1983 01-24
SPECIAL MEETING
Meridian Plannin & Zoning Commission Janua 24, 1983
Special bfeeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission called to order by
Chairman Bob Spencer at 8:20 pm.
Members Present: Marnell Chenowith; Bob Giesler; Gerry Sweet; Tom Eddy
Others Present: Wayne Crookston Jr.; Al Marsden; Jack H. Niemann
Item
1 Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Dobaran et al
City Attorney Wayne Crookston Jr. read the Findings of FactandConclusions regarding
the Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment by Alvin 5. Marsden on behalf of
Dobaran, et al. (See exhibit A, Findings of Fact and Conclusions, attached; Tape on
file, City Clerk's Office)
The Motion was made by Chenowith and seconded by Sweet to adopt the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions concerningthe application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment by Alvin S.
Marsden on behalf of Dobaran, et al, as read.
Motion Carried: Eddy, yea; Giesler yea; Chenowith, yea; Sweet, yea
Unanimous
The Motion was made by Eddy and seconded by Giesler to deny the application for
Comprehensive Plan Amendment by Alvin S. Marsden on behalf of Dobaran, et al.
Motion Carried: Eddy, yea; Giesler,yea; Chenowith, yea; Sweet, yea
Unanimous
Item
2 Dobaran et al Annexation Request
Planning & Zoning Chairman Bob Spencer read the Findings of Fact and Conclusions
concerning the Dobaran et al Annexation request. (See Exhibit B, Findings of Fact and
Conclusions, Attached; Tape on File, City Clerk's Office)
The Motion was made by Sweet and seconded by Chenowith to adopt the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions regarding the Dobaran et al Annexation request as read.
Motion Carried: Eddy, yea; Giesler yea; Chenowith, yea; Sweet, yea
Unanimous
The Motion was made by Eddy and seconded by Giesler to recommend to the City Council
that--this annexation request be denied.
Motion Carried: Eddy, yea; Giesler yea; Chenowith yea; Sweet, yea
Unanimous
Chairman Spencer informed Marsden that he wouldbe notified in writing of the decisions
of the Commission, andthat he had 30 days in which to appeal the decisions of the
Commission to the City Counci L
The Motion was madeby Eddy and seconded by Sweet to adjourn the Special Meeting of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, January 24, 1983, at 9:02 pm.
Motion Carried: Eddy, yea; Giesler yea; Chenowith, yea; Sweet yea.
APPROVED:
CH , BOB SPENCER
ATTEST:
-ack H. Nieman , City Clerk
,•
APPLICATION FOR COMPF,EHENSIVE PLAPd AMENDMENT
EY ALVIN S. MARSEN
021 BEfIALF OF DOBARAN, ET AL.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. This application for amendment to the 1973 Aleridian
Comprehensive Plan was submitted by Alvin S. Marsden as the
applicant on behalf of Dobaran et al.; the application was
received October 14, 1982, by the Meridian City Clerk; that a
public hearing as required by the Local Land Use Planning Act
could not be scheduled until December 13, 19 R2, due to a lack of
a quorum on the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission.
2. That the applicant requests amendment to the 1978 t"eridi
Comprehensive Plan in the following particulars:
A. Extend the Urban Service Planning Area (USPA) to the
centerline of Cloverdale Road.
B. Designate the area adjacent to the iJnion Pacific
Railroad west of Cloverdale as Industrial.
C. Designate the area west of Cloverdale Road and north
and South of I-84 as an Interchange Enterprise Area.
D. Designate Cloverdale Road as a major arterial.
3. That a public hearing was held on December 13, 1932,
AMBROSE,
F1T2G ERAlD
B CROOKSTON
AROmeye entl
Couneelore
P.O. Boa <R]
MerlOlen, IEe~o
&1812
Taleplane 8881181
concerning the proposed amendment; that notice of said hearing was
published fifteen days prior to hearing as required by la~.a; that
said hearing was open to the public; that the Planning and Zoning
Commission held a special meeting workshop on January 5, 198.3, to
consider the proposed amendment which special meeting workshop was
duly noticed by publication prior to the special meeting; that
notices of both meetings were available to papers, radio and
television stations.
