Loading...
1982 09-13 ~" a ~!Y-' Before: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMI55ION Location: 728 Meridian Street Meridian, Idaho Time: 7:0 0 P,M. Work Session 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting Other Date: September 13, 1982 Items to be discussed are as follows: 7:00 P.M. Work Session on Tabled items fran meeting held August 19, 1982 8:00 Regular Meeting r ~ i A G E N D A Meridian Planning and Zoning September 13, 1982 ITEM: Minutes of the previous meeting held August ]9, 1982 - APPROVED 1. PUBLIC HEARING - Merle Larsen, 1930 N. Linder Rd. Conditional Use for Beauty Salon - APPROVED 2. Annette Hinrichs, Chairman of Planning & Zoning OLD BUSINESS: 1) Consideration of Tabled Items FORWARD TO a. Amendments of City Comprehensive Plan -CITY COUNCIL b. Annexation Quong/tvatkins Parcels #1-#8- DELAY UNTIL Sept. 13, 1982 HEARING Maririian Planninn R 7nnina September 13, 1982 Regular h'~eeting called to order by Chairman Annette Hinrichs, at 8:09 P.M. Roll Call conducted by LaWana PJiemann, City Clerk. Members Present: Don Sharp; Burl Pipkin; Bob Spencer; Lee Mitchell; Tom Eddy Item Others Present: James W. Kiser; Merle L. Larsen; Al P1arsden; Michael Zuzel; Jim Potter; Wayne Crookston,Jr.; Minutes of the Public Hearing Held August 19, 1982- Chairman Annette Hinrichs explained that there had been an error in correctly listing the htembers and Chairman of the Planning & Zonning Commission. on the cover: sheet of the minutes of August 19, 1982. .The P•lembers were incorrectly identifed as the Mayor and City Council. The Motion was made by Kitchell and seconded by Fipkin that the corrections be made on the cover sheet of the August 19, 1982 minutes, and that the minutes be approved as written. Motion Carried: All Yea I t~ m PUBLIC HEARING - h1erle Larsen; Conditional Use for Beauty Salon 1930 N. Linder Road Merge Larsen was present representing her request for a 3 operator Beauty Salon. Present Conditional Use is for one operator, which was granted Sept. 5, 1978. LaWana Niemann, City Clerk stated that the Public Notice had been published under the requirements of the law, that the application for the Conditional Use had been received, and that the required signatures had been checked and verified by the City Clerk. (Originals on File in City Clerk's Office) There was discussion concerning the current Conditional Use Permit. (Tape on File) Chairman Hinrichs: "Is there anyone in the public that had come to speak on this Conditional Use Permit?" There was no response. Hinrichs: "The Public Hearing on the Merle Larsen request fora Conditional Use Permit fora 3 operator Beauty Salon is now closed." Hinrichs called for questions or comments from the Commission. ~~ Sharp: Is this (signature on petition) a 100% of the people out there?" Larsen: "Yes." City Clerk LaWana tdiemann stated that h1rs. Larsen had just recently hooked-up to City Services and had paid the double rate..Niemann also stated that there has never been a complaint on P4rs. Larsen's business. There was discussion by the Commission on their concerns of allowing a commercial business in a resident~a'lsetting. (Tape on File) Mrs. Larsen pointed out that the Conditional Use Permit was just that, and could be revoked at any time. Larsen: "I believe that is your (The Commission) safeguard:"' The Motion was made by Mitchell and seconded by Sharp that in view of the fact that Larsen had 100% of the signatures, and in view of the fact that Larsen was paying double sewer and utilities, the Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the present operation, which is 1 full time, 2 part-time operators, with no more than two operators working at one time. h1otion Carried: Sharp, yea; Kitchell, yea; Eddy, yea; Spencer; yea; Pipkin, Obstain; I Meridi ina & Zoning _?• 13, 1982 Item 2 OLD BUSINESS: Consideration of Tabled Items The Motion was made by Sharp and seconded by Eddy to bring from the table the a) Amendments of City Comprehensive Plan::. I+lotion Carried: All Yea. a) Meridian Comprehensive Plan Amendments Hinrichs: "We have a Findings Of Fact and Conclusions that the Commission is considering. I would like to enter it into the record." PAERIDIAN CODIPREHENSIVE PLAN AP7ENDI~fENTS FINDINGS OF FACT AN D CONCLUSIONS PRELIPIINARY STATEMENT Amendments to the L7eridian Comprehensive Plan were initiated by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Commission") on its own. initiative. Some confusion has existed due to the fact that a private annexation application wa> filed ~.ahich may or may not require some of the Comprehensive Plan changes proposed by the Commission prior to being annexed. The Comprehensive Plan Amendments were proposed by the Commission as sole and distinct changes in the Comprehensive Plan without any regard for the requirements for the proposed annexation. [Vhile the Comprehensive Plan Amendments and the proposed annexation have been intertwined, due to the fact the annexation could not be achieved without some of the Comprehensive Plan changes, the Amendments were initiated to be sole, distinct and separate from the proposed annexation; that is, the Amendments would have been initiated regardless of whether or not the annexation application had been filed. Realizing that the Comprehensive Plan Amendments and the pro- 4M BROSE, ITZGERALD )ROOKSTON uorn•n •ntl ~ounplor• '.O. Boa •2T fi..d~Ml•n. IGMc posed annexation have gone through the Commission at the same timo and ihnt facts and arguments in favor of adoptin~~ the nmend- men t:; are similar to, or the same as, facts and arguments put forth to support the annexation and that the Commission has held hearings and read and listened to testimony regarding both the Amendments and the annexation proposal, the Commission, in mal:inr, these Findings and Conclusions, has attempted, as close as humanly possible, to keep the two subjects separate; however, the fact that the proposed an,^.e:-.