by a couple of people that owned five acre lots. We were all up in arms about it, .the fact was that we didn't want anybody move in, that was the thing that drove it. We had some logical thoughts behind that which was another septic tank would pollute the waters aquifer out there and could even deplete the water aquifer and we couldn't have our, we'd have to dig deeper wells etc. Progress is something nobody likes, the Native Americans didn't like it when the settlers came out here. The settlers didn't like it when everybody else came out here, I didn't particularly like it when I moved to Kuna and I am sure these people don't want it as well. Facts are it is here, it isn't going to change. We are going to get more people in here. So, let's approve • Meridian City Council October 17, 1995 Page 39 • things that will be beneficial to the City, beneficial to the State of Idaho and bring in some tax revenues for us before it is too late to do something about and get some control into it today. Thank you. Kingsford: One comment Jack, Quong was approved, likewise that same site was approved for Price, they just didn't built. Miller: Couldn't get tenants. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? This is a great opportunity to close the public hearing. However there is another public hearing for the same applicant following this one. I will close the public hearing. Counselor, do you see additional findings required? Crookston: (End of Tape) conclusions of law prepared. Kingsford: Entertain a motion to that effect. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare new findings of fact and conclusions of law for the annexation and zoning request of the 73.5 acres to C-G by Langly and Associates. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to have the City Attorney prepare new findings of fact and conclusions on the annexation and zoning request for Langly and Associates, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea FIVE MINUTE RECESS ITEM #17: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL PROJECT OF APPROXIMATELY 700,000 SQUARE FEET BY LANGLY AND ASSOCIATES: Kingsford: I will announce that the pertinent testimony that was given at P & Z will be included in this record. If you want to say the same thing you are certainly welcome to but it will be included. At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his designee to speak first on the subject. • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: OCTOBER 17 1995 APPLICANT: LANGLEY ~ ASSOCIATES ITEM NUMBER; 16 REQUEST; REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 73 5 ACRES TO C-G AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: P ~ Z MINUTES FOR 5-9-95 CITY ENGINEER: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CITY POLICE DEPT: "REVIEWED" CITY FIRE DEPT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS . ,. Q,~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION; SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ~ (~ ~~ SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS `~( 1 INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: r~ .~I1 [~ BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: ~ ~ r OTHER: ,f 111 Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 6 ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea, MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rountree: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded we pass a recommendation onto the City Council as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 73.5 ACRES TO C-G BY LANGLY AND ASSOCIATES: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if there is a representative for the developer or Langly and Associates would they please come forward and present their plan to the Commission at this time. Russell Keithly, 999 Lake Drive, Suite 300, Issaquah, WA, was sworn by the City Attorney. Keithly: As already indicated I am with Langly and Associates, I am one of 2 shareholders, Langly is a real estate development company that was formed in 1984. My partner and I have commenced working together in the 70's early 80's as real estate developers with another firm. We have had a long term interest in the Boise valley, we looked here in the late 70's for some opportunities. I was raised in the Nampa area and get back frequently visiting family. So we have kept an eye on the Boise valley. With what has been happening recently with the growth in Boise and watching the Eagle interchange which we consider a very prime intersection for development and with St. Luke's happening and bringing sewer closer to the interchange we decided last fall it was a good time to look at Boise again and commenced looking for property which we could do a commercial development. We recently have worked on a couple commercial developments retail development which are similar to the one we are proposing. With your indulgence I would like to show you about 15 slides the City staff suggested because we are an unknown quantity it might be of interest to you the type of projects we have done historically, how we have done them, etc. I think I can run through these in 3 or 4 minutes. (SLIDE PRESENTATION) This is a project we did in the early 80's in Kirfin, Washington it is called Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 7 Kirfin Park Place and I am showing it because it uses some of the metal roof characteristics we are going to use. It was a very innovative mixed use project at that point about 1 /4 million square feet. Same project, there is a look at the ofi•ice. We have a development company that typically does our project in joint venture with major financial institutions. We did this with the Warehouser Venture Company and subsequently sold it to a pension fund. Although not terribly related, just an idea of some of the quality of projects we do. This is a project we did in Denver, Colorado a 20 story elderly housing project which we completed in 1988. We did that with a group of pension funds that were represented by First Chicago Investment Advisors. Getting closer to what we are doing now this is really a small center with some of the types of tenants and I will try to focus that a little. This is a tenant who is not in the Boise marketplace yet, The Good Guys Electronics, it is something similar to the future shop. Next is a store that again isn't in the Boise marketplace yet, Bames and Noble Booksellers and Cafe which is an extraordinary place to buy books and have an espresso or whatever. Again this project is under construction, it is not yet completed. This is looking down from Barnes and Noble at the balance of it. Again, the architecture characteristic of this is not similar to what we are proposing but I wanted to show you, I think it is a quality architecture. This was actually an infill site where we refiabed a mega food store an old grocery store. Just to show you the similarity between another project we are currently doing and what we are proposing this is I-90 Corporate Center outline is 138 acres right on an interchange, 15 miles from downtown Seattle about 8 miles from Bellevue which is a town very similar in size to Boise and the town Issaquah which is a town that has many similarities to Meridian and it is primarily a bedroom community that has had limited retail. As a business park we constructed this building in 1990 at which time the market softened in Seattle, financing began having a problem and we converted it to a retail project again still under construction called picketing place. That is a Costco, the back of Costco behind it, again many similarities, Overland will be 5 lanes at our property. This is a commuting street SE 56th Street that at where you are looking at it is actually 7 lanes and it is a minimum of 6 lanes. I am showing you this project primarily because our architectural concept while we are using a different architect in Boise this was an agrarian community and we have decided the rural agrarian architectural style is appropriate for Meridian. This is all built out of brick as I indicated we use a lot of metal standing seam roofs, I think that is probably the most attractive Costco in their chain. This is more in the heart of the existing office building in back, I am sorry there is a little too much light to read it well, but you can see some of the metal roofs and brick and weather on the left. The blue roof building yet to be opened is Blockbuster Music as opposed to Blockbuster Video, on the far right the building you can barely see is a 9-plex cinema and Kachina Kachina is a Seattle based restaurant. This is Bames and Noble in this project yet to be opened, they don't have their signage up, whatever, again some similar architectural characteristics as contemplated here. We do a lot of things even with parking lots, we broke up the parking lot with a lot of landscaping with a red walkway. We are standing and taking this picture at a computer Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 8 store called Ballard Computer. Again it is a little too light but very rural nature of architecture. This is a tenant you have in Boise, again we tried to make it agrarian and some interesting architectural characteristics for a box store. There has been a great deal of concern by the staff of how we handle loading near the freeway and whatever. If you look on the right hand side that is a truck going by on Interstate 90 that is how close we are to the freeway. The loading dock is totally isolated and we have done a separate building to make it look like a farm building with metal siding. So when you drive by you don't feel you are looking at a retail store. A major tenant that is now in Denver and Salt Lake and the Seattle marketplace that is not yet in Boise, there is a lot of confusion over this because there was an Eagle Hardware and Garden in Boise apparently but this is unrelated it is Eagle Hardware and Garden. The store you are looking at is 140,000 square feet which is comparable to the Home Depot that just opened in Boise. Again I apologize we can't see it a little better but there is a lot of architectural detail in that building. I will walk you through the site plan, this has been in your packet I know in a reduced version so I will just point out some of the highlights. I apologize to the people behind, has anybody figured out a way to let you and the audience see? Johnson: Not really. Keithly: Our plan right now is to have the larger tenants on the east side of the property, relatively the overall scope those tenants usually like to own the property so those will probably be land sells. We will have architectural control guidelines, we will have an architecture review committee to assure, even though somebody else is building those the architectural characteristics is consistent with the balance of the project and consistent with what we just showed you. We have, I won't go through all of the buffers and whatever but relative to the Meridian codes we have exceeded them dramatically. A 4 foot landscape buffer is required between parking lots and commercial residential uses. We have a minimum of 12 feet and 18 to 24 feet depending on where we are on the property. We are not just throwing in a fence we are putting in a 2 to 3 foot to 4 foot landscape berm with a fence on top of that. Your codes require depending on what part of the code it is a 4 to 6 foot fence and we are putting in a 2 to 3 foot berm plus a 4 to 6 foot fence. So, we understand the concern of the neighbors without them telling us, we expected that. We are going to provide as much buffering as we possibly can. We have done lots of projects in residential neighborhoods the science of cut off lighting and whatever and the ability to have good designers to the parking lot so it doesn't intrude in any way on the adjoining residential is very positive now. You can see on nature A we put the loading as far as we could from the residential neighborhood and again relative to the freeway it has a wall so when they are there can't be seen from the freeway. We like in our projects, we don't like one tree landscaping things in parking lots, they tend to get destroyed and not make much of an impact, you will see we have consolidated our landscaping in rows and put more landscaping and consolidated places is what we find that does is when you are on one • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 9 side of the project you actually get a screen and you don't see the whole parking lot at once and we find that is very effective. Our entry road is approximately 400 feet long, we are paying a lot of attention to that both in screening from the neighbors on both sides of that will be a 3 to 4 foot berm plus a rock wall, a divided median, there is going to be a double left hand turn into that and a divided median makes that work much better so it is a very significant road with very significant walls and landscaping. Johnson: What was the height of those walls along the freeway there, you probably said it and I missed it. Keithly: Along the freeway, we are still negotiating, what the City wants basically, but we are proposing a 2 to 3 foot berm plus a 4 to 6 foot wall and again those are wood walls so it could be a minimum of 6 feet and I think we need to look at that as we go and if more works better adding a couple feet to a berm or wall is very simple. So we need to do elevation studies and studies from the freeway to see how that works. Right now our emphasis and in all candor more on the neighborhood surrounding and we want to buffer them. The freeway is a visual buffer and we think it is very important when you go by on the freeway you see decent architecture and we will show you we have done some rear elevations of the building. So you do have to design the back of a building we are just doing a project that none of the buildings have backs effectively so we had to design them all, they all are on streets and facing office buildings and neighborhoods. We think the building architecture is the most important thing from the freeway, from the freeway it is obviously a commercial center and we don't perceive that as being negative. We have not done all of our storm water counts and whatever, but if you noticed the lake in the project that we did in Seattle that is a storm water detention/retention pond. That is a very pragmatic way to create a lake. Unfortunately your water table is such that we can't easily create a lake here, but we think we can create some grassy park like areas and until we have these tenants we are not going to overcertain if they want to do individual ones on their site so there are a number of these or it will enlarge this one so there is one large park like area. Again we are inclined to break it up with more detention/retention fields and grass and we are also doing some of that on this corner of the building. The flow is in this direction and to the creek. Johnson: Becky do you want to just tum that around for the audience. Keithly: Building heights generally will not exceed 30 feet, the zoning ordinance allows 40 feet. Typically the only thing that will be in excess of 30 feet will be parafoot walls that are used for screening and/or architectural features so we should not come close to your 40 foot maximum in this zone. Before I turn to the elevations, are there any questions on the site plan or would you like to do it all at once? • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 10 Johnson: Any questions at this point or should we wait? Keithly: These are conceptual at this point in time, we think a project should not be monotonous as you saw in the other project there were a lot of architectural forms and that is what we are proposing here. We've had the architect take a spot kind of on the east side of the project backing to Eagle and show you a conceptual design with hypothetical tenants. We have effectively used metal siding on the fronts of building again obviously a rural agrarian feel which works well. It is a little hard to see but we have got supports which on the columns which have a very rural feel. The whole thing is covered so you have an entire covered walkway, again the metal roofs obviously tend to be rural in nature. The agrarian theme is our theme of this project, we plan to build it in split face concrete masonry units principally. Most people when they see it think it is brick and we usually use brick highlights, but it is a very rich material that we think we get very good product on. We tend to vary the color of the metal roofs and whatever and vary the color of the masonry. The masonry comes in a significant variety of colors, we like the predominantly what they call rose or red color which is reminiscent of brick, but we like to mix it with beiges and lots of other colors and create lots of visual interest. The back of the building again, you can see the peak roof behind, we are using patterns and whatever in the brick. Your requirements, probably the most difficult requirement you have is the amount of large trees that are required, 1 for 1500 square feet of parking and that is going to give us an awful lot of screening that will be pretty mature when we put in 3 inch caliper trees. We really haven't shown that as thick as it will be because we wouldn't see the buildings real well if we showed that. Somewhat for the edification of the audience but also to explain a little bit to you about how we came to our decision that this was an appropriate use for this site. We did study your 1993 Comprehensive Plan, one of the six key community values is to expand the commercial industrial development within the community so obviously we felt we met that. Most of our property, virtually all of it is designated mixed planned use development area. I think it is important to understand and 1 will just read the things that are allowed in that, specially retail commercial, variable density residential, offices, motels, industrial is allowed in that area, services commercial and public uses so there is a great variety that is allowed and we believe what we are doing is probably the least impactful and economically most beneficial to the community. We found it interesting and I think it is a little gutsy on the City of Meridian's part something we haven't seen before on the part of a comp plat, 28-51-50 and I will just read it, "the mixed use area in the vicinity of Overland Road, Franklin Road, Eagle Road, I-84 Interchange," exactly where we are,nis a priority development area." So, we were encouraged, we don't like to battle with municipalities so we like to go to areas where we believe we are wanted and everything we read in the comp plan lead us to believe this was an appropriate concept that was actually a priority for the City of Meridian. I really think I would rather entertain questions at this point. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 11 Johnson: That is fine, any questions of the Commission? Rountree: Do you have traffic projections? Keithly: Yes, relative to traffic and traffic studies, we submitted to Ada County Highway Department just last week and that was behind our schedule. It was partly behind our schedule we are using Bell Walker, a gentleman named Gary Funkhouser to do the traffic analysis and he had a difficult time getting a handle on traffic for this type of project. We actually approached Costco to find out where their traffic comes from at their store and how much of it comes from Canyon County and etc. and they shared some of that information with us to help in that modeling. I guess in traffic engineering and I call it the black boxes which I don't understand, and that is they take a type of development and they put it in the black box, but unfortunately the black box in this case the Ada County Planning Association put together assumes the traffic is going to come within generally a 4 mile radius. We consider for this type of project and I am glad you asked that because I wanted to mention this, our market is the entire area. We consider it to be 450,000 to 500,000 trade area. So we think we will draw from Ontario to Mountain Home to Camas County, it is a large trade area. It is not a frequent visit it is relatively infrequent visit but it is a relatively long visit. The people do come from a significant distance to make, so you are drawing dollars into your community heavily from out of the community as well as providing services that don't currently exist in your community. I actually have the traffic study with me, the County has asked, as you know I am not sure what their current position is they initially asked that you hold off on this hearing until they have had a chance to hear it. I think they subsequently asked that you continue it which is obviously fine with us. We think this warrants a couple of hearings and they are reviewing the numbers that we have presented to them. My recollection on an average day this generates something in the vicinity of 23,000 to 25,000 trips. Johnson: Any other questions? Rountree: I would assume then that you are considering improvements on Overland in terms of lane capacity as well as signalization? Keithly: As I understand it a relatively recent occurrence has been that improving Overland Road to 5 lanes from Cloverdale to Eagle is now in the County's 5 year plan. So that is going, and they are actually out doing surveying and acquisition and stakes and whatever. So, Overland is going to happen to 5 lanes, I doubt that it is going to happen in time to serve our project. So our plan is and it is more detailed in the traffic study we have to make a double left turn lane off of Eagle which we would do and improve Eagle to 5 lanes past our property while we wait for the County to catch up from the other direction. And then as you get a 100 feet past our property our entry Overland will then Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 12 gradually go back down to its current configuration until the County comes from the other direction. We think it is going to be sooner than later. Our intersection is definitely signalized, double left in, right hand acceleration lane in. It is a fairly significant complex intersection. Hepper: Has the Highway Department made any comments about this being one entrance to this project, because I could see where there would potential conflicts there with emergency vehicles or something if something were to happen. Keithly: Emergency is not an issue, because when this road went in the State Highway Department basically took away the Eagte access to these property owners. When they did that and I think you are probably aware of it about 100 feet from this intersection they provided an access into the property, are all of you aware that its exists? We plan to keep that open for emergency access, you have to have a project of this magnitude 2 points of entry and exit for emergency vehicles. That will be only emergency vehicles so if there is ever a problem at this intersection and that gets blocked emergency vehicles will have ingress and egress. Hepper: Will that be a gravel road or paved road? Keithly: Whatever the fire chief wants and the emergency people, it is currently a very good gravel road. I think they are probably going to want, I talked to the fire chief today and he indicated he would probably want grass barriers and whatever to keep it just for his use so we don't get the public using it. That will be up to whatever they desire, we are happy to pave that. 1 am not sure it warrants that or it may attract too many people wishing to use it if that is paved. It is a difficult site, our entry is only 1200 feet from the intersection and while a single entry into a project of this type is not optimum, 2 entries, 2 signalized entries within 1200 feet our traffic engineers don't feel is pragmatic or practical and you would get more conflicting reports. We initially worked with a Seattle traffic engineer and subsequently worked with Bell Walker and think that they believe, all of their studies show that it operates easily under worse case conditions that level of service. It is a concern, we are meeting with them on May 26th after they have had a chance to digest our traffic study to review that. Johnson: Any other questions? Rountree: Have you had an opportunity to review the comments from the City staff, do you have any concerns or problems with those comments? Keithly: No, I have talked to the fire chief of his comment about needing potentially a fire site and station and he said it is a generic comment. He wanted the Council to know that '! Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 13 St. Luke's is happening and we are happening and there is more stuff proposed south of us that quadrant is probably going to require in the foreseeable future a fire station in his view. He specifically said he felt there probably too much traffic at the Eagle and Overland intersection to put it there. He would want it someplace where there is less traffic congestion and ingress/egress fire station for the vehicles. Hepper: What would your time frame be on this in your phasing? Keithly: An optimum time frame would be under construction by Spring and have some stores open by Christmas 1996, that is optimum. Likely it is 2 phases with the first phase sometime between Winter and Fall of 1996, open between Fall of 1996 and Fall of 1997 and hopefully all of it open by 1998 or 1999. Hepper: Would you have to have tenants before any buildings were built or would you build the buildings first and then try to seek tenants? Keithly: No, with these types of tenants we absolutely have to have tenants first. These are very custom buildings. Each of these type tenants and most of them now have hundreds of stores the national ones that we are talking to and they have a prototype and it has to be exactly 130 feet wide and not 120 feet wide and whatever. So they really are build to suits, even when we are building in line they are build to suits. Shearer: Do you have some potential commitments? Keithly: That is proprietary and they ask us not to talk about that, we have a marketing director who is working virtually full time on it. We are in contact with scores of retailers. We don't have firm commitments yet and we will not, I can promise you we won't announce firm commitments and really have them firm until we have been through the annexation and zoning process. You have to understand in many parts of the country like where we do business regularly that process sometimes takes several years. So, retailers are generally very and say we like the concept and let's keep talking, but we will formalize things when you are through with your City process. We have very significant interest from national retailers who are not here yet. People are very aware of the growth that is happening and is projected in Boise and the Boise valley. Johnson: Any other comments? We will give you an opportunity to answer anything that might come up throughout the public hearing as a rebuttal. We would like to do that at the end if that is alright. This is a public hearing, anyone else like to address the Commission on this application. Robert Gox, 3780 East Overland, was sworn by the City Attorney. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 14 Cox: I have been living in this community for 15 years, I work at Hewlett Packard and I design printer circuit boards for them. So you know who I am, I live in the Jewell Subdivision. I am not good at talking in public so I will do the best I can. This is a summary, I will give you a copy of it, I am going to read it. This is a summary of the issues pertaining to the proposed strip mall in Meridian at Eagle Road and Overland. The intention of this document is to review the pros and cons for an objective presentation to Ada County, the proposed developers and the existing neighborhood residents. Property developer issues. Logistically the interstate accessibility is fairly good. When looking at the intersection of Eagle and Overland it makes business sense. Logistically the parcel of property proposed for development is in the worse possible area of the interchange due to the eastbound I-84 on ramp. The choice of property location seems questionable when several alternate sites exist at both southeast and southwest corners of Eagle and Overland. This property seems much more appealing to the developers due to cost. The proposed single entry/exit limited to Overland is not only poorly thought out but makes absolutely no sense. The basic infrastructure necessary to support this type of development doe snot exist within the City of Meridian or Ada County. The basic proximity to I-84 for supplying businesses makes good sense. This property is cut in half by Five Mile Creek. I believe this is a federal creek and the federal government may have something to say about this. The proposed strip mall layout was so badly designed it was unbelievable. It is painfully obvious that whoever did this layout did not understand the logistics of this property or the logistics of this area of the county. City and County govemment issues. The level of improvements required to Overland to provide adequate safety for the residents of Ada County would be significant. Recently accidents on Overland between Eagle Road and Cloverdale have gotten significantly worse. In the past 2 months there have been two serious accidents. This past weekend there was an accident at Eagle and Overland and an accident at Cloverdale and Overland. The level of traffic increase would be substantial to the point that Overland would have to be widened to five lanes to accommodate the traffic between the intersections of Eagle Road and Cloverdale. Sidewalks would be an absolute necessity when Overland is widened between Eagle Road and Cloverdale. The speed limit needs to be reduced on Overland now as it is. The Meridian Sewer District does not extend into this area of the county. A mall of this size would surely require the addition of septic drainage connecting into the main sewers approximately now located one mile east of Overland past Locust Grove. The county, in general, must capitalize on the opportunity to get the sewers in when Overland is widened. The county must capitalize on the widening of the road between Eagle and Locust Grove when the main sewer line is connected. Current power lines supplying Overland are barely adequate to support the small requirements of the community and frequently loss of power is common. The increase on the electrical grid the proposed mall will require is not adequately supported by the current infrastructure. Sewage and drainage due to the extremely high water table in most of this area should be thoroughly understood with an environmental impact statement done to review the • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 15 possibility of the following issues: Existing private septics and private wells must be protected from the possibility of loss due to septic flooding or wells with sand. Several wells in this area have gone bad and some septics have had problems due to the high water table. Adequate drainage in the form of storm drains for run off must be provided as to insure adjacent property owners from being flooded. The slope of the drainage from the proposed mall appears to slope directly into the Jewel Subdivision. Has the developer looked at the flood plain map for 100 and 500 years? My guess is you are going to be paying flood insurance premiums for many years to come. This may be very costly to everybody. All added wells, drains and septic systems must have adequate safeguards to eliminate the possibility of children drowning. The five mile federal drainage will be destroyed by the creation of this proposed development. Significant wildlife habitat will be lost or permanently altered forever. The effect of the lighting coming from the parking lot will destroy the beautiful view of the stars at night and the Bogus Basin Mountains. This will be a permanent loss unless parking lot lights are turned off during evening hours as part of the mall grand scheme. (End of Tape) Police and Fire department support in this area of the county is minimal. At what cost to the county taxpayers does Ada County feel it should be spending to promote corporate profits? Costs in general for this kind of development seem prohibitive due to the basically inadequate infrastructure. Road development, increased traffic, major sewage overhaul, major power distribution changes, cost for increased police, fire, disposal services not to mention the money that it is going to cost just to complete all the studies needed to justify the development. Where are the funds coming from to correct the problems that are going to be created in Jewell Subdivision and on Rolling Hills Drive when the wells go bad and septic systems fail due to the significant changes proposed? Summary to the proposed owner/builder of this development. The idea of placing a major shopping center near the corner of Eagle and Overland seems to be basically a sound idea for a large business to naturally evolve in the Boise valley. The actual piece of property that you have selected has so many negative connotations associated with it regarding impact to the surrounding community. It is my belief that you are buying a lemon. My suggestion is that if you really want to do this in away that will cause far less grief and be looked upon as responsible you should re- considerthe choice of property and entertain the southeast or southwest corners of Eagle Road and Overland. This will allow for multiple entrances on Eagle and Overland keeping traffic problems to a minimum. Most likely the profitability for your cooperation will be much greater due to the elimination of many of the costly challenges you will face otherwise. Summary to the sellers of the acreages in question. The fifty three acre parcel between the Jewel Subdivision and I-84 is possibly the worst place to put this kind of development for many of the reasons given. It is my suggestion that the City of Meridian annex this property and it be turned into a city park. There are no city parks in this area of town and the location of this property seems to ideally located. To do so would regain and maintain the beautiful panoramic view of Bogus Basin Mountains for generations to come. The current single access to this piece of property is perfect for placing a parking • i Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 16 lot on the west end leaving the remainder of the property to be used for Meridian residents in this area to enjoy. The mall developers could participate in this process and it might be to their benefit to have a major city park directly across from this type of retail outlet mall complex. It is my opinion that the cost to the citizens of the community versus the profit you might make could just as easily be attained if this was sold, traded or donated to the city of Meridian or Ada County. In summary, the City of Meridian and Ada County have obligations to their citizens for balanced development. With the new hospital being built north of I-84 this area is most certainly in need of a more comprehensive plan balancing the citizens needs along with business growth. They must go hand in hand if a development of this size must go into this area then lets be responsible to all parties involved. Common sense dictates this is the wrong location. Johnson: Thank you very much, any questions? Crookston: I just have one Mr. Cox, is that map or drawing still up here, would you grab that. Maybe this doesn't have what you were talking about, you said the southeast or southwest corner. Cox: I am talking about the two 80 acre parcels that are open fields in both of these quadrants that are not shown on the map. For everybody out here I am talking about the quadrant that is here and the quadrant that is over here. They are huge parcels. Crookston: Are you talking about the intersection of Overland and Eagle, those quadrants? Cox: Yes Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you, anyone else from the public that would like to address the Commission at this time? Jim Rogers, 1115 Rolling Hills Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Rogers: I like that idea about the park, that will probably happen about the time that place that we heard about in Sunday school freezes over. I represent about 40 residents on the Rolling Hill/Jade/Onyx/Topaz area. We have a petition and a written statement. I would like to present that to the chairman right now. I am also not a good public speaker so bear with me. First I would like to thank the neighbors who are here showing support, many of who signed the petition are here. In Idaho's Centennial Year, 1993, the City of Meridian adopted and updated Comprehensive Plan and in early 1994 put into place a greatly revised Zoning and Development Ordinance. A common theme of both documents is the desire to manage growth and enhance Meridian's quality of life for all residents. Although the neighbors who have signed this petition are not residents of Meridian all reside within ! • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 17 the impact area boundary. Many have property abutting the development site, and most are within 1000 feet of the property boundary. Every homeowner represented by this petition, living on Rolling Hills Drive, Jade, Onyx, Topaz and Overland will be severely impacted by a retail mall development approaching the size of the existing Boise Town Square mall; and the subsequent surrounding commercial development which will take place because of the mixed/planned use development designation shown on the generalized land use map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The combined square footage of the available commercial space in the vicinity of Overland and Eagle, shown on the land use map could and very probably will produce a developed area equal the size to that which already exist in the Milwaukee/Franklin area. this is certainly not in keeping with the managed grown vision of Meridian. Neighbors who signed this petition are united in their opposition to Langly Associates, an out of state developer, application for annexation, zoning or granting of a conditional use permit for the property generally located on the SE comer of I-84 and Eagle Road Interchange. There are many reasons for opposition to this development. Some of those reasons will be discussed in this petition, other have been, or will be discussed during the meeting tonight. I have made an attempt to list issues that were discussed in our neighborhood meeting last week. The numerical order of these issues do not indicate priority. All of us, both long term time residents (+10 years) have those who have recently moved here place a high value on the open aspect of the area. The ability to watch a beautiful Idaho sunset, still be able to see stars, watch and listen to wildlife such as Canadian geese, pheasants or an occasional fox. Some of us personally knew the lady, now deceased, who owned the subject property, and often took time from her irrigation work to chat about her farm and living in the area. She enjoyed the land as much as we enjoyed having her as a neighbor. The property is still being farmed. Today grain is growing, last year it was sugar beets, in other years com. If this development is approved a quality of life which we cherish will be gone forever, as well as the elimination of a very productive piece of high quality farm land. Southwest Ada County has one of the lowest crime rates in the County. The developer, in his proposal has listed what he considers positive aspects of the development. Let's discuss some of the negative impacts. Boise Town Square Mall has experienced all of the following: professional thieves who work the mall every day, perverts, mall rats, including organized and unorganized gangs, vandalism, bomb threats, massive traffic congestion. This will certainly place an additional workload on the Meridian City Police as well as other emergency response groups. One of the stated objectives in the Comprehensive Plan is the preservation of the Meridian Old Town Business District. Not only should the Old Town area be preserved but also the existing business entities already located in Meridian. As a point of interest; not many weeks ago on the TV show 60 Minutes a story ran about communities who are now attempting to zone out stores such as Wal Mart which can come into a community and devastate the existing business infrastructure. If they decide the store is un-profitable they close stop and leave. Is the community a better place because of this? It appears if the developer achieves the stated goal of annexation and rezoning Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 18 he will attempt to sell off parcels to other developers, and perhaps or perhaps not develop the remainder of the property himself. This will result in piecemeal development with lost of control by the City of Meridian to achieve a quality development. Last, but the most important, is the massive impact of traffic, light, noise, and air pollution. Unfortunately, the only way to discuss the impact of traffic is through the use of statistics and numbers which I know can be very boring. I'll try to use comparisons of the thing we know the most about, the Boise Town Square Mall. The information I am using is from a report titled Mall Area Action Plan -Phase 1, prepared by The Hoyt Company for the Ada Planning Association in August 1994. When the Boise Town Square Mall was constructed in 1986, the amount of spin-off retail and office development was originally projected at 1.1 million square feet. That has in realty become approximately 2 million square feet, with a future development potential for an additional 2.0 to 2.8 million square feet. I can't even visualize this much space. What this means from a traffic point of view is the roadway standard level of service has declined from a LOS "C" to "D" or "E", about as bad as it can get. The costs of addressing this traffic congestion from a traditional roadway construction approach has been projected at just under $60 million dollars. These costs would be above and beyond the $80 million already programmed; and are the equivalent of 25% of the entire ACHD capital budget over the next 20 years. If Meridian approves a development of the same size which has the potential to turn into another Town Square mall, from a traffic point of view several things can happen. The cost of improving Overland and Eagle over the next 5 to 10 years to accommodate this amount of traffic could result in a huge license and registration increase on every car owner in Ada County just to pay for the future combined cost of this proposed development and the Boise Town Square mall. The cost of maintaining both Boise Town Square and the proposed Eagle Interchange infrastructure would result in a loss of dollars available to maintain the roads in the rest of the county. We have already seen many of the county subdivision roads starting to deteriorate. Perhaps Meridian and Boise city residents should be required to pay a larger share of road maintenance and improvement cost. They, after all benefit the most from Sales Tax Revenues. It is our understanding the Idaho State Highway Department has refused this proposed development access to Eagle Road. This means the entire traffic burden will be placed on Overland Road with a single entrance approximately 1000 feet from the Overland Eagle Intersection. Existing traffic counts in the vicinity of the Boise Town Square mall indicates approximately 30 to 35 thousand vehicles daily use the area, which as 4 entry and exit locations on three major roads. In the May 1, 1995 draft report titled: I-84 Power Center Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Bell Walker Engineers of Boise; in review process by ACRD, and not yet accepted for public use, a projected vehicle per day count of 24,885 will enter and exist onto Overland Road. This appears to be on the low side, as the national average trip rates for shopping centers which are based on gross leasable area indicate that nationally, the smaller shopping center, the higher the trip rate per 1000 square feet of gross leasable area. Can you imagine approximately 25,000 to 30,000 vehicles daily using a single entrance into the proposed mall. In discussions with • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 19 Ada County Highway Department, they show no work planned for the next 5 years on the section of road between Cloverdale and Eagle. We realize the developer has stated most traffic would use the existing I-84/Eagle Road Interchange, so there should be minimal impact on local roads. This is like saying when the Boise Town Square was developed in 1988 there would be no impact on Franklin or Milwaukee past the mall. Southwest Ada County is developing at an unprecedented rate. Traffic generated by this and other developments, both commercial and residential, will be using 5-Mile, Overland, Cloverdale, Victory, and Eagle. In short every road in southwest Ada County will bring traffic to the area. Overland and the surrounding roads are not designed for this traffic burden, nor do we believe it is realistic to spend Ada County tax dollars for the sole purpose of accommodating developers. I'm almost finished here, but let me take a brief moment of time to discuss noise, light, and air pollution which will be generated in a very small area. The proposed development is surrounded on two sides by single family homes which were constructed sometime between approximately 1963 and 1975. According to the developer, homes adjoining the development are, almost without exception a significant distance from the subject property separated from the development by pastures. Let me state, even though some of us have small pastures, most of our homes are within 100 to 200 feet of the development parking lot or proposed structures. Some of the neighbors who live on the south side of the development have even less space separating their home from the developers property line. I guess we differ with the developer in what would be considered a significant distance. Hardly enough to provide a buffer. Nor, do many of us desire a wall constructed at the back our our property. We will have parking lights glaring in our back yards; at all hours of the night there will be trucks moving through the parking areas loading and unloading freight; during the winter, in the early hours of the morning we will hear snowplows scraping against asphalt and ,because of prevailing wind all of the auto exhaust and dust caused by traffic movement will blow right into our homes. Even now, when the wind is blowing out of the northwest, traffic noise from I-84 is almost intolerable. Residents of this area are not anti-development. We believe there are better places where this development can be located. On Eagle Road, between Fairivew and Franklin are several tracts of land for sale, with the infrastructure already in place. Meridian has been trying for years to get a mall to locate at I-84 and Meridian Avenue. Both areas are suitable, will have little impact on existing single family homes, and still bring the perceived benefits to the City of Meridian. Develop these areas first. The south side of I-84 is not the place for this type of development. Because we live within the Meridian impact area boundary, the Ada County Commissioners have indicated that by agreeing to the impact area boundaries in 1993, they no longer represent County residents in Planning or zoning issues. We are unable to vote or have a political voice in the selection of the Meridian City Council or Planning and Zoning Commission. In essence, we have been dis-enfranchised from the political process. Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: You, after consideration of the developers proposal, input from other interested groups, and the neighbors viewpoint, have the responsibility of making a recommendation to the Meridian • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 22 Meridian, and thankfully not under the thumb of the City of Boise who so desperately yearned to control and own this commerce crossroads. In 1989 after a long and hard fought battle with the Mayor of Boise, over which of the two cities Boise or Meridian would control this vital interchange the Idaho State Transportation Board Members reached a sound common sense decision based on irrefutable logic. The shortest distance between 2 points is always a straight line, alias the coupling of Interstate 1-84 and State Highway #~55. And this logic and the previous referenced Roman adage of crossroads coming together was re-affirmed by them Chairman of the Idaho State Transportation Board Mr. Carl Moore. When stated, "The I-84 Eagle Road Interchange will not only become the hub of the Boise Valley, but will become the massive transportation jugular vein of the State of Idaho. The only connector joining Interstate East-West I-84 with State Highway #55. Which is the only direct North/South route through the center/core of the State of Idaho." Thus, the City of Meridian received a goose with its golden sought after/commerce egg the I-84 Eagle Road Interchange. Subsequently, in 1993 via the public hearing process, Meridian notified the need to update its Comprehensive Plan. The strategic importance of the Eagle Road Interchange was specifically noted in that document. This final plan resulted in the mixed/planned use classification identified around the Eagle Road Interchange area. As such, the area was considered a high priority area for the encouragement of mall development and/or for commercial, retail, service centers, technical, businesses, etc. all of which would provide a strong tax base to the City of Meridian. To those of you who participated in Meridian's fight for the Eagle Road Interchange or through the Planning process, offered input into Meridian's final Comprehensive Plan, I say goody, goody, goody for you. To those of you who are transplants from such places as New Jersey or Connecticut or California or some other state who have finally arrived at your utopian garden spot as a Johnny come lately. Or those who did not become or did not take the time to become involved in the planning process, you're certainly not in a position now to holler the skies are falling, the skies are falling, the skies are falling. And I might add a 5 acre ranchero with a denuded horse pasture in the summertime which becomes a mud bath in the winter time along the roadside is considered by some to be visual blight, not a utopian sight. Already the Eagle Road Interchange has attracted the St. Luke's West Medical Complex which obviously selected the Eagle Road Interchange site due to present and future demands/needs for medical services in this southwest area. This medical building is the first of a six phase development. This first phase, presently under construction consists of a $14 million four story, 100,000 square foot west medical complex presently scheduled for door opening ceremonies in December 1995. Understandably and so recognized in the Meridian's Comp Plan, the Eagle Road Interchange area is becoming the crossroads of service and commerce. For commerce like the on-going St. Luke's West Medical Complex. For commerce like this proposed I-84 Power Center, which would negate the need to traverse the miles toward distance shopping. Or would those critics prefer to have a mass saturation of people and their little peoples occupying that same interchange corner Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 23 instead? Given the nature of its strategic location onto Interstate 84 and the easy access throughout the valley, under multiple/mixed use. Theoretically that 73 acre site could be assaulted with a medium density number of 20 units to the acre of three story townhouses/condominiums; which after allowing for common ground usage a redu~ion of some 20% would allow some 1200 units on site. Figuring approximately 3.2 to the family who would average 2 automobiles to each unit, some 3800 people could be daily driving some 2400 cars into that interchange comer. Not a dime for commerce, or revenue generating purposes. Just an overload on the already overloaded which is a taxing thought to an already taxing situation. I support the proposed I-84 Power Center located on the Southeast comer of the I-84 Eagle Road interchange. I offer this written statement for inclusion in the record. Thank you. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Lewis? I saw a lady with her hand up. Katherine Mooney, 479 Main Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Mooney: Mr. Chairman, I have written support from the property owner of the southwest corner of Eagle road and Overland. The gentleman who so graciously supported development on that corner isn't here now. I do have Mr. Griffen's written support of this and I also have a copy that I would like to give to the record. With that being part of the public record I don't have any other statements. Crookston: Excuse me, can I ask you a question, Mr. Griffin, what is his first name? Mooney: James Griffin owns the southwest corner, 80 acres. Pam Haynes, 1235 Rolling Hills Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Haynes: I will be very brief I did not intend on speaking at this meeting but there has been a couple of comment that I feel I would like to address. I was born and raised in Boise as was my father, his father came with his father on the immigrant train from Kansas in the early 1900's. So Mr. Lewis I am not a transplant. I also do not have children, so I am not proliferating rapidly in my spare time. I will be brief I just have a couple more things. This proposed development does indeed border our property that we purchased some 11 years ago, my husband and myself. I feel it would have a very definite impact on us. The gentleman here told us tonight that their bottom line is protecting the homeowners in the area. It is my belief that the bottom line here is profit. I would ask that the Planning and Zoning Commission not approve the application for this proposed development. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, yes sir. • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 24 Cameron McGough, 1360 Rolling Hills Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. McGough: I too did not plan on speaking, i will make it brief. I agree with ACHD I would like to see this tabled just because of the recency of the delivery of a draft transportation study. So I would like to see 8 and 9 on the agenda tonight be tabled until the June meeting. ACHD and ITD work very well with the developers and the homeowners and business folks. I have been very impressed since I deal with that on the side as a job. I think given that length of time to review and work with the developer, work with the homeowners, something will work out whatever it may be. I strongly urge you not to go forth on any decision other than a postponement tonight. Additionally Mr. Langly or his representative here maybe with just mis-communication. The section of Overland between Locust Grove and Cloverdale those 2 miles are not in the 5 year plan. They will remain at 2 lanes, we have not begun the transportation improvement program therefore as it stands right now it is going to be a 2 lane road only. Additionally in the transportation plan that was mentioned the transportation study looking trough the trip generation manual the estimates it is reasonable engineering practices but they did choose the low end. We could be looking at anywhere from 25,000 to 45,000 vehicle trips and that is not including, I urge you to also look with a lot of forethought at the southwest and southeast comers because spin off is going to occur. So we can't just have one access and if it does happen we need to have an additional access because a single access won't work especially when you start looking with forethought with what is going to happen in the spin off. Thanks. Johnson: Thank you Virginia Jennison, 4511 North Linda Vista, Boise was sworn by the City Attorney. Jennison: My name is Jennison, my single name was Oliason. I am sure some of you are familiar with Dorothy Oliason my sister who was my sister she passed a year ago. 1 am sure if she was here today she would be speaking also. So this is sort of personal as well as emotional and financial. My parents came to Idaho in 1919 in a model T Ford on their honeymoon. They bought the farm at that time. We had a beautiful farm out there. Then one day the freeway came along and took a portion of our farm which really hurt because we had a beautiful farm and nice level fields. Then came along the on ramp to the freeway which totally wiped us out. We had a gorgeous house out there, beautiful hard wood floors and barns and chicken houses that my dad built. That hurt a lot, we stood out there and cried while the bull dozer pushed them down. The people in the subdivision, I can feel for them a little, but I drive down that road frequently on Overland and there is an old barn out there that was there when I was little. It is all buried, I think bam and the house, it is all buried in a bunch of dead trees and garbage and fallen down and it looks like an eye sore to me. If these people are so proud of their subdivision I suggest they get out there and do • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 25 something to clean it up because it looks terrible. You'd think they could get that out of there and put another house or 2 in there, it looks bad. This would be a financial thing for us also, we all worked very hard out there on our farm and we went to court and we almost lost our shirt which was not fair. So I think that it is time that we realize something from our place, because it was all taken from us. Excuse me, it is very emotional for me, because it was our home a long time and everything is just gone. So if these people want to live out there they can live there, but I think that it would help the tax base in Meridian it would do a lot of the community. The hospital is going up out there, it is going to be a beautiful facility and I think this would be very advantageous to the City of Meridian. It might not happen tomorrow or a month from now but I think it is a thing that is going to come. Personally I hate to go out there to the mall where it is, it is such a crazy mixed up bunch of traffic and this would be just straight off the road right into this property. They have plans for a beautiful thing and I think we might have a plan for something for my family as a tribute to them since they have lived there since 1919. My dad worked hard out there, and my brother farmed and my sister. A lot of back breaking work has gone into that place and I think it is fair that we have the right to realize something from it whenever that comes. That is what I hope and pray for, thank you. Johnson: Thank you for your testimony, is there anyone else from the public that would like to address the Commission at this time? Kenneth Higgs, 3330 East Overland, was sworn by the City Attorney. Higgs: I speak in favor in support of the I-84 Power Center. I am retired and I live in the Meridian School District. I believe that taxes raised by this power center will help the City of Meridian and keep retired people taxes from increasing for school bonds all the time. Thank you. Johnson: Is there anyone else? Bob Mitchell, 4642 North Zimri Place, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Mitchell: I am also a privileged individual who doesn't live in either Boise or Meridian. My kids attend Meridian schools and I am very anxious to see new things come in that can broaden the tax base. I have an interesting perspective on this, I had the privilege of serving as a general manager of Boise Town Square for seven years. I was able to see some of the things that the developers of the mall did to soften the impact to neighboring homeowners. As you remember there were 7 or 8 homes literally 30 or 40 feet from the mall boundaries and by the creative use of landscaping, evergreen trees and I think meticulous care that some of those areas actually saw an improvement. In that seven year period we never got a single complaint from any homeowner for noise in the parking lot, • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 26 fate night hours or anything. So I would certainly hope that the Commission would take that into consideration that some of the great things that were done there. 1 am familiar with the developer a little bit, I have seen one of the projects they have done and I think it would be a great addition to the City of Meridian. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, did I see another hand? Randy Schindel, 1005 Rolling Hills Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Schindel: My biggest concern is, I moved to Idaho 8 years ago, almost nine. I grew up in the town of San Dimas, California that was basically the size of Meridian is now. Now there are over a million people in that town. I moved here for the quality of life, when I moved here there were more people moving out than moving in. 1 just hope that the City Planners can see to keep this growth to whatever it needs to be. Keep it to where we have a nice place to live without the crime and everything else that goes along with it. That is basically all I have to say. Johnson: Okay, thank you. (End of Tape) Kimberly Keller, 1545 Jade, was swom by the City Attomey. Keller: I did not plan to speak, I signed the presentation that Mr. Rogers gave. 1 served for 2 years as Mr. Mitchell's secretary and I am very concerned about the crime issue that comes to a facility of this size. As a secretary you take the buff of all of the people that come through that door. When their stereos have been ripped off, when women and children have been exposed to men exposing themselves in the parking lot or in the mall and the professional thieves, when the purses are taken, when purchased property is stolen on a daily basis. This happens every single day. I don't want that in my backyard. Bob Mitchell knows that one entrance will not do it, anybody that has been to Boise Town Square during Christmas shopping knows that 3 entrances, 4 entrances on 3 roads does not do it. One entrance won't do it Mr. Langly Associates so you had better go back to the drawing board. Johnson: Is there anyone else? Jim Ballantyne, 10250 Whispering Cliffs Drive, Boise, was swom by the City Attomey. Ballantyne: It seems like part of the credentials this evening is when your ancestors came in or when you came into the valley yourself. I can affirm that when my Great Grand dad • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 27 road in here before Boise was even formed in 1862 he didn't really want to see any of you folks here. He didn't want any roads built, he didn't want any fences stretched and time moves on. My great grand dad, my grand dad, my dad and myself have seen all of this happen. It certainly is a different valley than what we were raised in. I do feel for the people in the subdivision, but I feel sorry for the people that truly see their lives impacted by development, but it is certainly coming, it is nothing we can do about it. I certainly hope the City of Meridian will make a wise decision as far as traffic patterns are concerned so it makes the least impact possible on the community. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone left that would like to testify? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing unless there are some closing remarks by the developer? Keithly: The main thing I wanted to address was ACHD's comments. We have no objections to their request, and I don't know how you gentlemen wish to handle it for a continuation. We acknowledge we got our traffic study in late and we acknowledge it is a complex issue. We had worked with them and actually had scheduled to be in front of their technical committee on May 26th on the premise that it would be in front of their Commission on June 7th, so there would not be a problem getting it to you. So I was a bit surprised that all of that had slipped to June 14. Because the 26th date was predicated on getting it to the next Commission meeting. There was, relative to whether Overland is a 2 lane road and the statistics on that obviously Overland at this intersection will not work as a 2 lane road and we are prepared to upgrade it to a 5 lane road with turning lanes. I am sorry if my advice is incorrect relative to the 5 year plan on this, my advice came from Gary Funkhouser of Bell Walker who said it was a relatively recent occurrence that section had been moved to the 5 year plan and if that is incorrect I apologize for that. That was the information we had. Thank you. Johnson: Any further discussion by the Commission? Okay the public hearing is closed, what would you like to do Gentlemen? Rountree: We have some confusing dates here, if we table it to a date certain it would be our next regularly scheduled meeting and we still don't know if we will have comments from ACHD. Johnson: We have the option of doing that, however we can also table it additionally if there is no information with a date. We need to table it to a date certain. Rountree: Do we have the option to start the findings of fact conditioned upon receipt of the comments from ACHD? Johnson: That would be an option. • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 28 Rountree: And table it if we don't get that at the next meeting? Crookston: I would like to have those comments well in advance of having to have the findings of fact prepared for this particular application. Rountree: Sounds like July would be the soonest. Johnson: Unless the 26th fits with the 7th instead of the 14th, there seems to be some mis-understanding there. The chances I think are great that the input from ACRD is material and that anything we did with respect to findings of fact would have to be either amended or re-written anyway. Time does not seem to be a super critical issue in terms of one week or one month. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this item until our next regularly scheduled meeting. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we table this item until our next regularly scheduled meeting which is June 13, 1995, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea FIVE MINUTE BREAK ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 700,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL PROJECT BY LANGLY AND ASSOCIATES: Johnson: Because this has been noticed we need to handle this item as well even though it is connected with number 8. I would only be interested if someone has new testimony and not repetitive testimony for number 8 because those will be incorporated. At this time I will open the public hearing, Langley and Associates has advised me they have no further testimony at this time. Is there anyone that would like to address the Commission? Jim Rogers, 1115 Rolling Hills Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Rogers: All I am asking is that this be tabled in the like with item #S. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else? Seeing no one then I will close this public hearing. We need to address #9 officially. OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, Jr., City Clerk JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI S. STILES, P ~ Z Adm. KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chlef W. L. "BILL" OORDON, Police Chlsf WAVNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY. A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO 11~RIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888433 • FAX (208) 887813 Public WorksBtlilding Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor MEMORANDUM: To: Mayor, City Council, Planning & Zoning From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer COUNCIL MEMBERS, RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW P 8 Z COMM18810N JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MOE AUDJANI JIM SHEARER CHARLIE ROUNTREE TIM HEPPER May 5, 1995 Re: I-84 CENTER - (Annexation & Zoning of 73.5 Acres to C-G) I-84 CENTER - (Conditional Use Permit for Approx. 700,000 SF Retail Project) by Langly Associates, Inc. I have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, for your information and consideration as conditions of the Applicant during the hearing process: ANNEXATION & ZONING 1. Submit an annexation perimeter legal description for the proposed site in lieu of the individual property descriptions. The legal description shall include all those portions of adjacent Public Rights-of--Way contiguous to the Corporate City Limits of the City of Meridian (Ord. No 659 and 660, 8/2/94). One half (1/2) of all other adjacent Rights-of- Way shall be included in the perimeter legal description. CONDITIONAL USE • GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. Any existing imgation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-2-414 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance and/or as detailed in site-specific requirements. POWIItCTR.P&Z • Mayor and Council March 30, 1995 Page 2 4. Paving and striping shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Sections 11-2-414. D.4 and 11-2-414. D. 5 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance and in accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. 5. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted for all off-street parking areas and shall be approved by the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91}. 6. Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as to not direct illumination on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-414. D.3. 7. All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-2-415 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. 8. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist. 9. Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions. 10. Provide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-6(?6. B. 11. Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. • SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS: 1. Please provide the Public works department with information on anticipated wastewater flows from the proposed site. This information is very critical for determining the Sanitary Sewer serviceability of this proposal. 2. Please provide the Public works department with information on anticipated fire flow and domestic water requirements for the proposed site. This information is very critical for determining the water serviceability of this proposal. 3. A 100'x100' well site shall be donated to the City of Meridian at the proposed site. The Well site shall meet all of the criteria of the State of Idaho Department of Water Resources and City of Meridian. Applicant will be required to construct 12 inch diameter water mains from the City's current points of terminus in Overland Rd. (approx. 4,700 LF west}, and Eagle Rd. (approx. 3,000 LF north) to and through the proposed site, thereby creating a "loop". This "loop" is crucial to the water serviceability of this site. POWERCTR.P&Z ~ ` Mayor and Council March 30, 1995 Page 3 4. Sanitary Sewer service to this site will be via the Five Mile Trunk Sewer main currently under construction for the St. Luke's West Medical Center. Applicant will be responsible to construct the Five Mile Trunk Sewer main and any necessary lateral lines from the point of St. Luke's serviceability to and through the proposed site. 5. Assessment fees for water and sewer service aze determined during the building plan review process. In addition to these assessments, water and sewer "Late Comers" fees will also be charged against this pazcel to help reimburse the parties responsible for installing the water and sewer mains to their current points. POWERCTR.P&Z J/ t BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LANGLY ASSOCIATES. INC. ANNE%ATION AND ZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE NE CORNER OF I-84 AND EAGLE ROAD SOUTH WEST QUARTER OF SECTION 16. TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST_l BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, STATE OF IDAHO MERIDIAN. IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on May 9, 1995, and June 13, 1995, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing on May 9, 1995 and June 13, 1995, through Russell C. Reithly, the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT A. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the public hearing scheduled for May 9, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; the matter was tabled to June 13, 1995, and at the June 13, 1995, meeting additional comments were received and the Commission moved to have Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared for the July 11, 1995, meeting; at the July 11, 1995, meeting the matter was tabled again because the Ada County Highway District Commissioners would FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 1 Y not be acting on the matter until the end of August, 1995; the ACRD comments were finally received on August 24, 1995, and the matter having been duly considered at the May 9, 1995 and June 13, 1995, hearings and the public having been given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and copies of all notices being available to newspaper, radio and television stations, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby takes action on the Findings "" of Fact `and Conclusions of Law. ._, ._ B. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 73.5 acres in size. C. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as R-T (Rural Transition); that the Application requests that the property be zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) and has requested a conditional use permit to allow retailers; that the Applicant has stated in its Application that it is proposed that a retail center of approximately 700,000 square feet be developed on this site; that the type of center proposed is called a "Power Center"; that Attachment 4 to the Application is a generic description of a Power Center; the Applicant listed the categories of tenants anticipated to be located in the center in Attachment 5; the Application is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. D. Adjacent to this development is the I-84 Interstate freeway and major arterials of Eagle and Overland Roads; that to the north, across the freeway, is the proposed St. Luke's Medical FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 2 r 1 • campus; that to the east and abutting the subject property are large lot single family residences; to the south is land used agriculturally; and to the west is land used for an interstate on and off ramp. E. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. F. That Langly Associates, Inc., is the Applicant; that the owners have consented to the application and have requested this annexation, zoning and conditional use and the application is not at the request of the City of Meridian. G. That the owners are the Doris Kathleen Oliason Family Trust, Virginia Jennison, Trustee, Rackham L.L.C., a limited liability company, and Dolores M. Hartman, who have granted permission for the annexation and zoning request. H. That the Applicant's annexation and zoning application stated that the present use of the land is agricultural; there is one single family home on the west side of the property, the Rackham residence. An approximately 400 lineal feet entry road is proposed to cross the eastern most portion of an acreage that has one single family home, the Delores Hartman residence. I. That the proposed use is for a commercial retail center, called POWER CENTER; that the Applicant lists the following as a characteristic that make it desirable to be zoned C-G: "The property is located at one of the most prominent intersections in the area." I-84 at Eagle Road, and Eagle Road/Highway 55. J. That Russell Keithly, the Applicant's representative, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 3 ~~ ! ~ testified that Overland Road would be five lanes at their property; that there would be separate buildings for deliveries; that the larger tenants would be in the eastern portion of the project; that there would be an architectural committee and guidelines; that the Meridian codes would be exceeded; that there would be a two to four foot berm with a four to ,six foot fence; that there would be as much buffering as they could put in; that there would be a wall so that there would be no`view of Interstate 84; that the entry road . -, would be 400 feet long with a three to four foot berm plus a rock wall; that the wall along Interstate 84 would be at least six feet high; the highest building would be 30 feet, except for parapet walls; he showed pictures of the concept of the buildings; there would be metal siding, an agrarian theme, roofs and masonry would have varied colors; that this was a mixed/planned use development area which had a priority for development in the comprehensive plan; that traffic projections were submitted to the Ada County Highway District; that traffic would be from a four mile radius, but they will pull from a large trade area; that Overland would be five lanes, but not to meet their schedule; their intersection would be signalized; that there would be no access to the site from Eagle Road; that they would put in what the Meridian Fire Department wanted and would pave if required; that they had no concerns with the Meridian staff comments; that construction would be started by spring; that there would be stores by Christmas of 1996; that they have no tenants now but they would be lined out before construction commenced; that it was likely that there would FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 4 be no firm commitments and no names would be released until annexation and zoning were completed and commitments signed. He specifically stated, in part, that most of their property is designated mixed planned use development area, that there is a great variety that is allowed and we believe what we are doing is probably the least impactful and economically most beneficial to the community. K. There were several property owners in the immediate area who testified at the May 9, 1995, hearing about the Application; the testimony can be summarized as follows: 1. Robert Cox testified that he was a fifteen year resident; that he lived in Jewell Subdivision; that there was insufficient infrastructure in Ada county; that Five Mile Creek cuts the property; that emergency service was inadequate; traffic was too high; that sidewalks should be required; that reduced speed limits were needed; power lines were inadequate; sewage could be a problem; private well and septic systems should be protected; that the lands drains to Jewell Subdivision; that lighting is a problem; that police and. fire were insufficient to handle the development; that the costs for infrastructure would be prohibitive; that he had negative connotation of the property; that the southwest or southeast quarters of Overland and Eagle would be a much better location; that this parcel should be City park instead. 2. Jim Rogers testified that he represented about 40 residents on the Rolling Hill/Jade/Onyx/Topaz area; that a petition and written statement were presented to the Commission; that the neighbors who signed the petition are united in their opposition to Langly Associates, an out of state developer; that the negative aspects of this kind of development is vandalism, gangs, mall rats, bomb threats; that this will certainly place an additional workload on the Meridian City Police as well as other emergency response groups; that the objective stated in the Comprehensive Plan of the preservation of the Meridian Old Town Business FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 5 • • District will be only devastating to this existing infrastructure; that the massive impact of traffic, light, noise and air pollution; that the suggested buffer is not of significant distance and the residents believe there to be a better place where this development can be located. 3. Karen Gallagher, of the Ada County Highway District, testified that the District had just received. the traffic study from the Applicant on May 5, 1995 and requested the Commission to table it until the Commission's next regularly scheduled meeting, June 13, 1995. At the June 13, 1995, hearing, Ms. Gallagher stated that the District had not acted on this application, that it was tabled in order to accommodate people from the public who would like to speak but she did have staff recommendation update. _ 4. David Lewis testified that he is in support of the I-84 Power Center; that the Center will produce commerce for the City of Meridian and offered his written testimony to be included in the record, which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 5. Katherine Mooney testified that she represented Mr. Griffen, owner of the southwest corner of Eagle Road and Overland Road, consisting of 80 acres, and offered Mr. Griffen's written support of this development which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 6. That Pam Haynes testified that this development borders her property which was purchased 11 years ago and believes this annexation will have a definite impact on her and the developer is only out for a profit. 7. Cameron McGough testified that the section of Overland Road between Locust Grove and Cloverdale, those two ( 2 j miles, are not in the 5 year plan; that the draft of the Ada County Highway District's transportation study needs to be thoroughly looked at and at this time accesses are inadequate and obvious spin off will occur. 8. Virginia Jennison, trustee of Doris Kathleen Oliason Family Trust, owner of the North 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 16, testified as to the history surrounding the land/farm her parents had started FINDIN(~3 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANCiLY PAGE - 6 • • on in 1919 and that she is in support of this development and believes it will help the tax base in Meridian and do a lot for the community. 9. Kenneth Higgs testified to being in favor of the Center; that the taxes raised by this Power Center will help the City. 10. Bob Mitchell, former general manager of the Boise Town Square Mall testified in support of the proposed development; that this broadens the tax base; that he suggested that by the creative use of landscaping as in the Town Square Mall, that the impact to the residents in this area will not be as bad as they think. 11. Randy Schindel and Kimberly Keller testified regarding the crime issue that comes to a facility of this size; that although they are in favor of seeing growth, with growth comes crime; that Ms. Keller testified that one entrance won't handle the traffic. 12. Jim Ballantyne testified that development is certainly coming and sympathizes with those residents who see their lives impacted by this development; that a wise decision needs to be made regarding the traffic patterns and the least impact possible on the community. 13. Richard and Barbara Lavender, land owners at Overland and Eagle Road, Fred and Molly Nakaji, residents of Wilton, California, and Christopher Repus, a resident of Elk Grove, California, but a former resident of Boise and a current land owner in Meridian, submitted written testimony in favor of this project, which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. L. That the Meridian Police Department, Meridian City Engineer, Ada County Highway District, Central District Health Department, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and the Idaho State Transportation Department submitted comments; that those comments are incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 7 • M. That the comments of the Ada County Highway District, have been incorporated herein as if set forth in full, but the Facts and Findings included the following: 1. From the Facts and Findings, general Information, it is stated in paragraph d. that the site's exposure to the interstate highway makes it highly desireable for the type of land use being proposed, however the site's single point of .connection to the arterial system causes severe problems of traffic dispersal. It would be much better if the project were to be located on a site that has direct access to two (or More) arterials instead of one. In paragraph G. it is state that this project is forecast to cause 13,145 trips per day on Overland Road east from the Eagle Road intersection and 13,217 trips per day west of Eagle Road. Although the traffic volumes are within maximum desirable thresholds on the roadways, the inordinate number of turning movements at the site -driveway and the Overland/Eagle intersection require special intersection design 2. The report stated several alternative actions, which included alternative G. and I. Alternative G. was to accept the project with the regular impact revenue that will be collected, recommending to the City of Meridian that the developer be required to construct the site related improvements to Overland Road and to the Overland/Eagle intersection, including the additional lane on each leg of the intersection. this action will replace the lost unused capacity at the intersection, but will make no provision for other growth in the area. An alternative to this option would be to establish the four square mile area a separate impact fee benefit zone and commit all of the impact fee revenue from the new zone to construct arterial improvements only within the zone as development projects in the balance of the Meridian area, since it would take revenue that currently go to the construction of those projects. And alternative I. was to require the developers of all property in the impact area (and District wide) to replace a pro-rata share of the them available unused capacity of all intersections and roadways. The unused capacity would be quantified including a reserve for background District wide traffic and adjusted downward as each property in the effected area is developed, so there would be no unused capacity in the system when the area is 100 percent developed. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 8 • 3. The ACHD staff recommended that a combination of G. and I. be adopted for this and future applications in the area. Accept the development(s), requiring the developers to make whatever improvements to the system are necessary to mitigate their site related impacts, and replace any unused capacity in the system that their development uses up. Use regular impact fee revenue to make needed capacity improvements as funds are available and the commission budgets funds for the improvements. This will result in the public having to cope with deficient levels of service in some cases until revenue is available to make the required improvements. 4. The report included Site Specific Requirements that included the following: a. The access road shall have three southbound traffic lanes and two northbound traffic lanes. The existing (southbound) lanes shall include two left turn lanes, and one right turn lane. b. Dedicate 54-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Overland Road. the owner will not be compensated for this additional right-of-way. c. None of the above roadway improvements described above will be eligible for impact fee offset or reimbursement. N. The Assistant City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, commented that an annexation perimeter legal description for the proposed site be submitted and shall include all portions of the adjacent Public Rights-of Way contiguous to the Corporate City Limits; that one half (1/2j of all other adjacent right-of-way shall be included in the perimeter legal description; that any existing irrigation or drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance; that any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems shall be removed from their domestic service except for purposes such as landscape irrigation, per City Ordinance; that off-street parking shall be provided and/or as detailed in site-specific requirements per City Ordinance; that paving and striping, lighting, and signage shall be FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 9 • in accordance with City Ordinances; that a drainage plan designed by a licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted for all off-street parking areas; determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist; that water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by computer model; that a 100' x 100' well site shall be donated to the City of Meridian at the proposed site and shall meet all the criteria of the State of Idaho Department of Water Resources and the City of Meridian; that the Applicant will be required to construct 12 inch diameter water mains from the City's current points of terminus in Overland Road and Eagle Road to and through the proposed site creating a "loop" crucial to the water serviceability of this site; that sewer service will be via the Five Mile Trunk Sewer main currently under construction for the St. Luke's West Medical Center and that Applicant will be responsible to construct any lateral lines from the point of St. Luke's serviceability to and through the proposed site and that assessment fees for water and sewer service shall be determined during the building plan review process; that "Late Comers" fees will also be charged against this parcel to help reimburse the installation. O. That the Idaho Transportation Department commented that the developer be aware that no access will be permitted to I-84 or Eagle Road, both of which are full control access. P. That the property included in the annexation and zoning FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 10 • application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. Q. That the parcel of ground requested to be annexed is presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area (U.S.P.A.) as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. R. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer, if applicant extends the lines. S. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots and other uses. T. That the following pertinent statements are made in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and are specifically applicable to this Application: 1. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY CENTERS at page 17 Retail, commercial and office development are frequent partners within Commercial Activity Centers. In order to support residential and industrial developments, areas should be set aside as Commercial Activity Centers and their development carefully guided. Various commercial activity centers are designated on the generalized land use map. Planning policies pertaining to commercial activity centers are presented in the land use chapter of the plan. MIXED-PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT AREAS at page 17 Mixed use is a planning category which refers to the coordinated development of several major uses as part of a single project, such as specialty retail/commercial, variable density residential, offices, motels, industrial, service, commercial, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 11 • and public and semi-public uses. Certain areas have been designated for mixed-planned uses. The development of mixed and planned compatible land uses should be carefully guided through specific project plans, in accordance with the mixed-use policies contained in the Land Use chapter of the Plan. Economic Development Goal Statement Policies, Page 18 1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to create a positive atmosphere which encourages industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in Meridian. 1.2 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set aside areas where commercial and industrial interests and activities are to dominate. 1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new commercial or industrial developments should be harmonized with the natural environment and respect the unique needs and features of each area. 1.6 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to support shopping facilities which are effectively integrated into new or existing residential areas, and plan for new shopping centers as growth and development warraat. (Emphasis added.) 2. Under LAND USE EXISTING CONDITioNS, Page 21 Commercial and retail areas are established along major arterials, and include small commercial center and individual businesses. Uses include retail, wholesale, service, office, and limited manufacturing. Area of Impact, Page 22 Comprehensive Plan Map The proposed future land use delineations for the impact area are shown on the Comprehensive Plaa Map - Generalized Land Uses, The land use element is based upon these objectives: 1. Mixed-planned uses along the I-84 corridor, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 12 • which are attractive and compatible with high- volume traffic corridors. (Emphasis added.) COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY CENTERS, Page 25 In all cases, the locations of Commercial Activity Centers should be guided by performance and developments standards. These standards consider, among other aspects: 1. Traffic Volume and Type 2. Trip Generation 3. Impacts on Arterial Street System 4. Proximity to Other Commercial Development 5. Impacts on Neighborhood Residential Areas 6. Accessibility of Site 7. Parking Demands 8. Pedestrian Circulation 9. Available Utility Systems 10. Aesthetics (Design Considerations) 11. Use Impacts Upon Other Adjacent Uses 12. Internal Circulation Design 13. Drainage COMMERCIAL POLICIES, Page 26 4.6U Community shopping centers will be encouraged to locate at arterial iatersections and near high-traffic intensity areas. (Emphasis added.) MIXED-PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT, Page 27 Franklin. Overland/I-84 Mixed Use Policies 5.8 Development in these areas should be based on functional plans and proposals in order to ensure that the proposed uses conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and are compatible with the surrouadiag neighborhoods. 5.9 The integrity aad identity of any adjoining residential neighborhood should be preserved through the use of buffering techniques, including screen plantings, open space and other landscaping techniques. 5.10 Development should be conducted under Planned Unit Development procedures and as conditional uses, especially when two or more differing uses are proposed. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 13 • . 5.11 The character, site improvements, and type of development should be harmonized with previously-developed land in the area, and where located adjacent to or near any existing residence or residential area, .shall be harmonized with residential uses, and all reasonable efforts shall be made to reduce the environmental impact on residential areas, including noise and traffic reduction. 5.13 Clustering of uses and controlled access points along. arterials and collector streets _._ .. _ ___ _ will be required. 5.14U Because these areas are near I-84, Franklin and Overland Roads, high-quality visual appearance is essential. All development proposals in this area will be subject to development review guidelines and conditional use permitting procedures. 5.15U The mixed-use area in the vicinity of the Overland Road/Franklin Road/ Eagle Road/I-84 interchange is a priority development area. (Emphasis added.) Rural Areas, page 29 Land covered by this policy section has characteristics which generally allow for agricultural and rural residential activity due to the ~ existence of irrigation systems, soil characteristics and relative freedom from conflicting urban land uses. Where community growth creates pressure for new development, it must be recognized that agricultural land can no longer economically continue to be identified or used as agricultural land to the exclusion of orderly city growth and development." 3. Under TRANSPORTATioN, Page 43 Existing Conditions a. Eagle Road, North of Overland, is listed FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 14 • • as a principal arterial b. Overland Road, East of Linder, is listed as a Minor arterial. 4. Under COMMUNITY DESIGN, at Page 70 Community Identification Goal Statement Create visual quality and functional identity for the City of Meridian and its surrounding environment. Policies 1.1 All commercial and industrial developments should be reviewed by the City for adequate site planning. 1.3 Open space areas within all development should be encouraged. 1.4 Major entrances to the City should be enhanced and emphasized. Unattractive land uses along these entrances should be screened from view. Special Community Design Areas Goal Statement 2.1U Require businesses and government to install and maintain landscaping. 2.5.U Encourage the use of attractive open space, landscaping, lighting, and street furniture for the benefit of the public. Entryway Corridors Entryway corridors are arterial roadways entering the community that introduce both visitors and residents to Meridian. City-designated gateway arterials include the following streets: a. I-84 (East and West entrances) f. Eagle Road (North and South entrances) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 15 • • g. Overland Road (East and West entrances) Entryway corridors are a community's front door. It is acknowledged that the corridor's trees (or lack thereof), commercial signage, and site character provide the first, and oftentimes the most lasting, impression of the entire community . Therefore, the entire community and, most specifically its governing bodies, have the right and the responsibility to guide the development and redevelopment that occurs along entryway corridors. Entrance Corridors Goal Statement Promote, encourage, develop and maintain aesthetically-pleasing entrances to the City of Meridian. Policies 4.4U Encourage landscaped setbacks for new development on entrance corridors. The City shall require, as a condition of development approval, landscaping along all entrance corridors. Quality of Environment Goal Statement Policies 5.2U Ensure that all new development enhances rather than detracts from the visual quality of its surroundings, especially in areas of prominent visibility. Neighborhood Identify Goal Policies, 6.4U Limit the conversion of predominantly residential neighborhoods to nonresidential uses, and require effective buffers and mitigation measures through conditional use permits when appropriate nonresidential uses are proposed. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 16 U. That the property is included within an area designated on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a Mixed/Planned Use Development area and a commercial designation is just to the southwest of the parcel. V. That the requested zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial, (C-G) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. 11. as follows: "(C-G) General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of the (C-G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. All such districts shall be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial development."; that although not requested by Applicant, Regional Shopping Center Business District is defined in 11-2-408 10. as follows: "(RSC) Regional Shopping Center Business District - The purpose of the (RSC) District is to provide for and permit the establishment of general and retail business uses that are intended to, and will serve, the entire region of the Treasure Valley; to permit business uses that would be of a larger scale than in the Community Business District; to permit the development of a regional shopping center or mall with adequate off-street parking facilities and associated site amenities to serve customers and employees; to prohibit strip commercial; and encourage the clustering of regional commercial enterprises. All such districts shall be located in close proximity to major highway or principal arterial streets. All such districts shall be connected to the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 17 ~ ~ Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian." W. That Section 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, B, Commercial, lists commercial uses allowed in the various zoning districts of the City; that Shopping Centers, Community, are not listed as allowed uses in the General Retail. and Service Commercial (C-G) district; that Shopping Centers, Neighborhood, - ---are--not listed-as allowed uses in the General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) district; that individual department stores, retail stores, restaurants, and storage facilities, indoors or outdoors, are allowed uses in the C-G district; that planned commercial developments, are an allowed use in the C-G district and are listed as a conditional use in the Regional Shopping Center district. X. That Planned Development is defined in 11-2-403 B, at page 20 of the Zoning Ordinance booklet, as follows: "An area of land which is developed as a single entity for a number of uses in combination with or exclusive of other supportive uses. A PD may be entirely residential, industrial, or commercial or a mixture of compatible uses. A PD does not necessarily correspond to lot size, bulk, density, lot coverage required, open space or type of residential, commercial or industrial uses as established in any one or more created districts or this Ordinance." and a Planned General Development is defined as follows: "A development not otherwise distinguished under Planned Commercial, Industrial, Residential Developments, or in which the proposed use of interior and exterior spaces requires unusual design flexibility to achieve a completely FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 18 ~ ~ logical and complimentary conjunction of uses and functions. This PD classification applies to essential public services, public or private recreation facilities, institutional uses, community facilities or a PD which includes a mix of residential, commercial or industrial uses." and a Planned Commercial Development is defined as follows: "Any development in which the principal use of land is for commercial purposes." Y. That in 1992 the Idaho, State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional .costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population, and the housing for that population, does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of FINDINQS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANaLY PAQ~B - 19 providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students; that the industrial and commercial developments do provide taxes for providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, - parks-and-recreation] services for people that are here, and which will come here. Z. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all lots in the City, because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. AA. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." AB. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20'j wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 20 • AC. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows: "Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision;" AD. That Section 11-9-605 R states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi-improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." AE. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: "Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 21 can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments." AF. That 11-9-607 A, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in part as follows: "The City's policy is to encourage developers of land development and construction projects to utilize the provisions of this Section to achieve the following: 1. A development pattern in accord with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 5. A more convenient pattern of commercial, residential and industrial uses as well as public services which support such uses." AG. That 11-9-607 E, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in part as follows: "A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in the Section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations of the district or districts in which said PD is located. The approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide for such exceptions from the district regulations governing use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this Section." AH. That 11-9-607 F, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in part as follows: 1. Planned Developments - Planned developments shall be subject to requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and also subject to all provisions within this Ordinance. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 22 • 8. Financial Guarantees - The developer shall post financial guarantees for all approved on-site improvements if required pursuant to 9-606 C." AI. As stated above in Paragraph C, the Applicant submitted materials on the conditional use application for location of buildings, parking and loading areas, service roads, traffic access and traffic circulation, open spaces, storm retention areas, utilities, signs and yards; that such material on the conditional use is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full; that the Applicant submitted materials on the conditional use request but did not specifically address the conditional use at the public hearing. AJ. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS A. 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. B. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 23 • exercise of the City's annexation authority is a legislative function. C. That the City Council has judged these annexation, zoning and conditional use applications under Idaho Code, Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. D. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter~65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. E. That the Council may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. F. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. G. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant with the consent of the property owners, and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. H. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 24 ~ ~ 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). I. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways. J. That this Application has been difficult for the Commission to decide because of opposition to the Applications; that the Commission understands the objections and sympathizes with them on an individual basis; that the duty of the Commission, however, is not to be controlled by the interests of individual property owners and their concerns; that the duty of the Commission is to assess the applications on the basis of the overall good of the City and its citizens; that the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinances of the City have measures to try and insure that adjacent property owners are impacted by development as little as possible; that it is with this duty and background that the Commission has undertaken to make these Findings and Conclusions. K. That the Applicant's proposed use of the property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 25 • L. The Applicant has stated and represented that its intention is to construct and operate a 700,000 square foot retail shopping center and has stated that the area is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a Mixed/Planned Use Development area which requires planned use development; the Applicant has requested zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G), which does not allow for a community shopping center but does allow for a commercial planned development; the Applicant has requested a conditional use for a retail project of 700,000 square feet. M. That the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its meeting on January 4, 1994, but has not amended the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan; thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance may not address provisions for the use. N. That the Comprehensive Plan calls for Mixed/Planned Use Development at the northeast corner of the intersection of Overland and Eagle Roads; that a shopping center could be allowed in the C-G district under a Planned Development procedure; that the Applicant suggested that it would develop the area of the property planned for a shopping center under a planned development procedure, when it applied for a conditional use permit. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGS - 26 O. That it is concluded that the City could annex the property and zone it C-G but the Applicant could still not construct a community shopping center, because under 11-2-409 a community shopping center is not an allowed use; but under C-G zoning, a Planned Commercial Development is a permitted use, which would allow the Applicant to develop a 700,000 square foot commercial center. P. That it is concluded that since the Applicant has suggested that it would develop the property as a planned commercial development and since the Comprehensive Plan, under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Area at Franklin, Overland/I-84, in 5.14U, states that all development requests will be subject to development review guidelines and conditional use permit processing, and the City should have control over any uses that are to be placed on the land, it is therefore concluded that the development should be conditioned on being developed as a Commercial Planned Development, which is allowed in the General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) district. Q. Therefore, it is concluded that since the Applicant has that it is agreeable to developing the property as a retail center under a commercial planned development process, the property should be annexed and zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G), but only capable of being developed as a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 27 • • planned commercial development. R. That, as a condition of annexation and the zoning of C- G, the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address, among other things, the following: 1. Inclusion into the development, including but not limited to, the requirements of 11-9-605 a. C, Pedestrian Walkways. b. G 1, Planting Strips. c. H, Public Sites and Open Spaces. d. K, Lineal Open Space Corridors. e. L, Pedestrian and Bike Path Ways. f. M, Piping of Ditches and 11-9-606 a. Bicycle Pathways. b. Storm drainage. c. Sidewalks and Pedestrian Walkways. d. Greenbelt. e. Pressurized Irrigation. 2. The concerns of the owners of property in Jewell Subdivision concerning sidewalks, drainages, lighting, noise, and buffering; that also of concern to the City is having lights, particularly automobile headlights, shine into the yards and homes in Jewell Subdivision and other adjacent homes and measures shall be undertaken prevent this. 3. Payment by the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, of any impact, development, or transfer fees, adopted by the City, as agreed to by the Applicant in statements by its representative during the public hearing. 4. Addressing access linkage, screening, and buffering. 5. An impact fee, or fees, for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 28 • • difficult to enter into prior to the annexation ordinance being passed; that it is concluded that the development agreement shall be entered into prior the final plat being approved and prior to issuance of any building permits. T. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the property is in the best interests of the City of Meridian and should be enacted. U. That regarding the conditional use permit request for retailers, it is concluded that Russell Keithly, a representative of the Applicant, stated that Applicant desired to develop the retail center under a commercial planned development; that the Planning and Zoning Commission concluded that if the Applicant agreed to develop the all of the property as a commercial planned development and enter into a development agreement, the property would then be annexed and the Applicant could pursue the development; that it is concluded that under a conditional use and a development agreement, the same controls on the retailers could be had by the City as under a planned unit development for the developer. V. That it is concluded that 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 30 ~ ~ 6. Appropriate berming and landscaping. 7. Submission and approval of any required plats. 8. Submission and approval of individual buildings, drainage, lighting, parking, and other development plans under the Planned Development guidelines. 9. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements with the existing residential development. 10. Establishing a 35 foot landscaped setback as suggested under the Comprehensive Plan and landscaping the same. 11. Addressing the comments of the Planning Director. 12. The sewer and water requirements. 13. Agreeing that the Meridian Comprehensive Plan is applicable to the land and any development. 14. Traffic plans and access into and out of the development. 15. Meeting the representations made as part of the application and hearing process. 16. And any other items deemed necessary by the City Staff, including design review of all development, and conditional use processing as required under the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. S. That Section 11-2-417 D of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance states that a development agreement should be recorded in the office of the Ada County Recorder and take effect upon the adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the property, or prior if agreed to by the owner of the parcel. That it has been the experience of the City that development agreements are FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 29 • • requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the City Council concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, not constitute a conditional use as under the Meridian Zoning Ordinance planned commercial development is a permitted use in the C-G district, but since the Comprehensive Plan states that all development requests in the Mixed Use Areas on Franklin, Overland and I-84 will be subject to development review and conditional use permit .processing to ensure neighborhood compatibility, the conditional use application is deemed to be appropriate, as is the granting of such conditional use. b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, if the requirements in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are met, but the Comprehensive Plan requires a conditional use permit to allow the use. c. The use apparently would be designed and constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity as long as development is undertaken to meet the representations of the Applicant and those that may be required by the City under design review. d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses as long as development is undertaken to meet the representations of the Applicant and those that may be required by the City under design review. e. The property will have sewer and water service available if the Applicant extends the lines. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGL - 31 • • would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use will be required and the parking ordinance shall be met including the preparation of a parking plan and landscaping plan. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. W. It is concluded that the conditional use permit should be granted, but as a condition of the conditional use permit a development agreement should be entered into regarding the development of the retail uses and such is hereby made a condition of the granting of the conditional use permit. X. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer's office, Meridian Fire Department, Central District Health Department, and the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, shall be met and addressed in a development agreement. Y. That Applicant and the City should address the requirements and policies listed on Page 27 of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for the of mixed-planned use development and all proposed uses shall obtain conditional use permits. Z. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled, the property shall be subject to de-annexation. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLU3ION8 OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 32 • AA. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the development agreement. AB. That proper and adequate access to the property is a problem; that the Ada County Highway District has approved the development with only one road for ingress and egress; it is concluded that this one road will allow development, but at least one more access for ingress and egress would make the development more acceptable to the City and Applicant should take all measures to obtain additional access; it is concluded that this additional access should not be a condition of annexation, but that all efforts to obtain the access should be undertaken and performed. AC. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. AD. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G), and the issuance of a conditional use permit would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. AE. That if these conditions of approval are not met, the property shall either not be annexed and the conditional use FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 33 • permit shall not be granted or the property shall be de-annexed and the conditional use permit revoked. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) DECISION VOTED VOTED VOTED_~ VOTED- ~~ VOTED The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian hereby decides that the property set forth in the application should be approved for annexation, zoning and issuance of a conditional use permit under the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; that if the Applicant is not agreeable with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions and is not agreeable with entering into a development agreement, the property should not be annexed. There shall be no development or use, whatsoever, of the property set forth in the Application as being used for anything other than a Planned Commercial FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 34 Development for retail, even if annexed and zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G), and such is approved by the City of Meridian prior to commencement of construction. MOTION: APPROVED DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGL - 35 OFFICIALS IAM G. BERG, Jr., Clty Clerk NICE L. GASS, Clty Troaaurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Enplneer BRUCE D. STUART, Watsr Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parka Supt. SHARI S. STILES, P ~ Z Adm. KENNETH W. BOWERS, FlreChiet W. L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chlaf WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEI~ ~ ', A Good Piace to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO 11~RIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888433 • FAX (208) 887.4813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-221 I GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW P 8 Z COMMI8SION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MOE ALIDJANI JIM SHEARER CHARLIE ROUNTREE TIM HEPPER TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendationswill be considered by the Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: May 2, 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 4/17/95 HEARING DATE: 5/9/95 REQUEST: Annexation and Zoning of 73.5 acres to C-G BY: Langly Associates, Inc. LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: SE corner of I-84 and Eagle Road Interchange JIM JOHNSON, P2 MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P/Z CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z TIM HEPPER, P/Z GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C MAX YERRINGTON, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM ~ FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PR 8~ FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES ~~® ~~ ATNFR YOUR CONCISE ~~C~~i`~~~~ A~~ 2 0 ~~~ CITY OF 1NEI~IDI~N OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, Jr., Clty Clerk JANICE L. GASS, Clty Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Enylnaer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parka Supt. SHARI S. STILES, P 8 Z Adm. KENNETH W. BOWERS, FlreChlef W. L. "BILL" GORDON, Pollee Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney 33 EAST IDAHO 1VIERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 88813433 • FAX (208) 887813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW P fi Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MOE ALIDJANI JIM SHEARER CHARLIE ROUNTREE TIM HEPPER TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: May 2, 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 4/17/95 HEARING DATE: 5/9/95 REQUEST: Annexation and Zoning of 73.5 acres to C-G BY: Langlv Associates. Inc. LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: SE corner of I-84 and Eaale Road Interchange JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P/Z CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z TIM HEPPER, P/Z GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C MAX YERRINGTON, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM 8 FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES i / ~ ~j., ~ (`~ OTHER: `~ 0 J YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: HUB OF TREASURE VALLE~ APR 1 8 1g~'5 A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN t;l l r Ut 1~1Glf~lfi~ct s. • RECEIVED Ada Planning Associatic9'~i11995 -- - .. _ . - - - - . _ - - GTY OF MERIDIA] PA Date May 15, 1995 The following is APA's response to Application # Retail at Eagle/I-84 Traffic Analysis Zone 284 APA Planning Area. Meridian Description of Application: 700.000 ft.2 retail center on Southeast corgi er of Eagle and I-84 Findings Road/Street Classifications and Traffic LOS: Eagle Road is a principal arterial with a capacity of 34 000 ADT and 1993 model traffic counts of 17,000 ADT. Overland is asub-standard minor arterial with a_ capacity of 15.000 and 1993 model traffic counts of 13 000 east of Eagle Road 1-84 has a capacity of 90,000 East of Eagle and 1993 model traffic counts of 60.000 ADT. This development will generate between 21.000 - 41 000 ADT Pathways ITD is constructing aBike/Ped bridge over I-84 on the Eagle overpass Transit Planned Improvements ACHD has plans to improve Overland Road between Eagle and Locust Grove in 1997. Comments There. is some concern over the issue of a single_ access _into a development of this size. At this point it is difficult to determine the impacts this development would have on the regional transportation system. APA has not had the opportunity to review the traffic study. We need to have a better understanding of the relationship of how this development fits into the city's comprehensive elan Recommendation APA will defer recommendations until further analysis of the traffic study. Ada County Highway District, Ada County, Cities of Boise, Eagle, Garden City, Kuna, and Meridian Boise Auditorium District, Boise independent School District, Meridian Joint School District, and Boise State University Ey~ual Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer Printei~on Recycled Paper ---~ • oc~n~ JAMES E. BRUCE, President SHERRY R. HUBER, Vice President SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, Secretary ~~C~~ V ~L AUG281995 ~f7`Y Ut ~I~Klu>Rr~~ August 24, 1995 TO: Langly Associates, Inc. 999 Lake Drive, Suite 300 Issaquah, WA 98027 FROM: Karen Gallagher, Coordina Development Services Divisi SUBJECT: MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 I-84 and Eagle Road Power Center Your application for the above referenced project was acted on by the Commissioners of the Ada County Highway District on August 23, 1995. The attached staff report lists conditions of approval and street improvements which are required. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 345-7680. KG cc: Development Services Chron John Edney Chuck Rinaldi ts~'~-.of l!r~idian Baylis Brand Wagner/10801 Main Street/ Bellevue, WA 98004 ada county highway district 318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714-6499 • Phone (208) 345-7680 ADA C~NTY HIGHWAY DIS~ICT Development Services Division Preliminary Report MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 -Eagle Rd n/o Overland Rd - I-84 Power Center - Meridian The applicant is requesting annexation to the City of Meridian, approval for a rezone from RT to C-G and a conditional use to construct a commercial project of approximately 700,000-squaze feet. The 73.5-acre site is located on the southeast side of I-84 and Eagle Road with a narrow portion of the site abutting Overland Road. This development is estimated to generate 24,885 additional vehicle trips per day. A traffic study has been submitted for this application. Ada Planning Association (APA) has also prepared a special transportation study for the four squaze mile area including this site. Both studies indicate that the Eagle/Overland/Franklin corridors will be seriously impacted by this and other anticipated development in the four square mile area and that the planned roadway system wul riot ue adequate to support the proposed level of development. Roads impacted by this development: Eagle Road -Principal arterial with bike route designation - Traffic count 9,094 (1993 estimate by APA) Overland Road -Minor arterial with no pathway designation shown - Traffic count 5,290 in 1993 rnihv~tw 33ao ~ AVE. ~ ~ ao a ~ a .a eaoo ~ r 600 < 4zao ioeoo so ~ . . Q C ~ ~ = J Q ~ ~ 7 O C7 ~ O > EMERALD ~ W a o~ ~ ~ 8 o ~ ~~~ ~ 8 FRANKLIN RD. ~ESr 8 FRANKLIN RD.. 8 soon ~' F isoo 8 330o g 4zoo 8 X2000. ~oeao 8 ® sego soon g ^ 8 .. ~. 55 v 4e '~ _ _ ~~ / ¢° 4~ ~ ~ i OREGON TRNL ~~~ HWY. ~ W ~ VERLAND ~ ~zoao RD. ~ 0 ~ ~ 6 eooo ~ 600 3300 4200 10800 Q 8S ^ eOOp . ~ S 1TE ACRD Commission Date -August 23, 1995 7:00 P.M. ~~' 'M!~ ^ w x h . ii `it r ~I~ 9` a~ ICI WI ~~ I .. i ~ .. I. ', r' ~ ' _ L ~f i .~` ,. ~` i . 3 3€~~ z s~ i" < F y 6 < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i O i i i i o ~g <~ V G a ~ 'Y r __ if3 + 1 y ~eep~Y ~~~~ =~ c. '° .. .. ~ ~~ ,- ~ 1, ~~;~ ,. '~ ;~ s, ~.. ~.1 ~. . :> X1'1 .. 1~:tiit Z=#~'~~a .. W W V 1 s~nva~r aarr 6y ~' ~~~ ~ ~ k ,~t~ -,~--~ ° ~ ~~ ~ /- ~. ~~ ~ f ~, i ~I ~ ~~ s Wi ~ "' YY N: ~ ~! D I~ ~,„ „ ,. ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~i -'~~ i s s 5; ~ A 1 ~ ~~ r j ~ 1 ~+ ~ r ~ ~ :'• 1~ ~ gg F: Z a ~ ~ :.F bb "~ • ~~ ~ ~ a~ . ~ ` -i \. ~ ~t o 1U i ~ ~~ 1 --- - , , ~ , adOb 31~d3 ~. ~: ~,a:, 5 ~ ~; Ali WI N! '~~ ~! i~ I j ~ c Ii~ Ali ~~ ~ c „„ : ' ~ _ cG c ~}, 's: s ~ ~ i ~._ _ ~ s _ s S S i i ~- j .. .. ~g ~~ <<~ya _= C = _ _ : o ~ ? a a . ~~~ ~ ~~ ~j~~ j._ t E~6 1 ~ : }~;;~ ~-----=sue:-~:-- : ~~- ~ ' 4y4~~~ ~~~ . ~ . -~ _ ,... I~ ~i , ....... . _ . .~.~ . ih t' ~ .• 1~ , . ! _ ~f W H Z W V snr~~r aarr Ly ~~ ~' "F ~ J~.1 1 `~~~ ~ ~ # ~.; t~ ~ss j S _ .~ i d t ', ~ F i i f '#' ~~~ ~ E 4---- f ' :: E i, ~' ~ ` '~ ~\ •- 1 ,J ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~T . ~ ~ ~F Z '' ! ~ t` 1 \ r oez~ ,~¢~~ of ~~ _. • ~ ~ba2~ S sue! ti~+NO~ ~ -- - ~~ adOb 31Jd3 ;.~~ ~... .:.: \~'. ~ ~. 1 ~i Z' ~ ~; ; ~: _ Wi s" Vf ! ~: ~• ~. ~, ~ i., u ' . ~' u i ~' ~~ j: ~~ ~~ , u ~~ . ~~ ~~' i ~ lC~ ° ~ESS`zi ~ ° SET'~T ITO'TI F6z`~T -~ I i W N W £00' O i Q ~ '~ • •~-, ~ ~ ~j O C'~ ~ ~ o~ E '' Q ss~`~z ~ ~. ~ o w E~ ~--~ ~ ~. ~ Q W ---~ s`L ~, o. 0 a~ o ~ ~ ~ U a ~ a~ ~ 3 ~ o OL8`ST ~ ~ ~m W ~ u~eipt.zay~ .~ ° alEp.za~oj~ ~ O8~`9 '~ •--~ 0 ~• ~• ~~ ao S~~`S ..U-r .• obi`s LFe`z a I '~ ~ 0 ~anos~ ~sn~o~ L ~~ i o F D a m s 0 a ~~ ~o ~i o • ~..~ ~~ ~~ ~ • .n ~r ~ o ~ ~~~ ~~~ ., ~i ...° -a--- • aity~ anti , L9T `OT LL~'L •• EFZ`~z E6z`zi ~J ~ ~ I I ~ I I ~ I ! aity~ ant, a -~ O O .~ OOZ`Z~ 008`E~ 000`9£ 1--~1 0 O d' ~ajEp.za~oj~ OOS`SZ 009`9T . ,.., .-. ~ ~ 0 S-+ o r-~ E"' ~ ~ r+ . 0 0 0 0 0 OOi~`6T 006`8T 0 0 a~ 0 0 0 M a~ O U . r..~ V ~ o ° OOZ`95 OOS`~2 000`£Z w OOT 6E ~ ~ 0 0 o ~ 0 a g o o ~, W ~ n o ° ~ M '" 0 0 F~--~1 I r~r' F...~ F-~ ~j isi '3 .~ ~ ~ ~z~e tp t.z a ~~ ~z~ 0 ~~ F a W s 0 a i m e .,. d 0 a • • I I ( I } altNi ant, I I ~ L a ~ OOZ`Zi~ 008`F~ 000`9F O O O~ ~, 00~`6T 006`8T . ,.,, -- ~ . , '~ ~ ~ O `~ S-+ ° ~ C-'+ ~ ~ w OOI `6F o 0 ~ c ~ 0 ~, ~ o o~ ~Q W ~ ~, ~~ a O --., ~ .." ~t •: 0 c 0 c ~n ~, co ~ ~ ~ E-~ 0 0 v~ ~ ~ O U ° •..., o ~ a+ 0 0 anoi~ ~}snooZ] I~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ctEipt.zay~ ~~ 1-~ O O nl d' oos`sz oo9`9i ''d .-.~ 0 0 0 0 0 OOZ`9s OOS`i~z 000`Fz (~ e 0 I F 0 e m m s 0 a w ~~ .,. d .. 0 a • Table 4 TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION ' TAZ Section Land Use Acres SQF GFA (000 Trip Generation 162 NE SF,R1, Ed eview 79 3,441,240 2,580.93 754 162 NE SF,RS 25 1,089,000 816.75 1,910 162 NE MF,R3 25 1,089,000 816.75 716 162 NE Free Standin Retail 16 696,960 174.24 7,086 162 NE Office 10 435,600 108.90 3,721 162 NE Canal, etc. 5 217,800 NA NA 162 NW SF,R1, Montview Park 30 1,306,800 980.10 287 162 NW SF,R3 20 871,200 653.40 573 162 NW St. Luke's Hospital 40 1,742,400 475.20 7,974 162 NW Nursin Home,300 bed 5 217,800 54.45 780 162 NW Office 40 1,742,400 435.60 14,884 162 NW General Retail 21 914,760 228.69 9,301 162 NW Canal, etc. 4 174,240 NA NA 162 SUBTOTAL 320 13,939,200 7,325 47,986 284 SW SF, R 1 40 1, 742,400 1, 306.80 382 284 SW Park and Ride 2 87,120 82.76 1,726 284 SW Power Center 73 3,179,880 714.40 24,885 284 SW Flood Plain 45 1,960,200 NA NA 284 SE SF,R1 80 3,484,800 2,613.60 764 284 SE SF,R3 44 1,916,640 1,437.48 1,261 284 SE Retail 15 653,400 163.35 6 643 284 SE anal, 1-84 H 21 914,760 NA NA 284 SUBTOTAL 320 13,939,200 6,318 35,661 283 NE SF,R1 135 5,880,600 4,410.45 1,289 283 NE SF,R1 10 435,600 326.70 96 283 NE Retail 10 435,600 108.90 4,429 283 NE Office 5 217,800 54.45 886 283 NW SF,R1 38 1,655,280 1,241.46 363 283 NW SF,R3 100 4,356,000 3,267.00 2,865 283 NW Retail 10 435,600 108.90 4,429 283 NW Flood Plain, etc 12 522,720 NA NA 283 SW SF,R3 78 3,397,680 2,548.26 2,235 283 SW Industrial Park 15 653,400 163.35 1,139 283 SW Golf/Recreation 15 653,400 653.40 125 283 SW Retail 24 1,045,440 261.36 10,630 283 SW Office 12 522,720 130.68 1,718 283 SW 1-84 R-O-W 16 696,960 NA NA 283 SE SF,R1 35 1,524,600 1,143.45 334 283 SE SF,R1 10 435,600 326.70 96 283 SE Retail 34 1 481 040 370.26 15,058 283 SE Office 10 435,600 108.90 1,497 283 SE Li ht Industrial 4 174,240 43.56 304 283 SE I-84 R-O-W 67 2,918,520 NA NA 283 SUBTOTAL 640 27,878,400 15,268 47,493 T~hlu d C_nntinuPd u A i T TAZ ~ Section Land Use i Acres SaF GF r p ; '~, 000 Generation 286 ' NE Retail ! 114 4,965,840 1,241.46 50,490 286 NE SF,R3 ~ 33 1,437,480 1,078.11 945 286 NE Li ht Industrial 13 566,280 141.57 987 286 NW R1 SF 39 1,698,840 1,274.13 372 286 NW , SF R3 97 4,225,320 3,168.99 2,779 286 NW , School Site 15 653,400 653.40 7.004 286 NW Retail 5 217,800 54.45 2,214 286 NW Canal, etc. 4 174,240 NA NA 286 SW R3 SF 145 6,316,200 4,737.15 4,154 286 SW , Retail 10 435,600 108.90 4,429 286 SW Canal, etc 5 117 217,800 520 096 5 NA NA 822.39 3 3,352 286 286 SE SE SF,R3 Office 30 , , 1,306,800 , 326.70 3,434 286 SE Retail 10 435,600 108.90 4,429 286 SE Canal, etc. 3 130,680 NA NA 286 SUBTOTAL 640 27,878,400 16,716 84,589 285 NE R1 SF 69 3,005,640 2,254.23 659 285 NE , R2 SF 65 2,831,400 2,123.55 1.242 285 NE , Retail 10 435,600 108.90 4,429 285 NE Flood Plain, Canal 16 696,960 NA NA 285 NW R3 SF 60 2,613,600 1,960.20 1,719 285 NW , Retail 65 2,831,400 707.85 28,788 285 NW Office 27 1,176,120 294.03 3,171 285 NW Flood Plain 8 348,480 NA NA 285 SW SF,R2 122 5,314,320 3,985.74 2,330 285 SW Retail 15 653,400 163.35 6,643 285 SW Office 15 653,400 163.35 2,033 285 SW etc. Canal 8 348,480 NA NA , 18 516 285 SE R1 SF 54 2,352,240 1,764. 285 SE , R1 SF 93 4,051,080 3,038.31 888 285 SE , Retail 10 435,600 108.90 4,429 285 SE Canal, etc. 3 640 130,680 400 878 27 NA NA 673 16 56,847 285 SUBTOTA L , , , GRAND TO AL 2560 11,513,600 62,300 272,576 Table 4. Continued i TAZ I Section Land Use i Acres SQF GFA (0001 Trip Generation 286 I NE Retail i 114 4,965,840 1,241.46 50,490 286 1 NE SF,R3 ~ 33 1,437,480 1,078.11 945 ' 286 I NE Li ht Industrial 13 566,280 141.57 987 286 NW SF,R1 39 1,698,840 1,274.13 372 286 1NW SF,R3 97 4,225,320 3,168.99 2,779 286 NW School Site 15 653,400 653.40 7,004 286 NW Retail 5 217,800 54.45 2,214 286 NW Canal, etc. 4 174,240 NA NA 286 SW SF,R3 .145 6,316,200 4,737.15 4154 286 SW Retail 10 435,600 108.90 4,429 286 SW Canal, etc 5 217,800 NA NA 286 1SE SF,R3 117 5,096,520 3,822.39 3,352 286 SE Office 30 1,306,800 326.70 3,434 286 SE Retail 10 435,600 108.90 4,429 286 SE Canal, etc. 3 130,680 NA NA 286 SUBTOTAL 640 27,878,400 16,716 84,589 285 NE SF,R1 69 3,005,640 2,254.23 659 285 NE SF,R2 65 2,831,400 2,123.55 1,242 285 NE Retail 10 435,600 108.90 4,429 285 NE Flood Plain, Canal 16 696,960 NA NA 285 NW SF,R3 60 2,613 600 1,960.20 1 719 285 NW Retail 65 2,831,400 707.85 28,788 285 NW Office 27 1,176,120 294.03 3,171 285 NW Flood Plain 8 348 480 NA NA 285 SW SF,R2 122 5,314,320 3,985.74 2,330 285 SW Retail 15 653,400 163.35 6,643 285 SW Office 15 653 400 163.35 2 033 285 SW Canal, etc. 8 348,480 NA NA 285 SE SF,R1 54 2,352,240 1,764.18 516 285 SE SF,R1 93 4,051,080 3,038.31 888 285 SE Retail 10 435,600 108.90 4,429 285 SE Canal etc. 3 130 680 NA NA 285 SUBTOTAL 640 27,878,400 16,673 56,847 GRAND TO AL 2560 11,513,600 62,300 272,576 ~sv-.:.w Facts and Findings: General Information A. RT -Existing zoning C-G -Requested zoning 73.5 -Acres 714,000 -Square feet of proposed building 284 -Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada -Impact Fee Benefit Zone Western Cities -Impact Fee Assessment District Overland Road Minor arterial with no pathway designation shown Traffic count 5,290 in 1993 140-feet of frontage 50-feet existing right-of--way (25-feet from centerline) 108-feet required right-of--way (54-feet from centerline) Overland Road is improved with 28-feet of pavement without curb, gutter or sidewalk. The roadway is elevated about three feet above the surrounding property as is common in rural roads and will probably require lowering when reconstructed as an urban roadway. B. The consideration of this application has been deferred by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission until September 12, 1995. C. Access to the site from Interstate 84 and Eagle Road is prohibited by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). Without acquiring additional property, the site can only be provided with one point of access that is proposed to be a private driveway connection to Overland Road. The proposed access road is approximately 1,200 feet east of the Eagle Road intersection. D. The site is currently under agricultural production. Two single family residences occupy a portion of the site. It is inevitable that this site will develop for some highly intensive land use. The site's exposure to the interstate highway makes it highly desirable for the type of land use being proposed, however the site's single point of connection to the arterial system causes severe problems of traffic dispersal. It would be much better if the project were to be located on a site that has direct access to two (or more) arterials instead of one. This report points out the problems that intensive development of this property (and others in the area) will cause the local transportation system in a rapidly developing rural area. E. An unimproved gravel roadway borders the western portion of the project site and Eagle Road that currently serves a single family residence and an unimproved parcel owned by ITD. This roadway is proposed to become secondary access to the site. The ITD owned parcel is planned to be developed into apark-and-ride lot. MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 2 F. Eagle Road north of Overland Road is under the jurisdiction of ITD, having full access control on the Interstate 84 ramps and on Eagle Road between I-84 and Overland Road, therefore prohibiting access to this site from Eagle Road and I-84. The developer is required to submit application materials to ITD for the review and requirements of that Department. G. Excepting the approaches to the Eagle Road intersection, Overland Road is a 2-lane roadway from Five Mile Road to Meridian Road. Both Overland Road legs of the signalized Eagle Road intersection have left turn lanes. A volume of 15,000 vehicle trips per day has been identified as Level of Service (LOS) C to be used for long range planning purposes for two lane roadways such as Overland Road. LOS C is the maximum desirable volume (not capacity) established by APA as a guideline in the 2010 Transportation Plan. The last measured traffic volume on Overland Road east of Eagle Road was 5,290 in 1993. The 1993 estimated volume west of Eagle Road on Overland was 7,265. This project is forecast to generate 7,855 trips per day east of the site on Overland Road and 5,952 trips west of Eagle Road, increasing the estimated traffic on Overland Road east of the site to 13,145 and to 13,217 west of Eagle Road. Although the traffic volumes are within maximum desirable thresholds on the roadways, the inordinate number of turning movements at the site driveway and the Overland/Eagle intersection require special intersection design. If intersections are "built-out" to an ultimate configuration in advance of the roadway segment between them, greater traffic volumes can be sustained before LOS C delays are experienced by the majority of the traffic. H. Currently, Eagle Road south of Overland Road is a 2-lane roadway and north of Overland Road to the I-84 ramp transition lanes is a 4-lane roadway. Eagle Road has single left turn lanes on both legs of the signalized Overland Road intersection. Traffic: A. The developer has submitted a traffic study for this project. Staff has reviewed and accepted the traffic analysis. The traffic study recommended a number of major improvements to the segment of Overland Road between the site's driveway and Eagle Road and to the Overland/Eagle intersection. These improvements will add the needed capacity to the immediate system to accommodate the additional traffic from this project, but will not replace the unused capacity in the system that currently exists. Even with the roadway improvement proposed by the developer, there will be a net loss in intersection capacity at the Overland Road/Eagle Road intersection. The key elements of the developer's traffic study are as follows: On-site • The planned commercial center will include approximately 714,000 square feet of gross leasable area. • The proposed project is forecast to generate 2,324 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour. • The proposed project is forecast to generate 24,885 daily vehicle trips. • A single access roadway from Overland Road is proposed to serve the project site. A secondary, emergency access road is planned on the west side of the site that will also connect to Overland Road. • The site access road will require three southbound and two northbound lanes. • A traffic signal will be required at the intersection of the site access road with Overland Road. MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 3 F. Eagle Road north of Overland Road is under the jurisdiction of ITD, having full access control on the Interstate 84 ramps and on Eagle Road between I-84 and Overland Road, therefore prohibiting access to this site from Eagle Road and I-84. The developer is required to submit application materials to ITD for the review and requirements of that Department. G. Excepting the approaches to the Eagle Road intersection, Overland Road is a 2-lane roadway from Five Mile Road to Meridian Road. Both Overland Road legs of the signalized Eagle Road intersection have left turn lanes. A volume of 15,000 vehicle trips per day has been identified as Level of Service (LOS) C to be used for long range planning purposes for two lane roadways such as Overland Road. LOS C is the maximum desirable volume (not capacity) established by APA as a guideline in the 2010 Transportation Plan. The last measured traffic volume on Overland Road east of Eagle Road was 5,290 in 1993. The 1993 ~ma d volume west of Eagle Road on Overland was 7,265. This project is forecast to generate 7,855 trips per day east of the site on Overland Road and 5,952 trips west of Eagle Road, increasing the estimated traffic on Overland Road east of the site to 13,145 and to 13,217 west of Eagle Road. Although the traffic volumes are within maximum desirable thresholds on the roadways, the inordinate number of turning movements at the site driveway and the Overland/Eagle intersection require special intersection design. If intersections are "built-out" to an ultimate configuration in advance of the roadway segment between them, greater traffic volumes can be sustained before LOS C delays are experienced by the majority of the traffic. H. Currently, Eagle Road south of Overland Road is a 2-lane roadway and north of Overland Road to the I-84 ramp transition lanes is a 4-lane roadway. Eagle Road has single left turn lanes on both legs of the signalized Overland Road intersection. Traffic: A. The developer has submitted a traffic study for this project. Staff has reviewed and accepted the traffic analysis. The traffic study recommended a number of major improvements to the segment of Overland Road between the site's driveway and Eagle Road and to the Overland/Eagle intersection. These improvements will add the needed capacity to the immediate system to accommodate the additional traffic from this project, but will not replace the unused capacity in the system that currently eadsts. Even with the roadway improvement proposed by the developer, there will be a net loss in intersection capacity at the Overland Road/Eagle Road intersection. The key elements of the developer's traffic study are as follows: On-site • The planned commercial center will include approximately 714,000 square feet of gross leasable area. • The proposed project is forecast to generate 2,324 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour. • The proposed project is forecast to generate 24,885 daily vehicle trips. • A single access roadway from Overland Road is proposed to serve the project site. A secondary, emergency access road is planned on the west side of the site that will also connect to Overland Road. • The site access road will require three southbound and two northbound lanes. • A traffic signal will be required at the intersection of the site access road with Overland Road. MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 3 Off-site -Overland Road/Eagle Road • Westbound Overland Road will need an additional right-turn lane at the site access road intersection. • The segment of Overland Road between Eagle Road and the site access road will require ultimate widening to seven traffic lanes; two eastbound through lanes, two eastbound left turn lanes, two westbound through lanes, and an added westbound right turn lane. • The southbound approach of the Eagle Road/Overland Road intersection will require ultimate widening to three left turn lanes with the prohibition of pedestrian crossings or the accommodation for pedestrians with an over crossing. • The south and west legs of the Eagle Road/Overland Road intersection will require widening to match the added lanes north and east of the Eagle Road/Overland Road intersection. • The east leg of the site access road/Overland Road intersection will require widening to match the added lanes west of the site access road/Overland Road intersection. B. ACRD staff has analyzed the operation of the Overland/Eagle intersection and found that it currently operates at LOS B, with an average delay of about 10 seconds per vehicle, and uses about 15 percent of the intersection's capacity of critical volumes. (Critical volumes are the specific intersection volumes that conflict with each other, e.g., the southbound left turns conflict with the northbound through movements.) If this project is developed, and the recommended improvements have been constructed, the traffic will use 44 percent of the capacity of critical volumes of the intersection. Staff recommends that the developer be required to replace the 29 percent of capacity of critical volumes that the development will use over and above the capacity provided by the recommended improvements. This can be accomplished by adding a through lane to each of the four legs of the intersection. C. Based upon the submitted traffic study and District policy, staff recommends that the developer be required to make the following roadway improvements that are necessary to accommodate the site generated traffic in the short term, prior to the build out of the four square mile impact area. These improvements will replace the current unused capacity of critical volumes of the Overland Road/Eagle Road intersection: On-site • The access road will be constructed to include three southbound and two northbound lanes. • A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of the site access road with Overland Road. Off-site -Overland Road/Eagle Road • A continuous right turn lane on westbound Overland Road between the site access road and Eagle Road. This includes the transition on Eagle Road north of the intersection. • A continuous through lane on eastbound Overland Road between the site access road and Eagle Road. This includes the transition on Overland Road east of the site driveway and on Overland Road west of Eagle Road. • A second southbound left turn lane on Eagle Road at the Overland Road intersection. This includes the transition on Eagle Road south of Overland Road. • A separate right turn lane on westbound Overland Road for the site access road. • A separate through lane on each leg of the Overland Road/Eagle Road intersection. MCU-7-95/MItZ-2-95 Page 4 D. No stub streets are planned for the project. All internal roadways are private. One additional site access is possible in the future as adjacent residential land redevelops and should be preserved along the eastern portion of the project site. If the adjoining residential area redevelops, connecting access to the site is possible. ACHD recommends to the City of Meridian that no buildings be allowed to develop along the southern 100 feet of the eastern site boundary , so the potential additional access road will not be blocked. Sub-Regional Transportation Study A. This application was before the Commission on June 14, 1995. At that meeting, the Commission deferred action on the application and requested Ada Planning Association (APA) to conduct asub- regional land use/transportation analysis of the four square miles surrounding this site. That analysis was completed by APA on August 1, 1995. The volumes of traffic forecast by the APA study to be generated within the four square mile area are shown in Table 4, immediately following the maps at the front of this report and its findings have been summarized by District staff as follows: • The analysis was requested by ACHD in response to the Power Center application, the St. Luke's project north of I-84, the Bews application (north of I-84, east of St. Luke's), and other anticipated developments in the Eagle Road corridor. The conceptual plans for the referenced properties indicate a much higher level of development than is assumed in the Long Range Transportation Plan. The purpose of the transportation analysis was to determine the transportation impacts of these plans and determine the amount of additional roadway improvements that may be needed to accommodate those impacts. • The conceptual planning area represents approximately four square miles (2,560 acres), including the entire area bounded by Locust Grove Road, Franklin Road, Cloverdale Road and Victory Road. Approximately 150 acres (6% of the total) are undevelopable, including the I-84 corridor, canals, and flood plains. • The 2015 f re trip generation from the entire area is estimated at 272,500 daily vehicle trips. This is roughly equivalent to 27,000 single family homes or seven Boise Town Square Malls. The forecast trip generation was based on a land use scenario developed by E.J. Smith and Associates under contract to APA and reviewed by ACHD staff, City of Meridian staff and some officials, and APA staff. The analysis assumed that the entire area would be built out by 2015. Maps 5 and 6 show the traffic in the study area now and in 20 years assuming full build out of the study area. • This project will generate 9.1 percent of the total traffic in the study area by year 2015, but occupies only 3.1 percent of the land area and directs that traffic to the arterial system at only one location. • APA's modeling effort used the Bench to Valley Transportation Study network which included the Five Mile Road interchange The roadway volume forecast in the Eagle Road corridor will increase over the estimated traffic volumes in this report if the Five Mile interchange is not constructed. The Five Mile interchange was included in the network assumption because this system improvement would be necessary to support the proposed high level of development and its resulting traffic. The Bench/Valley network used in the analysis is the proposed network developed as a result of the March 2, 1995 community-wide meeting, and it is essentially equivalent to several versions that are currently under consideration. With respect to this area of the County, it is most important to note the Five Mile interchange assumption. It is not feasible to consider such an intense sub-regional development without a Five Mile interchange. MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 5 • • D. No stub streets aze planned for the project. All internal roadways aze private. One additional site access is possible in the future as adjacent residential land redevelops and should be preserved along the eastern portion of the project site. If the adjoining residential azea redevelops, connecting access to the site is possible. ACHD recommends to the City of Meridian that no buildings be allowed to develop along the southern 100 feet of the eastern site boundary , so the potential additional access road will not be blocked. Sub-Regional Transportation Study A. This application was before the Commission on June 14, 1995. At that meeting, the Commission deferred action on the application and requested Ada Planning Association (APA) to conduct asub- regional land use/transportation analysis of the four squaze miles surrounding this site. That analysis was completed by APA on August 1; 1995. The volumes of traffic forecast by the APA study to be generated within the four square mile area are shown in Table 4, immediately following the maps at the front of this report and its findings have been summarized by District staff as follows: The analysis was requested by ACHD in response to the Power Center application, the St. Luke's project north of I-84, the Bews application (north of I-84, east of St. Luke's), and other anticipated developments in the Eagle Road comdor. The conceptual plans for the referenced properties indicate a much higher level of development than is assumed in the Long Range Transportation Plan. The purpose of the transportation analysis was to determine the transportation impacts of these plans and detenmine the amount of additional roadway improvements that may be needed to accommodate those impacts. The conceptual planning area represents approximately four square miles (2,560 acres), including the entire area bounded by Locust Grove Road, Franklin Road, Cloverdale Road and Victory Road. Approximately 150 acres (6% of the total) aze undevelopable, including the I-84 corridor, canals, and flood plains. The 2015 forecast trip generation from the entire area is estimated at 272,500 daily vehicle trips. This is roughly equivalent to 27,000 single family homes or seven Boise Town Square Malls. The forecast trip generation was based on a land use scenario developed by E.J. Smith and Associates under contract to APA and reviewed by ACHD staff, City of Meridian staff and some officials, and APA staff. The analysis assumed that the entire area would be built out by 2015. Maps 5 and 6 show the traffic in the study area now and in 20 years assuming full build out of the study area. This project will generate 9.1 percent of the total traffic in the study area by year 2015, but occupies only 3.1 percent of the land area and directs that traffic to the arterial system at only one location. APA's modeling effort used the Bench to Valley Transportation Study network which included the Five Mile Road interchange The roadway volume forecast in the Eagle Road corridor will increase over the estimated traffic volumes in this report if the Five Mile interchange is not constructed. The Five Mile interchange was included in the network assumption because this system improvement would be necessary to support the proposed high level of development and its resulting traffic. The Bench/Valley network used in the analysis is the proposed network developed as a result of the March 2, 1995 community-wide meeting, and it is essentially equivalent to several versions that are currently under consideration. With respect to this area of the County, it is most important to note the Five Mile interchange assumption. It is not feasible to con ider uch an intence cub-regional development wi hout a Five Mil interchan~~, MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 5 Eagle Road and Franklin >~d are principal arterials and Overland l~d is a minor arterial. ACRD Traffic Services staff ran computer analyses of the operation of the Overland Road/Eagle Road intersection analyzing its current operation, its operation with this project but no other development, and its operation with this project plus the full build out of the four square mile impact area. The results of that analysis indicate that the Overland Road/Eagle Road intersection currently operates at LOS B or better, having less than 10 seconds of average delay per vehicle and currently uses approximately 15 percent of its capacity of critical volumes. Both the Franklin Road/Eagle Road and Overland Road/Eagle Road intersections fall below Level of Service D using any conventional intersection and arterial roadway design with the planned level of development.. Assuming build out of the four square mile impact area without this project, the intersection will require additional lanes but will operate at LOS D, with an average delay of 34.5 seconds per vehicle. Adding the forecast traffic from the Power Center and the improvements to the intersection proposed by the developer, the intersection will operate worse than the described range of LOS F, with an average delay of 62.8 seconds per vehicle. Extensive roadway widening and some form of grade separated interchanges would be required to attain an acceptable level of service (D or better) at the Eagle/Franklin and Eagle/Overland intersections. ACRD staff has sketched a possible configuration of an interchange for the Overland Road/Eagle Road intersection. It shows a grade separated intersection with the north-south traffic on Eagle passing unimpeded beneath a structure on which Overland Road traffic would pass over Eagle Road. Two separate intersections east and west of Eagle Road would split the northbound and southbound turning movements to Overland Road and the traffic on Overland Road trying to access Eagle Road. The southbound leg of this split intersection would operate at LOS F (average delay of more than 60 seconds per vehicle) because of the high number of left turns by southbound Eagle Road traffic turning east onto Overland Road to the Power Center. The northbound leg would operate at LOS C because the predominate turning movement would be right turns from the Power Center going back to I-84 on Eagle Road. Alternative interchange designs are possible. The costs of the grade separated intersection improvements ($5 million to $8 million per intersection) would be the predominant extra-ordinary cost of the high level of development being considered in the area ifright-of--way for major roadway widening is obtained with development and mitigation requirements do not escalate between the time of the adjacent development and the construction of the ultimate roadway section. The APA analysis indicates that Eagle Road will have 57,000 trips per day along the one mile plus segment from south of Overland Road to north of Franklin Road, requiring widening to a minimum of eight lanes. Overland Road will have a maximum of 30,400 and 24,600 trips per day east of Eagle Road, and east of the site driveway, respectively, and would require widening to four lanes for most of its length with special treatment at the Eagle Road intersection in order to operate at an acceptable level of service. The special treatment will probably require a grade separated intersection as described above. Left turn lanes would be necessary at other intersections of existing and future local roads. Overland Road would require six lanes from Eagle Road to the entrance to the Power Center (plus the westbound right turn lane to Eagle Road), because of the site related traffic. Overland Road west of Eagle Road will have 26,400 trips per day upon build out of the impact area, including the traffic from the Power Center. Franklin Road will have a maximum of 23,000 trips per day west of Eagle Road and 25,500 trips per day east of Eagle Road. Severe problems with left turns at the Eagle Road intersection (westbound to southbound) will also require some form of special intersection design similar to Overland Road described above. MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 6 • B. Prior to the receipt of this application, another traffic analysis was prepared for the District covering the area north of I-84 and east of Eagle Road in connection with the E. L. Bews annexation and conditional use application. Mr. Bews owns 80 acres of land east of the St. Luke's property. In contrast to the analysis conducted by APA, the St. Luke's/Bews, et al traffic analysis did not assume that a Five Mile interchange would be built, as the development of the projects north of I-84 seem to be likely regardless of the Bench-Valley outcome and results. Although that analysis did not include the Five Mile interchange, it used the previously assumed APA 2015 land use in the sub-regional area and the remainder of Ada County so the lower trip generation in the surrounding area somewhat counterbalanced the lack of a Five Mile interchange. Thus, the two studies yield similar and compatible results. The conclusions of the St. Luke's/Bews traffic analysis are summarized below: The provision of an east-west connection across the St. Luke's property to the Bews property provides a significant improvement to the operation of the Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection. However,. the added traffic from the east-west connection across the St. Luke's property would seriously degrade the operation of the St Luke's driveway intersection with Eagle Road. The addition of this roadway would delay the need for an interchange at the Franklin/Eagle intersection, similar to that described above for the Overland/Eagle intersection. The proposed intensity of development in the area will require unanticipated and unfunded inordinate widening of the arterials in the area. Alternatively, in order to maintain currently accepted Levels of Service and the avoidance of these inordinate widening requirements using more conventional roadway designs, limitations of development intensity will be necessary. C. Both traffic analyses indicated that, under long term conditions, the existing transportation system is not adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the developments proposed and anticipated in this area. The proposed project, expected spinoff projects and other known projects north of Interstate 84 are all unanticipated in the Long Range Transportation Plan. D. The build-out of this project, the ensuing spin-off development in the immediate area, and the anticipated longer term development in the four square mile impact area will negatively impact the District's Five Year Work Program, if currently acceptable levels of service are to be maintained, and will create a need for transportation system improvements that are currently unanticipated and for which funding has not been identified. These findings must be established and adopted as a basis for the imposition of extraordinary impact fees. E. Based on the need for these unanticipated roadway improvements, it would follow that some form of extraordinary impact- fee could be required to fund the offsite roadway improvements needed to make the system operate at the current level of service, or that the needed improvements be constructed by the developers of the impacting projects. Eagle Road, which requires widening to eight lanes, is not eligible for the expenditure of extraordinary fees that might be imposed by the District. MCU-7-95/NIRZ-2-95 Page 7 • B. Prior to the receipt of this application, another traffic analysis was prepared for the District covering the area north of I-84 and east of Eagle Road in connection with the E. L. Bews annexation and conditional use application. Mr. Bews owns 80 acres of land east of the St. Luke's property. In contrast to the analysis conducted by APA, the St. Luke'sBews, et al traffic analysis did not assume that a Five Mile interchange would be built, as the development of the projects north of I-84 seem to be likely regardless of the Bench-Valley outcome and results. Although that analysis did not include the Five Mile interchange, it used the previously assumed APA 2015 land use in the sub-regional area and the remainder of Ada County so the lower trip generation in the surrounding area somewhat counterbalanced the lack of a Five Mile interchange. Thus, the two studies yield similar and compatible results. The conclusions of the St. Luke's/Bews traffic analysis are. summarized below: • The provision of an east-west connection across the St. Luke's property to the Bews property provides a significant improvement to the operation of the Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection. However, the added traffic from the east-west connection across the St. Luke's property would seriously degrade the operation of the St Luke's driveway intersection with Eagle Road. The addition of this roadway would delay the need for an interchange at the Franklin/Eagle intersection, similar to that described above for the Overland/Eagle intersection. • The proposed intensity of development in the area will require unanticipated and unfunded inordinate widening of the arterials in the area. Alternatively, in order to maintain currently accepted Levels of Service and the avoidance of these inordinate widening requirements using more conventional roadway designs, limitations of development intensity will be necessary. C. Both traffic analyses indicated that, under long term conditions, the existing transportation system is not adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the developments proposed and anticipated in this area. The proposed project, expected spinoff projects and other known projects north of Interstate 84 are all unanticipated in the Long Range Transportation Plan. D. The build-out of this project, the ensuing spin-off development in the immediate area, and the anticipated longer term development in the four square mile impact area will negatively impact the District's Five Year Work Program, if currently acceptable levels of service are to be maintained, and will create a need for transportation system improvements that are currently unanticipated and for which funding has not been identified. These findings must be established and adopted as a basis for the imposition of extraordinary impact fees. E. Based on the need for these unanticipated roadway improvements, it would follow that some form of extraordinary impact fee could be required to fund the offsite roadway improvements needed to make the system operate at the current level of service, or that the needed improvements be constructed by the developers of the impacting projects. Eagle Road, which requires widening to eight lanes, is not eligible for the expenditure of extraordinary fees that might be imposed by the District. MCU-7-95/NiRZ-2-95 Page 7 • F. Facilities Financing Districts are used in other states to finance a combination of state, local and private roadway improvements. This would be extremely helpful in this (and other) cases, but cannot be done without special authorization by the Idaho Legislature. G. An ironic twist to this application/site allowed by the impact fee ordinance is the developer's option to prepare an individual assessment and potentially obtain a substantial reduction of the regular impact fee, because of the usage of the Interstate Highway and State Highway systems by some customers of this project to make part of the trip to this development. Although much of the volume of traffic to and from the site will use I-84 for most of the l~igth of the trips getting to the vicinity of the Power Center, the turning movements that are necessary to get to the specific site are the cause of serious degradation of level of service and exhaustion of existing capacity of critical volumes at the Overland Road/Eagle Road intersection. Alternative Actions: A. Adopt and impose an extraordinary impact fee for all development within the four square mile affected area. This may tend to drive the development to other locations, causing problems there. A disadvantage of extraordinary impact fees is that they are collected over a long period of time, when the improvement they are to pay for may be needed immediately. This would require additional accounting efforts, major commitments of staff time to administer contracts with developers providing the design and construction, and the provision of construction inspection and oversight. The extra-ordinary impact fee could be calculated by either of the following methods: i. Compute the total estimated cost of the off-site improvements that are required to maintain an acceptable LOS and divide by the total number of estimated trips in the four square mile impact area). The result would be applied to each land use as development was being approved as a fee for each forecast vehicle trip generated by the proposed use. A staff estimate indicates that the cost of needed unprovements in the area is $27 million and the number of trips is 272,500, resulting in an extraordinary impact fee of $99.08 per trip. Relating this to actual land uses, a single family dwelling would have'an extraordinary impact fee of $990.80 in addition to the regular impact fee of $900 ($687 if smaller than 1500 square feet). A 30,000 square foot office building would have an extraordinary impact fee of $36,248 in addition to a regular impact fee of $102,060. A 3,000 square foot convenience store would have an extraordinary impact fee of $131,834 in addition to the regular impact fee of $27,729. This is the method used in the calculation of the regular impact fee and assigns the fee to the source of travel demand. ii. The cost of the off-site improvements could be divided by the number of developable acres of land in the impact area. The result would be assessed on each acre of land as it is developed. This would place an unfair share of the cost on residential development, or eliminate any land uses with low traffic generation rates. ($27,000,000 / 2406 acres = $11,220 /acre = $2805 / dwelling, at four dwellings per acre). MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 8 B. Require the construction by this developer now, of the off-site improvements that are needed to accommodate the traffic needs of the future development anticipated in the four square mile impact area that would impact Overland Road, since that is the only road to which the project would take access, then use regular or extra-ordinary impact fees over the long term of growth to reimburse the developer for his cost. The developer would be reimbursed for some or all of the construction costs, but may have to absorb the cost of carrying the expense until he is totally reimbursed. (Extra-ordinary impact fees would not be collected from the developer that constructed the improvements, but they would be computed for his development and subtracted from the total cost of the improvements to be reimbursed). This action would be in lieu of establishing an extraordinary impact fee for the area. A variation of this option would be to require developers of property abutting the four arterial roads in the four square mile impact area to install additional system improvements along those roadways and be reimbursed from regular impact fees collected within the impact area. This is allowed by the impact fee ordinance and is currently being used by the District to finance capacity improvements. Overland Road from Cloverdale to Meridian and Eagle Road from Overland to Victory are currently qualified by the Capital Improvements Plan for the use of impact fee revenue. Victory Road along the south boundary of the impact area is not currently eligible for the use of impact fee revenue to increase capacity because the CIP does not anticipate this level of development in this area. This would require less additional staff time and accounting than described in A. above. It would provide the needed improvements as development occurs and assess the costs of those improvements to the developments causing the need. C. Form a Local Improvement District (LID) to finance the construction of the off-site improvements and assess either extra-ordinary impact fees or the usual property tax liens to pay off the cost of the improvement. This would require the cooperation and cost of some landowners that may not have plans to develop their property and it would cost all owners the same per unit of land regardless of the ultimate use of their property. However it would provide all of the improvements needed to meet the anticipated impacts prior to all the development occurring. The cost to be emanced would equal the cost of the extraordinary impact per acre under A.ii. above ($27,000,000 / 2406 acres = $11,220 per acre). D. Accept the responsibility to meet the challenge created by the intensive development that is forecast in this area and fund whatever level of roadway improvements are affordable using the revenue currently available to the District and accept a deficient Level of Service until needed improvements can be funded and constructed. The regular impact fees from the forecast development will be a substantial sum, but will be collected as the traffic is being generated and will not provide sufficient time for project design, right-of--way acquisition and construction (usually a three year time frame). This could last several years, while the District was trying to build itself out of the shortfall. The developer of this proposed project has estimated the regular impact fee revenue to be generated by the level of development forecast by APA in the four square mile impact area to be $22 million at build out. Staff agrees with this amount, based on current published trip lengths and network adjustment factors. However, using new trip length and network MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 9 • • B. Require the construction by this developer now, of the off-site improvements that are needed to accommodate the traffic needs of the future development anticipated in the four square mile impact area that would impact Overland Road, since that is the only road to which the project would take access, then use regular or extra-ordinary impact fees over the long term of growth to reimburse the developer for his cost. The developer would be reimbursed for some or all of the construction costs, but may have to absorb the cost of carrying the expense until he is totally reimbursed. (Extra-ordinary impact fees would not be collected from the developer that constructed the improvements, but they would be computed for his development and subtracted from the total cost of the improvements to be reimbursed). This action would be in lieu of establishing an extraordinary impact fee for the area. A variation of this option would be to require developers of property abutting the four arterial roads in the four square mile impact area to install additional system improvements along those roadways and be reimbursed from regular impact fees collected within the impact area. This is allowed by the impact fee ordinance and is currently being used by the District to finance capacity improvements. Overland Road from Cloverdale to Meridian and Eagle Road from Overland to Victory are currently qualified by the Capital Improvements Plan for the use of impact fee revenue. Victory Road along the south boundary of the impact area is not currently eligible for the use of impact fee revenue to increase capacity because the CIP does not anticipate this level of development in this area. This would require less additional staff time and accounting than described in A. above. It would provide the needed improvements as development occurs and assess the costs of those improvements to the developments causing the need. C. Form a Local Improvement District (LID) to finance the construction of the off-site improvements and assess either extra-ordinary impact fees or the usual property tax liens to pay off the cost of the improvement. This would require the cooperation and cost of some landowners that may not have plans to develop their property and it would cost all owners the same per unit of land regardless of the ultimate use of their property. However it would provide all of the improvements needed to meet the anticipated impacts prior to all the development occurring. The cost to be financed would equal the cost of the extraordinary impact per acre under A.ii. above ($27,000,000 / 2406 acres = $11,220 per acre). D. Accept the responsibility to meet the challenge created by the intensive development that is forecast in this area and fund whatever level of roadway improvements are affordable using the revenue currently available to the District and accept a deficient Level of Service until needed improvements can be funded and constructed. The regular impact fees from the forecast development will be a substantial sum, but will be collected as the traffic is being generated and will not provide sufficient time for project design, right-of--way acquisition and construction (usually a three year time frame). This could last several years, while the District was trying to build itself out of the shortfall. The developer of this proposed project has estimated the regular impact fee revenue to be generated by the level of development forecast by APA in the four square mile impact area to be $22 million at build out. Staff agrees with this amount, based on current published trip lengths and network adjustment factors. However, using new trip length and network MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 9 adjustment data provi~ by APA, ACRD staff calculated t~amount of regular impact fee to be $16,700,000, if the area develops according to the land use scenario developed by APA. ACHD staff estimated the cost of accommodating the traffic from the same level of development at $27 million, including: • two grade separated intersections for Eagle Road at Overland Road and Franklin Road, • widening Overland Road and Franklin Road to five lanes between Cloverdale Road and Locust Grove Road, • widening Victory Road to three lanes between Cloverdale Road and Locust Grove Road, • widening Eagle Road to five lanes from Overland Road to Victory Road. A variation of this option would be modified impact fee offset agreements with developers as they construct their projects, requiring improvements to the system that are relative to their project. The difference between these and regular impact fee offset agreements would be that reimbursement to the d:~veloper would be deferred until the revenue was available from other development within the impact area. Again, the developer would be required to absorb the interest on his money until he was reimbursed. That would be his contribution to the solution of the problem, in lieu of an extra-ordinary impact fee. No mechanism is available to reimburse the developer if the other proposed developments never occur. E. Pursue enabling legislation to allow "partnering" between the State (ITD), ACRD and private parties within an impact area to provide joint funding for the required improvements. Staff recommends that this legislation be pursued anyway, whether this development occurs or not. F. Recommend denial of the application on the basis that the development will exceed the ability of the Highway District to maintain current levels of service on the impacted roadways and intersections. This action ignores the likelihood that this property and the surrounding property will eventually be developed for some intensive form of land use, with or without the District's approval. G. Accept the project with the regular impact fee revenue that will be collected, recommending to the City of Meridian that the developer be required to construct the site related improvements to Overland Road and to the Overland/Eagle intersection, including the additional lane on each leg of the intersection. This action will replace the lost unused capacity at thr~ intersection, but will make no provision for other growth in the area. An alternative to this option would be to establish the four square mile area as a separate impact fee benefit zone and commit all of the impact fee revenue from the new zone to construct arterial improvements only within the zone as development occurs along them. This action would alter the schedule of capacity improvement projects in the balance of the Meridian area, since it would take revenue that currently go to the construction of those projects. H. Require developers of property abutting the four arterial roads in the four square mile impact area to install additional system improvements along those roadways and be reimbursed from extraordinary impact fees imposed on the properties in the interior of the sections. This would result in spreading the cost of the improvements among all the MCU-7-95/MItZ-2-95 Page 10 ~ ~ properties in the impact area as they developed, and the needed improvements would be provided more quickly than the District could program, design and construct them if they were to be done as District sponsored projects. I. Require the developers of all property in the impact area (and District wide) to replace a pro-rata share of the then available unused capacity of all intersections and roadways. The unused capacity would be quantified including a reserve for background District wide traffic and adjusted downward as each property in the effected area is developed, so there would be no unused capacity in the system when the area is 100 percent developed. Recommended Alternative: Staff recommends that a combination of Alternatives G. and I. be adopted for this and future applications in the area. Accept the development(s), requiring the developers to make whatever improvements to the system are necessary to mitigate their site related impacts, cud replace any unused capacity in the system that their development uses up. Use regular impact fee revenue to make needed capacity improvements as funds are available and the Commission budgets funds for the improvements. This will result in the public having to cope with deficient levels of service in some cases until revenue is available to make the required improvements. Staff Recommendation: If the application is approved, the following requirements should be forwarded to Meridian as conditions for approval. Site Specific Requirements: Prior to the construction of Phase I of this project: Comply with requirements of ITD for Interstate Highway 84 and Eagle Road frontage. Submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements. 2. The main site access shall be provided through an access roadway as shown on the site plan. The access road shall have three southbound traffic lanes and two northbound traffic lanes. The exiting (southbound) lanes shall include two left turn lanes, and one right turn lane. A fully actuated traffic signal shall be installed at the site access road intersection with Overland Road, with design and construction acceptable to the District. The access road and traffic signal improvements shall be constructed at the initial phase of site development. Easements shall be granted to ACRD for the maintenance of signal detectors that are located outside the public right-of--way. 3. Dedicate 54-feet of right-of--way from the centerline of Overland Road abutting the parcel (29 additional feet) and abutting the parcel between the site and Eagle Road. The owner ~ will be compensated for this additional right-of--way. The additional right-of--way would not otherwise be required for several years without the development of this parcel, therefore it is a project related impact, not reimbursable under either the District's ordinance or the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act. MCU-7-95/NIRZ-2-95 Page 11 ~ ~ properties in the impact area as they developed, and the needed improvements would be provided more quickly than the District could program, design and construct them if they were to be done as District sponsored projects. I. Require the developers of all property in the impact area (and District wide) to replace a pro-rata share of the then available unused capacity of all intersections and roadways. The unused capacity would be quantified including a reserve for background District wide traffic and adjusted downward as each property in the effected area is developed, so there would be no unused capacity in the system when the area is 100 percent developed. Recommended Alternative: Staff recommends that a combination of Alternatives G. and I. be adopted for this and future applications in the area. Accept the developme~(s), requiring the developers to make whatever improvements to the system are necessary to mitigate their site related impacts, atul replace any unused capacity in the system that their development uses up. Use regular impact fee revenue to make needed capacity improvements as funds are available and the Commission budgets funds for the improvements. This will result in the public having to cope with deficient levels of service in some cases until revenue is available to make the required improvements. Staff Recommendation: If the application is approved, the following requirements should be forwazded to Meridian as conditions for approval. Site Specific Requirements: Prior to the construction of Phase I of this project: 1. Comply with requirements of ITD for Interstate Highway 84 and Eagle Road frontage. Submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements. 2. The main site access shall be provided through an access roadway as shown on the site plan. The access road shall have three southbound traffic lanes and two northbound traffic lanes. The exiting (southbound) lanes shall include two left turn lanes, and one right turn lane. A fully actuated traffic signal shall be installed at the site access road intersection with Overland Road, with design and construction acceptable to the District. The access road and traffic signal improvements shall be constructed at the initial phase of site development. Easements shall be granted to ACHD for the maintenance of signal detectors that aze located outside the public right-of--way. 3. Dedicate 54-feet of right-of--way from the centerline of Overland Road abutting the parcel (29 additional feet) and abutting the parcel between the site and Eagle Road. The owner ~ will be compensated for this additional right-of--way. The additional right-of--way would not otherwise be required for several years without the development of this parcel, therefore it is a project related impact, not reimbursable under either the District's ordinance or the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act. MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 11 • 4. Dedicate a 25' x 25' triangle (or appropriate curve) of right-of-way at both corners of the Overland Road/site access road to keep the street improvements in the public right-of--way. The owner will ~ be compensated for this additional right-of--way. 5. Maintain public access along the western border of the project to the planned park and ride lot. This access will also serve as secondary access to the project, the park and ride lot and for emergency vehicles. 6. Maintain a 100-foot clear zone/non-build area along the eastern site border between the building fronts and the southeast corner of the site to allow for a future external site connection to abutting parcels. 7. Roadway improvements to Overland Road and Eagle Road may be constructed in two or three phases as the site is developed, as described below: Phase I The following roadway improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy of the first phase of development, approximately 425,000 square feet (60% of the proposed development): • Construct the site access road with three southbound and two northbound traffic lanes. Coordinate the roadway design with District Traffic Services staff. • Install a traffic signal at the intersection of the site access road with Overland Road. Coordinate the signal design with District Traffic Services staff. • Construct a continuous westbound traffic lane on Overland Road between the site access road and the Eagle Road intersection. Coordinate the roadway design with District Traffic Services staff. • Construct an added right turn lane on westbound Overland Road east of the site access road. Coordinate the roadway design with District Traffic Services staff. Obtain and dedicate 54- feet of right-of--way (27-additional feet) along Overland Road from the site's driveway to the east terminus of the added right turn lane and required tapers. • Construct one left turn lane (eastbound) on Overland Road at the site access road. • Construct, or deposit the cost thereof, a median island in Overland Road for the access road into the Park and Ride lot. Phase II The following additional roadway improvements shall be constructed prior to the development of phase II, approximately 645,000 square total feet (90% of the proposed development): • Construct a second southbound left turn lane on Eagle Road at the Overland Road intersection. Construct any additional roadway widening on Eagle Road south of Overland Road needed to match the roadway widening north of Overland Road. Coordinate the roadway design with District Traffic Services staff. MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 12 The following additional roadway improvements shall be constructed prior to completion of the 714,000 square foot development (100% of the proposed development): • Construct a second westbound traffic lane on Overland Road between the site access road and the Eagle Road intersection. Construct any additional roadway widening on Overland Road east of the project site that is needed to match the roadway widening west of the project site. • Construct any additional roadway widening on Overland Road west of Eagle Road that is needed to match the roadway widening between the project site and Eagle Road. Coordinate the roadway design with District Traffic Services staff. • Construct one additional through lane on each leg of the Overland Road/Eagle Road intersection to replace the current unused capacity. Coordinate the design with District Traffic Services staff. • Construct curb, gutter and seven foot wide sidewalk along Overland Road, from 500-feet east of the site's driveway to the end of the intersection transition west of Eagle Road. Coordinate the design with District Traffic Services staff. 8. Construct pedestrian ramps on the corner of Overland Road and the main site driveway in compliance with Idaho Code, Section 40-1335. 9. Locate proposed sign(s) out of the public right-of--way and out of the clear-vision sight-triangle of all street and driveway intersections. 11. None of the roadway improvements described above will be eligible for impact fee offset or reimbursement. Standard Requirements: A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made, in writing, to the Manager of Engineering Services within 15 calendar davs of the original Commission action. The request shall include a statement explaining why such a requirement would result in substantial hardship or inequity and minimum fee of $110.00. 2. A permit must be obtained from ACHD for any street or utility construction within the public right-of--way. Utility cuts should be combined where practical to limit pavement damage. Contact Construction Services at 345-7667 (with zoning file number) for details. 3. Submit site drainage plans and calculations for review and appropriate action by ACHD. The proposed drainage system shall conform to the requirements of Meridian and shall retain all storm water on-site. Public street drainage facilities shall be located in the public right-of--way or in a common lot owned by a homeowners association set aside specifically for that use. There shall be no trees, fences, bushes, sheds, or other valuable amenities placed in said easement. Drainage lots and their use restrictions shall be noted on the plat (when applicable). MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 13 Phase III The following additional roadway improvements shall be constructed prior to completion of the 714,000 square foot development (100% of the proposed development): • Construct a second westbound traffic lane on Overland Road between the site access road and the Eagle Road intersection. Construct any additional roadway widening on Overland Road east of the project site that is needed to match the roadway widening west of the project site. • Construct any additional roadway widening on Overland Road west of Eagle Road that is needed to match the roadway widening between the project site and Eagle Road. Coordinate the roadway design with District Traffic Services staff. • Construct one additional through lane on each leg of the Overland Road/Eagle Road intersection to replace the current unused capacity. Coordinate the design with District Traffic Services staff. • Construct curb, gutter and seven foot wide sidewalk along Overland Road, from 500-feet east of the site's driveway to the end of the intersection transition west of Eagle Road. Coordinate the design with District Traffic Services staff. 8. Construct pedestrian ramps on the comer of Overland Road and the main site driveway in compliance with Idaho Code, Section 40-1335. 9. Locate proposed sign(s) out of the public right-of--way and out of the clear-vision sight-triangle of all street and driveway intersections. 11. None of the roadway improvements described above will be eligible for impact fee offset or reimbursement. Standard Requirements: 1. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made, in writing, to the Manager of Engineering Services within 15 calendar days of the original Commission action. The request shall include a statement explaining why such a requirement would result in substantial hardship or inequity and minimum fee of $110.00. 2. A permit must be obtained from ACRD for any street or utility construction within the public right-of--way. Utility cuts should be combined where practical to limit pavement damage. Contact Construction Services at 345-7667 (with zoning file number) for details. 3. Submit site drainage plans and calculations for review and appropriate action by ACHD. The proposed drainage system shall conform to the requirements of Meridian and shall retain all storm water on-site. Public street drainage facilities shall be located in the public right-of--way or in a common lot owned by a homeowners association set aside specifically for that use. There shall be no trees, fences, bushes, sheds, or other valuable amenities placed in said easement. Drainage lots and their use restrictions shall be noted on the plat (when applicable). MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 13 4. Locate driveway curb cu minimum of 5-feet from the side lot erly lines when driveways are not being shared with the adjacent property. 5. Locate obstructions (utility facilities, irrigation and drainage appurtenances, etc.) outside of the proposed street improvements. Authorization for relocations shall be obtained from the appropriate entity. 6. Specifications, land surveys, reports, plats, drawings, plans, design information and calculations presented to ACHD shall be sealed, signed and dated by a Registered Professional Engineer or Professional Land Surveyor, in compliance with Idaho Code, Section 54-1215. 7. Provide design data for proposed access to public streets for review and appropriate action by ACHD. 8. Submit three sets of street construction plans to the District for review and appropriate action. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Development Services Division at 345-7662. AUG 2 3 1995 MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 14 CENTRAL REVIEW SHEET ~, ,~ t.... , •• DISTRICT `~~`~~,a'~..:.~.ir !~11' H EA LT H Environmental Health Division Return to: y~R~' ~ ~ 4~~J ^ Boise DEPARTMENT ^ Eagle Rezone # y'~}7~~7c' ~ ~~ ~o./iNy ~'i ~ ~ ~t i~~irl~5~.t^:~ ^ Garden city ~~eridian Conditional Use # ^ Kuna Preliminary /Final /Short Plat ^ ACZ ,G~r-NG~y ~SSo~ . Z~~ ~.e~l ~~c 7~ ^ I. We have Objections to this Proposal. ^ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal. ^ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type. of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. ^ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. ^ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of: ^ high seasonal ground water ^ solid lava from original grade ^ 6. We can Approve this Proposal for individual sewage disposal to be located above solid lava layers: ^ 2 feet ^ 4 feet ^ 7. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: ^ central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water well ^ interim sewage ^ central water ^ individual sewage ^ individual water ^ 8. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: ^ central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water ^ sewage dry lines ^ central water ^ 9. Street Runoff is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ^ 10. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. ^ II ^ 12. 13. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: ^ food establishment ^ swimming pools or spas ^ beverage establishment ^ grocery store G~M~c. ^ child care center ~~ Date. ~/ o~ R~ Reviewed By. CDHD 10/91 rcb, rev. II/93 jll CFtNTRAL ~ • ~• DISTRICT ' ~'~t'HEALTH DEPARTMENT MAIN OFFICE • 707 N. ARMSTRONG PL • BOISE, ID. 83104-0825 • (208)375.5211 • FAX: 327-8500 To prevent and treat disease and disability; to promote healthy lifestyles; and to protect and promote the health and quality of our environment. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the first one half inch of stormwater be pretreated through a grassy Swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality. The engineers and architects involved with the design of this project should obtain current best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a stormwater management system that is preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. Manuals that could be used for guidance are: 1) STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND, State of Washington Department of Ecology, February 19892 2) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT GUIDELINES FOR STORMWATER AND SITE DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT 3) CALIFORNIA BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE HANDBOOK Prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee, Larry Walker Assoc., Uribe and Assoc., Resources Planning Assoc., for the Stormwater Quality Task Force 4) URBAN STORM DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL Volume 3, Best Management Practices Stormwater Quality Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Denver, Colorado Serving Valley, Elmore, Boise, and Ada Counties - Ado /Boise County Office - WIC Boise • Merman Elmore County OlBce 701 N. Armshong PI. 1606 Robert St. 520 E. 8th Sheet N. Boise, ID. 83704-0825 Boise, ID. 83105 Mountain Home, ID. Enviro. Health: 327.1499 Ph, 334-3355 83647 Ph. 587.4407 Famty Planning: 327-7400 324 Meridian Rd. Immun¢ations: 327-7450 Meridian, ID. 83642 Nutrition: 327.7460 Ph. 8884525 WIC: 327.7488 Llmore Courtly Olllce of Fmraanmenld Hearth 190 S. 4th Street E. Mountain Home, ID. 83641 Ph.581-9225 Valley County OBfice P.O. Box 1448 McCall, b. 83638 Ph. 634-1194 • hIUBOFTREASUREVALLEY • COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS r WI6•_IAM G. B RG, Jr., Clty Clerk RONALD R. TOLSMA A Good Place to Live MAX YERRINGTON ~ JANI.^,E L GA• S, Clty Troaaurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. Clty Enplneer ROBERT D. CORRIE CITY OF MERIDIAN WALT W. MORROW BRUCE D. STUART, Water Worka Supt. P 6 2 COMMISSION JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNISJ.SUMMERS,ParkaSupt. JIM JOHNSON, Chairman 33 EAST IDAHO SHARI S. STILES, P 8 2 Adm. MOE ALIDJANI MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 JIM SHEARER KENNETH W. BOWERS, Flre Chlsf W. L "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief Phone 208 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887813 ~ CHARLIE ROUNTREE ( ) ~ ~~ r~ TIM HEPPER WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 t1 ~;~ ~ 1 ?~_>, R /L+~ GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor 1 ~ ~ j ~ t~'3" ~. •.i'~ lira •., TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELb~RO:JECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: MaX.2. 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 4/17/95 HEARING DATE: 5/9/95 REQUEST: Annexation and Zoning of 73.5 acres to C-G BY: Langly Associates, Inc. LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: SE comer of I-84 and Eagle Road Interchange JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P/Z CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z TIM HEPPER, P/Z GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C MAX YERRINGTON, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8< FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM 8 FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the annexation and zonin o t e property at the southeast corner of I-84 and Eagle Road. We will comment at the time of development. .7 "Bill Benson, Assistant Water Superintendent Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, Jr., City Clerk JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Enplneer BRUCE D. STUART, Wafer Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Perks Supt. SHARI S. STILES, P b Z Adm. KENNETH W. BOWERS, Flre Chief W. L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY • A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888433 • FAX (208) 887813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW P 6 Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MOE ALIDJANI JIM SHEARER CHARLIE ROUNTREE TIM HEPPER TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendationswill be considered by the Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: May 2, 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 4/17/95 HEARING DATE: 5/9/95 REQUEST: Annexation and Zoning of 73.5 acres to C-G BY: Langly Associates. Inc. LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: SE corner of I-84 and Eagle Road Interchange JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) JIM SHEARER, P/Z ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION TIM HEPPER, P/Z CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT RONALD TOLSMA, C/C SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT BOB CORRIE, C/C IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) WALT MORROW, C/C U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) MAX YERRINGTON, C/C INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) WATER DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) SEWER DEPARTMENT CITY FILES BUILDING DEPARTMENT OTHER: FIRE DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY USLJ~S7 C~E-STS ~f~I~CT/off off' -CITY ENGINEER Fs~cis?. l~~/QuiT ST.Qc1c ru.~ ~' 6L~'T2o~tuL -CITY PLANNER ~QU~~~VlF~1!"T L-9cd_TE //V .d„Q,~,d E-r~S'T ~>'~' EAG~.GS Hwy. ~.~ "fir AI'I~ 2 7 193 c.;t f< r yr ;~at..n~~~r~._ May 1, 1994 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, Idaho 83647 Re: Langley and Associates application at Eagle Road and I-84 Dear Sirs, The Idaho Transportation Department has no objection to this annexation or zoning change. The developer needs to be aware that no access will be permitted to I-84 or Eagle Road both of which are full control of access. If you have any questions please, call Ed Pettinger or Larry Strough at 334-8339. Sincerely, ~n' ~ ~ ~~ ~1~'~" Gary W Moles, P.E. District Traffic Engineer GWM:LDS ads - An Equal Opportunity Employer - • • ti ~~. . ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ STATEMENT AND PETITION IN OPPOSITION ~ ~ ~~ ~a`7 TO THE PROPOSED MALL DEt1ELAPMENT J~ '~~ In Idaho"s Centennial Year, 1993, the City of Meridian adopted an updated Comprehensive Flan and in early 1994 put into place a greatly revised Zoning and Development Ordinance. A common theme of both document_ is the desire to manage growth and "Enhance Meridian"s quality of life for all residents"_ Although the neighbors who have signed this petition are not residents of Meridian, all reside within the Impact Area Boundary. Many have property abutting the development site, and most are within 1UC)U feet of the property boundary: Every homeowner represented by this petition, living on Rolling Hills Drive, Jade, Onyx, Topaz and Overland will be severely impacted by a Retail Mall development approaching the size of the existing Eoise Town Square Mall; and the subsequent surrounding commercial development which will take place, because of the Mi:.ed!Planned Use Development designation shown on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The combined square footage of the available commercial space in the vicinity of Overland & Eagle, shown on the Land Use Map could and very probably will produce a developed area equal in size to that which already exist in the Milwaukee/Franklin area_ This is certainly not in keeping with the "managed growth" vision of Meridian. Neighbors who signed this petition are united in their opposition to Langly Associates, an out-of-state developer, application for annexation, zoning or granting of a conditional use permit for the property generally located on the SE corner of I-84 and Eagle Road Interchange. There are many reasons for opposition to this development. Some of those reasons will be discussed in this ~~etition, others have been, or will be discussed during the meeting tonight. I have made an attempt to list issues that have been discussed in our neighborhood meeting last weel~. The numerical order of these issues do not indicate priority_ 1. All of us, both long time residents (+lU years:) and those who have r eceTltly moved here place a high value on the open aspect of the area. The ability to watch a beautiful Idaho Sunset, still be able to see stars, watch and listen to wildlife such as Canadian Geese, Pheasants or an occasional Fox. Some of us personally knew the lady, now deceased, who owned the subject L~roperty, and often took time from her irrigation wort. to chat about her farm and living in the area. She enjoyed the land as much as we enjoyed having her as a neighbor. The property is still being farmed. Today grain is growing, last year it was Sugar Beets, in other years Corn. If this development is approved, a quality of life which we cherish will be gone forever, as well as the elimination of a very productive piece of high quality farm land_ traffic congestion from a traditional roadway construction approach has been projected at just under $fiU million dollars. These costs would be above and beyond the X80 million already programmed; and are the equivalent of 25% of the entire ACRD capital budget over the next 20 years. If Meridian approves a development of the same size which has the potential to turn into another Town Square Mall, from a traffic point of view several things can happen_ a. The cost of improving Overland and Eagle over the next 5 to 10 years to accommodate this amount of traffic could result in a huge license and registration increase on every car owner in Ada County just to pay for the future combined cost of this proposed development and the Boise Town Square Mall_ b. The cost of maintaining both Boise Town Square and the proposed Eagle Interchange infrastructure would result in a loss of dollars available to maintain the roads in the rest of the county_ We have already seen many of county subdivision roads starting to deteriorate _ Ferhai~s Meridian and Boise City residents should be required to pay a larger share of road maintenance and improvement cost. They, after all benefit the must from Sale Tax Revenues It is our understanding the Idaho State Highway Dept. has refused this proposed development access to Eagle Road_ This means the entire traffic burden will be placed on Overland Road, with a single entrance approximately 1000 feet from the Overland-Eagle Intersection. Existing traffic counts in the vicinity of the Boise Town Square Mall indicates approximately 30 to 35 thousand vehicles daily use the area, which has 4 entry and exit locations on three major roads. In the May 1, 1995 draft report titled: I-84 Power Center Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Bell-Walker Engineers of Boise; in review process by ACRD, and not yet accepted for public use, a projected vehicle per day count of 24,885 will enter and exit unto Overland Road. This appears to be on the low side, as The National Average Tri~~ Rates for Shopping Centers, which are based on Gross Leasable Area indicate that nationally, the smaller .the shopping center, the higher the trip rate per 1000 square feet of Gross Leasable Area_ Can you imagine approximately 25,000 to 30,OC)0 vehicles daily using a single entrance into the proposed mall_ In discussions with Ada County Highway Department, they show no work planned for the next 5 years on the section of road between Gloverdale and Eagle. We realize the developer has stated most traffic would use the existing I-84,/Eagle Road Interchange, so there should be minimal impact on local roads_ This is like saying when the Boise Town Square was developed in 1988 there would be no impact on Franklin or Milwaukee past the Mall. ~ ~ 2. Southwest Ada County has one of the lowest crime rates in the County_ The developer, in his proposal has listed what he considers positive aspects of the development. Lets discuss some of the negative impacts. Poise Town Square Mall has experienced all of the following: a_ Professional thieves who worl~ the mall every day. b. Perverts c_ Mall rats, including organized and unorganized gangs. d. Vandalism e_ Bomb Threats f. Massive traffic congestion This will certainly place an additional wort.load on the Meridian City Police, as well as other emergency response groups_ 3_ One of the stated objectives in the Comprehensive Plan is the preservation of the "Meridian Old Town Business District". Not only should the Old Town area be preserved, but also the existing business entities already located in Meridian. As a point of interest; not many weel.s ago on the TV show, 60 Minutes a story ran about communities who are now attempting to ZONE OUT stores suc~1 as WalMart which can come into a community and devastate the existing business infrastructure. If they decide the sto2-e is un-profitable, they close stop and leave_ Is the conynunity a better place because of this? 4. It appears if the developer achieves the stated goal of annexation and rezoning, he will attempt to sell off parcels to other developers, and perhaps, or perhaps not develop the remainder of the property himself_ This will result in piecemeal development with loss of control by the City of Meridian to achieve a quality development_ 5_ Last, but the most itnportant, is the massive impact of traffic, light, noise, and air pollution_ TJnfortunately, the only way to discuss the impact of traffic is through the use of statistics and numbers, which I know can be very boring. I'"11 try to use comparisons of the thing we know the most about, the Boise Town Square Mall. The information I am using is from a rer~ort titled MALL AREA ACTION PLAN - PHASE I, Prepared by THE HOYT COMPANY for the ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION in August 1994. When the Boise Town Square Mall was constructed in 1988, the amount of spin-off retail and office development was originally projected at 1.1 million square feet. That has in realty become appro.,imately 2 million square feet, with a future development potenti_zl for an additional 2.0 to 2.8 million square feet. I can"t even visualize this much space. W~~at this means from a traffic point of view is the Roadway standard Level of Service has declined from a LOS "C" to "D or E", about as bad as it can get. The costs of addressing this ~ ~ Southwest Ada County is developing at an unprecedented rate. Traffic generated by this and other development, both commercial and residential, will be using 5-Mile, Overland, r~loverdale, Victory, and Eagle. In short every road in Southwest Ada County will bring traffic to the area. Overland and the surrounding roads are not designed for this traffic burden, nor do we believe it is realistic to spend Ada County Tar dollars for the sole purpose of accommodating developers. I"m almost finished here, but let me tape a brief amount of time to discuss Noise, Light and Air Pollution which will be generated in a very small area. The proposed development is surrounded on two sides by single family homes, which were constructed sometime betweetl approximately 1963 and 1975. According to the developer, homes adjoining the development are, almost without exception a significant distance from the subject property separated from the development by pastures. Let me state, even though some of us have small pastures, most of our homes are within 1C?O - ZUU feet of the development parl~ing lot or proposed structures_ Some of the neighbors who live on the south side of the develor.,tnent have even less space separating their home from the developers property line. I guess we differ with the developer in what would be considered a significant distance_ Hardly enough to provide a buffer. Nor, do many of us desire a wall constructed at the bacl: of our property. We will slave parking lights glaring in our back yards; at all hours of the night there will be trucks moving through the parking areas loading and unloading freight; during the winter, in the early hours of the morning we will hear snowplows scraping against asphalt and, because of the prevailing wind all of the auto exhaust and dust caused by traffic movement will blow right into our homes. Even now, when the wind is blowing out of the Northwest, traffic tloise from I-84 is almost intolerable. Residents of this area are not anti-development_ We believe there are better i}laces where this development can be located. On Eagle Road, between Fairview and FI•anklin are several tracts of land for sale, with the infrastructure already in place. Meridian has been trying for years to get a Mall to locate at I-84 and Meridian Ave. Bath areas are suitable, will have little impact on existing single family homes, and still bring the perceived benefits to the City of Meridian. Develop these areas first. The South side of I-84 is not the place for this type of development. Because we live within the Meridian Impact Area Boundary, the Ada County Commissioners slave indicated that by agreeing to the Impact Area Boundaries in 1993, they no longer represent Gounty residents in Planning or Zoning issues_ We are unable to vote or have a political voice in the selection of the Meridian City Council or Planning and Zoning Commission_ In essence, we have been dis- enfranchised from the political process_ Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: You, after consideration of the developers proposal, input from other interested groups, and the neighbors view~.,oint, have the responsibility of making a recommendation to the Meridian City Council concerning this development_ We would urge, that while you are making this decision, please keep in mind; you have the additional responsibility of being THE ONLY POLITICAL REPRESENTATION that we and other county residents, living within the Impact Area Boundaries have_ L'Fecisions you make will have a lifelong impact on the <3uality of life for everyone now living and wl~o will eventually relocate into this area. Thank You. • SIGNATURE SHEET /Name Addr-ess ., 2 . ~rj2~Y.. ~- Cn.-~ ~Ct~ ~ti~~ ~ ;~tl wn.~ c. /GO% R~~ ~{i t15 Tel ephone ~~~- 3~~7 1 ___ C~ , ~ ~ ~ ~_ 7. ~~nn.- - ! ~, r ~- , w\_~ 1~. ~' i~C 11. ~ en ~ d~~c~ ~~iu.r 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. `L ~ . /~ f~y ~~~5 ~,i/I ~~~~ ~ a s ,~,~ l~%~ ~S~ ~,~~~~- y~~v ~'' ~• / / T ~; _ ~ ~- ,~ b'~4'-b~"-~~ ~~~~° ;i C~ MY NAME IS DAVID LEWIS. I SUPPORT THE I-84 POWER CENTER. . :~'~` ~ ~, . ~ I LIVE AT 1494 TANAGER WAY, IlVIlVIEDIATELY ADJACENT TO OVERLAND ROAD -APPROXIMATELY ONE AND A QUARTER MILE EAST OF THE PROPOSED I-84 POWER CENTER. MANY OF US WHO LIVE OUT THERE CALL THIS HUGE IN - BETWEEN SOUTHWEST AREA "A NO MAN' S LAND". ACCORDING TO SOME PLANNERS -WHO ARE SUPPOSE TO KNOW - WE'RE SOME 17,000 STRONG. BIG ENOUGH TO BE A CITY IN ITSELF. BUT, WE'RE NOT. WE CALL THIS AREA... "NO MAN' S LAND".... BECAUSE IT' S NOT IN BOISE, ("THANKFULLY") AND, YET; IT' S NOT IN MERIDIAN. AND LIKE SO MANY HERE TONIGHT -WHO MIGHT HAVE AN OPPOSING VIEWPOINT - NEITHER I NOR THEY CAN VOTE IN MERIDIAN' S POLITICS....... ,~ ~f `~' BUT REGARDLESS, THROUGH VARIOUS TAXING ENTITIES WE STILL HAVE PAID AND WILL CONTINUE TO PAY THE PRICE TO LIVE OUT THERE AND HOPE OUR VOICE IS HEARD ELSEWHERE. IT ..IS.. OF..OUR..CHOOSING... AS A SINGLE PERSON, AND WHII.E LIVING IN THIS "NO MAN'S LAND" -AMONG ALL THE OTHER TAXES I PAY, FOR THE LAST 20 SOME ODD YEARS I'VE PAID MY SCHOOL TAXES TO THE MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT. AND OVER THAT SAME 20 YEAR PERIOD, I'VE CONSISTENTLY VOTED FOR THE VARIOUS SCHOOL BONDS AND THEIR OVERRIDES I BELIEVE IN EDUCATING THE YOUNG. • • WHETHER THOSE YOUNG BELONG TO THOSE WHO HAVE LONG SINCE RESIDED HERE IN THE VALLEY THE NEW COMERS COMING IN OR YES, EVEN THOSE OTHER LESS-THAN- DISCRIlVIlNATE PEOPLE WHO VIEW "PROCREATING" AS THEIR GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO PRODUCE THEIlZ NUMEROUS OFFSPRING, BUT THEN CRY FOUL WHEN THE SUBJECT OF A "HEAD TAX" ARISES. AHEAD TAX FOR EDUCATING -THESE -THEIR YOUTH WHO CONTINUE TO ADD TO THE BURDEN OF THE ALREADY OVER- CROWED AND OVER-TAXED SCHOOL SYSTEM. MIND YOU -WHAT SOME DO WITH THEIR SPARE RELAXING MOMENTS IS THEIR PERSONAL BUSINESS. BUT IF THOSE SAME INDIVIDUALS ARE GOING TO STAND UP TONIGHT TO VOICE THEIR COMPLAINTS AGAINST ATAX- PRODUCING ENTITY LIKE THE I-84 POWER CENTER' S WITH ITS ~ ANNUAL TAX CONTRIBUTION FUNNELED INTO THE COFFERS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN =THEN THEIR PERSONALlPRIVATE BUSINESS BECOMES MY TAXING CONCERNS. FOR THOSE ONES HERE TONIGHT NOT FAMII,IAR WITH THE HISTORY OF THE EAGLE ROAD I-84 INTERCHANGE OR MERIDIAN' S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY BACKGROUND THIS APPROXIMATE $7,000,000.00 DOLLAR INTERCHANGE AND THE TAXING POTENTIAL IT REPRESENTS TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN VIA THE MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THERE IS AN ANCIENT ADAGE, SO CREDITED TO A ROMAN PHILOSOPHER, WHO ONCE STATED,..."WHEN CROSSROADS COME TOGETHER, HENCEFORTH SPRINGS COMMERCE..." THE EAGLE ROAD INTERCHANGE FALLS UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, AND THANKFULLY, NOT UNDER THE THUMB OF THE CITY OF BOISE WHO SO DESPERATELY YEARNED TO CONTROL AND OWN THIS "COMMERCE CROSSROADS". • • IN 1989, AFTER A LONG AND HARD-FOUGHT BATTLE WITH THE MAYOR OF BOISE ,OVER WHICH OF THE TWO CITIES -BOISE OR MERIDIAN -WOULD CONTROL THIS VITAL INTERCHANGE, THE IDAHO STATE TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEMBERS REACHED A SOUND COMMON SENSE DECISION BASED ON IRREFUTABLE LOGIC..... ...."THE SHORTEST DISTANCE BETWEEN TWO POINTS IS ALWAYS A STRAIGHT LINE...."ALIAS, THE COUPLING OF INTERSTATE I-84 AND STATE HIGHWAY #55 AND THIS LOGIC AND THE PREVIOUS REFERENCED ROMAN ADAGE OF "CROSSROADS COMING TOGETHER" WAS RE- AFFIRMED BY -THEN - C OF THE IDAHO STATE TRANSPORTATION BOARD, MR. CARL MOORE, WHEN HE STATED...." THE I-84 EAGLE ROAD INTERCHANGE WILL NOT ONLY BECOME THE "HUB OF THE BOISE VALLEY"-BUT WILL BECOME THE MASSIVE TRANSPORTATION.JUGULAR VEIN OF THE STATE OF IDAHO- THE ONLY CONNECTOR JOINING INTERSTATE EAST-WEST I-84 WITH STATE HIGHWAY #55 -WHICH IS THE ONLY DIRECT NORTH/SOUTH ROUTE THROUGH THE CENTER/CORE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO...." THUS, THE CITY OF MERIDIAN RECEIVED THE GOOSE WITH ITS GOLDEN SOUGHT - AFTER/CONIMERCE EGG..."THE I-84 EAGLE ROAD INTERCHANGE". SUBSEQUENTLY, IN 1993 VIA THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, MERIDIAN NOTIFIED THE NEED TO UPDATED ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF THE EAGLE ROAD INTERCHANGE WAS SPECIFICALLY NOTED IN THAT DOCLiMENT. • • THIS FINAL PLAN RESULTEb IN THE NIIXED/PLANNED USE CLASSIFICATION IDENTIFIED AROUND THE EAGLE ROAD INTERCHANGE AREA. AS SUCH, THE AREA WAS CONSIDERED A HIGH PRIORITY AREA FOR THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF MALL DEVELOPMENT, AND/OR FOR CONIlVIERCIAL, RETAIL, SERVICE CENTERS, TECHNICAL, BUSINESSES, ETC. ALL OF WHICH, WOULD PROVIDE A STRONG TAX BASE TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN. TO THOSE OF YOU WHO PARTICIPATED IN MERIDIAN'S FIGHT FOR THE EAGLE ROAD INTERCHANGE OR THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESSES, OFFERED INPUT INTO MERIDIAN'S FINAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, I SAY, "GOODY, GOODY, GOODY FOR YOU........" TO THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE TRANSPLANTS FROM SUCH PLACES AS NEW JERSEY OR CONNECTICUT OR CALIFORNIA OR SOME OTHER STATE WHO HAVE FINALLY ARRIVED AT YOUR UTOPIAN GARDEN SPOT AS A "JOHNNY COME-LATELY", OR THOSE WHO DID NOT BECOME OR DID NOT TAKE THE TIME TO BECOME INVOLVED IN THE PLANNING PROCESSES, YOU'RE CERTAINLY NOT IN A POSITION NOW TO HOLLER, "THE SKIES ARE FALLING, THE SKIES ARE FALLING, THE SKIES ARE FALLING..." (....AND I MIGHT ADD - A 5 ACRE RANCHERO WITH A DENUDED HORSE PASTURE IN THE SUMNIERTIlVIE WHICH BECOMES A MUD BATH IN THE WINTER TIME ALONG A ROADSIDE IS CONSIDERED BY SOME TO BE A VISUAL BLIGHT, NOT A UTOPIAN SIGHT....) ALREADY THE EAGLE ROAD INTERCHANGE HAS ATTRACTED THE ST. LUKE'S WEST MEDICAL COMPLEX, WHICH OBVIOUSLY SELECTED THE EAGLE ROAD INTERCHANGE SITE, DUE TO PRESENT AND FUTURE DEMANDS/NEEDS FOR MEDICAL SERVICES IN THIS SOi;JTHWEST AREA. • THIS MEDICAL BUII,DING IS THE FIRST OF A SIX PHASE DEVELOPMENT. THIS FIRST PHASE, PRESENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION, CONSISTS OF A $14 MII,LION /FOUR STORY, 100,000 SQUARE FOOT WEST MEDICAL COMPLEX PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR DOOR-OPENING CEREMONIES IN DECEMBER, 1995. UNDERSTANDABLY AND SO RECOGNIZED IN THE MERIDIAN' S COMP PLAN, THE EAGLE ROAD INTERCHANGE AREA IS BECOMING THE CROSSROADS OF SERVICE AND CONIlVIERCE. FOR CONIMERCE LIKE THE ON-GOING ST.LUKE'S WEST MEDICAL COMPLEX FOR COMMERCE LIKE THIS PROPOSED I-84 POWER CENTER, WHICH WOULD NEGATE THE NEED TO TRAVERSE THE MILES TOWARD DISTANCE SHOPPING. OR WOULD THOSE CRITICS PREFER TO HAVE A MASS SATURATION OF PEOPLE AND THEIR "LITTLE PEOPLES" OCCUPYING THAT SAME INTERCHANGE CORNER, INSTEAD....?. GIVEN THE NATURE OF ITS STRATEGIC LOCATION ONTO INTERSTATE I-84 AND THE EASY ACCESS THROUGHOUT THE VALLEY, UNDER MULTIPLE/NIIXED USE, THEORETICALLY THAT 73 ACRE SITE COULD BE ASSAULTED WITH A -MEDIUM DENSITY NUMBER - OF 20 UNITS TO THE ACRE OF THREE STORY TOWNHOUSES/CONDOI~IINNMS; WHICH, AFTER ALLOWING FOR COMMON GROUND USAGE, (A REDUCTION OF SOME 20%), WOULD ALLOW SOME 1200 UNITS ON SITE. FIGURING APPROXIMATELY 3.2 TO THE FAMII,Y, WHO WOULD AVERAGE 2 AUTOMOBILES TO EACH UNIT -SOME 3800 PEOPLE COULD BE DAILY DRIVING SOME 2400 CARS INTO THAT INTERCHANGE CORNER. • NOT A DIME FOR CONIlViERCE ,OR REVENUE GENERATING PURPOSES. JUST AN OVERLOAD ON THE ALREADY OVERLOADED, ~~ WHICH IS A TAXING THOUGHT TO~ALREADY TAXING SITUATION.... ! I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED 1-84 POWER CENTER LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE 1-84 EAGLE ROAD INTERCHANGE. I OFFER THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR INCLUSION IN THE RECORD. THANK YOU. • • S I G~TATt7RE SHEET Name Addrress TeI ephc~ne r ~~~ 2 . G r ~ -r~, ~ I SSc~ suede. ~v' ~s a~l - ~~ /~ ~~,~ JPrnj ~~~"zi5~ 7 . • ~'" . , L - ~ 9.~ a ~zc~~1 l~~ ~ ~Eh~~ ~~^ ~~~~ ~r ~x ~~ S~ ~`°j~ to . ~:, l .~ ~5 % ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~I/ ~, ,~~ ~ ~ 11 ~ W ~'~ / 12. ~ G~~~~,~~ ~~~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~~ c~x~ ~~~-~' 3~ ~p 14 . ~~ 15. 16, 17. • • SIGNATURE SHEET /Name 1 ,y~ca. °~ ` 2 . ~.,~.~- ~. /ll 3. J-~~~i~ u~.~,.,.Y, ~v~r r~ c~ t~ r-e S 5 //8~ ~ow~yN~L~~ DMZ l l 30 ~c ll; ~5 l~~`~~J ,vi. Tel ephone ~ ~~- ~~ s 3 888-~~z 4 . /,~ t, ~ !~- '` ~ i~ Z35n ~ -~ ~~ ~ - Z~~~, 7 . ~~,~.,~ C.~I- 9 ~~~iu L ~ ~ 11--1 1. ~~ 10~ ~ , c~.~ 4~ r 12 . ~~C~ ~ ~~~ / 3 ~s~ ~o ~/~~f h~i~~ ~ y~ ,~~ il,'~~, N; ins ~5.(~,,~~( ,,. ~- i ys2~,rirxt~ 16. ~~7-©~~~ ~~' ~~~~ ~~' 7-7'~G ~,6 17. Y • • i j ~r This is a summary of the issues pertaining to the proposed strip mall ~~ ~ jk in Meridian at Eagle Road and Overland. The intention of this document A -~~ is to review the pros and cons for an objective presentaion to Ada County,~;LV the proposed developers and the existing neighborhood residents. ~~~( PROPERTY DEVELOPER ISSUES ~~~~ . ~~~ 1.Logistically the interstate accessibility is fairly good. When looking i at the intersection of Eagle and Overland it makes business sense. 5 2.Logistically the parcel of property proposed for development is in the worst possible area of the interchange due to the eastbound I-84 onramp. 3.The choice of property location seems questionable when several alternate sites exits at both southeast and southwest corners of Eagle and Overland. 