Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 05-25• s MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MAY 25. 1993 The Special Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Grant P. Kingsford at 7:30 P. M. Members Present: Ron Tolcma, Bob Giesler, Max Yerrington, Bob Corrie: Others Present: City Clerk Wayne Forney, Jack Sweet, Rod Trumbull, Gary Lacher, Bill Hardt, Vicki Welker, Raleigh Hawe, Harry R. Jensen, Ken Mortensen, Terry Doty, Don Bryan, Dennis Werner, Hert Myers, Jon Barnes, Steve Gregory, LaWana Niemann, Tammy Tingler, Mary Rich, Robert Millspaw, Erv Olen, Keith Loveless, Michael Swenson, Nancy Swenson, Greg Johnson, Joann and Bill Stuhr, Jack Riddlemoser, Wayne Crookston, Herb Endicott, Bob Strasser, Jerry Iverson, John McCreedy, Craig Groves, Mike Bermensolo, Jeff Huber, Angie Overturf, Steve Cline, Vickie ~lelker, Keith Borup, Hob Haley Betty Bermensolo, Ron Walsh, amore Yorgason, Don Hubble, ~heryl Todd, Ron Thomas, Bob McCormick: Kingsford: The Special Meeting has been duly Noticed and posted. The purpose of this Special Meeting is to conduct a hearing and consider public testimony regarding the desirability of authorising a moratorium on all annexation, aoning, subdivisions, and development applications and building permits and other matters including pending applications and permits but excluding building permits on previous approved Final Plat's in the City of Meridian to allow sufficient for the City to update it's Meridian Comprehensive Plan. I will open the Public Hearing and at this time I'd invite Mr. Forrey, our planner, to give us a little introduction and then we'll open it up for the public to testify. Wayne Forney, City Planner, was sworn in by City Engineer. Forney: Gave brief update on Comprehensive Plan and where the City is at now. See Attached Outline of Mr. Forrey's presentation - also see tape) Kingsford: Thank you. We encourage you to limit your remarks if you could. The Council at this time wall not make a decision this evening. We will look at the testimony, have Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and most likely address those at the June 1st Council Meeting. At this time I will open the Public Hearing and invite any of you to speak that may wish to. Bert Myers, 1908 NW 10th, was sworn by the attorney. • SPECIAL MEET I h1G MAY 25, 1993 PAGE c'' • Myers: I think Wayne's progra® was pretty good. I think that you ought to look at the thing that he has done. The City has hired him to do the planning and he's very expert in that area. I think this moratorium is a good idea. I think you should hold off and see what you can do, and give you guys time to get caught up. Kingsford: Thank you. Anyone else? Jon Barnes, i~t34 Justin Place, was sworn by the attorney. Haynes: I speak on behalf of the Developers Council of the Building Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho and we are empathetic with the needs of the City for planning and realize that this City has been growing at an extremely rapid pace and we know that you have to stop and take a look and see where your going at times. There's a couple of things that concern us as developers. First of all I think your behind the power curve on staffing in this City. We can't, at times, get the service from your City employees that we feel is needed so I would say if your going to plan for the future you also have to plan to staff the City to meet the needs of the future. I just also want to go on record that, if in fact you do ho ahead with this moratorium, that we as a body would like to work with Wayne and the Developers Summit to help this City continue to be a fine place to live. We know that unless the development is quality in this town we're not going to attract the buyers and we're concerned about that. One of the things that we are also concerned about is if we have enough inventory to meet the existing need. I know as a major developer in this town that I'm getting an awful lot of calls now, you have to remember as developers we're responding to needs. We're responding to a demand so I personally would like to see you allow those developments that have been preliminarily approved to go on through. Staffing really concerns me. The untimely death of Jack put Wayne from being a planner to the Clerk and I just don't feel your using him in the right way. Kingsford: Thank you. I might just mention on that staffing issue, we have advertisements for two rather important positions, the City Clerk being one of them that will go out tomorrow. Anyone else? Greg Johnson, 2433 Can-ado Road, was sworn by the attorney. • SPECIAL MEET I hJG MAY 25, 1993 PAGE 3 • Johnson: As an outsider looking at Meridian, I knew that Meridian was going to be the center of this valley and it will be. It's the HUB of this valley. I agree with the Planning that is taking place that is in the process of being done now and is desirous to be completed. I think it can be done without stopping what's in process. I don't think you have to put the breaks on everything that is being done in order to get that planning done. I would like to encourage that a consideration be made to allow development within the current boundaries that isn't in this agreement with the current Comprehensive Plan to go ahead and proceed. Those applications that are questionable, that are outside of those areas and that, then table them until this planning can be done. Mr. Barnes addressed an issue of being able to provide the public adequate lots. I really affirm the position that he had if a preliminary plat on a multi-phased project has been approved allow that project to continue to plat final phases in that project and provide lots. If we stop everything 100 days what lots are here are all that we will have until next spring. If we start the process of those in September they will not be available until next spring to build on. The other issue I would like to discuss is that we separate commercial development out of this. Commercial development is suffered substantially in the last few years and is behind because of the lack of financing. Long term financing has not been available. We're starting to crack that and if we shut it down at a time that we're just starting to crack it we will not get the commercial development that we need. Suggest that we don't ,just stop everything. Giesler: I would like to ask these people their position, citiaen, developer, etc.. Kingsford: Okay if you would then give that information in your testimony please. Harry Jensen, 2075 E. Fairview, was sworn by the attorney. Jensen: Owner of 20 acres of property. I first came to this City Council when they were doing the Union Pacific property and when that was brought in I came to the City Council and said, I've got twenty acres back there on the south side of Fairview that is going to be landlocked and I'm going to have trouble unless something is done and they assured me at that time that when Phase II went through that I could have a road or something that I could get back to that area with. Well since then U.P. • SPECIAL MEETING Io7AY 25, 1993 PAGE 4 r1 ~~ has not granted me an area to get into the back of my property. I've had several buyers for that property but I don't have access so they have backed out of the deal. Now I have another person interested in my property - my whole point is that all these years I've been waiting to sell my property and now if you put a moratorium on it I will probably be a few more years before I'll be able to sell it. I think that this Council ought to look at the uniqueness of a particular piece of property and not the whole thing. They should not have a moratorium on all of Meridian. Kingsford: Thank you. Terry Doty, 1~'138~ Mossywood, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Doty: I' m P.T.O. president at Ridgewood Elementary, which is in the Meridian School District. I do not live in the City of Meridian but have grown up in this valley and I have a keen interest in what happens here in Meridian. Enrollment in Meridian High School as of December of 92 was c5~1 students over capacity. They have estimated that at the beginning of the school year it wi 11 be 4df10 to 6fA~1 students above that. I don't see how we can continue with growth that does not look at what this growth is doing to our schools. The overcrowding is terrible, if this bond issue fails in the Fall then what position are we going to be in as a community. I have no problem with commercial development, but the residential development I do. Kingsford: Thank you. Herb Endicott, 145® W. Ustick Rd., was sworn by the attorney. Endicott: I'm a property owner and a tak payer. The way I see it we can let the commercial growth start and continue but the residential needs to be held up for at least i®G days. What we need to do and I'd like to see done is 2% of the property, whether it's donated to the school or the City, 29t go for parks, 3% for law enforcement and fire protection and 3~ go for schools. That is percentage of a developed property, not houses, but the lots. That would be 8% of whatever value that total development would be as a developed lot. Kingsford: Thank you. Bob Strasser, 3165 N. Meridian Rd., was sworn by attorney. • SPECIAL MEETIiVG MAY 25, 1993 PAGE 5 • Strasser: I'm a property owner and have been in Meridian for quite awhile. What I'd like to see is the industrial left alone and instead of putting a moratorium on every developer, let them help you out. Let them come before you with plans that would exceed and go beyond what you would expect or want to have them - maybe they can come up with some better ideas and find ways to give what is necessary to make it a better community. If you just flat stop them that's 10d~ days lost. If there was any development I would say keep it within the City services, anything outside the City services go ahead and put whatever moratorium necessary, but inside the City services you can take care of it now why not continue. Kingsford: Thank you. Jerry Iverson, 6f1125 Randolph Drive, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Iverson: We all understand that we need to get a handle on where Meridian's going. The planning process needs to look at those outside areas that are coming in for annexation, for rezone but perhaps give some consideration to the already approved preliminary plats, the second and third phases of existing subdivisions. Also the degree of building lots that's available is not necessarily spread evenly out through the builder businessmen in this community. Certain builders may have certain commitments to certain particular subdivisions. When you take away their inventory that they are planning on, you have long. term builders in this valley who may be the ones shut out from lots. Kingsford: Thank