=.ti-on has been applied for and the proposed f~eridian Planning & Zoning 3. September 13, 1982 development of a portion of the annexed land is for the site of a I possible regional shopping center. cannot bc• ignored in the plannin~i'' of the area. It is also to be noted that it is th<• duty of the Commission, pursuant to G7-6~i08, ldaho Code, to conduct n comtrr<•hcnsivo plnnnin~q process designed to prepare, implement, rc•vii~w and update ~ comprr~- ~ hensive plan, which plan shall apply to all of the land within thc• Area of Impact; that the plan shall consi-der previous and existinlt conditions, trends, desirable goals and objections%, or desirable future situations; that the following components are to be conside r ed and are to make up the basis of the Comprehensive Plan, unless ~ shown why the component is not needed: population; economic devel-i, opment; land use; natural resources: hazardous areal public services' facilities and utilities; transportation; recreation; special areas or sites; housing; community design; and implementation. i All of the above components were considered in adopting the 1978 Comprehensive Plan; almost all of the components were consider-{ ed in putting forth the Amendments initiated by the Commission: the Amendments were initiated by the Commission as part of its duty of ongoing planning. It is to be noted that since the adoption of thr 1978 Comprehensive Plan, the economy has been in a recession, the area. has been stagnant, and changes to the Comprehensive Plan have been unnecessary. However, one significant change has occurred since the adoption of the 1978 Comprehensive Plan vahich requires the updating of the Comprehensive Plan. That change is the decision by the Idaho Transportation Department to construct a freeway inter- change at the intersection of I-39 and Eaqle Road. T':zat one change and good planning mandated a review and update of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. i- l= f d i i esrr~ an ~ d on o t It is also pointed out that the a interchange in the Meridian Impact Area, under good planning practices, AMBROSE, FIT2G ERALO acnoolcsroR required the Commission to make changes in the transportation plan Atiwneys antl C and the designation of arterials and collectors. The rerouting of .OYOUIOn P.O. Bow APT Mnltll~n, ItlNo B9N4 rNrrp110M Bl6/M1 i • M 'riian Planninn R 7nnina 4 S~tember 13> 1982 Highway 30 along Eagle Road also had a significant effect upon prior road and street designations. THEREFORE, THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAKES THE FOLLOWING: FIN DINS OF FACT 1. That the Amendments were initiated. pursuant to the 1978 t4eridian Comprehensive Plan and the Local Land Use Planning Act, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code. 2. That public hearings were held on April 26, 1982, July 1, 1982, and August 19, 1982, concerning the proposed Amendments; that all notices of said public hearings were given as required by law and that all said meetings were open to the public. 3, That the Commission also considered the Amendments at their meetings held April 12, 1982, a regular meeting, May 10, 1982, a regular meeting, and on July 20 and 22, 1982, duly noticed work- shops which were open to the public, and on September 13, 1982, a regular meeting. 4. That final changes to the Amendments were made at the workshops held July 20 and 22, 1982: that a final public hearing, duly noticed, was held on the Amendments on August 19, 19II2; and that no changes have been made subsequent to that public hearing. 5. That no amendments have been made to the 1978 Pleridian Comprehensive Plan prior to these; that amendments have not been proposed to the P4eridian City Council more frequently than every six (6) months. 6. That notices of public hearings and other notices pertain- AMSROSE, FnZOERALD BCROONSTON AMpMy~ YM Gooo..~o~. ing to the Amendments have been made available to papers, radio and television stations; that the Amendments have been well publicized and the news media has conducted extensive coverage of the amend- ment process, hearings and meetings. v.o. ao..r, w.nm.~, arw esux %.~sonon.~Mt rrt •.t• of nninn R 7nninn 5 Member 13, 19821 7. That the Commission held public workshops pertaining to the Amendments on July 20 and 22, 1982. 8. That the 1978 Meridian Comprehensive Plan sets forth an Amendment Provision and Procedures; that the Commission has obtained all the information contained in paragraph (b) and has studied that information; that a letter of application cvas not filed by the Commission due to the amendment being initiated by the Commission: that the requirements of the amendment procedure have been met. ~. That the City of Meridian adopted, pursuant to the require- ments 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, ~~nd 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- 6iile, Eight-Mile and Ten-Mile 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. T0. That the City of Peridian adopted a Comprehensive Plan by means of Ordinance 331 on September 18, 1978, and pursuant to Section 1-1304 of the Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, the 1978 Comprehensive Plan applies to the Area of Impact. 11. That the 1978 Meridian Comprehensive Plan was adopted pursuant to Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and all planning duties and all considerations required therein for the adoption of a Comprehensive Plan were complied with. 12. That no amendments to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan AMBROSE. FIROERAID I CROOKSTON Anorrur..na L•01111M101~ P.O. bM ~T MnW4n, IENo E~617 T~NpI1pNl~y1 have been submitted to the Commission since the adoption of the 1978 Comprehensive Plan, except those under consideration at this time. )+leridian Planning & Zoning 6. September 13, 1982 13. That on April 12, 1992, the Commission considered its own proposal to amend the Comprehensive P].an; the amendments con- sisted of the follgwing and were in very rough form: (a) Changing the designation of the i:~terstate from I-80 to I-84 throughout the Plan; (b) Changing the language on Page 20 under REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER from: to : REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER Meridian is encouraging the potential develop- ment of a Regional Shopping Center near the Leridian/Kuna Road