Loading...
Chevron C Store CUPOFFICIALS ~ WILl,.IAM G. BERC?i, JR., City Clerk ~ JF.NIGE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., Clty Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor [;OUNGIL ti".EMBERS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman TIM HEPPER JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUND MALCOLM MACCOY 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 Sti Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: July 2 1996 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 6118/96 HEARING DATE: 7/ 9196 REQUEST: Conditional Use for Chevron C-store McDonalds w/drive-thru. ~ a hotel BY: Eagle Partners LL LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Northwest corner of Eagle Road and Maaic View Drive -JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) JIM SHEARER, P/Z ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT GREG OSLUND, P/Z ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION TIM HEPPER, P/Z BOB CORRIE, MAYOR CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT RONALD TOLSMA, C/C SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM 8 FINAL PLAT) WALT MORROW, C/C U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) GLENN BENTLEY, C/C INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM 8 FINAL PLAT) WATER DEPARTMENT BUREAU. OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) SEWER DEPARTMENT _,,,,,,_,7"11' FtL,1~S BUILDING DEPARTMENT OTHER: FIRE DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER ,~ ~ ~ 1 ~: ~~~~ C~~ ®~ ~~~~~~N • CITY OF MERIDIAN ` ~ APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL US$ PERMIT .Eagle Partners L.L.C. NAME: ~ Terry Debban & Mark Jensen PHONE: 3 4 3 r 2 6 61 ADDRESS: P' ~• Box 6290, Boise, ID 83707 603 S. Eagle Road GENERAL LOCATION:~inr hwPGt t-nrnar of Farr9 a Rnar~ & M~~i,r ~7i e~~ Tlri ve DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: Chevron C-Store with gas pumps and detached carwash, McDonalds with drive-up window (same building as C-Store) and 80 room hotel with pool and patio. ZONING CLASSIFICATION: C-G PLAN: A plan of the proposed site .for the conditional use showing the location of all buildings, parking and loading areas, traffic access and traffic circulation, open spaces, landscaping, refuse and service areas, utilities, signs and yards (submit 35 copies). I certify that the information contained herein is true and correct. ' ~~ Signature f Applicant ~ Social Security Number LEGAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to established procedure, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a Public Hearing in the Meridian City Hall on at _.m. The purpose of the Hearing is to consider a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT submitted by Eagle Partners z . L . C . for the property generally described as located at 603 S. Eagle Road, Meridian, ID Magic View SUBDIVISION, BLOCK ,LOT 1 TO ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~. , ,i ~ ~ ARCHITECTS BRS Architects, A.I.A. 1087 LVest Riuer Street, Suite 160 Boise, Idaho 83702. Telephone 208 336-8370 Fax 208 336-8380 June 13, 1996 City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 Attn: Shari Stiles Re: Conditional Use Application Lot 1, Magic View Subdivision BRS Project No. 9646 Dear Ms. Stiles: Contingent upon approval of pending annexation and rezone application, Eagle Partnership respectfully requests Conditional Use approval to construct a Chevron Convenience Store and McDonalds with a drive-up window in one building, gas island pumps and canopy, a detached carwash, and an 80 room hotel building with indoor pool and potential outdoor patio amenities on Lot 1 of Magic View Subdivision. The site is presently vacant and is serviced by all utilities. During the previous application process, it became apparent that ACHD would require a road at the north end of our site to accommodate signalized access to anticipated, future commercial growth in Magic View Subdivison to the West. The new site plan, as submitted, reflects the required road dedication at the existing signalized intersection as described to us by ACHD. The applicant acknowledges the need to pay additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges, if any, associated with the proposed use. The characteristics that make the Conditional Use approval desirable are the site's proximity to Eagle Road and adjacent commercial development, and the growing need for this type of development in that area to provide services, accommodations and conveniences to the surrounding commercial, institutional and residential growth. We believe that the proposed use is consistent with the planned commercial development for the intersection of I-84 and Eagle Road and are hoping for a positive recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Sincerely, S ARCHITECTS ger D. Foster RDF:cw cc: Eagle Partners, L.L.C. • • ,~, ATTACHMENTS TO CONDITIONAL IISE APPLICATION 1. Applicant: Eagle Partners, L.L.C. (Terry Debban & Mark Jensen) P. 0. Box 6290 Boise, ID 83707 (208) 343-2661 2. Owners: Gerald W. & Deloris B. Marlin 1113 W. Caman Dr. Gilbert, AZ 85234 (602) 497-8219 (Warranty Deed attached) 3. Legal description of property (attached) 4. Proof of ownership, i.e. warranty deed (attached) 5. Existing use: vacant 6. Present use: not being used. 7. Proposed use: commercial 8. District zoning (as requested by Rezone Application) 9. 30 copies vicinity map (included) 10. See cover letter. 11. Listing of mailing addresses (attached) 12. Application fee (check attached) 13. See cover letter. 14. Affidavit re: accuracy of application signed by applicant (attached). 15. Affidavit for posting signed by applicant (attached). r gg '• " Y::cx ga~~s sc vv rsr."tpa.r". ~.-. ' Zo r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d '9{ i~~ ~ e ~~ b ~~ a ~~ ~~ ~i ~ ~ F ~ ~ 1~C ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ! # ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ' n ~ ~ ~ ~ -~~ ~ 1 ~ ~ { tl -- -- -- -- -- °--T-~ - - ~-3~-,~- -_ - - - ~ rr>a~ic-arts <v~ - _~. I Y ~~ N~sJr9~' ~+' E' w _ _ J ~? ~~P I i I _ _ - - _ _ - - - _ - - _ e'IEtw••-~ uT- /ii~' 1 ~1' I IE / ~ I~ I I a,- I l ii [ J • a~ I I~ I I11 t °~~ i11 6 6~ ~ t ~ ~ I I I ;~ 111 ~ ~~ q I ! I ~ ~ ~~ iii o ---~ s 3 y ~ ~a I I tl III I p I 4' •, y"~'.. 1 .1 - 1111 I I • }O s ~ ~~ III 1 T t •~QI i I I I ;II J I b I ~` ~ I I I.--- o, I b I I III I __ of I~ ~ a I flll ~J - 8 I I I I 1~t! ~'_ __ -J 6 I ~ • 1--- g I I ~ I ~ I ~! .i .. E I I I 111 B . I .II 1 T I m i I I I ~ +i l1 . : . 1j1 ~ ` I I I r I ,~ ~ yll , ,~` ,. I Im III ~ X I "1 ,rX ,~~ ---E I ~ v~ ~ II; Q T X y - ~` ail I Ig ~ //i1 1 T ~ ~ <X I I v Ilii s a .~ \< I I ~._I `111 ~ - /,~ f` E III i9~1 ~ . I ~ T ., I I I 111 Y T L ,x ~ ,yam 6 I III ~y I III __ ~ f ~ ~?, I III v < I I11 X 1111 r t IIII ' s V/rh I i f I 11n , x, Jnl r rn 1111 I , I 1111 x..:~ /~ I I III = ~ .;~x<: D V' 1 ~ iii .'"x;'.<, r~ I I I ~~~~. 1? ~<x~,.,> ~,v m~ l i 1 =______ ___ ~- 1 T 0 l I i I yew erect ~.ow. r~~ 36IAf a3~ G a i c a g .. .e. eye 4 1 i CHEVRON CONVENIENCE BTORE ~ i ~ ~ °'s'' wva ~ ~ ~ FOOD bERVICE ~ HOTEL BITE ~ • faun ol~ W 6 ~ ~nr,~e Ima,o ~ neralc vlllw ~t~ve, MERIpIgN, loat.lo A~ HITECTS ~ ~ .~~ i~ i I ~ I I ~ 1 m i~ I m I i 9 ---~ I I I g~ ~~ I o ~ ~~ o ° ~_ ~ --~ ~i~•t~ ~ ~ (~ ~i~t ~~clir ~~ ~ ~~r:: ~tE~~~~~~E t~ ~ 1 ~ E ~~~ ~ ~;i ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~t ~#~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~r; ~~;><6R~tS ;iiiiii= ~~~i~a .w. ww ~ u~i~w~f~~ ra i~ e ',S ~ e ~~ w ^ c~~rtao~ caHVErtt~ stoles ~ ~ i- ~a ;' ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ooo s~evlce ~ +aotE~, sITE ~. Rdnl ^ ICT4D ~ M041G N0U DItlYL, F~lIDIAf1 DNIO AiIC • i ~ ~- ~ - ir~'nra~ r- -s]'r - _ MSC 1/IE~.U! I I I AFFIDAVIT OF DREW EBRIGHT STATE OF IDAHO ) ( ss. County of Ada ) DREW EBRIGHT, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: 1. I am a resident of Boise, Idaho, and make this affidavit upon my own personal knowledge and am competent to testify to the rnatters contained herein. 2. I am employed by BRS Architects of Boise, Idaho. 3. On the ~1G day of 1996, I posted notice of a public hearing before the Meridian City Planning and Zoning Commission on the property of Eagle Partners, L.L.C., located at the corner of Eagle Road and Magic View Drive in Ada County, Idaho. Said public hearing is on the request for annexation and zoning by Eagle Partners, L.L.C., and for a conditional use permit for a Chevron convenience store, McDonalds with drive through, and a hotel. FURTHER THE AFFLANT SAITH NAUGHT. / -~~ Drew Ebright SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this day of November, 1996. ~~ ~,~, ~~r~L~ Notary Public for daho Residing at _ ~~~ a -moo ~~ My Commission expires //~,~a -Q y AFFIDAVIT OF DREW EBRIGHT LAW OFFICES MEUL MAN MILLER CUMMI~G S LLP BUSINF.S5 LAW REAL ESTATE LAW CONSTRII(TION LAW KIMBERLY J. BLAS* (?OS) 342-6066 RICHARD A. CUMMINGS MICHELE L. ENGELI'* 960 BROADWAY AVE., SUITE 400 KIMBAL. L. LOWLAND POST OFFICE BOX 95i QUENTIN M. KNIFE*** FAX BOISE, IDAHO 33701 (h~8) 336-971? GEOFFREY J. M(CONNELL**** WAYNE V MEULEMAN ROBERT L. MILLER • IJCE\~EI~ IV II k1UUS Nli\AhA RICHARD W. MOLLERUP '• urE~<En i~; min(, y ur,(u ••• LICEX:EI~ I\ IngH(~Si WASHWGT(~V "'• LICE.\jEn IV IhA HIS 5, L'ALIk1R\IA April 10, 1996 VIA ~7AND DET--:_TVERy Billy Ray Strite BRS Architects 1087 West River Boise, ID 83702 Re: Lot 1 Amended Magic Valley Subdivision Dear Mr. Strite: Enclosed is an original Authorization executed by Gerald and Delores Marlin authorizing Terry Debban and Mark Jensen to make applications to the City of Meridian for rezoning and annexation. Thank you for your cooperation. V ou s, j . Richar ~ . Moller,: RWM:bIg (h: \nvm15871.02\corr\wilkins.2) Enclosure cc: Gerald and Delores Marlin (letter only) Stephen C. Brown (letter only) Kurt Wilkins (letter only) • • AIIJTIi~1~ATIQ1\I This Authorization is give» this ~ day of April, 1996, by Gerald W. Marlin attd Ueloris B. Marlin, husband and wife ("Marlin"). RECITALS: A. Marlin is the owner of certain property located u~ the County of Ada, Slate of Idaho, comtnonly known as 6Q3 South Eagle Road and described a~g Lot 1, Amended Magic Valley Subdivisioyt according to the ai'ficial plat filed in Baok 28 of Plals at Page 1755, retards of Asia County, Idaho ("Subject Properly"). B. IV,[arlin, as seller, has entered into a contract for the purchase and sale of the Subject Property with Terry DebUan and Mark Jensen as buyer with an effective date of March i5, 1996 ("Contract"). C. Under the conditiUnr of tha Contract, buyer shall have obtained from the Cily of Meridian and/or Ada County approval to rezone the property for commes~cial use and exemption ~f the Subject Property by the City of Meridian. N4VV, THEREFORE, Marlin hereby grants its permission and approval to Terry Debban and Mark Jensen to make all necessary applications to the City of Meridian to cause the Subject Property to be rewned for commercial use and annexed by the City of Meridian. AUTHORIZATION - }'ago 1 MMscC: 5877.02 04/08/96 EXECUTED the day and year first above written. Gerald W. Martin (li:lnvm15871.021n1auU~orii 1) STATE OF ~ ~~~~~ cci ) ` )ss. COUNTY UP ~~ CG~-C ~¢ ct Delorls B. Marlin _.. ~..... . On this ~ day of April, 1996, before tne, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for slid State, personally aFpeared Gerald W. Marlin and Dcloris B. Marlin, known or identified to the to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that they executed the satnc. i[N WITNPSS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official srai ~;e day and year in this certitic~te first above written. -~ ~ My cotnmission expires: ~ ~/- 1 ~'LFiL. lI`Z-L~tl NO •ARY P C for «-r.~~-~, Residing at ~~ Z AUTHOIti"CATION - Page 2 MM~@.C 5871.(TL U4/U$/9G PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF LOT 1 MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION 1. Moore, Richard L. & Barbara L. 3050 Magic View Drive Meridian, ID 83642 2. Nielson, Dennis E. & Joan M. 3019 Autumn Way Meridian, ID 83642 3. Horel, Charles D. & Mary Kay 3043 Autumn Way Meridian, ID 83642 4. Bowen, Mark A. & Ann T. 3067 Autumn Way Meridian, ID 83642 5. Truax, Rodney D. & Kris A. 3091 Autumn Way Meridian, ID 83642 6. Williams, Richard C. & Cherol A. 3133 Autumn Way Meridian, ID 83642 7. Christensen, Sheron S. & Colleen C. 3257 Autumn Way Meridian, ID 83642 8. Greenhill Estates Subdivision No. 3, Water Corp. 3137 Springwood Meridian, ID 83642 9. Greenhill Estates Subdivision No. 3, Water Corp. 2894 Springwood Meridian, ID 83642 10. Hartley, Todd S. & Nancy A. 3050 Autumn Way Meridian, ID 83642 11. Diamond, Bryan & Sherman Beverly D. 3134 E. Autumn Way Meridian, ID 83642 12. Cuber, Charles L. & Jerry A. 3158 E. Autumn Way Meridian, ID 83642 • • 13. Idaho Transportation Board 3311 W. State Boise, ID 83703 14. Burtner, Edwin R. Jr. & Madeline C. 285 W. Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 15. State Dept. of Highways 3311 W. State Boise, ID 83703 16. Richey, Virgil C. 365 Montvue Meridian, ID 83642 17. Jackson's Food Stores, Inc. 3500 Commercial Ct. P. O. Box 488 Meridian, ID 83642 18. St. Luke's Regional Medical Center, Ltd. 190 E. Bannock Boise, ID 83702 u cctvn ~o~ a a ~~ f ~~~ , 2,~ P ~ ~ ~ --S~~o~- -~ ¢ O~ \ / \ J~ N ~ O \ ` b N . . N o ~ ,q~ ~ a, ¢ rv ES~A ¢ ¢ T S N ¢ n N ~ N m n m o ,~ I ~ , ¢ ¢ n ~ ~" 60 ,~ ~ ~ ' ¢ m I ¢ d~ u~ S , ~ , JsO q O u 1° mw ~ I Nm , 0 u u m 6p ,1p . . 3?7 31 1 a so s ,o 2 ~ ~ o S DIV~SI 3 l'~~ N F` 2 ~a ~~ m o m n m I n I n It i n m 8327316016 m n N ¢ Q 277I6015p n N m ¢ I ¢ I 832731 60175 / '- -' - I - - - - / N AllTt7Mf~' WAY ` - - - a I v rj p m N o ~ N N N ~ O p n N ip ~ O l0 ~ O N N N p , , I ¢ •~ m m .. fn ° ~ o e o ~ fn in v NON L a N n m n m m m m v+ ,~ I .. f 10 ¢ q m ~ ¢ _ ¢ N ¢ N ¢ N ¢ ~ ~ 10 N r~ ~I~~I~ 3 9 S~9 Aso 85791St PFMRQ'?PUB 96 N E W M A S T E R U p D A 'C E STEWART 4 jpg/y~; Parcel R5443t1lUU2U Code Area '?4~' Tyl~,e Qty Val~[e ACTIVE Name MOORS RICHARD I. & BARBARA I, L50 5.1j5t1 3U.i(jU Data From j7U 11'?lUU blaster Buyer 9JU R~nlt C 1 C/O ' Address 3U5U bIAGIC VIEW MERIDIAN ID ti :3fi42 - UUtjU Last Change yU/tj5/U:i By ASR_THOMAS Total 14~4UU Legal LOT 2 MAGIC VIEW SUB AbiD Grp i) U tj Typ U U (j Ap -~ oce Lien Code Prepaid L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Anexation From: Eni:ity Exemr.,tion Ul1tia000U(j'~U 3N 1. F. :L7 Hardst[ip Property 7,oning RT Flag Address U;iU5U E MAGIC VIEW DR MERIDIAN ID ti :3fi4~-UUbtj D.D. Type 1. REAL Roll. 7_ PRIMARY Ore. U NON-OCC Action: F1=Seler_t Fa=Exit ElU=Tax PFMR(jlPUB 9ti N E W b1 A S T E R U P D A T E STEWART 4/tj$j9Ei Parcel R:i17:ilEiU'~:iU Cade Area 24'~ Type Qt:y Value ACTIVE Name NIELSON DENNIS E & JOAN M a.5tj .=~:Lti ~ODUI) Data From -i ~~) 1443t1t) Nlast:er Buyer ~9tj Ban1t Cc,dr' CHbl C/O Address :i1i19 AUTUMN MERIDIAN ID rj.if~:~~' - titjtiti Last Change ; 9U/'li)%1U By ASR Tt10blAS Total ].fi43tjU Leger 1 LOT $ BLK :3 GREENHILL EST SUB NO ,:i #ti45Gy49 Grp UI)U TY1, OliU 111, Lien Code Prepaid L,.I.D. Bankrupt S[[b .Cade Anexatian Ft'c~pl Entity Exempt _ion tjO7c~£SUt).iUUtjU 3i~ 1F3 a l (-[arclshi.E:, Propert:yl.,~~ni_r~c~ R.i Fllag Address (1.it)1J E AUTUMN 6•V11Y lc'IhRID:IAN ID ti36~t1-(1000 D.D. Type 1 RLAL Rr, 1 l ]. 1'R TMARY ~:~<:-c~ . I) NUN-UCC Ac: t i c,n : F2=Selr_•c_•t F3=Exit Flt)=Trix • PFMRI'1~PUB yEi N E W h1 A S T E R U P D A T E Parcel R32731(i0115 Code Area 24'' Type Qty Name HOREL CHARLES D & MARY KAY 150 .410 370 Buyer )JO C/O Address 3043 AUTUMN MERIDIAN ID ti.ifi4'' - Ii000 Last Change y3/03%25 By ASP, LA7,EN Legal LOT 7 BLK 3 GREENHILL EST SUB NO a #tiEi71>352 Total STEWART 4jQgj9h Val l:te ACTIVE '35ti1)ti Data From 17ti100 Master Bank Code LMU Lien Code Prepaid L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Anexatiort From: '?03200 Entity F,xemption Grp 000 Typ 000 Ap ilU7J$0030070 :iN ].E 17 Hardship Property Zoning R3 Flag Address 03043 E AUTUNIN WAY l~9ERIDIAN ID i33(i42-0(ill(1 D.D. Type: 1 REAL Rc?l.l :I. E'RIMARY Oc~c;, l:1 NON-OCC Action: F'~=Select F3=Exit F10--Tax PFMR0IPUB JEi Parr_el Ra2731EiU220 Name BOtaEN MARK Buyer C/O Address 30Ei7 AUTUMN N E W ~•I ?1 S T F.: R U T' D A T E Code Area _'-1? 'I'YC'F= QtY ?1 & ANN T 150 .4117 .j7U 9J0 WA Y MERIDIAN II) t13E~42 - fi~?3J Last C1'tange J:i / 0 fi / Ol By ASR [lt)~NA Legg 1 LOT (i BLIi 3 GREEN[IILL )ST SUB NO 3 #J371i15Ei J~'7205~s 9'7_'059 Tc~t.z 1 STEWART 4/Oti/~)Ei Value FICTIVE '='1)11110 Data Froth 1E~Ei400 plaster Bank Cade SOM Lien Codf~• Prepaid L.I.D. BanltrttL,t Soli .Code Anexa t _ir>n Frc:,nt: 1tsEi4(10 Ent itY Exeml,t:i.r,n Gr1, Elilu Ty1, 1100 A}_, 0(179ts003011G0 Prc~r,ert y Address 030Ei7 E AUTUMIN Type 1 RL;t~I,. Fl=Select F3=Exi.t a i~ 1 [: 17 [ I:_i r,.l s It i. 1, I,<~u i.nc3 R3 F.l ag WAY MIER[I)IAN ID tS_i(i4_'-ll(IE111 D.D. Il., l I [ I'R IMARY f)cc; . 17 NON-OCC Act.i.<~n F1t7='('ax • • PFMRtj2PUB yb N E W M A S T E R U P D A T E STEWART 4%p~/gEi Parcel R3~7316tj215 Cade Area 242 Type Qty Value ACTIVE Name TRUAX RODNEY D & KRIS A 15U .41U 25U(jU Data From 37U 1:3 ti11Ut1 Master Buyer )9i1 Bank Code US'1 c/o Address 3tj91 A[JTUMN WAY MERIDIAN ID 83642 - U(1t1U Last Change y3/U4!U1. By ASR_LAZEN Lega 1 LOT 5 BLIi 3 C,REENI-}ILL EST SIiB Nn 3 #y2235~5 Total 1(i3UU(j Grt~ Utjl) Typ U(j(j Ap Lien Code Prepaid L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Anexation From: Er-tity Exemr>t inn (lU 79t311tj311U5(j 3iJ LE t 7 E}arclslc:il~ Pr.or~ertY lc~ning 1;3 Flag Address U3tjy1 E AUTUMN WAY i~'IEI~IDIAN ID 83Ei42-UUI.)ll D.D. Type 1 REAI, Rc:~ I _l. 1. PRIMARY Oc<~ . t) NON-OCC Action F2=Select F3=Exiit F1f)=Tax PFMRIj2PIIB X16 N E W M A S T E R U P D A T E STEWART 4/u8/yEi Parcel R32731EiU21U Cc~dc~ Area 24'2 TyL:~r, Qt.y Valr.ie ACTIVE Name WILLIAMS RICI}ARD C ~; C}iEltc'1L A L5U .41.U ~251jU0 Data From 37(1 1.34Jtjtj Master Buyer )~Il Banlc Cocle C/(~ Address .113:3 AUTUMN NIF.RIDIAN ID 8.3642 - I11J(IU Last Change ~13/l13/'25 By ASR I,A'I.EN Legal LOT 4 BLK 3 GRE}~NII:ILI, EST SUB NO 3 #tI.347632 'I'c ~ is .a l G r. p t) t) U Typ tJ tl 1.1 Ap Exemption tj(j7J8i1tj3tic14U aN 7 E ] 7 Ei~~rdslu.L~ Property 'l,an i.nc~ R3 ['lag Address tj31..33 E AU'1,UivIN WAY ir}ERTDIAN TD r}3(142-[ic)(jti D.D. Type 1 R1AI. P.c>1 .1 1 PR LMARS' c~c~c:. lj NON-nCC Act inn F2=Select Fa=Exit FLU='fax Lien Code PrePa.icl L.I.D. BanlcruL>t Sub.Cc-~de Anexation From: • • PFMRU~PUB ~Ej N E W NI A S T r R U P D A T E STEWART 4/Uti/c)Ei Parcel R327316U'3ti5 Cade Area ?=1? TY1,P Qt:y Value ACTIVE Name CHRISTENS EN SFIERON C, & 1.`~U . ~1t1 2illllili Dafia From COLLEEN C REVOCABLE TRUST a7(1 1197OU Ni~tster Buyer 9~IU Ranlc Code C/O Address 3157 AUTUMN NIERI DIAN I D $3b4? - 11t:101i Last Change y3/'lU/21 By ASR:?_ALLEN . Tc~l-.al 13071:11) Legal LOT 3 BLK 3 GREENHILL EST SUB NO 3 #~37~~~>i Grp l)l)l1 Typ UUU Ap Lien Ccxle Prepaid L.I.D. Bankrupt Sulu .Code Artexation From: Entity Exemptiort (1f)7~)ESt1U3Ut13U 3N 1I 17 Harcisl-ti.l~ Pr. opertY 7c:,n i.nc~ R3 Flay Address u3157 E AUTUMN WE'1Y MERIDIAN ID ti i(i~'~-Ol1ul.1 D.D. Type 1. REAL, Rc,l.l I. PRIMARY Occ.. Il NON-OCC Ar_tiort: F2=Selec_•t E'3=Exit F ] 1:1=`l'ax PFMRt12PIJB JEi N E W hl A S T E It U P D A T E STEWART' 4/Otf/~/(i Parcel R32731fiUlyS Code ArE'~t :.'4'2 Type Qty V~i1ue ACTIVE Name GREENHILL LSTA'rES S[J)3 NO 3 -45y .'?yl) Da La From WATER CORP Master Buyer C/O Address 31:57 SPRINGWOOD BOISE ID t13f;42 - lil1UU Last Change U/IiU/UU By Total Lega 1 LOT 1 BLii 3 GREENHILL EST S[JB NO 3 #ti2141Uy C,.rp (11)(1 Typ I)UU AI:, UU7JtJUU3l1U1U 3N l.F 1.7 Harclstt:i.1~ Property 7,c,nlrt~.1 R3 Address ti0titi0 EAGLE l~D Type 1 12EAI, R„ ] 1 a 1?RTMARY (h.c: , l) NON-OCC F~?=Select F3=Exit F1(1=T~tx 13an1{ Code Lien Code Prepaid I..I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Anexation From: Entity Exempt.~.on f']~~y D.n. Ar_t:ion: • • PFMR02PUB JEi N E W M A S 7' E R U P D A T E STEWART 4/Oti/!ifi Parcel R32731fi0~01 Cade Area '~42 Type Qty Vc;lue ACTIVE Name GREENHILL ES'PATES SUBDIVISION 459 .'.:'t10 Data From NO THREE WATER CORD hlastei- Buyer Banic Code C/O ~ Lien Code Address '?8g4 SPRINGWOOD Prepaid L.I.U. MERIDIAN ID Bankrupt 8364'.' - 0011 t1 Sub.Code Anexation Last Change : tits/10/?6 By ASR_hIAP From: Total Entity Legal LOT 1 EYC R/W BLi; 3 GREENHILL EST SUB NO ;i Exemption #(1200 Bb #8844161 Grp 1100 Tyr., 000 Ap ll(1798003U02A 3N LC 17 Hardsl'-ir~ Property Zoning R3 Flag Address 00001) EAGLE ID D.D. Type 1 REAL Rc~l.l 1 PRIiv1AP,Y Occ. U NON-OCC Action: F2=Select F3=Exit F10=Tax PFMRt12PUB Jfi N E W M A S T F. R U P D A T E STEW ART 4/0$/y6 Parr_el R32731Eit1175 Cade At•r,.i ~~=1~`, Type Qt.y Value ACTIVE Name HARTL,EY TODD S & NANCY A 15tJ .410 ~~500tJ Data From 370 108700 Mastet• Buyer 990 Bank Code TTS C/O Lien Code Address 3050 AUTUMN WAY Prepaid I,.I.D. MERIDIAN IL) Bankrupt ti3fi42 - 111.11)(1 Sitl).Coc~e Anexatic7n Last: Change J3%07%22 By ASR_I,i1lEN Frorn: T~~tal 13371)0 F.nt i ty Lega 1 L,OT 1 % BLK ~? rREENIIILL T;ST SUB NO ,S Exempt ion #J1:i415 Grp ti(iu 'hyE~ Otiti A1~ Ui17~8Uti2u1.7u 3N ] Is 1 7 Fi~ir<.lsliiZ~ Prc~L,er•L;y 7,c~ni.ri<I R3 ['lag ~1d~.3t'e55 1)311`iU E AUTUMN W i1Y ~Il[37111/1N ID ti3f~4'-(1(1(1(1 D.D. ~rY1~~- L IfEAL )t~~ l 1 1 ['l2 [ iv1~1f:Y C)C<_~ , 1) Nc:)N-OCC E1c~i: tcin F2=Select Fa=Exit FI(l:-'t'.-cx • i PFMR0IPUB 9Ei N E W M A S T E R L7 P U A T E Parr_el R3'?731fiU1tt0 Code Area ~'~'~ Type S?ty Name DIAhIOND BRYAN & 1. ~i U . ~:L (- SHERMAN BEVERLY D ,1711 Buyer gyp C/O Address 3134 E AliTUi~'lN WAY MERIDIAN ID Last. Change : 9fi/111i17 By ASR_c~tOUSEP. Legg.( LOT 1$ BLK1 GREENHILL ES'I S[.iB NC7 .i #JSUtit354fi Total STEWART ~/U$/9(i Value ACTIVE l5t-(-U Data From 1.35Eilili Master Flank Cade Lien Code Prepaid L.I.D. Bar-lcrupt Sub.Code Anexatior- From: lfillfiUU Entity Exempt:-ion Grta lii-U Typ UI111 Ap 1)117cJtfllUlU1ES(- SN 1.F 1 7 Heir<~51~ its Propert.Yl,c~n ing R,i F .lag Address i131.3~t E AUTUMN WAY NIERIDiAN •CD tS3fi42-i-Ui-t- D,n, Type 1 REAL Rc, 1 1. 7. PR:[MARY Occ~ , U NON-OCC Act .i.on F'~=Select E'3=Exit F1l--T~ix PFPIRU2PIJB 9Ei N E W M A S T E R li P D A T F' Parcel R3273:Lfit-ltt5 Code Ar~.a '~'4=' 'I'ypF, Qty Name CtiI3ER CHARLES T_, & JERRY ;~ TRS'P ].511 .:} L l) CGBF'R C L & J A CO-'I'RUS'PLES ,•i7i- Buyc r ~~ ~~ l) C/O Adcirc_ss 3:L5tS E AliT[iMN W?1Y ~~IER I DIAN I [) Last. Cl-i<:ange J3/IJti!:Lb By ASR:' \I,I,I',' I,ega l LOT :1 J BLK CRE;E:NEIILI, ES1' S[iB N() :S #93fii1174 sTEtaAR'r 4/liti/9fi Va Lr~e A('TIVE ''`~litill EIaL~~ Frgm 1.157i1i- M~rster Bank Cc,d~~ Lien Cc,cle Prc. Pa 1.c1 L .i.D. Bankrupt: sot, . c.c,d~~ E~Rex~it.~.(7n From: t 41)71)li Ent: i l::y Exempl.. i.c~n Gr1-, t-U1J 'i'Y1, olio A1, lili7~tii-li~~ul~iu :iN (E i i Elarclsl,iC~ Prc:,l.u:: rl y %„n i nc- R.i I? 1 ac.I Ad~l~•r~:;5 U.:S1',[:4 L; t1[i'I'CS~'IN IVAti' "IE~;Rtf)Il~N IU tf.iE~-1-'-1-l-illl 11,11, 'rYl:,c:' I ItF;~1I, (;~~I I 1 I'RIMr11t1' l)~~,~. ll Nc-N-C-i~C :1cLi.c,ii: I'2=Sr~]Nr_t F3-Exit r11,==T~,x PFMRU2PUB Jh N E W M A S T E R U P D A T E STEWART 4/1)ti/96 Parcel R57J15UU13U Code Area 141 Ty~~e Qt:.y Value ACTIVE Name IDAHO TRANSPORTATION BOARn f11t1 .441:) Data From hlaste.t• Buyer Bank Code Address :i.i:Ll. W STATE Prepa ~ cl L.I.n. BOISE ID BanltruL,t b:i7ti3 - C)titiU Sub.Code Anexat:ion Last Change J2/()~/U.i By ASR_DONNA From: Tot~t1 Entity Legal PAR #112.i1i OF S2 OF LOT Ei BLR_i Exr~mC~t ic:~n MON'PVUE PAR[< SUB Ei.i-1i15A #(1137..-II Grl_, OC)(i 'I'YP (ll)(1 ACS #~i751ti49 1:)1.3:L~iUllh(IUEiB :SN LI a ti Fiarr.I~;h.i.1~ Prod>er1:Y Zc,ni.nc~ E27. Flag Add reS:-~ I)I).i4U S F.AGI,1;' ID U.D. Tyr~c 1 REAL Rr.,.l i L PRI~1?1RY Or,c~. i) NO\-OCC. Ar_t:i.on: F2=Selecl: [':S=E?;it- I?7.li=Tax PFNIRI)''PUIi JG N E W h9 A S T F.' R li P D i1 T E STEWART =l/(1tI/JEi Pal:•ce.l Rti7~1.5UU-'7U Coda Arr~a 141. 'I'yp~ c~~i~.y Vraltt<~ ACTIVE Name BURTNER EDWIN R JR & 1.5i1 .9111 '?5O11U L1;~C~t From MADEI,INE C s7i1 1:1.4riliU Ma51.c~i- Buyer ~l~i1 E3:ink Coclt_ C/O I:,:ic:n Ccu~r~ Address ''ti5 W MONTVUE ['reP::i.i.c1 L.7.D. MERIDIAN ID Bar-k.rttl~t ti3 f~4? - (I (llili Sttb.Code Last. Change J4/U2/(1=1 By :~SF2_D7<`~IE C'rom: Tr, r.~~t 1 L3ci8it11 Gnt::it.y I,ec~a 1 I,OT l U BLK 5 MON'P~UE PA12I~ E1:et111~1' Iclll C, r1~ i1 ci l) Typ l') O i) A~~ U .31:3tiu5u10U 3~ ] F; 1.(i [i~trdsh i!, Pra1~ert:y Zon.i.rty R:L Flag Acldress Uti1t35 W MONTV[IE D Ft hII~RIDIAN TD ti364'-(1()11(1 n.n. 'rYN~- 1. REAL 13c, ( 1 1'R Thl~~itl' t)c~<~ . li NC)N-OCC Ac:~ C i <:,n F2-Sr lFC;t !'3=Exit ['I t)='I',as • PFMRU2PUB Jfi N E W N7 A S T C; R U P D A T' C STEWART ~l%I)ti/yC; Parcel R57J15uU~~:.'S Code Area 1=11. Type Qty Value ACTIVE Name STATE DEPT OF HIGH6VAYS $:LU .77O Dal:a From hlast~-'r Buyer C%O Address aa11 W STATE BOISE ID E337ti3 - tit~titi Last Change : tt7/t)y/lEi By ASR_i`1E'1P Ti>ta 1 Legal PAR #U215 OC' LOT 5 BL[i 5 MC)NTVUE PARE #tS7:3:`i$7U Gr1, 1J11U Tyr, t.Jl)tl Ap Banlc Code Lien Code Prepaid L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub. Code Anexation From: Er~t.ity F.xemL,t:ic~n Ei .i -:L t) 5 A ti1.i 13E1U5U115A .SN LE ]-Ei Hardsl~c:i-E, ProPet'tY Zon:i.n~) R]. E'1ag Address ('IEJ;i)U S EAGLE RD tiUNA ID ft.iEi3=!-liUf1E- p,D, 'E'yr,r 1 RT'~1L Rc, 1 l I PR:I:tilAE2Y Qc~r , U NC)N-OCC Ac~ t. :i.r,n F2=Select F.i=Exi.t FL(I=T:~x PFMRb'?PUB ~)(i N E W NI t1 S 'I' E P, 11 P D A T h STEWART 4/ EIt3 / ~lEi Parcel R57915UU'~:Lit Cc,de Arc,a ?E] 'I'Y1,r, Q[:y Value ACTIVE Name RICFIEY VIRGIL C ET C;Y 15U l .liEilJ ''Eil)tltl Ilah.a Fr<,m .1711 1:1:LUU(1 Master Buyer ~9i! Bank Coc1N C/O Address .iEi5 MONTVUE MERIDIAN TE) E3.3Ei~4' - UI)UII Last Change : ~)4%U'?/(14 By : ASR_DIYIE L~ ~~~:~ 1 LOT 4 BLK 5 i~9(>NTVUE PARK I, i.c:,n Cade PreP~aicl L~.i.D. Banl<rril_,t Suh . Cc~dc~ Anc>>>>:~t ion From: 'Cc,t:~l 1~i7Ui1(l L;ntit;y EsemL,C~ i.c~n G~~L, iJEJiJ Typ utii- AL, tJa s L3ut-5uti4ti ~~ t I; 1 6 I1.-,,~~l:;i~ i1, Prc~pert-Y I,:,n.inc~ R:L L~ l:~rcJ Address (11:1,365 E MONTVUE DEl P1ElZi"(IiAN ID ti3Ei=l2-IJll fl (J D.D, Typc. 7. Ri~~'1I, Rc,l 1 l I'RL~'111RY Ocar:. U NC)N-cICC Ac.t~--i.c~n: F''=Selec_•t: F3=Exit [':LU=Tax • l J PFMRt)?PliB ~Ei N E W r'[ A S `r E R [.i P D A T E STE;WAR'1' ~/ll£i/~)fi Parr_el R5~14aU1Ull4 Code Area::'=12 Type Qtv Valuc~ ACTIVL; Name JACI~SONS FOOD STORES INC 2aU 1.:.'76 l7J~1111 [)ata Frc,m 4'_'l! .i~)tibllll Master BL,yeY' C ~ (~ Address :iSUU COMMERCIAL CT P O BOX =1 tl ti MERIDIAN ID Last Cl~-ange ~JEi/U''/2:i By ASI22_ALI~EN Legal PAR #U:L14 OF LOT 11 MAGIC VIEW SliR AMD #t)l.l..i-B #~6i1i.1:,£ilJ7 Bank CocaF~ Lien Code Pre Pa id L.1:.D. B a Ct IS Y'tl ~, t: s u 1., . c„d ~ Ei :S Ane?cdtic,n From: Tol.~~.l. fi71it11)(1 Entity Ex erupt ion GY'L, l)illi TYC-, i-Ul) A1, (1:1.1 tS;iU(1l)Ua.1B 3N I is 1 % Ii~trdsl-'i.[, Pr.c~1,c.,-'l.Y lc,ni-rc~ C-G E?]ay Address UU615 N EAc;L,F: RD EA<T,L; ID tt3(i:Lfi-1:1(1(1(1 D.D. Types ]. REAL Iac,l.l 1. PRiMAI<Y Oc~c.. U NUS-l)CC.. Action: F1=Sc lecL- F.i=Exit F111=7.'ax PFti1Rl)~F'UIi 9f; N F, W h'} A S T E R li P D A T }s STE6VAR7' ~l/Iltl%c.)Ei Parcel S111.fi2a.it1t1' Cock, Aroma i1.3-25 Type ~~ty Value~• ACTIVE Nan-c~~ S'T LUKF~'S REGIONAL N1F.:I~I('r1T, L:511 ;i7.5~?li :L.i ..5~'U pal:a From CENTE[2 LTD ~i5il 1.75`.i1aUU rlastc-~r Buyer C/O Address :L~ll E BANNUCIi BOISE 7D ti371)~' - u(itiU Last Cl-ange : J6/113/ill By : AST2_KTNSEI Legal SW~1•N6V=1 EXC R/W SEC 1fi :iN :l E #1 S itiilU B #`1SI:1tS)fia. #`1~S118c1EiO #~7.i11t19`,,ti #J3Ut3959 #`-1311(4)57 #J3ilt;~1`~6 Tc,t~,t.l :L ti t1fi32U Bank Coc~c~ ST, ET Lien Coda PrePa:id L.I.D. Banltrt:-~,t: Sul:, . Cc,d~. Anexat ior- From: Entity Exemr,t i_on ~;rp l)i)li TY1, Ullll AL, U.iNll l l~; b.itlll'' SN I I~; I G tl~t rc151i i L, ProC,ert-y lc,rr i ii~~ [,-ti l~'l,~g Add--e~;5 l.illUilli N 1sAGT,F: RI) i`9E.R[I)TAN I1~ f-.1~. 'rypf~ 1 REAT., ltul .1 a ['[2 [i`1:1121~' c)c_7U, ll NON-t)CC i1c`t` i.ort: F'i=Se.lect F.i-.Exit. F:LI)==7'aa I`~.~ ~~ ~~ H t I I ~_ ~ _ ~;3' _ MACsIC VIEIUpRl1/E I I Na~•~rc.•e 'I I ~ ,I o ! r I I i ooR ~ .~ ;; I I i ~~ i 1 a~ I I _ u j i I I ~ ~I J1?I ~i \ ~ ( ~ i~ '' ~ ICI ~ =1 ~ ;~I 1 T j ~ II ' ~ ; o,~ ~ g ~ F I r-- I ;;r. ;° I I ~ `;~ e ~ r~ _~,I C~I i ~ W19 I I I `~ _ I I I ~ n 5' ~I I ~ ja ~ --~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ I IE ~ ~ I' 1 T ~m I ~ ' i I I ~ I f l ~ I ~~ ~`, ~- I I ~; '; ~\J ~a J jJw~'i ~' ' /~ ~ _ , lO ,Iyl .I I '~I-- - -- -- -- I I ~ I ;'I 11 T( ~ II~ I '1 I I ' FI i ~ ~ - ~ L~ I. ,~ / ~ ~- I I r------ , ~ c ~; I it i '~ ~ I ~, ~ I ~ ~ I I I I ~ g i C : W °~~ ~ I i 1T ~ ~ (1T ~ °i ~~ ® ~g~, ~ ~~~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I m ~ ~ ~ ~~ I g I I ~~: A~ I I I ~ % ~ ,~ ~~ o -a _ _ N 69' ~8' : Jl• W ' j61.~1' Q I 1- gE 9 ~"~'~ N a y CH`cVRON CONVENIENCE STORE ~ ~ ~ mw~r><IVPxsr. cf~ t ~ ~ t FOOD SERVICE ~' ~~~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ E :G_e R'~Ap ~ t•idGIC YIE:U DRIVE: PIERi~iAry, ID~W~ PAX CTm ~~ A7tCI"IITEGTS I~ u~ .7/ ARCHITECTS BRS Architects, A.LA. 1087 West River Street, Suite 160 Boise, Idaho 83702 Telephone 208 336-8370 Fax 208 336.8380 April 18, 1996 City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Conditional Use Application Lot 1, Magic View Subdivision BRS Project No. 9646 We, the applicant, certify that we will post notification at described property one week before the public hearing as required. We have read the contents of this application and certify that the contents are true and correct. Appli~rrt Signature: /fI~ Terry Debban for Eagle Partners L.L.C. RDF:cw Ir~•oo 2 ti o~ _ ~' M ~ Qf O `~ o F~:. ~ ~ N m ti ~ • asi.ai t 13C ~_ M ti~ ~~ N r. ~ N SITE N ~' ~- ~" SCALE: 1° :100 ' ~ t a"' X15.10` ~~' 363.95` R-•.i~ ® ®~ ® ® ~a a ..e ~ ~i w~ o~.~.o y \ V ~ ~ ~ ••~ ~V 89° ~7` 02`~ E - 6 7 9 05` . _ G ~ ~ ~. .-~ T - 7 ~ ~ ~ ~,. ti_ h: ~, ~~ rv c, i ~ ~ ~ 0 C! M M °~ 1 ~ ~ 15° PE RM. E~SM ~° T. ---~ IV 39° 37' 0~" E - 8?9. 03' .~ .T -7 5 3 ~' - ~ ~ ~~ ~~~,. N ~ - .1 I v~ ~~ LD N .. ~I ti c•1 N 0 0 Q 0 u.s~~,s. i D~ ~ N 705, 692.5 X340, (I 7 . 0 w ~Hwy Sot ~ 28+00 25~ Lt.a • ~ ANNEXATION PARCEL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, T.3N., R.IE., BOISE MERIDIAN; INCLUDING LOT 1, AS SHOWN ON "AMENDED MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION", ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND INCLUDING THE LAND BETWEEN SAID LOT 1 AND THE EASTWARDLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTHERLY AND SOUTHERLY LINES OF SAID LOT 1, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SECTION 17; INCLUDING LAND CURRENTLY PART OF THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAYS FOR EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW DRIVE. COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 17, T.3N., R.IE., BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; THENCE, NORTH 00°-22'-57.7" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1326.59 FEET, TO THE NORTH SIXTEENTH CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 17 & 16, THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE, NORTH 89°-58'-29.7" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 391.41 FEET, THE LAST 351.41 FEET BEING ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF "GREENHILL ESTATES NO. 3", TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 2, "AMENDED MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION' ; THENCE, SOUTH 00°-07'-49.7" EAST, ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2, A DISTANCE OF 579.31 FEET, TO THE CENTERLINE OF MAGIC VIEW DRIVE; THENCE, NORTH 89°-37'-02" EAST, ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF MAGIC VIEW DRIVE, A DISTANCE OF 393.95 FEET, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SECTION 17; THENCE, NORTH 00°-22'-57.7" WEST, ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SECTION 17, A DISTANCE OF 576.52 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 226,933 SQUARE FEET, (5.209? ACRES) MORE OR LESS. THIS DESCRIPTION IS BASED ENTIRELY ON "AMENDED MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION" ( RECORDERS PLAT ); BOOK 52 OF PLATS, PAGES 4445 & 4446; RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY IDAHO. KEITH A. LOVELESS, P.E./P.L.S. LOVELESS ENGINEERING 3330 GRACE STREET BOISE, IDAHO 83703 .. ~ ~ NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., on July 9, 1996, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Eagle Partners L.L.C., for a Conditional Use Permit application for land located in the NE 1 /4 of Section 17, T.3N, R.1 E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located at the Northwest corner of Eagle Road and Magic View Drive. The application requests a conditional use permit for a Chevron C-store with gas pumps and detached carwash, McDonalds with drive-up window (same building as Chevron C-store) and 80 room hotel with pool and patio. A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 19th day of June, 1996. WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., I CLERK I~~CiIE~ ~'a~Xe~ & ~zeer~t~x~, C~.~~r~exe~ ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW P.O. BOX 10 77 IDAHO STREET HERITAGE BLDG., SUITE 300 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680 HOWARD R. FOLEY MARK S. FREEMAN MARGARET S. SCHAEFER June 12,1996 Mr. Jim Johnson, Chairman Meridian Planing and Zoning Commission City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 JUN 1 ~t ~~96 C,~~fY OF i~F.~iDiAN PHONE (208) 888-9111 TELECOPIER (208) 888-5130 Re: Eagle Partners Annexation/Zoning Request Mr. Jim Johnson and Commission Members, I write on behalf of the members of the Greenhills, Magic View and Locust Grove Heights, subdivisions regarding the above referenced application for annexation and rezone. As you are no doubt aware Meridian Ordinance 2-416E provides that notice of such proceedings must be given to land owners beyond the mandatory 300' to "any additional area that might be impacted by the application as determined by the commission". The Eagle Partners have indicated that they intend to resubmit their application on June 14,1996 and prior to any hearing regarding the same we respectively request that notice be given to 1. ALL residents of Greenhills subdivision. This request is based on statements made to the homeowners by Mr. Terry Debban, An Eagle Partner ,partner, to our homeowners association acknowledging that this request will affect all members of the subdivision. 2. ALL residents of Magic View and Locust Grove Subdivisions. In as much as the Eagle Partners have acknowledged the adverse impact this request will have on the Greenhills subdivision, it is equally apparent that it will have the same or greater impact on residents of Magic View and to a lesser extent Locust Grove subdivisions. With all due respect we believe that such notice is required in this situation and that all of these subdivisions will be "additional areas impacted by the application". We further believe that failure to properly exercise your discretion in an appropriate manner in this instance will nullify any future action of the Commission and City Council. Sinc ly your H ar R. ole- cc: subdivisions 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 November 19, 1996, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Eagle Partners L.L.C., for annexation and zoning of approximately 4.13 of land located in the NE 1/4 of Section 17, T.3N, R.1 E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located at the Northwest corner of Eagle Road and Magic View Drive. The Application requests a zone of C-G. A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 30th day of October , 1 ANNgI K. DON, dEPUTY C~'T-Y CLERK NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the 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 November 19, 1996, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Eagle Partners L.L.C., for a Conditional Use Permit application for land located in the NE 1/4 of Section 17, T.3N, R.1 E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located at the Northwest corner of Eagle Road and Magic View Drive. The application requests a conditional use permit for a Chevron C-store with gas pumps and detached carwash, McDonalds with drive-up window (same building as Chevron C-store) and 80 room hotel with pool and patio. Amore particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 30th day of October, '996. / ~- ~~~ , " N A K. DON, EPUTY C CLERK • 3 ~ '~. .~ . ' :. I 2 z. ~~ .: 6 a DRIVE ~ J • c ~© 16 pp0 8 7. 6 5 4 3~ 2 ,.9 .. ~ ATE • o AUTUMN 17 Id ~p3 2U . ~ . .~;i, •f Q.',.~•,7 ':. o ~. • Z 15 t ~ ,.,• .. a -. ~ .. ~ 14 12 ' 13 14 17 P .. '.~ . .1 ~'~~ ~^ 5 V © AUTUMN WA" _'T__ 2 ' 4 ~3 ~2 !i !0 9 8 7 6 5 4 ~ \ I U I t. ~ i I - ~ ,~ ~ ^'7.< . c -y ' 5 4, ~ -. 300 ft. ~~,9~ r--~- ~~ t gin, - ; - - I ,< ~-'~_ Uri ,/(t~yy` . ' ys a s r l I :~ ,. ~ . ~: .~ ~~ '~.. ~_ F ! ~ . ~ ., e. ~~~~ ~' +~~ B5 ~ ~, ~. ~ ~ '. • ~ .. ~ - VICINITY ~ MAPS ~ ~~ / ~ ~~ ~~ ~' scale: 1'° :300 ft. , ~ ~ ~ '~ / ~' ~ ~. r i1CCiis gif~f aiF ~Fxx~S5w ra~rrfr~rrgg~ (((777~~~~~~jjj ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~_~p g~~s ~ ~ ~~~ ~ z ~~~8g ~~~ ]~ E~~gi ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~. O ~ #~ a~ fir= 7 ~x ~-~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~; ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~~~ ~ ~a ~ ~i a~ ~ ~~ t~ ~~~ ~~ ~ g~~~ t~~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ a ~ $E ~~q ~~ ~a ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~; ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ N m n m ~ ~~ w 0 >r n. Aleu-~,r uweare enee y ~~ ~~ Y b .1~i. MO ~ a a etl CHEVRON CONYENIEIVCE STOF?~ , ~ ~ ion weer ~e ar. ~ FOOD bERViGE 1 HOTEL SITE ~ ~ awo $IQ w ~ ~ ~. ~ EdGLE ROdD ~ M.Y IC VIEW DRIVE, MERfD1Aµ IpdLp ARCHPI'RCT$ n z 3 i ~~ I -- -- I Q p-1-- ///-~~~Lt~---9--~~~a ----- f I I ~.(Q rT3` 1T~3' E J I -~---1_(- ' ~ - _- r _ _ ~ ~,____,~\ 1 T E / m I ,!/' I~ I a 'ii I~ ~ bl~ (il +j 1 \ ~~ Iii \I ~ I I 11 ~ ~ ~ it 8p8 8 4 8~l I 1 li ' I i~ ~ ~~ 1 t I~ ~-O'~ I 1 ----~ 1 11 ° C~ ' I ~ ' 111 I J 1 ~ W L7 I ~'1 1 0l L__~~-~_______~ 1 ~ r - of I '1,1 ~ I I ~~ I ~ I I j, - I ` I' I m I ~~1 ~ 1 I ~ - I ~ - I ~I q li - = I11 I ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ .. 4 1? 1? I ~ ~II I °~ 1.; III I EI ii I I 111 ~ __ 1 I I III J J / ' I 1111 ~ l/~ ' ~I11 R ~ I I I ~I{+ ______ __ 1 T ~ I ~~~ -- I Y ----_ w--Ji f ~~~-___-_ _ ~ I I r- new arsst r.o.W. I I i ~~~ ~ ~ 34 ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~~~ f~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ o m Xi § ~~~~~~~tris f ~6r~ ~~~~>s ~~?1~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ Ab ~ ~~ r ~ a L ~ ~It '~ ~ ~ a $ ~ ~ ~ Meridian City Council December 17, 1996 Page 6 ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 19, 1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, MCDONALDS WITH DRIVE THRU, AND A HOTEL BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the members of the Eagle Partners LLC if they would like to testify at this time. Anybody from the public that would like to enter testimony at this time? Richard Williams, 3133 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Williams: I would just like to reiterate that the document that I presented at the initial public hearing for the annexation be entered into the public record on the conditional use permit. Corrie: Thank you, any further testimony on this conditional use permit for the public? Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we continue the public hearing for the request for the conditional use permit for a Chevron C Store, McDonalds with drive thru and hotel by Eagle Partners LLC to January 21, 1997. Bentley: Second Come: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to continue the public hearing on the conditional use permit for the Chevron C-Store, McDonalds with drive thru and hotel until January 21, 1997. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: ORDINANCE #748 - TAMURA/BERRY ANNEXATION I-L & C-G: Corrie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS THEE 1/2 SE 1/4 SE 1/4 OF SECTION 7, A PORTION OF THEW 1/2 OF SW 1/4, 1/4 OF SECTION 8 T.3N, R.1E, B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the public who would like to have Ordinance #748 read in its entirety? Hearing none, Council you have that ordinance in your possession, I will entertain a motion. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt Ordinance #748 with the suspension of rules. Bentley: Second C~ • ~DXEI~ ~C ~XEE11~~SkY, (~~~SX~eXP~ ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW P.O. BOX 10 77 IDAHO STREET HERITAGE BLDG., SUITE 300 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680 HOWARD R. FOLEY MARK S. FREEMAN MARGARET S. SCHAEFER November 19, 1996 Via Hand Delivery Mayor of Meridian Meridian City Council City of Meridian Meridian City Hall Meridian, Idaho ~~.~ ~~ ~ g ~n~~ CITY OF ME~I~IA~ PHONE (208) 888-9111 TELECOPIER (208) 888-5130 RE: Eagle Partners L.L.C. Annexation, Zoning and Conditional Use Permit - 603 South Eagle Road Gentlemen: I am writing, not as a lawyer representing clients, but as a member of the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the above referenced proposed development (to the north). I have joined with many of my neighbors in opposing these applications with their current proposed uses and because of its negative impact on the quality of life in our neighborhood and the value of our property. I have recently had the opportunity to review portions of the record with respect to the above referenced development and what it proposes to permit. There appear to be appreciable procedural failures with respect to this project which, I believe, effectively negate the public hearing scheduled for this evening and your ability to act on it. It is well understood in Idaho that zoning regulation (both the rezoning of property and the granting of a conditional use permit) must be consistent with and conform to the municipality's comprehensive plan (Idaho Code §67-6511). There are numerous ways in which this application is directly contrary to the policy stated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, but I am certain that my neighbors will raise those issues with you at the time a public hearing goes forward. I am writing because these applications deviate from the plan in ways which make tonight's proceeding legally and functionally futile. • Mayor of Meridian Page 2 November 19, 1996 The Planning &. Zoning Commission sought, in it Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law to force this application into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan using two strategies. In the first, the Commission folded this area into the general category of arterials and areas near specified freeway interchanges. They sought to achieve that end first by omitting any reference to the clearly delineated list of interchanges to which interchange-related development policies relate, page 18 of the Plan, which does not include Eagle Road at all. They then proceeded, on page 3 of the Findings and Conclusions, to purport to quote from the Plan, but do so inaccurately. Specifically, in paragraph 5.B.1., they include reference to "commercial and retail areas are established along major arterials." At page 21 of the Plan, the list of arterials is: "East First Street, Cherry Lane, Fairview Avenue, Franklin and Meridian Roads." The paragraph in the Commission's Findings and Conclusions lists the relevant major arterials as "East First Street, Cherry Lane, Fairview Avenue, Franklin and Meridian Roads, and Eagle Road" (emphasis added). In other words, the Commission's fundamental premise upon which the entire rest of its supporting findings and conclusions are based is that the Plan says something about Eagle Road which it clearly does not. The same misstatement of Plan language is found at page 14 of the Findings and Conclusions relating to the annexation and zoning. The other vehicle through which the Planning and Zoning Commission sought to pull this application into apparent conformance with the Plan is to rely solely on the "Commercial Policies" provisions of the Plan without reference to the Plan's goals and residential policies. In fact, all of the policies of the Plan reflect the competing interest, needs and goals of the community and an application must, to be in conformance with the Plan, at least seek a fair accommodation of all the relevant Plan policies. The Green Hills subdivision I, II and III neighbors of this project have raised, through appreciable testimony, the importance of accommodatingthe residential land uses in existence today with the potential commercial uses in a mixed use area closer to the freeway. No effort was made by either the applicant or the Planning and Zoning Commission to address or conform to residential-related Plan goals and policies either in the application or in the findings and conclusions for either of the annexation and zoning recommendation or the conditional use permit recommendation. Absent substantial conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, these applications cannot be granted and ,before we all waste a great deal of time, should be sent back to Planing and Zoning for their more careful consideration. Mayor of Meridian • • Page 3 November 19, 1996 The Meridian Zoning Ordinance requires that fees be paid in connection with applications for annexation, rezoning, and a conditional use permit. See Zoning Ord. 2-416 c.16 - 417 B, - 418 B.12. The record in this case does not contain evidence that fees were paid in connection with the resubmittal of the relevant applications, and does not contain a waiver of the requirements to pay such fees. The Meridian Zoning Ordinance, 2-416 E.1, requires that there be notice posted on the property which is subject to a public hearing seven (7) days in advance of that hearing. An effort has been made to find those notices as they might relate to any of the hearing which have been had or the hearing presently scheduled before the City Council. The only notices that have been found are two relating to an application for annexation and zoning and an application for conditional use which had been scheduled to be heard on June 11. Those two notices were both lying in the mud when found. The applications before you are different applications than those applications. There is no notice posted on the property reflecting any other hearings which have been had on the two relevant applications and, specifically, there is no notice on the property of this evening's hearing. The Meridian Zoning Ordinance, 2-416 E.1, also requires that there be submitted a notarized statement, in effect an affidavit, stating that notices have been posted. There are none in the record for these two applications. Therefore, the hearing tonight has not been properly noticed. The only portion of the bound volume of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan which might support this application is "Figure I," a zoning map. It states, on its face, that it is a "generalized" map. In our particular vicinity, there is a circular area indicating apparent prospect for commercial development. We understand what "generalized" means, when we recognize this circle has no relationship to any existing land ownership pattern and actually conflicts with existing known land uses in the area. It actually overrides a portion of our well-established subdivision. The map is only one of several of the components of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The express written policies and statements are more fundamental and clearer than a "generalized" map. The Planning and Zoning Commission's Finding and Conclusions relating to both applications require that the developer adhere to a development agreement. In the Findings and Conclusions relating to annexation and zoning, there is some proposed development agreement language. It is riddled with blank spaces. At the October 8 Mayor of Meridian • • Page 4 November 19, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in which the Commission adopted, with less than all of its members present, the findings and conclusions for a conditional use permit, the Commissioners discussed the blank spaces and apparently suggested ways of addressing things previously left unaddressed. Nothing more has happened. As of yesterday, there was no development agreement available for the Council to review, act on, or reject, nor was there one which the neighbors could address. The remarks contained in the minutes of the October 8 Commission meeting do not constitute completion of a development agreement. There is no development agreement at this time, and the Council and neighbors deserve to have one sufficiently in advance of a public hearing so that it might be addressed. The critical portion of these two applications, apparently, is the conditional use permit application which provides for a convenience store. A conditional use application is site specific. There is no presently-settled site plan. The Ada County Highway District has not recommended traffic and related conditions. The Ada County Highway District has recommended the insertion of a new street which has been resisted by the applicant and opposed by the developer. Until a determination can be made as to the actual site plan to be approved, it is literally impossible to grant this conditional use permit. In point of fact the record contains a June 10, 19961etter from Mr. Larry Sale at ACHD which states, "it may be necessary to make substantial changes to the site Plan, ...but I specifically request the City not to act on this site Plan at this time." In addition the record contains two letters from Mr. Jim Ferren, of ITD which states, "until access is approved by the Highway Board, we will not recommend approval of this application for CUP" (letter dated November 4, 1996) -and "ACHD will apply for new street, r.o.w. and access...[t]his includes...transportation Impact Study that will be required"- (Letter dated November 16, 1996). At this juncture ACHD has tabled all matters to December. Finally, the record, but not the findings, reflect the homeowners' request that notice to parties impacted by the application be required 15 days before a hearing is held before Planning and Zoning. Clearly many more of us within the Homeowners Association, who are beyond the 300' of the proposed project are and will impacted and yet no notice was required by Planning & Zoning and no mention of that request is contained within the Findings. Mayor of Meridian • Page 5 November 19, 1996 The specific Plan policies, beginning at page 28, relating to the mixed use policies which the Commission thought governed here include some specific implementation elements which have not occurred here. Policy 5.7 requires "detailed market studies" for related to "mixed use development in these areas." This policy mirrors policy 1.4 which requires both design and feasibility studies. The record here is defective and incomplete. These applications should be tabled until compliance with the law can be accomplished. Sincerely, How d oley ** TX CONFIRMA~ REPORT ** AS OF NOV 19 '~7~41 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TOiFROM MODE MINiSEC PGS CMDkt STATUS 09 11119 17 39 208 336 8380 EC--S 01'46" 005 098 OK r rtry ppyy~~ Q~ !~ h (aG ~1rEPIY[c~1vC~ U.~•?Sk~EXE~1 ~'+~..:.,,.::.'t., a...1 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW ~1, ~'~ ~ 9 1^~~ P.O. BOX 10 • 77 IDAHO STREET ~;~~ ~~ ~'~?;"-j ~<-,,i HERITAGE BLDG., SUITE 300 MERIDIAN. IDAHO 83880 HOWARD R. FOLEY MARK S. FREEMAN PHONE (208) 888.9111 MARGARET S. SCHAEFER TELECOPIER (208) 888-5130 ~~~ November 19, 1996 3 3~ . g 3 84 ~~JC Via Land Delivery Mayor of Meridian Meridian City Counal City of Meridian Meridian City Hall Meridian, Idaho RE: Eagle Partners L.L.C. Annexation, Zoning and Conditional Use Permit - 603 South Eagle Road Gentlemen: I a1n writing, not as a lawyer representing clients, but as a member of the neighborhood immediatelyadjacent to the above referenced proposed development (to the north): I have joined with many of my neighbors in opposing these applications with their current proposed uses and because of its negative impact on the quality of life in our neighborhood and the value of our property. I have recently had the opportunity to review portions of the record with respect to the above referenced development and what it proposes to permit. There appear to be appreciable procedural failures with respect to this project which, I believe, effectaveh~ negate the public hearing scheduled for this evening and your ability to act on it. It is well understood in Idaho that zoning regulation (both the rezoning of property and the granting of a conditional use permit) must be consistent with and conform to the municipality's comprehensive plan (Idaho Code §67-6511). 'T'here are numerous ways in which this application is duectly contrary to the policy stated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, but I am certain that my neighbors will raise those issues with you at the time a public hearing goes forward. I am writing because these applications deviate from the plan in ways which make tonight's proceeding legally and functionally futile. Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 47 Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley that we continue the public hearing to December 17 on the request for annexation and zoning to C-G by Eagle Partners LLC, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, MCDONALDS WITH DRIVE THRU, AND A HOTEL BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: Corrie: I will now open the public hearing and invite the public and others to testify. The way it sounded you wanted to coordinate all those in the same thing. So is there anybody who would like to make further testimony tonight? I will entertain a motion Council? Morrow: Mr. Mayor my motion would be the same to continue the public hearing and thank the public for not offering repetitive testimony we would continue that public hearing also to December 17. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to continue the public hearing for the request for conditional use permit until December 17, any further discussion? Bentley: I would just like to thank the (End of Tape) Williams: Mr. Mayor, what I do have a question is if in the attorney's review of this and the items that we brought up we would like to know what the procedure would be to open the comprehensive plan for amendment regarding the Eagle Road interchange, I-84 Eagle Road in that whole area to address that on a more specific basis then the plan currently addresses it. Come: If I could have your attention for just a second, Dick has a proposal he would like the Council to look at. So if I could have you quiet for just a second, Dick would you redo that I am sorry. Williams: What we would like to, if the City Attorney finds that there are concerns about the Eagle Road interchange and I-84 and how it relates to the comprehensive plan. If we could somehow work with the Council to develop some type of plan for that area that we '• Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 48 don't go through this on a continual basis. Like I said before we would be glad to do that and if the Council would so be interested I am sure that we would be than happy to work with them and the Planning and Zoning Commission to do that. Because we do not feel as we stated that this area is addressed very succinctly within the plan. It is an area of potential growth that we would like to see addressed. Corrie: Thank you Dick, I am going to have a five minute recess and then we will get into department reports. Thank you again folks for coming, we wilt see you December 17th. FIVE MINUTE RECESS ITEM #11: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council when Morning Glory Subdivision No. 2 was approved one of my comments was that a 20 foot planting strip should be provided along the rail road corridor that is what our ordinance calls for. Mr. Hunnemiler has since installed a fence along the property line boundary a~ng the rail road corridor which would be, you can see where it says Union Pacific Railroad. I don't particularly have a problem with that as he would have an access problem getting to that to maintain it. I just wanted to make sure that the Council agrees that it is okay that he incorporates that 20 foot planting strip as part of his lots. They will have the 20 foot berm easement plus a 10 foot utility easement however he has not done any planting in that. Morrow: Mr. Mayor question, I thought a 20 foot planting strip would be, we have been consistent in the past is that not owned by the homeowners association? Stiles: Yes Morrow: And it is owned in this case by the homeowners association? Stiles: No Morrow: Why? Stiles: He has not shown it as a common lot on his plat and he has fenced it completely in. Morrow: What do you mean by fenced. completely in, that is the fence that I see that is along on the rail road tracks which will be short lived because the rail road tracks bum fairly frequently so it will be good bye fence. But that is an editorial comment. So, where is the planting strip in relationship to the fence that is there? ~ r MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: November 19.1996 APPLICANT: EAGLE PARTNERS LLC ITEM NUMBER; 10 REQUEST: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE. MCDONALDS WITH DRIVE THRU. AND A HOTEL , AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS MINUTES FROM P ~ Z MEETING SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS "REVIEWED" SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS l~ SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS , SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS z l ~ 1 "_ V OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ` • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 29 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea TEN MINUTE BREAK ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JULY 9, 1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, MCDONALD'S W/DRIVE THRU, AND AN 80 ROOM HOTEL BY EAGLE PARTNERS: Johnson: At this time I will continue this public hearing and ask the applicant to address the Commission for additional comments if .any. Crookston: Are you going to request the previous testimony from the past application be submitted for this application. Johnson: You do say you have a request? Crookston: No I don't. Johnson: We are going to get one in a minute. Billy Ray Strite, 1087 River Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Strite: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, without belaboring it I think probably and maybe (inaudible) a lot of the concerns and comments have already been made. However I would like further, with what Mr. Crookston said in response to Mr. Oslund's comments we were told that because this was in a mixed use area and that there is greater than one use that the entire parcel would be subject to conditional use which we certainly agreed with doing and submitted. Relative to the building itself, I might be able to help you out here with some numbers as well. I think one of the things that I should suggest to you is there are 76 rooms, ~ am not sure where the 80 came from it may have been in the report by Ada County Highway District, and it may have inadvertently remained that way because if you recall in my earlier testimony our facility was considerably larger until such time as we were asked to put in a public road on the north side. We cut the size of the motel down as I just suggested. We also limited the number of seats or reduced the number of seats in the Chevron McDonald's facility in an effort to park cars not only according to the City ordinance we are well in above the parking requirements of the City ordinance but we are trying in an effort to make numbers that are required of us by the motel user one and by McDonald's Chevron two. Quite frankly we believe that the facilities adequately parked, I will make a comment here as I have with all of the other Chevron's that we have done here in the valley most of the cities in the valley accept the pump islands NPD's as we refer to them as parking islands as well. Obviously if one is in there • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 30 - buying gas and purchasing food he Vvalks in and lives his car in that location. So not only are we over parked relative to total number of seats in the dining facility, but we are over parked in the C Store. I would like also to suggest that this particular proposal has 27,000 square foot of landscape which is considerably greater than that required by the ordinance. Again that is not withstanding the 30 feet that we brought to the table tonight. That was the figure that we had prior to the 30 foot right of way that was imposed upon us by Ada County Highway District by the mere fact that again without being repetitive to align with the St. Luke's driveway. Our particular radii of north boundary of the signalization intersection and I believe it is really like 32 and it may even be 37 feet south of our north boundary. That depicts the 60 foot right of way of the road being proposed. The road being proposed if in fact it becomes a reality will be fully signalized with left tum bays, we at this particular time as the applicant's are required to provide curb, gutter and sidewalk, two lanes going north, excuse me going west to westerly boundary of our parcel. Ada County Highway District at the time parcel number 2 is developed will complete the roadway section to the north including curb, gutter and sidewalk and the north bound lane of the street in question. That does not preclude the applicant and we have suggested to Ada County Highway District that under phase 1 and that is what we would like to suggest to you tonight, phase one would be the completion of the McDonald's C Store would indude at this time a 30 foot landscape buffer on the north boundary regardless to what happens to what we are going to refer to as phase 2, the motel. It is certainly would be our hopes and our desires tonight that if you find it fit to approve both parcels and approve the conditional use as it is shown there with the proviso if in fact the roadway becomes null and void by virtue of us assisting the neighbors and Mr. Jackson moving the signal that this plan could change. The change will be minimal and I don't expect that we will be going back and requesting additional units. Quite frankly what I think we would prefer doing is adding a little more buffering to the north side but provide fot ourselves a little more buffering from the south side between our C store and our motel. One of the gentlemen asked me about the problems with having a 3 story motel looking down on his parcel. Let me first suggest to you that under the present zoning he could have that today, I could go place that there, I could built' a house that way, probably not likely but I could do that. So it is not as though it can't be done. Under the present zoning you could go build a house that way. Quite frankly, not only that could you build a house there you could tum all your windows to the north and look over everybody's back yard. That, is not the purpose here that is not what we are intending to do. We are intending, we have solely designed this motel which if I might approach the podium, this is an artist's rendition of the building in question and you will note that on the right hand side of your picture this is the north side of the building, there are no openings. The only opening that are in this building face either east or west. There are no openings that are facing north or south if you will overlooking any of the residences and or the C store. Again without being redundant, the right hand side of this artist's rendering is the north boundary if you will or south boundary of the road, it is the north side of the building. You will see that there are no openings, no • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 31 windows on that north side which would in fact over look the neighborhood. That all of the windows in this facility do in fact face either east or west. Secondly I think in an effort to mitigate some of the concerns not only is there considerable, well mature landscaping in the back side of the neighbors yards, and I have to say very well done, I think the support of having another additiona130 feet with a landscape buffer certainly provides mare than adequate buffer in a sound deadening system that is probably far superior to what they have today. I might add also that the request of Ada County Highway District there was comment made by I believe it was Mr. David Schplitz who suggested if in fact Ada County Highway District was to have to take over this 30 feet on the north side of that roadway system that their proposal would be to build an 8 foot high block wall, .sound wall. Quite frankly and I am not going to speak for the neighbors but certainly if I were in their position I would prefer much rather prefer a 30 landscape buffer as opposed to an 8 foot high sound wall. We have not been back before Ada County Highway District with this final proposal and 1 don't expect to do so as we have already discussed with you until September 3. I would like to make that comment. I think unless I have overlooked something most all of the issues have been addressed in the prior hearing and perhaps it would be appropriate to open it up for questions. Johnson: Billy Ray, not to put words in your mouth or try to lead you a little bit here, did you want that prior testimony incorporated into this hearing. It would be of use to us is you would request that. Suite: Mr. Chairman, I do so please. Johnson: Thank you, any questions of Mr. Strite? MacCoy: I do, I realize this is an architectural rendering and they always do a nice job when they show it off that way. The trees you show here for your both your good visual as well as your buffering you plan to put in trees like that, it gets quite expensive. Suite: I believe your staff has suggested to us and it certainly has on other projects that ~- any trees that go in along that buffer I believe have to be 3 inch caliper which is basically a specimen tree which is considerably larger than what you are going to find in most developments and that is a requirement of your staff. MacCoy: That also, three inches is also much smaller than what you see in your rendering. Suite: Well quite frankly not a great deal, I am not a landscape architect and would be the last to admit that. but I think a 3 inch caliper tree probably runs in the neighborhood of 15 to 18 feet high and I don't think those are probably that much higher than that. I will have to agree with you our rendering does get a little carried away. We would be prepared to • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 32 provide, now keep in mind, this row of trees is on the south side, this is not even the north side. We would be prepared to provide a species as required or requested by staff or this commission and maybe even a little quicker growing for instance. I am certain that there are species that may grow a lot faster if that is the wishes of the Commission. Johnson: Anyone else from the Commission have a question? Oslund: You spoke earlier in the first application about the truck parking and I have noticed that along Eagle Road currently whether it is allowed or not trucks are currently parking on Eagle Road to get access to the Texaco that is out there now. I would assume that is going to continue to be a problem with your development. It is not really a question I don't expect you to answer it but that is my belief. I think, when I look at the plan, there is kind of a paradox when I look at this plan because you have a signal located essentially that would serve the hotel and then we have an uncontrolled intersection or just a stop intersection further to the south there. That is going to serve the most intense portion of the development. I am concerned about how this is all really going to work. Is that signal even going to be useful. People would use Magic View Drive and what we end up with is that unsignalized intersection serving two highly intensive uses. I think the hotel at 3 stories is, it is a little excessive. t understand your taking issue with it and saying the motel will be an effective buffer but I would think the fact that it is not purely a buffer, not everybody believes that the hotel is an aesthetic pleasing buffer. In fact it constitutes an impact, so if you would like to address any of those points you can at this point. 1 have some others, 1 might as well go through those. I guess my biggest concern, I was concerned about this before the two times this was cancelled. I guess the one thing, I have only been in Meridian for three years but I look around and a I have been on the Commission for 6 months and I have noticed in the last couple of months what we are getting inundated with is auto related applications. Whether it be a used car lot, a gas station, drive ups, fast food, RV repair, auto repair, auto accessories. I could go on, that is what has come in the door the last 3 or 4 months. When I look at the Comp Plan there are a couple ~; things that I see in the comp plan that I would like tc direct your attention to. First goal 3 of the comp plan is that we encourage the kind of economic growth and development which supplies (inaudible) self sufficiency and reduces the present reliance of Boise. I wonder how this development does that. There is also another statement in the comp plan under land use goals statement, page 22, item 1, all land use development of the Meridian area will be considered an asset to the community and not to detract from our quality of life. I wonder how this development achieves that. On page 223, 125U, encourage a balance, I underlined the word balance of land uses to ensure that Meridian remains a desirable, stable, self sufficient community. Further on that same page 1.10U, help to design of an attractive road way entryway areas into Meridian which clearly and I underline the word identif)r the community. So I kx~c at this development and we could talk about the specifics but I just can't get over the philosophical issue. That is I look around • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 33 Meridian and I say do we need a third McDonald's, do we need another Chevron. What do we want to portray our community as. I don't necessarily take issue with the hotel I think there are things that can be done to it to make it acceptable. What I really take issue with is another chevron, another McDonald's and another car wash and when we already have plenty of that. Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Oslund, if I might, I guess will try to start with one, 1 think those are pretty salient points. First of all the signal it was never intended by this applicant to use that signal for anything more than an access to support this facility. The signal was placed there long before anybody had looked at this piece of ground. Quite frankly had I been involved early on I would have been concerned just as are the neighbors and Mr. Jackson and certainly St. Luke's, why in the world they did not move this down ~to Magic View which made a lot more sense. However, that is totally out of our control. It is not going to make any difference what goes on with this parcel of ground whether you choose not to use your comp plan and go to a medical office complex that generates considerably higher traffic than the motel certainly not more than the other use, but whatever goes on that parcel is going to be restricted by either Magic View or this signal light. Oslund: I should state that I am not opposed to the signal, I am not opposed the signal at its current location. Strite: Let me continue though, you made the observation that the signal, I believe this was your observation, was done solely for the use of this motel and for this McDonald's at least that is what I construed it to be. That is not the case, the only reason that this roadway is being proposed is your comprehensive plan calls for more intense uses. Not only on this parcel but on the parcel west and on parcels west of that. You have mixed use designations and I think it goes without saying that when you can put a State highway together with a Federal highway carrying greater, I think there was a comment made, there was ?'x,000 at the last time, well it is greater than that now. 'i hey are figuring an excess of 40,000 on both streets. What type of particular uses can function on that kind of an intersection. I can tell you right now we are doing probably 5 medical office buildings today and not one of them would even envision being in a place like this. It is totally inconceivable. That aside, that signal light if in fact that is where you would like to see it is not solely for the purpose of this development. It was never intended to be, we never intended using it. We had no discussions quite frankly with Ada County Highway District until we had already submitted our first plan which was to be before you on the last hearing. Oslund: I guess that is exactly my point, the way you have laid out this development your intended use as a hotel between it and that intersection. Who is going to use it because • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 34 they are going to have to drive pastthe hotel and deal with internal circulation which just isn't going to function. What people are going to do is use Magic View Drive and that is the same, you have already got an intersection there that is trying to access a State highway. I guess what I am saying is that I don't want to see another roadway choked up with local access problems off of that roadway. That is why that signal is there, I think that signal should be used. I am not as concerned about its location as the neighbors are. I think there are things that can be done to mitigate the impact of that roadway. Strite: I don't share your thoughts with the internal circulation quite frankly I think it works well. I do however suggest to you that the. more intense uses were placed on the south specifically to get them further away from the residential uses_ Make them adjacent to similar uses. Also the idea, it was our point at the time to use Magic View as a major ingress egress to the more intense user. Quite frankly the signalization again has nothing to do with this particular development as for future developments. If in fact and again I guess I don't share your feelings relative to signal location. It would seem more appropriate to me and I think the neighbors would be supportive of this if that signal were shifted south. They are having a difficult time getting into Autumn Way now because the stack lane on northbound traffic is virtually nil. It interferes with the south bound left turn movements into St. Luke's. Mr. Williams testified to Ada County Highway District that there is an accident waiting to happen. I think he is absolutely correct and I think Mr. Jackson, I am not sure why they did ask for this at the very beginning, but I do know that Mr. Hull at St. Luke's requested to have that signal at Magic View. We are going to support that. Oslund: You can support it but the point is ITD has made the determination that they don't want a signal any closer to their ramps and that interchange has to function at a much higher level than anything down here. That is a minor issue, let's move on to the other issues. Strite: I liked your comment relative to being able to do something with the motel that may make it more attractive as a buffer. Quite frankly I conNider it more as a transition and the fact that it is a low intense use, considering what your own zone will allow if in fact you choose to use your comp plan as the guide and this becomes a commercial parcel. What else what type of intense use that would locate on a street frontage with 30,000 cars a day would be more appropriate in your opinion against the residential zone. Oslund: Office Strite: Well if in fact you could find somebody to office there that would be a consideration. Quite frankly we think it is highly Oslund: (Inaudible) Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 35 Strite: I agree and I appreciate that. "Relative to your auto related uses, what are we going to do at the intersection of I-84 and Highway 55, we have (inaudible) Oslund: (Inaudible) I know some of the neighbors do Strite: But your issue is auto related uses and I agree with you. However why don't we concentrate the auto related uses as your comp plan has already contemplated at intersections where all of these cars are existing now. We talked about 5,000 cars a day in this facility and according to Ada County Highway District and APA like 50% or 48% of those are passer bys. Well the passer bys are on the freeway, they are going to get off and come down Eagle Road they are going to be heading for Eagle. Oslund: Let's back up, my primary concern is that I am tired of approving developments that don't do anything for this community. I live in this community and when I want to take my family out to dinner most times I have to drive all the way into Boise to do that. I am looking and we have a community here of about 23,000 now and we are going to have an application tonight a little later for Louie's to come in and t applaud that. What I am saying is that I don't really need another McDonald's and I don't need another Chevron and I don't take issue with the hotel but I take issue at 3 stories. That is my point. Strite: I think it is a philosophical argument that you and t could probably sit and discuss for a lengthy time. But from the pragmatic approad~ and from the fact that the comprehensive plan and the site itself based upon the traffic numbers I think it would be highly improbable to have any other use. Relative to your goal number 3, it would appear to me that in relationship to employment, first of all the motel is certainly going to increase the employment base, so also is the McDonald's Chevron. I think that is certainly a worthy goal. It creates a tax base, again I don't want to get philosophical because we could go on forever. But you made references to those things and that is certainly done by this development. The balance of land use and again your comment another one of these and I assume you meant another McDonald's and mother Chevron. Well again I just have to emphasize that when you are at a node of a highway and a highway commercial uses of this nature are going to be the norm. I think that your plan obviously in 1993 envisioned that. It may not have envisioned that this particular highway was going to increase 4 fold over what it was in 1993. Oslund: I don't believe the comprehensive plan envisioned a McDonald's and a drive thru and a car wash at this intersection. What the comprehensive plan says, (Inaudible) the comprehensive plan is fairly general on that point. I would just add on your point of employment, the comprehensive plan does not say that we are out there seeking as many minimum wage jobs as we can get. I think it is important to have those but we have our fair share, again that is a philosophical difference but I just wanted to clarify that. • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 36 " Strite: Mr. Chairman I think that we~probably belabored that enough. Johnson: So do I, I am not even too sure this is the forum for that type of discussion. A lot of us have problems finding a place to eat that is really not a problem tomorrow. Strite: I am sorry if I was lengthy in that, I apologize. Johnson: Developments are market driven and that is basically what you are talking about when you are talking high intensity auto use (inaudible). Would anyone like to address the Commission on this issue? Chuck Horel, 3043 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Horel: I guess a question here to Mr. Strite, if I could have an explanation about the rendering here. If this roadway is accurate from a standpoint of the ACRD meeting and the comprehensive plan of Meridian in showing where these roads are going to go in the future. We don't have situation in Meridian as it stands of double fronting lots with roads, i.e. here. The long range plan is to take that entrance off of Eagle Road at the north end of this project where the road is currently drawn and then swinging it over to Magic View. I really don't see any, where is this leading and that I guess is my question to Mr. Strite, where, how is this addressed. When we were down at ACHD we had talked about a 15 degree divergence from that angle of entrance off of Eagle Road and it would angle to the southwest. I don't see that in this drawing. The width of the road doesn't match up to the road across the way at St. Luke's entrance. We had asked for a dimensional equivalent. We are getting 60 feet roughly well from curb to curb on the other side of the road is 82 feet. I don't see that in this drawing. I guess those are just some of my points 1 wanted clarified or if I can have those clarified I would appreciate it. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? Richard Williams, 3133 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Williams: First of all I appreciate very much Mr. Oslund's comments and I agree 99% with them. The fact that this commercial development as it is proposed is a 3 story hotel literally in your backyard and I doubt that anybody on this Commission would live in that environment. Or live with a McDonald's frying hamburgers all night while you are trying to sit in your back yard with a light shining in your bedroom window from the cars at 2 in the morning or the fire alarms going off at the hotel which they do and you can ask you fire department about that, on a very frequent basis. We are again really emphasize the fact that there has got to be a transition between commercial and the residential. This development as it is being proposed and our opinion and I think the opinion I (inaudible) • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 37 ' presents severe degradation to the neighborhood- in terms of property values and aesthetics. I .guess what we do then is we put a bulletin or a poster up there (inaudible) and here are the numbers. Office development is a better transition, not a 30 foot buffer strip with a few trees in it, that is not a buffer zone. There has got to be a buffer zone and a transition is really a number of feet, it provides some definition. We really again ask your consideration that definition (inaudible). Johnson: Thank you Mr. Williams, Mr. Foley? Howard Foley, 3875 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Foley: There have been some comments regarding traffic flow and the amount of use that Chevron station and convenience station is going to draw as compared to the motel. I just I want the Commission to recognize what appears obvious to me is that as the traffic signal is now situated and as ACRD proposes, if the road is extended along the north boundary of the subject and our homeowners south boundary all traffic north bound is coming off of the Interstate, north bound on Eagle Road is going to go to the traffic ligi~t to make that turn. Whether they are going to the Chevron or whether they are going to the Jacksons. They are not going to try and cut across a turn lane and south bound traffic to get into Magic View. If you are a traveller out on a highway you are going to come off. the freeway, if you are looking for gas or whatever the case is and you are going to go to the traffic light to get in the left turn lane and then turn into the backside of our property. So it is meaningless to say the motel is only going to have X number of cars 40 or whatever of traffic because every car that is north bound off of that freeway going up Eagle Road is going to that traffrc light to go past the motel to go into the Chevron station and get a hotel or whatever and go back out the same way. We are going to have traffic all night long. Our point is that there is no transition, if you approve this you can put buffers and do whatever you want we are going to have extremely high use, 24 hours a day, traffic in and off of that signal. There is just no question about it. South bound traffic probably a different story. But the vast majority of ~rour traffic has got to come off that is going to use those types of facilities I assume are going to be interstate travellers. The representative from - McDonald's just said that. It is not a designation place they are going to go these are travellers and we are just going to pick up a tremendous amount, of traffic coming to that signal, shining lights into the back of people's yards, going in and going back out. It is going to go on all night long and that is inappropriate. There isn't anything close to transitional, there isn't anything close to a perpetuating the lifestyle of any kind of a residence when you do that. There isn't anything close to striking any kind of a balance between residences and commercial, how can there be anything higher use than 24 hours a day, how could that be. There aren't more hours there are only 24 and that is what you are being asked to approve and that is totally inappropriate. There is noway, you are not launching off of the huge philosophical arguments, the comprehensive plan directs all of • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 38 us to take some sort of a balance and that is not a balance in my opinion. I guess the last thing I wanted to say is it seems to me until we make some decisions on annexation and if there is an annexation and number 2 if there is an annexation under what kind of designation that property comes into that considerations of conditional use and what conditions and those sorts of things seems to me to be premature. I submit that perhaps any of this discussion ought to be tabled until those other decisions are made. Johnson: Thank you Dennis Edson, 376 Ravenswood Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Edson: I would like to make some comments with respect to the light office the other gentleman had stated that with the amount of traffic that is on Eagle Road that he didn't see that anybody would build light office in that area. I just take a look at, we have a major medical facility there with St. Luke's and looking at other cities and this City and Boise and whenever there is a major medical facility like that you tend to see the growth of all kinds of light office support facilities and we have doctor's offices and tab facilities and so forth. I know that if I was over at St. Luke's and they wanted to send me to a specialist I would much prefer to go across the road then to drive someplace else in town even if that is a high traffic area. Also, with regard to the road going in and the signal there Mr. Oslund was talking about he was concerned, no light being at Magic View and the traffic going in there. If that road-goes in and curves around down to Magic View as the Highway Commission wants it to do they have proposed shutting off Magic View Drive to left turns from Eagle Road and not allowing traffic to come out of Magic View and make a left turn on Eagle Road. In which case as the lawyer that was just here claimed all traffic that has to get into the gas station all traffic that has to get into Jackson's would indeed have to go into that signal and run in past our property. I don't even know what that would do to Jacksons, that means that all people have to go in there (inaudible) if this facility goes in it means the traffic once that road was finished would have to go around and pass the Chevron first. I don't knew what it would do to Jackson's so I think that nee:~s to be considered too. Johnson: You are only talking north bound traffic. I saw another hand here. Kent Brown, 361 Springwood Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Brown: Some of the things that I guess come to my mind that I am curious about is the signage that is going to go on the buildings. I don't know about Jackson's but you can probably see it from City Hall here, you can see it from everywhere else in the valley. You can go out to Kentucky Ridge and you can see that sign. What kind of sign is Chevron going to put up to compete with Jackson's,? What kind of sign is the hotel going to put up • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 39 to compete with Jackson's? Where is that going to be located? The sign that, the rendition shows a little tiny sign, is that what they are going to put. Is it going to be lighted? Are they going to get hotel customers off of the freeway with that kind of sign or where are they going to put that sign, I guess I have a question about it. The. Highway District has opposed this four lane road to go into the north side of this development to supply access to the entire property, I don't know if it is 30 acres or whatever it is. I think that this application is the time to plan for what is going to go in there in the future for the remaining portions of that. If the roadway is constructed along the lines of like park center, you have a high commercial use but you have buffering with berms and so forth on either side. That is going to promote that kind of use instead of more hotels and gas stations and people using it off of the freeway. So I would make that recommendation that everything to make this similar to the St. Luke's road. If you look at the rendition you see the St. Luke's side they have islands in the center of the road and it creates slower traffic, I believe the Highway District can tell you if you have a series of islands in the center of the road that the traffic slows down. That is going to reduce the noise and impact to our development in the existing subdivision. I think the gentleman that just spoke hit it on the head when a hospital goes in you are going to have all kinds of offices around them. St. Luke's currently in Boise has been buying up existing neighborttoods and existing homes and turning them over and making office complexes, parking complexes. I was in the meetings with the Highway District when the hospital went in. They are not sure that their 40 acre site is large enough for them, 47 acres. They purchased that other 7 acres recently so that they have an access down to Franklin. But they weren't sure that they were large enough, they were surprised at how fast they filled up. I think that is what is going to happen around there that you are going to have a lot people labs, and doctors offices that are going to want to be near the hospital when it finally meets its final capacity. Thank you Johnson: Thank you. Rod Truax, 3091 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Truax: In the hearing that we had with the County one of the things that was brought up at the County was that the Idaho Transportation Department is pretty adamant about not allowing the light down here because of the close proximity of the freeway on ramps and off ramps. What I would submit that makes this very undesirable, as was previously stated, they are considering blocking this or harming this so that the northbound traffic cannot make left hand turns Johnson: Who is they? Truax: ITD, into Magic View because of the safety hazard created by the south bound traffic. The current service station located in this lot over here Jackson's has tanker • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 40 - trailers that do currently pull into this median and then turn into here. If that is harmed up and that left hand turn access is not allowed, 1 have a hard time visualizing that same tanker trailer coming down to the light and making a U tum and coming back there. Which means they are going to have to pursue some other route and long term .development would have this angling back over and connecting with Magic View which would ultimately be the delivery route for petrol into that area. Again granted that the tanks and federal regulations around the tanks and dispensing of the fuel are more than adequate, however the transportation of that, DOT regulations are not as robust as they are for the underground containment of the fuel. Hence with our well head located here with that kind of volume of traffic, not only one service station but two service stations being serviced off of this road. The opportunity for car wreck, discharge of any fuel is increased by it sounds like at least 2/3 more because it is going to be double the capacity of what the Texaco station currently is. Which creates even more c~ncem for the residents in that area. Also we talked to the Ada County Highway and Plann~g, one of the proposals was that number one the roadway be made to match up with that of St. Luke's also that it be angled now as this is showing back towards (End of Tape) According to the Planning and Zoning layout that area is going to be developed even more. So that means all the traffic access to that long term wise is going to gain access through this new road. With this drawn it almost indicates without being able to see any other rendition of what is playing around that area it leaves you with the idea as Mr. Williams pointed out earlier that road is going to shoot right on down the backside of all of those properties. That is part of the planning part of it as we see opportunity for it at this time. If it is not planned that is what will proceed. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else that would like to come forward? Is there anything from staff prior to the applicant? Go ahead Billy Ray. Strite: Mr. Chairman and members of the Comrnts'sion, (will try to make this very brief and hopefully hit only the salient issues. First of all relative to the roadway and the dosing off of Jackson Food Stores and avoiding any left toms onto Eagle Road Mr. Williams was a party to th3 meeting we had where ITD said there is no way thc;y were going to put an island out there. In fact if they do not approve and their design standards would not allow an island which would block left tom lane movements out of Magic View. Quite Frankly I think Mr. Jackson's attorney Phil Barber was a big part of that. He made certain at that meeting that is what was discussed and his minutes were quite clear. He said if that were in fact to happen as I think was suggested by 2 or 3 of these comments earlier that would be an unfair competition because it would run everybody right to the middle of the Chevron on their way to Mr. Jackson's. He was assured at that meeting that would not be the case. Again we are in support as Jackson's and also the neighbors of moving the light but I think as Commissioner Oslund said that is a not an issue that is going to be solved here tonight. Relative to this roadway I think it was also merrtioned where was it going to go, what is it going to do, and why here. First of all this is a configuration that was agreed to with Ada • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 41 County Highway District. We sat down, this is actually the third version that we sat down with them and had them layout the access as they see it happening. They are suggesting that if in fact none of this development on this site goes this road will go because their convinced so also I believe is your staff that the 30 to 40 acres on the west end of this will in the future as already designated in the comp plan become mixed use. Therefore this roadway in their opinion whether it is signalized here or at Magic View it is going to happen whether this development goes here or not. The configuration again was discussed and preliminarily approved with tech staff, Ada County tech staff contrary to the comments made here. There were some suggestions made at the Ada County Highway District meeting whereby we were asked to off set the road 1-think the full with of St. Luke's and take it to a 15 degree angle on the south. Ada County Highway District staff keep in mind they have to purchase the ground upon which this goes were totally against doing that because they did not want to have to purchase the right of way that would enable them to do that. They did not feel that the 20,000 cars a day that they are projecting coming off the west bench of this roadway system, which incidentally goes if you will approximately 80 feet to the west, it has 125 foot radius the center line and lines up with the northerly end of the loop road at Magic View. So there is a 4 way intersection and that is the way that Ada County Highway District has laid it out for us. I think with that to avoid any more lengthy time and philosophical discussions I think those are important issues. There was one other comment relative to St. Luke's in fact that office use would be. appropriate. Certainly office use is appropriate there, they have 47 acres, they have 5 phases according to Jeff. And they (inaudible) probably will absorb a majority of the market. t think with that, that is all I have to offer. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Strite, any questions from the Commission for the applicant? One last time any one else like to testify? Ann Bowen, 3067 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. BowF,n: Those of us in the audience know what this looks lik ; I would like you guys to see what it is so you know what it is I am talking about. - Johnson: We have a copy of that. Bowen: Good, I live in the Greenhills Subdivision and I want you guys to know I don't know if any of you have had a chance to drive through that area. It consists of beautiful homes and are on 1 /2 acre and acre lots. We are people who have jobs and pay taxes and we work hard at keeping up our neighborhood. It is hard to find homes to the caliber that we have with the nice lots. People keep their yards up, it is a beautiful place to be, it is the kind of place that Meridian should be proud to have as a neighbofiood. I feel like with this constnaction coming in it is raping our neighborhood and it will ruin it. Right now my home Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 42 is located about right here, I am missing all of this major development but it will come and get me. The day that I came home from vacation and the Jackson's had opened up, I walked into my backyard the lights were so bright I couldn't see my backyard. I couldn't see fences, I couldn't see my dog, the lights were so horrendous. and Texaco ftom my house right here Texaco is clear over here arid now we are looking at sticking it even closer to our yards. Mr. Jackson was pretty good to work with us and managed to lower down the lights to dim them to put a shield around them. At 2 in the morning I come home from work and I have to call over there and say I can hear your radio, I know what song it is playing turn it down. This happens quite frequently and Jadcsons is clear across the field. What is going to happen when we have Chevron with people coming in at 3 in the morning to get gas and their radios are blasting it is going to ruin our neighborhood. It wakes my kids up at night. Most of the homes along this area have 2 story homes and my kids all sleep upstairs. I have had to buy special thick blinds to pull down to shield it so it looks dark at night instead of light. That first week after they opened there was no moon I had no lights on in my house at 2 in the morning I could sit in my living room and read the paper it was so bright. I could hear the music and it is ruining our neighborhood. To pull all of that any closer will do nothing but hurt our property values. The music is the problem and even worse than the music is the idling of these big semi trucks, it is like somebody turns on a base and all you hear is the boom, boom, boom and you hear for about an hour and then you want to hit somebody because it is so obnoxious. All of these big trucks are going to be pulling in and idling for hours. That is going to hurt our neighborhood too. I feel like Greenhills Subdivision is a subdivision that Meridian should try and protect. It is a nice neighborhood. If you guys let this kind of thing pass and come in and ruin our neighborhood other neighborhoods in Meridian aren't going to have a chance either. ITD said at our last meeting that I went to they said that there would be between 20 and 60,000 trips a day on Eagle Road. 1 don't know where all the other numbers are coming from but that came out of their meeting. They are thinking it could be up to fi0,000 trips a day. So I just think it is important that we try to preserve a neighborhood that is nice and that looks good and that people are paying their taxes and doing a good job with and not try and pull in more commercial development. Thank you. Johnson: Anyone else? At this time I will close the public hearing. As a suggestion we might consider the comments and recommendation from Mr. Foley and also ftom the applicant that the conditional use part of this application be tabled until the annexation and zoning findings of facts are prepared. That is a suggestion, what you would like to do? MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we table this to our discussion on this subject item #7 until such time as we can get our facts together and (inaudible) next regular meeting which is 9-10. Oslund: Second Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 43 Johnson: Any discussion? We have a motion and a second to table item 7 until a date certain of 9-10-96, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: I appreciate everyone that provided testimony this evening. If there is any question as to what happened tonight of anything feel free to speak with Mr. Will Berg or myself who whoever you can get a hold of. We will be looking at the findings of fact and at our 9-10 meeting and at that point there will be no further testimony taken on that issue however but those will be available for your review once they are prepared. Move onto to item 8. ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VACATION OF EASEMENT BY RICHARD VALLA: Johnson: At this time I.will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative to address the Commission. Richard Valla, 16685 Rose Briar Lane, Nampa, was sworn by the City Attorney. Valla: We are asking that an unused City water line easement a 1951 easement that runs diagonally through our property virtually cuts it in half be vacated. We feel that the existing lines to the north, the east and to the South of the property the City has service that area and surrounding areas. Basically that is it. Johnson: Thank you very much. Crookston: I have a question, where is this water line, where is this located? Valla: The property is the Northwest comes of Franklin and Meridian Roads. Crookston: Thank you. Johnson: This is a public hearing is there anybody that would like to address the Commission on this issue? Seeing no one 1 will close the public hearing at this time. Request for vacation of easement, what would you like to do? Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that recommend to the City Council that they approve this application for the abandonment of this easement. MacCoy: Second WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney • HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY • A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor UPDATED MEMORANDUM: COUNCIL MEMBERS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman TIM HEPPER JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUND MALCOLM MACCOY July 2, 1996 To: Mayor, City Council, Planning & Zoning From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer Re: CHEVRON C-STORE, McDONALDS w/DRIVE-THRU, HOTEL (Annexation & Zoning to C-G /Conditional Use Permit by Eagle Partners LLC) I have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, for your information and consideration as conditions of the Applicant during the hearing process: ANNEXATION & ZONIN i 1. This application is for a parcel of land across S. Eagle Road from the St. Luke's West site, and north of the newly constructed Jacksons Food Store. The legal description for annexation included in the application doesn't include a portion of the S. Eagle Road right- of-way between the subject site and the St. Luke's Site. Applicant shall submit an annexation perimeter legal description for the proposed site. The legal description shall include all those portions of adjacent Public Rights-of--Way contiguous to the Corporate City Limits of the City of Meridian (Ord. No 659, 8/2/94), and 'fz of all other adjacent Public Right-of Ways. 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 existing city limit boundary. 2. 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. 3. 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. MCH6V7-2.P$Z ~ ~ Mayor, Council and P&Z July 2, 1996 Page 2 • GENERAL COMMENTS: 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. 2. 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. 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. 4. Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as to not direct illumination on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-414.D.3. 5. 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. 6. Determine the seasonal 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. 7. Provide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 8. All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. • SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1. Sanitary Sewer service to the proposed site could be to the existing line installed in Magic View Drive directly adjacent to the south. 2. Water service to the proposed site could be to the existing water line installed along the northerly side of Magic View Drive. Please provide the Public works department with information on anticipated fire flow and domestic water requirements for the proposed site. MCF~~V7-2.PatZ Mayor, Council and P&Z July 2, 1996 Page 3 3 . Applicant shall be responsible to install a water main within the right-of -way of the new street along the north boundary of the proposed site. Location and sizing of the new main should be coordinated with the Meridian Water Department. 4. The treatment capacity of the City of Meridian's Wastewater Treatment Plant is currently being evaluated. Approval of this application needs to be contingent upon our ability to accept the additional sanitary sewage generated by this proposed development. 5. Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. Flow and pressure from the existing mains should be monitored with the Meridian Water Department to determine whether a booster pump would be required to provide adequate fire protection to the third fllor of the hotel building. 6. 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. MCF~V7-2.PQcZ WILLIAM G. BF_RG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney MEMORANDUM • • HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY COUNCIL MEMBERS A Good Place to Live WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CITY OF MERIDIAN BENTLEYEE LENN R C . G 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 P & Z COMMISSION Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 JIM JOHNSON, Chairman Public WorksBuilding Impartment (208) 887-2211 TIM HEPPER Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUND ROBERT D. CORRIE MALCOLM MACCOY Mayor TO: Planning &~ Commission, Mayor and Council FROM: Shari L. Stiles, Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: September 12, 1996 SUBJECT: Request for Annexation and Zoning with a Conditional Use Permit for aDrive- thru McDonald's, Chevron C-Store and Hotel by Eagle Partners LLC ACRD, ITD, the applicants and adjacent property owners are working to determine if the existing traffic light can be moved to Magic View Drive. If this can be accomplished, it may alleviate some of the concerns of the adjacent property owners. If this is not accomplished, a public road right-of--way must be dedicated from the existing traffic light location to the west property line. Across access agreement will be required to the adjacent property to the west for circulation purposes. Customers from Jackson's will undoubtedly cross through the parking lot to utilize the traffic signal, particularly if they desire to travel north on Eagle Road, if the signal is not relocated. 2. The Applicant is proposing afifteen-foot (15') landscape setback on Eagle Road and Magic View Drive. Jackson's was required to have athirty-five-foot (35') landscape setback on Eagle Road and atwenty-foot (20') landscape setback on Magic View Drive. The berming detail for Eagle Road included in the application may create the illusion that there is more landscaping and may be justification for reducing the thirty-five-foot (35') width. 3. Sidewalks are to be provided adjacent to all public right-of--way. Submit approval letters from Ada County Highway District/Idaho Transportation Department for work within their respective rights-of--way. Provide a copy of the recorded warranty deeds for needed roadway dedication prior to obtaining building permits. 4. Drive-through requires enclosure on the property line with landscaping and fencing, except for ingress and egress, to prevent trash from moving onto other properties. A six-foot (6') high masonry wall shall be constructed prior to obtaining building permits along the northern and westerly boundaries of this property. Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & Council September 12, 1996 Page 2 5. Twenty-foot (20') planting strips are required adjacent to residential use; this could be reduced with construction of masonry wall. Area shown as lawn is ~ to be replaced with bark, rock, etc. 6. A minimum of one (1) three-inch (3 ") caliper tree is to be provided for every 1, 500 square feet of asphalt. Provide a detailed landscape plan that includes sizes and species of plants for approval prior to obtaining building permits. Landscape plan is not to be altered without prior written approval of the Planning & Zoning Department. 7. Parking stalls are to be a minimum of 19' long with minimum 25' wide driveways. 8. A Certificate of Occupancy (CO) must be received prior to operation. This CO must be approved by the Building Department, Fire Department, Planning & Zoning Department, and all agencies. Phasing of improvements for perimeter landscaping, tiling of ditches, fencing and roadway improvements will not be permitted. 9. The speaker location is not shown -system shall be designed to alleviate impact on neighboring residential and not be louder than 55 decibels at property line. 10. Signs shall meet the Uniform Sign Code and City Ordinance. Signs similar to that erected at Jackson's on Eagle Road will not be permitted. 11. Illumination of the site shall be designed to not cause glare or adversely impact neighboring residential properties. Shrouding of lights will be required for the Chevron canopy, and no certificate of occupancy, temporary or otherwise, will be issued until this shielding has been completed. No building permits will be issued unless shrouding of the canopy is included on the building plans. 12. All uses on this property must be approved through the conditional use permit process. Changes to an approved plan will require additional hearings. 13. Provide signage and ramping for handicap parking spaces per ADA requirements. 14. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. • BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN EAGLE PARTNERS L.L.C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LOT 1 OF AMENDED MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION 603 SOUTH EAGLE ROAD MERIDIAN. IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled conditional use permit application having come on for consideration on July 9, 1996, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and was continued to August 13, 1996, the Petitioner's representative, Billy Ray Strite, of BRS Architects, appearing and the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and having tabled the matter to September 16, 1996, having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for July 9, 1996, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; and duly considered at the July 9, 1996, hearing and continued until the August 13, 1996 hearing and continued again to September 16, 1996; that the public was given full opportunity to express EAGLE PARTNERS - CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 1 • comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the property included in the application for conditional use is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 4.13 (5.21) acres in size. 3. That the property is presently zoned by the county as R- T; that the Applicant has a request before the City of Meridian that the property be zoned C-G, General Retail and Service Commercial for the purpose of improving the described property into a commercial development. 4. That the proposed uses include a Chevron convenience store with gas pumps and detached car wash, a McDonalds with drive- up window, and an 80 room hotel with pool and patio. 5. That the land is in a Mixed/Planned Use Development Area in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the following pertinent statements are made in the Plan: A. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic Development Goal Statement Policies, Page 19 1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to create a positive atmosphere which encourages industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in Meridian. 1.2 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set aside areas where commercial and industrial interests and activities are to dominate. 1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new commercial or industrial developments should be harmonized with the natural environment and respect EAGLE PARTNERS - CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 2 the unique needs and features of each area. 1.5 Strip industrial and commercial uses are not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 1.6 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to support shopping facilities which are effectively integrated into new or existing residential areas, and plan for new shopping centers as growth and development warrant. 1.8 The City of Meridian intends to establish a Design Review Ordinance which will foster compatible land use and design within the development, and with contiguous developments; and encourage innovations in building techniques, so that the growing demands of the community are met, while at the same time providing for the efficient use of such lands. B. Under LAND USE 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS, Page 21 Commercial and retail areas are established along major arterials, (East First Street, Cherry Lane, Fairview Avenue, Franklin and Meridian Roads, and Eagle Road) and include small commercial center and individual businesses. Uses include retail, wholesale, service, office, and limited manufacturing. 2. GENERAL POLICIES, Page 22 The following land use activities are not in compliance with the basic goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Strip commercial and strip industrial. b. Scattered residential (sprawl or spread). 3. COMMERCIAL POLICIES, Page 26 a. 4.4U Locate new planned Neighborhood Commercial Centers (3-8 acres). on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a way as to complement but not conflict with adjoining residential areas. b. 4.5U Discourage isolated neighborhood commercial development in residential areas unless the uses are compatible with EAGLE PARTNERS - CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 3 • the Planned Neighborhood Commercial designation. c. 4.6U Community shopping centers will be encouraged to locate at arterial intersections and near high-traffic intensity areas. d. 4.8U Encourage commercial uses, offices and medical-care uses to locate in the Old Town district, business parks, shopping centers and near high-intensity activity areas, such as freeway interchanges. 4. MIXED-PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT, MIXED-USE AREAS ADJACENT TO I-84, OVERLAND, AND FRANKLIN ROAD Page 27 These areas are unique in that they are surrounded by arterials, immediately adjacent to the freeway (I-84), are relatively level in topography, have a distinct linear shape, and are greatly affected by contiguous industrial, residential and commercial land uses. In order that compatible land uses and efficient use of the land might occur, this corridor is anticipated for a variety of planned, compatible mixed uses. Probable mixed uses for the areas could be commercial, combined medium-to-high density residential, open space uses (as a means to buffer highway noise), tourist lodging, industrial, office, medical, and related land uses. a. 5.6 The development of a variety of compatible land uses should be provided in specific plans and proposals for future development. b. 5.7 Detailed market studies should be undertaken to explore and clarify the issues that are related to mixed-usF. development in these areas. c. 5.8 Development. in these areas should be based on functional plans and proposals in order to ensure that the proposed uses conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and are compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. EAGLE PARTNERS - CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 4 • d. 5.9 The integrity and identity of any adjoining residential neighborhood should be preserved through the use of buffering techniques, including screen plantings, open space and other landscaping techniques. e. 5.10 Development should be conducted under Planned Unit Development procedures and as conditional uses, especially when two or more differing uses are proposed. f. 5.11 The character, site improvements, and type of development should be harmonized with previously- developed land in the area, and where located adjacent to or near any existing residence or residential area, shall be .harmonized with residential uses, and all reasonable efforts shall be made to reduce the environmental impact on residential areas, including noise and traffic reduction. g. 5.12 Strip development within this mixed-use area is not in compliance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. h. 5.13 Clustering of uses and controlled access points along arterials and collector streets will be required. i. 5.14U Because these areas are near I- 84, Franklin and Roads, high-quality visual appearance is essential. All development proposals in this area will be subject to development review guidelines and conditional use permitting procedures. j. 5.15U The mixed-use area in the vicinity of the Road/Franklin Road/ Eagle Road/I-84 interchange is a priority development area. C. Under TRANSPORTATION, Page 42 1. Existing Conditions a. I-84 is listed as a principal arterial EAGLE PARTNERS - CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 5 • b. Eagle Road, is listed as a Principal Arterial. D. Under COMMUNITY DESIGN, at Page 72 1. Entryway Corridors a. Eagle Road (North and South entrances). 2. Entrance Corridors Goal Statement - Promote, encourage, develop and maintain aesthetically pleasing approaches to the City of Meridian. 3. Policies, Page 73 a. 4.3U Use the Comprehensive Plan, subdivision regulations, and zoning to discourage strip development and encourage clustered, landscaped business development on entrance corridors. b. 4.4U Encourage landscaped setbacks for new development on entrance corridors. The City shall require, as a condition of development approval, landscaping along all entrance corridors. 4. Quality of Environment Goal Statement, Page 73 Sustain, enhance and promote those elements which contribute to the quality of local environment as an inducement for liveability and business development in Meridian. 5. Policies a. S.lU Preserve the aesthetic natural resources of the Meridian area. b. 5.2U Ensure that all new development enhances rather than detracts from the visual quality of its surroundings, especially in areas of prominent visibility. 6. Neighborhood Identify Goal Policies, Page 74 a. 6.4U Limit the conversion of predominantly residential neighborhoods to nonresidential uses, and require effective buffers and mitigation measures through conditional use permits when appropriate EAGLE PARTNERS - CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 6 L~ • nonresidential uses are proposed. 6. That the General Retail and Service Commercial, (C-G) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. 11. as follows: jC-G1 General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of the (C-G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. All such districts shall be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial development. 7. That the uses proposed by Applicant are specifically allowed conditional uses or permitted in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11-2-409. 8. That the property is located on South Eagle Road just north of Interstate I-84; that the property immediately to the south is the newly constructed Jacksons Food Store; that to the east is the new St. Luke's West site; that the application complies with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That the owner of record of the above referenced property is Gerald W. and Deloris B. Marlin and they have consented to the application and have requested this conditional use permit for the property; the application is not at the request of the City of Meridian. 10. That Mr. and Mrs. Marlin have entered into a purchase and sale agreement of the subject property with Terry Debban and Mark Jensen as buyers. EAGLE PARTNERS - CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 7 • 11. That the Application stated that pending annexation and zoning, the Applicant is requesting approval to construct a Chevron Convenience Store, a McDonald's with a drive-up window in one building, gas island pumps and canopy, a detached car wash, and an 80 room hotel building with indoor pool and potential outdoor patio amenities, on Lot 1 of Magic View Subdivision; that the site is presently vacant and is serviced by all utilities; that during the previous application process, it was made apparent that the Ada County Highway District would require a road at the north end of the site to accommodate .signalized access to anticipated, future commercial growth in Magic View Subdivision to the west; that the new site plan, as submitted, reflects the required road dedication at the existing signalized intersection as described by ACRD. 12. That the characteristics that make the Conditional Use desirable are the site's proximity to Eagle Road and adjacent commercial development and the growing need for this type of development in the area to provide services, accommodations and conveniences to the surrounding commercial, institutional and residential growth. 13. That the Meridian City Planning Director, the Assistant to the Meridian City Engineer, .Police Department, Fire Department, the Ada County Highway District, Central District Health Department, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation and the Sewer Department submitted comments d they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full . 14. That Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, EAGLE PARTNERS - CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 8 • • submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full as follows: 1. 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. 2. Paving, striping and all signage shall be in accordance with City of Meridian Ordinances. 3. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer for all off-street parking areas; all site drainage shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 4. That outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as to not direct illumination on any nearby residential areas. 5. Determine the seasonal 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. 6. Provide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 7. That all construction shall be in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 15. That Bruce Freckleton also submitted site specific comments and they are as follows: 1. Sanitary sewer service could be to the existing line installed in Magic View Drive directly adjacent to the south. 2. That water service to the proposed site could be to the existing water line being installed along the northerly side of Magic View Drive; that the Applicant shall provide the Public Works Department with information on anticipated fire flow and domestic water requirements for the proposed site. 3. That assessment fees for water and sewer service are determined during the building plan review process; that the Applicant shall be required to EAGLE PARTNERS - CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 9 • • enter into an Assessment Agreement with the City of Meridian; that 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. 4. That water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis. Flow and pressure from the existing mains should be monitored with the Meridian Water Department to determine whether a booster pump would be required to provide adequate fire protection to the third floor of the hotel building. 5. The treatment capacity of the Citp of Meridian's Wastewater Treatment Plant is currently being evaluated; that approval of this application needs to be contingent upon the City's ability to accept the additional sanitary sewage generated by this proposed development. 6. That the Applicant shall be responsible to install a water main within the right-of-way of the new street along the north boundary of the proposed site. Location and sizing of the new main should be coordinated with the Meridian Water Department. 16. That the Planning and Zoning Director, Shari Stiles submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; she commented, basically, as follows: 1. ACHD, ITD, the applicants and adjacent property owners are working to determine if the existing traffic light can be moved to Magic View Drive. If this can be accomplished, it may alleviate some of the concerns of the adjacent property owners. If this is not accomplished, a public road right-of- way must be dedicated from the existing traffic light location to the west property line. Across access agreement will be required to the adjacent property to the west for circulation purposes. Customers from Jackson's will undoubtedly cross through the parking lot to utilize the traffic signal, particularly if they desire to travel north on Eagle Road, if the signal is not relocated. 2. The Applicant is proposing a fifteen-foot (15'~ EAGLE PARTNERS - CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 10 • • landscape setback on Eagle Road and Magic View Drive. Jackson's was required to have a thirty- five-foot (35') landscape setback on Eagle Road and a twenty-foot (20') landscape setback on Magic View Drive. The berming detail for Eagle Road included in the application may create the illusion that there is more landscaping and may be justification for reducing the thirty-five-foot (35') width. 3. Sidewalks are to be provided adjacent to all public right-of-way. Submit approval letters from Ada County Highway District/Idaho Transportation Department for work within their respective rights- of-way. Provide a copy of the recorded warranty deeds for needed roadway dedication prior to obtaining building permits. 4. Drive-through requires enclosure on the property line with landscaping and fencing, except for ingress and egress, to prevent trash from moving onto other properties. A six-foot (6') high masonry wall shall be constructed prior to obtaining building permits along the northern and westerly boundaries of this property. 5. Twenty-foot (20') planting strips are required adjacent to residential use; this could be reduced with construction of masonry wall. Area shown as lawn is not to be replaced with bark, rock, etc. 6. A minimum of one (1) three-inch (3") caliper tree is to be provided for every 1, 500 square feet of asphalt. Provide a detailed landscape plan that includes sizes and species of plants for approval prior to obtaining building permits. Landscape plan is not to be altered without rior written approval of the Planning & Zoning Department. 7. Parking stalls are to be a minimum of 19' long with minimuT,l 25' wide driveways. 8. A Certificate of Occupancy (CO) must be received prior to operation. This CO must be approved by the Building Department, Fire Department, Planning & Zoning Department, and all agencies. Phasing of improvements-for perimeter .landscaping, tiling of ditches, fencing and roadway improvements will not be permitted. 9. The speaker location is not shown - system shall be EAGLE PARTNERS - CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 11 • • designed to alleviate impact on neighboring residential and not be louder than 55 decibels at property line. 10. Signs shall meet the Uniform Sign Code and City Ordinance. Signs similar to that erected at Jackson's on Eagle Road will not be permitted. 11. Illumination of the site shall be designed to not cause glare or adversely impact neighboring residential properties. Shrouding of lights will be required for the Chevron canopy, and no certificate of occupancy, temporary or otherwise, will be issued until this shielding has been completed. No building permits will be issued unless shrouding of the canopy is included on the building plans. 12. All uses on this property must be approved through the conditional use permit process. Changes to an approved plan will require additional hearings. 13. Provide signage and ramping for handicap parking spaces per ADA requirements. 14. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. 17. That the Ada County Highway District submitted comments, and they are incorporated herein, as if set forth in full; that District staff concurs with the assessment of Ms. Stiles regarding the future land use development anticipated on the west side of Eagle Road in the vicinity of the Eagle Road Interchange and that plans for a public road should be made to enable traffic from that developable area to have improved access to State Highwa~~ 55 (Eagle Road); that District staff requests that the City only grant conceptual approval of the conditional use permit at this time, but defer specific approval of the site plan to permit the District to resolve the matter. 18. That John Shawcroft, Superintendent of the Meridian Sewer EAGLE PARTNERS - CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 12 • • Department submitted comments that McDonald's will require a grease trap; that the car wash will need a 1500 gallon sand/sediment interceptor and the hotel pool must be drained slowly if repairs will be needed, with prior notification of the Sewer Department. 19. That testimony at the July 9, 1996 hearing is hereby incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the Applicant's representative, Billy Ray Strite, requested that testimony given at the annexation and zoning public hearing for Eagle Partners, be incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 20. That the testimony at the August 13, 1996, annexation and zoning hearing, is hereby incorporated herein at the request of Billy Ray Strite and the testimony on the Conditional Use Permit Application, August 13, 1996, by Applicant's representative, Mr. Strite, is as follows: That the motel will have 76 rooms and not as has been reported as being 80 rooms; that the pump islands at the Chevron facility are considered by the Applicant as being included as parking islands; that this proposal has 27,000 square foot of landscape, notwithstanding the 30 foot right-of-way imposed by .the Ada County Highway District to align with the St. Luke's driveway; that phase one (1) of the project would be the completion of the McDonald's C Store to include a 30 foot landscape buffer on the north boundary regardless of what happens to phase 2, the motel; that the motel is designed with no openings, no windows on the north side; mature landscaping to the backside of thc: neighbors yards in addition to 30 additional feet of landscape buffer, providing a sound deadening system; that on the south side, the Applicant is prepared to provide a species of trees as requested or required by staff or commission, that would be faster growing. 21. Mr. Strite added as follows: That the signal was never intended by the Applicant for anything more than an access to support the facility; why EAGLE PARTNERS - CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 13 • • this signal was not placed at Magic View is questionable, but out of the Applicant's control and whatever goes on this parcel is going to be restricted by either Magic View or the signal light; that here you have mixed use designations and, it goes without saying, that a State highway and a Federal highway, together carrying greater than what is believed to be now in excess of 40,000 [cars] on both streets, that whether you choose to go to a medical office complex, that generates considerably higher traffic then the motel, but certainly not more than the other uses, whatever goes on the parcel is going to be restricted by either Magic View or the signal light. 22. That Chuck Horel added to his earlier testimony; that regarding the long range plan with the Ada County Highway District and the new roadway and Eagle Road and the effects on Magic View; that the width of the road doesn't match up to the road across the street at St. Luke's entrance. 23. Richard Williams added that there has to be a transition between commercial and the residential; that this proposal presents severe degradation to the neighborhood in terms of property values and aesthetics; that office development is a better transition, not a 30 foot buffer strip with a few trees. 24. Howard Foley testified that this proposed project is going to have traffic all night long, 24 hours a day of extreme high use; that there isn't anything close to striking any kind of a balance between residences and commercial. 25. That Dennis Edson testified that with regard to .light office support facilities being placed at this location, that could support St. Luke's across the street; that if the road goes in and curves around down to Magic View as the Highway Commission wants it to, they have proposed shutting off Magic View Drive to left hand EAGLE PARTNERS - CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 14 • turns from Eagle Road and not allowing traffic from Magic View to make left turns onto Eagle Road 26. Kent Brown testified with regard to the kind of signage being planned for the Chevron and the hotel, the location of the sign and whether of not it will be lighted; that if the roadway is constructed along the lines like Park Center, you have a high commercial use but you have buffering with berms on either side that is going to promote that kind of use instead of more hotels and gas stations and people using it off of the freeway; that his recommendation would be to make everything similar to the St. Luke's road, islands in the center of the road, creating slower traffic, reduce the noise and impact to our development in the existing subdivision. 27. Rod Truax testified regarding the location of the traffic light in proximity of the freeway; the opportunity for car wrecks, discharging of fuel from tanker trucks delivery fuel to not one buy two stations, and the well head to the neighborhood being affected; the doubling the noise, all creating even more concerns of the residents. 28. Mr. Strite added that if in fact none of this development on this site is approved, that. the configuration of the roadway has been preliminarily approved, and whether is it signalized at the location shown or at Magic View, it is going to happen; that relative to the comments to St. Luke's, certainly office use would be appropriate. 29. That Ann Bowen testified that she is a resident of EAGLE PARTNERS - CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 15 • • Greenhills Subdivision that consists of homes on half acre and acre lots; people who work hard, pay taxes and keep their homes and lots looking nice; that this proposed project coming in will ruin our neighborhood; that as it stand now with Texaco's bright lights, the noise from car radios at 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning; the idling of large trucks; that to now proposed pulling all that closer to the neighborhood by the addition of a similar project, will do nothing for property values and only hurt the neighborhood. 30. That Steve Eddy, Chevron Dealer, submitted a letter regarding the proposed business at the Eagle Interchange and it is incorporated herein as if in full. 31. That Section 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, B, Commercial, lists commercial uses allowed in the various zoning districts of the City; that Convenience Stores, are not listed as permitted uses in the General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) district, but are allowed conditional uses; that Service Stations, Retail Stores and hotels are listed as permitted uses in the General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) district. 32. That Planned Development is defined in 11-2-403 B, at page 20 of the Zoning Ordinance booklet, as follows: "An area of land which is developed as a single entity for a number of uses in combination with or exclusive of other supportive uses. A PD may be entirely residential, industrial, or commercial or a mixture of compatible uses. A PD does not necessarily correspond to lot size, bulk, density, lot coverage required, open space or type of residential, commercial or industrial uses as established in any one or more created districts or this Ordinance." and a Planned General Development is defined as follows: EAGLE PARTNERS - CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 16 • • "A development not otherwise distinguished under Planned Commercial, Industrial, Residential Developments, or in which the proposed use of interior and exterior spaces -requires unusual design flexibility to achieve a completely logical and complimentary conjunction of uses and functions. This PD classification applies to essential public services, public or private recreation facilities, institutional uses, community facilities or a PD which includes a mix of residential, commercial or industrial uses." 33. That under 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, B Commercial, Planned Commercial Development, is a permitted use in the C-G district and Planned Unit Development - General, is an allowed conditional use in the C-G district. 34. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet ( 20' ) wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 35. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and followed. coxciusioxs og raw 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant EAGLE PARTNERS - CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 17 • • conditional uses pursuant to Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418 D of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho. 4. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan states that the property would only be capable of being developed under the conditional use permit. process with design review to ensure neighborhood compatibility; therefore a conditional use is required for development of the property, which is what the Applicant has applied for in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance, which requires a conditional use for the uses requested in this Application. 5. That since the Meridian Comprehensive Plan states that the City shall require, as a condition of development approval, landscaping along all entrance corridors, states that landscaped setbacks for new development on entrance corridors are encouraged, the Planning and Zoning Director and the Assistant to the City Engineer stated that there should be a 35 foot landscaped set back along Eagle Road, and I-84 is listed as an Entryway Corridor, on page 72 of the Comprehensive Plan, and it is concluded that developments along the Interstate should be required to meet the Entryway Corridor provisions, the property shall have a 35 foot set back for landscaping. EAGLE PARTNERS - CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 18 • • 6. That 11-2-418 C of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The uses, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance. b. The uses should be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the uses. c. The uses apparently would be designed and constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity. d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses if the requirements of the annexation and zoning, and these, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are met, and the provisions of the Development Agreement required of the Applicant in the annexation and zoning Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, are met. e. The property does have sufficient sewer service available and that will have to be provided by the Applicant, at its cost; water service is available but Applicant must put in sufficient lines to serve the uses at its cost. f. The uses should not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the uses would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community, but Applicant must incur the cost of installing any water, sewer, or other utilities. g. The uses should not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise, if EAGLE PARTNERS - CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 19 • • the provisions of the annexation and zoning Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, are met and complied with, and if the provisions of the Development Agreement, •required of the Applicant in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the annexation of the property, and these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, are also met and complied with. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use will be required. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 7. That since the Meridian Comprehensive Plan states under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Areas Adjacent to I-84, Overland Road and Franklin Road, at Page 28, in Sub-Sections 5.10 and 5.14U, that a) development should be conducted under Planned Unit Development procedures and as conditional uses, especially when two or more differing uses are proposed, and b) , high quality visual appearance is essential and all development proposals in this area will be subject to development review guidelines and conditional use permitting procedures, it is concluded that this application for a conditional use should be granted, but that, as required and stated above in this paragraph, it shall be subject to development review guidelines. 8. That the Applicant shall also be required to do the following: a. Meet the requirements placed on the property as part of its annexation and zoning. b. Meet the requirements of the development agreement that must be entered into by Applicant and the City, as required in the annexation and zoning Findings of. Fact and Conclusions of Law and these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. c. Meet the requirements and comments of the City Engineer, EAGLE PARTNERS - CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 20 the Assistant to the City Engineer, and the Planning and Zoning Administrator. d. Meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Electrical Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, the Fire and Life Safety Code, all parking and landscaping requirements. e. Meet the requirements and conditions of the Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Central District Health Department, City Fire and Police Departments. f. Meet all of the representations of the Applicant unless they are in conflict with the above requirements or City Ordinances. 9. That as additional conditions on the Conditional Use Permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Meridian Planning Director. 10. That the conditions stated herein, or as ultimately set by the City Council, shall be agreed to by the Applicant, in writing, and if agreed to the Application should be granted; that if the. conditions are not so agreed on the Application should be denied. EAGLE PARTNERS - CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 21 APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER BORUP COMMISSIONER OSLUND COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER MacCOY CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED ~ ~~ VOTED ~~ l VOTED "~~ VOTED L j `~` ~L VOTED ~ ~-- DECISION AND RECOI~II~IENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the Meridian City Council that they approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and those adopted for the annexation and zoning of the property. MOTION: ~ APPROVED : L .~~ uri~ ~. DISAPPROVED: EAGLE PARTNERS - CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 22 HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY • M G. BERG, JR., City Clerk L. LASS, City Treasurer D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS, Flre Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY p & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman TIM HEPPER JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUND MALCOLM MACCOY 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 8~ Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by:,~ly 2. 1996 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 6118196 HEARING DATE: 7/ 9196 REQUEST: Conditional Use for Chevron C-store McDonalds w/drive-thru. ~ a hotel BY: Eaqle Partners LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Northwest corner of Eaale Road and Magic View Drive JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) JIM SHEARER, P/Z ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT GREG OSLUND, P/Z ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION TIM HEPPER, P/Z CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH BOB CORRIE, MAYOR NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT RONALD TOLSMA, C/C SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) _WALT MORROW, CIC U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) GLENN BENTLEY, C/C IM & AL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GA = WATER DEPARTMENT ~ BUREAU OF REC N(PR LI 8r FINAL PLAT) SEWER DEPARTMENT CITY FILES BUILDING DEPARTMENT OTHER: FIRE DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE RE A S: ~P QEP#il't'~'IWENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER `I.~rt ~ 1grl .I:.~„Y ,,:t~ ;7i1E~21UTA~~ t.IAM G. BERG, JR., Clty Clerk E L. GASS, Clty Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., Clty Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P 8 Z Administrator PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney . HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433. • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding Ikpartrnent (208) 887-2211 Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman TIM HEPPER JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUND MALCOLM MACCOY TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: July 2, 1996 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 6/18/96 HEARING DATE: 7/ 9/96 REQUEST: Conditional Use for Chevron C-store. McDonalds w/drive-thru. ~ a hotel BY: Eagle Partners LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Northwest corner of Eagle Road and Maaic View Drive JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) JIM SHEARER, P/Z ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT GREG OSLUND, P/Z ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION TIM HEPPER, P/Z CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH BOB CORRIE, MAYOR NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT RONALD TOLSMA, C/C SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) WALT MORROW, C/C U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8 FINAL PLAT) GLENN BENTLEY, C/C INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) WATER DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) SEWER DEPARTMENT CITY FILES / _ ~ BUILDING DEPARTMENT OTHER: ls~ ' ~ ` 'v_ 1~~~N~' YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY ~- C'-o 0 ~ S tau i G ~- A/~e ~ o Z~ ~. CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER t- ~ S~..L /~ S cyr4- ~r SwA/J l,~ , f~~ w~tt~-.- 5~ri.~K/~~s. F2,E / ~. ~~/ S S~e ~e ~ ~~ ~ ~.- o r ~ %~~ /off ,aqu~2Ewt,~.~ s. -~~~~- l~.fz; U I .t*.y 5~.f,~ ~di?f~.k'~~j61.ta ,..~ .. a J 3 O :n N ,~ A E Yo~~ ~, m E. c~ $ -. r m °' r"'t7r '.` n '^ H .d ~ ~ v n r m La'rJ'c ra a ~ =, ,,,, ~ c: ~ H 7d 7p ~ o ^ '~ c k :»i~.am Z ~~ ~~E e~ ~~ ,p ~'b ~ m w QO ts7 N ~ ~ ~ I as w•$~ -1 "~ a`o R N,n ~ a~ ~ o•o ~ n ~ ~ a m a_.~ n p a oo ~ q ~ .e ^' o 'o' o ,_.~ ~ o 0 0 0 ~ O ~ co co •o '11 0 O aY $$a3 '71 7: ~~.ti ,o~ ~ ~~E ~+c,E ~ 5E g a oaa ¢, O m D `c .a ~ to ~ p Z .,omo o ~ g < ~ O c~0~i ~ a ~ orr ~ o g; ~ ~ ~ fA m c ~° S,n < C W pa ~ ~ ff d CJ ~^ n w N ~ ~ C 7 'O n~ . ~' ~ B m ~~ E .ng ao a+ ~ ~ c x~v, _ ~ o~.a on ~H ~ 3 ~ -.~ 3~ ~~ c f r ~ c ~ $.a n g ~.F H f vy c°o o K -oa o.~ a Z _w 'o rso m == ~~ cSO ~ ~ :^. Yo $ ~o p•o N ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ 3 E o'er cure to c ay to SC C O y `~i fE ~~ S^.• ~yN ~~ ~ ~ Q ~~~ ~2 "°O a~ 7~ ~z .q w.. :, ?~~ ~ day p ~ K ^ 6 •co~^ °' ~ ~a~yo », n 3 0 .~p `~ ~'. .~~ o. ~ C ~ G b S ~ O. 0 N~ ^ nf[~ n E C F n ~ " f4 ~ 0 Gg .7 n ~ 7 'mo'w ° N N ,M. a a o+ :~ 5 ~ a°y iry ~ rt~rE '•C O O' A~ to (D rt rt r• ~c cu ~ N E ~ cnrt, ~. I--' ~"'~ tr ~m F•'• ' 1 fD ~N to C I'~ ~. ~' ~a c~ n p H ~ ~ ro h'h 0 ro ~ aN• N N• F'• (D f'h w N ~ f•t i.Q fi fD G ~• ~ ~• a n ~• a~ N~ ~~ a~ ~ ~ O y .n. w~ J ~Q ~~ H y R X35 ~° ~~ N Na n bJANN~a 000rp~A '~y~oa... JtAW WAIA a a s a a i: a~ 0000000 N~~D 00 OoN~aW 8888 Ci JIwAWw~ O~p;OOe oDO~ 00000 1111• ~9 O OD A N •~O pA~~WA ~p ~p tp i a a s a a a a~ Jp yOp~~I~QAp Ap Wp Wpp Npp pN_ppppp ~88'S p p p p p p ~OG 00000 p LOCO 8p000J g rP ~ C •n ~OJT(rAw N'~O~GmOOJO~taU ~p ~p~pppl ppp~ tppwp Vp~ •tpn Up •OOp~~ pJ ~pO ~p+ Wp •O8T. ~pO Np ~~00000000000000 O~OtwnO pQpp~~ pp pp 000 lN/1-JN00 p p app OO~O~p a~ 1 S • 'S •pWO~~WO.J0Wr10•l~/1.ONOW JNJ 8~ssg~~g$~~~~gs~ W~~•"N' ss~s 'D 00 awN`OJS ~~~~~~ ~ p~ Q. N ~•1~p/1 pp~p pAp~p~p~~ApD Op tUpA ~p ppJ AWp ~pp0~08~pNp~{~pO,~Tp Wp .~' O O G O G O O O G O O O O O O O pOp~O8D Vpp~I Wpp O O O O C {rpl ~ppO Cpl ONp~ppApO O O O O O Q `~ U O ~ J ~O88~ UU8UApAA88A JJ8J TO O8QO 0 ~ W(W,j,W W8 0 4N~iN,a,N~8 ~bC X ~ ~ pp AA ~~ I~~ t t t 0 0000 a p~000000C 0 00 000000 ~ ' ~~ A W N ~~•~ z m r ig n 7 0 w O C 70 m m Z ~ v_ ~ K N a O W C v_ Z^ L/ N f ~ ~ k 80'0p~•' ~, ' a ~~gg...~ 3E' m~ (~7 7 C m ~. ~~ a ~~ 3 o °o v~~ 7 O ~~ aZ C 6 E w ~' S ~ ~, m v ~ c ~ ~ m~ Z v= ~ a~~~ ^'*~. O ~ C .o a~ o ~ Oy S 0 ~ ' ~~ 5a c. 4 m o= ~~ ~~ Q _. OD H N ~ _3 ~ 3 N '~ O o. E ° a Q O ~ E z 0 c z s m O m J O m X a w ~ f, CENTRAL CEN •• DISTRICT ~RHEALTH DEPARTMENT Rezone # DISTRICT HEALTH DE Environmental Health Division ,t ~, ,~akurn to: i i ti Iyy`y~tr ^ Boise ~~#`t"~'~ ~f '/If~.~II~{!~ Eagle ^ Garden city Conditional Use # C.'f~v~eo,J R~ S'~~ /'~C j}A„/r~~fi~,sf ~i'I/E Th~'d, err/ Meridian ^ Kuna Preliminary /Final /Short Plat ^ ACZ ^ I. We have No Objections to this Proposal. ^ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal. ^ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. ^ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. ^ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of: ^ high seasonal ground water ^ solid lava from original grade ^ 6. We can Approve this Proposal for individual sewage disposal to be located above solid lava layers: ^ 2 feet ^ 4 feet ^ 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and water availability. 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 ,E~central water ^ individual sewage ^ individual water 9. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water ^ sewage dry lines central water ,~ 10. Street Runoff is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ^ II ^ 12. ^ 13. Stormwater disposal systems shall be reviewed by relative to: ^ Waste Disposal ^ Injection Well rules. ^ Groundwater Protection This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. ,~. 14. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: ~ food establishment ^ swimming pools or spas ^ child care center ~~/ ^ beverage establishment ~ grocery store 6 f'l' ~~ 15. Date: / ,S'Td~1//~t'T~'K /f{~-it/.~N6`~T ~1~~Zr~ /l Reviewed By: CDHD 10/91 rcb, nr. I/9S 4 ,. ~ • • CENTRAL •• DISTRICT . oR' H EA LT H .ARMSTRONG PL • 801SE, ID. 83704 •(208) 315.5211 • FAX: 327-8500 DEPARTMENT NWN OFFICE 101 N To pr+euent and treat disease and disabilityt to promote healthy l~festylesc and to protect and promote the health and quality of our endronment. STOP-MWATER MANAGEMENT RECOIVIl~NDATIONS We recommend that the first one half inch of stormwater be pretreated through a grassy Swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality. The engineers and architects involved with the design of this project should obtain current best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a stormwater management system that is preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. Manuals that could be used for guidance are: ;1) GUIDELINES FOR TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF S ~ W Idaho RUN OFF. Idaho Division of Env>ronmental Quality, Regional Office, September 1995. 2) STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND, State of Washington Department of Ecology, February 1992. 3) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT GUIDNT NES FOR STORIVIWATER AND SITE DRAINAGE MANAGEME ~: serving valley, Elmore, Boise, and Ada Counties Elmo. Cotrih oeke VaMrcatdf-osw Ado /lobe Cash Oaee ~ boW • w4Mitlan ~~ Caves OAM:e d ErnYsnnedd Heosh P.O. Boot 1145 701 fJ, Mndronp PL 1606 Aoberls 520 E. 8tA Street N. Motxdain Horne. 0. 190 S 41h Sheet E. MCCoL b• 83631 634.7191 Pf> Bose. b. 53704 Enwo. Heolh 717.1499 Bose. ID. 53705 PR J34.3355 83647 Pfti557-4407 Motrddn Home. ID. 83647 Pft. 587.9225 . faNy Plon>irta 327.7400 324 Meriden. D. - Mriur>izalbns;327.7450 83642 Pf>. 8884525 • HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY ~ COUNCIL MEMBERS WILLIAA4 G. 8F_RG, JR., Clty Clerk JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., Clty Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS, Flre Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney A Good Place to Live WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CITY OF MERIDIAN E C GLENN R. BENTLEY 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 P & Z COMMISSION Phone (208) 888-4433.• FAX (208) 887-4813 JIM JOHNSON, Chairman Public WorksBuilding Departrnent (208) 88 TIM HEPPER Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888 ~~~~ ~ D JIM SHEARER V GREG OSLUND ROBERT D. CORRIE SUN 2 1996 MALCOLM MACCOY + Mayor NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATI NN TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DE~LG~r~~T PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to Meridian City mail, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: July 2, 1996 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 6/18/96 HEARING DATE: 7/ 9/96 REQUEST: Conditional Use for Chevron C-store. McDonalds w/drive-thru. ~ a hotel BY: Eagle Partners LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Northwest comer of Eagle Road and Magic View Drive JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) JIM SHEARER, P/Z ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT GREG OSLUND, P/Z ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION _TIM HEPPER, P/Z CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH _BOB CORRIE, MAYOR ~~~'~~ ~A~N,©iw~TRIC~ RONALD TOLSMA, C/C SETTLERS IRRIGATIOW bT~"I'' CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM 8 FINAL PLAT) WALT MORROW, C/C U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) GLENN BENTLEY, C/C INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) WATER DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM 8 FINAL PLAT) SEWER DEPARTAAEldT CITY FILES BUILDING DEPARTMENT OTHER: FIRE DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: Nampa & Meridian Irrigation POLICE DEPARTMENT District requires that a Land Use Chan a/Site CITY ATTORNEY Deve opment app ication e filed for review rior to CITY ENGINEER platting. Contact Donna Moore at 343-I or final CITY PLANNER _ 466-7861 for further information. All laterals and waste wa ys must be protected. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the site, Nampa & Meridian Irri>ation District must review drainage plans. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31 -3805. It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all dev elonments w; thin Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. ~ ~:F ~VE~3 i 1 R. Henson, Asst. Water Superintendent ~~ ' NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT ,~ qF;. t i P!: ,. ~ ~~ ~. ~, • • 'ha~x~ra. & '~1~e~cid~aci ~finigat~a~ ?~i~tztct 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-888-6201 Phones: Area Code 208 Roger D. Foster BRS Architects 1087 West River Street, Suite 160 Boise, ID 83702 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 Boise 343-1884 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Boise 345-2431 RE: Land Use Change Application for Chevron C-Store and McDonalds and Hotel Dear Mr. Foster: Enclosed please find a Land Use Change Application for your use to file with the Irrigation District for its review on the above- referenced development. If you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call on Donna Moore at the District's office or John Anderson, the District's Water Superintendent at the District's shop. Sincerely, DAREN R. COON, SECRETARY/TREASURER NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT DRC/dnm cc: File Water Superintendent Eagle Partners L.L.C. City of Meridian enc. C~~p~( APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 27 June 1996 ,.~ y ~I ~ 1 ~~ 1~Ur• 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-888-6201 Phones: Area Code 208 Attn: Will Berg City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 Boise 343-1884 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Boise 345-2431 FtE: GONDI'~IiiYvrsL tTSE PERMIT - CHEVRON CONVENIENCE STORE / FOOD SERVICE / HOTEL SITE Dear Commissioners, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District requires that a Land Use Change/Site Development application be filed for review prior to final platting. Contact Donna Moore at 343-1884 or 466-7861 for further information. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the site, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all developments within Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. Sincerel , Bill enson, Assistant Water Superintendent NAMPA AND MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT BH/dln pc: File - Office File - Shop Water Superintendent APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 31 May 1996 'Ha~x~a & ~1~i~cia'icuc ~anCgatio~ Dla.~zict 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-888-6201 Phones: Area Code 208 Eagle Partners L.L.C. P. O. Box 6290 Boise, ID 83707 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 Boise 343-1884 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Boise 345-2431 RE: Land Use Change Application for Chevron C-Store-Food Service- Hotel Dear Eagle Partners: Enclosed please find a Land Use Change Application for your use to file with the Irrigation District for its review on the above- referenced development. If you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call on Donna Moore at the District's office or John Anderson, the District's Water Superintendent at the District's shop. Sincerely, DAREN R. COON, SECRETARY/TREASURER NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT DRC/dnm cc: File Water Superintendent City of Meridian enc. ~~ ,~~~ ; F F ~ I ~ ~ l 4 APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS • 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 12 June 1996 • HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk .JANICE,L, GASS, Clty Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS., Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433. • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman TIM HEPPER JIM SHEARER , GREG OSLUND MALCOLM MACCOY 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 Sz Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: July 2, 1996 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 6/18/96 HEARING DATE: 7/ 9/96 REQUEST: Conditional Use for Chevron C3tore, McDonalds w/drive-thru, 8~ a hotel BY: Eagle Partners LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Northwest corner of Eagle Road and Maaic View Drive JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) JIM SHEARER, P/Z ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT GREG OSLUND, P/Z ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION TIM HEPPER, P/Z CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH BOB CORRIE, MAYOR NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT RONALD TOLSMA, C/C SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) WALT MORROW, C/C U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8 FINAL PLAT) GLENN BENTLEY, C/C INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) WATER DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) ~R DEPART1111ENT ~ ,~,S CITY FILES 4 BUILDING DEPARTMENT OTHER: FIRE DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: POLICE DEPARTMENT .- CITY ATTORNEY o S CITY ENGINEER 'il~ No 1 o r.. f' r ' owl PLAN Eft CIT Y w: t u~ `o~ / pp 1.~t.trc w fuv~ ~ ~ y _ ~,etclL.r. ~~~ ~'_ , ~ . ~~~~~1 V C~"CY l~F ~1~ LAW OfFICL• ELLIS, BROWN & SHEILS, CHARTERED P.O. 13AX 3A8 BOISE, IoAHU 83701 •AI1~1 B. FLUS 57'EAFIEN G BROWN MAX M. SFIFJI,S, JR •Al9o e0dsu ie Ovfawe July 3, 1996 Mr. Jim Johnson, Chairman Meridian Plarming and Zoning Commission City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Street Meridiar>, Idaho 83642 Re: Eagle Partners Annexation/Zoning Request EBS No. 2775.7 Dear Mr. Johnson: 707 NORTH 5TH S7R66T 0~7CE (10~ 345.7532 FAX SOS) 3459564 REcE~vED J U L 0 8 1996 ITY OF MERIDIAN This firm represents Eagle Partners who have applied for annexation and zoning of a parcel in Lot 1, .Amended Magic View S~bdivisioTM on Eagle Road near Meridian. This application is being handled by Bill Strife of BRS Architects. The application is scheduled for hearing before the Meridian Plaiuring and Zoning Commission on July 9, F996. Eagle Partners would request a deferral and a reschedtilirlg of the hearing at the next available hearing date, which I understand is August 13, 1996. This deferral is being requested because the applicant intends to schedule a meeting with property owners adjacent to the subject parcel to diswss, and hopefully resolve, some of these issues. In addition, Mr. Strife is out of town and will not be available for the July 9 hearing. Thank you for your courtesy in rescheduling this hearing. Very truly yours, SCB:km xc: Clients JUL 08 '96 13 51 FT "i "TC, BROWN & SHEII,S, CHARTERED Stephen C. Brown Rost-It'" brand fax transmittal memo'7AT1 *of pe®es . ~ rraa fvf o~ir co. '~ ~° r/C co. il~' a~tv~ FaOI N "/ ' ~! ~! FaX / 208 345 TOTAL P.01 • • 2 v~D R~ AUG 1 3 1996 GREENHII,LS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION POSITION CITY F 1KERIDIAN TO: Planning and Zoning Commission ,City of Meridian FROM: Members of the Homeowners Association SUBJECT: Annexation and rezoning request of Eagle Partners We, the undersigned, are members and land owners within Greehills Estates subdivision which is located between Franklin and Eagle roads within the Meridian area of impact. We have reviewed the application of Eagle Partners for annexation and rezone of 4+or- acres of land that adjoins the Southeast portion of our subdivision off of Eagle Road. We have met with Mr. & Mrs. Terry Debban , members of Eagle Partners regarding the proposal to develop that property into a 24 hour serviceJconvenience store, limited service McDonalds and three story hotel. We are opposed to your granting the application of Eagle Partners for the following reasons: 1. The plan as it is presently proposed is not well thought out or descriptive enough upon which to make valid judgments. The plan is sketchy at best with the proposed improvements lacking any detail as to elevation, design, landscape, buffer areas, or intensity of traffic, lighting or noise. 2. The concept of a 24 hour business operation within 300 feet of residences is inappropriate and does not conform with the stated primary objective of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan which is to "maintain the integrity of existing residential areas". 3. Our subdivision has already suffered the construction of a 7acksons Food Store off of Eagle Road with signage which literally illuminates bedrooms, living room and kitchens all evening long and is accompanied by a chorus of slamming car doors, excessively loud music ,yelling and screaming into the night and the assorted trash and debris such a business draws. We are now being ask to accommodate another" inconvenience" store closer to us which will only increase the incidence of these events. 4. The proposed area of development is designated as a "transition area" which to us contemplates a logical and compatible transition of some development from agricultural or rural residential to blend with our clearly established residential neighborhood. The proposal to abut ow property with a 24 hour service station and McDonald's or in the alternative to put a three story hotel that overlooks our back yards, bedrooms, livingrooms and kitchens is not transitional in the broadest definition of the term. 5. In our view the proposed area might logically house office buildings that operate from 8-5 with appropriate landscaping and barriers to separate and transition the gossly commercial area now existing at the Jackson services and convenience station to our neighborhood. 