Shekinah Industries/Preston AZ
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
SHEKINAH INDUSTRIES, INC.
D. MICHAEL PRESTON
ANNESATION AND REZONE APPLICATION
SW CORNER OF FRANKLIN ROAD AND LOCUST OROVE ROAD
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
again on November 21, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the
Petitioner, Shekinah Industries, Inc. appearing through D. Michael
Preston, the matter having been heard by and before the Planning
and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian on April 11, 1995,
the Commission having duly considered the evidence and the matter
and having adopted Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law but
tabled the matter to allow the Applicant to provide the Commission
additional information before making a recommendation to the City
Council, the Applicant submitting additional information at the
June 22, 1995, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and the City
Council having held a public hearing on the annexation and zoning
on August 15, 1995, having adopted Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law and having made a decision to deny the Application, but the
Applicant having requested Council to reassess the Application due
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 1
•
to Applicant's assertion that the Council was considering different
information than the Planning and Zoning Commission had, and the
City Council having deemed it appropriate to re-hear this
Application for annexation and zoning, the City Council makes the
following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
I. FINDINOS OF FACT
A. That proper notices of hearing were given and held by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council in the initial
procedure for application for annexation and zoning; that notice of
a public hearing on the request to reconsider the Annexation
Application was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to
the said public hearing scheduled for November 21, 1995, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the testimony and evidence was received on the matter and duly
considered at the November 21, 1995, 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.
B. That this property is located within the City of Meridian
and the titled owners are Monty and Beverly McClure and IVADCO,
Inc.; that consents by the owners of record have been given to the
City for the annexation and rezone of the property.
C. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as R-T
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 2
i
and is used for agricultural purposes; that the Applicant requests
that the property be zoned C-G, General Retail and Service
Commercial; that no specific use for the property was presented;
that the Applicant did present a concept of what the uses for the
property could be.
D. That the property has frontage on Franklin Road, is south
of industrial zoned land, is easterly of the Meridian Cemetery, is
north of undeveloped land and the State of Idaho Department of law
Enforcement land and building; that there is very low density
residential development to the east and south of the land.
E. That Applicant has requested that the property be zoned
General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) which is described in
the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 9. as follows:
(C-G) GENERAL RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL: The purpose
of the (C-G) District is to provide for commercial uses
which are customarily operated entirely or almost
entirely within a building; to provide for a review of
the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and
service oriented and are located in close proximity to
major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of
travel-related services as well as retail sales for the
transient and permanent motoring public. All such
districts shall be connected to the Municipal Water and
Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not
constitute strip commercial development and encourage
clustering of commercial development.
F. That the land is 30 acres and the present use of the land
to be annexed is one a home and pasture land for cattle and horses.
G. That D. Michael Preston testified at the Planning and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 3
Zoning Commission that as he was meeting with various people it
came to his attention that a residential zone for this area was
evidently not in the interest of the City of Meridian. He stated
he decided that he would look at this property from a commercial
basis, so the concept that he submitted was purely a concept. This
was not something that he was ready to submit to the Commission;
this request was purely for annexation and rezoning. He stated
that he had high intensity service retail on the corner of Franklin
and Locust Grove and that someday that would be appropriate there;
that he also had retail along the westerly side of this office
complex. Toward the rear of the property, as we get closer to the
State Training facility, he would turn that into a supply type
commercial like a lumber yard or something like that, pipe supply
or whatever. If the neighbors are not interested, he could re-
arrange the streets very quickly and easily and leave them in
peace, which he said he would definitely do if that is their
desire. He stated that he was really trying hard to get along with
them this time and do something that was more agreeable to them.
He stated that the access road that he had there would be a very
convenient rear access from the Meridian interchange to the Nahas-
Hon commercial development. He thought that this was something
that would be good for the City and he had every intent of
developing it somewhat in that fashion with additional input. He
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 4
just wanted to emphasize that the layout was concept only. He
stated that he could certainly pull back and that he would do so.
He stated that he had reviewed all the comments by the City
staff and had no problem with any of their comments and was
agreeable to all of them. He also stated that he had seen the
comments from ACHD and had no problems with them.
That at the June 22, 1995, meeting Mr. Preston stated many
things but in summary he testified that the he had submitted a
revised concept plan which gives the Commission the idea of the
type of landscaping, parking, fire protection facilities, access,
ingress/egress to each of the facilities; what the office complex
might look like, which could change because he does not have any
tenants at this time; that there is a professional office complex
next to the neighborhood homes, which is a quiet use; that he has
added a six foot high masonry wall all the way around the project
and with that he is trying to totally sound proof the area; also he
will have a twenty foot landscape strip which is called for by City
Ordinance; that with the 35 foot landscape strip they will not
disturb any of the wet lands and they will not impact that in
anyway and their landscaping will make it prettier than it is
today; that they will not be digging in the creek and they will not
impact Five Mile Creek in any way. He also testified that the
spine road, with water and sewer facilities, is planned to be in by
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 5
next spring; that in response to a question from Commissioner
Hepper regarding what can be performed on the land, he testified
that they had to come back for conditional uses from the Commission
to anything and that the Commission has total control over control
through those conditional uses.
At the City Council public hearing he testified additionally
that he does not have specific tenants, that he is planning intense
retail on Franklin Road and Locust Grove roads but it is not going
to happen quickly, that Franklin will have to be improved to a five
lane road and a traffic light installed at Franklin and Locust
Grove Road before the retail is implemented; that he has uses that
can be implemented now but they are in the back ( south ) of the
development. He stated that the neighbors concern over buffering
was a concern for him; that he is proposing a professional office
complex, a 20 foot buffer area, and a six foot masonry wall to
buffer the neighbors; that there will also be building between the
neighbors and the parking areas; he also stated that the masonry
wall would be between him and Mr. Brown; that his first phase would
be the professional office space; that it is going to be a very
nice development, with sidewalks everywhere.
Regarding Five Mile Creek, he testified that it barely touched
the property in the northwest corner; that when ACHD widens
Franklin Road they will be concerned with the Creek and have to
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 6
• !
handle the wet lands and flood plain issues; he acknowledges that
those are issues relating to his land but that since they are
asking only for annexation and zoning, those issues could be
addressed later.
That since this would be annexed as a planned commercial
development, all construction details, sewer, water, and
floodplain, would come back at future public hearings and be
resolved; that the plan is conceptual; that irrigation canals would
be tiled; that there will be pressurized irrigation.
H. That there was testimony at the hearing on April 9, 1995,
objecting to the Application which was principally as follows:
1. That Robert Smith stated he would still like to oppose
this type of rezoning. I don't think it benefits us
people that live on Locust Grove or Franklin Road right
now. The way that the City is growing with the
commercial and light industrial proposals that seem to be
coming in at a regular rate, I don't think right now
would be an appropriate time with the condition that
Franklin Road is unless it is rebuilt and Locust Grove
Road is rebuilt. These don't look to be done at any near
future dates so I think it would really be a detriment to
our properties. I hope you will not change your zoning on
this, thank you.
2. That Jim Witherell testified he was one of the affected
parties that already submitted a letter in writing
saying they opposed this thing, saying the annexation was
attempted under questionable circumstances. One thing
has come out that I would like to add that we did not
know at the time. Mr. Preston does not own this
property. He told that to us at the meeting. He said he
does represent the developer, but he had a letter of
intent on this at one time and that expired last May.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 7
3. That Morgan Plant stated he would like to recommend to
the Planning and Zoning Commission that this request be
totally denied. This type of development is not
warranted; it is not called for and it is not compatible
with the residences in that area. We are, although not
bordered by this property, dramatically affected. There
are open areas in there which will be zoned and approved
for residential areas and commercial in our back yard
would certainly be detrimental. I recommend that you
soundly refuse this request. It is not compatible for
that area whatsoever. It will greatly depreciate our
property.
I. That at the City Council Public hearing there was also
comment from the public which was basically as follows:
1. Ann Witherell testified due process had been violated;
that she had not seen the present plat before to nights
meeting; that this plat is the same as was presented
before; that this is not the correct plat; that the plat
was given to confuse and skew public comment.