4.This property seems much more appealing to the developers due to cost. 5.The proposed single entry/exit limited to Overland is not only poorly thought out but makes absolutely no sense. 6.The basic infrastructure necessary to support this type of development does not exist within the city of Meridian or Ada County. 7.The basic proximity to I-84 for supplying businesses makes good sense. 8.This property is cut in half by Five Mile creek. I believe this is a federal creek and the federal government may have sometihing to say. 9.The proposed strip mall layout was so badly designed it was unbelievable. It is painfully obvious that whoever did this layout did not understand the logistics of this property or the logistics of this area of the county CITY AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT ISSUES 1.The level of improvements required to Overland to provide adequate safety for the residents of Ada county would be signifigant. Recently accidents on Overland between Eagle Rd and Cloverdale have gotten signifigantly worse. In the past two months there have been two serious accidents. This past weekend there was an accident at Eagle and Overland. There was also an accident at Cloverdale and Overland. 2.The level of traffic increase would be substantial to the point that Overland would have to be widened to five lanes to accomodate the traffic between the intersections of Eagle Rd and Cloverdale. 3.Sidewalks would be an absolute necessity when Overland is widened between Eagle Rd and Cloverdale. The speed limit needs to be reduced on Overland as it is now. 4.The Meridian Sewer District does not extend into this area of the county. A mall of this size would surely require the addition of septic drainage connecting into the main sewers approximately now located one mile east of Overland past Locust Grove. • S.The county, in general, must capatalize on the opportunity to get the sewers in when Overland is widened. The county must capatalize on the widening of the road between Eagle and Locust Grove when the main sewer line is connected. 6.Current power lines supplying Overland are barely adequate to support the small requirements of the community and frequently loss of power is common. The increase on-the electrical grid the proposed mall will require is not adequately supported by the current infrastructure. 7.Sewage and Drainage due to the extremely high water table in most of this area should be thouroughly understood with an environmental impact statement done to review the possibility of the following issues: A. Existing private septics and private wells must be protected from the possibility of loss due to septic flooding or wells with sand. Several wells in this area have gone bad and some septics have had problems due to the high water table. B. Adequate drainage in the form of storm drains for run off must be provided as to insure adjacent property owners from being flooded. The slope of the drainage from the proposed mall appears to slope directly into the Jewel Subdivision. C. Has the developer looked at the flood plain map for 100 and 500 yrs? My guess is you are going to be paying flood insurance premiums for many years to come. This may be very costly to everybody. D. All added Wells, Drains, and Septic systems must have adequate safeguards to eliminate the possibility of children drowning. E. The five mile federal drainage will be destroyed by the creation of this proposed development. Signifigant wildlife habitat will be lost or permanently altered forever. 8.The effect of the lighting coming from the parking lot will destroy the beautiful view of the stars at night and the Bogus Basin Mountains. This will be a permanent loss unless parking lot lights are turned off during evening hours as part of the mall grand scheme. 9.Police and Fire Department support in this area of the county is minimal At what cost to the county taxpayers does Ada County feel it should be spending to promote corporate profits? l0.Costs in general for this kind of development seem prohibitive due to the basically inadequate infrastructure. Road development, increased traffic, major sewage overhaul, major power distribution changes, costs for increased police, fire, disposal services not to mention the money it is going to cost just to complete all the studies needed to justify the development. 11.Where are the funds coming from to correct the problems that are going to be created in Jewel Subdivision and on Rolling Hills Drive when the wells go bad and septic systems fail due to the signifigant changes proposed? SUMMARY TO THE PROPOSED OWNER/BUILDER OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. The idea of placing a major shopping center near the corner of Eagle and Overland seems to be basically a sound idea for a large business to naturally evolve in the Boise Valley. The actual piece of property that you have selected has so many negative connotations associated with it regarding impact to the surrounding community. It is my belief that you are buying a lemon. My suggestion is that if you really want to do this in a way that will cause far less grief and be looked upon as responsible you should re-consider the choice of property and entertain the Southeast or Southwest corners of Eagle Rd and Overland. This will allow for multiple entrances on Eagle and Overland keeping traffic problems to a minimum. Most likely the profitability for your corporation will be much greater due to the elimination of many of the costly challenges you will face otherwise. SUNIlKARY TO THE SELLERS OF THE ACREAGES IN QUESTION The fifty three acre parcel between the Jewel subdivision and I 84 is possibly the worst place to put this kind of development for many of the reasons given. It is my suggestion that the city of Meridian annex this property and it be turned into a city park. There are no city parks in this area of town and the location of this property seems so ideally located. To do so would regain and maintain the beautiful panoramic view of Bogus Basin Mountains for generations to come. The current single access to this piece of property is perfect for placing a parking lot on the west end leaving the remainder of the property to be used for Meridian residents in this area to enjoy. The mall developers could participate in this process and it might be to their benefit to have a major city park directly across from this type of retail outlet mall complex. It is my opinion. that the cost to the citizens of the community versus the profit you might make could just as easily be attained if this was sold, traded or donated to the city of Meridian or Ada County. SUMMARY TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND ADA COUNTY The City of Meridian and Ada County have obligations to their citizens for balanced development. With the new Hospital being built north of I 84 this area is most certainly in need of a more comprehensive plan balancing the citizens needs along with business growth. They must go hand in hand If a development of this size must go into this area then lets be responsible to all parties involved. Common sense dictates this is the wrong location. ~ ~ Lei Q~;~~ ~ ~. GARY G. ALLEN LAW OFFICES ~ D~• ~~~l~ JOSEPH H. BAIRD CJIVENS PUI3SLEY 8C HUNTLEY IVVII CHRISTOPHER J. BEESON MICHAEL C. CREAMER SUITE 200, PARK PLACE JUDITH K, HOLCOMBE ROY L. EIGUREN JAMES A, M~CLURE JEFFREY C. FEREDAV 277 NO. 6TH STREET OF COU N$EL JULIE KLEIN FISCH ER POST OFFICE BOX 2720 RAYMOND D. GIVENS DAVID E. MABE L. W. GRANT, III BOISE, IDAHO 83701 LEGISLATIVE SPECIALIST J. BART GREEN ROBERT C. HUNTLEY, JR, KARL T. KLEIN TELEPHONE DAVID R. LOMBARDI KENNETH R. M~CLURE (206) 342-6571 CHRISTOPHER H. MEYER L. EDWARD MILLER May 9, 1995 FACSIMILE PATRICK J. MILLER JUDSON B. MONTGOMERY (208) 343-9492 TERRY L. MYERS RAMONA S. NEAL STEVEN L. OLSEN W, HUGH O~RIORDAN KENNETH L. PURS LEY GREGORY J. VIET2 CONLEY WARD WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL STEVEN R. WEEKS STEPHANIE C. WESTERMEIER (208) 388-1237 Jim Johnson Chairman Meridian City Planning & Zoning Commission City Hall 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Langly & Associates I-84 Annexation and Conditional Use Permit Application Our File: 2515-18 Dear Chairman Johnson: I represent James Griffin who is the owner of an 80 acre parcel located on the Southwest corner at the intersection of Eagle Road and Overland. After close review of this conditional use permit application and the accompanying traffic analysis, Mr. Griffin has asked me to express his strong support of this development. The applicants are clearly strong and qualified developers and at this stage of development planning have done a good job in preparing their proposal. As a land owner on the Southwest corner of this same Eagle Road intersection, this application will directly affect my 80 acre property. I would, therefore, like to ask the commission to address a few considerations during its review process. Jim Johnson May 9, 1995 Page 2 • An effective pedestrian system should be designed and implemented at this location to allow access between the St. Luke's project and other future commercial and residential development in the Eagle and Overland vicinity. Provision should be made in the site design and access for this project for the ultimate anticipated width and configuration of Eagle Road to the south of I-84 and at the Eagle and Overland intersection. This should, of course, assume development in the area consistent with the uses and densities indicated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Again, Mr. Griffin believes that this project is well planned and will be a great asset to the City of Meridian. Sincerely David R. Lombardi DRL jao cc: James Griffin 2515~18WI E RI DIAN.L01 r~s~ - ~ ~ o ~~ ~ ~5~i~~ r G ~~ L~ f l~ ~~ e~ ~~~Y ~ ?©~ ,~~~ r~-~ ~~y~~ .. G~~~`~-`-~c~ ;~~ ~ t~na~d mar `~-~-- y Lc.~, ~u~a- .- /6~G~:uY.C .(L / ~,~ G~,G ~ ~~G~~'~~tiGl.~(~ l/~?~G~'~-L,~j~ o c G~ ~ ~'~~ ~~ ~~- ~ G~~ G~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~, ~' ~~ly~ ~'~ ~~~ ~ ~y ~ ~~~~r~ ~ ~~~ ~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~-~ i ~~ n • • Christopher J. Kepus 8633 Wi/mot Court E/k Grove, Ca/ifornia 95624 May 5, 1995 Shari L. Stiles Meridian City Council 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83640 Dear Ms. Stiles: _~~~~~ t ~tal' ~ `~ &~w! As a former resident of Boise and a current landowner in the Meridian area, I would like to comment on the announcement of the proposed Power Center mall that would be located at I-84 and Eagle Road. I strongly support such development for several important reasons: The Meridian commercial tax base will need continuing growth to support future infrastructure improvements. This type of commercial development is precisely the type that is needed. 2. The location of the proposed mall is not only very suitable for the available land, it is right at the crossroads of the developing valley. Access for a significant portion of the valley would be very convenient. 3. The mall would be, if properly architected, a real plus for the Meridian area in terms of a beneficial development that would likely influence potential residents and businesses to locate in the area, further enhancing the ability of Meridian to grow within an balanced economic base. This development is sure to stir controversy but I urge the City Council to support this project. It is a perfect addition to the area. Sincerely yours, . ~--- Chris Kepus • = y-~~~' r~ ~ ~ ^~ 2~_ ~ ~~~.- MAY 0 9 1~1~~ ~;l~[~~ tit ~g~c~au~r~: __ ~~ , t~ >-WSJ ~ i ~' r 9 ~~ Ci c~ ~`~ r --~ ~~~~ ~ ~, ~~~"~-~ _ ~ ~ . ~~ Ste, • . Fred and Molly Nakaji 12712 Lee School Road Wilton, Calif. 95693 Ms. Shari Stiles Meridian Planning Director 33 East Idaho St. Meridian, Tdaho 83642 Subject: Meridian P&Z Dear Ms. Stiles: ~~~~~~~~ MAY 0 9 1995 ~lTY Ur 1M~l~sv-P.~, We are excited to hear of the proposed Power Center Mall at Eagle and Overland Roads. Being frequent visitors to the Meridian area, we believe the planned mall will provide a much needed retail outlet center for area residents, and it will also provide a boost for the area's economy. We wholeheartedly support locating the mall at the proposed site. Sincerely, ~2~ rte, T~~~;~~ n.~~ ~. OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI S. STILES, P & Z Adm. PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney • • HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding Departrnent (208) 887-2211 Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 GRANT P. HINGSFORD Mayor MEMORANDUM: GOUNGIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MOE ALIDJANI JIM SHEARER CHARLIE ROUNTREE TIM HEPPER May 5, 1995 UPDATED 10/17/95 To: Mayor, City Council, Planning & Zoning From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer/ i~-~~~ Re: I-84 CENTER - (Annexation & Zoning of 73.5 Acres to C-G) I-84 CENTER - (Conditional Use Permit for Approx. 700;000 SF Retail Project) by Langly Associates, Inc. I have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, for your information and consideration as conditions of the Applicant during the hearing process: ANNEXATION & ZONIN 1. Submit an annexation perimeter legal description for the proposed site in lieu of the individual property descriptions. T'he legal description shall include all those portions of adjacent Public Rights-of--Way contiguous to the Corporate City Limits of the City of Meridian (Ord. No 659 and 660, 8/2/94). One half (1/2) of all other adjacent Rights-of- Way shall be included in the perimeter legal description. NO LEGAL DESCRIPTIONHAS BEEN SUB111I7TED AS OF THIS DATE CONDITIONAL USE • GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. Any existing irrigation drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. POWERCTR.P&Z • • Mayor and Council May 5, 1995 Page 2 3. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-2-414 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance and/or as detailed in site-specific requirements. 4. Paving and striping shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Sections 11-2-414. D.4 and 11-2-414. D.5 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance and in accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. 5. A draiuzage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted for all off-street parking areas and shall be approved by the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91). 6. Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as to not direct illumination on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-414. D. 3. 7. All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-2-415 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. 8. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist. 9. Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions. 10. Provide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606. B. 11. Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. • SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS: Please provide the Public works department with information on anticipated wastewater flows from the proposed site. This information is very critical for determining the Sanitary Sewer serviceability of this proposal. NOT RECEIVED AS OF THIS DATE 2. Please provide the Public works department with information on anticipated fire flow and domestic water requirements for the proposed site. This information is very critical for determining the water serviceability of this proposal. POWFRCTTt.PBcZ • Mayor and Council May 5, 1995 Page 3 NOT RECEIVED AS OF THIS DATE 3. A 100' x 100' well site shall be donated to the City of Meridian at the proposed site. The Well site shall meet all of the criteria of the State of Idaho Department of Water Resources and City of Meridian. Applicant will be required to construct 12 inch diameter water mains from the City's current points of terminus in Overland Rd. (approx. 4,700 LF west), and Eagle Rd. (approx. 3,000 LF north) to and through the proposed site, thereby creating a "loop". This "loop" is crucial to the water serviceability of this site. 4. Sanitary Sewer service to this site will be via the Five Mile Trunk Sewer main currently under construction for the St. Luke's West Medical Center. Applicant will be responsible to construct the Five Mile Trunk Sewer main and any necessary lateral lines from the point of St. Luke's serviceability to and through the proposed site. 5. Assessment fees for water and sewer service are determined during the building plan review process. In addition to these assessments, water and sewer "Late Comers" fees will also be charged against this parcel to help reimburse the parties responsible for installing the water and sewer mains to their current points. POWERCTR.P&eZ • ~ECETtIED Meridian City Council 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 RE: Mall mania growth O C T 1 6 1995 October 11, 1995 ~~ OF MERIDIAN We have owned property in Meridian for 20 years in three different locations, Barrett Street, Overland and ten mile, and Country Terrace Way. We are very concerned about controlling growth around Eagle and Locust Grove Roads and Overland, this is already a congested traffic area at the beginning and ending of the work day. We lived in Westland Acres just north of the Boise Town Square Mall for 25 years, and that area is now a nightmare. I hope we have all learned something from that mess. People are very critical of the Mayor, and Boise City Council members for their lack of a good planning process, and not following the comprehensive plan. We feel voters rejecting the $14.7 m~i.llion bond proposal is telling us all something. The Running Brook Estates subdivision below us here has just lowered the price of their lots $10,000.00 because they could not sell them. We know you will do a good job of taking care of Meridian. Sincerely, Mr. & rs/J y nowball ~G~yY, ~atu7ia~ 9 G'ourzt ~urac~ ~ai~, . ~~ d'36~f2 OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk f~ JAIVICE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI S. STILES, P & Z Adm. PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, PoiiCe Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney • HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY • A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding DepaRment (208) 887-2211 Motor VehiclelDrivecs License (208) 888-4443 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor MEMORANDUM: O NCIL rl! 1~!RFpC RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW P & Z COMMI LION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MOE AUDJANI JIM SHEARER CHARLIE ROUNTREE TIM HEPPER May 5, 1995 UPDATED 10/17/95 To: Mayor, City Council, Planning & Zoning From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer i~-~~'O Re: I-84 CENTER - (Annexation & Zoning of 73.5 Acres to C-G) I-84 CENTER - (Conditional Use Permit for Approx. 700,000 SF Retail Project) by Langly Associates, Inc. I have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, for your information and consideration as conditions of the Applicant during the hearing process: ANNEXATION & .nNTNCt 1. Submit an annexation perimeter legal description for the proposed site in lieu of the individual property descriptions. The legal description shall include all those portions of adjacent Public Rights-of--Way contiguous to the Corporate City Limits of the City of Meridian (Ord. No 659 and 660, 8/2/94). One half (1/2) of all other adjacent Rights-of- Way shall be included in the perimeter legal description. NO LEGAL DESCRIPTIONHAS BEEN SUB AS OF T~IIS DATE • GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. Any existing i><rigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate imgation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. POWERCTR.P&Z • Mayor and Council May 5, 1995 Page 2 3. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-2-414 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance and/or as detailed in site-specific requirements. 4. Paving and striping shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Sections. 11-2-414.D.4 and 11-2-414.D.5 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance and in accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. 5. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted for all off-street parking areas and shall be approved by the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91). 6. Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as to not direct illumination on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-414. D. 3. 7. All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-2-415 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. 8. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist. 9. Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions. 10. Provide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606. B. 11. Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. • SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS; 1. Please provide the Public works department with information on anticipated wastewater flows from the proposed site, 'This information is very critical for determining the Sanitary Sewer serviceability of this proposal. Nm'~ ~ ~ ~.S OF ISIS SATE 2. Please provide the Public works department with information on anticipated fine flow and domestic water requirements for the proposed site. This information is very critical for determining the water serviceability of this proposal. POWFRCTR.P&Z • C~ t . ~ Mayor and Council May 5, 1995 Page 3 NOT RECEIVED AS OF THIS DATE 3. A 100' x 100' well site shall be donated to the City of Meridian at the proposed site. The Well site shall meet all of the criteria of the State of Idaho Department of Water Resources and City of Meridian. Applicant will be required to construct 12 inch diameter water mains from the City's current points of terminus in Overland Rd. (approx. 4,700 LF west), and Eagle Rd. (approx. 3,000 LF north) to and through the proposed site, thereby creating a "loop". This "loop" is crucial to the water serviceability of this site. 4. Sanitary Sewer service to this site will be via the Five Mile Trunk Sewer main currently under constriction for the St. Luke's West Medical Center. Applicant will be responsible to construct the Five Mile Trunk Sewer main and any ne+ lateral lines from the point of St. Luke's serviceability to and through the proposed site. 5. Assessment fees for water and sewer service are determined during the building plan review pnxess. In addition to these assessments, water and sewer "Late Comers" fees will also be charged against this parcel to help reimburse the parties responsible for installing the water and sewer mains to their current points. POWFRC1R.PdeZ i • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 11, 1995 Page 11 Rountree: When you got up to ask that question the City Engineer left (inaudible). Sharp: I think there are so many questions. I don't see how you can even act on this thing. It is so nebulous as to what they are really doing. We haven't got the sewer, you don't have the sewer and Alleman testified and wrote a letter that he is not ready to sell and so forth. So, that is a stumbling block right there. I think the schools are another issue, we don't have the bond passed and it could be very likely it wouldn't be passed again. So we have a lot of houses, there is going to be a lot of bussing of those students. As far as having a gate and so forth you are restricting if this, if what they are proposing they are taking away my right to have an easement down my property. If they put a gate there it doesn't say it is restricted to Dale and Helen Sharp, we have an easement to that property for whatever reason people need to get down there. If you put a gate there that is restricting that lane. I think that if they are going to do something then they should probably put berm and fence Wingate Lane and separate those, these subdivisions. Right now I just don't see how you could even act with all of this questions. Rountree: Anyone else? I will close the hearing. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this until our next meeting until we can get comments from ACRD, until the sewer and water problems can be worked out with the City and I would like to see the developer try to work something out with the Sharp's on this and see if we can have an answer to this before the next meeting. Rountree: The next meeting of the meeting after? Excuse me for interrupting Tim, the next meeting would be August 8. Hepper: I move we table this to August 8. Shearer: Second Rountree: It has been moved and seconded to table this item until August 8, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 700,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL PROJECT BY LANGLY AND ASSOCIATES: Rountree: We have been requested by the Highway District to withhold action until they can report back to us. It is my understanding that they will report back to us August 9th Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 11, 1995 Page 12 which is the day after our next regularly scheduled meeting. So if we do anything it is going to have to be in September. We need a motion. Hepper: September what? Rountree: September 12th. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move we table this item until our next meeting September 12. Shearer: Second Rountree: It has been moved and seconded to table item #5 until September 12, atl those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST OF 42.02 ACRES TO R-4 FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY WHITESTONE ESTATES PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: We have the findings of fact and conclusions before you, are there any changes, any discussion on these? Rountree: We get to the last page of the findings of facts and there are a couple of typos. Line seven it should be except for instead of what's there. And the second to the last line should be 1400 square feet as opposed to whatever language that is. Johnson: Any other changes, any other discussion regarding the findings of fact? Hearing none what would you like to do with these? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions. Hepper: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written, this is a roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Alidjani -Absent, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 3 #2, did you have any discussions with Gary regarding whether or not the City's concerns have been satisfied or not? Stiles: No I haven't, I don't know, I haven't read his comments. Johnson: You haven't seen anything in writing? Stiles: No, excuse me Mr. Chairman, I do have a letter dated June 10th, do you have a copy of this. But whether there were any issues that needed to be resolved on Gary's part I don't know. Johnson: What is your pleasure gentlemen, what would you like to do? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we pass the preliminary plat onto City Council with a favorable recommendation. Shearer: Second it. Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass the preliminary plat onto the City Council with a favorable recommendation from Planning and Zoning, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: TABLED MAY 9, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 73.5 ACRES TO C-G BY LANGLY AND ASSOCIATES: Johnson: We conducted a public hearing on this, we tabled this item pending some traffic study and some comments and recommendations from ACRD. To my knowledge we haven't received anything from ACRD, directly from them. We have the specific site recommendations that came in initially. Stiles: Mr. Chairman (Inaudible) Gallagher: Karen Gallagher, Ada County Highway District, this item has not been acted on by the Ada County Highway District Commissioners at this time. It was on their agenda as of last Wednesday and was tabled until tomorrow night to accommodate people from public who would like to speak. I do have staffs recommendations with me at this time that includes 2 of the recommendations were to given to our commission and I could recite • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 4 those to you if you would like. Johnson: We are probably familiar with those. Gallagher: I don't believe you are. • Johnson: Do you have a copy of it? No we haven't seen this, this must be like the third version of it. We have 2 other versions without those sentences on there. Gallagher: (Inaudible) Johnson: Thank you, is there anything at this time the developer would like to add to our discussion, are there any questions the Commission has of the developer? Rountree: I would like to ask about the site specific recommendations that were made by ACRD. Keithly: My name is Russ Keithly, Langley Associates. Rountree: My question would be have you seen or had an opportunity to contemplate the site specific requirements that have been laid out by staff of ACHD at this point? Keithly: Yes, if I could, I believe I have, if I could just digress for one moment as far as what I have seen. After our meeting we did meet with them and we reached an agreement on a group a listing of site specific conditions and we subsequently received a draft copy of that, that was to go to the Commission and yes we were in agreement with those. Assuming that those have not changed I don't know what you were just handed. Rountree: These appear to have been faxed to you on the 9th. Keithly: Those we agreed to although you were just handed something by ACHD which is apparently, 1 have that copy. Yes the site specific conditions and the conditions on all their approaches on Eagle Road and Overland Road and etc. and it is all satisfactory to us. Johnson: Is there any further discussion among the Commissioners? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move we have findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared by Counsel. Hepper: Second r ~ • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 5 Johnson: We have a motion to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the application for annexation and zoning of 73.5 acres by Langley and Associations, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: TABLED MAY 9, 1995: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 700,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL PROJECT BY LANGLY AND ASSOCIATES: Johnson: Is there any discussion among the Commissioners regarding the conditional use permit? Rountree: Mr. Chairman I move that we have findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared for the conditional use application. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we have the City Attomey prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the cohditional use permit for Langley and Associates, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: TABLED MAY 9, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 42.02 ACRES TO R-4 FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY WHITESTONE ESTATES PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: Awaiting ACHD's comments I believe. Is there any discussion regarding this application that was tabled? Rountree: We had a note on this one I think Mr. Chairman about a possible notice problem, is that correct Shari? Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rountree, the owner of that 120 acres called me today and said he written us a letter and mailed it about 4 days ago but we haven't received it yet. He did indicate that he approve of the waiver. Johnson: For the record what is the gentleman's name? Stiles: Mirazin Shakuri. • MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: JUNE 13.1995 APPLICANT: LANGLY AND ASSOCIATES AGENDA I TEM NUMBER: 3 REQUEST: REQUEST FOR ANNE TION AND ZONING OF 73 5 ACRES TO C-G AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS i t ti ~~ ~ k C~~ ~ OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. AD~OUNTY HIGHWAY I~TRICT Development Services Division Preliminary Report MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 -Eagle Rd n/o Overland Rd - I-84 Power Center Meridian The applicant is requesting approval for a rezone from RT to C-G and a conditional use to construct a commercial project of approximately 700,000-square feet. The 73.5-acre site is located on the southeast side of I-84 and Eagle Road with a narrow portion of the site abutting Overland Road. This development is estimated to generate 24,885 additional vehicle trips per day. Roads impacted by this development: Eagle Road -Principal arterial with bike route designation - Traffic count 9,094 (1993 estimate by APA) Overland Road -Minor arterial with no pathway designation shown - Traffic count 5,290 in 1993 Issues to be addressed: 1. Traffic study results (trip generation rates) 2. Number of access points needed and access widths and locations 3. Right-of--way requirements on Overland 4. Roadway improvements to Overland 5. Staging of Roadway Improvements 6. Access to ACHD's park-and-ride lot 7. ACRD drainage facility 5~ r' ~ ~~~ ~ U a'` (~ ~ d ~h `QC` `~ \`\~.t ~ 0 5~ 'd~. g-~-~ d ~~c~9 ~~as ~o~°~; g ~pe~o 1 LIB' o . °~ ~ 5~ ~~ \ ~ ~ FAIRVIEW ~~ ?~ AVE. ~ ~~ 3 ~ I ~ '~ eooo ~ iz 500 } t az0o loeoo I 0000 . ^ : ~ $ om OL ~ w > ` ~ ~ EMERALD ~ W 1 d ^ ~ tY ~ ~~ C 7 8 FRANKLIN 8 RD. a g FRANKLIN $ RD.. 8 8000 G F lsoo 8 3300 g azo0 8 ~zooo. 10800 8 ® ee0o 8000 g ^ •. .. r ai ~ SS v 4Q }~ V d 4G o J OREGON TRAIL H~• ! w O ~ lzooo AD. ~ ~ ~ 6 800° ~ 1600 3300 X00 10800 ~ ^ pOpp . 1 51TE -- -~. n.i ~zzz~~~_ as :• a~ssxi~ ~' - ~:, `~ ,, . ~~ ,. '~:tea;-..~~---~. 5 ~:- ~ - ~ ` t' ura~r aura •' ~ ` '/" 1~ ' ~.:,_ :; .. ... .. ~ ., .. ;~ ,.,.. ,1 ~.. ~. '~„ ;. 1 1 * ~ ~' h 1 •~... . '~. : ~s ~;~ -. wit. t~~` ~~~: y= r. _ 't A__w'L^a",= ~r~ C: ~' :~~ r Z! ~: ~ ~: o.t~ i - ~~ ~ I _. ,. :; ~; .1, .1 , . „, 11,- 1/ , ... •• 1 f 1/ '~f 1/ J ~. It 1 • U y ' 11 1 U . 11 1 9- R 1 1 11 11 11 ' ~~ ~i . .ca_ _ _ _ ~ '~:'. ---• ;~ . - ~ ; '' ., ~~ 1 { ~ 1 . ~ ;s. ~ ~ ~;;.._ :4 ;:~~+~ ±~! t 1': ~ rat 3~ ~=.,;: ; ,' ~ 1 + ~.k ~ `~ ~ ~_ .: >, `~1i; ~ ` ;,. ' ~~f~'ti.k.x:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ -- - - - LANCL~Y ASSOCYATES, INC. 999 Lake Drive, Suite 300 206.391.6600 Voice Issaquah, WA 98027 206.391.9030 fax TO: ~~„r'~ ~`~" ~ `es FAX.• ~ 0 ~ - ~ ~ ~ - X18' 13 ~--~ COMPANYN~I,ME: DATE.• ~ ~ PAGES:• (Including this one) MESSAGE.• REC~Y~'ED JUN 1 2 is95 ERIDIAN w JUN 09 '95 17 02 THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICFI IT iS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRMI.EGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION UR COPYING OF THIS coMMinviCATION I5 STRICTLY rROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS FA.Y IN ERROR, PLF.A.SE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE . THANK YOU. PAGE.01 ~AC oUNTY HIG~VA~ DISTRICT Develop Services Division Preliminary Report MCU-~-9S/MRZ-2-95 -Eagle Rd n/o Overlae~d Rd - T-84 Power Centtr Meridian The applicant is requesting approval for a rezone fiom RT w C-G dad a conditiotwl use to consavtx a cam P'-,aJ~ of approximately 700.000-equate feet. Tire 73.S,acre site is located on ttu sotsiheast side of I 84 and Eagle Road wit$ a narmw portion of the site abuati~og Ovcrlaad Road. A traffic study bas been submatted for tl3is applicaaion. This developa~t is . csdmatcd to mate 2a.88s additional vehicle trips per day. Roads impacted by Wi,s fiagk Road -Principal arterial arith bike ro~t[te desigaatiou - Traffic count 9.094 (1993 estimare by AFA) Overland Road - Mitt' attctial with m pathway deaigoadon shown - TtatSc count 5,290 in 1993 JUN 09 '95 1?~02 PAGE. 02 ACRD Caoa Date • Jude Z4. 1995 7:00 P.M. Facts and FYn ' • A. GeneralIoformation RT - Fadstigg zoning C-G - P;equested zoning 73.5 -Acres 714.000 - Sgaare feet of proposed building 284 -Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada -Impact Fes Benefu Zone Wcstrrn Cities -Impart Fee Assessment District Q3CLL18ad.B4S$ Minor arterial with ~ pathway designetioa shown 'l~raffbc co~nnt 5.290 in 1993 140-feet of frontage 50-feet exisoing right-of-way ('25-feet from ceaterlin~e) 108-feet required tight~f--way (54-feet fiotn centerline) Overland Road is improved with 28-feet of pavement without curb, Brunet or sidewalk. B. This application is scheduled for a public Lrariag by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Comimiesion on Jwye 13. 1995. C. The site is c~trretttIy under agricultural production. Two single fancily residences' occupy a portion of the site. Access to the site from Interstate 84 and Eagle Road is prohibited. Without acquiring additionzl property, die site cm only be provided with one point of adequate access, a connection to Overland Road. The proposed accc4s road is approximately 1,200 feet east of the Eagle Road uuersection. Ari tutitttproved Brevet roadway borders tl~ western portion of the project site. The existi~ roadway serves a single fgtw7y residencx sad as unimproved parcel owned by the Idaho Tnutsportarioa Deparm~cnt (ITD). This roadway is proposed to become secondary access to the site. The 1'I'D owned parcel is planned to be developed into spark-and ride lot with access to the proposed commercial developtnem via the secondary access road. D. ?he segment of Eagle Road ninth of Overland Road is under the jurisdiction of iTD. The I1'D bas informed the District that fall accxas control has be;a planed oa the I~aoersoste 84 and Eagle Road corridors. Site actxss to these two corridors is therefore prohibited. The developer is required to sabwit application materials to ITD for review and requirenxnts of that Dcparmoant. E. With the exception of the apprnacbes to the Eagle Road intersection, Overland Road is a 2- MCU-'f•95/NIItZ2-95 Page 2 JUN 09 '95 17 03 PAGE.03 lane roadway frotoa~Five Mik Road to Meridian Road. Bot ~Ovetlaad Road 1 egs of the signalized Eagle Road intersectiaa have left turn legs. 14,000 vehicle trips per day has berg identified ae the maxitaura desirable volume {not capacity) on a two latse road by APA and ACRD staffs, although this v~ue Las not been formally adopted by any agency. The last measured traffic volura oa Overland Road was 5,290 is 1993. This project is forecast m generate 7.855 trips per day east of the site on Overland Road and 5,952 trips west of Eagle Road. This wt11 increase the traffic on Overland Road east of the site to 13,145 witlsout accauating for any other growth is the area. Cluzently, Eagk Road south of Overland Road is a 2-lane roadway and north of Overland Road to the I-84 ratap ttaosition lanes is a 4-lane roadway. Eagle Road has le$ tutu ]apes on bow legs of the signalized Overland Road inuersectioa. F. 'The developer h~ submitted a traffic study for this project. Staff bas reviewed the traffic analysis and accepted the report. The key elements of the trafFc sNdy arc as follows: On-site • The plarmed co®mtrcial oeateac will include approxiao~ately 714000 square feet of gross leasable area. • The proposed projat will generate 2,324 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour. • Thee proposed site vn'll generate ?A,885 daily vehicle trips. • A single access roadway from Overland Road is proposed co serve the project sire. A secsmcttury, emergency axes road is plaancd on the weal side of tLt; site that will also coatnect to Overland Road. • The sift access road will nail three southbound and two northbound lanes. • A traffic signal will be required of this development for the intersection of the site access road with Overland Road. Off-siate -Overland Road/Bagle Road • Wastbotrnd Overland Road will seed an additional right-pun lase at flu site access road ia~ersection. • The s~reut of Overland Road between Eagle Road and the site access road wiU require ultimate widening Ta seven traffic lanes; ta+o eastbound tLraug~ lanes, two eastbou~ left, rota lanes, two westbound through lanes, and an added westbound tight turn lane. • The southbound ~proaclt of the Eagle RoadlOverland Road intersection will require ultimate widening m three left fora lanes. • The south and west legs of the Eagle RoadlOverland Road intersection will require uttimttte widcniug to match the added lanes east of the Eagle Road/Overland Rand intearsection. • Tye east kg of the site access road/Overland Road intersection will require ultimata widening W match the added lanes west of the site access rosd/Overlaad Road intersection. G. Based upon the submitted traffic study sad District's policy. staff recoamomends that the developer's portion of the toulway improvements include: On-site • The site access mad will be wnstructed m inchide three sotrt>sbotmd and two ttnd lanes. MCU-7AS/MRZ-2-9S Page 3 JUN 09 '95 1?~03 P. 05 A traffic sigrml will be installed at the intersection of the site access road wfth Overland Road. Off-site -Overland Rosd/Eagl~e goad • A toatinnous right rata lane on westbound Overland Road between the site access road acrd Eagle Road. This includes the transition on to aorthbound Eagie Road. • A continuous through lane on easWannd Overland Road between the site access road and Eagle Road. This includes the transition on Overland Road, east of size site driveway. • A second southbound left turn lane oa Eagk Road at the Overland Road ~intetsection. This inciudes the traasitiort on Eagie Road south of Overland Road. ' A separate ~ nun lane on westbound Overland Road for toe site access road. H. No stub streets are platnued for the project. All internal roadways are private. One additional site access location is anticipated sad should be preserved along the eastern portion of the project site that abuts a rurai residential deveiopmtutt. If the residential area redevelops. cotttrectiag site access is desirable. ACRD rcco®tne~s to the City of Meridian than no buildings be allowed to develop along the south portion of the eastern sine boundary (not including the access road). Y. Under long term conditions, tine earistiag transportation sysoem is not adequate m aocor®odatt the additional ttafftc generates by this proposed development. The proposed project and pcpeged future spinoff projects, a,al lroown additional projects north of Iatetstate 84 are all unandcipared in the long rage Transportation Plan. 1'. The District staff is of the opinion that the build-out of this parcel and the aoswing spin-off developmment will negatively itrtpact the District's Five Year Work Program and accelerate the need w widen Overland Ra~ad from Cloverdaie Road to Meridian Road. ('This assumes that the segment of Overland Road from Five Mile to Cloverdaie will be t~econstrucoed in the neat five years.) Due to the major shifts is land use in this area, the Ada Planning Association arad the Ada County Highway District should jointly updaae the long range plea m recommend future transportation options for the area. Staff Recommendation: StafF rerwrotomends that the Coprmission reoouomoaend to fire City of Meridian ane at the folbwine updiona. • that thus app~iartion be denied, or • than action ~ h be deterred until s spb-reglooai load n~e/hrseasportretsau pia can be completed and that the appliraot be advised that fattme actioaa t>A the application c~id iadude denial, the imposition of eamca~rdinary imprrft Fees aadlor additional projtcx related, oif-nice coon requirements. If t!m City approves this app6catian. stag suggests that the Comiowiasfon recammead the following regalr to Meridian as for appaoval: MCU-~-ssie~z-2-9s Page 4 JUN 09 '95 17 04 PAGE.05 Site SPecifi~ Re ui menu: , 9 1. Comply with retyuir~e~oaents of I1`D for Itwetstate Aighway 84 and Fagle Road frontage. Sahaatit to the District a letter from ITD rogarding said rim. 2. Tlu: main site access shalt be provided through an access roadway as shoves on the sift plan. The access road shall have tlaee southbound traffic lanes and two aortldmwad traffic lames. The exiting (southbound) lanes shall include two left turn lanes and one right rum lane. A hilly actuated tt~c signal stall installed at the site accts toad iraerseCtioa with Overland Road. The access road and traffic signal improveanents shall be constructed at the initial phase of sift development. 3. Dedicate 54fat of right~f--way fivm the cenocrline of Overland Road abutting the patrx! (29 additional feet). The owns ~ will be compensated for this additional ti,~t-of-way. Tlbe additional ,right-0f-way would not otherwise be required for several yrar~s wit>zant ti:e devetopomept of this parcel, therefore it is a project related imo~pact, not reimbursable wader either the District's ordinance or the Idaho Developmet>t Impact Fee Act. 4. Dedicate a 23' z 2S' triangle (or appropriate curve) of right-of-way at the both corners of qu Overland Roadlsite access road tv keep the stirxt improvements in the public right-ol=way. 7lte owt„er also will d4S be oo~rnpensated for thus additional right-of-way. S. Provide a deposit m the Public Rights-of--Way Trust Fund at the District for tare required street improvemm~ls of S-foot sidewalk abutting parcel arts Overland Road. 6. Maiutaia public access along the westau border of flue project site to the planted park nerd ride lot. This access vviJ1 also serve as secondary access to tht: project. the park and ride lot and. for e~'gcacy vehicles. 