you. John McCready, ~9~'19 W. Bannock, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. McCreedy: I live in Boise but I'm here tonight on behalf of Gary tdoight, who is a developer here in the Meridian area. I just have two or three suggestions. One I think you have to look at the fairness of the moratorium. For those plats that have already been preliminarily approved there's been a lot of investment in tfiose. It may not be fair to cut those off at the knees now and make them go back to the line and start all aver again. I think it's got to be a rational plan and from what I understand from the developers tonight, one of their concerns is how their application is going to be processed in October. Your • SPECIAL MEETING MAY ~S, 1993 PAGE 6 • going to have even more of a back log during that time period if you don't continue to at least process some in the mean time. I would encourage the Council Members and the Mayor and the City Attorney to look carefully at whatever the legalities of the moratorium are. Certainly when plats are preliminary approved, that's kind of like a permit. Your somewhat authorized to go forward and then the City Council decides that it's not going to allow that process to go forward, there may be some legal rights that are infringed upon and unfortunately it's a legatees world we live in and there may be some law suits that result in that. Further examples given - see tape) - You've got to keep making some progress on the applications that are in otherwise your really faced with a problem in the long run. Kingsford: Thank you. Sheryl Todd, was sworn by the attorney. Todd: I'm a realtor and future developer. I agree with Mr. Forrey's comments. There is a great need to address the concerns involved in the Comprehensive Plan. It concerns me to see that all developments would be banned at such a crucial time. This would have a direct effect on the financial resources and since Meridian was once a farm community, all the farms in this room would know that when the drought season hits the farming is low. Therefore, when the drought season hits the interests are high, it is going to make it that much higher for this City to allow for the type of development needs that are truly out there. tFurther - see tape) I think it is important as Councilmen representing the City, that you would consider to continue to allow development that would support the ideas that you have. Kingsford: Thank you. Crai g Groves, 39~tD E. Shadygl en Drive, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Groves: I just have a couple of issues to address this evening. The first issue is an issue of supply and demand and then the second issue is an issue of funding for the needs. I might state that I support the Council and the City's concern on the growth and I think that your approaching it appropriately. Now is the time to deal with the schools, parks, fire and police. My SPECIAL (MEETING MAY ~~, 1993 PAGE 7 • concern is that in the area of funding for those projects and supply and demand. In the area of supply and demand I had the opportunity to work with Mr. Johnson over here back in 88 when he platted one of the first new developments in the area and he's right, the year before that there were like 26 permits that were issued and the bank financing was a little difficult for that project at the time. I've watched permits in this community continue to increase over the last four to five years and as we look at the supply and the demand you need to understand that even though we've got a thousand permits in the approval process right now, last year there was 748 permits issued in Meridian, there were 993 single family lots that were platted, however a lot of those lots were never completed because of weather. tExplained further - see tape) If we put a moratorium on everything and we don't allow lots that are already in the preliminary plat process to continue what's going to happen is it's going to push prices right through the roof. I'm recommending that we allow projects that are already preliminary approved to continue with the process. Kingsford: Thank you. Mike Bermensolo, 1970 Canonero Way, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Bermensolo: As I listen tonight it seems to me that these developers and these Real Estate agents have kind of overlooked the purpose of this meeting and the reason is that our infrastructure can't support all these so called high quality subdivisions that they are doing out here. I really don't much care about their profits or about there profit margins. There's a lot of other things that go into this such as kids getting a quality education, such as people living on fixed incomes over age 60 that have to put up with the property taxes and these bond issues and on and on and on. It just doesn't seem to me that these guys stop to take a look at any of that. If we're going to have continued growth let's have continued growth but why can't we do it at levels that are currently zoned. Kingsford: Thank you. Mike Swenson, 815 Waltman Lane, was sworn by the attorney. • SPECIAL MEET I IdG MAY ~5, 1993 PAGE A • Swenson: I basically only have one real issue I want to talk about. Even if this bond issue goes through for the schools next year, those schools are going to be filled by the time they are built. When I look around this community, even as a new resident, especially looking at the schools, what I see is a plan that's failed. I think there has to be real comprehensive meetings between Council and School Hoard to figure out what needs to be going on here. Kingsford: Thank you. Jeff Huber, 5~~9 Turret Way, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Huber: I don't think there's anyone in this room that doesn't want orderly, quality growth in Meridian. I think that you do have to make a decision though if you do choose to place a moratorium where your going to cut off the application process. It would be my recommendation that the applications that are already in to the City should be allowed to move forward. Giesler: How do you fit into this? Huber: I was before you last week for Dorado Development. Kingsford: Thank you. M.J. Overturf, 333~t S. Terri, Meridian, was sworn by the attorney. Overturf: I think the first ones here should have rights. Development is good and you need to have control but you can't cut them off just like a alcoholic. The School system definitely needs help but I don't think us, as a City or developers need to carry the burden. As I understand it, in 1964 Idaho put in a 3x sales tax to fund schools. I think the pressure should be put on them to provide for our schools. Kingsford: Thank you. Steve Cline, ~®~7 Monaco Way, was sworn by the attorney. Cline: I guess I would like to continue the analogy that's been brought up here several times and that is you as a Council being a Hoard of Directors of this Corporation of a City and the • SPECIAL MEETING MAY 25, 1993 PAGE 9 • current people who lave here as being the shareholders. As the Board of Directors, your first responsibility is to the current shareholders and that is to protect our interests, to protect the value that we have in our shares of that corporation. While growth is good and it's needed and it's necessary we can't cut the contractors off at the knees either. They have to be able to continue to carry on their business. Two things that will bring any company or corporation down is either lack of sales or to much sales. This rapid growth that we're having is bringing the City down. We aren't having the quality that we would like to see in this City which brought people here to begin with. A limited moratorium probably is justified but perhaps not a total moratorium. Kingsford: Thank you. Vickie Welker, ~~57 Monaco Way, was sworn by the attorney. Welker: I'm a 48 year resident of this City and secondly I'm a developer. My opinion is that planning has needed much attention here for a long time. You haven't addressed issues such as the growth that we're experiencing, the services that are needed, the school issues and I think everyone is aware of that. I feel that it would be not in the interest of the City of Meridian to jeopardize the builders and developers interest in order to solve that. I think that if you went forward with a system such as Mr. Forrey has suggested and get together with the developers at a Summit possibly before you start the moratorium to work with the developers on a one on one to find out what they are willing to do. I understand that these problems need to be addressed but I don't think that your going to accomplish addressing those issues properly by stopping business of the developers and the builders who are the ones who are bringing in the funds who can provide the money for the services that you need to change the problem. I would suggest that before you start the moratorium, you have a summit with those people who bring the funds into this City. I feel that you should finish your approval process on subdivisions that have preliminary plat approvals because a lot of funds have gone into those projects and you did already approve them and they are already in keeping with your current Comprehensive Plan. I think notice should be given before you cut off the subdivisions that are potentially in the planning stage and where funds have been expended that are within the red lined area that currently fit the planning agenda and let those subdivisions have an opportunity to get submitted before you cut them off, then • SPECIAL MEE T I h1G MAY 25, 1993 PAGE iG • start your process. Therefore, taking your entire process out of the main market stream. What I mean by that is the summer is the hottest market for Real Estate. I think you should take a look at delaying this moratorium a couple of months so that we're not in our peak business and cut off all of the dollars that we are working with. Kingsford: Thank you. idancy Swenson, 915 Waltman Lane, was sworn by the attorney. Swenson: First of all, I'm just a resident here in Meridian. All I'm interested in basically is the quality of life that we've got here in Meridian. I think it's a real good thing to step back a bit and take a look and see what the plans are, where people want to take this town. The schools are facing a crisis here, that has became very apparent. I think that if people take time to look at the over-all picture without one individual interest bumping up and fighting another individual interest that we will have time to put in the parks, to put maybe it's something like allowing X-number of houses means an Elementary School has to be provided and so on. I think we need to plan the services, parks, schools, along with the subdivisions. Kingsford: Thank you. Keith Borup, ~~t9~1 Freedom Lane, was sworn by the attorney. Borup: I have lived in Meridian since 1965 and I'm concerned about the future of the City. I think the time is now to do some planning. I'm a home builder in this area and a lot has been said about the availability of lots and I'm sure that out there somewhere but from the aspect of a builder they've been scarce. A lot of times we know that the developers have made a commitment when they have gone in with their preliminary plat and developed the first phases of their subdivision. I think a lot of the builders have done the same thing. I think it makes real good sense to continue and encourage the commercial development. I'd like to encourage allowing the subsequent phases of subdivisions already started to be able continue and then let's get the whole development community involved with the planning. Kingsford: Thank you. • SPECIAL MEETING MAY ~5, 1993 RAGE 11 • Bob Haley, 577 E. Linkershim, was sworn by the attorney. Haley: I stand before you as a frustrated Superintendent because my job is to educate the kids that come to this community and in this district. You've heard several say this evening that we have problems with housing the students that we have in our School District. Certainly that is correct. This last fall we had an increase of 8~t~- students, we had planned for 5fd0 of those. We're expecting at least another 9~0 this fall and by that I think you can easily tell that we need to be building at least one school every year, if not more. We are running a bond issue on September ~8, 1993 and we are going to pass that bond issue and it will take two years to build those schools. According to our conservative projections the day that those schools open they will be full. Our only option at this point and time is to continue to go to the tax payer and ask for bond issues to build schools. I am not anti-growth, after all I am here because somebody allowed growth. We do need to take a look at ways at ways of solving out problems. We have been to the Legislature repeatedly to get impact fees so that we don't have to go to the tax payer every time to build these schools and the developers beat us down. We have gone back to try to get transfer fees and the Realtors oppose us on that. Something needs to happen. I think that a moratorium at this point and time is proper, but I think maybe on a limited basis. We need the commercial development. I would recommend that this be a limited moratorium and that if developers can get their heads together, they know what we need, and that they can come to you with proposals that would include school sites or parks or whatever it is that you determine that we need and maybe those should be considered. Kingsford: Thank you. Betty Bermensolo, 197G Canonero, was sworn by the attorney. Bermensolo: You need input from property owners, not just developers. Growth by itself is not the problem, but there must be planning to support the growth. Development can be profitable and still be reasonable. I'd like to people to know that there is a southwest Ada County alliance that includes Meridian, includes Kuna, we've had one meeting. Our purpose is not to stop growth, it's to put forward ideas in terms of planning for this growth. I think that the step the Council is taking is indicative of one that should be taken in Boise. (Further - see tape) Need better land use not higher land use - don't develop with a lot of walls (fences). ~~ SPECIAL MEE T I h!G MAY 2S, 1993 PAGE 12 lingsford: Thank you. • Ron Walsh, ic~t~l~ Fiddler, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Walsh: I reside in far west Boise. I'm representing a manufacturing facility to locate somewhere in the northwest, they have singled out Meridian as their finalist. My client felt that Meridian had a very open and willing attitude towards his location here. He'll bring with him 1~® employees. His main focus right now is just locating his company here. I think when he hears of the proposed moratorium, I think he'll have two feelings. He* 11 feel good about Wayne' s ideas. I' m not so sure he'll feel very good about a moratorium because it's somewhat of a radical approach. An absolute moratorium would be somewhat frightening to a business owner who is going to put all his personal cash and a company and locate it here. The City of Boise is approving developments that are impacting Meridian's School District. I would encourage moderation. Kingsford: Thank you. Ramon Yorgason, S~1~Q1 Fifeshire Place, was sworn by the attorney. Yorgason: I to am a property owner and a tax payer in the Meridian area. I happen to reside in west Boise. I applaud Wayne far the task that he is undertaking. I'd like to go on record as to volunteer as a member of the Developers Council that I'd be happy more than happy to help him in formulating plans that he would like to see happen along with members of the community. I would like to see us continue to process applications that are in process. I believe that as developers that we are conscientious citiaens. I also have children that attend the Meridian School District. I am as concerned as anyone in this room about the quality of education in Meridian Schools. The schools certainly have a difficult time with their funding. Jon Barnes and myself, as members of the Development Council were asked to sit on a committee along with representatives of the City of Meridian, representatives of the Meridian School District, members of Boise City Council and members of Boise School District, Ada Planning and Ada County Highway District. We had several meetings trying to come up with some idea so we could help with funding. It was the Developers Council that recommended a transfer tax. We are still in strong support of a transfer tax to help solve some of these problems. • SPECIAL MEETING MAY ~5, 1993 RAGE 13 • We do not believe that an impact fee is a proper approach. We believe that an equal amount of funds can be raised from a transfer tax that spreads the base. (Gave example - see tape) - This needs to be a local option, not on a statewide basis. We would like to have you at least consider the projects that are in process to be able to continue. I would support a moratorium on new applications. Kingsford: Thank you. Ron Thomas, 26GG E. Overland Rd., was sworn by the attorney. Thomas: I'm just a property owner but I'm in the process of trying to do something with my piece of property and I've been trying to satisfy Meridian Comprehensive Plan and also Ada County. I've been working at this for almost a year and a half. If there's a total moratorium where does that leave me? I'm not in the City limits but want to know what this will do to me. Does not agree with a total moratorium on all development. Kingsford: Thank you. Bob McCormick, ~9b8 Gretchen Way, was sworn 6y the attorney. McCormick: I've recently sold my home in Boise, and I've lived in Meridian in the past. I have ernest money on a lot in a subdivision that's been approved and hope to have a building permit within two weeks with my builder. What your addressing here I don 't think will affect me but there are others that it will. I think what Wayne has presented here is commendable but I think there's some room in there for some compromise. Kingsford: Thank you. Don Hubble, 9 ;50 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Hubble: I am here tonight as a civil engineer working with land developers. We represent some clients who have proposed projects in the area today. I would like to commend the City on their staff. I think you have a dynamite City Engineer and a great Planning Director and I think that whatever planning efforts are going to happen are in good hands. My only comment would be that the applications that are in process right now be to continue to be processed and then begin a moratorium on anything newly submitted beyond that. Kingsford: Thank you. • SPECIAL MEETING MAY ~5, 1993 PAGE 14 • Keith Loveless, Consulting Engineer, 333~J Grace St., Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Loveless: I represent several of the smaller developers here within the City. In the last couple years I've found the attitude and receptiveness of the City of Meridian a lot different then it was seventeen years ago when I first appeared before City Council over here. There's been a lot of changes in this town since that time. I would like to see in-fill projects continue. Generally these projects help the infrastructure. I think a moratorium on projects within the City limits of this type would be highly detrimental because it would tend to push everybody outside your impact area which is not going to help the school district. It's going to be outside your jurisdiction, your going to be at the hands of the Ada County Commissioners or the hands of Boise City Council or the City of Eagle. You've got to be careful how far you go. I understand your dilemma. No growth will stop a City in it's tracks. Keep moratorium outside the City limits but allow in-fill. Kingsford: Thank you. One comment I did receive this afternoon from Steven K. Ricks, Developer, and that will be a part of the record as well. Anyone else to testify? No response. I will close the Public Hearing at this time. We greatly appreciate your input. TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) ATTEST: WAY FO EY, CITY CLERK APPRDVED: GRANT P. KINGSFORD, MAYOR clt • • MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Consideration of goals, policies and objectives contained in Comprehensive Plan. Related to possible moratorium A. Plan adopted in 1978: - 10 year reach - policies pertain to Urban Service Planning Area. IISPA enlarged in March 1993 but policies not updated. B. Goal 2: ...orderly growth, including all services within the USPA... - City has pending development applications outside of USDA plus requests for City Services outside of IISPA. C. Goal 3: ...encourage economic growth that strengthens the City's ability to finance and implement public improvements and services... - City needs expanded C/I base to finance public safety and recreation services. Pending development proposals lack C/I mix. D. Goal 6: ...recreational facilities .available to all residents of the city... within easy walking distance or 1 1/2 miles... - City has 37 acres of park land but needs 75 acres to meet minimum standards, pending applications over 2 1/2 miles from park space. E. Goal 7: ...community services to fit projected needs... - Public safety and recreation services cannot meet projected demand at desirable levels of service. Decreasing response time in public safety services. F. Goal 9: ...balanced land use to insure revenues pay for services... - C/I land uses are 1/2 of desirable planning allocations. G. Land Use Policy 1: ...City intends to update land uses within the