6. Notice in this matter has been inadequate in the following regards: a). Ordinance 2-416 E 1. Provides that notice is to be given to "any additional area that maybe impacted by said application as determined by th Commission". At the meeting with the developer he acknowledged that this development will impact our entire subdivision. b). Notice has not been received by our water users association which owns a lot and community well within 300 ` of the proposed development. 7. The development as proposed will place 3 to 4 12,000 gallon tanks of gasoline within 100' of our community well. Any leakage or rupture will jeopardize that water system. 8. Many of our residence have small or younger children and we worry about the security of our kids and neighborhood given the proximity of this proposed development to our residences. "- ~ • • Along with the good customers will come unsavory types especially to an all night facility and they will be brought to our back yards by this type of development increasing the risk to our families and property. 4 4 /1 _.. La T- ~„:~ . vlz~ ~~.~. ~~. ~U ~'~.. ~~ ~ ~ ~ , T ~-~e, ~.. U i ~, ~- V ~1 Sal 5 ~ ~ u~~ ~~~0 9 3+~~ `.S~OrI~G ~:ts4~l ~Ll~, ,~~~ E ~, c.d ~ 1 C~T~'j ZL 1.G,(,U ~~37 SO~rK~ cJ04~~ ~r. 3137 s{~r-v~q W ood ~~ir. 31(~ I gip ~: ~ ~;~~.~ ~(~r _ , . ~1~.1 ~~ ,-~~~C~dr. ~ ~ 5 r ~n woad. (~~- ~~~ S r~ ~( ~ ~~ i~~ ~~ ~ ~ • ~. Along with the good customers will come unsavory types especially to an all night facility and they will be brought to our back yards by this type of development increasing the risk to our ~ ~~ /YI~Y-l \ l% ~~ '. __~ i _ 2 ry7j"~'~~i~-r ~ ~/~ 8~ ~s `~ -. a gR 1 ~'~ rh~~ M (,r ~a,~ ~ 7~ ~ ~~%L ~P~~J.~ ~~J~o o~. ~. 2 71 `J ~~ 'J E' ~~ ~ ~~ ~ X367 ~ ~i~~~l~ ~. 3~~1.4 ~(r~-r~~ ly~ 3o pi ~, /1.,~~,~., 1~ _~~ families and property. • Along with the good customers will come unsavory types especially to an all night facility and they will be brought to our back yards by this type of development increasing the risk to our families and property. i ~~-~.~`- . n ~ ~, 02 t mer~c~co~ ~T ~ ~ O v ~~ 3~ - w ~ Y~ ~ ~ 9~. 3o f S rim o ~y~. ~'le~t~ra` ~..Z'~ ![ ~`- cc n t~ ~ r C ~ ~J~ - ~ G ~'rlUU~fiv~ ~~. i • ~t/,~ ~n G ~.~ C< ~fL~r-r. ~~~~~ ~ --~- ~~D -c ~~~5 ~. ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~JD/~ilJlVevO ,~~ z ~: ~~o ~~~ `-~~ UFO • • Along with the good customers will come unsavory types especially to an all night facility and they will be brought to our back yards by this type of development increasing the risk to our families and property. L~~ ~-e ADDRESS ` '" , ~ ~- z~6 ~ ~i ~~ ,7 ,r.~ -~~~^,~~ l~I~c~ ~~~ w • Along with the good customers will come unsavory types especially to an all night facility and they will be brought to our back yards by this type of development increasing the risk to our families and property. ADDRESS y ~~ _ r,. ~/~~~ ~ ~, as i~ ~5y~3 ,~~i/lt2 l~r Z~3~ ~~-~wwd~o p~ ~ ~ c~^ I ~~ > a.~,~~ c.sap a~ 1 2 =37% ~ c, (~ N ~ ,~ ~ r o ~,4 ,~ i~ ~ ~ " ~~ ~~IAM~ ~~~~G22~~.C ~2 G~~ ~o~~R~ss ~ c- ~~~~ ,, -~, ~ S ~~~ ~ ~~ w i~ 2 ~a !Y( Gch~~ (o a~ss~ r~wtikl~ti ~Pd Along with the good customers will come unsavo they will be brought to our back yards by this type of evelopmentyncreasing he risk to our d families and property. ~D RS4 ~ ~J- ~_ - 2~ ~ ~V"tu~k ( ~ !~ cs[ , , per,, <~ - ~ Gun ~ v ~~~ {/`{OLt_Q~/~ i ~ ~~ ~~ .~~~-~ ~~~ l/ `~ ~~.`~ o ~~~~ ~~.~;., ~_. l ~ ~~,,,= ~ ,. f i l 9 ,~ ~`~ ~ k ~.~ ~'~l • r~ u GREENHII,LS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION POSITION TO: Planning and Zoning Commission ,City of Meridian FROM: Members of the Homeowners Association SUBJECT: Annexation and rezoning request of Eagle Partners RECEIVED Piz AUG 1 3 1996 CITY OF MERIDIAN ~~~y~-- We, the undersigned, aze members and land owners within Greehills Estates subdivision which is located between Franldin and Eagle roads within the Meridian area of impact. We have reviewed the application of Eagle Partners for annexation and rezone of 4+or- acres of land that adjoins the Southeast portion of our subdivision off of Eagle Road. We have met with Mr. & Mrs. Terry Debban , members of Eagle Partners regazding the proposal to develop that property into a 24 hour service/convenience store, limited service McDonalds and three story hotel. We aze opposed to your granting the application of Eagle Partners for the following reasons: 1. The plan as it is presently proposed is not well thought out or descriptive enough upon which to make valid judgments. The plan is sketchy at best with the proposed improvements lacking any detail as to elevation, design, landscape, buffer azeas, or intensity of traffic, lighting or noise. 2. The concept of a 24 hour business operation within 300 feet of residences is inappropriate and does not conform with the stated primary objective of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan which is to "maintain the integrity of existing residential areas". 3. Our subdivision has already suffered the construction of a Jacksons Food Store off of Eagle Road with signage which literally illuminates bedrooms, living room and kitchens all evening long and is accompanied by a chorus of slamming car doors, excessively loud music ,yelling and screaming into the night and the assorted trash and debris such a business draws. We are now being ask to accommodate another "inconvenience" store closer to us which will only increase the incidence of these events. 4. The proposed azea of development is designated as a "transition azea" which to us contemplates a logical and compatible transition of some development from agricultural or rural residential to blend with our cleazly established residential neighborhood. The proposal to abut our property with a 24 hour service station and McDonald's or in the alternative to put a three story hotel that overlooks our back yards, bedrooms, livingrooms and kitchens is not transitional in the broadest definition of the term. 5. In our view the proposed azea might logically house office buildings that operate from 8-5 with appropriate landscaping and barriers to separate and transition the grossly commercial area now existing at the Jackson services and convenience station to our neighborhood. 6. Notice in this matter has been inadequate in the following regazds: a). Ordinance 2-416 E 1. Provides that notice is to be given to "any additional azea that may be impacted by said application as determined by th Commission". At the meeting with the developer he acknowledged that this development will impact our entire subdivision. b). Notice has not been received by our water users association which owns a lot and community well within 300 ` of the proposed development. 7. The development as proposed will place 3 to 4 12,000 gallon tanks of gasoline within 100' of our community well. Any leakage or rupture will jeopardize that water system. 8. Many of our residence have small or younger children and we worry about the security of our kids and neighborhood given the proximity of this proposed development to our residences. ~ r RE EIVED p ~Z ~o'~-• ~' AUG 1 3 1996 GREENHII,LS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION POSITION TO: Planning and Zoning Commission ,City of Meridian FROM: Members of the Homeowners Association SUBJECT: Annexation and rezoning request of Eagle Partners qTY OF MERIDIAN ~~~- We, the undersigned, are members and land owners within Greehills Estates subdivision which is located between Franklin and Eagle roads within the Meridian area of impact. We have reviewed the application of Eagle Partners for annexation and rezone of 4+or- acres of land that adjoins the Southeast portion of our subdivision off of Eagle Road. We have met with Mr. & Mrs. Terry Debban , members of Eagle Partners regarding the proposal to develop that property into a 24 hour service/convenience store, limited service McDonalds and three story hotel. We are opposed to your granting the application of Eagle Partners for the following reasons: 1. The plan as it is presently proposed is not well thought out or descriptive enough upon which to make valid judgments. The plan is sketchy at best with the proposed improvements lacking any detail as to elevation, design, landscape, buffer areas, or intensity of traffic, lighting or noise. 2. The concept of a 24 hour business operation within 300 feet of residences is inappropriate and does not conform with the stated primary objective of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan which is to "maintain the integrity of existing residential areas". 3. Our subdivision has already suffered the construction of a Jacksons Food Store off of Eagle Road with signage which literally illuminates bedrooms, living room and kitchens all evening long and is accompanied by a chorus of slamming car doors, excessively loud music ,yelling and screaming into the night and the assorted trash and debris such a business draws. We are now being ask to accommodate another "inconvenience" store closer to us which will only increase the incidence of these events. 4. The proposed area of development is designated as a "transition area" which to us contemplates a logical and compatible transition of some development from agricultural or rural residential to blend with our clearly established residential neighborhood. The proposal to abut our property with a 24 hour service station and McDonald's or in the alternative to put a three story hotel that overlooks our back yards, bedrooms, livingrooms and kitchens is not transitional in the broadest definition of the term. 5. In our view the proposed area might logically house office buildings that operate from 8-5 with appropriate landscaping and barriers to separate and transition the grossly commercial area now existing at the Jackson services and convenience station to our neighborhood. 6. Notice in this matter has been inadequate in the following regards: a). Ordinance 2-416 E 1. Provides that notice is to be given to "any additional area that maybe impacted by said application as determined by th Commission". At the meeting with the developer he acknowledged that this development will impact our entire subdivision. b). Notice has not been received by our water users association which owns a lot and community well within 300 ` of the proposed development. 7. The development as proposed will place 3 to 4 12,000 gallon tanks of gasoline within 100' of our community well. Any leakage or rupture will jeopardize that water system. 8. Many of our residence have small or younger children and we worry about the security of our kids and neighborhood given the proximity of this proposed development to our residences. ~ ~ RE~~ZIV~ED AUG 1 31996 GREENHILLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION POSITION CITY OF MERIDIAN ~,~~~- TO: Planning and Zoning Commission ,City of Meridian FROM: Members of the Homeowners Association SUBJECT: Annexation and rezoning request of Eagle Partners We, the undersigned, are members and land owners within Greehills Estates subdivision which is located between Franklin and Eagle roads within the Meridian area of impact. We have reviewed the application of Eagle Partners for annexation and rezone of 4+or- acres of land that adjoins the Southeast portion of our subdivision off of Eagle Road. We have met with Mr. Terry Devan , a member of Eagle Partners regarding the proposal to develop that property into a 24 hour service/convince store, limited service McDonalds and three story hotel. We are opposed your granting the application of Eagle Partners for the following reasons: 1. The plan as it is presently proposed is not well thought out or descriptive enough upon which to make valid judgments. The plan is sketchy at best with the proposed improvements lacking any detail as to elevation, design, landscape, buffer areas, or intensity of traffic, lighting or noise. 2. The concept of a 24 hour business operation within 300 feet of residences in inappropriate and does not conform with the stated primary objective of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan which is to "maintain the integrity of existing residential areas". 3. Our subdivision has already suffered the construction of a Jacksons Food Store off of Eagle Road with signage which literally illuminates bedrooms, living room and kitchens all evening long and is accompanied by a chorus of slamming car doors, excessively loud music ,yelling and screaming into the night and the assorted trash and debris such a business draws. We are now ask to accommodate another inconvenience store closer to us which will only increase the incidence of these effects. 4. The proposed area of development is designated as a ":transition area" which to us contemplates a logical and compatible transition of some development from agricultural or rural residential to blend with our clearly established residential neighborhood. The proposal to about our property with a 24 hour services station and McDonald's or in the alternative to put a three story hotel that overlooks our back yards, bedrooms, livingrooms and kitchens is not transitional in the broadest definition of the term. 5. In our view the proposed area might logically house office buildings that operate from 8-5 with appropriate landscaping and barriers to separate and transition the grossly commercial area now existing at the Jackson services and convenience station to our neighborhood. 6. Notice in this matter has been inadequate in the following regards: a). The application states that the property will be posted with a notice of the June ll, 1996 P&Z hearing. No such posting was done. b). Ordinance 2-416 E 1. Provides that notice is to be given to "any additional area that may be impacted by said application as determined by th Commission". At the meeting with the developer he acknowledged that this development will impact our entire subdivision. c). Notice has not been received by our water users association which owns a lot and community well within 300 ` of the proposed development. 7. The development as proposed will place 3 to 4 12,000 gallon tanks of gasoline within 100' of our community well. Any leakage or rupture will jeopardize that water system. R~~EIVED Z ~,-. m~. AUG 1 31996 GREENHII,LS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION POSITION TO: Planning and Zoning Commission ,City of Meridian FROM: Members of the Homeowners Association SUBJECT: Annexation and rezoning request of Eagle Partners carer of M~runun ~~~ We, the undersigned, are members and land owners within Greehills Estates subdivision which is located between Franklin and Eagle roads within the Meridian area of impact. We have reviewed the application of Eagle Partners for annexation and rezone of 4+or- acres of land that adjoins the Southeast portion of our subdivision off of Eagle Road. We have met with Mr. & Mrs. Terry Debban , members of Eagle Partners regarding the proposal to develop that property into a 24 hour service/convenience store, limited service McDonalds and three story hotel. We are opposed to your granting the application of Eagle Partners for the following reasons: 1. The plan as it is presently proposed is not well thought out or descriptive enough upon which to make valid judgments. The plan is sketchy at best with the proposed improvements lacking any detail as to elevation, design, landscape, buffer areas, or intensity of traffic, lighting or noise. 2. The concept of a 24 hour business operation within 300 feet of residences is inappropriate and does not conform with the stated primary objective of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan which is to "maintain the integrity of existing residential areas". 3. Our subdivision has already suffered the construction of a Jacksons Food Store off of Eagle Road with signage which literally illuminates bedrooms, living room and kitchens all evening long and is accompanied by a chorus of slamming car doors, excessively loud music ,yelling and screaming into the night and the assorted trash and debris such a business draws. We are now being ask to accommodate another "inconvenience" store closer to us which will only increase the incidence of these events. 4. The proposed area of development is designated as a "transition area" which to us contemplates a logical and compatible transition of some development from agricultural or Waal residential to blend with our clearly established residential neighborhood. The proposal to abut our property with a 24 how service station and McDonald's or in the alternative to put a three story hotel that overlooks our back yards, bedrooms, livingrooms and kitchens is not transitional in the broadest definition of the term. 5. In our view the proposed area might logically house office buildings that operate from 8-5 with appropriate landscaping and barriers to separate and transition the gossly commercial area now existing at the Jackson services and convenience station to our neighborhood. 6. Notice in this matter has been inadequate in the following regards: a). Ordinance 2-416 E 1. Provides that notice is to be given to "any additional area that maybe impacted by said application as determined by th Commission". At the meeting with the developer he acknowledged that this development will impact our entire subdivision. b). Notice has not been received by our water users association which owns a lot and community well within 300 ` of the proposed development. 7. The development as proposed will place 3 to 4 12,000 gallon tanks of gasoline within 100' of our community well. Any leakage or rupture will jeopardize that water system. 8. Many of our residence have small or younger children and we worry about the security of our kids and neighborhood given the proximity of this proposed development to our residences. • i GREENHII.LS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION POSITION TO: Planning and Zoning Commission ,City of Meridian FROM: Members of the Homeowners Association SUBJECT: Annexation and rezoning request of Eagle Partners RE~~EIVED Z ~~.. r~r/~, AUG 1 31996 CITY pF~ UN ~'r ~- We, the undersigned, are members and land owners within Greehills Estates subdivision which is located between Franklin and Eagle roads within the Meridian area of impact. We have reviewed the application of Eagle Partners for annexation and rezone of 4+or- acres of land that adjoins the Southeast portion of our subdivision off of Eagle Road. We have met with Mr. & Mrs. Terry Debban , members of Eagle Partners regarding the proposal to develop that property into a 24 hour service/convenience store, limited service McDonalds and three story hotel. We are opposed to your granting the application of Eagle Partners for the following reasons: 1. The plan as it is presently proposed is not well thought out or descriptive enough upon which to make valid judgments. The plan is sketchy at best with the proposed improvements lacking any detail as to elevation, design, landscape, buffer areas, or intensity of traffic, lighting or noise. 2. The concept of a 24 hour business operation within 300 feet of residences is inappropriate and does not conform with the stated primary objective of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan which is to "maintain the integrity of existing residential areas". 3. Our subdivision has already suffered the construction of a Jacksons Food Store off of Eagle Road with signage which literally illuminates bedrooms, living room and kitchens all evening long and is accompanied by a chorus of slamming car doors, excessively loud music ,yelling and screaming into the night and the assorted trash and debris such a business draws. We are now being ask to accommodate another "inconvenience" store closer to us which will only increase the incidence of these events. 4. The proposed area of development is designated as a "transition area" which to us contemplates a logical and compatible transition of some development from agricultural or rural residential to blend with our clearly established residential neighborhood. The proposal to abut our property with a 24 hour service station and McDonald's or in the alternative to put a three story hotel that overlooks our back yards, bedrooms, livingrooms and kitchens is not transitional in the broadest definition of the term. 5. In our view the proposed area might logically house office buildings that operate from 8-5 with appropriate landscaping and barriers to separate and transition the grossly commercial area now existing at the Jackson services and convenience station to our neighborhood. 6. Notice in this matter has been inadequate in the following regards: a). Ordinance 2-416 E 1. Provides that notice is to be given to "any additional area that may be impacted by said application as determined by th Commission". At the meeting with the developer he acknowledged that this development will impact our entire subdivision. b). Notice has not been received by our water users association which owns a lot and community well within 300 ` of the proposed development. 7. The development as proposed will place 3 to 4 12,000 gallon tanks of gasoline within 100' of our community well. Any leakage or rupture will jeopardize that water system. 8. Many of our residence have small or younger children and we worry about the security of our kids and neighborhood given the proximity of this proposed development to our residences. a~*,~ n U GREENHII,LS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION POSITION TO: Planning and Zoning Commission ,City of Meridian FROM: Members of the Homeowners Association SUBJECT: Annexation and rezoning request of Eagle Partners ~~~2 ~7~ AUG 1 31996 CITY OF MERIDUN .~"~' We, the undersigned, are members and land owners within Greehills Estates subdivision which is located between Franklin and Eagle roads within the Meridian area of impact. We have reviewed the application of Eagle Partners for annexation and rezone of 4+or- acres of land that adjoins the Southeast portion of our subdivision off of Eagle Road. We have met with Mr. & Mrs. Terry Debban , members of Eagle Partners regarding the proposal to develop that property into a 24 hour service/convenience store, limited service McDonalds and three story hotel. We are opposed to your granting the application of Eagle Partners for the following reasons: 1. The plan as it is presently proposed is not well thought out or descriptive enough upon which to make valid judgments. The plan is sketchy at best with the proposed improvements lacking any detail as to elevation, design, landscape, buffer areas, or intensity of traffic, lighting or noise. 2. The concept of a 24 hour business operation within 300 feet of residences is inappropriate and does not conform with the stated primary objective of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan which is to "maintain the integrity of existing residential areas". 3. Our subdivision has already suffered the construction of a Jacksons Food Store off of Eagle Road with signage which literally illuminates bedrooms, living room and kitchens all evening long and is accompanied by a chorus of slamming car doors, excessively loud music ,yelling and screaming into the night and the assorted trash and debris such a business draws. We are now being ask to accommodate another "inconvenience" store closer to us which will only increase the incidence of these events. 4. The proposed area of development is designated as a "transition area" which to us contemplates a logical and compatible transition of some development from agricultural or rural residential to blend with our clearly established residential neighborhood. The proposal to abut our property with a 24 hour service station and McDonald's or in the alternative to put a three story hotel that overlooks our back yards, bedrooms, livingrooms and kitchens is not transitional in the broadest:definition of the term. 5. In our view the proposed area might logically house office buildings that operate from 8-S with appropriate landscaping and barriers to separate and transition the grossly commercial area now existing at the Jackson services and convenience station to our neighborhood. 6. Notice in this matter has been inadequate in the following regards: a). Ordinance 2-416 E 1. Provides that notice is to be given to "any additional area that maybe impacted by said application as determined by th Commission". At the meeting with the developer he acknowledged that this development will impact our entire subdivision. b). Notice has not been received by our water users association which owns a lot and community well within 300 ` of the proposed development. 7. The development as proposed will place 3 to 4 12,000 gallon tanks of gasoline within 100' of our community well. Any leakage or rupture will jeopardize that water system. 8. Many of our residence have small or younger children and we worry about the security of our kids and neighborhood given the proximity of this proposed development to our residences. RE~~I~ED AUG 1 3 ~96~ GREENHII.LS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION POSITION TO: Planning and Zoning Commission ,City of Meridian FROM: Members of the Homeowners Association SUBJECT: Annexation and rezoning request of Eagle Partners CITY OF MERIDIAN ~~~ We, the undersigned, are members and land owners within Greehills Estates subdivision which is located between Franklin and Eagle roads within the Meridian area of impact. We have reviewed the application of Eagle Partners for annexation and rezone of 4+or- acres of land that adjoins the Southeast portion of our subdivision off of Eagle Road. We have met with Mr. & Mrs. Terry Debban , members of Eagle Partners regarding the proposal to develop that property into a 24 hour service/convenience store, limited service McDonalds and three story hotel. We are opposed to your granting the application of Eagle Partners for the following reasons: 1. The plan as it is presently proposed is not well thought out or descriptive enough upon which to make valid judgments. The plan is sketchy at best with the proposed improvements lacking any detail as to elevation, design, landscape, buffer areas, or intensity of traffic, lighting or noise. 2. The concept of a 24 hour business operation within 300 feet of residences is inappropriate and does not conform with the stated primary objective of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan which is to "maintain the integrity of existing residential areas". 3. Our subdivision has already suffered the construction of a Jacksons Food Store off of Eagle Road with signage which literally illuminates bedrooms, living room and kitchens all evening long and is accompanied by a chorus of slamming car doors, excessively loud music ,yelling and screaming into the night and the assorted trash and debris such a business draws. We are now being ask to accommodate another "inconvenience" store closer to us which will only increase the incidence of these events. 4. The proposed area of development is designated as a "transition area" which to us contemplates a logical and compatible transition of some development from agricultural or rural residential to blend with our clearly established residential neighborhood. The proposal to abut our property with a 24 hour service station and McDonald's or in the alternative to put a three story hotel that overlooks our back yards, bedrooms, livingrooms and kitchens is not transitional in the broadest definition of the term. 5. In our view the proposed area might logically house office buildings that operate from 8-5 with appropriate landscaping and bamers to separate and transition the gossly commercial area now existing at the Jackson services and convenience station to our neighborhood. 6. Notice in this matter has been inadequate in the following regards: a). Ordinance 2-416 E 1. Provides that notice is to be given to "any additional area that maybe impacted by said application as determined by th Commission". At the meeting with the developer he acknowledged that this development will impact our entire subdivision. b). Notice has not been received by our water users association which owns a lot and community well within 300 ` of the proposed development. 7. The development as proposed will place 3 to 4 12,000 gallon tanks of gasoline within 100' of our community well. Any leakage or rupture will jeopardize that water system. 8. Many of our residence have small or younger children and we worry about the security of our kids and neighborhood given the proximity of this proposed development to our residences. auc ~ 3 ass GREENHII.LS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION POSITION CITY F MERIDIAN TO: Planning and Zoning Commission ,City of Meridian FROM: Members of the Homeowners Association SUBJECT: Annexation and rezoning request of Eagle Partners We, the undersigned, are members and land owners within Greehills Estates subdivision which is located between Franklin and Eagle roads within the Meridian area of impact. We have reviewed the application of Eagle Partners for annexation and rezone of 4+or- acres of land that adjoins the Southeast portion of our subdivision off of Eagle Road. We have met with Mr. & Mrs. Terry Debban , members of Eagle Partners regarding the proposal to develop that property into a 24 hour service/convenience store, limited service McDonalds and three story hotel. We are opposed to your granting the application of Eagle Partners for the following reasons: 1. The plan as it is presently proposed is not well thought out or descriptive enough upon which to make valid judgments. The plan is sketchy at best with the proposed improvements lacking any detail as to elevation, design, landscape, buffer areas, or intensity of traffic, lighting or noise. 2. The concept of a 24 hour business operation within 300 feet of residences is inappropriate and does not conform with the stated primary objective of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan which is to "maintain the integrity of existing residential areas". 3. Our subdivision has already suffered the construction of a Jacksons Food Store off of Eagle Road with signage which literally illuminates bedrooms, living room and kitchens all evening long and is accompanied by a chorus of slamming car doors, excessively loud music ,yelling and screaming into the night and the assorted trash and debris such a business draws. We are now being ask to accommodate another "inconvenience" store closer to us which will only increase the incidence of these events. 4. The proposed area of development is designated as a "transition area" which to us contemplates a logical and compatible transition of some development from agricultural or rural residential to blend with our clearly established residential neighborhood. The proposal to abut our property with a 24 hour service station and McDonald's or in the alternative to put a three story hotel that overlooks our back yards, bedrooms, livingrooms and kitchens is not transitional in the broadest definition of the term. 5. In our view the proposed area might logically house office buildings that operate from 8-5 with appropriate landscaping and barriers to separate and transition the grossly commercial area now existing at the Jackson services and convenience station to our neighborhood. 6. Notice in this matter has been inadequate in the following regards: a). Ordinance 2-416 E 1. Provides that notice is to be given to "any additional area that may be impacted by said application as determined by th Commission". At the meeting with the developer he acknowledged that this development will impact our entire subdivision. b). Notice has not been received by our water users association which owns a lot and community well within 300 ` of the proposed development. 7. The development as proposed will place 3 to 4 12,000 gallon tanks of gasoline within 100' of our community well. Any leakage or rupture will jeopardize that water system. 8. Many of our residence have small or younger children and we worry about the security of our kids and neighborhood given the proximity of this proposed development to our residences. • • ~D~~C~1 & ~XPPtttc~SYY~ V.~?XX#EXP~ ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW P.O. BOX 10 77 IDAHO STREET HERITAGE BLDG., SUITE 300 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680 HOWARD R. FOLEY MARK S. FREEMAN MARGARET S. SCHAEFER June 12, 1996 Mr. Jim Johnson, Chairman Meridian Planing and Zoning Commission City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 R~C~EI~VED~ AU6 1 3X96 GTY OF MERIDIAN PHONE (208) 888-9111 TELECOPIER (208) 888-5130 Re: Eagle Partners Annexation/Zoning Request Mr. Tim Johnson and Commission Members, I write on behalf of the members of the Greenhills, Magic View and Locust Grove Heights, subdivisions regarding the above referenced application for annexation and rezone. As you are no doubt aware Meridian Ordinance 2-416E provides that notice of such proceedings must be given to land owners beyond the mandatory 300' to "any additional area that might be impacted by the application as determined by the commission". The Eagle Partners have indicated that they intend to resubmit their application on June 14,1996 and prior to any hearing regarding the same we respectively request that notice be given to 1. ALL residents of Greenhills subdivision. This request is based on statements made to the homeowners by Mr. Terry Debban, An Eagle Partner ,partner, to our homeowners association acknowledging that this request will affect all members of the subdivision. 2. ALL residents of Magic View and Locust Grove Subdivisions. In as much as the Eagle Partners have acknowledged the adverse impact this request will have on the Greenhills subdivision, it is equally apparent that it will have the same or greater impact on residents of Magic View and to a lesser extent Locust Grove subdivisions. With all due respect we believe that such notice is required in this situation and that all of these subdivisions will be "additional areas impacted by the application". We further believe that failure to properly exercise your discretion in an appropriate manner in this instance will nullify any future action of the Commission and City Council. Sinc ly your H ar R. ole cc: subdivisions ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ JUL ~ ~ t99f~ LAW OFFICE ELLIS, BROWN &SHEILS, CHARTERED P.O. BOX 388 BOISE, IDAHO 83701 'ALLEN 8. ELLIS STEPHEN C. BROWN MAX M. SHEIIS, JR '^~ ~~ ~ ~«~ July 3, 1996 Mr. Jim Johnson, Chairman Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Eagle Partners Annexation/Zoning Request EBS No. 2775.7 ~ZEI D AUG 1 GTY OF MERIDIAN ~~ 707 NORTH 8TH STREEr OFFICE rL08) 345-7832 FAX (208) 345-9564 Dear Mr. Johnson: This firm represents Eagle Partners who have applied for annexation and zoning of a parcel in Lot 1, Amended Magic View Subdivision, on Eagle Road near Meridian. This application is being handled by Bill Strite of BRS Architects. The application is scheduled for hearing before the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Q on July 9, 1996. Eagle Partners would request a deferral and a rescheduling of the hearing at the next available hearing date, which I understand is August 13, 1996. This deferral is being requested because the applicant inte~:~114,~g propa~ t~vr adjacent to the subject parcel to discuss, and hopefully resolve, some of these issues. In addition, Mr. Strite is out of town and will not be available for the July 9 hearing. Thank you for your courtesy in rescheduling this hearing. Very truly yours, ELLIS, BROWN &SHEILS, CHARTERED Stephen C. Brown SCB:km xc: Clients bxc: Howard R. Foley '~ Districts shall be amended in the following manner: CI ~ MERIDIAN 1. Requests for a zoning amendment shall be submitted to th~,e (/ Commission which shall evaluate the request to determine the extent and nature of the said zoning amendment; 2. If the adoption of a zoning amendment application requires an amendment to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan shall be amended prior to the consideration of the zoning amendment and the procedures provided in Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code, shall be followed on the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and, until the Comprehensive Plan is amended to allow the Zoning amendment, no action will be taken on the zoning amendment. 2-416 E PROCEDURES 1. The Applicant shall: a. Give notice of the hearing, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing, by certified mail to property owners within the land being considered and to owners within •three hundred (300) feet dl~ the external boundaries of the land being considered and a~l+ additot~ld .~, ; _~b~ in~acted by said application as determined by the Co' s- sori, Said notice by certified mail must be deposited with the United States Post Office at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. Said notice shall contain a vicinity map of the property, a brief statement of the nature of the application, the name and address of the applicant. When notice is required to two hundred (200) or more property owners or residents, in lieu of the mail notification, notice of the proceeding and hearing required hereby may be given by publishing the notice for two (2) consecutive weeks in~the official newspaper of the City of Meridian provided that the second notice appears ten (10) days prior to the public hearing; b. Provide the City Clerk with the names and addresses of property owners notified, a notarized statement of compli- ance and a copy of the notification; c. Pay all attorney, engineering, publishing and mailing costs incurred by the City. All such costs shall be a lien upon the land. 2. The Commission shall: a. Prior to recommending an application, conduct at least one (1) public hearing in which interested persons shall have AUG 1 3 1996 2-416 D TRANSMITTAL TO COMMISSION -73- • • an opportunity to he heard. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing, notice of the time and place and a summary of the application to be discussed shall be published in the official newspaper or paper of general circulation within the City of Meridian; b. Within forty-five (45) days from the hearing, transmit its recommendation to the Council with supportive reasons. The Commission may, however, continue the matter from meeting to meeting if it finds that it does not have sufficient information to make a decision. The Commission shall recommend that the application be approved, approved with conditions or denied. The Commission shall insure that any approval or approval with conditions of an application shall be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, this Ordinance and Stag . law; and c. Maintain a record of the hearing, findings made and actions taken. (Ord. 430, 4-2-84) 2-416 F TRANSMITTAL TO COUNCIL 1. Hearing: The Council shall conduct at least one (1) public hearing following the notice requirements contained in 11-2-416 E.2. and the applicant having given notice as required in 11-216 E.1., provided however, the applicant need only mail the notice by ordinary fast class mail and provide verification under oath as to who he mailed the notice to, each address to which he mailed the notice and that he in fact so mailed it postage prepaid in full. Also provided, that in the case of a variance which is only heard by the Council, the applicant shall follow the certified mailing procedures under 11-2-416 E.1. (Ord. 456, 9-3-85) 2. Action: No action, including the giving and publication of notice of public hearing, shall be taken by the Council until the Commission has made its recommen- dation to the Council. After receipt of the recommendation, the giving of public notice of the hearing required in 2-416 Fl, and the holding of said hearing, the Council shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the application with supportive reasons. If the council fmds that it does not have sufficient information to make a decision, it may continue the matter from meeting to meeting. The Council action to approve, approve with conditions or deny shall be made within seventy (70) days after it has all the information to make its decision or seventy (70) days from the last meeting where the application is considered if it does not state that it needs more information. In the event the Council shall approve or approve with conditions the zoning amend- ment application, the Council shall insure that said application is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, this Ordinance and State law. Said application shall thereafter be made a part of this Ordinance upon preparation and passage of a zoning amend- ment ordinance. -74- 1085 ' ' I~CEIVED - ~ ~ AUG 1 319,96 CITY OF MERIDIAH 3044 East Autumn Way Meridian, ID 83642 June 11, 1996 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, ID 83642 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: My name is Richard C. Konopacky and I reside at 3044 East Autumn Way which in is the Greenhill Estates or west of Eagle Road between Interstate 84 and Franklin Road. I am against the rezoning of the land south of the subdivision as proposed by Eagle Partners and any subsequent application to rezone from the present status (i.e., agricultural/transitional). In support of my opposition to the commercial development of the land, I would like to present information on two issues tonight: 1) the potential impact of any development on our subdivision/domestic water supply; and 2) the potential increase in noise from any development that would add to the intolerable levels of noise that exist at the present. Relative to the first issue, our subdivision has two wellheads in the far southeast lot in the subdivision (i.e., T3N R1E, Lot 1, Block 3). As proposed for the Chevron station by Eagle Partners, a total of three gasoline storage tanks with a 36,000 gallons storage capacity would be located within 100 feet of our wellhead. We do not believe that this is acceptable at any level. In an effort to determine what an acceptable distance is for our wellhead, we used the State of Idaho Wellhead Protection Plan as a planning, safety, and design mechanism or tool. As defined within the State Plan, our wells were considered "Public: Non-community, non-transient" or a public water system that is not a community system and that regularly serves at least 25 of the same individuals over 6 months of the year. Based on a review of the drill logs for the two wells, the Basic I Method or approach in the Idaho Plan, and a peak pumping rate of 100 gallons per minute, I have determined the Zone IA (i.e., sanitary setback distance), Zone IB (i.e., 2-year time of travel), Zone II (5-year time of travel), and Zone III (i.e., 10-year time of travel) setback distances for various contaminants relative to our wells. Based on the State of Idaho-endorsed wellhead protection plan, the Zone IA distance is 50 feet (i.e., no entry including sanitation); the Zone IB distance is 6,600 feet; the Zone II distance is 16,000 feet; and the Zone III distance is 32,800 feet. Zone II and III distances preclude Category 2 through 7 contaminants such as underground storage tanks for petroleum products. Based on the recommendations of the State of Idaho and our support of the plan we would ask the Planning and Zoning Commission take r ~ two actions: 1) not allow Eagle Partners or any other subsequent applicant for rezoning south of Greenhill Estates to encroach within the State of Idaho-endorsed zone distances of our wells; and 2) make the State of Idaho Wellhead Protection Plan a permanent addition to the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plans. Relative to the second issue, our subdivision is the recipient of an abnormal amount of traffic noise in that we are bounded on the south by the Federal Interstate Highway 84, on the east by State Highway 55, and on the north by county-maintained Franklin Road. The interstate is a 65 mph six-lane road, the state highway is a 50 mph five-lane road, and Franklin Road is a 45 mph three lane road. Present plans call for Eagle Road or Highway 55 to go to seven lane and Franklin Road to go to five lanes in the future. Traffic noise from the combination of the three roads reaches intolerable levels regardless of the time of the day. Eagle Road was widened in the last 6 years in order to mesh with the I-84 interchange and to relieve congestion and noise in downtown Meridian. A critical review of the Environmental Assessment developed for Highway 55 or Eagle Road expansion project shows that the State of Idaho conducted noise tests that project noise levels with the new highway and 20 years after the project was complete. Noise tests were conducted in order to use federal funds for the project. Federal not-to-exceed noise standards were provided (i.e., 67 to 70 decibels) as criteria for the project and funding. State of Idaho noise tests showed that the project would exceed the criteria. In fact, the criteria were exceeded for a distance of 500 feet on both sides of the proposed highway in some situations. None of the federally-proposed mitigation measures, such as a noise barrier, lower speeds, exclusion of large trucks, or other innovative measures were used by the state as required by the federal code relative to noise abatement. As such, we have a diminished quality of life in our neighborhood because of traffic noise that was transferred from downtown Meridian and which exceeds the federal criteria for traffic noise levels at present. The City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan states that the City will preserve the integrity of the existing residential community. In addition, the City of Meridian Ordinance No. 649 Section 8-1612A (Public Disturbance Noises) states that "(i)t is unlawful for any person to cause, or for any person in possession of property to allow to originate from the property, sound that is a public disturbance noise. Under Part B: (t)he creation of frequent, repetitive or continuous sounds in connection with the starting, operation, repair, rebuilding or testing of any motor vehicle, motorcycle, off-highway vehicle or internal combustion engine within a residential district so as to unreasonably disturb or interfere with the peace, comfort, and repose of owners or possessors of real property. Given the aforementioned ordinance, I believe that any commercial development in the lands immediately south of our subdivision will violate the ordinance and add to the noise levels that, at present, exceed the federal criteria for highway traffic noise. Based on the statements made by the City of Meridian in their Comprehensive Plan and on the letter of the law in the City Noise Ordinance we would ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to take two actions: 1) not allow Eagle Partners or any other subsequent applicant r • for rezoning south of Greenhill Estates to add to the already very noisy neighborhood that we now have as a result of the possibly unlawful use of federal highway funds; and 2) incorporate the City of Meridian Noise Ordinance into the City's Comprehensive Plan in order to protect existing residential areas, regardless if they exist on city or county lands, from excessive levels of noise that would originate from development on City lands. In addition to the two primary issues above, I believe that any commercial development south of Greenhill Estates will compromise the physical safety of subdivision residents as well as compromise their quality of life. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, C/ ~ Richard C. Konopacky, Ph.D. Attachments • • ~c~avEn AUG 1 3X96 2~'l Kavenswood I/-rCITY OF MERIDIAN Mendtan, ld. tS~64l T.µl~, 7 1 QUA J ~ Members of the Planning and Coning Committee: We, as residents of the Greenhill Estates Subdivision, take particular niter est i:! the vo::siderut3~~! of 3 public use permit, annexatio:: µ::a re`~nin~ of the land located in the NE 1/4 of Section 17, T.3N, R.IE, Boise Meridian, e,~~ r~,.,,,,~, r,a~t,,, We oppose the public use permits, the annexation and the rezoning. These actions ..ill pe~nnanently change our subdivision. The quality of living will decline as will our property value. When we purchased this home four years ago, we were unaware of any plans far commercial development on the proposed site. In fact, we were informed that zoning precluded any such development. Now, plans have been changed. Some of the changes have already occurred, and we were not notified of their potential. We, as residents in close proximity to this proposed commercial development, feel deceived by a commission that is supposed to involve the community in an overall plan which benefits the entire community. Please consider other aspects than the financial gain of just as few, for that gain will be made at the expense of others. As more people and their cars are brought into the area adjacent to our home, the traffic will increase. Increased traffic will bring crime into our neighborhood. More cars in an area where young children play, could increase accidents. The noise level will become intolerable, especially with services provided to freeway traffic on a 24 hour-day-basis. The lighting directly behind already existing residences will invade our backyards and homes. • • Have you considered these questions: Is Meridian lacking in commercial zoning? Do these proposed businesses really fit with the existing neighborhoods and the medical center? Aren't the traffic problems -especially at peak hours - in this area of Eagle Road dangerous enough? It seems to us that part of your responsibility is to make sure the integrity and quality of living is protected and maintained in already existing neighborhoods. We ask that you seriously address our concerns, so that we continue to enjoy living in a clean, quiet and safe neighborhood. Respectfully, ~ cam, ~.~ • ~EcE1V~(~ N 0 V 0 ~ 1996 ~.ITY Os MERIDIAN November 4, 1996 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, Idaho Re: Eagle Partners L.L.C. for Chevron C-store and 80 room hotel at Eagle Road & Magic View Dear Sirs, The Idaho Transportation Department has some concerns about this application since Eagle Road is a controlled access facility. Not all requests for access are approved. Approval of the access for the new street r.o.w. is a highway board decision. The request for access should be made as soon as possible to establish whether or not access will be approved or the site will need access from Magic View Drive only. This application will need to include a Transportation Impact Study. Until this access is approved by the highway board we will not recommend approval of this application for a conditional use permit. If you have any questions please call Larry Strough at 334-8339. Sincerel Tim Farrens, P.E. District Traffic Engineer JDF:LDS:Ids - An Equal Opportunity Employer - TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DISTRICT 3 P.O. BOX 8028 BOISE, lD 83707-2028 (208) 334-8300 November 12, 1996 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, Idaho Re: Eagle Partners L.L.C. for Chevron C-store and 80 room hotel at Eagle Road & Magic View Dear Sirs, I have been informed by A.C.H.D. that they will apply for the new street r.o.w. and access to Eagle Road. This includes to Transportation Impact Study that will be required. With A.C.H.D. assuming the responsibility for the access we have no objection to this application. If you have any questions please call Larry Strough at 334-8339. Si ely; im Farrens, P.E. District Traffic Engineer JDF:LDS:Ids - An Equal Opportunity Employer - 11/19/96 18:36 $208 345 7650 AC$D f~j 0O1 G~j ~n~ - k~~~t~f~,r~~~,~~ ~ //-/9-96 •a• Ea~F Owe, s ~ ~ o~~ ada county highway districfi 3tB Eosi 37tH • 9oise, lacho 83714 • Pone (208) 345-7680 DATE • ~~~/~/~~P . ~~'7- DELIVER FAX T0:___SG!/ - TITLE/DE?ARTMENT: ADDRESS: RECEIVING FAX NUMBER: CONFIDENTIAL: YES_ NOr~ TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES ~ll Including Cover Sheet FROM ADA COU~iTY HIGHWAY DISTitICT FAx NUMBER (208) 345-7650 NAME: TITLE/DEPARTMENT: ~~lT,b __ PLEASE CALL US IF YOU DO NOT RECEIYE ALL FAX TRANSACTIONS SUCCE55FULLY. (208) 345-7680. NOU 19 '96 17 23 208 345 ?650 PAGE.01 x`208 ACRD Commission Meetyng -November 13, 1996 Page 3 I~j 002 ~~ ~~ o`~~~~T y~~^~. across-the-fence value of $4.00 a squaze foot. He also wanted to reconsider the requirement for cutting off the 9th Street access. After discussion, Commissioner Bruce moved to approve the proposed vacation of the alley in Block 3, ELmended Plat, Riverside Pazk Addition, subject to the staff comments and recommendations. Commissioner Eastlake seconded. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION. MCU-19-96. NLAGIC VIEW/EAGhE ROAD -Larry Sale explained the history of subject development and the latest information from ITD not allowing the relocation of the signal to Magic View Drive. He also explained the changes that have been made to the proposed development to allow a 30-foot area between the development and the neighborhood. Phil Barber, 877 Main Street, Suite 1000, representing Jacksons Food Stores, explained the desires of Jacksons Food Stores, the developer, and the neighborhood to get the traffic signal moved to Magic View. He explained the economic impacts that would be caused to Jacksons if the new roadway is constructed. He noted that everyone involved wants the signal moved except ACRD staff and ITD. Mr. Barber stated that he had zeceived a traffic report yesterday and has not yet had time to get that information to the staff. He requested that the Commission endorse moving the light to Magic View, but in the event the ITD refuses to allow it to be moved, then the plan with the new road could be implemented. He then introduced Andrea Jackson from Jackson Food Stores. Andrea Jackson, Jackson Food Stores, asked the Commissioners for their support in joining the homeowners in the area, all the business in the area, and the taxpayers of the District, in supporting their request of ITD to move this light. Shc believes the staff' has done the best they cart with what they've been handed by ITD; that their solution may be the one that works, but she believes movirlg the light would be the most cost effective and won't interrupt the traffic and service they are providing in the area. Although the developer is building the new road, the District is acquiring the right-of--way and maintaining that road forever once it is created. The taxpayers' interest is best served by doing something cheaper. She explained that their needs are best served by the light being moved as well. She stated that their business will be devastated if any impediments are installed to Magic View for left turn only. They are asking for the District's support in their request to ITD. Much discussion followed concerning the area in general, whether or not an agreement with St. Lukes has been reached, and how this project could or should proceed. Mr. Barber noted that he believes an agreement can be reached; that St. Lukes is looking at what it would cost to have the signal relocated and pointed out the agreement of everyone in the azea involved. He further NOU 19 '96 1?~24 208 345 ?650 PAGE.02 $208 345 7650 ACRD Commission Meeting -November 13, 1995 Page 4 Discussion CC]-19-96. Magic View/Eap,~e ~Cor. ~j 003 pointed out the options the Commissioners have and suggested that the Board express its interest in the effort to move the light, but to recognize this applicant needs to move forward. He noted that the applicant has his project designed both ways and shouldn't be held up. He further explained the concerns of Jackson's Food Store. Much more discussion followed concerning the reasons staff is not in favor of moving the light closer to the freeway and the safety issues involved. Also discussed was the possibility of turn restrictions being placed by ITD at Magic View Drive at some point in the future if and when the traffic becomes unacceptable. Commissioner Eastlake expressed her concern with proceeding with this without the staff seeing the traffic study. She was wncerned that one access couldn't handle all of the traffic in that azea. She also pointed out her concern about the road going through the property located behind the current applicant; she didn't like either of the choices given the Commissioners. Mr. Bazber was not opposed to defensing this matter, but just wanted to get it settled and get the signal moved. Billy Ray Strite, 1087 River Street, representing the applicant, explained the changes they have made on their plans to accommodate either of the options with regazd to where the signal is located. He noted the time and money spent on this project and asked that the plan be allowed to proceed knowing that either plan can accommodate that future roadway. He was opposed to placing the new roadway adjacent to the back of their project and explained the reasons for that concern. He asked that the District allow this project to move forwazd. Dick Williams, 3133 Autumn Way, said he has a vested interest in this and is concerned about the proposed development and the road proposed by the staff. He explained the existing roadv~•ays accessing Eagle Road from the west side and noted the problems with traffic if another access is granted. He further explained the traffic problems that already exist and said to add another road is ludicrous. The neighborhood supports moving the signal to the south and stated that they aze requesting that this matter be addressed on a common sense basis; he explained their concerns about having roads on both sides of their homes. Mr. Williams also pointed out the hazard to their well site. He stated that adding this road is a very serious mistake and asked the Commissioners to support the movement of the light. Discussion held concerning the meetings that have taken place with ITD, the existing off-ramp and its proximity to the signal if it is moved. NOU 19 '96 1?~25 208 345 7650 PAGE.03 11/19/96 18:9 x`208 X45 ?650 ACRD 1~ ) f~ 004 t t Commission Meeting -November 13, 1996 Page 5 J" D' c ion MC - 9- View/Ea le C n 'nue Terry Little explained the reasons staff has recommended that the signal not be moved and much discussion followed. Larry Sale recommended that the Commission not act on this matter at this time and explained what would occur with regazd to access to the proposed development if the signal is moved to Magic View, He suggested that the Commission wait to take action until they know what ITD is going to decide with regazd to the signal placement. He further recommended that the District recommend to TTD that the signal not be relocated. Much more discussion followed regarding all the problems involved. Billy Ray Strite, 1087 River Street, said he would have no problem with a redesign of the access from Magic View. l-Ie suggested that the neighbor to the west be informed if a shazed access is needed. Mr. Suite pointed out that they can make it work with or without the new roadway and probably will not impact the City of Meridian's decision. A no action will raise some ire; they want to move it forwazd. Further discussion held concerning the inappropriateness of the District making a decision without all the necessary information. Commissioner Bruce moved to defer this matter to December 4, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Eastlake seconded. Motion Carried ~,nan;n,ously. Commissioner Eastlake asked staff to determine who owns the property to the immediate west and inform him/her of the potential roadway. DISCUSSION. PEPPERHIL.LS SUT3DTVTSTON, CANONERO WAY TURNAhOI_ThTT) -Larry Sale pointed out the status of the negotiations occurring between the affected property owners, and recommended that this matter be remanded to staff until such time it is settled or there is no possibility of a solution. Commissioner Bruce moved to remand this matter back to staff. Commissioner Eastlake seconded. Motion carried unanimously. APPEAL OF CURB CUT DECISION. 6624 OVERL D ROAD -Larry Sale noted that this item had been deferred to tonight in order to allow Dr. Ferch to attend the meeting. Dr. Ferch is not present. Staff recommendation is that the Commission determine that the District has no obligation to resolve Dr. Ferch's concerns and decline his request for action. Mr. Sale stated that Dr. Fereh had been notified and did have a staff report. Commissioner Bruce moved to leave this matter open until the end of the meeting to see if Dr. Ferch arrives. Commissioner Eastlake seconded. Motion carried unanimously. APPEAL. ROAD~IIJMPS ON PASADENA DRIVE -Larry Sale stated that Mr. Saplett had asked that this matter be deferred again. Commssioner Bruce moved to defer this matter for one week. Commissioner Eastlake seconded. Motion carried unanimously. NOU 19 '96 17 26 208 345 7650 PAGE.04 11/19/96 18:40 $208 345 7650 ACRD • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION MEMORANDUM Date: November 5, 1996 To: ACRD Commi io From: Larpy S e ~ ~, De~Celo ent ervices Supervisor Subject: MCU-19-96 Magic View Drive/Eagle Road Convenience Store/Fast Food/Hotel The Commission will recall that this item was deferred from a previous meeting to allow the neighboring property owners to ask the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) to relocate the traffic signal from the St. Lukes' driveway (and the location of a public roadway on the west side of Eagle Road being proposed by staff) to the intersection of Eagle Road and Magic View Drive. The attached letter from LeRoy Meyer, District Three Engineer for ITD, summarizes the recommendation of ITD staff: the signal should remain in its current location to maintain the signal spacing on Eagle Road and avoid costs and conflicts of relocating the signal to the south 34Q-feet. District staff has also received a copy of a survey that shows the accurate locations of the property lines, St. Lukes' driveway, the irrigation ditches that were discussed in the Commission meetings. A reduced copy of the map is attached. It appears that there is adequate space for the roadway and substantial buffering between the new roadway and the property line of the residential subdivision (Greenhill Estates). The map shows a 30-foot wide permanent landscaped buffer between the fight-of--way line of the new roadway and the property line separating the hotel site and the residential subdivision. The map shows that it is 225-feet from the hotel building to the south wall of the nearest dwelling. For comparative purposes, it is 243-feet from Adams Street to the south end of the ACRD building. Staff makes the same basic recommendation as previously. The attached staff report has been modified to include information received since the previous meeting. The letter from LeRoy Meyer to Dwight Bower. ITD Director is attached for your review. NOU 19 '96 172? ado county highway district 318 East 37th • Boise, Idoho 83714-649? • phone (208) 345-7b80 208 345 ?650 PAGE.05 ~ 005 SHERRY R: HUGER. President SUSAN S. EASTLAKE. vice President JAMES E. BRUCE. Secretary 11/19/96 18:40 '8`208 345 7650 ACRD - IDAIiO~RANSPORTATION D ART MENT Department Memorandum DATE: OCTOBER Z3, 1996 TO: Dwight Bower Director a FROM: LeRoy Byer District Three Engineer RE: Eagle Road/SH-55 Traffic Signal at St Lukes vs. Magic View Dr. The distance fron- ~e Eagle Interchange north ramp terminal to Franklin Road is 0.61 mile (322b f ~ =t). St. Lukes Hospital traffic signal is half way between the north ramp termina~ signal and the SH-55/Frank(in Road signal. This traffic signal was designed and constructed at St. Lukes expense. boos John Jackson, owner of Jackson's Food Stores (Gas & Grub) has requested to have this signal moved south 234 feet to Magic View Drive. This would force St. Lukes to modify their emergency entrance/main entrance. Ada County Highway District is studying a proposal to have a new street constructed on the west side of Eagle Road. This road would run from Magic View Drive,, northerly 340 feet, and then east into the Eagle Road/St. Lukes signal. Adjacent residents are opposed to this proposal. A McDonald's/Chevron gas station and athree-story hotel are proposed along this proposed new street and the developer supports keeping the signal where it is presently located. It is unknown if this development will be approved. The District staff recommends leaving the signal at its present location to maintain signal spacing on Eagle Road and avoid costs and conflicts of relocating the signal to the south 340 feet. LM/JF cc (w/attac CE/SHA DE 3 TRAF DE(E) NOU 19 '96 17=25 208 345 ?650 PAGE.06 11/19/96 18:41 $208 345 7650 ACRD OUNTY HIGHWAY DI~R.ICT ADA~ Development Services Division Developrtient Application Repott MCU-19-96/MA~-96 Eagle Rd & Magic View Dr HotellChevron/McDonald's Meridian City The applicant is requesting conditional use approval co construct an 76 room hotel, a ~,359- square foot convenience storelMcDonald's fast food restaurant, and an 800-square foot carwash. The 4.13-acre site is located on the northwest corner of Magic View Drive and Eagle Road (Highway 55) approximately 720-feet north of T-84. This development is estimated to generate 5,500 additional vehicle trigs per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual. Roads impacted by this development: Eagle Road (Hwy 55) Magic View Drive Note: This application was deferred from the Commission meeting of July 10, 1996 to the meeting of July 24, 1996 at the request of residents of the vicinity. The meeting was continued to September 11, 1996 and then rescheduled to September 25 to allow the residents to more easily attend the Commission's meeting. Where changes have been made to the original staff report, they are indicated by and shading additions. NOU 19 '96 1?~29 ACHD Commission Date -November Y3, 1996 - 7:00 p.m. 208 345 7650 PAGE.0? @ioo7 11/19/96 18:42 $208 345 7650 ACRD C~7j008 6 . `!' ~~ ~ g N l l .4= ~ I ., 7 U s ,orrs I 3 `• . ' 12 10 9 ~..' / . 2 t4 ,~3 15 " t ~ It g 4 3 Z" I • • ~( a •~ ~~_ 8 ! DRIVE I 5 6 n Q~ I 16 ~ OTC 8 7 6 5 4 3~ 2 `~ ~ ': . 9 ~ A 1 G~ ~ Cp AUTUMN ~ 17 Id M~G3 9 O. 'J~ j. 'I I ~ ~ ~.7 ' o ~ ~6' Qy%. 5Q 10 .~ ~•h 1~•. ~ ( ' 6 .. 7 w 6 ' l l ,~ ~ .~ a ~ ~S 20 I • ~ 12 13 14 I7 I a ~ G ~ /D ~= ~~\ g 14 ~ ~ ~`- i G AU T~MN _ wa•• ~, II --T-- 4 \~ i3 ~G II !0 9 8 7 6 I; 4 ? 2 i 3 ~,.~. Z , ~ ,,~ s ~ ~ I I V I •. • I ~ ~ - .ei '7 ~ •.! i a ~ ' R~ca~~E~~, '~ ~ s .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • • ~o ~ I ~~ ,• ~ 300 fr ~~• •~~~~~~ ~ I ~ ~~~3_ ~ oRiv~ ~ c ~ .,.,,~. ._.. 1 • ' 1 ~I / ;I ~ ~ i +i~~~s~~~~~~~~~ .1 ~` ~ 11 ~ ' - , 2:~ ~ ~. I ss ss ~. ^---~~. ~ -~.-, :. ~ I i ~;%f.~. -- -~ '~ ~ ~ ~ \~ ~ ~~~~ ~ - ~ ,~5 6 •'' .~ ' - -- ~ vic:wi~sr ~AP~ 1 _-.- l~ . . , .-- ' _ ~ :;'~ ~~~~' scale: 1" :300 ft, i ~`~~ ~ shy ~ ' ~~~~ r i .~'~ 1 • / NOU 19 '96 17 29 208 345 7650 PAGE.08 11/19/96 18:43 '208 345 7650 ACRD ~l 009 s•L?311H7 OtesGl'M'ICpl~l••I'3~Y~OIr-31~ ~19PId r CPC ~~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ 3119 Z310M t 3~i/~?J35 G ~nw ~ uo~ ~ ~ ~ 31013 ~~N31K~N0~ NOS .b... N~ ~~ NOU 19 '96 17 30 l ~av msu _ ~ - I a I Q '" =-======-~: l ~ III ` ill I I l 1 ~~~~ I i I ci'' l I ~1 a ~ r1~ i - ~ ~, I .•r " 13 I -_ ~ii~ l~ I I iir ~ I - 1 1 rr o I~ ;; ~ I I {~ ~ I ~' I ~ I ~,' :~ I w I I I~ I I ~~ W I - „ I '~ I ._ I I ~ I ~~~ l I ra -- ,r~ I I~-- ri I ~o ~ r i ~°_~ - r sir ~ ( ( ~ ~1 T '~ ~ ~ I I 1 I I I I ~Q ~; ~ I 1 r rr ~ ~ I (~ il~ „- ~4 I ; i I s j;; ~~s I I ~I I wI ~ t 1 ~ I ~I ~..,~....~ I ~J~ 1 1 ~ - ~ - I -~ .__ __.-~li i ~ ~ 208 345 ?650 PAGE.09 11/19/96 18:44 X208 345 ?650 ACRD ~ 010 I _ st~~toN~aY ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ •,s im~+ra ,tea ~ I N iv O O O a ~~ 1 ~1 _ ~ ~ / 1 t - 1T a+vai ~wo•~aiaau •~niaia main ~~~su . aso~ ~~• 3119 ~310M ~ 371/~3S QUO, 3e~019 37N31N3~1N07 N~/~3F' - - ---~ / ,~~. 1-~ ~ ~Ti'I ~ , ~.~, ' ~~.~' :~ ~" ;~:i . ~'~~ ;~~~? R`i ~ ' • :~4;4 ~' ` li ~~ ~ , i~:; ;. ' ' :. i ~ I ~ ~~ i 1` ~ ww ai ~.~ - - I --~.. -- MAG.~. V~E,~eJ DRIVE . ~~ I, . a) I, ~~ III D -~ i~ li 1 .~..., lti~ ~ ~~li ~~_~~ ~~ ,~ ~' T 1 I e I t ' ~_ F ~ ~ M I d ~ ~ ~J ~ ~ ~~ NOU 19 '96 1?~31 208 345 ?650 PAGE. 10 $208 345 7650 ACRD I~J011 • Facts and Findings: A. General Information Owner -Gerald & Deloris Maztin Applicant -Eagle Partners L.L.C RT -Existing zoning C-G -Requested zoning 4.13 -Acres 0 -Square feet of existing building 325 -Total lineal feet of proposed public streets 283 -Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada -Impact Fee Benefit Zone Western Cities -Impact Fee Assessment District Eagle Road (Hiehwav~5) ITD iurisdictio~ Principal arterial with bike route designation Traffic count 24,233 on 6/14/94 531-feet of frontage I38-feet existing right-of-way Comply with LTI~ for required right-of--way Eagle Road is improved with 5 traffic lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting this site. There is curb, gutter and sidewalk across from this site abutting St. Luke's property. The intersection of the entrance to St. Luke's complex and Eagle Road is signalized. Magic View Drive Local commercial street with no pathway designation Traffic count 5,600 8/14196 west of Eagle Road Traffic count 200 8/14/96 west of Jackson's Texaco 344-feet of frontage 50-feet existing right-of--way (25-feet from the ultimate street centerline) 58-feet required right-of--way (29-feet from the ultimate street centerline) Magic View Drive is improved with 30-feet of pavement with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting this site. There is curb, gutter and sidewalk across from this site abutting the recently developed gas station convenience store/drive-thru restaurant property. 13. State Highway 55 (Eagle Road) is under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation De- partment c,ITD). Application materials should be submitted to ITD for review and requirements of that Department. Contact District III Traffic Engineer Gary Moles at 334- 8340. ITD has provided a written finding that the ITD staff supports the location of the traffic signal at the St. Luke's driveway, opposite the north boundary of this property. ~1CU 1996.RL• V page 2 NOU 19 '96 17 32 208 345 7650 PAGE. 11 '8`208 345 7650 ACRD 1~J012 • . C. The site is currently undeveloped. D. District policy requires the applicant to construct curb, gutter, 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk, and pavement widening to one-half of a 41-foot street section on Magic View Drive abutting the parcel (approximately 344-feet). L-. The applicant is proposing to construct a 30-foot wide curb return driveway to Magic View Drive with 1S-foot radii located approximately 48-feet from the west property tine. There would be approximately 50-feet between the proposed driveway and the existing driveway on the south side of Magic View Drive. This location meets District policy that requires a minimum 50-foot driveway separation from Eagle Road and other driveways. F. A second 30-foot wide curb return driveway on Magic View Drive is also proposed. The driveway is shown to be approximately 105-feet from the westerly driveway (90-feet from Eagle Road) and is aligned with a driveway currently located on the south side of Magic View Drive. This proposal also meets District policy. G. Magic View Subdivision, of which this site is a part, is partially developed as a 5-acre single family subdivision. Meridian's Comprehensive Plan designates a circular area within Magic View Subdivision, which includes this site, for commercial land uses. The abutting area to the west is designated as mixed planned use development. This designation will allow a range of land uses that will generate traffic at a much higher rate than the existing development. The Destination 2015 Regional Transportation Plan identified Eagle Road as a limited access facility. This is consistent with a limited number of traffic signals (with adequate spacing between successive signals), turn channelization and restrictions at unsignalized intersections and raised median between channelized turns. Grade-separated interchanges might be anticipated at arterial/arterial intersections. St Luke's Regional Medical Center had previously requested a full access, signalized driveway intersection with Eagle Road at the existing Magic View intersection location. ITD limited that access to right-in/right-out operation and required that the signalized intersection be relocated to St Luke's north property line (opposite the subject application). The in[ersection spacing between the Eagle Road/I-84 ramp terminals and the Eagle Road/Franklin Road intersection. ACRD staff met with ITD, St Luke's staff, the neighbors and the applicant to resolve the intersection location issues. A HD STAFF FULLY SUPPO TS I'fD'S Dl~ CiSION AND THE CUR T SCGNAi. r.ocATION. Magic View Drive is only 700-fee: from the ramp terminal intersection. The existing St Luke's signal is approximately 1,200 feet from both the ramp terminal intersection and Franklin Road. Based upon recent ACRD counts of 5,600 ADT on Magic View Drive, ITD is currently reviewing the traffic volume and accident data at the Eagle Road/Magic View intersection to determine if any additional improvements are required. ACHD staff anticipate chat it will be MCU I9y6.REV Page 3 NOV 19 '96 17 33 208 345 ?650 PAGE. 12 $208 345 T650 ACRD @1013 • • necessary to prohibit left turns at the Eagle /Magic View intersection in the future. Therefore, a new public street abutting the site's northern boundary at the existing traffic signal on Eagle Road at St. Luke's is essential for full access to Eagle Road. Both the inbound and outbound left-turns have been prohibited through a restricted driveway design at the southern St. Luke's driveway intersection Eagle Road opposite Magic View Drive. The eastbound left-turn from Magic View to Eagle Road is the higher risk movement at this location and could be considered to merit consideration for future turn restrictions. Given that the existing St. Luke's signal controls traffic on southbound Eagle Road, the northbound left turns from Eagle Road to Magic View Drive may be able to operate safely without left turn access control even under much higher future traffic volumes. Examples of channelization placed by ITD in recent years aze Broadway near Beacon Street and on Chinden Boulevard near the 44th Street intersection. Both Broadway and Chinden are principal arterial streets with traffic volumes nearly twice the existing volume of Eagle Road. ITD has a policy against turn channelization in rural areas similaz to the study area. However. this policy was developed because of the hazards during snow plow operations. The subject application is the second commercial development the District has reviewed in the Magic View Subdivision within the past year. With the mixed use planned development overlay zone and the subdivision's close proximity to the interchange of Eagle Road (State Highway S~) and In[erstate 84, there is potential for total redevelopment of the subdivision, in which case~vehicular access to the existing St. Luke's traffic signal would be advantageous. Depending upon the final allocation of land uses, total trip generation at the Magic View intersection could reach 20,000 ADT at full build out of the redeveloped area. The previously approved gas station/converuience store/drive-thru restaurant generates 5,400 daily vehicle trips. The currenc application generates approximately 5,500 vehicle trips. Per staffs recommendation, the applicant is proposing to dedicate 60-feet of right-of--way (at Eagle Road) tapering to 50-feet of right-of--way for a new public street along the north side of the site. This new street will align with the entry road for St. Luke's Regional Medical Center which is currently signalized. This sweet location is approximately 500-feet north of Magic View Drive. The District intends to require the developers of property west of this site to continue the public street co the west and south to eventually connect to Magic View Drive. This new roadway will be located along the rear lot lines of three residential lots and a well lot that provides water to Greenhill Estates Subdivision (see attached map), located on about 75-acres between this site and Franklin Road. Residents of this subdivision have expressed concern about two aspects of the subject application. Those aspects include both the change of land use, over which the Highway District has no authority; and the location of the recommended new public roadway that staff believes is necessary to adequately accommodate the traffic from this area if it redevelops in accordance with Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. Staff has received a copy of a survey map that accurately depicts the location of the property boundaries, the St. Luke's driveway, the proposed site plan, and the groposed roadway. In MCU1996.REV Page 4 NOU 19 '96 1?=34 208 345 ?650 PAGE. 13 11/19/96 18:47 $208 345 7650 ACRD ~ 014 • order for the proposed roadway to align (as required) with St. Luke's driveway, the proposed roadway will need to located 30-feet south of the Greenhill Estates Subdivision property line. The irrigation ditch is on the north side of the subdivision's property line. Therefore, when the roadway is aligned there is a 30-foot wide strip that could be used for landscaping/buffering, if required by the City of Meridian. Staff recommends that the applicant be paid, froth the general fund, for the required right-of- way for the new road and that the applicant be required to construct (at the applicant's expense) a two lane street section abutting the parcel from Eagle Road to the western boundary of their parcel. The street will ultimately be constructed as a 52-foot (4-lane) street section. This development will construct the southern two lanes (24-feet of pavement) to accommodate two-way travel to his driveways. The alignment of the road with Eagle Road and the existing traffic signal should be coordinated with District staff. The Disuict intends to require the construction of the additional lanes by developers of the property to the west as that redevelopment occurs. Residents of the Greenhill Estates Subdivision have asked that the new roadway be relocated south of the proposed location at the Eagle Road/Magic View intersection. Staff believe that a new intersection with Eagle Road must be in alignment with the existing St Luke's traffic signal. However, the new roadway could intersect Eagle Road at a slight angle (e.g. less than 15 degrees). Unfortunarely, this would leave a triangle shaped strip of land north of the new roadway. This strip of land is not required for roadway construction and therefore staff would recommend against purchasing the land with District revenue. H. Eagle Road is under ITD jurisdiction; therefore, the following recommendation is made to ITD, that the public road should be aligned with the existing signal on Eagle Road and the cost for the signal upgrade should be paid by the applicant. 1. The applicant is proposing to construe[ two driveways on the new street. The easterly driveway on the new street is proposed as a 30-foot wide curb return driveway with 15-foot radii located approximately 120-feet from Eagle Road. Disuict policy requires a minimum of 50-feet between a driveway on a local road and an intersection. Staff recommends that a minimum of 100-feet of separation be provided in this case due to the volume of uaffic that is anticipated on the new street. The proposed location conforms with this recommendation. The westerly driveway on the new street is proposed as a 25-foot wide curb cut driveway located approximately 290-feet from Eagle Road. This proposal meets District policy. K. District policy normally requires a temporary turn-around at the west end of the new street. An easement for aturn-around is typically permitted by the District where the design of the site will not allow the provisions of a full circular turnaround. The western driveway will meet District requirements for a temporary turnaround if an easement is provided. The easement for the turn around should be coordinated with ACRD Right-of-Way staff. ~tCU1996.REV Page ~ NOU 19 '96 1?~35 208 345 ?650 PAGE. 14 11/19/96 18:48 ACHD $208 345 T650 L_~ • ~ 015 L. The existing transportation system will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report. If the entire Magic View Subdivision develops as projected by Meridian's Comprehensive Plan, the existing 1~1 roadway system will not be adequate to accommodate the traffic that will be generated. An additional, full access, signalized intersection will be needed to accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes. M. Residents of the Greenhill Estates subdivision have also requested that ITD staff revise the striping plan for Eagle Road to improve northbound left turn access from Eagle Road to Autumn Way. ITD staff have developed a revised striping plan and the change has already been implemented. N. This application was scheduled for a public hearing by the Ciry of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on July 9, 1996. Staff has been advised that the item was deferred by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the request of the applicant. N. The fueling stations have an east-west orientation while the overall site circulation is in a north-south direction. Internal circulation would be improved by re-orienting the fueling stations in a north-south direction. Special Recommendation to Meridian: 1. Redesign the fueling stations to orient north-south. Special Recommend to ITD: 1. Other than the public street access proposed at Eagle Road, direct lot or parcel access to Eagle Road should be prohibited. 2. The applicant should be required to construct the traffic signal modifications needed at the signalized Eagle Road driveway. MCU 1996.RL• V Page 6 NOV 19 '96 17 36 208 345 7650 PAGE. 15 11/19/96 18:49 $`2oa • • The following requirements are provided to the City of Meridian as conditions for approval: Site Specaific Requirements: Dedicate 50 to 60-feet of right-of--way for the new public street adjacent the parcel's north boundary by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permi[ (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The 60-feet width shall be at the street's intersection with Eagle Road, tapering to 50-feet at the parcel's west boundary. The owner will be compensated for this additional right-of--way from the general fund. If the owner wishes to be paid for :he additional right-of--way, the owner must submit a letter of application to the Development Services Supervisor prior to breaking ground. The District will not compensate the owner for more width than is necessary for the road construction. 