1985 04-250 •
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
Notice is hereby given that the Planning and Zoning Commissi
of the City of Meridian will hold a special meeting on Thrusday,
April 25, 1985, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., at the Meridian
City Hall, 723 Meridian Street, Meridian, Idaho, for the purpose
of taking action on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and to make a recommendation concerning the following Applications:
1) Claremont Development Company's Application for Comprehensive
Plan Amendment, 2) Meridian Planning and Zoning Application for
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and 3) Russell Martenson for a
Conditional Use Permit.
The public is welcome but no public testimony or evidence
will be taken.
DATED thiy,�gday of April, 1985.
/ Jack Niemann
City Clerk
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
3CROOKSTON
Attorneys and
Counselors
P.O. Box 427
Meridian, Idaho
83842
telephone 888-4481
0 0
A G E N D A
SPECIAL PLANNING & ZONING
MEETING
April 25, 1985
I ITEM:
1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ON CLAREMONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY'S
APPLICATION TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. (APPROVED)
2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION'S
APPLICATION TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. (APPROVED)
3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ON RUSSELL MARTENSEN APPLICATION
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. (APPROVED)
SPECIAL MEETING OF MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING APRIL 25, 1985
Special meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission called to
order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Bob Spencer.
Members Present: Walt Morrow, Jim Johnson, Jim Shearer, Tom Cole:
Members Absent: Moe Alidjani:
Others Present: John Schmek, Lloyd Howe, Robert Giesler, Al Lance,
Duaine Rasmussen, Rick Orton, Wayne Crookston, Miriam Barr, Don Wimberly,
Channel 7, Channel 2.
Item #1: Findings of Fact Claremont Development Application to Amend
the Comprehensive Plan:
Chairman Spencer, Commission have you read the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions? Commission stated they had.
Chairman Spencer, is there any discussion?
Cole, on page 13 and page 39 regarding the statement improvements would
include a well and reservoir this was not brought up at the hearing.
Crookston, this was part of the application.
Johnson,on page 48, #25 starting with by this statement, however, the
Commission does not indicate that it would necessarily approvg a zoning
request by Claremont, that is basically what we are doing here so I
do not see any reason for that sentence to be in here.
Spencer, explained this was only on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
request,separate application would have to be made for Zoning after
this approved. This answered Johnson's question.
Johnson also had a question on the options for recommendation.
Spencer explained this would have to be after the Findings were voted
on. There were no other questions or comments.
The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Johnson that the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions as prepared on the Claremont Development Company's
application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Motion Carried: Morrow, Yea: Johnson, Yea: Shearer, Yea: Cole, Yea:
Johnson, on the recommendation A,I do not remember this being part of
P&Z discussion, I am referring specifically to the irrevocable commit-
ments from major retailers.
Spencer, their application refers to commitments before hearings by the
Council.
MERIDIAN P &Z: • •
APRIL 25,1985
PAGE # 2
Johnson, was the word irrevocable in that?
The application just refers to letters of commitment before City Council
Public Hearings.
There was discussion as to whether the word irrevocable should be omitted.
Morrow, it seems to me irrevocable is a bit inflexible, but by the same
token we ought to word it in such a manner that either they produce the
letters of commitments at the City Council level or the deal is over
and done with and until they can produce the letters of commitments then
the City Council does not have to address the issue and it seems to me
that we ought to put them on notice at this point that this is what is
going to have to happen.
Cole, the Council is going to request it and if they do not have it at
the time that they go before the Council, they are just wasting the
Council time.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the word irrevocable be
deleted.
Spencer, I think we should have the letter of commitments in our motion.
The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole that the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian hereby recommends
to the Meridian City Council that the application of Claremont Develop-
ment Company to amend the Meridian Comprehensive Plan be approved if
and when Claremont Development Company can provide commitments from
three (3) major retailers which commitments are_satis£actory to the
City Council.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Item #2: Findings of Fact on P & Z Application to amend the Comprehen-
sive Plan.
Spencer, have the Members of the Commission read these Findings and
are there any questions?
Cole, on page #2, Item 4 they make reference to the fact that there was
no public comment. As I recall Mr. Bob Davis testified on this proposal
and testimony was in favor.
The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole that the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions reflect this change.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Spencer, I have a comment, while I agree that the Comprehensive Plan
is intended to be general in nature and should not contain specific
sites and details of development. I have concerns about deleting the
the regional shopping center sites from the Plan. I believe the hear-
ings on Claremont, the plan and facts on Claremont, Upland and Qoung
all point out that the site of the regional shopping center is a major
if not the most important component of our planning process at this
MERIDIAN! & Z.. •
APRIL 25, 1985
PAGE # 3:
time. The whole structure of our plan and even of our City may be
be changed as a result of the development or lack of development at
one of the three sites that have been suggested as regional shopping
sites to date. I feel that in this area we should deviate from the
general theme and deal with each of the sites in the plan. I think
that we should be doing more specific planning on each of these sites
and attempting to define in more specific terms the impacts of each
and formulate contingent plans for dealing with these impacts.(whether
they be favorable or adverse). Therefore I believe that we should not
take the specific regional shopping sites out of the plan but should
incorporate each site, along with contingent planning for the develop-
ment of each, into the plan.
Morrow, I basically disagree with that for this reason, that the plan
by its very nature is a broad general concept and the direction that
we are going to be moving as a City and as times change and it seemsto
me that those specific items can be better aAdr�ewed on an individual
basis at the point that you have zoning and you have application for
zoning,you can have a complete and entire list including enviromental
impact statements, all the other things that are specific to a partic-
ular site or a particular proiect whether it be a regional shopping
center or something else. It seems to me that a Comprehensive Plan should
not or can not adequately address all the requirement that we must make
of something like this without causing those requirements to be forced
upon every type of application that comesalong. Where if we do it in
a manner of zoning we can set forth specific requirements for a type of
zoning., steps one through twenty or however many there may be and when
an applicant knows what he has to do, in order to get zoning on anything
then he can make the decision up front whether worth the expense to even
pursue. If we have to do these things with the Comprehensive Plan in
fairness to the consumer, he never knows without going to the expense
whether he has a chance of approval or not. I believe it is time that
a person or group of people have'a fair set of criteria they have to
deal with. A Comprehensive Plan ought be broad and general, spell out
general goals for the community and if we want to deal in specifics
lets deal in specifics at the zoning level.
Johnson, also basically disagreed with Spencer's comments.
Spencer, when we are talking about something as major as a shopping
center no matter whether shopping center is approved in zoning or in
the plan, the plan has to be changed anyway because so many of the
components of the plan would change with a shopping center site being
somewhere other than where the orginal plan was set for it to be.
Morrow, that is specifically why it should not be in there because
conceivably we could have two shopping center sites.
There was more discussion among the Planning & zoning Members.
Spencer, this is the only proposed amendment I disagree with, I feel
that a regional shopping site effects so many things in the planning
and even in the structure of the City.
There was more discussion.
MERIDIAN P & Z.
APRIL 25, 1985 •
PAGE # 4:
Johnson, it seem6 to me that what you are proposing is contrary to what
we more or less agreed on with the amendment, that was to keep things
as general as possible and to handle the specifics when they come up
on a zoning basis.
The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded Johnson that the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves the Findings
of Fact and Conclusions on the Planning & Zoning Commissions proposed
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan as amended on page 2, Item #4 of
these Findings.
Motion Carried: Morrow, Yea: Johnson, Yea: Shearer, Yea: Cole, Yea:
The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that
the Planning & Zoning Commission's proposed Comprehensive Plan Amend-
ments should be approved and adopted.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Item #3: Findings of Fact & Conclusions on Martensen Application for
a Conditional Use Permit:
Chairman Spencer, has the Commission read the Findings and are there
any questions or comments? Commission informed they had read.
Morrow, I hope the plan the applicant has submitted is suffcient to
meet the City Engineers requirement.
The Motion was made by Johnson and seconded by Morrow that the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves the Findings
of Fact and Conclusions on the Russell Martensen & John Dobaron
Conditional Use Permit request.
Motion Carried: Morrow, Yea: Johnson, Yea: Shearer, Yea: Cole, Yea:
The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of
the City of Meridian that they approve the Conditional Use Permit
requested by the Applicants for the property described in the applic-
ation under the conditions stated in the Findings of Fact & Conclusions.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The City Attorney was commended by the Commission for the timely
completion and the contents of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions
on the above items.
Being this was a Special Meeting and these were the only items scheduled
the Motion was made by Cole and seconded by Shearer to adjourn at 8:06
p.m..
Motion Carried; All Yea: APP
ATTEST:
O PENCER, CHAIRMAN
ray
Nieman ity Clerk
AMBROSE.
FITZGERALD
6 CROOKSTON
Attamys rM
OmInselm
P.O. Boa 427
MWRIIen. IdWm
83642
Ooph�8B844et
0 0 010
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING; CORIISSION
CLAREMONT- DVIELOP1,717 C(I PANY' S APPLICATION
TO 101END TIdE _fERIDIAN
CQtIPREIIETISIVE PLAN
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled application to amend the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan having come on for public hearing and the Plan-
ing and Zoning Commission having heard any and all testimony that
was submitted, including the review of some of the record from
prior Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Annexatioh�-,requests which
concerned a regional shopping, center, and having duly considered al
the evidence, officially noticed evidence, and facts, the
Comprehensive Plan itself, the Local Planning Act of 1975, the
Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the application was submitted by Claremont Development
Company and is not an amendment proposed by the Commission or the
City Council.
2. That the two specific parcels of property to which the
application pertains are the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Town-
ship 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise -Meridian, Ada County, Idaho,
(hereafter referred to as Parcel 1) which is commonly known as the
Northeast the intersections of Eagle Road and I-84,
which the application proposes to be designated as a site for a
regional shopping center and which contains approximately 110 acres
and Parcel 2, which is the undeveloped land in the Southwest Quarter o
PAGE 1
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALG
6 CROOKSTON
Atto sane
Co n"Ion
P.O. Box 427
MWICWI, Idgm
BW2
Te1pwwae"ai
0 0 so
Section 9, Towhship 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise -Meridian, Ada
County, Idaho, (hereafter referred to as Parcel 2) which the
application proposes to be designated as part of the Eastern
Industrial Review Area and which contains approximately 90 acres.
3. That the two specific parcels included in the application
are contained within Meridian's Area of Impact as recently
negotiated between the City and Ada County; the two parcels, even
though within Meridian's Impact Area, are still in the county not
yet having been annexed and therefore are governed by the Ada
County Comprehensive Plan -Rural Area Policies; that in the present
application for a Meridian Comprehensive Plan Amendment there is
also an application for annexation; that upon annexation, if and
when such occured,the two parcels would be governed by the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan and Meridian's Zoning and Development
Ordinances; the parcels are included within the Meridian Urban
Service Planning Area.
4. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan Policy Diagram appears to
designate the area within which Parcel 2 is located as being
in the "Eastern Industrial Review Area" or at the minimum adjacent
thereto. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan does not designate
Parcel 1 as being contained or included in any particular area.
It is east of the rural residentail reserve of the Locust Grove
Neighborhood and is south of what is probably intended to be part
of the Eastern Industrial Review Area. The Plan also designates
only one site for a regional shopping center, that being at the
PAGE 2
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
&CROOKSTON
Attorneys end
Counselor
P.O. Box 427
MVIEIsn, Idaho
SW2
Telephone MB4461
• 0
I-84/Meridian Road Interchange
N
In order to develop Parcel 1 as a
regional shopping center the Applicant's proposed amendments per-
taining to a regional shopping center must be approved.
5. That there is a residential subdivision directly south of
the area of Parcel 1 planned for a regional shopping center and
there are residential subdivisions west of Eagle Road.
6. The application has been processed under the Amendment
Provision and Procedures of the Plan as set forth on pages 54,
55, and 56 of the Plan and the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title
67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code.
7. Pursuant to the Amendment Provision and Procedures of the
Plan, the Application was found to merit further study after the
requisite and duly noticed public hearings were held; the Findings
of Fact and Conclusions pertaining to the question of whether the
application merited further study are incorporated herein by this
reference as if set forth in full hereat; the Application itself
was found to meet the requirements of the .Amendment Procedures.
8. Subsequent to the determination that the Application meritgd
further study the Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on
April 8, 1985, as required by Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and
the Plan; that no changes have been made in the Application or
Proposed Amendment since it was submitted by the Applicant to the
Commission.
9. The Application addresses the Amendment requirements under
Amendment Provision and Procedures set forth at page 54 of the
PAGE 3
AMBROSE.
FITZGERALD
6 CROOKSTON
ANomsys wd
C K,nwlors
P.O. Box /27
Msr181sn, mew
8842
TNphg 886441
• • N
Plan; the Applicant's reasons why the Plan should be amended are
recited in the Co=-ission's earlier Findings of "act when it
determined the Application *merited further study and are stated in
Finding 11, below.
10. The Application, in general terms, requests that Parcel 1
be identified and designated in the Plan as a site for a regional
shopping center and eventually be zoned CG and that Parcel 2 be
designated to be included in the Eastern Industrial Review Area and
eventually be zoned IL. The Application continues in Exhibit E in
specific terms to request specific changes to the Policy Diagram
and to many of the policies and objectives of the various
components of the Plan such that the Plan's focus on a single
designation of a regional shopping center site is changed to a two
site designation focus. Many of the specific requested changes do
not deal with the regional shoppinn center portion of the Plan,
but with other components of the Plan that would be effected by a
two site designation, one at Eagle Road and I-84 and one at
Meridian Road and I-34. However, the requested changes are mainly
a result of two site designations.
11. The applicant's reasons why the Plan should be amended
stated in application as follows:
"The public need for and benefit from approving the three
actions (Comprehensive Plan Change, Annexation and Zoning)
are:
(A) Provide for the orderly growth of the City of
Meridian and its environs;
(B) Make readily available to the residents of the
City of Meridian a variety of shopping facilities and
PAGE 4
• • N
services that can only be furnished by a regional
shopping center;
(C) Attract a regional shopping center to the City which
would generate a large volume of business;
(D) Provide a place of employment for Meridian residents;
and
(E) Provide an alternative regional shopping center site
whereby major retailers would have a choice of sites
within the City."
12. That the Plan, in dealing with Commercial Activity Center
of which a regional shopping center is one, states as follows and
Commercial Activity Centers at pages 19 & 20:
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
Atto sMM PAGE 5
Couosakxz 11
P.O. Box 427
M6ddim, Idaho
&7612
T61NPNoo688&4461
,,REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER: As the largest of the
Co mnercia ctivity enters; it is designed to serve
Ada County and the surrounding counties which make
up the Treasure Valley.
In all cases, the locations of Commercial Activity
Centers should be guided by performance and
development standards. These standards consider,
among other aspects:
Traffic Volume and Type
Trip Generation
Impacts on Arterial Street System
Proximity to Other Commercial Development
Impacts on neighborhood Residentail Areas
Accessibility of Site
Parking Demands
Pedestrian Circulation
Available Utility Systems
Aesthetics (Design Considerations)
Drainage
Meridian is encouraging the potential development of a
Regional Shopping Center near the Meridian/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. The proposed private development program
calls for over a million -square -foot shopping center,
which will provide a wide variety of retail enterprises
and supporting commercial uses (such as office complexes
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
6 CROOKSTON
Attomeye wd
Cooneelom
P.O. Boz 127
MaMlen, MMo
417!12
TeMplrone4141114411
• • N
multi -family residential units, medical clinics, motels
and entertainment facilities).
POLICIES
1. It is the policy of the City of Meridian to
encourage and support the development of a
Regional Shopping Center as the core commercial
activity within Meridian's Urban Service Plan-
ning Area, as well as the Treasure Valley.
2. The evaluation of the Regional Shopping Centdr
development shall be primarily based upon its
consistency with the land use policies of
Meridian's Comprehensive Plan, as well as the
future air quality plan of Northern Ada County.
3. As the specific plans are prepared and implemen-
tation and construction timetables are establish
ed, the evaluation and review of the Regional
Shopping Center development shall be conducted
through an Environmental Impact Analysis
procedure.
13. The Local Planning Act of 1975 indicates in Section 67-
6508 that the Plan should be based on the following components:
population, economic development, land use, natural resources;
hazardous areas, public services, facilities, and utilities,
transportation, recreation, special areas or sites, housing,
community design, and implementation.
14. That the Applicant only specifically addressed three
items included in paragraph 12 above, those being the impact on
arteriel streets, availability of utility systems, and drainage.