USPA... - IIpdated land use policy analysis is needed to allow continued development within IISPA. Gauge pending development proposals. H. Land Use Policy 4: ...scattered residential (sprawl or spread) does not comply with plan... - several pending development proposals may constitute sprawl or spread. I. Physical Environment Policy 1• ...annually update the USPA information base... - total overhaul is necessary to allow continued quality development and evaluate current development proposals. J. Population Growth Policy 2: ...plan should be updated to accommodate growth... - incorporate projections of IPCO, APA, consultants into the plan. 27,000 - 31,300 - 35,500 - 40,500. • K. Technical Industrial Review Area Policy 4• ...strip development along Overland Road does not comply with plan..: - pending proposals may constitute strip development. L. dousing Development Density Classifications• ...1 DU/5 AC outside of USPA... - pending annexation and development proposals outside of USPA at R-4 and R-8 standards. M. Housing Policy 6: ...housing proposals to be phased with open space, public service and facility plans... - public facility plans need to be updated to keep ahead of demand, avoid - lost opportunities. N. Housing Policy 19: ...high density development located near parks... - significant market demand for multifamily but few acceptable sites, Affordable housing and rental housing must be expanded in USPA. O. TransAOrtation Functional Definitions: ...This entire depb~ needs to incorporated the APA 2000 classification system plus ACS amended roadway standards to ensure public safety and coordinated traffic planning. P. Rural Areas Policy 5: ...C/I development discouraged... - C/I policies need overhaul to enhance economic viability of Western Ada County and Meridian. Q. School and Education Policy 3: ...School sites reserved in advance of development... - Joint School District No. 2 indicates that subdivision residents "can not be assured of attending the neighborhood school", plan update needs to include "an analysis of public school capacity and transportation considerations associated with future development.° (LPA amendments) R. Fire Protection Policy 1: ...to insure adequate protection for new developments, provisions shall be made for satellite fire stations... fire services growth and policy analysis is needed to ensure adequate public safety services to all residents. Pending development requests are outside of 1 1/2 to 2 mile adequate response capability. S. Law Enforcement Policy 2: ..."recommended service ratio of 1.6 to 1.8 policemen per 1,000 persons"... - City currently at 1.1 service ratio; enhanced ED policies are required to provide .expansion revenue. Pending development proposals lack C/I mix to create revenue enhancement. T. Community Park Goal / Site Guideline: ...provide large recreation area, 20 to 40 acres ... - IIpdated land use analysis and multi-subdivision component dedication procedure is needed in plan. IIpdate to acquire 20+ acre sites. • • U. Linear Open Space Corridor Goal: ...establish a network of corridors, (improved, semi and unimproved)... - The draft pathway plan needs to be included in update and applied to over a dozen pending and potential projects which abut potential green belts. V. Park and Recreation Policy 3: ...develop a comprehensive park plan... - current park development plan needs overhaul and inclusion in comp plan update to gauge current and pending development proposals. W. Implementation Chapter; Zoning Ordinance and Maps• ...The policies of the Comprehensive Plan establish the framework for the zoning ordinance and map... - Policies have not been updated since 1978. LPA amendments regarding school capacity and land use policy analysis need to be included in update process to evaluate pending and proposed development requests. X. Comprehensive Plan Review: ...update and/or reaffirm the plan to fit changing needs... - Plan is in update process but current development proposals need a current planning guideline - not 1978 conditions. Y. Future Acquisition Map: ..map appropriate sites for streets, schools, parks and other public purposes...- - coordination time is needed to pull all the pieces together to properly evaluate pending and proposed development requests. Z. Functional Plans: ...IIpdated pathway; school development; fiscal impact; sewer facility plan; water master plan; public services and public safety plans need to be incorporated into comprehensive planning process to properly evaluate pending and proposed development requests. WSF/tlt/complan.tlt r • • Request to amend Comprehensive Plan must contain the following: 1. Specific definition of_the change being reuuested. - Update plan to 1993 plus forecast conditions. 2. Specific information on anv property involved. - All land currently within defined Meridian Impact Area, possibility of land within 1 mile or more of Impact area. 3. The condition or situation which warrants a change beinct made in the plan. - Significant growth and public service demand which is not addressed in current plan. 4. The public need for 5. r~ - Protect health, safety and general welfare of the public. Documentation that no other solutions to the problem presented by the current policy of the lan are possible or reasonable. - Current plan is now 15 years old. Current plan based on a 10 year planning period. Solution is to update plan to allow continued development. 6. Development intentions for anv land involved. - Intention of City to update the plan to allow continued quality development within USDA. 7. Any other data and information needed by the Planni aoes it Help, wno noes it Hurt, riow mucri is it going to cost and who's going to pay for it. - Entire City will benefit. ~ Development interests may be hurt by potential moratorium, however, long term benefits will help real estate market and preserve quality of life in Meridian. City intends to apply for state planning grant funds and use City funds to pay for plan update. Estimated Cost = $25,000. As of May 25, 1993 there are 43 approved plats containing a estimated 1087 building lots available for sale and home construction. City averages 100 building permits a month. There appears to be an adequate inventory of lots to support the local ~~real estate market within the time line of a proposed moratorium. WSF/tlt/complan2.tlt ~ .~ F s COMPRESSED AMENDMErIT SCHEDIILE Immediate Action to IIpdate Comprehensive Plan and Related Ordinances June 1 to 5 Complete draft land use and LPA component analysis June 7 to 12 Development Summit Week - Economic interests June 14 to 19 Neighborhood Summit Week - Citizens, Assoc., PTA June 21 to 26 Policy Analysis Week - individual P/Z-C/C members June 28 to 30 Technical Wrap-up / Publish amendments Authorize and call to action - Development Fee Committee Commence weekly work sessions July 1, 8 and 15. Draft Development fee Ordinance by July 20. Hearing notices and copies distributed to all interested parties- Tuesday August 10, 7:30 p.m. P/Z commission hearing on Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Development Fee Amendments. Tuesday September 7, 7:30 p.m. C/C hearing on amendment package. Anticipate approval of amendments to plan, terminate moratorium. Wednesday September 8 to Friday September 10 commence processing pending applications and accept new development requests for October 12, 1993 regular P/Z commission meeting. Hold on development applications = 100 day moratorium. June 8 , 1993 P/Z to October 12 , P/Z action = 126 day processing delay Aggressive Schedule - Partnerships - Consultants - Citizens hold Planning Director accountable - minimize duration of moratorium Lets all work together to maintain high quality in everything we do in Meridian - public and private! WSF/tlt/complan3.tlt • • a ° ~^, BEFORE T8E MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MORATORIUM ON ANNEBATION, ZONING, SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT. AND BUILDINGS PERMITS MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing May 25, 1993, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the City Council of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of a public hearing for the adoption of a moratorium on all annexation, zoning, subdivision and development applications and building permits, and other matters including pending applications and permits, but excluding building permits on previously approved final plats, was posted on Wednesday, May 19, 1993, at the U.S. Post Office, the Meridian Public Library, and the Meridian City Hall, and was published in the Valley News on Thursday May 20, 1993, prior to the said public hearing scheduled for May 25, 1993; that copies of the notice were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; that notice of the public hearing received coverage in the Statesman newspaper; that the hearing requirements for a Moratorium are contained in Section 67- 6523 and 67-6524, Idaho Code, and such sections require that a hearing be held following the notice provisions of 67-6509, Idaho MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 1 ~• ~• Code, but if the action is to impose a moratorium and the Council finds that there is an imminent peril to the health, safety or welfare to the public, the notice of the hearing may be held upon any abbreviated notice of hearing that the City Council finds practical; that the notice that was given was practical. 2. That Wayne Forrey, who is now the appointed City Clerk and the Zoning Administrator, was hired as a consultant in December of 1992, to prepare an updated Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian; that as of this date the updated Comprehensive Plan is 70~ completed and it was at that stage when Wayne Forrey was hired as the City Planner but he has not had the time to work on it since being hired; that the update of the Comprehensive Plan includes all components of the Plan and is a Plan for the entire Area of Impact; that the updated Plan being prepared by Mr. Forrey would be an amendment to the total current Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian which was initially adopted in 1978; that the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, hereafter referred to as the "Plan", has been amended on several occasions to address minor changes but it has not been totally re-evaluated since its initial adoption. 