Freeway Interchange. When it becomes a reality, it will have a significant impact upon Meridian and has the potential of becoming Meridian's new Central Business District. Tkie proposed private development program calls for over a million square-foot shopping center, which will provide a wide variety of retail enter- prises and supporting commercial uses (such as office complexes, multi-family residential units, medical clinics, motels, and entertainment facilities). REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER Meridian is encouraging the potential develop- ment of a Regional Shopping Center within its Area of Impact in line with the stated policies under Part IV Economic Development (p. 15) of this document. (c) Changing the language on Page 37 under REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER from: ~MBROSE, FITZGER~LD t CROONSTON M~erMl'~YM Dounwlal REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER The proposed Regional Shopping Center, north- east of the I-80N/Kuna-Meridian Road Inter- section, should include two frontage roads: 1. A frontage access road from Eagle Road to the West to East First Street and along the East perimeter of the center. This frontage road should run parallel to the north side of I-80N, so that the residential neighbor- hood proposed for this area is not adversely P.O. Boa 127 MNrMMn, kWa !1112 NpOOiM l6/N/ Meridian Plannin & Zonin 7. Se tember 13, 1982 impacted by large volumes of traffic, as generated by the Regional Shopping Center. The number of access points from the frontage ~, road should be adequate enough to maintain a smooth flow of traffic to and from the center. 2. A frontage road between the Ten Mile/I-80N intersection and East First Street. Thia proposed frontage road would run parallel to and north of the Interstate I-80N and so have the least impact on the existing and proposed neighborhood between i-80N and Franklin Road. (See Policy Diagram, Page 7, for the illustrative location of the two frontage roads.) to: REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER The proposed Regional Shopping Center shall plan for the smooth and easy flow of traffic; lessen- ing the impact on neighboring residential areas, Frontage roads, well-planned parking with controlled access, and use of existing streets shall be care- fully considered. (d) By adding to Page 18 a new paragraph under the heading EASTERN INDUSTRIAL REVIEW AREA POLICIES between the first and second paragraphs which would read as set forth below and by then renumbering the paragraph; the new paragraph would read as follows: EASTERN INDUSTRIAL REVIEG9 AREA 2. It is the policy of Meridian to encourage and promote the development of an overpass at the intersection of Locust Grove and I-84 by the Idaho Department of Transportation. 14. Subsequently, the Amendments were more formalized and were typewritten for use at a public hearing which was set for April 26, 1982, Attached hereto, as Exhibit 1, and by this reference incor- porated herein as if set forth in full, are the initial Comprehen- sive Plan Amendments. Additionally, the Policy Diagram and the Transportation D1ap were changed to reflect the P.mendments. AMBROSE, FIT2(iERAID 6 GROOKSTON ARaRMY~NO CounNbn P.O. BoR X27 MMldlm, MWo SJM2 NWMrw SSS~N1 Plannin4 & 15. The hearing was held, after due notice was published, and minor changes were made after the hearing pertaining to the library and in the Policy Diagram circles were removed from all review areas. 13. 1982 I 16. On May 10, 1982, in their regular meeting, the Commission recommended that the Amendments be forwarded to the City Council f consideration with a recommendation that they be approved. On June 7, 19E2, the City Council sent the Amendments back to the Commission for additional consideration and hearings. 17. At their regular meeting on June 14, 1982, the Commission seta public hearing for July 1, 1932. The Commission held such Public Hearing, after due and legal notice thereof having been given. The Amendments considered at the hearing were the same as attached hereto as referenced in Paragraph 14 above along with the Policy Diagram and Transportation Man changes. P.t the hearing, oral testimony and written testimony was submitted, as well as a request to consider various studies which studies were submitted. or subsequently submitted. L8. Additionally, the Commission requested information from the proponent of the related annexation in that another developer had submitted a study he had performed. 14. After the July 1, 1982, Public Hearing, at its regular meeting, July 12, 1982, the Commission set two public workshops for July 20 and 22, 1982, at the Meridian City Hall. Notices of said meetings were duly posted and they were open to the public. 20. The public workshops were held as scheduled, at which AMBROBE, FITZDERALD 6CROOKSTON AKan~yl7nE CamMNM7 P.O. BOR 127 Mpkll7n, IEMa !7114 sNigq~M776M7t time all the public testimony and evidence was considered, as well as development packages and studies submitted by regional shopping center developers, information and input from professional planners having no financial interest i_n the amendments or shopping malls. Meridian Planning & Zoning 9. September 13, 1982 As a result of said workshops, the Commission made changes in the Amendments. The entire proposed Amendments are attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and by this reference incorporated herein. 21. The Commission set a public hearing for August 19, 1982, for hearing on the new changes in the Amendments to the Comprehen- sive Plan. Notice of said public hearing was duly published; the hearing was held and, at said hearing, testimony, both written and oral, was submitted. Again, requests were made to review studies and studies cvere submitted and permission to submit studies was requested which was afforded; the public hearing was closed and the Amendments, along with all the information, evidence, testimony, studies and input, were taken under advisement. 22. That the Commission has made no changes in the Comprehen- sive Plan that were the subject of the Public Hearing August 19, 1982. 