Jim Witherell testified the effected parties had signed
and submitted a letter that the City had; that the
application is frivolous and should be denied; since
there is no concept plan and that the tenants are not
known this is not a legitimate application; that his
previous plans have been disapproved which is good reason
to deny this plan; that there is insufficient water and
a shallow water table which is not being recharged and
could be contaminated; that regardless of the landscaping
this is still going to look like a commercial development
stuck in the middle of on square mile of R-1 housing;
that the masonry wall will make it look like a fort; he
suggested a berm all the way around six feet high with a
three foot fence on top; that all commercial development
ahould be planned, single story; that there should be no
high density retail and no restaurants; that there
biggest concern was they do not think this developer has
much money and if they sue him they do not want to hit
empty pockets.
3. That Albert Rennison testified that egress and exit on
the corner of South Locust Grove Road and Franklin has to
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 8
be address and resolved; that putting more commercial
across the street from the commercial that is on the
north side of Franklin does not make sense; the area is
not ready for commercial development; that the Corp of
Engineers has jurisdiction over the entire water shed
that flows into Five Mile Creek; that if the City
approves of this commercial development the developer
should be required to place a bond in the event the City
has liability problems because of the development at the
corner of South Locust Grove Road and Franklin; that he
recommends that the zoning and annexation be denied.
5. Norm Brown testified that he asked Mr. Preston if he
would continue the concrete fence to protect his land,
then that is fine; if we lose the irrigation we would
lose our well water.
6. Marshall Smith testified he was opposed to commercial on
the south side of Locust Grove; that the wet lands have
been there since before any of us and we should respect
what was put there by nature; that he was opposed the
Application.
7. Ted Hanson testified that ACRD had stated that they want
to bring Locust Grove Road straight to Franklin and then
to the freeway and that would not be for 8 to 12 years.
8. Rod Cullip testified that before anything is done at this
location, Franklin Road needs to be improved.
J. That a petition was submitted to the Commission signed by
eight people, some of whom testified at the public hearing; that
the petition is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that
the petition sets forth objections to the Application and requests
that it be denied; that a summary of the objections is as follows:
1. That Applicant's petition for commercial development
includes land owned by those objecting and they do not
desire their land to be so developed.
2. That the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 9
Applicant's previous application prohibit this
Application for development.
3. That the Application is inconsistent with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
4. That since there was no use submitted as part of the
Application, that the Application was frivolous.
5. That because the Application is frivolous, it is also
litigious.
6. That a portion of the land to be developed is wet land
area and is also regulated by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and the Bureau of Reclamation.
K. That there was testimony in favor of the Application from
Wayne Forrey who testified on November 21, 1995, as follows:
That he owned land in Meridian and he had a business
relationship with another property owner who owned land that
is closer to this and it is annexed into the City. That as a
property owner in Meridian along Franklin Road, Ed Bews, the
owner of property very near this area, is in favor of this
request and hope that you would approve it. Always there is
going to be some type of conflict, real or perceived between
a commercial property and a residential property. The City
does have the ability to ask a developer to buffer and screen
and provide transitions. That is in the Comprehensive Plan.
It is in the zoning and development ordinance and it is
probably something the developer or the applicant here would
be willing to negotiate with the City. I can understand that
other property owners out there may have some reservations
about commercial zoning. I do not I think it would be good
for the City to annex this property at the C-G zoning.
L. That at the November 21, 1995, City Council public
hearing, conducted for purposes of Applicant's request for
reconsideration, Mr. Preston read aloud a letter submitted by Monty
McClure, a titled owner of this proposed application, for the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 10
record, which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that
Mr. McClure is in support of the request of changing the zone to C-
G (General Retail and Service Commercial); that he stated the time
is right to now sell the property and to allow it to be developed
to its highest, best and beneficial use.
That Mr. Preston stated that it is still in the record that he
stated that he did not have an option with Mr. McClure, but that
Mr. Preston does have an option and that Mr. McClure is totally in
favor of what Mr. Preston is proposing; that Mr. Preston stated
that this plan is to be a phased project; that phase one would be
something that could be developed right now, which was the
professional office complex which is in the middle of the project;
that the reason it is located in the middle is in order for it to
be a buffer to the residential neighbors; that the extension of the
masonry wall and access to Mr. Brown's property will be done; that
there will be a sixty foot (60') right-of-way, a 41 foot back-to-
back curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaped of both sides of the major
collector street all the way through the center of this property in
a north-south direction; that this will be a back entrance and will
allow traffic from Locust Grove; that there will be bicycle paths
all the way around the project and that he concurs totally with
bringing the sewer and water to the property; that a plat shall be
prepared showing these individual parcels; that development of the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 11
road and commencement of marketing of this project will start with
approval.