3. That the City is experiencing substantial growth and received applications for annexation, zoning, rezoning, development, and subdividing for 1,515 residential lots, in various subdivisions, since April 13, 1993, and there were already lots pending in the approval process, and the City will likely receive more; that the applications have been a time burden on the Council, the Commission, the Zoning Administrator, and the City staff. MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 2 • • • • 4. That the applications have been administered by the Zoning Administrator, who is also the City Clerk, by the City Engineer, and by the City Engineer's assistant; that these people have been putting in long, overtime and arduous hours trying to keep up with the number of applications that have been submitted; that the City is in the process of advertising for a new City Clerk, who will take over full duties of clerk which means that the Zoning Administrator will have more, and essential, time to administer annexations, zoning, rezoning, development, subdividing and platting applications and the Plan; that the City has instructed the City Engineer to advertise for another assistant; that until the new City Clerk and another assistant to the City Engineer are hired the City will have, and is having, a very difficult time fully administering the applications, and that the staff is in need of additional time to properly administer, review, examine, and approve the applications. 5. That Wayne Forrey, City Zoning Administrator, testified at the hearing held. May 25, 1993, that the Plan was adopted in 1978 with a ten year reach; that the Urban Service Planning Area, hereafter referred to as the USPA, of the Plan was enlarged in 1993 but the policies of the Plan have not been changed; that Goal 2 in the GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN at page 8 of the current Meridian Comprehensive Plan states, "To ensure that growth and development occur in an orderly fashion in accordance with adopted policies and procedures governing the use of land, residential development, the provision of services and the distribution of new MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 3 • • housing units within the USPA", however the City has pending development applications that are outside of the current USPA which applications have requested municipal services from the City of Meridian; that Goal 3 states, "To encourage the kind of economic growth and development which supplies employment and economic self- sufficiency for existing and future residents, reduces the present reliance on Boise and strengthens the City's ability to finance and implement public improvements and services and its open space character", however the City needs an expanded commercial and industrial base to finance public safety and recreation services and that pending development proposals lack commercial and industrial mix; that Goal 6 states, "To encourage cultural, educational and recreational facilities which will fulfill the needs and preferences of the citizens of Meridian to insure that these facilities are available to all residents of the City.", and in another section of the Plan it states that parks should be within easy walking distance or 1 1/2 miles, however, the City has 37 acres of park land but needs 75 acres to meet minimum standards and pending residential subdivision applications are over 2 1/2 miles from park space; and Goal 7 states, "To provide community services to fit existing and projected needs.", however at this time public safety and recreation services cannot meet projected demand at desirable levels of service and there is a decreasing response time in public safety services; Goal 9 states, "To encourage a balance of land use patterns to insure revenues pay for services.", however, commercial and industrial land uses, which MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 4 •• •• supply tax revenues, are 1/2 of desirable planning allocations. 6. That the Plan reflects, and Mr. Forrey testified, as follows: a. That Land Use Policy 1, on page 10 of the Plan states, "The City intends to plan for the periodic reviewing, monitoring and updating of land uses within the Area of Impact and Urban Service Planning Area.", and that an updated land use policy analysis is needed to allow continued development within the USPA; b. That Land Use Policy 4, at page 10 of the Plan states, "The following land use activities are not in compliance with the basic goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. . Scattered residential (sprawl or spread).", and that several pending development proposals may constitute sprawl or spread. c. That Physical Environment Policy 1, at page 11 of the Plan states, "The City of Meridian intends to coordinate and utilize the resource planning information and management guidance as provided by local, state and federal agencies and to update annually the physical resource information of its Urban Service Planning Area, when new data becomes available.", and that a total overhaul is necessary to allow continued quality development and evaluate current development proposals. d. That Population Growth Policy 2, at page 13 of the Plan states, "The Comprehensive Plan should be adopted, maintained and updated to accommodate growth.", but that projections of MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 5 •• •• the Ada Planning Association show that the population will be 27,000 in the year 2,000 but the Plan has not been updated to accommodate the growth that has already occurred. e. That the Technical Industrial Review Area Policy 4, on Page 20 of the Plan states, "Strip development along Overland Road between Eagle Road and Runa/Meridian Highway is not in compliance with the goals,, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.", but that pending proposals may constitute strip development on'Overland Road. f. That the Housing Development Density Classifications commencing at page 25 of the Plan states that only 1 dwelling unit per five acres is allowed outside of USPA boundary, however, there are pending annexation and development proposals outside of USPA at R-4 and R-8 densities. g. That Housing Policy 6, at Page 28 of the Plan, states, "Housing proposals shall be phased with transportation, open space and public service and facility plans, which will maximize benefits to the residents, minimize conflicts and provide a tie-in between new residential areas and service needs.", but that public facility plans need to be updated to keep ahead of demand and avoid lost opportunities. h. That Housing Policy 19, at page 30 of the Plan states, "High density development, where possible, should be located near open space corridors or other permanent major open space and park facilities and near major access thoroughfares.", and there now is significant market demand for multifamily housing MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 6 •• •• but there are few acceptable sites, and affordable housing and rental housing must be expanded in USPA. i. That the Transportation section of the Plan needs to incorporate the Ada Planning Association 2000 classification system plus incorporate the Ada County Highway District Amended Roadway Standards to ensure public safety and coordinated traffic planning. j . That the Rural Areas Policy 5, at page 39 of the Plan states, "Commercial and industrial development should be discouraged in the rural areas,. and would only be considered if municipal sewer and water and other appropriate services are provided.", but this may need to be modified in the Plan, and commercial and industrial policies need to be overhauled to enhance economic viability of Western Ada County and Meridian. k. That School and Education Policy 3, at page 40 of the Plan states, "School sites should be reserved for future acquisition in advance of planned land use. Approval of subdivision plats may be withheld if adequate school facilities or sites are not available to serve the proposed subdivision.", and the Joint School District No. 2 has indicated that subdivision residents "can not be assured of attending the neighborhood school" and a Plan update needs to include "an analysis of public school capacity and transportation considerations associated with future development." (1992 Local Planning Act amendments.) The MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 7 •• ~• District has not communicated to the City the future school sites that it would like to have reserved and the City has not performed the analysis of public school capacity required of the City by the 1992 Local Planning Act amendments. Co- operation between the School District and the City is required to meet these policies and legislative directions. 1. That Fire Protection Policy 1, at page 41 of the Plan states, "To insure adequate protection for new developments, provisions shall be made for satellite fire stations which have a staff of fire fighters equipped with the appropriate fire-fighting facilit$es.", but a fire services growth and policy analysis is needed to ensure adequate public safety services to all residents. Pending development requests are outside of 1 1/2 to 2 mile adequate response capability. The Meridian City/Rural Fire Department has been meeting demand but the more outlying a fire call is, the more the fire capabilities are stretched. m. That Law Enforcement Policy 2. at page 42 of the Plan states, "Police protection within the city limits and police protection furnished by the Ada County Sheriff's Department in the areas outside the City limits, but within the Urban Service Planning Area, should be assessed for deficiencies according to the recommended service ratio of 1.6 to 1.8 policemen per 1,000 persons". The City currently is at a 1.1 service ratio and enhanced economic development policies are required to provide expansion revenue. Pending development MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 8 •• ~• proposals lack commercial and industrial mix to create revenue enhancement for expansion of the Police Department. n. That the Community Park Goal/Play Fields Goal and Site Guideline, at page 45 of the Plan state, "Goal: To provide places large enough to serve outdoor and indoor recreational needs of several neighborhoods, within minimum travel distances. Site -Guidelines: 20 to 40 acres, including adjacent unrestricted school play fields. Site may vary depending on population or number of neighborhoods to serve." An updated land use analysis and multi-subdivision component dedication procedure is needed in the Plan to update the Plan to acquire 20+ acre sites. o. That the Linear Open Space Corridor Goal, at page 47 of the Plan states, "To establish a network of open space corridors, that are either (landscaped), semi-improved (landscaped pathway only), or unimproved (left natural), which have potential...", but the draft pathway plan of the Ada Planning Association needs to be included in an update of the Plan and applied to over a dozen pending and potential projects which abut potential green belts. p. That Park and Recreation Policy 3, at page 48 of the