Loading...
1985 09-23t • PLAPINING APTD ZONID]G COt4t9ISSION OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN • Ei EgQj~ [7 • [7 B. SPENCER, Commission Chairman VI. MORROW J. JOHNSON M. ALIDJANI J. SHEARER T. COLE Date: September 23, 1985 7:30 p. m. Place: bteridian Primary School 48 t9est State Avenue t9eridian, Idaho 83642 COMPUTERIZED TRANSCRIPTION BY TUCKEF. & ASSOCIATES 605 West Fort Street, Boise, Idaho 83702 (208) 345-3704 I• ©~~~o~aa ~. • • C7 • ., S ~ P ~ X F~i~~~~.~__----- --- - ---- - Page 1, Duaine Rasmussen 2 2, Ed Burtner 4 No Exhibits, [7 ~~ ~• ~• 1 • 1 2 PIERIDIAN, IDAHO Monday, September 23, 1985, 7:30 p.m. • '• '• • ., ,. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR6IAN SPENCER: The hearing is conducted -- the hearing request by Claremont, Price Development Companies for annexation of zoning for approximately 200 acres at the corner of I-84 at Eagle Road. The zoning request is for approximately 110 acres of CG, general commercial zoning, and 90 acres of I-L, light industrial zoning. This public hearing will be conducted using the Meridian Rules of Procedure according to No. 446. All persons wishing to testify or speak before the Zoning Commission at a public hearing must have printed his name, signed his name, and written his residential address thereafter cn the sign-up sheet provided by the Commission. No person shall be permitted to speak before the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing until such person has been recognized by the Chairman. All public hearing proceedings shall be recorded, and all persons speaking in such public hearings shall speak before a microphone in such a manner as will assure that the record -- recorded testimony or remarks will be accurate and trustworthy. • 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6~1hen the public hearing is quasi judicial in nature or one after which the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to make findinys of fact, each person must be sworn or affirmed that his testimony will be true and accurate. At this time I will open the public hearing. First item is that we have four letters to place in testimony, all of the letters opposed to the annexation. Next I would like to call the representative of Claremont, Price. State your name, residential address, and spell your name, please. MP.. RASMUSSEN: Duaine Rasmussen, D-u-a-i-n-e, R-a-s-m-u-s-s-e-n, 35 Century Park Way, Salt Lake City, Utah. DUAINE RASPIUSSEN, called as a public witness, was first duly sworn, and made the following statement: PSR. RASMUSSEN: P~Ir. Chairman, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, my name is Duaine Rasmussen of Price Development Company in Salt Lake. I represent the Price, Claremont applicant here this evening. ile have submitted an application to you in 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 ft 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 written form and respectively request that you act positively upon that application. Our stance is not to present lengthy testimony here this evening. We believe that most of the major issues have been addressed before this body and before the City Counsil. The application is in compliance with the comprehensive plan recently adopted by the City Counsil of Meridian. FTe have drawings with us showing the annexation route, in the event there are any questions with regard to that, and also the utility plans. Again, we would request that you act positively on the application. And we would also respectfully request that if there is any way that you can expedite this request on to the City Counsil if you chose to act favorably upon it, we ask you to do so. CIIAIRptAN SPENCER: Mr. Rasmussen, your original application dated January 16, 1985 requested a zone of CG, general commercial, on the 110 acres. Since that time the city of Meridian has amended the Zoning and Development Ordinance to add the zone RSC, regional shopping enter. Since the ordinance was changed after the filing for annexation and zoning request, and through no fault of yours, the CG zone is no longer appropriate for a regional shopping center. Do you wish this I~ 4 • • • r~ u I• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Commission to consider your application as being for RSC zoning? idR. RASP:USSEN: Yes, we do. It is very clear that we sought the approval of the regional shopping center on the original application. CHAIRMAN SPEP7CER: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRPiAN SPEPICER: One other person that signed up to speak, Ed Burtner. State your name, residential address, and spell your name, please. f•1R. BURTNER: Ed Burtner, B-u-r-t-n-e-r, 285 Nontvue Drive, Meridian, Idaho. ED BURTNER, called as a public witness, was first duly sworn, and made the fn' ro statement: Ii':. ;:;URTt~7ER: I am one of those who is opposed to this proposition. I think grobably the feelings of probably the majority of the peogle on P~iontvue Drive will parallel my feelings, i9e feel like we're going to be sitting in the middle of an island out there, which we will be with the new highway, Eagle Road, which most of us were opposed to in the first place also; however, I• ~I • 5 It I• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 tkiat's