The Applicant through its comments on transportation and arteriel
streets inferentially discussed traffic volume and type and trip
generation. The Applicant did not address proximity to other
commercial development, impact on neighborhood residential areas,
PAGE 6
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
6 CROOKSTON
Attwneys end
Counselors
P.O. Box 027
Meddlen, WNo
83612
TelepMrw 8W"01
x,
N
accessibility of the site, parking demands, pedestrian circulation,
or aesthities.
15. That although the items contained in paragraph 12 deali
with the location standards for commercial activity centers are
thirteen in number, they really deal with the following seven items,
to wit: a) Traffic, vehicular or pedestrian; b) Proximity to
other commercial development; c) Impact on neighborhood resident
areas; d) Available utility systems; e) Aesthetics; f) Use
impacts upon other adjacent uses; and g) Drainage. A discussion
of each of these areas is appropriate.
PAGE 7
A) TRAFFIC
1. The evidence produced by the Applicant does
not fully address the traffic issue. This is
noted from the traffic study submitted by
Upland Industries during its application to
amend the Comprehensive Plan. More detailed
comment by the Applicant in this area would
have been helpful. However, regardless of what
location is developed the traffic impact would
be similar from such a development.
2. The Applicant states that the Eagle Road/I-84
Interchange is being designed; that there would
be an entrance from Eagle Road and Franklin
Road to the proposed shopping center; that
there would be an entrance from Franklin Road
to Parcel 2; that the Department of Transportati
long range plans include expansion of Eagle Road
from Franklin Road to the City of Eagle; that
the shopping center would have little effect on
the construction of the area transportation
system; that the center would affect the
functioning of the area transportation system
as far as traffic flows are considered; that
the road system in Meridian's present commercial
area would not require major revisions in that
the Eagle Road/I-84 Interchange would divert
shoppers from East First and Meridian Road
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
6 CROOKSTON
ARomsys eno
Coni n
PAGE 8
R.O. Bos Q7
MVMMn, MWw
$3542
TOW"M 011"01
N
That since the Applicant did not submit a
detailed traffic study a review of the traffic
study and findings relating' to the Upland
Comprehensive Plan is instructive since the
center proposed by the Applicant would be only
approximately one mile away and similarly locate
on Eagle Roaa and of similar size if not in fact
larger and therefore have an even greater traffi
impact. The following findings from the City
Councils Findings of Fact on Uplands Application
are noted:
"TRAFFIC
1. That the testimony submitted by the
Applicant concludes that their location
is excellant because of its location on
two major arteriels, Fairview Avenue and
Eagle Road. However, their evidence
admits that vast improvments would have
to be made to those two arterials over
and above improvements already planned
for Eagle Road due to its inclusion in
the State Highway system as a result of
the Eagle Road/I-84 Interchange.
That additionally the Applicant admits
that vast improvements would have to be
made to Fairview Avenue. Fairview Aven
is already heavily burdened along its
route where commercial activities have
been developed.
That besides the above improvements,
Applicant's evidence makes several
assumptions of road improvements in
their study area as a result of resident
ial needs. These assumed improvements
included six (b) lanes on Fairview Avenu
four (4) lanes on Franklin Road, four
(4) lanes on Eagle Road between the
proposed interchange and Ustick Road,
four (4) lanes on Cloverdale Road betwee.
Overland road and Franklin Road; and fou
(4) lanes on Five Mile Road between
Overland 7%oad and Franklin Road. No
evidence was submitted from the Ada
County Highway Department or the State o
Idaho Department of Transportation that
these assumptions of improvements due to
• • N
residential growth were valid or that th
improvements could or would be made even
if finances were not a problem.
4. That in the traffic study area bounded
Meridian Road on the West, Ustick Road
on the North, Maple Grove Road on the
East, and Overland Road on the South,
improvements need to be made......
5. That the Ada County Highway District is
under the same 1% budget and tax
restraints as the City of !tieridian;...
That the shopping center would generate
37,200 trips per day and that the
automobile would be used almost exclusive
for those trips; that comparing Figure
5.1 (p_ V-2, Testimon ) which supposedly
shows the expecte evel of traffic in
1983 without a shopping center at
Applicant's location with Figure 5.6
(p. V-12, Testimony) which supposedly
shows the expecte level of traffic if
the shopping center were built, a great
increase in traffic levels is shown.
Comparing the figures on rairview Avenue
from Cloverde:le-Road to Eagle Road there
would be an increase of 41,490 daily
trips due to the shopping center; like-
wise on Eagle Road from Fairview Avenue
to Franklin Road there would be an in-
crease of 27,320 daily trips likewise
there would be significant increases in
trip traffic on the other arteriels in
the study area due to the placement of a
shopping center at Applicant's location.
That the Ada County Highway District
conducted a bond election in approximate
1983 to aide the Dustrict in financing
needed improvements to the roads within
the'District; that said election did not
succeed.
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
d CROOKSTON
Attorney!"d
Coeneelwe
P.O. Bow 427
MaWNin, ItleM
!9842
T*Wpho 888.1461
• • N
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
dCROOKSTON
AHomeya and
Counselors
PAGE 10
P.O. Boa 42/
Merldlan. Idaho
83642
Towphons 89?M81
14. That the roads in the area, particularly
Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road are not in
good repair; that Eagle Road is now a
narrow two lane road; that the Eagle Road/
I-34 Interchange project will bring some
improvements to Eagle Road; that Fairview
is a four lane road, that the closer you
get to Boise and existing commercial
development is extremely over -burdened
and inadequate; that Franklin Road has
recetnly been improved but is still only
two lAnes; that Cloverdale Road and Five
Mile Road were recently improved and
resurfaced but are still only two lane
roads; that no evidence was submitted
by the Applicant as to how the road
improvements would be financed.
15. That the City of 14eridian does not have
jurisdiction over the roads nor does it
have financing responsibility."
That since there was no evidence submitted by
the Applicant showing a different traffic
impact, it must be assumed that the traffic
situation at Eagle Road and I-34 would not be
too different from that at Eagle Road and
Fairview Avenue; the traffice impact would be
severlly adverse ,just as it would for the
Upland Industries site at Eagle Road and Fair-
view Avenue.
B) PROXkNaTY TO OTHER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS
That the Applicant's mall location is
over three miles from Cherry Plaza
and a little more than two miles from
Downtown Meridian; that it is three
miles from the retail shops at Fairview
Avenue and Five Mile Road; that it is
a little over two miles from retail
shops at Five Mile and Overland Roads.
2. That the Applicant's testimony at the
hearing indicated that its center would
not have an adverse impact on the retail
facilities located in Meridian; that
John Polk indicated a study had been
performed supporting the above and recited
a short summary of the report but the fulI
study was not put in evidence.
• • N
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
ACROOKSTON
PAGE 11
Attam"s wW
CoonWM
P.O. Boa all
MwW". WNo
89642
TeWpha 888440/
3. That there was no evidence submitted
contrary to Applicant's statement, however,
it is noted that there has been testimony
in a prior annexation and comprehensive
plan amendment application (QUONG) in
which opponents to that application
testified that a regional mall built
along Eagle Road would be detrimental
to retail trade in downtown Meridian.
4. That is must be also noted that when
Karcher Mall was built it did draw
business away from the downtown areas
of Nampa and Caldwell.
5. That in the Comprehensive Plan at page
15 under Economic Policies it is stated
in part as follows:
4. Positive programs should be undertaken
to support existing industrial and
commercial areas to ensure their
continued vitality....
6. It is the policy of the City of
DTeridian to support shopping
facilities which are effectively
integrated into existing residential
areas, and plan for new shopping
centers as growth and development
warrant.
10. ...where possible, existing commercial
development should be encouraged to
consolidate."
That even though these polices are listed under
the Economic Policies they do pertain to a shop-
ping center proximity to other commercial
developments.
6. That Applicant's location is quite distant
from existing Meridian retail business.
0 0
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
PAGE 12
Athm sand
Own"Im
P.O. Box 127
Meridian, Idaho
83812
Telephone 8861181
M
C) LdIPACT ON NETC41BOR1100D RESTDFNTIAL AREAS
1. In the area where the Applicant proposes
to locate a regional shopping center there
is a residential subdivision directly North
and two subdivisions on the West side of
Eagle Road.
2. That there was testimony at the public
hearing objecting to a shopping center
at the proposed location by a resident
of the subdivision North of the proposed
shopping site.
3. That the Comprehensive Plan Economic Policy
quoted above regarding proximity of shopping
centers to other commercial developments sta
that it is the policy of the City to support
shopping facilities that are effectively
integrated into existing residential areas.
4. That the development of the I-84 Eagle Road
Interchange will impact the adjacent
residential areas and such construction is
already a foregone fact; that adding a
regional shopping center would increase the
adverse impact.
D) AVAILABLE UTILITY SYSTEMS
The Applicant in its application states as
follows regarding the various utility
components.
a) Sewer
The sewer extension would be in the Urban
Service Planning area; the extension woul
be from the eastside of tieridian; and tha
it would be along much of the annexation
route.
2. That the sewage treatment plant has a
capacity of 21,000 population equivalency
(P.E.); that the present use by the City
7,000 P.E.; that the proposed center woul
use 7.1'0 of the capacity.
0 0 0*
AMBROSE.
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
PAGE 13
Atto yse
Cwn kt
P.O. Box 127
SM2
TeMpe 8864481
3. That the benefit to the sewer system
from Applicant's proposal would be
additional hook-up and user fees and a
spreading of the costs over a greater
economical scale; that no estimate of fel
to generate was given by the Applicant.
b) Water Supply and Fire Protection
1. That the water line extension would comp:
with the City's Master Water Plan; that
it would be an 8 inch line extension;
that the water route would basically be
along the annexation.
2. That besides water lines, improvements
would include a well and a reservoir
and that minimum fire flows would be
met for fire protection.
c) Other Utilities
Applicant stated that gas, electricity, and
telephone were available or would be.
d) Public Safety
Under this category the Applicant addressed
life safety code, some police concerns
regarding traffic, site lighting, and securit
but did not address impacts on the Meridian
Police Department or fire department.
e) Solid Waste Disposal
The Applicant indicated this would be handle
by the contract hauler.
2. That the Applicant, other than in the area
of sewage treatment, did not address the
impact of its development on the utility
systems or the related costs; that discuss
of these impacts, as indicated by evidence
in other porceedings, will be discussed
further below.
3. That the Applicant includes application for
annexation but the City has not yet committer
to supply public services to the area; cost
TOW000*8881181
data for public services to this location
was submitted in a prior application for
annexation for Parcel l and the commission
will discuss such in a different section of
these Findings.
E) AESTHETICS
The Applicant submitted no evidence detailing
the aesthetic effect of locating a mall at
its site other than its general site plan;
a requirement of such at this juncture may
be premature."
F) USE-24FACTS UPON OTHER ADJACENT USES
1. The majority of the land surrounding
Parcel l is residential on the North and
West with agriculture being the pre -
dominent use of the East. The Interstate
is abutting on the South.
2. The majority of the land surrounding
Parcel 2 is agricultural and industrial.
3. No specific evidence was submitted by
the Applicant on the impact of its
proposals on adjacent uses. One resident
testified that the impact on his land
would be adverse, as far as the shopping
center was concerned.
4. At the hearing John Polk testified that
the shopping center should not have an
adverse impact on Downtown Meridian and
its retail. This is discussed in a
previous finding.
5. The likelihood of adverse impact on
adjacent residential subdivisions is
great; there would not likely be adverse
impacts on other adjacent uses.
G) DRAINAGE
The Applicant indicated that the land drains
to the North and Jest and that drainage woul
be taken care of by the use of site drains,
conduits and equilization basins which would
AMBROSE,
would be integrated into the landscaping.
FITZGERALD
A CROOKSTON
Drainage would also be of greater concern
to the Ada County Highway Department than th
Attorneys
1Corne soand
City of Meridian but appears to be adequatle
no
addressed.
P.O. Box 427
Mwidl'":1°'"°
PAGE 14
TOW000*8881181
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
&CROOKSTON
Atlomep And
Counmims
P.O. Box A27
MNMMn, MNho
03042
Tabphm ae&4461
9 0 00
16. That most of the important items referred to in
paragraph 13 and set forth in 67-6508, Idaho Code, have been
addressed by the Applicant; that these items need to be addressed
by an application to amend a comprehensive plan as they are the
integral components of the original plan; any proposed amendment
effects these components. It is felt, however, that this applicat
to amend the Plan for locating a regional shopping center and
industrial property would not effect the following components:
Natural Resources, Hazardous Areas, Recreation, Special Areas or
Sites, and Implementation. The other components would be effected
and should be addressed and in most cases were addressed by the
Applicant and are discussed below.
PAGE 15
a) POPULATION
1. That the POPULATION GROT,dTH section of the Plan
begins with the following statement:
"Encourage orderly growth for a self-sufficient
community, but discourage unplanned growth within or
adjacent to the City and the Urban Service Planning
Area (USPA)." (Plan, p.12)
Likewise, one of the policies as stated at page 12 is
as follows:
"Unimproved or unrealized land within the Meridian
City limits and Urban Service Planning Area should b
utilized in order to maximize public investments,
curtail urban sprawl and protect existing
agricultural lands from unnecessary infringement."
2. The Applicant states that population projections
contained in the Plan have not been realized; that
due to this unrealized growth, costs of public
utilities and services are higher on a per capita
basis than they would be if the population were
greater; that employment from the shopping center
could be approximately 2,500 and together with
secondary employment could be as high as 5,000, but
that many of these positions would be filled ffom
the ranks of the unemployed; additionally the
Applicant states there would be a temporary influx o
AMBROSE.
FITZGERALD
d CROOKSTON
ABomsye wW
Co nsa
P.O. Boz 427
MorMMn, MYw
83642
TAIL 1!155445I
u
PAGE 16
0 00
people relating to construction activities.
3. Applicant stated that the long term effect of the
shopping center and the industrial employment would
have a significant impact on future population
projections but the initial impact on population
should remain unchanged; that the largest impact of
the shopping center would be an increase in buying
income and increased job opportunities for Meridian
residents.
4. That the impact of Applicant's proposals, or for
that matter a regional shopping center at any other
site, are not going to be that great as far as
population alone is concerned; the result of increase
population such as sewer and water, police and fire
protection, and transportation, are of greater
concern.
b) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
1. The Plan encourages economic development. It
contains the following policies as to general
economic development:
p.15 "The City of Meridian shall make every effort
to create a positive atmoshpere which
encourages industrial and commercial enter-
prises to locate in Meridian.
It is the policy of the City of Meridian to
set aside areas where commercial and industria:
interest and activities are to dominate.
Stripping of industrial and commercial uses
are not in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan."
2. The Plan, at page 14, as its initial statement
on Economic Development states as follows:
p.14 "Stimulate, encourage and give perference to
those types of economic activities and
developments which provide opportunities for
the employment of Meridian citizens and area
residents and reduce the need for persons to
commute to neighboring cities.
AMBROSE.
FITZGERALD
&CROOKSTON
Attom sand
CoonWon
P.O. Box 127
Msr101NA, Idaho
0942
TW1Ph0h$888M8t
• • 00
PAGE 17
The City of Meridian and its residents view the
economic enterprises of industry, retail com-
mercial and personal services as an integral
part of a planned community. The City's
physical development, economic stability,
social stratification and institutional
effectiveness for dealing with public needs are
dependent upon such economic opportunities.
3. That the Plan lists three commercial activity
centers, the largest being a Regional Shop;3ing
Center and states as follows at page 19 of the Plan.
P.19 "REGIONAL SHOPPING(CENTER:
As the largest of the commercial activity
centers, it is designed to serve Ada County
and the surrounding counties which make up
the Treasure Valley."
4. That the Plan goes on to detail the
considerations and standards for the location of a
commercial activity center. These have previously
been stated and discussed above in these Findings.
5. That the Plan goes on to state where the Regions
Shopping Center is to be located and deals with
specific policies all of which have been mentioned
in these Findings. The Applicant's proposed Plan
Amendment does not remove the Meridian/Kuna Road/
I=84 designation as a site for a Regional Shopping
Center but does add its location as a second site.
The amendment also does not alter the policies that
pertain to a Regional Shopping Center. Of sig-
nificance in these policies and statements are the
expressed goals that the regional shopping center
could become the dentral business district of
Meridian and that it could be the core commercial
activity within Meridian's Urban Service Planning
Area.
