Loading...
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: