Eagle Partners LLC Chevron/McDonalds CUP 00-013.~
.>JTY CLERK FILE CHECKLIST
Project Name: Chevron/McDonalds File No. CUP 00-013
Date Received from Planning and Zoning Department:
Planning and Zoning Level: Hearing Date: April 11, 2000
Q Transmittals to agencies and others: February 15, 2000
Notice to newspaper with publish dates: 24-Mar-00 and 7-Apr-00
^ Certifieds to property owners:
0 Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: ^ Approve ^ Deny
Notes: Recommend denial - no second public hearing on a CUP in a
commercial zone.
City Council Level:
Q Transmittals to agencies and others:
0 Notice to newspaper with publish dates:
Certifieds to property owners:
City Council Action:
Hearing Date:
n/a
n/a
June 6, 2000
and n/a
Approve [] Deny
^ Findings /Conclusions /Order received from attorney on:
Findings /Conclusions /Order:
^ Approved by Council: _
^ Copies Disbursed:
^ Findings Recorded
Development Agreement:
^ Sent for signatures:
^ Signed by all parties:
^ Approved by Council: i
^ Recorded:
^ Copies Disbursed:
Ordinance No. Resolution No.
^ Approved by Council:
^ Recorded: Deadline: 10 days
^ Published in newspaper:
^ Copies Disbursed:
Notes: _No second public
- C-G znnp
Resolutions:
Original Res /Copy Cert: Minutebook
Copy Res! Copy Cert: City Clerk
City Engineer
City Planner
City Attomey
Steding Codifiers
Project File
Copy Res /Original Cert:
Ada County (CPAs)
Applicant (non-CPAs)
Recorded Ordinances:
Original: Minutebook
Copies to: City Clerk
State Tax Comm.
Sterling Codifiers
City Attomey
City Engineer
City Planner
Project file
Applicant (if appl.)
Findings /Orders:
Original: Minutebook
Copies to: Applicant
Project file
City Engineer
City Planner
City Attomey
*` Record Vacation Findings `•
Recorded Development Agreements:
Ortginal:Fireproof File
Copies to:Applicant
Project file
City Engineer
City Planner
City Attomey
'~, ,~
,~
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian
and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street,
Meridian, Idaho at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on April 11, 2000 for the purpose of reviewing
and considering the application of Eagle Partner, LLC for a conditional use permit for
proposed modification of additional pole sign for Chevron/McDonalds generally located
at 603 S. Eagle Road.
A more particular description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's
office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during
regular business hours.
A copy of the application is available upon request. Any and all interested
persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to
submit testimony.
DATED this 15th day of March, 2000.
iJi 7,~•~, ~ f''
F
µ
- ~~1~L
9~ ~~^7
PUBLISH March 24~8yr T2~019• `W°~
~'''f~~~t,ar~-s¢~ ;,~~~ee°~~
.i/
ILLIAM G. BER , J CI CLERK
- ~~ ~ ~~o
T ~ ~~ 6 ~ - B
N ~{~-... I. o
15 / ~ II 8 4 3 2 I ~~
. 1 ~ ± ; 8 ~~° I .Z
5 5 n .. ~ DRIVE ~ JI. -
i
Q O 16 ,` ~O 8 7 6 5 4 3' 2~ ~ ~~ o ~
o AUTUMN 17 It! ~ n
° ... 7 u 6 /' II ~
I
~ ~~ 12 13 t4 17 !P -~ ~D I
I a,
~ 5 14 ~ . ~,
6 AUTLMN WA"
G\ ~ 3 --T-- - 1. ~
3
2 .,\ ~ 3 ~ ,. so .}
- ,.. I <
i
~M~~~~~f~~~r
~.. i
~Q.r I ~ ,
' ~E 300 ft.
~~
~~.~ ~~i:a~ 1
;S' ,
. -- /
1 ~~ ~
I ~ - :.- ~
.. .
;- . ~~.~
• i ~ ~.- +' '
. 1 `.
fi
:r ' ~ , ,
23 ~ -- ~ ~-------_..... _ .._._ ' ~.
_ _ -~
-~.--
- - ; ~ ,, ~--~.1
,~ Q
/ 16 ~ ~ ~e~'/~ViCINITY MAP
\ ~, ,~ r~~r SCaI@: 1" :300 ft.
I ~ ~ /'
f 7 ~ ,,-' ,~~ - ~
** TX CONF I fem., ION rtEPORT **
~ `,~~ ~ AS OF MAR 1 ~'~"'° Og : 36 PAGE . 01
~~~ ~~ ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN
~~,` ~~ ( DATE TIME TOiFROM MODE MINiSEC PGS CMD# STATUS
/~ ~~„ ~.` ~ Q -___01_ 03117 0@~ 34 92083776449
J `~~ ~~~~ ~ _ _ EC--S 01' 14" 005 254 OK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
y~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U
'~
~U ~.4' 1Q~ > `~ ~' NOTICE OF HEARING
`~~ ~~ u~~t~\ ~g~-
. ~ ~~
~ 4 ~~~ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the Ci of Meridia
~~~~ ~ ty n
and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street,
Post-it• F
To a ~ r I '
7 F-om
Co.rDept a !1.`
S
f'~ Co.
Phone M PMno k
Fax x Fax M
Meridian, Idaho at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on April 11, 2000 for the purpose of reviewing
and considering the application of Joseph D. Heilker for a conditional use permit for a
vacant lot for proposed 10,000 square foot lease building.
A more particular description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's
office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during
regular business hours.
A copy of the application is available upon request. Any and all interested
persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to
submit testimony.
DATED this 16~' day of March, 2000.
«~ ~~.,
LLIAM G. BERG, JR., LERK
``~tc,~N ~ nrrrrrrr
:~ O~
F~poRgT fi't' ~~~;
PUBLISH March 24, ~ April 7 2000. c
; ~ Fo
- ~ +~~
~
7~~
=
1~r~
O
T'SS ,
`
,~
\~
Q
\
c, ,~ ``~.
<>
~`
Note 7671 Date 3 Pa9eB~ ax
~rnr,;rtw~`°
r
/w•
MAYOR HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
Robert D. Corrie A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT
CITY COUN CITY OF MERIDIAN X208) zgg-2499 . Fax 288.25°I
CIL MEMBERS
Ron Anderson
33 EAST IDAHO PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208> 887-221 t • Fax 88~-I29~
Tammy deWeerd (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING
Cherie McCandless City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT
(208) 884-5533 • Fax 888-6854
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning ~ Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: February 29 2000
TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 15 2000 HEARING DATE: March 14. 2000
FILE NUMBER: CUP-00-013
REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF
ADDITIONAL POLE SIGN FOR CHEVRON/MCDONALDS
BY: EAGLE PARTNER, LLC
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: 603 S. EAGLE ROAD
SALLY NORTON, P/Z
KENT BROWN, P/Z
THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z
RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z
KEITH BORUP, P/Z
-ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR
_RON ANDERSON, C/C
CHERIE McCANDLESS, C/C
_KEITH BIRD, C/C
TAMMY de WEERD, C/C
-WATER DEPARTMENT
-SEWER DEPARTMENT
SANITARY SERVICE
-BUILDING DEPARTMENT
-FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT
-CITY ATTORNEY
-CITY ENGINEER
-CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL)
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS:
n
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian
and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street,
Meridian, Idaho at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on March 14, 2000 for the purpose of
reviewing and considering the application of Eagle Partner, LLC for a conditional use
permit for proposed modification of additional pole sign for Chevron/McDonalds
generally located at 603 S. Eagle Road.
A more particular description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's
office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during
regular business hours.
A copy of the application is available upon request. Any and all interested
persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to
submit testimony.
DATED this 16th day of February, 2000.
PUBLISH February 25 & March 10, 2000
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., ITY CLERK
~~~~~tNI ttF1 ~1////yam//j ,
~4
,: ~~
.,
~.,
IIIIIItt331itF't~~t~~~~~
~'~,
~.-,
°1dmuoi~m~
m °'`o rn ~ m
m°omaiioa
ao~~o~.
~nd
m
~ o
oE
~ E y ~
N
~
N ~
_ C 0 a
C U ~ « ~ V
~ Emyoa°'im
~ m ayi amp
C
'A d
'Z ~ X
Eow~E
m~T-io opc
t r 0 0
r
,~ Q
-0._
0 ~
p d
¢LL ~N~;te
n
t11 O tO C C n
~m
~A
~
U y
E
~°
y
~
C N a
Nda
i
.E
~ ~ LL C E C L
T
~ c~
if
O AE
r
aV
O'~ N V N y c OI
c
O R1
w ~ 4. ~ =y
~ LL ~a~cin °1
~
~ ~~
U'
~ ~
L
m
E o
r (O =
(n ll y
-
N N cx0 ..0. U t0
N ~
~ c $E°o `o a
°
~
m O~ ~
p m
~ awL,
~ c~
c
m d F a o
oa f»~ m
c ~ w = E
¢y dy~a~Em
m
-EBa~
_o ~ c m h o ~ E
y
o
'c
~ ai o
a
C Z cp ~c
v n
Y ~ O ~_ ~ Op V S O
~
~
~ ^^ Nw-
D O
O CC7 d
~rn$ErnA
U d N ~ to
y ~ » E
>
x o
j O ~O t0 0 U
c
-o
~ j E Q y
~
~ ~
E L y U
1 .
7 C ~p
~
N C ~ ~~-~ N
W~ a
c
m ~ y ~;E_
`m
m
t
'
~ -
i
c
m
y N~
~
~ N
N^
O1
' ~
N U
a d y U '+C1~.. O~
rom
U >_a
i
~¢ ~ ~~ wo Rm
om~
°'~
~
'
Q ~ ~` a
i
y
r °'a~O~in
¢ ~ a
0
a , '~
~ a~ E
~ p ~
~ U ti 0 ~ a~
c ~
~ c0
..
~ U
~ 2 U
~
U ~ ~ ~
~
~
^^
o
-0
•
°'
LL
°' a
~,
~
E
N
y d U
~
1 ` ~ ~
~ (~
two[ ~ ~ o
^ ^^^ a m
Z
y
d
z d
a
d ~
~ ~ ~ ~ y
Z Q
n.
~
~
~
E-
a
w
a
a
c ~ ~ ~
~ ~ .--i y d
N U
N ~ '
~
E N ~
oo ~'" N N a0
`o o
a
a °
~ a .-1 U
[ya z'
'm
a O ~ ~
L.7 m F°-
p o 0 0
M M M M
~ ` _
~O y \x/1
1
Q ~ M a ~
Z
r~
N o ~
~~
.oy~ n~
~ ~ c Z ~
m
Z a O ~ T N ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ O T T T T T
~ J
C
d
a
0
a
m
0
Y
C
d
.`
a
9
N
d
a
0
U
.a
Q
ch
E
o`
LL
a
~~,~~~~~
ao~`~~"
°~~;W~
Q
;~ ° O ~ O
~ c ~ E ~ W ~
E y ~
E ~`~~~mv
°~
m m=~
c
U
Emwoa°'im
~ ama
o
~ in
m
'j( C X G '~ O
E o W~ E T
- t~°LO°
Q ~ H w u~.;U ~.
-
~ c
ono ~•~ d
QLL c ~
~E~~~mm
.m d YQ ~a~
~ loci 2~my`m
E~ E~ LL ~~~~~~
N N O ~) C ~
~ c
v c
~ C O l0
o a0 ~ LL ~
N
c• ~
O
U
°O
~ ~ ~ ~ N t
.~ E >
N~
i.. f6 =
N 9 (A lL d N c0 ~ O U
c aE°`O d
U o
~
y
~
U x o H a
aWd m
L ,o c
l6 Ot.+ ~
~LL c
N N~ N ~_
U V ~ ~ ~
caim"E
"
~ c
E
-o ~
m~ u
i
d
m
E«~a-c
oo
m ,odg~
3 -v ~ U
m~o°-aE
o d c
N N o
~
-cm ~, o
ov~cmc
'-
~ z
cYi ~O
~U ~daE~
d~°~oo
'
_
U ~~ ~=
~ ~RO poi m
d°o,°oErnm
~
dN
m
J ~ O cp O U
'
~ m E Q y
E
`~
y m F~ c
o o
m
y c> ohm Boa
m y ,A'_ E
'
t ,~
c Fi ro .
m
~
m¢ - N C H l0
«
~
o U
O
7.
~
-
,, `t Cc
d
c°i~E
L d N O ro t0
` Q
' 1-On~O~cA
0
a , "~
c~j ~ E
~ N
N ~ = c G1
¢ a ti c
ms? a~ ° ~ m
L
E
¢U
~: m
2U
C
~
U ~ 0
a
^ ^ ^
O ~
4 ~'
~ i O
~
i ~ ~
~
U
0
%'x m ~O
d
~
m
' W m c U ~ a o
^ ^ ~ ^ a m
~,,
Q ~.
~ Z
m
N
~ a
O ~
~+ ~ ~
O
~
(
~
~ J
a ~
d [-+ ~ U E~ ao
m ~ ~ h ~ h
~, ~ ¢ ~ Q o W Q v ~
~-
~
m N
Z
Q ~
N
O~
N .__.
O
M ~
O
M ~
l~
N ~l
"'a ~ M
.--~
N
z d ~
p o
m
~'
~ ~
'+
a O
~
~ ~-1
~ ~
W N
H 0~"'
W
P
ti ~ m
E -o
'
' ~.
l O ,~ W Z z
d
~ z H x ~ w w A ~Q
O~ O ~--~ N M ~ V7 ~O [~
~ -~ N N N N N N N N
M M M M M M M M M
~ ~ ~
m
r E
- ¢ z a \"~~
~'
o
a
c
d
R yv
~ E~
'
d,a a
i z
~
Z a O J T N C'7 V ~ W ~ ~ O~ O T T T T T O N
H J
C
d
a
c
a°
C
m
d
d
H
a
m
d
a
E
O
V
rn
O)
m
.a
Q
ti
M
S ad~d~~~
Rav~~m
ao
a
\~ N L ~ o
Z'
°
`~ ~
'
~ ~
n a~
~
A
E N
i
a °a'
'm~mE
Q C U~ t0~~
C !q y
E N N O y C
>
~~
> N
~
N
ttl
.~ C % C ,~ O
W
. n E T
E o
comic
n ~ ~ ~ ? m ` O T
;
~~~ ~.
~
~ ~li __cm
ca
C
N
C C V T
N ip
E
~~c6 ~ Y N ~ y°Naai aNi
=Eo ro•-
O O `~LL ~~~~~'~Hm
N E E c L
'
O ~ `yw d
= c~
~~~ya
m o
c O ro
- 0 0~ O m
~ LL c m o ~
~ a ._ N o-
-o
1 U m ~ ~ o L
~
r m= ~LL Ea'ixopp
U
U ~ ,A
N N N w
E
w ~ `~
. (6 Ow U°
O~y ' $Nn
cx
cWLUi c~
H N O
~
-_
0
O C
Y N
t N N
aai Q LL E~~ n E c
c
5~
°
°
-
°
0 ~ ~ a
i
,
.
o
m
- E u E
'-
a~ w ~~ o.
co°~rno
'~ c Z
~ v m0
~ U oad'c~c
a y a E ~
d
_
m w c
m-$~
a o 0
~
U ^^ p Q ~°o grid
°
oErnm
~rn
~
a~
"~~ E
O U
J C
a
d j O t0
> ,~ E Q v
°
~
m
N y~
c> a
°
Ed~
o c- t i c
c
~
L o~`0o`c°~--
~oo~~°m
~l`0
v ~ '~cFi~~m.E-
~ _'~ m U N W
~
U
1°~ a d~ U U
a
~L y m m ~a
Q ~~
U ~"
~~ --~~Ecc
d
t d m O ~0 N
0
'
~
a _
U O E
~ d
d ~ = C 01
Q a V C 'O N
E~'°'v
¢ mL
V
~ ~
_ 2
~ c p
o LL °o ~ E
- W a~
i ~
>~°7a ~ W
~
.
~
c ~
~
w¢ m ~ (~
^ ^^^
a
Q E-!
„~j o
E
Q `\J-
? ~U
N a °,y1
3
W ~ r
`~
a i
-1 ~ .
n~
~ o_ ~ V] N
~ `~ W a
m W V
]
~ ~ N U
~ w
cM+~ W
~y U ~
a O
E
t0 ~
~ ~ ~
~ w
W oy
~ ~ ~" ~ s
a
='
~
~
p''
W .t
~ aai U
Z
a
a
O GL
°2~ >
~~
~~
O~ O --~ N
~ h ~ ~
\ M M M M
U ~ m
¢Z a
C N d `o ~'
ro ~
t6 ~ C E~
N ~ 41 ~ ~
Zap ~ r N C'') ct ~ O ~ OD O
r
r
r w
r r r H J
Y
C
d
d
a
F
a
m
m
a
E
0
U
.a
Q
ti
L'7
E
li
a
y
E
Q
~ ~
-° o~ o a 'a ~ ~i
7 C y ~ U
.._ E p (gyp ~ ~ l1
'- U ~ O
rw? O a0 ~~
a U
E~-~ v„
(n ~ (B - ~ W
X U O .fl
w N N
Q ~ O « O iy
d
~ ¢ LL
~ 3 -o N
~ O ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ Z d0
N ~ ~U
^^ Q,_
~-
a~
d ~
~ ~
ti c >
a
(0
U ~
Q1 ~
O V ~
~ ~
Q ~ Q`
O
a _ '~
.U ~ E ~ ~
m o ._ ~ m
oC a ~ o ~ ~
~ d t
E;~¢V mV
~ a _ _ 2
d d - d
~o^
ro ~
E ~
o ~
~ N ~ a
aE' ~' do
Y W Q N O N
U C U
r ~ ^^^ O
I F
W
_~
O
3 N [~
[~ ~, O M
U ~, M °°
U a ~ O W
~ ~
~ ~,
a ,~ o W a V oo ~
` ° ~ ~ ~ N w .~ O ~ ~ a Q a
m ~ O ~ a" ~a
~ ~ ~ W U ~ rn o ~n WW M 3
s ° L1, M O o Z °, °° N ~ w ~ ~ r
~ N ~i~+ a ~ O ~ O ~ 7O o0 E-+ ~-' 'J..
N x p ~C '-a W L1 ~ ~1 ~ q ~~.l ~ U
a R; ?+ y~
M M M M ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~~ ~
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
N N
U d
. C j
Q Z
C y 41
~ d C
d ~ d
~~f/) y
Z a p ~ T N M ~ l1') CO f~ 00 ~ ~ T N M ~
T T T T T
~ d N m N C
l0 a a //7 ~ ttl
N O N dip •~-•
O.O U C c Q
r O ~ O -
EN_ENE~
d ~- - .C m a
C N ~ c0 ~ N
U ~ .~
C ~ N C
E~N~d,~
E~m ~in
~ m_
X C K C ,~ O
EoW ~E~.
d~ o a ~ c
r r O
E ~ m d~ m
a`~aNOaim
m ~ rn
m E E E c
y U d N C
l0 ~ C m W C
~ ~ d y m
E >_
d ry t~ ~ _U W
O U
O ~ N
aw ~O-"cn
C
lC0 I- N O-
U 'O ~ i0 ~
~N~~m.EE
d c ~._-
E `~ da- 10
c
a aCi~%w~
_E~m io
~ o ° ~.rn E
m
O a~ c N c
ayaEa-
N d p ~ ~ ~
j10~~~ia~
d°c~o°Ernm
`-'~~E~d
c
~ ° `o ~ ~ v
c p~
~,~ E¢ v,
o~Ey o~
p C _ L ~ C ~
O_ ~ ~ ~ N ~ a
~ ~ O ~ ~ m
c~ioa~'im~E~i° d
a ~ J U ~" ~ C_
y=c°i~Ecc a
L U) w O QI Y0 _
Fw~a C~~(A ~
m
0
I IC
°' 3
o d
~ ~
~ a
1 d
N d
d
o p
v
2 ~~
~'" c.
m
a ~
d
m
E
0
a
N U ~..J
~ ~ ~~\ `
a~ ~~\~'
00
a_
E f0
z>
~ .~
V
H Q
• p)
1 ~
N
Q1
O.
N v ~ Q
a
o~ n
d ~ ~
~ ~ M
_~ E
l(~ ~ Q ~ LL
T ~ J
a
Sent By: City of Meridian; 2088886854; Dec-28-99 9:17AM; Page 2
~ ,.~.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PEK.M17 , `
NAME: ~i4~ L.~ ~,~12 r~t/~`G L1~. C~U L~lG
ADDRESS: 6~~ ~~1.~ w sy /~~~ l~ 837~E, .
GENERAL LOCATION:....,.,... S cif GLE' !f'O~'1d
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: //~Dl~l~ ~/l~~ /~(/('~ ~~'
ZONING CLASSIFICATION: C~7
------,
1 cc`rtify that the infon~nation cori~'ned hereigis true and coiract.
~~~ ~~ r,
LEGAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Pursuant to established procedure, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that tl~ Meridian Planning and
Zoning Cam~nission vvi11 hold a Public Hearing in the Meridian City Hall on
~ _.m The purpose of the Hcaramg is to consader a
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT submitted by
~ ProP~Y ~~y descn~ as located at
for
SUBDIVISION, BLOCK ,LOT
TO
ATTACHMENTS TO CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION
1. Applicant: Eagle Partners, LLC
c/o Craig Jamieson (Idaho Electric Signs
6528 Supply Way
.Boise, Idaho 83716
(208) 338-9401
(Warranty Deed Attached)
2. Owners: Eagle Partners, LLC
c/o Stephen Brown
Ellis, Brown & Sheils
P. O. Box 388
Boise, ID 83701
(208) 345-7832
(Warranty Deed attached)
Idaho United Credit Union
P. O. Box 2268
Boise, ID 83701
Attn: Gary Skeen
(Warranty Deed attached)
3. Legal Description of Property (attached).
4. Proof of Ownership, i.e. Warranty Deed (attached).
5. Existing use: Gas Station/C-Store/Fast Food/Credit Union
6. Present Use: Same as t~bove
7. Proposed Use: Commercial.
8. District Zoning: CG.
9. 30 copies Vicinity Map (attached).
10. Site plan, scale 1" = 30' and 8-1/2 x 11 reduction.
11. List of mailing addresses (attached).
12. See cover letter.
13. Application fee and mailing fee; check (attached).
14. Statement re: Additional fees associated with use (attached).
15. Affidavit re: accuracy of application, signed by applicant
(attached) .
16. Affidavit for posting, signed by applicant (attached).
6528 SUPPLY WAY • BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (208) 338-9401 FAX (208) 338-9409
os ~~,
January 14, 2000
Ms. Shari Stiles
City of Meridian
Planning Department
200 East Carlton Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Shari:
As required by the Conditions of Approval for the previously
approved Conditional Use permit, and the development agreement
between Eagle Partners and the City of Meridian, we are
submitting on behalf of Eagle Partners, an application for
modification to the Conditional Use permit to request an
additional pole sign for use by both Chevron and Mc'Donald's.
The height of this sign has been reduced to 77' as opposed to
our previous request of 100'.
We appreciate your attention to this request and will gladly
answer any questions you may have.
lv.
Crai M. Jamieson
Sal \Manager
1:
'OI MICIiW.I il0 11/N 910~W GM "OBI 1~D~1
1
NOINfI A3~~ G~lINn ON'~GI c~
a.. Z
SZI3NlZitrd H~~b'8 Q ~
,.~.o.~l...~~1 ~ ~ I a I
~~ a
1`;~ _____________________________________________________________________~ 1 ~
1.----- ------------------ --- ------------------------------------------- --, i ~ a
~= ---------------------_---------- ---- - ------------------------------ ~JJ~ ~ Z
Q
U
~~
to
-- -- -- - 4
:> :; ~.
~ r----- ~ - --.:. . , . -
. ____ . ~
. ._, ,
111
_-- °R' ~ I 1 I ~ , 1
i ~ ~~ .: - iii iii w
.. ...
. I11 I11 I
--
' _ O F -,' I I I I I -
~ _....__.... ; III I
5 I I r -.-...... 11 1 1 z
....__..__ 1 V Q n. ...~. ~ III Ill q
V ~V _ ""~~~ III IIF~I
III II
..__.__.
V III II
' ~ a III II
....... I L. ~~~ "-- 111 1111n1
~i
~~
1
a ; -------------------------j---1~gJy~I~ ~~~
4t N L1 ~ L7 i R x
Q I
a 9_a 4~4 4~4 4~4 ~ 4~4
os. 4~e_____________________________~
~~
~~ ~
Ng10 fIOH DIOO41
~ ~
EX1~IT A
DESCRIPTION OF CHEVRON PARCEL
A parcel of land in the SE'/4 NEB/4 of Section 17, T.3 N., R.1 E., B.M, City of Meridian, Ada
County, Idaho, being a portion of Lot 1 of the Amended Magic View Subdivision, the official
plat of which is recorded in Book 52 of Plats at page 4445 and being more particularly described
as follows:
Commencing at the east 1/4 corner of said Section 17, marked by a brass cap monument in
Eagle Road (State Highway No. 55) and located S.00°22'18"E., 2652.85 feet from the brass cap
monument in the intersection of said Eag,,,le Road and West Franklin Road which marks the
northeast corner of said Section 17; thence, N.00°22'18"W.,749.74 feet along the east line of
said Section 17 to the point of intersection of same with the centerline of Ma:°ic View Drive;
thence, 5.89°38'27"W., 96.45 feet along said centerline to the point of intersection of same with
the westerly right of way line of said. Eagle Road, as described in Deed Instrument no. 8843782;
thence, Northerly, along said westerly right of way line along a curve to the right having a radius
of 5799.58 feet, an arc length of 48.28 feet, a central angle of 00°28'37", a chord bearing of
N.O1°34'18"E., and a chord distance of 48.27 feet to the POINT OF BEGItii ~~ii G; thence,
5.45°43'31 "W., 27.74 feet along the proposed new northerly right of way line of Magic View
Drive to an angle point in same; thence,
~.
5.89°38'27"W., 279.35 feet along said new northerly right of way line (29.00 feet from center) to
a point in the west Iine of said Lot 1 of the Amended Magic View Subdivision; thence
N.00°06'25"W., 442.31 feet along said west lot line to a point in the south right of way line of a
proposed new street; thence,
S.89°STOS"E., 45.00 feet along said south right of way line to a point; thence,
5.00°06'25"E., 158.00 feet along a line parallel with and 45.00 feet east of the west line of said
Lot 1 of the Amended Magic View Subdivision; thence,
5.89°5705"E., 268.09 feet along a line parallel with and 266.00 feet south of the north line of
said Lot 1, to a point in said westerly right of way line of Eagle Road; thence,
Southerly, along said westerly right of way line, along a curve to the right having a radius of
5659.58 feet, an arc length of 73.01 feet, a central angle of 00°44'21", a chord bearing of
5.03 ° 19' 13 "W., and a chord distance of 73.01 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence,
Southerly, along said right of way line, along a curve to the left having a radius of 5799.58 feet,
an arc length of 190.27 feet, a central angle of OI°52'47", a chord bearing of 5.02°45'00"W., and
a chord distance of 190.26 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING,
said CHEVRON PARCEL containing 93,335 square feet or 2.143 acres, more or less.
h ~~.
EXHIBIT B
DESCRIPTION OF CREDIT UNION PARCEL
A parcel of land in the SE'/4 NEI/4 of Section 17, T.3 N., R.1 E., B.M, City of Meridian, Ada
County, Idaho, being a portion of Lot 1 of the Amended Magic View Subdivision, the official
plat of which is recorded in Book 52 of Plats at page 4445 and being more particularly described
as follows:
Commencing at the east 1/4 corner of said Section 17, marked by a brass cap monument in
Eagle Road (State Highway No. 55) and located 5.00°22'1$"E., 2652.85 feet from the brass cap
monument in the intersection of said Earle Road and West Franklin Road which marks the
northeast corner of said Section 17; thence, N.00°22'18"W.,749.74 feet along the east line of
said Section 17 to the point of intersection of same with the centerline of Magic View Drive;
thence, S.89°38'27"W., 96.45 feet along said centerline to the point of intersection of same with
the westerly right of way line of said Eagle Road, as described in Deed Instrument no. 8843782;
thence, Northerly, along said westerly right of way line along a curve to the right having a radius
of 5799.58 feet, an arc length of 238.54 feet, a central angle of 02°21'24", a chord bearing of
N.02°3x'41"E., and a chord distance of 238.52 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence,
Northerly, along said westerly right of way line, along a curve to the left having a radius of
5659.58 feet, an arc length of 73.01 feet, a central angle of 00°44'21 ", a chord bearing of
N.03°19'13"E., and a chord distance of 73.01 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence,
N.89°ST05"W., 268.09 feet to a point 45.00 feet east of the west line of said Lot 1 of the
Amended Magic View Subdivision; thence,
N.00°06'25"W., 158.00 feet along a line parallel with and 45.00 feet east of said west line to a
point 108.00 feet south of the north line of said Lot 1; thence,
S.89°STOS"E.; 243.55 feet along a line parallel with and 108.00 feet south of the north line of
said Lot 1, said line being the proposed southerly right of way line of a new (as yet unnamed)
street, to an angle point in said proposed southerly right of way line; thence,
S.44°08'40"E., 43.02 feet along said proposed right of way line to a point in said westerly right
of way line of Eagle Road; thence,
Southerly, along said westerly right of way line, along a curve to the right having a radius of
5659.58 feet, an arc length of 127.26 feet, a central angle of O1°17'18", a chord bearing of
5.02°18'23"W., and a chord distance of 127.25 feet to the POINT OF BEGIlViYIYi G,
said CREDIT UNION PARCEL containing 42,434 square feet or 0.974 acres, more or less.
~~;
', 1
ARCHITECTS
BRS Architects, ~.I.4.
1087 West Riuer Street, Suite 160
Boise. Idaho 83702
Telephone 208 336.8370
Fax ~~08 336-8380
December 10. 1997
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
Re: Conditional Use Application
Lot 1, Magic View Subdivision
BRS Project No. 9646
We, the applicant/owner of said property agree to pay any
additional sewer, water or trash ,fees or charges, if-any,
associated with the use.
Appl ~~n~ Sig a ure:
~!
Stephe± Brown f or Eagle Partner-s~;. L . L . C .
`~J
n
AFFIDAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST
STATE OF IDAHO )
ss
COUNTY OF ADA )
I, ~~~ ~7 ,
(name)
~~~
~~
(city)
~~~s ~ ~ ~s
(address)
~~~
(state)
being first duly sworn upon
oath, depose and say:
That I am the record owner of the Property described on the attached,
and I grant my permission to
Idaho Electric Si ng s , _6528 Supply Way Boise. Idaho 83716
(name) (address)
to submit the accompanying application pertaining to that property.
2. I agree to indemnify, defend and hold the City of Meridian and it's employees
harmless from any claim or liability resulting from any dispute as to the statements
contained herein or as to the ownership of the property which is the subject of the
application.
Dated this ~ day of q ~L~~IiQ y , 20Gc
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year above written.
a~vo~~~an~uty~~~~
~_; ~ I a
~ .~
~'~' ya
t
7 ~~' ' f~ ~ iy '°
6? ~ w
~: }t; tl!
~'U~ LAC' n
Notary blic for Idaho
Residing at
My Commission Expires: ~ lat I~~-
,- _ _~
- .... .. J ' . , . ~ .
When recorded, return ta:
Engle Partners, L.L.P. y~~~.I~NCt TITLE
~~~
c1o Stephen Brown , C ~ - ~1 ~~ 3~~
Ellis, Brown & Shiels „7 i' ~ t i
P.o. Box ass Q
Boise, Idaho 83701 ~ ~ ~ - -- - ' _
W AF,RAI,ITY I)-EF~I2
This Warranty Deed is made this day of April, 1997, between Gerald W. i~Iariin
and Deloris B. Marlin, husband and wife, herein referred to as "Grantors," and Eagle Partners,
L.L.C., an Idaho limited liability company, Lerein referred to as "Grantee," witnesseth:
That Grantors, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), and other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt whereof is hereby aclmowledged, has granted, bargained,
and sold, and does, by these presents, grant bargain, sell, convey, and confum unto Grantee and
its successors and assigns forever, all of the following described real estate situated in the County
of Ada, State of Idaho:
A portion of the Lot 1 Amended Magic View Subdivision according to the official
plat thereof filed in Book 52 of Plats at Pages 4445 and 4446, records of Ada
County, Idaho., more particularly described on Schedule I attached and
incorporated herein by this reference.
Together with all and singular the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances thereunto
belonging or in anywise appertaining, the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders,
rents, issues, and profits thereof; and all estate, right, title, and interest in and to the property, as
well in law as in equity subject to easements and encumberances appearing of record or on the
groune.
To have and to hold, all and singular the above-described premises together with the
appurtenances unto Grantee and its successors and assigns forever.
And Grantors and their heirs and assi~s shall and will, subject to the terms of this
instrument, warrant and by these presents forever defend the premises in the quiet and peaceable
possession of Grantee, its successors and assigns against Grantors and their heirs and assigns and
against all and every person or persons whomsoever, lawfully claiming the same.
WARRANTY DEED - Page 1
MM3cC # 5871.02 April 29, 1997
i--.
E~CUTED the day and year first above wrirten.
~/. ~
Gerald W . Marlin
Deioris B. Marlin
STATE OF "t )
ss.
County of ~ ~ )
On this ~ day of ~ , 1997, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public
in and for said state, personally appeared Gerald W. 1~Iarlin and Deloris B. l~Iarl.in, known or
identified to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and
acknowledged to me that they executed the same.
IN ~JITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the
day and year in this certificate first above written.
~Y
TARY P LIC for" ~'~(~IZCt'1,~
Residing at ~ G~ ~~1P Y(C ~-f
My commission expires:
o~1cu-t, sou
KAREN KRAUTER
Noory Public - S>ats of ktmr>,
MARlCOPA COUNTY
IAy Comm. Emires May 18.20CD
yT-~ro7ozi~ c~
R~ca~~~" .: Esf o~
~,13A COt}NTY RECORQER
~, D!~YIO NAVARRO
- ~~gRANTY DEED 9 ~ 3
99001
199 ,!A -7 FM ~= ~a ALL.IA~'CE TITLE
GRANTOR, Eagle Partners, L.L.C., an Idaho limited liability company, for good and valuable
consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant, bargain, sell, and
convey unto The Idaho United Credit Union, a state chartered corporation, whose current address
is P.O. Box 2268, Boise, Idaho 83701, as GRANTEE, and to grantee's successors and assigns
forever, all of the real located in Ada County, state of Idaho, described on Exhibit A, attached hereto
and incorporated herein.
TOGETHER with .all improvements, water, water rights, ditches, ditch rights,
easements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto.
SUBJECT to such rights, easements, covenants and restrictions which appear
of record or by use upon the premises.
Grantor, for itself and its assigns, does hereby covenant, warrant, and shall defend the quiet
and peaceable possession of said premises by the grantee, its successors and assigns, forever, against
the lawful claims of all persons.
In construing this Deed, and where the context so requires, the singular includes the plural
and the .masculine, the feminine, and the neuter.
IN WITNESS WI~REOF, Grantor has hereunto subscribed its name to this instrument this
~z~- day of January, 1999.
EAGLE P •C-
By
D~y~ u , 3-o~s~' ,Authorized Manager
WARRANTY DEED -1
STATE OF IDAHO
County of Ada
ss.
On this '~ day of January, 1999; before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for
the state ofldah ,personally appeared J+ D ~- .~°++~*~SOiJ > ~1O""n or identified to me to be an
whose name is subscribed to the within and
authorized manager of the limited liability company
foregoing instniment, and who acknowledged to me that he executed the same, for and on behalf of
said limited liability company.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day
and year in this certificate first above written.
r~~~,~~ ~~ y:r3aaa 9~~2if ~,^'',
fir y o,
~ S ~.`y.. 9q y~3~
V '~
o _
® ~ ~..w
~ ~ ® ~~
~= ~J z>"
®~ '~__'~
A R~
VV C:~~a~~l'-N4A0~8,3 ..0~.~..~a
Notary P lic for daho
Residing at ~ vi sP
Commission Expires / (~~ d)°
WARRANTY DEED - 2
.... ~-.
4g RI j~ ~ . •~ :moo
'~ 6 6
T
7 5
5 ...4 _ I ~~:. ,:... .. ~.
3 • '+ i . yo
. _ ( ~ 14 ~3 ~' 12 10. 9 O~
2 15 /~' II 8 4 3 Z. I ~oI
- x I4~'-i! - 8 - 1
` ~ ~ DRIVE \~ j~
C
5 6 I j g I, O 8 7 6 5 4 3 2~--1 ~~ o~ ~
T Q`Q ~~Q O I1 L I I q .':' i o
A I F ' ~ AUTUMN k 17 la n~~ 9 c, j.~~•~ [„ I (~~ - , 7 ~~
~~- ,6- qy:, 5° to E _ ~ ~ ~ ~ i j
15 / ``\ -
o ... 7 Z' 6 / I I -
~ 4 > !5 ~5 ~ ~` iS ZO ,
• ..0 J ~~- 14 12 13 t4 ICI !P .G ~ _/D a'!
~I
~~\ 5 ~ ~
~.. ~ AUTLMN _ WA~~ Z , I ~~
i G ~ ~ 3 --r-- - ` I ~_.
q ~ ~G i( !0 9 8 7 6 i 4 i A So. i~
i J `_. \ I I V I l _ !i
I~ 2 I ~ ~ ~_.-r~ .' -
~- ~+-~~~~~~~t~~~r
5 ~~r ~ ~-
~ , ~~ ~
• r ; ~ 300 ft.
f
~~
:, .
=- , - .
;~
I,,
lI
•i
~~ '~
! ~
_ ,
- ,-
- GErv.rRY WA _.._ ~.~ ~ ~ - -- -- -._-_
~~ f --
,- 1
.~
VICINITY MAP ~
scale: 1" :300 ft. ,
/~ - . .
.ice,
e~BG~jY~G 6528 SUPPLY WAY • BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (208) 338-9401 FAX (208) 3.38-9409
our ~~
January 14, 2000
City of Meridian
Planning Department
200 East Carlton Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
Attn: Planning and Zoning
Re: Conditional Use Application
Lot 1, Magic View Subdivision
We the applicant, certify that we will post notification at
described property one week before the scheduled public hearing
once notified of it's date.
We have read the contents of this application and certify that
the contents are true and correct.
lica~~ Signature:
g M~ Jamieson for Eagle Partners L.L.C.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
"Hub of Treasure Valley"
33 E. Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
888-4433
Order ~o.J Date ~ _
Name ~~~~~ ~ ~:n
Address
Phone:
SOLD BY
~ ~LhSt~-- C.O.D. CHARGE ON ACCL MDSE. RETD.
~ ~ PAID OUT
~
I
I
I
All claims and returned goods MUST be accompanied by this bill..
TAX I
0 0 0 9 4 2 9 Byceived ` J TOTAL z~ S
GS-202-2
PRINTED IN U.S.A. Jl vninreo wnx ~`~f n
SOY INK J ~'tAri~`Zl 6LU
~-•
041087
DATE: 1/21/00
T0: CITY OF MERIDIAN
JOB: STEVE EDDY
ACCOUNT: 114.200 - OIPERMIT
AMOUNT: $275.00
PER: SUSIE SELTZER
~• ~~ .~ .
~~nMO CHECK NO. 0 4 1 0 8 7
/ l Le~eclillNic
6528 SUPPLY WAY • BOISE, IDAHO 83716 DATE: 1/21/00
~~~~1 ~~~~ (208) 338-9401 • FAX (208) 338-9409
PAY TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE AND 00/100 DOLLARS $ 275.00
U.S. BANK
HILLCREST BRANCH
1515 SOUTH ORCHARD
BOISE, IDAHO 83705
92-372 / 1231
PAY TO THE ORDER OF CITY OF MERIDAAN z
~~~
~~'0431087~~' i:123103729~:L5330L354475~~'
~~Certifiied Mailing Retu"'~s
Project Name ~Ci9~~ P~}~~1~, ; File No(s) ~.~yp
.~
interoffice
M E M O R A N D U M
JJL 2 0 2000
CITY OF MERID
, TY CLERK OFFICE
To: William G. Berg, Jr.
From: William F. Nichols
Subject: EAGLE PARTNERS (77 FOOT POLE SIGN) % ~~~
File No.: CUP-00-013 '~
Date: July 19, 2000
,\
Will:
Please find attached the revised original page 9 of the FINDINGS OF
FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, pursuant to action of
the Council at their July 18, 2000, meeting. Please note the change was made on
page 9 at 1.1 to change the time for the Chevron from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
I have also attached the revised original page 2 of the ORDER OF
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT as stated above,
and after the Council approves the FINDINGS, please serve copies of both
documents upon the Applicant and appropriate departments.
If you have any questions please advise.
~-.
j~,ECEIVED
msg,Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\EAGLE PARTNERS CUP SIGNAGE\C1kLtrCUPffcls&Order13071900.Mem
r
..-.
y
t.,;
~~ ~ ~~.A
"u
~`
i v%l4
a 51
', tf ~eo4' Nf .~
T
. ~ 3
4
~ ~
~8~ ~ Go~J~~v
~~~~~~~ t ~g~
~\
1~
t
~~
\~
`-
~'\
t
i
r, ~.
~ ,~ ~~ ~
~`~
~'~,
~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ --- ,
.~,
~~
`~'- ~r
~ ~. ~~
~.
~.
,;
.- ~ ";~
~~'' ~' ,`
a;~
~.
,~, ".
,.
. YJ'~ ;~
~~~ ~~
y
~a
:y
.-_.
w
<~~~~~%~ ~ r~~~
.~ ~
~j
.~
~1
~~
~~
\~
L
~~
~v
r~
G~1
~';
~.
a ~ ~
sx:.
~~ ,~,~,
au,,,~
.,~ of ~.
7 ,/~
~ f/-~
i ~ ,~..~
~^,
'ux a ~x~s ~ ~. ~~~ ~t ~"~~'c~
k n ,,M~~a ~ ~ "~' "' +.~~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ x Fyn ,~~ .w ~~~, v
X ~ `v e2A, a.. Y.
~~ k ~{
I ^/`
~j ~~/ t/
~^ ~
,~
~_ _
,, ....
1
r: ..
l Y
tlA
i'
r.
~ h
'~ ~ ~ ~r'v. ,_
!~ ~ '~
f
r
4, ,
_ -~
~) .~,
_ ~ ' ~^s T- -~_ ,~
~` ~ ~,~~ ~'
""~~
'
ti~
e ~
:,
t&,~
ks„
_'
'~
f~,~~~.v ~ ~9G ~- ag6,~tj
1~~~~ ~~~
~'.,
~~ ~ ~o~i
~ s 'c~Z~ ~~o T%
~ ~~
`~~
--~
„ :_
... ..
~.,.
s ~,,.
,,. ,~
., .
.
~,
~ ..
,, .. ~,,, ~~
,n _. a.
g~~y~
91~w" ~ fy
,. a ~..
~ .lYa .7'Ln
.~
w k
-.
H
~
~
a
A
~
/.f... .L l _
~
:'
r "
~. e ....
.,
~
~
....`
~
July 28.2000
CUP 00-013
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUIy 5, 2000
APPLICANT .Eagle Partners, LLC ITEM NO. g .,~~-,-,.-- ~l®
REQUEST Tabled from 6/6/00 -CUP for proposed modifications to include an additional pole
sign for Chevron / McDonalds in a C-G zone - 603 South Eagle Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
~_
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
See previous item packet of 6/6/00
s~'
J~~~~~ 4yrN
Uhf" ~ ~,~-~ `I ~
w~ ~~~
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
Contacted: ~r~Y1 ~ , Dafe: ~ ~ ~ "~~--
~f~ Phone: ~ ~~ ~ ~ r~~ ~
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
June 2, 2000
CUP 00-013
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 6, 2000
APPLICANT Eagle Partners, LLC ITEM NO. `~~-
REQUEST CUP for proposed modifications to include an additional pole sign for
Chevron / McDonalds in a C-G zone - 603 South Eagle Road
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
k~`
COMMENTS
See attached recommendations
~,
~~
5" ~'~X
1W~"J
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
~ ~~~
~~~
WHITE, PETERSON, PRUSS, MORROW c~ GIGRAY, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JULIE KLIIN Fisc~~at
WM. F. GIGRAY, III 200 EAST CARLTON AVENUE
BRExT 7. Jo~rsox PosT OFFICE Box 1150
D. SAMUEL 7oHxsox MERIDL4N
IDAHO 83680-1150
WII,LIAM A. MORROW ,
WILLIAM F. NICHOLS
CHRISTOPHER S. NYE TE[. 208) 288-2499
PHU,Ir A. PETERSON FAx ( 08) 288-2501
STEPHIN L. PRUSS
ERIC S. ROSSMAN
Tonn A. ROSSMAN
Dwvm M. S WARTLEY
TfxRFarcER WHITE
May 30, 2000
To: Staff
Applicant
Affected Property Owner(s)
Re: Application Case No. CUP-00-013
Hearing Date: Tune 6. 2000
NAMPA OFFICE
104 NIxTFt AVExoE SO[TCFI
POST OFFICE BOX 247
NAMPA, IDAHO 83653-0247
TEL. (208)466-9272
FAX (208)466-0405
PLEASE REPLY TO
MERIDIAN OFFICE
~~ +~~
U N - 1 2000
crrY of ~RIOrA~
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
Staff, Applicant and/or Affected Property Owner(s):
Please note that these Findin s and Recommendations of the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be presented to the ~ity Council at the public hearing on the above
referenced matter by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Due to the volume of matters
which the City Council must decide, and to insure your position is understood and clear, it is
important to have a consistent format by which matters are presented at the public hearings
before the City Council.
The City Council strongly recommends:
That you take time to carefully review the Findings and
Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and be
prepared to state your position on this application by addressing the
Findings and Recommendations of the Plaruling and Zoning Commission;
and
2. That you carefully complete (be sure it is le ble) the Position
Statement if you disagree with the Findings and~ecommendations
of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Position Statement
form for this application is available at the City Clerk's office.
It is recommended that you pprepare a Position Statement and deliver it to the
City Clerk prior to the hearing; if possible. If that is not possible, pplease present your Position
Statement to the City Council at the hearing, along with eight (8) copies. The copies will be
ppresented to the Mayor, Council, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Public Works and the
City Attorney. If you are a part of a ggrroup, it is strongl recommended that one Position
Statement be filled out for the group, wFiich can be signed by the representative for the group.
Very truly y rs,
City Attorney Office
ly/
BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL )
USE PERMIT MODIFICATION )
FOR AN ADDITIONAL 77 )
FOOT HIGH POLE SIGN )
EAGLE PARTNERS, )
Applicant )
Case No. CUP-00-013
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY
COUNCIL
1. The property is located at 603 S. Eagle Road, Meridian, Idaho.
2. The owner of record of the subject property is Eagle Partners LLC of
Boise.
3. Applicant is owner of record.
4. The subject property is currently zoned C-G. The zoning district of C-G
is defined within the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance, Section
11-7-2.
5. The proposed application requests modification of a conditional use
permit to include a 77' high additional pole sign. The zoning designation within the
City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance requires a conditional use
permit be obtained for most uses including those requested by the Applicant.
(Meridian City Zoning and Development Ordinance, Section 11-8-1).
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 1
MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -ADDITIONAL 77
FOOT HIGH POLE SIGN -EAGLE PARTNERS, LLC
6. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes that the
proposed application is in compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
7. The use proposed within the subject application will in fact, constitute a
conditional use as determined by City Policy.
RECOMMENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to
the City Council of the City of Meridian that they deny the conditional use permit as
requested by the applicant, for the following reasons:
1. The pylon sign was not addressed in the development agreement with the City
on March , 1999.
2. The Commission made a decision in June 1999 that a pylon sign is
inappropriate.
3. A chevron pylon sign does not set an appropriate tone for entering the
Magicview Subdivision.
4. The pylon sign is in too close proximity to a residential neighborhood.
ey/Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\Reconunendations\DenialEagleSign.wpd
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 2
MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -ADDITIONAL 77
FOOT HIGH POLE SIGN -EAGLE PARTNERS, LLC
Jun-05-00 11:29A IE5 BOISE 208 338 P.O1
6528 SUPPLY WAY •
.~~> ,,
Monday, June 05, 2000
Shelby
City of Meridian
200 E. Carlton
Suite 201
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Shelby
~aafro a~rrs (~1 s.~a-sao~ pax r2o8~ a.3as~aos
Per our earlier discussion today, we are requesting that our sign variance application
for the Chevron / McDonald's location be deferred to the City Council meeting on July
5, 2000. As I mentioned, neither myself nor my clients were aware of the fact that this
item was to heard tomorrow night and we do have people from out of town who would
like to attend. Thank you!
Si cerely
.~
Cr ~ .Jamieson
c: Steve Eddy, Mike Spink, Joann Butter, Loy Taylor
JUN 05 '00 12 46 208 338 9409 PArF c,~
Meridian Planning and~~ning Commission -''~
IVtay 9, 2000
Page 24
amend the motion then to include the club house to be constructed along with the 140
apartments.
Borup: Is that different that the original or what the developer was planning. And the
club house.
Norton: Okay, I'll withdraw that.
Borup: Anything or are we ready to move on. Let's take a short break.
7. TABLED FROM APRIL 11, 2000: REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL 77 FOOT HIGH POLE
SIGN FOR CHEVRON/MCDONALDS BY EAGLE PARTNER, LLC-603 S.
EAGLE ROAD:
Borup: This item was tabled to allow more information which I think you've each
received in your packets. Do we have any comments, questions or discussion or
anybody ready for a motion.
Norton: I am ready to make a motion on number 7. I would like to recommend to City
Council the request for modification of conditional use permit to allow additional 77 foot
high pole sign for Chevron/McDonalds by Eagle Partners be denied based on using the
Comprehensive Plan as a guide only and taking into consideration the following: 1.
The pylon sign was not addressed in the development agreement with the city on March
9, 1999. 2. This commission made a decision in June of 1999 that a pylon sign is
inappropriate. 3. A Chevron pylon sign doesn't set an appropriate tone for entering the
Magic View Subdivision. 4. This pylon sign is too close proximity to a neighborhood.
Hatcher: I second the motion.
Borup: Discussion.
Barbeiro: When we voted in June of 1999 on this issue, the two primary items that I
saw were that the light from this sign would be detrimental to the neighbors and that
there was presented an ordinance that only freeway frontage could have such a sign.
In our last-
Borup: Freeway frontage or freeway business.
Barbeiro: Freeway business I believe it was. And, as I recall-do we have such an
ordinance. I was unable to find such an ordinance saying that freeway business or
freeway frontage is a requirement for a pylon sign.
Borup: I don't believe so.
Meridian Planning and''`ning Commission '"~
• ~Jlay 9, 2000
Page 25
Barbeiro: And in our-
Borup: I remember or thinking that we said that freeway business would be appropriate
for signs.
Barbeiro: When I voted in 1999 my vote was primarily based on that which was as we
discovered, does not exist. In discussion with the neighbors who did testify, all but one
said that it was the canopy lights over the gas pumps that produces more light than
would a 77 foot pylon sign. With that I would prefer to change my vote from June 1999
with that bit of additional information and would vote for approval of the 77 foot pylon
sign.
Borup: Any other comment. My vote on that was I was in favor of the pylon sign but not
the one on Eagle Road. I would rather see a monument sign on Eagle Road.
Commissioner Hatcher, you had a comment.
Hatcher: The two comments the reason why I feel that this modification should be
denied is basically on two conditions. The first one is anyone driving on that freeway
knowing where the sign is going to be-the time you've see the sign you have all ready
passed the off ramp. The applicants argument for the sign was to increase his business
off of the freeway. Well, Joe and Betty from Seattle on their way to Salt Lake aren't
going to see the sign until after they pass the off ramp so he is not going to get their
business so what's the sign there for? The only thing it is going to do is let us as local
residents know that there is a Chevron there. We should not be driving if we don't all
ready know it's there. Quite frankly, the issue is if I had some sort of engine that I could
use, I would get rid of that Texaco sign. That was a mistake that we don't need to
repeat.
Borup: Any other discussion. We ready for a vote. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: 2 AYES, 1 NAY
Borup: Commissioner Brown has rejoined us for the remainder of the evening.
8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 23.6
ACRES TO C-G, R-15 AND R-8 FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL TEARE TERRACE BY ZAMBEZI GROUP-FAIRVIEW
AVENUE:
Borup: Brad, do we have a staff report.
Hawkins Clark: Yes Commission. I will address both the annexation application and
the preliminary plat application. For orientation quickly, this property on the north side
of Fairview located between Locust Grove and Meridian Road. Currently a vacant
parcel. We would deem an in fill. It is bounded on the north by Meridian Place
~ .~
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: May 9 2000
APPLICANT: EAGLE PARTNER LLC ITEM NUMBER: 7
REQUEST: MODIFICATION OF CUP TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL 77 FOOT HIGH POLE SIGN
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING & ZONING DEPT.
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WASTE WATER DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
SANITARY SERVICE:
COMMENTS COMING
SEE ATTACHED
!~;
~~ ~V
r~~
,t "
~.
~1~
OTHER:
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
May-05-00 15:15
From the Desk of llavid M. Swartley MEMORANDUM
WHt'Tty, PE?ERSON, PRUSS, M(IRRnW & CLCitAY. P.A.
Meridian City Prosecutor's Uffice
200 E. Carlton Ave. Ste. 31
P.O. Aox 1150
Meridian, Idaho 83680
(208) 288-249)
May 2, 2000
'I'U: Planning andLoning Commissioners
RE: Chevron/McDonaid's Sign Application
Urrutia v. Blaine C'uunty
Docket No. 24586
Idaho Supreme Court, April 3, 2000
Facts: Two parties, the Urrutias and Reed, submitted subdivision applications to the
Blaine County Planning and Zoning Commission. Both applications involved areas
zoned A-20. Both applications were originally approved by the Pla~u~ing and
Zoning Commission as well as the County Board of Commissioners.
An affected party, Rogers, filed a judicial review. On review, the district judge
remanded the decision of t>re County Commissioners in order io allow Rogers to
express his concerns and to create a record thereof. When re-discussing the
applications, the Board determined that neither application conformed with the
1994 comprehensive plan and the applications were denied.
Both the Urrutias and Reed appealed. The district court found for the applicants
and Rogers now appeals that decision.
iiolding: The Board of Commissioners erred in its reliance on the comprehensive plan alone
as a basis for denying the applications.
Court's Reasoning:
The Local Land Use Planning Act indicates that a comprehensive plan and a
zoning ordinance are distinct concepts serving different purposes. A
comprehensive plan reflects the "desir ble goals and objectives, or desirable future
situations" for the land within a jurisd ion. The Court $as held that a
comprehensive plan does not operate legally controlling zoning law, bt~t rather
serves to guide and advise the govern ental agencies responsible for makinK
zoning decisions. (citatipns omitted). A Board may refer to the comprehensive
plan as a general guide in instances in lying zoning decisions such as revising or
adapting a zoning ordinance.
NOTE: On p.7 of the decision is som very good language that I highlighted for
you, rather than type it all out.
P.02
MAY 05 '00 14 06 PAGE.02
May-05-00 15:15
~~
1\ TILE tiL!PRF;~~IF: CUUR1' OF 1'IIt: 5'1'ATC OF" IUA11p
i)ocf:ct \"o. 2-146
,IOIf,\N1~ t\!l(:-L~F.1. l,'1ZItU l7A and LY"\N )
><lAltlt: URRf.,'Tl.a; L.-~1vI2EVCE Jpllti )
URR~; I'IA and F:~TRIC1,.~ C. UItRUI'l.a; )
SOIvJ.~ ALI.[:C1~ FIIJi~IPHRIES and A~I~RTIN )
J. H1:I11PI[RIf:S; CONS'I'ANCE ILaE STRUTS )
and 1•'RANK l.ti;~';v S~f.~UCS; LUUISA 111ARIf: )
1-I:~RRIS Ant) SA1I~IUEL RUBERT t1.~RRIS; )
~':11.F.i~'1'IA JU ALL~i\ and JEf }ALLEN; )
TFIF' Ul2l2U"I'IA 1'~~111ILY' I.ItvIITF:I) )
Pnlt'I'ti)rl2SFilP; a-ul VIRGIIrI.n Rf.Fa), )
Pcritio~~ers-Respondents-Cross .lppellants, )
v. )
IiLAINL t:UUNTY, InAI-p, by and through )
its dul~~ elected Kuard ul'C'urnmissiuner., )
_ )
Reshundent-Appellant-Cross Respondent. )
__ _ 1
2000 Opinion Nu. 2S
"Twin ['311x, November 1999 ~L'erm
filed: April 3, 2~A0
Frederick C. Lyon, Clerk
apucal t'ro~n the nistrict Court ofthe fihh Judicial District of the State or Tdaho,
I3laine County. Flan. ,1. William IIa,Y, District Jud~c,
Ui~trict judtiv's derision orcl~ri,t~> tli~ f3lainc County Board of Commissioners to approve
the llrnitia and Recd subdivision applications, yac;tted and remanded.
Bl~Ziuc County Prosecuting Attorney, Halley, t~>r appellant. Douglas A, Werth argued.
Rosholt, RohetZSOn ~ "1"uckcr, Twin rills, for respondent Urrutia. Gary U. Slette argued.
Hepworth, L,~~.,i-r~i-r. & f I~hnhorst, l win Falls, for respondcn! ltec:d. John t:,. f-lohnhorst
argued.
TRO11T, ('hicl .lustice
"I his is a land u,c case involving the di,trict judge's rcvErsal of the Elaine County Hoard
ol'Co,nuti~sion~rs'(13oard) decision to deny two subdivision npplie~tions submitted by
resl~ondunts 1~~hnny i~Iich,tcl Urrutia, et ;d, (Urr,.uias) and ~'ircinia Recd (Red). The Llrrutias
P.03
MAY 05 '00 140? PAGE.03
May-05-00 15:15
~. ~~
tool Recd h~tvc cross-al>l)cnlt:d t•rum the district jud__e': r~l'usal n) award ananley tees under (, L'. S
I ?-l 17. lVu hulzl tl~;u the (3~tc,rtl'. dvuiait]n ,.) (l;;ity the Urrutias au~l Itectl subtlivisiun
aplalicarictns ~~u: tmpr~)~,cr in that tht: H~~;ir~l placctl inuhpral)riate uml)ha~is ul)~)n the
Suhclt~ i;it)n': tom-cc)mlrli;nt~r n•ith thu (: ~unprrhrn;i~t: 1'I;ui. ~`'hilc wu a~~ruu ~~ ith thu diarist
jt,d`,u that the t;•uard's decision shuulii nr~t ;tuncl, wu vacate that dcuisiun sp that thc;sc
applicati~)ns tray b~ rentanilccl to the Board fi)r turrh~r cansicler<uion apptyin`~ tltc prot)cr
standards.
13~1(:k(.:ROUNU
he l.lrrutins submitted a subdivision application to F3luine County on Scptcrnber 22,
1~)9t3. Thu prut)~rty i. located in an area rortud A-20 which punllits sin~h;-lalttily residences and
the division or land into lots of twenty acre: or larger in a subdivision. The Planning andLonitlg
Commission (Comtt)ission) ruuunlnlendcd appro~'al ot'the Unvtias subdivision, 'The Board
cnnsidcrctl the (:~~nunissiun's r%commentlattt)n ,tt a hcarinJ on February G, 199> and again on
1-~ebruary 13. I~)~);. The (3oard grnntt:il prulitltinary plilt itl)ul't)vIIl ('Uf the ~fI'r"UtlaS Stll)dlviylUn Un
February ? I, l9~)~. 'fhu Ho;trd issued tlnal I)lat approval of the Urruti~s subdivision on July 17,
1905 antl stated that nltltuu4wlt tho appllCt,tlt~11 dltl nOT tltt,l'Cly CU,IFU1711 TCl Chc CURlpftrllCtlaiVC plan,
it dill comply with the roninr ordinanue and subdivision ordittancc.
Rcsponti~nt and Cross-nppcllant Ruud owns and r~sidcs on a 119 acre parcel located in
1n t~rta within (31;tinc County, zoned ~-2Q. Un :March b. I~)~)5, Rectl submitted an application to
Ills CUI17111[SSI~~n tOf:1(lpfi)v,tl oho plat to subdivide her propetzy into four sincle-fatttily
residential lots ran~inl~ Crum twenty to ti)rty-two acres. Reed's applit:ation was approved and
submitted t~] the Board for review. "fhe Boars) dctLmlined that the application contrn'med with
the comprehensive plan, zonings ordinance and ~ubdivi~it~n ordinance and approved Reed's
at)plicati,]n ~)t, Jrtl•~ 17, lu~)j.
Ueut IZ. !tt)~~cr I Ri);~~rs), ,1n atljt)inin; Isnduwncr, tilc(t an aCtip-t for judicial review of
the 13t)nrCl's ducisitrns al]prc)vin~; tht` Urruti,t, anti Rard subdivision application;. Tho Urrutias
Ilnct IZGed tlltZl'~'CnCLI tutu ~~crc rcpres~ntcd by cvultscl. Un Uutob~r 2~(. 1906. rho district jud~~e
`L
P.04
MAY 05 '00 140? PAGE. 04
May-05-00 15:15
~. i"1
remande~f 111,: l1l;ClJll)n lil [h~ 13~~:u~l ~~ illt r~>p;'4: cn rli~ L rrutia;,ubtln'tsi~~n iii order to ui~
I:t~,t::rs "an oht>urtunit~~ tc~.;xpr~s. hip ~~~ttc~rn, anal to ~rcate a rcun'~1 th~rt;c~l',"and. ~~~ith reslx~~t
to b~~th the 1, rrutiaa ana Reec( ;uhdivi,iun;, fur tl~~ 1'u;n-d to ~ntcr linclin~~~ i~t t:~ct suu)
conclu,i~~n> of l,tw consi;tLnt ~~'ith d~,~rc• ~•. ('ir.i u/ L.crn r.~~urr, l(-7 ldah~ ~~14, 6~)3 P.2d f O=1h
(!`)3~). 'I"hr 13uard di,cussc~l h~ith ~~I~t~liccniurts ~i: a ,fanuary G. I`)`)7 mectine and ti~tcrmin~d that
nt:ithcr applicauuu citnti~rmc~i to the Iv9a c~~ntl~rchcntii~c plant. "fhe Ro,u•d sub;cclucntly isucd
wri[ten tindin~t~ ut'ta~t and conclusiuns of law dcnyin~_ th~~ Urrutias and Recd subilivi~ion
applicati~~ns.
