Loading...
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