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