M. Royland Doskeland, partner of the Applicant in this
application, testified regarding his enthusiasm about this project
and an eagerness to proceed.
N. Hoyt Mitchner, of Mitchner Investments, testified that
the interest in Meridian for land and existing buildings is
tremendous; that calls are received weekly from people looking for
warehouse space on a need now basis and inquiring what Meridian has
for availability in the areas of Franklin Road and Fairview Avenue;
that they can show them about one (1) of two (2) projects and they
either choose that or look for other land to buy and build.
O. That Ann Witherell again testified before the Council on
November 21, 1995, stating that there has been no significant new
information to reconsider on this application; that Mr. Brown, the
former partner of the Applicant, is selling his property and is
moving; that over the past 18 months, eight (8) parties who are
affected by this development, have delivered countless pages of
testimony in opposition; that the four areas of concern are the wet
lands and flood plain at Locust Grove and Franklin; that berming
and transition to the adjoining R-1 single family residence are of
concern; that the irrigation water is of concern as in previous
applications of this developer he constantly plats buildings over
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 12
ditches and easements; that this development sits atop the water
table and will directly affect our water; that there is no new
discovery; that the developer is a slow learner and the denial for
this project should stand.
P. Jim Witherell testified, restating his objections as to
this project in his earlier testimony of November 21, 1995, and the
definite problems it has with road development, the Ada County
Highway District, and the enormous amount of traffic.
Q. Morgan Plant testified that this proposed application
should be rejected on the grounds that it is entirely too vague;
that the plan does not fit the area.
R. Elwood Rennison testified that he was under the
impression that Preston was the owner of the property and that the
owner not being present at these hearings shows a lack of interest
to sell and develop the property; that there is a lot of land
already zoned which is available, just sitting around waiting to be
developed; that with this property you have too many things
involved, which takes a great deal of consideration, for instance,
the property owners adjacent to this development, the Five Mile
Creek, irrigation, and a cemetery; that this application needs to
be reviewed and a recommendation of rejection rendered.
S. That Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer,
submitted comments for the initial public hearings; that any
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 13
existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property and
included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-
605 M unless a variance application is submitted; that any existing
domestic wells and/or septic systems will have to be removed from
their domestic service but that wells may be used for non-domestic
purposes; that water service is contingent upon positive results
from a hydraulic analysis by the City computer model and domestic
water is presently located in Franklin Road approximately 3,150
feet west of Locust Grove Road; that City policy requires extension
of City utility lines to and through a development; that a 12-inch
diameter water line will need to be built in Franklin Road from its
point of connection to existing water east to Locust Grove Road and
south along the length of this property's frontage; that sewer
service would be via connection to the Five Mile Creek Sewer Trunk
Line; that a new legal description needs to be submitted pursuant
to Meridian City Resolution No. 158 that includes said Rights-of-
Way.
T. That Planning and Zoning Director, Shari Stiles submitted
comments for the initial public hearings; that this area is
designated as Mixed/Planned Use Development, which requires that
all uses be approved under the conditional use permit process;
pathways for pedestrian/bicycle access must be incorporated
throughout the development; plans will be required to be submitted
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 14
in conformance with the requirements of Section 11-9-607; Applicant
is to enter into a development agreement with the City; a minimum
of ten percent of the site must be landscaped; a minimum setback of
35' beyond the required rights-of-way along Franklin Road shall be
provided; a minimum landscape setback of 20' beyond the required
rights-of-way along Locust Grove Road shall be required; that a
minimum of 45 feet from the centerline of Locust Grove Road shall
be required; that a minimum of 20' landscaped setback will be
required adjacent to residential development; that Nampa & Meridian
will have to be contacted for approval of any rerouting of
irrigation and other water lines; that a portion of the site
appears to be in the 100-year flood plain and that will have to be
addressed by the Applicant.
U. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning the
former Planning Director had commented that annexation could be
conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to
help acquire future school or park sites to serve the area and that
annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and
fire services as determined by the City and designated in an
approved development agreement.
V. That the Meridian Police Department, the Meridian Fire
Department, Central District Health Department and the Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District all submitted comments and they are
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 15
incorporated as if set forth in full.
W. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
X. That the parcel of ground requested to be annexed is
presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area
(U.S.P.A.) as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in the Meridian Area of Impact.
Y. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population
increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for
agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots
and other uses.
Z. That the property could be physically serviced with City
water and sewer if the Applicant extends and constructs the lines
and facilities.
AA. That it is specifically found that the Applicant only
presented a concept, did not present a subdivision plat or any
other specific or concrete plan of development, and only verbally
informed the City Council of his intentions; that Applicant did
have a concept drawing, but had nothing more than that to inform
the Council of development.
AB. That the following pertinent statements are made in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan:
1. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic Development Goal
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 16
Statement.
Policies, Page 19
1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new
commercial or industrial developments should be
harmonized with the natural environment and respect
the unique needs and features of each area.
1.6 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to support
shopping facilities which are effectively
integrated into new or existing residential areas,
and plan for new shopping centers as growth and
development warrant.
1.8 The City of Meridian intends to establish a Design
Review Ordinance which will foster compatible land
use and design within the development, and with
contiguous developments; and encourage innovations
in building techniques, so that the growing demands
of the community are met, while at the same time
providing for the efficient use of such lands.
2. Under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Areas Adjacent to I-84,
Overland Road and Franklin Road.
5.6 The development of a variety of compatible land
uses should be provided in specific plans and
proposals for future development.
5.8 Development in these areas should be based on
functional plans and proposals in order to ensure
that the proposed uses conform to the Comprehensive
Plan policies and are compatible with the
surrounding neighborhoods.
5.11 The character, site improvements, and type of
development should be harmonized with previously-
developed land in the area, and where located
adjacent to or near any existing residence or
residential area, shall be harmonized with
residential uses, and all reasonable efforts shall
be made to reduce the environmental impact on
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 17
residential areas, including noise 'and traffic
reduction.
AC. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan,
Land Use, Rural Areas, page 29, it states as follows:
"Land covered by this policy section has characteristics which
generally allow for agricultural and rural residential
activity due to the existence of irrigation systems, soil
characteristics and relative freedom from conflicting urban
land uses. Where community growth creates pressure for new
development, it must be recognized that agricultural land can
no longer economically continue to be identified or used as
agricultural land to the exclusion of orderly city growth and
development."
AD. That Section 6.3, of the LAND USE section of the
Comprehensive Plan, states that land in agricultural activity
should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services
(municipal sewer and water facilities) can be provided.
AE. That Section 6.7U, of the LAND USE section of the
Comprehensive Plan, states as follows:
"Existing rural residential land uses and farms/ranches shall
be buffered from urban development expanding into rural areas
by innovative land use planning techniques."
AF. That the property is included within an area designated
on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan
as a Mixed/Planed Use Development area.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 18
1~
AG. That Planned Development is defined in 11-2-403 B, at
page 20 of the Zoning Ordinance booklet, as follows:
"An area of land which is developed as a single entity for a
number of uses in combination with or exclusive of other
supportive uses. A PD may be entirely residential,
industrial, or commercial or a mixture of compatible uses. A
PD does not necessarily correspond to lot size, bulk, density,
lot coverage required, open space or type of residential,
commercial or industrial uses as established in any one or
more created districts or this Ordinance."
and a Planned General Development is defined as follows:
"A development not otherwise distinguished under Planned
Commercial, Industrial, Residential Developments, or in which
the proposed use of interior and exterior spaces requires
unusual design flexibility to achieve a completely logical and
complimentary conjunction of uses and functions. This PD
classification applies to essential public services, public or
private recreation facilities, institutional uses, community
facilities or a PD which includes a mix of residential,
commercial or industrial uses."
AH. That under 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, B
Commercial, Planned Commercial Development is a permitted use in
the C-G district and Planned Unit Development - General, is an
allowed conditional use in the C-G district.
AI. That Section. 11-2-416 E 2. c. provides that this
Commission is to transmit its recommendation to the City Council
within forty-five (45) days, but also states that the Commission
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 19
may continue the matter from meeting to meeting if it finds that it
does not have sufficient information to make a decision.
AJ. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council were given and followed.