2. Dedicate 29-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Magic View Drive abutting the parcel (4 additional fcet) by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or outer required permits), whichever occurs first. The owner will pQt be compensated for this additional right-of--way. Construct curb, gutter, 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk, and pavement widening to complete a 41-foot street section on Magic View Drive abutting the parcel (approximately 344-feet). 4. Comply with requiremenu of ITD for State Highway 55 (Eagle Road) frontage. Submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs fast. Contact District III Traffic Engineer Gary Moles at 334-8340. 5. A 30-foot wide curb return driveway with 15-foot radii located approximately 48-feet from the west property line shall be permitted on Magic View Drive. Provide 50-feet between the proposed driveway and the existing driveway on the south side of Magic View Drive. 6. A second 30-foot wide curb return driveway on Magic View Drive shall also be permitted approximately 105-feet from the westerly driveway and shall be aligned with a driveway currently located on the south side of Magic View Drive. 7. The new public street at the north boundary of this site shall align with the entry road for St. Luke's Regional Medical Center (30-feet south of the Greenhill Estates Subdivision properly line). The applicant shall construct the southern two lanes of a four lane roadway abutting the parcel. Curb, gutter and a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk shall also be constructed abutting the parcel. Coordinate the design of the intersection with the Districe's Development Services staff. The centerline of the new street shall be within 12-feet of alignment with the centerline of St Luke's driveway and must intersect Eagle Road at an angle between 75 and 105-degrees. MCU 1996.REV Page 7 NOV 19 '96 1?~36 208 345 ?650 PAGE. 16 11/19/96 18:50 ACHD $208 345 7650 i ~~ 8. The easterly driveway on the new street shall be permitted as a 30-foot wide curb return driveway with 15-foot radii located a minimum of 100-feet from Eagle Road. 9. The westerly driveway on the new street shall be permitted as a 25-foot wide curb cut driveway located approximately 290-feet from Eagle Road. ~ 017 10. An easement for a temporary public turn-around shall be provided at the west end of the new street. The easement shall be coordinated with ACRD Right-of--Way staff. 11. Locate the proposed sign (at the southeast corner of the site) outside the clear vision triangle for the Magic ViewlEagle intersection. Standard Requirements: 1. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACRD Development Services Supervisor. The request shall Snecif ident' each rerntirement to be recon idered and include a written expla at~fo_n of w1j, c„r ~quirement would resu t in a substantial hardship or in uixy. The written r~ ~ _S s ^1 ' be submitted to the District no later than 9:00_a.m.on~he day scheduled for ACRD Commission action Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. Reques[s 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 modiftcarion, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACRD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Development Services Supervisor within two days of the action and Shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. ?he request for reconsideration shall stzeciFcally identi , each requi ment to be reconsidered and include w itte doe mencation o~ ata chat was not available to the Commission ar the time of its orjginal decision_ The request for reconsideration will be heard by the Disvict 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 Mown as. Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. y1CU1996.Rt:V Page 8 NOU 19 '96 173? 208 345 7650 PAGE. 1? 11/19/96 18:51 $208 345 7650 ACRD • • 4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACRD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. 5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporate :ny required do .n changes. 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. f3] 018 7. 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 fram the Ada County Highway District. 8. Any change by the applicant in the platuned use of the property which is the subjecr ~f this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordin;~.:ces, 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 awaiver/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 shall 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 Development Services Division at 345-7662. Submitted by: Development Services Staff Date of Commission Action: MCU1996.REV Page 9 NOU 19 '96 1?~38 208 345 ?650 PAGE. 18 ** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT ** AS OF NOU 19 '96 18 05 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS 10 11/19 18 00 208 336 8380 EC--S 04'44" 014 101 OK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (~' //~ /u/~~~ FACSIMLc COV$A SREL? ~~G/~2~~~~~~~~~"'~/`S ` ~~~ i~~ ada county highway district 31Q Eost 3Tfn • 90ise. laano 037fa • Phone (200) 345-7680 GATE: ~i~~~Q~ ~"'T DELIVER FAX 70:~~ /~ /,~~~ •- _ TITlE/CEPARTMENT: /.rte ~.~~it-~~~ aDDRESS- RECEIVING FAX NUHBER: CONFIDENTIAL: YESi~ NOp~~ TOTAL NlJM6ER OF PAGES ~n _ Including Cover Sheet FROM ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT FAX t1UMOER (208) 345-~6S0 NAME : ~~«1~ ~~- ~- . TITCE/DERARTMENT: I~ COM`ME~NTS : '~ ~y ~ ~ ~`~ ~~ 3 6 - ~~~~ ~ PLEASE CALL l /' i SACTIOHS SUCCESSFULLY. NOU 19 '96 1?~23 208 345 7650 PAGE.02 ** TX CONFIRMAT~REPORT ** AS OF NOU 19 '9~~08 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM 11 11/19 16 07 208 336 8380 MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS EC--S 01'25" 004 102 OK L. The existing transportation system will be adequate to accotttmodate the additional traffic generated by this proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report. If the entire Magic View Subdivision develops as projected by Meridian's Comprehensive Plan, the existing 14s~1 roadway systEttl will not be adequate to aaotnmodate the traffic that will be generated. An additional, full access, signalized intersection will be heeded to accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes. M. Residenu of the Greenhill Estates subdivision have also requested that ITD staff revise the striping plan for Eagle Road co improve northbound left stun access from Eagle Road to Autumn Way. ITD staff have developed a revised striping plan and the change has already beeal implemented. N. This application was scheduled for a public hearing by the Ciry of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on July 9, 1996. Staff has been advised that the item was deferred by the Planning and Zoning Cotntl~ission ac the request of the applicant. N. The fueling stations have an east-west orientation while the overall site circulation is in a north-south direction. Internal circulation would be improved by re-orietuing the fiteling stations in a north-south direction. Special Recommendation to Meridian: 1. Redesign the fueling stations to orient north-south. Special Recommend to I'TD: 1. Other than the public street access proposed at Eagle Road, direct lot or parcel access co Eagle Road should be prohibited. ~. The applicant should be required to construct the traffic signal modifications needed at the signalized Eagle Road driveway. MCUt996.RL•V Page 6 NOV 19 '96 17=36 208 345 7650 PAGE. 15 t C] Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 4 Borup: Second • Johnson: Moved and seconded we pass a recommendation onto the City as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC; TABLED SEPTEMBER 16, 1996: Johnson: We have in our hands hot off the press revised findings of fact and conclusions of law. It would appear that there is some discussion necessary speafically with three items and some blanks to be filled in. On the copies you are working with the revisions are shown as crossed out the additions are highlighted in bold. Items number on page 27, item C, item F, and on page Item 0 require completion. Which I would suggest that we make an attempt to doing now. Borup: Do you want to take those one at a time? Johnson: Sure, starting with item C on page 27. Borup: I think the attempt on that again is the buffering from Greenhills Subdivision which seemed to be the biggest concern amongst the homeowners. I agree with the idea of buffering but as stated by the applicant the constnaction time does not lend itself to have the motel built first. I think that is what this leaves open is that does not happen then what other buffering would there be. (Inaudible) Shearer: I w~~uld think as long as that buffering strip was put in wh~3n the construction on the first buildings that as long as that is done at the same time as the first buildings that be adequate. Johnson: How would you revise this then, what would be your pleasure? Shearer: I think maybe that whole item C could be revised to read that the landscape screening will be provided along with the first building that is constructed and that would be the landscaping to the north and to the west. That would take care of the problem that we are trying to solve. Borup: The only other thing I would maybe like to add to that was just pass onto the staff, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 5 • I don't know if we could (inaudible)the biggest part of the buffering I think is going to be the height and nothing is really addressed in that other than the type of trees. I can't tell looking at the plan if they are talking about a raised berm one of the letters did refer to a berm. The landscaping, a detailed landscaping plan would show that. Can that, without us getting too specific here can that recommendation be made? Johnson: I think you can word it anyway you want. Do you have any suggestions in that area, do you understand exactly what we are trying to do here Shari? Borup: We are not talking, and I don't think that is their intention but a strip of grass with a few shrubs along there. Shearer: I think they are planning on trees and I think you are right that a berm on that nothing screening should be provided to stop head lights for people coming out of the parking lot. So that people driving out of those parking lots into that north screen that the berm will be there to block it off along with the trees. Borup: Can we get into specifics on a berm height and tree height say within five years they will be such and such? Johnson: You can do whatever you want to do. I think it should be more general. Borup: I don't know if there is a point to get too specific but that would be the intent is a berm high enough to take care of head lights plus trees or other screening that would get above the height of the house windows or something. Shearer: I think that we've in the previous paragraph said that screening shall be approved by staff and I think that they can handle that. I think they can handle that as far as the tree type and (inaudible). Borup: I think it all relates back into A and B. Shearer: So I think it is just a matter of having the screen and the berm to stop head lights. Borup: I feel comfortable with the wording then on that one. Johnson: We will go back and review these and make the correction. Item F just makes a reference to the number of storys. Shearer: I see no reason to limit them to less than 3 stories especially since we have a building across the street that is more than two but I think it is four, I am not sure. I would • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 6 agree with that too. That was their application was three I think if we didn't agree with that then the whole thing should have just been denied rather than dictate (inaudible). Johnson: Do you want to strike F then? Do you want to insert a number of stories in there? Do you want to strike it since it is part of the application as 3? Borup: I guess it would serve the same purpose either way wouldn't it? Johnson: And then item 0, it has to do with setback, building setback. Shearer: Conform to the ordinance. Borup: Setbacks are already specified in the ordinance aren't they? Crookston: There are no setbacks in that zone. Shearer: What is their proposal, I can't read it on there. (Inaudible) Twenty foot on the pool area. Borup: We are trying to determine what the present setback is. Have there been any other recommendations other than the 3 times the height suggestion? Johnson: Wayne do you recall? Crookston: There was not, that came from my discussion with Mr. Oslund. That is where that the 3 times, that is where that came from. Shearer: Can I ask, does the staff have any problem with the setbacks that were shown in the proposal? Stiles: I don't have that in front of me right now, I think one of the main issues is if there is going to be a public road there or not, we still don't know that. It is going to make a big difference if there is a public road there and if it is, if they are going.to be able to move that signal. I don't know how the negotiations have been going on that. Borup: (Inaudible) In the past month ACRD has still not come any closer to making a decision? Stiles: The last conversation I had with ACRD is they were still talking with Idaho Transportation Department whether it would be possible to move that signal to line up with Magic View so they wouldn't require the public road but I haven't heard any decision. It • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 7 doesn't comply with ITD's policy but whether they will make an exception I don't know. Borup: We are trying to determine what the width of that landscaping strip is between Greenhill, it is not readable on our plat. Stiles: The applicant's representative stated it was 30 feet. (Inaudible) Johnson: Do we have enough information that we can fill in the blanks here and do whatever you want to do on the findings of fact. Borup: We think so. Johnson: Let's summarize the three items, B, F and O and then move on. Borup: On O I would recommend the setback requirement be that as submitted by the applicant which appears to show 20 feet on the western setback on the pool area. The main part of the building has a larger setback than that. The confusion, the discussion was on the northerly setback, my recommendation would be, the building setback it appears by looking at the plat it would relate to-about 95 feet from the present property line which would be the same as submitted with a street in there. So I believe what we are saying is the setback would stay the same as what the applicant submitted with the plans showing the proposed street. If the street was removed the setback would still stay the same. The buildings would stay in the same location. Johnson: Do you have enough wording on that Mr. Crookston? Crookston: I think that I can put it in. Johnson: Item F? Shearer: Three story as submitted. Johnson: And Item C? Shearer: That the screening strips on the north and the west will be constructed at the time of the first building. Borup: I thought we were only talking about the northerly strip not west. • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 8 Shearer: Well at least the west next to the building that is being constructed be constructed at the same time because we won't want a building without that screen there. Borup: I guess 1 am fine with that. Johnson: Do you have that Mr. Crookston? Crookston: That one I don't have Borup: I hadn't heard that either, I don't know if that had been discussed previously. Johnson: That is what we are doing now. Go ahead Mr. Shearer. Borup: I am not sure, did anyone feel that was necessary to the west? Shearer: It is my understanding that the applicant would like to construct the McDonald's and the station first and if that occurs we need screening on the north which would man that we would want the landscape screen to the north to go in at the same time. I n addition the landscaping around the building being constructed, whichever one it is whether it is the hotel or the C Store or whatever, between it and the, the landscaping around that building shall be done at the same time as the building naturally which includes a screening on the west side of that particular building that is being contracted between the houses and the buildings. Borup: Are you proposing a change from that they have submitted or just the amount of landscaping screening that they have already submitted? Shearer: Well the screening that they have already submitted. Borup: (Inaudible) that wasn't showi~~g, I apologize, that wasn't showing the plat I had here. There is, unless it was removed from the second draft, I don't think it was. That sounds good to me. Johnson: I will point out under C a couple of typos and that is all in the next to the last sentence there. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I also have a question on E, this has changed several times as it states now it says there shall only be a primary entrance for the hotel, motel on the south side, I am sorry, no that is it of the structure period (inaudible). I wasn't sure what the concern was to have it on the east side which would be facing Eagle Road which is the way it is designed. • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 9 Shearer: The only place we want (inaudible) Johnson: I will agree with that. Do you want to leave that or east end in there? It has a line through it now. Any other changes or or discussions? Crookston: l just have a question, the screening is to be done at the same time of the construction of either the McDonald's or the Chevron C store whichever comes first unless the motel hotel is put in first? Shearer: With the first building, just put it that way then it is there. We do want to protect the residential. Johnson: Are we ready to move on the findings of fact? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopt and approve these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Borup: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as amended, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup -Yea, Oslund -Absent, Shearer -Yea, MacCoy -Absent, Johnson -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Recommendation for the City? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move ~~e Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the property set forth in the application be approved by the City Council for annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law and that the applicant shall enter into a development agreement prior to the issuance of a building permit. That if the applicant is not agreeable to these findings of fact and conclusions of law and is not agreeable with entering into a development agreement the property should not be annexed. Borup: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we pass the recommendation on as stated by Commissioner Shearer, all those in favor? Opposed? • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 10 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, MCDONALD'S W/DRIVE THRU, AND A HOTEL BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: Johnson: You have the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared, any discussion, any changes, corrections? Commissioner Borup, any discussion? Borup: None Johnson: Commissioner Shearer? Shearer: I have none. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup -Yea, Oslund -Absent, Shearer -Yea, MacCoy -Absent Johnson -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: The decision or recommendation to pass onto the City? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I recommend the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommend to the Meridian City Council they approve the conditional use permit (inaudible) by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law and those adopted for the annexation and zoning of the property. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass a recommendation on as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 11 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT GENERAL BY WAYNE AND KAREN FORREY: Johnson: Any discussion, corrections or deletions concerning these findings of fact as prepared? Entertain a motion for approval. Borup: Mr. Chairman I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we approve the findings of fact as prepared, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup -Yea, Oslund -Absent, Shearer -Yea, MacCoy -Absent, Johnson -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Recommendation to the City? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I recommend the Meridian Planning and Zoning hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we pass the recommendation onto the City as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: This should be a good project for the City of Meridian Mr. Forrey. (Inaudible) ITEM #8: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A JOHN DEERE DEALERSHIP BY CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT SUPPLY OFFICIALS # ~ V~r1LLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. OENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attomey HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF l~IERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding Depmstment (208) 887-2211 Motor Vehicle/Driveis License (208) 888-4443 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor October 9, 1996 Richard C. Williams 3133 Autumn Way Meridian, ID 83642 Dear Dick, GOUNGIL MEMBERS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M.ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chalnnan TIM HEPPER JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUND MALCOLM MACCOY Thank you for your letter of October 6 expressing your concern over procedures used by our Planning and Zoning Commission in handling the public hearing on the Eagle Partners LLC Conditional Use application. After reviewing our minutes for the prior three P & Z meetings, City staff and I feel proper procedure was indeed adhered to. A properly noticed public hearing was held on the Conditional Use Permit portion in August at which time all present wishing to testify were heard including yourself. Of course, if you feel, as you stated, that "additional pertinent information" should be taken, that opportunity is available to everyone at the scheduled City Council public hearing on this same application. Sincerely, - 1 ~ ___.~ m Jo P & Z Chairman cc: Wayne Crookston, City Attomey *.. f i RECEIVED OCT - 8 1996 CITY OF MERtD1AN October 6, 1996 Mr. Jim Johnson, Chairman Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission 33 E. Idaho St. Meridian, ID 83642 Dear Mr. Johnson: ex ress concern over the procedures used at the Meridian P 8t Z meeting I am writing to p e partners LLC Conditional Use Permit hearing- on Sept 16, 1996 regarding the Eagl our August, 1996 meeting as a Public Hearing. As you know, this item was addressed at y The P&Z ~n,m,ssion at that time At that time testimony was taken and comments heard. the Conditional Use decided to table the item until Septembee table and no allowtance was made for ~y of Permit hearing was never taken off of re are findings of fact and conclusion additional input. The matter was voted on t lete is comments. law without the ability of the public to comp ' e that there is additional pertinent information which should be a of thee ublic We do believ ublic record. The inability P our decision and made a part of the p you prior toy earance that the commission had to comment at the Sept 16, 1996 meeting gave~ha apwaste of time. We request that this already made up its mind and public testimony t was tabled and never brought ofd of the table be re-opei~6 r public Public Hearing tha lar meeting of the P&Z Commission on Nov 12, testimony at the next regu V ly yours, Richard C Williams 3133 Autumn Way Meridian, ID 83642 cc: Wayne Crookston, City Attorney k° , L k~ , ~~' ~ ~ ~ ~/ ~~ ~~~ C ~„c x i 9 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ` '~ 6~ ~ " ~` r L~ h ~,~J` ~ wry ~' ~~ ~• ~~~ ~s~ ~` ~ ~' . ~~ u ~,. ~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 10 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, MCDONALD'S W/DRIVE THRU, AND A HOTEL BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: Johnson: You have the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared, any discussion, any changes, corrections? Commissioner Borup, any discussion? Borup: None Johnson: Commissioner Shearer? Shearer: I have none. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written, roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup -Yea, Oslund -Absent, Shearer -Yea, MacCoy -Absent Johnson -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: The decision or recommendation to pass onto the City? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I recommend the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommend to the Meridian City Council they approve the conditional use permit (inaudible) by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law and those adopted for the annexation and zoning of the property. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass a recommendation on as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? cr. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 11 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT GENERAL BY WAYNE AND KAREN FORREY: Johnson: Any discussion, corrections or deletions concerning these findings of fact as prepared? Entertain a motion for approval. Borup: Mr. Chairman I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we approve the findings of fact as prepared, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup -Yea, Oslund -Absent, Shearer -Yea, MacCoy -Absent, Johnson -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Recommendation to the City? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I recommend the Meridian Planning and Zoning hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we pass the recommendation onto the City as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: This should be a good project for the City of Meridian Mr. Forrey. (Inaudible) ITEM #8: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A JOHN DEERE DEALERSHIP BY CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT SUPPLY Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 1996 Page 12 Crookston: The other comment that I had was that Mr. MacCoy's motion was to basically reconsider what had previously been discussed tonight I don't know whether or not it is the Commission's desire to limit it to what has been discussed tonight or whether or not you just want to open up the findings for additional review and changes. Johnson: Comment on that Commissioner MacCoy? MacCoy: I would think that we were opening them up to look at them in the proper light we discussed this evening. And if we have to make changes we make changes. to meet the criteria that we are actually talking about here. I don't think any of us are sold on the fact that what we have in front (End of Tape) Johnson: Any further discussion, we have a motion and a second to table these and rework them? Crookston: Was the motion amended? Johnson: Do you want to restate your motion Commissioner MacCoy? MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that the documents findings of fact and conclusions of law be tabled along with the additions here until the next regular meeting which is October 8. Johnson: Okay we have a motion and a second on that, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: We will take a short recess so the City Council can adjourn. RECESS ITEM #5: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, MCDONALD'S W/DRIVE THRU AND A HOTEL BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC; TABLED AUGUST 13, 1996: MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, in light of what we just have gone through with the findings of fact and conclusions I propose we table this one until we (inaudible) Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that table to what date? MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: OCTOBER 8 7996 APPLICANT: EAGLE PARTNERS LLC AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REQUEST; ri uin"~' OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ~1 CHEVRON C-STORE MCDONALD'S W/DRNE THRU AND A HOTEL AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS ~ ¢~j~ ~~ ~~ v aPP`~ ~~ re ~ ~ ~ ~ajs -~ OTHER: A!I Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. October 6, 1996 Mr. Jim Johnson, Chairman Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission 33 E. Idaho St. Meridian, ID 83642 Dear Mr. Johnson: RECEIVED 0 C T - 8 1996 CITY OF MERIDIAN I am writing to express concern over the procedures used at the Meridian P & Z meeting on Sept 16, 1996 regarding the Eagle Partners LLC Conditional Use Permit hearing. As you know, this item was addressed at your August, 1996 meeting as a Public Hearing. At that time testimony was taken and comments heard. The P&Z commission at that time decided to table the item until September. At the Sept. meeting the Conditional Use Permit hearing was never taken off of the table and no allowance was made for any additional input. The matter was voted on to prepare findings of fact and conclusion of law without the ability of the public to complete its comments. We do believe that there is additional pertinent information which should be available to you prior to your decision and made a part of the public record. The inability of the public to comment at the Sept 16, 1996 meeting gave the appearance that the commission had already made up its mind and public testimony was a waste of time. We request that this Public Hearing that was tabled and never brought off of the table be re-opened for public testimony at the next regular meeting of the P&Z Commission on Nov 12, 1996. V ly yours, Richard C Williams 3133 Autumn Way Meridian, ID 83642 cc: Wayne Crookston, City Attorney • MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: SEPTEMBER 16.1996 APPLICANT: EAGLE PARTNERS LLC AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 4 ~ 5 REQUEST; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G :CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON CSTORE MCDONALD'S WITH DRNE THRU AND HOTEL AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: tD ~rhr"`~~ c Cif"°I ~~ OTHER: COMMENTS 0c~ v~~ h~~ ~ ,~, All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • ~CEIVED AUG 2 7 1996 ~ Chevron (QTY OF MERIDIAN Gateway Chevron August 15, 1996 Meridian Chevron Westgate Chevron Treasure Valley Chevron Westpark Chevron Jim Johnson, Chairman P.0. Box 329 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meridian, ID 83642 City of Meridian Phone 208 345 7731 33 E. Idaho Ave. Fax 208 323 8702 Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission meeting August 13, 1996 Dear Mr. Johnson: Thank you for your consideration of our request for annexation, zoning, and conditional use permits for the proposed businesses at the Eagle Interchange. There are many reasons the permits should be granted, and I would like to assure the Council further that it is not our intention to infringe upon the character of the community or disrupt the neighborhood in which the proposed station would be built. In particular, I would like to address the comments made by Mr. Greg Oslund of the P&Z Commission regarding the character and quality of Chevron Food Marts. My family has resided in the Treasure Valley for several generations, and my grandfather even lived in the city of Meridian for many years. I have spent my entire life in Meridian and Boise, and feel that I am sensitive to the character of the community and the concerns of its residents. I was offended by Mr. Oslund's disrespectful attack on the motives of my business. From the nature of his comments, I don't get the impression that Mr. Oslund has visited any of my stations. For an idea of what we are proposing to build, I encourage you to visit the Airport Chevron in Boise. I think that anyone who has a negative image of C-stores will be pleasantly surprised at the cleanliness, attractiveness, and quality of our operation. All of my stations and parking lots are thoroughly cleaned on a daily basis, and the landscaping is well-maintained year round. In addition, you could visit the Meridian Chevron (at I-84) and Locust Grove Chevron (opening August 26) for an idea of the high quality of services offered by a well-run Chevron Food Mart. As far as employees are concerned, I strive to hire the best qualified and highest quality applicants. I offer much more than minimum wage, including the opportunity for advancement and numerous incentive programs that motivate my employees to offer exceptional customer service. There are quite a few people who live in the Meridian area who appreciate the opportunity to work in their own community, rather than commuting to Boise or facing unemployment. I cannot see how it can be detrimental to offer solid employment that encourages hard work and responsibility in our community members. Meridian is understandably experiencing some growing pains. However, the growth should be recognized as positive, since it means the community is not stagnating•or dying off. Our modern society demands faster and more convenient services, such as the restaurants, gas stations, and motels located near the interstate. These businesses would not survive financially without the demand for their products and services. Mr. Jim Johnson August 22, 1996 Page 2 • • Our Chevron Food Marts aze not eyesores, nor aze they designed and operated in such a way that they are disruptive to residential neighborhoods and offensive to the community. We aze proposing to enhance the community of Meridian by offering high quality services that aze in high demand, and will gladly accommodate the needs of the azea. If it is at all possible, I would like to take just half an hour of your time, day or night, to give you a tour of my stations. I know you will find it worthwhile and reassuring. Thank you again for your consideration. I hope to hear from you soon. Sincerely, . ~a~~ Steve Eddy Chevron Dealer SRE/mb cc: Will Berg Greg Oslund WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. GASS, Clty Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS, Flre Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding D~artment (208) 887-2211 Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor August 28, 1996 Mr. Steve Eddy Chevron P.O. Box 329 Meridian, ID 83642 RE: Your letter August 15 / P & Z Meeting August 13 Dear Mr. Eddy, COUNCIL MEMBERS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman TIM HEPPER JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUND MALCOLM MACCOY Thank you very much for taking the time to write to me regarding your application. I appreciate your comments and empathize with your concerns. Please let me tell you that Commissioner Oslunds' remarks fall into the category of personal philosophy and do not represent my views or the consensus of the Planning and Zoning Commission. It is not now, nor has it ever been the policy of the City or of our Commission to address applications from the perspective of quotas with regard to entrepreneurial ventures into Meridian. As officials of the City we are fully cognizant that business successes and failures are dictated by the market. We are also aware of the contributions made to our infrastructure through taxes paid by enterprises such as yours. We are grateful for that. As a Chevron cardholder for over 27 years I concur that your facilities are attractive and an asset to our community. Sincerely, Jim` . Jo nson hairman, mg & Zoning Commission 08-28-1996 09~18AM I FROM ALL-Rh1ERICRN INS. • ~ 8.28+.96 i ~; I :~ ~' ~~ ' i ~ ~~ ii i; ~i I `, i II1 ~ i1 1 ~ ~ !1 i , 1. ~ ~; 1 1: 1' ~ i I1 ~ 1 i Mr. Steve 8ddy Chevron P.O,' Box 329 Meriidian, Id 83642 ~,v o~S TO 8874813 P.01 • r--_-D a+M~_ {~' r ~'~ i i ` i ~Re: Your letter August I5 / P&Z Meeting August 13 ~ i Dear Mr. Bddy, ;Thank you very much for taking the time to ~rito tome regarding . your; application. I appreciate your comments and ejnpatluze with your' concerns . ; Please let me tell yuu that Commissioner Oslunds remair)rs fall into ~the~category of personal philosophy and do not repre~ent my views nor t_;he consensus of the Planning ~ Zoning Commission,. ~It is not now, nor has it ever been the policy of the City or of ~our'Commission to address applications from the perspective of (quotas with regard to entrepreneurial ventures into Meridian_ ~As officials of the City we are fully cognizant that business successes and failures are dictated by the market. i We are also iaware of the contributions made to our infrastructure through the taxes paid by enterprises such as yours. We are grat~ful for that_ a Chevron cardholder for over 27 years I concur that your ,facilities are attractive and an asset to our couanua~ty. '~ ~ !,Sincerely, Jim ~ _ Johns I {i 1 4 ~ 1 i 1 I i ~ ' 1 I 1 I TOTAL P.01 AUG 28 '96 10 32 PAGE.01 t 9 • E ~ ~ ~~~z~D AUG 1 3 1996 NOTICE OF HEARING Ci1'Y 0 ERIDIAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., on June 11, 1996, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Eagle Partners L.L.C., for annexation and zoning of approximately 4.13 of land located in the NE 1/4 of Section 17, T.3N, R.1 E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located at the Northwest corner of Eagle Road and Magic View Drive. The Application requests a zone of C-G. A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 23rd day of May, 1996. ~~ ~ R~ERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR • • r NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., on June 11, 1996, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Eagle Partners L.L.C., for a Conditional Use Permit application for land located in the NE 1/4 of Section 17, T.3N, R.1 E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located at the Northwest corner of Eagle Road and Magic View Drive. The application requests a conditional use permit for a Chevron C-store with gas pumps and detached carwash, McDonalds with drive-up window (same building as Chevron C-store) and 80 room hotel with pool and patio. A more particular.legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available far 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 ±his 23rd day of May, ', 996. ;~ l~ l - ERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR ~i I~ ~ T ~:~o 6 R~ ~~_ ~~~.4_ I 7 L'J 5 _orr~ 2 15 II ~ 13 4 3 2 I ~ ' ~ 1 ' ' DRIVE ~ 1 8 ° ^_ 5 6 c i J Q O 16 I, °p 8 7 6 5 4 3~ 2 ~~ ~. TF ~ 9 ' O AUTUMN ~ 17 Id ~~G~ 9 O. t , Q 7 0 3 ~6. 4y;~ w• to .~ .~ k, ~ ~ _ v: 15 '• r 7 _ u . E { { r-- y~~ .® a !5 IS ~S 20 ~ 12 13 t 17 a _- ~~ ''I ~~\ 5 14 ~_ 4 G I ~, G ~ AU rtJMN WA" a ~ i3 `I T 2 I ~i 2 3 ~.,\ I ~ ~ ~ so. ~ I _ Z !. _ ~ ,~, i + ~, , .~~~ ~ : . • 4 ,;os,~ '~ -_._ u ~, Ji t W __- .~ ~. 300 ft. i I ++~~ II ,~ i~ _ .__ 1! . 6Et~ .~ wQ~ _ ._ ~~--~ S ; _ __ ___ __ -. I ~~ _ _~~~__ /~ // / 1/ICINITY Ma-P~ _~~ scale: 1" :300 ft. ! ~ + ~, _ ~"' I ~. ~. 9a5~ b~ ~CUr C-Omrnurl ~ w~~ I ~ R.t1~n J~ lY ~'y'~ [G r iN~~ 5 ~~ - o ~ i ~ fC - ~e ~ n tti i nfG cu Y ~,nc~Pase Y1JlS•Q, ^ U~n ~yD ~,~ht~ 1-~c r eas e ~tra~~ G N m ~~ G~ i ~ !N A li S !e ~~ I ~ ~_ l _ _ ~.,,.• _ _MAGIG VIFs4U p IVE I I I L N.;-I~ i f i i .T ... o~ 11 T i I ~1 J I I ~J Imo. I O~I~ i ~ 1-- I ! I a~g j i -~ -~ -, j~ I I I Ea ~ ,I ~ ~-~ i I ~ -1. 1 ~ 1T, 'i ~`~I j I ~iI ~ ~~ ~ ~! ! I ~ 'I ~ ^j ~ ~ji 1 T I ' ~ ; I ~ I F" g ~~i ;~ i 1 ~ ~t I I ~ _ j i ~l, i i I ~~ I lip ~ i~~-~~ I ! ~ I I r I '~ ~ ~ - --y' m ,r ,J J i~~,~ ~ - O ah% --~ I ~~ ~'I---,- -- -- -- I "- . y ; 1 t 1. I i F j l I 1 F) I i ` I ~ 1i I I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j' I 1 ~ ~ '' ~1T g ~ o, 1 j I I ~I I I ~ i ~ "'s ~ i \ I I ~ I `I ~ ~ l T~~~ l t~ ~~~~a ~ I ;,I ~ ~~ ~i . , _. 1 ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ,~ I I r - - - - ~ - - !~W" 0 7 li 4 ~ .. . a~a~.~-~r ~? `• Lt~ ~ ~` F ~ ~ ° ~ ~ i! g N ~' R ~ A Cf-IEVRON C~ONVENIENGE STO!$ t PODD 5ERVIGE • • MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: JULY 9.1996 APPLICANT: EAGLE PARTNERS LLC AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 11 REQUEST; REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C~.STORE. MCDONALDS W/DRNE THRU AND AN 80 ROOM HOTEL GA ENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS "REVIEWED" SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ql~ ~~~,, SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS P ~~~~3,~ OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~ ~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DIST Development Services D'visio Development Applicatio ort MCU-19-96/MA-4-96 Eagle Rd & Magic View Dr Hotel/Che~ Meridian City ~~ ~- ~ld's The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to'cons 76 room hotel, a 5,359- square foot convenience store/McDonald's fast f urant•, ~ 800-squaze foot cazwash. The 4.13-acre site is located on the ~ ~ er . agic View Drive and Eagle Road (Highway 55) approximately 72. feet ndrth~t~ ~~~ .This development is estimated to generate 5,450 additional vehicle tri per ~~ ased on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generat~ii- mantel . x .. Roads impacted by this development: 'r Eii~le .Road (Hwy 55) Magic View Drive ~,~,E~v~C~ u 'I~b"~~ 'f- {ul~~~i~fAP~ ACHD Commission Date -July 10, 1996 - 7:00 p.m. ranklin Mag(~ Vew St. Luke's RMC Entry Road O L ^^`` W W w e s R.I N i i ~_ .. 5 •~•4. ~ ~ •._ 7 ~ 5 o:~rf. 9 ~3 .. 15 I I 8 4 3 2 °. 1 ~ t3 < <° 8 ° Z .5 .: 6 ~ ~ DRIVE I _ ~ 0 Q 16 pp0 8 7 6 5 4 3~ 2 ~ ..:: 9 .. ~. O AUTUMN 17 Id nw 9 `, . c Q .7 :6, 7 ~ 6 . II `;~ ~;~~ 4 > .5 IS 20 :• :Q C iS _ , 14 12 13 t4 17 p .~ . ~ ~ ~\ 5 ti i.. • ~ \ `' AUTUMN _ WA" 3 4 ~\ i3 i~ II !0 9 8 7 6 i 4 ? ~ 2 `.. ~ 3 So. /+~ •~ c C Jr ~ ~ ~ '~ ' ~O t I ~ ' } ~ 300 ft. ~ (aa f,' ~ k VI p /:.-, DRI vE ~ ,,~ ~ _~s: ~ _ I ;,, / ~i L~K-~S ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ , ..: S' ~' • i~ .. ' ~ .c*~ • r• ~ ~ r ~~.. ~ , 7 2;~ ~ .r _ s ~,~: _._ , ^`-- 5 ~~-- l ,~ ~. ~ ~ i ~\ /~-'~~VICINITY MAP ~ ~ ~ _ ~_ ~ scale: 1" :300 ft. ! ~ ~~ • Q -.. ~ ~~ f1~3LH~MY or+sai'N-iaaa.+'anira main ~ asor nvsa ~ ~ Al °°~ ° ° ~,f ~ 3119 7310M ~ 371 39 OOOd ~ ~ ~ v aen m ~ ~ 1 ~ 3x1019 37ppIN311N07 NiDa1~~ i ~. .` .~ ~ i 4 ~ ~ I ~ I I I '~ 13 Ip ~I yy 'IL I ~I I .~~ WI Gt o= ~ l _ - -- ~! ~ ~ i I ~~, ; '~ os~~a~ ; i ~, ~ a ~~, `~ I li i ~~ ~ ~~~~, i3 6. ~, ~ .I ----- " -£---~--~I-~~- V ~~ ~ ; ; I 4 ~ Q M u ~n o[ V S Y ~~~ :; -•- r ~ ~ ~~ ~ --~--- '~ i /~~ ~. `~. F~ ~ =1 ~ ~ i t ~ •i_ L S ~ i ~ ~ 4 ~~~~ U ~ F ~~~ ~ ~~ ~i SS ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~i~ gg~i ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ S_E '~ J ~_ ® ~ --++a~..af. r• f• Pere! se!!R ---- • m Facts and Findings: ''' ~~ z~ ~~~ A. General Information Owner -Gerald & Deloris Marlin Applicant -Eagle Partners L.L.C ~~' RT -Existing zoning ,.~ C-G -Requested zoning -~''°~" .y~ ~~,~, „~ 4.13 -Acres 0 -Square feet of existing building ~ -~ 325 -Total lineal feet of propospubli'streets.;~ 283 -Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada -Impact Fee Benefit Zone Western Cities -Impact Fee Assesnt District Eagle Road (Highway ~Sl ITD i>.~risdiction Principal arterial with bike .route designation Traffic count 24,233 on 6/14/94 531-feet of frontage 138-feet existing right-of--way Comply with ITD for required right-of--way Eagle Road is improved with 5 traffic lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting this site. There is curb, gutter and sidewalk across from this site abutting St. Luke's property. Magic View Drive Local commercial street with no pathway designation No traffic count available 344-feet of frontage 50-feet existing right-of--way (25-feet from the ultimate street centerline) 58-feet required right-of--way (29-feet from the ultimate street centerline) Magic View Drive is improved with 30-feet of pavement with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting this site. There is curb, gutter and sidewalk across from this site abutting the recently developed gas station/convenience store property. B. State Highway 55 (Eagle Road) is under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation De- partment (ITD). Application materials should be submitted to ITD for review and requirements of that Department. Contact District III Traffic Engineer Gary Moles at ~34- 8340. C. The site is currently undeveloped. MCU1996.WPD Page 2 ~~~", D. District policy requires the applicant to construct cur(}'gutt` wide detached concrete sidewalk, and pavement widening to one-half of a 4.~~-foots }a~ e" ~m on Magic View Drive abutting the parcel (approximately 344-feet). ' E. The applicant is proposing to construct a 30-foot w eturn driveway to Magic View Drive with 15-foot radii located approximately 4 eet " ;_ a west property line. There would be approximately 50-feet between the gresed drlve~ay;`-and the existing driveway on the south side of Magic View Drive. Dist~~~equires a minimum 50-foot driveway separation in this location. ' i~ it.:.',r. w F. A second 30-foot wide curb return,iveway on Magic View Drive is also proposed. The driveway is shown to be approximately 105-feet fiom the westerly driveway (90-feet from eagle Road) and is aligned with a driveway: currently located on the south side of Magic View Drive. This garoposal meets District policy. G. Per staff's recommendation, the applicant is proposing to dedicate 60-feet of right-of--way tapering to 50-feet of right-of: way for a new public street along the north side of the site. The street will align with the entry road for St. Luke's Regional Medical Center which is currently signaliz~+ci. This street location is approximately 500-feet north of Magic View Drive. Thee-District intends to require the developers of property west of this site to continue the public street to the .west and south to eventually connect to Magic View Drive. Magic View Subdivision, of which this site is a part, is~ partially developed as a 5-acre single family subdivision. Meridian's Comprehensive Plan designates this area for mixed use planned developments. The subject application is the second commercial development the District has reviewed in the Magic View Subdivision. With the mixed use planned development overlay zone and the subdivision's close proximity to the interchange of Eagle Road (State Highway 55) and Interstate 84, there is potential for total redevelopment of the subdivision, in which case vehicular access to the existing St. Luke's traffic signal would be beneficial. Staff recommends that the applicant be paid, from the general fund, for the required right-of- way for the new road and that the applicant be required to construct a two lane street section abutting the parcel to the western boundary of their parcel. The street will ultimately be constructed as a 52-foot (4-lane) street section. This development will construct the southern two lanes (24-feet of pavement) to accommodate two-way travel to his driveways. The alignment of the road with Eagle Road and the existing traffic signal should be coordinated with District staff. The District intends to require the construction of the additional lanes by developers of the property to the west as that redevelopment occurs. H. Eagle Road is under ITD jurisdiction; therefore, the following recommendation is made to ITD, that the public road should be aligned with the existing signal on Eagle Road and the cost for the signal upgrade should be paid by the applicant. MCU 1996. WPD Page 3 I. The applicant is proposing to construct two drivew nth eet. The easterly driveway on the new street is proposed as a 30-f ide curhi 'veway~ with X15-foot radii located approximately 120-feet from Eagle Ri~ad. District po~~ey>xegtYires a miinimum of 50-feet between a driveway on a local road an ~~ ` rsection. Staff recommends that a minimum of 100-feet of separation be provided in ue to the volume of traffic that is anticipated on the new street. The proposed 1 do with this recommendation. ~~j J. The westerly driveway on the new street ' a 25,-loot wide curb cut driveway located approximately 290-feet from Eagle Road. ;> posal meets District policy. k,: ' K. District policy requires a temporar~ttirn-around at: a west end of the new street. An easement for aturn-around is typically periitted the District where the design of the site will not allow the<grovisions of a full circul~rautnaround. The western driveway will meet District requirements'for atemporary turnaround if an easement is provided. The easement for the turn around mould be cohrdia~ted with ACRD Right-of--Way staff. N. The fueling stations°have-an east-west orientation while the overall site circulation is in a north-south direction. Internal circulation would be improved by re-orienting the fueling stations in a north-south direction. L. The existing transportation system will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report. M. This application was scheduled for a public hearing by the City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on July 9, 1996. Special Recommendation to Meridian: 1. Redesign the fueling stations to orient north-south. Special Recommend to ITD: 1. Other than the public street access proposed at Eagle Road, direct lot or parcel access to Eagle Road should be prohibited. 2. The applicant should be required to construct the traffic signal modification needed at the Eagle Road driveway. The following requirements are provided to the City of Meridian as conditions for approval: Site Specific Requirements: 1. Dedicate 50 to 60-feet of right-of--way for the new public street adjacent the parcel's north boundary 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. MCU 1996. WPD Page 4 ~ • ~~ The 60-feet width shall be at the street's intersectio d, taperingto 50-feet at the parcel's west boundary. The owner will be co pensat~' `~~additional right-of--way from the general fund. If the owner wishes to be paid far the additi©nal~ right-of-way, the owner must submit a letter of application to the De ~~ ent Services Supervisor prior to breaking ground. 2. Dedicate 29-feet of right-of--way from the ce ~' of Magic.; w Drive abutting the parcel (4 additional feet) by means of recordation, ubdlvision plat or execution of a ,;~ warranty deed prior to issuance of a building ~ ~:c~~tlter required permits), whichever occurs first. The owner will ~ be c~impe fozis additional right-of--way. 3. Construct curb, gutter, 5-foot wide`~detache+d concrete sidewalk, and pavement widening to complete a 41-foot .street section on Magic View Drive abutting the parcel (approximately 344-feet). Y- 4. Comply with requirements of ITD for State Highway SS (Eagle Road) frontage. Submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Contact District III Traffic:Engineer Gary Moles at 334-8340. 5. One 30-foot wide curb return driveway with 15-foot radii located approximately 48-feet from the west property Iine shall be permitted. 50-feet between the proposed driveway and the existing driveway on the south side of Magic View Drive shall be provided. 6. A second 30-foot wide curb return driveway on Magic View Drive shall also be permitted approximately 105-feet from the westerly driveway and shall be aligned with a driveway currently located on the south side of Magic View Drive. 7. The new public street at the north boundary of this site shall align with the entry road for St. Luke's Regional Medical Center. The applicant shall construct the southern two lanes of a four lane roadway abutting the parcel. Curb, gutter and a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk shall also be constructed abutting the parcel. 8. The easterly driveway on the new street shall be permitted as a 30-foot wide curb return driveway with 15-foot radii located a minimum of 100-feet from Eagle Road. 9. The westerly driveway on the new street shall be permitted as a 25-foot wide curb cut driveway located approximately 290-feet from Eagle Road. 10. An easement for a temporary public turn-around shall be provided at the west end of the new street. The easement shall be coordinated with ACRD Right-of--Way staff. 11. Locate the proposed sign (at the southeast comer of the site) outside the clear vision triangle for the Magic View/Eagle intersection. MCU 1996. WPD Page 5 ~i .~ A 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 Developm ices Supervisor. The request shall --- ACHD Commission action. Those items s~a~l~ b~~eduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. r a" ~, ri Requests submitted to the District after 9:OQ 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'bn';by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACRD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made' in writing to the Development Services Supervisor within two days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The request for reconsideration shall of data that was not available to the Commission at the ti_nne 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 construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. 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. 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. 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 MCU1996.WPD Page 6 ~ • 8 applicant to obtain written confirmation of any Chan ~ ~~ • om' ~~ County Highway ,~ District. ~ ~~;: ,, Any change by the applicant in the planned use of: - perty which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply _ les, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in ' orce`~ .time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway Dis~~~af its inter change the planned use of the subject property unless awaiver/variance.a~btF `~ equirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time. ~ `e cl%a~ge, in use is sought. ._, Conclusion of Law: ~ `~ ~~:~ 1. ACHD requirements shall 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 Development Services Division at 345-7662. Submitted by: Development Services Staff Date of Commission Action: MCU 1996. WPD Page 7 ~ ~ RECEIVED HAW LEY TROXELL EN N IS & HAWLEY LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP OF ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS 877 MAIN STREET, SUITE 1000 POST OFFICE BOX 1617 PHILLIP M. BARBER BOISE, IDAHO 83701-1617 TELEPHONE (208) 344-8000 EMail: PMB@hteh.com FACSIMILE 1208) 342-3829 February 28, 1997 LeRoy Meyer Idaho Transportation Department District 3 8150 Chinden Boulevard P.O. Box 8028 Boise, Idaho 83707-2028 Re: Application to Change Location of Tra, fJic Signal Deaz Mr. Meyer: MAR - 3 1997 O~ J~~~ I am writing as counsel for Jackson~+ Fo Stores and For John Jackson. Thank you for your letter of January 9, 1997. I have today filed our application for relocation of the traffic signal located at the intersection of St. Lukes driveway and State Highway 55 to the intersection of Magic View Drive and State Highway 55. I understand that we will be meeting on Mazch 10 to discuss this application and some of the underlying issues relating to the prospect of relocation. Thank you for arranging that meeting. It was my understanding that the traffic analysis issues which aze set out in your letter of January 9 did not have to be met in the application itself. I confirmed that understanding in my telephone conversation with Jeff Miles yesterday. It is our intention to meet and confer with the District 3 staff in order to develop a better understanding of both the questions and our answers. Needless to say, we are quite confident that we are able to support moving the subject traffic light. It is probably appropriate to respond to some of the items in your January 9, 1997 letter on a preliminary basis now, however, just to avoid misunderstanding. As you saw from our application to the Boazd submitted last fall, we fully understand that St. Lukes' agreement is contemplated by all parties. We also understand how responsibility for the costs for the relocation will be allocated. And we understand, we believe, the essential elements of the regvared traffic study. 877 MAIN STREET, SUITE 1000 371 WALNUT AVENUE 333 SOUTH MAIN STREET POST OFFICE BOX 1617 POST OFFICE BOX 297 POST OFFICE BOX 100 BOISE, IDAHO 83701-1817 KETCNUM, IDAHO 833400297 POCATELLO, IDAHO 83204-0100 TELEPHONE (208) 344-6000 TELEPHONE (208) 728-1700 TELEPHONE (208) 233-0846 FACSIMILE (208) 342-3829 FACSIMILE (208) 726-9743 6:\CESi16~IB9W1l4V2flYBMIB'9i'J~11304 • HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS &~AWLEY LLP There aze some elements of that letter, however, which caused us concern. There is an implication that ACRD must concur on a traffic study in this instance. I do not understand that such concurrence is legally or functionally required. Certainly, we expect that District 3 staff will continue to confer with ACHD staff on highway improvements in Ada County. As a citizen of Ada County, I applaud that improved level of cooperation. In this instance, however, we have found that the ACHD staff has been remarkably obdurate both in its resistance to our proposal and its insistence on the creation of a new street which has been documented as unwanted by literally everyone involved excepting ACHD staff. In light of that history, while it may be possible to obtain ACRD Board concurrence in ultimately relocating the traffic signal, requiring ACHD concurrence on the traffic study, primarily a technical task involving a staff which has been extraordinarily resistant up to now, would appeaz to have created a condition known to be virtually impossible to meet. In other words, that would be a set-up for failure! We object to that condition, both because it is not legally required and because it is tainted from the outside. Much of what I have said above applies to the apparent condition at the top of the second page of your letter: "Correspondence from A.C.H.D. explaining the plans for the proposed new street or the abandonment of this concept will be required." Once again, I can only say that the "proposed new street" has been vigorously and adamantly opposed by every party involved in the azea, including a unanimous Meridian City Council, and that ACRD staff has been less than cooperative. Finally, I was somewhat disheartened to read the last pazagraph of your letter. It seemed to contain a level of prejudgment which I had not expected. I am sure that you were only seeking only to be fair in your commentary, and that we will be able to discuss the issues, whether political, economic, engineering, or legal relating to this application, objectively. Again, we look forward to the meeting on Mazch 10 and we thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, HAWLEY~'ROXEI,L~11~TIS& HAWLEY Barber cc: John Jackson Dick Williams ,ayQr,.~o1a me Steve Brown .._. Jeff Bowes John McCreedy Dave Zielinski c: ~aipmosze9~oiz~~~~~r~u. of • HAWLEY TROXELL EN N IS &HAWLEY LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP OF ATTORNEYS ANO COUNSELORS 877 MAIN STREET, SUITE 1000 POST OFFICE BOX 1617 PHILLIP M. BARBER BOISE, IDAHO 83701-1617 EMail: PMB@hteh.com TELEPHONE (208) 344-8000 FAC8IMILE (208) 342-3829 February 28, 1997 Idaho Transportation Deparhnent District 3 8150 Chinden Boulevard P.O. BOX 8028 Boise, Idaho 83707-2028 Attn: Nick Brizzi Re: Application to Change Location of Traffic Signal Dear Mr. Brizzi: With this letter, I am enclosing our application for relocation of the traffic signal presently located at Highway 55 and St. Lukes Regional Medical Center driveway to Highway 55 and Magic View Drive in Meridian, Idaho I have also enclosed a copy of my letter of this date to LeRoy Meyer which is in response to his letter of January 9, 1997. .Please provide confirmation that the enclosed application/warrant has been filed. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, WLEY OXEL S 8c HAWLEY ~.~- Phillip .Barber cc: John Jackson (w/enc.) Dick Williams (w/enc.) Steve Brown (w/enc.) ) Jeff Bowes (w/enc . _,__, John McCreedy (w/enc.) Dave Zielinski (w/enc.) SUITE IOOGLeRoy Meyer (w/o en~)I WALNUT AVENUE 677 MAIN STREET 333 30 UTH MAIN STREET , F'03T OFFICE BOX 297 POST OFFICE BOX 1617 Jeff Miles (w/o enc POST OFFICE BOX 100 . 8013 E, IDAHO 83701-1617 K TCHUM, IDAHO 833400297 POCATELLO, IDAHO 83204-0100 TELEPHONE (208) 344-6000 TELEPHONE (2081 726-1700 TELEPHONE (2081 233-0846 FACSIMILE (2081 342-3829 FACSIMILE (208) 728-9743 FACSIMILE (208) 233-1304 0:\CLIENT\06209\012\LETTER\ITD.OI iTD-210,9 3/91 ' 27-152600-6 Sep: Traffic Manual Project No. APPLIC~ON AND PERMIT TO USE RIG)~F WAY APPROACHES AND OTHER 12-450 To MP ~ i _ ~n6 Station to Station S No. Route S H 5 5 c o Eagle Road and Magis view Drive Fee S Distance from Nearest Town OR Jct. Inspection Fee Required _ 3 Performance Bond Required _ 3 Type Access Control Board Minute Entry Date Quantity Width ft. Est. Volume Posted Speed _ Sight Distance: Left ft. Right ft. Type-Residence,Commercial,Field,other etc. Culvert: Size: in. Length: ft . Explain Other/ ~ ~ .,.: _ . .. Business Type: ~'~Retocate ~ Traffic Sianal ``~ ~"~~ - ~~'~'~ ~ ~ ^` "~~`- ~ f A PLAN OF PAOPOS)® NORR A1~ID APPLICAiffi.B TRAFFIC COiliTRDL P1AliS MJST Bg ATtAClEii®. ~ _ Special Provisions: 1 .) Applicant will remove the existing traffic signal at St. Luke`:Merr".dian Medical Center entrance. 2.) Applicant will install a traffic signal at the intersection of Magic Drive and Eagle Road. I certify that I am the owner or authorized representative of the proposed property to be served and agree to do the work requested hereon in accordance with the general requirements printed on the reverse side, the special provisions and the plans made a part of the permit. This permit shall be void unless the work herein contemplated shall have been completed before Company and Address .: Y.aacksorr°-Food Stores (;2,pg) .RRR ~-fidf1-! ~!! ICS/T l~~~~ 3500'~Commrcial Court p 'Meridian I D 83642 -_. lIiT ~!~!t f2! iIC/l!~!i •f ~~i~~tIii~ L~!li~s~f~tlt~ ~lT~ Subject to all terms, conditions and provisions shown on this form or attachments, Permission is hereby granted to the above named applicant to perform the work described. ...__ ~ Local Government Approval When Required By: Entity Title ~ State Highway Administrator By : - District Engineer Date * IF FEE ASSESS®, PERMIT IS NOT VALID UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY RECEIPT (DH-1958) ITD-2109 3-91 (Reverse Side) ~NERAL REQUIREMENT 1. Approaches shall be for the bona fide purpose of securing access end not for the purpose o! parking, conducting business, or servicing vehicles on the highway right of way. 2. No revisions or additions shall be made to an epproaeh or its appurtenances on the right of wey without the written permission of the Department. 3. The permittee shall furnish all material, labor, end equipment involved in the construction of the approach and its appurtenances: This shall include furnishing drainage pipe o! a size specified on permit (12-inch minimum) curb and gutter, concrete sideralk, etc., where required. Materials and rorkmanship shall be good quality and are subject to inspection by the Department. 4. The Department reserves the right to make at any time such changes, additions, repairs and relocations to any approach or its appurtenances within the highway right of way as may be necessary to permit the relocation, reconstruction, widening, and maintenance o! the highwey and/or to provide proper protection to life and property on or adjacent to the highway. S. Driveways and rural approaches shall conform to the plans made • pert of this permit. Adequate drawings or sketches shall ba included showing the design, construction requirements and proposed location of the approach by route. station, end milepost. 6. The Department may change, amend or terminate this permit or any of the conditions herein enumerated if permittee tails to caoply with its provisions or requirements as sat forth hereon. 7. During the construction of the approach(es), such barricades, signs, end-other traffic control devices shall be erected and maintained by the permittee as map be deemed necessary by the Department, said devices shall conform to the current issue o! the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Aighways. Perked equipment and stored materials shall be as far free the travelway as feasible. Ztems stored within 30 feet of the travelway shall be marked and protected. S. In accepting this permit, the peraiittee, its successors, and assigns, agrees to indemnity, save harmless and de- fend regardless of outcome, the state from the expenses of and against suits, including costs, expenses sad at- torney fees that may be incurred by resson o! any act or omisaioa, neglect or misconduct of the permittee or its contractor in the design, construction, and maintenance of the cork, which is the subject o! this permit. 9. It the cork done under this permit interferes in any ray ritA the drainage of the state highway, the permittee shall wholly and at his own expense make such provision as the District Engineer may direct to the care o! said drainage. 10. On easplation o! said work herein contemplated, all rubbish and debris shall be iaaiediately_raswved and the road- ray and roadside shall be left neat and presentable and to the satisfaction of the District gngineer. 11. The permittee shall maintain at his or their sole expense the structure or object !or rhich this permit is granted is a condition satisfactory to the District Engineer. 12. Neither the acceptance o! this permit nor anything herein contained shall be construed as a raiver by the permittee of nay right^ given it by the constitution or fare of the State o! Idaho or o! the United States. 13. No cork shall be started until an authorised representative of the Department has Qiven Mice to the perdttae to proceed. i 14. The Department hereby reserves the right to order the change of location or the removal of any structures or facility(ies) authorized by this permit, said change or removal to be made at the sole expense o! the permittee or its successors or assigns, unless such structure(s) or lacility(ies) have been located pursuant to the special provisions of form DH-2111. A PERMITTEE WHO HAS J1 PERMIT DENIED AT THS DISTRICT LSVBt. MAY APPEAL TH8 DENIAL TO THS STATE HIG91iAY ADMINISTRATOR AND FINALLY TO TH8 IDAHO TRANSPORTATION BOARD. ~Ul~~;'~•1'Ali~li~' ~;V1J REVIEW ~ Initial ~ Yes t No ATTACH REASON FOR RECOI-~iDATION ITD=1415 a-ss I..RANTS ~°'~ Paget MINIMU~ TRAFFIC SIGNA . „b„ ~.~ CITY Ada GoLtnty _ DATE '2/20/gl INTERSECTION Eaale Road ~ Maaic View Drive v PRESENT FORECASTED LOCATION R~ ~ ra I WARRANT WARRANT EAR) (RURAL or URBAN) (YES or NO) 0 DATE OF VOLUME COUNT: PEAK 8 HOUR VOLUMES (Vehicles and / or Pedestrians per hour) TIME (Use same hours both streets) Rel cation No Re ocation MAJOR STREET (Total both approaches) 3277 3973 MINOR STREET (One direction only) 02 434 -- (Highest volume crosswalk PEDESTRIAN crossing the major street) NO. of LANES RURAL 1O URBAN N0 HRS.MET COMPLIANCE WARRANT DESCRIPTION MAJOR MINOR MINIMUM MINIMUM (8 Req'd.) (Yes or No) STREET STRE d f i 1 1 350 500 or re (A) Volume requ ~~ 2 or 1 420 600 8 hours on n f h more y a o eac 2 or 2 or 420 600 NO. 1 major street. (Total of more more MINIMUM both approaches) 1 more 350 500 d f i 1 1 105 150 N / A VEHICULAR or re (B) Volume requ 2 or 1 105 150 8 hours on ch of an more VOLUMES y ea 2 or . 2 or 140 200 minor street approach. more more (One direction only) 2Q 1 2 or 140 200 more d f i 1 1 525 750 or re (A) Volume requ 2 or 1 630 900 8 hours on each of an more NO. 2 y 2 or 2 or 630 900 major street. (Total of more more INTERRUPTION 1 525 750 both approaches) more OF (B) Volume required for 1 1 50 75 N/A CONTINUOUS 2 or 1 50 75 each of any 8 hours on more ~i TRAFFIC minor street approach. 2 or more 2 or more 70 100 (One direction only) QQ 1 70 100 more ITD-1415 4-95 • • Page 1 (Reverse) WARRANT DESCRIPTION COMPLIANCE (Yes or No.) (A) Pedestrian volume crossing the major street during an average day is 100 or more for each NO. 3 of any four hours, or 190 or more during any one hour. These pedestrian volumes may be MINIMUM reduced 50 percent when the predominant crossing speed is below 3.5 feet per second; N 1 A and • • - PEDESTRIAN (B) There are less than 60 adequate gaps per hour for pedestrians to cross during the same period as condition (A), unless the inadequacy of gaps is caused by coordinated traffic VOLUME signals nearby. N / A NO. 4 Number of adequate gaps in traffic stream during the period children are using the crossing is SCHOOL less than the number of minutes in the same period. N / A CROSSING NO 5 (A) One way street or street with predominantly unidirectional traffic where adjacent signals . are so far apart that necessary degree of vehicle platooning and speed control is npt provided, or N / A PROGRESSIVE (B) Two way street where adjacent signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning WARRANT and speed control; and the proposed and adjacent signals would constitute a progressive N / A signal system. (A) The adequate trial of less restrictive remedies with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the accident frequency, and N/~1 NO. 6 (g) Minimum number of accidents involving personal injuries or Minimum Reported ACCIDENT property damage over $750.00 in a 12 month period Number Number N / A susceptible to correction by traffic signal installation, and O EXPERIENCE (C) One of the Warrants 1, 2, or 3 is satisfied 80% or more, and N / A .. (D) Will progressive traffic flow be maintained if signal is installed? N / A The intersection of two or more major routes has a total existing, or immediately projected, N / A entering volume of at least 1000 vehicles - NO. 7 SYSTEMS (A) during the peak hour of a typical weekday arid has five year projected volumes which N / A WARRANT meet one or more of Warrants 1, 2, S, 9 and 11 durng an average weekday; or (B) for each of any five hours on a Saturday and / or Sunday. (See definition of "major route" in MUTCD 4C-9.) N / A NO. 8 Warrants 1 and 2 are satisfied 80% or more of the stated urban minimums COMB. of WARRANTS (after adequate trial of other remedial measures). N / A NOTES: (1) Rural warrants applicable to those locations where 85th percentile speed on major street exceeds 40 miles per hour or intersection lies within built-up area of an isolated community having a population less than 10,000 people. (2) The direction of higher volume on the minor street may be on one approach during some hours and the opposite approach during other hours. REMARKS: -- ~ ITD-14x5 4-95. • Paged (Reverse) • V1(ARRAIVT DCSCRIPTION NO. HRS. MET COMPLIANCE (YES or NO) PEAK HOUR VOLUME IS INTENDED FOR APPLICATION WHEN TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ARE SUCH THAT FOR ONE HOUR OF THE DAY MINOR STREET TRAFFIC SUFFERS URBAN UNDUE TRAFFIC DELAY IN ENTERING OR CROSSING THE MAJOR STREET. PEAK HOUR VOLUME IS SATISFIED WHEN THE PLOTTED POINT REPRESENTING THE VEHICLES PER HOUR ON THE MAJOR STREET (TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES) AND THE CORRESPONDING VEHICLES PER HOUR OF THE HIGHER Relocation VOLUME MINOR STREET APPROACH (ONE DIRECTION ONLY) FOR ONE HOUR Yes (ANY FOUR CONSECUTIVE 15-MINUTE PERIODS) OF AN AVERAGE DAY FALLS ABOVE THE URBAN/RURAL CURVE FOR THE EXISTING COMBINATION RURAL r('p Relocatio OF APPROACH LANES. NO NO. II URBAN = 600 °' ~ 2 OR MORE LANES AND 2 OR MORE LANES * 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME ' 500 FOR A MINOR STREET = APPROACH WITH TWO OR w a w 2 OR MORE LANES AND 1 LANE MORE LANES. K O 400 ~ a 1 LANE AND 1 LANE ©100 VPH APPLIES AS THE PEA ~ a a LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME 300 ~ FOR A MINOR STREET z APPROACH WITH ONE LANE. ~ ~ Q 200 = U' 1 ~ 40 0 6 00 8 00 1000 1200 1400 1600 18 00 HOUR M AJOR STREET -TOTAL BOTH APPROACHES -VPH RURAL = 500 ~k 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE > 2 O R MOR E LANES AND 2 OR MORE LANES LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME - FOR A MINOR STREET = 400 APPROACH WITH TWO OR w o 2 O R MORE LANES AND 1 LAN E MORE LANES. ' vOL VPH APPLIES AS THE ® , ¢ a 300 75 LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME ~ Q 1 LA NE AND 1 LANE FOR A MINOR STREET z APPROACH WITH ONE LANE. g 200 ~~ 0 100 s ~_ 2 3 00 40 0 5 00 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 13 00 MAJO R STREET -TOTAL BOTH APPROACHES -VPH NOTES: (1) RURAL WARRANTS APPLICABLE TO THOSE LOCATIONS WHERE 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED ON THE MAJOR STREET EXCEEDS 40 MILES PER HOUR OR INTERSECTION LIES WITHIN BUILT -UP AREA OF AN ISOLATED COMMUNITY HAVING A POPULATION LESS THAN 10,000 PEOPLE. Signal relocaton• Major St total both° approaches.. = 2,808 VPH REMA RKS: ~~ ~ Warranted• Minor St Huh Volume ~Droach = 434 VPH No signal relocaton• Major St. total both approaches = 3 973 ITD-1415 4-95 • PAGE 2 • WARRANT DESCRIPTION NO. HRS. MET COMPLIANCE (4 REQ'D.) (YES or NO) FOUR HOUR VOLUME IS SATISFIED WHEN, FOR EACH OF ANY FOUR HOURS OF URBAN AN AVERAGE DAY, THE PLOTTED POINTS RESPRESENTING THE VEHICLES PER N / A HOUR ON THE MAJOR STREET (TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES) AND THE CORRESPONDING VEHICLES PER HOUR ON THE HIGHER VOLUME MINOR STREET APPROACH (ONE DIRECTION ONLY) ALL FALL ABOVE THE URBAN /RURAL CURVE FOR THE EXISTING COMBINATION OF APPROACH LANES RURAL N / /~ . NO. 9 URBAN 500 = > 2 OR MORE LANES AND 2 OR MORE LANES * 115 VPH APPLIES AS THE . LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME 400 FOR A MINOR STREET = w U APPROACH WITH TWO OR ~ Oa 2 OR MORE LANES AND 1 LANE MORE LANES. a 300 ~ u i ®80 VPH APPLIES AS THE O w 1 LA NE AND 1 LAN E LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A -MINOR STREET 200 APPROACH WITH ONE LANE. FOUR ~ ~ J O ~ 1 ~ ~, _. _~ 30 0 40 0 50 0 6 00 700 800 -900 1000 1100 1200 1300 14 00 MAJO R STREET -TOTAL BOTH APPROACHES -VPH HOUR RURAL 400 = ~ * 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE 2 OR MORE LANES AND 2 OR MORE LANES LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME ' FOR A MINOR STREET 300 APPROACH WITH TWO OR ~ v w a MORE LANES. i 0 2 OR MORE LANES AND 1 LANE N a ®60 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME a 200 VOL. ¢ FOR A MINOR STREET Z ~ 1 LANE AND 1 LANE APPROACH WITH ONE LANE. ~ J ~ 1~ C7 2 200 300 400 500 600 700 g00 900 1000 MAJOR STREET -TOTAL BOTH APPROACHES -VPH PEAK HOUR DELAY IS INTENDED FOR APPLICATION WHERE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ARE SUCH THAT FOR ONE HOUR OF THE DAY MINOR STREET TRAFFIC SUFFERS UNDUE DELAY IN ENTERING OR CROSSING THE MAJOR STREET. THE PEAK HOUR DELAY WARRANT IS SATISFIED WHEN THE NO 1 ~ EXIST FOR ONE HOUR (ANY FOUR CONSECUTIVE 15-MINUTE PERIODS) OF AN AVERAGE WEEKDAY . . PEAK PEAK 1 • THE TOTAL DELAY EXPERIENCED BY THE TRAFFIC ON ONE MINOR STREET APPROACH (ONE DIRECTION ONLY) CONTROIIED BY A STOP SIGN EQUALS OR HOUR PPROACH AND FIVE N S YeS p VEH CLE HOUR FOR ATWO-LANE APPROACH, A ~ HOUR ~ E LAY 2. THE VOLUME ON THE SAME MINOR STREET APPROACH (ONE DIRECTION ONLY) c ' EQUALS OR EXCEEDS 100 VPH FOR ONE MOVING LANE OF TRAFFIC OR 150 VPH Yes ~+ FOR TWO MOVING LANES, AND DELAY MET 3. THE TOTAL ENTERING VOLUME SERVICED DURING THE HOUR EQUALS OR WHEN E) APPROACHES O O YeS OR 650 VPH FOR NTERSECTIONS WI TH THREE APPR ACHES. -~ ,HCS: Unsignalized Inte~ections Release 2.1d RELO~E.HCO - Page 1 ==~=ee~~=ec.eveceo.ease...ce...e..~=~=c=~=e~va=-3~a~~=ae~e=e~eae~aa=yea Earth Tech 10800 NE 8th Street 7th Floor Bellevue, WA 98004- Ph: (206) 455-9494 Streets: (N-S) EAGLE ROAD (E-W) MAGIC VIEW DRIVE Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... Maher M Date of Analysis.......... 2/14/97 Other Information......... Signal Relocation-Peak Hr. Delay Warran t Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection __________________________________________________ I Northbound I Southbound I Eastbound I Westbound I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R 1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Stop/Yield I NI NI I . Volumes 1 322 1495 1 17 974 4861 429 5 15221 60 5 PHF 1 .9 .9 1 .9 .9 .91 .9 .9 .91 .9 .9 Grade 1 o I o I ~ 1 ~ MC's (~) 1 I i I SU/RV's (~>1 I I 1 CV's (~) I I I i PCE's 11.10 11.10 11.10 1.10 1.1011.10 1.10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) --------------- Time (tf) -------------- -------------------------------- Left Turn Major Road ----- 5.50 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 _._.~ ~ ` • • HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d RELOCATE.HCO Page 2 =c======a==c==vc..===aaa==caaaaa==a==a=aaaa==aaaa===aaaaaaaaaaasaaaaasa Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 541 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 737 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 737 Prob. of Queue-Free State: ----------- -------------- 0.00 -------- ----------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street ------------------------ SB -------------- NB -------- ---------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1661 1622 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 220 231 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 220 231 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.90 --- 0.00 -------- ---------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street ---------------------- ----------- WB -------------- EB -------- ------------ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 3660 3120 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 8 16 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.00 0.00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 0 0 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.00 -------- 0.00 -------- ---------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street ------ WB ---- EB --------- ------------------- Conflicting Flows: --------------- (vph) --------- 3122 3393 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 11 7 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.00 0.00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.00 0.00 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.00 0.00 Movement Capacity: ------------------- (pcph) -------------- 0 -------------- 0 --------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg . 9 5 ~ D~~'2 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach VQ,4,~J~°4p Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Gh•'~'`ou~rs~ v~a'~O'"r Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) CY -------- EB L ------ 525 ------ 0 ------ ------- * ------- * ----- F --------- fS0 ~-{„`1 MSC EB T 7 0 * * F * 9 EB R 1860 737 * 563.5 F WB L 74 0 * * F' WB~--7 7 0 * * F * NB L 394 231 * 85.4 F 234.3 SB L 21 220 18.1 0.3 C 0.2 Intersection Delay = HCS: Unsignalized Intentions Release 2.id RELO~.HCO Page 1 aaasaaamaaaaaeaaaaaaaeaaaa=aaaaa=aaaaaaaaaaaaaaasaaaaaaaaaaasaavaaaaaaa - Earth Tech 10800 NE Sth Street 7th Floor Bellevue, WA 98004- Ph: (206) 455-9494 _______________________________________________________________________ Streets: (N-S) EAGLE ROAD (E-W) MAGIC VIEW DRIVE Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... Meher M Date of Analysis.......... 2/14/97 Other Information......... NO Signal Relocation-Peak Hr. Delay War rant Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I Northbound I Southbound I Eastbound 1 westbound I L T- R I L T R I L T R I L T R 1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 2 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Stop/Yield I NI NI 1 Volumes 1 109 1708 1 2156 841 4001 PHF 1 .9 .9 1 .9 .91 .91 Grade i o 1 0 1 0 1 Mc's (~) SU/RV's (~) I I ms's ($) i PCE's 11.10 1 i 1.101 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) -------------------------------- Left Turn Major Road -------------------- 5.50 -------------- 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 ---- ~ '' ~ • HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d RELOCATE.HCO Page 2 =====e=.===aaa==aaaaa=ecaaa=eaeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaev aaasaaasaaaaaaasaa:aa:a .. Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1198 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 342 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 342 ' Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.00 Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 2489 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 79 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 79 . Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.00 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95g Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- 812.7 EB R 488 342 812.7 79.3 F NB L 133 79 * 30.6 F 82.8 Intersection Delay = 106.7 sec/veh * The calculated value was greater than 999.9. peter D~ ~to~-~ MST ...._~ ~ HCS: Unsignalized Inter~etions Release 2.1d RELOC~.HCO' Page 1 =.oe--- - -- ----- ----- -a.aaa--------.aaa=a=aaaaama~aaaaaaaaaeaae ---a-=- o---- a ----~.oa=- -------- 4Earth Tech 10800 NE 8th Street 7th Floor Bellevue, WA 98004- Ph: (206) 455-9494 Streets: (N-S) EAGLE ROAD (E-W) ST.LUKE'S ENTRANCE Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... Meher M Date of Analysis.......... 2/14/97 Other Information.........Signal Relocation-Peak Hr. Delay Calc. Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection -------------------------------- -- --- Northbound ~ Southbound ~ Eastbound ~ Westbound. I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R No. Lanes ~ 0 2 1 ~ 0 2 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 1 Stop/Yield ~ N~ N~ Volumes ~ 1911 13~ 1477 ~ ~ 45 PHF ~ .9 .9~ .9 ~ ~ .9 Grade ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ( 0 MC's (~) SU/RV's (~)~ CV's (~) PCE's ~ ~ ( ~ 1.10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) -- Time (tf) -------------- -------------------------------- Left Turn Major Road ------------------ 5.50 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 --- -- ~ . . ~~ ~ • HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.id RELOCATE.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection ------------------------------------------------------ Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB -- EB ----------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1062 --- Potential Capacity: (pcph) 401 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 401 ' Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.86 ------------------------------------------------------ -- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95~ Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach ~~ Delacp Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay WA.~,~,,,(r- Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) v~~~' -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- 0' l~ N oT NET 10.4 WB R 55 401 10.4 0.5 C Intersection Delay = 0.1 sec/veh a