E}uYIBIT "A" P & Z 9':E'.ETING 1/24/83
12 Pages
• •
Q. That an amendment to the 1973 ffleridian Comprehensive Plan
was submitted to the Meridian City Council on or about September 2.
1982; that if this proposed amendment were recommended to the City
Council, it would be recommended after an additional hearing in
April of 1983, and, thus, Comprehensive Plan Amendments would not
have been recommended to the City Council more often than every
six (6) months.
5. That no public comment was given at the public hearing or
the workshop; that the Commission heard testimony and took evic~en
from Alvin S. Marsden, the applicant on behalf of Dobaran et al:,
and City officials, and there were questions and answers between
the Commission, the applicant and City officials.
6. That after the December 13, 1982 public hearing and the
Sanuary 5, 1983 workshop, no changes were made in the application
for amendment either by the applicant or by the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
7. That the 1978 Meridian Comprehensive Plan sets forth an
Amendment Procedure; that this application has been submitted and
processed pursuant to that procedure; that, additionally, the Lo ca]
Land Use Planning Act has been followed and complied with; that the
application substantially complied with the requirements of para-
graph b of the Amendment Provision and Procedures on page 62 of the
1978 Meridian Comprehensive Plan; however, the Commission felt that
the application was lacking in the requirement of number 4--The
Public need for and benefit from such a change in the Plan--and,
number 6--Development intentions for any land involved.
8. That the City of Meridian adopted, pursuant to the
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
B CROOKSTON
Altomaye anE
Counxlon
P.O. Box 12]
MerlClan, IEa~o
83814
Tslaplwne 88&1181
requirements of Section 67-6526, Idaho Code, an Area of Impact;
the Area of Impact was adopted by Ordinance 319 and was passed
December 29, 1977, and included the ,following area.:
The west boundary being the Ada-Canyon County line; the
north boundary being Highway 20; the east boundary being
Cloverdale Road until such point as Cloverdale reaches
the Interstate-Overland Area, then including the Five-
PQile, Eight-D1ile and Ten-LQile Creek Drainage areas, but
in no event shall it extend east past Cole Road or the
New York Canal, whichever is closest; and bounded on the
south being generally following the Rawson Canal to the
point it intersects with the Ada-Canyon County line.
However, the Area of Impact has not been negotiated, as required by
67-6526, Idaho Code, by the City of Meridian and Ada County or
the City of Boise; that Ada County has not adopted the Meridian
Area of Impact by means of an Ordinance.
9. That Ada County has adopted the Boise City Area of Impact
by means of County Ordinance 126; that said Area of Impact of the
City of Boise extends at least to the quarter section line west of
Cloverdale Raod; thus, the duly adopted Area of Impact of the
City of Boise overlaps at least a quarter of a mile onto the Area
of Impact of the City of Meridian which has only been adopted by
the City of Meridian, but not by Ada County.
10. That a large portion of. the land. where the applicant
proposes Meridian's USPA be extended to is now included in the Area
of Impact of the City of Boise.
11, That the application sets forth as the one overriding
nificant change which has occurred and which results in a material
descrepancy between the 1.97E Comprehensive elan and present
existing conditions is the proposed construction-of an interstate
interchange at I-84 and Cloverdale Road: that the application for
amendment is basically grounded and based upon the addition of the
interchange at Cloverdale Road.
12. That the applicant, in testimony and the application,
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
BCROOKSTON
AROmeys entl
Counseloro
P.O. Box 12]
Merltllen, Itle~o
83812
TsISpMM8B8e181
indicated that the intended development included in the area which
the proposed extension of the USPA would include would be indus-
trial; that the City of Meridian now has within its City limits
over 800 acres of industrial zoned land with a total railroad fron-
tage of approximately 14,550 feet; that more than one-half of
the above industrial ground has not been developed and almost all
of it has no existing industries located therein; that outside the
City limits, but within the USPA, there is additional land zoned
by Ada County industrially.
13. That in order to serve the area included in applicant's
extension of the USPA boundary, water lines would have to be extende~:_
approximately 5/8ths of a mile and sewer lines would have to be
extended 7/8ths of a mile.