The tJrrutiaa and Reid Tiled a .loins Petition For Judicial Review in thu llistrict C;outt tier
the Firth District on January 6, 1907. On Seprcmbcr 11, 1997, the Urrtttias;tnd 1LcGd tiled a
motion requcstin~~ the district cuun take judi~iul noti~~ ul~ (1) at list comhilcd by the Blaine
County assessor listing= the ~in~_Ie-family subdi~ iion~ ,~pprovcd by the Boaril in the coutlty's A-
2O z_rntc; hct~~"ccn 1974 and 1996; and (?) the 13c,aril' ~eptcrnbcr 4, 1997 action approvin~~ Phase
!1 of the Prairie Sun R,znch Subdivision I~~cat~d in the A-20 zone. 1'hc district judge granted the
motion to take judicial r-oticc and is~ucd its m~ntuiandum decision art Fcbruaty 2, ] 99A. in that
decision, the di;trietjud~~c li~und th<1t (I) the E3i~ard had misunderstood and t;tiled w properly
ahrly the district jud~zc's decision in Rn~c~i•s v. f~luin~ Cucrut) ; (?) the Board's decision to rcjt;ct
the ~~pplications based upon non-cont'orntity with the comprehensive plan was contrary to L3one r,
Cir-~ r~/ l.t>>,+~isrvn, 107 ldabo 34~t, G93 P.2d 1 U46 (19$x); and (3) the t3oard's justification i'or
denying the applications was invalid, and the Heard ~st,tblishcd, as a matter of law, that the
applications tiverc in full cornpliancc with the zonin;.z ;tad subdivision ordinance's. The district
jud~s~ rwers~d the k3~~au-d'; d~~i~iwr ~utel ~~rde,~_d the 13uard to ~~rant thr ~-hhlicatiom. The disu•ict
judge awarded casts. but Hat attot'ncy fcc tv the l!rrutia; and Recd. Blaine C'otanty }ilec! its
N~~ticc cif Ahpc11 on March IG, 1~)c)$ ~uul un Ahril 7, I`)~)8, thr Urrutias and Reed tiled their
Ni~ticc ol~ CroS~-Al~l>cal.
3
P.O5
MAY 05 '00 140? PAGE.05
May-05-00 15:16
11.
I he Idaho Attminiaruti~ ~ 1'rorcdurc; :\ct ((U,11',\) _~),crtta the rc~•rc~~~ i)f loyal
aitntinitr.ttivc tlcciaic,n;. ('nrne•r r C'r~urrts~,.,/ l,rir: f'rrlls. I'~U Idaho 4.13..1;7. 912 f'?d ~~7, ,(,I
(1~)~)71, lu ttt~ ,ippcal from the decision ul';t diatriet court acnn_7 in its appellate capacity unilcr the
In~\t':\, this C'uurt review, the a~st:rtcy rt;coril indcpcndt'ntly ufth~ district Court's decision. lrt.;
Hosv;rr'cr' 4'. C'cur)v~rr Cuurr!)~ Rrf. r~/ C'r)runr'i•.,~, I?K lctaho 479, 450, ~)I i P•2tl 7Uy, 71U (199G). Tltc
Court iloea trot sub~titutr its jutl~~incrtt for that c)t the a2~ncy as to the weight ofthc evidcn~c
1)rest:ntccl. LC'. ~ (i7-;2701 I ). The C:c)urt itttcad defers to the a2cnry's lindin~s of tact unlctis
they are clearly crroncoi~,. C'crsrcrrrerlu s'. lirvs;lrr~„r C'ur;t,., 13U Idahi) ~)2:,, ')26, 930 N.2d 1262,
12G~ (I ~)~)1) (cirin~~ S'ncrrlr F~~rlc Cuu/i!(urr r. (3nurrl rr/'('nnlnr'r,~• r~/'j3wrrtc'ri!/r C'ncuu~~, 1 17 Itlaht>
817, 86U, 7~)2 f .2t1 552, 885 (1990))• In otl-cr word;, the a_,cncy's I~tcural determinations are
bindin~~ un the rcvit:win~~ eourt, even where there i,r contlictine e~~idencc before the agency, so
lung as the determinations arc support~tl by substantial coutpt;tcnt cvidenc:c in the record. Id.
I terc, thy' Board is trcatccl as an atlmirtistr.rcit•c trl,Cncy liar purpost:a oC judicial review. Sc~c~ Sr>uth
Fvrlr• 117 lctaho at 860, 792 1'.2d 1t 831• The Court may overturn the board's decision wherf; the
board's tindin~s: (a) violate statutory or conaitutional provisions; (b) exceed the abcncy's
statutory authority; (c) ar•C made upon unlawfirl pmcedurc; (d) arc not supportctl by substantial
evidence in the rccorit: or (c) 1rc arbitrary. caF>riciou,, or act ahue of ctiscrctiun. l•C. C
67-,279(•). l"hc It;tr[)~ attacking the t3olyd'; d~Cl~li)n nltl~t tll~t IItUStrltl', that the Board crrt:d in a
manner sltcciticd in LC:. ~ G7-~27t)l3), nntl [hen that a substantial ri~~ht has been prejudiced.
Pri<•<r ~~. Pcryc~~rc Cr~rurt~~ BcI. nj"C vcurry Caurru7•.c, 131 Idaho 426, 429, 958 P.ld X83, 587 (1 X98).
if the Koard's ~~ction is not aftirmt:d, "it shall be set aside .., and rt:munded fur further
procccdin~~s a, ncctasary." 1.C;. ~ G7-~27~)(3).
P.O6
MAY 05 '00 14:08 PAGE.06
May-05-00 15:16
111-
THE ii(~,~.RU ERK~U 1\' I)I•;\'~C'1\C: 7'JIE. Sl.~[3t)1~'ISIU\" ;1F'1'LIC',~T10i`iS I;~SCn U\
i~'U~,-CU,~IPI.I,~;~(;ftr ~~'1~1'll THL ('U~IPKE;IIi;i\S1~"F; PL:1~~
1'hc Board iniiialJv approved hotll the l!rruti:l> and Rcctl ;uhdivisi,)u apnlicatirn,.,, tintiim~
that the: l~rrutias' l>rnpi>sal ~litl nat cntircl~ r~)nl~)rnt to the cr),rlprehensi~~~ plan, while Recd'. did
comply'. 1 hr fivard iur,hcr tountl ;Itlu hurl, application; cin,furnutl to 131aine C'ounty', zonin~~
rn•tlinance and ~ubtlivi.i,)n ordinance. Un rcnulnd t~~)nr the iistrict juduc, the 13,)ard iicnied bc)th
subtiivi,icttt al)plicatit)n~; b<I~~~d c~~ntiully t>n tllc 13o;u-d'~ can~lusion that neither subdivision
C~rtlplted wlth tl)t: C:UR)1)1'eI1CI1SIVC 1)I;ln~'lk: district jud`_c dctenttincd that the Boord errec! in ttS
reliance ,~n the contprnhen.ive pJaut al,~ne as a basin lur dcnyin~ the applications ~1nd with that
portion of the district jud;c's decision, we a~,rec. 13CC;lust:, under IllAPA, the district court Or
this C;Dort are li,ttitetf in the ;tctiai)s which Wray be taken in reviewin`, an a~,eney deei,iun, this
case roust he rcm;lndctl bllcl: tp the ]3uard tr)r cunsideratiw) ufthcae subdi~~ision application;
applyin~~ the proper sunldards.
A brief review ofthe purpose ofa crnnprchcnivc; plan within the framework of the; Local
Land Use Planning Act will help explain this Court's view of the appropriate standards to be
ap}~lii`d byth~ Ruard on rt:,nlutd. The l.ocal'L;utd Use 1'lannin~~ net was pronlulsated to ensure
the orderly and efreuri~ c tlc~~elopmc,tt c)f• I;tntl to the fjcnctit t)I' ldah~~ ciliren>..See I.C. ~ 67-
fiSO'. TI1c Act indictuc;s that .l contprchcn~i~c plan surd ~t~onilt~~ ordinance arc distinct concept,
serving dift~rcnt pu-'post;s. A conlprchcnsivc I)i1n,-ctlccts the "des" • I ~ ~* als;md ob;~ctives, r,r
desirable future situations" frn• the lattcl w~ in ;t urisdictic)n. LC. ~ fi7-6508. Thi Cow-t lt<~`~ held
that 1 COLTIprChCrhl~'C plan d,)c~ not ol)crati=~ts.•Ie~~;lily cnnn•ollin~T zt~nin~~ la~~'. but rather serve' o
,,
~_uide and a~•Ivisc thu ~!overnrnenrll ai;cncic: rcaponsihle for makin_? xpnim~ decision,. Socrrh
r'or/c Cc~ulitiu,r -•, Qnc;!•rl r f"C'utuu}~ ~5'ontnt 'rs uJ l3uttrtet•illc~ County, 117 Idaho K57, 863, 792 P.2d
,,
882, ~8S (1090) (quoting 1inn~~,~\,E'i~}~4~'•Let~is~~~n, IO7 Idaho K,14, 850, 693 P.2d 1OaG, lOS2
.~ .
(1 `)~-1)): c./:.1t~rc~~r~er. Gtzrhl) ~~~ ~1.~•uc.~~., /,rc.. r. C'ir•t~ n/ l /u;lc,y. 127 ld;thu S7G. SBS. 9U3 P.2d
7~1I , 7a0 (I ~)~)j)4 ~cr~1'cv•~. KIINIUIltI% Cnurr;l' /~„rri'<l nJ'C'uu,nl 'r.''. 1 I 0 lillhu 37. 3~, 714 I'.2d 6. 3
(I ~tib): f'c'r,~tr.w;r) , •f~';~ur~f n/'(',urnl)' ('un,n, 'r~~ /,n'.arlu C~'r,rr,r~l•, 1 ! 0 iil~lhp 7~j, 7R7, 71 S f .2d
~`
12'.3, I;?;?S (1`)61, "11t~ Board may. nc~rcti~ru, rul'cr t„ the caml)rchcn;i~'e nl,ut as a uencral guide
P.07
MAY 05 '00 14 08 PAGE.07
May-05-00 15:16
r\
in itt;[;tn~u` ins i?It in~* zt)nin~_ ~lt:~i.ioni such ,t, rl•~ i;in~~ i?r;tili>I)[int~ :t 7nrt~n_> urdinancv. ,~~
Ztl/ttll`_ tll'CIln:trl~'t.', I)~ l;l?nlr;l.~l. r~t1CC~.i thL ~?il•nlttf~'l) a~t:~;111t1wCil tt)1' ~QrR)lt~ I);trCCl~ wlthtll t1tC
iuristlit.•tit)n. S~'e I.C'. ~ l?%-GPI I. C;I~un alai, di.;int:riun. ?~~~ turn to an c,~:tntinatirtn ofthu
CUlltl'c)II1lt~~ Lf~~ !n III1~ CaSt`: tlt~ Zun,rl`~ t)fcl1n,111CC ,,nCl iuhdl~ l.;inn i)rtlu)~In~C,
~r{~~~~-~'~.\ccurdin~ tc~ Ihr zt)uim~ l)rdinunt:c, tli~ I)u,~pu,c t)Ftltc A-~U tli,u•tct i~ "tu }7rcacrvt thuau
' ~! ' hinds cnl,cr I)rt:;cntly in alricultur~l u,c, yr hnv' ,~
ut~ I)t)tcnttal br z~tricultur~tl oars.' CI)e ordina„t;
Further I)ruvil.lcs That the ntinin,unt lot areit in a subdivi5iun in this district is ti) be twenty acres
;,Itd U\CJ i)t C114 land f~)r alsricultural purpuaes or ainglc-liu))ily resiilcnce, arc atrwng tlto,e
pcrmittt^d, f3otit the Urrutitts aril Ret:d subdivision ~tnplie<ttivns satisfy these rccluiretncnts.
The; suhdivision ordinant:c pruvitlt:a three rcduiramt:nts with rusl>t:ct to these st,tbdivision
,applications. Tt is only the first of those three rcgt,ircmr:nts, however, tivltich has created tlu;
liil~icultics prescrttetl nn ap})cal. That provision ,talcs that "land bcin~ subdividc;d shall conti)rm
to the C.umhrehcuat~'t: Flan, tht: zonin__ ordincu)cr, this suttdivision ordinance. and other
urctinan~c; in cl'I~ct in the C;ounty," In its liras con:idcratit)n ut'tht' Urruti;t, and IZceJ
suhdivi,ic~n a})plit:ationa, the 13uard utilized tht: contprcht_n,i~e plan a; a '•~~uidt:line", subordinarc
to the zonin~~ anli subdivision ordinanl:es..Aftcr rt;~ictvin~? the tindin~ss 111(1 CUnC1US1UnS, the
district jud~c rcmande;d the cast: back to the 13ottrd with the tolluwinz instructions:
Ru~ct:; nr~~uta that ,cction 9.~ I (I) uFtht: f3luin~ County (,otnprchensivt: Plat
rtaluires su'ita canti~r,nution with the C';uml)ruhcnsivc Nltm. ThG lan~u;t~tc °shall
conform to the compn;hen~ive plot)" atutll bc~ivcn tht: same interpretation as
Idaho Code § G7-f>jOS in the Boat: vs. Lewiston case. `rjti.(:nuuty
~.On)I)11SalUnt't:S arc to tt )1 the same srandar ~ u: ^ t~~cess of
uialyzin;s t e ts.ucs unctr;r bolt Idaho C:odt: G7-6~~13 and Blaine County
~- ... --
C:cttrtpre 1t:nSIVC an St:ction t)O1(I) (sic).
The Hoard tltcn issut:il its ~e~unJ dcCi~ic?n rt:lyim~ ahnt?;t I:ccluai~elY un the
comprt:hcn;iv~ pluil tU dCny Ihl applicatit)n, linc}ine that "prGS~rv~tic)n ot'thc lt~~ricultur,l
cotnmtutity i, a 'hrintary ohjetaiv4' u[ the plan" alit) that aphruval aFthc af~plic,ttions `'would
advelxly impact thu a~~ricultural character of the aurrttundin~ art;a." Ott revit:w, the district
jud~c then I~uund that this k3oard hall t.~rrtaa b~. rt:lyirrT .,t)Icly un the can)prcht.~nsivc plan, applyin~~
it as il' it ~~•rrt~ ,t ZGnln.~ i)1'ilin111i:i:.
G
P.08
MAY 05 '00 14.09 PAGE. 08
May-05-00 15:17
s~
•' ~ a~j~l,~.
J 1'I,c (u~;ti~~n arc;cntcd i; ~~h,lt i, ,,1~ailt b~ tlr~ 1,hra,~ i,r the ,uh~1i~ i.;i,~,r c~r(lini~nc::
requu-in;~ the 13,.,ard t<r detcrminr that nc~ Inn(I ter he znh,li~ is}uc1 ",11,111 rr~ntorm tO the
C'unlhrchcn;iv4 t'Itnt...." This rc~luirc,rrcn: rc~fuirc; ~rnly that the Iturd ur he ,ubdividd ~_>cncrtllly
c,,,npurt; ~~,~ith the nv;:ra11 ~~ual, of the c~rmhr~hcn~r~ ~ hlan. t31:1inc C',>unty's ~ilnrprch(;nsi~~~ plan
tux ~rnly (licu:.c, the i,npurtancc of a~~nculturc to the :u-ca, but als~~ .cts I~rth ~__>uidclinc;
re5ar~lim~ cecm~rmic: clevelotrnlcnt, h,~usin2, lancl u3C, huhlic .crvicc,, facilities and utilities and
rccrcat,nn, arnun~ Ut11Cr5. Ir1 dC2L't'n11nln~! whether the land "cuntor,ru u~ the crnnPr-~hcn:ive
plan" for thz purlm,es crf a st,bdivisi~?!r AI?J~lyli~~n_thc l3oarrl is 5irttply rcc~uire(1 to look at all
1F1CCl~ crf the c.rmhreh~nsir~ plan anal assure that the lan~l tits within <t!1 cat r11c vuious
cwrsiit~ratir~ns set tilrth in nc~ ul:ul. It is to b~ c.~lrcctc(I char the land to be subdi~idcd tray trot
a,~ec with all provisions in the Cv,trprChcn.ivc plan, but a nlc~re sl)ccilic analysis, re;ullinl~ itr
denial ref a subdivision application based s~lcly on non-comh(iance with tlr4 comprchcn~ivc plant
elevate` the ptan to the te~el of Ie~?ally contrnllim~ z(>nin~~ ltrw. Such a result affords the Board
unbounded discretion in cxaminin~~ a subdivision :tpplieation and allow; the I~oard to cfl'cctiv(~ly
rc-•rone Itnril based on tllc 4~cn(tral lan~~ua~,~: in the c,lnrhrchen;ive Man. A; in(licated above, the
cotrlarellensivi; plant is intended rncrc~ as a ~ruidclinc wh(tas...~ril I11arY.ttss~.i~i~uir,iirtg~onin
decisions. Those zonin;; cJecisions havo already b4(~n made in this instance, .and hlnd subdivided
____r-
into twenty-acre Ivts and used far sincle family r~siil~nces is shecitically permitted in this
a~~riculturttl arc;a: T'hu.i. we a~~rec with the ~li;tric~ juil~~~ that the F3 o;1rCl erred in rr;Iyin~
CUlllhl~tely on the comhrchensi~c plan iu den~~im, thc~c aphliculiuna. and should instead have
crafted its tindinl~s of tact and conclusit~n; of Ittw to cic,n(lnsn'atc that the `,i,ul ofthc
conll~rehensive plan wGrc consid~`reil, but were sitnpiy used in con.iuncti(m with this zonin~~
UCdlntlllCE'S, [hC JUblIIV1S10n Ord111anCt: told tiny other al>plicablc ordintnlccs in evaluating the
pnrl)crse(1 fIUVeIt)hI11e11rS. BCCaUSe the f:3oClfd acle(I In Vl~latli)n l)f the lta[UtUt'V ul'U4'ISIi)nS, we
rcrnun~l this issue for t"u,zhcr can;idcr,rtion. L('. § 67->279(~~.
1 ~".
AUllI'1'!O\~1L 1SSUU5 r'RL51v\"l t:() ON _~PPl:.11.
P.O9
MAY 05 '00 14 09 PAGE. 09
May-05-00 15:17
~\ ~"\
1'I1~ C'tn,nt~ ha; tai;~il :1 nulllbt;r t)f orh~r i,~u~~ an app.~al- •'~\ here an ;lppcll.lte ~iun~
rCVt:raC~ ill' ~'aCalCa it)U11~'111Cnt lll)i111 .111 1. ~;1~ pl"t)t)el'ly 1';IlCtl, and hl'lllallil,~ tUr tuflllCf
pri)cccdin~~a. it m;lv ~~ive .,uillancc t'or otht:r• iS3ut;a otl renulnd," I'rir•c•, 131 lilalw at 431. 9i~
1'?~1 .1; ~~~{ (gttt)till`, C~crnr~~riir!r.~ ~• ('r.!ntn7iil,;s, I 1 ~ Itl~llto 1 `~(>. It)0, 7~~ F'.'ll Gi)7, 701 (Lt. Allt~.
li)ti~)t. \\'~ wlll thcrt:ti~re :uliltti,. t1rt; r~rl~lind~r t)t'thc ar~~unl~ut, prr;untull by the C't)unty c1n
apl)cnl I~or the 1)urpl>sc i)1 1)ru~ iilirnt ~~u-ll~ulr~ c)tl rcll),tn~1:
•'~. "1'he I3n.~rd refl•tricrivel) all plied the 1 r)t)J cornprchensive pl:u1 tv the Ur,•utius'
subdivision application.
"1•he l~rnnias filed their subdivision itpplicatirnl on Sc:prember 22, 1')94. •1-he Dn;~rtl
~~ruuc;d preliminary plat approval on February 21, I i)i)~, sunim~ that tilt-`;ubctivision prort~sal
c;onfc)rmcd the the znnint ordiniu~ce and iubliiviic~n ordinance but "iloca nt)t eonfarm entirely to
the (.'nttlprchcnaive Plan in that ~ubdivisit~ns t]t'e t:ncc~ura~,t:d nearest population center;." his
uncltatr whether the Bo;~rll was rtaerrinc to the 1975 eornprchen,ive plan or the 1994
cornprche:nsive pl;tn. 1c is clear, ht~wevcr, that when tho Board denied the Urrutias subdivision
application lin remand fmm the district court, it llid;~ based nn non-compliance with the I99d
eompr~h~n;i~t: plan.
