Loading...
1983 03-14 A G E N D A MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MARCH 14, 1983 ITEM: Minutes of Special Meeting Held January 24, 1983 APPROVED Minutes of Previous Meeting Held February 14, 1983 APPROVED 1. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law APPROVED Crandlemire Annexation Crandlemire Annexation Request DENIED 2. Discussion Regarding Meeting Time Change MeridiancPlanning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1983 Regular meetingof the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission called to order by Chairman Bob Spencer at 8:09 p.m. Members Present: Bob Giesler; Marnell Chenowith; Tom Eddy; Walt Morrow Members Absent: Gerry Sweet Others Present: Wayne Crookston Jr.; Jack H. Niemann Minutes of the January 24, 1983 Special Meeting, were approved as written. Minutes of the February 14, 1953 Regular Meeting, were approved as written. Item 1 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - Crandlemire Annexation Being there no person present in the audience that wished the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law read, the Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Giesler to make the Findings of Fact andConclusions of Law Document regarding the Crandlemire Annexation part of the record. (Findings of Fact and Conclusions on File with these Minutes - See Exhibit A) Motion Carried: Giesler, yea; Chenowith, yea; Eddy, yea; Morrow, yea Chairman Spencer called for any discussion or comments on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - Crandlemire Annexation. There was no response. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Chenowith to adopt and approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - Crandlemire Annexation. (See Exhibit A; Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - Crandlemire Annexation) Motion Carried: Giesler, yea; Chenowith, yea; Eddy, yea; Morrow, yea The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Morrow to recommend to the City Council denial of the Crandlemire Annexation request based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Motion Carried: Giesler, yea; Chenowith, yea; Eddy, yea; t4orrow, yea City Attorney Wayne Crookston questioned the City Clerk Jack Niemann as to if Mr. Al Marsden, representative for the Crandlemire Annexation request had been contacted concerning the meeting. Niemann stated that he had personally talked to Marsden reminding him of the meeting, and that Marsden had lead him to believe that he would be present at the meeting. Crookston questioned if Marsden had requested a copy of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prior to the meeting. Niemann stated that he had not. It was established that Mr. Marsden was aware of the meeting and that he was present at the previous meeting held February 14, 1983, where the Commission directedthe City Attorney to prepare. the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law concerning the Crandlemire Annexation request and present them at the next regular meeting. (Tape on File - City Clerk's Office - Meridian City Hall) Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission 2. March 14, 1983 Item 2 Discussion Regarding Meeting Times There was discussion among the Commission members to recommend approval of an Ordinance changing the meeting time of the Planning & Zoning Commision to 7:30 p.m. It was the general consensus of the Commission to not change the meeting time of the Commission at this time. The 8:00 p.m. meeting time seems to be more convient to the majority of the members. City Attorney Crookston explained that the time of the meeting must appear in the Ordinance, as the Ordiance serves as notice to the public of the regluar meeting times. Crookston also explained to the Commission that they may set a hearing for any time they would prefer, as notice for a hearing must be published. Crookston stated that the Ordinance would change other things also. As it stands now, there are separate ordinances refering to the Planning Commission and the Zoning Commission. The new Ordinance would combine and put together, so that the Planning Commission and the zoning Commission would be one in the same. Crookston said that the Ordinance needed to be "put together and reorganized." The Motion was made by Chenowith and seconded by Morrow that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend that the City Council direct Crookston to follow through with the Ordinance and make the appropriate changes regarding the discrepancies in wording in exisiting Ordinances refering to the Planning & Zoning Commission, and bring the Ordinance before the City Council for approval. Motion Carried: Giesler, yea; Chenowith, yea; Eddy, yea; Morrow, yea Being there no other business to come before the Planning & Zoning Commission . The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Eddy to adjourn at 8:28 p.m. Motion Carried: Giesler, yea; Chenowith, yea; Eddy, yea; Morrow, yea APPROVED: C , BOB SPENCER ATTEST: ~;\ ,/ c~ l 1' TY CLERK, SAC' H. NIEMANN pc: Mayor & Council (5) P&Z Commission (6) Stuart; Ward; City Attorney; City Engineer; City Clerk; City Treasurer; Schoen; Police; Fire; ACRD: Ada County Commissioners; Ada