14. That the present USPr; boundary is located basically alone
Eagle Road; [that while the USPA boundary is not
of demarcation, applicant's request would extend
approximately one mile east); that the applicant
the USPA boundary be defined as Cloverdale Road;
and Zoning Commission has previously recommended
that the USPA boundary be extended to the one-ha
between Eagle Road and Cloverdale Road, but this
yet acted upon by the City Council.
a definite line
the boundary
proposes to have
that the Planning
to the City Counci
Lf section line
has not been as
15. That the Idaho Department of Transportation has approved
construction of an I-84 Interstate Freeway interchange at the inte
section of I-84 and Cloverdale Road; that along with a freeway
interchange, development o". one kind or another will likely come
about as a result of the access to the freeway; that historically,
in areas of population, such as the Treasure Valley and the
Boise-Meridian area particularly, growth and development occurs
where transportation facilities and access exist.
16. That now included within i•?eridian's Area of Impact are
AMBROSE,
f172G ERALD
B CROO KSTON
Aporneye end
Couneelon
P.O. BoK l27
Merlelen, IGNo
8~II
TelepNOne BSNM1
three freeway interchanges, one in existence at I-84 and teridian
Road, one in the planning stage at I-84 and. Eagle Road, and one in
the planning stage.' at I-84 and Cloverdale Road; that at the time
of the adoption of the 1978 Meridian Comprehensive Plan, there was
only the one interchange at P•leridian Road.
17. That it is the goal of the Commission to encourage
regional enterprises; that regional enterprises require and tend to
locate where there are sufficient transportation facilities such
as railway and freeway access; that Meridian has in its Area of
Impact, as adopted by Meridian but not approved by Ada County,
three, one at Meridian Road, and two under planning at Eagle Road
and Cloverdale Road; that the best possible locations for regional
enterprises are at freeway interchanges where access to the freeway
is the best; that the City of Boise and Ada County now have,
however, included the Cloverdale Interchange Enterprise Area within
the Boise Area of Impact.
18. That the present capacity of the Meridian Sewage Treat-
ment Facility is for a population equivalent to 21,000; that
current utilization is a population equivalence of 7,000; that the
plant has the capability of being expanded to serve an approximate
population equivalence of 42,000; that in order to serve all the
annexed property in the City of Meridian, the sewer treatment plan
would have to have a capacity of approximately 50,000 population
equivalence; that not all annexed property would require sewer
service at one time; to allow Growth, either residential, commer-
cial, or industrial, additional means of treating sewage will have
to be developed, publicly or privately, to compliment service by
the existing plant.
19. That water service to the land in the proposed extension
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
B CROOKSTON
Altorneye en8
Couneelore
P.O. Box 12]
MerlOlen, IGa~o
83812
TBlepeone 88&1181
of the USPA could be handled by means of additional wells; that a
funding mechanism would have to be found to relieve the expense
burden on the City of any new wells and their operation and main-
ten ance.
20. Police protection would still be provided by County
services in the area included in the application as it is at the
present time. No change would occur in this regard until annexa-
tion occurs and, at that time, the Meridian police force will be
impacted to a significant degree due to the amount of land include
in the application.
21. Fire Protection would still be furnished by the Il4eridian
Rural Volunteer Fire District and Cole-Collister Fire District
which are not funded by the City; this, of course, like police
protection, would change if and when annexation occurs, and then
fire protection would have to be provided by the City and a means
to provide and fund that service would have to be considered.
22. Population considerations due to the proposed amendment
are of little significance in that the area is intended to be
developed industrially.
23. Economic development is likely to occur as the result o
the addition of an interchange at I-84 and Cloverdale Road; the
construction of this interchange, however, will not begin until at
least 1986; additionally, the interchange would be in Boise's Area
of Impact unless that is chanced.
24. Land use in the proposed east extension of the USPA
would change from agriculture to commercial and industrial; this
change will occur very gradually, at least until the economic
rescession is alleviated; that then the change will occur more
rapidly; land sales would increase and property values would
increase.