"fhc li)t)4 t:plnpfCllLnaiVC phut witJ adnlxcll on Navc-nbi:r 7, ll)`),1. The Bt>lrii pr~uC~ that
the 1`?I'IC111111Ci11 section of the 1994 comprehensive plan wits adopted on October 13. 1993, and
was thus in effect when the Urnuias tilell their ~ubdivi5ion apt,lication. nlthc)ugh tht; first pale
ol'thc a~sricultu1:11 section statt;s "adoptcll by Blaine County Board (Oi18i93." chi, I;~n~~uacc
sluxtJd mare ol>propriattay state: "appnwed by l~lainc County Bt~ard 10~ 18%9:;," The rcc;ilal pace
of the 1904 ootnprnc~nsive plrul states that iinuc 19~)U, the varit~u5 scctiuna of the I ~)9a
C.olnprchl;nsi~•t; 1't. ~ h cen ahprovt;il by the Board aril wort` tinitlly adohud on November 7,
1994. Idaho Cbdc 67-6~09(c? 'urthcr provides that "[n]o (contprchcnsive) elan shall be
ef~'~ctivc unless adclp[otl by r~so4utiurl ~ 111c C~uvcrnin,f board." '(•he x~ricult11r;11 section was
tl)ereti~rl: <~I~provrtl on nl:u~bt;r IK, It>93. but not adopted with tllt; comprchcn.iv~ plvl until
Nc)ven,bcr i, I`)t)4. 'I hr [3uarll ahu ~itcd ~]c~rlions trt"the land oat; ~t:etiun ot•the I')94
cuntprchl;n;ivop1an which w;1 ntn alloptcll until Vu~clnbt:r 7, ;t)9~. and uas reviSt:d on ltnlt: j,
1 ~~)?. ~I hl: E~uard thus reu"i)actively applicc! 1ho ;,~~ricultural anal 1,1ni1 u,c ;cctii)ns of the 1991
S
P.1O
MAY 05 '00 14 09 PAGE. 10
May-05-00 15:17
ci,rnpr~.h~n,i~.'r 11tH :,~ the l'rrutiat, ,uhdi~ i,ic~n :rl~hli;:;rii,,n.
~~ Idaho la~~ r> t~rll ~,rahlt~hcci that art ahhli~:uu', ri;tlrt. ,u~i• d;;t.rntinrcl I>~ tlri; urciinan~c in
'xiacnre at the time ~il•liline,ur ul?pli"tticur. Ncn'e'tr<' It'i,'c'r~'r•r,~~rrt.r~l~r„r<~rs,i~s~~c., r. Gcacnzln/
Cwn1+u'r'a uj b'crllcs' C•u., 1,3? lilaltt~ >i I, ~ij, `.)7(i I'.?d-177, .151 (lc)i)~)). The I3crtrCl ~Itvuld have
cv;tluarcd the l!rrutias :uhdi~•isic~n ahhlicatian under the I~)S cc~niprehcn;ive hlon. Thus un
renuuul. the l3uartl ihould consider the Urruuas ;q~plication by cx:uninirt`~ the 1~I7~ vcr,icm ctl`th~•
cc~ntlu•chunivc plant. nut the I c>9~1 vt:r~ic~n.
H. "1'hc Urrutias and Rcrd arc nut precluded from chullen~irra the dish•ict judtie's
~:trlicr decision or from raising new arguments.
The Roard advances scvcrll remedial doctrines, quasi-cs[oppcl, law of the case., res
judicata :uxl cvllatcrctl estoppel. in an ttttcmht u~ Ixet:luile the Urr•utin5 and Rr.ed from challen~~in~?
the district jud~_c•~ iteci;icon in Rr>~c-,-., ,•. Glcrl,rr C`~~rrn~t•, the earlier judicial review pructa;din`c,
Ind ti•oitt n~isin new ar._umcnts in thi; pr~scnt action. None t~l'thc rtal~cdial doctrinzs tthhly here
l7ecatuse the district juct~~e's ctccision in ku~c~+s sirttply rcnulnded the cast; back to the 13~ard for
further factual tindin~~,. "1'lterc has bt:cn no n:liance ur detriment uazbli,hrrd by the E3oarti, nor
was there 1 tin11 decision which would bar turthcr action.
The Botud contends that tha doctrine cif quasi-estoppel barn tht: Un-utias from arvuing
bzti~rc the district court that tht: 1~)9a cnmprchcnsivc plan di~t:S not apply to the Utrutius
suhdivi;ivn application bt:causc the Urru[ia~ maintained a contrary position in Ruger•s, Quasi-
estoppel applies wltcn a party asserts a claim ar Imsition inconsistent with a position previously
tskt:n u~ the detriment of the party seekim~ application of th4 dacn-ine. Scr-t Valle- Plot Sh+•i~tgs
h'crnc•h, l+rc, t~, K<-L~c~) , I :> I Idaho 6a7• (rGZ• 6~)3 P.2tl l O~t 1, I O4G (I t)~)!i); KTG'G. tJ4 Idaho at 2£{ I -
f3'. =FfSG I'.2d at Ana 9;. The incun~i~tcnt hoaition niut Itavt: prot:urcd sc~ntc 1t11 onta__>c trt the
challen_~ed party yr priuluced acme disadvanta~sc tv tht: challcn,~in~ party. KT! d. 94 Idaho at
?.SI -$2. 4SG I'?d at 9~>~1-9~. Fl~rc, the Loartl h.ts failed w Gst:tblish IhC Clotriil1Crti it v~.~~uld incur
by aphlyin~_ the I!)7j comhrtatcnsivt: hltut,rn<I, thus, hati failal to prove a critical clcntcnt of
quu,i-tstoppcl,
The 13ctard nett [n~,,Ue that the Urrutiaa ~uu1 Rceif ;huuld br ban"Cd tt'U111 Challen;tln~, the
tli5tric;r iuil;,~'s drei,iG,n in Rc~~~rr,' untlcr the doctrine of law of tht: case. The d~ctrin~ of law of
9
P. 11
MAY 05 '00 14.10 PAGE. 11
May-05-00 15:ZZ
/'1 ~+~
the ra,r I>ru~ ides that ~~ here an al>f~ella[c C,~ur! srlr~~ ct I>rini:iple c, f' (~n~- in clcci(lin~s a rase, that
talc hri:~~rir; th,; la~~~ t~fthe c:,:~ anal i. ~c~n[r~,llin`s ,n the I~~~~cr cc,urt anil rn ;uhacilucnt aht~c.~l:.
5'tur:- ,~. C•~•r<'<•!i, 1 ~' Idaho I . ~) ~'~ n. I . ~l(,!> P.'~I I . ~) ~'~ n. I [ I')`I5 ). 7I,c cluep'un: clc~c, nc~t apply
iu chr pr~;cnt cac hc~:uu•r the cl[ariL! )ucl`<< slid ncn .uuti~uncc ,aloe prinrihlc i~t'contrc~llin~, Iaw;
rather. Itc ,e,~t rite r~ts~ Uack I'or turtl~cr factual tindim~,.
l'hc board alac) cc~ntcnd; that the l-rrutias un~l Itccd (trc barred fr0,n challern~in~_ the
Rr~+.;cr.~~ ilcci~iun under rhr dc~ctrinra of r~> judi~at., and culltuer<tl r,t(~11~c1. 13ccausc we bullcvr
IhC t(IJII-Ir[~Ud~~~~i dcci.i,~n in Rn~crr.~ ~imhl~ ri`lnnn~lcd the CiUC ti)1' tl.U~hi`,' tnldln~'i, 1[ ~~;]~ nU1 it
linal and binding, sd,ju(1ic~tion c~fthc is;urs I,ro;cntcd. 1•hus ncithcr cloctrinc applies.
C. "fhe district court co~umittect harn~ltiys error by }-ermirtinr the Urrutias tmd ReecJ to
suphlentent the cvitlcnce belure the Bo:u-d.
The Urrutias and Rrcd tilrti a motion rciiurtin_~ the district jud;~c to take judicial notice
ufthe I=3(?ard'i apf~rnval e~f (wcr thirty,in_~le-family rrid~ntial ubdivisiuns in the A-?0 lone
during, the hcri~d ti~om 1 c)7A t~ IH~1G. 'I he disrnct jud__>c was also a,kctl to take judicial n~ticc ~t
the k~vard's approval of tltr Prairie Sun Ranch St,bdiv~ision. located in the A-20 zone, nn
Scptctnbcr 4, 1997, "fhe district juil~~c 2rantcd the motion. The Roard ar4ues that the district
judge erred because the evidence waS puhidc the rcc~rd beti~rc the 13a1rd and the district judge
should hdvc rentt~ndr,a the matter to the 13(t;~rd fc,r further titer tirulim~.
Judicial review cal' liutual i~su~; under IUAP.a is ~~overnrd by 1-C'. a G7-;i277. Section
G7-x'_77 state; that "ju(iirial review ol'disputr~l isucs dffacr must br continc(I to the a~~ency
record ti~r•judicial review as droned in this chapter, suhplemrnred by additi(~nal widcncc taken
hursunnt t~~ ;croon G7-~27(r, ldahu C'c~clc." Lt". ~ G7-~_'7G provides that the district rourt'luay
rrmnnd the matter tc~ the a!tenry with direction: that the a~~enry receive ailditional evidence and
conduct aclditinnal dirt tlndln~„" wlti;ll li I~ CiC1l)Il~hc(I that "there Overt.: food reasut7s for failure
t0 pt'cSCnt IT Ill the: hr~~ccedin~ brl'orr th~~ a~~eney." That statute further provides that the disu•irt
coat! nary rleeivC ;t(iditii~nal cvidrncc uh(t,t hroofol'anv "allc~rial irrr~,~laritie: in prurocluri
beti~re rite t[~~cncy." I.1(:rc, ncithcr (rxceptirnt in 1.C:. ~ (i7-5276 is :tpplirable. The Urtt,tiits and
f~ecd cliil n,it rstahlish ~~uc~d rra:c~n for the t;tilurr to present cviclcnec of the f3c~arrl's prit~r
ttht?royal ot'sin2lr-f:uiiily resiilcntial iubdl~ tsiuns in the A-?0 zone. Th(: Urrutia~ and Rccd al~(~
P.Ol
MAY 05 '00 14 14 PAGE. 01
May-05-00 15: Z6
~"'~ /~.
did n~u point t~l any prt~ccdul<II irre~~ul~n"ity bcti+rc the Board «hich would ituthc~rirc the district
jud;.:~ t~~ rccci~ c cvidcnr~ beyond the a,~~nc~• rccc,rd. The ~li,trict jud~~c Ihu, ,hocllct nix have
hcrtnitt~:d additi~~nal e~ id~nrc eu-, ;1„unun~~ the l: troll,, an~1 I~.ed held c~tabli~h~d ~oe~d rca,elns
1171' 111 t;~ Idt;llil;ll'~' I",111UrC bi111)I'l Il1C ;L".C+1C~. Illc ~1i,h'iC[~UiI~C ,Ill)Uld I7;I~c 1'~:+T1;Ir1Cl~d dll I1711ti1'.l'
to the L3uard fc~r additic7nal I;ut tiuilln~r, ~` c note that cur dcci,ion in liwrl;rnulr Funnily
~CIYlIIC'-'~/;Jf> r'. (iris r~/ ~~t°rn l-'u!(s. IU4 Idah~~ ~', (>?~ i'.7.d ~)2h l l `)~?) is dt~tin~zuiahablc: from this
case. 111 tbi~rl,~nu-r. tlrc City.rr~ucd that the dis[t~ic;t Cilurt erred in can;idi:rin,> atldition,ll cviclcnce
which was rlut presented to the City C'auncil. N ~,r•lu'rturr is distin_*uishablc in that the tldditional
evidcnc:u w1: stilxllatcil into evidence by the City itscll' Ilnd the City I;~iled to objet [~
cunsiiieratii~n of the evidence by the disn•ict ::curt.
The District juD~e's error here, hc»vcvcr, way hurmlcs;. 'I~hc burden is upon the l3uard to
establish a prejudicial error and error is prejudicial only il' it could have afl'ccted ur did nffeet th[;
outcnn~e oI ~ procer:dint. SNr l3trr;et~,e r..S'ulrrln~r /~il•<'r• C'urur! Co., 1 l ~) Idaho 299, 306, 8~S I'.2[i
1223, 1230 (1 x)91). Hcrc, the 13uard hn no[ shown that its n~chts were prejudiced as ~ result of
the I~isuict jud~~c's d~risiun to include the ~Idditir7nul inti~inlatiun. The district jud~~e, in hip
C)pitrion Re' Nc[i[ion tut Judicial Review, ifid nut n-cntiun the L3oard's prior approval of sin~~lc-
family rcaidential subdivisions in the A-20 ~c,nc or the t'rairie Sun hunch Sllbdi<<ision in the A-
2U zoni;" Inste~t[I, the district judge focused on thr t3otlyd's mis~ipl)lication of the t:otrlprchensivc
pl:ln rind miain[crhretution of b'unc~. l he additional evidence thus appears to have played no role
in the district jud;e's decision and its ailnus,ion constituted, ~u lnosi, harmless error.
n. ~C'he rlistricl judge did nut err in aenyinb the Urrutius :rod Rccd attorney Pees
because the Bo:[rd acted with a reusoriiable basis in 1:9ct or la-v.
"The district judge denied attorney tcc~ to the Urrutias and Recd nn review under LC.
12-1 17, statin~z that "(ajtturncy's fees under LC;. § 12-1 17 arc denicD ._. on the basis that the
Lour believes tllar the Respondent. 131aine C'UUnty, felt that ,~ justici~lble controversy existed in
1111S I11tttlCr. illld [hat liti`sutic7n shcrulcl nut be discl7ura~~cd." "I Ills C'ourt's stvut,~rd of rc~ic~~• ot~
di.u•ict court dt:eisipns arplyilr, l.C'. ~ 12.1 l7 i• in7C t~l' free revic~~~. N~rl'evrc' Rir•c~r• /'rn~~cr~+•
~)rl'1JE'1'\' .-t.esvc.. r. L~~~<ird uj Cr~r~rm~ 'roc rl/ l•irllc•J• C'~~tr;rl t', n~~. ? ;773, 1 ;.'. I~I~lho » 1. »g, 'J76 1'.Zd
P.oz
MAY 05 '00 14 18 PAGE.02
May-05-00 15:27
/'~
Idaho C'~~d~ ~ I ~-I I %t I ~ rc~lutr~; .,n :,~~;u-d ~~t~;,tturnc~ I'~~i in an~• ~,Itninistr:uicc ar rig t1
I?ritccc~lin~~ im~tl~ ut~ :ut ;,~tcn~~ t~hure the Itri",t~ i?atZv,ccl:in~, I'crs ttrc~ail.:.ind Ihc.t__cnc~y
acted ~~ itllaut a rrasonahlc ba>i; in tact or la~~~. •'~Itllcau~h th,; 13ct~ril erred in rotr,~ncti~ely
:tl~hl~inu the I~)~~rt c,~rn(?rchcni~c pi:ut t,t th;; Urruti,,, ;uLdi~~i:iun.lltphcati~~n. the f;,tard did ttc,t
uel w•ith,~ut a rc~:~mabfc h,t,iz in tart 7r I,,~~, l he L3oarcl it:tcd in a ~~~y that r:tirlyi,nii r~irionlbly
add,-ras~d tl,r di;trirt jud~Tt:' in,tn~cttona ~»t rcnrutd. Wo acc.>rdin;Jy h,tld that rite district judge
did trot Orr in dcnyim, Urrutrts' cool Rccd's rr~luct I'urattorncy rec. under i.C'. ~ l~-I 17:
~' 1.
1•h~ district judo c's decision orderin~~ approval of the Urrutias anal 1Zced subdivision
applications, i; hereby ~•acated surd mllruulec! tq the t3u<u-d titr further pruceedines, We do not
award coats or attctrncy rr~s nt cithCr party.
Ju,ticcs SILAK. Wr~L"i'E:IZS. K1nWFl,~ and .lu;ticc Pro'Cun S,tit1Tl1, CONC~I'k.
"L
P.03
MAY 05 '00 14 18 PAGE. 03
May-05-00 15:14
WHITE, PETERSON, PRUSS, MORROW ~ GIGRAY, P. A.
AT"IQRNEYS AT 1.~?v
ZOCI EAST CARLTt)N AVENUE. SU[TE 31
JULIE KL1'IA FIIC.HER PI{LLIP A. PETFFwVN I'<2S'1" C>FFIC[: F10X IISO
WM F. GIB anv, lil SIEV•11lN L PRI:~~
BRF.NT JAHNSON F.au' S. RilnSU~N MEKIL~IAN, 1DAN0 81680.1150
[J. SAMVEL I011N'~+~N Tl1CU A. R7i5MAN TEL (7.on) 188.2499
WLLLIAH A. M~?RRQC~ DAVID M SvYn0.TGEY FAX (10tl) 288.2501
WuunM F. NICHOU• T~kR FNL"k R dM1 iF.••
C110.1RT:1PHE0. $ NTl'
•~LSn ADMITTED IN 00
••nL0 AUMIT'PFU IN 7/n
t~AC:SIMII.L'• TR~INSMITTAL
P.O1
NAMPA t~FFICt:
104 NINTH n~F.NUE SI.V I'H
POST VFFIt'F. BUX L97
NAMPA, IPAiIU 916?I•^297
TEL 1209?i6v.91?i
FAX (20x) 4f6 9405
PLEASE REPLY 'I 7
MERIDIAN UPFIt:E
~~.
_ FROM:~C~ ,. ~~')
Wtutc, I'ct~rso)1, Truss, Mc>rrcnv ~C C,,~r~l~
,~_ Melridian Office
PHONE: (2U8) 284-2499
~~,~~. ,~
_~--~
>(ncl,ciinsr c
sheet
Df1"I. ~:
•~ 1
TU:'
LUN[' ~? 1...~
PAX #:--~~~--~
PHONE ..._
NUMTiL-•R nT PA 'ES:
Confidentiality Notice: The contents of this transmission arc intendr.d to he seen
111d used c31-ly by the individual tcl ~vhc~r~t it is addressed. If VULL roceive this
tra,~smissic~u in error, please call oiar oftic:e so that we niav arran~r. to pick ul, the
dc)cument. arld route. it to the office it was intenclec~ for. Yol, may dill c<~llrct it
Lops; dista,lce: (208) 284-'1499. Thank you.
MAY 05 '00 14 06 PAGE.01
** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT **
.-~.
AS OF MAY 05 '00 1c•19 PAGE.01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
DATE TIME TOiFROM
06 05105 12=1? 2088886854
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MODE MIN~SEC PG5 CMD#t STATUS
EC--S 01'10" 003 121 OK
~~
~~
~/jijdil-CYi1'CL /W~'
Stiu ~m~is~O
Borup: Would we like some discussion or are we ready for a motion.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, with your assistance my recollection of our last meeting with
regards to this sign and it was my second meeting and did not have a real strong grasp
on the ordinances as well as I do now. That my primary reason for denial for this sign
was my interpretation of the ordinance saying that because he did not have freeway
frontage similar to Texaco that the sign did not fit into the ordinance or Comprehensive
Plan. Re-reading this and Miss Butler's comments that freeway frontage is not a
requirement for such a sign. Is that your recollection.
Borup: That is exactly the statement I made a year ago. I was in the single minority on
voting on this last time. I felt that this was a freeway business. I was in favor of the 100
foot sign but I was opposed to the pylon sign on Eagle Road. I felt that was more of a
gateway and wasn't consistent with what we wanted to accomplish there. At that time, I
was in favor of the freeway sign and was in favor of the monument sign on Eagle Road.
Now they've got their pylon sign on Eagle Road so I am not sure how I feel about that.
Having two pylon signs on the same property.
Barbeiro: One of the other concerns was the Texaco sign that we ali believe was a
mistake and that two wrongs don't make a right.
Borup: You've got to start at some point. And forcing what you feel is right or what the
new ordinance is going to be just because a mistake has been made or something has
not been enforced. That is no reason to ignore everything from that point on.
Somewhere things have to stop and start. I don't think that is a real pertinent just
because it was done in the past needs to be done now.
Barbeiro: Since this sign is going to have the greatest effect on Mr. Foley's property I'll
address him. The last time I voted against this was based upon what my interpretation
of a sign ordinance which was that it was not on the freeway property. After being
politely disagreed with in our last hearing, I believe I misinterpreted the sign ordinance
last time and I am going to have to go against you and the neighbors and vote for
approval on this.
Norton: Mr. Chairman I have a question regarding the ordinance and supplementary
regulation regarding signs and residential. Could somebody please interpret that for me
so I don't misinterpret it . It is 1114-2 under chapter 14 under signs.
Hawkins Clark: Any sign or sign structure located on a commercially zoned lot which is
adjacent to a residentially owned lot shall be set back to meet the side rear and front
yard setback. Is that the correct one? That would be if you had a commercial
~ .-.
.Meridian Planning and Zor. ~ Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 43
Borup: Any discussion. Might mention I think, go ahead-even though it is not adopted
yet, I think the new City landscaping plan will be proposing something real similar to
that.
Brown: Before we vote on this I'd like to make a comment. One of the things Mrs.
Wilder and the rest that commented, it would be beneficial for you to help knock down
those eleven items to get a street light at that intersection. If you would help support the
developer, I think it is to all of your benefit to alleviate those concerns that you talked
about.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES, 1 ABSTAIN
Borup: Hope we did the best we could. I'd remind you again that this is a
recommendation. It will be going to City Council and there will be public hearings on all
3 applications at City Council.
12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL POLE SIGN FOR
CHEVRON/MCDONALDS BY EAGLE PARTNER, LLC-603 S. EAGLE ROAD:
Brown: Mr. Chairman, I need to abstain from this one. I've commented on a similar
application prior to being on the commission and I would like to step down.