County Zoning Dir; APA Central District Health; Nampa-MeridianIrrigation File: Crandl~nire Mail: Marsden & Associates 11 • • • • BEFORE THE PLANNING AND Z02dING COPID4ISSION OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO CRANDLEb4IRE, ET AL. AN2SEXATION FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled annexation having come for consideration on February 14, 1983, at the approximate hour of 8x00 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall of the City of Meridian, 728 Meridian Street, Beridian, Idaho, and having heard and taken oral and written testimony and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of hearing on the annexation was duly pub- lished in the Valley News for two consecutive issues, the First of which publication was fifteen (15) days prior to February 14, 1983; that notice of a prior hearing which was to have been held January 10, 1983, was duly published in a similar matter at the request of Alvin S. Plarsden on behalf of the petitioners for annexation and said public hearing was continued to the February 1 1983 hearing of the Planning and Zoning Commission; that notice of the public hearing held February 14, 1983, was made available to newspapers, radio and television stations; 2. That the property included in the application for annexa- tion is described in the application, and b_y this reference is incorporated herein; that the property generally lies in the southeast corner of the intersection of Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove Road; 3. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present AMBR08E, Clty limits of the City of Meridian; that the annexation abutts FITZG ERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attomaye and GOUnNIOf! P.O. BOx/3] MsNClan, 18e8o 83813 TelepMlro 88&1181 :fl' and is contiguous to the present City limits for a distance of 173 feet; that the 173 feet is contiguous to the present City limits to the Upland Industries Annexation; tk~at all parcels included in the annexation rely on continuous abutting boundaries to meet the contiguous requirement; that no common boundary for any parcel is .less than 100 feet; 4. That the owners of all properties included in the applica- tion have petitioned and requested the City for annexation; that the annexation parcel is made up of five separate pieces of property owned by five (5) different parties; 5. That the annexation application was submitted by Alvin S. Marsden on behalf of all petitioning owners; that the individual owners have requested annexation in their own right; that a Commercial Zoning has been requested for Parcel No. 1 which is owned by Crandlemire, and Parcle No. 1 is basically the parcel which abutts and is contiguous with Fairview Avenue; that the owner of Parcel No. 2, Wolfe, has requested Residential Zoning; that the owner of Parcel DIo. 3, Harr, has requested Residential Zoning; that the owner of Parcel No. 4, Hornbaker, has requested Industrial Zoning; that the owner of Parcel Pdo. 5, Dundas, has requested Industrial Zoning; 6. That the property included in the annexation is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian as adopted by Ordinance 319; that the property included in the annexation is within the Urban Service Planning Area; 7. That Alvin S. Marsden represented that the parcel fos gMeROSE, FITZG ERALD 6 CROOKSTON Allompye en8 Counseloro P.O. Boz IZ] Mer1818n, 10880 83812 Tslsplwne BB6L161 which Commercial Zoning has been requested, Parcel No. L, would. be developed as what he termed "incubator commercial"; an example of that type of commercial development would. be the north side of Fairview at Five Mile Road.; the industrial use proposed for the two parcels, Nos. 4 and 5, would be "incubator industrial" which he described as having a small office at the front with a ware- house at the rear; that an example of this type of industrial use was pointed out by Mr. Marsden as being like that located at Franklin and Cole Road in Boise., Idaho; that the third type of use was residential and that the residential parcels would be located between the commercial and industrial use areas; 8. That, as shown on the map attached to the application, there is a rectangular portion. marked NAP on Parcel No. 4 owned: by Hornbaker which is not included in the application, anal for which annexation has not been requested; that this exception creates an enclave which would be outside the City limits even though it would be totally surrounded by City property; that as shown on the map attached. to the applicant`s request for annexa- tion, that property south of Parcel No. 5 owned by Dundas would. also create a three-sided enclave leaving only approximately 200 feet along Locust Grove Road which would not be within the City limits; 9. That the representative of the petitioners, Alvin S. Marsden, presented no development plans for any of the parcels included in the annexation; 10. That Alvin S. Marsden on behalf of the petitioners represented in his petition for annexation that the land drains to the west; that no specific evidence was submitted to support this representation; however, it is generally believed to be true; 11. That no evidence was submitted on behalf