Comprehensive Plan Amendment
ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MERIDIAN'S
JULY 1993 APPLICATION TO AMEND
THE MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PAN
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled application to amend the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan having come on for public hearing on October 19,
1993, at approximately 7: 30 p. m., and the City Council having
considered the Planning and Zoning minutes of meetings and hearings
and the Commission's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
having considered all written and oral testimony, and the City
Council having heard any and all testimony that was submitted, and
considering the matters of which it can take judicial notice, and
including its knowledge of existing plans for the areas under
consideration and having duly considered all the evidence submitted
at the hearing before the City Council, officially noticed
evidence, and the facts of the Comprehensive Plan itself, the Local
Planning Act of 1975, the City Council makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the City Council hereby incorporates the Findings of
Fact adopted by the Meridian Planning Zoning Commission herein as
if set forth In full.
2. That the City Council hereby makes the following
additional Findings of Fact based on the record before the Planning
and Zoning Commission, the City Council, the testimony and evidence
that was submitted to the City Council either in writing or as
testimony at the public hearing held by the City Council on October
19,1993:
a. Notice of public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to
the public hearing, the first publication of which was
fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was
duly submitted at the October 19, 1993, hearing; that the
public was given full opportunity to express comments and
submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available
to newspaper, radio and television stations; that copies of
the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments were available for
inspection at the Meridian Library, at the Meridian Post
Office, and at City Hall, and were available for purchase at
the Meridian City Hall.
b. That the Application was submitted by the Planning and
Zoning Commission and is an amendment proposed by the
Commission.
c. That the Commission and the Council desire to amend the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan due to the fact that it was
initially passed in 1978 and has not had an overall evaluation
since that time; there have been amendments to the plan at
various times, but there has been no complete analysis since
1978; that the Meridian Area of Impact has changed and there
has been significant growth since 1978.
d. That at the public hearing on the Amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan held October 19, 1993, there was a
substantial amount of testimony pertaining to the property
located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove Road; this was because a
notice of hearing was sent out, by mistake, that an
application for commercial development of that land was going
to be heard October 19, 1993, which a lot of people desired to
object to; the testimony, while generally pertaining only to
that land, did have relevance as far as the Comprehensive Plan
is concerned because the Plan does address that location, as
it addresses all the land in the Area of Impact. That most of
those people testifying did not want it to be developed
commercially generally, and specifically because of litter,
noise, traffic and because it would reduce property values for
home owners in the area; they desired that it be developed as
single family residential or a park; those people with similar
testimony were Jay Clauss, Elizabeth Gwin, Sandra Miller,
Deborah Woodall, Terry McCarthy, Don Bryan, Beverly Donahue,
Karen Blayney, Rachel Montgomery, Nancy Miller, Matt Hibbs,
Dan Woodall, Fern VanPapegen, and Sheri Baker. J. Clouss
submitted petitions objecting to the commercial development of
the land signed by 130 people. The land is not within the
City limits and there is no pending request for annexation or
zoning.
e. That the land in the land in the northeast quadrant of
Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove is presently zoned by Ada
County as Rural Transition; that the property has been used in
the past for agricultural purposes; that their is residential
development west and north of the site and there have been
residential plats submitted to the City and approved for land
to the east of the site.
f. That there was testimony in favor of development of the
forty acres in the northeast quadrant of Fairview and Locust
Grove Road from Kathleen Weber and steve Sweet; that Ms.