23. That the Federal Department of Transportation has changed the designation of I-80 to I-84. 24. That the Idaho Department of Transportation has decided that an I-84 Interstate Freeway interchange will be constructed at the intersection of i-84 and Eagle Road; that along with a free~~~ay interchange, development of one kind or another will 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-Dieridian area particularly, growth and development occurs where transporta- tion facilities and access exist. 25. That the proposed plan for the interchange at Eagle Road ~_ includes changing the route of State Highway 30 to go from Fairview ~MBROSE, FITZGER~LD l CROONSTON ~NdM,~YM Counwia~ P.O. Boy ~t7 MwIENn, N4iNo BJNII N~pno,N BBBMB7 Nleridian Planning & Zoning 10. September 13, 19821 ,"~ Avenue to East First Street, Meridian, Idaho; that this change and the addition of an interchange will increase the traffic along Eag Road and decrease traffic through the center of Meridian, along East First Street. 26. That now included within the Area of Impact are two free- way interchanges, one in existence at I-8~1 and Meridian P,oad, and one in the planning stage at I-84 and Eagle Road; that at the time of the adoption of the 1978 Meridian Comprehensive Plan there was only the one interchange at Meridian Road. 27. That the City of Peridian has annexed Land, Upland Industries Annexation, east of Eagle Road which extends approxi- mately one-half mile towards Cloverdale Road. That at the time o_' this annexation, the Urban Service Planning Area touched upon the area east of Eagle Road but did not include that portion half cvay to Cloverdale Road. 28. That the annexation of the Upland Industries and the construction of the Eagle Road interchange will encourage develop- ment, in one fashion or another, residential, commercial, or indus- trial, of all the area abutting Eagle Road extending from north of Fairview Avenue to south o£ Overland Road. 29, That the land included in the extension of the Urban Service Planning Area is included in the Area of Impact; that it drains to the west toward Meridian, and the land uses and sewage treatment allowed in the area will affect t~ieridian's well water supplies due to filtration; the land can be sewered by means of gravity flow. 30. That the land deleted from the Urban Service Planning AMBROSE, FRZOERAlO 6 CROOKSiON A11anyArW Co~mMlort P.O. Boa 177 Mn10bn, Mmo BM17 '~~MIwMBBB~N61 Area basically known as Southgate can only be sewered by means of lift stations and it is the policy of the City of Meridian to avoid lift stations if at all possible. dian Planning & Zoni 1 3. 1 31. 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 two, one at Meridian Road and one under planning at Eagle Road; that the best possible locations for regional enterprises are at freeway interchanges where access to the freeway is the best. 32. That since regional enterprises are encouraged and since they require good transportation, it is also the goal of the Commission to encourage the construction of an overpass at Locust Grove and i-84; this overpass would encourage regional enterprise and would aid in the traffic congestion that now exists in the center of Meridian. 33. That while the purposes of the Plan Amendments are not AMBROBE, FITLDERALD acROOKSron An«~.r. ra Counwla[ necessarily to aid the location of a shopping mall at any specific location, it must be noted and found that a regional shopping mall is a regional enterprise which the Commission is encouraging; that regional shopping malls have been proposed at the Interchange at Meridian Road and I-84 and the proposed interchange at Eagle Road and I-84; that under the 1978 Meridian Comprehensive Plan, the Meridian Road site was depicted as the only site for a Regional Mall; that in 1978, however, it was not known that an interchange would be constructed at the Eagle Road intersection- that since it is the goal of the Commission to encourage regional enterprises, of whatever makeup, it is in the best interests of the City and the Area of Impact to allow both locations to be capable of having regional enterprises developed at those sites, whether they be shopping malls, industrial parks, or other commercial activities P.O. BO[/27 MM04n, ItlYw taa12 I~I~p1eNa1HN1 dian Planning & 34. That the Commission is not interested in, nor does it 13. 1 believe that it has the duty to, arbitrarily decide where a shoppi mall or any regional enterprise should locate; the Commission does feel it has the duty to plan for such commercial and industrial activity where the land, transportation and public facilities dic- tate such should be located; the. Commission finds that the area around the interchanges at both Eagle Road and Meridian Road are equally suited for such development and designation. 35. That the interchange area at Meridian Road has been capable of being developed for the placement of regional enterprise for some time; that no regional enterprise has yet been developed on that property; that it is not desirable, nor in the best interes of the City or the Area of Impact, to delete the Meridian Road interchange as an Interchange Enterprise Area; but that it is desirable to have two such Interchange Enterprise Areas.. 36. That with the proposed construction of an interchange at Eagle Road, the traffic patterns of the Area of Impact, and particularly the City of teridian, will change; likewise, if regional enterprises are constructed at either or both of the des- ignated~interchange areas, as well as the probable development of the Upland Industries location at Fairview and Eagle F.oad, traffic will increase significantly requiring upgrading of roads ,and the enlargement of rights-of-way. 37. If development occurs. at Interchange Enterprise Areas, traffic in those areas will significantly increase and that increa must be controlled and guided to avoid impact on residential areas and congestion in and around Interchange Enterprise Areas. 