Plan states, "It is the policy of the City of Meridian to develop a Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan and system - which includes: 1)Community and City-wide Parks; 2) Neighborhood Parks; 3) Small Areas or Open Spaces; 4) Linear Open Space Corridors; and 5) Special Use Areas.", but the MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 9 •• •• current park development plan needs to be overhauled and included in the Comprehensive Plan update to gauge current and <. pending development proposals. q. The Implementation Chapter of the Plan states at page 53 that "The policies of the Comprehensive Plan establish the development of zoning ordinances and a zoning map.", but the policies have not been updated since 1978 and the Local Planning Act amendments of 1992 regarding school capacity and land use policy analysis need to be included in the update process to evaluate pending and proposed development requests. r. That the Comprehensive Plan Review section of the Plan commencing at page 54 states, "If the Comprehensive Plan is to be useful and effective, it should not be filed away but should be continually'reviewed and updated. It is recommended by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission that at least a yearly review shall be held of the Comprehensive Plan to update and/or reaffirm the Plan to fit the changing needs as well as unforeseen planning problems and opportunities." The Plan is in the update process but current development proposals need a current planning guideline, not 1978 conditions. s. The Future Acquisition Map section of the Plan states at page 55 of the plan, "A city may designate on a Future Acquisition Map appropriate sites for streets, schools, parks and other public purpor~es.", and coordination time is needed to pull all the pieces together to properly evaluate pending MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 10 ~• •• and proposed development requests. t. The Plan lists Functional Plans, commencing at page 55, that should be considered as implementation options of the Plan as follows: `< "1. Design Studies and Standards for existing industrial and commercial uses, new industrial and commercial uses, infilling of vacant land within the City, and local residential streets. 2. Utilization of the open space corridors. . . 4. Bike and Pedestrian Pathway Plan. 5. Public School Site Selection and Development Plan. . . 7. Satellite Fire Station Plan and budgetary phasing toward permanent fire protection staff and dispatchers. 9.• -Emergency Medical Plan for the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area. . . 11. Parks, Recreation and Open space Plan. . . The above plans need to be incorporated into the comprehensive planning process to properly evaluate pending and proposed development requests. 7. That from Mr. Forrey's testimony regarding the Goals of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan it is specifically found as follows: a. That there are proposed developments outside of the USPA which are requesting City services but growth and development are limited under the current Plan to being with in the USPA. b. That there is too little park land and that the amount of park space is 50~ below standards and what parks are in existence or planned are not within a 2 and 1/2 mile reasonable radius of pending residential subdivision applications. c . That safety services cannot meet projected demand in that MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 11 •• •• there are only 1.1 policemen per 1,000 when the standard is 1.6 to 1.8 policemen per 1,000 and the fire response standard period of 1 1/2 to 2 miles is being exceed. d. That there is supposed to be a balance of land uses but the commercial and industrial applications being submitted are one-half of desirable planning allocations. 8. That from Mr. For,~ey's testimony regarding the Policies of the of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan it is specifically found as follows: a. That a land use policy analysis is needed to allow continued development in the USPA but it has not been done. b. That the Comprehensive Plan should be updated to accommodate growth but such has not been done. c. That the land is not supposed to be more dense than one dwelling unit per five acres outside of the USPA boundary but the City does have applications that extend beyond the USPA boundary that are proposing densities of four and eight dwelling units per acre. d. That housing development is supposed to be phased with transportation, open space, and public services, but this housing policy has not been met and this lack of phasing is evidenced by one example: the condition of Locust Grove Road north and south of Fairview Avenue, the number of approved and pending subdivisions accessing Locust Grove Road, and the fact that there are no parks in the area. e. School sites are supposed to be reserved but they have not been as a result of a lack of information from the Meridian School District; subdivision plats may be withheld if adequate school facilities or sites are not available to serve proposed subdivisions, but approval of subdivisions has not been denied for that reason; the 1992 amendments to the Local Planning Act indicate that an analysis of public school capacity is to be made as part of the planning duties required as part of the comprehensive plan but no such analysis has been performed. d. That the fire policy is to insure fire protection for new developments but the City has applications for new developments which are outside of the recommended 1 1/2 MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 12 •• •• to 2 mile response capability. e. That the Comprehensive Plan recommends that there be 1.6 to 1.8 policemen per 1,000 persons but the City now has only a ratio of 1.1 policemen per 1,000 persons. f. That the City does not meet the Park and Play Field Goal or the Park and Recreation Policy with only 37 park acres existing or under development, when 75 acres are required to meet minimum standards. g. That the Comprehensive Plan requires review of the Plan; that there have been amendments and reviews of the Plan for particular sections or uses but there has not been a total overall review of the Comprehensive Plan. 9. The testimony from the public at the hearing from individuals can be summarized as follows: Bert Myers, a property owner, testified that a Moratorium was a good idea since he had moved here in 1972 when the city was smaller and now the City was getting too large and the schools too crowded and he desired that growth be curtailed. John Barnes, a resident of the Area of Impact and a real estate developer, testified that he was empathetic for planning; the City was growing; he knows the City needs to stop but the City is behind the power curve on staffing; he does not get service he desires; if there was a moratorium he would work with the proposed developers summit; there needs to be an inventory of building lots to meet demand; he proposed that the City allow preliminarily approved subdivisions to go forward; that develope,~s had a hard time meeting demand; and that the City was not using Wayne Forney correctly. Greg Johnson, areal estate developer testified that Meridian was the hub of the valley; he agrees with planning but says it can proceed without stopping; if areas are outside the USPA table them; if lots are preliminarily platted allow them to continue through the process; separate commercial development from this; table strip development; that a moratorium could cause a loss of commercial to southeast Boise. Harry Jensen, a local resident testified that he wants to sell his land and with a moratorium he may not be able to sell; he desired that a moratorium not be placed on all development. Terry Doty, a resident of the Area of Impact and involved with the Ridgewood Elementary PTO stated the high school was 250 over capacity and will be 400 to 600 over capacity in the MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 13 • • • fall; school overcrowding effects the community. Herb Endicott, a property owner and tax payer, testified to let commercial keep going but to stop residential development; he suggested that 2~ of land be used for parks, 3~ law enforcement and fire, and 3~ for schools. Bob Strasser, a local resident property owner, testified that he did not like small crowded subdivisions and wanted more industrial; he desired to have developers help and give what is necessary, parks; he liked the land use percentages testified to by Mr. Endicott; he desired to keep development within city services. Jerry Iverson testified that there was a need to get a handle on the growth; that it would be a hardship on developers; consideration should be given to already approved preliminary plats; could shut off builders as well as developers. John McCready, a developer's representative, testified that the City should look at fairness; let preliminarily platted lots go forward and continue to be processed; there must be a rational plan; that there would be an overflow of development application in October after a moratorium was lifted; he questioned the legality of a moratorium and stated there could be lawsuits filed. Sheryl Todd, a realtor, agrees with Forrey to address the Comprehensive Plan but does not want all development to stop; interest rates effect development; parkways and green belts cause loss in profits. Craig Groves testified that it was a supply and demand issue and funding for needs; the City was approaching growth as it should be, employment and growth; Meridian is affordable which creates demand in Meridian; a moratorium would cause price increases; development° is willing to help with funding but with guidelines from legislation; he suggested that the City allow lots and subdivisions that have received preliminary approval to continue to be processed by the City. Mike Bermansolo, a resident outside of the Area of Impact, testified the infrastructure can't support the subdivisions and further development would not help. He stated that if they had been approved let them build; he did not like R-8 densities or greater density; he did not want the area to become an L.A. or a Salt Lake City. Mike Swenson testified that schools will be filled if built even if the proposed bond issue passes and schools should have input to comprehensive plan. MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 14 • . • • Jeff Huber, a developer, testified that he wants orderly, quality growth; there needs to be a decision as to where to cut off the development; he stated that if an application is filed let it go; he supports Wayne Forrey's presentation. M.J. Orvature testified that it is hard to cut off development, and hard to cut it off cold turkey; development does not need to carry burden of schools; schools should provide for schools; squatter rights. Steve Cline, a resident, testified growth was needed and you can't cut development off at the knees, but. there was too much growth; loosing quality; limited moratorium justified but not total cut off. Vicki Welker, a 48 year resident and a developer; planning is needed; that it is not"in the interest of the City to impose on builders and developers; don't stop developers; stopping developers will not address the issue; have a summit before a moratorium; ask what developers are willing to do in regards to the volume; don't stop at the preliminary plat stage; let this be notice to those who have not yet not filed an application, but are in the planning stage. Nancy Swenson, a resident with no financial interest to urge; good to step back and plan; Meridian is just a bedroom community; school crisis; too much growth is ridiculous; take time for parks; require an elementary school for a certain number of houses, a middle school for a certain number of more house, and a high school for a certain number of more houses; the rate of growth is too fast and we will get trampled. Keith Borup, a builder; there is time for planning; if no growth here then in West Boise; lots are still scarce; lots are sold out on completion of streets; if not able to go into 2nd phase hard on the builders; allow 2nd and 3rd phases of subdivisions. Bob Haley, a resident of the Area of Impact and Superintendent of Schools-for the Meridian School District, stated that he was a frustrated Superintendent; the School District had problems housing students; 500 additional students planned and 800 received and there was more anticipated in the Fall; 2 years to build a school and when it opens it will be full; School District has to ask tax payers to pay for schools; legislature not helpful; developers beat schools down when they ask for impact fees; realtors beat them down when schools as for transfer fees; he stated that a moratorium was proper but that it should be limited so that commercial projects could be built. MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 15 •• •• Betty Bermansolo, a resident outside of the Area of Impact, testified that there was 7.1~ unemployment; she asked where will people work if land used for houses; growth is not the problem; balance growth with public interest; too much growth without planning is bad; the burden on schools would be helped with less density; lower density would help; a moratorium should be done in Boise also; she wants better land use. Ron Walsh, a Boise Resident representing a manufacturing company from out of area with 100 employees; his employer or principal will feel good about Forrey's ideas but will not like a moratorium because it is radical; moratorium will not stop school problems; he wants moderation but not a stop to development; he said an absolute moratorium would not be good. Roman Yorgason, a real estate developer and resident of the Area of Impact, testified that he applauded Wayne Forrey and stated that he is capable; he volunteered to be on the Development Council proposed by Wayne Forrey; he wanted the City to continue processing plats in process; a moratorium would be 9 month delay; he wanted both sides to be looked at; there was high employment in Ada County; developers are a conscientious citizen, not just people from out-of-state; developers do not create demand; schools do have funding problems; a different development council that he was on recommended a transfer tax not impact fee; transfer tax would be better for funding but needs to be a local option so it stays locally; he helped ACRD with impact fees; wants moratorium on new applications but not on those already in the process. Ron Thomas, a property owner, not a developer, testified that he was trying to work with the City and Ada County on the sale of property, which was not in the City but in Ada County; development takes planning and time; moratorium would hurt a lot of people; does not want total moratorium. Bob McCormack testified that a moratorium would effect common people and wants compromise. Don Hubble., a civil engineer who has represented many developers dealing wit~i Meridian applications, testified that his clients have proposed projects; he stated that Meridian planning was in good hands; he desired that the City continue development applications in process and stop there if the City has to stop. Keith Loveless, a civil engineer with clients who have applications pending with the City, testified a total moratorium was not in the best interest of City; his clients' projects were a filling in of land; those projects makes good MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 16 •• •• ~. use of existing sewer and water; a moratorium on projects within the City would be bad for the City; development will not come back after a moratorium; that a moratorium outside City limits would probably be alright. 10. That from the public testimony it is generally found as follows: a. That the testimony from the general public did not specifically address health or safety issues but did address general welfare issues which generally followed the individual's economic interests. b. That the owners of property desiring to sell their property for development, some real estate developers, and a real estate agent, did not want a moratorium to effect development applications that had already been filed and felt that a moratorium should not stop those subdivisions already being processed; they also wanted commercial and industrial applications to proceed. c. That many of the real estate developers testifying were empathetic and understanding of the problems the City was having with growth and the lack of staff to administer that growth but indicated that the staff was qualified; that most of them agreed to cooperate with the City and be on a developers summit committee to help the City with its planning; there was a general consensus of the real estate developers that if a moratorium was enacted that it should only be placed on those subdivisions that had not been preliminarily platted. They generally felt that a moratorium should not apply to commercial applications. d. That a representative of a developer stated that if a moratorium were put into effect there would be an overflow of applications in October and another developer representative stated that a moratorium would just force development away from Meridian and into the county and possibly would not return. d. That one of the development engineers testifying indicated that if there was a moratorium it should not effect development applications that had already been filed; another development engineer said a moratorium on development outside the city limits would be alright. e. That much of the testimony from those persons who were not developers or who did not own property that they desired to sell for development was supportive of a moratorium because they were concerned with the MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 17 •• ~• overcrowding of the schools;, concerned that if the school bond issue passes and new schools were built they would be full the day that they opened; concerned with the high density development of much of the land; they believed that the infrastructure could not support additional development; concerned that planning and development of parks should be undertaken and that developers should provide the parks and whatever else was necessary; and concerned that the rate of growth was too great. Some testimony from these people recognized that it would be a hardship on developers and builders to have a complete stop on development. f . That the overcrowding of the schools due to the large influx of people was addressed by the Superintendent of the Meridian School District and he stated that a moratorium was proper but that it should be limited so that commercial projects were not stopped; however, he was not emphatic that a total shut down of all residential development should be issued; that one person testifying stated that if there is no growth in Meridian then it will go to West Boise, so the school problem would not be solved. g. That all testimony from the public generally supported that if a moratorium was enacted that it not apply to commercial or industrial applications; that even the real estate developers indicated a moratorium would not be too bad if limited to applications that had not been filed or if limited so that lots that had already been preliminarily platted would not be stopped. 11. That it is found that the Meridian Comprehensive Plan is the comprehensive plan that is to guide growth and development in the Meridian Area of Impact; that it is found that a comprehensive plan amendment is being prepared for the City of Meridian. 12. That it is found that the Local Planning Act, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, states as follows pertaining to moratoriums and interim ordinances, to wit: 67-6523. Emergency ordinances and moratoriums. --- If a governing board finds that an imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare requires adoption of ordinances as required or authorized under this chapter, or adoption of a moratorium upon the issuance of selected classes of permits, MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 18 •• •• p or both, it shall state in writing its reasons for that finding. The governing board may then proceed without recommendation of a commission, upon any abbreviated notice of hearing that it finds practical, to adopt the ordinance or moratorium. An emergency ordinance or moratorium may be effective for period of not longer than one hundred and twenty (120) days. 67-652d. Interim ordinances and moratoriums. --- If a governing board finds that a plan, a plan component, or an amendment to a plan is being prepared for its jurisdiction, it may adopt interim ordinances as required or authorized under this chapter, following the notice and hearing procedures provided in section 67-6509, Idaho Code. The governing board may also adopt an interim moratorium upon the issuance of selected classes of permits if, in addition to the foregoing, the governing board finds and states in writing that an imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare requires the adoption of an interim moratorium. An interim ordinance or moratorium shall state a definite period of time when it shall be in full force and effect. 