Miller testified that the site was identified in the proposed
Plan as a site for community shopping center; that development
of commercial entities at the site would be subject to design
review or a conditional use process which could protect the
interests of those testifying against the commercial use; that
it would strengthen the tax base of the City and the Meridian
School District, provide jobs, discourage strip development
which the Plan discourages, and the site is large enough to
provide a community shopping center site and provide land uses
for transition to neighboring residential uses; Mr. Sweet
testified that with the size of the land sound buffering could
be provided and that this land provided the City with an
opportunity to plan a large tract of land to define how the
community lS perceived from those entering the City.
g. That it is judicially noticed that Fairview Avenue from
Five Mile Road to Orchard Street is developed commercially,
with the beginning of development having started at the
intersections of mile or half mile roads; that much of the
development would be classified as strip commercial; that the
current Meridian Comprehensive Plan states that strip
commercial is not in compliance with the basic goals and
objectives of the Plan.
h. There was some testimony that did not specifically
pertain to the forty acre site at Fairview and Locust Grove
Road and dealt with the Comprehensive Plan amendment; that
Larry Hedinger stated that he wanted the land in the northeast
corner of the Area of Impact to go Boise's area of impact,
Ruthie Miller testified that there were too many mixed use and
commercial corners in the Plan and desired that the commercial
designation at Meridian Road and Victory Road be moved farther
south and wondered why there was so many commercial areas
shown on the Generalized Land Use Map wondering about the
impact they would have on existing commercial locations; Larry
Peterson testified that he did not desire that the northwest
quadrant of ustick and Ten Mile Road, near the Meridian Sewer
Plant, to be protected from development and he wanted to be
able to develop his land which was in the area; Beverly
Donahue testified that there needs to be more open space area
or more parks, that there should be buffer zones around
commercial development, and that there were more parks shown
in the southern area of the Area of Impact and she desired
more in the northern part, Nancy Miller testified that it was
nice to have one large park but she thought that many smaller
parks would address the needs of the people better because
they would not be so far away and she stated that to put a
commercial development in an area where there already were
homes was not wise planning; Dan Woodall testified that he was
concerned about the lack of parks and wanted to see provisions
for bike lanes in the master plan; Sheri Baker testified about
requiring a ratio of paid full time fire fighters per 5,000
residents.
i. Carmen Mayes testified that the Planning and Zoning
Commission's Findings of Fact did not correctly reflect what
she testified to before the Commission; she stated that she
did speak about farmland that was developed should retain the
land's water rights, but that she did not state that it should
be used for sprinkling; the minutes of the public hearings
reflect that Mrs. Mayes is correct and such is here noted in
these Findings of the city Council; she also testified that
she spoke at the Commission hearings about desiring that the
City of Meridian give input into the applications before the
Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission regarding matters in
the Meridian Area of Impact and at this City Council hearing
the Mayor did explain that the City does not give input into
all applications in the Meridian Area of Impact but does so
where the City has opposition and does give input on almost
all subdivision applications; Mrs. Mayes requested that the
City make a statement for all applications; she also testified
that she did not testify before the Commission that she wanted
the design review process put back into the Plan but only
testified that she wondered what had happened to it; she is
correct in that statement and this note in these findings
shall correct the Commission's Findings with regard to her
testimony; she also stated that she has repeatedly testified
about her desire that Franklin Road be widened but that she
was ignored; the Plan does, at page 42, designate Franklin
Road, East of Meridian Road, as a principal arterial and
states that principal arterials usually have 80 to 100 feet of
right-of-way; her desires have never been ignored but they
were already addressed in the plan; she further commented that
there was nothing in the Conclusions of Law about the
requirement that if the Western Ada Recreation District and
the City of Meridian are merged that it would take a vote of
the residents in the Western Ada Recreation District to
approve such merger; such is not a necessary conclusion
effecting this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan since it is
a legal requirement for the merger of two taxing entities and
does not specifically pertain to the amendment of the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan; not all legal requirements for specific
changes in the Area of Impact have been addressed since the
Plan is a general guide and plan and not a specific
controlling document.
J. That the City received written comments from people and
entities which can be summarized as follows:
1. From Jim and Debbie Russell a letter stating that
they objected to the property at the corner of
Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove Road being used
for storage units and a mini mall for reasons of
traffic, noise and litter and relating that many of
their neighbors agreed with their objection; they
suggested that the land be used for a city park.