of the petitioners as to how much sewage capacity would be required by AM BR06E, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON the annexation parcels; that the present capacity of the rle ri di an Attomeya and Counselors P.O. BOZ 12] MM61en, IANo 83612 TelapNOna 88B-1161 Sewage Treatment Facility is for a population equivalence of 21,000; that current population is approximately 7,000 which would lead one to believe that there is a population equivalent capacity remaining in the Sewer Treatment Facility of 14,000.00; however, due to infiltrations, the population equivalent now remaining in the Sewer Treatment Facility is 10,500; that the Sewer Treatment Facility has the capability of being expanded to serve a population equivalence of approximately 42,000; that in order to serve all the previously annexed properties of the City o£ Meridian, the Sewer Treatment Facility would have to have a capacity of approximately 50,000 population equivalence; 12. That the representative of the petitioners, Alvin S. Pdarsden, did not propose any route for sewer or water extentions to the annexation properties; that the City Engineer did point out, however, that a 10-inch water main was presently located on East Pine and an 8-inch water main was presently located on the north side of Fairview Avenue, approximately one-quarter mile west of Locust Grove; additionally, a 12-inch diameter and an 8-inch diameter sewer stub was located from a manhole at Tericho Road and Fairview Avenue, approximately one-quarter west of Locust Grove; that extension of the sewer line from that point was planned to be southeasterly along the Settlers Canal or the Creason lateral; that a 21-inch diameter intercepter is located about one-quarter mile due west of the lower end of this annexation request and that these two sewer lines would be the most probable for sewer service to the proposed area;: 13. That the ordinances and policies of the City of Meridian require that any developer and/or owner pay for extension of water and sewer lines and any associated connection fees; AM BROSE, FIRGERALO B CROOKSTON A~~omeye enE Counaelon v.o. eoc ~i MwWlan, ItlNo B3M2 TalepNOnBBBB~Mt 14. That the eastern boundary of the Urban >ervice Planning Area is "areas adjacent to Locust Grove Road"; 15. That if this property were annexed, the "deridian Police Department and the Meridian Fire Department would be immediately required to service this area; 16. That the entire parcel is included on the I+Ieridian Policy Diagram in that area known as the :?erid.ian North Curve, which area is a neighborhood area; that. the parcels for which industrial use has been requested would not be in compliance with the .Meridian Comprehensive Plan as neighborhood areas are limited to residential and conurercial activities; 17. That the 1978 Comprehensive Plan contains policies, guidelines, criteria and standards which must be examined and upon which annexation must be judged in addition to other factors: that the 1973 Comprehensive Plan contains the following: (i) At page 2, Three `-lajor Concerns of the People of t?e ri di an a. orderly growth and development b. economic growth and balance c. improvement of the quality of life (2) At page 15, Economic Policies (under economic growth) 2.. It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set aside areas where commercial anal. industrial interests and activities are to dominate. 4. Positive programs should be undertaken to support existing industrial and commercial area to ensure their continued vitality. 6. It is the policy of the City of Meridian to support shopping facilities which are effectively integrated. into existing residential areas and plan for new shopping centers, as growth and development warrant. (3) At page 16, AMBROSE, FIRGERALD B CROOKSTON Allomeya and Counaelon P.O. Boa KII7 Merl01sn, 1091w 83M2 TelepllOne BB&aeBl sfi, ,..: , 2. Industrial development within the City limits should receive the highest priority. 6. Industrial uses adjacent to residential areas should not create noise, odor, air pollution, and visual pollution greater than levels normally associated with surrounding residential activities. (4) At page 21, Community Commercial Centers A community shopping center is defined as having between 100,000 and 200,000 square feet of gross floor area and between 8 to 30 acres of site area. Policy: Applications for community shopping centers as well as expansions of existing community shopping centers, shall be reviewed for possible adverse impact on the development of a regional shopping center. (5) At page 22, Comprehensive Plan Objectives - Dconomic Development Old Town: Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Old Town should continue to serve as a shopping, as well as governmental and public activity center. In recognition that its shape and character will change with additional population growth and development, the Comprehensive Plan sets the stage for the rejuvenation of Old Town, as per mixed, land use policies and per market and economic trends. Probable mixed-uses for Old Town could be specialty commercial, higher density residential, offices, medical facilities, and public and semi- public facilities. Policies: 