Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMagic View Office Complex AZH U B OF TREASURE VALLEY Mayor k LEGAL DEPARTMENT ROBERT D. CORRIE A Good Place t0 Live (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 City Council Members CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 RON ANDERSON (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING City Clerk Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT KEITH BIRD (208) 884-5533 • Faz 887-1297 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 recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: November 26, 1999 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 10, 1999 HEARING DATE: December 14, 1999 FILE NUMBER: AZ 99-022 REQUEST: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 10 ACRES FROM RT TO LO FOR PROPOSED MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX BY: W.H. MOORE COMPANY LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: EAGLE ROAD/MAGIC VIEW TAMMY DE WEERD, P/Z KENT BROWN, P/Z THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C KEITH BIRD, C/C GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT _SANITARY SERVICE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT _POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL) YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: BRS99123.02 4 • CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone: (208) 888-4433 Fax: (208) 887-4813 NOV 0 3 1999' CITE' DP kIF:RIDIAN PIAA�`NIIi & 7.I'at -OZZ APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OR REZONE PROPOSED NAME OF SUBDIVISION: Existing Magic View Sub. GENERAL LOCATION: Eagle Road/Magic View TYPE (RESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL): Office ACRES OF LAND IN PROPOSED ANNEXATION: • Ten (10 PRESENT LAND USE: Residential PROPOSED LAND USE: office PRESENT ZONING DISTRICT: RT (County) PROPOSED. ZONING DISTRICT: LO (City of Meridian) APPLICANT: W H Moore Com any _PHONE: 323-1919 ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 8204 (Boise ID 83707-2204) ENGINEER, SURVEYOR, OR PLANNER: Billy Ray Strite PHONE: 336-8370 ADDRESS: 1087 W. River, Suite 160 Boise, ID 83702 OWNER(S) OF RECORD: W. H. Moore/,Tim Boyd PHONE: 323-1919 ADDRESS: Harvard/Geneva Hanks ress: V. U. Box Boise, ID 83707-=22 U ignatur Ap t �� t • a 1. . CKr S 1k I dad a - 7`1 m ARCHITECTS N'S S BRS Architects, A.I.A. 1087 West River Street, Suite 160 Boise, Idaho 83702 .4 Telephone 208 336-8370 j q Fax 208 336-8380 -;V,. S. j Z'V N6VEffib6'r'- lY li'i "'.7, fe" -A, I �u �i Z ttn:;-rBrad' ,HqWKin8, '-'Clark TROM';." - KAY stfit6�;%*_'., -V Z7, qf. J, rz X.46W Dffidgt, 1--n ..991-23' -t4l1-BRS'-Pf�j6Ct'--Nb*' 4* 14 Pill Alla= j 151 ce y'I _�—�- I' I LT --------- 4-F --- -- q. r iw- ------ - ------- -----'L 2 I J 1 .� -� F'E° .yam '.i'd xG"�_.-r�C•v>GI t '-` Y'"r4kk''' �4 tE y�9 a mai- !^ur' �7 +.`✓ "�izx 'W `I r ra r t{. � a � . .arson°°° + � � �✓,. �'; '�,•�,�,�z"�` ,�>� '^c�� � w�,�"' , ..: E r Y fi � '� J � y�. Thr t�>_Y,3,u��-�• `?Z r, "� '�p"r �f ^�."'�. i +t \1 "s nF nvp i i t i+I r ;,'III � � Y. � � � (' 1 ' � - ; • '-'' � Ile � I I:I I �' —1 it I�' ' F I ^+..,ryL'st i - � -•t �'."'�a 4+.. } li �.iw.J.110Do1FL.� { I c r— `� I �� l'+` ..�y'iTr `3..#-'il(�ry c etc• C x•�1 r �j { 1 d"!', I 9 I^�v^'--- I _ �. 1 1 .} cL� 1 ..y. •ice�,>.a'� j.. ----------------- �v.G:G�I��;;�.�1'►CA��?Ll>���,�1'���GS�0.lC;����il�% �?G�ytic),p0.� ��Cf;?��Al�?�:;� < <.� crc� �� c t�: WARRANT t7 (INDIVIDUAL) FOR VALUE RECEIVED RICHARD L. MOORE and BARBARA L. MOORE, Husband and Wife GRANTOR(s) does (do) hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY unto JAMES L. BOYD, a married matt and WINSTON H. MOORE, a:married man --} GRANTEE(S), whose current address is: P.O. Box 8204, Boise, Idaho 83707 xl' the following described real property in Ada4_ County', State of Idaho, more particularly described as follows, to wit:' �y LOT 2 IN THE AMENDED MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION, ACCUP.DIP+ G TO THE PLAT THEREOF, FILED IN BOOK 52 OF PLATS AT PAGES 4445 AND 4446, AND AS REFERRED TO IN THAT CERTAIN INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER NO. 8400642, AND AMENDED BY AFFIDAVITS RECORDED UNDER INSTRUMENT NO.'S 8429311 AND 96044575, RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY, IDAHO. �. ��coA��c• STOF -CA COUNTY RECORD? .!; DAViO NAVARRO c E. 1993 DE 15 PH 4: 36 9$ 1 2 9 5 1 9 T1TLE PlQNEER., Tax Parcel No. R5443010020 TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises, with their appurtenances unto the said Grantee(s), and Grantees(s) heirs and assigns a forever. And the said Grantor(s) does (do) hereby covenant to and with the said Grantee(s), the Grantor(s) is/arc the owner(s) in fee ` simple of said premises; that said premises arc free ,from all encumbrances, EXCEPT those to which this conveyance is expressly made subject and those made, suffered or done by the Grantee(s); and subject to reservations, restrictions, dedications, casements, rights of way and agreements, (if any) of record, and general taxes and assessments, includes irrigation and utility assessments, (if any) for the current year, which are not yet due and payable, and that Grantor(s) will warrant and defend the same from all lawful claims ' L; whatsoever, : f Dated: ecember 14, 199�� RICRARD L. GORE ARBAR�L. M00 E STATE OF IDAHO ,bounty of Ada , ss, Tv?i 3 On this .`` a G R1747&mber in they the undersigned .• + , ear of 1998 before me , Vo % Public, personally appeared RICHARD L. MOORE 13 �L . 0;}E ; ^� known or identified to me toare subscribed to the within 1::1 instrument, and acknowledgtrd W late that c gcecuted the same. _ Notary Public: 4 T �•°Residineat: r BOISE, ID My Commission Expires: 11!( S�� ll (�1 J �r,�r�/�,, �, YY 1 i'Ci" T . `f i �tY '� �•-f IY YrY"t'w' �, f.• r� I �•)LiLJUilUL1V/( i�� 1lYl 1�� \ \ �%�T' 1 Ty l� \. � 1 �'. /`i"• / 'j' ..:• '�^�'ry,a u„ss Z 'd EZSL EZE 80Z XNVdW00 3a00W WdZ l : Z 666 l-6 L-0l 11-02-1999 4:02PM NOV-02-1999 TUE 01:16 PH FROM W.H. MOORE COMPANY 208 323 7523 FAX NO. 33603* ,IDA CUi)tiT, DER ,1 . nAv►o no f101sz,i 1999 AU 18 F?1 4: 11 CORRECTION DEED TO LIVING TRUST RECORDED•RE(IUE•ST fEE 31 ---DEPUTY g90�2g47 Harvard D. Hanks and Geneva J. Hanks, husband and wife, the Grantors, Hereby Grant and Convey unto Harvard D. Hanks and Geneva J. Hanks, Trustees of the Hanks Family Trust, a living trust created by written 'Trust Agreement of March 26, 1999, the Grantees, whose current address is 2930 Magic View Drive, Meridian ID 83642; P, 01/01 All right, title and interest of Grantors in and to their resCdential real property, located in Ada County, Idaho, described as follows: Lot 3 of AMENDED PLAT OF MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION, according to the plat thereof filed in Book 52 of Plats at pages 444 S and 4446, and amended by no Affidavit recorded June 13, 1984, as Instrument No. 8429311, official records of Ada County, Idaho. THIS DEED CORRECTS THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SAID LOT 3 OF MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION TO READ AS SET FORTH ABOVE. AND GRANTORS DO HEREBY CONFIRM THAT THEIR GRANT DEED TO LIVING TRUST, RECORDED MARCH 26, 1989, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 99029277, RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AS HEREBY CORRECTED, REMAINS IN FORCE AND EFFECT. DATED: August 18, 1999 r Harvard 0. Hanks ,1 f Geneva J. H?rfks STATE OF IDAHO I V ) ss. County of Ada I On this August 18. 1999, before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personalty appeared Harvard D. Hanks and Geneva J. Hanks, known to me to be the persons who subscribed the forepoiral instrument, and acknowledged to me that they executed the same. d►O rA* } * Not Public for Idaho, A Residing ax Boise, Idaho. V8t-tb.s Commission expires: March 9, 210 1'NE hANKS FAMILY TRUST GRANT DECD TO LIVING TRUST AND REVOCA110N OF PRODEXITY DEVOLUYION ACRI:EMENT P. 2 &LEY'S LAND 915 West JeAn Street • Boise, Idaho 83702 SURVEYING (208) 385-0636 Fax (208) 385-0696 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lots 2 and 3 in Amended Magic View Subdivision November 2, 1999 A parcel of land located in the Northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being all of Lots 2 and 3 in the Amended Magic View Subdivision, according to the official plat thereof, records of Ada County, Idaho, and which parcel is also described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap marking the quarter comer common to Sections 16 and 17, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; thence .North 00° 22'58" West 1,326.59' to the Northeast comer of,the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 17; thence North 89° 58' 30" West 391.41' to the Northeast comer of said Lot 2, said point being the real point of beginning; thence South 00° 07'50" East 579.31 feet along the Easterly boundary of said Lot 2 to a point lying on the centerline of Magic View Drive, being the Southeast comer of said Lot 2; thence South 890 37' 02" West 315.10 feet along the centerline of Magic View Drive and Southerly boundary of said Lot 2 to a point; thence North 830 21' 41" West 64.86 feet along the centerline of Magic View Drive and Southerly boundary of said Lot 2 to the Southwest comer of said Lot 2; thence North 830 11' 15" West 405.26 feet along the centerline of Magic View Drive and Southerly boundary of said Lot 3 to the Southwest corner of said Lot 3; thence North 00° 03'08" West 526.18 feet along the Westerly boundary of said Lot 3 to the Northwest comer of said Lot 3; thence South 890 58'30" East 781.08 feet along the Northerly boundary of said Lots 2 and 3 to the point of beginning. 1pp?��sG' p q► -�C' OVAL BY N O V 0 4 1999 IVA �9y 0 ��� MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Compiled from data of record, not an actual field survey. To: City of Median Planning & Zoning 200 E. Carlton, Suite 201 Meridian, Idaho 83642 From: Harvard D.Hanks 2930 East Magic View Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Lot #3 in Magic View Subdivision As owner of the referenced property, I am requesting an annexation and rezone of lot 43 in Magic View Subdivision, from County RT to City of Meridian LO. The formal application will be submitted by BRS Architects on behalf of Winston H. Moore. Mr. Moore has the land under contract. Please contact me should you have any questions. BY: /4a4 -- D. i(LJL Name: Aa hYAro� T. A.., wS — STATE OF IDAHO COUNTY OF ADA On this -;� 5 day of 0C+01j-(A_, in the year of 1999, before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Harvard D. Hanks, known or identified to be the owner of Lot #3 of Magic View Subdivision, and he duly acknowledged to me that he executed this instrument as owner of Lot #3 of Magic View Subdivision. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed my official seal and year in this certificate first above written. ®�®11e8e198JI,14 -� A. A70 �. Og �,,...,, 0 I`ve ye• '• e�OTAR 0000000 ��•. 0 F 19 A°•`°� Notary public for Idaho Residing at: r ""-11 Commission Expires: • REAL PR40PERTY PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT Date: August 31, 1999 1. AGREEMENT TO SELL. Subject to and in consideration of the mutual terms and conditions contained herein, Harvard D. Hanks and Geneva J. Hanks, Trustees of the Hanks Family Trust, a living trust created by written Trust Agreement of March 26, 1999 ("Seller'"), hereby sells to Winston H. Moore ("Buyer"), and Buyer hereby purchases from Seller, the real property described below. 2. PROPERTY. The property that is the subject of this` Agreement ("Property") is all of Lot 3 in the Amended Magic -View Subdivision, according to the official plat thereof, records of Ada County, Idaho, together with the real Property improvements thereon (including all fencing and all appliances other than the refrigerator), known as 2930 Magic View Dr, in Meridian, Idaho, together with and subject to the real property appurtenances thereto. 2.1 EXCLUDED PROPERTY. Seller shall remove the spa and two small trees, and shall repair any damage caused by removal of the spa and replace the area occupied by the, trees with soil and sod. 3. PURCHASE PRICE. Buyer agrees to pay to Seller as the Purchase Price the sum of payable as follows: 3.1 EARNEST MONEY, in cash as earnest money to be deposited with Stewart Title of Idaho, Inc. ("Title Company") in Boise, Idaho, by September 10, 1999, subject to the Deposit provisions set forth below in the Conditions Precedent paragraph. The Deposit shall be credited against the Purchase Price at closing, 3.2 PROMISSORY NOTE. Seiler may at its option elect to receive of the Purchase Price in the form of a purchase money promissory note secured by a first position deed of trust on the Property. Seiler shall give notice of its election by December 13, 1999; if no such notice is timely given, this option shall be deemed waived, and all of the Purchase Price shall be paid in cash at closing. The note shall provide for: 3.2.1 Interest rate: 8%: 3.2.2 Maturity: Three years. 3.2.3 Payments: Monthly principal and interest of beginning one month after closing, with a balloon payment at maturity of all unpaid principal and interest. 3.2.4 Prepayment Permitted in whole or part without penalty. 3.3 BALANCE. The balance of (or, if Seller elects to receive all cash at closing, in cash on the closing date. Any prepayment penalties and other costs associated with satisfaction of any existing financing shall be paid by Seller. 4. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT. During the period ending November 30, 1999, ("Review Period Expiration Date") Buyer shall determine to its own satisfaction the feasibility of Buyer's plan`s regarding the Property, and the condition and suitability of the Property for Buyer's use. Seller authorizes Buyer to enter upon the grounds of the Property for the purpose of inspecting the same. Seller shall by September 22, 1999, furnish to Buyer a current preliminary title report and any existing environmental reports or information. The parties hereto will proceed to a closing of this transaction unless, and only unless, by the Review Period Expiration Date Buyer notifies Seller in writing that the results of its review were for any reason not satisfactory to Buyer. if any such notice is timely given, then this Agreement shall be deemed terminated, the deposit shall be promptly refunded in full to.8uyer, and neither party shall thereafter be liable to the other hereunder. 5. SELLER'S WARRANTIES. Seiler warrants that: 5,1 the Property is in conformance with all requirements of all jurisdictional authorities and that Seller is the owner in fee simple of the Property, and that as of the closing date it shall be a separate legal parcel free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, reservations and restrictions, whether recorded or not, other than the permitted exceptions to the title report REAL PROPERTY PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT - Page 1 E 'd EZSL EZE 2OZ AlNVdHOO S3�00H 'H -M HOZIA HdZ t : Z 666[-6L-0[ 0 as set forth below and any other exceptions approved by Buyer; and 5.2 to the "best of its knowledge (i) there are no material defects in the Property or its improvements or structures; (ii) no conditions in violation of applicable environmental regulations exist on or under the Property; and (iii) there are no present, pending or threatened condemnation proceedings against, or other litigation affecting, the Property. 6. EXCHANGE OPTION. Either or both of Buyer and Seller may at their option effect the purchase. and sale of the Property through a third parry Section 1031 exchange, in which event the other party shall cooperate to that end and execute such documents as may be necessary therefor, provided that the closing date is not delayed, that the other parry incurs no additional expense or liability, and that the provisions hereof survive any exchange, and in which event the exchanging party indemnifies the other party against all claims arising out of or in any way connected with the other property or its transfer, and against all costs incurred by the other party in the course of defending against the same. 7. TITLE AND INSURANCE. Seller shall at its cost cause the Title Company to issue at closing a standard owner's policy of title insurance in the amount of the Purchase Price insuring title to the Property in Buyer's name subject to the following exceptions. Title to the Property shall be conveyed free of liens, but subject to the Title Company's usual and customary exceptions, the lien of property and irrigation taxes for the year of closing, the deed of trust referred to in §3.2, and other easements and restrictions contained in the preliminary title report and not disapproved of in writing by Buyer before the Review Period�Expiration Date. 8. CLOSING - CLOSING DATE. The closing agent shall be the Title Company, at whose offices the closing ;shall occur. The closing shall occur on January 13, 2000. 9. CONVEYANCE. Upon the performance of the provisions contained herein, Seller shall execute and deliver to Buyer on the closing date a standard,. form Warranty Deed conveying fee • simple title to the Property to Buyer subject only to the permitted exceptions set forth above. 10. CLOSING COSTS - PRORATION. Buyer and Seller shall each pay one-half of the recording fees and the closing agent's usual and customary closing fees. Property and irrigation taxes shall be prorated as of the closing date. Any legal costs incurred by either party in connection with the consummation of this transaction shall be paid by the party incurring such costs. 11. ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS. The closing agent is instructed to, in a manner consistent with the terms hereof. receive and hold deposits and other funds; disburse such funds in accord with separate authorization signed by Buyer and Seller; prepare closing statements for execution by Buyer and Seller; receive documents, secure their execution and acknowledgment, record them in the proper sequence, deliver originals to the appropriate parties, and d_ eiiver copies of all documents signed by either party to that parry. If a dispute arises regarding any funds held by the closing agent, such agent shall have no obligation to resolve such dispute but shall hold the same pending resolution of such dispute, and may at its option bring an action in interpleader. 12. POSSESSION, Buyer shall be entitled to possession of the property from and after the closing. 12.1 RENTAL. Buyer is agreeable to renting the Property to Seller at closing upon mutually acceptable terms established in writing. 13. RISK OF LOSS. Seller shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to the Property prior to Closing, and Buyer shall thereafter be responsible. If the Property is damaged prior to Closing, then there shall be deducted from the Purchase Price the amount equal to the insurable value of the destroyed 'or damaged Property]. 14. BROKERAGE. J.L. Boyd ("Selling Broker') and Meridian Real Estate ("Listing Broker„) are, the brokers for this transaction. 14.1 DISCLOSURE. The parties acknowledge that (a) Listing Broker acted as REAL PROPERTY PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT - Page 2 d CZSL EZE 80Z' ANb'dW00 3bOOH 'H 'M WObd WdE t : Z 666L -6L-01 0 nonagent for Buyer, and as agent for Seiler; (b) Selling Broker acted as agent for' Buyer, and as nonagent for Seller, (c) each party has received and had opportunity to read the Idaho Real Estate Commission agency disclosure brochure, (d) no party. is represented by a broker as an agent except pursuant to separate written agreement for agency representation; and (e) no broker, as agent or otherwise, is authorized to bind either Buyer or Seller to this or any other agreement except as may be separately and expressly provided in writing. 14.2 COMMISSION. Seller shall at closing pay as the commission for this transaction the amount due in accord with the listing agreement between Seller and listing Broker, one-half of which shalt be paid to Listing Broker, and one-half of which shall be paid to Selling Broker. Buyer and Seller shall otherwise hold each other harmless from other commission or finder's fee claims arising from the indemnifying party's conduct or representations. 14.3 RESPONSIBLE BROKER. Selling Broker shall be the broker responsible for closing within the meaning given thereto by the Idaho Real Estate Commission rules. 14.4 COUNTERPARTS. Buyer and Seller shall each hold one fully executed original of this Agreement, and shall at the request of either broker execute an additional original for that broker. 15. REMEDIES -ATTORNEYS FEES. if either parry fails to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, each shall be entitled to all rights available at law or in equity. In the event of. any dispute hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees. 16. ADDITIONAL ACTS. Each party agrees to take such other actions as may reasonably be required to consummate this transaction, and to afford each other reasonable cooperation towards that end. 17. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Idaho. 18. TIME, SEVERABILITY. Time is of the essence of this Agreement, and each party hereto agrees to promptly perform such acts as are reasonably required in connection herewith. If any provision of this Agreement to any extent is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, 19. NOTICES. All notices required hereunder shall be given in writing and shall be deemed effective (a) upon delivery, if delivered in person, or by facsimile transmission with receipt acknowledged by the recipient thereof; (b) one business day after deposited for overnight delivery with any reputable overnight courier service; or (c) two business days after deposited with the US Postal Service registered or certified mail and addressed to the parties at the addresses set forth below. 20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, has been entered into in reliance solely on the contents hereof, and shall not be modified except in writing signed by both parties. This Agreement supersedes any previous agreements, written or oral, between the parties hereto. 21. BINDING EFFECT - SURVIVAL. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns of the parties hereto and shall survive the closing of this transaction. 22. ASSIGNMENT. Neither party may assign its interest herein without the prior written consent of the other. 23. RECORDING. Neither party shall record this Agreement or the terms hereof without the other's express prior written consent 24. OFFER EXPIRES, This Agreement and Buyer's execution hereof shall be deemed` null and void if by September 10, 1999, Buyer has not received an original of this Agreement executed by Seller. REAL PROPERTY PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT - Page 3 S "d EZSL EZE 90Z ANVdH00 �3b00H "H 'M HnN-I Ht tv L : 7 RFR I _R 1 -0 1 W �_] this Agreement on behalf of said parties, and 25. AUTHORITY. The individuals signing that such execution is binding upon said parties below on behalf of the respective parties hereto without further action or ratification. warrant that they are duty authorized to execute i t H. Moore Harvard D. Hanks, Trustee PO Box 8204 Boise 10 83707 Geneva J. Hanks, rustee 2930 Magic View Or Meridian ID 83642 REAL PROPERTY PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT - Page 4 9 'ri 2OZ ANddW00 '3�:IOOW 'H 'M WO�IA WdV l ' Z 666L -6L -OL OCT -26-1999 10:46 BRS ARCHITECTS 208 336 8380 P.02i02 AFFIDAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST STATE OF IDAHO) ) ss COUNTY OF ADA) 13 i, W. H. Moore Company P. O. Box 8204 (name) (address) Boise Idaho being first duly swom upon oath, depose and say: (city) (state) 1. That I am the record owner of the property described on the attached, and I grant my permission. to BRS Architects 1087 W. River, Suite 160 Boise (name) (address) 2 to submit the accompanying application pertaining to that property. 2. I agree to indemnify, defend and hold Meridian and it's employees harmless from any claim or liability resulting from any dispute as to the statements F contained herein or as to the ownership of the property which is the `subject of the application. Dated this �Lq _`day of 0 j,:5,. �—,1912 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written. Notary Public f Idaho Residing at My Commission Expires: f1 - c,? D ,DS' TOTAL P.02 A AFFIDAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST STATE, OF IDAHO ) ss z COUNTY OF ADA) J. L. Boyd P. 0. Box 8105 (name) (address) Boise Idaho being first duty sworn upon oath, depose and say: (city) (state) 1. ThB,t I am the record owner of the property described on the attached, and 1 grant my pormi"lon. to SRS Architects 1087 W. River, Suite 160 Boise 2 (name) (address) to submit the accompanying application pertaining to that property. i 2. 1 agree to indemnity, defend and hold Meridian and it's employees harmless from any claim or liability resulting from, any dispute as to the statements contained herein or as to the ownership of the property which is the subject of the application. C Dated this day of C�� Z 9 :a x AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written. Notary Public for Idaho �win.w[t.MNNa'w99PX Residing -at -8olse �rDAttU r. , My Commission Expires. 9/-?-</a-oa,0 a vLCU 3" ARCHITECTS r BRS Architects, A.I.A. 1087 West River Street, Suite 160 October 28, 1999 Boise, Idaho 83702 Telephone 208 336-8370 Fax 208336-8380 Meridian City Planning & Zoning 200 E. Carlton Ave., Suite 201 Meridian, ID 83642 Attn: Shari Stiles` Dear Shari: Re: Magic View Office Complex, BRS Project No. 99123 Pursuant to our conversations, the applicant, the W. H. Moore Company, respectfully requests Annexation, Rezone and Conditional Use approval to construct an office complex on.pirope'rty located immediately west of.the newly -constructed Chevron-IPCo facilities. , The parcel, Lots 2/3 of the amended Magic View Subdivision, is adjacent to the city boundaries on both the east and south and will be accessed via the new ACHD-required street extension, as well as Magic, View Drive. The land use is presently residential and is zoned RT in the county. The applicant is proposing an (LO) limited office district designation, which is consistent with the, comprehensive land use map and with both the general policies and'mixed-planned use 'development sections of the land use goal statement, further we believe the request is in concert,with other development in the immediate area and meets the City's economic - development goals: The applicantalso requests concurrent approval of a Conditional Use; allowing for multiple buildings upon one site and an ancillary restaurant within the proposed complex. The attached site plan delineates ordinance required building and landscape setbacks, circulation, open space, utilities and signage. We believe this application is consistent with the City's growth intents, and we trust will be recommended for approval. Should you have anv questions and/or clarifications, please do not hesitate calling. 4 BRS:cw Encl. Cc: W. H. k , !7 -ddo "A v L. IF Aw -V. - ARCHITECTS -W& OWI"W;44 r k BRS Architects, AJA 1087 West River Street, Suite 160 ...... Boise, Idaho 83702 Telephone 208 336-8370 -e. 9t, V - ".1 4. 4 Fax 208 336-8380 Meridian -i'Cit 1 Meridian,-jM 83642, IL D6ar4SM'fi. eCdrhp.. JP16ase-be^advised the -a'p' icaht",�WHl,-Mb6fe`'Coffiodfiy", - --payany.-,additional -kwerwater, ordaW f&s`6f,.charg6',� n we liave read the:contents ofthisi i6fY2 .containedA ereinas rue an correct: ..W e,.4as,.agen�t-;for,the ,,applicant, ., affirm to hbtiemZ,0n MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION - LOTS 2 & 3 PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300' (RZ, AZ, CUP) DIAMOND BRYAN & CHRISTENSEN SHERON G & SHERMAN BEVERLY D COLLEEN C REVOCABLE TRUST 3134 AUTUMN WAY 3157 AUTUMN WAY MERIDIAN ID 83642-6239 MERIDIAN ID 83642-6239 MAZZI DONALD PHILLIP & MAZZI MARY JOANN 2976 AUTUMN WAY MERIDIAN ID 83642-6237 TODD GARY G & TODD KATHLEEN ANN 3020 AUTUMN WAY MERIDIAN ID 83642-6238 HARTLEY TODD S & HARTLEY NANCY A 3050 AUTUMN WAY MERIDIAN ID 83642-6238 REED KENNETH W 2869 AUTUMN WAY MERIDIAN ID 83642-6236 " FRISK TERRY L & FRISK B ARB ARA J 2928 AUTUMN WAY MERIDIAN ID 83642-6237 EDSON DENNIS R & EDSON SYLVIA K 376 RAVENSWOOD DR MERIDIAN ID 83642-6265 ROCKROHR RICHARD L & ROCKROHR MARY V 2715 AUTUMN WAY MERIDIAN ID 83642-6235 GREENHILL ESTATES SUBDIVISION NO THREE WATER CORP 2894 SPRINGWOOD DR MERIDIAN ID 83642-6262 EAGLE FOLEY HOWARD R & FOLEY TERESA L 2875 AUTUMN WAY MERIDIAN ID 83642-6236 3 WILLIAMS RICHARD C & WILLIAMS,CHEROL A 3133 AUTUMN WAY MERIDIAN ID 83642-6239 NIELSEN WADE C & NIELSEN SHANNON C 2881 AUTUMN WAY MERIDIAN ID 83642-6236 BROWN ROBERT P & BROWN PHYLLIS H 2927 AUTUMN WAY MERIDIAN ID 83642-6237 SEGER RICHARD S JR & SEGER MARTHA K 2951 AUTUMN WAY MERIDIAN ID 83642-6237 ZICKEFOOSE GEORGE L & ZICKEFOOSE JANET A 2975 E AUTUMN WAY MERIDIAN ID 83642-6237 NIELSON DENNIS E & NIELSON JOAN M 3019 AUTUMN WAY MERIDIAN ID 83642-6238 HOREL CHARLES D HOREL MARY KAY 3043 AUTUMN WAY MERIDIAN ID 83642-6238 BOWEN MARK A & BOWEN ANN T 3067 AUTUMN WAY MERIDIAN ID 83642-6238 TRUAX RODNEY D & TRUAX KRIS A 3091 AUTUMN WAY MERIDIAN ID 83642-6238 0 GREENHILL ESTATES SUB NO 3 WATER CORP ,. 3136 SPRINGWOOD DR MERIDIAN ID 83642 N EAGLE RD HOWELL RICHARD D & HOWELL JUNE 2750 MAGIC VIEW DR MERIDIAN ID 83642-6244 HANKS FAMILY TRUST HANKS H D & G J TRUSTEES 2930 MAGIC VIEW DR MERIDIAN ID 83642-6246 BOYD JAMES L AND MOORE WINSTON H P O BOX 8204 BOISE ID 83707 3050 E MAGIC VIEW DR EAGLE PARTNERS L L C SOUTH JOHNSON COMANY PO BOX 6290 BOISE ID 83707 603 N EAGLE RD IDAHO UNITED CREDIT UNION PO BOX 2268 4 BOISE ID 83701 t� 603 N EAGLE RD a GIRDNER PAUL K & GIRDNER KAY C PO BOX 190749 BOISE ID 83719-0749 2727 E MAGIC VIEW DR BARNES ROBERT B & BARNES KATHLEEN E 2855 MAGIC VIEW DR MERIDIAN ID 83642-6245 A , HUBBLE E DON 9550 BETHEL CRT BOISE ID 83709 621 S ALLEN ST JACKSONS FOOD STORES INC PO BOX 488 3500 COMMERCIAL CT MERIDIAN ID 83680-0488 625 N EAGLE RD •Y :+a �.. 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 January 18, 2000, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the application of W. H. Moore Company for annexation and zoning of 10 acres from RT to LO for proposed Magic View Office Complex which is generally located at Eagle Road and Magic View. Furthermore, the applicant requests a conditional use permit to provide multiple buildings on a single site plus an ancillary restaurant. A more particular description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to .submit testimony. DATED this 23rd day of `Dg3rrm�ber. G �oT�o SEAL r Tel,`WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., 6TY CLERK yG1� %T PUBLISH December 31, 1999,'ghd, nuary 14, 2000. ARCHITECTS BRS Architects, A.I.A. 1087 West River Street, Suite 160 Boise, Idaho 83702 Telephone 208 336-8370 October 28, 1999 Fax 208 336-8380 Meridian City Planning & Zoning 200 E. Carlton Ave., Suite 201 Meridian, ID 83642 Attn: ' Shari Stiles' Dear.Shari: Re: Magic View Office Complex BRS Project No. 99123 Pursuant to our conversations, the applicant, the W. H. Moore Company, respectfully requests Annexation, Rezone and'Conditional Use `approval to construct an office complex oriproperty located immediately.west of the newly -constructed Chevron - IP facilities. ' The parcel, Lots 2/3 of the amended Magic View Subdivision, is adjacent to_the city, bou daries on both the east and south and will be accessed via the new ACHD-required street- extension, as well as Magic View Drive. The land use is presently residential and is zoned RT in the county. The applicant is .proposing an (LO) limited office district designation, which is consistent with the comprehensive land use map and with both the general policies and mixed -planned use development sections of the land use goal statement, further we believe the request is in concert with other development in the immediate area and meets the City's economic development goals," The applicant also requests concurrent approval of a Conditional Use; allowing for multiple buildings upon one site and an ancillary restaurant within the proposed complex. The attached site plan delineates ordinance required building and landscape setbacks, circulation, open space, utilities and signage. We believe this -application is consistent with the City's growth intents, and we trust will be recommended for approval. Should you have any questions and/or clarifications, please do not hesitate calling. BRS:cw Encl. Cc: W. H. &LEY'S LAND SURVEYING 915 West JeAn Street • Boise, Idaho 83702 (208) 385-0636 Fax (208) 385-b696 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lots 2 and 3 in Amended Magic View Subdivision November 2, 1999 A parcel of land located in the Northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being all of Lots 2 and 3 in the Amended Magic View Subdivision, according to the official plat thereof, records of Ada County, Idaho, and which parcel is also described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap marking the quarter comer common to Sections 16 and 17, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; thence North 000 22'580 West. 1,326.59' to the Northeast comer of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 17; thence North 89" 58'30" West 391.41' to the Northeast comer of said Lot 2, said point being the real point of beginning; thence South 00° 07' 50" East 579.31 feet along the Easterly boundary of said Lot 2 to a point lying on the centerline of Magic View Drive, being the Southeast comer of said Lot 2; thence South 890 37' 02" West 315.10 feet along the centerline of Magic View Drive and Southerly boundary of said Lot 2 to a point; thence North 830 21'41" West 64.86 feet along the centerline of Magic View Drive and Southerly boundary of said Lot 2 to the Southwest comer of said Lot 2; thence North 830 11' 15" West 405.26 feet along the centerline of Magic View Drive and Southerly boundary of said Lot 3 to the Southwest corner of said Lot 3; thence North 000 b3'08" West 526.18 feet along the Westerly boundary of said Lot 3 to the Northwest comer of said Lot 3; thence South 89" 58' 30" East 781.08 feet along the Northerly boundary of said Lots 2 and 3 to the point of beginning. Compiled from data of record, not an actual field survey. OVAL BY .NOV 0 4 1999 WHIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Th IS "i.;F � �, 4 ..Y I -t-! i; �- iw tfFEi s` fi • FARMLAND LOCUST VIEW HEIGHTS SUB. �A r= CR _ S 0• LI' O1.•• • IL 0•.0 t' a ! 0• Yip l0. t• M w to t.N• ttt. •f' • tl O.lf' 1 + rnu ' - t,,.)t' 1 r i /•/ ♦ 3 - s hn 'Cc• , U, Y m C) ��r- . a.00'� ro•ni ov-••Tff.n' �i Ot7�1 ~, .•a•sr•�aYw . z,•n.l i» •• r nCs �•' a7rl n.i Y- w-tn.u' ,., t r. r.**.o" O e^ i ss.oa 0l• f f" r*t 1 ^ ;m"I © 4 �� f��'+..•• x'31 o i •• so. ` T••-'• •d •�(!°fit O 1 ..,.,{• CA (n •O4pQ 2� l.L �t+ ■°r +r °,� r --,R -- { r..1 :•�'"� ♦rt Di - 1 r•�•{ap0f�,• .4���w ss•.,.r> 6 ` T.t� R�VF� •tt yS ,:e�o•',a t>..t°.•t4 1� u,.•, .o•f•[ m Tom• V J .°.,r ... ., �* Z cn O Us r�doo • • o V• C Z. 03 Io Irl 'A a'. ~'.^'• _a \ ,.>°; a•arsif,it, crt , a1a•- r.iao- - O •. .t71. v cs7 GOc Z _ z z it ..^ ��:•� :[, '�� r"'o0 0, w �•, ~ I r o• oa or. •' • •tea I - -e� _ „•si ` 1. 00 - e �. •�, e O �Imlz Z ,'J' _ nu :v r•w ro°•u'eTi'ran.•' • o• o+• aT.,• w r" v%S o'f Yi so •� ,y,\ ..0 1'10 T-iz ALLEN STREEP T 177_rrl L T • T r Y- � ..0 •. n,J.zn' I eI Ike - � O m Tz -41 TI ■ o• 01•.,.1• . p Ll 6 Tl I Ga o2�in .4. '•1 w •00•tl ,��~� 11 ��! -- = �;]a.T,— �` _ 14•-°i i T-,0 i- 1 t ��ri �� j0 � •^.'t .^ X•O,•o •I NlY T-�q T.tl -„tt•,: - -r00• rT • 1 ]tt.N- � _ _ _ w ��% ��t,l r Eh{GLE ROAD _ 8� s• to ? LSo Y:Y ” ESM ..•f`�,•`a �� i; Se 17 17 moo r .N Q tO aT •••'� i�/°/ate/`'v`�'° o \• '� Sec. 16 • - s hn 'Cc• , U, Y S`t,� h-1,,,,° _.. ,,rr.�# t fi *fin r / .��� o 1"_._- �BH11 ro It SSL.?' i„� ' �y�,A+�'�� FL_I. � L—�.ur„exe_. r._i LI i ;�'I: �'• r ��yM�>4 � �F..�u��;.���s•k�.. ' - 9�1� G(� 'j s �'S� I.B I IT,� � I' 1 L �•�`p.�,3„ xi '�- � I �I �DBfiTM1G=5T==��"� -� Z I ,y� � - h �7 r�Tii .4« IPi ...Se--, ss o" j . . �' � \ • � �� \\ � � sem—' � �i �.� � j P I � / P�..�'1-.�.%�'x. 9'.�—���^'?aa"J. �.e�".SL'.�i R��•4�?.iY=rz � "`�,... �.q �'�i S�akXF, . a ..T _.,.... -a ..._. .. ... � 1 I � �C� ( 'IT',tr:'�>,✓1'r. � : .x._._.rh�'��.1 ';t mum .- fi•-^ r �xMI zN I i P—AVE" 51- " -i L I I I Ili a '=1 - �I I U i I I I {{ - -- - - It r-�•� _^ ' —� lig It II� h I, II II L, r For.Abc6untable Mail U) -n (D 00' -4 cn 4�,- 1 c N) C: ::3 a> z CL 0 CL WRO az 3 CL U) Ol CA) OD N„ CL 3 CL N. t-4 N) r-4 , 1'4 ND K) 1'4 r-4 1-4 -4 r:J f%) z In �o 10 10 10 10 10 10' 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 c 10 10 10 �o �o 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 �o 3 25 - CDC3- CD CD OD OD OD 00 W 00 OD 00 00 OD, OD 00 OD OD 01'., (y 01" 01 a, a, 0� 0� CA) N) (D 0, C)'4 01 0 O= Cm C) 0 (A) 0 N) o n' co Im co NZ -n M a: 0 Z z m ;;v o 0 m r — V) (D CD a C, cL 3 V) n 7� 7K m r- CIO M 0 0) a --4 m ;u K) m - m m Z. 7 -0 Z. m o z 0 -n Z4 0 OD 01 %0, �s ha - > -- r (A) 0 0 z oo - CA) z w 3 C T 0 10 14 CK oo� r ND 14 0 ON V) K3 00 '4 (11 '14 CK CD a m St: CD �j 0 0 > C:(D > 11 01 (D m 00. > Cn > CD (n (A) — m > N3 10 > c > < > M CL > cn (-n 3Z 0 -0 14 (A C: c m c --j CD z > z p m > CD > 2: o_ e7) 3:, > Q 0 - V) C: Do z z :5—p z C@D 9 K rn > 03 cf) C) c: 0 0 ID cn D =tt CD or W CbCD nn -.w 0w CD 22 CD CD o<IS CL 7 6 .m I CD a0 12 E! CD co co <D 3 (a 0 0 m 90 -n 'D flI-D T). a. (D :3 CD. CL a F'R U CD PC 0 w 0 mr,--o -1 'T 2'9 L - '--1" 1 1. , I, m EF, CD fD N 0 CI 's 0= o OX EIEIM 0 i3 :3 10 3 Z gERT gal C CD 0 CD w CD UR 5 -CD o CD -p CL = 1a ), .0 0 ' CD < 0.,w a Z: CO .0 M, g I'D D 6 E (D (CD COD 0 CJ CD CD C) Co CL O fD CD R w lbtCD 69= 7 u CL 2 ��3 Egg v ID C 3. 30 53- C.D 9.1 CD. OL >1 C.I(D 0 V; 5 It C) Cf) OCD w 0 ID :3 - 3 0 CL o CD pq.— 0o-0 C, 0 -0 Ro, - pjC CD 2.@ 0- ., S., . 9 A CD CR a JIR =0 CD �O c cn co UCD $D Co—g CD CD t5 c O(D � r p Z,* -n 0 g.ID R. a 6). 9) CD CD O. — uw) 5.R�h3 OTg �CD .0 .0 °'wo33 m2 g=0 C11D 11 og3" ID a— , 10,2 5 0 3 a a � 001 g0 10, m-1 3 3 <. 3 g:a b; (D C 3 CD 3 L o= o 3 :3 S. D C, 5. (D m co a (n -n CD M :3 X C CD CLr 3 co CL w CD For Account6ble Mail + C: 0 > z .0 cn 4- ca N) m 4�,, CJ N co w o z (D0 CL (0) = U) CD (n CL CD = q r4 ND r-4 K) rI4 P-4- PI4 rIJ N4CL-4 N4 K) r K) �4 IQ N. K) r-4 1-4 rI4 10 10 10 0 10 10 10 �O 10 10 10 10 10 10 10' > 10, K) 10 N3 10 10 10 t ZVIIO 10 10 SO 10 10 10 10 o 3 z5- -- K) K) N.) , N "i m N) I(Dy 4.4� OD OD 4 OD )0 41 0) A, -4� OD At� 00 0) -P� 00 00 00 00 OD OD - II 01, CA) (>1 K.) 01 K) 01 N) 01 K) 01 Ili CK N3 43�1 — 0 . 10 00 14 Q. (n . -P� CA) K) 0 10 OD 14 01 C— > cu .-D < n 70 m 0 X m C) m 70 oo > m - 0� CD a c.)). m m > m 71, (= Z . Z- 7N r Gn r 5%, 0 Z Z fn --4 N. x 0 Z z 0 -n 01 � z '0 (a CI Nm (A - F .NpW 0 10 0 70 CO z - I N3 , 3 —T Do 7, -rs� Cn (A) r- 90 Cn 10 CA) %0 CD 0 m 2D' -n 0. M Cn CA) M (n o n ;D — o CD 2 0 OD > CA) > co m >: 1= 4 % 0 m ca CD(D > 'Sm CD z V)Z 0 cu > C: C C CD Ch m cn m (A) > > ID is (A) < �05 10 n < CL -p cn CA) 0 � 0 0 0` m 00 m 0 01- co 0 CD > (b Do 0 Q. =EIEF m m 0 0 ET 1 0' CD 0 . . cb 0 r C� nCD CL CD mDO El3 o o m ET 6:r) x 'R -0 0 Ib 3 Ib -k- (a (n 0 0 m 0 A -n CMD ID =(D 0- CD a. OCD w 0 L CIL,9 60=30u� -0 om 0 0 21 CD CD =r W CD =r V. 0-0 a 00 Er -ID z CL Cg. CD 2.QpR - R� 5' (D 1— ;.Z, 0 CD cn --CD a- '�CDC CDo T 0 a CL'u > _.00:3 (D n 0 0 w CD am :3 _5' a E WCO'q CO 0 F CD 6'CD =_-CD CL 0. 0 0 W M D CD 0 0 LI �IQ, 0 . CD =MCD r. CD G, CD CD CL u 3 ( ,' v ow CL 0 w 0 > CI- ID CD -Sb j' 3 C>MO 00 co, . =Sb 3-o c 0 3 cD 3 = = CD CL;� ==X 60 �:U 5'- CD 0 a CL 0 0)J 5'0(D 0 = Ocn OCD = ID 5; E 9 3 z- 32c -Q- - - 0 0 0 (n2.- 0 !Rz C.L g - �p �2- 3 CD -nM CD ;;C -)-D 0 3 2. CD r < I 9 - CLU ,@ CD, 7O fwp CnUCD 0 (CD TcnQoa 0 MC.D IPO) x 13) CD CD!D j, - c COL N rmy -n 5n '5 SR j0 3 o cQD. 33 =O aCD ID g CD D 10 � '3 0 �ID 3 a E,7 00 00 R -, .5 3 ID m MC awc - 0 @ 3 (TO 3 CD FD' CD T. 0°3 >( 0 , CD m'—'o, j 0 3 x c 0 3 j"R + ro A 7 O W O O 4 r n For Accountable Mail=3 _ CP ? W N a ' O CO, W V 0) (n 4 ' W " ^ F\),. N a 3 w ,- ID ` CLLjj CT� , F n 7mz ' i„ x. y CL N x CL 0 s �Al r .p -Ca CD > N mm v •. S F c00 o - c - e"Y- J § ZZ CD CL 3 (n 9 ' CD (1) r f � '0�� CD CD m. o CD ..u N �❑❑Q r. m �s _ 0Cn m a0i _, Q, ami ®y _T mCL � - 0❑ ❑ w 440 cb y C CD cD �. N CD y O 3 Z) R. _maw k g,. M - T CD _QN O m N 0.o w� �.tn 2 w o CL w m O= c NOwm - C' 31 Cj El Elm wOa� oa m. , a co CD m.y�m�m Kai t CD _ n x myo m�fD�D�0 Y _ _y m a C a OOwy O=O ..: ; 7?'� �•� N w �� ,n• CD . j A X00. C ,4ww�om .x fn C m = C c CL0'O N o o 0 0 O �.. sumo 0c <� w X000 �`-' per. N w t N 69== O. uww Fwa pp y C O O d N 3d3vm3 cw __ �,ID t�if Gax R -no -m .+. OOOfDON=- OCD O= »w E CD ccQ CL 00,0 �w < x 'OO w oma= �•�° y Fp7w SNN,w = CDM •.e. N 3p(.P t0 (nNN 3W N 0 �xwo *•' a Tin m wp ooa N �ouN3Q� CD- C .. .. .. ., .. i. $ TNCD .c ° CD �= 3° N 2 o m =ate= CD . v CD 3ca3 0 w� o'a j ° ,=3 0 ic• Al y>>mCa e m N O N W cL 'R - N CD (a 10 t NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBYGIVEN`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 7:00 p.m. on December 14, 1999 for the purpose of reviewing and considering the application of W.H. Moore Company for annexation and zoning of 10 acres from RT to LO for proposed Magic View Office -Complex, which is generally located at Eagle Road and Magic View.' Further the application requests a conditional use permit to provide multiple buildings on a single site plus an ancillary restaurant. A more particular 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_ 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 10th November, 1999. Al Zoe.. G. BER PUBLISH November 26,''and ecjkrjb10, 99 a JR. I CLERK CITY OF MERIDIAN "Hub of Treasure Valley° 33 E. Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 888-4433 Customer's Order No. Date Name Address � Phone -3 SOLD BY yA�SH C.O.D. CHARGE ON ACCT. MDSE. RETD. PAID OUT c r t. -30 � � I rA V� I I I I I All claims and returned goods MUST be accompanied by this bill- TAX 1— O(�(� OUJ668 RReceived TOTAL GS -202-2 PRINTED IN U.S.A. F City Of Meridian PNIRTfO WITH; a _ < Ft sac�mv maw�e: ��n�aea. o�ia�i: 00 Deck _ KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 13714 BOISE, IDAHO 83701 BRS ARCHITECTS 92_155-1241 1087 W. RIVER ST., STE. 160 PH, 208-336-8370 BOISE, ID 83702 CHECK DATE Oct 29, 1999 PAY Fifty three dollars'and 70/100 0 --q >-13 AMOUNI*-53.70** - TO :2 City Of Meridian S m31 z ca Cn (D (D 11'0 L 3 7 1411' 1:12 L. 10 1 S S Si:0 1 107525 811- rn kEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 13676 BOISE, IDAHO 83701 BRS ARCHITECTS 92-155-1241C> 1067 W. RIVER ST., STE. 160 PH. 208-336-8370 CHECK DAT BOISE, ID 83702 E October 26, 1999 C, Ln PAY Five,hundred eighty five dollars and 101160 AMOUNT 585.10 TO City Of Meridian Ox 50 z 11'01367611' 1: 12 L. 10 1 S S Si: 0 L 107525 60 0 t > _0 0 0 KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 13677 > 0 BOISE, IDAHO 83701 C m BRS ARCHITECTS 92-155-1241 C> 1087 W. RIVER ST., STE. 160 PH. 208.336.8370 CHECK DATE October 26, 1999 BOISE, ID 83702 (D PAY Three hundred twenty five dollars and10/100 10 —4 AMOUNT 325.10 TO FA City Of Meridian E z E°w^ CT " W N O W OD V � Ut CO N -� N a m a3 Z c � (D (D 3 CL y a CL (b m N Z ID m m m y r )A r r r )A r r r r r r r c O � V � tr71 A W CrD ° (n ° <'� r� i p O p O m m m �-+ 7D m N O p C m Z D C m m N G n n �^ CL 3 Z 3 w N _ O rn m N w z N N O 0 r N NO N 0 W o O 3° ow {oil r w m > a o C O > N �y� m wa$_0 C c 3 o m c y o Ov C 3 C-� m N 3 z zm = N A 3 z 0 D w to z 2 c C z a m N N $ d1 OD z O 4Pb Z le m '� V ---R 3 U; H 00 g ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o co 1W11 z V m m Oce o� V OD O W v@ v mz <. o. y R c {o O O= N a ° a p `CD ° ❑❑❑❑ CD 0°_' nm 3 w o cu �_� l CCD CD 3 CD m 0 � acmwDmm�< w m R> y y ri aomQmM L9 rCD �° 3 N w a `3.0 <N m 0 0 w w o c ,� o p1 c w .0< N C ma -M33wo w �gm d m 3 0 0. ❑❑ 0- mw5o=c. Tw (D owCL8 ID C, m n� va x c N Sm o o moo m �v� m o O C w COL we p_ c T CD O O y C 7 w3(o•mcy p_ 3-'ymao w'a•n�i1u y myy'(D mn yo v m doo,N3 mn m a CD m 3 m 3-• Ci c m(o,3 d,j a p w TO ani CD0 CD 00 to °' a o nw cM. yN37,mm w a 83 �cm.,�=- CD m0 � m d N �. m w y m n o(o ; o3. CD v "+ C nO 7 O C N 7vp>s%R 3 3O..g-9 E; d. > g w y n y C c G N o y 7 -. w3 ° MSD & m 3 d m= N W w m w m In O y m - N O. m• N N P40A COUNTY RECORDER' J. DAVID NAVARRO :`,0151 ,;0,41!0, 2000 HR 2 3 P 14!: 44 REC'1EU -REQUEST OF 11EE*OEPUTY 100821869 MERIDIAN CITy DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PARTIES: 1. City of Meridian 2. Magic View Partners, an Idaho General Partnership THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement"), is made and entered into this 2P<1 day of 2000, by and between CITY OF MERIDIAN, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho, hereafter called "CITY", and MAGIC VIEW PARTNERS, AN IDAHO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, hereinafter called "DEVELOPER", whose address is PO Box 8204, Boise, Idaho. 1 • RECITALS: 1.1 WHEREAS, "Developer" is the sole owner, in law and/or equity, of certain tract of land in the County of Ada, State of Idaho, described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, herein after referred to as the "Property"; and 1.2 WHEREAS, I.C. §67-6511A, Idaho Code, provides that cities may, by ordinance, require or permit as a condition of re- zoning that the owner or "Developer" make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject "Property"; and 1.3 WHEREAS, "City" has exercised its statutory authority by the enactment of Meridian City Code §§ 11-15-12 and 11-16-4 A, which authorizes development agreements upon the annexation. and/or re -zoning of land; and 1.4 WHEREAS, "Developer" has submitted an application for annexation and zoning of the "Property's described in Exhibit A, and has requested a designation of Limited Office District (L -O), Meridian City Code § 11-7-2 G; and DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -99-022) - 1 0 0 1.5 WHEREAS, "Developer" made representations at the public hearings both before the Meridian Planning SL Zoning Commission and before the Meridian City Council, as to how the subject "Property" will be developed according to the Concept Plan and what improvements will be made; and 1.6 WHEREAS, record of the proceedings for the requested annexation and zoning designation of the subject "Property" held before the Planning &. Zoning Commission, and subsequently before the City Council, include responses of government subdivisions providing services within the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction, and received further testimony and comment; and 1.7 WHEREAS, City Council, the %'* day of , 2000, has approved certain Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order, set forth in Exhibit B, which are attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, hereinafter, referred to as (the "Findings"); and 1.8 WHEREAS, the "Findings" require the "Developer" enter into a development agreement before the City Council takes final action on annexation and zoning designation; and 1.9 "DEVELOPER" deems it to be in its best interest to be able to enter into this Agreement and acknowledges that this Agreement was entered into voluntarily and at its urging and requests; and 1.10 WHEREAS, "City" requires the "Developer" to enter into a development agreement for the purpose of ensuring that the "Property" is developed and the subsequent use of the "Property" is in accordance with the terms and conditions of this development agreement, herein being established as a result of evidence received by the "City" in the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -99-022) - 2 proceedings for annexation and zoning designation from government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction and from affected property owners and to ensure annexation and zoning designation is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted December 21,1993, Ordinance #629, January 4,1994, and the Meridian City Code Titles 11 and 12. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 2• INCORPORATION OF RECITALS: That the above recitals are contractual and binding and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 3• DEFINITIONS: For all purposes of this Agreement the following words, terms, and phrases herein contained in this section shall be defined and interpreted as herein provided for, unless the clear context of the presentation of the same requires otherwise: 3.1 "CITY": means and refers to the City of Meridian, a party to this Agreement, which is a municipal Corporation and government subdivision of the state of Idaho, organized and existing by virtue of law of the State of Idaho, whose address is 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642. 