7. Maioffiin a mimi~m 50-foot clear m~-build area along the easrem sioc border beta+eea the building frons and the southeast corner of the site to allow for s R~ntt+e ercfernal site co~onection to aborting pataeLs. 8. Roadway it~rovetnptts to Overland Road and Eagle Road may be coasttvcted in two or three pdiases as the site is developed. The following roadway improvements shall be comttucted For the fast phase of development, appm~cimately 425.000 square feet (609L of the proposed development): • Ccrostruct tha she access road with tbtea southbound and two notd>brntnd traffic lanes. Coordinate the roadway design with Diaori~et Traffic Services staff. • Install a traffic signal at the itttersection of the site access road with Overland Road. Coordinate the signal design with District Traffic Services staff. • Coaasouct a contaiaoolts westbound traffic lave on Overland Road betw+era ~ site ac~xss road and the Eagle Road inoersectiort. Coordinate the roadway design with Dist~rbct Ttaific Set vices staff. IYICU 7-95/tYIItZ-~9S Page S SUN 09 '95 17 04 PAGE. 06 Coasavct as sd~ - • road. Coordinate the~ibad~ Inns ~ wig ct Traffic Secvitxs t~ site access II The following additional roadway imPro Shall be constructed prior to the developmem of phase II, approximately 645.000 square total feet (90 ~ of the proposed development); Construct a second southbound left turn lane on Eagle Road at the Overland Road intet'seczion. Construct nay additional roadway widetiiag on Eagle Road south of Overland Road needed to match the roadway widening north of Overland Road. Coordinate the roadway design with District Trat~c Services staff. 'Y~e following additional roadway ~a shall be core prior to rnmpletion of the 714,000 square foot deveicipmeioT (10096 of the proposed dev )= Construct a second westbound traffic Lane oa Overland Road between the site access road and the F.a81a Road intersection Con4avct any additional roadway widening on Qverland Road east of the project site that is needed m match the roadway widening west of the project site. Construct. any additional roadway widettiu~g on Overland goad west of Eagle Road that is needed to match the roadway widening between the project site and Eagle Road. Coordinate flee roadway design with District TrafEc Services staff. 9. Co~vct pedestrian ramps on the corner of Overland Road and the main sine driveway in compliance with Idaho Code, Section 40-1335. 10. I.oCate proposed sign(s) out of the public right-ofway and out of the clear-vision sight- triat>gle of all street and driveway iatersoctioms. Standard Rt~uirtements: 1. A request for mo~fication, variance or waiver of atry regoirrement or policy outlined her+eiin shall be made, in vvruing, to the Manager of Eli Services within 1,,~~( of the original Camunissioa action. The regteest shall include a statement explaining why such a requi~eaaettt would result is substarnial hardship or ine+quiry and fee of S1I0.00. Z. Aright-of-way permit must be ob~d Irp~ ACRD for any street or utility construction within the public right-of--way. Utility cuts should be camhined where prauical to limit Pam damage. Gaertner Construction Services at 345-7667 (with toning file nwnber) for details. 3. Submit site ply and ~ulattom for r+evitw and appropriate actiaun by ACl;ID. The Proposed drainage system shall conform to the raquiremea>s of Meridiem and shall retain all storm water oo-sioe. Public street drainage facilities shall be logted in the public right~f--way or is a conmmna let ~rcua-9sn~z-9s Page 6 JUN 09 '95 1?~05 PAGE.O? owned • by a hodmeo~ association sat acute spect6cally for that use. Tbete shall be ao ttzes, fences. bashes. sheds, or other valuable amenities placed iu said easemerg. Drainage lots and their use restrictions shall be noted on the plat (when applicable). 4. Locate driveway curb earit a minimntm of 5-felt from the side lot property litres whm driveways arr ~t being sbxc~ed with the adjttceoi property. 5. Locate obstntetio~as (utility ~, irrlBation and a ~ Pfd stttiet ovements. dra~i~ PPs. etc.) otuside of ~ Autborizatioa for relocatioa4 shalt be obtained from the ap~prop~iare entity. 6. Specificatiot~,1~ ,~,Cys, , plats, drawin s . g • lam. design infortaution and calcnhtions pnseared to ACRD shall be sealed, signed and dated by a Registered Ptofessiona! Eiwgi=trcr or Professiottal Land Stitrveyor, is complia~e with Idaho Code, Secticm 54-1215. 7. Provide design data for pT,oposed access to public streets for review sad appropriate action b ACl'dD. Y 8. Subttrit three ~ of street cottstructioua plaAS to the District for review and appropriate action. Should you have atry questions or commGacs, please contact the DeveIopmrnt Services Division at 345-7662. Mcu.~-~s~nez.i-9s Pale T TOTAL P. 08 JUN 09 '95 1?~05 PAGE.08 LRNGLY RSSOCIRTES • June 12, 199b Shari Stiles Planning Director/Zoning Administrator City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Re: I-84 Center -Design Flexibility Dear Shari: ~.~ ~.~ ' ~. JUN 1 3 X995 ~;1~'Y (~~ i~~~~x~li~. We have discussed the fact that, as leasing progresses, we will likely need to modify our site plan to accommodate specific retailers. It would be extremely beneficial if we could work with your office when these modifications are required instead of having to go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Our counsel has prepared the enclosed, suggested language that we would ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider in their deliberations. Sincerely, Russell C. Keithly Principal RCK/dh Enclosure rck\stilsp tangly Assoaales,lnc. 9R9 L2kc Drive Suite 300 Issaquah, wa ~A02I (2081391 6600 FAX 39t•9030 JUN 13 '95 10.16 PAGE.02 i P 03 • • a,_,r tr~. Wt JUN 1 3 ~~:~ i CONDITION NO. ~l'TY (~~ ~~~=r~i~af. Effect of site plan approval and amendments to the approved site plan. The City has reviewed the site plan (identified as Exhibit dated the day of or some other identifying reference for the project and the i y s approval of the Conditional Use Permit is explicitly conditioned upon development of the property in conformance with that site plan. However, the City recognizes that alterations to the site plan may be required to satisfy the needs of specific users of the property. Therefore, the City authorizes the city administration, acting through the city planning director, to approve amendments to the site plan upon request of the applicant without further review and approval by the City Council provided that there will be no administrative approval of the following changes: 1. Substantial changes to the location of the access drive to the property from Overland Road, 2. Substantial changes to the size of the perimeter landscaped buffers, and 3. An incxease in the total floor area approved for the project as a whole. Subject to the condition set forth above, changes to the size, number, and location of buildings on the site; changes to the building orientation; and changes in the location of interior parking areas and circulation drives should generally be allowed unless the changes taken together would fundamentally alter the nature or concept of the project. rck\condmer TOTAL P.03 JUN 13 '95 10 16 PAGE.03 • • ~ ~ a Q ~ 4 ~ ~ o $ ~v 8 .es W H „ [ ~ ~¢~ u ~ C R o p U ~ . U , o ~ r ~~/.. ei '~ ~ ~ it I~ ~I I1 s ~1 I ~ ~ ~~ n II I' ~~ ~° u Y i a ~ I u __~ L~ m ~~~i ~ ,''',''' , ~~ ~ ~ - ~1 `11 ~~ i nd gili r ~q 9~ ~. ~~-% °~,_',~ 1 / ~ ~ ~~8 ~ / % ~~d S ~~ O / % ?~ / j ~ /__/ / / // / / sg~~ • .~ ~+ ~ 1 6 ~~''~ JAMES E. BRUCE, President SHERRY R. HUBER, Vice President SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, Secretary Wayne Crookston City Attorney City of Meridian 33 E Idaho Avenue Meridian ID 83642 RE: Power Center (MCU-7-95) Dear Wayne: June 15, 1995 At the ACHD Commission's meeting of June 14, 1995, the Commission voted to table the Power Center until August 9, 1995, to allow Ada Planning Association to complete asub-regional traffic study. This study will confirm what roadway improvements are attributable to the Power Center and should be required as conditions of approval. The study will also forecast the amount and effect of spin-off development that will surely occur after the Power Center is opened. Please contact me at 345-7662, if you have addition questions. Sincerely, :oordinator cc: Mayor Kingsford Jim Johnson Shari Stiles Chron Project file ada county highway district 318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714 • Phone (208) 345-7680 Meridian City Council June 6, 1995 Page 20 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: ERV OLEN - ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION: DISCUSSION CONCERNING STUDY OF IMPACT AT EAGLE ROAD AND I-84: Kingsford: Welcome to Meridian Mr. Olen. Olen: Thank you very much Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. I am here tonight fo talk to you a bit about some virork we are doing with Ada County Highway District to look at the transportation impacts of the proposed power center mall, Eagle Road and I-84 in the southeast comer. We have determined that probably we need to look at what I call a cumulative impact of that and do kind of a sub-area analysis so that we can look at the so called spin off potential if that development were to go. Also recognize some developments that have occurred here that frankly aren't in our current demographic assumptions for that area most notably the St. Luke's complex under construction. So in order to' do that one of Ada Planning Associations rotes in this would be to do the demographic shifts that reflect both the proposed power center mall and also any related development that would be expected to be used. What that means is since we use what we call zero sum shifting when we add something somewhere in the county we like to take it from somewhere else. Because of that kind of a process we are here tonight to first let you know that we are working with the Highway District to do that and vue would like some feedback and direction from each of you on how you interpret your Comprehensive Plan and maybe how we would work with your Planning and Zoning Commission and perhaps the staff in doing those shifts. Typically what wee do is we have a demographic advisory committee that meets when we need to get together and look at major developments like this and shifts. They are composed of representatives of all the cities, I know Mr. Forrey represented the City of Meridian when wee last did the update in 1993 and we would expect someone representing the City would participate. Right now our assumptions for our development in that area in terms of retail employment is very minimal frankly. A mall such as being proposed would be something in the order of 1500 employees if it is anything as the same ratio of the Boise Town Square mall, 1500 to 2000. So that is going to be a fairly sign cant shift and in order to do that we don't want to do it in a vacuum we really would like to get your feed back and thoughts and directions if you will. Then work with your staff to make sure we are interpreting the Comprehensive Plan. It is our sense right now that any shifts that we would have to do to accommodate that proposed mall and potential spin off would affect most of Ada County. Certainly western Boise as well as Meridian, probably Canyon County although typically we don't do that. So that is what I wanted to talk to you about is vue do need to do that follow up study. We are calling it a cumulative impact, we are going to look at the sub-area rather than immediately around the site. We think we can do that vuork probably by the end of June this month and get that committee together in a couple of weeks. We are going to need your help, what I anticipate is once we have • Meridian City Council June 6, 1995 Page 21 completed the analysis we would like to bring it bads to you and share the assumptions we had to use and make sure you are comfortable with those before we complete the traffic part of the analysis. I would be happy to answer any questions. Kingsford: I guess Erv 1 commend you on the concerns and the study. I just wonder if vice are not premature, I know that they are knocking at our door, but having been through the shopping center issues several times I hesitate to say it is good use of resources to study something that may or may not take place. That coupled with the fact that numerous studies have been done on Eagle Road twice for a mall at the site of St. Luke's and once for a mall at the site of Fairview and Eagle Road. I just wonder about spending our resources over studying issues that may or may not take place. If vue can get a study accomplished in a month or less it seems to me it would be a lot more timely to do that when it looks a little more eminent. Just a thought, Walt alerted me that this was coming up the other day and I couldn't help but to think about the number of studies we have done for malls on that particular strip. Morrow. I guess my questions and comments would be is that 1 too am concerned about the premature study of something that is way out there and there are lots of hoops to go through before this even comes close to becoming a reality. I think the other issue there is for our purposes right now and thinking in particular of the mall that was at Fairview and Eagle Road or the proposed one for that site it seems to me that with a minor amount of updating those numbers would still be kind of applicable. I guess my question would be you are talking about shifts, shifts from where in Ada County? What does a shift mean, in my mind I am confused as to what are you shifting? Are you shifting employees from what to what? Typically what happens or what I see happening on the basis of my business is that in this type of a project most of those employees are secondary income type of jobs substantial portion of them are recent high school graduates or school kids who have never been an employee in the first place. So how do you shift them from what? I know that I personally (inaudible) with a lot of the governmental agencies in Ada County but a substantial portion of and with the press, the substantial portion of our growth in Ada County is self generated by the mere fact that kids are staying home and our brothers and sisters and parents are coming bads home. Could you clarify for me what shift means? Olen: I wwuld be happy to, it is not an exact science, there is a lot of judgement. What vve do is we look at 20 years vuorth of growth, vue rely a lot on Idaho Power's projection which have an excellent track record if you look bads at what they projected and the actual growth. They are the best we have seen. We do for our planning purposes are always looking 20 years ahead 2nd looking at the total population and employment within Ada County. When v~ have any major proposals come in that are significant and I think this one is basically we use a zero sum for all of Ada County but vue have to identify areas where we assume that growth is going to go and shift that growth to the areas where at Meridian City Council June 6, 1995 Page 22 least when a proposal like this comes in. It is done based on the combined experience in judgement of that demographic advisory committee frankly. Our experience with the Boise Town Square mall for example we assumed that there were going to be some areas that were actually going to shift in retail employment because of the attraction of the mall and we took it from existing development. In reality when they opened up there were some areas that closed their doors because of increased competition. So we were able to be somewhat reasonable in how we estimated it. It is a little bit of a political trade off and the only assumption we have is this zero sum. We don't want to plop in a 1500 employee center and just add that to the total. That is not the way we would normally do that. Since we monitor and update our projections every 4 or 5 years or whenever we feel it is necessary we think our 20 year growth estimate is certainly reasonable. One thing we don't do though and probably need to start looking at the influence on surrounding counties particularly Canyon County has on development. If you look at the traffic report they assume roughly 30% of the people who would go to this proposed mall would come from adjacent counties. I think when you start adding significant retail it does affect perhaps retail growth and surrounding counties as well. Walt, it is that kind of a process, it is just sitting down with folks who are fairly knowledgeable to monitor this on a regular basis and say if we plop 1500 retail employees at this location where do we take it from realistically. That is what the group does so they maintain that zero sum balance they don't actually add more than we started with they just shift things around. Kingsford: So you are saying it is logical that a certain number of people that go and fight the mess at Cole and Franklin that particularly (inaudible) might very well be shifted to Eagle Road if this goes? Olen: That is correct. Tolsma: Did you do a study on what the outlet mall did out by Gown Road out there (inaudible) Olen: No sir we did not, that decision was actually made without going through this kind of a process. We have since been working with the City and those folks a little bit on some of their expansion plans. In fact the employment out there we did take into account in our demographics. What we do is we split the employment into 2 categories, one is the office type or non-retail is actually what we call it. The (inaudible) characteristics of that is roughly 2 trips per individual. But retail employment it is about 7.7 times greater so the retail employment is really significant and particularly in a concentration like this proposal and we do. We have to find areas that in our collective judgement would not grow if this were to go in. I think the influence area would be in western Boise and parts of Meridian and probably realistically Canyon County, but we don't take that into account. • • Meridian City Council June 6, 1995 Page 23 Tolsma: Considering all the growth that has been out there at Five Mile and Overland (inaudible) going a mile down the road would that be a significant shift from that area to this area or would it pull (inaudible). Olen: I would speculate that it would probably more the potential retail growth in the west bench area of Boise mostly but it probably affects some other areas of Boise. What we have to do is find where we assume concentrations of retail employment over the next 10 or 20 years and shift some of that away from the areas wee assumed in this location. Again, to be honest it would affect I think the potential for some other areas of Meridian as well if this were to go in. Corrie: Erv, was your reasoning to do this follow up study and cumulations here based upon your thoughts that it was going to happen quicker than it is? Since you said it takes about a month to do this, were you anticipating this more than has been then we done now? Olen: Actually I hadn't considered that this was close to being a done thing at all. What we had anticipated before a decision was made or gets fo a point where seriously it is going to be looked at. I think this kind of information is going to be a real value. So when you folks in Planning and Zoning Commission are asked to make a decision it could be a big different. If and when it gets to a point where it is gaining some credibility or support then we would certainly advise that at some point if this thing goes forward that this analysis be done. Corrie: You also mention it wasn't done for the outlet factories, are they having ramifications by not doing it now? Olen: Well we do it after the fact, you have to plug that in once it is on the ground (inaudible). One other quick comment the Ada County Highway District as I understand it has agreed to pick up the consulting, transportation consultant to do the work. If they choose to do that then our role would be to provide them with the demographic shifts to do it. My understanding is they would pass the cost of that along to the developer or applicant and so they still may choose to go forward with it. The last time I talked to them they were proposing and if we are asked to do that we certainly went to work with you so that we are sharing what we are doing with you and you are well aware of that. I can go back and talk to them about maybe we don't need to look at it right now or wait until you get to a point where this thing does appear to be a little more solid and has local support. Corrie: Am I hearing you correctly this is not going to cost the City of Meridian anything? Olen: No it is not, your contribution to Ada Planning Association includes this kind of • • Meridian City Council June 6, 1995 Page 24 support and we kind of maintain that database and the demographics. So we provide that service whenever there is a need to do that. We did it for your comprehensive plan process for example, working with Mr. Forrey. Kingsford: Well I think clearly that corridor is going to be very heavily used, I would maintain constantly that is probably the best interchange, undeveloped interchange in Idaho. I think to just focus on that particular comer it would be really limiting what ought to be done on it. You have indicated it ought to be some of the other things but certainly some consideration ought to be given to a range of possibilities in that whole corridor and even as far south possibly at a minimum of Victory or Amity. Olen: Absolutely. Kingsford: And again just to have the power mall drive it, I have seen too many malls that didn't get built. Olen: Well, it wouldn't bother me at all to go back to the Highway District and suggest that let's stop and wait and see how far this gets. At some point we would certainly recommend that if that is gaining support that kind of a study that you mentioned looking at a much a little bit larger area and the potential so called spin off before a final decision is made. It could have beneficial impacts frankly but it is a sign of things you need to be aware of and we are certainly willing to support you. Kingsford: I am not sure it is the type of thing that anybody looked at when they built the Town Square mail. Tolsma: Who did the study on the Town Square mall? Olen: It was a combination effort, we actually did look at some spin off potential in the initial studies on that I think back in the 80's I can't remember the date. APA was involved in that and we looked at similar malls around the country and came up with a 2 to 1 spin off in other words for every employee in the mall itself there would be another employee somewhere around the immediate area. The 2 to 1 proved to be on the low side in retrospect. Morrowr. I think Ron and Grant I want to address that issue a little bit, I think in fairness to APA and ITD that I saw projections by someone within ITD concerning the very issues prior to that mall being approved by Boise city. I think APA to their credit did some forecasting their, I think what you have to do is lay that responsibility where it was Boise City opted not to pay any attention to either one of those studies. Consequently we have the mess that we have today. • Meridian City Council June 6, 1995 Page 25 Kingsford: They have the mess. Morrow. We in Ada County, they in Boise City. So I support your concept here I too (inaudible) Grant's thoughts t think it is a little premature until we get a little further down the line. If I understood this proposal correctly on about 3/4 of the size of the existing town square mall that will take a ton of work and a tone of financing and lots of pre-commitments and gee those things usually take a couple of years based on the Town Square mall experience. Olen: Well, Mr. Mayor and Council members I will certainly take the message back that you just don't think it is necessary at this point given the status of it and at such time as it might get to a point where it is necessary to go to this step we would come back and solicit your assistance with the technical part of it that we would have to do. Corrie: It may be sooner than we think, I still think it is, but don't put it too far back. Kingsford: l think clearly if it gets to a particular stage we are going to want that information in the approval phase. But I just maintain that if it takes less than a month to do the study than we are jumping the gun. Morrow. One question, I would like to hear some comments from our staff people, they are obviously the people that have to take this and run with it, Jim or Gary or Shari your thoughts. Jim being Jim Johnson, Chief of our Planning and Zoning, Gary Smith the City Engineer and Shari. Johnson: Well, I have to concur that it is premature at this point. Frankly, I have a little difficulty grasping what information can come from this study that might change or sway the decision by Planning and Zoning as far as what our function would be in the project in the application process. I can understand the need for it, down the road the plan for those people involved in traffic studies and transportation, road development, improvement, widening and that sort of thing. That really doesn't fall in our role of operation. Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members I guess from my standpoint it seems like the capacities of our water and sewer system are under siege right now and any time that we can have a head of when the actual use is going to be utilized is going to be that much better for us long term strategic planning. So if this mall goes in or some other mall goes in it appears that area is destined for this kind of use. So, I would encourage if this proposal is not an expense to the City of Meridian as Erv mentions that and I am not trying to say that it needs to be done right away but that we need to keep our finger on the pulse of what could happen out there so that we are not in trouble on sewer and water. I think this use survey for traffic purposes would also assist us in the sewer and water planning • Meridian City Council June 6, 1995 Page 26 area. Morrow. Gary, a comment to that, could vue not get some of that data from Boise City with respect to the sewer and water usages that the Town Square mall takes to give us some pre-advanced notice of what the requirements might be? Kingsford: I think you are talking different things though aren't you, they are multiple restaurants in the Town Square and the theater would use different amounts. But if we were to look at say uses of Costco, Homebase, Homeclub, those might be valid in the number of square feet and the minimum needs. Smith: If we have some kind of an idea of what kind of facilities will be out there we could get a number from a similar use. I would assume that a traffic transportation study would also have to identify those similar uses, is that correct Erv. It just seems like it takes a long time to get from the point of let's build a mall to we got a mall. The infrastructure that is needed to support that activity takes a long time to get it done. If it is going to impact our waste water plant to the extent that we need facilities that takes a long time unfortunately. Ingsford: But again we need to determine what those uses are because logically housing impacts the waste water treatment plant more than retail shops not restaurants but retail shops. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, while I know how much APA enjoys doing another study it would have been nice, what is the spin off from, is the spin off from the fact that the interchange was built. Is the interchange from St. Luke's coming out there, is the power center a spin off from the fact there is going to be a hospital there. Obviously that interchange was going to be developed and be very desirable for a lot of different uses. But it is getting down to numbers on a traffic study would be very difficult in dealing with Ada County Highway District their numbers were conflicting with what the traffic study had shown prepared by Bell Walker because what they showed in their numbers, Costco alone they showed it having 27,000 trips per day. Well 27,000 trips was the number of people going down Franklin so they were assuming every person going down Franklin Road was turning into Costco. As far as their numbers being accurate for something like that maybe the Highway District needs something to interpret more accurately each use and what kind of trips are involved with that. Until they know, until we have any tenants it would be real difficult to tell, to pinpoint that if that is what you are trying to do. Kingsford: 27,000 of those were going to Chili's. I think that is a real valid point Shari, kind of what I was driving at not in a real clear manor. Do you want to say anything Chief? Gordon: (Inaudible) • • • Meridian City Council June 6, 1995 Page 27 Kingsford: Thank you Erv we appreciate it. ITEM #13: WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: Kingsford: This is to inform you in writing if you choose to you have the right to a pre- determination hearing at 7:30 P.M. June 6, 1995 before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person and be judged on the facts and defend the claim made by the City that your sewer, water and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain Council, the service will be discontinued on June 14, 1995 unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone from the public that would like to contest their sewer, water or trash delinquency? Seeing none I would entertain a motion on the turn off list. Tolsma: So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve the turn off list, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: 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 their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn off list this month is $13,023.68. ITEM #14: APPROVE BILLS: Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I move we approve the bills. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve the bills, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #15: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Kingsford: Mr. Smith Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council members, I have a couple of items that I need • Ada County Highway District Development Services Division Memorandum Date: July 13, 1995 To: President Jim Bruce and ACHD Commissioners ~I ~' ~. t ? 1~~~ CITY ®F ~fic~IDIt~I~ Mayor Grant Kingsford and Meridian City Council Chairman Jim Johnson and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Jeff Hull, St. Luke's RMC E.L. Bews John McCreedy, Jim Jones & Assoc. Shari Stiles, Meridian City Erv Olen, Ada Planning Association Rick Thomas Wayne Forrey From: Larry Devel ices ervisor subject: E.L. Bews Application Power Center Application Because of the complexity and magnitude of the traffic issues of these two applications, ACRD staff has decided to defer taking the Bews' application to the ACRD Commission until the Commission meeting of August 9, 1995. This is the same time as the Power Center application will be heard. Because both applications impact the same geographic area and the same roadways, it is appropriate to consider them at the same meeting. Also by that date, ACRD, Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), and Ada Planning Association (APA) staff members will have completed the regional land use/transportation analysis of this area, including the impacts of the Power Center, Bews' and St. Luke's proposed developments if they are approved and development proceeds. Also included in the analysis will be the consideration of additional transportation system improvements, including an interchange at the FranklinlEagle intersection to ease the effects of all the left turning traffic (west to south) at this intersection that is proposed to be generated if these developments (or others) occur. A draft staff report will be prepared following a Technical Review Committee meeting that will be held Friday, July 28, 1995. The report can be picked up on Wednesday August 2, 1995 after 12:00 Noon. As always, the Technical Review Committee meeting is open to the public, held in ACM's conference room. If more than ten people attend, the location of the meeting will be moved to the ACRD auditorium for more space. • ~~~ ~~'~ David Lewis 1484 Tanager Way Boise, Idaho 83704 June 13, 1985 U Commissioner Sherry R. Huber Commissioner Susan S Eastlake 318 Esst 37th Street Boise, Idaho 83714 Dear Commissioners Huber ~ Eastiake 4~ n ' 1 S S ~ ~~.~" ' ~"J N ~ L~ ~ ~'~ ~~r (~ ~ s~ Z ~ ~~ c~ ~ ~,~ , ~ ~ ~ . '~ ~ ~~ •.~,~,,, i've always thought that every pennon has the Right to Petition for his or her voice to be heard. Saying that... First of all, I'm extremely appreciative and thank both of you for the courtesy of listening to my attempted testimony last night. And because of the intemaption, which resulted in an incomplete delivery, I have taken the prerogative of enclosing a "complete" copy of my written comments. Over the years, I have been Involved and appeared at many pubik: meetings to present my comments/concems relative to various items of community interest. Never during the past 13 years of personal invoMement have 1 ever felt such indignation or been treated with such rude discourtesy by any public official, so e~ndenced last night. ,~ I found it extremely disturbing, while dur~g a pubUc hearing, an elected official would so crudey interrupt testimony concerning such a pressing issue in Southwest Ada County as the proposed Meridian 1-84 Power Center Development. Not knowing for sure wheither this elected offic:lai didn't like the massager or the message, I suspect the latter. Wafting in turn behind Mr Korte, the representative for the Highland Hackberry Subdivision or Mr Sells of ACRD, neither were so rudely interrupted; both were allowed to cont~ue with their long/ contMued dissertation. It's no wonder and understandable why the majority of American pubNc patentenly refuse to become involved in Local, State, or Federal issues, or that only some 3896 of the Ada County voters invohre themselves in the voting process. And then the rest of us wonder, why so few are able to dictate or decide for so many. Proceeding forvvard, I found k extremely disbtubk~g to listen to ACHD's three new revelations last night. • The first revelation was the announcement that ACRD k now demand~g the I-84 Povu~sr developer be compelled to reconstruct some 3 X MILES of existfig roads extending some two miles away from the proposed Mall site located at the Eagle Road interchange) This is alsolutely amazing, especially in view of ACHD'S printed omission per the enclosed copy of the ADA COUNTY ROAD, BRIDGE & TRAFFIC PROJECTS...."How Projects are Funded..."EACH YEAR FOUR OR FIVE MILES OF EXISTING COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL ROADWAYS ARE WIDENED BY PROPERTY OWNERS..." And now some 9596 of ACHD'S ENTIRE annual road widening oocurtktg M aR of Ada County Is to becomes the burden of one protect developer? Not in the entire existence of ACHD has those penalty conditions ever been imposed. What happened to all that impact monies from the St Luke's West Medical Complex - a 100,000 equate foot development. The first 100,000 eq ft IST Phase of a SIX PHASE DEVELOPMENT? Was south Eagle Road expanded? Or FranklM Road -east or west, or Overland Road or Cloverdale Road or any streets leading bisecting State Highway #55? Not one inch of ROAD widening in this referenced area. An area identified in the Idaho Statesman a few weeks ago, where growth has increased 7496 versus Boise's 2096. Or for that matter what has happened to the other Impact Fee monies from the Miq Creek SubdN~lon, the Edgeview SubdN~lon, the new 168,000 sq n Fred Meyer's Store, the Weldon Pond Subdivision, the new Pisa Hut, the Dairy Queen, the 7 phase Meriden Green's Subdivision, the Sportsman's Point SubdNision, JB'S Restaurant -Texaco Station, the Hunter's Point SubdNlsion, the Charleston SubdNision, the lNe new businesses in the Treasure Valley Business Park, or the up-com#~g 296 wit Peppefiiii SubdNision, the new Ford Dealership being constnxted on west Overland Road, and on and on and on????? And then to sit there and listen to ACHD's second revelation that the entire 5 lane-widening- the one mile section -between FNe MNe and Cloverdale Roads which was to taper equaNy 600 feet nortlVeouth on Cloverdale and 600 feet west on Overland -'is now suddenly" -within the past couple weeks, "without adequately ttmds" for the previous targeted construction commencing this Fafl of 1995 with completion by Spring of 1996. Or to hear the third revelation, that the entire mAe section of Overland Road from Kuna-Meridian Road to Locust Road ie aN of a sudden without ADEQUATE funds",due to this shortage of road funds and can ony be build by THE I-84 Power Developer SOME TWO MILES AWAY?. It's certainly not difficult to figure out that ACHD has SUDDENLY figured out a way to knife our road needs in this Southwest area of Cloverdale, Overland and Eagle Road. And the reasons why? Meridian's proposed I-84 POWER CENTER ... Is ACRD going to comps! John Price to re-construct 20 MILES (proportionate to the moMes tnvoNed) of Ada County Roads, when APA's estimated $60- 65 mi~on price tagged construction commences to modify the already modified Alternate I-84! Franklin Road around the F3oise Square Mail.? • tt not, why not? Commissioners, it's becoming so tiresome. • So utterly tiresome watching the ACRD re-juggle their rational, sh'rfting the numbers, adjust their target dates, or so grossly err fn their traf'tic courrts with OUR ADA COUNTY TAX PAYERS IMPACT FEE MONIES. Both of you were in attendance when the Paradise `Sound Wall issue" surfaced and, whereby, some of us suddenly found ACHD's numbers skewed off in left field when compared with the Ada Planning Association's Traffic Count Study. Not too big of a mistake by those planners in ACRD. Only amounted to some 20,000 "additional" vehicular trips a day radiating around the Five Mile and Overland Road Intersection area. ACRD ...."Gee, how did we miss that one...." Like 1 said, it's getting so tiresome that this department can be allowed to continue to do what their doing. Many years ago, I remember a college professor once stat{ng,,,,"Ony one in 27 people take the time to get involved, the rest, just walk away in disgust." Pefiaps, that's the reason why those of us who attempt Involvement, either remove ourselves from this quagmire or simply place our tniet in some elected officials like yourselves. Someone, who can separate fact from fiction. Thank you for listening. And, again, your extended courtesy last night. INC: r _, ~~ ~.~ m ~~ ~tk~o~ ~~~ty ~~u~~ ~ for Additional • 'Brochure Copies Ada County Highway District 318 E. 37th Street Boise, Idaho 83714 (208)345-7680 Ada County 650 Main Street, Boise Idaho Transportation Department 3311 W. State Street, Boise Boise City Hall 150 N. Capitol Boulevard, Boise Boise City Public Library 715 S. Capitol Boulevard, Boise Garden City Hall 201 E. 50th Street, Garden City Meridian City Hall 33 E. Idaho Avenue, Meridian Kuna City Hall 326 W. 3rd Street, Kuna Eagle City Hall 310 E. State Street, Eagle ~y Phone Numbers Highway Helpline: 334-8888 for daily construction season updates on traffic impacts ACHD Commuteride: 345-POOL (7665) or 1-800-498-7662 (outside Boise) for carpool and vanpool services BUS (Boise Urban Stages): 336-1010 for public transportation ACCESS: 345-1234 or 336-0845 for persons with disabilities and unable to use the bus Winter Road Report: 376-8028 for regional winter road conditions Please check The idalio Statesman for regular updates. Radio Stations with Frequent Traffic Reports KBOI-AM (670) KQFC-FM (97.9) KIDO-AM (630) KLTB-FM (104) KIZ1V-FM (92.3) J105-FM (105.1) KZMG-FM (93.1) K106-FM (105.9) Ada County Highway District 318 E. 37th Street Boise, Idaho 83714 (208)345-7680 • ,,~,d~ ~o~nfi ~#i h~nr~y D~sfiri~fi's Y ~ R~a~ Pr~aje~fis Hc)w road projects arP chosen... Saving you (the taxpayers) money on projects... This brochure was developed to let you know how your local highway district funds are being used. Listed are 94 Ada County 1 Fghway District projects scheduled for study, planning, design and/or construction in the 1995 fiscal year (Oct. 1, 1994 - Sept. 'i(1, 1995). Total project costs, including Federal Aid funds hndgrted (or FY 95 are X23 million. Each vear ACRD prioritizes its capital improvement projects. This is based on information frenn Ada County and the transportation task forces of its five cities, the Ada Planning Association, school districts, utility companies, AX'HD's Capitol bnpruvcment Advisory Committees and varirnrs groups and individuals. This results in a Five-fear Work Program for capital improvements. The current five-vear program (FY 95-2000) includes projects worth ~3h0 million for tchich rnily $) 42 million is projected to he available. One of AC(FD's main goals is to always keep traffic moving as smoothly and efficiently as posGible. Fiotvever, minor traffic restrictions and delays are inevitable during construction. Detours or alternate routes are provided when needed. Projects affecting motorists are listed regularly in The kinho Sfafcanmr, on our F Ighway i-Felpline (334-RR88) and on local radio stations. Fiaw projects are funded... Most AC11D projects are funded by general tax revenue. h addition, more than 40 miles of new local streets are added to the roadway system each year through approval of new subdivisions and other private land development projects. These new raadt-vays are funded solely by the land developer, and ACRD accepts them into the system only after careful insperticm and testi ~! l_'"ch year four or five miles of existing collector and arterial roadtvays~e also widened by property developers. Road impact fees paid by developers and builders in suhdivi- sionsand other development projects fund the improvement of these roads. ACRD is committed m reducing the mileage of gravel roads in the county by paving at least four miles annually, usually by using recycled asphalt. Recycled asphalt is obtained by ratomilling existing roads as part of our pavement overlay program. In FY 95, the I Fghway District will pave the following roads with recycled asphalt: South Cole Road Kuna-Mora/Ten Mile Creek Road Kuna-Mara, RR Crossing at Locust Grove Pierce Park, existing end of pavement M sand pit fierce Park, Esterbmok/Cartwright Wright Street, Orchard/Diamond if sufficient rotornilled materials are available, 4.9 miles of roadway will be paved with recvcled asphalt. Tell us what you think about these projects... ' if a project is planned or is being considered in yotrr neighborhood ar if it affects your family or friends, you may want to comment an the project before construction begins. Public information meetings are held on nearly every project. And sometimes formal public hearings are held. ACHD will be glad to notify you of upcoming information meetings and hearings if you provide yrnrr name, address and phone number, along with the project(s) that interest you. ACRD also sends information on upcoming meetings and hearings to the media in your area. C• J'1... Since the rvad unpact fee program began in April 1992, ' nurre than $]0 million has been collected, greatly enhancing _~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ -- ~ ~ c-~ ~. AC(iD's ability to improve the capacity of major streets and (I' ~Mtcf+~ ~~~ Vt- intersections in Ada_County. Road impact fees can be used only on F~rojcrcts that increase the vehicular capacity of the major ~ ~Q.