38. That the land deleted from the Urban Service Planning AMBR09E, FITZOERALD B CROOKSTON ARanry1YW CounNbn P.O. !oz 177 MNgMn,MMo !7!1'! NpbN El6/M7 Area known as Southgate can only be sewered by means of lift stations and it has been the policy of the City to avoid lift 1~1eridian Planning & Zoning 13_, _ _ _ September 13, 1982 stations wherever possible; the inability to gravity flow sewage from the Southgate area removes it from consideration, presently, as a development area and, thus, should be removed from the Urban Service Planning Area. 39. The land included in the extension of the Urban Service Planning Area to the east of Eagle Road can be sewered by means of gravity flow; likewise, the drainage of this land is to the west and any sewage disposal other than a public system would infiltrate into the well water available to the City of Meridian which relies completely on wells for its water. For any development to occur in this area, and in all of the eastern portion of the Urban Service Planning Area without damage to the present City Water, requires public sewage disposal, 40. That the present capacity of the Meridian Sewage Treat- ment Facility is for a population of 21,000; that current utiliza- tion is a population equivalence of 7,000; that the plant has the capability of being expanded to serve a population equivalence of approximately 42,000; that in order to serve all the annexed property in the City of Meridian, the sewer treatment plant would have to have a capacity of approximately 50,000 population equiva- lence; that not all annexed property would require sewer service at one time; to allow growth, either residential, commercial, or industrial, additional means of treating sewage will have to be developed, publicly or privately, to compliment service by the existing plant. 41. Water service for any area in the Urban Service Planning ~MBMOBE, FR26EMLD 6 C1IDONSTON ~na,.r..a caunwnn P.O. Bor IT Wr1UNn,MMo E7W '~MpIpM BBl.M, Area may be able to be supplied by the City, but as additional use is required, new wells will have to be developed for public use with public funds and/or with private funds. r C~ Meridian Plannin & Zonin 14 September 13, 19f32 42. The removal of the southwestern areas from the urban service planning area would have little impact on transportation planning; but. as above mentioned, the addition of land between Eagle Road and Cloverdale from Fairview to Overland would have a significant affect on transportation planning. 43. Police protection will still be provided by County services in both Southgate and east of Eagle Road as is at the present time. No change will occur in this regard until annexation occurs and, at that time, the Meridian police force will be im- pacted to the degree that the amount of land annexed and its use relates to a percentage increase in the necessary coverage. 44. Fire Protection will still be furnished by the Pleridian Rural Volunteer Fire District which is 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 pro vided by the City and a means to provide and fund that service would have to be considered. ~ 45. Population considerations are negated by the dropping of (. Southgate as-a-T~chnv}agfcal Industral.Review Area and the addi- tion of another in the east extension of the Urhan Service Planning Area. 46. Economic development will be encouraged by the extension of the Urban Service Planning Area to the east in that the area is easier to sewer than the Southgate Area and, thus, less expensive to develop; the extension will allow the area to be served by City services, even if much of the cost is passed on to the developers; the location of an interchange at Eagle P.oad will cause the area to be more attractive for development. AMBlK)SE, - FRZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON AKpMy~rW CounMlon P.O. eor X37 MwMMn, ICYp aawx . hieridian Planning & Zoning 15. September 13, 1982 47. Land use in the east extension of the Urban Service Planning Area will change from agriculture to commercial, residen- tial and industrial; this change will occur very gradually, at least until the economic rescession is alleviated; and then the change will occur more rapidly; the long-term effects are that the area will experience continued development; land sales would increase and property values would increase. 48. That the Amendments would have little affect on housing since there already is an abundance of available building lots. 49. There would be no impact on hazardous areas or special areas or recreation due to the Amendments and the Commission felt there was no comment necessary on natural resources. 50. The Amendments will have no, or at least, minimal affect on the soils. 51. The Community design would be enhanced due to the Amend- ments in that the City would have design review over all develop- ment and all development plans would include landscaping, irri screening and siting to create asthetically pleasing developments. 52.. That the testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearings held on the Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan generally supported the Amendments and urged that they should be adopted. 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 specifically Section 67-6508, Idaho Code, has been complied with concerning the review and updating of the Meridian Comprehensive ~MBROSE, fIROEMLD 8 CIgOKSTON ~Mp1Nr~rM ColwMlon P.O. b[ /27 MwMWi,NYq pl17 MpIq,1~~NM1 Meridi • Wing & Zonin 16 September 1 Plan using most of the components stated therein. Z. That the Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan were initi ed by the Commission as authorized under the Plan's Amendment Pro- vision and Procedure; that while a letter of application was not submitted, such formality was rightfully dispensed with since the Amendments were initiated by the Commission and not a private individual or firm; that even though a formal letter of. amendment was not prepared, all the information, plus much more, was obtained by the Commission, and, thus, the requirements in the Amendment Provision and Procedures were complied with. 3. 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 which area is again confirmed and approved by the Commission. 4. 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 were met and complied '~ with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of the economic conditions and of governmental actions, policies, and decisions, and one is that the City Ordinances and polices require development to pay for its own way which reduces the costs to the City for public facilities which alleviates some of the Commission': concerns regarding eventual sewer and water service in the Urban Service Planning Area. 6. That the Amendments were changed as they went through the ~MBROSE, FITLGER11lD B CROONSTON •nom.,..~e counww. v.o. am uT MwMRn, 10Yro exrx ~rwan.eee+ri hearing process; that the Commission has the right to make changes in amendments so long as a hearing is held after changes are made; that hearings were held after changes; that the Commission held its final hearing August 19, 1982, and since that date, no changes in the Amendments have been made. 7. That not a great amount of change has occurred within the Deridian Area of Impact necessitating planning changes which was Meridian Plannin & Zoning 17 _ September 13, 1982 due in large part to the economic conditions since the adoption of the 1978 Comprehensive Plan. 8. That one overriding significant change has occurred within the Area of Impact; that change is the proposed construction of an interchange at the intersection of I-84 and Eagle Road; that the proposed construction of the interchange at Eagle Road and the accompanying increase of traffic and changes in routes and flows is a substantial change in the actual conditions of the entire Area of Impact and results in a material discrepancy between the conditions in the Area of Impact and the 1978 ?4eridian Comprehensiv Plan; that planning for the eventual construction and the impact on the area that it will have is imperative at this time and not dur- i ing construction or after it is constructed; that this one single change is sufficient to justify most of the proposed amend- ments to the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the extension of the Urban Service Planning Area to the east and the change to Inter- change Enterprise Areas. 9. That changes in the routing of Highway 30 to follow Eagle Road from Fairview to the Interstate and the construction of an interchange will have a significant affect upon the traffic going througH downtown Meridian and will cause a need to change former minor arterials to major arterials and collectors to minor arteri and to add some major arterials and some new collectors. 10. That the construction of an interchange at Eagle Road and the associated projected development will cause such an impact on transportation that it is necessary to encourage and promote the construction of a freeway overpass at the extension of Locust Grove 11. The removal of the southwestern areas from the Urban AMBROSE, FIT2OERALD a cROOKSroN AHanry~rM counwbn P.O. Ie~IT7 MnllW,Id~l~o aaN7 M~ggiratlMai Service Planning Area would have little impact on transportation planning and the addition o° land between Eagle Road and Cloverdale from Fairview to Overland would have a significant affect on trans- portation planning. Meridian Plannin & Zonin 18. Se tember 13, 1982 12. In order to handle the increased traffic flows generated by industrial and commercial development along Eagle Road, a free- way interchange is essential. The off and on ramps, frontage roads and streets within a development would have to be designed to fit the special needs of the type of development. Eagle Road from the freeway to I'airview and from the freeway to Amity would have to be widened. This would compliment plans by Ada County to designate Eagle Road a principal arterial and its designation as part of the State Highway system by the Idaho Transportation Department. t4any of these concerns have already been addressed by the State agency because of the impact of the interchange. 13. The City of tleridian and the Ada County Highway District i would need to plan for improvements which will be necessary for Franklin Road, Overland Road and Locust Grove. 14. Meridian would need to work with the State Transportation Department toward improvements on t4eridian Road between Franklin and Overland, improvement of the t4eridian interchange, and plans for ar_ overpass at Locust Grove. 15. The changes in the Transportation Functional Definitions are mandated due to the change in traffic flows and Highway 30 routing expected to accompany the Eagle Road interchange. 16. That the construction of an interchange at Eagle F.oad AMBROSE, EITIGERAID d OPAOKS~ON ANwMye YM Coumelws will cause demand for development around the interchange due to the access to the freecaay; that for development to occur, the area around the interchange must have the capability of connecting to and receiving public services; that the closest services are those provided by the City of t4eridian; that the secaage and drainage of the land and development in the area will have a significant P.O. Bo><t7/ MMgMP, MYro 67M7 faNgswM6/M1 ~ i Me n 1982 I impact on the City if not controlled by the City. 17. That it is in the best interests of the City of Meridian to include all of the area included in the east extension of the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area so that the area can be controlled as to not be detrimental to the City in regard to sewage, water, transportation, aesthetic development, land uses, community design, and economic development. 18. That it is necessary to extend the Urban Service Planning Area to the east so that the recently annexed area designated as th Upland Industries Annexation will be included in that planning ar~ti. 19. That since interchange areas, particularly in populated areas, tend to draw economic development to the interchange due to increased access and exposure and since the Area of Impact now will have two freeway interchanges, one at Deridian Road and one at Eagle Road, it is in the best interest of the City and the Area of Impact to not single out one interchange area over the other as the entire Area's one point of commercial or industrial activity. 20. That the designation of Interchange Enterprise Area is for purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and is not a change of zoning, in the case of the Meridian Road Interchange, nor is it a granting of zoning in the case of the Eagle Road Interchange.; the Comprehensive Plan is intended only as a planning tool and is not a zoning or use permit. 21. That the designation of Interchange Enterprise Areas for. two freeway interchanges is in line with and meets the 1978 Compre- hensive plan goal of Economic Development as set forth in the 1978 Plan at page 14 and the economic policies expressed throughout the Plan. 22. The change throughout the Comprehensive Plan to I-84 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD A CROOKSTON AHOtneye enA Counsebrs P.O. Box eY7 MMltllen, MI1q B9b12 hMpnone BB6Mlt is mandated by the change in designation of the Interstate by the U. S. Department of Transportation. Meridian Planning ~ Zoning 20. September 13, 1982 23. The change in the Mixed-Use Review Area west of Kuna Meridian Road, north of I-80 and south of Waltman Lane is not a change in designation of allowable use or goals in the area as it remains a Review Area. The change is made to reflect the deletion of a Regional Shopping Mall site anywhere in the Area of Impact in favor of an Interchange Enterprise Area at two locations. 24. The changes in the Amendments relating to the library district are to reflect the change in name and are mandated by that change. 25. The deletion of. the area known as Southgate from the Urban Service Planning Area is required by the fact the area is believed to be unserviceable by gravity flow sewer; that since the City has a policy of not allowing lift stations, the Area should be removed from the Urban Service Planning Area. 26. That 67-6508, Idaho Code, requires the Commission to perform certain planning functions and to adopt, update, and review a comprehensive plan using the planning components set forth therein; that the Commission initially adopted the 1978 Comprehensive Plan using all of the components; that in initiating the present amendments, the Commission reviewed and acknowledged the planning it had done in adopting the original plan; addition- ally, it considered and studied all of the components required }~y 67-6508, Idaho Code, and have made findings above regarding their significance and how the amendments will effect them; that in considering the components and the findings made thereon, it is concluded that the Amendments should be adopted as they are in the best interest of the City and the Area of Impact; that the AMBROSE, FRZDERALD \CROOKSTON ARatMr1 Y10 Cown~lon P.O.Sw ti! 1AfrlEl~n, Md~o S]M7 'NEPSO'r SSNN1 ~Aoririian Planning R Toning 21. September 13, 1982 Commission's concerns regarding the ability to service the Urban Service Planning Area with water, sewer and other governmental services are abated greatly by the City's Ordinance and policies that require development to pay its own way pertaining to City services and are overridden by the necessity to plan for the impact of the proposed construction of the Eagle Road interchange and the associated development that will likely be associated with the interchange. APPROVAL OF FINDICIGS OF FACT ACID CONCLUSIONS AN D RE COM[•~N DATI ON S The Meridian Planning and Toning Commission hereby adopts these Findings of Fact and Conclusions and recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that the Amendments to the Meridian 1976 Comprehensive Plan, as set forth in Exhibit 2 attached hereto be adopted in full. Roll Call: Commissioner Sharp Voted Commissioner C4itchell Voted Commissioner Eddy Voted Commissioner Spencer Voted Commissioner Pipkin Voted Chainaoman Hinric~s (Tie Breaker) Voted Motion• Approved ~. Disapproved AMBROBE, FIROERALD 6 CROOKBTON AKOrnq~~n0 CounMlan P.O. Bm ~T7 MMMIrI, MMa BJB12 'PNgRpMBMM01 a~ •,~' ylanninn ~, 7nnina 22 September 13, 1982 Item 2 Cont'd: A) Amendments of City Comprehensive Plan . The hlotion was made by Mitchell and seconded by Pipkin that the Planning & Zoning Corrnnission recommend to the City Council that they adopt the Commission's recommended changes to the Comprehensive Plan, and these amendments be delivered to the City Council for their action. Motion Carried: All Yea b) Annexation Quong/Watkins Parcels #1-#8 The P1otion was made by Mitchell and seconded by Sharp to remove the annexation request of Quong/Watkins Parcels #1-#8 from the table. Motion Carried: All Yea Sharp: We do have another application that has been presented to the City." Crookston: "You have the ability to act on the 8 parcels that are contigious." Hinrichs: They (parcels #1-#8) are being submitted again as part of a larger application." "A hearing on the new application request has been set up for September 23, 1932, before the Planning & Zoning Commission." The Motion was made by Spencer and seconded by Sharp that the Commission delay action on these 3 parcels until September 23, 1982, due to the fact that they do make up a part of the total annexation on the new application that has been submitted. Pjotion Carried: All Yea The Motion was made by Mitchell and seconded by Spencer that the meeting be adjourned. (lotion Carried: All Yea Meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.F1. APPROVED: i / '/ Annette Hinrichs, Chairman ATTEST: LaWana L. Pliemann, City Clerk '.q..4 ~. ! 4 • • Honorable Joseph L_ Glaisyer City of Meridian Councilmen 728 Meridian Strec[ Meridian, Idaho 83642 APPLICATION TO AMEND THE COMP2EHENSIVE PLAN, MERIDI4N, IDAHO, AS C^,IGINATED RY THE f.ITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. The recommended amendements to the Comprehensive Plan are as follows: CHANGE I-80 [o I-84 Page 13 Eastern Industrial °,eview Area I. Technical Industrial Rr.view Area 1. Pagc 19 Western Industrial 3eyiew Area 1. Paye 2? Mixed-Use ?eview /+.reas THE AREA !NEST) THE APEA EAST)--Three Times THE APEA WEST Page 23 Mixed-lJse Areas Between 180N and Overland °.oad --Two times Paye 23 Mixed-Use Review Area lest of Kuna-Meridian .