2. From J. Clouss and Marlene Clouss a letter stating
an objection to changing the zoning of the 40 acres
in the northeast corner of Fairview Avenue and
Locust Grove Road to a C-G commercial zoning due to
a loss of a sale of their home and reduction of
property values and extra traffic, trash and noise;
they suggested that the land be used for single
family residential with a large park.
3. Mr. Clouss submitted a petition signed by 130
people which stated that the people who signed the
petition were firmly against commercial development
of the 40.45 acres located in the northeast corner
of Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove Road because it
would reduce the value of their homes and disrupt
the single family residential setting that they had
chosen to settle in and changing it to commercial
would turn it into a noisy thoroughfare and they
desired that its current agricultural condition be
maintained.
4. From Mary Shumway a letter stating that commercial
development of that corner would pollute the
irrigation water and possibly their wells and lower
her property values and reduce her quality of life;
she did prefer that the land stay as farmland but
that at least it should remain residential with
decent sized lots of no more than 3 homes per acre
with a commercial strip along fairview.
5. Similar letters of objection were received from
Ella Malone, Galen Hill, Mr. & Mrs. Robert Stucker,
Mr. & Mrs. Dan Emigh, Karen Blayney, Terry McCarthy
& Greg McCarthy, C. R. & Linda Powell, Mr. & Mrs W.
B. Wyle, Barry Gwin, Elizabeth A. Gwin, Robert and
Jean Moore, someone residing at 2100 North
Amethyst, and Carolyn Haynes.
6. Two letters from Barry Gwin and Elizabeth Gwin were
forwarded from the Ada county Highway District
requesting that separate bike lanes be placed along
Locust Grove Road.
7. Eugene Beck and Lynette Beck in separate letters
made similar comments as above stated and commented
that if the 40 acre parcel is commercially
developed that high berms and landscaping should be
placed along Locust Grove Road with no driveway
access to Locust Grove Road.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. That the City Council hereby incorporates the Conclusions
of Law adopted by the Meridian Planning Zoning Commission as if set
forth in full.
2. That the City Council hereby makes the following
additional Conclusions of Law based on the record before the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council and the
Findings of Fact adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission and
the above Findings of Fact.
3. As concluded in the Conclusions of Law adopted by the
Planning and Zoning Commission in Conclusion Number 8, the Plan is
what it says it is. It is a Plan. The Plan itself states that it
"Summarizes policies and Proposals and does not develop detailed
site plans". The comment to the Policy Diagram indicates that the
Diagram ". is to be used as a general guide for land use
decision-making---not as a legalistic or literal and definitive
map". The Plan therefore should be liberally construed but still
maintained as the functional guideline for land use decisions,
i.e., the Plan policies and objectives cannot be willingly
disregarded when there is an apparent conflict between the Plan and
the proposed use. The city has the duty to continually plan; that
the City treats amendments proposed either by private entities or
the City itself as part of the planning duty and function.
4. Much on the testimony at the City Council hearing
pertained to the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Fairview
Avenue and Locust Grove Road shown on the Generalized Land Use Map
of the proposed Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a commercial area;
most of the persons objecting did not want any commercial
development of the property; some of the persons objecting to
commercial being located on that entire parcel felt that it would
be alright to let that portion of the property along Fairview
Avenue to be developed commercially; some preferred that the entire
parcel be developed residentially in large lots of at least three
per acre, most of those objecting desired that parks be included in
the development; those testifying in favor of commercial
development testified that the site was identified in the Plan as
a site for a community shopping center; that development of
commercial entities at the site would be subject to design review
or under a conditional use process which could protect the
interests of those testifying against the commercial use; that it
would strengthen the tax base of the City and the School District,
provide jobs, discourage strip development which the Plan
discourages, and the site is large enough to provide a community
shopping center site and provide land uses for transition to
neighboring residential uses.
5. It is concluded that the testimony from those objecting
to commercial development of the land in the northeast quadrant of
Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove Road site are deemed to be
objections to the Plan and those testifying in favor of the land
being a commercial site, as being in favor of the plan, as the Plan
pertains to that site; that it is concluded that both factions are
relevant in the process of adopting an amendment to a comprehensive
plan, but since a comprehensive plan is only a plan, is not site
specific, and does not govern or overrule a zoning designation,
(Bone v. City of Lewiston, 107 Idaho 844, 693 P. 2d 1046 (1984)),
that the details of the objecting statements and the favoring
statements are better dealt with in a zoning application; it is
noted, however, that once the Comprehensive Plan designation goes
into effect, it would be more difficult for those objecting to
succeed in having no commercial development on the parcel; the
requirements for development of that site would have to meet the
annexation, zoning, and subdivision and development ordinances
which more properly control that development. Those people
objecting are encouraged to participate in that process.
6. It is concluded that the Comprehensive Plan designation
of the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Fairview Avenue
and Locust Grove Road as being a commercial area is good planning,
is consistent with the entire proposed Plan since the Plan
designates commercial development at the intersections of many mile
roads, and is consistent with the development of Fairview Avenue,
but development would have to be undertaken so as not to be strip
development.
7. That the comments of Carmen Mayes have been duly noted in
the Findings of Fact and no conclusion needs to be made other than
to state that her desires regarding Franklin Road are included in
the proposed Plan by including Franklin Road as an 80 to 100 foot
wide arterial road.
8. The comments of Ruthie Miller, Larry Peterson, Beverley
Donahue, and Nancy Miller, respectively, relating to citing of a
commercial location, protecting the area around the Meridian Sewer
Plant, having additional parks in the north area of the Area of
Impact and buffers around commercial locations, and having many
parks rather than one large park and protecting homes that were In
place before other development, have been duly noted in the
Findings of Fact as they are legitimate comments, but they reflect
differences of opinion and do not justify changes to the proposed
Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
9. That the function of adopting, amending, or repealing a
comprehensive plan is a legislative function. Burt vs. The City of
Idaho Falls. 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). That even though
this is a legislative function, the Local Planning Act requires
that Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law be made for any
application provided for in the Local Planning Act.
10. That the City Council concludes that it is their duty to
serve the best interest of the entire community and we find and
conclude that the proposed Meridian Comprehensive Plan is in the
best interests of the entire community; there have been opinions
given which reflect desires for specific parcels of land, areas or
ideas; these opinions have not been taken lightly, ignored or
disregarded, but they have been measured against what we believe is
in the best interest of the entire community; we appreciate the
comments because they have helped guide us.
11. The City Council concludes that it is in the best
interest of the City of Meridian, the residents of the City, and in
the best planning interests of the residents of the areas that are
intended to be included in the proposed Area of Impact, that the
proposed amendments to the Area of Impact and to the Urban Service
Planning Area be adopted and approved.
13. That the City Council concludes that the process to
amend the Meridian Comprehensive Plan has only been assisted, and
not detracted, by the substantial public input that the City has
received; that there have been different, and sometimes
conflicting, views presented but they have been supported by a view
and version of the facts and logical thinking; that some positions
have not been adopted and some positions were deemed to be better
addressed In the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision and
Development Ordinance, and the eventual amendments to those
Ordinances.
14. That the City Council hereby thanks the residents and
citizens of the City, and of the area, for their participation and
co-operation in this process and encourage them to continue their
co-operation and input in all proceedings regarding the Zoning and
Subdivision and Development Ordinances.
IS. That the City Council concludes that the proposed Plan
meets the requirements of the Local Planning Act, Title 67, Chapter
65, Idaho Code, and specifically the purposes of the Act, stated in
section 65-6702, Idaho Code, and the Planning Duties of the Act
stated in Section 67-6508, Idaho Code.
16. That the City Council concludes that the facts presented,
and officially noticed, and these conclusions support the proposed
amendments to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning City Council hereby adopts
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON
COUNCILMAN GIESLER
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
DECISION
The Meridian City Council hereby decides that the Planning and
zoning Commission's proposed Amendments to the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan are approved and adopted.
MOTION:
APPROVED:~
DISAPPROVED: