The URL can be used to link to this page

Chevron C Store AZWILLIAM G. BF_RG, 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 HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY ~ COUNCIL MEMBERS M A Good Place to Live WALT W. MORROW, President CITY OF MERIDIAN RONALD R. TOLSMA E ~ GLENN R. BENTLEY 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN IDAHO 83642 P & Z COMMISSION Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding Departrnent (208) 887-2211 Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 JIM JOHNSON, Chalnnan TIM HEPPER JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUND ROBERT D. CORRIE MALCOLM MACCOY Mayor 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: -June 4. 1996 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 5/22/96 HEARING DATE:. 6/ 11/96. REQUEST: Annexation and Zoning to C-G BY: Eagle Partners LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Northwest corner of Eagle Road and Manic 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, C/C U.S. WEST(PRELIM ~ FINAL PLAT) -GLENN BENTLEY, C/C INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) WATER DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM 8r FINAL PLAT) -SEWER DEPARTMENT CITY FILES BUILDING DEPARTMENT OTHER: FIRE DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER •, i ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone: (208) 888-4433 Fax: (208) 887-4813 APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONIN OR REZONE Commercial Development PROPOSED NAME OF SUBDIVISION: Chevron C-Store, McDonalds. & Hotel GENERAL LOCATION: 603 S. Eagle Rd. /Northwest corner of Eagle Rd & Magic View Drive TYPE (RESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL): Commercial Use ACRES OF LAND IN PROPOSED ANNEXATION: 4.13 (17 9 , 8 4 0 s . f .) ± PRESENT LAND USE: Vacant PROPOSED LAND USE: Commercial PRESENT ZONING DISTRICT: P.T Zone (County) PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT: C-G Zone (City) ~ ~- ~~: ___- -- (r.; , ~--.,-. Signature of Applicant Eagle Partners L.L.C. APPLICANT:_Terry Debban & Mark Jensen PHONE: 343-2661 ADDRESS: P• O. Box 6290, Boise, ID 83707 ?3(0 - ~ ;f;~~ ENGINEER, SURVEYOR, OR PLANNER:BRS Architects PHONE: 336-8370 Roger os er ADDRESS: `~ 1087 W. River, Suite 160, Boise, ID 83702 Gerald W. Marlin & OWNER(S) OF RECORD: Deloris B. Marlin PHONE:(602) 497-8219 ADDRESS: 1113 W. Caman Drive, Gilbert, AZ 85234 ~; ,' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ARCHITECTS BRS Architects, A.I.A. 1087 West Riuer Street, Suite 160 Boise, Idaho 83702 Telephone 208 336-8370 F¢x 208 336.8380 City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 Attn: Shari Stiles April 18, 1996 Dear Ms. Stiles.: Re: Annexation & Rezone Application Lot 1, Magic View Subdivision BRS Project No. 9646 As per attached Owner Authorization, we are requesting annexation and rezone of Lot 1, Magic View Subdivision by the City of Meridian. We are requesting a C-G zoning classification for the purpose of improving described property into a commercial development generally as indicated on the attached site plan to include a convenience store with food service, gasoline sales, car wash and a hotel with amenities. The characteristics that make the zoning amendment desirable are the proximity to Eagle Road and adjacent commercial development. There is an existing and growing need for this type of development in that area to provide services and accommodations to surrounding commercial, institutional and residential development and resulting vehicular traffic. We think that the annexation and rezone request is consistent with the planned commercial development for the intersection of I-84 and Eagle Roads and are hoping for a positive recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Sincerely, RDF:cw cc: Eagle Partners, L.L.C. RS ARCHI ECTS o er Foster • ATTACHMENTS TO ANNEXATION AND REZONE_.APPLICATION 1. Applicant: Eagle Partners, L.L.C. (Terry Debban & Mark Jensen) P. O. 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. Notarized r-equest (attached) 4. Legal Description (attached) 5. Present Land Use: Vacant 6. Proposed Land Use: Commercial. 7. Present Zoning District: .County-RT 8. Proposed Zoning District: City C-G 9. See cover letter. 10. See cover letter. 11. See cover letter. 12. Site map, Scale: 1" = 100' (attached) 13. 30 copies vicinity map (included with application.) 14. List of mailing addresses (attached) 15. Application fee: check (attached) 16. Affidavit for posting; signed by applicant (attached) 17. Affidavit re: Accuracy of Application; signed by applicant (attached) WARRyNTY DEED ' 8843782 Project No. .I-80IJ-1(12)45 Parcel No: 19 _ In connection with Project.No: F-FR-3271(44) Parcel No. l-R Qey No. 3250 - THIS INDENTURE, i`;ade this f`) ~ ` ~~ -. day of ~,~/f~l~" 19&8 thA STATE OF IDAHO, acting by and through the 1 ~ '.between IDAHO TRANSPORTATION BOARS for the D1V3SION' OF HIGHY;A YS, Grantor , and GERALD A, t/iRLIN and DELORIS B. MARLIN, husband and wife 1151 We -~ ~ lls, Mer?clan, Idaho 83642, Grantees. WITNFSSETii:= That the Grantor, for and in consideration cf Gne No/.100 (1.00) Dollars, oaid to the ~ and - _m, receip~ whereof is - acknowled ~~ have 9~~~ granted, bargained, sell and convey unto tr,e Granges o _ th_ir heirs and assigns forever, t,e following described parcel of 3.and situated in the County o= kda, State of Idaho, to-wit- i PARCEL NO. 1-R A parcel of land beinc .il of L•ot 1 Anende~ n,~gic View Subdivision according to the official plat there of filed in book 28 of Plats at ac= 1755 records of Ada Coun~y, Idaho, F,XCEPTI~IG THEREFRO'~1: A parcel of land b°ing on the of Eagle Road Pro ~,.~ Westerly side of the centerline shown on `h~ j`" tiO• F-FR-32?1(44) righway Survey as puns t:r.eof now on file in th o~~sc? F t• Idaho Transportation Jecart~ent Division of 3i a`lway5 0- ze being a portion of Lot 1 of Amen;;zd t•;ac;; c Vi'wgSubdi vi sion according to the official plat thereof filed in boo'{ 2g of Plats at page 1755 _e:.ords of Aaa County, Idaho d~scrib~d as follows, to-wit: Beginning at the Nor =.iedSt corner cf T Magic View Ssbdivisi mot I of said Amended ~_, Ada County Idahc; thence29~7'h`;a9°57'G_~ jti~est (shown of racord to be t.orrh 39°58' c) =~ng the North line of said Lot distance of Y0.37 =--- to a point ii: a I a --_` '_ine parall=l with and ri:ilA'.~°.~Stiti~i, il,. i - Page 1 Or j •t;6!'i •` !ilk' .. .. ~.`~~'CC. { - ~ j i9FRRANTY DEED. ::Project No. I-80N-1(12)45 :'Parcel" No'`-19 ;'..: ,- ,` In connectio.7 with '.Project No. F-FR-3271.(44) Parcel Nc.-1-R ...Key No. 3250 ~ 70.0 feet 4,Testerly,from the centerline and o 49+81.4 of said Eagle Road, pro•A PPosite Station Highway Survey; J-ct No. F-FR-3271(44) thence•along~~said Parallel line as follows: Southerly along a 5659.58 foot radius curve right 339.39 feet to a point opposite Station 46+37.95 a point of reverse curvature of said Highway Survey, Southerly along a 5789,58 foot radius __curv_e left 238,12 feet to a point in `he South line of said~Lot:l; i thencF North 89°3827"'East (shown of recor 89°37'02" East) along said South line of 66al0ofeo ~~,- h _ pcint in *-he_ Westerly right of way line of existing E~gle Road; - - - . thence North 0°21'33" west (shoran of record to be 0°22'57.7" A'est NOr~h along said West line 576.73 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING. Highway Station Reference: 44+29.65 to 49+81.54. The area conveyed by this instrument contains aparoxi,.a~ely 3.9541 acres. Any right of way fencing to be constructed is riot n~c~ssaril•: intended to designate the property line and an vari between the location of ri ht of wa - Y ar.ce- property line as herein described shallnnotgbon3 the actual modification, or alteration of this description construed--as a The Grantor excepts and reserves unto itself, it; ~ucces:~ors or assigns, all existing, future or potential co;n*~,on law or statu•; _cry easements Of access, ingL°ss Or egress, t0, fro;;,, pr b~twe°~ ~:~~ property herein convev~d and t ~ - h~ r_ght c,r wa_,- of the ?u;,• ' . :c w~~ identified as Eag~~ Road, ?rye ~ No. F-. c~ ~'R-321? (441 . The Grantor also reser :~=s unto i ~--- i - ..~c_f :.he right i-o 5roni bit --- ereCtlOn Or COnStrUCtl.On Of c,~.~' OL'11C1nCg Or ~-rUCtur°S 3~:5~-~~ `.._ - i ~.~ ... :J1 -.. -. • ~. .. _ ~ WARRANTY DEED .~.... .. . ,. .. Project No..I-80N-1(12)45.: Parcel.No. 19 .. .In connection with _ Project No..F-FR-3271(44) °. Parcel: No. 1-R .. ~:ay No. 3250 irrigation or drainage structures within 20 feet of the ri ht f g o way cf said, Project No. F-FR-3271(44). The Grantor further reserves unto itself -it , s successors and assigns, a permanent easement to go .upon, occupy, and use a portion of Lot 1 AJnend~d N3gic View Subdivision Ada County, Idah~ .5_i , n a strip 9 .~ of land 20.0 feet'~wic3e, the Easterly line of which i _.< . h~ ~~~ s coincident with ?.~ ~ tre ~iesterly right of way line of said Eaale Road, Project No. F-FR=3271(44) Highway Survey and l i __ y ng between Station _ 49+47.39 of said Highway Survey and the North line of seid L ot 1 for the purpose of constructing and thereafter ,~air,taining t~lereo n irrigation facilities together wit tha right and :+rivilege of i ngress and egress to and from said property for said purcose. It is expressly intended that these c~nvenar.ts, t~rc~na end , _ restrictions shall run with the land and that they 11 ; Sht__ h_Ild the Grantees and ttleir heirs and assigns forever. TOGETHER with all. and singular the tenements, here~it~ nents end appurtenances thereunto belonging to and in anywise apcertaining, the reversion and rove=sions, r°m~inder and remainders , rents, issues, ana profits thereof; and estate, right, title, and interest i n and to tam ...: ~: said property,as w?11 in - law as in eguity, c:. ti:e Granto_ f ~_ -,~~ :~. ~. ~;~- . TO HAVE A1~D TO HOLD all and singular , tale abovo_~-~, d ..~_atior.e a;ld ~~_: ~ Ftix. described premises, together, with the appurte ~~; nances unto tie r.-- - .. ~~nt~es o ~ , L th it :ni:s and ,.;cigns forever, and the Grantor d . , an it. successo_*s Pa^= 3 JL 5 ~: ..~. PIARRANTY DCED Project~.lQo I-86N-1(12)45 Parcel No. 19' . In connection'with Project No.'F-FR-3271(44) Parcel No. 1-R Key No. 3250' and assigns;, and the praxises in the quit and peaceable possession of said Grantees, heir heirs and assigns, and all and every aarson and persons whn~soavar, lawfully claiming or to claim by, throu h, or undar g t-he Gra•^•tor, tha same s~_il and will warrant and b y these presents orever ?efer.d. IN IkIT?dSS ~ir_"^.LR EQp, The GrantOL has hareil:~t0 eXeCUted L^a5a areser.ts on the ~~~ ~~ c=y of August, 1988. .G' ~ rn ?tigti` of 4~ay IMan gar ~ APPROVED: Sate rilOi7t;~V+'»iP,i.^•_S~rc~~r-- ~~ IDAHO TP.ki~.?~?j•c=,TIO:d SO<':~D /tiOtii~ M. Oii'.•1AN,.. Chair ;nan • ,.. •S : . /~ •'~ ~ ~ V ~1 • ~ ~ ~ ~" ei,~RION DAVIDSO'.:, Vice :Lh_~an '' ~ • __ • % ~ ~ ` . V Pn1L BAIT, ~:ei,;~er -._ PROVED AS TO FOR:':: Lz7~=1 Counsel _-?° _ o 5 vJARRANTY DEED Project No. I-80N-1(12)45 Parcel ~:o. 19 In connection with .Project No. F-FR-3271(44) .Parcel-No. 1-R F:ey No. 3250 STATE OF IDAHO ), ss. County of Ada ) ~~'"°' On t~:~i s cay of : ~!G,;/G•i:~JT 198 undersigned, 3 ?yOtaTV Pllbl_C 1 f r ca - ~r b2fOre De, ti,2 JOHN *:. 03*:L*i, "tL?ION DAVIDSO:.n 2n'? DcrL end State, p°rsonally appeared _T, known ..o me to b~ the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and b;ember, respectively, of the Idai-,o •;ran;_ portation 3oard, whose names =r= subscr.bed to the foregoing ir.s`r- ument, and acknowledged to me-that they executed t:~e same as such Idaho Transportation 3oar~.: SIN WITNESS itiHE'REOF, I -have hereunto set my hang and affixed ~:v official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. ,~ No~ary Put~'lic for /(aft l~ti •:.~ :, ~;J•j.;"• Residing gat - i-/~i/ - My commission expires •~/j~ ~~ ~;-;~;. . pea ^,o~-:y •'a'+c n / _cc; ~s-,;,~ N_;,~,. p ~, S. ~~ ~ ~ .<, l~' u. /u;)' // ~ ~ ~ ST-F160O,p(ozs ., .~ 8'?'~'399 ~ ' ~- WARRANTY C 'ED Project No: F-FR-•3271(44) Parcel No. 1, Id. No. 26540 Key No. 3250 THIS INDENTURE, Made this f~__ day of .Sfl>r<fi1~~,~, 197, between GERALD J./GARDNER ak/a~ G.J. GARDNER and l E.oe~i.4 ~~.~D.~EZ,f%~~•S.I'~'/7~~ /;7(-' ~ Grantors, and the STATE OF IDAHO, by and throu~)h the IDAHO •~RANSPORTATION BOARD for the DIVISION -0F SIGH- WAYS, 3311 West State Street, noise, Idaho 83703, Grantee. WITNESSEIH: That the Grantor S, for and in consideration of One and No/100 (1.00) Dollars, paid to ~F," , receipt whereof is acknow- ledged, h=_:vE gra.nted, barg:,ined, sold, and conveyed and by these presents do grant, bargai:,, sell and convey unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever, in fee simple, the following described real estate together with all riq:~ts of access between the right of way of tie said project a~~d the resaining contiguous real property bel~~nging to the Gra;hors sitt:ated in the County of Ada, State of Tc:.~ho, to-wit: A parcel of land being on the Westerly side of the center?.ine of Ea31e Road Project No. F-FR- 371(44) Highway survey as shown. on the: plans thereof now on file in the office of the Idaho Transportation Department, Division of Highways, and being a portion of Lot 1 of Amended yagic View Subdivis:~n according to the official plat thereof filed in Book 28 of Plats at pagE: 1755 records of Ada County, Idaho described as follows, to-wit: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 1 of said Amended Magic View Subdivisio;i, Ada County Idaho; thence. North 89°57'05" Wast 89°53''29.7" West) along the diste.nce of 40.37 feet to a 70.0 feet Westerly from the :9+Fi1.54 cf said Eagle Road Eighway Survey; (shown of record to be North North line of said Lot 1 a point in a line parallel with and centerline and opposite Station Project '!o. F-FR-3271(44) ~. feet to a point opposite station 46+37.95 a point of. reverse ..curvature cf said Highway Survey, Southerly along .a 5,',99.58 ~.. Yoot radius curve left 238..12 feet to a point in the South line o~ said Lot 1; thence North 89°38'27" East ;shown of record to be North 89°37'0?." East) along said South lins 66.10 feat to a point • in the slesterly Right of j•;ay line of existing Eagle Road; thence Pdorth 0°21'33" West (Shown of record to be North 0°22'57.7" west) along sairi West line 576.73 feEt to the PLACE nF BEGINNING. ~ Southerly along a 5,659.58 foot radius curve right 339 39 '^ ,. WARRANTY DEF,D Project No. r~-FR-3271(44; Parcel No. 1, Id. No. 26540 Key No. 3250 Highway Station Re_`erence: 44T29.65 to 4q+81.54. The area conveyed by this instrume-~t contains aprroxi.mately O.F855 acres, 0.03?9 acres of which is ackno~oledyed to be a rortion of a public, road. Any Righ*_ o•f P;ay fencing tc, be constructed is not necessarily int.er:c!ed to, designate the property ling bet;eeen Gra:.tor and the State, and any variance between the locaticn of Right of Way fencing and the actual proparty line as herein described shall not be constrsed as a modification or alteration of this description. Grant~i:_ convey unto the Grantee the right to prohibit the erec- tion or construction of any buildings or structures except irrio-ltion or drainage structures e~ithin te~enty feet (20') of the real property above described. It i:, expressly intended that these covenants, burdens and res- trictions shall run v;ith the land and shall forevar b;nd the rrantc~-_S T~fiz YtP_lrS a,id assigns. TO HAVE :~uD TO HOLD the said premi; es, with their appurtenances, unto the said Gran•~ee and its successors and assigns forever. And the Grantors do_ heraby covenant to anti witl: the said Grantee, that -';'r/ ar.e the o;•;neri ?.n fee sinp~.e cf said penises; tizat .hey are free from °age 2 of 3 WARRANTY DEED Project No. F-FR-32`Ii{4~}) Parcel No. 1, i~d. tv~. 26540 Key No. 3250 all encumbrances and that 71r~ will warrant and defend the same from all lawful claims uhatsoFVer. IN WITD'ES., WHEREOF, Grantors ha~~ hereunto set 7~iE~2' t,an~ .=,nd seal S the ~iay and ye~:r first. above written. GE?.ALD J. GARDNER i~ c~~~c~~ ~~ r. c,~.P~,-.~,._ ~~ STATE OF ~.~~/~/~ _ } ~) ~s. County of ~~.i!-.~ } On this: /~ as undersigned, a Notary GERALD J. GARDNEk aka known to me to be Lze fore?oing instrument, s a,<<e . Y of :~Ff:~ ; '~~' 1987 , before m2, the Public in a::d Lor said St.~r~:, personally appearec . ~, C;. J. G:?~PDt7FR ~-ii .-~~ f ~ , :•::S,iY c perso•; 5 :hose name < ,Gt~~ S~lgscribed to the and ac:cnc~wl.e c ed r.~~ me than ;~ / executed cne ItJ 47ITNEfiS G7HERE~~F, I rave hereunto sat ray hand and affixe3 my eificial seal the day ana ~~er in ;.his certificate first abov? written. .-- ~ ,. (SEAL } Notary N:fol i.c ror _~~ ~'? ~,•~,•""~''~~ I2esiciin at r c•-' ,; ~ -• g .tea/S~_ .~~ .~. RS :> n.~mm~cc inn cvr ~ r°S `_ //.- OZ ,~'~ L age 3 of 3 4.dx ro;;~'y, i~3~0 3 RaaL•_s+ of cT:'~l,~~ Tli~c ~.~- _ -- f- ~; ~/ ~n~% l i _,.1;: //y, i • i` • LAW OFFICES • MEULEMAN, MILLER c6~ CUMMINGS LLP BUSINESS LAW REAL ESTATE LAW CONSTRUCTION LAW KIMBERLY). BLAS* (208) 342-6066" RICHARD A. CUMMINGS MICHELE L. ENGEL** 960 BROADWAY AVE., SUITE 400 - KIMBAL. L. LOWLAND POST OFFICE BOX 955 FAX QUENTIN M. KNIPE*** BOISE, IDAHO s37ot (208) 336-9712 GEOFFREY J. M(CONNELL**** WAYNE V MEULEMAN ROBERT L. MILLER ' LICENSE! IN IHAH(~ ik NEI~AUA RICHARD W MOLLERUP " LICEtiSED IN IhAH(~ ~ L'TA Ii "• LICENSE! IN IIl4H(~ S (Y'ASHINGTt~N ••" LICENSE! IN IIl4H(~:h CALIF(1RKIA April 10, 1996 VIA HAND DET .IVFR~' 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 Deloris 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, ~ i R~char '. Mollera RWM:bIg (h: \rwm15871.02\corr\willcins.2) Enclosure cc: Gerald and Delores Marlin (letter only) Stephen C. Brown (letter only) Kurt Wilkins (letter only) n pr o. AUTIIQRY~'.ATIQN This Authorizatipn is given this ~ day of April, 1996, ny Gerald W. Marlin and i7eloris B. Marlin, lmsbanct and wife ("Marlin"). RECITA>«: A. Marlin is the owner of certain property located in the County of Ada, Slate of Idaho, ~aiinonly known as 603 South Baglc Road and described as Lot 1, Amended Magic Valley Subdivision according to the official plat filed in Book 28 of Plats at Page 1755, records of Ada County, Idaho ("Subject Property"). B. Marlin, as seder, has emend Into a contract for the purchase and salt of the Subject Propery with Terry Debban and Mark rensen as buyer with an effective date of March 1S, 1996 ("Contract"). C. Under the conditions of the Contract, buyer shall have obtained from the City of Meridian and/or Ada County approval to rezone the property for commercial use and exemption of the Subject Property by the City of Meridian. NOVV, THEitEFORB, Marlin hereby grants its permission and approval to Terry bebban 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. AUTHORIZATIQN - Page 1 MM.4cC: 5R79.U2 04J08/96 • EXECUTED the day and year first abave carillon. /, /~ ~ti~~ ~ ~ Gerald. W. Marlin Delorls B. Marlin ~~ _ ~~ (h:lrwm15871.d21n1au1horiss ly STATE OF ~ ~~~'~~ cc~ ) ` )ss. COCTNTY OP,~ ~?~ , On this ~ day of April, 199b, before mc, the undersigned, a Natary Public in and i'or said State, personally appeared Gerald W. Marlin and DGloris B. Marlin, known or identified to rue to lac the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instaument, and acknowledged to the that they executed the satnc. Il`T WITNESS WHEKEOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my affcial seal ii;e day and year in this certificate first above written. ~c~al _ NO CRY P r.IC for Gl~-~~rr! Gc.. Residing at ~~~ z- My commission cxpims: 7-~/- 9 AUTNOR[ZATIdN - I'agc 2 MMcSt.C 5871.Q2 U4/0$/9G ANNEXATION PARCEL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, T.3N., R.lE., BOISE MERIDIAN; INCLUDING LOT 1, AS SHOWN ON "AMENDED MAGIC VIEW SUBDMSION", 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 1? & 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.?" 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, (5.2097 ACRES) MORE OR LESS THIS DESCRIPTION IS BASED ENTIRELY ON "AMENDED MAGIC VIEW SUBDMSION" ( 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 .--° »~ ~ t'~R o~ 2~3 ~ ~~~~ 9~~~ ~OF~ ~~ `Vi'a Lv~~'`~' C 51111' __ _ LO T 1 r 9 ~ $ d ; Y , 3 . 8$ w o• ~ sv 1u N -i ~, m ~N C ~ ~v ~~ ~ = I ~ >a ~. N ~ ~ ~ GNEVRON GONYENIENGE STORE ~ ~ ~ ianaesrxn~esr. X ~ t FOOD 5Ef2VIGE 1 ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ N ~ ~ EAGLE ROAD ~ HK K VIEW DR1~E. t'ERIpIN1. IDAF10 ~o _' ARCHITECTS 8• .9, tr •.. •. R:I ~ ~ 3 ~ . :. s. • R~ _~ ::-•~o ~ E N • ~ i.:4~ • _~. ~:. ~ _7 U 5 . • . : •or g • • •. . 9 3 ~, . I ~ J ~ , 15 •• II E 4 3 2': I _ ~~ ~,_ 8 ` .1 ~ r' 2 •5 .:. ,6 a I 16 •I. DRIVE i • -~ ~ .:" ~ C 0© °O 8 7. .6 5 4 3 2 ~ ~ ~ • o AUTUMN ~ 17 Id ~~~ 9 ~ `, • ~ ~ ~ 1 Q • 7 0 3 ,6: qy;t ~a, to .~ •~ ~', ~ ~ ~ ~ R . ~ ~ • ,.. .. •~- -- Z 15 ~° 7 w ~ 6 _ • I I ... , ~ 14 12 13 t4 17 P ~ ~ .~ . . f •/O ~ ~; 5 ~ • G _ _A_U TUMN WA" l i3 1 2 3 4 ~G 11 !0 9 S 7 6 i 4 ~ _ \\ I So• M~ . ~r C ,, _ 5 4 ~' ~ + - ~Oj9A ~ ~ 300 ft. ~, ~ --~x_ ~ . r ... - _ I ~ 'v r'~AGi~~- _ 1 ~~~: / _ I a ._ RT - ~ ~-~ - • +# ~ - ~ ~~ i ~ ~ ,, r ,, s ~~ '. r i i e. R ~_~ ~ ~ ~ ? •f•. .I • \ ~ ~5 ~ ~ ~/ i' i 6 ~ /` ~ ~\ /,~'~~VICINITY MAP ~ ~~ \ ,~~ ~ ~' - scale: 1" :300 ft. I ~ r ~ I - • ~ ~ i~ ~ ° ~~ v 1 ~ • NOTICE OF HEARING i 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 Halt, 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. ~'1.J• O ERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR • CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone: (208) 888-4433 Fax: (208) 887-4813 APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OR REZONE Commercial, DeveloPment~ PROPOSED NAME OF SUBDIVISION: Chevron C-Store, McDonalds & Hotel, GENERAL LOCATION: 603 S. Eagle Rd. /Northwest cornea o~ Eag~,e Rd & Magic View Drive TYPE (RESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL): Commercial Use ACRES OF LAND IN PROPOSED ANNEXATION: 4.13 (17 9 , 8 4 0 s . f .) ± PRESENT LAND USE: Vacant PROPOSED LAND USE: Commercial PRESENT ZONING DISTRICT: RT Zone (County) PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT: C-G Zone (City) Eagle Partners L.L.C. APPLICANT:_ Terrv Debban & Mark Jensen PHONE: 343-2661, ADDRESS: P. O. Box 6290, Boise, ID 83707 ~'` ENGINEER, SURVEYOR, OR PLANNERBRS Architects PHONE: 336-8370 Roger os er ADDRESS: '~~ 1087 W. River, Suite 160, Boise, LD 83702 Gerald W. Marlin & OWNER(S) OF RECORD: Deloris B. Marlin PHONE:(602) 497-8219 ADDRESS: 1113 W. Caman Drive, Gilbert, AZ 85234 ..---_ - ,___--~ -~"_ \ t GYM -~ ~f Zr `~~-r )< ~ ~, Signat re of Applicant ~; ~, ARCHITECTS BRS Architects, A.I.A. 1087 West Riuer Street, Suite 160 Boise, Id¢ho 83702 Telephone 208 336-8370 Fax 208 336-8380 City of .Meridian 33 E. Ldaho Meridian, ID 83642 Attn: Shari Stiles April 18, 1996 Dear Ms. Stiles: Re: Annexation & Rezone Application Lot 1, Magic View Subdivision BRS Project No. 9646 As per attached Owner Authorization, we are requesting annexation and rezone of Lot 1, Magic View Subdivision by the City of Meridian. We are requesting a C-G zoning classification for the purpose' of improving described property into a commercial development generally as indicated on the attached site plan to include a convenience store with food service, gasoline sales, car wash and a hotel with amenities. The characteristics that make the zoning amendment desirable are the proximity to Eagle Road and adjacent commercial development. There is an existing and growing need for this type of development in that area to provide services and accommodations to surrounding commercial, institutional and residential development and resulting vehicular traffic. We think that the annexation and rezone request is consistent with the planned commercial development for the intersection of I-84 and Eagle Roads and are hoping for a positive recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Sincerely, RDF•cw cc:~ Eagle Partners, L.L.C. • RS ARCHI ECTS o er Foster ~ ~ ATTACHMENTS TO ANNEXATION AND REZONE APPLICATION 1. Applicant: Eagle Partners, L.L.C. (Terry Debban & Mark Jensen) P. O. 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. Notarized request (attached) 4. Legal Description (attached) 5. Present Land Use: Vacant 6. Proposed Land Use: Commercial. 7. Present Zoning District: County-RT 8. Proposed Zoning District: City C-G 9. See cover letter. 10. See cover letter. 11. See cover letter. 12. Site map, Scale: 1" = 100' (attached) 13. 30 copies vicinity map (included with application.) 14. List of mailing addresses (attached) 15. Application fee: check (attached) 16. Affidavit for posting; signed by applicant (attached) 17. Affidavit re: Accuracy of Application; signed by applicant (attached) _. _... . --~ ' . • WARRyNTY DEED 884378 Project No. I=80N-1(12)45 .. Parcel No. 19 :: .` . In connection:..with' Project: No. F-FR-3273(44) ;: Parcel Noi `1-R . Rey No. ,3250 THIS INDENTURE, r;ade this f~1 /~ // /~ -_ day of /'• ~Jr ,~ 19b8, between the STATE OF IDAHO, acting by and through the IDAHO TRANSPORTATION BOARD. for the:DIVISIONT OF HIGHWAYS, Grantor, and GERALD A'. MARLIN and DELORIS B. MARLIN, husband and wife, 1151 Wells, Meridian, Idaho 83642, Grantees. WITNESSETH: =That the Grantor, for and in consideration of One and No/100 (1.00) Dollars, paid to them, receipt whereof is acknowledged, have granted, bargained, sell, and convey unto the Grantees, their heirs and assigns forever, t~,e foll.o,~ing described parcel of land situated in the County o= Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit• ?ARCEL NO. 1-R A parcel of land beinc_ ail of Lot 1 Amended Magic View Subdivision according to the official plat there of filed in book 28 of Plats at _ac~ 1755 records of Ada County, Idaho. EXCEPTI27G T:iEREFRO'•1: A parcel of land being on the Westerly side of th= ce ~~ of Eagle Road Project No. F-FR-3271(44) Highway SurveytGsline shown on the glans t..=reof now on file is `he Idaho Transportation'Department Divisionnof Highways,~andne being a portion of Lot 1 of Amended P;agic View Subdivision. according to the off_cial plat thereof filed in book 28 of Plats at page 1755 r_cords of Ada County, Idaho described as follows, to--wit: Beginning at the Nor=aeast corner cf Lot 1 of said Amended Magic View SubdiGisio;,, Ada County Idaho; thence North 89°57'C=" Rest (shown of record to be tdorrz 39'8'29.7" 6.°st) ~_ong the North line of said Lot 1 a distance or 40.;7 =- _ to a point ii; a line Para e " ~` 11 1 with and ":i~~ i..~nd'.d~.s~:.~"4i L.arji j'j rrr N.'J;9r~,; f:, °~ ~':~~!Cic~'G'~, ;~..~+:, ~' ., '3' -. ,- page 1 or 5 ..,~"1lJE~`lU ... .. ... L J,... .. 'v7FRRANTY DEED.. 'Project No. I-80N-1.(12)45 - Parcel No; 19 . In• connectioal with Project No'. F-FR-32:71(44) Parcel Nc:- 1-R .. Key No. 3250. 70.0 :feet.ti'esterly..from the centerline and. opposite Station: 49+81.54_of said Eagle Road, Project No. 'F-FR-3271(44) .-Highway Survey; thence along said parallel Tine as follows:- Southerly along a 5659.58 foot radius curve right 339.39 feet to a point opposite Station 46+37.95 a point of reverse curvature of said Highway Survey, Southerly along a 5799.58 foot radius_.curv_e left 238.12 feet to a point in the South line of said'Lot_1; ---~~ thence Nort'ti 89°38'27" East 89°37'02" East) along said pcint in *_he_ Westerly right Road; thence North 0°21'33" «est 0°22'57.7" West) along said PLACE OF BEGINNING. (shown of record to be North South line of 66.10 feet to a of way line of existing Eagle (shoran of record to be North West line 576.73 feet to the Highway Station Reference:. 44+29.65 to 49+81.54. The area conveyed by this instrument contains approxi,~,ately 3.9541 acres. Any right of .way fencing to be constructed is not necessaril•.~ intended to designate the property line and any variar.ce- between the location of right of way fencing and the actual property line as herein described shall not be construed--as a n:oaificatior! or alterat'_on of this description. - The Grantor excepts and reserves unto itself, its ~ucces:ors or assigns, all existing, future or potential common law or status=crv easements of access, ingress or egress, to, from, or b•etweer. t::~~ property herein conveyed and the ri ht of ww,,~ oL ~ _ ~- - g r tn~ ouJILC way identified aS Eagle RG3d, Pro °Ct NO. -- J~ F-FR-3217(44). The Grantor also reserves unto itself the right co cror._bit ,. ,,_ ereCtlOn Or COnStruCt?.On Oi a^`' bllildingJ Or ~..rUCtur°S °7:C~^.~ ~o.y WARRANTY DEED the Westerly right of way line of said Eagle Road, Project No. F-FR-3271(44) Highway Survey and lying between Station 49+47.39 of said Highway Survey and tha North line of said Lot 1 for the purpose of constructing and thereafter ,~air.taining thereon irrigation facilities together wit the right and privilege of ingress and egress to and from said property for said purpose. It is expressly intended that these convenants, turden~, and restrictions shall run with the land and that they shall bind the .Grantees and their heirs and assigns forever. TOGETHER with all. and singular the tenements, heredit~ments and appurtenances thereunto belonging to and in anywise apaertaining, the reversion and reversions, remaincer and remainders, rents, issues, an3 profits thereof; and estate, right, title, and interest in and to the Shcd pL'Operty,d3 well In laW aS In e.7_~;lty, Gf tP.° Grantor. TO HAVE AND mp HOLD all and singular, the above-;*,en;yoPod and deSCrlr)ed Dr2iliSt?5, LCg2ther, Wlth the aDDULtenanc°S Unto the Grantees, their !-,eirs ana ,._signs forever, and the Gran`or, and i~s successors ' ~ - 'am'p .y is .. 4.7ARRANTY DGED_ Pr.oject.t~o. I-$~N-1(12)45 ~ Parcel No. :19 In connection with Project No. F-FR-3271 (44) . Parcel No. 1-R Key No .: .3250'' and assigns, and' the premises in -the quiet and ~~eaceable possession of said Grantees, their heirs and assigns.. and all and every aerson and persons waomsoever, lawfully claiming or to clai~a by throu h , g , or under the Gran or, the same sh_11 and will warrant and by these presents forever defend. . IN 1tiITNESS 19HEREOF, The Grantor has hereu~Zto executed these presents on the ~~ ~~ cay of August, 1988. _-- RE:,OI.IMENDED: IDAHO TRAii3?O~2„~TIOi~ BO,':RD ~ ~ /~ ~ .. i ~` ~ Right of h'ay yian ger ~ ' I• OI3 M. OH?4AN,.•Chairman• ~ : , ~_~ ,1. . . ~ , ~. i , ,: _, ' cf~RION D.~VIDSOt:, Vic_ ~Cha_ "• ~ ~:~an ~ ~ ~ .. State rii d .-- - ~' ~--, - - gnc:ay A mini strator \ Pa I L BATT, t'ye;(1tiC L .._ PROVED AS TO FOR:~1: r> .~--- - ~'' ' ~ ~ . - Lzg~1 Counsel =~~ - - ..- - a_ ~ _~ - .'" • • ;} WARRANTY DEED Project No. I-80N-1(12.)45 Parcel ::0: 19 In connection with , Project No. F-FR-3271(44) Parcel No. 1-R - Rey ~~o. 3250' STATE' OF IDAHO ). ) ss . Coun~y of A3a ) // r s S r y b~ ~~~•/; f7- 198 under igned a Nota v Publ_c ror= me, t;,e ° ; n a'nd o s id Stat _ _ e, personally appeared J09N M. 03*:L*i, M_LRiON DP.VIDS0.~, ana P°TL '3A^'T, known `o Chairman, Vice Chairman, and me to b=- t7e D;ember, respectively, of~the Idah ~ portation 3oarc, w_^.ose names o Trans- =r= subscribed r LO the ~oreaoin i y ument, and acknowledged to me Transportation 3oard.: g nstr- that they o ex_cuted t5e same as such Idaho SIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I ha official seal the day and e ve hereunto set my hang and affixed .~.y i y a r n this certificate first above written. ,~~ No~ary Pu is for /(!~( !LG ~ • ~ • _ Residing ~ ~ //~~~. ' ~ '''~ ~ My commission expires /j,= gy ~_~ ~ ~ \i _cr< e~ s-.~~ N=:,~~_R s. ~.::~;, `1~~ /J ?4~A ~ ~~ __ .~ 8'?'~'399 ` WARRANTY t 'ED Project No. F-FR--3271(44) - Parcel No. 1, Id. No. 26540 Key_No: 3250 THIS INDENTURE, Made this ~. day of .~ h~fi~ ,~, 197, between GERALD J. CARDNER aka G.J. GARDNER and l ~pe~j~O ~' • ~~.~D.•/EZ1~/~,~~7 !/~ ~ Grantors, and the STATE OF IDAHO,. by and throu~~h the IDAHO •~RANSPORTATZON BOARD for the DIVISION OF 9IGA- WAYS, 3311 West State Street, i3oise, Idaho 83703, Grantee. WITNESSETH: That the Grantor S, for and in consideration of One and No/100 {1.00) Dollars, j,aid to yF_.~+, receipt whereof is acknow- ledged, hcta~E granted, barg•:,ined, sold, and conveyed and by these presents do grant, bargai:,, sell and convey unto the Grantee, its succes~or~ and assigns forgiver, in fee simple, the following described real Estate together with all riq:~ts of acczss between the right of way of t~,e said project ar~d the remaining contiguous real property bel~~nging to the .