~, 1~ ~ ~-'~~ G~ (. ~,~ roadttavcvstom. ~;. ~~~ ~/~'r t1 .fir ~ MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: MAY 9.1995 APPLICANT: LANGLY AND ASSOCIATES AGENDA I TEM NUMBER: 8 REQUEST: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 73 5 ACRES TO C-G AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: COMMENTS FORTHCOMING CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: "REVIEWED" CITY FIRE DEPT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ADA ~UUNTY HIGHWAY D Development Services Preliminary Repc MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 -Eagle Rd n/o Overland Rd - The applicant is requesting annexation to the City of to C-G and a conditional use to construct a commercia feet. The 73.5-acre site is located on the soothe portion of the site abutting Overland Road. additional vehicle trips per day. A traffi . y Planning Association (APA) has also p ed a c Hole area including this site. Both stud' i that be seriously impacted by this and oth tici d that the planned roa ay sy n E development. Roads impacted by this ~~ ~~I proval for a rezone from RT of roximately 700,000-square of I- gle Road with a narrow ent estimated to generate 24, 885 'fled for this application. Ada ortation study for the four square gle/Overland/Franklin corridors will ~ment in the four square mile area and rte to support the proposed level of RECEIVE Eagle Road - cipal bike route designation AUG 2 2 1995 ra~c coon 4 (1993 estimate by APA) Overland Roa ~ ~ Minor arte ' with no pathway designation shown CITY Of~ MtK1lliA~ ra~c ~ t 5,290 in 1993 Issues: 1. Determine methods of coping with the impacts of this project and the total development that is forecast in the four square mile impact area around this site. ACRD Commission Date -August 23, 1995 7:00 P.M. C~ i F 6 C x a~. ~~ WI ~~ ~~ L fy!i ie +' '; ~ ~ ~ M ~ N ?~~i~S i~ = s ~ _ ~ M w e <<~ya .. ~ ~ - c:~:~s § ?: ~E l~~s f ;. s~ : , `~ . ... t ~, i' i li , ~~ ~~ r i ~ ~ ; ., ~ ;! ~ R _... V t 0 ,k ''-'~- __ anr~~r Corr E~ v • ;, 5 ~~~... n ~ ., k•-:,: ~~ ,, :, s s ° ~: ~ 6 I lei ~ ~ Q 1 ~ 1111 ~ t ~_ ~ .~ 1 ~\ ~ ~ ~ j i ~ I ~ s j 1 ~ ~•~~j , ~ y ~ to \ at ~ A ~r Z \ : ~ ~. ~, \,` ~ \.= ~ ~ i Q~~ SS~7J~f !.?liFQN~ ~~ --- - ~ ad02! ~1~d3 ;;.: ~: .a.: I~ i~ ii W H Z W V /~ E ~- r t ~. Z ! ~' t ~~ ;# Wi t }' S N ~! tt~ ~^.., ~ • (6£S9`Zi S£T'~T iT0'iT ~ -I w .~r ---r I £62 zT ... .r ~atEp.zanoj~ 08£`9 ~ o £00`Oi T T S`L '~ Q ~ • .-~ E-y .--• .~ ~ ~ o ~ c~ ~ ~ o• ~ ~ ~, • Q S8E'E2 ~ o• 0 a~ o' a ~ v ~. a~ ~ ~ to o ~ ~• ~ o '~ F"' ~-.~ ~ ~'. ~ ~ W c~ ~• ~ ~~~ ~• 06fi'S ,o ano.z~ ~}snao~~ OL8`ST ~ ~ ~°° w • aity~ ant, ~ ~. L9T'OT LLB L ,~ O ~U . ,..~ m • LES'z ~~ i ~ I ° F D s 0 ~ a ~~ m .~ ~o i• • ~ o~ ~~ o~ o, o~ c, o~ ., ^.... LlEipt.Za~ I I ~_,Z ~ ~ • ~ a • S~~`s •• EEZ`~z ~6Z`Zi • ajty~ anti ~ ~ I ~ I I I L R' ooz`z~ oos`~~ ~ 000`9£ O O O~ .~ O d' . ~.., ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F~ uP~ OOi~`6i 006`si 0 c o c ~ ~, co ~ ~ ~ w 00 i `6F o 0 O o ~ o 0 ~ ~ °o ~ ~ ~c c W M u 7 lST C~' 0 0 aj~~e~l 0 F D W s 0 a w s 0 ~ ~ O -~ o .~ o ~ M O+ .., 0 0 un anoi~ ~}snoo~j .--+ ~ uE tp t.z a y~ . O ~-Z OOS`SZ 009`91 b 0 0 0 0 O c~ OOZ`95 OOS`i~z 000`£z .,. 0 ~. • • Table 4 TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION TAZ I Sectiort I Land Use Acres SaF ~ GFA 1000 Trip Generation 162 NE SF,R1, Ed eview 79 3,441,2401 2,580.93 754 i 162 NE SF,R8 ~ 25 1,089,000! 816.75 1,910 162 NE MF,R3 I 25 1,089,000 816.75 716 162 NE Free Standin Retail I 16 696,960 174.24 7 086 162 NE Office 10 435,600 108.90 3,721 162 NE Canal, etc. 5 217,800 NA NA 162 NW SF,R1, Montview Park 30 1,306,800 980.10 287 162 NW SF,R3 20 871,200 653.40 573 162 NW St. Luke's Hos ital 40 1,742,400 475.20 7,974 162 NW Nursin Home,300 bed 5 217,800 54.45 780 162 NW Office 40 1,742,400 435.60 14,884 ' 162 NW General Retail 21 914,760 228.69 9,301 162 NW Canal, etc. 4 174,240 NA NA 162. SUBTOTAL 320 13,939,200 7,325 47,986 284 SW SF,R1 40 1,742,400 1,306.80 382 284 SW Park and Ride 2 87,120 82.76 1,726 284 SW Power Center 73 3,179,880 714.40 24 885 284 SW Flood Plain 45 1,960,200 NA NA 284 SE SF,R1 80 3,484,800 2,613.60 764 284 SE SF,R3 44 1,916,640 1,437.48 1,261 284 SE Retail 15 653 400 163.35 6 643 284 SE anal, 1-84 H 21 914,760 NA NA 284 SUBTOTAL 320 13,939,200 6,318 35,661 283 NE SF,R1 135 5,880,600 4,410.45 1,289 283 NE SF,R1 10 435,600 326.70 96 283 NE Retail 10 435,600 108.90 4 429 283 NE Office 5 217,800 54.45 886 283 NW SF,R1 38 1,655,280 1,241.46 363 283 NW SF,R3 100 4,356,000 3,267.00 2,865 283 NW Retail 10 435,600 108.90 4,429 283 NW Flood Plain, eic 12 522.720 NA NA 283 SW SF,R3 78 3,397,680 2,548.26 2,235 283 SW Industrial Park 15 653,400 163.35 1,139 283 SW Golf/Recreation ( 15 653,400 653.40 125 283 SW Retail 24 1,045,440 261.36 10,630 283 SW Office 12 522,720 130.68 1 718 283 SW 1-84 R-O-W 16 696,960 NA NA 283 SE SF,R1 35 1,524,600 1,143.45 334 283 SE SF,R1 10 435,600 326.70 96 283 SE Retail 34 1 481 040 370.26 15 058 283 SE Office 10 435,600 108.90 1,497 283 SE Li ht Industrial 4 174 240 43.56 304 283 SE 1-84 R-O-W 67 2,918,520 NA NA i -283 I SUBTOTAL 640 27,878,400 15,268 47,493 U T~F~In d f nntin~~pri • i TAZ I Section vvLand Use i i Acres SaF GFA 000 Trip Generation 286 I NE Retail i 114 4,965,840 1,241.46 50,490 286 I NE SF,R3 ! 33 1,437,480 1,078.11 945 286 INE Li ht Industrial 13 566,280 141.57 987 286 NW SF,R1 39 1,698,840 1,274.13 372 2861NW SF,R3 97 4,225,320 3,168.99 2,779 286 NW School Site 15 653,400 653.40 7,004 286 NW Retail 5 217,800 54.45 2,214 286 NW Canal, etc. 4 174,240 NA NA 286 SW SF,R3 145 6,316,200 4,737.15 4,154 286 SW Retail 10 435,600 108.90 4,429 286 SW Canal, etc 5 217,800 NA NA 2861 SE SF,R3 117 5,096,520 3,822.39 3,352 286 SE Office ~ 30 1,306,800 326.70 3,434 286 SE Retail 10 435,600 108.90 4,429 286 SE Canal, etc. 3 130 680 NA NA 286 SUBTOTAL 640 27,878,400 16,716 84,589 285 NE SF,R1 69 3,005,640 2,254.23 659 285 NE SF,R2 65 2,831,400 2,123.55 .1,242 285 NE Retail 10 435,600 108.90 4,429 285 NE Flood Plain, Canal 16 696,960 NA NA 285 NW SF R3 60 2,613,600 1,960.20 1 719 285 NW Retail 65 2,831,400 707.85 28,788 285 NW Office 27 1,176,120 294.03 3.171 285 NW Flood Plain 8 348 480 NA NA 285 SW SF,R2 122 5,314,320 3,985.74 2,330 285 SW Retail 15 653,400 163.35 6,643 285 SW Office 15 653,400 163.35 2 033 285 SW Canal, etc. 8 348,480 NA NA 285 SE SF,R1 54 2,352,240 1,764.18 516 285 SE SF,R1 93 4,051,080 3,038.31 888 285 SE Retail 10 435,600 108.90 4,429 285 SE Canal etc. 3 130 680 NA NA 285 SUBTOTAL 640 27,878,400 16,673 56,847 (GRAND TO AL 2560 11,513,600 62,300 272,576 ~,~;..~ • Facts and Findings: General Information A. RT -Existing zoning C-G -Requested zoning 73.5 -Acres 714,000 -Square feet of proposed building 284 -Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada -Impact Fee Benefit Zone Western Cities -Impact Fee Overland Road Minor arterial wi Traffic count 5,2 140-feet of fronts 50-feet existing r: 108-feet required Overland Road is roadwav is:elevat~ B. The consider __,, and will prb bly when reconstructed as an urban roadway. application has been deferred by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission until September 12, 1995. C. Access to the site from Interstate 84 and Eagle Road is prohibited by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). Without acquiring additional property, the site can only be provided with one point of access that is proposed to be a private driveway connection to Overland Road. The proposed access road is approximately 1,200 feet east of the Eagle Road intersection. D. The site is currently under agricultural production. Two single family residences occupy a portion of the site. It is inevitable that this site will develop for some highly intensive land use. The site's exposure to the interstate highway makes it highly desirable for the type of land use being proposed, however the site's single point of connection to the arterial system causes severe problems of traffic dispersal. It would be much better if the project were to be located on a site that has direct access to two (or more) arterials instead of one. This report .points out the problems that intensive development of this property (and others in the area) will cause the local transportation system in a rapidly developing rural area. E. An unimproved gravel roadway borders the western portion of the project site and Eagle Road that currently serves a single family residence and an unimproved parcel owned by ITD. This roadway is proposed to become secondary access to the site. The ITD owned parcel is planned to be developed into spark-and-ride lot. MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 2 u ~~ -~ ~~~ 1 r~'C:.Y ~: *:a, .. At`. ~n~ , . ~,,., R from centerline) 28-feet of pavement without curb, gutter or sidewalk. The feet above the surrounding property as is common in rural roads F. Eagle Road north of Ove~d Road is under the jurisdiction of ITS full access control on the Interstate 84 ramps and on Eagle Road between I- verland Road, therefore prohibiting access to this site from Eagle Road and ,- Loper is required to submit application materials to ITD for the review and req `~ emen epartme~f. G. Excepting the approaches to the Eagle Road irate ;Overland a 2-lane roadway from Five Mile Road to Meridian Road. Both Ove" , ad legs of the signalized Eagle Road intersection have left turn lanes. A volume of 15 ~ trips per day has been identified as Level of Service (LOS) C to be used for Lon a plat , ses for two lane roadways such as Overland Road. LOS C is the sirabl a (not capacity) established by APA as a guideline in the 2010 Tr rta last measured traffic volume on Overland Road east of Eagle Road w 5,29 he 1993 g~lmated volume west of Eagle Road on Overland was 7,265 p ct is ~ east to generate 7,855 trips per day east of the site on Overland Road and tri est gle Road, increasing the estimated traffic on Overland Road east of the 0 13, 13,217 west of Eagle Road. Although the traffic volumes des' esholds on the roadways, the inordinate number of turning mov the way and the Overland/Eagle intersection require special intersection design. sect "built-out" to an ultimate configuration in advance of the roadway se the reater traffic volumes can be sustained before LOS C delays are exp raced b 4; ' rity of the traffic. H. Currently, gle Road sou of Overland Road is a 2-lane roadway and north of Overland Road to the I- transiti anes is a 4-lane roadway. Eagle Road has single left turn lanes on both legs ; ~ ~ d Overland Road intersection. Traffic: A. The developer has submitted a traffic study for this project. Staff has reviewed and accepted the traffic analysis. The traffic study recommended a number of major improvements to the segment of Overland Road between the site's driveway and Eagle Road and to the Overland/Eagle intersection. These improvements will add the needed capacity to the immediate system to accommodate the additional traffic from this project, but will not replace the unused capacity in the system that currently exists. Even with the roadway improvement proposed by the developer, there will be a net loss in intersection capacity at the Overland Road/Eagle Road intersection. The key elements of the developer's traffic study are as follows: On-site • The planned commercial center will include approximately 714,000 square feet of gross leasable area. • The proposed project is forecast to generate 2,324 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour. • The proposed project is forecast to generate 24,885 daily vehicle trips. • A single access roadway from Overland Road is proposed to serve the project site. A secondary, emergency access road is planned on the west side of the site that will also connect to Overland Road. • The site access road will require three southbound and two northbound lanes. • A traffic signal will be required at the intersection of the site access road with Overland Road. MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 3 • Off-site -Overland Road/Eagle Road • Westbound Overland Road will need an ac intersection. • The segment of Overland Road between E, ultimate widening to seven traffic lanes; two lanes, two westbound through lanes, and an • The southbound approach of the Eagle Road/ widening to three left turn lanes with tl accommodation for pedestrians with an o • The south and west legs of the Eagle R , ~` 0 to match the added lanes north and F` t of d • The east leg of the site access roa erl the added lanes west of the site~_ ess r~/ 1~ at the site access road the sl „ Sss~oad will require i~h lanes ~~~~ astbound left turn right turn lane. ~rsection will require ultimate pedestrian crossings or the oa ° ~itersection will require widening d/Overland Road intersection. rsection will require widening to match Road intersection. B. ACRD staff has: ed ~ atio ~ Overland/Eagle intersection and found that it currently ope OS an average delay of about 10 seconds per vehicle, and uses about 15 pare ~ e infe n's capacity of critical volumes. (Critical volumes are the specific in = - lum at conflict with each other, e.g., the southbound left W_ turns conflict ~ the no d through movements.) If this project is developed, and the recomm ' dad improv have been constructed, the traffic will use 44 percent of the capaci `` of critical volumes of the intersection. Staff recommends that the developer be requir ~` replace 29 percent of capacity of critical volumes that the development will use o' the capacity provided by the recommended improvements. This can be ac~p y adding a through lane to each of the four legs of the intersection. C. Based upon the submitted traffic study and District policy, staff recommends that the developer be required to make the following roadway improvements that are necessary to accommodate the site generated traffic in the short term, prior to the build out of the four square mile impact area. These unprovements will replace the current unused capacity of critical volumes of the Overland Road/Eagle Road intersection: On-site • The access road will be constructed to include three southbound and two northbound lanes. • A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of the site access road with Overland Road. Off-site -Overland Road/Eagle Road • A continuous right turn lane on westbound Overland Road between the site access road and Eagle Road. This includes the transition on Eagle Road north of the intersection. • A continuous through lane on eastbound Overland Road between the site access road and Eagle Road. This includes the transition on Overland Road east of the site driveway and on Overland Road west of Eagle Road. • A second southbound left turn lane on Eagle Road at the Overland Road intersection. This includes the transition on Eagle Road south of Overland Road. • A separate right turn lane on westbound Overland Road for the site access road. • A separate through lane on each leg of the Overland Road/Eagle Road intersection. MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 4 D. No stub streets are planner the project. All internal roadways ~ri _" te. One additional site access is possible in the future as adjacent residential land re 1Q ~ 'and should be preserved along the eastern portion of the project site. If theadjo' esidential area redevelops, connecting access to the site is possible. ACHD "°~emmen City of Meridian that no buildings be allowed to develop along the southe ~ 0 feet the ' oundary , so the potential additional access road will not be bloc Sub-Regional Transportation Study A. This application was before the Commission _ , 199 that meeting, the Commission deferred action on the application and requ A ssociation (APA) to conduct asub- regional land use/transportation analy of fo miles surrounding this site. That analysis was completed by APA on t 1 ~ 95. a volumes of traffic forecast by the APA study to be generated within th r s re m' area are shown in Table 4, immediately following the map at the fro his r is findings have been summarized by District staff as follows: • The analysis was req C nse to the Power Center application, the St. Luke's project north of I-84, the Bevu (no I-84, east of St. Luke's), and other anticipated developments in the Eagle Road dor. tual plans for the referenced properties indicate a much higher level of developmen an is assum ' ong Range Transportation Plan. The purpose of the transportation analysis was determine the II ortation impacts of these plans and determine the amount of additional roadway iml vements that ~z~ay be needed to accommodate those impacts. • The conce~'' ea represents approximately four square miles (2,560 acres), including the entire area bound Grove Road, Franklin Road, Cloverdale Road and Victory Road. Approximately 150 acres (6% of the total) are undevelopable, including the I-84 corridor, canals, and flood plains. The 2015 forecast trip generation from the entire area is estimated at 272,500 daily vehicle trips. This is roughly equivalent to 27,000 single family homes or seven Boise Town Square Malls. The forecast trip generation was based on a land use scenario developed by E.J. Smith and Associates under contract to APA and reviewed by ACHD staff, City of Meridian staff and some officials, and APA staff. The analysis assumed that the entire area would be built out by 2015. Maps 5 and 6 show the traffic in the study area now and in 20 years assuming full build out of the study area. This project will generate 9.1 percent of the total traffic in the study area by year 2015, but occupies only 3.1 percent of the land area and directs that traffic to the arterial system at only one location. APA's modeling effort used the Bench to Valley Transportation Study network which~ncluded the Five Mile Road interchange. The roadway volume forecast in the Eagle Road corridor will increase over the estimated traffic volumes in this report if the Five Mile interchange is not constructed. The Five Mile interchange was included in the network assumption because this system improvement would be necessary to support the proposed high level of development and its resulting traffic. The Bench/Valley network used in the analysis is the proposed network developed as a result of the Mazch 2, 1995 community-wide meeting, and it is essentially equivalent to several versions that are currently under consideration. With respect to this area of the County, it is most important to note the Five Mile interchange assumption. It is not feasible to consider such an intense sub-regional development without a Five Mile intercha MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 5 • • Eagle Road and Franklin Road are principal arterials and Overland Road Traffic Services staff ran computer analyses of the operation of he , intersection analyzing its current operation, its operation.. and its operation with this project plus the full build ou results of that analysis indicate that the Overland Road at LOS B or better, having less than 10 seconds ofia approximately 15 percent of its capacity of critical volum Overland Road/Eagle Road intersections fall below Level and arterial roadway design with the planned level ofilev~ square mile impact area without this project, the..' t rse operate at LOS D, with an average delay of 34. the Power Center and the improvemen ,~' o t6 intersection will operate worse than the, deg seconds per vehicle. Extensive roadway. `'ten be required to attain an acceptable evel Eagle/Overland intersections. ~ :` ,,, Both the a minor arterial. ACRD Berland Road/Eagle Road but no other development, mile impact area. The ion c~tr`rently operates ~'e;and currently uses ii'"Road/Eagle Road and D using any conventional intersection e t,. Assuming build out of the four ction: ~' ^"~' uire additional lanes but will er veh'' _, Adding the forecast traffic from c ' `proposed by the developer, the OS F, with an average delay of 62.8 orm of grade separated interchanges would (D or better) at the Eagle/Franklin and ACRD staff hasss,,~'~ `. d a ph nfigu ion of an interchange for the Overland Road/Eagle Road intersection: _' sag arated intersection with the north-south traffic on Eagle passing unimpeded ben truc hich Overland Road traffic would pass over Eagle Road. Two separate inters ` ~ d ~~ of Eagle Road would split the northbound and southbound turning movemeip to Overtan and the traffic on Overland Road trying to access Eagle Road. The southbound leg of this sp~i -_ ersection would operate at LOS F (average delay of more than 60 seconds pert; ehicle) because of the high number of left turns by southbound Eagle Road traffic turning eas ', to Overlan oad to the Power Center. The northbound leg would operate at LOS C becausest~ redom' a turning movement would be right turns from the Power Center going back to I- ` ;, ,; oad. Alternative interchange designs are possible. The costs of the grade separated intersection improvements ($5 million to $8 million per intersection) would be the predominant extra-ordinary cost of the high level of development being considered in the area ifright-of--way for major roadway widening is obtained with development and mitigation requirements do not escalate between the time of the adjacent development and the construction of the ultimate roadway section. The APA analysis indicates that Eagle Road will have 57,000 trips per day along the one mile plus segment from south of Overland Road to north of Franklin Road, requiring widening to a minimum of eight lanes. Overland Road will have a maximum of 30,400 and 24,600 trips per day east of Eagle Road, and east of the site driveway, respectively, and would require widening to four lanes for most of its length with special treatment at the Eagle Road intersection in order to operate at an acceptable level of service. The special treatment will probably require a grade separated intersection as described above. Left turn lanes would be necessary at other intersections of existing and future local roads. Overland Road would require six lanes from Eagle Road to the entrance to the Power Center (plus the westbound right turn lane to Eagle Road), because of the site related traffic. Overland Road west of Eagle Road will have 26,400 trips per day upon build out of the impact area, including the traffic from the Power Center. Franklin Road will have a maximum of 23,000 trips per day west of Eagle Road and 25,500 trips per day east of Eagle Road. Severe problems with left turns at the Eagle Road intersection (westbound to southbound) will also require some form of special intersection design similar to Overland Road described above. MCU-7-95/M1tZ-2-95 Page 6 • • B. Prior to the receipt of this application, another tr anal ° as prepared for the District covering the azea north of I-84 and east of Eagle.. f din n with E. L. Bews annexation and conditional use application. M _ ~ ews '~ s f ~R east of the St. Luke's property. In contrast to the analysis conduc ' f A, the S ews, et al traffic analysis did not assume that a Five Mile interchan d be built, as a development of the projects north of I-84 seem to be likely regazdle nch-Valley outcome and results. Although that analysis did not include the Five Mi inter 't used the previously assumed APA 2015 land use in the sub-regional azea main Ada County so the lower trip generation in the surrounding area somew ce a lack of a Five Mile interchange. Thus, the two studies yield similaz and - mpat e The conclusions of the St. Luke' below: The provision o est c across the St. Luke's properly to the Bews property provides a significant improve a op the Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection. However, the added traffic from th corm across the St. Luke's property would seriously degrade the operation of the a int rsection with Eagle Road. The addition of this roadway would delay the need an interch Franklin/Eagle intersection, similar to that described above for the Overlan axle intersec_ The prop 'ntensity of velopment in the area will require unanticipated and unfunded inordinate widening ~ the area. Alternatively, in order to maintain currently accepted Levels of Service an ce of these inordinate widening requirements using more conventional roadway designs, limits ions of development intensity will be necessary. C. Both traffic analyses indicated that, under long term conditions, the existing transportation system is not adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the developments proposed and anticipated in this area. The proposed project, expected spinoff projects and other known projects north of Interstate 84 are all unanticipated in the Long Range Transportation Plan. D. The build-out of this project, the ensuing spin-off development in the immediate area, and the anticipated longer term development in the four square mile impact area will negatively impact the District's Five Year Work Program, if currently acceptable levels of service are to be maintained, and will create a need for transportation system improvements that are currently unanticipated and for which funding has not been identified. These findings must be established and adopted as a basis for the imposition of extraordinary impact fees. E. Based on the need for these unanticipated roadway improvements, it would follow that some form of extraordinary impact fee could be required to fund the offsite roadway improvements needed to make the system operate at the current level of service, or that the needed improvements be constructed by the developers of the impacting projects. Eagle Road, which requires widening to eight lanes, is not eligible for the expenditure of extraordinary fees that might be imposed by the District. MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 7 • • F. Facilities Financing Districts are used in other states to finance o tion of state, local and private roadway improvements. This would be extre h this (and other) cases, but cannot be done without special authorization by th aho Le y,. G. An ironic twist to this application/site allowed by act fee ordi is the developer's option to prepare an individual assessment and po obtain a substantial reduction of the regular impact fee, because of the usage of the In way and State Highway systems by some customers of this project to make part o e trip ° velopment. Although much of the volume of traffic to and from the s :_ I-84 ost of the 1~ngth of the trips getting to the vicinity of the Power to the specific site are the cause of existing capacity of critical volu "- that are necessary to get level of service and exhaustion of Road/Eagle Road intersection. Alternative Actions: A. Adopt and impos aord" act fee for all development within the four square mile affected area. This d to a development to other locations, causing problems there. A disadv d' impact fees is that they are collected over a long period ~~, of time, whe ~ e improv ~ ey are to pay for may be needed immediately. This would require a oval acco efforts, major commitments of staff time to administer contracts th developers providing the design and construction, and the provision of constru pectin ~ d oversight. The extra-' unpact fee could be calculated by either of the following methods: i. Compute the total estimated cost of the off-site improvements that are required to maintain an acceptable LOS and divide by the total number of estimated trips in the four square mile impact area). The result would be applied to each land use as development was being approved as a fee for each forecast vehicle trip generated by the proposed use. A staff estimate indicates that the cost of needed improvements in the area is $27 million and the number of trips is 272,500, resulting in an extraordinary impact fee of $99.08 per trip. Relating this to actual land uses, a single family dwelling would have an extraordinary impact fee of $990.80 in addition to the regular impact fee of $900 ($687 if smaller than 1500 square feet). A 30,000 square foot office building would have an extraordinary impact fee of $36,248 in addition to a regular impact fee of $102,060. A 3,000 square foot convenience store would have an extraordinary impact fee of $131,834 in addition to the regular impact fee of $277,290. This is the method used in the calculation of the regular impact fee and assigns the fee to the source of travel demand. ii. The cost of the off-site improvements could be divided by the number of developable acres of land in the impact area. The result would be assessed on each acre of land as it is developed. This would place an unfair share of the cost on residential development, or eliminate any land uses with low traffic generation rates. ($27,000,000 / 2406 acres = $11,220 /acre = $2805 / dwelling, at four dwellings per acre). MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 8 B. Require the construction b~this developer now, of the off-site imp~v ' ents that are needed to accommodate the traffic needs of the future development an " ' '~` in the four square mile impact area that would impact Overland Road, s' y, e t e only road to which the project would take access, then use regular or ex ` ordina~` fees ove~the long term of growth to reimburse the developer for his cost. ; e dev„ er ` ~ursed for some or all of the construction costs, but may have to a cost of the expense until he is totally reimbursed. (Extra-ordinary impact f ~ not be collected from the developer that constructed the improvements, but they w`i' uted for his development and subtracted from the total cost of the improveme o be d). This action would be in lieu of establishing an extraordinary impac ear be,,~o r ~' a rs of property abutting the four mp area install additional system improvements ur fro egular impact fees collected within the e im dinance and is currently being used by the wem verland Road from Cloverdale to Meridian to Victory are currently qualified 6y the Capital pact fee revenue. Victory Road along the south urrently eligible for the use of impact fee revenue to does not anticipate this level of development in this area. This wo equire less ditional staff time and accounting than described in A. above. It would vide then ed improvements as development occurs and assess the costs of those im ` the developments causing the need. C. Form a LocTImprovement District (LID) to finance the construction of the off-site improvements and assess either extra-ordinary impact fees or the usual property tax liens to pay off the cost of the improvement. This would require the cooperation and cost of some landowners that may not have plans to develop their property and it would cost all owners the same per unit of land regardless of the ultimate use of their property. However it would provide all of the improvements needed to meet the anticipated impacts prior to all the development occurring. The cost to be financed would equal the cost of the extraordinary impact per acre under A.ii. above ($27,000,000 / 2406 acres = $11,220 per acre). D. Accept the responsibility to meet the challenge created by the intensive development that is forecast in this area and fund whatever level of roadway improvements are affordable usi*?R the revenue currently available to the District and accept a deficient Level of S~: vice until needed improvements can be funded and constructed. The regular impact fees from the forecast development will be a substantial sum, but will be collected as the traffic is being generated and will not provide sufficient time for project design, right-of--way acquisition and construction (usually a three year time frame). This could last several years, while the District was trying to build itself out of the shortfall. The developer of this proposed project has estimated the regular impact fee revenue to be generated by the level of development forecast by APA in the four square mile impact area to be $22 million at build out. Staff agrees with this amount, based on current published trip lengths and network adjustment factors. However, using new trip length and network MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 9 • ! adjustment data provided by APA, ACHD staff calculated the unt of regular impact fee to be $16,700,000, if the area develops according to the labid scenario developed by APA. ACHD staff estimated the cost of accommodating tli : is from the same level of development at $27 million, including: • two grade separated intersections for Eagle RoadAa verland R - d Franklin Road, • widening Overland Road and Franklin Road to es between Cloverdale Road and Locust Grove Road, • widening Victory Road to three lanes betwee lover- d and Locust Grove Road, • widening Eagle Road to five lanes from O Roa ictory Road. ~; A variation of this option would be mod`ifi they construct their projects, requ' ' ' project. The difference between a an reimbursement to the develo uld development wi ~~~ a im ~ ~ a. ~~ interest on his more. til h bur of the problem, in li the developer if the_ ' ~ ` E. Pursue enab,' ~ g legislation parties wi_ an impact a recomme t this le ' ed ' pa a set agreements with developers as un "~ veme to the system that are relative to their egula pact fee offset agreements would be that until the revenue was available from other e developer would be required to absorb the sed. That would be his contribution to the solution impact fee. No mechanism is available to reimburse never occur. w "partnering" between the State (ITD), ACRD and private to provide joint funding for the required improvements. Staff n be pursued anyway, whether this development occurs or not. F. Recommen , f the application on the basis that the development will exceed the ability of the 'ghway District to maintain current levels of service on the impacted roadways and intersections. This action ignores the likelihood that this property and the surrounding property will eventually be developed for some intensive form of land use, with or without the District's approval. G. Accept the project with the regular impact fee revenue that will be collected, recommending to the City of Meridian that the developer be required to construct the site related improvements to Overland Road and to the Overland/Eagle intersection, including the additional lane on each leg of the intersection. This action will replace the lost unused capacity at the intersection, but will make no provision for other growth in the area. An alternative to this option would be to establish the four square mile area as a separate impact fee benefit zone and commit all of the impact fee revenue from the new zone to construct arterial improvements only within the zone as development occurs along them. This action would alter the schedule of capacity improvement projects in the balance of the Meridian area, since it would take revenue that currently go to the construction of those projects. H. Require developers of property abutting the four arterial roads in the four square mile impact area to install additional system improvements along those roadways and be reimbursed from extraordinary impact fees imposed on the properties in the interior of the sections. This would result in spreading the cost of the improvements among all the MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 10 properties in the impac~ea as they developed, and the need ' ` provements would be provided more quickly than the District could program, deli' construct them if they were to be done as District sponsored projects. ~"~ .. I. Require the developers of all property in the im act areat''(and~ctivide) to replace a pro-rata share of the then available unused capau ~ k• intersections~and roadways. The unused capacity would be quantified includin a for background District wide traffic and adjusted downward as each propertyri ed area is developed, so there would be no unused capacity in the system when the 40 percent developed. Recommended Alternative: Staff recommends that a combination of ~ to ~ ves G ~ and I. be adopted for this and future applications in the area. Accept the d opm ~ (s), r, uiruig the developers to make whatever improvements to the system are nec s i to eir site related impacts, ~ replace any unused capacity in the_ ~ tha evel'` uses up. Use regular impact fee revenue to make needed capacity' en F are available and the Commission budgets funds for the improvements. This tin _ lic having to cope with deficient levels of service in some cases until revenue~~!.as ' 1. to ; " e the required improvements. Staff Recommend ' ~~ If the application ~, : proved, the' allowing requirements should be forwarded to Meridian as conditions for approval. Site Specific Prior to the construction of Phase I of this project: 1. Comply with requirements of ITD for Interstate Highway 84 and Eagle Road'frontage. Submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements. 2. The main site access shall be provided through an access roadway as shown on the site plan. The access road shall have three southbound traffic lanes and two northbound traffic lanes. The exiting (southbound) lanes shall include two left turn lanes, and one right turn lane. A fully actuated traffic signal shall be installed at the site access road intersection with Overland Road, with design and construction acceptable to the District. The access road and traffic signal improvements shall be constructed at the initial phase of site development. Easements shall be granted to ACRD for the maintenance of signal detectors that are located outside the public right-of--way. 3. Dedicate 54-feet of right-of--way from the centerline of Overland Road abutting the parcel (29 additional feet) and abutting the parcel between the site and Eagle Road. The owner 114 will be compensated for this additional right-of--way. The additional right-of--way would not otherwise be required for several years without the development of this parcel, therefore it is a project related impact, not reimbursable under either the District's ordinance or the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act. MCU-7-95/NIRZ-2-95 Page 11 • • 4. Dedicate a 25' x 25' triangle (or appropriate curve) of rig f- at both comers of the Overland Road/site access road to keep the street imp me a public right-of-way. The owner will ~ be compensated for this additional -of-w '' 5. Maintain public access along the western border o ect to the park and ride lot. This access will also serve as secondary access t jest, the park and ride lot and for emergency vehicles. 6. Maintain a 100-foot clear zone/non-build ar a eas to border between the building fronts and the southeast comer of the ~ to tore external site connection to abutting parcels. 7. Roadway improvements to Overl oa Ea Road may be constructed in two or three phases as the site is developed desc ' Phase I The following road ove be constructed prior to occupancy of the first phase of development, 4 square feet (60% of the proposed development): • Construct a site acces with three southbound and two northbound traffic lanes. Coord' the roadway sign with District Traffic Services staff. • Install ffic si t the intersection of the site access road with Overland Road. Coord' . esign with District Traffic Services staff. • Constru us westbound traffic lane on Overland Road between the site access road and the Eag a oad intersection. Coordinate the roadway design with District Traffic Services staff. • Construct an added right tom lane on westbound Overland Road east of the site access road. Coordinate the roadway design with District Traffic Services staff. Obtain and dedicate 54 feet of right-of--way (27-additional feet) along Overland Road from the site's driveway to the east terminus of the added right turn lane and required tapers. • Construct one left tom lane (eastbound) on Overland Road at the site access road. • Construct, or deposit the cost thereof, a median island in Overland Road for the access road into the Park and Ride lot. Phase II The following additional roadway improvements shall be constructed prior to the development of phase II, approximately 645,000 square total feet (90% of the proposed development): • Construct a second southbound left turn lane on Eagle Road at the Overland Road intersection. Construct any additional roadway widening on Eagle Road south of Overland Road needed to match the roadway widening north of Overland Road. Coordinate the roadway design with District Traffic Services staff. MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 12 Ph • The following additional roadway improvements shall be 714,000 square foot development (100 % of the propose • Construct a second westbound traffic lane on I the Eagle Road intersection. Construct any east of the project site that is needed to match • Construct any additional roadway widening needed to match the roadway widening betweE the roadway design with District Traffic , "~~ • Construct one additional through 1 on intersection to replace the current unused,c . t:, Traffic Services staff. • Consh uct curb, gutter and sev oot e east of the site's, driveway to wthe en Coordinate th `~ 'gn witi trio 8. Construct pedestri~ compliance with Id 9. Locate propn~ed sign(s) ow of all stree d driveway i 11. None of r ; ~ p~ reimburse Standard Requirements: to completion of the siteaccess road and away wide`,nuig'on Overland Road widening west of the project site. a2oad west of Eagle Road that is d Eagle Road. Coordinate - ° P i betv~t' ;, Overland Road/Eagle Road pate the design with District id ~~alk along Overland Road, from 500-feet ersection transition west of Eagle Road. Services staff. on t r of Overland Road and the main site driveway in ~Secti ? 40-1335. public right-of--way and- out of the clear-vision sight-triangle described above will be eligible for impact fee offset or 1. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made, in writing, to the Manager of Engineering Services within 15 calendar davs of the original Commission action. The request shall include a statement explaining why such a requirement would result in substantial hardship or inequity and minimum fee of $110.00. 2. A permit must be obtained from ACHD for any street or utility construction within the public right-of--way. Utility cuts should be combined where practical to limit pavement damage. Contact Construction Services at 345-7667 (with zoning file number) for details. 3. Submit site drainage plans and calculations for review and appropriate action by ACHD. The proposed drainage system shall conform to the requirements of Meridian and shall retain all storm water on-site. Public street drainage facilities shall be located in the public right-of--way or in a common lot owned by a homeowners association set aside specifically for that use. There shall be no trees, fences, bushes, sheds, or other valuable amenities placed in said easement. Drainage lots and their use restrictions shall be noted on the plat (when applicable). 4. Locate driveway curb cuts a minimum of 5-feet from the side lot property lines when driveways MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 13 . • are not being shared with the adjacent property. 5. Locate obstructions (utility facilities, irrigation and c proposed street improvements. Authorization fo appropriate entity. 6. Specifications, land surveys, reports, plats, drawings presented to ACRD shall be sealed, signed and dated Professional Land Surveyor, in compliance wi 7. Provide design data for proposed access xo-pub ACRD. ~,~ 8. Submit three sets of street construction plan ~ they ~p ~ ces, etc.) outside of the io ~ ~_. __ be obtained from the design information and calculations :e istered Professional Engineer or tion 54-1215. ~ieview and appropriate action by for review and appropriate action. Should you have a estiori~W ents, please contact the Development Services Division ~~ at 345-7662. ,.. MCU-7-95/MRZ-2-95 Page 14 CENTRAL •• DISTRICT 'HEALTH DEPARTMENT REVIEW SHEET Environmental Health Division Rezone # Conditional Use # ~°~oa6 ~2 ~,c TuiG ,aro~~~-c T' ~~ Preliminary /Final /Short Plat ^ I. We have Objections to this Proposal. Return to: ^ Boise ^ Eagle ^ Garden city ~-Meridian ^ Kuna ^ Acz ^ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal. ^ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. ^ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. ^ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of: ^ high seasonal ground water ^ solid lava from original grade ^ 6. We can Approve this Proposal for individual sewage disposal to be located above solid lava layers: ^ 2 feet ^ 4 feet ~-7. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: ..central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water well ^ interim sewage S~.central water ^ individual sewage ^ individual water ~8. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water ^ sewage dry lines central water ~-9. Street Runoff is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ^ 10. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. ^ I I . If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. ^ 12. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: ^ food establishment ^ swimming pools or spas ^ child care center ^ beverage establishment ^ grocery store QQ 13. ~/F ~~'CoMrr/a® iyON~r'ar~Ny Tl,E 7Tli C lj~dNGL~Ge,.~~2Date: ~l 2(O l <S .rf3' 7is i„S .si rE 7'0 ~~-7~R.~iN~ 7~it /`~i ~! ~ Yo~~.c~ Reviewed By~- WM?o'~2 1F SwkL~S Mtn NoT ~}SCD t»2 .ST~RMINq-T~ T126/I"77~'-~n/7 : S'6~ i437'74Cf'11LG7 ~Goi`1ME^//~i477D~ , ® jy' , I f-rl S prop~.~ A~A-S OGC.vp~a~D i3 y ~ S~P~'<G~ ~TNIL ~/~`J~O/fib- COM~oiMN '~.EV- a vv II y A ~ ~ ts2.ECC~4 M~naa , [DHO 10/91 rcb, ~. I u93 ill