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