AMBROSE,
FIRGERgID
6 CROOKSTON
Attomeye end
Couneelore
P.O. Box ~P)
MeriElen, IOeho
fi1N2
Telephone BBB~MI
U
25. That the Amendment would have little affect on housing
since there already is an abundance of available building lots.
26. There would be no impact on hazardous areas or special
areas or recreation due to the Amendment and the Commission felt
there was no comment necessary on natural resources.
27. The Amendment would have no, or at least minimal, affect
on the soils.
28. The Community design would not be significantly changed.
29. That there was no public input on the proposed Amendment.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the requirements of the 1978 Peridian Comprehen-
sive Plan Amendment Provision and Procedures and of the Local Land
Use Planning Act, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, including all
notice requirements and planning considerations have been met; that
the requirements of Section 67-6508, Idaho Code, have been consider
ed.
2. That the Comprehensive Plan is designed for the planning
of the City of Meridian and its Area of Impact as adopted in
Ordinance No. 319.
3. That the 1978 Meridian Comprehensive Plan was adopted
pursuant to the Local Land Use Planning Act, Title 67, Chapter 65,
Idaho Code, and all requirements of that act have been met and
were complied with.
4. That in considering any amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan, the goals and policies of the present plan must be looked to
and considered; that all such coals and policies have been con-
side re d; that the following listed goals and policies are considere
to be of utmost importance in the present application for amend-
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD ment and are somewhat controllin in li ht of the findin s:
8CR00 KSTON g g g
ABOmeya Ntl
CouneelOre
P.O. Box t1T
MerlGlen, ItlNo
838/Y
iele8none BBB~eEt
Goals of the Comprehensive Plan (p. 8)
GOAL 2:
To ensure that growth. and development occur in an orderly fashion it
accordance with adopted policies and procedures governing the use
of land, residential development, the provision of services and the
distribution of new housinR_ units within the Urban Service Planning
Area.
GOAL 7:
To provide community services to fit existing and projected needs.
GOAL 10:
To create an Urban Service Planning Area which is visually attrac-
tive, efficiently managed. and clearly identifiable.
i;conomic Policies (p. 15)
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
d CROONSTON
Attomeye uM
Counsebro
P.D. Bor I4T
MsNC4m, ICNo
&7M2
Talplgna BBNAl1
* * ~
2. It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set aside areas
where commercial and industrial interest and activities are
to dominate.
4. Positive programs should be undertaken to .support existing
industrial and commercial areas to ensure their continued
vitality, ..
Industrial Policies (p. 16)
1. The development considerations for each of the Industrial
Review Areas should be phased and prioritized to: provide
for orderly growth and development; minimize the cost of
providing utilities and transportation services and promote
unified development within the Urban Service Planning Area.
2. Industrial development within the City limits should receive
the highest priority.
* * * Rural Policies
3. Although it is recognized that urbanized development does exist
within the rural areas of the Urban Service Planning Area, the
rural lands should be kept in agricultural production as long
as possible until alternative urban services can be accomodatei
through planned community services.
4. Uses in the rural areas of the Urban Service Planning Area not
scheduled for urban services (municipal sewer and water
facilities and other essential services) should be maintained
in agricultural use until such land has been identified as
.part of a City capital improvement program for development.
5. That the above goals and policies, particularly that
support should be given to existing industrial areas and that
industrial development within the City limits should receive the
highest priority, in conjunction with the finding that there are
already over 800 acres of industrial zoned property within the
City limits, a significant amount of which is undeveloped, dictate
that the USPA should not be extended any further to the east and
that the area adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad west of
Cloverdale Road should not be designated as Industrial.
6. That the Commission may take judicial notice o` State
laws, City and County Ordinances, and economic conditions and of
governmental actions, policies, and decisions, including its own,
and. may consider knowledge obtained in considering prior amend-
ments and duplication is to be avoided; that the Commission
specifically takes notice of the Dobaran Annexation application
which includes land extending to Cloverdale Road.
7. That no public need for or benefit from the proposed
amendment was shown significant enough to warrant the adoption of
the amendment; that the representations as to public need were
speculative and based in large part upon the proposed construction
of an interchange at I-84 and Cloverdale Road, which will be dis-
cussed below.
8. That the applicant maintains that one significant change
has occurred within the Area of Impact which is a material change
necessitating the adoption of the applicant's amendment and that
AMSROSE,
FITZG ERALD bein that the construction of an In to rch an e at I-84 and
BCROONSTON g g
Attorneys end
Coonaeloro
P.O. Bov tT
MerlElen, IWlio
BSle2
TBlsphone SBBMl1
for the City of Boise that extends at least 1/4 mile west of
Cloverdale Road and that the Peridian Area of Impact, cahich has
not been approved by Ada County, extends to Cloverdale Road,
creates an overlap and a conflict in the two Cities' Areas of
Impact; that this overlap cannot be ignored. and it puts the
applicant's amendment in limbo because the question of which
City has jurisdiction is confused. Until this conflict is
decided, this conflict alone, is sufficient justification to deny
the applicant's proposed amendment.
~~
u
Cloverdale Road has been approved; that the Commission has in the
past when considering a prior amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
found that such an Interchange is sufficient to warrant a change
in the Comprehensive Plan; that two factors, however, are
significantly different in this application: 1) the proposed
amendment here is basically for an Industrial use of which
industrial use land is overabundantly available and undeveloped
within the City limits and 2) the Meridian Area of Impact may not
ultimately include the Cloverdale Intercahnge. Due to these
differences, the proposed Interchange is not a sufficient material
discrepancy between the 1978 Comprehensive Plan and actual existing
conditions which warrant a change in the Plan.
9. The fact that Ada County has approved an Area. of Impact
AMBROSE,
FITZGERAID
BCROOKSTON
Attorneys end
Counselon
10. That while the Commission has in the past maintained
that regional enterprises are encouraged and that regional
enterprises are likely to develop around freeway interchanges, the
fact that Boise's Area of Impact may now include the proposed
Cloverdale Interchange clouds the jurisdiction over the Interchange
and dictates that it would not be logical or prudent to designate
the Cloverdale Interchange Area as an Interchange Enterprise Area
and extend the L'S PA boundary to include Cloverdale Road.
P.O. Box 4PT
MsrlGl~n, NINo
87MR
TslapNOM BBMMt
11. That even disregarding the Area of Impact problem, the
Commission concludes that, in light of its prior recommendation
to the City Council to extend the USPA boundary approximately
1/2 mile east of Eagle Road, the further extension of the USPA
boundary another 1/2 mile to the east would not be prudent without
sufficient assurances that the area could be sewered with the
present capacity of the sewage treatment plant, or an expansion
thereof, and that sufficient water could be supplied for ind.ustria
and fire fighting purposes.
12. Additionally, the problems of police and fire protection
in the event and likelihood of annexation were not sufficiently
addressed, particularly in light of the Dobaran Annexation appli
tion which has been filed by the applicant in conjunction with
this application to amend the 1978 Peridian Comprehensive Plan.
13. The Amendment Provision and Procedures of the 1978
Comprehensive Plan states that the Commission shall take an
application for amendment, hold at least one public hearing and
determine whether the application merits further study. If the
Commission determines that the application does not merit further
study, that is, the application is denied, the Commission shall
so notify the applicant by mail and the applicant shall have 30
days within which to appeal the decision to the City Council. If
the Commission determines the application merits further study, it
shall hold at least one additional public hearing and then recom-
mend to the City Council approval or denial.
14. The Commission concludes and determines that the appli-
AMBROSE,
FIRGERALD
E CROOKSTON
Attorneys en0
Counselor
P.O. BoK 131
MeriElan,ICaNo
83862
TelapBOna BBB~N1
cation of Alvin S. Marsden on behalf of Dobaran, et al. for
amendment to the 1978 Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as set out in
the application, does not merit further study; that the applicant
may appeal this decision and these findings of fact and conclusio
to the City Council within 30 days from the date of notification
of this decision.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
AND
DECISION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts
these Findings of Fact and Conclusions and it is the decision
of the Commission that the application of Alvin S. Marsden on be-
half of Dobaran et al. for amendment to the 1978 Meridian Compre-
hensive Plan does not merit further study and is hereby denied.
Applicant shall have the appeal rights set forth in Conclusion
number 14 and as set forth in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan,
on pages 62 and 63.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioner Eddy Voted y~
Commissioner Geisler Voted y~
Commissioner Ghenowith Voted yEA
Commissioner Sweet Voted yFA
Chairman Spencer (Tie Breaker)
Motion for adoption of Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
Approved Ar•T~ ~n
Disapproved
Mot".on to Deny Application to Amend the Comprehensive Plan:
Approved PILL YEA
Disapproved
AM BROSE,
FIT2GERgLO
B CROO KSTON
Attorneys onE
Counselors
P.O. Bos lTT
MerlElen, IEeNo
&7MR
TelepNOns BBBW81
i:, _f
~ •
BEFORE THE DIERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZOT7ID7G COT'IMISSION
DOBARAN et al. ANNEXATION
FINDINGS OF FACT APdD CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled annexation having come on for consideration
on January 24, 19II3, at the hour of 8:00 o'clock p.m., at the
Peridian City Hall, 728 Meridian Street, Meridian, Idaho, and
the Commission having held prior hearings and meetings 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 the special meeting on the anne}ration was
duly published in the Valley News for one (1} issue; that notice
of a public hearing on the annexation was published for two (2)
consecutive weeks prior to the public hearing scheduled for
November 8, 1982, the first of which publication was 15 days prior
to the hearing; that the hearing on November 8, 1982 was convened
but due to a lack oL a quorum and at the applicants request the
matter was tabled until December 13, 1982; that notice of a public
hearing on the matter was dul}> published for two consecutive
weeks prior to the publir_ hearing scheduled for December 13, 1982,
the first of which publication was 15 days prior to December 13,
1982; that additionally, a workshop was held on a connected
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and this annexation on January 5,
1983, notice of which was published; that copies of all notices
were made availble to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z Comm.)
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
d CROOKBTON
Attorneys eno
Couneelon
P.O. Box t17
Merlolen, IOeAo
&'il~Y
Telapnone BBB~MI
received both oral and written testimony.
r~:IBIT "B" P &Z t!,-_~"~".,iI_~rG 1/24/83
5 Paaes
3. That the property included in the Application for annexa-
tion is described in the application, and by this reference
incorporated herein; that the property generally lies between
Eagle Road and Cloverdale Road and Franklin Road and Fairview
Avenue, and abutts the Union Pacific Railroad.
4. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits; that it connects and abutts the City limits at its
initial point for a distance of over 1500 feet; that 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.
5. That owners of all properties included in the application
have petitioned and requested the City for annexation with the
exception of the owners of that parcel number 5 which is railroad
property and may be annexed by statute, parcel numbers 7 and 8
owned by Hollister, both which parcels are under five acres in
size and may be annexed by statute, and parcel number 10 which is
owned by Idaho Power Company and is less than five acres and may
be annexed by statute.
6. That the annexation application was submitted by Alvin S.
Marsden on behalf of all the petitioning owners; that the indivi-
dual owners have requested annexation in their own right and each
request is separate. All owners have requested annexation, except
as mentioned in Finding number 5, but the following owners have
not requested industrial zoning, contrary to the representation of
D4r. Marsden, in fact, they have not requested any zoning: Dobaran,
Cook, Sallaz, Spencer and Waugh.
7. That the property included in the annexation. is within the
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALO
A CROOKSTON
Attorneys end
Counselors
P.O. Boa 121
MetlElen, Itlelw
83M2
Teleplrone 8881181
Area of Impact of the City of Meridian as adopted by Ordinance 319
but the Area of Impact has not been adopted by Ada County and Ada
County has adopted the Area of Impact of the City of Boise which
5
• •
extends one quarter mile west of Cloverdale Road which would in-
clude a large portion of the area requested to be annexed.
8. That almost the entire area included within the annexa-
tion is not included within the Urban Service Planning Area as the
Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the 1978 Comprehensive
Plan; that some of the land included in the annexation easterly of
Eagle Road does abutt the Urban Service Planning Area boundary;
that the Urban Service Planning Area boundary is not a definite
line of demarcation.
9. That Alvin S. Marsden on behalf of Dobaran, et al. has
filed an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would
extend the Urban Service Planning Area to Cloverdale Road, which
extension would cause this annexation to be in compliance with the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that the Commission hereby takes
judicial notice of the file and record on the application of
Alvin S. Marsden on behalf of Dobaran, et al. for amendment to the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the Findings of Fact and Conclu-
sions and Decision made therein.
10. That since the amendment proposed by Mr. Dlarsden on be-
half of Dobaran, et al. to the Comprehensive Plan has been denied,
the area proposed to be annexed in this application is not in
compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
CONCLUSIQNS
1. The City has authority to annex land. pursuant to 50-222,
Idaho Code.
2. That all the land within the proposed annexation is con-
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attomaya ana
Counaelora
R.o. Bo:4zT
Ma~ltllan, IEMo
83842
TelapMna BBB M81
tiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, even
though all parcels rely on a domino effect to meet the contiguous
requirement; that is, if it were not for an adjacent parcel being
contiguous, the next parcel would not be contiguous.
3. That the proposed annexation has been initiated by the
petitioner, Alvin S. Marsden on behalf of Dobaran, et al., with
consent and request by the various owners of the parcels, and. not
at the initiation of the City, except for those parcels number
5, 7, 8 and 10; that the above parcels are, however, five acres or
less in size for which consent is not necessary and which the City
can annex without the owner's petition, or railroad property which
can be annexed pursuant to Idaho Code, X50-222.
4. That the annexation is not a "shoestring" annexation in
that there is no common boundary less than approximately 100 feet.
5. That the City can take judicial notice of governmental
statutes, ordinances and policies.
6. 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.
7. That the Findings of Fact and Conclusions made in the
application of Alvin S. Marsden on behalf of Dobaran, et al., for
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan may be judicially noticed, and
they are so noticed; further, they are incorporated herein as if
set forth in full.
3. That due to the fact a conflict now exists between the
Area of Impact of Boise, as adopted by Ada County pursuant to
Idaho Code, §67-6526, and the Area of Impact of Meridian which has
only been adopted by the City of Meridian and not by Ada County
pursuant to the above statute, the jurisdiction of the City of.
Meridian to plan for the area in conflict, let alone annex a part
thereof, is in question and doubt, and prevents the Commission at
this time from annexing this property until the conflict is removed
AMBROSE, Or settled.
FITZG ERALD
B CROO KBTON
Altomsys ln0
Couneslore
P.O. Box 12T
MttI01an, IGa~o
83814
Tslep~ona 8BB 1181
.:; •
•
9. That additionally, the fact that there are over 800 acres
o£ industrial property already within the City limits, most of whic
is undeveloped and not in use and in closer proximity to the City,
and the fact the existing Comprehensive Plan states that developrmen
of industrial property within the City limits should receive the
highest priority, dictate that the Commission cannot recommend the
annexation of this property at this time.
10. That with the denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
the annexation and the area included therein is not in compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan, and, therefore, the annexation must
be denied. The wording and interpretation of Idaho Coc?e, X67-6526
require the above in that it indicates that any annexed area must
comply with the present Comprehensive Plan or with a subsequent but
concurrent amendment allowing the annexation and its zoning. Since
the Commission has seen fit to deny the amendment which would allow
the annexation, the annexation must likewise fail.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLi1SIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
Roll Ca 11
Commissioner Ec'..dy Voted yea_
Commissioner Geisler Voted 'Yea
Commissioner
Chenowith
Voted _
Yea
Commissioner
Sweet
Voted _
"y
ea
Chairman Spencer (Tie Breaker)
Voted _
_
`
DECISION AND' RECOMMENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council that this annexation request be denied based
nMBROSE, upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
FIT2GERALO
B CROOKSTON
Motion:
A[tomaYn enE
~^~^~I~ Approved P.LL YEA
P.O. Box ~R7 `
MehElan, loalio
B3B/4
Telplwna BB6M81
Disapproved