1. The City of Meridian shall encourage a bene- ficial use of Old Town and existing business and commercial enterprises to remain in Old Town. 18. That there was no public testimony received on this application for annexation; 19. That the City of Meridian now has within its City limits AMBROSE, FITZG ERALD 6 CROOKSTON Allomay~ aM DOU11NlOf! P.O. Box t2T MMUIN, IEYIo 83612 Tslplans BBM161 over 800 acres of industrial zoned land; that more than one-half of the that industrially zoned ground has not been developed and that no existing industries are located on a majority of that ground that has been industrially zoned; 20. That there are in excess of 2,000 platted residential lots within the City limits of the City of Meridian which have not been developed or built upon; 21. That the representative of the applicants for annexation presented no information or plan as to the type o° residential development planned for that portion of the annexation for which residential zoning has been requred; 22. That policies under economic growth of the Comprehensive Plan include the avoidance of strip industrial or commercial, and that anew commercial development should be encouraged to consolidate where possible. CONCLUSIONS 1. That the City has the authority to annex land pursuant to Section 50-222, Idaho Code; that the exercise of a City's anne ation authority is a legislative function; that the procedures involving notice and hearing requirements and receipt of evidence and public comment are quasi-judicial in nature; 2. That all the notice of hearing requirements set .forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been. comp lied with; 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation application particularly by the guidelines, standards, criteria and policies contained in Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the P?eridian City Ordinances and policies, and the 1978 Meridian Comprehensive Plan; 4. That the Planning and. Zoning Commission may take judicial AMBROSE, FIRGERALD d CROOKSTON Attomsya An0 Coonaslore P.O. Boa 1Yl MsRCI~n, IONo B3M2 TalsplgM BB&U81 notice of the City's Ordinances, State statures, City policies and actual conditions existing within the City and the State and the Planning and Zoning Commission has done so in certain areas, C4~. r y+e_. r _.... _ _.. ~. I • • • particularly as they pertain to the number of industrial acres presently within the City which are undeveloped and the number of residential platted lots which are either undeveloped. or not constructed upon; 5. That all of the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Seridian, even though all parcels rely on a domino effect to meet the contiguous requirement; that the proposed annexation has been initiated by the owners of the parcels and the owners were represented in these proceedings by Alvin S. D4arsden, and that the proposed annexation was not initiated by the City of Meridian; 6. That the proposed annexation is not a shoestring annexation in that there is no common boundary less than approximately 170 feet; that the route of annexation itself is not unreasonable, but the route of annexation and the requests for annexation themselves create enclaves which are against Meridian City policies and make the annexation itself unreasonable; 7. That the land is contained within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian as adopted by the City of Meridian but, as yet, not approved by Ada County; 3. That the Sewer Treatment facility could treat all the AM BROSE, FITZG ERALD B CROOKSTON Atlomeye ~n0 Counsaloro P.O. Boz 127 MarI01u1, IENo B3l12 TsISPNnIHr SSN~81 sewage from the annexation area, if developed; however, the City has already annexed property which, if developed, far exceeds the capacity of the Sewer Treatment Plant; that even though the sewer Treatment Plant could be expanded to serve twice its present capacity, it would not resolve the problem since, even if the Sewer Treatment Plant capacity was doubled, the doubled capacity i • • • ~ has already been surpassed if all the land presently annexed to the City were developed; 9. That the City could provide water services to the annexation area; 10. That the Meridian Police Department and Aeridian Fire Department would have to service the area immediately upon annexation; that the Police Department, particularly, is already undermanned and additionally annexed land would cause even more strain upon that Department of the City; 11. That that portion of the proposed annexation area to be zoned industrial is not in compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and no amendment has been sua,aested; there are, however, Comprehensive Plan amendments that have been recommended to the City Council by the Planning and Zoning Commission, but, as of yet, not acted upon, which, if passed, would probably make this industrial zoning compatible to the Peridian Comprehensive Plan as amended; however, at this point, the Comprehensive Plan amendment has not been approved; 12, The Comprehensive Plan provides guidelines, standards, criteria and policies to guide the Planning and Zoning Commission on this proposed annexation; the above referenced guidelines are referenced in Paragraph 