3.2 "DEVELOPER": means and refers to Magic View Partners, an Idaho General Partnership consisting of Winston H. Moore and James L. Boyd, general partners, whose address is PO Box 8204, Boise, Idaho, the party developing said "Property" and shall include any subsequent owner(s)/developer(s) of the "Property". 3.3 "PROPERTY": means and refers to that certain parcel(s) of "Property" located in the County of Ada, City of Meridian as described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -99-022) - 3 • by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under "City"'s Zoning Ordinance codified at Meridian City Code § 11-7-2 G which are herein specified as follows: Development of Limited Office. 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement. 5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1 "Developer" shall develop the "Property" in accordance with the following special conditions: 5. LA The property should be zoned L -O, Limited Office District, and the Applicant shall use the subject property to develop professional office uses with any other uses permitted in the subject zone only as a conditional use. 5.1.1 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. No variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches crossing this project. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -99-022) - 4 0 9 5.1.2 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. 5.1.3 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. 5.1.4 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. 5.1.5 A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1- 91) for all off-street parking areas. All site drainage shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 5.1.6 Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as not to direct illumination on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-14.D.3. 5.1.7 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. No temporary signage or flashing signs will be permitted. 5.1.8 Applicants shall provide five -foot -wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9- 606.B. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -99-022) - 5 0 5.1.9 All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 5.1.10Applicant shall enter into a License Agreement with Ada County Highway District to construct, and perpetually maintain, a 30 -foot wide buffer with a 4 - foot high berm and a 6 -foot high solid, wooden fence on top of the berm along the entire length of Lot 2 in the Amended Magic View Subdivision. This obligation shall be appurtenant to Lot 2. 5. 1.11 Applicant shall construct a minimum 20 -foot wide buffer with a 4 -foot high berm and a 6 -foot high solid, wooden fence on top of the berm along the entire length of Lot 3 in the Amended Magic View Subdivision. 5.1.12Applicant shall be required to dedicate all right-of- way along St. Luke's Street, and Magic View Drive by recorded Warranty Deed or recorded plat prior to the issuance of any building permits. 5.1.13 The Applicant has submitted a draft site plan to provide a general overview of expected development type location and amenities. The proposed site plan proposes to the dedication of a new public right-of- way. All public easements shall be designated by plat or other document of record showing their location. 5.1.14Existing easements are shown on the recorded plat of the Amended Magic View Estates Subdivision which will be in conflict with the new proposed layout. Applicant shall vacate conflicting easements prior to applying for building permits. 6. COMPLIANCE PERIOD/ CONSENT TO REZONE: This Agreement and the commitments contained herein shall be terminated, and DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -99-022) - 6 the zoning designation reversed, upon a default of the "Developer" or "Developer"'s heirs, successors, assigns, to comply with Section 5 entitled "Conditions Governing Development of subject "Property" of this agreement , and after the "City" has complied with the notice and hearing procedures as outlined in I.C. § 67-6509, or any subsequent amendments or recodifications thereof. 7. CONSENT TO DE -ANNEXATION AND REVERSAL OF ZONING DESIGNATION: "Developer" consents upon default to the de -annexation and/or a reversal of the zoning designation of the "Property" subject to and conditioned upon the following conditions precedent to -wit: 7.1 That the "City" provide written notice of any failure to comply with this Agreement to "Developer" and if the "Developer" fails to cure such failure within six (6) months of such notice. 8. INSPECTION: "Developer" shall, immediately upon completion of any portion or the entirety of said development of the "Property" as required by this agreement or by City ordinance or policy, notify the City Engineer and request the City Engineer's inspections and written approval of such completed improvements or portion thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and all other ordinances of the "City" that apply to said Development. 9. DEFAULT: 9.1 In the event "Developer", "Developer"'s heirs, successors, assigns, or subsequent owners of the "Property" or any other person acquiring an interest in the "Property", fail to faithfully comply with all of the terms and conditions included in this Agreement in connection with the "Property", this Agreement may be modified or terminated by the "City" upon compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, which will include, at a minimum, notice of the noncompliance, and an opportunity to be DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -99-022) - 7 0 E heard by the City Council before modification or termination. 9.2 A waiver by "City" of any default by "Developer" of any one or more of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply solely to the breach and breaches waived and shall not bar any other rights or remedies of "City" or apply to any subsequent breach of any such or other covenants and conditions. 10. REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDATION: "City" shall record either a memorandum of this Agreement or this Agreement, including all of the Exhibits, at "Developer"'s cost, and submit proof of such recording to "Developer", prior to the third reading of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the "Property" by the City Council. If for any reason after such recordation, the City Council fails to adopt the ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the "Property" contemplated hereby, the "City" shall execute and record an appropriate instrument of release of this Agreement. 11. ZONING: "City" shall, following recordation of the duly approved Agreement, enact a valid and binding ordinance zoning the "Property" as specified herein. 12. REMEDIES: This Agreement shall be enforceable in any court of competent jurisdiction by either "City" or "Developer", or by any successor or successors in title or by the assigns of the parties hereto. Enforcement may be sought by an appropriate action at law or in equity to secure the. specific performance of the covenants, agreements, conditions, and obligations contained herein. 12.1 In the event of a material breach of this Agreement, the parties agree that "City" and "Developer" shall have thirty (30) days after delivery of notice of said breach to correct the same prior to the non -breaching party's seeking of any remedy provided for herein; provided, however, that in the case of any such default which cannot with diligence be cured within such thirty (30) day period, if the defaulting DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -99-022) - 8 0 0 party shall commence to cure the same within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter shall prosecute the curing of same with diligence and continuity, then the time allowed to cure such failure may be extended for such period as may be necessary to complete the curing of the same with diligence and continuity. 12.2 In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed hereunder by either "Developer" or "City" is delayed for causes which are beyond the reasonable control of the party responsible for such performance, which shall include, without limitation, acts of civil disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the time for such performance shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay. 13. SURETY OF PERFORMANCE: The "City" may also require surety bonds, irrevocable letters of credit, cash deposits, certified check or negotiable bonds, as allowed under Meridian City Code § 12-5-3, to insure that installation of the improvements, which the "Developer" agrees to provide, if required by the "City". 14. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: The "Developer" agrees that no Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until all infrastructure and other improvements which are imposed by the terms of this agreement, the annexation ordinance, and the conditional use permit are completed, unless the "City" and "Developer" have entered into an addendum agreement stating when the improvements will be completed in a phased development; and in any event, no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued in any phase in which the improvements have not been installed, completed, and accepted by the "City". 15. ABIDE BY ALL CITY ORDINANCES: That "Developer" agrees to abide by all ordinances of the City of Meridian and the "Property" shall be subject to de -annexation if the owner or his assigns, heirs, or successors shall not meet the conditions contained in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, this Development Agreement, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -99-022) - 9 16. NOTICES: Any notice desired by the parties and/or required by this Agreement shall be deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three (3) days after deposit in the United States Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: CITY: c/o City Engineer City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 with copy to: City Clerk City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 DEVELOPER: Winston H. Moore James L. Boyd Magic View Partners, an Idaho General Partnership PO Box 8204 Boise, ID 83707 16.1 A party shall have the right to change its address by delivering to the other party a written notification thereof in accordance with the requirements of this section. 17. ATTORNEY FEES: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default, termination or forfeiture of this Agreement. 18. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term, condition and provision hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of and a default under this Agreement by the other party so failing to perform. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -99-022) - 10 19. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties'- respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives, including "City"'s corporate authorities and their successors in office. This Agreement shall be binding on the owner of the "Property", each subsequent owner and any other person acquiring an interest in the "Property". Nothing herein shall in any way prevent sale or alienation of the "Property", or portions thereof, except that any sale or alienation shall -be subject to the provisions hereof and any successor owner or owners shall be both benefitted and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. "City" agrees, upon written request of "Developer", to execute appropriate and recordable evidence of termination of this Agreement if "City", in its sole and reasonable discretion, had determined that "Developer" has fully performed its obligations under this Agreement. 20. INVALID PROVISION: If any provision of this Agreement is held not valid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this Agreement and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained herein. 21. FINAL AGREEMENT: This Agreement sets forth all promises, inducements, agreements, condition and understandings between "Developer" and "City" relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no promises, agreements, conditions or understanding, either oral or written, express or implied, between "Developer" and "City", other than as are stated herein. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and signed by them or their successors in interest or their assigns, and pursuant, with respect to "City", to a duly adopted ordinance or resolution of "City". 21.1 No condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing development of the subject "Property" herein provided for can be modified or amended without the approval of the City Council after the ""City" has conducted public hearing(s) in accordance with the notice provisions provided for a zoning designation and/or DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -99-022) - 11 amendment in force at the time of the proposed amendment. 22. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall be effective on the date the Meridian City Council shall adopt the amendment to the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the "Property" and execution of the Mayor and City Clerk. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -99-022) - 12 L ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have herein executed this agreement and Made it effective as hereinabove provided. Attest: CITY CLERK BY RESOLUTION NO. MAGIC VIEW PARTNERS, AN IDAHO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP BY I Winston.• - , Partne ;a es . BSyd, PartlWr CITY OF MERIDIAN YOR ROBERT D. CORRIE o SEAL ey/Z:\WorkVvl\Meridian 15360MuV1agic View\DevelopAgr V�i✓ri 0, �ltiffi111 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -99-022) - 13 STATE OF IDAHO :ss COUNTY OF ADA On this q day of , in the year 2000, before me,' 1672; MO-0� a Notary Public, personally appeared Winston H. Moore and James L. Boyd, known or identified to me to be the partners of Magic View Partners, an Idaho General Partnership, the partners who executed the instrument on behalf of said General Partnership, and acknowledged to me having executed the w1v410* 00 • • * z • (SEAL) 'PU$LIG •' Notary Public for Idaho �' ��' ••• ••• � `�Z - � Z - moo '•.,�i .E.oF,;� ��+,. Commission expires: I STATE OF IDAHO :ss County of Ada ) On this day of , in the year 2000, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Robert D. Corrie and William G. Berg, know or identified to me to be the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, who executed the instrument or the person that executed the instrument of behalf of said City, and acknowledged to me that such City executed the same. (SEAL) •. OF ID .• •ONERO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -99-022) - 14 (X­1� Not Pu lic for Idaho Comma ion expires: EXHIBIT A Legal Description Of Property LOTS 2 AND 3 IN AMENDED MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION A parcel of land located in the Northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being all of Lots 2 and 3 in the Amended Magic View Subdivision, according to the official plat thereof, records of Ada County, Idaho, and which parcel is also described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap marking the quarter corner common to Sections 16 and 17, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; thence North 00022'58" West 1,326.59' to the Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 17; thence North 89°58'30" West 391.41' to the Northeast corner of said Lot 2, said point being the real point of beginning; thence South 00007150" East 579.31 feet along the Easterly boundary of said Lot 2 to a point lying on the centerline of Magic View Drive, being the Southeast corner of said Lot 2; thence South 89°37'02" West 3 15. 10 feet along the centerline of Magic View Drive and Southerly boundary of said Lot 2 to a point; thence North 83°21'41" West 64.86 feet along the centerline of Magic View Drive and Southerly boundary of said Lot 2 to the Southwest corner of said Lot 2; thence DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -99-022) - 15 1�1 North 83°11'15" West 405.26 feet along the centerline of Magic View Drive and Southerly boundary of said Lot 3 to the Southwest corner of said Lot 3; thence North 00°03'08" West 526.18 feet along the Westerly boundary of said Lot 3 to the Northwest corner of said Lot 3; thence South 89°58'30" East 781.08 feet along the Northerly boundary of said Lots 2 and 3 to the point of beginning. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -99-022) - 16 • EXHIBIT B 9 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law/Conditions of Approval DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -99-022) - 17 • C� 03-02-00 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF W. H. MOORE CO., THE APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 10 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MAGIC VIEW DRIVE WEST OF EAGLE ROAD FOR MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX Case No. AZ -99-022 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for public hearing on January 18, 2000, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, appeared and testified, and appearing and testifying on behalf of W. H. Moore Company was Jonathan Seel, and also appearing and testifying were affected property owners, Church Harl and Howard Foley, and having received the Recommendation to City Council of the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter, and the City Council having duly considered the evidence and the record in this matter therefore makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 r 0 STATEMENT OF LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Judicial Notice: The Council may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. Annexation: 1. The City of Meridian has authority to annex real property upon written request for annexation and the real property being contiguous or adjacent to city boundaries and that said property lies within the area of city impact as provided by Idaho Code Section 50-222. The Meridian City Code § 11-16 provides the City may annex real property that is within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area which is designated in the Comprehensive Plan City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ord. No. 629, January 4, 1994, and as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-16-3. 2. The City Council exercises its legislative authority in the annexation and zoning of annexed land. Burt v. City of Idaho Falls, 665 P.2d 1075, 105 Idaho 65 (1983). Prior to annexation the City Council shall request and receive a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission of proposed zoning ordinance changes for the area to be annexed in accordance with the notice and hearing procedures provided in Section 67-6509, Idaho Code and concurrently or FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 immediately following the adoption of an ordinance of annexation, the City Council shall amend the Planning and Zoning Ordinance. [I.C. § 67-6525] [Meridian City Code § 11-16-1.] Zon ink 3. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the Idaho Legislature in the "Local Land Use Planning Act" codified at Chapter 65 of Title 67 Idaho Code which provides that the Council shall by ordinance establish within its boundaries one or more zones or zoning districts in accordance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. [I.C. § 67-6511]. 4. The "Zoning Ordinance" of the City of Meridian applies and regulates all development of land within the City limits and property outside the City limits for which annexation has been requested. [Meridian City Code § 11-1-3.] 5. The City of Meridian has exercised its authority and responsibility as provided by "Local Land Use Planning Act" by the adoption of the "Zoning Ordinance" of the City of Meridian, Idaho, which provides for various zoning districts. [Meridian City Code §§ 11-1 - 11-21.] 5.1 The "Zoning Ordinance" provides a zoning district (L -O) Limited Office District which is defined as: [Meridian City Code § 11-7-2 G.] (L -O) Limited Office District: The purpose of the L -O District is to permit the establishment of groupings of professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting, clerical, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 stenographic, public service and similar uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy, testing operations of any kind or product manufacturing of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions of a nature offensive to the overall purpose of this District. The L -O District is designed to act as a buffer between other more intense nonresidential uses and high density residential uses, and is thus a transitional use. Connection to the Municipal water and sewer system of the City is a requirement in this District. 5.2 The "Zoning Ordinance" provides for a "Zoning Schedule for Use Control" for land uses in various established zoning districts for permitted use, conditional use and permitted accessory use. [Meridian City Code § 11-6-1.] 5.3 The "Zoning Ordinance" provides for a zoning District Map where the zoning districts established by the ordinance are shown. [Meridian City Code § 11-6-1.] 5.4 The "Zoning Ordinance" provides for general procedures for the initiation and process of zoning amendment applications including notice and hearing procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. [Meridian City Code § 11-15-1 - 11-15-6.] 5.5 The General Standards Applicable To Zoning Amendments include the following [Meridian City Code § 11-15-11 fl: 5.5.1 Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment; 5.5.2 Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the future; 5.5.3 Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning - for example, a residential area turning FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 into commercial area by means of conditional use permits; 5.5.4 Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new railroad access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone areas; 5.5.5 Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area; 5.5.6 Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; 5.5.7 Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed zoning amendment shall be able to provide adequately any of such services; 5.5.8 Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; 5.5.9 Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; 5.5.1OWill the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX / BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 • 0 5.5.11 Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural br scenic fedtufe of major importance; and 5.5.12 Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 6. The City of Meridian has exercised its authority and responsibility as provided by "Local Land Use Planning Act", codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code by the adoption of Comprehensive Plan City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ord. No. 629, January 4, 1994. Development Conditions: 7. The City is authorized by I.C. § 67-6511 A by the adoption of an ordinance to require or permit as a condition of rezoning that an owner or developer make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject parcel which the City has enacted as a part of the "Zoning Ordinance" at Meridian City Code § 11-15-12 and if the property is annexed and zoned Meridian City Code § 11- 16-4. 8. Since the annexation and zoning of land is a, legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. See Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 Ptd 1075 (1983). 9. The development of the annexed land, if annexed, shall meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian including, but not limited to: Meridian City Code § 11-2-4 which pertains to development time schedules and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. -AZ -99-022 0 requirements; Meridian City Code § 12-4-13, which pertains to the piping of ditches; and Meridian City Code § 12-5-2 N, which pertains to pressurized irrigation systems. 10. The development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian. STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATIVE TO LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The notice of public hearing on the application for annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearing scheduled for January 18, 2000, before the City Council, the First publication appearing and written notice having been mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred feet (300') of the external boundaries of the property under consideration more than fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing and with the notice of public hearing having been posted upon the property under consideration more than one week before said hearing; and that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations as public service announcements; and the matter having been duly considered by the City Council at the January 18, 2000, public hearing; and the applicant, affected property owners, and government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian, having been given full opportunity to express comments and submit FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 0 evidence. 0 2. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Idaho Code H 67-6509 and 67-6511, and Meridian City Code H 11-15-5 and 11-16-1. 3. The City Council takes judicial notice of its zoning, subdivisions and development ordinances codified at Meridian City Code Titles 11 and 12, and all current zoning maps thereof, and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ordinance No. 629, January 4,1994, and maps and the ordinance Establishing the Impact Area Boundary. 4. The property is apprwdmately10 acres in size. The property is located on the north side of Magic View Drive west of Eagle Road. The property is designated as Lots 2 and 3, Magic View Subdivision, and described as follows: LOTS 2 AND 3 IN AMENDED MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION A parcel of land located in the Northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being all of Lots 2 and 3 in the Amended Magic View Subdivision, according to the official plat thereof, records of Ada County, Idaho, and which parcel is also described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap marking the quarter corner common to Sections 16 and 17, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; thence North 00°22'58" West 1,326.59' to the Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 17; thence FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 North 89058'30" West 391.41' to the'Northeast corner of said Lot 2, said point being the real point of beginning; thence South 00007150" East 579.31 feet along the Easterly boundary of said Lot 2 to a point lying on the centerline of Magic View Drive, being the Southeast corner of said Lot 2; thence South 8903702" West 315.10 feet along the centerline of Magic View Drive and Southerly boundary of said Lot 2 to a point; thence North 83°21'41" West 64.86 feet along the centerline of Magic View Drive and Southerly boundary of said Lot 2 to the Southwest corner of said Lot 2; thence North 83°11'15" West 405.26 feet along the centerline of Magic View Drive and Southerly boundary of said Lot 3 to the Southwest corner of said Lot 3; thence North 00°03'08" West 526.18 feet along the Westerly boundary of said Lot 3 to the Northwest corner of said Lot 3; thence South 89058130" East 781.08 feet along the Northerly boundary of said Lots 2 and 3 to the point of beginning. 5. The owner of record of the subject property is W.H.Moore/Jim Boyd, of PO Box 8204, Boise, Idaho. 6. Applicant is owner of record. 7. The property is presently zoned by Ada County as Rural Transitional (R -T), and consists of residential property. 8. The Applicant requested the property be zoned as Limited Office (L -O). 9. The subject property is bordered to the north by Greenhill Estates Subdivision and city limits of the City of Meridian are adjacent and abut the subject FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 property to the south and east sides of the property. 10. The property which is the subject of this application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 11. The entire parcel of the property is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 12. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following manner: Develop an office complex. 13. The Applicant requests zoning of the subject real property as Limited Office (L -O) which is consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map which designates the subject property as Commercial and Mixed /Planned Use Development. 14. There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that affect the consideration of this application. 15. The Applicant request zoning of the subject real property as Limited Office (L -O). The application is consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map which designates the subject property as Commercial and Mixed/Planned Use Development. Further, this application is consistent with the following provisions of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 10 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORS CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 L] • The subject Property is located in an area desi nated as Mhxed/Planned Use Development in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan It is within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES Economic Development Chapter Policies 1.2, 1.3, and 1.9 Land Use Chapter Policies 4AU, 4.8U, 5.8, 5.9, 5.11, 5.14U, 5.15U Communitv Design Chapter Policies 1.3, 1.4, 2.1U, 2.2U, 2.3U and 2.5U 16. Giving due consideration to the comment received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction, public facilities and services required by the proposed development will nk ot impose expense upon the public if the following conditions of development are imposed as a condition of Staff review and approval of development permits, and which restrict the use and development of the subject real property under the Limited Office Development procedures and ,pursuant to the conditional use permit process, to -wit: Adopt the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Staff, modified at the request of the Planning and Zoning Commission as follows: 16.1 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 11 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 0 written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. No variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches crossing this project. 16.2 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. 16.3 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. 16.4 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. 16.5 A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. All site drainage shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 16.6 Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as not to direct illumination on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-14.D.3. 16.7 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. No temporary signage or flashing signs will be permitted. 16.8 Applicants shall provide five -foot -wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 16.9 All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 12 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 16. 10 Applicant shall enter into a License Agreement with Ada County Highway District to construct, and perpetually maintain, a 30 - foot wide buffer with a 4 -foot high berm and a 6 -foot high solid, wooden fence on top of the berm along the entire length of Lot 2 in the Amended Magic View Subdivision. This obligation -shall be appurtenant to Lot 2. 16.11 Applicant shall construct a minimum 20 -foot wide buffer with a 4 -foot high berm and a 6 -foot high solid, wooden fence on top of the berm along the entire length of Lot 3 in the Amended Magic View Subdivision. 16.12 Applicant shall be required to dedicate all right-of-way along St. Luke's Street, and Magic View Drive by recorded Warranty Deed or recorded plat prior to the issuance of any building permits. 16.13 The Applicant has submitted a draft site plan to provide a general overview of expected development type location and amenities. The proposed site plan proposes to the dedication of a new public right-of-way. All public easements shall be designed by plat or other document of record showing their location. 16.14 Existing easements are shown on the recorded plat of the Amended Magic View Estates Subdivision which will be in conflict with the new proposed layout. Applicant shall vacate conflicting easements prior to applying for building permits. 17. It is found that if the developer pays for the requested improvements and complies with the conditions set forth in these findings of fact, and all sub -parts, the economic welfare of the City and its residents and tax and rate payers will be protected, which requirement shall be included in a development agreement, a condition of annexation and zoning designation. 18. It is found that the development considerations which must be FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 13 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORS CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 taken into account, in order to assure the proposed development is designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner which is harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing, or intended character of the general vicinity, in order to assure that the proposed use will not change the essential character of the affected vicinity and will insure that the proposed uses will not be hazardous or disturbing to the existing, or future neighboring uses, particularly considering the impact of proposed development on potential to produce excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare and odors. Decision and Order now, therefore, based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the City Council does hereby ORDER and this does ORDER: 1. The applicant's request for annexation and zoning of approximately 10.00 acres to Limited Office (L -O) is granted subject to the terms and conditions of this Order hereinafter stated. 2. The application is for annexation and zoning of 10.00 acres. The legal description shall be prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor, Licensed by the State of Idaho, and shall conform to all the provisions of the City of Meridian Resolution No. 158. The legal description for annexation must place this parcel contiguous to the Corporate City Limits per Ordinance No. 686. 3. Developer enter into a Development Agreement that provides in the event the conditions therein provided are not met by the Developer that the property shall be subject to re -zone and de -annexation from the City of Meridian, which Agreement shall provide for the following conditions of use and development; to -wit: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 14 - AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO./' CASE NO. AZ -99-022 3.A The Applicant shall use the subject property to develop, use and maintain professional office with any other uses permitted in the subject zone only as a conditional use. 3.B. The Applicant shall develop the subject property in accordance with the following conditions: 3.B.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. No variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches crossing this project. 3.B.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.B.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. 3.B.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. 3.B.5 A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 55 7, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. All site drainage shall be contained and disposed of on-site. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 15 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX / BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 0 0 3.13.6 Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as not to direct illumination on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-14.D.3. 3.B.7 All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-2-415 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. No temporary signage or flashing signs will be permitted. 3.13.8 Applicants shall provide five -foot -wide side,,vallcs in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 3.B.9 All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 3.B. I OApplicant shall enter into a License Agreement with Ada County Highway District to construct, and perpetually maintain, a 30 -foot wide buffer with a 4 -foot high berm and a 6 -foot high solid, wooden fence on top of the berm along the entire length of Lot 2 in the Amended Magic View Subdivision. This obligation shall be appurtenant to Lot 2. 3.B.11Applicant shall construct a minimum 20 -foot wide buffer with a 4 -foot high berm and a 6 -foot high solid, wooden fence on top of the berm along the entire length of Lot 3 in the Amended Magic View Subdivision. 3.B.12Applican: t shall be required to dedicate all right-of-way along St. Luke's Street, and Magic View Drive by recorded Warranty Deed or recorded plat prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3.B.13The Applicant has submitted a draft site plan to provide a general overview of expected development type location and amenities. The proposed site plan proposes to the dedication of a new public right-of-way. All public easements shall be designated by plat or other document of record showing their location. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 16 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 3.B.14Existing easements are shown on the recorded plat of the Amended Magic View Estates Subdivision which will be in conflict with the new proposed layout. Applicant shall vacate conflicting easements prior to applying for building permits. 4. The City Attorney shall prepare for consideration by the City Council the appropriate ordinance for the annexation and zoning designation of the real property which is the subject of the application to (L -O) Limited Office District (Meridian City Code § 11-7-2 G). S. Subsequent to the passage of the Ordinance provided for in section 4 of this Order the engineering staff of the Public Works Department shall prepare the appropriate mapping changes of the official boundaries and zoning maps as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-21-1 in accordance with the provisions of the annexation and zoning ordinance. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 17 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 Meridian Planning anboning Commission Meeting _ December 14, 1999 50 Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I recommend approval or recommendation to City Council for annexation and zoning of 20.05 acres from -M-1 to I -L by Albertson's, Inc. incorporating the staffs notes of December 3. Hatcher: Second it. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A-NN&XA=T4,@N*NE0-ZONHVG;OF 10 ACRES FROM RT TO LO FOR PROPOSED II-IAGIC-'! ttEWTOFFIOEIGD-MPL'-EX- BY W.H. MOORE COMPANY—EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW: Hawkins: Commissioner's, I will address both the annexation and conditional use permit application in my comments. The staff memo dated December 3, 1999 on this application details staff requests. They are asking to annex both of the lots shown on the screen. This is immediately west of the recently construction Eagle Partners site. We have Green Hill Subdivision immediately to the north. Recently annexed property to the south for the Hubble Engineering site. As mentioned in the staff report, this whole subdivision is fairly organized. The Magic View Subdivision that is in this Comprehensive Plan process, they seem to have consensus that they want to move from the current single family residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan to some kind of commercial office use. I would point to that there has been that those discussions going on. We have met since the submission of the application staff that is, with the applicant. A couple of the key points in the report to point out, the page 3 of the report number 10, a minimum 35 landscape buffer required along the north property boundary, that is basically a continuation of what the Eagle Partners site has and again there is a road that is coming through the site here. Here is the site plan. The applicant has asked that on the western lot, only 20 feet of landscape buffer be on the north side next to Green Hill Estates. Item 12 on page 2 deals with the subdivision. The subdivision and zoning ordinance does state that a road dedication can be considered as subdivision of property. So, we have this road coming here through from Eagle Partners and then aligning with existing Allen Street here with a line. Some discussion we had regarding this requirement that they go through a platting process. Staff is certainly open to another alternative there. We did discuss that. Maybe the applicant can address their feelings on that further. In terms of the conditional use permit they are proposing 3 one story buildings that would be this as a one story, this is a one story, this is a one story, this would be a 2 story here on the south part of this western most lot, which I believe they are calling B. Certainly in terms of the request for a restaurant which was proposed as a ancillary restaurant, the applicant is still uncertain as to what would be the size or what the restaurant would be and staff are asking that you give us the opportunity to make that call as to whether or not is should come back as a conditional use permit to you. It is a concern and we know it is for the commission too in terms of the future restaurants coming in to these locations without the restaurant Meridian Planning an*oning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 51 being identified or how big it will be so we are simply saying that a conditional use permit if required, would like an opportunity to send that back to you. I think the other conditions are pretty clear. That's it. Borup: Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward. Seel: Good evening. My name is Jonathan Seel. I work at W.H. Moore Company. 