^,oad, North of 1-8DN and Soutt~of 4laltman Lane Paye 34 Top of page - second and third paragraph Page 35 Map - Arterial Transportation Concept Plan Page 36 Eastern Industrial Review Area a. Western Industrial Review Area a. Technical Industrial Review Area Parlc 41 I I . Paye y) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Priority One: Priority Two: Priority Three: Page 74 Map - Meridian Community Planning Area Boundary ~• Page Reeommend'~rnendrnenis to the Comprehensive Plan, Meridw.., ~. Planning a~zoniny com~ni~,sion Page IS Add the follo~~ing before section titled: F_CONOMIC POLICIES Add: Interchange EnterLrises Meridian is encour.,~.linq the potential d~rvelopment of regional enterprises. These would include, but not he limited to: a regional shoppiny center, technical industrial park, vocational technical school and service commercial enterprises. Such development would serve the region and help Meridian to achieve its goal of economic self-sufficiency. Page 18 Eastern Industrial Review Area Add 2. It is [he policy of Meridian to encoura3e and promote the development of an overpass a[ the intersection of Locust Grove and I-84 by the Idaho Department of Transportation Change 2. to 3• Change 3. to 4. Pale 20 Regional Shuppinq Center Change to: Meridian is encouraging the potential development of a Regional shoppiny Center within an Interchange Enterprise Area. It would have a significant impact on economic gro~.rth of Meridian toward the goal of economic self- sufficiency desired by the community. Page 23 MIXED-USE ..^,EVIE4! AREA 1dEST OF KUNA-MERIDIAN ROAD, NORTH OF I-80N 1N0 SOUTH OF A!p.LTMAN LANE. Change to: This area is located in proximity to an Interchange Enterprise ,Area, is relatively level in topography and will have excellent access to a freeway interchange. Page 32 TRANSPORTATION Functional Definitions Change to: Principal Arterials - •pag~' 33 Minor Arterials - Ten Mile Overland Linder - [1er i d i an Ustick - Locust G Cherry Lane/Fairview Franklin Eagle - South to Amity Highway 20/25 (Chinder)t Kuna-Meridian ".oad (Highway 69)(Southr,o~tklin Overland- Kuna-Meridian Road~to [he Errs[ (between Cherry Lane & Overland) - Ten Mile to Kuna-Meridian ^.oad Highway 20/25 to Franklin Road - North of Fairview -ove - Fairview to Overland .. Page i. .3ecommer~ Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Meridian~daho Planning and Zoning Commission Page 33 (Continued) Collectors - Linder (Franklin to Fr ee~.aay) Ten Mile (North of Cherry Lane) Bl,,ck Cat Amity ~ruher Meridian - Churry Lane to Kuna- Meridian Raod East First (Fairvie~~ to Franklin) Locust Srovu - North of Fairview Vic Tory Ncllillan ^ine - Ten Mile to Eaq_le Chateau - Ten Nile [o Eagle Page 37 Move: CHERRY PLAZA and paragraph to No. 7. 'love: NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTERS and par a-Ira ph to No. 7. Move: OLD TOWN and parayruph to No. 7. Delc tc: REGINAL SHOPPING CENTER and paragra phs including No.'s 1. b 2. Page 33 Odd: INTERCHANGE ENTERPRISE AREAS Interchange Enterprise Areas shall plan for the smooth and easy flow of traffic; lessening the impact on neighboring residential areas. Frontage roads, well planned parking with controlled access, and use of existing streets shall be carefully considered. Page 41 POLICIES (U BRARY) Strike l., 2., 3.a, 3.b,3.c, 4, Insert I. Due to the anticipated growth within Urban Service Planning Area, [he City of Meridian should encourage the Meridian Free Library District to expand services as needed. ~ ~w~~ ~ env tRIDIAN POLICY DIAGRAM A a U !t ``~ ` ~~r `L ~ ,;~" ~ ~ r ```~ ~l~`R~, ,CY u CAIRN 's:. ~ `NORTH - ~• :.~, E', :M a.' ~ ,~h ~, . ' CCJRVE M , ~ ' ~ 1~~- ~ ~;~ r, .,' - ~ ~y, ~~~ (;IIEI(RY LN4P` .L sr •~'a'7 iw:,. ii ~!: ~ ,~,. ti ,/ rgfix; a ~ Fito /% `L/ntGE ~ ~ ACRE ' ' ''+ Lo`C 5 , 3 3.. A TkUN'1'AGi: lill. y'hi, / °' ~~ ~~aie~~l~~ys, A may., ~ sourN `''z ~° " T ~ r GATE 3Q i ltts .~w ~',~ aq ~ ~ tl `a`' `'„ ~j~ z ~~~~~z ~~~~ ~~~ x ~, ~~N ~~~~ M1XED USE ...~ COMNIUNI'1`~ Urban Service 1'lwuiing Area ~NEIGHBORIlOODS ~~HURAL 12E:S1DEN'I'IA1. RESERV); T 1'ECIINICAI. !Nll(15'1'RIAI. IUiVIEW A121iA ~T'W 1NDUS'1'RIAI, REVIEW AREAS `5~ ltEG10NAL I}IOPPIN(; CEN'1'E}2 ~ CUMMUNI'1'Y 51101'1'ING CL•'N1'Elt '~ JUNIUK ~ 51iN1UFt H1G}1 SCHOOLS CHINDEN BLVU. N ~~ ~i~ i 1 NILF. FAIRVIEW AVE. H +-i FRANftiLIN I2U F120N'1'AGIr: 1{U . FIVE 1-FfUN ~1Lt/ln~~lE CRfEk OVERLANll RU. c~ `e'i 'L FF t PROPOSED ELEh1ENTARY SCHOOLS ~YRUPOSEll JUNIOR HIGH rvu~nrruu WATERWAYS b OPEN SPACE CI)RR1llO1iS (~o B1KE d PEllEST k1AN WAYS 'The Meridian Policy Diayraw is intended to meet the requirements of the 1975 Land Planning Act regarding a proposed land use may. ...~NpSED ~N ,.. ~vIERIDIAN POLICY DIAGRAM THIS 2~ ~tJinn ~ ~.._ ~ ~~~ e ~~ V CHERRY p WJE ~ ~.~5~. i llGltl~,l' LN. ~~ wAR ~, ~ I i u ~J U V1NYtM7(J ~R t Ia)^~TA1~1. KI). -~ '~~ MIXISU Ltil. ,~ So~~H ~ GATE •`' ~' ~ ~~~~-~_. ~ NORTH Cl1R.VE iCHINDL'N HLVll. ~a _~ N ~_. ~~- ', H1~ F RVIEW AVI•: E ~~ ~ ~G t"ttt~IKI.IN Itl) GGG1/S N'1' 1Gt I{ f ~ 180N N~ f CREEK OV~RLAND RD. T ~ ` _ 1115 ' ~'~~..~~ 'y S~~E ~. C %'~ ~C4 ~PRUPOSEll ELEIVIEN'1'AR1' ~C;HUULS ^.... CUh, ,i !v'i f '~ i ri,;n~ service I'lenning~ Area PROPOSEL .IIINIUIt HIGH '.,~NEI(:11HOKII000S ~IyyyWATE1iWAY5 60PEN SPACE CO1tR1LORS ItURAL !tl'SIUEN'I'IAL Rt;SERVE. ~o NlKE a PEDES'1'R1AN WAYS T l't;('IINII:AI. INUIi~'!'klAl. REVIEW AREA T-NU 1NllU57'It1Al. ftl?VIL•'W AItE;AS INTERCHANGE ENTERPRISE AREA ® COMMUNITY SNUFFING CENTER 1~JUNlOR s SENIUR HIGH SCHOOLS ,i~ ~ ~~~ *The Meridian Policy Diayram is in[ended to meet the requirements of the 1915 Land Planning Act regarding a proposed land use map. .a i.~i~.lr I~~I~. ~~ ~i 1117~11:i~1'11 ~. ri~.,il _i~r~u.r~ I'Innlllrry -1 ri'ti i1~Nt:Il;t111111t1,UUl)5 +n s.kUkAl. kl•:SIUI:N"IIAI. li}:~(~:kV}; T t,;~:uNl~ ,u. Ivun:;'rtu:~t. rtt:v,t:w ,~ttt::, T--W INUUy'tlu:)I. Ict:~'lt:w •~Itt:As INTERCHANGE ENTERPRISE AREA C(JMA911N1'1') ~Hl)I'1'INU l;liNT~:H ~JUNItJH r5t:NlUlt HIGH SCHIXJLS {~ NN~rrusr:n ra.tau:~~r,)}ir scrlr,r,l , l>l+t)~r},t n .Inrnl„i lnr~ll nMNVUyWf,"1'EkWA)'S w,IPEN ~1'ACt. ~;U1<I,IUUIt~ (~o IiliriE d F't:Dl:ti'f'RIAN WAYti `Ihe MeriUl,u; I'oli:_v Uiagraln Is ~IntenJr~d Lo mtet the requirements of Lhr. I l'~; I;rnd Plam~ing Act regarding a proposed land use n'au. PKOPVS~~ • MERIDIAN POLICY DIAGRAM i