Hawkins Clark: Yes Commission, this application requests a modification to an existing
conditional use permit for Eagle Partners site. The site is cross hashed. The Idaho
Credit Union is on the north. The Chevron/McDonald's on the south. Both are built and
occupied. The request is to modify their conditional use permit and as pointed out here
on the southwest corner of the lot. Here is the credit union. They are proposing a 77
foot sign back here on Magic View. They have an existing 35-34 foot sign here on
Eagle Road. The staff report is dated March 9 and we request that those conditions be
included. We sited several issues from the Comprehensive Plan. The previous
application requested a 100 foot pylon sign. They have decreased that to 77 foot which
is the same height as the Texaco sign just to the south. Staff is recommending denial of
it.
END OF SIDE FIVE
Borup: Any questions for Brad? Would the applicant like to come forward.
Butler: Good evening to the Commission, 101 S. Capital. This has been going on now
for about 4-1/2 years on the site and as you know it is now occupied. It has been
developed. The landscaping put in and we are doing the last piece of the puzzle and
that is the pylon sign on the far corner along Magic View. I'll come back to the podium
Meridian Planning and Zor, ~ Commission Meeting .-•
April 11, 2000
Page 44
in just a minute but first I am going to have Craig Jamison from Idaho Electric sign come
and talk to the commission-just describe the sign.
Jamison: Craig Jamison, Idaho Electric Sign, 6528 Supply Way. Some of you have
been through this before, but I do see a lot of new faces here. I will try to make this as
brief as possible. The original sign we did request was 100 foot tall. We reduced that
down to 77 foot. As you can see from the site plan the sign is located in the back
corner. I do want you to understand the orientation of the sign. It is oriented to address
traffic on 84 headed east and west. In past meetings questions were asked about how
much light will be emitted from the sign. The neighborhood having the problem with this
is located to the north. That is not the directions the sign is geared toward. We are 600
foot from that neighborhood. I'd like to address staffs general comments and clear up
some issues. The first comment I'd like to address is the draft sign ordinance that has
been worked on for a number of months. That is not enforceable and we are working
under the current ordinance. Item number 3, the 34 foot sign all ready approved is
approximately 470 square foot. It actually is 334 square foot. The sign that we are
requesting is the 470 square foot sign. In terms of looking at signs all ready along the
Interstate, when I talk about square footage in terms of signs I tend to talk in terms of
actual sign space. We know the Jackson's sign is 77 foot over all height and that has a
total sign space area including the message center of 832 square foot. The Texaco
sign on Meridian south of I-84 is approximately 70 foot over all height. The Best
Western sign is an interesting sign. I don't believe it has frontage but if you look closely
at the picture you'll also see that there is a crane on it. Later we found out that the City
issued a permit to raise the height of that sign to what I understand to be 80 foot. The
Meridian Ford sign is approximately 85 foot. Then there are other signs back off the
freeway quite aways-Shari's, the McDonalds sign is a 100 foot sign. Roaring Springs
is about 60 foot over all height. The RC Willey sign is actually 35 to 40 foot from grade.
I also took a look at the Meridian Crossroads. You've got 4 signs, two on Eagle and two
on Fairview, 35 foot overall height. I calculate the sign square footage on those at 350
or more. There is a contention with the staff comments here that there are a lot of gas
stations and fast food franchises along I-84 no pylon signs have been observed
approaching this height. That is simply not the case. We think that the signs that are
found along the interstate are appropriate and feel it is appropriate for us to utilize one.
We do have representatives from Chevron and McDonalds here tonight. If approved
the pylon would be observed to be the high point on the horizon-that is not the case
either. I won't be the tallest sign. The high point on the horizon might be the hospital
and they have a sign quite high up on their building. Once again I would like to re-
emphasize that the sign that we are asking for is not in terms of the actual fascia or face
size, it actually comes out to 470 square foot. I'm open for questions.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, may I borrow the pointer please. Is the Texaco right here
toward the back.
Jamison: Texaco sign is on the front of the lot.
.-.
Meridian Planning and Zoe. .g Commission Meeting .-,.
April 11, 2000
Page 45
Barbeiro: You said you sign being back here would be facing east west and not having
an effect on these neighbors. In our last discussion regarding signs the neighbors came
from this 3~d and 4th lot and referring to the Texaco sign which is also facing that same
direction. By taking you sign from 100 foot to 77 feet that would put your light even
closer to the ground and make the neighbors backyard brighter.
Jamison: You make a perhaps valid argument. One of the things we discussed at the
last meeting and you came to the understanding I think sir was the higher the sign the
less impact it would have on anything in terms of the light emission. At 77 foot your still
up there about the houses. It is difficult-it is projecting east west. There is a lot of
lighting going on in that area that aren't just signs. The type of lighting that your dealing
with the Texaco sign is different too. You've got direct lamps that are in that message
center. They are constantly going on and off. Clear lamps that do emit a lot of light.
We are using Florissant lighting within this sign and that is basically to allow to disfuse
evenly over the face.
Butler: Jo Anne Butler again. The make up of the commission has changed over a time
but as you know we have been doing this now for all most 4 years. A little over a year
ago we came to the city -made applications to be reviewed under you sign ordinance.
As reviewed under your sign ordinance all the criteria of the sign ordinance are met by
this sign. The hearing that we had was tabled and the staff asked us to come back as a
conditional use modification because there is conflicting language in the conditional use
permit for the service station and credit union. We've done that to work with the city on
that all though we do agree that we should be reviewed under the sign ordinance which
indicates we meet all criteria. We also meet the criteria under the conditional use permit
criteria. We would proposed a couple extra conditions which we raised at the last
commission hearing. The sign would be turned off during the hours of 11 and Sam, and
the McDonalds sign to be turned off between 11 and Gam. This is zoned in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan, general retail and service commercial. The whole
purpose of that particular zone is to provide for commercial uses which are to provide
for auto and service orientated uses located in close proximity not next to, not with
frontage, but in close proximity to major highways or arterial streets and to fulfill the
need of travel related services. The goal of your CG zone is to serve the motoring
public. The applicant is with this sign application attempting to identify its business that
serves the motoring public. At the last hearing we mentioned to you that Mr. Kiler from
McDonalds mentioned that particularly in a motoring business, a business without a
sign is typically a sign with no business. That is what we are finding at this particular
site. The projected sales at this site has not been at the level we expected. Under you
ordinance, we have to show that it is harmonious and in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan. It was zoned in accordance with your Comprehensive Plan.
Your Comprehensive Plan does identify the area as a service commercial in nature.
The general retail and service commercial zoned for the property promotes your
Comprehensive Plan goals. Meridian states in its Comprehensive Plan that you want to
support and stimulate economic development by designating commercial activity
centers in the city and this project is located right in the middle of one of those. Your
Meridian Planning and Zoe. .g Commission Meeting ~
April 11, 2000
Page 46
land use element of the Comprehensive Plan also shows that you are to provide mixed
use along the I-84 corridor compatible with the high volume projected and planned for
this area. This mixed use area in the vicinity of Eagle and I-84 is under your
Comprehensive Plan a priority development area. The location of the Eagle Partners
project promotes your commercial policy that encourages commercial uses especially
travel related services near high intensity activity areas such as freeway interchanges.
Eagle Partners has been working diligently with the city and for a long period of time.
As your Comprehensive Plan provides to try to take full reasonable efforts to reduce
impact on residential areas. That we have tried to do. Mr. Jamison mentioned that the
sign in this location is facing east and west. There is a metal band between the two
faces of the sign that prevent light emanating to that north direction. The light from this
particular sign is not anywhere near the light that presently lights up the neighbors
backyard. I was talking with a pilot who flies into Boise all the time and says in foggy
weather, the reader board that exists out there is the first light you seen-over Boise
tower. That is how they guide themselves into the Boise area during foggy weather.
Personally I think that is a travesty and that is too bad. I am sure that the neighbors in
this area have been inundated with light from that particular sign. It blinks and flashes.
Our sign in any way is not like that sign. We have tried to provide the city both in this
hearing and in written submittals and in the past hearings with professional technical
expertise and information to show you that we are not producing excessive, as your
criteria requires, glare into the surrounding neighborhood. With that I will save a few
minutes for rebuttal and will stand at this time and later for questions.
Barbeiro: Brad, could you give a short history of the Texaco sign and Miss Butler said
that the sign presented today is in complete compliance. Could you address that
please.
Hawkins Clark: We were talking about that earlier. In terms of the Texaco sign, I did
not pull the historical documentation but recollection was about 96 that the Texaco
property was annexed brought into the city limits. It was approved at the time with the
building permit all there. I do not believe that as in this case the sign is typically are a
required element of the conditional use application and I don't believe that in the Texaco
case the sign was approved with the application. They came in another time. 77 feet
as was stated is correct. As far as the sign ordinance, its 8 paragraphs and would not
be difficult to be in compliance with it. It is weak. It mainly addresses prohibited signs,
such as flashing, neon, moving. It does not address any design criteria or height or
square footage, entry way corridors. We might as well burn it, frankly. That is why we
are designing a new sign ordinance.
Barbeiro: I recall that because this was not a freeway frontage that we would not
approve the sign. Does the ordinance address these tall signs only along freeway
frontage.
^ r.
Meridian Planning and Zo. g Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 47
Hawkins Clark: Commissioner Barbeiro it does not address any signage in terms of
freeway orientation or otherwise. In terms of location, the only thing the ordinance does
state is that off premise signs are prohibited.
Hatcher: Humor me. I misplaced this particular package. What was your reasoning for
recommending denial.
Hawkins Clark: We sited several Comprehensive Plan policies and I could go through
those. I think that they addressed some of those. I would say that in terms of the land
use goals deal with attractive road way entry areas protecting neighborhood property
values. We feel that one of the main reasons is they all ready have a pylon sign on their
site on Eagle. They are asking for two pylon signs to serve one building. We feel that
one is adequate unless they are a center such as Meridian Crossroads where they can
have center signs to service multiple buildings and businesses. That justifies more than
on sign. In terms of the high point on the horizon, I think we are talking specifically of
this section of I-84. They stated their original application goal was to get the sign above
St. Luke's so that west bound traffic on I-84 could see the sign. Obviously they are
looking at dropping that. I don't think they could this over St. Luke's now with their new
Phase III. The other main point would be that the comprehensive sign program and
overlay should be considered for this area. We are seeing a lot of applications in this
Magic View Subdivision in the last year and a half. This would be set in. It would set a
tone for entering this new Subdivision which isn't new but in terms of the redevelopment
of it-we have all ready approved two lots for offices. The Comprehensive Plan right
now calls for mixed use and then single family behind it. It doesn't seem to comply with
tenure of that Subdivision as it is being developed.
Butler: I'll reserve time for rebuttal. Just a reminder that when we did bring our last
application we did make application fora 100 foot sign. We talked about the fact that
you could see it from the west bound traffic over St. Luke's but at that hearing we said
that 77 feet was perfectly appropriate and that we were will to do that. We understood
that maybe until you got to the exit you could not necessarily see it because of St.
Luke's. We also understood that you could still see it for east bound traffic and that
somehow got lost in the translation at the last hearing so that is why we are back before
you. We offered that as a condition of approval that time to reduce it to 77 feet.
Norton: Could you refresh my memory-you had mentioned that the gas station was
not doing as well as you thought it might be. How can people actually get into the gas
station. Do you have to go through the Savings and Loan.
Butler: You can see a number of entrance ways on Magic View and you can get there
to the north side of the site from Eagle Road by turning into this street right here and
coming in through there and circulating around or from Magic View.
Norton: Magic View is between the Texaco and Chevron. I see, okay. Thank you.
Staff, how many signs does Texaco have on their property.
Meridian Planning and Zoe. .g Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 48
Hawkins Clark: Commissioner they do have the one pylon sign and then the wall signs.
Borup: Okay Commissioner's I am a little concerned on the time with as many
questions. We have made some commitment to other people on the agenda that we'd
get to them. I am wondering how quickly we can move this along. It is something
needed to be continued. You want to move it along. Okay, then it is going to be up to
you guys. Do we have anyone from the public who would like to come forward.
Trex: Rod Trex, 3091 Autumn Way. On the line that is on the west side, I am at the
first lot back in behind that. I'd like to cover 4 points. You can read in the backyard and
you can swim by the Texaco Star and so on. Anyway, some points that have been
briefly touch on. Last time Mr. Jamison did testify that they had a truck out there and
lifted a bucket up to the 100 foot mark and did say that was necessary, not suggested,
to be effective sign at that time. They have modified that and 77 is okay. 400 square
foot is pretty big. There is not much argument there. I will concede that the Chevron
sign and McDonald sign-when the McDonald sign is lit it is bright and you can't ignore
it. The Chevron sign by itself is not as obnoxious. There has been several denials
because it does not fit in with the Comprehensive Plan. The first project was for instead
of the credit union to have the Holiday Inn Express, that was shot down because it was
not considered to be appropriate. I would point out that the R.C. Willey sign was held at
the 35 foot for some reason and I am not sure why this would not be any different. They
claim freeway frontage but I don't know how you can claim that when there is a Holiday
Inn Express, Medical Arts Building and another Texaco blocking a distance of nearly'/2
mile from the interstate. There is two other commercial buildings going up in behind
there as well which are block the vision even more. The St. Luke's Phase III will
interfere even more, not to mention the Texaco sign is in front of it blocking that west
bound traffic view anyway. From the east bound traffic lane there is now a new
(inaudible) tower that is 100 foot plus. There is several obstructions and I'm not sure
what the benefit it other than to annoy the neighbors. I questions benefits there of that.
Lastly the sign facing the north south that is out there now, this is a 35 foot sign on the
front of the property on Eagle Road is very clear and legible. I have been watching the
rise and fall of gas prices.
Hatcher: I don't want to put any words into the developers mouth, but I'd just like to
know your feelings. If they were to sacrifice a 35 foot pylon sign that they currently have
on Eagle Road and reduce that to a monument sign so that the light is not directly
pointed to your property, would you be more susceptible to the freeway that is not
pointing to your property.
Trex: I would because as you pointed out earlier with that metal skirting around the
outside of it, I am pretty well protected. Unfortunately other neighbors are at an angle
and would be impacted. Yes, I would-
,,~
Meridian Planning and Zo, .g Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 49
Barbeiro: The Chevron is a 24 hour operation so you would have a lot of light coming
directly down over the awning just above the gas pumps. Your property is not buffered
by the credit union from that light.
Trex: We are partially blocked.
Barbeiro: Do you believe that the addition of this pylon sign with compared to the light
that comes from the awning would be a sufficient addition to your backyard lighting.
Trex: The awning lights are the most intense.
Hurl: My name is Chuck Hurl. I live at 3043 Autumn Way. We have been here before.
I got a couple questions. I want to know what has changed here. We've had it turned
down and yet we keep on coming back. Is it to irritate us or you but it is doing a good
job of it. I've got aquestion -where is the sign ordinance. Where is the new sign
ordinance.
Borup: The new one has not been adopted yet.
Hurl: We have talked about it over and over and some of the comments-Mr. Jamison
talked about lights and different signs and I won't dispute his numbers. I totally agree
that there are signs in Meridian at those heights. None of them abut a residential
Subdivision. What they are asking is going to do that. If we are going to have a new
sign ordinance, is this application being done to try to circumvent that new ordinance.
Miss Butler talked about the business and how is hasn't lived up to what they thought.
Maybe she can address this and tell us what they expected and what is happening.
Anyone can say that. I am a business person. I understand signage and the effect it
has except I look at it and say we've got signs coming from the east, west out on the
interstate. Those are nice signs and you know what is coming up. Look at the amount
of traffic that coming along Eagle Road everyday and that has to pass all those
businesses.
Borup: Your time is up and thank you.
Barbeiro: Where does your property sit on the -
Hurl: We are the 5t" house in on the left. If I can read into what your going to ask. Rod
all ready addresses that because of where he is in direct relationship to that sign. Yes
we would probably have more light reflection in our yard from that sign because of the
angle.
Barbeiro: In your lot the 70 foot sign would be more significant than the awning light.
Hurt: They both would have an impact and we do get a lot of light. The awning lights
aren't as much as the pump lights that reflect off of the awning itself.
.-. ,,.~
Meridian Planning and Zoi g Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 50
Borup: Anyone else.
Foley: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's I am Howard Foley and I reside at 2875 Autumn
Way. My residence is here. I want to address two issues. I want to address the issue
of prior history. As Miss Butler indicates, this has been a long drawn out process. What
we are engaged in here today is some of the opps factor. What happened is the initial
application went through a conditional use permit and Eagle Partners forgot to address
the signage. I would direct you attention back to the March 9, 1999 proceeding before
this body and comments on page 46 by Miss Stiles that addresses that issue. In
addition there is a development agreement that Eagle Partners has entered into with the
City and they forgot to address the signage issue when they engaged in the
development agreement. In particular, Section 5:1.23 talks about the signage proposals
that are to be included. There is nothing included in that agreement. Now what we
have is in March of 99 a request before you that without public hearing they now be
allowed to put up a 100 foot sign. That was determined to be inappropriate so in June
we had public hearings before you about this 100 foot sign. I agree with Miss Butler
also they offered at that time to do exactly what they are asking you to do today-which
is put a 77 foot sign there. What I am suggesting to is this is old news. It has all ready
been before this commission. You've all ready made a decision. The decision is that
that was inappropriate. They have signage. It is not an issue of that someone has
denied them signage either under the Comprehensive Plan or under the sign ordinance.
They have an adequate sign. It is a good sign. What they want to do now though is
move that sign back closer to our Subdivision. By their own testimony the last time they
were here, they were telling us all that the illumination would not be bad because it is
going to be 100 in the air. The closer you get it to the ground the more illumination your
going to have in your backyard. We are now 23 feet closer to the ground. I don't think
this is an appropriate comparison in contrast to say what they are saying. They have
signage, the City is done what is required under the conditional use permits and
Comprehensive Plan. More signage is not appropriate.
Barbeiro: May I propose the same question to you. Does the light from under the
awning or would the light from the pylon sign have a greater effect.
Foley: We are not effected much on the awning light. We are effected by the higher
lights.
Barbeiro: Would it be fair to say that your lot is most effected by the Texaco sign.
Foley: Sure, especially in the position they propose to put it.
Eddy: Steve Eddy and I am the owner of the Chevron. I would just like to say we are
not here to irritate anybody in any way. We don't think we abut residential anymore.
We think we put a great buffer between the residential with the credit union and to try to
block some of those awning type lights we put surface mount light in the canopy instead
Meridian Planning and Zoi
April 11, 2000
Page 51
~ .-~
~ Commission Meeting
of a mount below to help keep that glare from the neighbors. The high rise is very
common in our industry and it does help business and that is why we are asking for the
sign. We did talk to a lighting expert to ask of the glow of the typical sign which we
have at the airport location which has the Chevron hallmark and the hallmark is just
(inaudible) with the same tubes that you see in the ceiling here behind a pretty thick
facia of red and blue material. It is not offensive light. We've agreed to shut the light off
in the middle of the night so I don't see why that was an issue. We shut it off after the
news and don't turn it on until most people are up in the morning. Something has been
said about the Texaco sign and the biggest reason we need a sign on Eagle Road is for
the price. Our product is the only business in the world that has its prices posted right
on the street. It is a very competitive business. If I have to live with a monument on the
street versus my competition I will suffer. The Texaco does have a price sign in the
street and it does have a high rise sign. The high rise sign will not shoot the same way
as the sign on Eagle Road. It will shoot east and west and should not put out any light
to the surrounding neighborhood. When this project first started years ago and as
controversial as it was, we were asked at that time by P&Z to do the sign separate and
that's what we did. We have been accused of a lot of things. If we had been told to
present that at the time with the first application, the sign package would have been with
it. That's all I have.
Barbeiro: Freeway business versus local business-how will this sign effect the
difference as to what you originally intended.
Eddy: It will effect it in the way that we anticipated the site sales to be. When you go
and are traveling on the freeway and you see the highway signs, that's great. But if you
can actually see how close that business is to the interstate, it helps you get off and
where to go.
Barbeiro: You have stated other signs have been approved in the meantime that were
similar. What other sizes where you referring to.
Eddy: We talked about freeway frontage.
END OF SIDE SIX
Eddy: They talked about the freeway frontage. Best Western is the one we have
pictures of them lifting the sign with a crane after our application.
Barbeiro: One of the neighbors said that they would prefer to have a 77 foot sign and a
lower sign on Eagle Road. Is that a viable option for you.
Eddy: As far as the pricing the gasoline, you numbers go from about this big to this big.
The speed and traffic on Eagle Road it does put me in a competitive disadvantage.
Borup: Any one else. Joanne some concluding comments.
Meridian Planning and Zor ~ Commission Meeting '^
April 11, 2000
Page 52
Butler: Thank you. I hope you can tell from what has been said here tonight, this is not
an attempt to circumvent the sign ordinance. By the way, we do comment the city for
taking the time and doing the sign ordnance. As Mr. Eddy said, 4 years ago staff asked
us not to present it then, we would not be .here tonight if that had been done.
Borup: Could you clarify that Joanne.
Butler: I can only tell you what I was told.
Borup: My recollection is and reading this staff report, they requested the sign be part
of the conditional use process and it was over looked by everyone, as stated earlier.