CONCLUSIONS
A. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
B. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a legislative function.
C. That the Planning and Zoning commission has judged these
annexation, zoning and conditional uae applications under Idaho
Code, Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian
City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the
record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 20
notice.
D. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
E. That the Council may take judicial notice of government
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within
the City and State.
F. That the land within the proposed annexation is
contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and
the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation.
G. That the annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant, and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
H. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The Citv of Idaho Falls, 105
Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983).
I. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular
Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and
requirementa, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 21
of ditches and waterways and 11-9-606 14., which requires
pressurized irrigation.
J. That the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its
meeting on January 4, 1994, and has not amended the Zoning
Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan;
thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan
but the Zoning Ordinance may not address provisions for the use; it
is concluded that upon annexation, as a condition of annexation,
the City may impose restrictions that are not otherwise contained
in the current Zoning or Subdivision and Development Ordinances.
K. The Applicant stated and represented his intention as to
the type of development, stated some possible proposed uses of the
property, and stated and presented a concept of development, but
did not present a plat or concrete plan as to how the property
would be developed, did not present any specific uses that would be
constructed there, or where on the property that uses would be
constructed; it could be determined if possible uses would be in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, but without knowing exactly
what the use, or uses, will be, it is risky and hazardous to make
a suggestion of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan without
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 22
knowing the exact use or uses that will be constructed.
Additionally, the City has much more control in the annexation
process than it does at any other time in the development process.
Without knowing more exactly the uses, it is in the beat interests
of the City to forego annexation until more information is known on
the specifics of the development.
It is further stated that the property at Fairview and Locust
Grove Road was, and is being, developed on property that has the
same designation in the Comprehensive Plan as this land, which is
Mixed/Planned Use Development; the developer of the Fairview and
Locust Grove Road property requested annexation, zoning and a
conditional use, all at the same time, but without a plat, which
the developer did not request approval of until January of 1995; he
did, however, know that he was going to have a storage unit
business, had plans for a retail shopping center, and informed the
Council what business would be the major user; he stated at the
City Council public hearing on the annexation that the proposed use
was for a commercial shopping center and rental storage facility
and had submitted plans as to where they would be located, even
though he did not present a plat; that it is therefore stated that
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 23
the City has approved annexations without a plat, but it had more
definite and concrete statements as to uses than were presented by
this Applicant.
The City denied an application for annexation for JLG BUILDERS
where the City determined that the plat presented did not meet the
goals of the City of Meridian. Plats are a very decisive document
that gives the City much needed information.
Applicant did state at the Planning and Zoning Commission
hearing that he could certainly pull back and that he would do so;
that it is concluded that it would be in best interests of the City
to have this Application pulled back until, and the property not
annexed and zoned until, more specifics on the development are
known by the City and the Applicant.
L. That it is concluded, that since the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan, under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Areas Adjacent to I-
84, Overland Road and Franklin Road, states:
"The development of a variety of compatible land uses should
be provided in specific plans and proposals for future
development.", (emphasis added),
and
"Development in these areas should be based on functional
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 24
plans and proposals in order to ensure that the proposed uses
conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and are compatible
with the surrounding neighborhoods." (emphasis added);
that it is in the best interest of the City to deny applications
for annexation and zoning unless, and until, plans for development
are known and stated and/or the City has substantial knowledge of
the proposed development.
M. That it is concluded that it would be in best interests
of the City to have this Application denied and the property not
annexed and zoned until more specifics on the development are known
by the City and the Applicant.
N. That, as concluded above, annexation and zoning of land
is a legislative function and it is in the sole discretion of the
City to annex or not. The majority of the City Council, also
states, that the development concept was not totally adverse to
them, but what was adverse was the lack of specifics as to the
development; that the Applicant presented at the November 21, 1995,
very little more than it presented to the City Council at the
previous City Council public hearing.
O. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the
property would not be in the best interests of the City of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 25
Meridian.
APPROVAL OF FINDINOS OF FACT AND
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON
CORRIE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR RINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
DECISION
VOTED
The Meridian City Council hereby decides that based on the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, above stated, that the
annexation Application is denied and that the City Council shall
not considered annexation and zoning of this property until more
definite plans of development are submitted.
MOTION:
APPROVED: v DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 26