600 N. Steelhead Boise Idaho. As Brad as mentioned to you we have met with them and if I could take just a few minutes I'd like to give you a little brief history. As you well know, ACHD has talked about extending that road down from Eagle Road down to Magic View. As Winston Moore said (inaudible) that property he went to ACHD recently and said we would like to get an idea of specifically what you had in mind in terms (inaudible) width of it, how much right of way your going to take, what the radius is going to be, so on and so forth. As a result of that, ACHD say well, the best way to be able to formulate that is for you, Winston Moore, to go ahead and submit an application, provide a conceptual plan, put your road in as you like and that will trigger the whole process. Well, that is what we did. We presented the conceptual plan which as Brad said, would be an office building one story there on the westerly portion (inaudible) below it, a restaurant on the easterly southerly portion with an office above that. The reason that I bring that up is because one of the conditions in here which is item number 14 on page 4, is that a development agreement will be required as condition of annexation. As we talked to Brad about this and also Shari Stiles, we would really like to avoid that. As we mentioned this point, what we are submitting here is a conceptual plan. We don't know what type of office it is going to be. We don't know exactly what type of restaurant it is going to be. What we are prepared to do because Shari raised a few concerns. She said well, under an LO for example, you can put a C store in. That is a valid concern. We don't intend in doing that and what we are willing to do is put a condition here that this will be their office or office and restaurant. We will put that in the condition. If for some reason, which I don't know why, we were to come back to you and say to you we would like to put a c store in here, then all bets are off and we start the process over again. I think that would address the concerns of the development agreement and still give us flexibility. What our concern with the development agreement is, our experience has been historically, development agreements are very structured. Because this is a concept plan, we don't know exactly how these offices are going to look or potentially how this restaurant will look, or whether or not we will even have a restaurant for that matter. What we are really trying to do is address the concerns that the city has, but at the same time not have the development agreement. I think one of the things that that speaks to is if you look on page 5, item number 5 at the bottom, it talks about no details for hours of operation are provided while the office use shall be (inaudible) so on. It talks about specific hours of operation and so on for the restaurant. Again, we don't know that. That is where Brad came up to it. What we would like to propose is to simply leave item number 2, which is on page 6. And again that says it simply we would potentially come back or if staff asked for a conditional use permit for the restaurant, if we did propose a restaurant. I think number one, we are asking for the elimination of the development agreement. We are will to put in that it will be office or office and restaurant. I think that addresses your concern. This is a Meridian Planning anfloning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 52 concept plan as we see it. We would also like to modify item number 5 on page 5 and 6 and then I think as Brad also spoke to you, we would also like to do is avoid the subdivision process as possible. Our experience, and I know Kent is very familiar with this, is for example the Boise we've been able to deed that land to ACHD and we could potentially do lot like adjustments or something like that, but we would really prefer to avoid the subdivision process. I think you've got enough work to do all ready without adding to it and we think that this would still get you to where you want to, which is 2 lots. It is a subdivision as we both know. I think, other then that, you talked about the birm and the 30 feet and the 20 feet, 30 feet being on the lot, the easterly lot, 20 feet being on the westerly lot. We would like to suggest that too. Other then that, I think we are agreement with every other condition that's in here. So, I'd be glad to answer any questions. Barbeiro: Mr. Seel. You would not object to a condition that a restaurant not be a 24 hour restaurant in that area. Seel: I think what I'd prefer to do and I guess I won't directly answer that question, but what I prefer to do come back for a CU and that is what we are saying here because we don't know what the restaurant is going to be. I know where you are going with this but I think if we come back under conditional use permit then you have the flexibility at that point. Again, I think it is giving you the control that you want and I can understand the concern and I can understand the concerns of neighbors to the north. I don't personally visualize it would be that, but at the same time I don't want to box us in. I am trying to give us some flexibility, but still get the cities a second bite of the apple to say okay fine. Here is the conditions. You can have a restaurant but this is what you've got to do. Barbeiro: Inside of a development agreement, those can be pretty wide open at the same time, as they could be very narrow. Why wouldn't you enter into a fairly general broad development agreement. Seel: I guess because we don't see any purpose of that. Again, we are submitting a concept plan. We are saying we are going to do office, with the possibility of restaurant. We are willing to agree to night to put that condition on that. This will be office with the possibility of office restaurant. If it is a restaurant, they can have the flexibility of coming back and conditional use permit. LO is allowed. It conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. This is really no different then I think a lot of other things where if it is zoned that way, you don't have to do a development agreement. You have the flexibility to be able to put an office building on it if it is zoned for office or what have you. I think we view this as not a necessary thing. We are willing to give you the condition. I'think what Winston Moore is concerned with is that if you box him in so much, his only choice at this time, and this is not meant to be a threat, but he would have to withdraw the application. We are trying to get ourselves some flexibility. We don't know what the market conditions are going to be a year from now. They can change. I thinks as you are probably aware, he has primarily done office over his development life, so to speak. He does good quality office and that is his intention here. He is will to define it with those perimeters. I don't think you need a development then. Meridian Planning aneoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 53 Borup: Any other questions? Mr. Brown. Brown: Jonathon, just why have you chose to only have 20 feet where the one building is versus what you have on the rest. Seel: Well I think our feeling is, with some of the landscaping there, with the office, quite frankly you can start to maximize the site to a degree, but you still get the buffer between that and the neighbors to the north. Where as on the easterly portion, you've got the street. ACHD apparently is going to take all of that right of way to the north of it. We could continue that birm through. We don't deviate from there. Brown: What is your landscaping have in that 20 feet, I guess then. Is it birmed? You have a travelway instead of parking which I think is better to have the travelway there. Seel: I am not sure what you mean by a travelway. Brown: Well, you have the access to the parking stalls being that way instead of the headlights going into the subdivision. I think that that is a better way of doing it, but you have the noise of the cars driving there. What is that—elevated at all. Is there a birm there? Seel. Yes. I think our intention is just to go ahead and do a type of birm there that will be somewhat a visual barrier, somewhat of a sound (Inaudible) and also would be esthetically pleasing. We just felt that in that area, 20 feet would be an acceptable size birm and still give you as you say, as people are pulling in, we've designed it so they are not pulling in where their headlights are going to be shining into the residential area. They are going to be, when the headlights are on, will be shining toward that. I think was their desire there. Hopefully that answers you question. Brown: My concern is similar to my fellow Commissioner's, I have a problem with approving something in a concept and then allowing you the freedom to do anything in the LO that would, be allowed. I think that a development agreement even though can be real restrictive, can be worded that it gives you a lot of flexibility and doesn't limit you but lets us stay with what we are looking at. I mean we are looking at an office —the other option that I can see that you can do is similar to what you have to do when you make an application to Boise, is that everything—every building be a conditional use. That is the other way to go that gives the city—we feel comfortable annexing it. We will look specifically at each one of those buildings as it comes. Seel: Well, I guess I'm not —1 am having a difficult time understanding why we need it because— Brown: Because you have residents that are so close. Meridian Planning antoning Commission Meeting 0 December 14, 1999 54 Seel: Right, but my understand is that the residents also fought very hard and Billy Ray Strite is here and he can speak to more of this then I can because he was involved in this. Wanted to have office there. That was their desire. They wanted to stay away from the retail. I can fully understand that. Brown: 1 live one street over, so I know well too. Seel: I think the thing is that this is LO and this conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and they talked about a mixed use project here. We are proposing office and we are doing this type of thing and we are willing to define within that we will do office with the flexibility that if there is a restaurant, we will come back for a conditional use permit. My own personal opinion is that I have to believe that that gives you what you want. It gives you your protection. It is no different then if you are zoned in a particular area of a city. If you are zoned for that you are allowed to build that. You don't necessarily have to come in for a conditional use permit if you are zoned for that. So I think that we are attempting to do this, but at the same time we do want to avoid that. Our experience has been with a development agreement that, yes, it can start off that way but it kind of picks away at this and if that is the case, again it is not meant to be a threat, our only option is to withdraw it. Part of the thing was to get the road in and get that formulized and to allow us to start marking this project. I think you are getting this. This is what we are attempting to try to give you here. Your protection. So we don't come back for C store and don't come back for something else that you don't want and that the neighborhood does not want. We are saying office with a possibility of a restaurant and I think that the other thing that should be pointed out, I would think the city would want to encourage restaurant in here. As you develop this you are going to want to keep people in here. Your going to want to keep them off the streets. The same thing with the city of Boise. People drive 3 miles to a restaurant instead of trying to stay close by. I think that is another plus. Another sale pitch for this. Borup: What your saying then is it would all be office buildings except for the one restaurant and you state you'll come back for a conditional use permit on the restaurant if it goes in. Seel: Yes, their feeling is if there is a need to come back for conditional use permit we are prepared to do that. In fact, if you look at item number 2 in here, what page is that? That is page 6. It says number 2 at the top of the page. Be required to submit a separate CU application in the future if a restaurant comes through as a tenant improvement. To my that is very specific to what you want. You then have that opportunity to take another bite of the apple. It speaks your questions. If it is a 24 hour restaurant and you don't like that, then you can put conditions in. At this point we don't know what kind of restaurant or size it is going to be. Again, we are really trying to do is get some kind of flexibility and still give you the comfort that you want. Barbeiro: If you were to follow through with the plan using LO and no development agreement, you could put 4 restaurants here. Meridian Planning aneoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 55 Seel: That is not our intention. (inaudible) If you want to do a development agreement, we are not trying to give that to you. We don't see any benefit for that. Again, Winston Moore is not a restaurant developer. We think this is just some that is a ancillary thing that will benefit the whole project. His intentions is office and it could all be office but we certainly don't see any restaurant on the westerly portion. If anything the easterly parcel on the southerly end would be the only place where a restaurant would be viable. We are not thinking that way. We are trying to give you what you want, but still not get boxed in. I think it is a win, win situation. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I don't have a problem with what Mr. Seel is proposing if the conditions are written such —again I concur with him. When your at a conceptual level, it is extremely difficult to try to nail down specifics. I that if on this particular situation we were to put in the conditions that these be 4 office buildings with the option of the southeast building be modified to a restaurant under any other conditional use submittal, then one, we have protected the neighborhood above the city that these be office buildings only. If they would like to put a restaurant in at the specific southeast building, then they submit a new conditional use to change that to a restaurant. Then we deal with it accordingly at that time. If we get to look at this again, it is conceptual we still have you know final plat and— Borup: In my mind that sure seems to cover any concerns. Commissioner Brown, you still got a concern on that. Brown: (Inaudible) office on the other side of me too,.on the other corner. I can definitely say from polling the neighbors, they are not real pleased with that office, even though it is a office. I went down to the engineers office and told them instead of a C store this is the best thing that can in here. Well, the reason that I say that is because of without seeing the building, it becomes very difficult especially when they want to reduce what staff is recommending for bufferings..You don't know what that building is going to be, even with the one story, the building that is built on the other side of this subdivision it was to be a two story. Well, if the two story with a garage underneath, and all of the windows are facing into the neighbors backyard and that is a problem. Borup: Unfortunately, you missed out on all the testimony a year or two ago. I think they were all most unanimous that they wanted office building. Brown: I didn't miss out because I was here. Seel: Commissioner Brown, in all due respect other than office, I don't know what you'd put here. Brown: I think that office is great. I think a medical office is even better: Seel: See, the point is, we don't know if it is going to be medical office. We don't know if it is going to be standard office. If you start putting in the agreement, okay these are the kind of uses you can and these are the kind of uses you can't, we are back here Meridian Planning ananing Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 56 again. We don't—we want to avoid that now. Like I say, at that point it just behooves us to withdraw the application. Again, I emphasize it is not a threat. It is just that we don't know what the conditions are going to be. As every one here knows, conditions change from year to year. Five years ago, you probably would never thought that this would be what it is today. Thinks do change. I think part of the thing is also getting this road going and this road is a critical element in this whole project. Hatcher: One issue that Kent brought up that I had over looked that does concern me is with my suggestion, we don't get the opportunity to govern the design and look of the building. I know that W.H. Moore has historically done fairly nice buildings, but we don't have any protection with the general condition of approval as to what you are ultimately end up putting there. It could be a (inaudible) box, I don't think it would be in accordance with any of us sitting here this evening. Right now I am scratching my head thinking of how we can possibly look at a balancing out. Seel: I think you get back to it again is your trying to define it as a very specific thing. I don't know how we can do that tonight and still give ourselves the flexibility when we don't know what type of tenants are going to be there. That is my main concern. Again, I keep coming back to it is going to be office. It is going to be quality office. I don't know how you control the quality of the office. Maybe Brad can speak of that. It will be office. Yes it will be quality office. W.H. Moore's standpoint, you know that. How do you do that then other then doing a development agreement (inaudible) define the construction and how it looks and everything else, then if it changes because of the type of tenant and it is a deviation from that but still (inaudible) quality, we are back here again. That is want we want to avoid. I understand what you are saying, but I don't know how you solve it with out defining it. You knew when the Chevron was coming in and you could define that. Okay this is what I want to look at. This is what it is going to be so on. We don't know that now. We have a concept plan. Hatcher: Has W.H. Moore looked at any type of possibilities or even a schematic design or potential materials or.. Seel: They are in the packet. Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's. Billy Ray Strite, 1087 River Street, Boise. First let me make comment to Kent's suggestion on the 30 foot (inaudible). There has been a few of you who sat through the more than 20 hearings on the Chevron, Idaho Power Credit Union. Let me suggest to you that the neighborhood suggestion and Ada County Highway District's suggestion for 30 foot of set back was primarily to buffer the neighborhood and rightfully so from the impending which was not the applicants request but the Ada County Highway District request. Let me suggest to you that any place else in the City of Meridian, yellow zone requires a side yard or rear yard of 5 feet, not 30. A (inaudible) yard of 20 feet between residential and LO. Therefore, we thought that the ..best solution here was to go from the 5 feet, which I believe could be pursued to the 20 foot transitional yard and that is what we are proposing. I also like to suggest to you and Kent is probably very familiar with this thing. There was a concern expressed by Meridian Planning anfoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 57 the neighborhood that this street would continue if you will, due west to Locust Grove. I think that now you have an opportunity here, Ada County Highway District has consented to make sure that this road does in fact turn south and align with Allen as it was proposed to do under alternate B onto the impending rezone, annexation of the C store. Relative to Mr. Barbeiro's comments, I can suggest to you that we have submitted architectural plans, the elevations of which I think certainly address the concerns. I think even further, maybe what you need here, and all due respect here to Kent's comment that all these buildings should go through condition use. Keep in mind, the whole reason we are here on the conditional use permit here tonight is because we have12 buildings on the lot. That in fact gives you the hammer. Number two, these buildings still have to go through zoning compliance, once it gets it zoning compliance, if in fact the staff feels as through these buildings are not what you see in you packet before you, I would suggest at that point of time, we come back to you as a commission. I think that is the hammer that is needed by the commission. I can tell you throughout 20 plus hearings, all we heard was the neighborhood wanted office here. I think this is a great use here. There is no question, no denying that. Your Comprehensive Plan suggests mixed use office preferable. In the yellow zone there are a few accepted uses via condition use. I think that if we are prepared tonight as Jonathon has all ready explained to you, to suggest that condition use with reference to accepted use, that being the restaurant, would only be in the southeasterly building as commissioner Hatcher has ready mentioned. I think that again it gives you the hammer and the only appliance that you need to pass this on to City Council. Again, I'd like to suggest to you that this road is probably the major reason we are here tonight, and certainly the applicant is prepared to construct these office buildings and I think in compliance with the Condition use the conditions that are imposed and I would ask that you act favorable upon it. If there is any questions relative to the architectural part of it, I would be more than happy to answer those. Hatcher: Could you enlighten me on the proposed materials. I. am looking at (inaudible) or less here and can't read any of the text. Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Hatcher the material pallet suggested in those submittal packets basically brick and stucco - Hatcher: Stucco or effuse? Strite: Effuse,,excuse me. Brick, effuse and glass are the primary pallets. Hatcher: Would you classify these as the same design and construction level as the ones down on River that you have done? Strite: I would suggest that if you are comparing them in material pallet, yes. Hatcher: One other thing was, clarification if I might be mistaken, we keep talking about a 20 foot buffer. We talking about the north buffer against the neighborhood? Meridian Planning anvoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 58 Strite: That is correct. Hatcher: Discussion has been 20 foot but the site plan that was submitted is scaling out as a 30 foot buffer. Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Hatcher after receiving the comments from the staff, we met with the staff 1 believe it was on the 11th and we were asked to resubmit and answer the questions in their report -1 think if you p back to their report there is a request or response to all the conditions by the 12t . That plan was submitted on the 12t . There was a miss -scale there and staff brought that to our attention. I think you will find in the plan that Brad has before him tonight that it is 20 ft. The one we submitted on Friday. Anyway, its dimensioned. I have a copy of that plan that was submitted to the staff on Friday. That was in response to the staff report that all conditions be responded to prior to 12/12. Hatcher: Was there any need for the additional 10 feet? Strite: In our belief yes. Hatcher: And, how so? Strite: We felt that 12 feet was not sufficient between the parking and the building. We wanted to soften the building so we added 3 feet to each one of these sidewalk, landscaped areas between the buildings and parking on both buildings 1 and 2 on the site (inaudible). Borup: You said you added 3 feet to the site around the building? Strite: Mr. Chair. What we did was between the parking on building 1 and building 2 is we added 3 feet to each one of the sidewalk landscaped areas between the building and the parking on the north side, south side and the north side of building 2. That actually totals 9 feet, but I am not sure where the extra foot will go, but we will find a spot for it. Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Strite? Do we have anyone from the public who would like to address this Commission? Allison: My name is Rich Allison and my office address is 916 E. 1St Street, Meridian. Most specifically what I'd like to speak to is the road itself that is being constructed for the benefit of serving the Magic View area. Currently we have approved today 180,000 square feet of office space located in this area with buildings under construction. We have limited access today on Magic View only with minor access with the new road if you cut across the Chevron station past Idaho Power Credit Union office. We really need this road to serve the entire development, most specifically that 180,000 square feet that is being built today plus the two stations that exist, the McDonalds and the Idaho Power Credit Union. This would add about another 120,000 to 180,000 square Meridian Planning and`Loning Commission Meeting 0 December 14, 1999 59 feet, I guess about 82,200 square feet in addition. In order to properly serve the area we've got an easement that now goes in 300 feet with pavement and regular roadway and it ends. We need this to continue around to Allen Street to serve all the additional office and other things that have all ready been approved. That is what I wanted to speak to. Borup: Any questions? Anyone else. Hurel: My name is Chuck Hurel. I live at 3043 Autumn Way in Meridian. I recognize a lot of you and you recognize me. I know we have gone through a lot of this before and I applaud the developer for some of the things they are trying to do here and they are right. We requested as the neighbors to the north that this be developed in such a manner that it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and to be fair to everybody to have a office space rather than a 24 commercial adjoining our properties. One of the things that keeps coming up is the 30 foot birm-30 area right of way with the birm on top of it. In some of the past meetings where partners develop their property and that 30 foot right of way was discussed and a birm was discussed. I think what we had in mind and what came to past are two different things. There is now about a 3 foot high birm in place that does nothing to stop and lights coming from McDonalds, out of the credit union into the back yards and in through the windows of the existing residential properties. Somewhere along the line of what was drawn up I think there was suppose to be some kind of protective barrier in a birm more then 3 feet high. Something with a birm 6 or 8 feet high with a wall, either brick or venal wall to stop the lights. I can tell you right now, not only my property exists, but as people make the turn, if they've got their headlights on, and they make the turn to the east on that road, I will guarantee you that if the birm is the same size as it is down at Eagle Partners, those lights are coming in through my windows and I am going to be a very unhappy camper. I know my neighbors are going to be too. What I am asking here is that we are talking about a 30 foot right of way and a birm that is something substantial and that it is truly a sound and light barrier—not just something cosmetic—a couple of trees here and call it good. The same thing, I think, on the westerly property needs to be addressed as I can see the access to get around to the back side of the northerly building there as people come around back side of that. If that birm is not created high enough with enough definition and some thing, some obstruction there to keep the lights out of the peoples windows, it is going to happen and they are going to be unhappy campers. Anyway, that is kind of my main concern here. I was really glad to hear that the planning of this seems to be in compliance with the way most of the residents are thinking. I though great. This sounds like a great Italian restaurant. "Ancillary". Anyway. I applaud Winston Moore and the company for the fore thought that appears to be going in here and I just hope that they will work with us and the city with complying with our needs. Thank you. Borup: Any questions? Hatcher: In regards to the existing conditions on the birms and headlights and stuff like that, are those birms currently on the southern property line of the subdivision or is it further into the lots where the development has occurred. Meridian Planning andoning°Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 60 Hurel: Its on the new development. It is not on the existing property. Hatcher: The land is being allocated for the new road and the landscape buffer between the backyards and the street still have not been improved. Hurel: Right. Hatcher: There is still opportunity to fix this problem of headlights getting into peoples houses. Hurel: In'this part of the development, I don't know where we can go with Eagle Partners as far as what has happened down there or as Mr. Strite said, maybe somewhere along the line we still have a hammer with the conditional use permit that was granted them because there is a lot of light, not just from headlights but also from the existing building—the new Chevron building. We can do brain surgery underneath those lights. It is not a good thing. Borup: I have one question. You made a statement that you'd like that buffering to be substantial. Do you have a definition of what that means. Hurel: Substantial would mean at least enough to buffer the sound and the light, whether that birm becomes 6 to 8 to 10 feet tall with a fence with some kind of a brick wall on top. Borup: Your saying a 10 foot wall with a birm on top. Hurel: I've seem them. That's substantial, yes. Borup: Do you have a definition that might bewithin the realms of reason? Hurel: I see other neighborhood along thoroughfares that have buffers. Not necessarily freeway. Franklin Road, Eagle Road. There are some very nice separations between — not necessarily commercial properties or — Borup: I don't think there is any place in Meridian that has 16 high foot buffering. Not in this town. Hurel: Okay. If there is going to be END OF SIDE 5** Hurel: Other types of buildings. Meridian Planning arwoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 61 Borup: Is it your understanding that what is there now is completed. Are they doing any more landscaping at the St. Luke's street ---are they completed? Brad your statement said there was a chain link fence and that was – Hawkins: Correct. Yes they have received final occupancy. Borup: I mean as far as what is being done to that buffer area. That is completed as far as you understand was there going to be anymore when the street was lightened the rest of the way. Hawkins: No, they were required to have 35 feet wide and because of the off set of the fence and that ditch in there, that actually turns out to be like 32 or something. In terms of the width, they actually comply there at Eagle Partners. I was out there. I certainly can agree. One thing to consider is you plant things that in 10 years are going to mature to provide the buffer. If you plant things to provide a buffer now, the trees will never survive in 5 year. They will choke each other out. The only way you can do it is with a fence. -Hurel: That is correct. But do we have to wait 10 years for a buffer and what is chain link fence do for – Borup: Was that the final agreement? Do you know. The streets don't need to be widened and approved. What's there now is the first phase of that street and then— Hawkins: Well, they had to get a license agreement with the Ada County Highway District because that is 108 foot right of way. The landscape plan only required a 35 foot wide landscape strip. Borup: (Inaudible) additional buffering coming when that road was widened out to its maximum capacity. Maybe we don't know the exact answer to that question. Hawkins: The fencing my understanding is to be non-combustible. (inaudible) agreeable that that is the part of the reason for the chain link fence. You certainly could do wrought iron. There are other options. Borup: That is not going to keep the lights out either unless it is a solid wrought iron. That is what I have seen in other areas. Get some ivy growing in on there and it can fill in, in two years. Any other questions? Anyone else? Trueax: Rod Trueax at 3091 Autumn Way which is actually right here. Based on the proposal that has been presented, I guess as a resident living in that area, 2 years ago we wanted them down 1 block, but barring that in general, I am in agreement with what is proposed. I have only 2 concerns. One is the restaurant and the possibility that it could be a 24 establishment. Definitely would be opposed to that, however, not opposed of having a fine Italian restaurant in there. The other point, if we could go to the side that had the road layout, just with the station in there, based on the city's Meridian Planning arwoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 62 performance with controlling that birm, Chuck kind of alluded to that, it is more like a 2 foot tall birm and I think that is flat pushing it. The fence was put behind the birm so it has no altitude at all. When it was brought up at hearings before, what they would provide was the birm on a 30 foot spread and so on and so forth, and the privacy fence. I am sorry, but chain link fence does not count as privacy fence. In meeting with non- combustible, brick and mortar is pretty non-combustible or use to be anyway. I would even though we don" really care for that because it blocks what to be a good view, in light of the Chevron and other parking lots, I think we would probably welcome a brick fence at point of time. The lights are not blocked at all unless you are lying down in the back yard or in my pool, you are going to get lights. That is just the way it is. My point would be is if there is some sort of birm provided in this area and some privacy fence which would be "light blocking" so when there is traffic coming down this, the people living here have some opportunity of survival at night. And some opportunity to enjoy the property that they bought 10 years ago. Based on 200,000 plus square feet of office space, that sounds like an awful lot of traffic. I would question how long it is going to be before this 3 lane plus a turning lane out in this area is going to be blown back into this area. How much of this they'll have to give up. Plus, for the fire department, this looks like a rather nasty corner here. I would just recommend that there be some consideration for birm—with a pond there I think it is going to be tough to put a birm there. It looks like there are some obvious compromises here that need to be spelled out and due to the lack of performance on the birm and the privacy and everything on the previous agreement, I would like to see that as part of the condition and be spelled out rather specifically. Not just the width, but also the height of the birm and the I think that asking that it be compatible or comparable to that down at Thousand Springs which is just down the road a mile, which has 8 to 10 foot birm height plus fence on top of it is rather typical and should be a reasonable request for birmage in that area. There is a lot less traffic in that area then there is here potentially. Borup: Thank you. Any questions? Anyone else? You have a conclusion. Strite: I think it probably appropriate that I bring this up since it seems to be the topic. Most of you on the commission probably understand that that ground up north does not belong to this developer nor is it part of this application. However, what I would suggest to you is that the ground west of the roadway, parcel A if you will, we would have no problem with putting in a 3 or 4 foot birm and provide a fence on top of that. However, I would suggest to you again and I think it would be a condition that you may want to impose upon Ada County Highway District who owns the property to the north that they propose what ever they like. We made a number of overtures to Ada County Highway District and Eagle Partners presentation, none of which was agreed to. I think the only way that this is going to happen is that the city take a more active role then the developer. Borup: Do you remember what was finally agreed on. Meridian Planning ar&oning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 63 Strite: The final agreement was a 3 to 4 foot high birm with landscaping. That was the way it was written and that was it. The fence that was put there was at the request of the ditch company. And that is a chain link fence. Borup:_ That is why it is non combustible. That was the final agreement between ACHD and — Strite: That was the final agreement that came from the City of Meridian to the developer. What happened between the City of Meridian, Ada County Highway District is anybody's guess. We met there approximately 12 times. We went up and down, back and forth. It went from 20 feet to 30 feet. As you recall the road went on a southwesterly direction (inaudible) the parcel, cutting this parcel in half. It went all over the board. All we asked for was the approval. We provided 35 feet. We in turn would landscape whatever Ada County Highway District would allow us to do on a license agreement, which I mentioned. That was done. What you see is what you get. What I would suggest to the commission is perhaps that the condition be stated such that Ada County Highway District, whose position it is to take care of that ground, do so. It is not the position of the developer. Ada County Highway District is buying the ground that goes all the way from here to here to here. Any part of that is the developers (inaudible). So what happens to that area has to be done by Ada County Highway District and my strong suggestion to this commission is to make a condition on there back to Ada County Highway District who will be hearing this I believe its tomorrow night that something be done with that particular ground. I think Mr. Trueax brings up a very good point. Right now at the westerly end of the present development there is a small retention fund. This roadway has to be drained. Ada County Highway District informs us we had to have a retention pond at the curvature of this road and that is why it is shown there. Perhaps that is not the size, but the roadway was designed by them. The retainage pond showing as concept only knowing that some area at that west end of the curvature of that road has to take the drainage from that new roadway. That is not to say that the birm can't run to the west of that, but again I think I want to stress upon the Commissioner's here that it is not within the purview of the developer. It is ACHD's purview. I would like to certainly go on record as saying so and if you'd like to make that a condition I would be more then happy to take that to Ada County Highway District tomorrow evening. That is all I have. Borup: When you were referring to that you were referring to parcel B. Strite: That is correct. As I say, on the other end on the westerly end, we have total control of that. We will provide the birm and the fence. We don't have a problem. Borup: Commissioner's. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman I have a question for Brad. In 20 feet, how high a birm can you get. Hawkins: I believe that would be 3 to 1. Between 6-1/2 and 7, right. Meridian Planning asoning Commission Meeting 0 December 14, 1999 64 Borup: That is a maximum he's talking. That gets hard to mow. Would that be a maximum? Hatcher: Is there any way that the City Planning Dept or this Board or anything can go back to what is all ready been built incorrectly and get that to what was agreed upon. Hawkins: Certainly. I think what would be a good example, the Fred Meyer complex on the Locust Grove side, if you go look at that, it is about 20 feet. There is no sod and it is a pretty good size buffer. You can do things with plantings, large shrubs, there is ways to do it. There is no mowing required at the Fred Meyer birm there. It is pretty dense. Borup: What is there now. It is sure not what I envisioned when we were talking about the buffering 2 years ago. Hatcher: I am not thinking the plant material that is or isn't there. I am talking about a 2 foot birm being built when it was agreed upon that a 3 to 4 foot birm supposed to be built. Borup: That's what we don't know what was agreed upon. Is there a way to get a copy of that? Hatcher: I know that. I was wondering if we had the ability to correct an error and then address the ACHD land that—we'd want to do it all in one. Borup: Your talking a birm only or a fence on top the birm. Hatcher: I'd like a fence as well. Borup: What happens to that area between, if you do an area with a birm and fence on top, what happens to that area between that fence and the neighbors fence. Hatcher: You have a 6 foot privacy fence at the property line the birm is kind of secondary. My big thing that I am looking at is headlights, distraction and sound. Borup: I was concerned about a hide out for the kids. We all ready testified earlier what they do when they have a closed in area like that. We'd be creating the same thing. I don't know what the solution is. Between the fence on top of the birm and the neighbors fence. Hatcher: I am not talking 2 fences. I was just thinking (inaudible discussion with Borup) Strite: Billy Ray Strite again. On the southerly boundary of the neighborhood; north of that particular property line that is shown on the view foil, there is a 25 wide canal in there. I believe it is 2 canals actually. The neighborhood fences are probably some 25 feet north of that particular property line. The fence that was placed on the Eagles Meridian Planning a0oning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 65 Partners ground, I believe, is 3 feet inside and guessing 3 to 5 feet south of the property line that you see on this particular sheet. Keeping in mind that there is a small ditch just north of that and then there is a large ditch toward the back. Borup: So the double ditch—They run parallel to Green Hills. That is a different situation. Strite: Mr. Hatcher, maybe the thing to do and we can control parcel B, is if we can build provided the ditch company, and I want to make that caveat right now, provide a solid wood fence, and I think that is more appropriate, along the north boundary of parcel B. It would be rather duplicate, but we can still birm on the inside obviously. I want to stress upon you again, I think it is to the credit of the City is going to have to go to Ada County Highway District and suggest what has to be done with their parcel. Borup: If we can do any thing, then now is the time to do it. Hatcher: Correct. As large as a development that this is, throw out the concept of now necessarily a wood fence, but something a little more permanent that is going to be around as long as this development is going to be. It might have to be a 6 foot wood fence, maybe a 4 or 5 foot masonry fence. Something tall enough to stop the automotive headlights, that is going to be a permanent fixture that not going to degrade over a time. Borup: Well, masonry fences do that too. You talking about putting it on top the birm? Hatcher: Possibly. There is so many different opportunities here at this time. That large of a birm it could be a meandering fence that goes along with the birm. Strite: Mr. Chair, if I might. You also must understand part of this is in the ditch company right away and we are subject to what they will allow us to build. Generally there are no permanent structures (inaudible). That is why I thought wood might be more appropriate because if they come in and tear it out— Hatcher: It can't be flammable. Strite: They have allowed us to put fences as long as they are on our side of that right of way. That is why I was suggesting that maybe do it within 10 feet of the 20 foot, raise the birm, put the fence up and then the back side is going to be basically controlled by the ditch company, which it is today anyway. Borup: You could see a birm there with a fence on top. Hatcher: Six foot fence on top of a 3 foot birm. Strite: Midway in the 20 feet so that the back side of which is part of the right of way of the ditch company can be done. They are going to let the weeds grow anyway. Meridian Planning arooning Commission Meeting 0 December 14, 1999 66 Borup: With the birm there they should be able to control it. Strite: I would certainly think so. Again, that is something you can make a condition as approved by the ditch company and then we'll do what we can. Borup: I think the concern from the commission is very much the lights on the street. Lights is more of a concern then noise. Hatcher: I think they are equal, but light is more prevalent. Borup: Your not going to stop the noise. Hatcher: (inaudible) but die to the distance that we are talking about it is kind of a mute issue. Strite: To shorten this so other applications can be heard, we would recommend that a condition be placed on the application that we work with the ditch company on parcel B. Parcel A, I would strongly suggest that a condition be placed on Ada County Highway District to resolve it to the neighbors satisfaction. They are going to have to purchase the right of way if in fact they purchase it doesn't seem to be a big problem. Borup: Any other questions Commissioner's? Hatcher: We could move that we could continue on with this project but to address the issue with ACHD how do we go back and put requirements on them. Borup: On the previous parcel or on this parcel. Hatcher: Both. Borup: Mr. Brown have you got a suggestion on that? Brown: No, but I've got one comment. I know you don't need the exercise but there is really no need that that property be sold to them. It could remain as a part of that parcel. I don't see a purpose in it. They would have it as a easement. They do it in residential— Attorney: Mr. Chair, Mr. Brown I think that I read in here that they have all ready made an agreement to purchase. You'll find that in their staff report. This is going to become a public rights away and they are going to purchase it. The purchase agreement is an off set to the impact fees. Brown: If they purchase the right of way, but that area that we have a concern about, you could still keep that in your ownership. Meridian Planning arsoning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 67 Borup: They can still do that. That is what happens in residential subdivisions. Strite: Perhaps it might be most appropriate that you make that recommendation at Ada County Highway District. We certainly have no control over it. I went through this as you know for 4 years on Eagle Partners and I lost on every count. I would think the city has a little more clout then I do. You might make the suggestion to Ada County Highway District take some precautions to satisfy the neighborhood concerns. They certainly have not done it to date and I'd be the first to admit that. That is not the subject tonight. The application before you has to do with Magic View Subdivision and Winston Moore, but I think certainly (inaudible) is a condition that Ada County Highway District take a strong look — Brown: Doing it that way you can grant to the highway district. They are still going to maintain their easement. That part is not any different. That would give us the ability to require the same fencing that we are talking about—the entire distance of the project. Strite: If that is in the (inaudible) to recommend to Ada County Highway District certainly we would be amenable. Borup: Thank you. Are we formulating here. Hold the public hearing open in case we want someone to come up for additional information. What ever your pleasure is. Discussion then if no one is going to make a motion. Looks like Commissioner's what do you see the concern here? One the restaurant and building uses I think we've kind of covered that. It looks to be like the main thing is the buffering. Hatcher: The buffering and whether or not we have a development agreement and we don't. Borup: Right. I don't know what we can do about the other parcel with ACHD cause what is there now is sure not what I envisioned a year or two ago. Things may have changed after I left this commission, it usually does, but— Brown: We can request the staff that they go and look and see what was previously -approved and bring it back to our next meeting and we can address it and have them take some to the highway district at that time. We can also make it a part of this motion that they talk about it, but I think that we can handle this entire site as a part of this. Hatcher: We need to address this entire site tonight. Borup: I don't know what we can do about the previous. De Weerd: It is not part of this application. By doing it tonight they can bring that recommendation tomorrow night at the ACHD hearing then. If we have desires, we need to let them know. Meridian Planning ar*oning Commission Meeting 0 December 14, 1999 68 Hatcher: We should have staff confirm the original requirements where incase there is a violation. Borup: We got two wishes. Let's get the development agreement out of the way first. Kent feels strongly about having it, or semi strongly. Brown: I think it gives the developer the flexibility that he needs and at the same time protects the city. I would feel reluctant in approving the annexation without a development agreement. Borup: Any other comments? I guess I am not seeing the need, if it is restricted to an office building. Anything other than an office building its going to come back with a CUP anyway. Barbeiro: Is that entirely true because of the way that the developer has described it. If there are two buildings on one lot it would come back, but if he should later decide — Borup: No. That would be the condition we would' annex it. That would be one of the conditions. Barbeiro: Can you elaborate. It would be two buildings or— Borup: No, no. Anything other than office building would come back before us with a conditional use permit. Barbeiro: I thought one of our concerns was — Borup: The restaurant. In other words, if the restaurant goes in, it comes back before this commission. Barbeiro: While the discussion about the 24 hour restaurant, it seems very feasible in— Borup: Well, whether it is a 24 hour or 6 hour restaurant, it still comes here. De Weerd: You did not place that condition on Walgreen's, which had a building we had no idea —it had the basics, it had the materials like you have in front of you and a plan, it's a shell. If it is anything other then that, they are going to have to modify the agreement. Hatcher: I feel comfortable with conditions tonight, based upon what has been submitted. The only clarification that I would want is these submitted elevations do show a 2 story building and I am unclear as to what do the four buildings would be proposed as 2 story. Borup: It was not on your first plan. It was on a later plat that came in. Meridian Planning a*oning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 69 Hatcher: And, we have on record what the materials are. Borup: So, question on the birm. What Commissioner's feel needs to be there. The buffering'birm, or whatever the buffering. Hatcher: The biggest, tallest birm possible. Borup: Let's start with size distance. The first plan was showing 30 feet. The second one was 20. Staff recommends 35, 1 believe. We have 3 choices there or anything else. Hatcher: Requirements are only 20 and if we put a fence on a birm, requirements are only 20, proposal only 20. We have 20-30 feet of ditch, between the residents in this property and I think what is being submitted is adequate. Borup: Are you saying we can get a 5 foot birm. De Weerd: Five foot with a 6 foot fence. Borup: Eleven feet. That would take a pretty tall car. Okay are we ready for a motion. Brown: I move we close the public hearing. Hatcher: I second it. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Anyone want to start putting things together for Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I motion that we recommend approval to City Council for the annexation and zoning of 10 acres from RT to LO for the proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company with the recommended staff comments, the construction of the suggested 20 foot landscape birm or landscape buffer with 3 to 1 ratio for the birm with a 6 foot fence on the crest of that birm— Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, 3 to 1 is the recommended maximum if it is going to be mowed and maintained—the grass. You can go steeper then that such as Locust Grove along Fred Meyer. That is probably 2 to 1 but it is not grass covered. It is bark and ground cover. Hatcher: If we are talking only 10 feet—let's go with the designated height—designated birm height of 5 feet with a 6 foot privacy fence at the crest of the birm— Borup: That may be more than necessary Meridian Planning an*oning Commission Meeting • December 14, 1999 70 Hatcher: That is what we talked about. You think it is over kill? Five and six. Borup: It is your motion. I guess I could see 4 and 4 and a six foot fence is a pretty good -but Hatcher: I am not opposed to that. I'll amend it and say 4 and 6 and I think we need to address this project in hold in regards to the maintenance of the easement that would be turned over to ACRD, so that these requirements would be placed on that land as well. I am not exactly sure how we would do that. Borup: It is your intention that birm and fence be along the whole northerly property line. Both the parcel they control and the one ACHD does at this time. Hatcher: That is correct. Borup: And as stated, I don't know why your commercial development would be any different than a residential, but that can stay as a common lot within the project maintained by the owners. Unless ACHD has some policy that prohibits that. Hatcher: I think we should make that a condition of approval and force ACHD's hand. Did I cover everything? Attorney: If I was to clarify your motion your asking that condition 14 be deleted, there not be a development agreement. Your also asking that condition 10 be modified to a 20 foot buffer. Hawkins: And note number 12 on page 3. You need to do something with that regarding the subdivision. Hatcher: Yeah, number 6. Number 6 we reduced to 20 feet. Bare with me. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commissioner's) Ten would be modified from 35 to 20 and 12— Borup: Kent your saying on item 12 because it referenced the development agreement. That is the only modification there? That is the motion? Do we have a second? De Weerd: Second. Borup: Okay, motion and second. Any discussion? De Weerd: Excuse me Mr. Chairman. I would like to hear discussion from the silent partner over there, Commissioner Brown. Borup: On the development agreement part? He just.. Meridian Planning an6oning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 71 Brown: I thought that it was clear. I think that the applicant is asking a little more of us then—development agreements are usually every city in Idaho, it is a state law. It does allow flexibility doing—it requires them to negotiate with staff (inaudible). I will not support this motion. De Weerd: Brad, is it typical that we have been requiring development agreements in all of our applications or is that not. Hawkins: Annexations and rezones has been the standard. That's the only applications the state law allows you to do a development agreement. Only rezones and annexations, but it is an option. It is not mandatory, but legal department has been highly recommended that they be adopted. De Weerd: And why is that? Hawkins: We have some internal conflict in staff about whether they should or not. I think the primary reason is when they annex—potentially they could turn around and sell off one of the lots or sell both of them or —so when you say you put the development agreement on, even if they sell it off this plan gets thrown out and someone else comes in. They can't just put anything on there. They are still bound because a development agreement is attached to the land so regardless of— De Weerd: But in this case, aren't we approving a conceptual along with this annexation and zoning? Borup: But it is not coming back before us. De Weerd: But staff would be making their decisions based on that, right? Borup: Well the two options to have the control is to have the development agreement or conditional use permit on everything that goes in building by building. That would be the two choices that would still give the city the same control essentially. We have not been talking about a conditional use permit here. I think that is what we have normally done in the past. It has either been a development agreement it has been a conditional use permit on all future. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman may I ask Brad what the internal conflict —Does staff agree with it—the development agreement concept or is it the city attorney that is promoting that? Hawkins: They are pretty labor intensive. For planning and zoning staff, they are actually not so much labor intensive. It does make it difficult in 3 to 5 years to remember that there is a development agreement associated with this parcel. There is a triggering mechanism that we are lacking. Shari is very supportive of them and has been. She is very strong. I think that the annexation ordinance is another mechanism. Meridian Planning an9oning Commission Meeting • . December 14, 1999 72 It is not just a condition use, it is an annexation ordinance and you can put some attachments in that as well. De Weerd: Which by approving the conceptional drawings on this, you are putting those conditions on there, is that correct? Hawkins: Right. -1f you are saying this is going with that, then it is going to run with the land. De Weerd: I know a lot of the problems in the past is P & Z hasn't even seen these development agreements until after it is signed anyway, so.. Borup: Do we even see any then. I do, but I don't think the rest of the commission does . De Weerd: No, we don't. Okay, thank you. Borup: We still have a motion on the floor. Hatcher: I was re -thinking though, we are dealing with annexation and zoning right now. We go off track even with my motion. Borup: I don't think so. Staff had that under the annexation and zoning. Ready to vote? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 3-2 Hawkins: Mr. Chairman, could staff just get a clarification. On Item number 12, page 3, what was commissions— Borup: To eliminate the reference to the development agreement. Is that what you meant to clarify Brad. The platting was not addressed. So that was left in. That was part of the motion the recommendation on the platting. Do we need to hold up here a little bit? Hawkins: There was a resolution passed by City Council last week that allows one time splits which the City has not had. In the meeting between staff and the developer, we didn't really complete this issue correct. (Inaudible discussion from audience). If you let the motion stand, that can be modified and (inaudible) by staff when we go to City Council. It stays in the recommendation. That way it will give us time to look it over. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PROVIDE MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON A SINGLE SITE AND AN ANCILLARY RESTAURANT IN LO ZONE FOR PROPOSED MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX BY W.H. MOORE COMPANY—EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW: j Meridian City Council M� February 1, 2000 Page 2 of Mirage Meadows Subdivision ,and Lots 19 and 20 of Chateau meadows East located at the end of Oakcrest Drive: Item I. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAC 99-005 Request for vacation of the easement lying adjacent to the lot line common to Lots 6 and 7, Block 3, Thunder Creek Subdivision by Thunder Creek Partnership, LLC — south of Cherry lane, west of Ten Mile on Gray Cloud Way: Item J. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 99-022 Request for annexation,and.zoning of 10 acres to L -O for proposed Magic w_Office-Complex�by W.H. Moore Company — Eagle Road and Magic View: Item K. Findings' of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-040 Request for conditional use permit on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in an L -O zone for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company — Eagle Road and Magic View: Item L. Tabled from 01/18/2000: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-033 Request for Conditional Use Permit — Commercial subdivision mini -storage on Lot 2 of proposed Overland Mini Storage Subdivision by Overland Mini Storage, LLC — 1230 East Overland Road: Item M. Approve bills: Corrie: Okay. We have on the Consent Agenda tonight Items A through M. Council, pleasure on Items? , Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we pull Item D which is an agreement between the City of Meridian, Idaho Independent Bank and Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc., to Item 1A on the Regular Agenda; Item F which is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, pull that to 10B, we need to discuss something on that; Items I, J, K and L, table to 2/15/2000. If that's agreeable to Council, I'll make a motion that we accept the Consent Agenda as noted. Anderson: I'll second that. Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda with the exceptions as noted, Items D, F, I; J, K and L. Further discussion? I have r Meridian City Council M February 1, 2000 Page 3 one thing, Mr. Bird. On Item C and the dog license agreement — do you want to — we don't need to pull it. We discussed it earlier. Bird: Are we going to take that — I'm sorry. If Mr. Anderson will accept this (inaudible) second. Item C, the dog license agreement, I would like to take back into Item 10C to discuss in the Regular Agenda if that's agreeable to Mr. Anderson's second. Anderson: Sure. Corrie: The correction is noted. Any further discussion? Roll -call vote: Mr. Anderson, aye; Mrs. McCandless, aye; Mr. Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 1. Update on Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc., by JoAnne Butler: Corrie: Okay. The Regular Agenda, Item 1 is update on Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc., by JoAnne Butler. JoAnne. Butler: Mr. Mayor, Council members, JoAnne Butler, 101 South Capital Boulevard representing Cherry Lane Recreation. With me here tonight is Wally Lovan, Nancy Link, Tad Holloway, Jennifer Lovan-Holloway, and on behalf of Idaho Independent Bank, Jerry Madison. As the Council knows, we've been in the process of constructing a clubhouse at the golf course. Cherry Lane received a conditional use for this purpose last summer. Just by way, for the Council so that you know, one of the conditions of approval reflected in that conditional use permit and also reflected in the agreement that's before you tonight was not actually the condition of approval that the Council deliberated on if we looked at the Council minutes of June 15th, and we assume that was just a drafter's mistake. Anyway, that is one of the reasons that is why we are going back before your P & Z next week, actually, for a modification of that particular conditional use permit in connection with some timeframes, and that's next week. That's not why we're here today. Tonight we're just here to review the agreement for Cherry Lane that has been under discussion by your attorney, Idaho Independent Bank and Cherry Lane. The agreement is there to provide the bank with the comfort it needs to give Cherry Lane the loan to construct the clubhouse, and the agreement is there to provide the City with the comfort that it needs to be able to step into borrowers' shoes and complete that work if it should ever have to. We have just asked the counsel through your attorney to make a slight modification to that agreement, and I think your counsel's passed that out. Under the agreement, the conditional use permit is a defined term. It just references your file number, and we just added that it's a conditional use permit as may be amended from time to time just to reflect the fact that we're in that process now in coming to the City over the next month or so to request an • Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 61 • tenant, they may dictate a different type of design for us, then we're back here again, and we don't want to do that. Shari says, if you get these 50 -page Development Agreements that are just so onerous as just a — you can go right one foot and then left another foot, and that's it. As I said, in the City of Boise, we have never done a Development Agreement. When we have, we started to look at one that was specific to the use, and that's it. It didn't get into all the other details. Quite honestly, you really do want to avoid it for that reason because we don't know. If we are specifically tied, my feeling is Winston Moore is going to say let's pull this. Then you don't have the road. That's a catalyst to this. Again, I'm not trying to make threats here. He doesn't want to get locked into that because he doesn't know. I'm not sure if I understand all the nuances of these issues and all. All I know is we are trying to propose something here which is an office in an L -O zone. We're trying to propose something here that is generally what we're going to propose and we'd like to get approval (inaudible) conditional use permit. That's what we're trying — I'm sorry. I don't understand all the details of it, but that's what we're really trying to do. Again, if the City comes back and says, we're going to go through this very specific Development Agreement, we can't do that because we don't know and we don't want to get ourselves locked into it. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: Jonathan, I think what we're hearing from our legal counsel is that he recommends that the State Land Use Planning Act says that we ought to use the Development Agreement. What we're talking about here is one that would be fairly loosely written that would allow you to do some of the things that you're asking. Do you think Mr. Moore would be opposed to something like that? Seel: I think if it's something like that and it's a fairly loose in nature and again, it speaks generally to this concept, then I think he would not be opposed to it. I can't speak for him, but that would be my gut feeling. Again, if it takes (inaudible) other thing where we're going to get very specific, then, no, that's not going to work. Then again, I'm not trying to — I don't know what the term is here — I'm just trying to see where our dilemma is here, but we don't want to get boxed in. I think it can be fairly specific, like, okay, you're going to have office use and you're going to have four buildings, and there might be down the road possibly that one might be a restaurant or something like that, I don't know if that's legal or not. Then, yes. Yes. We can do that. Again, we're talking about a respected developer who's not going to come in and put up garbage here. This land is not coming cheap. I think that's what we're trying to achieve. I think that if we can do that, we can work it. We would like to do this, we would like to build this project. We don't know if it's going to be two months from now, six months or two years from now, but we would like to build this. We would like to see this road in. I think it's in the benefit of everybody else. So if we can achieve is Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 62 something like that with some latitude in there, you know, we're not proposing gas stations or any of the other things. We're basically talking office here, and we will say office, and we said that at the P & Z with the possibility of a restaurant of a conditional use. We will not come back here and ask anyone else here for — oh, we changed our mind, and we'd like to put a Shell Gas Station on that corner. We'd like to put a retail complex. We won't and we said that at P & Z. I think we're trying to be fairly specific and give everybody the comfort they need. (inaudible) answers questions. Kind of in a nutshell. Corrie: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Thank you, Jonathan. I think you answered the question. Anderson: Mr. Foley wants to comment. Corrie: If somebody opens it up, comment (inaudible) Howard. Foley: I'm Howard Foley. From my perspective, I don't represent the homeowners either, but I just represent myself. I'm not opposed to a general, loosely -written Development Agreement. My concern is the lack of specifics as to what may or may not go in there that isn't office building. That's my concern, and I want the staff or the City to continue to have some control over it. I understand legal counsel to say is if you just annex it L -O, you're done. No other conditions. You can't put conditions on it that are other than limited office. If it's limited office, it's just a limited office. Restaurants aren't limited offices. That's my only concern that they're continuing to be some kind of control. If we had the Design Review, then that would be some further control. We just don't have it. So that seems to me, and I think that would be acceptable to me as a resident, if we had a Development Agreement that simply said, if you're going to do something beyond limited office or those kinds of things that you go through something that's akin to the conditional use permit or something that gives us notice and opportunity to come in and talk with staff and say, gee, these are the concerns that we have. That's really my concern, and we have given what I understand Mr. Seel to have said if that's acceptable to the applicant. I think that would be acceptable to us, also, but, you know, we've had these issues before where we think we know what's going on, and then it's sort of gets a life of its own and it sort of changes. Then we are back here lots and lots, and I don't want to do this anymore either. So, that's my only concern. Corrie: Thank you, Howard. Is that what you were saying, Jonathan? Seel: I think (inaudible) 30 seconds because I think we have gone through this. I think that's all we're really saying here. We will put an office here. We will put in there we will be very specific. It's not going to be a gas station, it's not going to Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 63 be retail, it's not going to be a liquor store, whatever it is. It's going to be office here. What type of office? It could be medical, it could be general, but it will be office. Then, if we `do come with a restaurant, we'll come back with a conditional use permit, again, you've got that second bite at the apple. So I think we're all in agreement here. _ You know, I think we could accept that. Corrie: Thank you. Okay. Council, have you heard what you wanted to hear? Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I would make a motion that -we close the public hearing. Bird: I second it. Corrie: ,Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Items 7 and 8. All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Okay. Are you ready then, for your Item No. 7 on the annexation and zoning? r Anderson: Go ahead, Tammy. It was -your idea. Go ahead and take a stab at it. deWeerd: I knew — ' Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Oh. I'm sorry. Then; W. Bird. p, Bird: I move that we have a =Findings of Facts and Decision of Order for the request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres from R -T to L -O for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company, Eagle Road and Magic View, and that the Development Agreement be a very loose — very general L-0 Development Agreement and anything outside of light office will come for a CUP. Anderson: Second. deWeerd: Mr. Bird, would that include — r Corrie: Just a second. Motion_ is made and seconded. Okay. Now discussion, Mrs. deWeerd. 0 Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 64 deWeerd: That needs to include staff comments — Bird: It includes staff comments.-- deWeerd: -- and would you include — Bird: --and Development Agreement. deWeerd: -- anything on the signage? Bird: The signage is in the -staff comments: deWeerd: Oh. Did you put in there height restriction on this? Bird: Ten foot, yeah. Stiles: It's just a suggestion. Bird: We don't have an ordinance. Anderson: Wouldn't that be covered under the CUP? deWeerd: If they come back for a CUP. Corrie: All right: Any other discussion? Gigray: Point of clarification. Corrie: Mr. Gigray. Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, is the motion with the inclusion of staff comments as the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission as proposed to be amended by staff and staffs comments here today? Bird: Yes, it is. Gigray: Okay. Corrie: Is that agreeable on the second? Anderson: Yes. y Corrie: Okay. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. 0 Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 65 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Now we have a public hearing request on the conditional use permit, Item No. 8. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the conditional use permit to provide multiple buildings on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in an L -O zone for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company, Eagle Road and Magic View, and that is to include the staff comments which I'm not going through and outline and for the City Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Decision of Order. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to approve the conditional use permit on Item No. 8 and the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and the Order. deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd. deWeerd: That would have a condition that if they do put a restaurant in here they will come back with the CUP; correct? Corrie: That's part of the conditional use. deWeerd: Just wanted -clarification. Corrie: Thank you. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Now, given the hour, it's 11:00 and we had a lot of people that was here to do the Walgreen's on 9 and 10. 1 would recommend to the Council, it's your decision, that we have that on the 1St on the public hearing continued to the next meeting. Bird: Yeah. We've had I'll bet you four, five, six, seven people leave because we told them — they were under the impression that we weren't going to go. There's some sitting back out there, but there were four or five sitting right — OMeridian City Pre-Courcting January 18, 2000 Page 9 Corrie: Table Items C and F. Table those two. Bird: He's saying we might be able to — Corrie:' C is all right. Bird: Okay. Leave C on? Table D and E? Corrie: Right. Bird: We're tabling D, E and F. We're tabling, but in the same motion we'll move E and F to re -open to a public hearing on February 15, 2000. Corrie: Anything else on the Consent Agenda? Explanation — anything to talk about? Item H. Building Inspectors — Contract for Services: Anderson: Oh. The Building Inspector's Contracts? Corrie: Did you get copies of those? Anderson: Yes. Ask Gary a question? Corrie: Yes. Anderson: Gary, on the Building Contract for Services, did you review those and is that the same contract, the same dollar amounts and everything as last year? Smith: Yes, sir. Everything's the same except for the date. Anderson: All right. Thank you. Gigray: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Gigray. Item 2. ORDINANCE NO. 853 Solid Waste Collection Services/Franchise: Item 7. Public Hearing:_ Request:for annexation and zoning.of 10 acres ;from RT to LO.for proposed Magic -View Office Complex by W.H. 'Moo ompany= Eagle'Road and"Magic,View: Approve - Attorney -to prepare -Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Item 8. Public Hearing: Request for conditional use permit to provide multiple buildings on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in L -O Meridian City Pre-Counceting . January 18, 2000 Page 10 zone for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company — Eagle Road and Magic View: Item 9. Public Hearing: Annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres from C-2 and R-8 to C -G (Walgreen's) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. — NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove: Item 10. Public Hearing: Conditional use permit to construct a single -tenant commercial building with a drive-thru window (Walgreen's) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. — NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove: Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I just might note on the regular agenda, and I don't know if the Clerk's office has this, but with Ordinance — proposed Ordinance 853 on the Solid Waste Collection Services and Franchise, there should be an agreement also with SSI as a follow-up to that ordinance. I believe I have gotten a transmittal from their attorney, Mr. Freeman, that they have, in fact, signed that agreement, and I think we've got a copy of their corporate resolution. That's an item that the Council if it doesn't take action on tonight should come fairly soon and then I would encourage the Council to take a look at Items 7 and 8 and 9 and 10, and the Mayor as to whether or not 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 might be considered a motion to combine those companion applications for public hearing purposes only. That's something you've tended to do and can speed up the process subject to consent of the applicants and anybody appearing. Bird: Mr. Mayor, getting back to — I've got one question. On Gary's proposal concerning the latecomers fee, by approving that, is that the proposal, Gary, that you want to implement? We don't have any real facts and figures on there that I can see. You've got an approximate and something like that. Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, Councilman Bird, I just wanted to change — propose that change to the policy. There is not specific language that I wanted you to approve tonight, but I wanted to get your review and your comments concerning the format as far as how we return latecomer fees to those that extend sewer and water lines. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Gary, don't you believe that is something that we could take about 10, 15 minutes in the workshop this month and discuss? Smith: Yes, sir. You bet. Sure could. Bird: So, would you be offended if we agree with you on this proposal but pull it from the Consent Agenda and bring it to the workshop? Meridian City Pre -Count ting January 18, 2000 Page 11 Smith: No, not at all. We've got several latecomer agreements in the process of being finalized, determined, et cetera. I just want to get the language straight in those agreements so that we can return this fund and it will have to be taken care of in the agreement with that particular language or that specific language. Bird: Maybe City Clerk could get us a copy of each one of the Councilmen and the Mayor a copy of that latecomers fee, generic, I know they're all different, but the generic agreement to let us look at when we're doing that. Smith: I'll make you a copy of an example agreement that we presently have approved and under contract, so to speak, that's operational right now. Bird: Then we'll put that on the 28th workshop agenda for a short meeting. Smith: Okay. Corrie: That's fine. Anticipating, you being the Council President, we need to sit down and discuss what we can put on the workshop. We might take a half a day on some of these things because there's a lot of ordinances coming up. Bird: I wouldn't"have a problem with that, Mayor. Corrie: Okay. Anything else, any other questions that Council has? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Mr. Gigray, on this Ordinance No. 853, did you say to hold that — you didn't say that. I just wondered. I didn't think you had, just the agreement's coming in. Okay. Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, all I'm saying is we have prepared an agreement, we have worked with SSI on the terms and conditions of that agreement. That has been approved all the way around. SSI has taken corporate action to enter into the agreement, and I'm just saying it is appropriate in my view if the Council wishes to consider it, that agreement could be approved following the passage of that Franchise Ordinance. Corrie: Thank,you. Item 3. Public Hearing: Request for annexation and zoning (R -T TO R-4) by Charles Crane — located at 3610 W. Ustick Road: Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I had a question on Item 3 that public hearing and the request for annexation for Charles Crane. Refresh my memory. What was the deal on that one and what were we waiting on? Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 44 Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 6. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED- ALL AYES Corrie: Discussion? Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Is this a lot line adjustment/easement vacation? Is that what it is? Is that all it is is a lot line adjustment? Okay. We couldn't figure that out. Come: Okay. Any other discussion? Bird: I have none. Come: I'll entertain a motion on the request for vacation of easement, lying adjacent to the lot line in common to Lots 6 and 7, Block 3. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the vacation of the easement on the Lots 6 and 7, Block 3 of Thunder Creek Subdivision subject to staff comments on Item 1; changing west to east and Item 7 inserting the words obtain an adjustment of lot line and removing the words prevent vandalism and trespassing has occurred on the lot on property lines; and deleting Item 10, and instruct the City Attorney to develop Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to approve the recruits for vacation and easement of Lot No. 6 with the corrections that have been made by the Planning and Zoning Director and the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 7. Public Hearing:–Request for annexation and nFg— of=10 acres from RT to_LO-for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moor"e.Company--Eagle Road and Magic.View. i ;•Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 45 Item 8. Public Hearing: Request for conditional use permit 'to provide multiple buildings on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in L -O zone for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company — Eagle Road and Magic View: Corrie: Item No. 7 and 8 are public hearings on the Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company, and since there was no objection to opening both public hearings on 7 and 8, we will do so so we can have testimony on both of them. We'll take them one at a time when we do the requests. Item No. 7 is public hearing, request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres from RT to L -O for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company, Eagle Road and Magic View and also Item No. 8 is a public hearing, request for conditional use permit to provide multiple buildings on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in L -O zone proposed Magic View Office Complex. At this time I'll open the public hearing and have staff comments first. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I have some suggested changes to the recommendations to City Council. I'll begin with the annexation and zoning recommendations. On Page 1, Item 6 should read subject property is bordered to the north by Greenhill Estates Subdivision and city limits of the City of Meridian are adjacent and abut south and east sides of the property. It should be south and east instead of all. Page 2, Item 10, the last line Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as commercial should be added and mixed/planned use development. Item 12 should be re -numbered to 11. Page 4 we're requesting some rather significant changes. There was significant discussion about the buffering between Greenhill Estates Subdivision and this development. We would ask that Item 1.10 be revised to read: Applicant shall enter into a license agreement with Ada County Highway District to construct a 30 -foot high buffer — I'm sorry. Okay. Let me start over. 1.10: Applicant shall enter into a license agreement with Ada County Highway District to construct a 30 -foot wide buffer with a 4 -foot high berm and a 6 -foot high solid, wooden fence on top of the berm along the entire length of Parcel B. That would be the eastern most parcel that has the Ada County Highway District retention pond. As an explanation to that that portion there where the retention pond is shown on that parcel is going to be owned by Ada County Highway District. I think all of you are more than familiar with the way Ada County Highway District maintains those parcels. They're very concerned about aesthetics and beautiful landscaping. So that is the reason -why we asked the applicant to enter into that agreement to make sure that it is landscaped and that they are responsible for the construction of the fence and the appearance of that entire area. I'd like to ask that 1.11 be the next item that would read: Applicant shall construct a minimum 20 -foot wide buffer with a 4 -foot high berm and a 6 -foot high solid, wooden fence on top of the berm along the entire length of Parcel A. Item 1.11 would then become 1.12. 1.12 would become 1.13. We'd ask that the requirement or the staff recommendation for the plat be removed that last sentence and instead of that sentence that the following be added: Applicant shall coordinate with Public Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 46 Works Director and Planning and Zoning. Director for direction on appropriate action to accomplish subdivision and/or lot line adjustment. We still need to work on some standards for those lot line adjustments or one-time splits, and I think as part of the standards, we probably won't include a roadway dedication to be permitted as part of a one-time split, but since this is a roadway section that is very much needed and should be included in our Comprehensive Plan, in fact, is something that we need to have done. We may develop some standards for that, but Gary and I can both work with Jonathan to work out the best way for that. Item 1.13 would then become 1.14. We'd ask that a sentence be added to the end: Applicant shall vacate conflicting easements prior to applying for building permits. The applicant very eloquently made his case at Planning and Zoning Commission for removal of the Development Agreement requirement. They felt it was too restrictive and it tied them down too much to exactly what they're proposing which is kind of the idea of a Development Agreement. If the Development Agreement is not required by the City Council, I would ask that you add an Item 1.15 included as part of the annexation that reads: As a condition of annexation, all uses are to be developed under the conditional use process as a planned development. That way, if they make significant changes to their proposal, we'll send them back through the process. Maybe legal counsel has something to say on that. We have in the past included that directly in the Annexation Ordinance that all uses would require to be developed under the conditional use process. On the conditional use portion, Page 4, Item 1.10 of the Recommendations to City Council, staff would support on Line 4, end of the sentence striking "approval" and inserting "building permit issuance." So it would read that the conditional use permit will become null and void if the construction's not complete within two years from the date of the building permit issuance instead of two years from date of approval here which seemed a more reasonable timeframe. Under 1. 11, the staffs recommendation that all free- standing and wall signs be included and approved as part of this application. No details have been forthcoming for any of those signs that because, basically, they don't have tenants now, but I think that we should set some restrictions on at least the number and the maximum height of those free-standing signs due to the experience we've had with the Eagle Partners project, we had this same — a similar comment to that signage shall be approved as part of the application. No details were ever submitted, so they've gone through one modification request for 100 -foot pole sign, and they're back again with another application for a 77 - foot high pole sign. So I think if we could add somewhere within the text of this that free-standing signs are limited to four with a maximum height of ten feet or they can make their case if they want to attempt something else, but I think we need to put some definite limitations on this because we don't want to have to negotiate with every sign that comes through and have to make a judgement call on what a significant change is to their plan. On Page 5, Item 1. 15, that could be stricken as they have provided those details. I believe they were presented at Planning and Zoning Commission. Page 6, Item 1.24 should read: A four -foot high berm and six-foot high solid fence is required for the boundaries adjacent to the Greenhill Estates lots. That was covered in the annexation and zoning, but it Meridian City Council !' January 18, 2000 Page 47 would be good to reiterate it in the conditional use permit. Other than that, we had no further comment. This is a good project. The roadway is needed, and staff recommends approval with the changes noted. Corrie: Okay. Any questions of Shari at this point? Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I have one. Shari, you struck a nerve again with that sign deal with me. You said you didn't want to make a judgement call, but then you kind of rolled your eyes and said I'm thinking in the neighborhood of 10 -foot, yet we have another application that's on Fairview that you're talking about 20 -foot. Have you come up with a Sign Ordinance and these seem very much like judgement calls to me like you're making a judgement. Here it's 10 foot, another it's 20 foot. How do you determine what you're going to allow for height? Stiles: Where was it 20 feet? Anderson: I think it's on the — one of these other projects.that we were looking at. The Walgreen I think is a 20 -foot sign recommended there. Stiles: No. That was a 72 -foot maximum. Albertson's which is way back -- you can't even see the building. The building's higher than 20 feet. It's not along an entryway corridor. You wouldn't even notice a 20 -foot high sign back there. The reason I recommend the 20 feet is because directly south of this property, this entire five -acre parcel has restricted itself to a maximum 10 -foot high free- standing signs. Every lot in that, they have four or five lots in there, and they have made a commitment as part of their annexation and zoning that they will not exceed that. As a condition of annexation and zoning and the conditional use permit, we could say you can only have two -foot high signs. Anderson: I understand that. I'm just -- Stiles: I would rather — Anderson: -- trying to urge you to — let's get that Sign Ordinance up so you're not making a judgement on all these so that we can push forward with that, and then you've got something to go by. Stiles: I would rather make a legal judgement — I mean that becomes a legal requirement rather than not have any requirement and then have to deal with each one when they come in and make that judgement call and have nothing to stand on. That's why I ask (inaudible). Meridian City Council 0 January 18, 2000 Page 48 Anderson: Okay. Corrie: Any further comments? Bird: I have none. Corrie: This is a public hearing. Any developer? Seel: Good evening, Mayor, Council members report — Corrie: Name. 9 We have read through the Seel: I'm sorry. Jonathan Seel with W.H. Moore Company, 600 North Steelhead, Boise. We've read through the report, and we have no problems. I don't know if we want to talk about the annexation first or if we want to merge them together. Corrie: Go ahead and do the annexation. Seel: Annexation? Okay. We'll talk about the annexation first. We read through the annexation, the report that you received. We have no problems with that. With respect to the annexation and rezone, recommendations that are included on the letter from Shari, we also have no problems with that. We talked to her about that already. I'm certainly pleased to answer questions you have. We'll try to keep this short. Corrie: Okay. Council? Bird` Which letter are you talking about, Jonathan? Seel: I'm talking about this one that Shari had provided to me this evening which reflects the modifications she just discussed with you. Stiles: They don't have that. Bird: We don't have a copy of it? So we need to enter it into the records? Stiles: The memo was to myself and Jonathan and the City Clerk from Brad Hawkins -Clark, and I went over every one of those items -- Bird: Oh. Okay. Stiles: -- verbally. Meridian City CouncH January 18, 2000 Page 49 0 Seel: Yeah. We're in agreement with them, so, I was under the understanding you had this. Corrie: Okay. And the request for the conditional use permit? Seel: Okay. You want to do that next, huh? Corrie: If you're through with — Seel: Yeah. We're through with that. With respect to the conditional use permit, again, reading the report, the recommendations provided to you, we're in agreement with that, and we're in agreement with the conditions, again, that were applied here with, I guess, with exception of a couple things I want to clarify. One, I talked a little bit with Shari about the signage, and I understand where Shari's coming from with her concern for signage. I'm a little reluctant right now to kind of pull something out without understanding what we're going to be Potentially developing there. I would like to have the flexibility based on that. If you look at most of our projects throughout the City of Boise, our signage is never — has not been above ten feet. Typically it's been below that. In fact, we've submitted a concept plan reflecting one that was seven feet. But there may be instances where we may need a sign that is slightly higher than that, so I would like to suggest that we have some flexibility in that depending on what we're going to get in there, we had talked about a restaurant. And if it's a restaurant, maybe we will need to look at a little bit higher sign. So I guess I'm just trying to leave that somewhat open at this point to give us the opportunity depending on what we arrive at to determine then instead of locking ourselves into ten feet at this point which may or may not be, you know, may be acceptable. I don't know. So I'm a little uncomfortable in that. The other thing I'll just mention, I don't know, Shari, if you didn't mention 1.4 on Page 3. 1 didn't — *** End of Side 3 *** Stiles: -- tonight because I'm not in agreement with changing that. Seel: Okay. Well, I don't know if it's just simply we need clarification on it. I mean, I can explain — my concern about that one, I don't know if you want to (inaudible) rain on your parade here. Stiles: Mr. Seel had a concern because on Page 3, Item 1.4 of the conditional use permit recommendation, it speaks to providing sewer and water to and through the development. I believe that is an ordinance requirement, and I felt it was covered by the remainder of that paragraph that said project designer is to coordinate sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Mr. Seel's concern is that he's going to be required to extend sewer and water to and through his property whether or not it's needed. It's — that's just the wording out of our ordinance. That's the reason it reads the way it is. That's why I thought it Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 50 should just stay as it read be the Public Works Department is not going to require him to build lines that are not necessary. Seel: That was my only concern. It was more simply a clarification. If we can tie to sewer on Magic View, and I understand we can. I understand with water we can't. But in the — if, in fact, we can go ahead and tie to sewer on Magic View, I don't want to have language in there that might imply down the road that we need to bring sewer through with what's referred to as St. Luke's Street. As we all know, memories fade, and a year from now or a year -and -a -half from now, somebody looks back and says, oh, Mr. Moore, you were supposed to put sewer down St. Luke's Street. It says it right here, to and through. So I would just like to have some clarification here that if it's necessary, we would put it in, but if it's not necessary that it will not be a requirement. I'm not trying to go against the ordinance because we've had to do the to -and -through policy before. I think it's just clarification because we're talking two streets here with sewer and water right now. That's my only thing. Corrie: But you do agree, Jonathan, that perhaps that last sentence does take that into consideration? Seel: I think it generally does. I guess it doesn't completely satisfy me. You know, I just want it — like I say, I just want something in my mind that's a little clearer on that. As we say, we're talking two streets. We're, going to be (inaudible) ACHD is depending. I just don't want that to become an issue, and if it's not necessary and someone down the road decides it, it would be nice to have, but we don't necessarily need it. So maybe I'm being a little picky on this, but as I say, we believe memories fade. So anyway, it's a minor thing. I think it's just simply that and the signage are the only two items that I had any comments; otherwise, we're in agreement with this. Corrie: Council, any question of Jonathan? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else that would like to issue testimony on Item 7 the annexation and also the conditional use permit? Yes, sir. Harl: My name is Chuck Harl and I live at 3043 Autumn Way in Meridian. Thank you for your time this evening. I just would like to clarify that I'm a resident in Greenhill Estates, and I would like to clarify a couple of things here. In particular, the berm issue because it becomes a noise, light and privacy issue of separation between this project and our residential subdivision. At the Planning and Zoning meeting, we somehow came up with this four -foot berm on a 35 -foot wide piece of right-of-way, and it comes out to a 3:1 ratio, and I'm still confused on how this works. Because even if the 35 feet is split in half, that's 17 feet, and 3:1 is not four. I — for some reason, I think we can raise this berm for a little bit more or a Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 51 little bit more of a privacy issue is what I'm concerned about here. We talked about before what goes on top of this berm. I'm hearing now that we want a solid six-foot fence that's made out of wood. At the P & Z meeting, we had requested either brick or vinyl, something that doesn't need long-term maintenance. Something that is permanent. This is what we're looking for. I don't think it's really out of the question to do something like this if you look at the maintenance costs that are going to be incurred by having wood on there as to no maintenance on the other things. If we could have some clarification on why exactly this berm is going to only be four -foot high, I would really appreciate that. I guess those are my comments. Corrie: Okay. (inaudible) comments, questions at this point? Thank you. Anyone -else that would like to issue testimony? Yes, sir. Foley: My name is Howard Foley. I reside at 2875 Autumn Way in Meridian, Idaho. I'm a resident of Greenhill Estates Subdivision, also, and I have, in addition to Mr. Harl's comments or concerns, two others. I have the same concern that was raised by Shari regarding the sign and Sign Ordinance. Our subdivision has been through this process with Eagle Partners before where the sign's not been designated and we've been back to hearings, and we've had discussions about 100 -foot signs and whatever. Now, I understand we're going to be maybe having another hearing about a 72 -foot sign, and this seems to be repetitious, and it seems that this is probably the time and the place for these discussions to end so we don't find ourselves back again and again. It seems appropriate to me that if these are going to be office buildings that the signage be consistent with office buildings. That they be ground -level monument signs or that they be signs on the buildings themselves, that they not be free-standing, illuminated signs. Assuming that the offices will be open from eight to five, you know, I'm just not sure we need 10, or as Councilman Anderson asked, 20 -foot or whatever they are illuminated signs. I know you've heard from us in our subdivision on too many occasions, but I can assure you we're well illuminated by signage from Jackson's and the Chevron's and the McDonald's in our backyards as it is, and the further that development comes down our backyards, the bigger the concern for us with free-standing, internally illuminated signs —just some definition of what that's going to be and some consistency in terms with the development seems appropriate to us. Certainly, the buildings have to have signage, and we understand that, but we just don't see the need for it to be wide open and then the signage issues that we've had to address before, all of us. Secondly, I think there ought to be a Development Agreement. When I first heard about the project and viewed it, I understand there is a proposal for a restaurant. At one time, I'd heard the proposal was that the restaurant would be internal to the office facility itself, would be one of those things where people who worked inside the office buildings would come and have lunch or whatever the case might be. Now I understand that the developer's not exactly sure what they want. They really don't want to be tied down, understandably, I guess, if you were in our position, we'd like them tied down. We'd like to know what they're Meridian City Council • January 18, 2000 Page 52 going to do, we want to know if there's going to be restaurants that extend beyond the eight to five timeframe, and if so, what kind of traffic and lighting, and those kinds of things are going to go on. If that is done by the mechanism of a Development Agreement, many of the applicants that come before you are required to enter into Development Agreements, and that's a safeguard for us through your process, and I'd ask that you pose that on the applicant. Thanks. Corrie: Any questions for Howard? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Howard. Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? Okay. Jonathan, any comments on the questions that were raised? Seel: Yes. Jonathan Seel, W.H. Moore Company. I think with respect to the question about the berm and the fence, I think the thinking behind that was that if we have a four -foot berm and a six-foot feet, you basically have ten feet there. I think that would obstruct any type of lighting that would come from the cars. I can appreciate their concern with the noise and lighting, and so I think that was where it was addressed; the fact that we would put a four -foot berm with a six- foot fence on top of it which would give you your ten feet. Presumably, that should be adequate to eliminate the lighting. As far as the sound goes, I'm not sure that you're ever going to completely eliminate noise there, and (inaudible) given the fact that you also have, I don't know how many thousands of cars running up and down Eagle Road every day and every night. So that's where that came from. With respect to the question of the fence, I don't recall — my memory's failed me before, but I don't recall any discussion or approval about a vinyl or brick fence. I do recall some discussions about that, but we would be opposed to that. You start getting into brick, you get into something very substantial in terms of costs. It's not cheap. Winston Moore, I think you're probably all familiar, is a well-respected developer in this community. He's not one that kind of comes in here, throws up a project, sells it and blows out of town. It's in his best interest to maintain this fence, too. We don't want that to deteriorate if we end up, in fact, putting up a wood fence. We want that to look nice. If that starts to deteriorate, then, obvious, that impacts our marketing ability. We want full buildings. So, again, I would like to say that we would (inaudible) wood fence. It would be attractive, it would be well-maintained as well as the landscaping that's in our best interest. As far as the restaurant goes, I would point out that we also say here that we are here for a conditional use permit. In the event that we do come in for a restaurant, we will come back for a CU. So we will come back at that point and there would be conditions put on us. At this point, we don't know what kind of restaurant it is. We don't know what kind of hours of operation. This is a concept. We know generally how it's going to look, but we don't — that's one of the reasons we said to P & Z and we're saying to City Council, that we are prepared to come back in the event it is a Ak Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 53 restaurant and ask for a conditional use permit for that project. So you have essentially another bite of the apple down the road as well as the homeowners who can either say, yes, that's acceptable, or, no, we have a real problem with that. So we are not proposing -right now that, yeah, we are going to create a restaurant tomorrow based on this. So I think that's an important point, and I think that's my only comments. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: Generally what building you'd be looking at for a restaurant? Seel: Yes. I think most likely- if you're looking at it, you'd look at that building right there. (inaudible) Right there. You know, our feeling is that because that is so — that is close to the Chevron Station that that's going to be the most likely place for a restaurant. We also feel that it's far enough away from the homeowners that will not be disruptive to them = certainly minimize any disruptions to them. That is right now what we visualize it as working out that way. I think, again, that would minimize it and it backs up the gas station would be the most likely place. Anderson: Thank you. Seel: Any other questions? deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd. deWeerd: Mr. Seel, would you be — since you'd have to come back for a CUP if you put a restaurant in that spot to agree to a height on your signs because that sign could be designated with that piece and could come through with a CUP at that point. Seel: Well, again, I would prefer at that point to address the sign on that. Without knowing what type of restaurant it is — deWeerd: Exactly. That's my point. You could commit to a height on the other facilities, but in case that you did have to come back for a CUP on that particular area, you could come back with the sign package at that time as well. Seel: I don't see -- like I say, if you look around at anything that Winston Moore's done, drive up and down Emerald or over Forest River (sic) stuff, you'll see that those signs are monument -type signs that I think are seven, eight feet tall. They're no more than that. They're a brick structure with (inaudible). They Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 55 Corrie; Any other questions or any other testimony you would like to hear, Council? Bird: I have none. deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, just for staff. Shari, since I didn't write every change down that you had suggested, in regards to the Development Agreement versus the other alternative, what are the differences between those two? Stiles: Well, a Development Agreement will definitely lock them into exactly what they proposed, what they've shown. I saw Mr. Gigray over there shaking his head when I was talking about just making it a part of the annexation that all uses had to be developed under the conditional use permit process as a planned development. I think that we can do it that way. I think it can be included in the Annexation Ordinance that that's a condition. It's just as easy, in fact, probably easier to track than a Development Agreement; less staff intensive. I'm sure Mr. Gigray wouldn't mind getting rid of some Development Agreements whenever he has the opportunity. I think we have the same control by going with the conditional use permit process as we would through a Development Agreement with a lot fewer trees killed. deWeerd: Thank you. Corrie: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: With that, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Item No. 7 and Item No. 8. Bird: So moved. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 7, request for annexation and zoning, and Item No. 8, request for conditional use permit. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Okay, Council. Let's take then one at a time. Item No. 7. Mr. Gigray. Gigray: I would advise the Council that it would be my legal opinion that regarding Development Agreements that you can use them to craft conditions of development as well as. conditions of use. You don't have to include both. They Meridian City Council • January 18, 2000 Page 53 restaurant and ask for a conditional use permit for that project. So you have essentially another bite of the apple down the road as well as the homeowners who can either say, yes, that's acceptable, or, no, we have a real problem with that. So we are not proposing right now that, yeah, we are going to create a restaurant tomorrow based on this. So I think that's an important point, and I think that's my only comments. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: "Generally what building you'd be looking at for a restaurant? Seel: Yes. I think most likely if you're looking at it, you'd look at that building right there. (inaudible) Right there. You know, our feeling is that because that is so — that is close to the Chevron Station that that's going to be the most likely place for a restaurant. We also feel that it's far enough away from the homeowners that will not be disruptive to them — certainly minimize any disruptions to them. That is right now what we visualize it as working out that way. I think, again, that would minimize it and it backs up the gas station would be the most likely place. Anderson: Thank you. Seel: Any other questions? deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd. deWeerd: Mr. Seel, would you be — since you'd have to come back for a CUP if you put a restaurant in that spot to agree to a height on your signs because that sign could be designated with that piece and could come through with a CUP at that point. Seel: Well, again, I would prefer at that point to address the sign on that. Without knowing what type of restaurant it is — deWeerd: Exactly. That's my point. You could commit to a height on the other facilities, but in case that you did have to come back for a CUP on that particular area, you could come back with the sign package at that time as well. Seel: I don't see -- like I say, if you look around at anything that Winston Moore's done, drive up and down Emerald or over Forest River (sic) stuff, you'll see that those signs are monument -type signs that I think are seven, eight feet tall. They're no more than that. They're a brick structure with (inaudible). They Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 54 have lights that shine up. They're not internally illuminated. I don't see where that will, personally, where that will be a problem. I think that will go well with an office complex. deWeerd: Would you have a problem putting a ten -foot maximum on signage with the exception if you come back with a CUP on the particular lot. Seel: I don't think so. I think that's reasonable. Again, I understand the homeowners' concerns that they don't want 150 -foot sign shining down into the backyard. We can appreciate that; the homeowners' concerns about that. 4 deWeerd: Just one last thing. I know that Shari and her changes had mentioned if we didn't do a Development Agreement there was some other verbiage that she suggested. Do you have a problem with either of those? Seel: No. Because what we presented here is what we think is a concept, the way it will generally look. We've talked about the building, the westerly (inaudible), and I can't remember if that's Parcel A, but the northerly building would be a one-story. Again, we know we're backing up to neighborhoods, so we don't want it to be two -stories. The one below would be potentially a two- story. So we see this as kind of a concept plan that we're going to do, so we're comfortable with trying to stay within these perimeters. I don't see where we're going to erratically deviate. We're not going to throw five buildings on this one and six on that one or something like that. deWeerd: So you wouldn't object to a Development Agreement? Seel: A Development Agreement? Yes, I would. deWeerd: That was part of my question. Okay. Seel: Yeah. That's the whole thing. That's what we argued with before was that we don't want to get locked in, quite honestly, if we are forced for that, then, you know, we don't know at this point what precisely we're going to do, and if you get into Development Agreements, they're a very specific thing. You have a concept here, and I don't know if we — we don't — we're opposed to that. deWeerd: That's all I had. Corrie: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Seel: Okay. Thank you very much. Meridian City Council • • January 18, 2000 Page 56 can include one or the other. I do not recommend that you have an Annexation and a Zoning Ordinance that has conditions in the Zoning Ordinance because I do not feel that there is clear statutory authority allowing that. I think the vehicle which the Land Use Planning Act provides as a Development Agreement is a condition of a rezone or a zoning designation, and that's why we've used those. Now, if your ordinance which is proposed on this annexation requires a conditional use permit in an L -O zone for what they proposed to do, then that would take care of itself under the Zoning Ordinance. If it doesn't require a conditional use permit, then if there's part of this that wouldn't be governed by the conditional use permit, then the zoning without a Development Agreement wouldn't control it. They would be able to do what the zone would allow. Corrie: Any discussion? Bird: I think Shari's got something to say Corrie: Shari. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I need to address what Bill just said. If I'm hearing you right, you're saying that you can't include in an Annexation Ordinance that as a condition of annexation, all uses shall be developed as conditional uses, and that under the conditional use permit process as a planned development. You can't do that? Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, no. We can write it that way, I just don't recommend that. I don't think that there's clear statutory authority. I think you have an Annexation Ordinance that includes property, an annexation and then we're required as soon as possible to zone it, and that Annexation Ordinance includes a designation of the property in a zone. We have an ordinance that prescribes what you can use property for in a particular zone. We can't rewrite that Zoning Ordinance in an Annexation Ordinance, and I wouldn't recommend that we try to do so, and I think that's the idea of Development Agreements and why the statutes allow us to use them so that through the Development Agreement as a condition of that zoning you can further limit the use of the property and/or the development of the property in that agreement. Now, if, for instance, the annexation were to the L -O zone and the L -O zone had requirements in it that this developer, whatever that is they wanted to do, required a conditional use permit by the terms of the L -O zone, then what you've recommended works under the terms of our own Zoning Ordinance. If that doesn't work, if then — if you have an annexation into an L -O zone, then they can, without a Development Agreement, then they would be able to develop the property subject to whatever uses are permitted in that zone. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council . January 18, 2000 Page 57 Bird: This is for Mr. Gigray. But if we, in approving the annexation and zoning to an L -O, require that all buildings come under conditional use permit, then that takes — they can't (inaudible) go back on that, can they? That takes place of the Development Agreement? Gigray: I'll be directed to draft the ordinance as you require. I just don't recommend that because I think then you get into issues of conditional zoning, but by specific ordinances, you have an ordinance that prescribes your zoning regulations, and you can't amend that by various annexations. You have to go back and change the whole ordinance. But you can, in the Idaho Land Use Planning Act specifically gives you authority if you choose to exercise it, to govern and restrict as a condition of the zoning, the use and/or the development of the property. You don't have to do both. You can just do one. Or you could do both, depending on how you see the evidence in the particular case and what's reasonable. But if you started annexing property and zoning it subject to conditions, we'd have a bunch of mini -zoning ordinances all over the place with every annexation, and I just don't see in the Idaho Code clear authority to do that. But if you direct me to draft the ordinance, I have to do what I'm directed to do by the governing body which you are. Corrie: Okay. It looks like you've got two choices. Annexation and zoning with the Development Agreement or with the conditional use permit on the zoning. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: May I ask Shari — Shari, if I recall, I don't believe it's probably been the two years I've been on here, but I believe we've done a lot of annexations and zonings with conditional use permits, have we not, instead of Development Agreements? Stiles: Most of them ended up requiring a Development Agreement. Practically everything that's been annexed since 1994 has a condition that they enter into a Development Agreement. Bird: Okay. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I guess I just have a general question, then. This seems like a development that we're not the only city that has these types of developments where we don't actually know who the tenants are going to be at this point. How are those other cities dealing with this same type of issue? Are they requiring Meridian City Council . January 18, 2000 Page 58 Development Agreements or are we is our ordinance restricting us or do we need to look at that? I'm not — anybody that can answer it, I guess. Bird: I'm with Councilman Anderson. I'd like to know, too. Corrie: Shari, any idea? Stiles: I believe Star is getting into requiring Development Agreements, Eagle is way different and does require some Development Agreements, but they also have very restrictive design review guidelines. Boise City has a lot of zones that are design review. They have Design Review Committees which helps them a lot, but when you are just trying to do it with Planning and Zoning and Council and staff, it gets down to design review of practically every project that comes through the door. That's why we put the Development Agreement requirement on them because we may have conditions that aren't necessarily outlined in the existing ordinance that is sometimes a lot of it's site-specific, too. Depending on where it is, what the surrounding uses are, some of their presentations they may make during the public hearings that they may say they're going to do that, but if you can really tie them down with a Development Agreement, it's easier to enforce, but I don't know how many Development Agreements Boise City has done. I know that they do have the mechanism for them, but I believe, and maybe Jonathan can even answer that, too. It's governed more by design review in those other cities. deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd. deWeerd: It seems that you have a little bit more control, a little bit more chance of feedback with a conditional use permit, though. At least you can see what they're proposing. If it's just under a Development Agreement, you don't see it, if it's permitted. Corrie: Shari. Stiles: I don't particularly like the way Development Agreements are turning out as far as — I mean, they are extremely restrictive. It says — it has — it's 50 pages long, it has the Findings attached to it, it has an exact site plan that sometimes is so restrictive that it doesn't leave them any room for even slight modifications because of the way that it's written. deWeerd: So it's almost better off that they come in and ask for annexation and zoning without a plan. I've seen that happen. So why on earth do we allow that to .happen and don't put any conditional use permit requirements on but we're holding — we're considering holding this one up because the CUP process is not the way to go? Meridian City Council • January 18, 2000 Page 59 • Corrie: I don't think it's not a way to go. It's just one of the ways. Mr. Gigray. Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, the only time that you have authority to require a conditional use permit is if the applicant is in a zone and they propose a use of that property that that Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit. They've already been annexed, they're already subject to a Zoning Ordinance that applies to that property, and they propose to, let's say, put a gas station in an L -O zone, and in order to use that as a gas station, takes a conditional use permit. Then you go through and they go through the conditional use permit. But if the L -O zone allows an office building, they don't need a conditional use permit because the zone allows an office building. Now, if im a Development Agreement, you require as a condition of giving the L -O zone to the applicant that they go through a conditional use permit in order to get the office building, you need a Development Agreement in my opinion. That's an example. Obviously, in this application, one of these would be subject to a conditional use permit, but I'm saying do not pass annexation ordinances with zoning designations that include conditions on the zone because I don't think you have clear, legal authority to do that. You have your zoning ordinance, and once you're designated in that zone, it's subject to the terms and conditions of that zone whatever they may be. Now, if you want to limit that further, then you do a Development Agreement. Whether or not you do that is a matter of discretion and determination. Yes, you could accommodate an application for annexation and zoning and no development, and if you feel in your wisdom that's proper, you'd grant the annexation and zoning with no conditions. You know, those are going to be fact -driven by each application. deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd. deWeerd: Mr. Gigray, so can you request that a Development Agreement be made but not particularly tying to that and ask for them to come through with conditional use permits with'their — Gigray: You could have a Development Agreement simply just governed the use, and it'd have a provision in there that any uses proposed of the property or any development of the property would require a conditional use process and of conditions. Corrie: Any further discussion? deWeerd: Well, Mr. Mayor, I guess some of the change in this, I would be interested to hear what the applicant had to say. Corrie: We can't do it. It's a public hearing. Meridian City Council . . January 18, 2000 Page 60 deWeerd: That would be my proposal. I would move that we re -open the public hearing. Bird: I'll second it. Corrie: Motion's made and seconded to re -open the public hearing on Item No. 7 and 8. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: All right. Let's hear what you've got to say, Jonathan. Seel: I think there's a couple things to think about here. This kind of caught me flatfooted because I didn't think we'd be going through this again. The City needs the road and County wants to put it in, and Winston Moore — let me back up. The process behind us was Winston wanted to, about six months ago, wanted to get an idea how this road would be laid out. He went to ACHD and said to them, we'd like to know how much right-of-way you'll be taking and how's this going to be used so we can begin to design a concept plan on this project so we can begin to market it. ACHD's comment at that point was, okay, you go ahead and submit an application, and based on that, we'll be able to determine what kind of road we put. Based on that, we came up with a concept plan is what we're proposing here which we don't see is going to radically deviate from this. This is an L -O zone, we are allowed to put office in here. With multiple office, we go through the conditional use. So we submitted this concept plan without knowing precisely how this is all going to work out because we haven't started the marketing process yet, and we don't know how market conditions are going to dictate for this. So we have a concept plan here. I don't want to say this as a threat, but this is almost verbatim from Winston, is if the City of Meridian requires me to do a Development Agreement that's very specific, then I'll simply pull the application. He doesn't want to get locked into something because we don't know. As Shari's said, we've gone through this before where it gets so specific is the type of building, the size, the footprint and everything else, and we begin to deviate from that, we're back here, and we don't want to do that. That's just counterproductive. I don't think you enjoy listening to me talk, and I certainly don't want to be here until 11:00 multiple times. I'm not trying to be smart here, I'm just trying to lay it out. What we're trying to do is say, okay, this is generally what we're going to do. It's an L -O zone. The homeowners, from what I understand, and Billy Ray is probably spent many meetings here with homeowners and their concerns, they wanted office, we're proposing office with a possibility of a restaurant which we will come back under a conditional use permit to provide. So we're not really talking about a restaurant today. The restaurant is for all intents and purposes in my mind off the table. We're just saying that there's just a possibility down the road, we're kind of laying out. Maybe it'd be better if we never had. So we're trying to give you a concept plan, but we don't know if this is specific. If we get a particular type of tenants or Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 62 something like that with some latitude in there, you know, we're not proposing gas stations or any of the other things. We're basically talking office here, and we will say office, and we said that at the P & Z with the possibility of a restaurant of a conditional use. We will not come back here and ask anyone else here for — oh, we changed our mind, and we'd like to put a Shell Gas Station on that corner. We'd like to put a retail complex. We won't and we said that at P & Z. I think we're trying to be fairly specific and give everybody the comfort they need. (inaudible) answers questions. Kind of in a nutshell. Corrie: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Thank you, Jonathan. I think you answered the question. Anderson: Mr. Foley wants to comment. Corrie: If somebody opens it up, comment (inaudible) Howard. Foley: I'm Howard Foley. From my perspective, I don't represent the homeowners either, but I just represent myself. I'm not opposed to a general, loosely -written Development Agreement. My concern is the lack of specifics as to what may or may not go in there that isn't office building. That's my concern, and I want the staff or the City to continue .to have some control over it. I understand legal counsel to say is if you just annex it L -O, you're done. No other conditions. You can't put conditions on it that are other than limited office. If it's limited office, it's just a limited office. Restaurants aren't limited offices. That's my only concern that they're continuing to be some kind of control. If we had the Design Review, then that would be some further control. We just don't have it. So that seems to me, and I think that would be acceptable to me as a resident, if we had a Development Agreement that simply said, if you're going to do something beyond limited office or those kinds of things that you go through something that's akin to the conditional use permit or something that gives us notice and opportunity to come in and talk with staff and say, gee,- these are the concerns that we have. That's really my concern, and we have given what I understand Mr. Seel to have said if that's acceptable to the applicant. I think that would be acceptable to us, also, but, you know, we've had these issues before where we think we know what's going on, and then it's sort of gets a life of its own and it sort of changes. Then we are back here lots and lots, and I don't want to do this anymore either. So, that's my only concern. Corrie: Thank you, Howard. Is that what you were saying, Jonathan? Seel: I think (inaudible) 30 seconds because I think we have gone through this. I think that's all we're really saying here. We will put an office here. We will put in there we will be very specific. It's not going to be a gas station, it's not going to Meridian City Council ✓� January 18, 2000 Page 63 be retail, it's not going to be a liquor store, whatever it is. It's going to be office here. What type of office? It could be medical, it could be general, but it will be office. Then, if we do come with a restaurant, we'll come back with a conditional use permit, again, you've got that second bite at the apple. So I think we're all in agreement here. You know, I think we could accept that. Corrie: Thank you. Okay. Council, have you heard what you wanted to hear? Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I would make a motion that we close the public hearing. Bird: I second it. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Items 7 and 8. All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Okay. Are you ready then for your Item No. 7 on the annexation and zoning? Anderson: Go ahead, Tammy. It was your idea. Go ahead and take a stab at it. deWeerd: I knew — Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Oh. I'm sorry. Then, Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we have a Findings of Facts and Decision of Order for the request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres from R -T to L -O for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company, Eagle Road and Magic View, and that the Development Agreement be a very loose — very general L -O Development Agreement and anything outside of light office will come for a CUP. Anderson: Second. deWeerd: Mr. Bird, would that include — Corrie: Just a second. Motion is made and seconded. Okay. Now discussion, Mrs. deWeerd. Meridian City Council • January 18, 2000 Page 64 deWeerd: That needs to include staff comments — Bird: It includes staff comments -- deWeerd: -- and would you include — Bird: -- and Development Agreement. deWeerd: -- anything on the signage? Bird: The signage is in the staff comments. deWeerd: Oh. Did you put in there height restriction on this? Bird: Ten foot, yeah. Stiles: It's just a suggestion. Bird: We don't have an ordinance. Anderson: Wouldn't that be covered under the CUP? deWeerd: If they come back for a CUP. Corrie: All right. Any other discussion? Gigray: Point of clarification. Corrie: Mr. Gigray. Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, is the motion with the inclusion of staff comments as the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission as proposed to be amended by staff and staff's comments here today? Bird: Yes, it is. Gigray: Okay. Corrie: Is that agreeable on the second? Anderson: Yes. Corrie: Okay. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Meridian City Council • January 18, 2000 Page 65 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Now we have a public hearing request on the conditional use permit, Item No. 8. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the conditional use permit to provide multiple buildings on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in an L -O zone for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company, Eagle Road and Magic View, and that is to include the staff comments which I'm not going through and outline and for the City Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Decision of Order. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to approve the conditional use permit on Item No. 8 and the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and the Order. deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd. deWeerd: That would have a condition that if they do put a restaurant in here they will come back with the CUP; correct? Corrie: That's part of the conditional use. deWeerd: Just wanted clarification. Corrie: Thank you. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Now, given the hour, it's 11:00 and we had a lot of people that was here to do the Walgreen's on 9 and 10. 1 would recommend to the Council, it's your decision, that we have that on the 15t on the public hearing continued to the next meeting. Bird: Yeah. We've had I'll bet you four, five, six, seven people leave because we told them — they were under the impression that we weren't going to go. There's some sitting back out there, but there were four or five sitting right — Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 66 Gigray: (inaudible) Bird: Is there anybody that can't come back, Mayor, (inaudible) 1 St? Corrie: Is there anybody that can't come back on the 1St of February? We can take — Hawker: Mr. Mayor, Colby Hawker, Hawkins Smith — if we — Corrie: It's not open yet. Let me — I just wanted to know if — the reason you can't. Hawker: I'm with the applicant, and our issue is simply with we have made a commitment on the property, and we have got to finalize where we are in this project or our commitments on this thing — we started — we applied in August, we were deferred through Planning and Zoning, we were deferred through ACRD, and it just keeps going on and on and on, and I know the timing was bad with the first of the year and the new City Council members that have come on for the last hearing that we were supposed to be on. So — Corrie: One of the things, if I open it, it'll have to be continued to the first, so it'll be the same thing because we've got people that left that have a right to testify. Hawker: Well, I understand. I don't know what to say other than (inaudible) specific commitments that we have got to make and I would just hate to have that go — I think we have a plan in front of the City Council that we can talk about tonight. I know there are several neighbors that had some concerns, and I think we've got a plan that we will present to you that will alleviate the concerns that they had. Corrie: That may well be, but they're not here. Hawker: Well (inaudible) — Corrie: So that's why we have to have the continued public hearing. You're in a Catch-22 here. Some people have left because of the hour. Hawker: I understand. Bird: Mr. Mayor, can I explain something? The Mayor asked earlier if there was anybody here that, you know, -- told them that if it comes 10:30, we were going to decide on these two things to go, and then at that point, five or six people left. It would not be fair to them, and I understand your dilemma, you know, and I realize you've went on about six months trying to get this thing through, but it's Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 67 not fair to those people that were under the impression that we were not going to have a public hearing. — *** End of Side 4 *** Item 9. Public Hearing: Annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres from C-2 and R-8 to C -G (Walgreen's) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. — NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove: Item 10. Public Hearing: Conditional use permit to construct a single - tenant commercial building with a drive-thru window (Walgreen's) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. — NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove: Hawker: -- I understand that. Bird: I understand your dilemma. Hawker: It's an unfortunate situation, I guess. We've just been involved with this process for so long, and our commitments that we can make to the landowners out there — you know, the property that we're taking down as part of this, there's a huge financial commitment that we have to make to go ahead and close on those pieces of property, and without knowing that my development is approved as part of this, there's a huge financial risk that I take there. Bird: When do you have to make the commitment? Hawker: Well, our commitments have to be made by the end of this month. Bird: By the first of February? You couldn't get a 15 -day extension on those guys? I don't think somebody's going to jump in and buy it up (inaudible) Hawker: I don't know. (inaudible) approach them and make that recommendation. That's my concern. Bird: And I apologize for the — you know, we can only go so much — Corrie: The thing is, you wouldn't get a commitment from the Council anyway until they voted the 1St if they had it tonight. So you're still in a Catch-22. They have to approve the Findings of Facts on the 1 st, so you're not in time anyway. Hawker: Sure. I understand. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. .7 e r i a The Idaho C it Statesman P.O. BOX 40, BOISE, IDAHO 83707-0040 Amount Due LEGAL ADVERTISING INVOICE 7 $49. 20 1 064514 176253 PUBLIC HEARING MAGIC VIEW Ordereci—ey—­ —P.1 . lNumber—Rate—­­ 'SHELBY NT ;DECEMBER 31, 1999, JANUARY 1_4_, 2__0__0.0_ Estimated Inches Real Inches !CITY OF MERIDIAN 135 LINES i�33 E. IDAHO AVE I # Affidavits i Legal Number (MERIDIAN, ID 83642-2631 5903 LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN Pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian JANICE HILDRETH and the Laws of the State of Idahothat being duly the City Council of the City of Meridian than sworn, deposes and says: That she is the Principal Clerk of The will hold a Public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho Statesman, a daily newspaper printed and published at Boise, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 P.m. on January 18, 2000, for the purpose of reviewing and Ada County, State of Idaho, and having a general circulation therein considering the application of W.H. Moore Company for annexation and zoning of 1 0 and which said newspaper has been continuously and uninterruptedly acres from RT to LO for proposed Magic published in said County during a period of twelve consecutive View Office Complex which is generally located at Eagle Road and Magic View. months prior to the first publication of the notice, a copy of which is Furthermore, the applicant requests a conditional use Permit to provide multiple attached hereto; that said notice was published in The Idaho buildings on a single site plus an ancillary restaurant. Statesman in conformity with Section 60-108, Idaho Code as A more Particular description of the above Property is on file in the city Clerk's amended, for TWO office at Meridian City Hail, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection dur- ❑ consecutive weekly ❑ single ing regular business hours. A copy of the application is available ❑ consecutive daily upon request. Any and all interested per- odd skip sons shall be heard at said Public hearing insertion(s) beginning with the issue of and the Public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. DECEMBER 31 1999 IAM 3rd daof December. WAILLIAM G. 2BERG, y JR., CITY CLERK and ending with the -issue Of Pub. Dec. 31, 1999, Jan. 14, 2000 5903 JANUARY 14 2-000 ::CURRY: R STATE OF IDAHO ss. y COUNTY OF ADA 0*� NZ On this 14TH day of JANUARY in the year of *'.,r op 1', 2000 before me, a Notary -Public, personally appeared A JANICE HIL ETH known or identified to me to be the person whose name subscribed to the within instrument, and being by me first duly sworn, declared that the statements therein S are true, and acknowledged to me that she executed the same. a" Notary Public dah-o----e6&-t/-�� Residing at: Boise, Idaho My commission expires: MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: December 1999 APPLICANT: W.H. MOORE COMPANY ITEM NUMBER: 9 REQUEST: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 10 ACRES FROM RT TO LO FOR PROPOSED MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING & ZONING DEPT CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WASTEWATER DEPT: CITY WATER 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: i. US WEST: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: SANITARY SERVICE: SEE STAFF COMMENTS OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 7 1 e wr Facts and Findings: ' A. General Information Owner — W.H. Moore Applicant — Bill Strite, BRS Architects RT - Existing zoning LO - Requested zoning 8.0 - Acres 4. - Proposed buildings 107,000 - Square feet of proposed buildings 28; - Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada - Impact Fee Benefit Zone Western Cities - Impact Fee Assessment District Manic View Drive.. Local commercial street with no bike lane designation Daily traffic count 5,600 on 8/14/96 west of Eagle Road Daily traffic count 200 on 8/14/96 west of Jackson's Texaco 780 -feet of frontage 50 -feet existing right-of-wav (25 -feet from centerline) 58 -feet required right-of-way (29 -feet from centerline) ' MagicView Drive is improved with 20 -feet of pavement with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. St. Luke's Road Collector road with bike lane designation No traffic count available 800 -feet of frontage 3 0 -feet existing right-of-way (25 -feet from centerline) 64-feet required right-of-way St. Luke's Street has been improved as a 46 -foot street section between Eagle Road and the site's easternproperty line with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Eagle Road Principal arterial with no bike route designation Daily traffic count of 44,882 south of Magic View Drive Planning Threshold is 40,000 ADT 0 -feet of frontage -� Eagle Road is improved with five traffic lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. This segment -� of Eagle Road is under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department. ivIAz99-0022.cmm Paee 2 B. On November 29, 1999, the District Planning and Development staff inspected this site and evaluated the transportation system in'the kvicinity. -On December 3, 1999, the staff met as the y District's Technical Review Committee and reviewed the impacts of this proposed development on the District's transportation system. The results of that analysis constitute the following Facts and Findings and recommended Site Specific Requirements. C. History of Recent Development Approvals in the Surrounding Area: • On April 10, 1996, the Commission approved Porky Park Subdivision, z 19 -lot industrial/commercial subdivision on 64 -acres located at the northeast comer of Franklin Road and Eagle Road. That development was estimated to generate 8,000 additional vehicle trips per day. As a condition of approval, the applicant was required to constrict a public street approximately one-third of a mile east'of Eagle Road as a condition of approval. The development has not been completed -and this road is not yet available for use. • On July'l, 1998, the Commission reviewed MSPR-10-98, a proposal to constrict a 1001000 - square foot home furnishings showroom and a 50,000 -foot warehouse for furniture. The business has been completed on the northeast corner of Franklin Road and Eagle Road. That development was estimated to generate'1,700 additional vehicle trips perrday. • On September 23, 1998, the Commission reviewed MCU -17-98, a request for conditional use approval for an 848,000 -square foot retail shopping center. The 74.74 -acre site is located at the southeast corner of Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue in Meridian. That development was estimated to generate 26,950 -additional vehicle trips per day, and was required to make major modifications to three intersections (Eagle Road/Fairview Avenue, Eagle Road/Pine Avenue, Fairview Avenue/Records Drive). • On December 30, 1998, the Commission reviewed MCU-43-97/MA-13-97, a request for conditional use approval to construct a 5,000 -square foot Idaho Power Credit Union with a drive-thru window, a 5,359 -square foot convenience store/McDonald's fast food restaurant with a drive-thru window, and an 854 -square foot carwash facility. The 4.13 -acre site is located on the northwest corner of Magic View Drive and -Eagle Road approximately 720 -feet north of I- 84. This development is estimated to generate 7,500 additional vehicle trips per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual. As part of this action, the a Commission determined that development of the area west of Eagle Road would constitute an extraordinary impact and imposed an overlay impact fee on all developments in the Magic View Subdivision. That site abuts the subject site's east property line. • On`January 27, 1999, the Commission approved. Midvalley Business Park (a 5 -lot commercial _subdivision) along with a request for a conditional use to construct a 24,560 -square foot office building. The 5.4 -acre site is located at the southwest corner of Magic View Drive and Allen Street, approximately 500 -feet west of Eagle Road. That development was estimated to generate 918 additional vehicle trips per day. This application was approved subject to the overlay impact fee imposed by the Commission on December 30, 1998 as part of the action on MCU-43-97/NIA-13-97. - ' t NIAZ99-0022.cmm Page 3 r =~ r On January 27, 1599, the Commission reviewed MCU-14-98/MA-3-98, a conditional use requesting approval for to construct a 60 -unit motel. The 1.66 -acre site is located at the northwest comer of Eagle Road and I-84, also on the south side on Gentry Way and the east side of Allen Street. That development was estimated to generate 282 additional vehicle trips per day. This application was approved subject to the overlay impact fee imposed by the Commission on December 30, 1998 as part of the action on MCU-43-97/MA-13-97. • On May 12, 1999, the Commission reviewed a request to constrict a light industrial/manufacturing facility and two soccer fields on 56.32 acres. The site is located north of Interstate 84 and west of Locust Grove Road. That development is estimated to generate 2,400 additional vehicle'trips per day. The site is currently being constricted. n On July 28, 1999, the Commission reviewed MCUP99-24/MAZ99-14, a request for conditional 'IM„' use approval to constn.ict a 60,000 -square foot medical office building. The applicant is also, requesting annexation from Ada County to the City of Meridian and a rezone from RT to CG. The 4.34 -acre site is located on the west side of Allen Street west of Eagle Road, and approximately 70.0-feet'south of Magic View Drive. This development is estimated to generate approximately 1,200 additional vehicle trips per day. This application was approved subject to the overlay impact fee imposed by the Commission on December 30, 1998 as part of the action on MCU-43-97/MA-13-97. •:. On July 28, 1999, the Commission reviewed MAZ-99-008/MCUP99-0026, a request for conditional use approval for a 32,000 -square foot office building. The 3.77 -acre site is located at the northwest corner of Eagle Road and I-84, north of Gentry Way and east of Allen.Street. This development is estimated to generate approximately 1,120 additional vehicle trips per day. This application was approved subject to the overlay impact fee imposed by the Commission on December 30, 1998 as part of the action on MCU-43-97/MA-13-97. On August 11, 1999, the Commission reviewed MCUP99-23, a request for conditional use approval for phase three of the St. Luke's Medical center. That 37.5 -acre site is -located at the northeast corner of I-84 and Eagle Road, adjacent to the subject site's western boundary. The total square footage of phases one thru three is 450,600 -square feet which was estimated to generate a total of 5,200 vehicle trips per day. A further indicator of the rapidity of growth in this area is that St. Luke's did not anticipate the construction of this phase for several more years, according to their staff. •. On November 17, 1999, the Commission reviewed and approved Woodbridge Subdivision, a 283 -lot residential subdivision on 80.83 -acres, located east of Locust Grove Road approximately 1/4 mile south.of Franklin Road. The development is estimated to generate 2,871 additional vehicle trips per day. D. Magic View Subdivision, of which this site is a part, is partially developed as a 5 -acre single =nom' family subdivision. Meridian's Comprehensive Plan designates a large area within Magic View Subdivision, which°includes this site, for commercial and mixed planned use land uses. This designation will allow a range of land uses that will generate trq.ffic at a much higher rate than the existing development. 1VIAZ99-0022.cmm Page 4 t r E. On December 30, 1998,.the ACHD C6mmission acted on MCU-43-97 and as part of that action, found that an extraordinary impact existed because of the potential of large volumes of trips that would be Generated by the redevelopment of Magic View Subdivision and required the now construction and dedication of a new road into the Magic View Subdivision from Eagle Road opposite the driveway/private street into St. Luke's medical center. DurinG consideration of MCU-43-97, the Commission reviewed several options for assuring adequate and safe access from Eagle Road into this rapidly redeveloping area. The selected option included the construction of the new road across the property that was the subject of NICU-43-97 and through the subject site extending the road to the intersection of Magic View Drive and Allen Drive. The cost of construction and right-of-way was to be shared among all the redeveloping properties in Magic View Subdivision. F. In the Consideration of MCU- 43-97, the Ada County Highway District found that the anticipated fiscal impacts of the anticipated developments in Magic View Subdivision are of such a magnitude that ACHD will be unable to accommodate the developments without excessive and unscheduled public expenditures which exceed the anticipated impact fees from such developments. The above mentioned. street will ultimately be constructed as a 52-foot (4-1ane) street section, at its connection with Eagle Road, tapering to a standard'46-foot commercial street section 500-feet west of Eagle Road. The cost of the roadway was estimated to be approximately $650,000.00. Since that estimate, the developer of MCU-43-97 has constructed about one-third of the length of the road. The construction of the road was at the expense of the developer and �- ACHD purchased the right-of-way. ' In its''review of MCU -43-97, the Commission adopted an extraordinary fee based on trip generation rates. The Commission determined that the Extraordinary Impact.Fee would be _+ $43.19 per trip. This parcel includes 8 -acres, resulting in a trip generation rate of approximately 2,150 -trips per day. Therefore, this property should pay an overlay fee to the District in the amount of approximately $92,858. Staff recommends that the Commission require the payment of that amount into a fund for the reimbursement of cost to construct and dedicate right-of-way for a riew road from the intersection of Eagle Road and St. Luke's driveway to the intersection of Magic View Drive and Allen Drive as the proportionate share of this property on a per trip basis. In lieu of depositing this extraoridinary impact fee into a fund, the amount can be redited against the cost;'of constructing the roadway G. In accordance with the Commission's previous decision with MCU -43-97, the subject applicant should be required to extend St. Luke's Street through the site from the eastern property to Magic View Drive to the south in alignment with Allen Street. The roadway should be extended as a 46 -foot street section with curbs, gutters, sidewalks and bike lanes. The developer should be reimbursed for the entire cost of the roadway by offsetting the extraordianry impact fee for this site and/or from the extraordinary impact fees collected from the properties in the Magic View Subdivision as the District collects those fees. H. The District -has collected approximately 5336,105 in extraordinary revenue from developments in the Magic View Subdivision. Another 5152,029 is due from developers that have been .