The applicant overlooked it and staff did not catch it.
Butler: I came in later in the process. I can tell you what I was told by Billy Ray Strite
and by Steve Eddy.
Borup: You don't have a copy of the written staff report. I think we saw a copy of it a
year ago and I am pretty sure it was in writing on the staff report, that the sign be
applied for as part of the conditional use permit at the time of the project.
Butler: Why I say I don't believe that is true is because that came up at one point when
we were doing the development agreement and I remember myself going back because
we had all the hearings transcribed. I literally search for that to find out if it references
and there were none. In fact at all of the hearings the sign issue did not come up and
what I understood from Billy Ray was that in pre-app meetings that lets put the sign
aside and do that later. We are not claiming highway frontage with this application.
That is in accordance with your ordinance too which allows the service oriented to be in
close proximity. We don't have to claim highway frontage and still meet your
ordinances. If the city doesn't permit the sign as proposed, we are asking the city to be
very clear as to why the sign is not being approved and what the applicant can do to
receive approval. This sign is no bigger, certainly no brighter and no taller then other
signs approved by the city and we certainly have the same number of other service
stations that have been approved by the city so we would want to understand very
clearly why this applicant maybe being treated differently by the city. I want to point out
that for the city and the city attorney as you are helping your commission and your
council, the supreme court has ruled that unless your zoning ordinance, not your
Comprehensive Plan, but your zoning ordinance contains sufficiently objective and
definite standards to guide the P&Z Commission that what your trying to do now with
your sign ordinance. Unless there are those sufficient definite standards in the zoning
ordinance, then a denial of a sign of this type is probably viewed by the courts as an
unconstitutional restraint on the applicants commercial speech. I will refer the city
attorney to Lamar versus the city of Twin Falls. I'd also point out for the city that just
this week, a case came out from the supreme court Lane County and ruled that a city
cannot rely solely on its Comprehensive Plan in making a decision. That is your guide,
Meridian Planning and Zor ,~ Commission Meeting .~-.
April 11, 2000
Page 53
that is your vision but your ordinances have to be drafted in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan and if the ordinance has not been drafted with sufficient definite
criteria to guide yours signs, then you can not base a denial on the Comprehensive Plan
alone. We realize your sign ordinance is under review and redrafting, but we are guided
by the existing sign ordinance in existence and believe that we need all of the sign
criteria and we are consistent with the other signs approved in the city. We are
respectfully asking the commission to approve this request and allow this business to
continue as a full fledged business constituent of Meridian. This is not Chevron the
corporation. This is not McDonalds the corporation. This is Steve and Tracy Eddy and
George Kiler that run this particular business and they are looking for a sign as part of
the condition use.
Borup: Commissioner's.
Hatcher: I move we close the public hearing.
Norton: I second.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Would we like some discussion or are we ready for a motion.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, with your assistance my recollection of our last meeting with
regards to this sign and it was my second meeting and did not have a real strong grasp
on the ordinances as well as I do now. That my primary reason for denial for this sign
was my interpretation of the ordinance saying that because he did not have freeway
frontage similar to Texaco that the sign did not fit into the ordinance or Comprehensive
Plan. Re-reading this and Miss Butler's comments that freeway frontage is not a
requirement for such a sign. Is that your recollection.
Borup: That is exactly the statement I made a year ago. I was in the single minority on
voting on this last time. I felt that this was a freeway business. I was in favor of the 100
foot sign but I was opposed to the pylon sign on Eagle Road. I felt that was more of a
gateway and wasn't consistent with what we wanted to accomplish there. At that time, I
was in favor of the freeway sign and was in favor of the monument sign on Eagle Road.
Now they've got their pylon sign on Eagle Road so I am not sure how I feel about that.
Having two pylon signs on the same property.
Barbeiro: One of the other concerns was the Texaco sign that we all believe was a
mistake and that two wrongs don't make a right.
Borup: You've got to start at some point. And forcing what you feel is right or what the
new ordinance is going to be just because a mistake has been made or something has
.-^. •-1
_ Meridian Planning and Zoi. g Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 54
not been enforced. That is no reason to ignore everything from that point on.
Somewhere things have to stop and start. I don't think that is a real pertinent just
because it was done in the past needs to be done now.
Barbeiro: Since this sign is going to have the greatest effect on Mr. Foley's property 1'll
address him. The last time I voted against this was based upon what my interpretation
of a sign ordinance which was that it was not on the freeway property. After being
politely disagreed with in our last hearing, I believe I misinterpreted the sign ordinance
last time and I am going to have to go against you and the neighbors and vote for
approval on this.
Norton: Mr. Chairman I have a question regarding the ordinance and supplementary
regulation regarding signs and residential. Could somebody please interpret that for me
so I don't misinterpret it . It is 1114-2 under chapter 14 under signs.
Hawkins Clark: Any sign or sign structure located on a commercially zoned lot which is
adjacent to a residentially owned lot shall be set back to meet the side rear and front
yard setback. Is that the correct one? That would be if you had a commercial
immediately next for the buildings -the commercial property adjacent to that residential
could not put their sign within that setback allowance. So if the residential building
setback is 20 feet, then they could not put their sign in that 20 foot setback on their
property.
Borup: Anything else.
Hatcher: On this particular issue I with good conscience can't go either way and I am
going to have to abstain from this which means your going to have to vote. I am at a
loss. I can't go either way. I don't know what the legal ramifications are other than
abstaining.
Norton: If I could have a little more discussion on this. I would like -there has to be
some kind of written documentation regarding what happened the last-whether or not
the signs were asked to be done separately or whether the signs were asked to be with
the application.
Borup: Either way, the application for the development was way earlier. The sign
application that we are referring to was last March of 99 and that is when this sign came
up before the commission. The application on the project was the previous year.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I may be able to shed some historical light on that. Looking
back through my file I found March 9, 1999 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
minutes. Shari Stiles was addressing the commission. She stated that when Eagle
Partners project was reviewed and approved, one of our comments was the detailed
signage plans must be included as part of the application for review and approval. At
no time were any plans presented. The approved site plan that they showed did clearly
_ Meridian Planning and Zor, ,~ Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 55
indicate two locations for signage but just by the symbols used on the plans indicating
more of a monument type sign then 100 foot pylon sign they are proposing now. She
goes on to say, I put it on the agenda for you to review to discuss what might be the
appropriate plan of action. Whether we need to go to the public hearing, go to a public
hearing. This is a good example of why conditional use permits should be approved
with no signage, should not be approved, excuse me, with no signage included as part
of their application.
Borup: You don't have in the file the staff comments from the previous application that
she referred to.
Freckleton: I might. I'll keep digging. She did a little later on talk about some miss-
statements that were made. She says I would just like to point out that there were some
miss-statements about what the conditions of the conditional use permit were. It didn't
merely to the sign ordinance. It said there would be conditions in addition to those
contained in the sign ordinance. Commissioner's can put any condition they want. If
you say there is no signage, you could require no signage. It is part of the conditional
use permit. They didn't submit information. Nothing was approved.
Borup: That part is true. Nothing was approved because there was nothing was
submitted.
Norton: My next question is regarding the reference to they want exact explanation of if
this is treated differently than other signs that have been voted on by this body. Do we
have or could we perhaps move this to the next hearing while we do some research
regarding all the law suits and legal ramification to a decision.
Barbeiro: I would go along with commissioner Norton's-keeping in mind Miss Butler
did bring up a number of items of case law that we have nothing to go on. Perhaps
comment from the Counsel on those case law we could look up tomorrow first thing.
Borup: I think there may be a difference between approving a sign under a conditional
use permit application or approving one in an approved situation. I am not sure how
that would apply to how many sign approvals, I don't know. If we go by the statement
that Bruce just read, under conditional use any condition could be put on it that this
body would choose.
Norton: I would feel more comfortable. I'd like to move that we table this discussion
and continue it at the next regularly scheduled P&Z meeting.
Borup: Let me ask a question for counsel. If we are going to table this, this is to get
more information.
Swartley: You all ready closed the public hearing. If you want to open it back up, go
ahead.
i-r.. ~
Meridian Planning and Zor, ~ Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 56
Borup: Do we need to open it up to-
Swartley: No you don't. She is basically just asking me to look at these cases that Miss
Butler has referenced, so you don't need to open the public hearing. I will just refer
them to you.
Borup: And then we can make reference to it at that time.
Swartley: Right.
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Did we have a date certain that that was continued to?
Norton: May Stn
Borup: The motion was to continue to May 9th. That was a long time coming. We are
going to hurry right through these others, right?
13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
CONTINUED USE AS OFFICENVAREHOUSE ZONED CG BY JEFF AND MIKE
HON-BACK OF PROPERTY LOCATAED AT 357 EAST WATERTOWER
LANE:
Hawkins Clark: Commissioner's this application is to place a second principle building
on a single lot in the Honor Park Subdivision. The lot is identified here on the screen on
the south side of East Watertower. This is the proposed site plan. There is currently a
warehouse building here just to orient you, Watertower here on the north side of the lot.
Nampa Meridian Irrigation controlled lateral canal here along the west boundary. This
building exists on the front end of the lot with the associated parking. There is a drive
that comes along the east. They are proposing a new building warehouse/office here
on the south side. We have zero setbacks. Staff had reviewed it. We have our
conditions and recommendations before you. They are meeting the requirements of the
conditional use permit planned unit development since it is two buildings on a single lot
that makes it a planned unit development, which does require the 10% open space and
we are saying that in a commercial Subdivision we would consider this open area here
with the canal part of that. They do have new landscaping here on the south, some
here. They do provide new parking islands and planters on both ends of the proposed
parking and some landscaping here. They are meeting the minimum parking
.+^, /'~"
..
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: Aril 11 2000
APPLICANT: EAGLE PARTNER LLC ITEM NUMBER: 12
REQUEST: CUP FOR PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL POLE SIGN FOR
CHEVRON/MCDONALDS
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING & ZONING DEPT.
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WASTE WATER DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
COMMENTS
SEE PREVIOUS PACKET OF 3/14/00
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
SANITARY SERVICE:
fi~
~u
a
~J,, ~~~
I"
"~~~
OTHER:
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
,,..~ ""~
March 10, 2000
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING: March 14 2000
APPLICANT: EAGLE PARTNER. LLC ITEM NUMBER: 8
REQUEST: CUP FOR PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL POLE SIGN FOR
CHEVRON/MCDONALDS
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING & ZONING DEPT.
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WASTE WATER DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
SEE STAFF COMMENTS
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
~~~~
~~-- ~
~~ ~ ,
~~ ~~~
~~
SANITARY SERVICE:
OTHER:
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
~.
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
MAYOR LEGAL DEPARTMENT
Robert D. Corrie A Good Place to Live (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501
CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297
Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING
Tamm deWeerd
y City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT
Cherie McCandless (208) 884-5533 • Fax 888-6854
MEMORANDUM: March 9, 2000
To: Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor and City Council '' ~' ~ z
BAR 1 0 ~!~~~
From: Brad Hawkins-Clark, Planner ~~
Re: Request for Modification to Conditional Use Permit to Include 77-foot Pole Sign on
Eagle Road -- by Eagle Partners, LLC (Represented by Mr. Craig Jamieson, Idaho
Electric Signs, Inc.)
We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the
applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by
motion of the Meridian City Council:
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
This application requests a modification of Eagle Partners' existing Conditional Use Permit for the
Chevron/McDonald's site on Eagle Road north of the I-84 interchange. The Applicant submitted a
CUP application (File CUP-99-017) heard before the Commission on 6-17-99 for signage for both
the Chevron/McDonald's site and the Idaho United Credit Union site, including the 100-foot pylon
sign. The P&Z Commission recommended approval of the Credit Union monument sign and 34-foot
Chevron/McDonald's sign (both already constructed), but recommended denial of the 100-foot sign.
On 6-29-99, the Applicant appealed the Commission decision to the City Council. The City Council
upheld the Commission's decision and, although the Applicant submitted a request for
reconsideration, the Council finally upheld the decision at their 9-7-99 meeting.
This new application requests a 77-foot sign, 23 feet shorter than the first sign proposed. It would
be situated in the same location along Eagle Road as their first application near the south boundary
of their property. Staffs position regarding the taller, freeway-oriented signage has not changed from
the previous application. Below are reiterated many of the same points as stated in the 6-14-99 staff
report for the previous CUP application as we believe the arguments are as relevant fora 77-foot sign
as fora 100-foot sign.
GENERAL COMMENTS:
Staff finds this application inconsistent with the majority of the 1993 Comprehensive Plan
policies. (See policies cited on page 3 of this report.)
2. In the City's current draft sign ordinance, which has been prepared over the past six months
by a committee of twelve people including Meridian small business owners, residential
developers, commercial developers, sign professionals, and a P&Z Commissioner, free-
standing signs are limited to a total of one (1) per street frontage in the C-G zone. If
CUP-00-013
EaglePartnersSign2.CUP.doc
,rte ~
P&Z Commission/Mayor & Council
March 9, 2000
Page 2
approved, this 77-foot pole sign would be the second free-standing sign on the Eagle
Partners' parcel. While obviously not enforceable, Staff believes this draft sign ordinance
accurately represents the general direction the City would hke to aim towards in terms of sign
control and also represents a solid planning guideline.
3. The 34-foot sign already approved and constructed on the site is approximately 470 s.f. in
background area. Additionally, wall signs are currently in place on both the
Chevron/McDonald'sbmlding and. the fuel canopy. The proposed 77-foot sign would add an
additiona1200+ s.f. of sign face area to the site, for a total of more than 800 s.f. in sign face
area on the parcel.
4. As part of a conditional use permit, the City of Meridian may impose additional
restrictions/conditions.
5. There are many gas stations/fast food franchises along I-84. No pylon signs have been
observed, from Boise to Meridian, approaching this height.
6. If approved, the pylon sign would be observed as the high point on the horizon upon entering
Meridian from westbound I-84.
7. We do not support the argument that since Texaco was permitted a 77-foot sign than this site
should also be granted a similar size sign.
8. Signs along Fairview Avenue, another entryway corridor, have been limited to a maximum
height times width of 72 square feet. The Chevron/McDonald's sign on Eagle Road, if
approved, would have a height times width of nearly 670 square feet.
9. Applicant asserts this type of signage is necessary for visibility to the traveling public. With
over 30,000 vehicle trips per day passing the site, it is unlikely this type of advertising is
necessary to promote customer visits. This site does not have freeway frontage and is
adjacent to residential uses. The Idaho Transportation Department's blue informational signs
on I-84 provided for business advertising are intended for businesses of this type.
MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES:
Land Use Goal Statement -Page 23
1.14U Promote the design of attractive roadway entryway areas into Meridian which will clearly
identify the community.
2.3U Protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's
physical condition and enhance its quality of life for residents.
CUP-00-013
EaglePartnerssign2.CUP.doc
/"~ '~
P&Z Commission/Mayor & Council
Mazch 9, 2000
Page 3
Franklin, Overland/I-84 Mixed Use Policies -Page 28
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.
5.9 The integrity and identity of any adjoining residential neighborhood should be preserved
through the use of buffering techniques, including screen plantings, open space and other
landscaping techniques.
5.11 The character, site improvements, and type of development should be harmonized with
previously developed land in the azea, and where located adjacent to or near any existing
residence or residential area, shall be harmonized with residential uses, and all reasonable
efforts shall be made to reduce the environmental impact on residential areas, including noise
and traffic reduction.
5.14U Because these areas are neaz I-84, Franklin and Overland Roads, high-quality visual
appeazance is essential. All development proposals in this area will be subject to developmenrt
review guidelines and conditional use pernutting procedures.
Community Identification Goal Statement -Page 71
1.4 Major entrances to the City should be enhanced and emphasized. Unattractive land uses along
these entrances should be screened from view.
Special Community Design Areas Goal Statement -Page 72
2.2U Encourage azea beautification through uniform sign design that enhances the community.
Quality of Environment Goal Statement -Page 73
S.IU Preserve the aesthetic natural resources of the Meridian area.
5.2U Ensure that all new development enhances rather than detracts from the visual quality of its
surroundings, especially in areas of prominent visibility.
CUP-00-013
EagtePartnerssign2.CUP.dce
/"'~ /"1
P&Z Commission/Mayor & Council
March 9, 2000
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the 77-foot pylon sign. There are many lots remaining to be developed
or re-developed in the Magic View subdivision, with uses that may want to have visibility from the
freeway even though they have no freeway frontage. The Magic View Subdivision homeowner's
have unanimously chosen to recommend a Comprehensive Plan amendment for this entire subdivision
to a commerciaUof~ice land use designation. Staff feels a unified, comprehensive sign program and
overlay should be considered for this area to help avoid the blanketing and competition of future
signs. Approval of applications such as this will set the tone for the area and lead to a proliferation
of signage.
CUP-00-013
EaglePartnerssign2.CUP.doc
.-.
HP LaserJet 3100 SEND CONFIRMATION REPORT for
Printer/Fax/Gopier/Scanner City of Meridian
2088886854
Mar-10-00 9:04AM
Job Start Time Usage Phone Number or ID Type Pages Mode Status
445 3/10 9:02AM 1'57" 208 338 9409 Send .............. 5/ 5 EC 96 Completed........................................
total 1'57" Pages Sent: 5 Pages Printed: 0
200 E. Caton Ate, 94 201
Alaitlfan, l0 fA7612
Phtrc (2(Igb84.sy;9
Fu (ZOBjBB&BBy1
Toe Gait' Janieam Feame Sonya ~Y
•m 3786109 Cats 3~IbD0
Fleanae C.woa+ 5 QrrMdlg oovar)
!!r. F~eParNxslgn CUP-afeRmrrtnarNS CG
p uey.eet ~ rav Rwiwa ^ Mw.~ Ceamere! ^ ilasw Rpy ^ IMaooo lloaya.
.~
200 E. Carlton Ave., Ste. 201
Meridian, ID 83642
Phone: (208)884-5533
Fax (208)888-6854
To: Craig Jamieson From: Sonya Day
Fax: 338-9409 Date: 3/10/00
Pages: 5 (Inducting cover)
Re: Eagle Partner sign CUP - staff comments CC:
^ Urgent ®For Review ^ Please Comment ^ Please Reply ^ Please Recycle
•Comments
MAYOR
Robert D. Come ^ HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY ,•-..
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERID
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS IAN PUBLIC WORKS
Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (''-08) 887-2211 • Fax 887--297
Tammy deWeerd (208) 388-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING
Cherie McCandless City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT
(208) 884-5533 • Fax 888-6854
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: _ February 29, 2000
TRANSMITTAL DATE:_February 15, 2000 HEARING DATE: March 14, 2000
FILE NUMBER: CUP-00-013
REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF
ADDITIONAL POLE SIGN FOR CHEVRON/MCDONALDS
BY: EAGLE PARTNER. LLC
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: 603 S. EAGLE ROAD
SALLY NORTON, P/Z
KENT BROWN, P/Z
THOMAS BARBEIRO, P2
RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z
KEITH BORUP, P/Z
ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR
RON ANDERSON, C/C
CHERIE McCANDLESS, C/C
_KEITH BIRD, C/C
TAMMY de WEERD, C/C
WATER DEPARTMENT
-SEWER DEPARTMENT
SANITARY SERVICE
-BUILDING DEPARTMENT
-FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT
-CITY ATTORNEY
-CITY ENGINEER
-CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL)
REcErvED
F E B 2 9 X000
CITY ®~ N~IDIAN
RECEIVED
FEB 16 2000
Merid'~an t~de>At
Water Su~'-
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: ,/~o ~.~irr.9~'/~s
,--~ HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY ~
MAYOR LEGAL DEPARTMENT
Robert D. Cowie T A Good PlMace to Live 0208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ~"~~ ~~ ~ • ~~~~~~~~ PUBLIC wORKs
Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 836~i2 (208) 887-221 t • Fax 887-1297
Tammy deWeerd (208) 388-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 ~ PLANNING ,4ND ZONING
a~~;'EI. DEPARTMENT
Cherie McCandless City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218
{'' q~ (208) 8845533 • Fax 888-6854
t" ~i ~ C'~
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: February 29, 2000
TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 15, 2000 HEARING DATE: March 14, 2000
FILE NUMBER: CUP-00-013
REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF
ADDITIONAL POLE SIGN FOR CHEVRON/MCDONALDS
BY: EAGLE PARTNER. LLC
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: 603 S. EAGLE ROAD
SALLY NORTON, P/Z
KENT BROWN, P/Z
THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z
RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z
KEITH BORUP, P/Z
_ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR
_RON ANDERSON, C/C
CHERIE McCANDLESS, C/C
_KEITH BIRD, C/C
TAMMY de WEERD, C/C
WATER DEPARTMENT
SEWER DEPARTMENT
SANITARY SERVICE
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY ATTORNEY
_CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL)
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS
7
~~~
~C~I~~
E ~ ~ ~ 2000
'ty of iYleridian
tg~ Cierk n;Ff;,.«
!J'1.
/ (~
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
February 22, 200 Phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
Will Berg, Clty Clerk SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
Re: CUP-00-013 Proposed modification of additional pole sign for
Chevron/McDonalds
Dear Commissioners:
The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above referenced
application.