already going, and we know it, But now we'll have the big highway on that side, to the south of us, To the east of us, we'll be completely surrounded by commercial development which will be mostly concrete, two story, as we understand it, lots of blacktop. It's going to -- lots of vehicles, as ore understand, Something as many as -- was mentioned 36,000 cars a day will be in that area. We don't feel that this is going to be helping our environment one bit out there. Nlost of us in that area are retired or close to retired, ~9e don't feel like we want to be completely surrounded by something like this. Most of us have been there most of our lives, or for the last 50 or 20 years, 21 some of us, And we just think there are better opportunities, such as out there on Meridian Road, and most of us can't understand the thinking of the people. The people seem to think that it's going to help the Meridian people here, the businesses, Two miles to the east of us is where that's going to be, And how many people are going to come down Feridian Road when it's just -- stop off the interstate at Eagle 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Road? I would like to add my objection to the letters which you say you have already received, Thank • 6 i • • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 you for the opportunity to speak to you, CHAIRMAN SPENCER: Are there any questions for the Commission of this witness? (No response,) CHAIRMAN SPENCER: Thank you. That's all I have signed up to speak, Is there anyone else who would like to speak before we close the hearing? (ATo response.) CHAIRMAN SPENCER: If not, I'll close the hearing, Commission, any discussion? (No response.) CfIAIRPiAN SPENCER: If not, I need a motion on findings of fact. MR. MORROW: I instruct the City Attorney to prepare the findings of facts and conclusions of law, CHAIRMAN SPENCER: The motion has been made to instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings of facts and conclusions of law, All in favor? (Chorus of ayes,) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRP•IAN SPENCER: Opposed? (NO response,) CHAIRMAN SPENCER: tlotion carries as unanimous, Is there any ether business? A1R. JOHtdSOP7: I would like to move the findings of facts and conclusions reflect our recommendation for i• 7 • n ~. ., ., I! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 approval of the RSC zoning and also include the development agreement. CHAIRt•IAt] SPENCER: Motion has been made to sections that are recommendations that reflect approval of the annexation zoning including the development agreement. All in favor? (Chorus of ayes,) CHAIRAIAAI SPENCER: Opposed? (NO response,) CHAIRMAN SPENCER: Motion carries unanimous. Any other business? (NO response.) (Discussion off the record.) t9R, MORROW: I move that we have a special meeting, Monday, September 30th at 5:30 to prove the findings of facts and conclusions, MR. JOHNSON: Second, CHAIRMAN SPEAKER: tlotion has been made to have a special meeting Alonday, September 30th at 5:30 to prove findings of facts and conclusions, All in favor? (Chorus of ayes,) CHAIRMAN SPENCER: Opposed? (No response,) CHAIRtflAN SPEt•ICER: tlotion carries, Anything else on the board, Commissioners? r 8 i n u • • ~• I• ~~ ~• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (NO response.) (Discussion off the record.) CHAIRMAN SPENCER: Correction on the motion on a special meeting of findings of facts and conclusions, It's to the approval or disapproval of the findings of facts and conclusions at the meeting that will be held. Anything else? (No response,) CHAIRMAN SPENCER: I have a motion to adjourn this meeting, MR, MORROW: Second, CHAIRMAN SPENCER: Piotion has been made and seconded to adjourn. All in favor? (Chorus of ayes.) CHAIRMAN SPENCER: Opposed? (NO response.) CHAIRMAN SPENCER: Meeting is adjourned, ~6 I (Proceedings concluded at 7:40 p,m,) -00000- ~- ~• REPQRTER'S CE~TIFI~AT~F I, Dee Ann Wagner, an Idaho Shorthand Reporter, do hereby certify: That I'm the reporter who took the proceedings had in the above-entitled action in machine shorthand and thereafter the same was reduced into typewriting under my direct supervision; and That the foregoing reporter's transcript contains a full, true, and accurate record of the proceedings had in the above and foregoing cause, which was heard at Boise, Idaho. IN WITNESS WF3EREOF I have hereunto set my hand this 30th day of September, 1985. Dee Ann Wagner, Cour AQporEe~ r .. ', BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CLAREMONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ANNEXATION AND ZONING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on September 23, 1985, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian Primary School, 48 W. State Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the applicant appearing and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of the public hearing on the annexation and zoning use was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for September 23, 1985, the first publication of which was 15 days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the September 23, 1985 hearing; that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That notice of the public hearing is required I AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 80ROOKBTON AROmq, And Cwnssbn P.O. Bow ITT MMOIAn, IEMIO B]BI1 TMp11pM BBBy101 to be sent to property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E, Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that this requirement has been met. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z Comm.) received both oral and written testimony. 4. That the property included in the Application for Annexation and conditional use is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is generally described as being in the northwest quarter of Section 16, Township 3 North, Range 1 East of Boise-Meridian which is basically the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Eagle Road and I-84, and hereafter referred to as Parcel 1, and the southwest quarter of Section 9, T. 3N. R lE., B.M., which is basically in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road and which shall hereafter be referred to as Parcel 2. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 7. That the entire parcel of ground is included AMBROSE, FITZG ERALD 6CROONSTON Alro~ow..na Coun.NOn P.O. BO..]T MsriOlan, IONo &'l617 l.IpMn.!!lJN1 within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area as defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. S. That the application for annexation requests that parcel 1 be annexed and zoned (C-G) General Retail and Service Commercial with the proposed use being a regional shopping center and that Parcel 2 be annexed and zoned (I-L) Light Industrial with a proposed industrial use; that Parcel 1 is presently zoned by Ada County as AP-1 and R3; that Parcel 2 presently carries Ada County zoning of AP-1 and M-1. 9. That the Applicant is not the owner of all the property contained in the annexation and zoning Application; that the Application does contain requests for annexation and zoning by the individual owners; that all parcels involved in the annexation have requested to be annexed and zoned by the City and the City, if it does annex the properties involved, would be doing so at the owners request and the City would not be taking any unilateral action to annex said parcels. 10. That the Applicant submitted this Application for annexation and zoning on January 16, 1985, as part of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request; due to the requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, the City had to first consider the Comprehensive Plan Amendment prior to taking any action on the annexation and zoning. 11. That the City, both before the Planning and AMBROSE, FITZG ERALD B CROOKSTON AItOmlyl YM COU11Nlort P.O. Boz ~Y7 MMCI~n,IEYa B7M2 TMpIwi~Bl61Mt Zoning Commission and City Council, held extensive hearings and a substantial amount of evidence was submitted on the App licant's Comprehensive Plan Application; that the Comprehensive Plan Application process concerned and answered most of the issues and problems that are involved in this annexation and zoning application; that there were really two substantial issues that were presented during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment procedure: (1) whether the City wanted a regional shopping center at Eagle Road and I-84 and (2) the cost to the City of providing the necessary public services; that both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council prepared and adopted Findings of Fact and Conclusions on the Applicant's Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application; also, the City and the Applicant and its partner, Price Development Company, entered into a Development Agreement; that the Development Agreement, while it does not dictate that the City must annex and zone the property as requested, it does control some of the actions of the City and the Applicant and its partner, if annexation occurs. 12. That the Findings of Fact of both the Planning AM BROSE, FITZGEPAID 6 CROONSTON Altom~y, YM COUnMIM P.O. Boa U7 MMGIAn,IEMo B3M] T1lplgn~ BBBy1B1 and Zoning Commission and the City Council pertaining to the Applicant's Comprehensive Plan Application are, by this referrence, incorporated herein as if set forth in full hereat, even though not attached hereto as additional Findings; likewise, the Development Agreement is also, by this referrence, incorporated herein as if set forth in full hereat even though not attached hereto. 13. That the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application of Applicant's was granted and the Comprehensive Plan now allows a regional shopping center to be constructed in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Eagle Road and I-84; that other amendments were made to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan that also indicate and allow for two sites for a regional shopping center. 