~ra;itors situated in the County of Ada, State of T~:sho, to-wit: A parcel of land being on the A'esterly side of the center?.ine of Ea31e Roa~9 Project No. F-FR-3271(44) Highway survey as showy. on the: plans thereof now on file in the office of the Idaho Transportation Department, Division of Highways, and being a portion of Lot 1 of Amended t7agic View Subdivis~~n according to the official plat thereof filed in Book 28 of Plats at page: 1755 records of Ada County, Idaho described as follows, to-wit: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 1 of said Amended Magic View Subdivisio;i, Ada County Idaho; t:~eiice. North 89°57'05" Wast (shown of recorc': to be North 89°53''29.7" West) along the north line of said Lot 1 a diste:nce of 40 37 feet to a point in a line parallel with and 70.0 feet Westerly from the centerline and opposite Station 49+Fi1.54 cf said Eagle Road, Project "10. F-FR-3271(44 Eighway Survey; > _ thence a-1ong. said parallel ling as follor.•s: ~.: ,. .` Page 1 of 3 _, ~y; r :,~ -~ .. ~..i:~~.:.g~i}_ ~. _ .. .. i. ~ \ 3 • ~T ~. ~~ .. WARRANTY DEED Project No. r'-FR-3271(44; Parcel`No. 1, Id. No. 26540 Key No.` 3250 Southerly along a 5,659:58 foot radius curve right 339.39 .feet to a point apposite station 46+;7.95 a point of reverse curvature of said Highway Survey, Southerly along a 5,'39.58 foot radius curve left 238.12 feet to a point in the South -.line o~ said Lot 1; thence North 89°38'27" ~;ast ;shown of record to be North 89°37'0?." East) along said South line 66.10 feet zo a point in the T.7esterly Right of S~7~y line of existing Eagle Road; thence Forth 0°21'33" West (Shown of record to be North 0°22'57.7" West) along sairi West line 576.73 feEt to the PLACE nF BEGINNING. HigY,way Station Reference: 44+29.65 to 4q+81.54. The area conveyed by this instrument contains anFroxi.mately O.E855 acres, 0.03?9 acres of which is acknocaledged to be a rortion of a public, road. Any Righ*_ of iday fencing to be constructed is not necessarily intended to designate the property line bet;aeen Gra::tor and the State, and any variance between the location of Right of Way fencing and the actual property line as herein described shall not be construed as a modification or alteration or" this description. Grant^r_ convey unto the Grantee the right to prohibit the erec- tion or construction of any buildings or structures except irrio•.tion or drainage structti*es ~~ithin tr~enty feet (20' ) of the real property above described. It i~ expressly intended that these covenants, burdens and res trictions shall :un with the land and shall fore~ar bind the Granto.-S T~i~ YtP.lrS a,Zd assigns. TO H~,'JE AND TO HOLD the said premix es, with their appurtenances, unto the said Grani:ee and its succc.~sor~ and assigns forever. And the Grantors do_ heraby covenant to ano with the said Grantee, that ~;=y- ar.e the o;aneri in fee simp?.e cf said premises; that they are free from Pace 2 of 3 ....:..;...:.~:...`.._:. e .. . . Project No. F-2?R-J2')i{4~1) Parcel No. 1, i~d. N~. 'L6540 Key. No. 3250 all encumbrances and that ~~ will s;arrant and defend the same from all lawful- clai*na uhatso~:ver. IN WITD?ES~; .WHEREOF, Grantors ha~~ hereunto set 7liEr2' hand :,nd seal S the nay and ye~:r first. above written. GE?.A//LD J. GRRDNER l~ r ~_ STATE OF ~.~~~/~ _ j ~} ~s. County of ~li ~ } On thi:, /~ aay of ~:ff~ ~; /' 1987 , before ma, the undersigned, a Notary Public in ~.:rd for said SY.ate, personally appearec GERALD J. GARDNEk aka C;. J. G:~PD~7BR .i-~~ -~~fc~'~i~ .r-. l~'.~.u.~•E~ ,h~s~r~~~.c known to me to be Lze perso'i5 :phase nas~>< ,t'~c svbscribe:=! to the • foregoing instrument, and acX;ZC~wleaced to me trac ;~JexPCUtec3 Cr,e same. IN 47ITNEtiS 47HEREJF, I rave hereunto silt ray hand and affixed my official seal the day znd year in this Certificate first above written. ~- ~ ,,,~ {SEAL } Notary NifrJl i.cb for ~~f~'?~•` ~- -- ~„~,~~",.'~~~ RPSiding at ..~0 Sr`~ - ,F,Y Fage 3 0~ 3 Rdx Cncnty, id~ho s Raau~s+ of _S~~';~'~.ni T11t~ ;~,-: ~~ -;~~' :-,fir . ,. ~~ .~I',r. Jy r-= l ` • • LAW OFFICES MEULEMAN, MILLER ~ CUMMINGS LLP BUSINESS LAW • REAL ESTATE LAW • CONSTRUCTION LAW KIMBERLY J. BLAS* (208) 342-6066 RICHARD A. CUMMINGS 960 BROADWAY AVE., SUITE 400 MICHELE L. ENGEL** KIMBAL. L. LOWLAND POST OFFICE BOX 955 FAX QUENTIN M. KNIPE*** BOISE, 1DAH0 83701 (208) 336-9712 GEOFFREY J. McCONNELL**** WAYNE V MEULEMAN ROBERT L. MILLER • LICENSED IN IDAHO & NEVADA '" LICENSED IN IDAHO 6 UTAH RICHARD W MOLLERUP •"• LICENSED IN IDAHO & WASHINGTON •"'• LICENSED IN IDAH06~ CALIFGRNIA April 10, 1996 VIA HAND DELIVER4' 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 Debris 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 ., Richar . Molleru RWM:bIg (h: \rwm\5 871.02\con\wilkins.2) Enclosure cc: Gerald and Delores Marlin (letter only) Stephen C. Brown (letter only) Kurt Wilkins (letter only) MeulemanMillerCummings TEL~1-208-336-9712 Rpr 08 96 1412 No .017 P.02 t ~~ .. Al<,lT i~Rif~ATI~[ 'T'his Authorization is given this ~ day of April, 1996, fyy Gerald 1N. Marlin and I3eloris B. Marlin, husband and wife ("Marlin"). RECITAT~; A. Marlin is the owner of certain property located in the County of Ada, Slate of Idahr~, ~manon!y kr_c~wn as 603 South Bala Road and described as Lot 1, Amendod Magic Valley Subdivision according to the articial plat filed in Soak 28 of Plats at Page 1755, records of Ada County, Idaho ("Subject Property"). B. 1VJarlin, as seller, has entenad into a contract for the purchase and salt of the Subject )property wide Terry Debban and Mark Jensen as buyer with an effective date of March 15, 1996 {"Contracct"}, C. ~Undcr the conditions of the Contract, buyer shall have obtained from the City of Meridian and/or Ada County approval to rezone the property for commercial use and exemption oP the Subject Property by the City of lVleridian. NOW, THERSFORB, Marlin hereby grants its permission and approval to Terry bebban and Mark Jensen io make all necessary applications to the City of Meridian to cause the Subject Property to be rezoned for commcrciAl use and annexed by the City of Meridian. AUTHORlZAT1QN - P~ga ] MNl&C: 5877.U2 U4J08/96 MeulemanMillerCummings TEL~1-208-336-9712 • Apr Q8 96 • EXECUTED the day and year first above carillon. ~/ Giesald W. Marlin p~:~~m~sa~i.aaawuu~oRx» STATE OF-I~~€E~ ~~~~~ a~ ) ` )ss. CQUNTY UP Q~u a. ) Dalorls B. Marlin On this ~ day of April, 199G, before mc, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Gerald W. Marlin and Dclaris B. Marlin, known or identified to the la be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that they executed the same. IN WITNESS WHBRFOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seai tt~e day and year in this certi~c~le first above written. D`2i{ _~- N ARY P ,IC for Gl~w~.v-n a- Residing at Z My commission expires: 7 ~/_ auTNOxiLnT10N - Page 2 MMc~.C: 5tS'71,(l2 U4ros~~~ • • 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, (5.2097 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. a r.a~. KEITH A. LOVELESS, P.E./P.L.S. LOVELESS ENGINEERING 3330 GRACE STREET BOISE, IDAHO 83703 wm•mr~arW sn-r LO T 1 Y ~ = $ x s e ~ . s e wo•z~siru N -~ m ~~ c ~v ~' N ~ K ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ GF~EvRON GONVENIENGE STORE t FODD 5ERVIGE ~~.~ ~ ~' nv~ ~' ~ ~~~me N L EAGLE FOAD ~ MAGIG VIEW DRIVE, MERIDIAN, IDAHO ARCHIT6CTs B~~ c KU~i __ g •. ...g ~ • • . FAT 6 0 : L R~ EN~ ~~.I~` ~ ~ U ... rte. . . 7 5 ~' 9 5 4 ~ .. ..~ 2 O 15 •~ it 8 4 3 Z': i .. i. y t ~ ~- I 8 1,0~ Z ~ 16 ,I\ . DRIVE ~ J ~ ;. ~ C 5" 6 AT G ~© p0~ 8 7 .6 5 4 3~ 2 ~ 9' +~ p~ 3 O2 i~ .1 ~ ~ . o AUTUMN k 17 Id ~~~' g `.. I Q ' . ,7 ~ `Y ~ +s• qy._ w~ to ..~ ~~ ~', ~ •~.:~ ~ 8. 7 z 6 15 w II .. ~i: •O > ~ ~5 IS i9 20 Q ., I . ~ 12 13 14 17 P .~ , I -~0 a' 14 ~ V 5 _ AUTUMN WA" ~. i 3 4 ~3 ~2 11 !0 9 S Y 7 6 i 4 ? 2 So, /Yj~ ~, 2 ; ~ ~ ~ ,..I ; -'s ,~ •-i .~ •~ c i ~•~~ ~~1~~N. -v ' ,' 5 ~ .. ~ i ~O. s I `y ~° 300 ft. - t~7 f ~--- __J~-.. - 1 .._ -~ a ,_ RT - ~ ~~ = ~ . , + ~ ~-, ,= s , ~ ~~____, ~ ; ~• ,` ~ 4 ~. ;_ .~~ f 23 \ \. s 1~ ---~_. I r"._.. _ T \ '.1 ~ \ \ ~' s \ ~ •' VICINITY MAPS ~ /' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~~ /,~ ; ' - scale: 1 :300 ft. , ~ ~ ~ ' ~ =~`-'~ I~ .. ~ ~ T ---- - - - --- ~.7 R I . r ~ - ~, R~ ...., g 5 ~. _ .. 9 • 3 ~-. ~ ~ 2 Q 15 •~ II 8 4 3 2". I v~ • ~ •~ DRIVE ~ i ~ \ 5 6 a I I' J O 16 °O 8 7. .6 5 4 3 ' 2 ~ ~ 9.~ ~ O AUTUMN ~ 17 It3 n~c~ 9 ~, . ~ Q , 7 _. : _ ., .. cn - 15 t. 6 7 Z - 6 . II _ .. ~ > !5 IS i9 20 . ~ ~ 12 13 14 17 P -~ ~ ~/D o' 14 ~` , ~^ 5 AUTUMN _ WA" ti loJ --r fi 3 4 ~3 +G !i !0 9 8 7 6 i 4 ? z ~ ~ So, /Yj~ 2 \ I ~ ,.. I , _~ ~ i .. , .~ ..l 5 4 ~ ' '> °~gp I 300 ft. `~J~ij!, _. f~~. ~ ~~ DRIV ..... ..--- f a / E , r ~. ;# s + ~ ~.~ ~, ~- ~- ~~ . . , ~~•. ~ IJ I ;r ~ : f 2~4 ~. _-~ ~ ' ~ i 6 I r7 i 5 ~~ ~ .~ ~~ j r~~ ~ . %/ GENTRY WA'• _.:• ~' ` --_ ~~ ---~1 'VICINITY MAP ~ 1 ,~ '- scale: 1" :300 ft. I ~ ~I ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ /~ .. ~ ~i ^ .. f ~' ~ • 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 il. 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 ^ .. 4' • 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 h 1~ IU 1~1 ~~ G ENH~,L ¢ ¢ N N rJ m r~ '~ 32~~,~0 ¢ I ¢ R R a P ~ / --SPRINGWOOD- ~Ip ~-' - - - - ~ ~ ~ / c .. .. c O O ~ y -- 0 ~ ~ ~ o o m " ~ N ES~AT S N ti ~ ^~ " ~~a,~ R ¢ ¢ 6 ¢ ~ R !s ~ m q~ % e ~ ~ t R d) S 1 .o ~~6 0 le 1~ mw m ~ O s .. ~~ a .. m 0'10 0 0 10 10 '31601ag to z ~ S DIV~SI N P32~3, ~~ o Ip N N o u .. m rJ 11 to m R R n ,:t 8327316016 ^I u ~ r1 '3160150 ^' I 83273160175 / - N O -' - - -' AIfTUMfV-' WAY ` - - - o iT p ~ 1't r~J N N m N p ~ O p N "J O O N N N .-. .~ N rl ~[) ICI ~ O O N N N O R m m '° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , In ~ NON n^i ^ n m m rn ~ o 7 R Q m rNj N N N m 10 R ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ R m n N 10 9 ! ~ to a ~ ' R _r ) r ~~ 1.0030 85443010012 _ ~--~~ __ . ~/- 8544301011} ~. +~~ 3010100 c~'rl- 3 n u 85443010122 85443010020 tL W J (~ ~; \\ ' as~9~s R5791~0 ` Op7 \ 00 85791500261 ~~ • ` t 13 gs)9,50` 85791500241 85791500244 85791500238 185791500230 I ~ m n to N O O =~ \ n 85791500170 R PARK s 857915[ t 85791500!65 4 N °o rn 8579150[ 85791500161 R5791500~. ~ ti N \SJv10NTYl)E DR O _ ul - I O 0 ~ O ~ o 0 . . O1 O O p a a SUBDIVISION N f` 1Z ~ a R `~ ~• ~`~\.' `• .'~` ~. \ ~ ` ~ ~ ' '~~. . . ` ` ~' \ \ . \ ~ .\ . `. ~.^ " ' ~ ~. ~'~^ •51f16233602 ~-----__(iENTRY WAY ,. _ --- ~1 ,- • • ~~ ~ ~~ ARCHITECTS BRS Architects, A.I.A. 1087 West Riuer 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: Annexation and Rezone 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. Applcan Signature: Terry De ban for Eagle Partners L.L.C. RDF:cw g•00 ' 381.41 ~ 13 .l ti ~_ rn = th ~ d' ~` t~ _ _ ~~ ~ N ~. r~ o SITE N ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ °~ SCALE: 1" :100 ' ~ ~ Z LO ;o N ~~ 21 ~ ~4 0.8 " E cv i 6' ~ m E- 31 f 5.1 0` '~' 36 3.93` C-2 i ~~ T- 6 "T - 3 s s ~~ is ~~ N ~9° 37` 02`~ E - 6 7 9. 05~ G_~ ( a. o 1 , T-78 ~ • ~. o o `` ~'t I ~ ~, ~; ~ o o M ~ I a ~ Q to +" 15' PE RM. E~1SM T. '-~ ~~ ~ N 89° 3T 02 E - 6T9.OS ` T-75 3 1 ~- ~ cal ,~ N o _ i U.S-~,S. IDA ~ N 705, 692.5 340,117.0 D Q O w J Hwy. Stc w 28+00 25~~t•~ • • • 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 • , G ENH ~I U ¢ a a a ~ I `~ 1 HS~ t O ~,~16 , a I a ¢ I 857915 50 ~ 9~ S00' \ P32 ~ ~ o0 . ~ /r '~ SPgING9VO0LT- 'gy p - - - 85791500261 ` \ a°' ~ ~ ~ m ~ • 3 9S 0 \ ~ ~ 1 ^ ~ ,°~ ~ ~ ~ 0 o m 8579150024! ~ \ / ~ N a ~ E S ~A T S ry ID n ~ I ---- ~ ~` ~ ~dj a ¢ ¢ N R ¢ ¢ ^ -~ ~ m R5791500170~ \ ` / ~ f6 ~ • m I a _ . 9.~a, ~~5 ' ° ° ~ a t a 85791500244 PARK 8579150 ~j 6 e 1e O 1a mw z• Nm I z • z ~ w~ • ra 1. ^ 6p 1~p c w b . . ~ I • ?7316014$ 2 S DIV~SI N ~, P321 '• N N 857 857 4 ,• ,~ ~ 91500238 ^ 91500165 n e " m ¢ ¢ I c 85791500 r: m 8327316016 n ^' m o 2 7 3 160150 n 32731 - 60175 ¢ ~ - --._ I rn n / ~ / N I 85791500230 - -~ljnyMlrj- WAY - -, 0 85791500161 1u I . ,• 85791500: in N o N ~ N m N O ~ O p m N O O N N . i m I 'n m m ^ 1^ 100 N IOD 10 2 N N N C^ -~O~~r.Vp ~+ NGm ~ N a n n n 1nu ° I ° °n 1N o r[ a ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ R m rn 01 ,° ao ,a a m ~ a ¢ SUBDI VISION ="• ' a ~ z r 0030 85443010020 ~~Tr 85443010012 lr '1~ia430f0f00 w aJ W ~~ 1 ~---._c~tN t t1Y WAY_ ~n~ • u PFMR02PUB 96 N E W M A S T E R U P D A T E STEWART 4/uti/96 Parcel 85443010020 Cade Area '14~' Type QL'y Value ACTIVE Name MOORE RICHARD L & BARBARA I, :t.50 5.050 3031111 Data From 370 1'12100 hfaster Buyer 990 Bank Coda C/O Address :105(1 MAGIC VIEW MERIDIAN ID ti3Ei42 - 0000 Last Change 90/115/03 By ASR_THOMAS Total 141400 Legal LOT 1 MAGIC VIEW SUB AMD 011$30000020 Property Address- 03050 E MAGIC VIEW Type1 REAI, F1=Select F3=Exit Lien Cede Prepaid L.I.D. Bankrul-~t Sub.Code Anexation From: Entity Exemr~tion Grp 000 Typ 000 Ap 3N 1F. 17 Hardship Zoning RT Flag DR MERIDIAN ... ID ti3642-0000 D.D. Rol ]. 7. PRIMARY Or_c. 0 NON-OCC Action: F10=Tax PFMR02PUB 96 N E W M A S T E R U P D A T E STEWART 4/0tf/96 Parcel 8:32731602:30 Code Area 142 Type Qty Value ACTIVE Name NIELSON DENNIS E & JOAN M :150 .4:10 10000 Data From ;i %0 144300 Master Buyer 9911 Bank C~u~F~ CFihf C/O Address x019 AUTUMN MERIDIAN ID tJ:i641 - li(iliil Last Change 90%:10/10 By ASR_THOMAS Toi:al ].64300 Legal LOT $ BLK 3 GREENHILL EST SUB NO 3 #8456949 Lien Code Prepaid L,.I.D. Bar-lcrupt x Serb. Code Anexation From: Entity Exempt ic:~n 007980030080 :SN 1E 1 ~ HardshiE, Property Zor~i_rrg R3 Fllag Address 03019 E AUTUMN 6tiAY MERIDIAN iD 83(141-OOi10 D.D. Type 1 REAL P,r~.ll :I. PRIA9ARY OcMC. (1 NON-OCC Act.i.r~n: F2=Select Fa=Exit F10=Tax ^~. • PFMRI'l2PUB 9fi N E W Nl A S T E R U P D A T E STEWART ~/Uti/yEi Parcel R3173lfiU'll5 Code Area 24~ Type Qty Value ACTIVE Name HOREL CHARLES D & MARY KAY 15U .41U '?5UUU Data From :37U 17tS2(1l) Master Buyer 9J11 ~ Bank Code I,MU C/O Address 3U43 AUTUMN MERIDIAN ID li:iEi42 - uuliu Last Change 93/U3/25 By .: ASR_LAZEN Legal LOT 7 BLK 3 GREENHILL EST SUB NO :i #t3Ei71Ei51 Total 2i-:i2U(i Grp UUU Typ UUU Ap Lien Code Prepaid L.I.D. Bankrupt ' Sub.Code Anexatiori From: Entity Exemption UU7)$UU30U71) 3N 7.E l! Hardship Property Zoning R:i F.lag Address U3U43 E AUTUMN WAY MI3RIDTAN ID £3 i(i4'?-l)OU1:1 D.D. Type 1 REAL Rc~l.l 1. PRIMARY Oc~c. U NON-OCC Ac~ti.on: Fl=Select F3=Exit F1U=Tax PFMRUIPUB gfi N E W M A S T E R U P D A T E STEWART ~/lJ$/9ti Parcel R:i17:ilEi(1211) Cade Area ;!=1? TyE,E~ Qty ValuF~ ACTIVE Name BOWEN MARK A & ANN T 1.5 U . 4.1 l) ':? U l1 U U Data E rom 37U lEiEi4UU Mast-e~r• Buyer 99l) Banlc Code SOM c/o Address :i0Ei7 AUTUMN WAY MERIDIAN ID F1.iEi42 - Ei'':iJ Last C1-cange ; y:i/tJEi/t)1 By ASR_DONNA Leger 1 LOT b BLK :i GREENHILL EST SUB NO .S #9171U5Ei 9:!7~~u5ti ~1~'7~~059 Total. 1t1Ei~U11 ;:...Grp Ilt)U Typ IIUII Ap Lien Code Prepaid L.I.D. Banlcrr.(l,t ~` Sub.Cade Anexation Frc:,m: Entity Exemi,ti.c~n UU7JIiUU3l)I)6u aN Lf :17 Hardsl~cil,~ Property 7,c,nir-c~ R.i F .lag Address U:iUEi7 E AUTUiv1N 6VAY MERIDIAN ID tS3Ei42-t1U(1U D.D. Typo 1 RF,AI,, 12r>.11. l 1?RTMARY Occ. li NON-OCC Action: F1=Select Fa=Exit F1(1='l'ax ~~ ' • • PFMRU2PUB 9b N E W M A S T E R U P D A T E STEWART 4/U$/96 Parcel R3173lEiU215 Code Area 241 Type Qty Value ACTIVE Name TRUAX RODNEY D & KRIS A 15u .41U 15UUU Data From 37U 13tJ0UU Master Buyer 9911 ~ Bank Code US1 C/O Address 31191 A(JTUMN WAY NJERIDIAN ID ~s3641 - UUUU Last Change 93/U4/Ul By ASR_LAZEN Total163UUU Legal -LOT 5 BLK 3 GREENHILL EST SUB NO 3 #9113595 Lien Cade Prepaid L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Anexation From: Entity Exemption Grp 11Ui1 Typ UUl1 Ap clU79HUU3U(J5U .iN LE l % Hardsl~i:i~~ Property Zc,ni ng I2.i Flag Address U3(191 E AUTUMN WAY MERIDIAN ID tS.SEi4'-111J1)ll D.D. Type 1 REAL Rc~.l ]. J. PRLMAI~Y Occ~ . 11 NON-OCC Ar_tiort F1=Select Fa=Exit F111=Tax PFMRI)1PiIB 9h N E W ivJ A S T E R U P D A T E STEWART 4/UtS/9Ei Parcel R32731bU1ll1 Code Area 24'1 `i'yL.u~ Qt.y Value ACTIVE Name WILLIAMS RICHARD C fi CHERc~L A 1511 .4:1.1) 25UU11 Data From ~~ 370 1349110 Master Buyer 9911 ~ Ban1c Code C/O Lien Code Address 3133 AUTUMN PrePaic3 L.I.D. MERIDIAN TD Bar-lct.-upt 8 3042 - (lliti il Su1~.Code Anexation Last Change 93/(13/25 By ASCl_I,A7.EN From: '1'c,t;,~l. 1 ti99111i Ent: i.t:y Legal LOT 4 BLK 3 GREENHILL EST SUB NO a Exemption #Ji.i47b.i ~ ::..Grp IJUU Typ 111711 Ap t1U798uU3liu4U 3N 1.E 7. % Ha rdsl~iip Property Z,aning R3 Flag Address 03133 E AUTUMN WAY hJERIDIAN TD 83642 -0000 D.D. Type 1 REAL P.ol 1 1 PRIMARY Occ . 11 NON-OCC Act ion F2=Select F3=Exit Flt)=Tax ~~ • • PFMR02PUB 9Ei N E W M A S T E R U P D A T IJ STEWART 4/Oli/9fi Parcel 83273160105 Code Area 142 'Pype Qt:y Value ACTIVE Name CHRISTENSEN SEIERON G & 1.511 .411) 101101~I Data From COLLEEN C REVOCABLE TRUST x 711 119 7 t10 blas t:e r. Buyer 990 ~ Bank Code, C/O Address :1157 AUTUMN NIERIDIAN ID $3Ei41 - 0000 Last Chanye :93/'10/2'1 By ASRl_ALLEN Total 1397110 Legal LOT 3 BLK 3 GREENHILL EST SUB NO 3 #9379998 Grp 000 Tyi, 000 Ap Lien Cade Prepaid L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Anexation From: Entity Exempt ion 0079811030030 3N :LIa 17 Hardsl~)i_la Property 7c>n i.)~c~ R3 Flag Address 03157 E AUTUMN WAY MERIDIAN ... ID 83Ei41-OOt~)0 D.D. Type 1 REAL, Rc_~.ll I. PRIMARY Or_c. 0 NON-OCC Ar_tior): F2=Select F'3=Exit FJ 0=Z'ax PFMR0IPUB 9Ei N E W M A S '[' E R U P D A T E STEWART 4/08/9(1 Parcel 831731(10195 Code Area 24'x' Type Qty Vali_ie ACTIVE Name GREENHILL ESTATES SIJB NO 3 459 .'?9ti Data From WATER CORP ~ Master Buyer C/O Address 3137 SPRING6VOOD BOISE ID 83(142 - 0000 Last Chanye 0/00/00 By ,Legal LOT 1 BLK 3 GREENHILL EST SUB NO 3 #5224109 007980030010 Property Address 0()0(.10 EAGLE Type 1 REAL, F1=Select F3=Exit Total ~~`-GrI, 000 Typ 000 Ap 3N LE a.7 Harclslci.}~ 7cininy R3 ID Rc~].7. a. }>RIMARY C)cc.~. U NON-OCC - F10=Tax Ban1c Code Lien Code Prepaid I,.I .D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Anexatiorc From: Ent i.tiy Exempt~.or) Flag D.D. Action: ~,. • • PFMRU2PUB 9Ei N E W M A S T E R U P D A T E STEWART 4/l)£t/9Ei Parcel R327316t12t12 Cade Area 242 Type Qty Value ACTIVE Name GREENI3ILL ESTATES SUBDIVISION 459 .2tJtJ Data From NO THREE WATER CORP blaster Buyer ~ Banlt Code C/O Lien Code Address 2$94 SPRINGWOOD PrePaid L.I.D. MERIDIAN ID Bankrupt $3Ei4'2 - lIUIIU Sub.Code Anexation Last Change $$/lU/'26 By ASR_h1AP From: Total Entity Legal LOT 2 EXC R/W BLK 3 GREENIiILL EST SUB NO 3 Exemhtic~n #021111 BEi #$$44'16'1 Grp (1 (1U Typ l1 (1U Ap U(179fI11t1311112A 3N 1E 1 % Har.dsr~ip Property Zorti.rtg R3 1?].ag Address 000011 EAGLE TD D.D. Type 1 REAL Ro7.1 1 PRIMARY Occ. l1 NON-OCC Action: F2=Select F3=Exit FlU=Tax PFMRU2PUB 96 N E W M A S T E R U P D A T E STEWART 4/tlts/96 Parcel R3273'16U175 Cade Area 242 Type Qt.y Value ACTIVE Name HARTLEY TODD S & NANCY A 7.5ti .41ti 15000 Data From 3711 lUti7U(1 Master Buyer ~ 990 Bank Code TTS C/O Liert Code Address 31)50 AiITUMN WAY PrePaid L.I.D. bIERIDIAN ID Bankrupt * ti3Ei4'2 - (11-Up Sttb.Code Ar-exatic~n Last Charge : 93%117/22 By ASR_LAlEN Frorn: Total 133711 ti F,nti.ty Legal LOT 17 BLK 2 GREENHILL EST SUB NO 3 Exemption #9234259 .;:_. G r p (1(1(1 T y p l1 (1 l1 Ap U117JtSt1U2Ua7U 3N 7.E 1. % Fla rdslci.p Property 7,~rtiricl R3 Flag Address t13u5t1 E A[JTUMN WAY ME[t:IUTAN Ill tt364'2-1JU11t1 D.D. TyL~o :I REAL I: ca 1. 1 I PR:Ib1ARY Occ_ . !) NON-OCC Act.:i_on F2=Seler_t Fa=Exit ~ F7.1.1=Tax „~,. • PFMRl12PUB y[i N E W hl A S T E R Ll P D A T E STEWART 4/ Utf / 9ti Parr_el R327:71tiulti[i cede Area "~42 Type S?t.y Value ACTIVE Name DIAMOND BRYAN & I.Su .4:1[1~5t)(.fU Data From SHERMAN BEVERLY D 37U 7.35fi1)U Master Buyer J9U Banlc Code C/O Address :il:i4 E AUTUMN WAY MERIDIAN ID ts3Ei4? - G~~sl; Last Change )E~/Ul%17 By ASR_N}OUSER Total 1fiUfiUU Legal LOT 1£f BLK 1 GREENHILL EST SUB NO .i #J5U£it}54Ei Gr}a l)1:)U TyE, I)UU Ap Lien Code Prepaid L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Anexation From: Entity Exc~mpt.ton t)U79tiUU2t11EJU :iN 7.E 17 Harc75ir:i1, Property 'lc,ning Ra 1?]ag Address U:i134 E AUT[JMN WAY MERIDIAN 'ID tf3Ei42-11U1111 D.D. Type :L REAL Rr,.l ] :1. PR:[MARY Occ . l) NON-OCC Ac~t.i.c,n F2=Seler_t E'.i=Exit FI11=Tax PFMRU2PUB )b N E W M A S T E R U P D A T E S'rEWAR'r 4/bt3/9Ei Parcel R327.i1tiU1$5 Coda Area <.'42 Type Qty Value Ac`TI:VE Name CtiBER CIIARI,ES L & J}R1tY A TRS`r 7.51} .41.11 25liUU Data From CUBER C~L & J A CO-TRUSTEES a7U 1.157UtJ Muster Buyer 9~+u 13anlc Cc,dc_ c/o Address :i1.5fJ E AUTUMN WAY MERIDIAN I () Last Cl~ange : y.i/U$/:Lfi By ASR2_AI,I,E\ T~~ t ~:~ l 1411 71i li Legal LOT '1 y BLK '? GItF;ENI-TILL ES'1.' S[JB N() 3 #JS~Ul74 OU79£f111J1t11yU Prc)1_~ert.y Address U.S1_`iti 1~ AU'rUNiN Typc=. I. 12I'sAL F1=Select F3=Exit. Lien Cc.,clc:: Prel'a i.cl L.I.D. B~~rnkru1~t: " Suh.Code Anexa l: icon From: h,ntity Exempl..ic,n ~:=..Grp i1UU TY1~ UUU AL, 3N LE 7.7 HardsLil:~ <., n i. n c l R i 1? 1 a c~ tVAY NI 1:[:TDI:AN 1U ff3(i42-IJ111)U D.D. Rc., 1 I I 112 1 P1AR1' (:)c~c~ . 1'I NON-(7('C Ac: l: i.c,i-: F:1 11=`I'z~ a 1~ • • PFMRUIPUB JEi N E W M A S T E R U P D A T E STEWART 4/Uti/yEi Parcel R57yl5ifu23u Cade Area 247. Ty~~,e Qt:y Va].ue ACTIVE Name IDAIiO TRANSPORTATION BOARD. £f1U .~4u nata From h'18St.E'I' Buyer Banlc Cade C/O I,i.en Cc~c:l c.. Address :i.ill W STATE Pre Pa id L.I.n. BOISE ID Barilcrut,t tf:i7U3 - l1UUU Sub.Codc Anexation Last Cha nge g2/Uy/U3 By ASR DONNA Frorn: _ Tota 1 Er7t.i.ty Legal PAR #U2:iU OF Sl OF LOT 6 BLK ~ Exomhl::ion MONTVUE PARK SUB Fj3-1U~A #U2a1-B Grf_, Ut)U TyL, 11UU ALA #~75'~u4y U1313UUtiUt:)fiB _SN 7.L 7 Ei Harc151,i1, Prot,ert:y Zc~n i nc~ Fil. ['lay Address 1)I).i~)f) S F.AGI,F' ID D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll :L PRI~9?1RY Or:c:. U NO\-OCC Ar_t:ion: F2=Selec L F:i=ExiL I?7.1)=Tax PFh1Rl)''P UB JEi N E W i~l A S T E Ft li P D A T E STEWART =1• / llif / JEi Par.•cel R:~7y15Ut12~11 Code Area 241. Type ~)Ly Valuc: ACTIVE Name BURTNER ED6VIN R JR & L5U . cJ~1c1 '~5Uf)U Dana From MADELINI/ C .j%U 11 ~rftiti i`9~YSLc~r Buyer J~)U I3;inlc Code C/O l.,:i can Cc~dc~ Address 2ti5 W MONTVUI? Pre Pai.c] L.I.D. MERIDIAN ID BanlcrriL~~t tiafl~'~ - UI)I~11) Suh.Code Anexat:ic~n Last Cl~ia nge : 9~/U'~/tJ~~ By ASR DT~IE From: _ Tc,t.a1 13`lffllU C,nL-:it.y Legg 1 LOT 1 U BLIi 5 MONTVUE PA1~[i Exempl..i an .:..Grl, (111(1 TyL, l)UO Ap U1:il:iUUS(71U11 3N I.F 1(i Iiarclsh:i_L:, Property Zr,n:i.nq R1 Flag Address UIJ2tf5 W MONTVi)E DR h1F:RIDIAN ID ti .3Ei42-Ut1U1:f D.D. Type ~I. RE,AI, Rr:>11 I I?I2I~9AR1' c)c,c~. (1 NON-OCC Ac:L.ic~n; F2 =Se.ler t: Fa=ExiC F:11f=~T~~x ^, • • PFMRl12PUB 9Ei N E W M A S T E R U P I) A T E STEWAR'I' =I / ll£I / 9G Parcel R57~15UU225 Cede Arr,- 2=I 1. Type ~Ly Value ACTIVE Name STATE. DEPT OF HIGH6VAYS ~;1_lJ /7il Data From ~9ast~~r Buyer C%O Address :1311 Ga STATE BOISE ID 837u3 - utiliti Last CI'iarige ; ~t7/UJ/1fi By ASR_MAP Legal PAR #0225 OF LOT 5 BLK `i MONTVUE PARK #(12211 B #8735r;71i Tr,ta 1 Grp 11011 TY1=, 11(1(1 Ap Bcartlc Codr~ L, i.f~ri Code Prepaid L.I.D. Bankrupt. Sub.Cade Anexat:ion From: Enl.ity Er;emL,l~. i r>n f;3-1115A U13:LSUi15iJ1)5A .SN I_E 7.fi Fl,~rrlstt:i.l_, ProL?eri~y Zr,n i.u~7 IZ] F' I.~q Address O1)39(1 S 11'AGT,L RD I:[;NA iD f;3E~3=l-(J II (I (1 p.~. 'I'yL,c 7. RL;~1T, Rc> i 1 I PR:Li`IARY (1C~c• . (J NC~iv-c)C'C Ac I inn F2=Seler_t F3=Exi.t L'111-`Prix PFMRII'?PUB 911 N E. 4V Nl \ S 'I' 1! R li P D A T h S'[EGVART ~I%IJtI/9(i Parcel R579151iU'2:L.il Code Arc,,t 2-1 I 'I'Y1-~,.~ Qty V~~lue Ac'TIVL. Namr. RICHEY VIRGIL C ET 1.iY :150 1.11 (; 1J 2f~liliil D~iEa L'rc,m i7iJ LL LiJi-U ?l,.~st.c~r• Buyer 9911 ~ T3.~nic Code C/O Address 3E;5 MONTV[lE P'IERIDIAN TI-- Last Change 94%02/04 By ASR_DI~TE 'f'c:,t.-t1 L37iJUu L~~ga 1 LOT 4 BL[. A9CINTVUE PARK _:.._t1~L, (1(111 Tyi, 1)111( AI:, I, i c-~ri Cc,dc;~ Prc-~P._t i.~I r,.i.D. B.inlcrttl~L '~ Sul, . Coc:tc~ 1nes;~ t: ~ c,n F rgpl r:i,i: i ty I;s,~rnL,l. i.c~n 07.3:L3UU5UU40 iN 1.1~. 1 ~ Iia,.~rtt_,ft i.L, Property -I,~~rring R:L f? ] ~icl Address U1:13G5 E MONTV[lE DE2 (`'IE121"ELAN ID 83(14'-(1(1(1(1 D.D. Type J. Ri;AI, l:c>1 1 1 PRIMARY Ocar:. ll NON-OCC Ac; P..i.o-7: F'2=Selert F3=Ex:it I':LU=Tr~x C PFMRU2PUB Jfi N E 6V N"[ A S T E }Z [~ [' T) A T E; STL;[•VAII'[' =1i lll~S/'16 Parr_el R5~4:3U1U114 C_oc3e Area ~'=1 '? TY1~r c~)t.y Va.luc-~ AC'[.'[V1; Name JACI~SONS FOOD STORES INC '?:L(I =1.:.'7E~ •'7)=1UU I)<iL~a I?t'c.~m 4'?l) 3~itiE;ilti ~IasCc.~r. Buyer Bank Cocle_~ Address 35UU COi`•IN.IERCTAL CT Pre Pa i.cl PO BC)N 4 t ti I, . 1 . D . MERIDIAN ID B~-Inkr~n1,t tS.iE~'1' - Ell)(I (1 Srt1:,.Cc,d,~ H3 Anew 1. c,n Last Cltanye : cJEi/tl~~/'~a By AS[2? ALLE N From: `LoLri.l E~7ti1)UU L.nt.~.t.y Legal PAR #U:L14 OF LOT 7.1 MAGIC VIEW SIR Ai`•1D ExeruL,t:ion #111.1..1-B #~btaU`t£3t17 Gt°1, 1)[!l) Tyl., lll)l1 AL, U1 1 tS3(1f111Ua LI3 3i~i I E 1 % [i"c1 ~ 1~>I1 tL, Prc~L',r.~l'Ly l„1~ i Ilc) t'-(:; I~'l~~lc `J AdtLr'ess (1 t1Ei25 N I;A(~I,L; [~l) 1;AC;I,I', T11 ti.ifi l.Ei-1111 E1 [1 D.I). 'i'y~,c~ 1. I3FAL, Rc, I 1 I PP.Ti`111~1' Oc:c:. t) Nct;v--Oc'r <1,.I.ic>tl: F1=Select E.S=E?:it F111=='1',a~ PL~MRU'PGL3 ~)E~ N E W hl i\ S `f F R 1; P I) A 'I' 1~ STELVAh'1' =L- I)i`i/!1 t; Parr_el S111Ei23.3tJ11~' Cock, Ar~;a (l i-2i `I'yL.,F~ i,~ty V~Ilue, :1i"I'IVF Name ST LURIS'S 13H,GIONAI, 1~1[;D1('.11~ loll i%.`,~'l1 I.SI i?(1 h.tl.a I?l-c_,m CENTE[I L'I'D -S'it) I. ~`i;i(11111 ~I;asl c-.~t~ Buyer C/O Address 1_Jll E BANNOCF< BOISE II) Last Cllangc-~ : 9Ei/t)3/(11 By :'~SIt_K[NSE[ Legal SW~INLV=L EYC R/W SEC :1.fi 3N :L ); ##1..i.itilS11 B #~i~illtf)Ei1. #J:St)! `)EiU #~1.:i1)FS'.1`,f; #J,il1tSJ5) #c~31)tSyS% #~).i11ti~1`ib Tc,t,, l LtiLiEi3'.'11 B~~IIk c~c_„3c--~ Sill I,1 c-'n Cock--~ h1:'~P~i i.c.l L.I.D. BanlcrttL,t x S1th.i`c,c.ic' Anexa t.:ion F t•om Int:it~v Exempt. i r,rt ,:._. C;1'l, Cl it li TY1, 1111(1 A1, l).iNll I?:L(i3tf112 SN II? 1(~ Il,_rrca511i1-, Property Gc,n i nU 1,-c-) AdcEresS L1l)U1111 N I~AGI,I~; RI) i`91~:FtI1)IAN :Ch 'Ty~,c--~ :L [tEAL R~:,1.I. a. L'1;'Li`I:~1~~" ch_:c~. fl NON-OCC F2 =Se .l er_~t:. F3=ExiL- l•'a l)=-Tdn L~'l;~g 1-.D. Act. i.on: • • THESE ARE ITEMS NEEDED FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUESTS i. Name, address and phone number of applicant; 2. Name, address and phone number of owner of subject property, and proof of title in said owner; . 3. Notarized request for zoning amendment from titled owner, successor of said owner, or valid title option holder or contract purchaser with consent from the titled owner if not requested by the titled owner; 4. Legal description of property; 5. Legal description of all adjoining rights-of-way, railroads, roadways, highways and easements the full length of the property; 6. Present land use; 7. Proposed land use; 8. Present district; 9. Proposed district; 10. Characteristics of subject property which make the zoning amendment desirable; il. Necessity or desirability of development pertaining to the zoning amendment and its harmony with adjacent development; 12 . one ( 1) map of scal a one (1) f nch equal s one hundred (100 ) feet of the property concerning the zoning amendment; 13. Thirty (30) copies of a vicinity map of a scale of one (i) inch equals three hundred (3.00) feet; 14. A list of the mailing addresses of all property owners, from authentic tax records of Ada County, who are within three hundred (300) feet of the external boundaries of the land being considered, and all property owners included within the property being considered; 15. A statement of how the proposed zoning .amendment related to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; 16. A fee as established by the Council; Less than 1 acre = $400.00; Over 1 acre = $400.00 + $15.00 per acre over portion thereof. In addition to above fee applicant shall pay cost of certified mailings at rate of $1.29 per notice. 17. The property will be posted i week before hearing stating they have applied for a Conditional Use Permit or Zoning. There must be a~signed affidavit that this has been done as part of the application. CITY OF MERIDIAN "Hub of Treasure Valley" 33 E. Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 888-4433 - "~~ ,o I ~ ~ ~ r. °. i g~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... i ~, ,,, o ... g 's r,...o m ~ ~~~ V N ~~ N ~aM I ~ ~I ~__. _ ° °° ~ a e 1 m ~ i ~~ r V ~~- s~g~ ~ ran Q w ui ~ I' N W m .µ (' ~r~°ar8~ ] ''Q m¢ i .~ ~ O ~.. ano 0 4, I ..~~ ~OL O ~i a 7 r I (;ustomer s Order No. Date ~7'" ~' 19 Name .S Address Phone: SOLD 8Y CASH C.O.D. CHARGE ON ACCT. MDSE. RETD. PAID OUT n I ~j 73~ ~1 ~ ' i i I I I I I I I I I be accompanied by this bai. All claims and returned goods MUST TAX ~ A 0 0 5 6 91 Byceived ~t ~ ~ 7 TOTAL ~ ~ ~ 9' G5 202 2 PRINKED IN 11.5.A. o 33 E. Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 • 888-4433 ~ ~ i J 'Customers ~ - ~ / lg' Vi Order No. Date Name Address Phone: SOLD BY CASH C.O.D. CHARGE DN ACCT. MDSE. RETD. PAID OUT ~ I / L ~ ~ ~ '~ L/ ~ I 1 I I I I 7 ~ ,~ . I I I I I 31 ' I I I I I I AYI claims and returned goods MUST be comp ie 15 n'"~ TAX I 0 0 5 5 7 c Byceived TOTAL ~ ~i f G5~702~Y ~ y~ n PRINTED IN U.S.A. VJ ~",~~ I -ti r, . , BRS ARCHITECTS ~ - ~ ' .. 1087, W. RIVER, STE. 160 PH. 208-336-8370' ~ .. ~ ~ ' - BOISE, ID 83702 _' ' ; _ _155/12 92 41 iG19 ~6 ~ - ~ ~ - ,- r . i~ PAY TO THE "~ Y ~ ;~ E . ORD R OF 47c,~7 _, ~' DOLLARS• I Kw eenx a IasRO ~ ~ - CaplWl Conax ORke ~ ' .. .. , ~ P.O. Box 2800 ,~ ^ V R Ba.., IAeM 837D, . ~ I M M . ._ . .. p FOR . -, _ , -~ II'0073i21I' ~:L24~10~.555~:0i i0752~ 81I' ALL~IICE TITLE & ESCROW (ARP. MARCH 21, 1996 BRS 1087 W. RIVER STREET SUITE 160 BOISE, IDAHO 83702 ATTENTION: BILLY RAY STRITE RE: MARLIN/DEBBAN RUSH THANK YOU for your title insurance order and/or escrow closing. In accordance with your request, we enclose Commitment for Title Insurance for your files and any additional copies you have requested. Your Title Order Number is: 96059652 JH Your Title Officer is: JOAN M. HART - (208) 336-6515 1412 W. Idaho St., Boise, Idaho Your Escrow Number is:96059652 JH Your Escrow Officer is: KENNETH A. FRANKLIN - (208) 336-6515 1412 W. Idaho St., Boise, Idaho Please do not hesitate to contact JOAN M. HART or KENNETH A. FRANKLIN if you should have any questions concerning your transaction. WE APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS! JOAN M. HART 1412 WEST IDAHO STREET -POST OFFICE BOX 7546 -BOISE, IDAHO - 83707 208-336-6515 - 1-800-658-3824 -FAX 208 343-4898 American Land Title Association Commitment • 1966 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURAN ISSUED BY ! i ~'.; s ~~ _a~ ..,, o, ~o~„rt~, STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, A Texas Corporation, herein called the Company, for a valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and .obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. Siigned under seal for the Company, but this Commitment shall not be valid or binding until it bears an authorized Countersignature. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A. r- Chairman of t e Board Countersigned by: STEWART TITLE Authorized Signatory Company City, State GUARANTY COMPANY ~NIM////i/iyw ~~~t~.t'~\~:~:sU49 ~ +Q' LpPPOq,~ '~~~ W~~ ~a~: 1908 ;oA~ ~+ TEXAS iA''~ riww/Nx/Md ~.~~ ate President 005 • UN -Rev. 3/78 • • C O M M I T M E N T S C H E D U L E ORDER NUMBER: 96059652 JH EFFECTIVE DATE: MARCH 07, 1996 at 7:30 a.m. 1. Policy or policies to be issued: A. ALTA Owner's Policy, (10-17-92) A Amount of Insurance: $ 850,000.00 Rate: $ 2,428.00 Proposed Insured: B. ALTA Loan Policy (10-17-92) Amount of Insurance: Rate: Proposed Insured: None Other coverages and/or charges: NONE In the event this transaction fails to Close and this Commitment is cancelled, a Cancellation fee in the amount of $100.00, will be charged to comply with the State Insurance Regulations. 2. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in the Commitment and covered herein is: FEE SIMPLE 3. Title is at the effective date vested in: GERALD W. MARLIN and DELORIS B. MARLIN, husband and wife 4. The land referred to in this commitment is in the State of IDAHO, County of ADA, and is described as follows: A parcel of land being all of Lot 1 Amended Magic View Subdivision according to the Official Plat thereof filed in Book 52 of Plats at Pages 4445-4446, records of Ada County, Idaho. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: A parcel of land being on the Westerly side of the centerline of Eagle Road Project No. F-FR-3271(44) Highway Survey as shown on the plans thereof now on file in the office of the Idaho Transportation Department Division of Highways, and being a portion of Lot -1- Commitment Schedule A CONTINUATION OF C~ITMENT SCHEDULE A Order No.: AT-96059652 JH 1 of Amended Magic View Subdivision according to the Official Plat thereof filed in Book 52 of Plats at Pages 4445-4446, records of Ada County, Idaho described as follows, to-wit: BEGINNING at the Northeast corner of Lot 1 of said Amended Magic View Subdivision, Ada County, Idaho; thence North 89 degrees 57'05" West (shown of record to be North 89 degrees 58'29.7" West) along the North line of said Lot 1 a distance of 40.37 feet to a point in a line parallel with and 70.00 feet Westerly from the centerline and opposite Station 49+81.54 of said Eagle Road, Project No. F-FR-3271(44) Highway Survey; thence along said parallel line as follows: Southerly along a 5659.58 foot radius curve right 339.39 feet to a point opposite Station 46+37.95 a point of reverse curvature of said Highway Survey, Southerly along a 5799.58 foot radius curve left 238.12 feet to a point in the South line of said Lot 1; thence North 89 degrees 38'27" East (shown of record to be North 89 degrees 37'02" East) along said South line 66.10 feet to a point in the Westerly right-of-way line of existing Eagle Road; thence North 00 degrees 21'33" West (shown of record to be North 00 degrees 22'57.7" West) along said West line 576.73 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING. Highway Station Reference: 44+29.65 to 49+81.54. Purported Address: 603 SO. EAGLE RD. MERIDIAN, IDAHO cac END OF SCHEDULE A -2- Commitment Schedule A i • C O M M I T M E N T S C H E D U L E B S E C T I O N 1 ORDER NUMBER: 96059652 JH EFFECTIVE DATE: MARCH 07, 1996 at 7:30 a.m. The following are the requirements to be complied with: Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to wit: 1. Necessary Conveyances vesting fee simple Title in the Proposed Insured. cc: ALLIANCE TITLE & ESCROW / KEN FRANKLIN BOISE RIVER REALTY / KURT WILKINS ELLIS, BROWN & SHEILS / STEPHEN C. BROWN MEULEMAN, MILLER & CUMMINGS / RICHARD MOLLERUP• BRS / BILLY RAY STRITE TERRY DEBBAN GERALD AND DELORIS MARLIN NOTE: If the applicant desires copies of the documents underlying any exception to coverage shown herein, the Company will furnish the same on request, if available, either with or without charge as appears appropriate. NOTE: If a Deed of Trust is contemplated as a part of this transaction, the correct name to be entered as the trustee is: ALLIANCE TITLE & ESCROW CORP., a Delaware Corporation. END OF SCHEDULE B-SECTION 1 Commitment Schedule B -Section 1 C O M M I T M E N T S C H E D U L E B S E C T I O N 2 ORDER NUMBER: 96059652 JH EFFECTIVE DATE: MARCH 07, 1996 at 7:30 a.m. EXCEPTIONS: The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: [Printed Exceptions] 1. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records, but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 2. Easements, liens, or encumbrances, or claims thereof; which are not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortages in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien or right to a lien-for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims, or title to water. 6. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records: Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by public record. [Special Exceptions] 7. General Taxes for the year 1996, a Lien but not yet due and payable. 8. General Taxes for the year 1995, a Lien, the first half is paid and the second half is now due and payable. Parcel No.: 242-R-5443010012 Iri the original amount of $295.18. -1- Commitment Schedule B -Section 2 CONTINUATION OF TITMENT SCHEDULE B - SECT 2 Order No.: AT-96059652 JH 9. The Land described herein is located within the boundaries of the NAMPA-MERIDIAN Irrigation District and is subject to any Assessments levied thereby. For current status call 343-1884. 10. The Land described herein is located within the boundaries of the NEW YORK Irrigation District and is subject to any Assessments levied thereby. For current status call 378-1023. 11. Easements, Reservations, Restrictions, Designations and Dedications, as shown on the Official Plat of said Subdivision. 12. Conditions, Restrictions and Access Rights in favor of State of Idaho Disclosed By WARRANTY DEED Recorded OCTOBER 14, 1987 Instrument No. 8757398 13. Reservations in favor of the Grantor - Grantor STATE OF IDAHO by and through the IDAHO TRANSPORTATION BOARD for the DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Disclosed by WARRANTY DEED Dated AUGUST 18, 1988 Recorded SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 Instrument No. 8843782 END OF SCHEDULE B-SECTION 2 -2- Commitment Schedule B -Section 2 ORDER NO. 96059652 EXHIBIT "A" A parcel of land being all of Lot 1 Amended .Subdivision according to the Official Plat Book 52 of Plats at Pages 4445-4446, record Idaho. • Magic View thereof filed in s of Ada County, EXCEPTING THEREFROM: A parcel of land being on the Westerly side of the centerline of Eagle Road Project No. F-FR-3271(44) Highway Survey as shown on the plans thereof now on file in the office of the Idaho Transportation Department Division of Highways, and being a portion of Lot 1 of Amended Magic View Subdivision according to the Official Plat thereof filed in Book 52 of Plats at Pages 4445-4446, records of Ada County, Idaho described as follows, to-wit: .BEGINNING at the Northeast corner of Lot 1 of said Amended Magic View Subdivision, Ada County, Idaho; thence North 89 degrees 57'05" West (shown of record to be North 89 degrees 58'29.7" West) along the North line of said Lot 1 a distance of 40.37 feet to a point in a line parallel with and 70.00 feet Westerly from the centerline and opposite Station 49+81.54 of said Eagle Road, Project No. F-FR-3271(44) Highway Survey; thence along said parallel line as follows: Southerly along a 5659.58 foot radius curve right 339.39 feet to a point opposite Station 46+37.95 a point of reverse curvature of said Highway Survey, Southerly along a 5799.58 foot radius curve left 238.12 feet to a point in the South line of said Lot 1; thence North 89 degrees 38'27" East (shown of record to be North 89 degrees 37'02" East) along said South line 66.10 feet to a point in the Westerly right-of-way line of existing Eagle Road; thence North 00 degrees 21'33" West (shown of record to be North 00 degrees 22'57.7" West) along said West line 576.73 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING. Highway Station Reference: 44+29.65 to 49+81.54. r S~ J q 0 W .1. v o ~ c ~ O ` C M ~ C ~ •v C ~ N W O _e q m IS i n o m E' s~ :~ • ~ ,ar ' :e ~~ ` •O • •~~ •~ gi^ ~ ~ ~~ r~ oy ~: ° u~ 0 ~; Yrs. '~ e s t • '`+~ ., o ~ a ; ~ ~e « .g M;. S 98 .. ' ea f es• ,n f~ \~ y t ~ e e•e: a~ •a : ~:fir r '~: _ .. a;~a• sx=: ~ e e• ^ ~ 1 ~ ~' . ~• e • ` ' ^ ~' N a yF V. ay ~'~ r 1 .~~j~ i - : !I~~i !ari ~o •\ •?Yu a•o~ w = : : ; : s7 :~: ~c •c:• ~' \ ~~ :tea ~~ s;z : W 7~ ~ g'z ••'Tw: • ~ •:. r 'w~i i=o:i`e~ n~~. 7d^ Y \ -LI-f 1 ~ _ • ~ Q N • O • o+- • s ~ i ~N.te\ ~` ~ o• • OO.LI •••• ~ -cleft 4~ iuog J N a .oo .f ~ / J i~ •r'l~ ` toffy h .1• ~\fJ •e .aa . ~ • . It l\I•• •~ 1 ~ •~ • i . w ~ W F fa'tfi 7.o•fc ,io •of t ~ •It ~ °4.i ;! • • 1 `~` `^,j~at-a ; •~n. / \ ~,o,'\.. ~~_ _ -~ b - ± ` f I1 ., ,,., ei iee ^ ' ' i~~ - 1 q F sf-a Y .t'Ot .tl •t0 M ~° a ;e ~ ~ ryTa ~ _ a~L -~ ~~ O 1\ ~• ` ~.L ~ ~ _ ~ t ~• •i ~ ye0y4 -- Oro • W li- ' : 6uo ••W • fc.jea P ~~ I , 2 7 w J t ,fc ,fba;oi t is f IO ''. • O ,, .h ~'f • '~f btr ~ \ © ; • - r J: Q 7,10 ,b - M ~ J ~ >R t e ,n'NI-•-rtl lt•af• /~ r N\t •,111•f Iw Ne-•1sl,aa.ee• f. IJR O . WV ~ ~,~ 0 Z ~ t O U a ~`iw 1~1 e ^ fa u' • • I ; 7 ~ V W ~ = Y - : ~ :: • Na ,ee . . t r•c w•- trr u ~ rr.ai M o^ sat. a• • ie \ W b e , , . ~f~ . . r • a r s •~ C7 °. a ; ,fart-•-rfl,ef •ffw w ~ ® ~ ~ ce.pe ^t_Il1=1=1!I! FI:I:I:I:I:I:I:ISI:ISI ~ a: s $a~ : gl•aaS R •aag ~ o \ a y ~ =ej L1 ? ~ ~ {{ a 3 r ~ t W . - ovoa 3~ ab3 • L ~~ T i - - _ - -N'fit 1-• t•! •0 Y. - - •1 0a-L If-1 1-L ,•e ~1 1,1II,e{.[ea ~- •••a of O t01~ ~.~ - - -ca•tas " _ -s.-.iz'r u ^~cu.oo.T - -ra•.ar 1:4..ii.ooY - , . waft.. .r o ~ .~ \ O O ~ \ w Z .It aat a•1 ~ ~: v O g ~~ ~ 8 ;c _ O ~,~ y\ ~ ~ ° Y = to ~ ~; Z • ~ o 0 Z w • ~ T 133!!1S N711Y -• ~ M •,•~ ~1 • ,raf ,e0 .0 w i01.1 ~ . _ ~ LL=! tt-1 01.1 ee-L '~'~ ~~ ty uf • ~ J ,rusr,ut,», ,to ~eac ••1 - u oot . p na• • .N N1 ~ ? • T S ^ ?!b j ~ 0 W O ° _: I ` • - 2 0: e O xq:l~ M t,a O ...v:• 1 w >- rn ..I~eit .-a • y Z Q1 ~_ ~ I - ooi•i -.tt•tt . , rLr w Y ~. ' ILfH,N.oon ~ ~ I a O ~ • L V ~ i i.~ • }••I 11 •a .IZ.r~ ! e • , ~ N f L' I z.z~s•.It • o ~ S ' • ~ Q Q - z • il Oi •O Y I'. • ,t ' e~ w Q 0 z _ ,ie c a• il- at •• I~•b O 3lI I ~ :. f • •- r ~ O ~~ ' •~~~ ~ • f ,tf'tle + ,efYfi .ft'att ,L i'fif~l ~ M ,1'Oi ,ii .0 f aNd~wavd It te1 ,tl'01- i r `~, _ ~~ti i ,to'wtl - r ,s to ,li .o s ~Ix ~` C •9f1S S1H`J13H M31A 15f1~O1 - 'o ~ ~!~~; s ~~;><< x i~l~g g .~ ~, ARCHITECTS BRS Architects, A.I.A. 1087 West Riuer Street, Suite 160 Boise, Idaho 83702 ?~lephone 208 336.8370 Fax 208 336.8380 City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 Attention: Will Dear Will: RE: Eagle Partners BRS Project # 9646 ~~~~~~~ FE B 1 1 1997 CITY.OF MERl9~YAi"+I February 10, 1997 Pursuant to our Planning and Zoning hearing we have researched the proposal for the "new road" and have found that ACRD has in fact been asked to request ITD Board approval. Contrary to my testimony and to that of ACl`ID this procedure must be taken because the "new road" is in ITD limited access. According to sue Higgins of ITD this item will be placed on the February agenda, with or without the signal relocation effort. As testified we believe it most imperative that the City of Meridian take a stance in opposition to the "new road" and the traffic signal relocation. Unfortunately the applicant here took the brunt of the negatives in this unfortunate turn of events, but still feels strongly in the site and proposes a compromise plan based upon the neighborhood's comments (see attached). We would welcome an opportunity to discuss this further with the Mayor, and perhaps with each councilman, in an effort to get a feel for their position relative to the Germain issues. • I can be available as appropriate and look forward to your response. BRS/ra cc: Eagle Partners FEB.-10'911MON! 1201 EXEC MGT TEL~3348195 P. 002 AGENDA Regular Meeting of the Idaho Transportation Board February 20-21, 1997 3311 West State Stmt KEY. Boise, Ydaho A =Action D =Discussion I =Information Page Time TOUR SOTJTHWESTERN YDAHO/FI.OOD DAMAGE .......... 4 7:00 AGENDA Y'1'EM -New Meadows maintenance shed HWY A Hazard Creak to Pinehurst, US-95, District 2 .. . ...... . . . . . 120 1;00 Carpenter ~~~~~~~~ A !. BOARD >-~UTE9 - January Z1-22, 1997 . ...................... 6 8:00 A 2. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRMAN 8:10 A 3. BOARD MEETING DATES ........... . ................ 24 8:15 .. March 26-27, 1997 -Boise Apri117-1 B, 1997 -District 2 May 15-16, 1997 (tentative dates) - June 5-6, 1997 -District 4 June 20, 1997 -Boise; ST7P work shop CE A 4. CONSENT CALENDAR , , ................... Contract awards ........... 26 8:20 TPA A .... . . ....... . _ OiFicial minute relinquishing former I-90 Business, District 1 2 3$ BPIRM A Board Policy B-O1-O1, Public Convenience . 41 COA I First half of FY97 out-of state travel budget vs. expenditures .... 50 DIR I ...... Professional agreements report ................... S2 ..... . ... . .... s. BOARD I'T'EMS - Strategic Planning (Combo) 8:25 FEB. -10', 97 (MON) 12 ~ 02 February 20-21, 1997 page 3 of 3 EXEC MGT .334 page Time H~ A Request for FY98 unalloc$ted state funds, I-15/US-20 intersection, Ross District 6 . . . ............................. . ........ 133 2:35 14. CHEF ENGIN~~R'S 1'!.'EA~S 2:45 w SAY-55, District 3 zs. or.Dnv~w HIISnv~ss 16. ADJOi1f~tNlV 'N'r (3:00) SS~Y:2/10/97-C:~I.ffi~AGENpA.BRA .. ~' ~" FGi ~ ~C ~a ~~~ ~ ~ a~ ~~ ~~: ~~ ~~ If til~F ~R1. aa)r-s-rr-.. ~ ~ ~.- .. ,~~ ~. ~ ~ ~ i. ~ ~ A I ~ < <~'t ~ s $ FiFj A~l¢~ ~~Q ~ fa Z n ~ ~ ~ ~~~ F~ ~F ~~~ 0~~~~iT~~~~~~~ ~ Z ~ ~ R ~ ~~~F E $$ ~ ; m i t I s~ ~, -( IF ~~ ~ D A &~~~~~~ k~ ~ rs'a ~ '~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ y~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~ li ~ ~ ~` a ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` I -- -- -- -- -- I ~ ___ /~1 - ~ 3.b3.b' - ~ _ _ i 1'1;tiCsiC"v'I): I'9'~ _ l'/ 1'~ - N~Ov' Jam' Off' ~ - - ~ l/-~ _ -, e+ __ _ _ - ~-v... u- r - ~ - - - -r ,---,_-- 1 T -- ~~ - l}o -, f~ I 1 ~ ~ ~ i ~~-- -' a. I If ~/r~~ ~?-? > 1 T ~~~ I I ' , I i ~ ~ ~~ II~'I ~_________________'~ I I r- tl n" tl 1 i illi I F~ - -i jB~U Opt3 8pu Op8! pp I~ II ' 1 T I I it 11 I `-----' I ~ F1 ~~! I I u~ ~--- --------------~ rn n~ V V_ I I I ~ ~ ii~l l I I I ~ I~ iil~ i -~-~ I I ~ lill;l I I k II ~YII i ~ I I'~I 1T I I i~~l I 1 R ^~ \ 1 I i ,~ ~, I1~ , \ ~ m I I I, I I I ~ '"' 1 I r l 1 ~~ I' I'"I I ~ 1 ~ II ~; I, ~I i III~I l i 11; j i ~ F- I Z ~ 1 ~ I i U -i -i I ~ I 0 ~ 1 I 1 ~~ I ~ I - i 1T~Q ~ illll ~ - 1 \ ~ --~ ~_._J--Z--~ of ~\r __~ r------------~ I I I EI I I \ I I rJ L~ I ~ I I I I I I I 8 1 O F m W 0 1lrl 1 1 1 i I I I I I _ ..;1!! ~ ~ ; ; I11 III 1 1 1 1 I I I I I' li II i 1 T I I j 1 ~ I I I II 1 1 ~ 1 1 I 1 I 11 (~~;~ 1 I I; I ~ ~ I 1 i Il~j I ~ ~ L L j J l ~ 1 1 I y 111Ii I L____________J I I 1 / __ I 1 I 1 1 1 -,----------'--r-- I--~ 1 1 ~' __J I_,__ __I_l -1 I I ~~/ I I I I 1 I I ~~_J L_____________________J L_~ I I I I 1-- i 1 L__J I I ~ ___, l0 PT, pE1MMENT Ldr/aDCAPE EIiFER N ~ i 9 ~ ~ CHEVRON GONVENIENGE STORE '~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ p ~ *~ N ~ a ~ FOOD SERVICE 1 HOTEL SITE ~' ~ ~~ t ~e Roao ~ nac;;lc vlEw owve, r~aplaa, loan IIRCMITt'CTS ~ tm FEB-13-1997 09 59 BRS ARCHITECTS 208 336 8380 P.01i01 • February 2D-21, 1997 Page 3 of 3 , ~'/ - - •• Page Time HWY' Y _ Status on access permit end request to relocate traffic signal 2:30 Meyer SH S5, District 3 A equest for FY98 un sated state funds, 115/US-20 intersection, Ross Disttiet S ... , ........................... ......... 133 2:45 24. CS~F ENGII~ThaER'S TTEM3 -Blacks Creek Rest Area - Off-System highways not an integral part ~f System ].s, OY.D/N'E'Vfr BYTSXNESS 16. ADJOTJ~tNh>~NT ., ~~~ SSH:2/h 2/97-C:~Y.TBIAGENDABI;D FEB 13 '9? 09=45 ~~~~~~~ FEB 1 3 ~'~~~ CITY OF ~E~~~-~ I' ~~~~ 208 336 8380 Z:55 (x;15) TOTAL P. 01 PAGE.01 ~ ~ BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN EAGLE PARTNERS L.L.C. ANNEXATION AND ZONING LOT 1 OF AMENDED MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION 603 SOUTH EAGLE ROAD MERIDIAN, IDAHO AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council on various dates and at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter, on said dates, and continued to, and for, additional public hearings, all at the Meridian-City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Petitioner's representative, Billy Ray Strite, of BRS Architects, appearing and the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes thF following amendments: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of the time and place of the public hearing on the annexation and zoning, and a summary of the proposal under consideration, (all hereafter referred to as the "notice") was mailed, by certified mail, to property owners within the area under EAGLE PARTNERS - ANI~IEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 1 FI1~:DINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW i • consideration and to those property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property and, additionally, published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the Planning and Zoning meeting and public hearing on July 9, 1996, and the City Council meeting and public hearing on November 19, 1996, and the publications of notices of said meetings and public hearings were given fifteen (15) days prior to said meetings and hearings; the Applicant also posted the property with notice of the Planning and Zoning Commissioner hearing, as required; additionally the applicant delivered a sworn notarized statement that the list of property owners given are the owners of the property as shown by the records of the Ada County Assessor; and one (1) week prior to the hearing the. Applicant posted a copy of the notice of hearing on the property; and after the property was posted, the Applicant delivered, to the Zoning Administrator, a notarized statement that Applicant had posted the property and the date the posting was done. The Application was duly considered at the Planning and Zoning July 9, 1996, hearing and was continued to the August 13, 1996 hearing, at which time the Planning and Zoning Commission duly considered the Application and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were subsequently adopted; the Application was duly considered at the City Council hearing on November 19, 1996, which was continued to December 17, 1996, which was continued to January 17, 1997, when the final portion of the hearing was held by the City EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXAZION AND ZONING PAGE - 2 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW • • Council and at which time the City Council duly considered the Application, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were subsequently adopted by the City Council on February 18, 1997; that the public was given full opportunity to express 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 annexation and zoning 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 Ada County as R- T; that the Applicant requests that the property be zoned C-G, General Retail and Service Commercial for the purpose of improving the described property into a commercial development to include a convenience store-with food service, gasoline sales, care wash and a hotel with amenities. 4. That the property is located on S. Eagle Road just north of Interstate I-84; that the property immediately to the south is the newly constructed Jackson's Food Store; that to the east is the new St. Luke's West site. 5. That the owner of record of the above referenced property is Gerald W. and Deloris B. Marlin, they have consented to the application, and have requested this annexation and zoning; the application is not at the request of the City of Meridian. 6. That Mr. and Mrs. Marlin have entered into a purchase and EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 3 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW L_ J sale agreement of the subject property with Terry Debban and Mark Jensen as buyers. 7. That the law firm representing Eagle Partners requested a deferral of the scheduled public hearing for July 9, 1996, and to reschedule it to the August 13, 1996 hearing, in order to meet with property owners adjacent to the subject parcel. 8. 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 and the Nampa Meridian Irrigation submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if -set forth in full. 9. That Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full as follows: 1. That the legal description for .annexation included in the application doesn't include a portion of the S. Eagle Road right-of-way between ttie subject site and the St. Luke's site. Applicant shall submit an annexation perimeter legal description for the proposed site, which shall include all those portions of adjacent Public Rights-of-Way contiguous to the Corporate City Limits of the City of Meridian, and 1/2 of all other adjacent Public Rights-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 and must place this parcel contiguous to the existing city limit boundary. 2. That any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property shall be tiled per City Ordinance, and should be shown on the site plans; that the plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral user association, with written confirmation EAGLE PAKTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 4 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW • of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department; that no variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches crossing this project. 3• That any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance, but wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 10. That Bruce Freckleton submitted site specific comments and they are as follows: 1• Sanitary sewer service could be to the existin 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 __ 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 City 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. EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE - 5 • 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. 11. 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. 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 a fifteen-foot (15') 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 EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 6 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW • 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 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. EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 7 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 13. Provide signage and ramping for handicap parking spaces per ADA requirements. 14. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. 12. That the Ada County Highway District (ACRD) 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 Highway 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 elan to permit the District to resolve the matter. ACRD submitted its final comments which included Facts and Findings, a Special Recommendation to Meridian, Special Recommend to the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), Site Specific Requirements, Standard Requirements, and Conclusions of Law, which were submitted to the City with a letter dated January 10, 1997, and all of the comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that of specific note is the Special Recommendation to redesign the fueling stations to orient north-south, the Special Recommend to ITD, the following Specific Requirements, to wit: 1. Dedication of a right-of-way for a new public street adjacent to the parcel's north boundary which shall align with the entry road for St. Luke's Regional Medical Center. EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 8 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW • 13. Provide signage and ramping for handicap parking spaces per ADA requirements. 14. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. 12. That the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) 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 Highway 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. ACHD submitted its final comments which included Facts and Findings, a Special Recommendation to Meridian, Special Recommend to the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), Site Specific Requirements, Standard Requirements, and Conclusions of Law, which were submitted to the City with a letter dated January 10, 1997, and all of the comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that of specific note is the Special Recommendation to redesign the fueling stations to orient north-south, the Special Recommend to ITD, the following Specific Requirements, to wit: 1. Dedication of a right-of-way for a new public street adjacent to the parcel's north boundary which shall align with the entry road for St. Luke's Regional Medical Center. EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 8 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ ~ 13. Provide signage and ramping for handicap parking spaces per ADA requirements. 14. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. 12. That the Ada County Highway District (ACRD) submitted comments, and they arm incorporated herein, as if set forth in full; that District sta ' ;: 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 Highway 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. ACRD submitted its final comments which included Facts and Findings,, a Special Recommendation to Meridian, Special Recommend to the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), Site Specific Requirements, Standard Requirements, and Conclusions of Law, which were submitted to the City with a letter dated January 10, 1997, and all of the comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that of specific note is the Special Recommendation to redesign the fueling stations to orient north-south, the Special Recommend to ITD, the following Specific Requirements, to wit: 1. Dedication of a right-of-way for a new public street adjacent to the parcel's north boundary which shall align with the entry road for St. Luke's Regional Medical Center. EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 8 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ • 2. Dedicate 29-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Magic View Drive. 3. Comply with IDT requirements for State Highway 55 (Eagle Road) frontage. 4. An easement: for a temporary public turn-around be provided at the west end of the new street. ACHD also submitted Standard Requirements, which are also specifically noted herein. 13. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission approved and adopted Findings of Fact on the Application, which are hereby incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 14. That testimony and evidence was submitted to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission at the public hearings and as part of the record for this Application; that of particular note is the testimony, given. by Hilly Ray Strite, Steve Brown, Marty Seager, and George Kiler, in favor of the Application; and the testimony of Richard Williams, John Jackson, Howard Foley, Bryan Diamond, Chuck Hore11, Ted Hanson, Dennis Nielson, Sharon Christianson, Rod Truax, and Jane Butterfield, given against the Application; that all of testimony and all of the record pertaining to the Applications for the annexation, zoning, and the conditional use permits for the businesses to be placed on the property by the Applicant, are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. That comments and claims were made that the notice of the hearings .was inadequate and not all of the people that would be impacted by the development were notified. The City sent notices to all people within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the property included in the Application, as required by the Zoning EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 9 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW • • Ordinance and the Local Planning Act; additionally, notice of all hearings was published in the Valley News, the official newspaper of the City of Meridian for fifteen days prior to the hearing, the first of which publication was published fifteen days prior to the hearing . The Local Planning Act states that if there are more than 200 residents who are entitled to notice that the notice must be published. 15. That testimony before the Meridian City Council was given at the public hearings held on November 19, 1996, December 17, 1996, and January 17, 1997; documents, plats, drawings, letters, and other documentary evidence were submitted to the City to become part of the record; that all of testimony and record pertaining to the Applications for the annexation, zoning, and the conditional use permits for the businesses to be placed on the property by the Applicant, are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that some of the testimony at the hearings from the various people, such as the Applicants representative, Mr. Strite, stated that there exists 40,000 vehicles per day traveling through the intersection; the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian shows the property as a commercial site, the land uses are subject to change, and all the noted points are consistent. Ann Bolen testified that no one could have imagined 28 years ago how busy this area would b~; that she purchased property in the area three years ago; the development is not a transitional use; the privacy of the residences in the area will be impinged; double EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 10 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ ~ front lots and trash pick up at the northwest corner is not a transitional use; they can hear the loud speakers from the Texaco station; headlights reflect into two story bedrooms; the development against the freeway is bad; eventually there will be only two accesses; the decision is about .more than five acres; they want to alleviate traffic but this project would increase the traffic; she questioned whether a small motel would be nice and if two stories was sufficient; the lights at Chevron are real bad; the lights shine out not down; that there are safety concerns for the children in the area. Consideration must be made for the neighbors. There are serious quality of life issues presented by the approval of the application. The project is poorly planned and will increase the amount of congestion in the area. The project presents a contest between quality of life and business (corporations). She and the other residence deserve to feel safe and have a high quality of life. She requested that this application be denied. Sharon Christianson testified in opposition to the application. She testified as follows. She agrees with the testimony of Ann Bolen. She thought Meridian was an agricultural town. She can see people sitting at red lights. They will have roads on three sides. If the property is developed, she desires work only during daylight hours. It is wrong that sixty five percent of the traffic goes to St. Lukens. Every car goes to the gas station. Lights shine into her house and .she hears all the EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE - 11 • noise. There is a loss of privacy. The water will be polluted. Requests denial of the application. John Johnson testified at the January 21, 1997 public hearing in opposition to the application. He testified that he is not here to oppose the use or competition, but. the road. There was no mention as to how this- road is going to be done. There is considerable traffic; 11,000 cars traveling to McDonald's and Chevron. His access will be severely hampered. The traffic is going to be a real problem. He was shocked to hear that ACHD and IDT have approved this access. He had no idea this road had been approved. The City of Meridian should make a quick decision. He requested a the denial of the application. He read the letter from IDT which included too much cross-traffic. His business would fail because of the extension of St. Luke's roadway. ..Carla Osborn testified in o ppositon to the application. She stated how nice living in Green Hills Estate was. She asked the City Council if they would like this development in their backyards, and if not, the application should be denied. Dick Williams testified the project is a very intense use, many uses. The lights from the development will shine into neighboring residential bedrooms. The hotel is a permitted use but Chevron and McDonald's are not permitted uses. Chevron and McDonald's are permitted only by a conditional use permit. The Comprehensive Plan does not designate this area as a commercial use. The zoning of the property must follow. the Comprehensive EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE - 12 Plan. If the Comprehensive Plan was open for amendment, amendment would prevent lengthy meetings. This project conflicts with existing plans which show this area as residential. The subdivisions in the area are in excess of twenty years old. This type of project has been proposed at Chinden and Eagle Road, and the project was turned down by Boise. The project does not fit into the area in which they want it to go. He offers to work with the City of Meridian to have good planning. .The noise created would exceed the federal levels. Jackson was requested to have 35 feet of set back as was St. Luke's, and this project should also have 35 feet of set back. The pumps are turned east and west, but ACRD said north and south. There is not enough parking spaces; 30 spaces short of the required spaces. Chuck Horrell testified in opposition to the application. He testified concerning- domestic water and noise level being problematic. The State of Idaho West Head Protection Plan should be adopted into Comprehensive Plan. The noise ordinance should be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. There are alternatives to highway and uses with commercial designation. Howard Foley testified that many of his concerns have been addressed by the Applicant. The notice provisions were not followed. Notice must be sent to people within 300 feet and those affected. The Planning and Zoning Administrator has failed to notify the people whom are affected. No notice of the road had been given. Notice must be mailed as to what is to come before the EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 13 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ! • City Council. What is fair and appropriate has not been done. The Ordinance requires appropriate notice. There are more than 200 people whom are affected that must have notice mailed to them. David Swenson testified that there is plenty of argument to approve or deny the application. What is underlying is the principle involved.. The City Council can-tell that the dommunity cares about what is done. He appreciates participating, but feels they are being steamrolled. The community is against the proposal, but feels they are being overlooked. It does not seem fair to Jackson's. They do not need another Gear Jammer. The community does not want this. He wants to hear the thinking of the City Council if this application is approved. Dean Kit testified something is dramatically wrong. There is too much congestion and have to cross too many lanes of traffic. The stop light should-have-been at Jackson's, not at St. Luke's; poor planning. For those that have to travel in the area, it is bad. There are fatalities in the area and similar types of areas. Mark Bolin testified in opposition to the application. 8e stated that his concern is the lack of planning and dealing with the area as a whole. The traffic issues are complicated. The traffic is worse than at the mall. There is 65 feet of right-of- way which is too small with the number of trips involved. Everyone is interested in seeing the development of the area planned correctly. Glenn Griffiths also testified that he represented Montvue EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 14 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Park Subdivision and was there to support the position of Greenhill Estates Subdivision to have this Application denied. He stated that the parcel was too .small, that it would generate traffic, that people already use the turn lane for advancement rather than turning, that the stop light at St. Luke's should be moved to Magic View Drive, and so .many businesses are being added that it would not be too long before traffic would not be able to move. 16. Mr. Strite had comment in response. to those people testifying against the Application, and the Mayor and City Councilmen had questions and inquiry for Mr. Strite, all of which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. Mr. Strite commented that the roadway between the development and the proposed motel was the largest topic; that the Application was submitted without that roadway, but the Applicant was compelled to provide it by ACRD; that it was the. City's Comprehensive Plan that, to ACRD, determined the need for the road; that the roadway was not a result of the Application and had nothing to do with the Application; the roadway was only provided to move traffic and those uses coming from the west; he stated that the roadway was going in there whether this Application was approved or not; it was there only to move traffic; the five acres was reduced to 4.4 acres because of the road; he supported moving the traffic light from in front of St. Luke's down to Magic View. ACRD and IDT have not required that a traffic study completed. He would like to eliminate the roadway as an issue in the consideration and approval of the application. EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 15 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW There is a very good possibility that the traffic signal light will remain where it is. 17. That City Councilmen Bentley, Rountree, and Morrow stated to the audience at the public hearing their thinking at that time on this project and such are specifically incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that in summary it was Councilman Bentley stated initial position that he had a problem with the roadway, that the entrance to the City at Eagle Road would not be enhanced and protected and a 24-hour gas station, a 24-hour hotel, and a 24-hour motel do not provide that enhancement or protection; he felt that a better location for this type of project would be south of the Interstate. Councilman Rountree simply stated that this was not going to be the first or last development to be proposed for this area but at this point he was _not ~e}~e~ to support the Application. lhtfiv-L~~ Councilman Morrow stated that there were people who had testified tonight that had previously supported regional malls in this area, had supported Eagle Road being expanded, and supported the interchange being located at Eagle Road and I-84, all of which were planned for the growth of the City. That with respect to this project, he stated that the City needs to look at all seventy-five acres; that the road proposal for this usage, and any other usage, is inadequate and was not very well thought out by ACRD. Further, he stated that the City has been requiring thirty-five feet of landscaping along entrances into the City and he wanted to see that EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 16 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW continued. Also, that he was not convinced that it was in the .City's best interest to allow a motel/hotel to be located as adjacent as this one would be in relation to Greenhill Estates and there needed to be a better division between whatever is constructed at this location and the existing neighborhood. For the reasons stated, he indicated that he would not be supporting the Application and the Findings of Fact would further reflect his opinion. 18. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. That the parcel of ground requested to be annexed is presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area (U.S.P.A.) as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 19. That the property can be physically serviced with City sewer; that the Assistant to the City Engineer has recently questioned the ability of the City to provide water and water service is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by the City's computer model. 20. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots, commercial and industrial uses. 21. That the land is in a Mixed/Planned Use Development Area in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the following pertinent EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 17 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW • • statements are made in the Plan: A. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic Development Goal Statement Pol- 1_cies, 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 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 ; Q tho .,,,, ,.___ _r ~,_ _.. _ develoument warrant.-(Emphasis11Added a, rowth and 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, and Meridian Roads) and include small commercial center and individual businesses. Uses include retail, wholesale, service, office, and limited manufacturing. 2. GENERAL POLICIES, Page 23 EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE - 18 ~ • 1.3 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 comalement but not conflict with adjoining residential areas. (Emphasis added.) b. 4.5U DiscouraaP ; cnl atari .,o;.,t,t,,.~.~..._~ areas unless the uses are compatible with the Planned Neighborhood Commercial designation. (Emphasis added.) c. 4.6U Community shopping centers will be encouraged to locate at arterial intersections and near high-traffic intensity areas. d. 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 EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 19 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~~~~ercnanges emphasis added.) buffer highway noise), tourist lodging, industrial, office, medical, and related land uses. (Emphasis Added.) a. 5.6 in specific plans and proposals for future development. (Emphasis added.) b. 5.7 Detailed market studies should be undertaken to explore and clarify the issues that are related to mixed-use 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. (Emphasis added.) d. 5.9 The integrity and identity of anv adioininQ residential neighborhood -~-- - - nu==era.n techni ues, including plantings, _open space and landscaping techniques. (Emphasis screen other added.) 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 chasacter, site improvements, and type of development should be harmonized with previously- (Emphasis added.) g. 5.12 Strip development within this mixed-use area is not in compliance with the goals and policies of the EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 20 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW • Comprehensive Plan. h• 5.13 Clustering of uses 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 Overland 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 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 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 Encouraae landscaped setbacks for new deval nr~meni- develot~ment approval landscaping 1alonrr EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE - 21 all entrance corridors. (Emphasis Added.) 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 auality of its surroundings, especially in areas of prominent visibility. (Emphasis Added..) 6. Neighborhood Identify Goal Policies, Page 74 a. 6.4U Limit the conversion of predominantly residential neighborhoods to nonresidential uses, and reauire effective buffers and mitigation measures through conditional use permits when aApronriate nonresidential uses are ro osed. (Emphasis Added.) 21. That the requested zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial, (C-G) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. 11. as follows: the ( C-G ) District is to provideeformcommer ial uses whicheare 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. EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 22 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW • 22. 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 allowed uses in the General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) district, but as conditional uses; that Service Stations, Retail Stores and hotels are listed as allowed uses in the General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) district. 23. That Planned Development is defined in 11-2-403 B, at page 20 of the Zoning Ordinance booklet, as follows: "An area of land which is developed as a single entity for a number of uses in combination with or exclusive of other -supportive uses. A PD may be entirely residential, industrial, or commercial or a mixture of compatible uses. A PD does not necessarily correspond to lot size, bulk, density, lot coverage required, open space or type of residential, commercial or industrial uses as established in any one or more created districts or this Ordinance." and a Planned General Development is defined as follows: "A development not otherwise distinguished under Planned Commercial, Industrial, Residential Developments, or in which the proposed use of interior and exterior spaces requires unusual design flexibility to achieve a completely 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." 24. 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. 25. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 23 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision- development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of .Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population, and the housing for that population, does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 26. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all lots in the City, because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 24 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW • 27. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or sho in areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." 28• 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.". 29. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows: "Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision;" 30. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathwa onl areas (left in a natural state), linear open ~spaceucorridors serve: 1• To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4• To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5• To enhance local identification within the area due EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE - 25 to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 31. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: "Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments." 32. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. B. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a legislative function. C. That the Planning and Zoning commission has judged these annexation, zoning and conditional use applications under Idaho Code, Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 26 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW • City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. D. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. E. That the Council may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. F. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. G. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant, and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. H. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The Cit of Idaho Falls 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). I. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways and 11-9-606 14., which requires pressurized irrigation. J. That the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 27 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW • i meeting on January 4, 1994, but has not amended the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan; thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance may not address provisions for the use; it is concluded that upon annexation, as a condition of annexation, the City may impose restrictions that are not otherwise contained in the current Zoning or Subdivision and Development Ordinances. K. The Applicant has stated its intention as to development, which is to provide a McDonald's Restaurant, Chevron Service Station, and motel/hotel with amenities which may included a convenience store with food service, gasoline sales, and car wash; it is therefore concluded that since convenience stores are only allowed in the C-G District as conditional uses, that such use or development of the property would only be allowed as a conditional use and such has been applied for. L. .That it is concluded, that since the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Goal Statement, at page 19, states at 1.6, as follows: "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.", and under LAND USE, COMMERCIAL POLICIES, at page 26, it states: "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 adioininQ residential areas. 4.5U unless the uses EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 28 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW • 4.8U .~.. V1 V 1 V V ai cctr3 , sucn as rreeway interchanges . " (Emphasis added.), and under LAND USE, MIXED-PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT, MIXED-USE AREAS ADJACENT TO I-84, OVERLAND, AND FRANKLIN ROAD, at Page 27, the Plan recognizes that compatible land uses are desired, and states as follows, in Sections 5.9 and 5.11: "The inte rit and identit of an ad'oinin residential neighborhood should be preserved through the use of buffering techniques, including screen plantings, open space and other landscaping techniques. 5.11 The character, site improvements, and type of development- should be harmonized with previously-developed 1 ~nrl i r tl.e .~....... .-~ --~- ---- ~ - 1.ii~:iuul.na noise ana tra~~ic reduction." (Emphasis added.) that the .project is not in compliance with the terms of the MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. M. That property owners in Greenhill Estates objected to the notices of hearings on the Application as being insufficient and not being mailed to all of the people who would be impacted by the development. The Local Planning Act provides, in Section 67-6509, Idaho Code, that for comprehensive plan adoption, or amendment, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall conduct EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 29 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW are compatible with the Planned Neighborhood Commercial designation. one public hearing in which interested persons shall have an opportunity to be heard; at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing, notice of the time and place and a summary of the plan shall be published by the City in the official newspaper. That this Application did not involve an amendment to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The Act also provides in Section 67-6511, Idaho Code, when the City is considering a Zoning Ordinance change, that additional notice shall be given to property owners within the land being considered and within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the land being considered, and any additional area that may be impacted by a proposed change as determined by the Commission; it also requires that notice shall also be posted on the premises not less than one (1) week prior to the hearing; it also states that when notice is required to two hundred or more property owners, alternate from of procedures which would provide adequate notice may be provided by local ordinance in lieu of posted or mailed notice. Under the Meridian Zoning Ordinance, Section 11-2-416, the following notice provisions apply, to wit: "The applicant shall provide the City Clerk with the names and addresses of property owners within three hundred feet (300') of the external boundaries of the land being considered, and any. additional area that may be impacted by the said application as determined by the Zoning Administrator, and the applicant shall deliver a sworn notarized statement that the list of property owners are the owners of the property as shown by the records of the Ada County Assessor; one (1) week prior to the hearing applicant shall post a copy of said notice of hearing of the application on the property .; EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 30 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW • • and after the property has been posted, the applicant shall deliver to the Zoning Administrator a notarized statement that he has posted the property and the date the posting was placed. 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 feet (300') of the external boundaries of the land being considered and any additional area that may be impacted by said application as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Said notice, by certified mail, must be deposited with the United States Post Office at least fifteen. (15) days prior to the hearing and 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 (2001 two (21 consecutive weeks in the official newspaper of the C1tV Of MP_ri r3i an Tlrn~li rlarl that tho aenr,nrl .,.,~-0..e a~.~uCai~ men - 1u - says prior to the public hearlnc7. " (Emphasis added.) N. It is specifically concluded that more than the legally required notice of the Application was given, that the legal notice provisions of Local Planning Act and the City of Meridian were given, and that any and all persons who may have been interested in the Application were given proper notice of the application. O. That, as concluded above, annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function and it is in the sole discretion of the City whether the City should, or should not, annex land. P. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the property would not be in the best interests of the City of Meridian. EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING PAGE - 31 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW • • APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN MORROW VOTED COUNCILMAN BENTLEY VOTED COUNCILMAN ~otty~t~-e'~. VOTED COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION The Meridian City Council hereby decides that based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, above stated, that the annexation Application is denied. MOTION: APPROVED: _ l ~._ ~, EAGLE PARTNERS - ANNEXATION AND ZONING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DISAPPROVED: PAGE - 32 « • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: February 18.1997 APPLICANT: ITEM NUMBER; 4 REQUEST: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLU~ONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION/ZONING BY EAGLE PARTNERS 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 ~lF ~c ~~ ~~~ ~~4~ ~ ~~~ ~, a ~,~ ~~~~ k~ i s'~ ~c OTHER: gll Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. t •~ j A~leridian City Council ~ February 18, 1997 Page 8 Morrow. That being the case Mr. Mayor I would move that we table until March 4 pending review by Counselor and individual review by each councilman after we have received the written review from Attorney Crookston. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley, to table the CC&R's for the business park until March 4 for review by the counselor and the City Council, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: Corrie: Council you have the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rountree: I have a couple of minor corrections I would like to suggest. On page 16, item 17, paragraph 2, third line reads "at this point he was not included to support the application" included should be changed to inclined. And on page 32, it is up to the Council whether they want my name on that page or not, but everybody else is there. Corrie: We will see that (inaudible) Any further corrections or comments? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that adopt the amended findings of fact and conclusions. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions as changed, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow. Mr. Mayor, the Meridian City Council hereby decides that based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law above adopted that the annexation application is denied. Rountree: Second ., , Meridian City Council February 18, 1997 Page 9 Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree on the decision to deny the annexation application, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, MCDONALD'S WITH DRIVE THRU, AND A HOTEL BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: Corrie: I believe that is now moot is that correct? Crookston: That is correct. Corrie: We will need a motion. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we drop the findings of fact and conclusions of law for conditional use permit for the Chevron C-Store and McDonalds. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree to drop findings of fact and conclusions of law for conditional use permit for a Che~rron C-Store, McDonalds drive through and a hotel by Eagle Partners LLC, any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Before I go onto to Item 6, I would like to welcome Scout Troop #5 for coming in tonight and observing the Council meeting. So welcome fellows, we appreciate it. ITEM #6: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 7 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Corrie: Council you have those findings in front of you, any ctuestions or comments or changes? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, on page 14, item 15, third line, "the City to" the word to should be deleted. On the sixth line, "the numbers show that the" the wad the should be deleted an substitute the word project. The following line, "but he questioned whether" and the phrase should be inserted the project met the intent of open space. Corrie: Thank you Charlie. Any further corrections? .' Meridian City Council January 21, 1997 Page 2 ITEM #1: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 17, .1996: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite a member from the eagle partners to start. Billy Ray Strite, 1087 River Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Strite: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, Billy Ray Strite again, I am here again tonight as in the past representing Eagle Partners. I am here with the applicant in support of this application. In my first and actually my last visit here unfortunately I missed the proceedings of the 7th. Councilman Morrow responsibly requested deferral of this item until such time as Ada County Highway District crnald in fact determine their preference for alignment for what they referred to as the new road. The plan before you tonight which is on my left, delineates the Highway District's road of choice. This particular road alignment was approved on April 8, further,. excuse me January 8, further on January 15, Ada County Highway District submitted for and received access approval from ITD for this access at the location shown on this document. The site as you know fronts Eagle Road. It is situated in what Ada County Highway District in their Commission meeting stated may well be the most important intersection in the State of Idaho. It is at the intersection of the east west main link of the State of Idaho at I-84 and the north and south link, the main north and south link irr the State of Idaho and Highway 55. This site is adjacent to what roadways eventually wi{I handle up to and maybe greater than 40,000 cars a day. The reason we are here tonight is because the visionaries who wrote your comp plan recognize this. Although they did not mention Eagle Road in such in their policies and goals because of the fact in our opinion this was part of the area of impact they did in fact under transportation goals, transportation maps and most importantly in our opinion in their comprehensive designation of plan mapping showed this particular area and specifically this site as a commercial site. I think that it is well documented, Mr. Jackson has a site h~'e, I think that from the standpoint of the comprehensive plan it was always the intent that the intersection of Interchanges along the I-84 corridor would be considered for more intense uses. Obviously if you were going to provide 40,000 cars a day going up and down Eagle Road and going east and west on I-84 the land uses are going to be subject to change. That is why we are here before you tonight. We are confiders that this particular plan does in fact meet the intent of your comp plan as established in 1993. Knowing that prior to that time the interchange was in fact constructed and although again this was in the area of impact and not within the City they recognized the importance of this area in the overall mapping. I think you will also find that in the designated map for land use all the community and commercial nodal points are very consistent. Some of those now are within the City have been developed, some of those are in the area of impact are about to be developed. We believe this site to be one of those. We think further that having dealt with Ada County Highway District numerous times, as a matter of fact I was told tonight that they believe that tonight might be 16th meeting that this particular 1 Meridian City Council ~ ~> January 21, 1997 Page 3 application has gone through. So, I apologize to the neighborhood and I apologize to you folks. It is part of the process. The last Ada County Highway District Board meeting as I has stated delineated this particular roadway as you see it today. This roadway did in effect and perhaps it might be better stated in the conditional use, but I am going to give you a briefing as to why we believe not only is the site adequate and probably acceptable it does allow for and has allowed for all along the 30 foot of buffer that goes from the east boundary of our parcel to the west b~ndary along the northern edge. This is the south boundary if you will of the adjacerrt neighborhood. Further that road configuration with its 125 foot interior radius has actually pushed our buildings if you will to the extent where we now have 108 foot of setback from the northerly boundary for the hotel, eliminating the car wash that you saw before you in the last go around and that in effect is basically the only change that was made to the plan that was presented to you the last time we were here. I think from the standpoint of the comprehensive plan it is our contention that this in fact does meet the intent. We believe the site is of adequate size, we believe that this site has the infrastructure to support the uses that are proposed here. We are also convinced that we can keep the integrity of the neighborhood by virtue of the open space in the land area provided in terms of buffering. Now, if you will recall in the last time that we were together, one of the comments made was the fact that our findings of fact specifically pages 27 and 28 were left blank. I am sure that you have before you the Commissions minutes to that particular session. But for clarity and hopefully continuance or lack of continuance of another hearing perhaps it would be appropriate at this point to go ahead and specifically discuss those items and see if we cannot wrap this up here this evening. Again I refer you to the findings of fact, page 27, the first blank being item 17 C, we would ask your concurrence in the following. The owner of the motel/hotel as alternative to constructing the motel/hotel first could construct, blank, a) the proposed 30 foot landscape berm along the north property line as approved by staff along with the first construction that takes place. Said berm prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit shall be completed as well as the west boundary landscape strip of ten to 20 feet as delineated on the plan. item 17 D, the motel/hotel shall have no windows or doors and I would strike second floor and add to floor and S so it would read doors or windows on the floors which face the north which is consistent with our original proposal. Item 17 E, We would ask and t think you will find this consistent with the minutes of the proceeding Planning and Zoning Commission that the entrance to the hotel be struck out or east end replaced with or east end. As you will see there our plan has always delineated on the east end. We believe it to be the most appropriate location (inaudible) the fact that it is parallel and directly accessible to Eagle Road. It makes site planning a little less intrusive we hope to the neighbors because all of the traffic would be going primarily east and west. Item 17 F, we would ask and I think this is consistent again wi#h the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission that the motel be no more than three stories. Item 17 H, we would ask that you strike south and insert west. We believe that the proposed as shown and has been shown all along allows the least amount of intrusion into the adjoining neighborhoods. Again and this will be probably handled better in the conditional use proceedings the speaker to this Meridian City Council ~' January 21, 1997 Page 4 particular facility is on the north side. It is buffered in our opinion by the motel itself. It provides adequate stacking lanes that then approach the west and tum directly south. We believe it allows us the ability to then buffer to the west which ultimately as you can see by the document to your right will be a roadway anyway. So w are providing landscaping and could in fact if required provide a temporary fence. I would like to suggest that we keep temporary in there until such time as the roadway is developed by the adjacent parcel owner such that obviously we do not want a 6 foot high or whatever height this Council determines directly adjacent to the ensuing street. Item 17 J, we would ask that we strike the 18 foot sign height limit and insert it as approved by staff. Item 17 L, I would think that it would be more appropriate since McDonald's and Chevron are all in one and quite frankly are not necessarily delineated from within that item 3 be deleted and item 2 we add and McDonald's because it is all in one sentence. Item 17 0, we would like that written, and I think again, this appears to be consistent with the notes that I took during the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that the setbacks will be as submitted by the applicant. One thing that I would suggest to you tonight is that perhaps in addition to that and received by staff on January 17th. The reason for that change is the fact that at the time the Planning and Zoning Commission acted on this they had not in fact been privy to the final road delineation. Our road configuration at that particular point in time had a 60 foot right of way tapering back to 50 feet along the east west corridor if you will. Today that is a 60 foot right of way from east to west with 125 centerline radius so that the setback by merely moving the building to the south if you will increases to 108 feet. I know you are going to hear a lot of comments tonight. I just wanted to briefly bring us back up to date as what has been happening in the past and why we believe that this particular application does in fact meet the intent of the ordinance. We would ask that you approve not only those items delineated in section of findings of fact page 27 and 28 but approve the annexation and rezone as submitted. Thank you. I will entertain questions.. Corrie: Members of the Council do you have any questions? I would invite any other member of the public that would like to testify at this time to step forward. Ann Bowen, 3067 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bowen: When the Greenhill Neighborhood was planned and built Eagle Road was a two lane highway and there was no access to the freeway at all. 20 years when this neighborhood was being built no one could have imagined what you are talking about now turning this into the busiest intersection of all of Idaho. We bought our home about 3 years ago and at that point in time there was an exit and entrance off onto Eagle Road from the freeway. I remember our neighbors were fighting hard to try and get somebody to give us a street light at the corner of both Autumn Way and Springwood so that emergency vehicles, 911 kind of things, could even see our neighborhood to get in. Greenhills is a nice neighborhood, there are big homes, they are on half acre and acre lots. When we moved in we were told that all of the land behind us and I wish we had a better view of that, but our homes are all here located Meridian City Council January 21, 1997 Page 5 right here and all of these areas behind us, this is a 5 acre parcel, there is a 5 acre parcel here and each of these have homes on them that go all the way down. Also the people that live there are in homes with 5 acre lots and most of them own horses and things and it was agricultural but it was changed to transitional use. The approval of a 24 hour a day operation like this next to a neighborhood is not a transitional development. A three story hotel looking down into my bedroom windows is not a transitional development. These three stories, if you are standing up here on a three story motel not only could you see into the windows, they are saying there are no windows to the north, well directly to the north there are two houses, the Williams and the Truax's. They will be able to see out the front of the building right into the Christianson's back yard and everybody down from my home to Howard Foley's ,Carla Osborne lives at the very end of our neighborhood. They will be able to stand here and look into her front porch because they will be up so high. So saying that there are no windows to the north isn't helpful to more than two homes of the entire neighborhood. There are only two homes that will affect. The rest of us will still have our privacy infringed upon. A 24 hour noisy McDonald's is not my idea of transitional. A 24 hour gas station with traffic coming and going all hours of the night is not my idea of a transitional development. Double fronting our lots which has just happened with this new road is not a transitional development. Semi-trucks driving through all hours of the night is not transitional. I would like for you all to note how courteous it was of them to put the trash right-here adjacent to the Truax's backyard, they are not paying any attention to the neighbors at all or they wouldn't have a big trash pick up right in their back yard. That is not my idea of transitional. Radios blasting and doors opening and closing all hours of the night is not a transitional area for any kind of neighborhood. Listening to loud speakers saying I will have a big mac and fries at 2 a.m. isn't either. And yes we will be able to hear it, we can hear the Texaco now and it is here and we are here. We can here all the things going on at the Texaco. So for that to assume that we are not going to be able to hear the orders at McDonald's they are absolutely wrong. And you all welcome to come to my house if you don't believe me. My understanding about the road that ACHD is proposing is to provide an access onto Eagle Road for the developments that they want to put in here. I was told that they will probably make it so if you turn in onto Magic View right here people will not be able to come out to Magic View and make a left hand tum. That will probably be eliminated, so all major semi's and any kind of vehicles that goes in on Magic View will have to come down this ,road right here facing their headlights towards all of our 2 story bedroom windows to all of the homes that are here before they tum to exit out here. It is not being very courteous to a neighborhood or even making it possible for us to have any kind of peace and quiet. Since the Boise Towne Square Mall went in there has been just a horrible mess of traffic down there. Part of that problem is because the mall abutted up against the freeway and you can't exit four ways out of the mall. You can only exit three different directions. I see the same problem happening here. We are putting a big huge development up against a freeway. If you development all of this land like they are saying they are going to, then eventually this road isn't going to hold the traffic. Since it is the only way to get onto Eagle Road you are going to have to go { Meridian City Council January 21, 1997 Page 6 somewhere else with another road. So they are going to want to punch through into our neighborhood and then everyone will exit through our neighbofiood to get to Franklin or they will punch through to Locust Grove making it so there are two accesses to get into this area. That is a real concern to all of us. if no planning is done for future growth then we are going to have a very congested area with this new proposed road. My fear with that is I would like all of you to pay attention that we are not just making a decision here about one five acre parcel there is a whole bunch of other property here that we need to take into consideration. We need to look down the road at what is going to work out best so that we are not back here with these same problems at the very next piece of land that is developed. We want to be able to alleviate traffic and make it so that it will work for everybody. ~ What I see with this is that it will bring ail of the traffic closer to our neighborhood not farther away. It will make more noise and make it more difficult. As to the motel, looking at this picture of a 3 story motel, just to put it in perspective, there are three houses from here to here. This rttotel looks to me like it is the size of three houses. Now how nice of a motel can this be if it is that small and it is crammed into an area this small. Is it going to be like a Motel 6 and is that what we really want off of one of our exits crammed in next to 'a McDonald's and a Chevron. have a hard time believing it can be a very nice motel that small. Eagle Partners, I already talked about the problem with the windows facing to the north. A three story building is really imposing on any kind of a neighborhood, it is just, two stories would be enough, but 3 stories is imposing to not just the homes that abut up against it, but to the houses 2 and 3 blocks over. Everyone will be able to, the motel will be able to see into those people's yards. As to the Chevron, 1 asked each of last meeting if you would please drive by the new Chevron on Fairview over by the Fred Meyers, jus# to get an idea of how bright those lights are. I bet you were all surprised at how obnoxiously bright they were. It is not the lights from the signs that are so bad, but it is the lights at the pump. The canopy lights that shine down. They don't shine down so that people can see for their gas, they shine out. That is a really offensive thing and I worry that if Chevron goes in those lights are going to be facing every direction and just light up the whole place like it is day. The safety issue is another thing I would like to bring up again. My children will no longer be safe in their back yard. 30 feet is nothing, a 3 year can get across a 30 foot berm with a four foot wall. There will be no safety at all. This development will absolutely destroy the quality of life for those of us who live on Autumn Way. Without question it will drop property values not just for those adjacent to this development but for people in the whole neighborhood because that is how real estate works. I would hope that the City of Meridian would consider the concerns of the homeowners when they are looking at growth and development. Especially when it is a commercial development wanting to come in on a residential area. These are serious quality of life issues that we face when commercial development comes in like this. I would like to ask the City of Meridian if they would please try #o appreciate some of the concerns of the homeowners. Because this is really going to affect our lives. This development appears poorly planned to me, it is rushed, it is cramped, it is congested, and it is obvious by the map that is the case. I don't believe it is compatible with what we would define as transitional, nor do I think it is fair to put commercial properties right Meridian City Council January 21, 1997 Page 7 up next to a home. I sense the dollar is weighing out against the quality of life here. Do we want the rich corporations like McDonald's and Chevron to get richer while the rest of us lose out so that they can continue to build their empires. I feel like a peon here compared to the wealthy lawyers of Chevron and McDonald's that came last time. I don't have a law degree, I don't have a degree in politics, I just know that I feel that this is wrong, this is the wrong thing to do. For the neighbors, it is the wrong thing to do for the neighborhood, there are other uses for this land. that can be benefit both parties. I am not amulti-million dollar company, but I deserve to feel safe in my own neighborhood. t deserve to be able to have a good night sleep at night in some place that is peaceful and quiet. At some point we need to rrrake a. decision that the quality of life is more important than money. Somebody must be sure that the growth is managed and channeled so that we can assure quality of life throughout the process. Meridian has a lot of growth to still come. You guys are just getting started, we are one of the fastest growing states in America. We need to decide now if we are just going to let any big huge corporation take over and do what they want or if we are going to try and protect neighborhoods, plan down the road and make good decisions for everybody involved. Please realize that you have the power to make the quality of life better for people if you will plan this growth carefully. Please deny this proposal. Corrie: Thank you Ann, does the Council have any questions of Ann? Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony at this point? Sheron Christensen, Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Christensen: I can't add much to what my neighbor Ann Bowen has said. I agree with everything she said it affects me the same way it affects her: I don't know when our subdivision was built, my house had two owners before I bought it eleven years ago this week. When I bought my home Eagle Road was a two lane road, no off ramp from the freeway. I bought that home in what I thought was one of the best subdivisions in Meridian area. I felt that it was a neat little agricultural type town that has Dairy Days still that caters to our type of living our type of birth. Currently, I am bordered on the north by Autumn Way, Eagle Road since its expansion and since the light when in there I can sit in my garden or weed in my garden and less than 100 feet away looking into the eyes of people who are stopped at the red light. I think with a little study I could tell whether they shaved this morning or not it is that close to my home. If this road goes in on the south side then I will be bordered on three sides of my home by public roads. The thing that concerns me most of all is security as well which has been mentioned to the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Eagle Partners representative testified when we suggested the possibility that there ought to be some other development there that would be a daylight development instead of a 24 hour development. It was stated 6 times in his testimont that studies showed that their development would only have 65% of the traffic that an office complex would have. That surprises me that a McDonald's and a Chevron could get along with their investment with only 65% of the traffic that would be expected to come to the doctors Meridian City Council • January 21, 1997 Page 8 office or whoever might be located there. When the road was first proposed I called the Highway Department and visited with them a bit. I was told that usually when something like that happened and zoning changed property values went up. I told him I was the first house and he said well it is obvious .that your property will go down instead of up. When I suggested how he would feel if he was bordered on three sides by reads and a development like this next to his place he said i would feel exactly the same way you do. I would fight it just like you do. Now the concerns I have mostly is that every car that comes off Magic View and turns into the gas pumps at that service station when it is built will shine in my house. Every boom box that some teenager has ~ 12 o'clock when he comes to buy gas or a McDonald hamburger will wake me up from where as close as I sleep there. Every door that is slammed will be heard at my house besides the lights that will be shining in my back yard. As has been said in other mee#ings I not only live I my house I live a bit in the back yard once in awhile too. It is kirx! of nice to have a little bit of privacy there. Any spills that are made be accidental or whatever will pollute the water that I drink everyday. I agree with Ann, I would suggest that you deny this proposal. Thank you. Corrie: Any questions from Council? Thank you very much, anyone else? John Jackson, 3500 Commercial Court, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Jackson: First of all I would like to say that t am not here to oppose the use or new competition I am here to oppose the road. We have had several stations built next to our units before, there are several in the process now. I have never contested a new competitor that is their right and I don't believe in that, t don't like it when it would happen to me. I wouldn't be here tonight on~this use except for the road I want to touch on the reason this road is so damaging to me and the reason I am so caught off guard by it. During the course when we permitted our site Ada County Highway District made written comments to our proposal, nothing was ever mentioned about this proposed whatever you want to call it a J road with a J collector or whatever. There was nothing ever mentioned. They are given the power to create new roads but they are suppose to select and plan these rights of ways and they are required to comply with the local planning act. This new arterial is not reflected on any map or any plan. It is not on the Meridian comprehensive plan, it is no on their Destination 2015 plan, it is not on the Destination 2010 plan. The Ada County long range highway and street map or the transportation improvement program, it has never been contemplated until this development. was proposed. Six months after we opened our business this road was proposed and nothing was ever said to me at all. We made a sizable investment in good faith and six months later we find out we are going to be severely threatened tot he extent as I will get into later that I think mar make us non-economic. We are talking a considerable traffic here. Our type of business is most high intense traffic generators of all. We generate 5400 trips a day the applicant's estimate by ACHD is 5500 trips a day, that is over 11,000 cars somewhere in that area right here. You have to be convenient, if you are not convenient you are out of business. It is just a fact of life in Meridian City Council January 21, 1997 Page 9 our business. If I could put up a map, if I didn't already misplace it. It is not a real (inaudible) this is the Eagle Interchange this would be Eagle road, this is Franklin Road. This is Magic View now, this is Autumn Way (Inaudible) another driveway here into that subdivision (inaudible). This is .the proposed new curbed road. Initially from ACRD numbers will exceed 10,000 to 11,000 cars a day right off the bat with both of these developments. There will be a proportion between the two but with this begin the signalized route this would be where the majority of the traffic will go. Particularly when you consider the fact that there are in their minutes, ACRD has said this will become a no left tum road at Magic View. They also said at this meeting that the traffic could easily access my site which is right here (inaudible). They are saying that cars can come up and go to the light, go around this road, come back and go info my station just as easily as they could go into this new (inaudible) or they could even go up do a U turn, how many people are going to want to do a U turn on this road and come back and enter my business. You can see, if this is going to be the major intersection where the light is, this is where most of the traffic is going to go. As on this site you can see they have got two drives allowed here, two down here. Customers are going to go up here, they are not going to drive around them to come into me, they are going to drive straight into them and come- straight out. .They have got positive access north and south with two curb cuts on Eagle Road as well as their orientation for north and south which is what they are directing traffic to do. So it is a far superior an'angement then what I have. It will kill us, we will not be convenient any more. We will be history. We have only been open barely a year now and we will be wiped out. I am not exaggerating, I truly believe this because this is a convenience business and if you are not convenient people fuel up and they go. They are not going to mess around with that, they don't do it. Even in some of the minutes of the, well actually it was the findings of fact and conclusions of law from the Meridian Planning and Zoning they say customers undoubtedly will drive from my business here and go through these fueling lands to get to this road because it is more convenient then driving around here. They are going to drive through this, this could be potentially a high traffic place itself. These could be roads, 10,000 people from here go through here, is this road even going to be used or are they going to go this way. You have pedestrians, you have parking backing out, it is crazy, I can't believe it. This road, ACHD projects as much as 20,000 cars a day, that is nearly what Eagle Road is now. We are talking huge volume here, huge volume and no planning. This kind of a tight radius with garbage trucks backing out into 20,000 cars a day on curve, what are we going to do down here. Are we going to have a street light here or are we going to have stop signs. This whole thing is coming together in such a hodge podge it is just. You can usually in a good design you can look at things and see that it makes sense. You can see that this doesn't make sense. ACHD was required, I was shocked to hear tonight to hear that this access has been approved because ACHD was required by ITD to submit a traffic study which one had never been done and I checked as of today and 1 was told that none had ever been submitted. Further the ITD Board has to approve this access not staff and they are meeting tomorrow and they haven't had a meeting since ACHD's meeting. So I don't know how that is even possible. We were working very close with them on this and we Meridian City Council January 21, 1997 Page 10 were supposed to be getting copies of everything, we had communication all the time and I had no idea this road had been approved. Where is the study, these studies take time. It is this sort of attitude where they are just trying to cram this road down our throat in a very expeditious manner without any planning, without anybody having a chance to review it is ridiculous. They are shaping the City of Meridian or forcing this road down our throat and look at it. In the overall scheme of things I ask you does this really make sense, should we make a quick decision on this tike this on a 20,000 car road count that before this development was proposed was not ever in any sort of plan, no matter how far out you go. It was never ever there. How can I build a business and operate and have this sort of threat, I can never it do it again. I don't understand it. just feel that this road is getting crammed down our throat and I would ask the City of Meridian not to allow this to happen. It just doesn't make sense, it is going way too fast, the study, planning all of things that are supposed to be required. I would like to read a letter to you that I have. This is from the Idaho Transportation Board to the developer. It states the Idaho Transportation Department has some concerns about this application since Eagle Road is a controlled access faality. Not all requests for access are approved. Approval of the access for the .new street right of way 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. Where is it. I guess one last point I will make. Eagle Road being a controlled access facility, there is a reason for that. It expedites the flow of traffic, and Eagle Road is a major road and it is going to have a lot of traffic. If you look here we have, let me get by bearings straight. We have currently one, two, three, four, five, six accesses off of Eagle Road between Franklin and the Interchange. That is a lot of cross traffic. With one more that would be seven, that is a huge amount of cross traffic. On the south side to Overland Road there is zero access, it is a controlled access. They are not supposed to give accesses out like everybody deserves one or needs one because of the interference it creates to the north and south traffic. On the south side as I said there are zero and now they are proposing to put another one seven is that good design, it that proper planning? The neighborfioods and all the development here will come down to Overland Road and access back. There isn't any of this cross traffic and yet we have seven proposed now. I just ask that you deny this because of what it is going to do to my business, the lack of planning, the way this thing is being forced down our. throat without any studies, any report. It is just unbelievable to me. Our business would probably fail, I can't see how we can compete with the new business getting this sort of an advantage over and existing business. I just don't think it vuould work for us. Corrie: Thank you John, any questions? Rountree: I have a question, just looking for an opinion, you have used the words that this road, not necessarily this proposal but this road would wipe you out. Given your knowledge of the industry wouldn't those same kinds of fears and same kinds of Meridian City Council January 21, 1997 Page 11 disadvantages with this kind of traffic arrangement affect the service ability of the Chevron the proposed Chevron site? Jackson: No I don't feel so because they have access down here at the signal light. They don't have to worry about left hand turns,. they have it right there on their site, they can turn in and come straight down their pumps are oriented that way. All of that traffic is going to go north and south. It is an easy in and out, they can go in there and go out here. Mine if you can't turn left you have to go down there drive by the competitor make the loop come back on Magic View, get into our site and if you are going north bound you have to retrack onto Magic View, turn left go down to the new collector follow it around and get into the lighii. Both times you are going right past something more convenient, why would you do that. We only have one access off of Magic View, we have two accesses of Magic View but only one off of Eagle Road and that could be a left turn only. We are severely handicapped. Crookston: Mr. Mayor I only have one question, Mr. Jackson, you made comments about this road. I assume that you were referring to .Magic View rather than Eagle Road. Jackson.: Which time? I have been talking about them all. I am not sure which point in time, are you talking about now? Crookston: No, this was when you first started out. Jackson: Well when I am talking about this road and if I had a spiteful tone 1 would undoubtedly be talking about this new J hooked collector. Crookston: By what name? Jackson: What is its name? Crookston: I believe it is Magic View. Jackson: No, Rountree: It would be St. Luke's extended. Corrie: 1 think Counselor when he was talking and making those comments he was pointing to the J road that is on the west side and, turns and goes next to Magic View or Autumn. Crookston: Is that correct? Jackson: Yes sir Meridian City Council ~ ~' January 21, 1997 Page 12 Crookston: Thank you Jackson: 20,000 cars a day with that tight of tum that quick, it is unbelievable. Corrie: Any other questions? Morrow: I have a question, could you refresh, where is the 20,000 car count from, ACRD has indicated that this site. is 5500 per day in terms of their proposal and our (inaudible) how do you get to the 20,000? Jackson: That is what ACHD's staff report says as far as building of this area will be 20,000 cars. Currently with this new development there will be in their estimates over 11,000 cars initially in this area and what routes they are going to take I would say most of them are going to take the light because it is easier to get in and out, particularly if there are no left turns. But when there rest of the area develops their number of estimates is 20,000 cars per day. And it is in it~ir staff report. Morrow. The only reference that I find in their staff report is the count on Eagle Road which is 24,200 and I don't know. Corrie: I think Mr. Morrow if I might on page 4, it says depending upon the final allocation of land uses total trip generation at the Magic View intersection could reach 20,000 at full build out, it is right in the third paragraph. (End of Tape) Jackson: (Inaudible) right off the bat and as it develops out they are saying it could go to 20,000. That is nearly what Eagle Road is~ we are talking a significant thing here. This is a huge impact to throw in and force it. I am just amazed. Carla Osborne, 373 Thornwood Drive, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Osborne: I live in Greenhill Estates, I am the mother of four children ranging in ages between four and twelve. My family and I choose to live in Greenhill because it has to offer what we want. An acre of land in a mature established, quality neighbofiood. It is a safe environment surrounded by good neighbors, perfect for raising a family. A neighborhood where my children aren't at risk when they jump on their bikes and go to visit their friends down the street. Just to give you an idea of what I see when I look at out my window every morning. I look out and t can see beautiful fields where horses run freely, pheasants and geese which nest year round. The Five Mile Creek which runs along a tree lined bank and we even haws a raccoon who visits us late at night when .everything is still. Out my front window morning noon and night friendly neighbors wave as they walk, run or bike with family members, friends or safely by themselves. I would like to ask you,. does this sound like a fairy tale? Well it isn't, this is a quality neighborhood that any of you Council members would enjoy living in. I • Meridian City Council • January 21, 1997 Page 13 would like to ask you to ask yourselves this question. If this development and those that will certainly follow were proposed to be built in your backyard would you vote for it? If your answer is no, we would expect the same consideration for our neighborhood: The Greenhill association has thoroughly documented why this development should not be approved. As homeowners with growing families we can't compete with big business and corporate lawyers. Our only protection is you, the City Counal. We depend on your the City Council for the security and the safety of our neighborhood, the privacy of our neighborhood and the continued quality of the life that we now espy. Through your vote you will cause a great impact on the lives our families and our children. For better for worse. Corrie: Thank you Carla, any questions from Council? Anyone else? Richard Williams, 3133 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Williams: Thank you Mr. Mayor, thank you Councilmen, this has been a long, involved affair and I hope to keep it brief as much as I can. I thank the staff for all of the help that they have been to us over the last eight months also. The thing that t would like to get into, very few things but we feel very appropriate. Number one, regardless of what people say, regardless of what anybody thinks about this, this is a very, very intense use of land, very intense. We feel it is very inappropriate, it is a seven day a week, 24 hours a day fully lighted combination uses running across the entire parcel. Fast food will be a substantial use, not a mere side line. The major gas and fuel islands are oriented north and south so that they shine directly when cars pull in they will shine directly into bedroom windows all night long. It has been said that Eagle Road may gradually go commercial but not all commercial use is equal: The zoning ordinances that you have and other entities, Ada County, Boise City and Eagle will all have an effect on this. In this area, under the request, a hotel is permitted use but the convenience store and the gas station are only is not. It may be if the Council believes that it would make a positive contribution and be permitted in the zone. It does not have a right to be there. A denial of the right to place this very intense combination of uses does not deny the owner the legal right to develop the land. We would tike to make that very clear. The comp plan and zoning ordinances both require that a proposed use whether it is part of the available uses in a rezone or specific use permitted be harmonious with existing uses and especially that the use be harmonious with the existing adjacent residential neighborhoods. This does not. A 30 foot buffer, in football is a first down. The Meridian comp plan does not by a specific language at all include the Eagle Road Interchange as one. of the areas where Freeway interchange oriented uses are appropriate. Until the plan is amended approvals of rezone and CUP's are contrary to the plan. Especially contrary to all of the plan policies relating to preserving and protecting residential neighborhoods providing fair transitional uses from hard commercial uses to established residential uses. Since zoning must follow the plan this heavy concentration of very active trip generating 24 hour a day, seven day a week use we feel really must be rejected. In light of that, we would ask and Meridian City Council • January 21, 1997 Page 14 propose the following. We would ask that the City Council open the comprehensive plan for amendment to the plan area that would be located and bordered by the Interstate, Locust Grove, Franklin and a portion east of Eagle Road. At present there is no planning by any entity in Ada County .that addresses this area. This is a sign cant area for the City of Meridian. We would like to do this for a number of reasons. First of all it will hopefully prevent these lengthy hearings and time consuming issues for both us and for yourselves and for your staff. There has been no planning really done in this area. Yet you have hundreds of acres there that are going to be up for some type of development review over the next decade 1 am sure. We find that this project conflicts both with existing policies that the City has adopted. Again, there is nothing in any plans, City, County to date that shows that this area is anything but residential. The area that we are talking about where this five acres is a platted subdivision. It was a platted subdivision with I believe R-5 zoning until 1993 when it was changed to RT. We still haven't figured out how that was changed. But it was not RT at the onset. Eagle Hills Subdivision or the Greenhills Estates Subdivision, Montvue Subdivision and Magic View Subdivision are all in excess of 20 years old. At that point in time Eagle Road was two lanes, there was not interchange, there was no planning done out there at all in terms of anything except residential. We did find it interesting that this type of development has been proposed at Eagle Road and Ghinden on the southeast and southwest corners. Two years ago Boise City turned down a C Store for Stinker on that comer on the southeast corner of Eagle Road and Chinn because of the same concerns that we are voicing today. There is a proposal currently before the Boise City for the same type of development on the southwest corner of Eagle and Chinden which abuts a brand new subdivision. The City of Eagle has recommended to Boise City that it be denied because it is not harmonious with the existing neighborhoods. So please take that into consideration. This proposal does not fit in where it is. Again, if you open the comp plan for amendment I am sure that there would be a number of people within our area, both Montvue, Greenhills Estates and Magic View that would like to work with the City to develop help develop, not develop because we can't develop it, to help develop and overall plan for that entire area. One that would work for everybody, one that would be beneficial for the City, one that would be compatible with the neighborhood. So we offer that to you in some hopes that we can move things forward but again do it under the guise of good planning. It was mentioned that this proposed street is 20,000 cars a day. The noise there would exceed any highway standards for those noise level of residential. Eagle Road already exceeds the noise, the decibel levels that are under Federal law now. There are a couple of Things that I would like to point out on the map that we would like, if you are going to oansider this in a positive note for the developer. Mr. Jackson was required to put in a 35 foot landscape strip along Eagle Road. This development is only required to put in '15 feet or his proposal is 15 feet. St. Luke's is at least 35 feet and in some cases significantly more. We would ask that if this is approved that to be compatible all along Eagle Road that this also be a 35 foot landscape strip as was recommended by your Planning and Zoning Commission and by Shari by your Planner and the correspondence that they had. That would be one thing. The other thing is we would ask that the pumps be turned east and Meridian City Council' January 21, 1997 Page 15 west so that the head lights don't shine into our bedroom windows at 3 a.m. in the morning. They were originally east and west and for some reason ACRD would like it north and south. We would ask that you take control of it not ACRD. This is a new design, it is significantly different, we do also find that if they do the 35 foot strip they don't have enough parking spaces as per the ordinances. Which again shows that this is a very intense use of the land. We feel that is wrong, they would lose a number of parking spaces and it would be way below, we estimate about 30 parking spaces below the minimum required as the plan is shown. Again, I won't get into this document again, but just tha# it is for the record. I vuould also ask Shari, did you receive a letter from John McCreedy, we would like to have that entered into the public record on both this public hearing and on the other one if we could please. Montvue Subdivision is also opposed to this for the very reasons. Again we realize that development is going to occur. We just feel and hope that it is compatible and truly a transitional development not a high intense, 24 hour a day, seven days a week, rain or shine in our back yards. That is all we are asking for from this Council. Thank you Corrie: Thank you Mr. Williams, any comments or questions of the Council? Anyone else-from the public that would like to enter testimony at this time? Chuck Horel, 3043 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Horel: Gentlemen, thank you for your time this evening, I just want to thank everybody behind me who are not only here from Greenhill Estates but other subdivisions that are genuinely concerned about the quality of life in Meridian. I got a letter that was written by my best friend who is no longer with us, Rick (inaudible) he did some extensive research, he was an environmental consultant~when he was living. His research that he did is very defined, I want to read part of this letter and also make some comments that I feel are pertinent to go along with this. We are 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 in support of our opposition to commercial development of the land. We would like to present information on two issues. One the potential impact of any development on our subdivision and domestic water supply. And two the potential increase in noise from any development that would add to the intolerable levels of noise that exist at present. Relative to the first issue our subdivision has two well heads in the far southeast lot of the subdivision. As proposed by or proposed for the Chevron station by Eagle Partners a total of three gasoline storage tanks with 36,000 gallons storage capacity would be located within 400 feet of our well head. We do not believe that this 'rs acceptable at any level. In an effort to determine what an acceptable distance is for our well head we use the State of Idaho well head 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 six months of the year. Based on review of the drill logs for the two wells, the basic one method or approach in the Idaho Meridian City Council• January 21, 1997 Page 16 plan and a peak pumping rate of 100 gallons per minute we have determined that zone 1 A which is a sanitary setback distance and zone 1 B which is a two year time of travel and zone 2 a five year time of travel and zone 3 a 10 year time of travel. The setback distances for various contaminants relative to our wells. Based on the State of Idaho endorsed well head protection plan the zone 1 A distance is 50 feet, the zone 1 B distance is 6,600 feet. It increases expedientially beyond that. Zone 2 and 3 distances preclude category 2 though 7 contaminants such as underground storage tanks for petroleum products. Based on the recomrnendations of the State of Idaho and our support of the. plan we would ask the City Council to take two actions. Not allow Eagle Partners or any other subsequent application for rezoning south of Greenhill Estates to encroach within the State of Idaho endorsed zone distance of our wells. And two may the State of Idaho well head protection plan a permanent addition to the Meridian comprehensive plan. Relative to the second issues, our subdivision is a recipient of an abnormal amount of traffic noise and that we are bounded on the south by Federal Interstate Highway 84, on the East by State Highway 55 and on the north by County maintained Franklin Road. Interstate is 65 miles per hour, The State Highway is 50 miles per hour, and Franklin Road is 45 miles per hour. Present plans call for Eagle Road or Highway 55 to go to 7 lanes and Franklin road to go to five lanes in the future. Traffic noise from the combination of the three roads reach intolerable levels regardless of the time of day. Eagle Road was widened in the last six years in order to mesh with the I-84 interchange and relieve congestion, noise in down town 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 in 20 years after the project was complete. Noise tests were conducted in order to use federal funds for the project. In federal- not to exceed noise standards were provided, 67 to 70 decibels as criteria for the project and funding. State of Idaho noise test 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 the noise barrier, lower speeds, exclusion of large trucks or other innovative measures were used by the State as required by 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 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, #649, section 8-1612 A, public disturbance noises, states that one it is unlawful for ar~y person to cause or for any person in possession of property to allow it to originate from the property sound that is a public disturbance noise. Under part B, the cxeation 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 we believe that any commercial development in the lands immediately south Meridian City Council' January 21, 1997 Page 17 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 the comprehensive plan and on the letter of the law in the City noise ordinance we would ask that the City Council take two actions. Not allow Eagle Partners or any subsequent applicant for rezoning south of Greenhill Estates to add to the already very noisy neighborhood that we now have as a result of possibly unlawful use of federal highway funds. And two incorporate the City of Meridian noise ordinance into the City 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. One of the comments made by Mr. Strite was Highway 55 is a main, is the main north south highway in Idaho and we may be splitting hairs here but it is not, it is Highway 95. Highway 55 ig the scenic route. Enough said. Development is inevitable in our community and we all I~ow that. We feel that Meridian is a great place to live and we also feel that there are alternatives to 24 hour services abutting residential properties. There is another issue, with the drawing as proposed our well head as stated is on the southeast corner of the lot, if I can show you (inaudible) lower right hand corner you can see the star configuration and that is where the well head is. My understanding is that any time you have an ingress egress from a major thoroughfare as you have an ingress you have to have a deceleration lane. It doesn't' show one right now and yet we know that it is going to have to be developed. Does this put our well head in jeopardy, this is going to literally going to be within feet of our well head. Physically what kind of jeopardy does that put that well head in. Semi comes off the road accidentally and crashes into the well system, what happens. I can't tell you because I don't know who is responsible. There are some real unanswered questions as far as what we are looking at here. In the community water system of course serves all of the Greenhill Estates. Gentlemen, I thank you for your time, if there are any questions? Corrie: Thank you Chuck, I believe I saw a couple more hands. Howard Foley, 2875 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Foley: I knew you would be disappointed if I didn't speak this evening, so here I am. I want to cover an issue that I have talked with you about before and which I have addressed in writing which has to do with the notice provisions required by City ordinance. I know that some of those concerns that vue have expressed before have been corrected by the applicant. I want to review very quickly a couple of those items and I want to address that issue. 1 want to address the issue of what type of a road is proposed here and what it means to all of us not only the residents of Greenhills but the City of Meridian. I want to talk quickly about some of the goals of the comprehensive plan and !want to talk about the burden of persuasion and whose burden that is. Very quickly as you are all aware at the Planning and Zoning level there is a requirement within our ordinance that requires notification to be given by certitted mail to any affected individual within 300 feet of the proposed development. Meridian City Council • January 21, 1997 Page 18 As we have pointed out before in addition to that any individuals affected by the proposed development. We have raised that issue at Planning and Zoning, we have raised that issue before. Our ordinances requires that the Zoning Administrator address that issue when it becomes apparent that more than the 3 or 4 houses that are within the 300 feet of this proposed development are affected by it. The applicant themselves have conceded that more than the three or four houses are affected by that. Certainly the number of people that are here and have shown up to these meetings attest to the fact that more than 3 or 4 residents or homeowners who have received those certified mail certificates are affected by this proposed development. It just seems abundantly obvious to me. Additionally a burden under the ordinances placed on the Council and the Council is required to give notice again to those people that live within the 300 feet of the project and again to any people who are affected by it. You are to be advised by the Zoning Administrator by our ordinances as to who those people are. We have heard from the Applicant's attorney that if there are more than either 200 either residents or homeowners who are affected then the ordinance provides that we can give notice simply by publishing that in th paper. I would submit to you that the Zoning Administrator simply has not advised anybody one way or the other about whether. how many people are affected, whether it is 200 or 300 or 900 or 500 or the 50 that are sitting here or 60. That is as we lawyers would talk about that is a failure and it is a failure You don't know, your zoning administrator hasn't made that determination one way or another. I have never seen it in the record. We don't know how many people are supposed to receive notice. The ordinances requires you as a Council once that determination has been made to advise all of those people are who are affected by first class mail, that has not been done. 1 think that is a defect in the notification. In addition to that I want to talk about what that not cation that the 3 or 4 of us in our subdivision received. We received a notification that doesn't have a dam thing, (Inaudible) we didn't get this. That was filed with the City on the 17th, today is the 21 ~t. And so I want to go back and visit what 1 have talked about before what the purpose of notification is. It is just simply piar`n fairness. Those people that are going to be affected by the decisions that you are called upon to make should receive ample and fair notice. If you are required to mail as the applicant is or as the City Council is to assure or the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to do, notice, then you should mail notice of what is going to come before the City Council. When some material enough as this type of roadway is going to come before you is not part of that mailing procedure that goes out 15 days prior to the hearing then that notice is woefully deficient, it just simply is deficient. This is not a minor deviation, and so I bring that to you attention. I bring it to your attention not to be as I said before hypertechnical and those sort of things but just to talk about what is fair and what is appropriate that is what the notice requirements are. That has not been done, it simply has not been done by the applicant. We have hearing after haring, time after time, seen the applicant come in at the last minute, file documents that are going to be presented before the administrative bodies. Nobody else gets notification. I would be the first to admit wee have a pretty good network in our neighborhood, things get passed around, that is not the point, it simply is not the point. Our ordinances require that the Zoning Meridian City Counci~ • January 21, 1997 Page 19 Administrator when it becomes apparent that notification beyond the 3 or 4 houses within the 300 feet required make that determination and require the notification be done. And advise you of the same so that when you as a Council fulfill your statutory obligation that you send that notification you have done in my opinion. I want to talk to you about the roadway. Councilman Morrow asked and I want to address that directly, what is the source of the 20,000 trips per day. It is in the minutes of the ACRD meeting on January 8, 1997. I would like permission from the Council as I refer to these various documents to make, I have them in bulk I would like to make specific copies of those and present them to you if l may. Is that acceptable, can I submit them late, or I would be happy to hand you the packets. The ACRD minutes of January 1997 estimate 20,000 trips per day down this roadway. They state as Mr. Jackson has that at present there are 5500 trips being made. We all understand that if nothing more happened with the Chevron station, what is happening now with Jackson's and if we just simply double that we are going to have about 1100 trips per day. ACHD is telling you that there is going to be about 20,000. I would tell you if you look at the Destination 2015 study on page 8-2 they will tell you that a collector is defined by 7500 trips per day and no more. This roadway gentlemen is not a collector. It is not a small roadway, this is an arterial, this is a big time arterial that is being suggested and t would submit to you as being imposed on you if you accept this plan with no planning. I would submit to you that this roadway does not exist in a planned form in the Destination 2010 program or plan and the 2015 plan, in the Ada County long range plan, the transportation improvement program, in the comprehensive plan for the City of Meridian it just doesn't exist. This plan is suggesting to you that you just carte blanche agree that we are going to have 20,000 trip per day roadway. And frankly whether it has to do with coming down the back of my neighborhood or not may not mean a lot, it means a lot to me. But to you as a City Council and a final arbitrator of what kind of roadway system we are going to have in Meridian it should mean a lot. It should mean a lot in the fact that in view of the fact that Franklin Road, the plan is to extend that or expand that to a five lane road. It should mean a lot to you in view of an application that has been made to the City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission in December fora light industrial development at the southwest corner of Locust Grove and Franklin. I submit to you that if you just take this roadway and just run it west that is the application down there for Light Industrial. So what are we doing, are we going to now have 20,000 here or are we going to extend this roadway, is that what we are going to do all the way down the boundary of our residences until we (inaudible) Locust Grove. Are. we going to do that or not or are we going to as it is (inaudible) this is the westerly direction that will go to Locust Grove. (Inaudible) The point is where is the planning in all of this? ft is ACHD's idea as we understand it from the applicant and everybody else that this new road be created. So where are we going to go with it. Why are we creating it. Who is going to decide it and shouldn't we plan just a little bit This is not just a small two lane little road that we are going to run a few cars up and down. I want to address a couple of things in terms of our comprehensive plan. As been mentioned before Eagle Road I not included in that plan, it is just not planned for and it is not part of a planned interchange. The planning is deficient, it is not anybody's fault, the city is growing a ' Meridian City Council. ' January 21, 1997 Page 20 great deal, it is hard to keep up we understand that. But I guess we are asking you to think about these things before we just start something without any planning and without any direction and not knowing where we are going. Our comprehensive plan provides as a policy matter at section 5.7 and 1.4 that we are to do detailed marketing studies in any mixed use area, we haven't done that. The comprehensive plan provides in the neighborhood identity goals statement at section 6.5U that any land use planning reflect the character of existing neighborhoods. I want to emphasize the fact that we are an existing neighborhood, this is the new development that is coming in. It is not new versus new this new versus existing. Our comprehensive plan at paragraph 6.6U provides that the neighborhood policy plans are to preserve and improve existing neighborhoods. The goals of the comprehensive plan at item 2 tell us that we are to ensure the growth and development occur ~ an orderly fashion, this is riot orderly. Item 8 to establish compatible use of land and page 21 of the comprehensive plan that we are to arrange major land uses and preserve the integrity and amenities of residential neighborhoods. That is part of our comprehensive plan. This plan does not do that. The last thing I want to address is simply the burden of persuasion. The City Attorney will certainly talk with you about that if you need to ask questions, I suspect that you don't. The burden is on the applicant, the burden is on the applicant to persuade you that and convince you that they have complied with the comprehensive plan, that the zoning ordinances that exist in the City of Meridian have been complied with. That the notice requirements have beery complied with. And that there is great logic in creating a 20,000 trip per day roadway when we don't know ultimately where it is going to go and what it is going to connect into. You have in your packets and evidence before you that part of where this roadway goes whichever direction it goes to the west is going to go into the wetlands area You are going to have probler~ts with the corp. of engineers and other things down there. That it is going to affect Locust Grove Heights Subdivision. And it is going to affect other residential areas. I would submit to you that the applicant simply has failed to carry that burden. You shouldn't grant this application, it is certainly a disaster for our neighborhood, but I suggest to you that it is a bigger disaster from a planning standpoint tcx the City of Meridian. Thanks, can I get a ruling of whether I can submit these documents later or do you want them rt~aw'? Corrie: I would say that you submit them now Crookston: Excuse me, what do you have with you now Howard? Foley: I have copies of the ordinance, 1 have copies of the ACRD Destination 2015 plan, I have copies of the publication of the industrial use property. I have sort of a slug of stuff. Crookston: Is there a problem with you leaving that here and replacing it. Foley: No Meridian City Council January 21, 1997 Page 21 Crookston: Mr. Mayor and Council I think it would be preferable for keeping of the record that we have that and that the Council approve that it be replaced. Corrie: I am sorry Counselor, that the Council approve what? Crookston: That the Council approve that it may be replaced by Mr. Foley. Foley: I would be happy to stand for question. Corrie: Any questions? Anyone else from the public that hasn't testified? David Swenson, 2503 Springwood, Meridian, was sworn by the City ~4ttomey. Swenson: You have heard, this has been going on and on and on. I think all of us here have spent night after night after night in either this meeting or that. ACRD or one meeting after another. I think you have plenty of argument in front of you to make a decision either way. There is plenty of justification could be found in the records of these meetings to approve it or disapprove it. I think you have heard everything previously that I would say in terms of argument against granting this kind of approval to build this development. My concern is and I will be brief, it will just be a moment. I would like to just address what is the underlying principle and philosophy that we operate under here? I have driven, I grew up in San Jose and in San Jose when my family moved there it was all orchards and vineyards. If you have been there lately I don't even like to go back to it. I have lived in suburbs of Los Angeles, some of them well planned, some of them not. You can tell which communities have a City Council that cares about the community and which don't It stands out and it is a testament to the City Council what the community looks like. My concem is what motivates this kind of decision. You have heard everything and you have heard it again and again and again and it has to be really boring to sit where you are sitting. We appreciate all that you do we know that this is not an easy commitment in your lives. Politically the people that have spoken tonight most of us are political rookies. We appreciate the chance to participate in the process, but our feeling is that we have been kind of steam rolled since this whole thing started. We are not as sophisticated as those who do this day in and day out. I think the community doesn't want this. The people who live here don't want this. I hope that is clear, this neighborhood is pretty united about this. We don't feel like we have necessarily been very well listened to. I think we feel like there are other options and we would encourage you to be patient and look at some of the other options that will certainly come to you for development of this property. We know it has to happen but we don't feel like this is a good choice. In fad we feel like it is wrong. Just, I suppose I wouldn't have thought myself speaking on behalf of Jackson's except that he was given approval to build a business and invested a considerable amount of capital and then a year later we are looking at making changes here that just doesn't seem fair. It doesn't seem right to what his business, and that is far enough away from our neighborhood. We just think that we don't need to have another gear Meridian City Council January 21, 1997 Page 22 jammer at this intersection. It is not necessary and this isn't a particularly good place. I don't think we are going to do anything for Meridian by approving this. I don't want to take any more of your time but, whether it is 20,000 or 10,000 or 11,000 the community here doesn't want it. I don't know what your compelling interest would be in approving it. All of us are going to ask ourselves that question if it is approved. What are you thinking of? If you do approve it we would like to hear what you are thinking of. It is important to us (End of Tape) Dean Kidd, 2127 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Kidd: Council members, Mr. Mayor, I have been a resident of the Greenhills Subdivision now since 1988. Due to my line of work I haven't been able to have a lot of input into the previous hearings and I am not fully knowledged on exactly the fine details. I can tell you from just listening hear tonight with what I see with the plan and also previous testimony there is something dramatically wrong with this plan. I guess the simplest way to put it Council members is that you would have to live in the area to really understand what I am talking about. Part of it is the traffic congestion created, now I was always under the impression that someday I wanted to build a convenience store maybe as a retirement or whatever. I guarantee the first place I would took would be on a corner. Corners are always more amenable to the convenience fast in and fast out type of service. The thing that I see wrong here is that anybody entering into the facility being the existing Jackson's now or the proposed Chevron/motel/hotel is that they have got a lane of traffic to cross. Right now they have got two lanes, we are proposing Eagle Road being expanded and they would have that many more lanes. Understanding if you were traveling north and you wanted to turn in off of Eagle Road you have all of these lanes of traffic to cross over. We have got that right now with Jackson's. When it was laid out and Jackson's was put in we have accepted that as homeowners and residents in the area. But looking at the stop light that was put in afterwards to I guess accommodate the hospital facility there is tremendous conflict. There was some very poor planning put into the stop light aRennrards. I feel that the stop light should have been at Jackson's, you have a tough time getting in and out of Jackson's, it has become a dangerous scenario and the stop light is only actually helping a few people that turn in and out of St. Luke's. My whole point here is that everything that has been said tonight, I don't want to go in and reiterate any of it, I agree with the fact that this is a very poor plan and that there needs to be some very serious consideration on how this land is to be used. With the proposed planning and the expansion of Eagle Road we have got Franklin that has been mentioned, the traffic congestion is becoming horrendous for those of us tha# have to drive it on a daily basis. Sometimes I will travel it 3 and 4 times a day. It is becoming tike a gauntlet when you are in line with people going north bound headed home, going south bound headed home and I have this one narrow lane to pull into and I have traffic that is going past me a zillion miles an hour it seems like. Once that traffic light was put in my space was narrowed down to approximately two car lengths and that is what (inaudible) waiting for the on bound traffic to break so that I can cross and go into the housing development. Meridian City Council • January 21, 1997 Page 23 It has become a very dangerous situation. To tell you a little bit about how dangerous the community is becoming there was a fatality this morning on Overland Road. There was a pair of fatalities the night before last on Orchard. There was a back wreck here over Christmas right at this intersection that we are speaking about. We are looking at it, it is a fact that we are going to face. With proper planning and I am sure your good judgment that we can make this, we can do the give and take to where the expansion can take place and we can still have the quality of life that we have now. I thank you very kindly and I would be more than happy to entertain any questions. Corrie: Thank you Dean, any questions of Council? Mark Bowen, 3067 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bowen: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I just want to make a few comments I will be really brief. My overall concern is with the general lack of planning and generally a frustration with the inability to deal with the area as a whole. I have had the opportunity to read the traffic report from the adjacent site and have seen the numbers bantered about by ACHD and ITD and other consultants in the area. The numbers are talking about for traffic aside from the development here on the west side of Eagle Road the numbers are huge, astronomical. We all recognize that and the complications or difficulties presented by the numbers of trip generations by all of these possible developments are daunting. The traffic issues are extremely complicated and to me in dealing with this with a spot approach at a time, one- parcel at a time is not getting at the larger problem. We have a real potential to have worse congestion problem than they have at the mall due to the difficulties presented by the proximity of these accesses to Eagle Road combined with the number of trips generated on each of these possible sites. You combine that with the fact that this particular proposal if you look at the site it doesn't take much to look at it and realize that is an extremely congested site. As Dick mentioned it is an intensive use. You look at the proximity of that hotel relative to the new proposed roadway ar~d if you talk about 20,000 trips generated on that new road there I don't think a 60 foot right of way will suffice. And you look at the proximity of that road relative to the hotel, relative to the 30 foot buffer where does it go, does it take away from the buffer, does it move the hotel. There are just huge issues to deal with. You combine the congestion of the site with the number of trips generated ,from the west side and from Eagle Road and the possible developments south of the freeway and we just ended up with a general congested area that we are dealing with on a spot by spot basis as far as planning goes. I would like to see a way to get at the planning of this area for all of those concerned. There are many of us that have huge concerns and interests, the developer included quite frankly. St. Luke's, Montvue, Greenhill, Jackson's, the developer here and future developers all have a general interest in seeing that the proper thing is done here and I don't think that can be achieved on a single spot by spot approval.. I would request that you deny this proposal and somehow we develop a way that we can get at planning of this area in general for all of those concerned. Thank you. Meridian City Council' ' January 21, 1997 Page 24 Corrie: Any questions from Council? Anyone else from the public at this time? Glenn Griffiths, 3195 North Montvue Drive, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Griffiths: I am here tonight gentlemen of the Council to represent the residents of the Montvue Park subdivision and to state our support of the Greenhill Estates ~abdivision and their efforts to get this application turned down. We are in the view that is maybe not directly influencing us immediately if this development is approved. In the future we feel that it will affect us. I have a map here that is put out by ACHD staff report, you probably all have one. It just goes to show how they view us already, it is not even an update map of our subdivision it doesn't showy how, a lot of these residents aren't even here anymore. Half of this was wiped out when Eagle Road was widened, this is Eagle Road right here. It doesn't even correctly shave the access of our subdivision abutting directly across from Springwood Drive which is one of the entrances into the Greenhill Estates. This is the affected parcel here toni~t, it is small, it is 5 acres. My view, this kind of development does even fit on five acres. It is ,small, it will generate traffic, have a letter from our attorney representing our subdivision and we would like it to be submitted into the record. I would generate the question why the road, my view is the answer state that they want to utilize the stop light already at the entrance to St. Luke's to benefit their business to possibly draw away business from Jackson's if possible, it makes sense. Another possibility to us, once that road is in place why not turn St. Luke's private drive into a main thoroughfare through there: It ~ has already been recommended by ACRD as something we have been before the City Council to oppose and do not want to see it happen. To me the stop light should be moved down to Magic View Drive, it makes more sense, you have a business there already. Like the gentleman stated earlier it is a mess to get into that business. People already illegally use the turn lane to drive down to the stop light when traffic is backed up. And it is only going to get worse. We keep adding businesses to this community pretty soon traffic won't even flow by there. That is atl I have to say. Corrie: Any questions? Thank you, anybody else from the public that wants to issue testimony at this time? Seeing none a representative from the Eagle Partners want to have a last crack at this before we move on. Strite: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, you have heard some pretty compelling testimony here tonight and certainly I am not going to call it redundant we have heard it before and I am sure we will probably hear again during the conditional use hearing. Let me just emphasize I think on behalf of ttte applicant the roads seems to be the biggest topic this evening. As you well knew and as your staff well knows our application was submitted without this roadway. This applicant was compelled to provide the roadway by Ada County Highway District, it was their meeting with your staff based upon your comprehensive plan that determined the need for this roadway. This roadway is not a result of this application, ~ has nothing to do with this application Meridian City Council • January 21, 1997 Page 25 quite frankly at this point. It did at the beginning, it is what spurred all of this comment in the beginning when it started. However, as I was told by Ada County Highway District and I think you can find it on page I believe it is page 4 of the January 8"' approval, this particular roadway is going to go in there whether this development is there or not. It is there solely to provide you the ability to move traffic from the resulting acreage which in the long term as determined by your comprehensive plan is going to be more intensely developed. They are suggesting that they need an access to a signalized intersection in an effort to exit traffic that is going to develop from those parcels that are west of this site. This site today and I think you can find that again in Ada County Highway District's original comments could stand on its own without that roadway. There is 5500 trips I believe also that ACRD commented that some 40 to 45% of those are already on the road. They are not new trips, they are there. So this roadway is going to be there regardless and I can only state to you that the applicant has done what I believe is the thing that based upon what he has had to deal with he has gone the extra mile. He started out with a 5 acre site, he is down to 4.4 or 4.2 now, I haven't calculated nor has the engineer. The resulting take by the curve in the road however we have gone from a five acre site down to a 4.4 acre site in an effort to accommodate ITD and to accommodate Ada County Highway District. And so I just wanted to emphasize because the roadway has become such a large issue here and understandably we certainly. did not want it ourselves but I would like to suggest to you that this is an Ada County Highway District issue and I think that your staff, Ada County Highway District combined should have and -could have and probably would be most appropriate to have joined forces with Mr. Jackson, ourselves and the neighbofiood in an attempt to get that signal moved from its present location to Magic View. I wilt tell you I spoke to Mr. Chuck Winder, the Department of Transportation head, Mr. Jackson did in fact along with the neighbors take their proposal to the board. The board suggested that the protocol was that they had to take it back to the District. The District makes recommendations and it is then passed onto the board. Contrary to Mr. Jackson's comments Ada County Highway District is a public entity, it is not required to one provide a traffic study nor two ask for a board decision on access control and I think that is something that was misstated and I am sure it is because he is unfamiliar with the process. I spoke to Mr. David Schplitz of Ada County Highway District to ascertain that myself. We are involved in a project down town Boise where we as the applicant are required to petition ITD as a public entity that is not a requirement. As a private enterprise. as Mr. Jackson has already done it is required that they petition the board in an effort to get an access control approved. So this whole road idea I would like to suggest to you that if it were up to us the applicant we would like to go back to square one and provide the buffering that we have always provided and eliminate the road, it would be better for everyone. Only that is out of our control. That decision was made on January 8th by the Board of ACHD Commissioners. We had no basically, very little testimony quite frankly. The majority of the testimony came from the neighborhood and Jackson's. But I think we were all in concert in suggesting that we did not want the road one, two we wanted the signal relocated. Well obviously we failed in both cases. The roadway is there and in my opinion as I have just assessed to you my discussions Meridian City Council• • January 21, 1997 Page 26 with Mr. Winder there is a good chance that the traffic signal will remain exactly where it is. So with that I will entertain any questions if I might, perhaps some of this stuff would have come to light in the conditional use, that may in fact be more redundant yet. I will answer any questions I can if you have such. Morrow. I would like to pursue the road issue a little more to lay to rest the 20,000 traffic count. I think that by virtue of ACHD's comments it is predicated upon the complete development out of that entire five acre tract subdivision. I think the issue with ACHD is that the development out of this particular parcel of property including all of the five acre tracts would generate 20,000. I want you to. and you seem to be more familiar with the ITD process. We have in receipt a letter from St. Luke's that we received on the 20t'' of December written by them on December 18t'' to the Idaho Transportation Department. Not opposing the moving of the light if St. Luke's was made whole to where it lines up in a reasonable manner. It seems to me that whether the numbers are 11,000 or 20,000 or something greater it makes more sense to have a straight away road approach. I guess what I am asking you for is your comment as being involved in this how do we whether it is this development or future development that is going to take. place there get to ACHD and ITD to have a sensible access to Eagle Road based on what you have just talked about? It doesn't seem like any of the players are opposed to it but it seems like the governmental entities ACRD and ITD are not getting us where we need to be is my point, how do we ge# to that point based on your expertise? Strite: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Morrow, I think that is a very astute question, quite frankly I am not an engineer, I do however get involved in a number of these types of projects which do include both ITD and ACRD, It would be my~ suggestion that if in fact in concert with Mr. Jackson, the neighbofiood and the applicant that perhaps the City Council went back to Ada County Highway District, this wand be my approach, and start with the Board there. Suggesting quite frankly, I don't think I can question the 20,000 cars a day. I don't think anyone can. We know we have 75 acres of possible development there without question. If that developed in nothing more than office for instance under the mixed use policies here that is 75 times teat cars a day and it comes out to an astronomical number but when you reduce it down to the intersection, Ada County Highway District comes up with 20,000 additional new trips at that intersection or at an intersection that is signalized and controlled. Now quite frankly I am of the same opinion of you and believe it or not the neighbors and also St. Luke's. t think that signal should, have been placed at Magic View. The question was as I understood from Ada County Highway District, Mr. Williams sat in on the meeting, we had Ada County Highway District Commission member, one commission member, we had their full staff, we had Greg Lannigan from ITD and I believe we had Larry Strough from ITD. The question is more of a philosophical one, I think quite frankly it is not even philosophical it may be more political as such. The thing that is holding this up from the Board's perspective is that you have a group of engineers that are telling us that intersection of Magic View is too close to ITD's intersection to allow a controlled access. And that is ' Meridian City Council January 21, 1997 Page 27 their bottom line. I think you will find that consistent with Ada County Highway District's notes. 1 am not a traffic engineer but I believe in reading the traffic studies that Mr. Jackson commissioned it appeared to me that they made three very strong arguments for moving that signal. Ada County Highway District and quite frankly as I understand it and maybe Mr. Barber can help me with this 1 believe that did go on to District III, ITD, they also had found faults in the traffic study. In my opinion it seemed more obvious and perhaps unfortunately from the layman's standpaht the obvious is not always the best solution. They told us in a meeting that the study that was provided by Mr. Jackson was inaccurate and they wanted him to go back and re-work it. I cannot tell you where that is tonight because I have not had the good fortune to talk to Mr. Barber relative to where that issue is. I can tell you that Ada County Highway District Mr. Dave Schplitz, traffic engineer there, told me as late as Monday morning in a meeting that we had there that Mr. Barber has not resubmitted or submitted. an application to District III for moving the line. I am not sure of that, I would hope that Mr. Barber is still here, perhaps he can answer it. But my opinion to try and shorten this whole thing is that I think it is going to take this Council and some action by this Council relative to that road at a higher level than Ada County Highway District and perhaps even District III. Corrie: Any further questions? Thank you Mr. Strite. I may be politically wrong here but I think Ada County Highway District has engineers and not planners on their staff if I am not mistaken. I don't think they have planners at such, it is mostly engineers. Rountree: They have both. Corrie: Okay, Council, do you have any questions of staff or any comments before I close the public hearing. At this point then F will dose the- public hearing, Council questions or comments. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I had prepared comments for two meetings but we had decided to hold off until we had ACHD's recommendation on the road. My observations, I have some real problems with this road in itself. I think it is a bad idea, I also on the surface have a problem with what Mr. Foley brought up about the noticing problems. But also with reading the Comp plan, the comp plan refers to the entrances of the City should be enhanced and protected: I feel that a row of gas stations and service stations does not serve that need. Also in the comp plan it addresses the need for transition and buffering with subdivisions and going from commercial to residential. I don't feel that a 24 hour gas station and a 24 hour hotel and restaurant serves that purpose. As one of the ladies spoke and I don't remember which one it was concerning the lighting problem on the canopy. I had noticed that right after the Chevron opened over on Fairview, that they had changed their lighting fixtures and it does indeed create quite a glare. If we had some houses out there on Fairview I am sure we would be getting some calls at City Hall. My own personal opinion, a better site for this project could be on the south side of the interstate where it is wide open, there are no houses to contend with. Their signage, I didn't have a problem with the signage that was brought. Meridian City Council• • January 21, 1997 Page 28 But I think on this site they wilt have a problern with the signage when St. Luke's starts their expansion. Because any westbound traffic once St. Luke's expands will not be able to see the Chevron sitting back there. to my opinion I will not be supporting this project and I will leave this to the rest of the Council for their comments. Corrie: Council, other members comments? Rountree: I just have a real brief comment and I think it probably was best said by an individual tonight and all of the rest could have been unsaid, and that is this is not the first and I would add to that not the last of the development that is going to be proposed for this area. Given that I am not at this point inclined to support the application for annexation to the City of Meridian. Though I recognize that will probably happen at some point in time in the future or maybe now. That would be my inclination in the text of the decision in the findings of fact on this project. Corrie: Thank you Mr. Rountree, any other comments from the Council? Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I think I am going to make my comments primarily from a technical standpoint. I know that there are those in this room that testified tonight that have supported regional malls in this very location chat were supporters of Eagle Road being expanded, of the interchange being put in. Those were all things that were planned some years ago for the growth of our City. 1Nith respect to this current application it appears to me that we need as a City to look at all 75 acres. The concept and my reason for questioning Mr. Strite with respect to ACRD and this road makes absolutely no sense to me at all. The St. Luke's willing to be a party and moving the intersection to another site. No matter what is planned for this ground and the fact that everybody seems to be in agreement that this is the wrong site for an intersection seems to make sense to me that this road proposal for this usage or any other usage is inadequate not very-well thought out on the part of ACRD. I recognize what it is they are going for I just disagree with it. It makes sense to me that if you are going to develop ultimately a 75 acre site into a multitude of uses that you have one point of ingress and egress that is of sufficient size that it can access a 7 lane road in a reasonable manner. To the west the protection of a five lane road at Locust Grove and an overpass that ultimately goes over the freeway would preclude pass through traffic in that one mile section. The reality though is that 75 acres needs to be better planned and better thought out than this proposal coming to us from ACHD. The other thing that I have a problem with is that this proposal and somebody raised the point and this is a very valid point is that we have a 35 foot landscape buffering already existing by virtue of the things that have been approved. I want to see that continued, it makes a lot of sense from that standpoint to continue that on through. This application does not in fact do that. That may have been a casualty of the moving of the road system. It is apparent that neither the applicant, the neighborhood or the City in my mind is in favor of the particular road system through there. I guess the other issue from my standpoint and probably the most persuasive outside of the road and the landscaping is that I am not personally Meridian City Council • • January 21, 1997 Page 29 convinced that it is in the best interest of a subdivision to have amotel/hotel adjacent to it. I think that there is a responsibility on the part of elected officials to do the very best that they can in terms of preserving neighborhoods that are well developed and well established. It seems to me that what .needs to happen for this parcel of ground, recognizing that there are several five acre tract owners that create the 75 acres is that there needs to be a better division between whatever the use is going to be in this ground and the existing neighborhood. At some point in the future if the neighborhood opts to redevelop to something else that is a decision that the land owners and the Council can make. From my perspective at this point .for those three reasons, four reasons I will not be supporting this design configuration for this development. The findings of fact which we will ask for I think to be drawn new bec~ase of substantial additional testimony in our next motion will reflect my opinion as that part of the findings of fact. Having stated that, Mr. Mayor, I would like to move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley that we instruct the City Attorney to draw up new findings of fact and conclusions of law, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Crookston: 1 think that the proposal by our normal proceedings we would have the findings of fact and conclusions of law the new ones done at the first meeting of the Council in February which is February 4th. With the nature of this application I would like a little more time than that to prepare those findings. Rountree: How much time do you want? Crookston: I think that this particular proposal has the possibility of further disputes, I think we need to make the findings as specific and concise and logical as I and my associates can possibly do. Corrie: Then you are requesting the 18th of February? Crookston: I .would request that. Morrow. Mr. Mayor I would move that we instruct the City Attomey to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for the annexation and zoning request to C-G by Eagle Partners LLC to be due no later than February 18, 1997. Rountree: Second ~ ~ Meridian City Council January 21, 1997 Page 30 Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to have have the new findings of fact and conclusions of law on the request for annexation and zoning to C-G by Eagle Partners LLC to be no later than February 18th, a!I those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 17, 1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, MCDONALDS WITH A DRIVE THRU, AND A HOTEL BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing for the conditional use permit, would the representative from Eagle Partners please come up. Billy Ray Strite, 1087 River Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Strite: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council in light of the last decision I think it would be inappropriate and untimely for these people to spend the rest of the night going through redundancies. So I think at this point we are prepared to take your decision for the annexation which in my opinion renders the conditional use a moot point. Crookston: Mr. Strite, I would comment that we have to pr~are findings of fact and conclusions of law. I understand why you are possibly making your statements about that, but the Council at this juncture has not made a decision. That is just for the record. Strite: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Crookston, I fully understand that. I have no further testimony. Corrie: Thank you, Council any questions? Any further testimony from public on the conditional use permit at this point? Phil Barber, 877 Main Street, Boise, was sworn by the City A~mey. Barber: I am Counsel for Jackson's, I would like simply that the record made in the prior public hearing be used as the record on behalf of Jackson's for this public hearing. Howard Foley, 2875 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Foley:. I just ask that the Council incorporate the comments made on behalf of Greenhills representatives also be incorporated into the record. for the purpose of the conditional use permit. Corrie: Any further testimony from the public? MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: JUNE 11.1996 APPLICANT: EAGLE PARTNERS LLC AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 12 REQUEST; PUBLIC HEARING:ANNEXATION/ZONING TO C-G AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS "REVIEWED" SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS dr ~) SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • • June 10, 1996 Mr. Robert Flowers U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Walla Walla District Lucky Peak Project HC-33, Box 1020 Boise, Idaho 8376 Subject: Wildlife Refuge Five Mile Creek Meridian, Idaho Clean Water Act Dear Sir: At the present time, individuals and developers are looking at the Five Mile Creek area which is located between Franklin Road and Interstate I-84 (Eagle Intersection North) as a new source of development in the valley and Ada County. Having recently reviewed aerial photos of the Five Mile Creek Drainage, it appears that this specific location is the last area along the Five Mile Drainage where residential and commercial development have not destroyed the natural wetlands, wildlife habitat and adjacent environment. On May 23, 1996, a proposed rezoning of a parcel of land was presented to and approved by the Ada County Planning Commission. This parcel of land which crosses Five Mile Creek was rezoned from RT (Rural Transitition) to R-1 (Estate Residential) for the purpose of development. The City of Meridian advised me that there is also being prepared, a design for the future Sundance Subdivision located south of Overland Road. In order to build this subdivision, the developer has to construct a sewer trunk line at his own expense to serve his subdivision, which will run north across Five Mile Creek and tie into the new St. Lukes Regional Medical Center sewer trunk line. Developers are also planning on constructing a new development road which would run from the front of the St. Lukes Regional Medical Center west to the Five Mile Creek drainage area and cross this drainage to Locust Grove Road. Should this road and sewer trunk line be approved for construction, the five mile drainage ecosystem will be destroyed and a valuable part of one of our last natural wildlife habitats in the valley will be lost forever. One landowner has gone so far as to use a bulldozer to clear all of the trees and ground cover down to the water line of the creek. Since the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers has jurisdiction over the Five Mile Creek watershed, floodway and floodplain and is empowered by the Clean Waters Act, it is your responsibility to terminate all construction in this area of Five Mile Creek, until you have time to review and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on the existing wetlands and adjacent environment which should cover a~ a minimum one (1) full year of season. The Five Mile Creek is one of the few natural year round flowing creeks or streams located in the Treasure Valley, and • • therefore should be protected against development. I watched the construction of the trunk sewer line being built along the Five Mile Drainage and noted the lack of supervision by the City of Meridian over the contractors work activities in regard to his contractual right-of-way working restrictions and to the wetlands environment along his work. I witnessed the contractor using Five Mile Creek to wash the mud off his excavator bucket for one example. When the Meridian City Engineers office was advised of this happening, they were very upsE~ and informed me the contractor wasn't to be near the creek. It appears there was no full time responsible representative present to watch the contractors activities. When there is no one around to watch the contractor, he will take any shortcut to save money that he can. I am enclosing for your use and information a photocopy of an aerial photo with a scale of 1" = 400' +/-, taken on May 25, 1995. On this photo I have outlined the proposed wetland boundaries which I firmly believe should be established. This boundary would define that area which cannot be developed by anyone under any circumstances. There must be a balance between our natural resources and development. In this case, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers must define that balance with the state, county, city and local agencies. It is requested that your department immediately assign an individual to coordinate the preparation of an environmental impact statement to determine the final and undisputed wetland boundaries of that portion of the Five Mile Creek wetlands which still remain. I look forward to your favorable and just decision in this matter. Yours truly, .~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ Elwood E. Rennison 990 Mustang Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-888-6448 CC: Ada County Planning Commission 650 West Main Boise, Idaho 83702 Meridian City Council Meridian Planning Commission 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Idaho Statesman 1200 North Curtis Boise, Idaho 83706 • KBCI Channel 2 - CBS 140 North 16th Boise, Idaho 83702 KIVI Channel 6 - ABC 1866 East Chisholm Drive Nampa, Idaho 83687 KTVB Channel 7 - NBC 5407 Fairview Avenue Boise, Idaho 83706 C~ • July 17, 1996 Executive Fditor Idaho Statesman 1200 North Curtis Boise, Idaho 83706 Subject: Wildlife Refuge Five Mile Creek Meridian, Idaho Attention: John Costa Dear Sir: On June 10, 1996, I sent the attached letter, photo and map to Mr. Robert Flowers of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, the Ada County Planning Commission, the Meridian City Council and the Meridian Planning Commission. The letter addresses the establishment of a wetlands along a specific portion of the Five Mile Creek Drainage in Ada County. Copies of the attached letter and attachments were not sent to all of the parties on the bottom of the letter, as I was to be out of town from June 12 through July 14, 1996 and was not available to be contacted. It would be appreciated if you could provide some local support and assistance in reporting the facts on this issue. At the present time, I have not received a reply from the C.O.E., but feel that the public should be informed and have a voice in the subject issue. I feel your assistance in helping exclude this area from future development and establishing this area as a wildlife refuge is needed in order to obtain a favorable reply from the C.O.E. Your response would be appreciated. Yours truly, Elwood E. Rennison 990 Mustang Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-888-6448 Attachments: • July 17, 1996 Station Manager KBCI Channel 2 - CBS 140 North 16 .Boise, Idaho 83702 Subject: Wildlife Refuge Five Mile Creek Meridian, Idaho Dear Sir: On June 10, 1996, I sent the attached letter, photo and map to Mr. Robert Flowers of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, the Ada County Planning Commission, the Meridian City Council and the Meridian Planning Commission. The letter addresses the establishment of a wetlands along a specific portion of the Five Mile Creek Drainage in Ada County. Copies of the attached letter and attachments were not sent to all of the parties on the bottom of the letter, as I was to be out of town from June 12 through July 14, 1996 and was not available to be contacted. It would be appreciated if you could provide some local support and assistance in reporting the facts on this issue. At the present time, I have not received a reply from the C.O.E., but feel that the public should be informed and have a voice in the subject issue. I feel .your assistance in helping exclude this area from future development and establishing this area as a wildlife refuge is nccaAcri i n nrr9r~r to nhta i n a favorable reD1V from the C. O. E . Your response would be appreciated. Yours truly, ~e~~e ~ ~w Elwood E. Rennison 990 Mustang Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-888-6448 Attachments: • • July 17, 1996 Station Manager KIVI Channel 6 - ABC 1866 Chisholm Drive Nampa, Idaho 83687 Subject: Wildlife Refuge Five Mile Creek Meridian, Idaho Dear Sir: On June 10, 1996, I sent the attached letter, photo and map to Mr. Robert Flowers of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, the Ada County Planning Commission, the Meridian City Council and the Meridian Planning Commission. The letter addresses the establishment of a wetlands along a specific portion of the Five Mile Creek Drainage in Ada County. Copies of the attached letter and attachments were not sent to all of the parties on the bottom of the letter, as I was to be out of town from June 12 through July 14, 1996 and was not available to be contacted. It would be appreciated if you could provide some local support and assistance in reporting the facts on this issue. At the present time, I have not received a reply from the C.O.E., but feel that the public should be informed and have a voice in the subject issue. I feel your assistance in helping exclude this area from future development and establishing this area as a wildlife refuge is needed in order to obtain a favorable reply from the C.O.E. Your response would be appreciated. Yours truly, Elwood E. Rennison 990 Mustang Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-888-6448 Attachments: July 17, 1996 Station Manager KTV~3 Channel 7 - NBC 5407 Fairview Avenue Boise, Idaho 83706 Subject: Wildlife Refuge Five Mile Creek Meridian, Idaho Dear Sir: On June 10, 1996, I sent the attached letter, photo and map to Mr. Robert Flowers of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, the Ada County Planning Commission, the Meridian City Council and the Meridian Planning Commission. The letter addresses the establishment of a wetlands along a specific portion of the Five Mile Creek Drainage in Ada County. Copies of the attached letter and attachments__were not sane Lo all of the parties on the bottom of the letter, as I was to be out of town from June 12 through July 14, 1996 and was not available to be contacted. It would be appreciated if you could provide some local support and assistance in reporting the facts on this issue. At the present time, I have not received a reply from the C.O.E., but feel that the public should be informed and have a voice in the subject issue. I feel your assistance in helping exclude this area from future development and establishing this area as a wildlife refuge is needed in order to obtain a favorable reply from the C.O.E. Your response would be appreciated. Yours truly, ~2uztGt~ Cq~ ~~~"~ Elwood E. Rennison 990 Mustang Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-888-6448 Attachments: r _ ~, '~i J _ r _, )'. ~~ r_: .,~ ~~~. ~ i;n':ry~ ~ ~~. R~ l~ ~. ; .. (~~ '~ ~iw :. 'i ,,~ .s-_ ~~ i ~~ ~iii'~~i~-fir i ~ ~r-~'i.._ ~ ~ ~ "~r~ ~~j~ .c 1~ 4' ~. r~ ~. ~~ J~ ~ ~ ,' 1 ~ .+., Y '.f' ' r ,,. q ..ir' ~ ~ . • ,~ /~`' +' ~ i ~.r ~-' ~ '"' ~ t ~ - ' wit I ^ li :4 r ~ ~~ . ~, ~ ~~ ~ ~+ ~. +1~ ,~ t. ' ' r~ :.. . _ , ~, ri , ~ I I ~ . ~~ . ' ~ _ kY-~.: "„.":.. _ a. V NOTE MAP AREA SHOWN Uiv ~n~.+ ~ •-••.__ 3 N H, RANGE 1 EAST. II ,,;a.r ZONE ^ AY ~piNg PANEL 0253 ~LG~~ 1-. ONE X ~~ `~ • PL ~. I ~~ ~~. RM4a I c o~ RoA ~ L! __ Y W J 5 0 _ p IV P PRIN V`~ p r `~ ~ ZONE X ~ , qq ZONE X o ~d~ WAY ~ P.a AUTUMN f~.'' ~ ZONE X ~:~~ \ 266 ZONE X P~' ZONE X 17 ~ W P°' Q ~: ^6~9 '~' Y JI ~_ ,.6~, \ Q / ~ 1l~ P~' I ~ ti Q CONTINE DRIVE 18~) ;55 ~, i i ;~ ,, :x ~ ~~ =~ - ~ P ,~ ~~~' .'~: _ _ s ~ 'r s"''.. ~l'k „; _ '~f~~t - ~ LONE X k ~ ~. ~-;.~-~ ~_=+: .>~' ~' ~s .-i. . , r ~f _ .~ ~ .p~L _C ~'~'':, ~ ~`~:r~llYL ~ ,~• T j ~ A~~... :. ..r ~t Mti.~ ^~ \ 4 ~ .~.. { '~ , v N .,. .. vb '.{: ' ~. ~.:. ~~ ': :n ~`~ .'yc. e.~~ N a~ ~lctid~an ~h ~ ` ~ ~Ffy~iMi. 7r / ~ `{~Y .. ~: eZix~~ti ~~*~ ~s etc-y F~. ~ ~ OFFICIALS HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY COUNCIL MEMBERS WILLIAM G. BF_RG, JR., city clerk A Good Place to Live WALT W. MORROW, President JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer CITY OF MERIDIAN RONALD R. TOLSMA E C R BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. ENN R. BENTLEY G JOHN r sHAwcROFr, waste water supt. 33 EAST IDAHO DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 P & Z COMMISSION PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W BOWERS Fire Chief Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 JIM JOHNSON, Chairman . , W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief Public Works/Building Departrnent (208) 887-2211 TIM HEPPER WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUND ROBERT D. CORRIE MALCOLM MACCOY Mayor MEMORANDUM: June 5, 1996 To: Mayor, City Council, Planning & Zoning F rom: Bruce F reckleton, 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 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 'h 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. MCHSVRON.P&Z ~ ~ Mayor, Council and P&Z June 5, 1996 Page 2 • GENERAL COMMENTS: 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 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 11-9-606.8. 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. MCHHVRON.P&Z ~1 Mayor, Council and P&Z June 5, 1996 Page 3 3. 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. 4. Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 5. 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. MCHEVRON.PBcZ 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 COUNCIL MEMBERS A Good Place to Live WALT W. MORROW, President CITY OF MERIDIAN RONALD R. TOLSMA EE C G ENN R. BENTLEY 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO $3642 P & Z COMMISSION Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 JIM JOHNSON, Chairman Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 TIM HEPPER Motor VehiclelDrivers License (208) 888-4443 JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUND ROBERT D. CORRIE MALCOLM MACCOY Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Planning & Zoning Commissio ,Mayor and Council r ~~~ FROM: Shae rY ~ Pl~an"rung omng Administrator DATE: June 7, 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 was scheduled to perform their Technical Review of this project this morning; it was pulled from the agenda because changes are apparently being made to the plan. The following comments are offered on the existing plan only; additional review by staff and agencies will be required prior to closing the public hearing. The hotel would serve as a better transitional use against the neighboring residential property. 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. 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 should be constructed prior to obtaining building permits along the northern and westerly boundaries of this property. • Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & Council June 7, 1996 Page 2 5. Twenty-foot (20') planting strips are required adjacent to residential use; this could be reduced to dimensions shown on the proposed plan if a masonry wall is constructed, Area shown as lawn is IIQt to be replaced with bark, rock, etc. 6. An enclosed trash receptacle is to be provided for the hotel. 7. 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 of plants for approval prior to obtaining building permits. 8. Parking stalls are to be a minimum of 19' long with minimum 25' wide driveways. 9. 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 should not be permitted. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Illumination of the site shall be designed to not cause glare or adversely impact neighboring residential properties. 13. ACFID and APA have indicated that the access into this property should be a public street which is continued to the vacant parcel to the west. Due to the fact that the existing traffic signal is the only one allowed between Overland Road and Franklin Road on Eagle Road, and the likelihood that a good portion of Magic View Subdivision will be redeveloped with commerciaUhigher density uses, I concur with the recommendation that the access be developed as a public street. If the public street is not required, a cross access agreement, at minimum, is needed to provide better circulation and access to the traffic signal. 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. 14. All uses on this property must be approved through the conditional use permit process. Changes to an approved plan may require additional hearings. Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & Council June 7, 1996 Page 3 15. Additional handicap parking space is required for C-Store, one of which must be van accessible {8' access aisle). Provide signage and ramping per ADA requirements. 16. Area shown for bike rack on site plan is shown as a landscaped area on landscape plan. 17. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. 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" CORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB • OF TREASURE VALLEY COUNCIL MEMBERS A Good Place to Live WALT W. MORROW, President N CITY OF MERIDIA RONALD R. TOLSMA EE C R l \ GLENN R. BENTLE1 r 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 P & Z COMMISSION Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 JIM JOHNSON Chairman Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 , TIM HEPPER Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUND ROBERT D. CORRIE MALCOLM MACCOY Mayor 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: dune 4. 1996 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 5/22/96 HEARING DATE: 6/ 11/96 REQUEST: Annexation and Zoning to C-G BY: Eagle Partners LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: _ Northwest corner of Eagle Road and Manic 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, C/C U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) -GLENN BENTLEY, C/C INTERMOUNTAIN GASP ELIM & FINAL PLAT) -,WATER DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF RECLAMA ELIM & FINAL PLAT) -SEWER DEPARTMENT CITY FILES BUILDING DEPARTMENT OTHER: -- FIRE DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER ~~~~ CITY C~ ~~~:~~~~~.'~b' '- '~' OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BF_RG, JR., City 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, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney ' • COUNCIL MEMBERS HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live WALT W. MORROW, President CITY OF MERIDIAN CHARLES M. ROUNTREE R R BENTLEY GLENN R 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 P rfi Z COMMISSION Phone (208) 888-4433 • FA.X (208) 887-4813 JIM JOHNSON, Chairman Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 TIM HEPPER Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUND ROBERT D. CORR~ MALCOLM MACCOY Mayor 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: June 4, 1996 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 5/22/96 HEARING DATE: 6/ 11/96 REQUEST: Annexation and Zoning to C-G BY: --Eagle Partners LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Northwest comer of Eagle Road an 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, 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 CITY FILES (~ /~ ~ ~ ~ " BUILDING DEPARTMENT / lU OTHER: FIRE DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY ~ ~ i2 ~- D ' CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER ~ y ~ ~ %~ rd /~,,..`. ~ ~ f(-~ ~-~„S .1I -e ~ ~ d y/ E 1 ~/~~ MAY 2 ~ 199 :'ITS. '•`~ `'~FRIdIAh~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DIST~tICT Development Services Division ~ -::- "~ Development Application Report '~ ~. '>> ~~ ~;; ~;` MCU-19-96/MA-4-~6 Eagle Rd & Magic View Dr ~~ Hotel/Chevran%McDanald's ~..z Meridian City ~~`° ~~'~~ Y[y ~. ~' The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to"construct'a~ 80 room hotel, a 5,359- square foot convenience store a McDonald's fast food restaurant, -and' an 80-square foot ~; carwash. The 4.13-acre site is located on the.northw "'t brner of'magic View Drive and Ea le Road ~ '` `" g (Highway 55) approximately 720=feet natth of'i-84: This development is estimated to generate 5,450 additional vehicle trigs per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual. Fw' , Roads impacted by this development:.:. Eagle Road (Hwy 55) Magic View Drive ACHD Commission Date -June 12, 1996 - 7:00 p.m. ~, ~a ~~ S, ~e f cti~ ~~ 7 -~ w~l vs~~ ~~ . R ! • or ; . . R~ s g. ~ ~ ~4. .. 14 .~3 ' ,.' l2 10 . 9 2 ~ 15 ~~ II 8 4 3 2" 1 ac ~l t.- I 8_ v ~ DRIVE ~ ~'~ 5 6 Q I Jt~ ~ ~ 16 'I 000 8 7.. 6 5. 4 3 ~ 2 ~1 ..., •,9 ~ ' o AUTUMN 17 Iti o~ .`.. ~ ~ ~ I Q .` _ .7 v. 8 7•-Z ~5~ 15 u II ;. r;r. O ~ •. !5 IS i9 20 Q _ . •~ ~ 14 12 13 14 I~ p .~ ~ •/D ~:\ 5 ~, AU?UMN WA" ~J ~__ Z ' ~ 3 4 \~ ~3 ~2 II ~0 9 S 7 6 i 4 ? ~ I So Mc 2 ` `~ I .~ l7 .1. ~ `/ I~ C .. ~+ •• 1 I 5 4 ~ ., . I. 300 ft. v,~ ; J~ ... -- M~1G t ~ k VI ~ • ._'- / ~, ~ RT -- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:-~ -_ ~ a i s ~i~ .• ~ • • ~ • • _ ,~ ., ~ I . ~ ~~• ~ : i is //// ~ • GEt~ CRY wA' _. .._ ~~ ~: ss ~ r~-_ ', -- +~ii-~ -- -_ - ~ ',-,~ - ~~VIC~NITY MAP; ~ /, \ \ •;~ ,~'~ = scale: 1" :300 ft. ~' ~ ~~ ./ r • ~~ Z 2;i \'J V\ .~ ~. SJ.77LH7ii1/ ~.~~- ~. .~ ~~ ~ `~ gaols ~ix~nr o°~°roe~•~~ -' ~~le~ -~- ..w~. ~~~ /1.1 F ! t i 4 ! i a i i a i~ s~! ixxxxxxitii~~iiiij~j~ :i~~~~;~ f~ ) ~1~ii1~'t ~ . ~ ~~ ~: . ~ ,~ _ ~~ ~ ~ ~ W ~~~~~ ~~~~fE ~~ ~ ~ ~- - ~ +~~ ~ ~------~ ~ ~~ I I I w ~ ~ I I I -- , ~~ ~• ~' ~ 3 E ~ ~ sffi ~ ~ g '~ I ~~ 3 I I I ~ ry ~ Y '~~l , i Is I - - - I I _ ~ ~o g . I ~ I J ~ • q I ~I I 0 8 ~ - -- ~ ---~~ ~ ' i (/`/~ a rn31n ~i~ai _. - ; .m .~c .xv w GxIK - I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I j ~ I I I ~ ;1 ~a ~~Q ~~ ~ I i _~ --w-~ -~~ I 1 UQR n~ Q t N • Facts and Findings: A. General Information Owner -Gerald & Deloris Marlin Applicant -Eagle Partners L.L. C RT -Existing zoning C-G -Requested zoning 4.13 -Acres ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~,~ ~~ - . ;~ ~ ` }: ~ ,. _~ ~:= 5,359 -Square feet of proposed building -- 0 -Square feet of existing building 0 -Total lineal feet of proposed public streets' 283 - Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) ._ West Ada -Impact Fee~$enefit Zorie'' , Western Cities -Impact FeeAssessment District Ea>?le Road lHighway~5 LITIZ jhrisdiction Principal arterial with bike-route designation Traffic count 24,233 on 6114/94 531-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. 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 a 30-feet of pavement with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting this site. There is curb, gutter and sidewalk across from this site. B. State Highway 55 (Eagle Road) is under the jurisdiction of Idaho Transportation Department (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. C. The site is currently undeveloped. MCU 1996. WPD Page 2 • >~ '~.. 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 secrio~n on Magic View Drive abutting the parcel (approximately 344-feet). ~ ~ ~ .~% ` f:~, E. The applicant is proposing to construct a 30-foot wide curb,~eturn driveway with 15-foot .7~ " radii located approximately 25-feet from the westproperly,, ~', There would be approximately 25-feet between the proposed drive ray and'the 'sting driveway on the south side of Magic View Drive. District policy a~-inimuin 50-foot driveway separation in this location. The applicant's representative.has'agreto shift the driveway eastward to provide the required 50-foot separation. ~' ~~ F. The applicant is proposing to construct a 35; footvide (face-to-face) curb return driveway ~... with 15-foot radii on Eagle Raad lcx:ated approximately 500-feet north of Magic View Drive. Eagle Road is under,ITD justistidication; therefore, the following recommendation is made to ITD, that the driveway should be afigned with the existing signal at this location and the cost for the signal upgrade should be paid by the applicant. G. The existing transportation system will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposed: development with the requirements outlined within this report. H. This application was scheduled for a public hearing by the City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on June 12, 1996. Special Recommend to ITD: The applicant should be required to construct a 35-foot wide (face-to-face) curb return driveway with 15-foot radii on Eagle Road located approximately 500-feet north of Magic View Drive. The driveway should be aligned with the signal proposed for this location and the cost for the signal upgrade should be paid by the applicant. The driveway should provide a minimum of 100-foot storage area in the driveway throat. This will minimize driveway conflict that may affect Eagle Road traffic operations. 2. Other than the one driveway proposed for Eagle Road, direct lot or parcel access to Eagle Road should be prohibited. 3. 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: MCU 1996. WPD Page 3 ;, request for reconsideration will be heard by the DistricCComm~ssion. 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 wfiich 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 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 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 applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. ~1CU1996.WPD Page ~ Site Specific Requirements: r~ Dedicate 29-feet of right-of--way from the centerline..: of (4 additional feet) by means of recordation of a finalau warranty deed prior to issuance of a building petmit (a occurs first. The owner will g~ be compensated for tl View ~nve abutting the parcel ~n plat or~execution of a required permits), whichever final right-of--way. 2. Comply with requirements of ITD for Stat,.~Highway~SS (Eagle Road) frontage. Submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding~satd regiiiremenfs.;pnor to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. ~: Contact District III Traffic Engitteer~Gary Moles at X34-8340. .~, 3. Construct curb, gutter, 5-foot wide detached.caoncrete sidewalk, and pavement widening to complete a 41-foot street section ~ Magic ~iew Drive abutting the parcel (approximately 344-feet). r.~-: . ,~, 4. Construct a 30-foot wide curb return driveway with 15-foot radii located 50-feet from the edge of the existing driveway.: on'the south side of Magic View Drive (approximately 50-feet from the west property line). . 5. Locate the proposed sign' (at the southeast corner of the site) outside the clear vision triangle for the Magic View/Eagle intersection. Standard Requirements: A request for modification, variat~e or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACHD Development Services Supervisor. The request shall specifically identify each reauire~nt to he reconsidered and include a written exnlanatinn wny sucn a requirement wouia result m a sudstantiai hardsntp or ineq~i y "1'he written r~.que~t~~all be submitted to the District nn later than 9~~n a m nnrh .day scheduled for ACHD Commission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After 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 specifically identi each requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentarinn of data that was not available to the Co mi ion at he time of it original decision. The MCU 1996. WPD Page 4 • 8. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the~property~ hick is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply witii all rule , re ~" 'ons, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force ae time ~; applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of i 'intent to change the planned use of r ~ ~; the subject property unless awaiver/variance of said requements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change:; _use is sought. Conclusion of Law: ~~~~ Y"~, , '~; ' ~~ _. 1. ACRD 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 anp questions or comments, please contact the Development Services Division at 345-7662. Submitted by:- Date of Commission Action: Development Services Staff MCU1996.WPD Page 6 - -96 ~ 3~37PM :Ads Planning Assoc. ~ 206 667 461.3:4 2/ 3 APA~ TO: FROM: DATE: Ada Planning Association 413 W. Idaho, Suite 100 Boise, ID 83702 (208) 345-5274 Fax (208) 346-5279 Serving Govenrments in Ada Covn~y Since 19?? will Bsrg, Clty clerk i of M 'dian M E Hardison, Technical Analyst Jun , 1998 RECEI~eIE~ JUN - 5 19~fi Cil'Y OF ~ERIDIA~I SUBJECT: Condltlonal Use at Northvwst Corner of Eagle Road 8 MaQia Vbw Driive Chevron C-atom, MaDonatds, 8liotel Ada Planning Assoaation (APA) has roviewed the Conditional Use for the Chevron C-slots, McDonalds with drive-thru, and a hotel at the northwest comer of Eagle Road and Magte View Drive. Destination 201 S, Ada County's long-renge transportation plan, designates Eagle Road as a Ifmited_acr-+sss hinh~~~ Aa per the applicant's letter, the primary entrencs to this development will be st the existing stgnat et St. Luke's Medical Center's antrence/exit on Eagle Roed. Due to the street classiflcatlon of Eagle Road, APA's and Ada County Highway District's (ACRD) staff discussed the access to this development. It is recommended that the development's primary entrance/exit (north aide of the proposed deveiopment) on Eagle Road be constructed as a public street. The existing traffic signal poses an opportunity to provide safe access to Eagle Road from existing and future developments to the west. Traffic circulation In this area would be greatly improved by channellzing traffic onto atwo-way public street system. This development will generate pedestrian and bktycle traffic as well as vehicular treffia Pedestrian and bicycle travel to this deveiopment will also be improved by providing sidewalks and shared bicycle/vehiculsr travel lanes to the northerly development, respectively. The recommended public street should be constructed to ACHD's street design standards to accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclists. APA commends the applicant for Including a pedestrian walkway system that links the Eagle Road sidewalk to the main entrance of the hotel lobby. We recommend this concept be expanded further to include the following pedestrian and bicycle Improvements: 1. Extend the sidewalks at the Magic View Drfvs entrance/exit to the most northsry edge of the landscape. A sate and continuous pedestrian walkway would be provided to link into the sidewalk around the hotel. This would dtannetize pedestrian trevsl in the development. 2. Add a pedesMan sidewalk system from the north side of the hotel through the landscape/perking area between the hotel and the Chevron C-store and McDonalds to that sidewalk network. The design plans reoelved by APA did not Identify a north hotel entrance. If one is planned, then the sidewak system through the landscape and parking area should be a continuation of a dlroct path between the hotel and Chevron C-store and Boise Auditorium strict, Bowe IndeDe dent 8choo D~etric~ 1f~dlitnJoin 8choeol CDi~~n'Kuani-d HotK 8 ~ ereity F,quA/ Opportun/q~/A~rn~h-e Acfion Ir1mploY+er Printed pn Recycled Piper JUN 05 '96 1540 2083455279 PAGE.02 • McDonalds. This sidewalk would improve pedestrian safety when accessing th® northerly businesses by reducing the pedestrian and vehicular cont1icts in the parking lots. 3. Include bicycle parking into the development of the McDonalds. As mentioned above, McDonaids/Chevron C-storo will generate bicycle trafAc. By providing bicycle parking, . bicycles will not be blocking the entrance into the store/rsatsurent. 8ieycle paricinp should be in a visible, well-Ill area to provide ~gcurity of bi ~ les and safe for bi should also be located near the building entrence. ~ ~ ~Ists. n In addition, the applicant should consider the Inclusion of bicycle parting at the hotel for employees and guests. Bike lanes will be available on Eagle Road and other roadways In the hotel's vicinity providing safe bicycle access to the hotel. Also due to the hotel's location, bicycling is available on low-volume country roads for hotel guests. Should you h®ve any questions, please contact me. mh: j IldavrsWmerldlanleagla, cu pc: Shari Stiles, Meridian Planning S Zoning Administrator Karen Gallagher, ACRD Development Services Eagle Partners L.L.C. Fil®: 540.09 Planning Support JUN 05 ' 96 15~ 40 ~~ ~ -~-~~ 20834552?9 PAGE.03 CENTRAL CEN L DISTRICT HEALTH DEPAR ENT •• DISTRICT Environmental Health Division RECE~vE~ ''RHEALTH MAY 3 Oe19® Boise DEPARTMENT ^ Eagle Rezone # ~o ~ G- a~~~ ~NN~X~-~J~/ ~~ ~F iNERlyden city .~`leridian Conditional Use # ^ Kuna Preliminary /Final /Short Plat ^ ACZ ~/~-G ~ 1''f9z'TN~S LLB ~(/'1~/ C:~Iz~~?L ~~ t-~ ~,~ ~y,4~ic. vi~-~/ ^ 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 ~ 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. ^ I I. ^ 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 2.~ / 9 ~ ~- 15. :~%~,2~1riA-i~ K /L1st~//~~M~i~T C!~! ~y/w /S f} ~~ Date: S / Reviewed By: ~ Revie Sheet (DHD 10/91 rcb, nr. I/95 CENTRAL •• DISTRICT HEALTH 375.52I,.F . DEPARTMENT MAIN OFFICE ~ 707 N. ARMSTRONG PL 801SE. ID. 83704 (208) AX 327.8500 To pr+enertt and treat disease and disability; to promote healthy lifestyles; and to protect and promote the health and quality of our endrotuttertt. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT RECOIVIlVIENDATIONS 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: ~l) GUIDELINES FOR TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF STORMWATER RUN OFF. Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, Southwest Idaho 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 GUIDELINES FOR STORMWATER AND SITE DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT. Serving valley, Elmore. Boise, and Ada Counties Asia ~ aala carrlr oak. wlc cola - Mesldon anion counh oake ama. coWrr oake valep Cau~h ~' Booc 144a a o 707 K Nmara>0 a 1606 Roberts 52o E. 8th meet r~ a n«rd Neatlh 190 S dlh Sheet E . . McCaL a). X1638 Bose. b. 83704 Ernie Ileoah 321.7499 Boise. ID. 83706 PR 334,3356 Mountoo Flame. l0. 83647 Ph 5874407 Mouton Home. l0. Ph 634.7191 farNy PIOfY~ta 321•)400 324 Meriden. a). - 83647 ~ 587 hnxr+hofbr>t: 327.1450 83642 Ph. 888525 • • Pt ~ ~ %~ ~ ' ~ LJGd~"IGC~ 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-888-6201 31 May 1996 Attn: Will Berg City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 Boise 343-1884 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Boise 345-2431 RE: ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G: CHEVRON CONVENIENCE STORE / FOOD SERVICE / HOTEL SITE Dear Commissioners: Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above referenced application. Sincerely, g~~ -~~ Bill Henson, Asst. Water Superintendent NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT BH/dln pc: Water Superintendent File - Office File - Shop APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 WILLIAM G. BERG, 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 Chlef W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chlef WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney ~,iz~~~ • H ~ t COUNCI BER UB OF TREASURE VgLGEY L MEM S A Good Plaoe to Live WALT W. MORROW, President CITY OF MERIDIAN RONALD R. TOLSMA C GLENN R. BENTLEY 33 EAST IDA~A MERIDIAN, IDAH~b 83642 P A Z COMMISSION Phone (208) 888-4433.• FA%~OB) 887-4813 JIM JOHNSON, Chafrrnan Public WorksBuilding Depat~eut (208) 887-2211 TIM HEPPER Motor VehiclelDrivers Liotsse (208) 888-4443 JIM SHEARER , GREG OSLUND ROBERT D. CORRIE MALCOLM MACCOY Maya 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: June 4. 1996 -, TRANSMITTAL DATE: 5122/96 HEARING DATE: 6 9 REQUEST: Annexation and Zoning to C-G BY: Eagle Partners LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Northwest comer of Eagle Road and aaic View Drive JIM JOHNSON, P2 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT ~MALCOLM MACCOY, P2 MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) JIM SHEARER, P/Z ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT GREG OSLUND, P2 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(PREUM ~ FINAL PLAT) GLENN BENTLEY, C/C INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM ~ FINAL PLAT) WATER DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM 8r FINAL PLAT) SEWER DEPARTMENT CITY FILES BUILDING DEPARTMENT OTHER: FIRE DEPARTMENT Y UR CONCISE REMARKS: POLICE DEPARTMENT / Alo T~/2a~r~ef+~ wi~'X~ T~ ~I~iy~ t~ G~• CITY ATTORNEY 7.~s' /s ?~fF,E co~~eF~.~Gve~dv ~,~ ~r ~,,,E CITY ENGINEER of ,BvsicaE~, s ~! ~' ~ ~+ 199 ~~1~~ JUN-11-1996 ~; ARCH [TECTS 6!?SArvhitects, ALA. 1087 West Riuer Street, Suite I60 Boise, Idaho 8;!702 Tkirphone 208 336.8970 Faz 208 336.8880 16:12 BRS RRCHITECTS • 208 336 8380 P.O3/O3 ~EcE~vEl~ -1 U IV ~ 1 199 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission City oP Meridian 33 E. Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 '~ITY OF MERID1~1h June 11, 1996 Attn: Chairman Chairman/Members of the Commission: RE: Eagle Partners/Eagle Road Annexation/Rezone BRS Project No. 9646 Pursuant to new ACRD requirements and meetings with Staff , the applicant, Eagle Partners, respectfully requests withdrawal of the above application. Although the land uses remain as originally proposed, the Highway District's newest request for public right-of-way substantially alters the site and will require a redesign consistent with the proposed access requirements. As important, the additional time and redesign will allow the applicant to address possible neighborhood concerns parallelling the revised site layout. Consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and ACHD's future plans, the immediate area to the south and west must have adequate access, and they have requested that the access be made available by the applicant. Because of critical scheduling, a resubmittal will be available for next month's_agenda. We appreciate the Staff's efforts and look forward to pursuing this worthwhile project. BRS:cw JUN 11 '96 16 01 Sine elf, J' ~~ ' ,. ~n~f , ~'~~',i r ~I.01 •~ •~ f ..; `1`L~ ;~`~~ ~~ ,, TOTAL P.O3 208 336 8380 PAGE.O3 JUN-11-1 16 12 BRS ARCHITECTS 208 336 8380 P.01i03 i~ACSMI~E TRA~MITTAL SHEET ARGHI'TErC'TS gRS Jrchiteot, J.ra. 1047 0'wt River Strs.1. S~-alts fs0 Bois., Idaho 83708 T.r.Ph~. (soe) 9ss-ea7o ras (:oe) sse-aseo DATE COMPANY ATTENTION f OF PAGES TO FOLLOW SUBJECT ~ ~~ ~/~ ~ _ yi C V/,~ ~~ IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE FACSIMILE, PLEASE CALL SENDER AT (208) 336-8370 THANKYOU SIGNED JUN 11 '96 16 01 208 336 8380 PAGE.01 JUN-11-1996 16 12 MEMORANDUM BRS RRCHITECTS ~, 208 336 8380 P.02/03 June 11, 1996 To; Interested Parties Magic View Subdivision and Greenhill Estates Homeowners Association FROM: Eagle Partners ~= Annexation/Resume Interested Parties: The above-referenced annexation/rezone has been withdrawn in an effort to address ACRD and Meridian City Long-term plans. The applicant would welcome a revised plan review session should your neighborhood desire. A resubmittal is scheduled for Friday, June 14. Your input is valuable, and we welcome the opportunity of meeting with you. JUN 11 '96 16 01 208 336 8380 PAGE.02 .~ • • 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 - ` ~,.3. l RECEIVED JUN 1 1 196 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 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 I. 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. • • 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. ~~~~~~ ~n~ ~ c~.`I sl tic-~a1 N Gy~ ~~~~`ti~G~-~iv~ ~ ~~ 8" ~S o? ! ~ S ~ it ~ ~i~ ~ G/.g y ~~~~'~~~~~ l~- ~~aL /evens ic~~~c,~ ~i~ .. 2~7r~~ ~ ~ ~ ~36~ ~ ~li~~~l,~ ~. C 3~~~ A~ r~r,~,v ~~~ 30 ~, ~ X92 ~u~1WS•~aQA 02. _ • 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. ~~'~ ' ~s~ A oZ ~ mer~• c~ ~ a.^ ~1 ~ ~ 0 ~ 6 ~ ~ ~~ J ,9,~ ~~ 33 w ~ Yrj~ ~ ' ~ 9l.~ 30 (f S rim v'• / le~~c~ro~` ,.L'40 c /~_ << i~ t, i ~ / ~ oZ~.~3 iK Wood ~r'. ~tie~'ed<~--- ', 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 fit/ ~ ~ ~ 7 . / ~ / 1 I M~°~ ~~ Z 1 G~Tzt~~ ~~ il'j~,~~J~ nn f 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. / "" ~ ~e ADDRESS ` ,. ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ 6 ~,, ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ C( (r !/ ~~Q ~ ~,r.~~~A~~ l~> • interoffice M E M O R A N D U M to: Shari Stiles Ct: File from: Bruce A. Frecldeton ~--~U re: Legal Description Submittal -Eagle Rd. Chevron/McDonalds date: May 10, 1996 I have reviewed the information that was submitted by BRS Architects for the above mentioned project. The descriptions prepared by Loveless Engineering 't meet the minimum criteria required for an annexation and zoning application. The applicant needs to submit a Metes and Bounds 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 Ord. No. 714, 9/19/95). 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. from the desk oL.. Bruce A. Freckieton Assistant to lily Engineer Meridian Public Works Dept. 33 E. Idaho Arenue Boise, Idaho 83642-2600 (208) 887-221 I Fax: (208) 881-1297 or887-4813