Sincerely,
Bill Henson, Asst. Water Superintendent
NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
BH: dln
Cc: File -Shop
File -Office
Water Superintendent
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000
CENTRAL CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
•• DISTRICT Environmental Health Division
H EA LT H Return to:
~ ~ ~ ~ :,. .~ ^ Boise
DEPARTMENT °=-~~'' '-`~ ~ ~~, F '~
``_k: ^ Eagle
Rezone # ~ ~ B 2 3 2000 ^ Garden City
`£-~+t~AAa~ Use # ~ uf~ -OU - y/ .3 ~ ~ ~~F~ ~ Meridian
~~~~~ ~~.~~~~~ ^ Kuna
Preliminary /Final /Short Plat ^ ACZ
Sic i Z
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 ^ waste flow characteristics
^ or bedrock from original grade ^ other
^ 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or
surface waters.
^ 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. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
^ I I. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other
considerations indicate approval.
^ 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage
Regulations.
^ 13. 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
^ 14.
Date: _~/~~/ GCS
Reviewed By:
Review Sheet
[DHD 10/91 rcb, rer. 1/91
Ta•BJdd bbL0b8880z~, ^ bZ:9t 88. ZZ H9d
I~UB OF TREASURE VALLEY
MAYOR
Robert D
Corric
A Good Place [o Li~c LEGAL pEPARTMENT
.
CITY Off' MERIDIAN (2oS) 2SS•2499 • Pas :SS-2501
CITY COUNCIL MEMBE RS PUBLIC WORKS
Ron Anderson 33 EAST iAAHO
BUfLDING DEPARTMENT
Keith bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (20S) S87-zzu • Fax 337-t297
Tammy deWeerd (203) 888.4433 • Fax (208) 887.4813 PLANN[NG AND ZONING
Cherie McCandless City Clerk Ofticc Fa;c (208) 888-4215 DEPARTMENT
(203) 4Sa-55.3 • Fix 855.685a
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJEC"1`S
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning ~ Zoning Commissiion, please submit your comments and recommendations
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: February 29, 2000
TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 15.2000 HEARING DATE: March 142000
FILE NUMBER: CUP-00-013
REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED MODIFICATION QF
ADDITIONAL POLE SIGN FOR CHEVRONlMCDONALDS
BY: EAGLE PARTNER, LLC
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: 603 S. EAGLE ROAD
SALLY NORTON, P/Z
KENT BROWN, P/Z
THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z
RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z
KEITH BORUP, P/Z
ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR
RON ANDERSON, C/C
= CHERIE McCANOLESS, C/C
KEITH BIRD, C/C
TAMMY de WEERO, C/C
WATER DEPARTMENT
SEWER DEPARTMENT
SANITARY SERVICE
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL)
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS:
~o ~~
~~~~
F E B 2 3 2000
~;IT"i' ~~~ lY~~~DIAN
MAYOR
Robert D. Corrie ~. ,.~
HUB OF TREASURE V,4LLEY
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PiJBLIC WORKS
Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208> 887-2211 • Fax 887-t297
Tammy deWeerd (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-x813 PLANNING AND ZONING
Cherie McCandless City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT
(208) 884-5533 • Fax 888-6854
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: February 29, 2000
TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 15, 2000 HEARING DATE: March 14, 2000
FILE NUMBER: CUP-00-013
REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF
ADDITIONAL POLE SIGN FOR CHEVRON/MCDONALDS
BY: EAGLE PARTNER, LLC
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: 603 S. EAGLE ROAD i
SALLY NORTON, P/Z
KENT BROWN, P/Z
THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z
RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z
KEITH BORUP, P/Z
-ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR
_RON ANDERSON, C/C
CHERIE McCANDLESS, C/C
_KEITH BIRD, C/C
TAMMY de WEERD, C/C
-WATER DEPARTMENT
-SEWER DEPARTMENT
SANITARY SERVICE
-BUILDING DEPARTMENT
-FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT
-CITY ATTORNEY
-CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL LAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLA
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL P T)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FIN L)
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS:
~~
02/24/2000 10:29 2088885052 SANITARY SERVICE PAGE 04
.~. „~
~I,~YOR HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
Rabcrt D. Come .~ Good Place to Live LEGA(, DEN.aRT`1EVT
T
C
CITY O~ MERIDI
AN I_os) ass-;.~ov . p;,x ~gg._~pi
I
Y COUNCIL MEiVI$ERS . PUBLIC WORK5
Ron :~nderson 33 EAST LDAHO BUILDING DEPARTvIEivT
K~fth Bird MERID[r1N, IDAHO 83642 ('43) 687.?21 ~ • Fix 8s7-t_~~
Tammy deWcerd (208) 838-~k433 -Fax (208) 587-4313 PLANNING AND ZONIVG
Chcrie ~~icCandless City Cterk Office Fax (208) 588-4218 DEPARTMENT
l?06) 987->S~.i • Fax 3"e3-G3~-i
TRANSMITTAL;. TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WIT>FI TI~IE 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 recommendations
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: February 29, 2000
TRANSMITTAL DATE:_Februarv 15, 2000 HEARING DATE: March 14, 2000
FILE NUMBER: CUP-00-013
REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF
ADDITIQNAL POLE SIGN FOR CHEVRON/MCDONALDS
BY: EAGLE PARTNER, LLC
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: 6Q3 S, EAGLE ROAD
SALLY NORTON, P/Z
KENT BROWN, P!Z
THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z
RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z
KEITH 80RUP, P/Z
ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR
RON ANDERSON, C/C
CHERIE MCCANDLESS, C/C
-KEITH 8}RD, C/C
TAMMY de WEERD, C/C
WATER DEPARTMENT
SEWER DEPARTMENT
~ SANITARY SERVICE
-BUILDING, QEPARTMENT
-FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY ATTORNEY
-CITY ENGINEER
-CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE{PRELIM 8, FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL pISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM ~ FINAL PLAT}
U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL)
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS' OI-~ ~o (.om~yrc,~~ 7~
~~~ ~ z~
F E B ~ 4 200
CITY 0~' NIER~IDTA~N
FEB 24 '00 09 31
2088885052 PAGE. 04
^'"'1
BROOKS LEE E &
BROOKS SHARON K
2115 AUTUMN WAY
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6224
ROCKROHR RICHARD L &
ROCKROHR MARY V
2715 AUTUMN WAY
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6235
GREENHILL ESTATES SUBDIVISION
NO THREE WATER CORP
2894 SPRINGWOOD DR
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6262
EAGLE
FOLEY HOWARD R &
FOLEY TERESA L
2875 AUTUMN WAY
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6236
CHRISTENSEN SHERON G ~
COLLEEN C REVOCABLE TRUST
3157 AUTUMN WAY
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6239
EBERT WILLIAM R &
EBERT JANET R
2513 AUTUMN WAY
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6227
MALONEY PATRICK S &
MALONEY ROSE M
2621 AUTUMN WAY
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6234
KIDD GARNET DEAN &
KIDD RETA MAE
2127 AUTUMN WAY
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6224
~,
EAGLE PARTNERS
FENDER FRED W &
FENNER LAURA L
2134 AUTUMN WAY
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6224
MECHAM BRYAN N &
MECHAM MICHELE G
2159 AUTUMN WAY
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6224
REEVE CHRISTOPHER S &
REEVE ANNE M
2275 AUTUMN WAY
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6232
DUNCAN DANIEL W
2325 AUTUMN WAY
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6233
SODINE IAN R $
SODINE JEANETTE M
2663 E AUTUMN WAY
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6234
KNOWLTON KIMBERLY K
JONAS LYNDA K
2369 E AUTUMN WAY
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6233
CHRISTIAN JERRY D &
CHRISTIAN CHERRY A
2425 AUTUMN WAY
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6225
GREEN TROY D &
GREEN ROBIN L
2475 E AUTUMN WAY
MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000
`~",l
C~
~-.
r~
BARNES ROBERT B $ PATEL KANTI $ BHARTI
BARNES KATHLEEN E PATEL BHUPENDRA $ NILA
2855 MAGIC VIEW DR 2600 FAIRVIEW AVE
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6245 BOISE ID 83702-0000
N EAGLE RD
NUBBLE E DON
9550 BETHEL CRT BUCKERT WANDA
BOISE ID 83709-0000 971 WELLS CIR
621 S ALLEN ST MERIDIAN ID 83642-6253
JACKSONS FOOD STORES INC DRAPER WESLEY A $
3500 COMMERCIAL CT DRAPER ELMA R
MERIDIAN ID 83680-0488 942 WELLS
625 N EAGLE RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000
S WELLS ST
ROBINSON BONNIE J AND
HAMBLEY JUDY A MIDDLETON ROBERT L $
715 WELLS ST MIDDLETON VONA K
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6249 955 WELLS
MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000
WELLS DAVID W $
WELLS M MAXINE
985 FREEWAY DR DRAPER WESLEY A $
DRAPER ELMA R
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6258 942 WELLS
E FREEWAY DR MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000
EAGLE ROAD PROFESSIONAL CENTER LLC FUHRMAN JAMES A $
2700 AIRPORT WAY FUHRMAN DIANE C
BOISE ID 00008-3715 1737 E SUMMERFALLS DR
N EAGLE RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-5580
S WELLS ST
WELLS DAVID W $
WELLS M MAXINE B $ F ENTERPRISES
985 FREEWAY DR 192 SUN BURST WAY
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6258 BOISE ID 83709-0675
1151 S WELLS ST
SONNTAG JOHN R
SONNTAG ALBERTA ST LUKES REG MED CENTER LTD
3373 TUMBLEWEED AVE 190 E BANNOCK ST
BOISE ID 83713-3672 BOISE ID 83712-6241
875 S ALLEN ST 520 S EAGLE RD
N
0
3
W
V
V
D
v
°~ CJ ~ W N 1 O W O v O Ul .A W N 1 ~ N a y
~
, i
~ = N a `~° m
N ` N Q
~ ~
a O
m Z
~~
n
~ D
~~.
v
m
~ 2
m m
1
-~ .~ ~ ti
~ O
W N
~ ~ a
~~
z
~ N
o.
3
w v ~
~
~ `~ m
y o '~ 3
~
~
O ~ Op cn
n m
fD N
~ 'D
~
w
r
~ ~ o.
o ~ ~
O
~
N ~ a
Q
_
~ ~ H
~
m N
Z
~
~ ~
N ^^^^t
Q
g ~ co c)S~omi
a ~ N n
s• ~ ~
~ a
a ~ c
~ ^^ ^
O ~ m
_
~ =-~~
o~
~
~
n~Q
~ ~
~~ aD
w
V ~ ~~
v_
o
~ ~ o
~~o~~.a~ -.
-~
>~;~=~
m s
c
°
~ ?'
o
y
d m~ N m
~ ~ ~o y
` ~
~
~~ m
~~_
N ~ H fD ~ O
3
` ~
N ~
.
»w
_ 3 _.v'
~ ~
~» ~p0 C
~
p
Ot ~ O
dN~~°i~a
0
w~ ,
N
m
m 3.0 ~
w°~3 w
~ c
~a
oo~g'~
<-°-' ~m
t
O3oo~
`°
mw~oy c. ~
~,m ~^ ~
cD
>jm$~m
a
.a3v C~(n
~~ ~~
~ Q
~cn'-`~o~
~D~ a
~ o
c m
~
ocd
3
~
~ m O
~ °.
oo~
~Da
m , ~ o
°-' -m ~ ~' m
~ ~
70 m
a
3 3 w m~~ m .
m °
~<n~
a
mn
3~y
~
X
v~
o
m N
o c~
g
3
~
~ Q
_
Q ~
d
y~mc~-. m ( ,
n; w.
n ~ `m. 3 ~. ~_
:m m
~
T~ O ~,
O~ ~p
i
~
(o o
a~
~ a
~ m = V
i w
W o
3
y
m~ 3
~ ° v o
~.
„
fo ~ w~~ ~ m ~~
m v 3
~0 ~°• a~
m a m v~ a n N ~
?
3 o
~
~~
yoc
i.
v n f v y= T~
~ p .4 Oc
~
o O~ ~ ~
~e ~ o 0R
`~.
3Om~~
p°_'•vv5
3
~ L
~
~y
c 7
9
~
a~ m N d 3 CQ
°'3°-'ymo,
' m
amp-ym rte
~ ~
ddwmtn~
o
'~ ~ y
~n
~ ~ ~ o v
Dd ~ ~ o~ y~
~ d N N ~ Q
O
.. N N , N
0
3
m
m
a
~e
v
m
T
0
3
W
OD
V
V
D
v
r~
m w .L
C71 1
A .i
W 1
N J
-+ .L
p
W
p
V
p
C)'1
A
W
N
j r
m
~. D y
°
~ 3
~= N ~~~
~ y a
_
m
°- o
l
~ cD
(
A S
V
l
m
1 ~ m m
Yl ~
v ~ J~ `V ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~
~ o
Q, ~ ~ ~ ~ W N ~ ~ .~ ~ J ~ h ~~`
~~
n ~
~p
D
n
~Z
c O ~ a
`°
°' 3 „
~ ~ ~
0 o
~~
_~
~ m
m
~
n
m w
~
~ ~
~
~
~
~
~
0
~
0
~
~ ((J^^
vl v
~ 00
~ ~
~
~ G~ `~
Q
~
m ~ v ~ o
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
N
`~
~o a
m
N
~ N N X
m c ~ a
~ m m m ~
~ w
Q
a d ~
~ V
° J ~ i
~ ~
, ~ ^ ^ ^
.
-'_ m m
~ -
_
~ ~~
o m
o
~
m a c
J ~ a D
~
~ 3 _~ m
v
~~omm°~
c
o
-.~
~
~ o
J
O
~ s
n c m m m e
d N H J y _
a w o
Q -., n N C lD O.
~ w
~
O~ N N O n
w
vi`,3Jy
~3m
`' c
m ~
~
>-
.
N ~
..
0 o c ~
m d ~ ~
0
.cu go
w~c sw.~o
~~+~
<y
w a
m
m `°30~
w ° ~ 3 - d
~ o~ o o c
m c
~ m
a
<o_. J
N
C N ~ N
~
tO3o
^
~o
o
m wg~°ui~.
o y ~ $v ~
~m ^^ _
N
~
3a m o.
J.o n~ x
.
~o~
3
tO
J ~~ Z
~ c N
i
u
n
i
`~'m
°
'J ~ ~
a
~
.
^
c
o'od~^o c a
y _,?m y 3
3 3 N (Jp 7 y
N D
fD
~
d d fp' ~ n
-p N~ W
.D N~ (D X a
~ n _
? O N
° 0
a~ y
3
~
~`~'o~'mm n
Q~
~ m 3
~m~
3w~ C7
`~ n ~:
-n
.
any y
n
m o
:~'
O ~ N
h
~~~
o~p
~ c f~
O =
~ C
i
y ~
.
[~
m
Q' ~
~
c w ~ ~~
0 ~ v o
x
~
ro o. N a m o. m ~
(p
?~
.. -
vafvyw-'~
oO~~c~
~ ~~
mom ~.Q Oco
-.
Jp~~~m .
3
~ 3 o m~ ~
ow,~~~x
'
_
..::,:..
'
to
m ~ 3
~
N d 3
D , : ~
`+ ~"
~)
N
.
w~m~~~
J ~ ~n ~
°' °' d m ~3. y /
~~
~
= o~
^
~
Go L -
m
~
y
v
~' ~ ~ ~
~ a~i m m a Q
o-~mm~m
0
3
v
<D
O
d
O
M
co
7
y
S
U
A
i
0
3
w
V
D
0
v
A
~G
'~
1
7
F
0
W
C1
O
m
°w^ U~ ~ W N 1 O CO OD ~1 O (Il ? W N i ~
N
M a
a
aZ N ~
;
3 ~ N d
m
m
J ~
m °
~
p0
z D .
v
m ~ 3~
n ,~ m m
m
~
~
~
~
~
Q~.
~l
~J
~
.9J
cn
w ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ w iv
-c o ,
-~
0
°'
D
G
N
C
D N
.
~ ~
~ ~
y ~
~ 2
w
m
0 ~
~ ,
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
w V'1
~
~
~
w V
~ ~
~
~ ~0
~ a
3
w
W ~
0 ~,
'~+~
~ ~
~ ~,
~ o
m
~ y
N ^o^ ^ R
o ~
m c)g7~mi
o~
c
~
~
c
(D N N R
m a m N
~p C
~O ~ a =
~
3 ~ 0
=
m ^~~ .
_ ~_ =_ m m
~ C
S j
a O N (D J
~ a
O (O N
~
m~ 3
m
w
- - - c
~~O~~.o ~ ~c O
>jocc~Di m ~d ~ o
w~y~ymc
~o'o''m c~~ a ~y
~.~ ~
m
w m
_.w~~yw
my~oooc'
_ w
a
w~c?w,~~J
~ mN
C m
N w
N o D 3 3. o<
w C
m a
oo~g'~
oo-~ ~w
m ~ ~ N ~ N
mw3•a°~~
9 ~,~ ^~ N
n
o w~ g Q m
~n~mc
o n~
~~ ~
o ti 6
-
~ ~~ ~ ~ J ~
l ~ c cn
~
3ro.oocm
o
m w
3 w p_
c `2
a
p
0 o~w ~ ~ o
T
~
o.
°-'3~°.~cw
3 ~ w m a m
d '
.~~~~'~~
a
~v
m
soy
m
my $m K
' ~
moo3
o~
p
~ ~_
N
d
0 ?~. N 3
SN 3 ~ ~
~ ~ Q ~_:
~-n
:
~d~.~w~ N
w
w °~
~o
ao
J ~ m p~ m vr A~ O
~
d N~ 7, N N T (n 0~ O
ma
~
o' n j ~
m
~
~~w~w ~
Q oco
v
c~ ~ ~ ,
oO7o
7 p O J ~ ~ -
¢3 o.m~ ~
o d. J x
°-' D ~ 3 '° v
i
~-°
q
m
C
~ y N J 3 x
,
s
~
~
.
p
n~ ~
~
1D p 3
°
'
'
m 7 -
y
~
w d w
N
(
J1
w N O`G
O J n
'
7 p 7 O
G
Dm m w ow
n ~ m
m
m ~
V
0
3
W
ao
V
V
D
v
n
0
3
v
:~
m
a
,e
v
f
m
x
0
d
A
7
G o
m~ 1
Ui 1
•P 1
W 1
N 1
~ 1
O cD OD v O U7 ~ W N 1 ~ ~' Q N
N ~
°' Z 7 D. N
f
A ~ w ~ H d
~
V'~ ' ,
m~
~
Z .
l~
~ D
3~.
~
N
V m m
w
-~ -~ v ~ ~ ~ w -~
N -~ o ~ ~ w ~
..a o0 0 - J ~
~0
~d
~ ~Z
c
o_ 3
~
N
~n 3
a
m
m
N
d Q
m ~ Z
w
~
N o ~
~ _~
'
~ m
~
m m ~ ~ .~ oo ~ m
0
- ~ ~ ~
(
_' 1
x t ~ v ~ (
~ ,
N y
( `
- '
(~
O
J /~
W
(
im
~ (~
`~ '
\
1
O
m Q~ ~ 1 DO - 1 ~
~ ~ ~ D
W J (~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
N ^^^ ^ ~
N
o
~
~
n> >omi
o~~~~
m m~'mn
a m ~,
~ c
°
cp
a
cD - -
a
^^
.
~ ~
_ v~~~
_-~~
~~ a
w Q ~ a D
~
m~ _
3 ~ m
w - -o
0
w d O N N~ S
N C
~
m ~ C O
i 7 y
w
4
n o n m v
° (O
`
m
~ m ~
N ^' y
Qty ~$O c ~
d
.w ~O
m°~-iwa7
. 7 O
N~ 7
mN
C y
`°
n
~
mo 3.0<
m ~3 w C
m~
a
ooh'°-om
0 0 -. 7
~
3F"7vi
m
~`~3
°0~
~
3
_0
m w~ w E.
~ ~, m ^^
N
>>~D
ma
7~7mp~ Qm
~O. Z ~ ~
~ c (~D
~N~ocw m ~' o- `z
O O y C j O
w W j N N T
N D
`° ~
a
33 .oC~
±y N aCi
m
j N 7~ 7
(TD ~ _
? O (~//
V7 N p N X a
° W W
'~
~O.
o3°3
doo~.a,3
~
w
m~
mn a
m
=ate
~
3
wmNC~-. Q-A
7 N f~. 3 w, j : w
m o o a° m
~ n ~° c a m= a y w 0
~`
~
~
. ~ n
N O
~
O' ~ _.
~ y
. N
~p (~
~
va o'y-
w ~p~ -.
oO~
~~
~ .
~~~
03
3Om7
~C
°d~dv9
m 3
c
w
~ N N 7 3
~
O.
wgd~~n \
~
ap
' ~
m
O.m 7 _y fD ~ .. F
~ ~
°'~' ~
~ „
w~o`Z
O 7 O _ , ~,
D _ ~p 7 O`wG
a ~ m m ~ m
~'