14. That the Comprehensive Plan Amendment recently adopted by the City includes the northeast quadrant of Eagle Road and Franklin Road in the Eastern Industrial Review Area. 15. That the Application requests that Parcel 1 be zoned (C-G) General Retail and Service Commercial; that the City has adopted a new zone, (RSC) Regional Shopping Center Business District; that the representations and the evidence submitted by the Applicant and its partner indicate the proposed use on Parcel 1 is a regional shopping center; that the representative of the Applicant and its partner appearing at the public hearing on Monday, September 23, 1985, indicated that the Applicant's Application could and should be amended to request the new zone (RSC) Regional Shopping Center as the development intention on Parcel 1 is to construct a Regional Shopping Center. 16. That the Applicant and its partner, Price AMSROSE, FITZGERALD d CROOKSTON Altom~ye YM COUIINIM P O. Sort 177 MMt14n, ItWq !7614 TNpKON BNJM7 Development Company, have indicated and acknowledged that there is a likelihood that they may not be able to actually construct a regional shopping center on Parcel 1; that they have submitted letters from possible tenants in such a center that express an interest in the location but have not submitted binding commitments from major retailers to a shopping center on Parcel 1. 17. That the Findings and Conclusions on the Comprehensive Plan indicate that it is not in the best interest of the City to annex Parcel 1 and 2 if nothing is going to be built thereon; that if the area is annexed the City would immediately, upon the annexation, be required, at a minimum, to provide police and fire protection services. 18. That the Applicant and Price Development Company agreed in the Development Agreement that Parcel 1 and 2 would be conditionally annexed and zoned and if so annexed and zoned that the annexation and zoning would not become final unless a building permit was applied and paid for. 19. That the Commission received comments from the Ada County Highway District and from the Central District Health Department; that those comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full hereat even though not attached hereto. 20. That at the public hearing on this annexation AMBROBE, FITZGERALD d CROOKSTON Attomays YW Counwlas P.O. BoK 171 M~rIOW, IMIa 63MI TNpMn~8B6~Nt and zoning a representative of the Applicant spoke in favor of the Application and one person testified against the Application; that several letters were submitted in opposition to the Application; that the opposition comes primarily from those persons residing in the Mont Vue Subdivision which is located in the southeast quadrant of Eagle Road and Franklin Road; likewise, during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment proceedings most of the opposition to Applicant's proposal came from residents of Mont Vue Subdivision; however, there have been residents in that subdivision testify in favor of a regional shopping center on Parcel 1 during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment hearing; that much of the concerns of the residents of Mont Vue Subdivision opposing the annexation and zoning of a regional shopping center relate to the increase in traffic; that there will be an increase in traffic in any event, shopping center or no shopping center, due to the freeway interchange that is going to be constructed at Eagle Road and I-84; that the Applicant made representations as to measures it would undertake to alleviate adverse impacts on Mont Vue Subdivision. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the applicant's property. 2. That the City has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has AM BROSE, iITZGERALO d GROOKBTON Attomeya and Counaelora P.O. Boa 127 MarlClan, IENo 83612 TN~WrM~ 886M61 judged the annexation and zoning application by the guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That the Commission may take judicial notice of its own and the City Council's proceedings, governmental statutes, ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 5. That the Conclusions of both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council pertaining to Applicant's Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application are hereby incorporated herein as if set in forth hereat even though not attached hereto, as additional conclusions. 6. That all land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicants and the owners of the various parcels and is not at the request or initiation of the City of Meridian. 8. That the annexation and zoning of RSC for Parcel 1 and I-L for Parcel 2 would be in compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinances; that immediate annexation and zoning would be in the best interests of the City of Meridian if the City were. assured that actual BOF 177 Y1. IENO I AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON I Altomeya nM Counsslon P.O. Boa IZ7 MMOIen,IONO B7M2 construction of a regional shopping center would occur; that the evidence submitted by the Applicant only indicated a sincere interest in Parcel 1 as a site for a regional shopping center; Applicant presented insufficient evidence on when a regional shopping center would actually be constructed; that if the City immediately annexed Parcel 1 and 2, the City would immediately be required to provide City services to the area; that it is not in the best interest of the City to obligate itself to provide City services until actual development is imminent. 9. That since annexation is a legislative function, the City may place conditions on annexation or, where appropriate, conditionally annex and zone a parcel of land. 10. As evidenced by the Findings of Fact and Conslusions of both the Commission and the Council, the City has serious concerns over the cost of providing City services when there is no assurance development will occur; likewise, there is concern over the cost of providing City services if development does ocur. 11. The Commission, however, concludes that a regional shopping center on Parcel 1 should be afforded an opportunity to succeed and if successful, would be in the best interest of the City. 12. That the Development Agreement provides a means of allowing the Applicant and its partner to succeed in developing a regional shopping center and. yet does not obligate the City to provide public services unless construction is apparent; that this means is conditional annexation and zoning; that also, the Development Agreement provides the City with supplemental funds with which to provide City services if development does occur. 13. That the comments of the Ada County Highway District and the Central Health Department are reasonable and the Applicant should be required to comply therewith; that traffic problems are of great concern to the Commission and although the State Department of Transportation submitted no comments, any requirements it may impose should be met. 14. That upon annexation and zoning, the land would be subject to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and development would have to comply therewith. 15. That the Applicant has made development representations in its Application and in the testimony and evidence it has submitted; that it is reasonable that Applicant be required to honor those representations, most of which, however, are included in the Development Agreement. 16. That the Applicant has made representations as OSE, ERALD NSTON yY.na wbn OY X17 ,IENO 1 Bl6M61 to how development could be conducted and constructed such that the impact on Mont Vue Subdivision would be reduced as much as possible; it is reasonable to require compliances with those representations. 17. That the City has recently enacted and approved a Site Planning Review provision as part of the Zoning Ordinance; Section 11-2-410 C SITE PLANNING REVIEW; that any development should be subject to site planning review. 18. Therefore, based on the Application, the testimony and evidence, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions adopted by both the Commission and City Council, these Findings and Conclusions, the Development Agreement, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, it is ultimately concluded that Applicants property should be conditionally annexed and conditionally zoned, Parcel 1 being zoned RSC and Parcel 2 being zoned I-L and that such is in the best interest of the City; that the conditions of the annexation and zoning should be those contained in the following Recommendation. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL Commissioner Cole ~~J Voted Commissioner Shearer ~r, ~ _Voted Commissioner Johnson ~-~ Voted Commissioner Alidjani .a Voted Commissioner Morrow Voted Chairman Spencer (Tie Breaker) Voted AM RROSE, FITZG ERAID B CROOKSTON Attomsys ~n0 Coonssbrs P.O. BO. IZ7 MMCIN, IpYlO B3E12 TNp11aM BB&~N1 RECOMMENDATION gMBROSE, F1T2GERgLD 6 CROOKSTON gflomays YM Coun,slon V.O. BOII 177 MMOIY~, IONo WM] TWWIaM M6,N1 The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the property contained in Applicant's Application be conditionally annexed and conditionally zoned and that Parcel 1 receive the conditional zone of (RSC) Regional Shopping Center Business District and that, Parcel 2 receive the conditional zone of (I-L) Light Industrial; that the conditions of the annexation and zoning be 1) compliance with Development Agreement, 2) compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and 3) performance of representations made in Applicant's Application and testimony and evidence; that the annexation and zoning be made final and an ordinance passed approving said annexation and zoning, if, within eighteen months from the date the City Council approves, if it approves, the conditional annexation and zoning, the Applicant has paid for and the City has issued a building permit as referrenced in the Development Agreement; that upon the annexation and zoning being passed unconditionally that the annexation and zoning and the land still be subject to the Development Agreement, that the Applicant and its partner comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that Applicant and its partner comply with the representations made in the Application and their testimony and evidence, particularly the measures to limit adverse effects on Mont Vue Subdivision; that all development be subject to Site Planning Review; that the requirements of the Ada County Highway District and the State Department of Transportation be met, the requirements of the Central District Health Department be met, and that all conditions hereinabove stated both run with land and be personal to the Applicant and its partner, Price Development Co. MOTION: APPROVED_~_ DISAPPROVED I AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6 OROOKSTON At\omeYe en0 Gouneeloro P.O. Bot eZ1 MMIEIen, IEe110 836/7 TelepOeMHBHMt