+ approved by the,City of Meridian and are expected to obtain building permits in the immediate future. A NtAZ99-0022.cmm Pa,,e.5 r F fi `A I. In accordance with District policy, Driveways on the extension of St. Luke Street should be eblo located a minimum of 125 -feet from all existing or proposed driveways'on St..Luke's Street. �. The driveways should be constructed as 24 to 30 -foot wide curb return driveways with 15 -foot curb radii. The driveways should be paved a minimum of 30 -feet beyond the edge of pavement of St. Luke's Street. Note: This will require the applicant to relocate the proposed driveway on the south side of St. Luke's Street at the east property line. J. Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Constriction Services at 337-6230 (with file numbers) for details. K. In accordance with District policy, the applicant should be required to constrict curb, gutter, 5 - foot wide concrete sidewalk and match paving on Magic View Subdivision abutting the parcel. Improvements should be constructed to one-half of a 41 -foot street section. L. In order to reduce trips to and from this development it is recommended that tenants occupying the proposed building be required to provide an Alternative Transportation, Program for employees and provide an annual report to ACHD on employee participation. Commuteride staff will coordinate the Alternative Transportation Program with the applicant. For more information contact Pat Nelson at 337-6160. M. In order to reduce trips to and from this development, it is recommended that the tenants occupying the proposed building(s) be required to participate in any Transportation Management Association (TMA) or Transportation Management Organization (TMO) than is formed with a boundary that includes this site or is adjacent to this development. A Transportation Management Association, (TMA) or Transportation Management Organization (TMO) is formed with a coordinator that works as a liaison between businesses and private and public transportation providers to increase the use of alternative transportation and other trip reduction measures (shuttle buses, bus pass programs, vanpools, carpools, bicycle and walking enhancements). An annual survey will be required of the TMA/TMO to monitor participation in alternative transportation programs and forwarded to the ACHD Commuteride Office. N. Graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance problems due,to gravel being tracked onto the roadway. In accordance with past action by the District the applicant should be required to pave all driveways at least 30 -feet beyond the edge of pavement of St. Lukes. ,0. The Destination 2015 Regional Transportation Plan identified Eagle Road as a limited access facility. Under this designation, access to Eagle Road would be regulated by a limited number of traffic signals (with adequate spacing between successive signals), turn channelization and = restrictions at unsignalized intersections and raised medians between channelized turns. Grade - separated interchanges should be anticipated at arterial/arterial intersections. P. There are currently 43,437 vehicle trips per' day on Eagle Road, and traffic on Eagle Road is anticipated to continue to increase. This development and:the potential for redevelopment in the area will exacerbate the existing traffic problems on Eagle Road. The new traffic from this MAZ99-0022.cmm Page 6 r ,A. development and other approved developments in the vicinity will add 19,074 vehicle trips per y, day, bringing the total to approximately 62,511 vehicle trips per day, which will exceed the planning threshold Level of Service (LOS) F volume of a typical five -lane roadway. According` to the July 31, 1997 "Ada County Roadway Capacity Guidelines for Planning Applications," 42,000 AADT is the upper range of LOS F for a typical five -lane roadway (Urban/Suburban Arterial - Non -Business District). This section of Eagle Road between I-84 and Fairview Avenue is not a typical five -lane roadway. It has a degree of access control and a low -to -moderate volume of turning conflicts between signalized intersections so the tipper range may be greater than 42,000 ADT. However, this section of roadway still will not have the capacity to accommodate all of the traffic from the - currently approved developments and the growth of background traffic at accepted levels of service. Studies have found that the capacity of Eagle Road can be protected and even enhanced if stringent access constrol measures are implemented by ITD and ACHD in collaboration. The' subject property does not have frontage on Eagle Road so, there is nothing about Eagle Road access that is directly relevant to this property. However, in view of the burgeoning growth along the Eagle Road corridor, ITD and ACHD should institute access control measures in order to extend the useful life of Eagle road in its current configuration. The Eagle Road Corridor Study states that access conirol on Eagle Road can increase the' „ capacity of the roadway by as much as fifty -percent which is the same increase in capacity that can be experienced by the, construction of two additional lanes. Access control will increase the planning threshold (LOS E) to higher levels, perhaps as much as 55,000 ADT. The construction of frontage roads, grade -separated interchanges and the elimination of signalized intersections recommended by the Study will- further. increase the LOS E planning threshold to 80,000 ADT - because of the total elimination of side -friction from intersections. The study suggests the following methods of access control: 1. Marginal Access Control Concepts: a) driveway spacing between successive driveways b) driveway spacing from an intersection c) driveway design 2. Medial Access Control Concepts: a) median type b) median width c) the geometries of median openings, and d) spacing of median openings 3. Major intersection Control Concepts a). at -grade intersection modifications -,� b) grade -separated intersections 4. Frontage Roads: frontage roads were proposed as an option to provide frill access to abutting parcelsalong Eagle Road when access restrictions were imposed. lNIAZ99-0022.cnun Page 7 0 0 _ Q. The Eagle Road corrider study identified five'different phases of access control beginning with the existing access_conditions to a future restricted -access expressway with grade -separated intersections. The first level of access control would allow frill access driveways at 660 -foot intervals; the second level of access control would eliminate the left turns at those driveways through the installation of raised medians. The first level of access control on Eagle Road between I-84 and Franklin Road has been implemented. Traffic is now.anticipated to exceed 'LOS E for typical five -lane roadways' under the level one access control. Right-of-way preservation for frontage roads and roadway improvements should be implemented to allow Eagle Road to maintain its function and to carry the exceptional volume of traffic that is expected. In order to accommodate the traffic generated from this site and future development "® along Eagle Road, staff recommends that a median be constructed in Eagle Road from the Eagle Road/I-84 interchange to Franklin Road as the second level of access control. The'median should be constructed to eliminate left turns at the eighth -mile driveways and unsignalized street approaches. Jn future phases of corridor protection, a frontage road on both the east and west side of Eagle Road should be constricted from Franklin Road south to the signalized intersection at St. Luke's driveway to provide those parcels affected by the median access to full access intersections to Eagle Road. In even later stages of protection, the urban interchange at the 'intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road should be constructed. R. As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, may be placed on future development of this parcel. S. Based on development patterns in this area and the resulting traffic generation, staff anticipates that the transportation system will not be adequate to accommodate additional traffic generated by this prop6sed development. I . Special` Recommendation to ITD: This development and the potential for redevelopment in the area will exacerbate the existing traffic problems on Eagle Road. The District recommends that a median be constructed in Eagle Road from the Eagle Road/I-84 interchange to Franklin Road as suggested in the second level of access control recommended in the.Eagle Road Access Control Study. The median should be constructed to eliminate left turns at driveway and street approaches at every location except the St. Luke's signalized driveway and the westward extension of St. Luke's Street. In later stages of protection, frontage road on both the east and west side of Eagle Road should be constructed from Franklin Road south to the signalized intersection at St. Luke's driveway to provide access to frill access intersections for the parcels affected by the median. The following requirements are provided as conditions for approval: Special Recommendation to the City of Meridian: 1. In order to reduce trips to and from this development it is recommended that tenants occupying the proposed building be required to provide an Alternative Transportation Program for employees and provide an annual report to ACHD on employee-participatio6. Commuteride staff will coordinate the Alternative Transportation Program with the applicant. For more information contact Ms. Pat Nelson at 337-6160. LvIAZ99-0022.cmm Pau, e 8 4 - 2. In order to reduce trips to and from this development, the tenants occupying the proposed building(s) should be required to participate in any Transportation Management Association (TMA) or Transportation Management Organization (TMO) that is formed with a boundary that.includes this site or is adjacent to this development. 3. This development, already approved developments, and the potential for further re - redevelopment in the area, will exacerbate the existing traffic problems on Eagle Road and Franklin Road. Substantial reconstruction of the intersection and existing public roadways will be,required to accommodate the traffic generated from this site and approved/anticipated developments in the vicinity of the site. The City. of Meridian should consider the impacts of this development prior to approving the rezone and conditional use. Site Specific Requirements:' mono 1. Dedicate 64 -feet of right-of-way for the extension of St. Luke's Street through the site by A means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be compensated for all right-of-way dedicated as an addition to existing right- of-way from available extraordinary impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner- = submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #188. . m 2., Extend St. Luke's Street`through the site from the eastern property line to Magic View Drive to �. the south in alignment with Allen Street. The roadway shall be extended as a 46 -foot street section with curbs, gutters, sidewalk and bike lanes. The developer will be reimbursed for the entire, cost of the roadway from the extraordinary impact fees collected' from the properties in the Magic View Subdivision as the District collects those fees. 3. Driveways on the extension of St. Luke's Street shall be located a minimum of 125 -feet from all existing or proposed driveways. The driveways shall be constructed as 24 to 30 -foot wide curb return driveways with 15 -foot curb radii and paved a minimum of 30 -feet beyond the edge of pavement of St. Luke's Street. Note: This will require the applicant to relocate the This will require the applicant to relocate the proposed MOM driveway on the south side of St. Luke's Street at the east property line. � r 4. Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. 5. Construct curb, gutter, 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk and match paving on Magic View y y Subdivision abutting the parcel. Improvements should be constructed to one-half of a 41 -foot street section. 6. Enter into an agreement with the District to construct or, pay the proportionate share of the cost of constructing a new road from Earle Road :west and south to connect with MagicView Drive at its intersection with Allen Street as an extraordinary impact fee. The proportionate share has MAZ99-0022.mun Pa,,e 9 �z M been determined to be approximately $92,858, based upon the estimated 2,150 daily vehicle trips. If the developer agrees to -construct the road, he will be reimbursed for the full cost of the roadway from extraordinary impact -fees that have been collected and by offsetting against the extraordinary impact fees for this parcel. 7. As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, shall be placed on future development'of this parcel. 8. Other than the a6cess points specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel access to St. Luke's Street is prohibited Standard Requirements: l.= A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made, in writing to the ACHD Planning and Development Supervisor. The request shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation of why such a requirement would result in a substantial hardship or inequity. The written request shall be submitted to the Distnct no later than 9.00 a m on the day scheduled for ACHD Commission action Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do 'not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACHD'Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within six days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The request -for reconsideration shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of data that was not available to the Commission at the time of its original decision. The request for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. 3: Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #188, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and constriction shall be in accordance with the AdaCounty Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Constriction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered.in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. MAZ99-0022.cmm Page 10 N �: 6: Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7. It is the.responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACRD. The`applicant shall be required to call DIGLNE (1-800-342-1585) at least two frill business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 337-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of constriction. 8. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 9. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. Conclusion of Law: 1. ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Planning and Development Division at 387-6170. Submitted bv: Commission Action: Planning and Development Staff NIAZ99-0022.cmm Page I 1 January 26, 2000 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: FEBRUARY 1 2000 APPLICANT: W.H. MOORE COMPANY AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: J REQUEST: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 1 ACRES TO L-O FOR PROPOSED MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: SEE ATTACHED MEMO CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: 0 CITY WATER DEPT: i c. 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: I INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Office of the City Attorney The City of Meridian - Idaho's Initial Point of Beginning To: Mayor/Council/City Clerk From: Bill Gigray, City Attorney Re: W. H. Moorel10 Acres AZ 99-022 Thunder Creek VAC 99-005 Date: January 28, 2000 W.H. Moore/10 Acres AZ 99-022: 200 E. Carlton Ave. Suite 31 PO Box 1150 Meridian ID 83680-1150 Phone: 288-2499 Fax 288-2501 E-mail: wfg@wppmg_com RECEIVED 2 8 2000 ,gyp= CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFFICE This memo is to let you know that the Findings and the Development Agreement on this matter is still not complete. The record did not have the deeds for the two parcels which are the subject to this application. We have just obtained those deeds which show that Lot 2 is owned by Richard L. Moore and Barbara L. Moore, Husband and Wife and Lot 3 is owned by Harvard D. Hanks and Geneva J. Hanks, Trustees of the Hanks Family Trust, a living trust created by written Trust Agreement of March 26, 1999. That affects the findings and it affects the form of the development agreement because our standard procedure unless specifically ordered by the City Council otherwise is to included the legal owners of the property. Thunder Creek VAC 99-005: This utility easement vacation is not complete for consideration of the Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law and Order of Easement Vacation. The reason is that in order to vacate a utility easement we must have the relinquishments of the affected utility easement holders. Those we have been infomed by the Public Works Department have not yet been received. Once those have been received we will complete these findings. Office of the City Attorney The City of Meridian - Idaho's Initial 200 E. Carlton Ave. Suite 31 PO Box 1150 Meridian ID 83680-1150 Phone: 288-2499 Fax: 288-2501 E-mail: wfg@wppmg.com Point of Beginning RUCETWD JAN 3 1 2000 CITY OF MERIDIAN To: Mayor/Council/City Clerk From: Bill Gigray, City Attorney J' Re: W.H. Moore/10 Acres AZ 99-022 r Thunder Creek VAC 99-005 Date: January 28, 2000 W.H. Moore/10 Acres AZ 99-022: This memo is to let you know that the Findings_. C��- �e on this matter is still not complete. The record did not�- which are the subject to this application. We have jus I� that Lot 2 is owned by Richard L. Moore and Barbara VVI i�CA,;u Lot 3 is owned by Harvard D. Hanks and Geneva J. Hanks, Trustees of the Hanks Family Trust, a living trust created by written Trust Agreement of March 26, 1999. That ti affects the findings and it affects the form of the development agreement because our standard procedure unless specifically ordered by the City Council otherwise is to included the legal owners of the property. Thunder Creek VAC 99-005: This utility easement vacation is not complete for consideration of the Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law and Order of Easement Vacation. The reason is that in order to vacate a utility easement'we must have the relinquishments of the affected utility easement holders. Those we have been informed by the Public Works Department have not yet been received. Once those have been received we will complete these findings. FEBRUARY 11, 2000 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: FEBRUARY 15 2000 APPLICANT: W.H. MOORE COMPANY AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 1 REQUEST: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 10 ACRES TO L -O FOR PROPOSED MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER 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: (1THFR- COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED FINDINGS Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ?RC1 wICC pcBWED EE8 1 1 2000 11 'M OF MERIDIAN 102-01-00 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF W. H. MOORE CO., THE APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 10 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MAGIC VIEW DRIVE WEST OF EAGLE ROAD FOR MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX Case No. AZ -99-022 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING" The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for public hearing on January 18, 2000, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, appeared and testified, and appearing and testifying on behalf of W. H. Moore Company was Jonathan Seel,, and also appearing and testifying were affected property owners, Church Harl and Howard Foley, and having received the Recommendation to City Council of the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter, and the City Council having duly considered the evidence and the record in this matter therefore makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 STATEMENT OF LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Judicial Notice: The Council may talce judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. Annexation: 1. The City of Meridian has authority to annex real property upon written request for annexation and the real property being contiguous or adjacent to city boundaries and that said property lies within the area of city impact as provided by Idaho Code Section 50-222. The Meridian City Code § 11-16 provides the City may annex real property that is within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area which is designated in the Comprehensive Plan City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ord. No. 629, January 4; 1994, and as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-16-3. 2. The City Council exercises its legislative authority in the annexation and zoning of annexed land. Burt v. City of Idaho Falls, 665 P.2d 1075, 105 Idaho 65 (1983). Prior to annexation the City Council shall request and receive a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission of proposed zoning ordinance changes for the area to be annexed in accordance with the notice and hearing procedures provided in Section 67-6509, Idaho Code and concurrently or FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 • immediately following the adoption of an ordinance` of annexation, the City Council shall amend the Planning and Zoning Ordinance. [I.C. § 67-6525] [Meridian City Code § 11-16-1.] 3. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the Idaho Legislature in the "Local Land Use Planning Act" codified at Chapter 65 of Title 67 Idaho Code which provides that the Council shall by ordinance establish within its boundaries one or more zones or zoning districts in accordance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. [I.C. § 67-6511]. 4. The "Zoning Ordinance" of the City of Meridian applies and regulates all development of land within the City limits and property outside the City limits for which annexation has been requested. [Meridian City Code § 11-1-3 . ] 5. The City of Meridian has exercised its authority and responsibility as provided by "Local Land Use Planning Act" by the adoption of the "Zoning Ordinance", of the City of Meridian, Idaho, which provides for various zoning districts. [Meridian City Code §§ 11-1 - 11-21.] 5.1 The "Zoning Ordinance" provides a zoning district (L -O) Limited Office District which is defined as: [Meridian City Code § 11-7-2 G.] (L -O) Limited Office District: The purpose of the L -O District is to permit the establishment of groupings of professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting, clerical, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 stenographic, public service and similar uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy testing operations of any kind or product manufacturing of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions of a nature offensive to the overall purpose of this District. The L -O District is designed to act as a buffer between other more intense nonresidential uses and high density residential uses, and is thus a transitional use. Connection to the Municipal water and sewer system of the City is a requirement in this District. 5.2 The "Zoning Ordinance" provides for a "Zoning Schedule for Use Control" for land uses in various established zoning districts for permitted use, conditional use and permitted accessory use. [Meridian City Code § 11-6-1.] 5.3 The "Zoning Ordinance" provides for a zoning District Map where the zoning districts established by the ordinance are shown. [Meridian City Code § 11-6-1.] 5.4 The "Zoning Ordinance" provides for general procedures for the initiation° and process of zoning amendment applications including notice and hearing procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. [Meridian City Code § 11-15-1 - 11-15-6.] 5.5 The General Standards Applicable To Zoning Amendments include the following [Meridian City Code § 11-15-11]: 5.5.1 Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment; 5.5.2 Js the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the future; 5.5.3 Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning - for example, a residential area turning FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 E into commercial area by means of conditional use permits; 5.5.4 Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new railroad .access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone areas; 5.5.5 Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area; 5.5.6 Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; 5.5.7 Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed zoning amendment shall .be able to provide adequately any of such services; 5.5.8 Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; 5.5.9 Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; 5.5.1OWill the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX / BY: W.H..MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 5.5. 11 Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance; and 5.5.12 Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 6. The City of Meridian has exercised its authority and responsibility as provided by "Local Land Use Planning Act", codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code by the adoption of Comprehensive Plan City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ord. No. 629, January 4, 1994. Development Conditions: 7. The City is authorized by I.C. § 67-6511 A by the adoption of an ordinance to require or permit as a condition of rezoning that an owner or developer make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject parcel which the City has enacted as a part of the "Zoning Ordinance" at Meridian City Code § 11-15-12 and if the property is annexed and zoned Meridian City Code §,14 - 16-4. S. Since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. See Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 Ptd 1075 (1983). 9. The development of the annexed land, 'if annexed, shall meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian including, but not limited to: Meridian City Code § 11-2-4 which pertains to development time schedules and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:. Page 6 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX / BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 requirements; Meridian City Code § 12-4-13, which pertains to the piping of ditches; and Meridian City Code § 12-5-2 N, which pertains to pressurized irrigation systems. 10. The development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian. STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATIVE TO LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The notice of public hearing on the application for annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearing scheduled for January 18, 2000, before the City Council, the first publication appearing and written notice having been mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred feet (300') of the external boundaries of the property under consideration more than fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing and with the notice of public hearing having been posted upon the property under consideration more than one week before said hearing; and that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations as public service announcements; and the matter having been duly considered by"the City Council at the January 18, 2000, public hearing; and the applicant, affected property owners, and government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian, having been given full opportunity to express comments and submit FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 evidence. 2. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirementsset forth in Idaho Code H 67-6509 and 67-6511, and Meridian City Code H 11-15-5 and 11-16-1. 3. The City Council takes judicial notice of its zoning, subdivisions and development ordinances codified at Meridian City Code Titles 11 and 12, and all current zoning maps thereof, and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ordinance No. 629, January 4,1994, and maps and the ordinance Establishing the Impact Area Boundary. 4. The property is approximately 10 acres in size. The property is located on the north side of Magic View Drive west of Eagle Road. The property is designated as Lots 2 and 3, Magic View Subdivision, and described as follows: LOTS 2 AND 3 IN AMENDED MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION A parcel of land located in the Northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 3 North, 'Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being all of. Lots 2 and 3 in the Amended Magic View Subdivision, according to the official plat thereof, records of Ada County, Idaho, and which parcel is also described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap marldng the quarter corner common to Sections 16 and 17, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; thence North 00°22'58" West 1,326.59' to the Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 17; thence FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX / BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 r North 89°58'30" West 391.41' to the Northeast corner of said Lot 2, said point being the real point of beginning; thence South 00°07'50" East 579.31 feet along the Easterly boundary of said Lot 2 to a point lying on the centerline of Magic View Drive, being the Southeast corner of said Lot 2; thence South 89°37'02" West 315.10 feet along the centerline of Magic View Drive and Southerly boundary of said Lot 2 to a point; thence North 83°21'41" West 64.86 feet along the centerline of Magic View Drive and Southerly boundary of said Lot 2 to the Southwest corner of said Lot 2; thence North 83° 11' 15" West 405.26 feet along the centerline of Magic View Drive and Southerly boundary of said Lot 3 to the Southwest corner of said Lot 3; thence North 00°03'08" West 526.18 feet along the Westerly boundary of said Lot 3 to the Northwest corner of said Lot 3; thence South 89°58'30" East 781.08 feet along the Northerly boundary of said Lots 2 and 3 to the point of beginning. 5. The owner of record of the subject property is W.H.Moore/Jim Boyd, of PO Box 8204, Boise, Idaho. 6. Applicant is owner of record. 7. The property is presently zoned by Ada County as Rural Transitional (R -T), and consists of residential property. S. The Applicant requested the property be zoned as Limited Office (L -O). 9. The subject property is bordered to the north by Greenhill Estates Subdivision and city limits of the City of Meridian are adjacent and abut the subject FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 property to the south and east sides of the property. 10. The property which is the subje"c't of this application is Within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 11. The entire parcel of the property is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 12. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following manner: Develop an office complex. 13. The Applicant requests zoning of the subject real property as Limited Office (L -O) which is consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map which designates the subject property as Commercial and Mixed /Planned Use Development. 14. There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that affect the consideration of this application. 15. The Applicant request zoning of the subject real property as Limited Office (L -O). The application is consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map which designates the subject property as `Commercial and Mixed/Planned Use Development. Further, this application is consistent with the following provisions of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 10 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX / BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 The subject property is located in an area designated as Mixed/Planned Use Development in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan It is within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES Economic Development Chapter Policies 1.2, 1.3, and 1.9 Land .Use Chapter Policies 4AU, 4.8U, 5.8, 5.9, 5.11, 5.14U, 5.15U Community Design Chapter Policies 1.3, 1.4, 2.1 U, 2.2U, 2.3U and 2.5U 16. Giving due consideration to the comment received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction, public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the following conditions of development are imposed as a condition of Staff review and approval of development permits, and which restrict the use and development of the subject real property under the Limited Office Development procedures and pursuant to the conditional use permit process, to -wit: Adopt the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Staff, modified at the request of the Planning and Zoning Commission as follows: 16.1 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 11 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX / BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. No -variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches crossing this project. 16.2 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. 16.3 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, 16.4 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. 16.5 A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking ar"eas. All site drainage shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 16.6 Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as not to direct illumination` on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-14.D.3. 16.7 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. No temporary signage or flashing signs will be permitted. 16.8 Applicants shall provide five -foot -wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 16.9 All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 12 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 • . • 16. 10 Applicant shall enter into a License Agreement with Ada County Highway District to construct, and perpetual maintain, a 30 -foot wide buffer with a 4466t high berm and a 6 -foot high solid, wooden fence on top of the berm along the entire length of Parcel B. 16.11 Applicant shall construct a minimum 20 -foot wide buffer with a 4 -foot high berm and a 6 -foot high solid, wooden fence on top of the berm along the entire length of Parcel A. 16.12 Applicant shall be required to dedicate all right-of-way along St. Luke's Street, and Magic View Drive prior to the issuance of any building permits. 16.13 The Applicant has submitted a draft site plan to provide a general overview of expected development type location and amenities. The proposed site plan proposes to the dedication of a new public road which will divide Lot 2 of the Amended Magic View Subdivision into three parcels. The Applicant shall facilitate this by application for replat of this portion of the Magic View Subdivision, which process shall include the replatting of public easements as well. 16.14 Existing easements are shown on the recorded plat of the Amended Magic View Estates Subdivision which will be in conflict with the new proposed layout. Applicant shall vacate, conflicting easements prior to applying for building permits. 17. It is found that if the developer pays for the requested improvements and complies with the conditions set forth in these findings of fact, and all sub -parts, the economic welfare of the City and its residents and tax„and rate payers will be protected, which requirement shall be included in a development agreement, a condition of annexation and zoning designation. 18. It is found that the development considerations which must be FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 13 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX / BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 0 0 taken into account, in order to assure the proposed development is designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner which is harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing, or intended character of the general vicinity, in order to assure that the proposed use will not change the essential character of the affected vicinity and will insure that the proposed uses will not be hazardous or disturbing to the existing, or future neighboring uses, particularly considering the impact of proposed development on potential to produce excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare and odors. Decision and Order now, therefore, based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the City Council does hereby ORDER and this does ORDER: 1. The applicant's request for annexation and zoning of approximately 20.05 acres to Limited Office (L -O) is granted subject to the terms and conditions of this Order hereinafter stated. 2. The application is for annexation and zoning of 20.05 acres. The legal description shall be prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor, Licensed by the State of Idaho, and shall conform to all the provisions of the City of Meridian Resolution No. 158. The legal description for annexation must place this parcel contiguous to the Corporate City Limits per Ordinance No. 686. 3. Developer enter into a Development Agreement that provides in the event the conditions therein provided are not met by the Developer that the property shall be subject to re -zone and de -annexation from the City of Meridian, which Agreement shall provide for the following conditions of use and development; to -wit: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 14 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX / BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 0 • 3.A The Applicant shall use the subject property to develop, use and maintain professional office with.any other uses permitted in the subject zone only. as a conditional use. 3.B. The Applicant shall develop the subject property in accordance with the following conditions: 3.B.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. No variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches crossing this project. 3.B.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. 3.13.3 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. 3.B.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. 3.B.5 A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. All site drainage shall be contained and disposed of on-site. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 15 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 • 0 3.13.6 Outside lighting, shall be designed and placed so as not to direct illumination on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-14.D.3. 3.13.7 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. No temporary signage or flashing signs will be permitted. 3.13.8 Applicants shall provide five -foot -wide sidewalks in accordance with- City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 3.13.9 All construction shall conform to the requirements -of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 3.B. IOApplicant shall enter into a License Agreement with Ada County Highway District to construct, and perpetual maintain, a 30 -foot wide buffer with a 4 -foot high berm and a 6 -foot high solid, wooden fence on top of the berm along the entire length of Parcel B. 3.B.11Applicant shall construct a minimum 20 -foot wide buffer with a 4 -foot high berm and a 6 -foot high solid, wooden fence on top of the berm along the entire length of Parcel A. 3.B.12Applicant shall be required to dedicate all right-of-way along St. Luke's Street, and Magic View Drive prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3.B.13The Applicant has submitted a draft site plan to provide a general overview of expected development type location and amenities. The proposed site plan proposes to the dedication of a new public road which will divide Lot 2 of the Amended Magic View Subdivision into three parcels. The Applicant shall facilitate this by application for replat of this portion of the Magic View Subdivision, which process shall include the replatting of public easements as well. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 16 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 3.B.14Existing easements are shown on the recorded plat of the Amended Magic View Estates Subdivision which will be in conflict with the new proposed layout. Applicant shall vacate conflicting easements prior to applying for building permits. 4. The City Attorney shall prepare for consideration by the City Council the appropriate ordinance for the annexation and zoning designation of the real property which is the subject of the application to (L -O) Limited Office District (Meridian City Code § 11-7-2 G). 5. Subsequent to the passage of the Ordinance provided for in section 4 of this Order the engineering staff of the Public Works Department shall prepare the appropriate mapping changes of the official boundaries and zoning maps as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-21-1 in accordance with the provisions of the annexation and zoning ordinance. . FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 17 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX / BY: W:H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 NOTICE OFIFINAL ACTION Please take notice that this is 'a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person is a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the annexation and zoning and who may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the day of ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN RON ANDERSON COUNCILMAN KEITH BIRD COUNCILPERSON TAMMY deWEERD 2000. COUNCILPERSON CHERIE McCANDLESS MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (TIE BREAI(ER) DATED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 18 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: 0 Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: City Clerk msg/ZAWor1-\M\Meridian 15360M\Magic View\AZFfCls Dated: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 19 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 MAYOR Robert D. Corrie CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Ron Anderson Keith Bird Tammy deWeerd Cherie McCandless March 23, 2000 HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY jo A Good Place to Live CITY 'OF MERIDIAN Magic View Partners P.O. Box 8204 Boise, ID 83707 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 - Fax (208) 887-4813 City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 Re: Annexation and Zoning Application AZ 99-022 Signed and Recorded Development Agreement To whom it may concern: LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208)288-2499 - Fax 288-2501 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 - Fax 887-1297 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 - Fax 888-6854 FILE COPY Enclosed is an approved copy of the signed, recorded Development Agreement for the above -referenced application as well as a copy of the Resolution No. 310. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Shelby Ugarriza City Clerk's Office seu enc. MARCH 17, 2000 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: MARCH 21, 2000 AZ 99-022 APPLICANT: W.H. MOORE COMPANY AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: .1�2 REQUEST: Development Agreement - ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 10 ACRES TO L -O FOR PROPOSED MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER 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: SEE ATTACHED SIGNED D/A OTHER: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. A JULIE KLEIN FISCHER WM. F. GICRAY, III BRENT JOHNSON D. SAMUEL JOHNSON WILLIAM A. MORROW WILLIAM E NICHOLS* CHRISTOPHER S. NYE *ALSO ADMITTED IN OR **ALSO ADMITTED IN WA • WHITE, PETERSON, PRUSS, MORROW & GIGRAY, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW PHILIP A. PETERSON 200 EAST CARLTON-AVENUE, SUITE 31 STEPHEN L. PRUSS POST OFFICE BOX 1150 ERIC S. ROSSMAN MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680-1150 TODD A. RossMAN TEL (208) 288-2499 DAVID M. SWARTLEY FAX (208) 288-2501 TERRENCE R. WHITE" 4 Email via Internet @ wfg @wppmg.com February 10, 2000 William G._Berg,_Jr:,-City_Clerk MERIDIAN CITY HALL 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 NAMPA OFFICE 104 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH POST OFFICE BOX 247 NAMPA, IDAHO 83653.0247 TEL (208) 466.9272 FAX (208) 466-4405 PLEASE REPLY TO MERIDIAN OFFICE f?BCF'1VEj) FE B 1 1 2000 CITY OF MERIDIAN Re: W.H. MOORE COMPANY/ ANNEXATION AND ZONING FINDINGS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, RESOLUTION AND CERTIFICATE OF CLERIC Dear Will: Please find enclosed the original of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FORANNEXATION AND ZONING prepared as per instructions from the Council meeting of January 18, 2000, and which are on the agenda for February 15, 2000. I have also attached the originals of the Resolution and Certificate of the Cleric for the Development Agreement. I have also attached hereto the Development Agreement for the above matter. After the Council meeting of February 15, 2000, if Council approves the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the above matter, then the Findings will need to be attached to the Development Agreement as Exhibit "B". After the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order Granting Application for Annexation and Zoning have been adopted, please submit the Development -Agreement to the owners for signatures. If you have any questions please advise. Very t�y u In. F. igray, I msg\Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\Magic View\FFCL and DevAgtGk.ltr CERTIFICATE OF CLERIC OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN I, the undersigned, do hereby certify: 1. That I am the duly appointed and elected Cleric of the City of Meridian, a duly incorporated City operating under the laws of the State of Idaho, with its principal office at 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho. 2. That as the City Cleric of this Cit II am the custodian of its records and minutes and do hereby certify that on the ��-�%' day of M6fitck , 2000, the following action has been taken and authorized: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, SETTING FORTH CERTAIN FINDINGS AND PURPOSES; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO, ON BEHALF OF SAID MUNICIPALITY, AN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT", BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND WINSTON H. MOORE/JAMES L. BOYD AND MAGIC VIEW PARTNERS, AN IDAHO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City of Meridian to enter into an agreement with Winston H. Moore/James L. Boyd and Magic View Partners, an Idaho General Partnership, denoted as "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT", a copy of which is attached hereto marked as Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, the reasons and authority for which are as set forth in said Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL as follows: Certificate of Cleric of the City of Meridian (A7--99-022) - 1 0 0 The Mayor and Cleric are hereby authorized to enter into and on behalf of the City of Meridian that certain agreement with Winston H. Moore/James L. Boyd and Magic View Partners, an Idaho General Partnership, entitled "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT", by and between the City of Meridian and Winston H. Moore/James L. Boyd and Magic View Partners, an Idaho General Partnership, a copy of which is attached hereto marked as Exhibit "A" to this Resolution and to bind this City to its terms and conditions. j� _ ILLIAM G. BERG, JR. CITY CLERIC STATE OF I ;,'-�c'T 1'l IDAHO, ,) .� 9� County of Ada, On this 'L ( day of "rCk, , in the year 2000, before me, `�%Q(4 ftfitr) ZAti , a Notary Public, appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known or identified to me to be the City Cleric of the City of Meridian, Idaho, that executed the said instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of the City of Meridian. OT amu♦♦♦ Not Public for Idaho Commission Expires: �-7b--0y msg/Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\Magic View\CERTofCLI<forRESOLU Certificate of Cleric of the City of Meridian (A7--99-022) - 2 I CEIZ RESOLUTION NO MAR - 3 2000 Uhf OF 1WR.IDLI FILE COPY A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, SETTING FORTH CERTAIN FINDINGS AND PURPOSES; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO, ON BEHALF OF SAID MUNICIPALITY, AN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT", BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND WINSTON H. MOORE/JAMES L. BOYD AND MAGIC VIEW PARTNERS, AN IDAHO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City of Meridian to enter into an agreement with Winston H. Moore/James L. Boyd and Magic View Partners, an Idaho General Partnership, denoted as "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT", a copy of which is attached hereto marked as Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, the reasons and authority for which are as set forth in said Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL as follows: 1. The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into and on behalf of the City of Meridian that certain agreement with Winston H. Moore/James L. Boyd and Magic View Partners, an Idaho General Partnership, entitled "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT", by and between the City of Meridian and Winston H. Moore/James L. Boyd and Magic View Partners, an Idaho General Partnership, a copy of which is attached hereto marked as Exhibit "A" to this Resolution and to bind this City to its terms and conditions. Resolution (AZ -99-022) - 1 • • PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 2 s day of l;�a z,-1 , 2000. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 2(�� day of �d�c�c c�-- , 2000. ATTEST: 11 CITY CLERIC msg/ZAWork\M\ Meridian 15360MWIagic View\Resolution d Resolution (A7--99-022) - 2 NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person is a personwho has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the annexation and zoning and who may within t,,venty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the day of AIL ��`-- , 2000. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN RON ANDERSON COUNCILMAN I<EITH BIRD COUNCILPERSON TAMMY deWEERD COUNCILPERSON CHERIE McCANDLESS MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) DATED:_ IF— 7-00 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 18 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO./ CASE NO. AZ -99-022 VOTED VOTED G s-- VOTED*ate VOTED VOTED (0-"1'-10 MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Department and the City Attorney. ity Clerk msg/Z:\WorkUVl\Meridian 15360M\Magic View\AZFfCls Dated: to �5 FQ L r 6"WE AL � w � � r .`. s � FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 19 AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX/ BY: W.H. MOORE CO. / CASE NO. AZ -99-022 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 AZ 99-022 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: MARCH 7 2000 APPLICANT: W.H. MOORE COMPANY AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REQUEST: FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 10 ACRES TO L -O FOR PROPOSED MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: SEE 2/15/2000 ITEM PACKET CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER 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: ahj OTHER: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. p (c�t 4 Lq �l% — d-vy.a_!-ha,n :S�tA :31Iv �� i WHITE, PETERSON, PRUSS, MORROW & GIGRAY, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW KATHY J. EDWARDS JULIEKLEIN FISCHER WM. F. GIC*RAY, III D. SAMUEL JOHNSON WiLmAm A. MoRttow WILLIAM R NICHOLS CHRISTOPHM S. NYE PHILIP A. PETERSON STEPHEN L. PRUSS ERIC S. ROSSMAN TODD A. ROSSMAN DAVID M. SWARTLEY TERIUNCE R. WHITE William G. Berg, Jr. City Clerk Meridian City Hall 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 200 EAST CARLTON AVENUE POST OFFICE Box 1150 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680-1150 TEL (208)288-2499 FAx (208) 288-2501 E-MAIL: dms@wPPmg.Q m December 27, 1999 NAwA OFFICE 104 NINTH AVFNUESOUTH POST OFFICE BOX 247 NAMPA, IDAHO 83653-0747 TEL. (208) 466-9272 FAX (208) 4664405 PLEASE REPLY TO MERII)IAN OFFICE gECF'1Vq) DEC 2 7 1999 CITY OF MERIDIAN Re: Annexation and Zoning of 10 acres for -Magic View Office Complex W. H. Moore, Applicant Dear Will: Please find enclosed the original of the Recommendations to the City Council by the Planning and Zoning Commission on the above referenced application. Please note this matter will be heard before the City Council on January 4, 2000. Shari Stiles and Gary Smith have been given copies of the above Recommendations so they can be prepared at the hearing to specifically address the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Very truly yours, Enclosure ey/Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\Ma9ic View\CCIkF1`Pd 0 0 BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 10 ACRES FOR MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX BY W.H. MOORE CO. Case No. AZ -99-022 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL INTRODUCTION 1. The property is approximately 10 acres in size. The property is located on the north side of Magic View Drive west of Eagle Road. The,property is designated as Lots 2 and 3, Magic View Subdivision. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is W.H.Moore/jim Boyd, of PO Box 8204, Boise, Idaho. 3. Applicant is owner of record. 4. The property is presently zoned by Ada County as Rural Transitional (R -T), and consists of. residential property. 5. The Applicant requested the property be zoned as Limited Office (L -O). 6. The subject property is bordered to the north by Magic View Subdivision and city limits of the City of Meridian are adjacent and abut all sides of the property. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - I ANNEXATION AND ZONING - MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX - W.H. MOORE CO. 7. The property which is the subject of this application is within the Area of Impact of the City,of,Meridian., 8. The entire parcel of the property is included within the Meridian Urban B Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is .defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. I , % k 9. The Applicant,, proposes :to develop the subject property in the following manner: Develop an office complex. w 10. The Applicant requests zoning of the subject real property -as Limited Office (L -O) which is consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized 4 R Land Use Map which designates the subject property as Commercial. 12. There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that affect the consideration of this application. ;1 RECOMMENDATION . , 1. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the requested annexation and zoning as requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application, subject to the following: .I Adopt the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Staff, modified at • 4 `r the request of the Planning and Zoning Commission as follows: RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING - MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX - W.H. MOORE CO. 1.1 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. No variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches crossing this project. 1.2 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. 1.3 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. 1.4 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. 1.5 A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. All site drainage shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 1.6 Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as not to direct illumination on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-14.D.3. 1.7 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. No temporary signage or flashing signs will be permitted. 1.8 Applicants shall provide five -foot -wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 1.9 All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 3 ANNEXATION AND ZONING - MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX - W.H. MOORE CO. • with Disabilities Act. 1.10 Construction of a 20 foot buffer with a 4 foot berm and a 6 foot solid wooden fence along the entire length of parcel A. 1.11 Applicant shall be required to dedicate all right-of-way along St. Luke's Street, and Magic View Drive prior -to the issuance of any building permits. 1.12 The proposed site plan includes the dedication of a new public street and divides Lot 2 of the Amended Magic View Subdivision into three parts. Staff recommend the applicant plat the proposed site accordingly. 1.13 Existing easements are shown on the recorded plat of the Amended Magic View Estates Subdivision which will be in conflict with the new proposed layout. Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\Magic View\Atu►exZonRec.wpd RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 4 ANNEXATION AND ZONING - MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX - W.H. MOORE CO. MEMORANDUM: To: Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engine r Brad Hawkins -Clark, Assistant Planner LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 • Faz 887-1297 December 3, 1999 REcE D DEC 0 7 1999 City of Meridian City Clerk Office Re: Request for Annexation and Zoning of Two, Five -Acre Parcels +/- from RT to L- O with a Conditional Use Permit for Multiple Buildings on a Single Site by W.H. Moore Company We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATIONS SUMMARY There are two lots and two separate applications covered in this report. The Annexation & Zoning application (File AZ -99-022) proposes to annex Lots 2 and 3 of the existing Amended Magic View Subdivision and rezone both lots to Limited Office (L-0). The CUP application (File CUP -99-040) proposes four new, detached office buildings -- two on each parcel. The Applicant is also requesting approval for a restaurant within the complex. While the two lots have different owners, the project was submitted as and will be reviewed as a single project for the purpose of this report. LOCATION The subject lots are located on the north side of Magic View Drive, immediately west of the new Eagle Partners project currently being constructed, and south of Greenhill Estates Subdivision. The property is located in an area designated as Mixed/Planned Use Development in the Comprehensive Plan. There is also a Commercial designation that incorporates a portion of Lot 2 (the east piece). While the majority of Magic View Subdivision (approximately 23 three- to five -acre lots covering 70 +/- acres) remains in the County, it is rapidly urbanizing. In the last three years or so, six lots in the east half of the subdivision adjacent to Eagle Road have been annexed and are either built -out or in the development -approval process. The Magic View residents are also very active in the City's current Comprehensive Plan Update process. They submitted a general master plan for the re -development of the entire subdivision and have requested a Mixed Use designation for the full 70 +/- acres, changing from its existing Single-family Residential designation. Magic View office Complex.AZ.CUP.doc AZ -99-020 and CUP -99-037 HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY Mayor ROBERT D. CORRIE A Good Place to Live City Council Members CITY OF F MERIDIAN CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 RON ANDERSON (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 KEITH BIRD City Clerk Fax (208) 888-4218 MEMORANDUM: To: Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engine r Brad Hawkins -Clark, Assistant Planner LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 • Faz 887-1297 December 3, 1999 REcE D DEC 0 7 1999 City of Meridian City Clerk Office Re: Request for Annexation and Zoning of Two, Five -Acre Parcels +/- from RT to L- O with a Conditional Use Permit for Multiple Buildings on a Single Site by W.H. Moore Company We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATIONS SUMMARY There are two lots and two separate applications covered in this report. The Annexation & Zoning application (File AZ -99-022) proposes to annex Lots 2 and 3 of the existing Amended Magic View Subdivision and rezone both lots to Limited Office (L-0). The CUP application (File CUP -99-040) proposes four new, detached office buildings -- two on each parcel. The Applicant is also requesting approval for a restaurant within the complex. While the two lots have different owners, the project was submitted as and will be reviewed as a single project for the purpose of this report. LOCATION The subject lots are located on the north side of Magic View Drive, immediately west of the new Eagle Partners project currently being constructed, and south of Greenhill Estates Subdivision. The property is located in an area designated as Mixed/Planned Use Development in the Comprehensive Plan. There is also a Commercial designation that incorporates a portion of Lot 2 (the east piece). While the majority of Magic View Subdivision (approximately 23 three- to five -acre lots covering 70 +/- acres) remains in the County, it is rapidly urbanizing. In the last three years or so, six lots in the east half of the subdivision adjacent to Eagle Road have been annexed and are either built -out or in the development -approval process. The Magic View residents are also very active in the City's current Comprehensive Plan Update process. They submitted a general master plan for the re -development of the entire subdivision and have requested a Mixed Use designation for the full 70 +/- acres, changing from its existing Single-family Residential designation. Magic View office Complex.AZ.CUP.doc AZ -99-020 and CUP -99-037 Mayor, Council and P&Z� December 3, 1999 Page 2 SURROUNDING PROPERTIES North — Greenhill Estates Subdivision No.- 3• (large, single-family homes in a well-established neighborhood). Nine homes are immediately adjacent to the north property lines of the proposed site and zoned R3 (Ada County). South — Immediately across Magic View Drive is the Texaco gas station and food mart in Lot 11 and the Midvalley Business Park, which is .a re -subdivision of Lot 10 into five (5) one -acre lots, including the new Hubble Engineering headquarters building. Both lots are zoned C -G (Meridian). East — Eagle Partners complex (Idaho Power Credit Union and Chevron/McDonalds), zoned CG (Meridian). West — A five -acre lot with a single-family home. The east boundary of Phase 2 of the proposed Woodbridge Subdivision by O'Neill Enterprises is approximately 1,500 feet to the west down Magic View Drive. ANNEXATION AND ZONING GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The legal description submitted for Lots 2 and 3 is correct and places the parcel contiguous to existing city limits. 2'. Staff agrees with the proposed L -O zone. The L -O zone is permitted and compatible with the Mixed/Planned Use comprehensive plan designation. It provides for appropriate, low - intensity transitional uses from commercial on the south to single-family on the north. 3. The subject lots can be adequately served by public facilities, and the proposed uses will allow for orderly expansion of the city limits. 4. With the extension of St. Luke's Street from Eagle Road and aligning the proposed Allen Street with; the existing Allen south of Magic View, this site will have adequate vehicular approaches and access. ANNEXATION SITE SPECIFIC REOUIREMENTS Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. The ditches to be piped should be shown on the site plans. 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. No variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches crossing this project. 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. Magic View Office Complex.AZ CUP.doc AZ -99-M and CUP -99-040 Mayor, Council and P&z0 December 3, 1999 e Page 3 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 Americanswith Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. 5. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. All site drainage shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 6. Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as not to 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. No temporary signage, flags, banners or flashing signs will be permitted. Signage restrictions need to be included in the development agreement. 8. Provide five -foot -wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section l 1-9-606.B. 9. All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. "10. A minimum 35 -foot landscape buffer is required along the north property boundary of site and shall be a condition attached to this property in the Development Agreement. 11. Applicant shall' be required to dedicate all right-of-way along St. Luke's Street, Allen Street and Magic View Drive as required by ACHD prior to the issuance of any building permits. 12. Section 2-403 of the Zoning & Development Ordinance (page 24) defines "subdivision" as the "result of an act of dividing an original lot ... into two or more parts. The term "subdivision" shall also include the dedication of a public street." The proposed site plan includes the dedication of a new public street and divides Lot 2 of the Amended Magic View Subdivision into three parts (the lot, Allen Street and the landscape and stormwater area north of the street. In order to comply with this section of the ordinance, Staff recommend the applicant plat the proposed site accordingly. This should be a condition of annexation placed in the Development Agreement. [NOTE: The Planning Director, City Engineer and City Attorney have proposed revising the Zoning Ordinance to set standards to allow for one-time splits of parcels in the city limits. Currently, however, the only vehicle to, split properties is the formal platting process.] Magic view Offike Complex.AZ.CUP.doc AZ.99-022 and CUP -99.040 _ .. 0 Mayor, Council and P&Za December 3, 1999 Page 4 13. Existing easements are shown on the recorded plat of the Amended Magic View Estates Subdivision which will be in conflict with the new proposed layout. 14. A Development Agreement will be required as a condition of annexation. CONDITIONAL USE COMMENTS 1. As part of a conditional use permit, the City of Meridian may impose additional restrictions/conditions. 2. Staff believes the Site Development Plan is generally in accord with the intent and purpose of the Limited Office zone. The vast majority of the Comprehensive Plan policies` cited below are met with this Plan. 3. The 35 -foot landscape buffer on the north side of Eagle Partners' site is within ACHD's. right-of-way. It is not clear on the Site Plan if the landscape berm on Lot 2, north of St. Lukes Street, will continue the ACHD right-of-way or if it will remain privately owned. The Applicant should clarify. CONDITIONAL USE SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS Public Works Requirements: 1. Determine the normal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with the design of site drainage plan. 2. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 3. Please provide the Public Works Department with information on anticipated fire flow and domestic water requirements for the proposed site. 4. Sanitary sewer service to this site will be via an extension from the existing main adjacent to the proposed development. Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer mains to and through this proposed development. Project designer to coordinate sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. 5. Water service to this site will be via extensions of existing mains installed adjacent to subject site. Applicant will be responsible to construct the water mains to and through this proposed development. Project designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department 6. Underground pressurized irrigation must be provided to all landscape areas on site. Please submit`hook-up and design details based on the proposed landscaping. Due to the landscape area required, primary water supply connection to the City's mains will not be allowed. Developer shall be required to, utilize any existing surface or well water for the Magic view Offer Complex.AZ CUP.doc AZ -99.022 and CUP -99-040 Mayor, Council and P&Z December 3, 1999 ' L Page 5 primary source. If City water is proposed as a secondary source, developer shall be responsible to pay water assessments for the entire common open area. 7. Per Uniform -Plumbing Code requirements, each building "shall be served by independent sewer and water services. 8. Assessment fees for water and sewer service are determined during the building plan review process. Applicant shall be required to enter into an Assessment Agreement with the City of Meridian. 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. 9. Particular attentionneeds to be paid to. lighting plans to ensure that`lights -do not cause glare or impact adjacent residential properties or the traveling public, as determined by the Meridian Public Works Department. The Public Works Department is in the process of determining detailed standards for lighting. Planning & Zoning Requirements: 1. The conditional use permit shall be subject to review upon ten days notice to the Applicant. The �ditional use permit should become null and void if work does not commence withinrem year of approval andconstruction is not complete'within two years from date of approval. The conditional use permit should be made transferable from one owner to a new owner or from tenant to tenant'provided uses comply with Ordinance requirements and construction proceeds in accordance with the approved conditional use permit. 2. Four monument signs (two per lot) are shown on the Site Plan. The sign`s must be located outside the 12' x 40' clear vision triangle for private drives and public roads. No sign elevations were submitted with the application. Staff strongly encourage a coordinated sign program complementing building architecture style be submitted for all free- standing and wall signs in the entire complex and approved as part of this application. All signage is subject to design review and separate application. 3. Coordinate the location and sizing requirements of screened trash enclosures with Sanitary Service Company. Provide a letter of approval from Sanitary Service Company prior to applying for building permits. 4. Provide a letter of � approval from Ada"County Highway District prior to applying for building permits. Letter of approval shall include recorded warranty deed or recorded plat for all necessary roadway dedications. 5. No details of hours of 'operation fare 'provided. While the office uses/hours should be harmonious with the residential' homes to the north, the application also requests approval for an ancillary restaurant within the complex. Restaurants are allowed as conditional Magic View Office Complex.AZ.CUP.doc AZ -94022 and CUP -99-M - Mayor, Council and P&Z December 3, 1999 Page 6 uses in the L -O zone. Staff recommends the Applicant either: (1), make firm commitments in this application regarding the specific building to house the restaurant, hours of operation, type of restaurant, and other details; or (2) be required to submit a separate CUP application, in the future once the restaurant comes through as a tenant improvement. Staff supports the concept of integrating offices and restaurants, but feel one of these two,conditions should be placed. f 6. The building elevations provided do not correspond with the building envelopes labled on Sheet CU -1. Applicant should provide more specific details on which buildings are single -story and which are two-story. 7. There`is an existing ten -foot -wide public utilities, irrigation and drainage easement along the side and rear lot lines of Lots 2 and 3. Applicant should clarify his intent with regard to maintaining or vacating these easements. 8. The parking details on Sheet CU -1 state "Retail Parking Provided," but the square footage calculation is correct for office use (1:400). Retail use is specifically prohibited in the L -O zone. This should be corrected to state "Office Parking. 9. Parcel A shows a total of 275 parking stalls. ADA requires a minimum of seven handicap accessible for this number of parking stalls. Only six are shown (three per building). Staff recommends adding at least one (1) more handicap stall per building. Parcel B appears to meet the minimum ADA requirements. 10. The parking rows against the east boundary of Parcel A (adjacent to Allen Street) show twenty-six (26) stalls south of the driveway and twenty (20) stalls north of the driveway. These are large expanses of asphalt without any visual/softening break. Staff recommends at least one (1) landscape bump -out with dimensions similar to the other proposed bump -outs (approx. 8' x 20') be added to each of these parking rows. 11. Staff encourages the inclusion of bicycle racks at each of the four (4) office buildings. 12. The street trees proposed along all three public roads on the Site Plan should be planted outside any easement containing an underground water line, sewer line, or other utility. 13. The Site Plan shows the required number of trees to meet the ordinance. However, no species are listed. Applicant must submit a detailed landscape plan, including berm height, species, groundcovers, shrubs and irrigation details with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance/Building Permit submission. 14. If a landscape berm is proposed for the northwest corner of Parcel B (adjacent to St. Luke's Street), Staff requests the berm height be restricted to a maximum of three feet from street grade (not sidewalk grade) to allow for clear vision. Magic View Office Complex.AZ.CUP.doc AZ•99-022 and CUP -99-040 0 Mayor, Council and P&Z0 December 3, 1999 Page 7 15. No fencing details were submitted for the boundaries adjacent to the Greenhill Estates lots. Eagle Partners constructed a chainlink fence behind the four -foot -high berm. Applicant should make statements regarding his intent for fencing types and height along the north and west boundaries of the site. 16. Staff reserves the right to prepare additional comments when a revised site plan and comments have been received. 17. If possible, please reply in writing to all comments contained in this memorandum by noon on December 10, 1999. RELEVANT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES The 1993 Comprehensive Plan contains a variety of goals and policies that are relevant to this application. Staff has selected the following sections that most directly apply to the proposed project: The subject property is located in an area designated as Mixed/Planned Use Development in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. It is within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area. Economic Development Chapter Policies 1.2 and 1.3, 1.9 Land Use Chapter Policies 4.4U, 4.8U, 5.8, 5.9, 5.11, 5.14U, 5.15U Community Design Chapter Policies 1.3, 1.4, 2.1U, 2.2U, 2.3U, 2.5U RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Annexation and C.U.P. applications with the above -stated conditions. Ma* view office Compkx.AZ.CUP.doe AZ -99-022 and CUP -99.040 0 January 14, 2000 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: JANUARY 18 2000 APPLICANT: W.H. MOORE COMPANY AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REQUEST: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 10 ACRES FROM RT TO L -O FOR PROPOSED MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER 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 SEE ATTACHED RECOMMENDATIONS REVIEWED "NO PROBLEMS WITH REQUEST" "NO REMARKS" SEE ATTACHED NO OBJECTIONS "NO COMMENT" 1"0 vot G OTHER: LETTER FROM HOWARD FOLEY AS A RESIDENT OF GREENHILLS ESTATES All Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. 0 RFcFwED N O V 2 9 1999 ORGANIZED 1904 CITY OF MERIDIAN 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 1999 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Will Berg, Gty. Clerk Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 Re: AZ -99-022 Annexation and Zoning for Magic View Office Complex / W. H. Moore Company Dear Commissioners: The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above referenced application. I Sincerely,' Bill Henson, Asst;. Water Superintendent NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT BH: din Cc: File —Shop File — Office Water Superintendent W. H. Moore Co. — Jonathan Seel BPS Architects — Billy Ray Strite Tealey's Land Surveying — David Marks Bois APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES � z RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 20.3Jdd Mayur ROBERT D. CORRIC City Coum;il Membcns CHARLES ROUNTREP GLENN BENTLEY RON ANDERSON KLITI•l BIRD 0 HUB OF TREASURE- VALLEY A Good Place to Live [TY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 33642 (203) 388-4433 - Fax (208) 837-4813 City Clcrk Fax (208) 888-4218 LF:TT 66, 6T SON LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 28S-2499 • Fax 28S -25U1 PUBL.(C WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (20S) SS7-2211 - Fix 887. (297 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (209) S84-5533 • Fu 887. (297 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 recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: November 26 1999 TRANSMITTAL DATE- November 10, 1999 HEARING DATE: December 14, 1999 FILE NUMBER: AZ 99-022 LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT TAMMY DE W EAGLE ROAD/MAGIC VIEW EERO, P/Z KENT BROWN, F/Z MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT -THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION KEITH BORUP, PiZ ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH RON ANDERSONE C/C NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) KEITH BIRD, C/C' GLENN BENTLEY, C/C U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) WATER DEPARTMENT INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) •„�8'E`W _sER DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL) SANITARY SERVICE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: _POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER 'CITY PLANNER h�nV 1999 PfiET�AT�:�I�T�' S0/EAd 'bi�L �bg88AZ=QI • 1 � %4c� Ya 2R'VM3_LSVM NVIQIM3W LZ:TT 99_GT-TT Mayor ``�I� HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY � ROBERT D. CORRIE A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT City Council Members CITY- OF MERIDIAN (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C PUBLIC WORKS CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO' BUILDING DEPARTMENT GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 RON ANDERSON (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING KEITH BIRD City Clerk Fax (208)'888-4218 DEPARTMENT 208) 884-5533 • Faz 887-1297 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 g Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: November 26, 1999 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 10, 1999 HEARING DATE: December 14. 1999 FILE NUMBER: REQUEST: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 10 ACRES FROM RT TO LO FOR I PROPOSED MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX BY: W.H. MOORE COMPONV LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT I EAGLE ROAD/MAGIC VIEW TAMMY DE WEERD, P/Z KENT BROWN,jP/Z MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION KEITH BORUP, P/Z CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C KEITH BIRD, C/C IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) GLENN BENTLEY, C/C U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) WATER DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL) _SEWER DEPARTMENT ✓1_ SANITARYSERVICE/ 'BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS:( - _POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER N O V 2 9 1999 pw S p a . t CENTRAL CEN AL -.DISTRICT HEALTH -DEPART ENT { •• DISTRICT, ° , Environmental Health Division x, WiHEALTH' Return to: " DEPARTMENT' ,� ' , � g �, R�"IvED Boise NOV 2 2.+1999. ❑ Eagle" Rezone #: Z 9 7,— O22_ ❑ Garden City Conditional Use # CITY OF NEKrn .M Meridian - ❑ Kuna Preliminary / Final / Short Plat ❑ ACZ l o 15 1 � 3 .�fNEf%r/rJ6Y✓. /ll� tc ✓i ec 1 Su h GJ. 14 Reotee Ce,-R19,V ., We have No 1 bjectio s to this Proposal. _ ❑ _2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal.- d ❑ `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: r ❑ high seasonal ground'water ❑;waste flow characteristics. s k ❑ or bedrock from original grade ❑ "other ❑ 6. ` This office will require a'study to assess the impact of and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or F. surface waters. ❑ �7. s This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well 'construction and ' x water availability. r ❑ 8. 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, a [Tindividual sewage' r ❑'•individual water s ❑ 9. - a , The following plan(s) must be Asubmitted to -and by the Idaho Department of Health &"Welfare, _ ¢ Division *d Environmental Quality: ❑ central sewage El community sewage system ❑ community water 9" t, El sewage dry lines '"❑ central water ❑ 10. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ❑ ,I I. = This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other ' considerations indicate approval -1 ,. ❑ 12. .If,restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage ` 6 Regulations. ❑ 13.Q We will require plans be submitted for aplan 'review for any: s ❑ 'food establishment `❑ swimming poolsorspas ❑ child care center ❑ beverage establishment ❑ grocery store ❑" J 4. r Date: x ' . Reviewed By: 4111�6W y r 3 s i �•.. A CDHD 10/91 rd, rev: 7/97 � " ;, Review. Sheet • y ti °P b " a. i f � Mayor HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY ROBERT D. CORRIE A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT City Council Members CITY OF MERIDIAN `2�8) _288-2499 - Fax S 251)1 PUBLIC PUBLIC WORKS CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 887-2211 - Fax 887-1297 RON ANDERSON (208) 888-4433 - Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING KEITH BIRD City Clerk Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT (208) 881-5533 - Faz 887-1297 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 submityour comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: November 26, 1999 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 10, 1999 HEARING DATE: December 14, 1999 FILE NUMBER: AZ 99-022 _ REQUEST: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 10 ACRES FROM RT TO LO FOR PROPOSED MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX BY: W.H. MOORE COMPANY LOCATION'OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: EAGLE ROAD/MAGIC VIEW TAMMY DE WEERD, P/Z KENT BROWN, P/Z THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C KEITH BIRD, C/C GLENN BENTLEY, C/C t, _ INff ' . ENT _SANITARY SERVICE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT _POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER N 0 V 15 1999 CITY OF MER,ID AN MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL, PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL) YOUR CONCISE REMAR NOV 12 1999 maidian City waw Sati� �ip HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY Mayor LEGAL DEPARTMENT ROBERT D. CORRIE A Good Place t0 Live (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 City Council Members CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 RON ANDERSON (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING City Clerk Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT KEITH BIRD (208) 884-5533 • Faz 887-1297 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 recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: November 26, 1999 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 10, 1999 HEARING DATE: December 14, 1999 FILE NUMBER: AZ 99-022 REQUEST: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 10 ACRES FROM RT TO LO FOR PROPOSED MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX BY: W.H. MOORE COMPANY LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: EAGLE ROAD/MAGIC VIEW TAMMY DE WEERD, P/Z KENT BROWN, P/Z THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C KEITH BIRD, C/C GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT _SANITARY SERVICE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRED RTMENT- j _POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL) YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: IC71 - O� — L? C /4-A/ A) JQ Y n> r C C DEC — 2 1999 CITY OF MERIDIAN �� a ` �- Mayor HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY ROBERT D. CORRIE A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT City Council Members CITY OF MERIDIAN (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 PUBLIC WORKS CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, -IDAHO 83642 (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 RON ANDERSON (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING KEITH BIRD City Clerk Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 • Faz 887-1297 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 recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: November 26, 1999 TRANSMITTAL DATE: -November 10, 1999 HEARING DATE: December 14, 1999 FILE NUMBER: AZ 99-022 REQUEST: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 10 ACRES FROM RT TO LO FOR PROPOSED MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX BY: W.H. MOORE COMPANY LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: EAGLE ROAD/MAGIC VIEW TAMMY DE WEERD, P/Z KENT BROWN, P/Z THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C KEITH BIRD, C/C GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT _SANITARY SERVICE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL) HOWARD R. FOLEY MARK S. FREEMAN FRANCES R. STERN JOSEPH W. BORTON k FOLEY & FREEMAN, CHARTERED ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW P.O. BOX 10 77 EAST IDAHO HERITAGE BLDG., SUITE 300 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680 December 14, 1999 Mr. Will Berg Clerk, City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 TELEPHONE: (208) 888-9111 FACSIMILE: (208) 888-5130 WEB SITE: www.foleyfreeman.com BBC-ETVET) DEC 14 1999 CITY OFMEgIDL41V Re: Comments Planning and Zoning December 14, 1999 Agenda # 9 & 10 Dear Will, Please accept and include in the record of the Planning and Zoning Commission this letter and the comments included in it. I am a resident of Greenhills Estates and located immediately West and North of the Magic View Office Complex proposed by W. H. Moore. I have the following concerns and comments: 1.That any building an denoted as building 1 on Parcel 1 not be high that one story as the same will abut my and neighbors back yards. 2. That the "set back" from the neighborhood lot lines and the building not be decease beyond the 30'.proposed and that instead should be increased to 40'. 3. That Parcel 1 include a berm, fencing and landscaping as the proposed adjoining parcle to the east. 4. That all activity be restricted to "office" environments open from 8 - 5. 5. That all lighting of areas on the north side of the buildings (adjoining the residence) be terminated no later than 9:30 p.m. each evening and not illuminated in the morning until 7:30 a.m.. 0 6. That in keeping with item # 4 that no restaurant or other nori-office activity be allowed. Sincerely yours, Howard R:- oley hfoley(foleyfreeman. com 0 W.H. MOORE 91 C O M P A N Y Real Estate Development 600 N. STEELHEAD WAY, SUITE 144 (83704) P.O. BOX 8204 BOISE, IDAHO 83707-2204 Date: February 15, 2000 To: Mayor and Meridian City Council City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 From: Jonathan R. Seel Subject: Magic View Project Case No. AZ -99-022 Case No. CUP -99-040 TELEPHONE (208) 323.1919 / FAX 323-7523 PUECErVE]) FEB 15 2000 CITY OF MERIDIAN We have reviewed the Findings and Recommendations for the referenced cases and ask for the following modifications or corrections: • In a January 18`h memo, Staff recommended replacing their requirement to submit a plat for the new road dedication (St. Luke's Road) with ACHD's Site Specific Condition #1 that allows for dedication by way of a final plat or a warranty deed, prior to building permit. City Council approved staff's recommendation. The option to either dedicate the street through a deed or plat is noted in the Findings for the CUP, but the Annexations and Rezone Findings require a final plat with no option for a warranty deed. We ask that the deed option be inserted in the Findings for Annexation and Rezone. • The Findings note the requirement to construct a 20-fo6t buffer on Parcel A. This lot should be referenced by the legal description, which is Lot #3 in the Amended Magic View Subdivision. • The Findings note the requirement to enter into a license agreement with ACHD for Parcel B. This lot should be referenced by the legal description, which is Lot #2 in the Amended Magic View Subdivision. Mayor and Meridian City Council Magic View Project Page 2 • In the Findings for Annexation and Rezone, page 14, it states the applicant wants to annex and rezone 20.05 acres. This should be approximately 10 acres. The City Council originally sided with the Planning and Zoning's decision -to remove the requirement.for a development agreement. However, the City Attorney strongly recommended that due to legal concerns,, some form -.of a- development agreement - should be required. The City Council did approve a development agreement with •the clarification that such agreement "be a very loose — very general L -O Development Agreement and anything outside of light office will come for a CUP" (Councilmember Bird's motion as contained in the January 18`h minutes). The Findings do not contain this clarification and we believe this is an important point. We argued against this agreement because of the restrictive nature of past development agreements and we believe the Council shared our concerns. Hence the Council's motion. Article 2.33 of the Findings for the CUP require the Applicant to extend St. Luke's Street, whereas in Article 2.37 it states the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the District to construct St Luke's Street. These two Articles seem in conflict. Although we do not have a binding responsibility to construct the road, we are in the process' of preparing an agreement with the District for St. Luke's Road. Specifically, this agreement, will address the guidelines under. which .the WH Moore Company would construct the road and at what time me would pay the extraordinary impact.fees. With the following in mind we ask that Article 2.33 be deleted as well as the last two sentences in Article 2.37, beginning with " The proportionate share.....". Thank you for your consideration regarding this matter. cc: Winston H. Moore Billy Ray Strite; BRS Architects Bradley Hawkins -Clark, Assistant Planner — City of Meridian 9 W.H. MOORE C O M P A N Y Real Estate Development 600 N. STEELHEAD WAY, SUITE 144 (83704) P.O. BOX 8204 BOISE, IDAHO 83707-2204 Date: February 15, 2000 To: Mayor and Meridian City Council City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 From: Jonathan R. Seel Subject: Magic View Project Case No. AZ -99-022 Case No. CUP -99-040 TELEPHONE (208) 323.1919 / FAX 323.7523 We have reviewed the Findings and Recommendations for the referenced cases and ask for the following modifications or corrections: In a January 18`h memo, Staff recommended replacing their requirement to submit a plat for the new road dedication (St. Luke's Road) with ACHD's Site Specific Condition #1 that allows for dedication by way of a final plat or a warranty deed, prior to building permit. City Council approved staff's recommendation. The option to either dedicate the street through a deed or plat is noted in the Findings for the CUP, but the Annexations and Rezone Findings require a final plat with no option for a warranty deed. We ask that the deed option be inserted in the Findings for Annexation and Rezone. • The Findings note the requirement to construct a 20 -foot buffer on Parcel A. This lot should be referenced by the legal description, which is Lot #3 in the Amended Magic View Subdivision. The Findings note the requirement to enter into a license agreement with ACHD for Parcel B. This lot should be referenced by the legal description, which is Lot #2 in the Amended Magic View Subdivision. Mayor and Meridian CityCouncil Magic View Project Page 2 In the Findings for Annexation and Rezone, page 14, it states the applicant wants to annex and rezone 20.05 acres. This should be approximately 10 acres. • The City Council originally sided with the Planning and Zoning's decision to remove the requirement for a development agreement. However, the City Attorney strongly recommended that due to legal concerns, some form of a development agreement should be required. The City Council did approve a development agreement with the clarification that such agreement "be a very loose — very general L -O Development Agreement and anything outside of light office will come for a CUP" (Councilmember Bird's motion as contained in the January 18`h minutes). The Findings do not contain this clarification and we believe this is an important point. We argued against this agreement because of the restrictive nature of past development agreements and we believe the Council shared our concerns. Hence the Council's motion. • Article 2.33 of the Findings for the CUP require the Applicant to extend St. Luke's Street, whereas in Article 2.37 it states the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the District to construct St Luke's Street. These two Articles seem in conflict. Although we do not have a binding responsibility to construct the road, we are in the process of preparing an agreement with the District for St. Luke's Road. Specifically, this agreement will address the guidelines - under which the WH Moore Company would construct the road and at what time we would pay the extraordinary impact fees. With the following in mind we ask that Article 2.33 be deleted as well as the last two sentences in Article 2.37, beginning with " The proportionate share.....". Thank you for your consideration regarding this matter. cc: Winston H. Moore Billy Ray Strite, BRS Architects Bradley Hawkins -Clark, Assistant Planner — City of Meridian ID WHITE PETERSON PRUSS MO ATTORNEYS AT L' � nn(� JULIE KLEIN FISCHER PHILIP A. PETERSON 200 EAST CARLTON AVENUI ?Ol;l1 NAMPA OFFICE WM. F. GIORAY, III STEPHEN L. PRUSS POST OFFICE BOX 1 i 104 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH BRENT JOHNSON ERIC S. ROSSMAN MERIDIAN, IDAHO 836 POST OFFICE BOX 247 D. SAMUEL JOHNSON TODD A. ROSSMAN TEL (208) 288-2499TEL (208) 466-9272 �1L'�) l a +l NAMPA, IDAHO 83653-0247 WILLIAM A. MORROW DAVID M. SWARTLEY i l + C+ v � WILLIAM F. NICHOLS* TERRENCE R. WHITE" FAX (208) 288-2501 FAX (208) 466.4405 CHRISTOPHER S. NYE Email via Internee n? iv1g(n)1q, "ALSO ADMITTED IN OR **ALSO ADMITTED IN WA PLEASE REPLY TO MERIDIAN OFFICE REcElVED MAR — 3 2000 March 3, 2-000 CITY OF MERMIAN William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk MERIDIAN CITY HALL 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: W.H. MOORE COMPANY / ANNEXATION AND ZONING FINDINGS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, RESOLUTION AND CERTIFICATE OF CLERK. Dear Will: Pursuant to discussions vN,ith Jonathan Seel, please find enclosed the revised original of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FORANNEXATIONAND ZONINGprepared as per instructions frons the Council meeting of January 18, 2000, and which are on the agenda for March %, 2000. 