13. That it is specifically found that there is imminent peril to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian and the residents ~f the USDA and Area of Impact, due to the overextension of the Meridian Fire Department in that it is required to, or would be required to, provide fire protection beyond the 1 1/2 to 2 mile recommended service area; due to the ratio of policemen of 1.1 per 1,000 persons when the standard is 1.6 to 1.8 policemen per 1,000 persons; and due to the lack of incorporating the Ada County Highway District Amended Roadway Standards into the Plan for safety purposes; due to the lack of time for the Zoning Administrator, the City Engineer, and his assistant, to properly review and examine the documents and plans for health and safety requirements in the subdivisions that have been applied for to date; ghat these people have been doing the proper job but only under long, overtime and arduous hours, which MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 19 ~• •• ultimately could cause oversights of health and safety details and requirements if asked to continue under the present stressful conditions. 14. That it is specie€ically found that there is imminent peril to the welfare of the citizens of the City of Meridian and the residents within the Urban Service Planning Area and the Area of Impact due to the same reasons of the staff problems stated above in Finding of Fact numbers 4 and 13; due to lack of planning for parks, open space corridors, and pathways and a shortage thereof; due to a lack of time to try to see that there is a balance of land uses to insure there are revenues to pay for services; due to a lack of meeting the goal of the Comprehensive Plan to reserve school sites because of a lack of communication between the School District and the City on future site acquisitions; due to a lack of time to try to see that all of the goals and policies of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan are met and complied with; and due to not having reviewed the Plan to see how the City, USPA, and the Area of Impact are meeting up with the goals and policies of the plan. 15. That the imminent perils to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Meridian and the residents within the USPA and the Meridian Area of Impact may not be able to be remedied within the time period of a moratorium, but a moratorium would provide time, and an opportunity to address the perils. MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 20 •• •• CONCLUSIONS 1. It is concluded that the Local Planning Act, in Sections 67-6523 and 67-6524, Idaho Code, provides that the City Council may, without recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and without following the notice and hearing requirements of 67- 6509, adopt an emergency or interim moratorium if it finds and states in writing that there is imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare which requires the adoption of an emergency or interim moratorium. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to cease further annexation, zoning, subdivision and development and building permits, and other matters including pending applications and permits, but excluding building permits on previously approved final plats, under 67-6523 and/or 67-6524, Idaho Code, and to adopt an emergency or interim moratorium ordinance to put such cessation into effect. <, 3. That the City has.the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances, records, and proceedings, other governmental statutes, ordinances, and policies and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 4. That the City has judged this matter of ceasing annexation, zoning, subdivision and development, and building permits, and other matter, upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67 Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the record and evidence submitted to it and the things of which it may take judicial notice. MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FAC'r,& CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 21 ~• •• 5. That it is~specifically concluded that there is imminent peril to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian, and residents of the USPA and Area of Impact, due to the overextension of the Meridian Fire Department, in that it is required to, or would be required to, if more development is allowed, provide fire protection service beyond the 1 1/2 to 2 mile recommended service area; due to a ratio of policemen of 1.1 per 1,000 persons when the standard is 1.6 to 1.8 policemen per 1,000 persons; due to the lack of incorporating the Ada County Highway District Amended Roadway Standards into the Plan for safety purposes; due to the lack of time for the Zoning Administrator, the City Engineer, and his assistant to properly review and examine the documents and plans for health and safety requirements in the subdivisions that have been applied for to date; that these people have been doing the proper job but only under long, overtime and arduous hours, which ultimately could, cause oversights of health and safety details and requirements if asked to continue under the present stressful condition. 6. That it is specifically concluded that there is imminent peril to the welfare of the citizens of the City of Meridian and the residents within the Urban Service Planning Area and the Area of Impact due to the same reasons of the staff problems stated above in Finding of Fact numbers 4 and 13; due to lack of planning for parks, open space corridors, and pathways and a shortage thereof; due to a lack of time to try to see that there is a balance of land uses to insure there are revenues to pay for MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 22 • • • • services; due to a lack of meeting the goal of the Comprehensive Plan to reserve school sites because of a lack of communication between the School District and the City on future site acquisitions; due to a lack of time to attempt to see-that all of the goals and policies of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan are met and complied with; and due to not having reviewed the Plan to see how the City, USPA, and the Area of Impact are meeting up with the goals and policies of the Ilan. 7. That it is concluded that there is sufficient evidence of imminent peril to the health, safety and/or welfare to the citizens of the City of Meridian and the residents within the Area of Impact, to adopt an interim moratorium ordinance prohibiting further annexation, zoning, subdivision and development and building permits, without following the notice provisions of Idaho Code, Section 67-6509; that it is concluded that the abbreviated notice of hearing for the public hearing held May 25, 1993, was justified under the circumstances and the imminent peril, and was practical and afforded the public adequate notice of the hearing and the subject matter; that~all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act for the adoption a moratorium ordinance have been met; that the hearing that was held was well attended and views from all interests were presented. 8. That even though there was some testimony that supported a total moratorium stopping all development, the overall public testimony supported a moratorium that did not apply to applications for commercial or industrial development; it also supported a MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 23 ~. a •• •• residential moratorium which did not apply to those residential subdivision applications and lots which have been approved for preliminary plat or a moratorium limited to just stopping further residential subdivision applications. 9. That it is not the intent or desire of the City of Meridian to harm or do damage to developers or builders; nor is it the intent of the City to do harm or damage to people who may desire to move to our community, but it is the desire to protect the health, safety and welfare of those people who desire to move ~a here and those who already live here; it is the intent of the City to realize, and have the public realize, that the goals and policies of the current Comprehensive Plan are not being met and the Comprehensive Plan is in need of re-evaluation and that the Plan is in the process of being re-evaluated in an attempt to catch up to the growth that is occurring and burdening the City staff; that because the Plan is not being met, it is in the best health, safety, and welfare interest of all citizens of the City and the residents of the Area of Impact, to stop for a period of time and play catch up as best the City can without doing too much harm. 10. That it is concluded that an amendment to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan is in the process of being prepared and due to the imminent peril to the health, safety and/or welfare of the citizens of the City of Meridian, the residents within the USPA, and the residents in the Meridian Area of Impact, as found in the Findings of Fact, the City has authority to declare an interim moratorium ordinance on issuance of selected classes of permits. MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 24 ~ • ~ ~A ~ • 11. That 67-6524, Idaho Code, requires that an interim moratorium shall state a definite period of time when it shall be in full force and effect; that 67-6523, Idaho Code, states that an emergency moratorium may be effective for a period of not longer than one hundred and twenty days; that it is concluded that the moratorium ordinance shall state the time period that the moratorium shall be in full force and effect. 12. That it is concluded that it is the best interests of, the citizens of Meridian, the residents outside the City Limits but within the USPA, and the residents within the Meridian Area of • ~. Impact, to enact an interim moratorium ceasing any further residential development applications, including, but not limited to, applications for, or which include, annexation, zoning, rezoning, subdividing, re-subdividing, platting, conditional use, or planned development for any residential purpose; that the moratorium should not apply to applications for commercial or industrial development; applications that include both residential and commercial or industrial uses should be treated as residential applications; that applications for residential development which were filed with the City as of May 14, 1993, at 5:00 o'clock p. m., the last day to have had the Planning and Zoning Commission consider them at its monthly meeting on June S, 1993, should continue to be processed. MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 25 • ~i .. •~ APPROVAL OF FINDIN~38~ OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN CORRIE COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON COUNCILMAN GIESLER COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) MOTION: APPROVED: .~ ~. DISAPPROVED: VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED MORATORIUM FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 26