6. That the Applicant's Application states as
follows pertaining to the economic development
impact of a $100,000,000.00 mall located at its
site:
a. A $100 million project would employ up to
1,000 construction personnel with an estimated
annual payroll of $25 million. This payroll
would produce about $2 million in State income
taxes and approximately $52.5,000 in sales taxes
0 00
These revenues would return to the City of
Meridian as State -provided services or tax
subvention income to the City budget.
b. The assessed value for Meridian is $155
million which means that a $100 million (80
percent of which is assessed value) center
would increase total assessed value in the
City by almost 52 percent to $235 million.
c. A $100 million center would generate at
least $180,000 the first year in new property
taxes to the City of Meridian. (This would be
$190,000 the second year and $200,000 the
third year for a total of about $2.3 million
over ten years).
d. The center would employ an estimated
1,500 full-time and 500 part-time personnel
in new jobs. This would produce $25.5
million in annual salaries, up to $2,500,000
in State income taxes and $800,000 in sales
taxes. These new revenues would return to the
City as State services or tax subvention
income.
e. A regional scale retail center would produce
approximately $275 million in gross sales the
first year. This would result in $11.5 million
in sales taxes that would reutrn to the City as
State services or tax subvention income.
f. Current State property tax laws, i.e. the
one pendent initiative and the 50-50 residential
tax limitation, have served to push the tax
burden from residential to commercial. An
increase of this magnitude will help to reduce
the mill levy for all property in Meridian and
therefore will provide tax relief to businesses.
g. The proposed regional shopping center will
attract shoppers to Meridian, the additional
shoppers will provide new business opportunities
for existing business in the City and in the
surrounding area.
7. That it is noted that evidence submitted during
the Upland Industries and Quong proceedings
indicated that similar economic benefits would
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD result from a shopping center located at any of the
ACROOKSTON three sites being proposed.
AIU,meys Arid
C wlm PAGE 18
cou�..Io..
F.O. BOY 177
MwMin, WmW
B3M2
Te"hi MBBL//M
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
ARom"s sno
Counsslms
P.O. Box 427
MUMMn, IEsoo
B]6s2
TSNp6ons 88""l
0 0 00
PAGE 19
E. That the above stated revenue benefits to the
City will be discussed below but at this juncture
it should be pointed out that "Tax -subvention income
does not aid the City financially and state
provided services likewise do not pay for City
expenses.
9. That the Plan also states as economic devel
policies, as follows at page 15:
p.15 "Positive programs should be undertaken to
support existing industrial and commercial
areas to ensure their continued vitality,
such as:
a. Detailed Design Studies.
b. Economic Feasibility Studies.
Zoning changes to assure desired
economic development.
It is the policy of the City of Meridian to
support shopping facilities which are
effectively integrated into existing resident
areas, and plan for new shopping centers as
growth and development warrant."
C) LAND USE
The Comprehensive Plan identifies consistency
with land use policies of the Plan as a major
guideline in the evaluation of a regional shop-
ping center.
1. That the Plan identifies three land uses
that are not in compliance with the goals and
objections of the Plan; polluting industries,
strip commercial or industrial and scattered
residential (sprawl or spread); that urban
sprawl is defined as scattered development
which is not contiguous to the urbanized part
of the municipality. Sprawl is characterized
by significant amounts of vacant land intermixed
with parcels of Urban development ----formless
dispersal of congested urban area with little
or no regard for the interrelationships of such
factors as logical transportation, employment,
health and recreational needs.
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
PAGE 20
Attorneys a
Coons
P.O. Box 427
Mwwwn,"M
88842
TelepNone8864161
0 0 00
2. That the Plan does not presently designate the
area within which Parcel 1 is located for any partici
lar use , that Parcel 2 is probably located in what
could be designated as the Eastern Industrial Review
Area or is at least adjacent thereto.
3. That at present there are a significant number
of parcels between Parcels 1 and 2 and Meridian that
are vacant.
4. That the Application states the adjacent proper
include industrial, railroad and agricultural uses;
that contrary to Applicants statement much of the
adjacent property includes residential land.
5. That the Application states the land use c
contemplated by the proposals will have the fol
impacts:
a. encourage the interchange at I-84 and Eagle
Road and industrial development below
Franklin.
b. the shopping center would suffer less than
the existing residential area as a result of
proximity to I-84 and the future Eagle Road
Interchange.
C. that the shopping center would be a landmark
enhancing the stature of Meridian.
d. the proposed industrial development will be
enhanced by its proximity to the railroad.
d) PUBLIC SERVICES, FACILITIES, AND UTILITIES
This component has previously been discussed as
part of the location standards for a commercial
activity center. However, at this juncture in
discussing the planning components the existing
policies pertaining to Public Services, Utilities,
Facilities should be noted.
1. That the pertinent fire protection policies
at page 38 of the Plan state as follows:
"To insure adequate protection for new
developments, provisions shall be made for
satellite fire stations which have a staff
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
&CROOKSTON
Attomeys and
Cou."Im
P.O. Box 4I7
Maltl4n, Idaho
BBBSY
Tehpnone 808-4461
PAGE 21
of fire fighters equipped with the
appropriate fire -fighting facilities.
Improvements regarding the jointly used
central Meridian fire station (City and
Rural Fire Districts) should be reviewed
periodically because of the growth and
development within the Meridian Urban
Service Planning Area.
Adequate water supply and water pressure
should be available to provide fire
protection for urban -type development
within the Urban Service Planning Area."
That the pertinant police protection policies
)age 33 of the Plan state as follows:
"Police protection within the City limits
and police protection furnished by the
Ada County Sheriff's Department in the
areas outside the City limits, but within
the Urban Service Planning Area, should be
assessed for deficiencies according to the
recommended service ratio of 1.6 to 1.8
policemen per 1,000 persons."
That the pertinent water supply policies at
39 of the Plan states as follows:
The monitoring and review of the Meridian
municipal water system should be continued
because of the potential for growth and
development within the Urban Service Planning
Area.
All new developments
their connection to
water system within
Area.
shall be phased as to
the murncipal central
the Urban Service Plan
Adequate water supply should be available
for fire protection.
4. That the pertinent sewer policies at page
40 of the Plan state as follows:
All new subdivisions,
and large commercial
development projects
planned developments
and industrial '
shall be required to
AMBROSE.
FITZGERALD
&CROOKSTON
Atto ys aM
Cwn"k"
P.O. Box Q7
MMMMn. kWM
83642
TdWph N0864461
0
PATC 22
e)
• ft
connect to the municipal sewer system.
TRANSPORTATION
This component has previously been partially
discussed as part of the location standards for
commercial activity centers. However, at this
juncture of the Findings the existing Plan
policies should be noted and discussed.
1. That the level of service of the transportation
system greatly influences the development and
physical organization of the planning area and the
City.
2. That Fairview Avenue, Franklin Road, Overland
Road, and Eagle Road, all roads which play an
extremely important role in Applicant's development,
are designated as Principal Arterials as is the
Kuna/Meridian Road South of Franklin Road which also
would be an integral part of the Applicant's proposa
3. That the plan has as one of its transportation
policies "Efficient and safe access should be
provided to and from shopping centers, since it is
crucial to the economic success of the centers, as
well as to the maintenance and efficient traffic
movements on the public road -ways adjacent to the
development.
f) HOUSINCA
1. The Plan contains housing policies and the
following policies are included therein at page
26 of the Plan:
"Every effort shall be made by the City of Meridian
to encourage commercial and industrial growth and
development which furthers employment and economic
self-sufficiency and reduces Meridian's present
reliance on Boise's Metropolitan economic and
employment center.
The development of housing for all income groups
close to employment and shopping centers should
be encouraged."
2. That the Application indicates that there would
be sufficient residential lots to provide needed
houses for any expected increase in population and
that due to high construction costs higher density
housing should be considered and utilized.
g) COMMUNITY DESIGV
1. The Plan states as its lead-in policy for
community design at page 48 as follows:
"Create a visual and functional identity
for the City of Meridian within Ada County
and its surrounding enviorment."
2. The Application states that Applicant's
proposals would create a uniform shape to the
Southerly and Easterly portion of the City
limits.
17. That the Plan references at page 20 that air quality
should be a primary evaluation factor for the development of a
regional shopping center. The Applicant failed to address this
area.
18. That throughout the Plan referance is made to the
regional shopping center at the Meridian Road/I-84 Interchange; that
particularly at page 7 of the Plan, the Policy Diagram indicates
that a regional shopping center site is designated in the Northeast
Quadrant of the Meridian Road/I-84 Interchange. The Application
would add an additional site at the Northeast Quadrant of I-84
and Eagle Road but would not remove the Meridian Road site. That
the Plan, in many places other than in the portion dealing with
the commercial activity centers and the Policy Diagram, refers to
"the Regional Shopping Center" or "the Proposed Regional Shopping
Center, Northeast of the I-34/Meridian Road Intersection" or such
other single reference terminology; that the Applicant's requests
AM EROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys and
Counasim
PAGE 23
P.O. Box 427
Meridian, Idaho
83612
Tahphone8B64a6i
0
would change such references to refer to two sites or make the
wording such that it would apply to two sites for a regional
shopping center.
19. That the City of Meridian has considered Applicant's
proposed site for a regional shopping center under a prior
application for annexation of the site. This was the Quong
Application. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Quong
Application and the City Council denied it. The Commission has
received an objection to the present application filed by a
representative of the owners and developers of the Meridian Road/
I-84 regional shopping center site, (Nahas site), which relies on
the record and findingsof the Quong Application as support for the
objection. The objection incorporates all the record, testimony,
evidence and exhibits of the Quong proceedings, particularly the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions made by the City Council, The
Commission reviewed the Quong proceedings during the Upland
Industries Application proceeding to amend the Comprehensive Plan
and is fully knowledgeable and aware of the Quong record. The
owners and developers of the Nahas site objected to the granting
of the Upland Industries Corporation's Application to amend the
Comprehensive Plan based on Quong record. The Commission, in its
Findings on the Upland Application noted some similarities and some
dissimilarities between the Upland proposal and the Quong proposal
and also made some comparisons between those two sites and the Naha
site. The Commission is fully aware of all the prior records,
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
6 CROOKSTON
PACE 24
Anomoy. and
Counmims
P.O. Boa 427
MmMIMI, IOMw
8W2
TAMpIw'r aw"ai
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
AIIo1Mys"
C000sslws
P.O. Box 427
MwWMn, WMw
53M
TOWPhl MM441
• 0 of
proceedings, findings and conclusions.
20. There are similarities between all three sites upon wh
regional shopping centers have been proposed which are herein
referred to as the Nahas site, the Upland site, and the Claremont
site; these similarities are as follows:
a) All are within Meridian's Area of Impact;
b) All are within Meridian's Urban Service Planning
Area;
c) Only one of the sites, if any, will be developed;
d) All would ultimately most likely, regardless of
of location, be of similar size, be valued the
same for property taxes, achieve the same amount
of retail sales and create the same number of
construction and permanant jobs;
e). All being the same approximate size and value,
would create approximately the same amount of
revenue to the City of Meridian in the form of
property tax, sales tax, and water and sewer
revenues;
f) All sites would create additional costs and
expenses for the City albeit one site may create
more than another_, but which costs could outstrip
the reveune to the City as a result of the
shopping center.
21. That there are dissimilarities between both the Nahas
site and the Upland site when compared to the Claremont site; these
dissimilarities are as follows:
PAGE 25
a) The Nahas and Upland sites are already in the
City limits and the City has previously committed
to provide City services to those two sites; such
is not the case with the Claremont site;
b) The Nahas and Upland sites already have water
and sewer lines adjacent to the property;
c) The Claremont site is the most distant from
Meridian's present retail corridor but probably
only a little bit more than the Upland site but
the Upland site is on a proven retail corridor,
Fairview Avenue.
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
6 CROOKSTON
AIIomAys wM
Cour Im
P.O. Boz 427
MMOMo, IONo
03542
TOWKw i, ON4461
0 0 0
22. That there are some significant factors different in the
Claremont Application than there were in the Quong Application;
these factors are as follows:
a) All the land included in the Claremont Application
is now included in ^feridian's Urban Service
Planning Area;
b) The Claremont Application does not involve land
South of 1-84;
c) The Claremont Application has the sewer and water
extensions running along the route of annexation;
d) That while annexation is not the question at hand,
the Claremont Application includes an _Annexation
Application that is not convoluted and only
includes land that would be serviced by extension
of water and sewer lines.
23. That in the City Council's Findings of Fact and Conclus
on the Quong Annexation, which application involved the same site
for a regional shopping center as the Claremont Application, there
were several findings and conclusions relating to the costs of
providing City services to the site and to the revenue that would b
produced; that the Applicant produced no evidence which was contrar
to those findings and which might have made the cost -revenue picture
appear brighter; the Applicant in its Application did indicate that
a "$100 million center would generate at least $180,000 the first
year in new property taxes to the City of ieridian." This statement
by Applicant,is not born out after review of the Quong record and
findings.
24. The Quong Findings indicate that the costs for utility
services and police and fire protection to the Claremont site would
by far exceed the revenue that the City would derive from the
PAGE 26
is
0 0 0
shopping center at that location; the Applicant submitted no
that contradicted the Quong record, findings and conclusions.
25. That the Citv Council ultimately concluded retarding the
Quong Annexation as follows:
"It is concluded, finally, that the annexation is not
in the best interest of the City of Meridian; that the
annexation would not be reasonable and would not aid
the orderly development of the City; that of primary
focus is the irregularity of the annexation route, the
lack of sewer and water service to the area south of
the freeway, the cost to the City without offsetting
revenues, and the adverse affect the development of a
shopping center would likely have on the existing
retail community of the City of Meridian."
That some of the reasons for denying the Quong Annexation have been
removed in this, the Claremont Application, Although, the annexatior
is not before the Commission at this time, and this should not be
construed as a ruling or decision on the annexation, the Claremont
Annexation route is more direct and does not involve land that woulc
not be serviced with water and sewer. The annexed property would
likely be considered as allowing more orderly development, although,
the actual shopping center site still would be a pennisula to the
City. Likewise, some evidence was submitted that Meridian's present
retail would not be as severly impacted as adversely as indicated
in the Quong record.
26. That there is one advantage that the Claremont site li
has over the Nahas site and possibly the Upland site and that is
that if it were developed the adverse transportation impact on
Downtown Meridian would be less.
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
PAGE 27
Attwisys Wd
Couneelm
P.O. Box 127
MWWLM, Mello
67642
T~wm N644/1
►')
0 0
ft
27. That there has been at least one major change since the
1973 Meridian Comprehensive Plan was adopted which may indicate a
review of the single shopping center designation is warranted and
that is the addition of a second interchange on I-84 in the Meridi
Urban Service Planning Area.
23. That the Applicant has requested the City to amend its
Comprehensive Plan to designate its Parcel 1 as a site for a
regional shopping center; that the Applicant submitted no evidence
which would indicate that if the amendment were granted that a
regional shopping center would actually be constructed at that
location other than a statement it would file letter commitments
from major retailers prior to the City Council hearing.
29. That although reference to the below may have inferen
been stated in other findings the following goals, policies, and
objectives in the Plan are specifically noted:
p,8 "GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Goal 3: To encourage the kind of economic growth
and development which supplies employment and
economic self-sufficiency for existing and future
residents, reduces the present reliance on Boise
and strengthens the City's ability to finance and
implement public improvements, services and its
open space character."
p.9 "LAND USE: POLICIES
1, The City of'lileridian intends to plan for the
periodic reviewing, monitoring and updating of
land uses within the Area of Impact and the Ur
PAGE 28
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys and
Counselors
P.O. Box e27
MerWIW. 1EeAo
81612
TeMPAare 6B6M6t
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
&CROOKSTON
ABomeys end
Counmlo
P.O. Bos 427
MVItl1en. Metro
SM2
TeNp11aM 8884461
ry, E1il: a4'. n
• 0 ft
PAGE 29
Service Planning Area
4, The following land use activities are not in
compliance with the basic goals of the
Comprehensive Plan:
a) ...
b) Strip commercial and strip industrial."
p.14 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
"Stimulate, encourage and give nerference to those
types of economic activites and + developments
which provide opportunities for the employment of
Meridian citizens and area residents and reduce
the need for persons to commute to neighboring
cities."
"The City of Meridian and its residents view the
economic enterprises of industry, retail com-
mercial and personal services as an integral part
of a planned community. The City's physical
development, economic stability, social
stratification and institutional effectiveness
for dealing with public needs are dependant upon
such economic opportunities. To accomplish the
above objective, the Comprehensive Plan
provides for INDUSTRIAL REVIEW AREAS, =,RIERCIAL
ACTIVITY CENTERS and MIXED-USE REVIEW AREAS."
INDUSTRIAL REVIEW AREAS
"The Comprehensive Plan intends to prepare for
Meridian's business and employment future by
reserving land for industrial, retail, commercial
and office uses and so removing them from the
categories of land on which residential development
can be proposed."
p.26 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, POLICIES
2. Every effort shall be made by the City of
Meridian to encourage commercial and industrial
growth and development which furthers employment
W
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
&CROOKSTON
Allomsys wd
CounwIm
P.O. Box 427
MWMIen. baso
B]N2
TSI40M 889""
0 0
and economic self-sufficiency and reduces
Yeridian's present reliance on Boise's
Metropolitan economic and employment center.
p.53 OTHER PROJECTS
"2. Support and encourage development of
Commercial Activity Centers
Regional Shop73ing Center
11
30. The following statements of the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan are noted:
PAGE 30
p. 1 FORWARD
"The Comprehensive Plan is primarily a policy
document identifying policies to guide future
development within and outside of the City of
Meridian. The Comprehensive Plan is recognizably
the primary step in identifying the quality of
life the City residents desire and relating goals
to its capacity to achieve particular and results
It was developed with a broad base of community-
wide citizen input and is both sensitive to the
changing needs of the community and recognizes
a commitment to preserve the values identified by
the City residents.
NATURE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A Comprehensive Plan is an official document,
by local governments and public agencies, which
serves as a policy guide for decisions concerning
the physical development of a community. It
indicates, in a general way, how the community
may develop in the next 20 to 30 years.
The essential characteristics of the Comprehensiv
Plan are that it is comprehensive, general, long-
range and represents a process --not a product.
Com rehensive means that the plan encompasses all
areas of
t e community and all functional element
which bear on physical development. General
means that the plan summarizes policies an
proposals and does not develop detailed site
plans. Long-rangemeans that the plan looks
beyond t e ph ressing current issues toward the
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
BCROOKSTON
Attomsys and
Counsslom
F.O. BOR 427
Moldlen. kWw
SW2
Teleph y8B6NB1
PAGE 31
aspects of problems which the community may
face in the future. Finally, as a process
(not a product), the Comprehensive Planis an
ongoing process for directing change that
occurs inevitably in a community --not a document
that is written once, for all time."
p.14 "C0111MERCIAL ACTIVITY CENTERS
Retail commercial and office development are
frequent partners within Commercial Activity
Centers. Both general categories often share
locational needs and often prove mutually sup-
portive. In order to coordinate with the sup-
portive areas of residential and industrial
developments, areas should be set aside as
Commercial Activity Centers and their developmen
carefully guided."
P.13 "ECONOMIC POLICIES
The City of meridian shall make every effort
to create a positive atmoshpere which en-
courages industrial and commercial enterpris
to locate in Meridian.
It is the policy of the City of :Meridian to
set aside areas where commercial and indust
interest and activities are to dominate.
4. Positive programs should be undertaken to
support existing industrial and commercial
areas to ensure their continued vitality,
such as:
C. Zoning changes to assure desired
development.
It is the policy of the City of Meridian to
support shopping facilities which are
effectively integrated into existing
residential areas, and plan for new shopping
centers as growth and development warrant.
al
AMBROSE.
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attomeya and
Co ."Iom
P.O. Box Q7
Moldim.Idaao
B3H2
TaMPKona 88&4461
0 0 M
PAGE 32
8., The City of Meridian intends to establish
Commercial Development Design Guides which:
a. Provide for the grouping of commercial
buildings on a single parcel of land in suc
a manner as to create a harmonious, efficie
and convenient retail shopping environment;
p.6.POLICY DIAGRA14
"With the anticipation of growth and development
pressures during the next decade, the
Comprehensive Plan summarizes the potential
distributions of land use activities within the
Urban Service Planning Area that are based upon
policy recommendations. The Policy Diagram
attempts to make general designations of
appropriate and compatible land use, expresses
the ultimate growth of the Meridian community
if all the land were developed, and provides a
flexible framework for further detailed land
use decisions.
The Policy Diagram is to be used as a general
guide for land use decision -malting --not as a
legalistic, literal and definitive map. As
applications and proposals of land uses are
submitted, the Policy Diagram is not intended t1
be used as the sole, authoritative means for
decision-making. Rather, it is but one of the
many tools which are available for public
officials as they exercise their responsibility
regarding the health, safety and welfare of the
general public.
p.50 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW
If the Compr'nensive Plan is to be useful and
effective, it should not be filed away but
should be continually reviewed and updated. Tho
recommendations within the Comprehensive Plan
should not be interpreted as unalterable com-
mitments, but rather as a reflection of the bes
foreseeable direction at a given point in time.
It is recommended by the Meridian PlanTiing and
Zoning Commission that at least a yearly review
shall be held of the Comprehensive Plan to
update and/or reaffirm the Plan to fit the
changing needs as well as unforeseen planning
problems and opportunities.
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attomryc and
Coan"Iom
P.O. Boz 127
MWWiIwI, me*
69!12
Taltglt"ase4ai
i 0 N
31. That from the testimony the Commission has heard
pertaining to this application, the Upland application, and the
Quong Application and from the attitudes of the people expressed to
the Commission and from the newspaper and broadcast media reports,
it can be judicially noticed that the people of "Meridian and Ada
County desire to have a regional shopping mall, regardless of where
it is, as soon as possible but that there are differences of
opinion as to where it should be located.
32. That the testimony at the public hearing held April 8,
1985, was generally in favor of the Application, although, there
was not much testimony given. One resident of the subdivision Nor
of the proposed site of the shopping center testified strongly
against the application.
PAGE 33
Yw. ,
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
Atto ysm
Coons
P.O. Box 127
Mew1w, Iditlo
631112
TN11ph11 0884461
0 0
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan, hereafter refered to as the Plan, and of the
Local Planning Act, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, including all
notice and hearing requirements, have been met; that the Planning
and Zoning Commission has authority to amend the Plan.
2. That Claremont Development Company's Application to amend
the Plan was initiated by the Applicant and not by the Commission
the City Council. It is noted that the Application contains three
requests: 1) To amend the Meridian Comprehensive Plan 2) To
annex two parcels of land and 3) To zone the two parcels. The
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Meridian reads in part as follows:
11-2-417 ANNEXATION AND ZONING UPON POINEXATION.
"...If the annexation shall necessitate an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the Coimnission
shall advise the Applicant to request a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment prior to further consideration of the
Annexation."
11-2-416 D2.
"If the adoption of a zoning amendment application
requires an amendment to the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan, the Meridian C6mprehensive Plan shall be
amended prior to the consideration of the zoning
amendment and the procedures provided in Chapter 65,
Title 67, Idaho Code, shall be followed on the
amendment to tFieCo—mprehensive Plan and, until the
Comprehensive Plan is amended to allow the Zoning
amendment, no action will be taken on the zoning
amendment."
Idaho Code, Section 67-6511 is in accord with the above; that since
the Application already requested a Comprehensive Plan amendment
PAGE 34
• • N
was no need for the Commission to inform the Applicant to request
an amendment and the Commission has moved forward on that
Comprehensive Plan Amendment alone due to the above requirements.
3. That the Commission may take judicial or official notice
of existing conditions in the City, County and State and of
governmental actions, policies, and ordinances and of its own prior
findings in other land use applications and those of the City
Council.
4. That the function of adopting, amending or repealing a
Comprehensive Plan is a legislative function. Burt vs City of
Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.2d 1075 (1983). That even though
this is a legislative function, the Local Planning Act requires
that Findings of Fact and Conclusions be made for any application
provided Tor in the Act.
5. That the Application itself is concluded to meet the
requirements of the Amendment Provision and Procedures of the Plan.
6. That paragraph K, of the Amendment Provision and
Procedures of the Plan used to provide, in part as follows:
"K. Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan ma<)` be
granted only to correct an error in the Plan
or because of substantial change in the actual
conditions of an area which results in a
material discrepancy or disparity between the
conditions in the area and all or part of the
Plan."
Such a requirement was more restrictive than required under the
Local Planning Act and the Commission recommended an amendment to
Section K which deleted the idea that an amendment could only be
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
d CROOKSTON
PAGE 35
Atlomeysend
Counselors
P.O. Boz 427
Meridian, Idaho
1136/2
Telephone 811644111
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
6 CROOKSTON
AHo ys an0
Counaslon
P.O. Boz 427
MUWMn, kWW
891142
TaNPNona 0864461
• • N
granted to correct an error or change in actual conditions. The
recommended amendment was approved by the City Council and the
above is no longer a requirement to amend the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan. The Plan may now be amended to reflect "good planning" and
the desires and goals of the citizens and Council and Commission as
the citizens representatives.