17 of the Findings of Fact hereof; that those guidelines, etc. dictate that the applicants' request for annexation be denied; that a few of those guidelines particularly relied upon and conclusions thereon are as follows: Ca) Three Major Concerns of-the Peon le of Perdian are orderly growth and development and economic growth and development. gMBROSE, FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON Attomsye.n0 COUIIMIM P.O. Boa ~Z7 MMOIUI, IMM B3NZ T~NPIwM BBB~Mt It is concluded that this annexation would not aid the orderly growth and development of the City of Meridian in that the commercial area is not yet warranted in the area, nor is there the need for additional industrial ground in the area at the present time or, for that matter, a need for residential ground. (b) It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set aside areas where commercial and industrial interests and activities are to dominate. It is concluded that sandwiching of the residentially zoned property of this annexation request between the commercial and industrial is in violation of the above policy. (c) Positive programs should be undertaken to support existing industrial and commercial areas to ensure the continued vitality. It is concluded that the addition of new commercial and industrial zoned property is not warranted at this time. (d) Industrial development within the City limits should receive the highest priority. It is concluded that the industrial zoned property included in this request for annexation would be in violation of the above policy of the Comprehensive Plan specifically, for the reason that there are already over 800 acres of industrial zoned property within the City o Meridian, most of which is undeveloped or has not yet been constructed upon. (e) Industrial uses adjacent to residential areas should not create noise, ordor, air pollution, and visual pollution greater than levels normally associated with surrounding residential activities. It is concluded that this policy should restrict the AMBROSE, FIRGERALD S CROOKSTON Attorneys antl Counaelon P.O. Box X27 M~ddbn, IdNo 8.7N2 TslpMne BBBJMI development of residential property between commercial and industrial zoned property. • • • • (f) The City of Meridian shall encourage the beneficial use of 01d Town and existing business and commercial enterprises to remain in Old Town. It is concluded that the commercial activities which would be located in the commercially zoned area as represented by the representive of the applicants would. be better suited to be located downtown and closer to the existing commercial enterprises. (g) That throughout the Plan it is suggested that sprawl and spread be limited wherever possible. It is concluded that combining commercial, industrial and residential within this application for annexation would encourage sprawl and spread, and development of the proposed annexation area would cause a detraction from development around the present center of the City of Meridian. 13. That policies under the Aeridian Comprehensive Plan, Economic Growth, dictate that new commercial development should be encouraged to consolidate where possible. It is concluded that the annexation request under consideration is not a consolidation of commercial activity with the present commercial area of the City; 14. That the fact that there are over 800 acres of industria property already within the City limits, most of which is undevel ed and not in use, and the fact that the existing Comprehensive Plan states that development of industrial property within the City limits should receive the highest priority, dictates that the Planning and Zoning Commission cannot recommend annexation of this property at this time; 15. That the fact that there are in excess of 2,000 platted AMBROSE, FITZGERAlO d CROOKSTON AttOrneya sno Counsalore P.O. Boy 4Y7 MerlElan, IoNo BBM2 Tsleprone BB6~N1 but undeveloped and unconstructed upon residential lots within the t • • City limits of the City of Meridian dictates that at this time it is not advisable to add more residentially zoned property to the City; 16. That the aopIicants' proposed uses £or the proposed. annexation area, commercial, residential and industrial, are mixed uses; that the proposed. annexation area is not a mixed use area as outlined in the 19`78 Comprehensive Plan; 17. It is concluded, finally, that the proposed annexation is not in the best interest of the City of Deridian based upon the facts set forth herein and the conclusions stated above. APPROVAL OF FINDNGS OF FACT. AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Roll Call Commissioner Eddy Voted Yea Commissioner Geisler Voted Yea Commission Chenowith Voted yea Commissioner Sweet Voted Absent Commissioner P4orrow Voted yea Chairman Spencer (Tie Breaker) Voted __~ DECISION AND P,ECOMMEPdDi`:TTON The b'Ieridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby r2 commends AMBROSE, FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON Attomeye end Coonaelore P.O. Boy 4Z7 MwlOlen, IpeNO 89M2 Teleglona 8B6MB1 to the City Council that this annexation request be denied bated upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions. P~totion: Approved F11 Yea Disapproved