1 have also attached the originals of the Resolution and Certificate of the Clerk for the Development Agreement. I have also attached hereto the Development Agreement for the above matter. After the Council meeting of March %, 2000, if Council approves the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the above matter, then the Findings will need to be attached to the Development Agreement as Exhibit "B". After the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order Granting Application for Annexation and Zoning have been adopted, please submit the Development Agreement to the owners for signatures. If you have any questions please advise. Very truly you -s, r ii1. F. ' `hols msgZ:Awork\M\Meridian 15300M'�.Magic A'iew\FFCI_, quid 1)(-v g1C1kQ3020Q 1tr • Adia Count -._I000,yl2U/GC(� c2)Cj1NGC1' �. Sherry. R. Huber, President 318 East 37th Street Judy Peavey -Derr, Vice President Garden City, Idaho 83714-6499 Marlyss Meyer; Secretary Phone (208) 387-6100 Dave Bivens, Commissioner Fax (208) 387-6391 Susan S. Eastlake, Commissioner E-mail: tellus@achd.ada.id.us December 20, 1999 TO: Jonathan Seel RECE'D'E]) W.H. Moore Company DEC 2 3 1999 P.O., Box 8204 Boise, Idaho 83707 City of Meridian City Clerk Office FROM: Steve Arnold, Principal Development Analyst Planning & Development Z/ SUBJECT: MAZ99-0022/MCUP99-0040 Officeffiesta ruru ant Magic View Drive/Eagle Road The Commissioners of the Ada County Highway District on December 15, 1999 acted your application for the above referenced project. The attached staff report lists conditions of approval and street improvements, which are required. If you have and questions, please feel free to contact me at (208) 387-6170. Cc:Planning.&_Develop.ment/chron/project file ,City of Meridian Construction Services — John Edney Drainage — Chuck Rinaldi Bill Strite BRS Architects 1087 W. River Street, Suite 160 Boise, Idaho 83702 a ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Planning and Development Division Development Application Report ,MAZ99-0022/MCUP99-0040 Magic View Drive/Eagle Road Office/restaurant The applicant is requesting annexation to the City of Meridian, a rezone from RT to LO, and conditional use approval to construct three office buildings and a restaurant, to total approximately 107,000 -square feet. The 8.0 -acre site is located on the north side of Magic View Drive, approximately 300 -feet west of Eagle Road. This development is estimated to generate 2,150 additional (20 existing) vehicle trips per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual. Roads impacted by this development: Magic View Drive -Eagle Road 6' ACHD Commission Date —December 15, 1999 - 7:00 p.m. MAZ99-0022.cmm Page 1 ,�.Q CW G G O=O� o_Uw 0::D >- O/Lu p r t W t J v - co EAGLE Li_ v 0� Cn I� On om z� { u Li_ v 0� Cn I� On om z� ! 1r B. On November 29, 1999, the District Planning and Development staff inspected this site and evaluated the transportation system in the vicinity. On December, 3, 1999, the staff met as the District's Technical Review Cbmmittee and reviewed the impacts of this proposed development on the District's transportation system. The results of that analysis constitute the following'Facts 1 arid Findings and recommended Site Specific Requirements. 4 C. History of Recent Development Approvals in the Surrounding Area: • On April 10, 1996, the Commission approved Porky Park Subdivision, a 19 -lot industrial/commercial subdivision on 64 -acres located at the northeast corner of Franklin Road and Eagle Road. That development was estimated to generate 8,000 additional vehicle trips per day. As a condition of approval, the applicant was required to construct a public street approximately one-third of a mile east of Eagle Road as a condition of approval. The development has not been completed and this road is not yet available for use. • On July 1, 1998, the Commission reviewed MSPR-10-98, a proposal to construct a 100,000 - square foot home furnishings showroom and a 50,000 -foot warehouse for furniture. The -business has been completed on the northeast corner of Franklin Road and Eagle Road. That development was estimated to generate 1,700 additional vehicle trips per day. • On September 23, 1998, the Commission reviewed MCU -17-98, a request for conditional use approval for an 848,000 -square foot retail shopping "center. The 74.74 -acre site is located at the southeast corner of Edgle Road and Fairview Avenue in Meridian. That development was estimated to generate 26,950 -additional vehicle trips per day, and was required to make major modifications to three intersections (Eagle Road/Fairview Avenue, Eagle Road/Pine Avenue, Fairview Avenue/Records Drive). On December 30, 1998, the Commission reviewed MCU-43-97/MA-13-97, a request for conditional use approval to construct a 5,000 -square foot Idaho Power Credit Union with a drive-thru window, a 5,359 -square foot convenience store/McDonald's fast food restaurant with a drive-thru window, and an 854 -square foot carwash facility. The 4:13 -acre site is located on the northwest corner -of Magic View Drive and Eagle Road approximately 720 -feet north of I- 84: This development is'estimated to generate 7,500 additional vehicle trips per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual. As part of this action, the Commission determined that development of the area west of Eagle Road would constitute an extraordinary impact and imposed an overlay impact fee on all developments in the Magic View Subdivision. Thai site abuts the subject site's east property line. Od'January 27, 1999,"the`Commission approved Midvalley Business Park (a 5 -lot commercial subdivision) along with a request for a conditional use to construct a 24,560 -square foot office building. The 5.4 -acre site is located at the southwest corner of Magic View Drive and Allen Street, approximately 500 -feet west of Eagle Road. That development was estimated to generate 918 -additional vehicle trips per day. This application was approved subject to the overlay impact fee,imposed by the Commission on December 30, 1998 as part of the action on MCU=43-97/MA-13-97. MAZ99-0022.cmm Page 3 E. On December 30, 1998, the ACHD Commission acted on MCU -43-97 and as part of that action, found that an extraordinary impact existe&because of the potential of large volumes of trips that would be generated by the redevelopment_of Magic View Subdivision and required the construction"and dedication of a new road into theNM gic View Subdivision from Eagle Road' opposite the driveway/private street into St. Luke's medical center. During consideration of MCU -43-97, the Commission reviewed several options for assuring adequate and safe access from Eagle Road into this rapidly redeveloping area. The selected option included the construction of the new road across the property that was the subject of MCU -43-97 and through the subject site extending the road to the intersection of Magic View Drive and Allen.Drive. The cost of construction" and right-of-way was to be shared among all the redeveloping properties in Magic View Subdivision. F. In the Consideration of MCU -43-97, the Ada County Highway District found that the anticipated fiscal impacts of the anticipated -developments in Magic View Subdivision are of such a magnitude that ACHD will be unable to accommodate'the developments without excessive and unscheduled public expenditures which exceed the anticipated impact fees from such developments. The above mentioned street will ultimately be constructed as a 52 -foot (4 -lane) street section; at its connection with Eagle Road, tapering to a standard 46 -foot commercial ,street section 500 -feet west of Eagle Road. The costof the roadway was estimated to be approximately $650,000.00. Since that estimate, the developer of MCU -43-97 has constructed about one=third of the length of the road. The construction of the road was at the expense of the developer and ACHD purchased the right-of-way. In its review of MCU -43-97, the Commission adopted an extraordinary fee based on -trip generation rates. The Commission determined that the Extraordinary Impact Fee would be $43.19 per trip. This parcel includes 8 -acres, resulting in a trip -generation rate of approximately 2,150 -trips per day. Therefore, this property should pay an overlay fee to the District in the amount of approximately $92,858. Staff recommends that the Commission require the payment of that amount into a fund°for the reimbursement of cost to construct and dedicate right-of-way for a new road from the intersection of Eagle Road and`St. Luke's driveway to the intersection of Magic View Drive and Allen Drive as the proportionate share of this property on a per trip basis. In lieu of depositing this extraoridinary impact fee'into a fund, the amount can be redited against the cost of constructing the roadway k G. In accordance with the Commission's previous decision with MCU -43-97, the subject applicant should be required to extend St. Luke's Street through the site from the eastern property to Magic View Drive to the south in alignment with Allen Street. -The roadway should be extended as a 46 -foot street section with curbs, gutters, sidewalks and bike lanes. The developer should be reimbursed for the entire cost -,of the roadway'by offsetting the extraordianry impact fee for this site and/or from the extraordinary impact fees collected from the properties in the Magic View Subdivision as the District'dollects`those fees. t H. The District has collected approximately $336,105 in extraordinary revenue from developments in the Magic View Subdivision. Another $152,029 is due,from developers that have been approved by the City of Meridian and are expected to obtain building permits in the immediate future. , MAZ99-0022.cn-un Page 5 • 0 a COW HA� m. v 1 1, ; .© I O—r 3 1 T. F1 l■ SM ®l i o � •.e; as W �E�. -� Q — ,202 � LWOO L� �V OIYW Y[Ti��� a���o�aaYe �WSi uC fru W'L aL L C itiLLQ S LL p_ J 2222 W O O .© I O—r 3 1 T. F1 l■ SM ®l Facts and Findings: A. General Information { Owner - W.H. Moore Applicant - Bill Strite, BRS Architects s z RT - Existing zoning LO -Requested zoning 8.0 <' : Acres 4 - Proposed buildings 107,000 - Square feet of proposed buildings 283 - Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada --Impact Fee BenefitZone Western Cities -Impact Fee Assessment District p Magic View Drive - Local commercial street with no bike lane designation . Daily traffic count 5,600 on 8/14/96 west of Eagle Road -Daily traffic count 200 on 8/14/96 west of Jackson's Texaco a, 780-feet of frontage ' - 50-feet existing right-of-way (25-feet from centerline) ` r ,58-feet required right-of-way (29-feet from centerline) Magic View Drive is improved with 20-feet of pavement with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. St. Luke's Road Collector road with'bike lane designation No traffic count available 800-feel of frontage 0-feet existing right-of-way (25-feet from centerline) 64-feet required right-of-way - ` St. Luke's Street has been improved as a 46-foot street section between Eagle Road and the site's.eastem property line with curbs, gutters, and `sidewalks. Ea.le Road r° Principal arterial with no bike`route designation- Daily esignationDaily traffic count of 44,882 south of Magic View Drive Planning Threshold is 40,000_.. ADT 0-feet of frontage i '' Eagle Road is improved with five traffic lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. This segment V of Eagle Road is under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department. a MAZ99-0022.cmm t Page 2 B. On November 29, 1999, the District Planning and Development' staff inspected this site and evaluated the transportation system in the vicinity. On December- 3, 1999, the staff met as the District's Technical Review Committee and "'reviewed the impacts.of this proposed development on the District's transportation system. The results of that analysis constitute the following Facts and Findings and recommended Site Specific Requirements. C. History of Recent Development Approvals in the Surrounding Area: On'Apri1,10, 1996, the Commission approved Porky Park Subdivision, a 19 -lot industrial/commercial subdivision on 64 -acres located at the northeast corner of Franklin Road and Eagle Road. That development was estimated to generate. 8,000 additional vehicle trips per day. As a condition of approval, the applicant was required to construct a public street approximately one-third of a mile east of Eagle Road as a condition of approval. The development has not been completed and this road is, not yet available for use. On July 1, 1998, the Commission reviewed MSPR-10-98, a proposal to construct a -100,000 - square foot home furnishings showroom and a 50,000 -foot warehouse for furniture. The business has been completed on the northeast corner of Franklin Road and Eagle Road. That development�was estimated to generate 1,700 additional vehicle trips per day. • On September 23, 1998, the Commission reviewed MCU -17-98, a request for conditional use approval for an 848,000 -square foot retail shopping center. The 74.74 -acre site is located at the southeast corner of Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue in Meridian. That development was estimated to generate 26,950 -additional vehicle trips per day, and was required to make major modifications to three intersections (Eagle Road/Fairview Avenue, Eagle Road/Pine Avenue, Fairview Avenue/Records Drive). • On December 30,,1998, the Commission reviewed MCU-43-97/MA-13-97, a request for conditional use approval to construct a 5,000 -square foot Idaho Power Credit Union with a ' drive-thru window, a 5,359 -square foot convenience store/McDonald's fast food restaurant with a drive-thru window, and an 854 -square foot carwash facility. The 4.13 -acre site is located on the northwest comer,of Magic View Drive and Eagle Road approximately 720 -feet north of I- 84: This development is`estimated to generate 7,500 additional vehicle trip's per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual. As part of,this action, the Commission determined that development of the area west of Eagle Road would constitute an extraordinary impact and imposed an overlay impact fee on all developments in the Magic View Subdivision. That site abuts the subject site's east property line. On January 27, 1999, the Commission'approved Midvalley Business Park (a 5 -lot commercial subdivision) along with a request for a conditional use to construct a 24,560 -square foot office building. The 5.4 -acre site is located at the southwest corner of Magic View Drive and Allen Street, approximately 500 -feet west of Eagle Road. That development was estimated to generate 918 additional vehicle trips per day. This application -was approved subject to the ,overlay impact fee imposed by the Commission on December 30, 1998 as part of the action on MCU-43-97/MA-1.3-97. MAZ99-0022.cnim Pa -e') m On January 27, 1999, the Commission reviewed MCU-14-98/MA-3-98; a conditional use - requesting approval for to construct a 60 -unit motel. The 1.66 -acre site is located at the northwest'corner of Eagle Road and I-84, also on the south side on Gentry'Way and the east side of Allen Street. That' development.was estimated to generate 282 additional vehicle trips per day. This application was approved subject to the overlay impact fee,imposed by the, Commission on December 30, 1998 as part of the action on MCU-43-97/MA-13-97. • On May 12, 1999, the Commission reviewed a request to construct a light industrial/manufacturing facility and two soccer fields on 56.32 acres. The site is located north of Interstate 84 and west of Locust Grove Road. That development is estimated to generate 2,400 additional vehicle trips per day. The site is currently being constructed. , • On July 28, 1999, the Commission reviewed MCTT99-24/MAZ99-1.4, a request for conditional use approval to construct'a 60,000 -square foot medical office building. The applicant is also' requesting annexation from Ada County to the City of Meridian and a rezone from RT to CG. The 4.34 -acre site is located on the west side,of Allen Street west of Eagle Road, and approximately 700 -feet south of Magic View Drive. This development is estimated to generate approximately 1,200 additional vehicle trips per day. This application was approved subject to the overlay impact fee imposed by the Commission on December 30, 1998 as part of the action on MCU-43-97/MA-13-97. On July 28, 1999, the Commission reviewed MAZ-99-008/MCUP99-0026, a request for conditional use approval for a 32,000 -square foot office building. The 3.77 -acre site is located of the northwest corner of Eagle Road and I-84, north of Gentry Way and east of Allen Street. This development is estimated to generate, approximately 1,120 additional -vehicle tripsper day. This application was approved subject to the overlay impact fee imposed by the Commission on December 30, 1998 as part of the action on MCU-43-97/MA-13-97. On August 11, 1999, the Commission reviewed MCUP99-23, a request for conditional use approval for phase three of the St. Luke's Medical center. That 37.5 -acre site is located at the northeast corner of I-84 and Eagle Road, adjacent to the subject site's western boundary. The total square, footage of phases one thru three•is 450,600 -square feet which was estimated to generate.a total of 5,200 vehicle trips per day. A further indicator of the rapidity of growth in this area is that, St. Luke's did not anticipate the construction of this phase for several more years, according to their staff. On November 17, 1999, the Commission reviewed and approved Woodbridge: Subdivision, a 283 -lot residential subdivision on -80.83 -acres, located east of Locust Grove Road approximately 1/4 mile south of Franklin Road. The development is estimated to generate 2,871 additional vehicle trips per day. D. Magic View Subdivision, of which this site is a part, is partially developed as a6 -acre single family subdivision. Meridian's Comprehensive Plan designates a large area within Magic View Subdivision, which includes.this site, for commercial and mixed planned use land uses. This designation will allow a range of land uses that will generate traffic at a much higher rate than the existing development. MAZ99-0022.cmm Page 4 E. On December 30, 1998, the ACHD Commission acted on MCU -43-97 and as part of that action, found that an extraordinary impact existed,because of the'potential`bf large volumes of trips that would be generated by the redevelopment_ of Magic View Subdivision and required the. constnictiowand dedication of a new road, into'the'Magic ,View Subdivision from Eagle Road opposite the driveway/private street into St. Luke's'medical center. During consideration of MCU -43-97, the Commission reviewed several options for assuring adequate and safe access from Eagle Road into this rapidly redeveloping area. The selected option included the - construction of the new road across the property that was the subject of MCU -43-97 and through the subject site extending the road'to the intersection of Magic View Drive and Allen Drive. The cost of construction' and'right-of-way was to be shared'among all the redeveloping properties in Magic View Subdivision. F. In the Consideration of MCU -43-97, the Ada County Highway District found that the anticipated fiscal impacts of the anticipated developments in Magic View. Subdivision are of such a. magnitude that ACHD will be unable to accommodate`the developments without excessive and unscheduled public expenditures which exceed the anticipated impact fees from such developments. The above mentioned street'will ultimately be constructed as a 52 -foot (4 -lane) stfeet section, at its connection With -Eagle Road; tapering to a'standard 46 -foot commercial street section 500 -feet west of Eagle Road. The cost of the roadway was estimated to be approximately $650,000.00. Since that estimate„the developer of MCU -43-97 has,constructed about one=third of the length of the road. The construction of the road was at the expense of the developer and ACHD purchased the right-of-way. In its review of MCU -43-97, the Commission adopted an extraordinary.fee based on trip.. generation rates. The'Commission determined that the Extraordinary Impact Fee would be $43.19 per trip. This parcel includes 8 -acres, resulting in a trip generation rate of approximately 2,150 -trips per day. Therefore, this property should pay an overlay fee to the District in the amount of approximately $92,858. Staff recommends that the Commission require the payment' of that amount into a furid for the reimbursement of cost to construct and dedicate -right-of-way for a new road from the intersection of Eagle Road and St. Luke's driveway to the intersection of Magic View Drive and Allen Drive as the proportionate share of this property on, a per trip basis. In lieu of depositing this extraoridinary impact'fee'into a fund, the amount can be redited against the cost of constructing the roadway G. In accordance with the Commission's previous decision`with MCU -43-97, the subject applicant should be required to extend St. Luke's Street through the site from the eastern property to Magic View Drive to the south in alignment with Allen Street. The roadway should be extended as a 46 -foot street section wit11 curbs, gutters, sidewalks and bike lanes. The developer should be reimbursed for the entire cost -of the roadway by offsetting the extraordianry impact fee for this site and/ora from the extraordinary impact fees collected"from the properties in the Magic'View Subdivision as the District collects those fees. H. The District has collected approximately $336,105 in extraordinary revenue from developments in the Magic View Subdivision. Another $152,029 is due'from developers that have been approved by the City of Meridian and are expected to obtain building permits in the immediate future. MAZ99-0022.cnunn Page 5 L In accordance with District policy, Driveways on the extension of St. Luke Street -should be located a minimum of 125-feef.from all, existing°or proposed driveways on St. Luke's'Street. The driveways should be constructed as 24 to 30 -foot wide curb return driveways with 15 -foot curb radii. The driveways should be paved a minimum of 30 -feet beyond the edge of pavement of St. Luke's Street. Note: This will require the applicant to relocateAhe proposed driveway on the south side of St. Luke's Street at the east property line. * 1 t J. Utility=street cuts in new pavement less than -five years,.old,are'not allowed unless approved in writing by the District.., Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. K. In accordance with District policy,, the applicant should be required -to construct curb, gutter, 5 - foot wide.concrete sidewalk and match paving on Magic View. Subdivision abutting the parcel. Improvements should be constructed to one-half of a 41 -foot street section. L. In order to reduce trips to and from this development itis recommended that tenants occupying the proposed building be required to provide an Alternative Transportation Program for employees and provide an annual report to'ACHD on�employee participation. Commuteride' staff will coordinate the Alternative Transportation Program.with the applicant. For more information contact Pat Nelson at 387-6160. M. . In order to reduce trips to and from this development, it is recommended that the tenants occupying the proposed building(s) be required to participate in any Transportation Management Association (TMA) or Transportation=Management Organization (TMO) that is formed with a boundary that includes this site or isadjacent to this development. A,Transportation Management Association (TMA) or Transportation Management Organization. (TMO) is formed with a coordinator that works as a liaison between businesses and private and public transportation, providers to -increase the use of alternative transportation and other trip reduction measures (shuttle buses, bus pass programs,-vanpools, carpools, bicycle and walking enhancements). An annual survey will be required of the TMA/TMO to monitor -participation in alternative transportation programs and forwarded to the ACHD Commuteride.Office. N. Graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance -problems due to gravel being tracked onto the -roadway. In accordance with past action -by the District the applicant should be required to pave all driveways at least 307feet .beyond the edge of pavement of St. Lukes. O. The.Destination 2015 Regional Transportation Plan identified Eagle Road as a limited access `facility.. -Under. this -designation, acces's to Eagle Road would beregulated by a limited number of traffic signals (with adequate spacing between successive signals), turn channelization and ' restrictions at unsignalized intersections and raised,medians between channelized turns. Grade - separated interchanges, should be anticipated at arterial/arterial intersections. s P. There are currently 43;437,vehicle trips per day on Eagle Road, and traffic on Eagle Road is anticipated to continue to increase. AThis development and the potential for redevelopment in the area.will' exacerbate the existing traffic problems on Eagle Road. The new traffic from this 3 MAZ99-0022.cmm Page 6 Q. The Eagle Road corrider study identified five different phases of access control. beginning with the existing access conditions to a future restricted -access expressway with grade -separated intersections.,. The first level of access control would allow full access driveways at 660 -foot intervals; the second level of access control would eliminate the left turns at those driveways through the installation of raised medians. The first level of access control on Eagle Road between I-84 and Franklin Road has been implemented. Traffic is .now anticipated,to exceed LOS E for typical five -lane roadways under the level one access control. Right-of-way preservation for frontage roads and roadway improvements should be implemented to allow Eagle Road to maintain its function and to carry the exceptional volume of traffic that is expected. In order.to accommodate the traffic generated from this site and future development along Eagle Road, staff recommends that a median be constructed in Eagle Road,from the Eagle Road/I-84 interchange to Franklin Road as the second level of access control. The median should be constructed to eliminate left turns at the eighth -mile driveways and unsignalized' street approaches: In future phases of corridor protection, a frontage road on both the east and west side of Eagle Road should be constructed from Franklin Road south to the signalized intersection at St. Luke's driveway to provide those parcels affected by the median access to full access intersections to Eagle Road. In even later stages of.protection, the urban interchange at the' intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road should be constructed. R. As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, may be placed on future development of this parcel. S. Based on development patterns in this area and the'resulting traffic generation, staff anticipates that the transportation system will not be adequate to accommodate additional traffic generated by this proposed development. Special Recommendation to ITD: This development and the potential for redevelopment in the area will exacerbate the existing traffic problems on Eagle Road. The District recommends that a median be constructed in Eagle Road from the Eagle Road/I-84 interchange to Franklin Road as suggested in the second level of access control recommended in the Eagle Road Access Control Study. The median should be constructed to eliminate left turns at driveway and street approaches at every location except the St. Luke's signalized driveway and the westward extension of St. Luke's Street. In later stages of protection, frontage road on both the east and west side of Eagle Road should be constructed from Franklin Road south to the signalized intersection at St. Luke's driveway to provide access to full access intersections for the parcels affected by the median. The following requirements are provided as conditions for approval: Special Recommendation to the City of Meridian: I In order to reduce trips to and from this development it is recommended that tenants occupying the proposed building be required to provide an Alternative Transportation Program for employees and provide an annual report to ACHD on employee participation. Commuteride staff will coordinate the Alternative Transportation Program with the applicant. For more information contact Ms. Pat Nelson at 387-6160. MAZ99-0022.cmm Page 8 0 • development and other4proved developments in the vicinity will add 19,074 vehicle trips per day; bringing the total to approximately 62;511 vehicle trips per day, which will exceed the planning threshold Level of Service (LOS),F volume of atypical five -lane roadway. According to the July 31, 1997 "Ada County Roadway Capacity Guidelines for- Planning Applications," 42,000 AADT is the upper range of LOS F for a typical five -lane roadway (Urban/Suburban Arterial - Non`Business District). This section�of Eagle Road between I-84 and Fairview Avenue is not a typical five -lane roadway. It has a degree of access control and a low -to -moderate volume of turning conflicts between signalizedintersections so the upper range may be greater than 42,000 ADT. However, this section of roadway still will not have the capacity toaccommodate all of the traffic from the currently approved developments and the growth of background- traffic at accepted levels of service. Studies have "found thafthe capacity of Eagle Road can be protected and even enhanced if stringent access constrol measures are implemented by ITD and ACHD in collaboration. The subject property does not have frontage on Eagle Road so, there is nothing about Eagle Road access that is directly relevant to this"property. However; in view of the burgeoning growth along the Eagle Road corridor, ITD and ACHD should institute access control measures in order to extend the useful life of Eagle road in its current configuration. The Eagle Road Corridor Study states that access control on Eagle Road can increase the capacity of the roadway by as much as fifty -percent which is the same increase in capacity that can be experienced by the construction of two additional lanes. Access control will increase the planning threshold (LOS E) to higher levels, perhaps as much as 55,000 ADT. The construction of ffontage roads, grade -separated interchanges and the elimination of signalized intersections recommended by the Study will further increase the LOS E planning threshold to 80,000 ADT because of the total elimination of side -friction from intersections. The study suggests the following methods of access control: ti Marginal Access Control Concepts: a) driveway spacing between successive driveways b) driveway spacing from an intersection c) driveway design - 2. Medial Access Control Concepts: a) median type b) median width c) the geometrics of median openings, and d) spacing of median openings 3. Major intersection Control Concepts a) at -grade intersection modifications b) grade -separated intersections 4. Frontage Roads: frontage roads were proposed as an option to provide full access to abutting parcels along Eagle Road when access restrictions were imposed. MAZ99-0022.cmm Page 7 c 2. In order to reduce trips to and from'this development, the tenants occupying the proposed , building(s) should be required to participate in any Transportation Management Association (TMA) or Transportation Management Organization (TMO) that is formed with a boundary that includes this site or is adjacent to this development. This development, already approved developments, and the potential for further re - redevelopment in the area, will exacerbate the existing traffic problems on Eagle Road and Franklin Road. Substantial reconstruction of the intersection and existing public roadways will be required to accommodate the traffic generated from this site and approved/anticipated developments in the vicinity of the site. The City of Meridian should consider the impacts of this development prior to approving the rezone and conditional use. Site Specific Requirements: 1. Dedicate 64 -feet of right-of-way for the extension of St. Luke's Street through the site by means of recordation -of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right=of--way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be compensated for all right-of-way dedicated as an addition to existing right- of-way from available extraordinary impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance"with Section 1'5 of ACHD Ordinance #188. s- r 2. Extend St. Luke's Street through the site from the eastern property line to Magic View Drive to the south in alignment with Allen Street. The roadway shall be extended as a 46 -foot street sectionlwith curbs, gutters, sidewalk and bike lanes. The developer will be reimbursed for the entire cost of the roadway from the extraordinary impact fees collected from the properties in the Magic View Subdivision as the District collects those fees. 3. Driveways on the extension of St.,Luke's Street shall'be located a minimum of 125 -feet from all existing or proposed driveways. The driveways shall`be constructed as 24 to 30 -foot wide curb return driveways with 15 -foot `curb radii and paved a minimum of 30 -feet beyond the edge of pavement of St. Luke's Street. Note: This'will require the applicant to relocate the proposed driveway on the south side of St. Luke's Street at the east,prol2erty line. 4. Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387=6280 (with file numbers) for details. Construct curb, gutter, 5 -foot wide; concrete sidewalk and match paving on Magic View Subdivision "abutting the parcel. Improvements should be constructed to one-half of a 41 -foot street section. 6. ' Enter into an agreement with the District to constructor, pay the proportionate share of the cost of constructing a new road from Eagle Road west and south to connect with�Magic- View Drive at its intersection with Allen Street as an extraordinary impact fee. The proportionate share has MAZ99-0022.cnun , i Page 9 been determined to be approximately $92,858, based upon the estimated 2,150'daily vehicle trips.,,If the developer agrees to construct the' road, he`will be reimbursed for the full cost of the .roadway -from extraordinary, impact fees'that-have'been collected and by offsetting against the extraordinaryimpact fees for this parcel. - 7. As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, shall be pl-aced on future. development of this parcel. F 8. Other than the access points specifically approved with this application, direct.lot or parcel access to St. Luke's Street is prohibited Standard Requirements: 1% A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACHD Planning and Development Supervisor. The request shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation of why such a requirement would result in a substantial hardship or inequity. The written request shall be submitted to the District no later than 9.00 a.m. on the day scheduled for ACHD Commission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on'the day scheduled for Commission action= do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those -items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. r 2. After.ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action Shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within six days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The request for reconsideration shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of data that was not available to the Commission at the time of its onidnal decision The request efor reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action', the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the,Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. 3. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #188, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4.. All design and construction shall be in- accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically;waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 5j - The applicant shall subfnit revised plans for staff,approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. MAZ99-0022.cnim 4 Page 10, • q; La 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with, -a] I applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. g, 7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACRD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full f: business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. t S. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and'an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 9. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises,the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant E to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. Conclusion of Law: 1. ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Planning and Development Division at 387-6170. Submitted by: Planniniz and Development Staff A Commission Action: December 15, 1999 MAZ99-0022.cn7m Page 11 I REcE�D DEC 10 1999 ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT City of Meridian Plannin- and Development Division City Clerk office 01 Development Application Report to MAZ99-0022/MiCUP99-0040 Magic View Dri ve/Eagle,Road Office/restaurant The applicant is requesting` annexation to the City of Meridian, a rezone from RT to LO, and .conditional use approval to construct three office buildings and a restaurant, to total approximately 107,000 -square feet. The -8.0 -acre site is located on the north side of Magic View Drive, approximately 300 -feet west of Eagle Road. This development is estimated I I to generate 2,150 additional (20 existing I g) vehicle trips per day bas . ed on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Aum Generation manual. Roads impacted by this development: Magic Vie�v Drive mow Eagle Road ACHD Commission Date — December 15, 1999 - 7:00 p.m. PROPOSED FOUCHMARK DEVELOPMEN SITE WOODBRIDGE STLUKES SUBDIVISION -- ;1M Y d r M N Z S-- ---- ------ NIAZ99-0022.cmm Page 1 v a I.noo.. tia Ivy. aw.. 777Mmm 1 1 •®� HAL roc M. an I A I 1 nl ul,l „ 1111 „I1 LU�V,11 Q r 11 gril I I m Q a e O „Q � �YY WOQ WQQ V9YW L4 q�'1 L• � :���aa as `?.� sp v W o1 W O l�Y� 9 aL 'L 3�@ �- J I A I 1 nl ul,l „ 1111 „I1 LU�V,11 11 gril I I m I A �k. { < C0ttn1,"LJJiqhtuaq )Wrid Sherry R. Huber, President 318 East 37th Street Judy Peavey -Derr, Vice President Garden City, Idaho 83714-6499 Marlyss Meyer, Secretary Phone (208) 387-6100 Dave Bivens, Commissioner Fax (208) 387-6391 Susan S. Eastlake, Commissioner E-mail: tellus@achd.ada.id.us December 14, 1999 Will Berg, City Clerk Planning Director/Zoning Administrator 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Extra Ordinary Impact Fee's Dear Mr. Berg, � CEIVED DEC 16 1999 CITY OF MERID1Anr The Magic View Subdivision in Meridian has an extra ordinary impact fee assessed on a case by case basis according to the project in addition to the regular fee. ACHD staff will calculate the extra ordinary fee when a project is submitted for a building permit. Both fees are required to be paid after they have received ACHD approval and before the issuance of a building permit. I have enclosed a map of the location. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact me at the office 387-6170. I Sinc9oly, jrryla Impact kee Administrator CC: Daunt Whitman -' Shari Stiles t It 0 IC V I N C X (r A 'I 0 IC V I N C X (r A 13 Acla C0ttn1",_,.--*qia4tva" 2)ij1rid Sherry R. Huber, President 318 East 37th Street Judy Peavey -Derr, Vice President Garden City, Idaho 83714-6499 Marlyss Meyer, Secretary Phone (208) 387-6100 Dave Bivens, Commissioner Fax (208) 387-6391 Susan S. Eastlake, Commissioner E-mail: tellus@achd.ada.id.us December 14, 1999 Will Berg, City Clerk�CE Planning Director/Zoning Administrator 33 East Idaho 3 Meridian, Idaho 83642 CITY OF NIERIDLA�Y Re: Extra Ordinary Impact Fee's Dear Mr. Berg, The Magic View Subdivision in Meridian has an extra ordinary impact fee assessed on a case by case basis according to the project in addition to the regular fee. ACHD staff will calculate the extra ordinary fee when a project is submitted for a building permit. Both fees are required to be paid after they have received ACHD approval and before the issuance of a building permit. I have enclosed a map of the location. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact me at the office 387-6170. Sincpoly, Lfirry SV' Impact ee Administrator CC: Daunt Whitman Shari Stiles CL V li N r C EXHIBIT "A-1" AOL Acla COcintcs,/qicdtcucc" 2)ijtPict Sherry R. Huber, President 318 East 37th Street Judy Peavey -Derr, Vice President Garden City, Idaho 83714-6499 Marlyss Meyer, Secretary Phone (208) 387-6100 Dave Bivens, Commissioner Fax (208) 387-6391 Susan S. Eastlake, Commissioner E-mail: tellus@achd.ada.id.us December 14, 1999 Will Berg, City Clerk Planning Director/Zoning Administrator 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Extra Ordinary Impact Fee's Dear Mr. Berg, R-EcEwED r -/13 n1 a gZl CITY OF 3 ERIDLkN The Magic View Subdivision in Meridian has an extra ordinary impact fee assessed on a case by case basis according to the project in addition to the regular fee. ACHD staff will calculate the extra ordinary fee when a project is submitted for a building permit. Both fees are required to be paid after they have received ACHD approval and before the issuance of a building permit. I have enclosed a map of the location. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact me at the office 387-6170. ee Administrator CC: Daunt Whitman Shari Stiles N r C EXHIBIT "A-1" Adak ALlGLCoUnlY,.-Ric l2GVGLu2)ijtict Sherry R. Huber, President 318 East 37th Street Judy Peavey -Derr, Vice President Garden City, Idaho 83714-6499 Marlyss Meyer, Secretary Phone (208) 387-6100 Dave Bivens, Commissioner Fax (208) 387-6391 Susan S. Eastlake, Commissioner E-mail: tellus@achd.ada.id.us December 14, 1999 Will Berg, City Clerk Planning Director/Zoning Administrator 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Extra Ordinary Impact Fee's Dear Mr. Berg, r. C r4 tnt CITY OF MERIDIApi The Magic View Subdivision in Meridian has an extra ordinary impact fee assessed on a case by case basis according to the project in addition to the regular fee. ACRD staff will calculate the extra ordinary fee when a project is submitted for a building permit. Both fees are required to be paid after they have received ACHD approval and before the issuance of a building permit. I have enclosed a map of the location. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact me at the office 387-6170. Sincqf�bly, ImpactZee Administrator CC: Daunt Whitman Shari Stiles a LN EXHIBIT "A-1" Acla C0ttn1V,_.1qiq4tuaV aCJWrict " y' I ' ' G""�_"` 318 East 37th Street Judy Peavey -Derr, Vice President Garden City, Idaho 83714-6499 Marlyss Meyer, Secretary Phone (208) 387-6100 Dave Bivens, Commissioner Fax (208) 387-6391 Susan S. Eastlake, Commissioner E-mail: tellus@achd.ada.id.us December 14, 1999 Will Berg, City Clerk Planning Director/Zoning Administrator 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Extra Ordinary Impact Fee's Dear Mr. Berg, VcEWET) EC , a- - ;L4 CITY CF MERIDIAN The Magic View Subdivision in Meridian has an extra ordinary impact fee assessed on a case by case basis according to the project in addition to the regular fee. ACHD staff will calculate the extra ordinary fee when a project is submitted for a building permit. Both fees are required to be paid after they have received ACHD approval and before the issuance of a building permit. I have enclosed a map of the location. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact me at the office 387-6170. Sinc9oly, Lprry SaJ6 Impact ee Administrator CC: Daunt Whitman Shari Stiles L N T C EXHIBIT "A-1" f 200 E. Carlton Ave., Ste. 201 (208)884-5533 Ph. — (208)887-1297 Fax Fac To: 61 f l y kQ y �jY i+e " w 6 S Frons Sonya Day Fac 636- 8 3 8 0 Pages: 3 (Including cover) Phone: Date: 12- 6 -9 °1 , ?Y Re: YYIQ1jIC VI CW OFftC.P. ComPI2X _ CC: A/ Co -S ❑ Urgent CVFor Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle City of Meridian Phone: (208) 888-4433 EXT. 210 888-4218 Fax To: jOV1.A-74VkV1 15ee) From: Seel Fax: � /. 3 --752-3 Date: Phone: /� �/�,, Pages: 40 / Re: ' 1001 DO 00 "e -eh rl- ": ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle -Comments: HDpe 44i,,s kcAps. W- Irne, (&R6 w VVeA Vj 0 (4 ( Koocj& r' MERIDIAN PLANNING' AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1999 ROLL CALL: TAMMY de WEERD THOMAS BARBEIRO RICHARD HATCHER KENT BROWN CHAIRMAN KEITH BORUP CONSENT AGENDA A. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 9,1999 AGENDA 1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION. AND ZONING OF 157:876 ACRES: FROM R4 TO LO BY TOUCHMARK LIVING CENTERS, JOSEPH A. BILLIG: 2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING-. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, SINGLE AND MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE AND RETAIL. USE BY TOUCHMARK LIVING CENTERS,. JOSEPH A. BILLIG: 3. CONTINUE6 PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.34 ACRES FROM C-2 AND: R-8 TO C -G (WALGREEN'S) :BY HAWKINS SMITH -MANAGEMENT, INC. -NW CORNER OF FAIRVIEW AND LOCUST GROVE: 4.:. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT.A SINGLE TENANT COMMERCIAL: BUILDING WITH A DRIVE THRU WINDOW (WALGREEN'S} BY HAWKINS SMITH- MANAGEMENT, INC. -NW CORNER OF FAIRVIEW AND LOCUST GROVE:. 5. PUBLIC HEARING:. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN OLD TOWN TO A FINGERNAIL SALON, ELEGANT NAILS BY CHRISTY P. FIELDSTAD-1026 N'. MERIDIAN: 6. PUBLIC HEARING. REQUEST FOR VACATION OF THE EASEMENT LYING ADJACENT TO THE LOT LINE COMMON TO LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 3, THUNDER CREEK SUBDIVISION BY:THUNDER CREEK PARTNERSHIP, LLC -SOUTH OF CHERRY LANE, WEST OF TEN MILE ON GRAY CLOUD WAY: 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VACATION OF 20 FOOT EMERGENCY ACCESS OF MIRAGE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION TO A NEW ACCESS LOCATED AT THE END OF OAKCREST DRIVE BY ROBERT HIGGINS, ET AL—BLOCK 1, LOTS 16 & 17 OF MIRAGE MEADOWS SUB AND LOTS 19 & 20 OF CHATEAU MEADOWS EAST LOCATED AT THE END OF OAKCREST DRIVE: 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 20.05 ACRES FROM M-1 TO I -L BY ALBERTSON'S, INC.—EAST OF EAGLE ROADy, NORTH OF RAILROAD TRACKS AND SOUTH OF SETTLERS CANAL: 9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR'ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 10' ACRES FROM RT TO LO FOR PROPOSED MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX BY W.H. MOORE COMPANY—EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW: 10:PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PROVIDE MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON A SINGLE SITE AND AN ANCILLARY RESTAURANT IN LO ZONE FOR PROPOSED MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX BY W.H. MOORE COMPANY—EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW: 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 8.25 ACRES FROM RT TO R8 FOR PROPOSED WOODHAVEN SUBDIVISION BY DAN WOOD, D.W., INC. – WEST OF EAGLE ROAD BETWEEN OVERLAND AND WEST VICTORY: 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 8.25 ACRES FROM RT TO R-8 ZONING FOR PROPOSED WOODHAVEN SUBDIVISION BY DAN WOOD, D.W., INC. WEST OF EAGLE ROAD BETWEEN OVERLAND AND WEST VICTORY: 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RESIDENTIAL PUD FOR PROPOSED WOODHAVEN SUBDIVISION BY DAN WOOD, D.W., INC.—WEST OF EAGLE ROAD BETWEEN OVERLAND AND WEST VICTORY: 14. Office Value Sign Application 0