7. That the Plan is what it says it is. It is a Plan. The
portions of the Plan set forth in Finding number 30 reflect that
the Plan "summarizes policies and proposals and does not develop
detailed site plans." The comment to the Policy Diagram indicates
that the Diagram is not "intended to be used as the sole,
authoritative means for decision -making ---not as a legalistic,
literal and definitive map." The Plan therefore should be liberally
construed but still maintained as the functional guideline for land
use decisions; i.e., the Plan policies and objectives cannot be
willy-nilly disregarded when there is an apparent conflict between
the Plan and a proposed use.
E. That the Commission has the duty to continually plan; that
the Commission treats amendments proposed by private entities as
part of that planning duty and function; the City cannot, and sho
not, be the sole initiator of possible amendments; the Commission
treats amendment applications as a means of bringing possible and
necessary planning changes to light.
9. At the time the Plan was initially adopted there was only
one interstate interchange and now there is an additional one
PACE 36
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
6 CR00KST0N
Atto eye and
Counmlme
P.O. Box 127
MMWin, WWK,
87514
TelepS 8054461
0 0 ft
planned for the Eagle Road/I-34 intersection; also at the time of
initial adoption of the Plan much of the Eagle Road/I-84 area was
not in the Urban Service Planning Area; likewise, sewer and water
had not been extended to Eagle Road. It is concluded that these
changes and others noted in the Findings, are substantial changes.
10. As was similarly concluded in the Upland Industries
Application to amend the Comprehensive Plan, it is likewise here
concluded that the above referenced changes warranted a review of
the Plan, and amendment of the Plan if deemed appropriate, regardl,
of whether the Applicant had submitted its Application. The
Application brought to light and focused in on the need to review
the Plan. The Commission now is required to assess not only the
Application but also whether those changes above warrant adopting
the proposed amendment and whether the changes of the Application
itself are in the best interest of the Plan and the City, and
whether they are desireable.
11. That the part of the Application pertaining to a regional
shopping center would have to be adopted to allow the development
intentions of the Applicant as set forth in the Application.
12. The main focus of the assessment of that part of the
Application pertaining to the designation of a site for a regional
shopping center is dictated by those factors mentioned in Findings
of Fact, paragraph 12 and 13, the Application itself, the facts
presented in the hearings or officially noticed, and the goals,
objectives, and policies of the Plan as it exists and the various
PAGE 37
s • 0*
planning components of 67-6508, Idaho Code.
13. That pertaining to the commercial activity center loca
performance and development standards contained in paragraph 12 of
the Findings it is concluded as follows;
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
&CROOKSTON
AHomeyn wM
Cwn"Iw PAGE 38
P.O. Bo. 127
MwWI1n, Idww
83842
TMIPhIMM 88&1461
TRAFFIC
Based upon the traffic study submitted by Upland
Industries Corporation and concluding that the
Claremont porposal would have a similar, if not
a greater, impact on the traffic of the area, it
is concluded that the Applicant's site, if
developed, poses a severe impact on the roads in
the area and that vast improvements would have
to be made to those roads and highways the cost
of which improvements were not specifically
addressed; that due to the 1% restrictions and
the public's attitude on bond issues, those
costs could not apparently be borne by the Ada
County Highway District; that unless contributions
to the costs of road improvements were made by the
Applicant, the traffic impact of Applicant's
development on existing roads in their present
condition dictate that the Application be denied.
That assuming the road improvements necessary
could be financed, governmentally or privately,
the site would have excellant accessibility for a
regional shopping center.
b. PROXIMITY TO OTHER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS
That due to experiences of I:archer Mall in drawing
business from downtown Nampa and Caldwell and due
to the Applicant's site being more than two miles
from existing retail in Meridian, it is condluded
that Applicant's location would be detrimental to
the City of Meridian.
C. IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL AREAS
That there would be a detrimental impact on the
surrounding residentail neighborhood if Applicant's
location were developed as a regional shopping
center; that this impact is of concern to the
Commission but it also realizes that the Plan
indicates that shopping, centers are to be integrated
into residentail areas.
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
S CROOKSTON
Att=eye e
Cmneelme
C.O. Box 427
MWWIan, Idetlo
83M2
Tekohq SBBNet
PAGE 39
• • N
d. AVAILAELE UTILITY SYST24S
That the City has present physical ability and
capacity to provide service to the area; that
even though the addition of the shopping center
would add 1,500 population equivalence (P.E.) to
the sewer use and there is an approximate
remaining capacity, the City already has
annexed an area that would require a treatment
facility capacity in excess of 50,000 P.E.
and the 1,500 additional would use up 10.71
of the remaining capacity; that the sewer line
extension is not of much concern to the Commission
as that would be borne by the Applicant but the
impact on the sewer treatment plant and the fact
the City has already committed, by annexation, to
serve such a great area, are of great concern to
the Commission.
That the Commission's concerns over water service
are met by the fact the Applicant would extend the
lines and provide a well and storage reservoir,
although fire flow requirements would have to be
met.
That the other utilities of gas, electricity and
telephone apparently are available; that while
not being utilities, fire and police protection
are of concern to 'the Commission and will be
discussed further below.
There was no evidence provided on the utility
requirements of the industrial portion of the
proposal.
e. AESTHETICS
That the aesthetic impact of a development at
Applicant's site was not detailed in the evidence
but such is not felt to be detrimental to the
Application.
f. USE IMPACTS UPON OTHER ADJACENT USES
That there would be some adverse impacts upon the
residentail uses immediately adjacent to Appliant's
proposed site for a regional mall and this would be
particularly true due to the increase of traffic
on the roads servicing the shopping center and the
subdivisions. However, it must be borne in mind that
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
6CROOKSTON
Attorneys ena
Counselors
P.O. Boa 427
Merl0len. laeno
$31m
Telephone 888.461
0 00
the Plan states in the Economic Policies at page
15 that Meridian should "support shopping facilities
which are effectively integrated into existing
residential areas." Likewise, it must be noted
that there will already be an adverse impact on
the adjacent residential areas due to the forth-
coming Eagle Road/I-34 interchange. This last fact
reduces, but does not remove, the concern the
Commission has regarding the impact of Applicant's
proposal on adjacent land uses.
The industrial proposal would not be an impact on
adjacent uses and would be compatible with the
industrial uses already existing in the Eastern
Industrial Review Area.
g. bRAINAGF
That drainage is not a problem or a drawback to
the development of a regional mall at Applicant's
location or the industrial development.
That as far as the location of a regional shopping center it is
concluded that the site itself, without considering needed traffic
improvements, the fiscal impact on the Citv including sewage treat-
ment, fire and police protection and the possible revenues to offset
those costs, and the possible loss of retail commercial establish-
ments from downtown Meridian, is probably a good location for a
regional shopping center However, the traffic problems and cost of
providing numicipal services are problems which would have to be
resolved. The possible loss of retail, is also of concern in that
the Plan also recognizes Meridian wants to retain it identity.
14. That since the Local Land Use Planning, Act requires the
City to consider several components in developing a comprehensive
plan, it is felt that the impact an amendment would have on those
components must'likewise.be examined or at least there must be an
examination of the components effected by the amendment; that these
components deal with more than just location of a shopping center
PAGE 40
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
&CROOKSTON
Attomoys spa
Cwne to
P.O. Bos 427
MSM1Yl, kWm
63642
Telephone 80&4461
0 9 90
site. Therefore it is concluded as follows:
PAGE 41
a. POPULATION
That under the lead-in paragraph of the Plan per-
taining to population and the other population
policies quoted in Finding 16a, it is felt that
a regional mall development at Eagle Road and
I-84 would not necessarily be orderly growth and
would tend to induce urban sprawl.
That the Applicant did detail the impact its
development would have on the copulation of
Meridian and it is felt that the population would
increase and the center would add a net gain of
employment to Meridian and contribute to Meridian
gaining self-sufficiency; however, a mall at any
other location in Meridian would do the same.
b. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
That a regional mall developed at Applicant's site
would meet the general policies of the Plan regardin
economic development. The Plan indicates that every
effort should be made to encourage industrial and
commercial enterprises to locate in Meridian and
that areas should be set aside where commercial and
industrial activities are to dominate. Applicant's
proposal definitley would meet those goals and
objectives, if it were developed. The proposals
would add jobs, both during construction and
upon operation. It would tend to reduce the need
to commute to neighboring cities. It would add
at least approximately $160,000,000.00 to the
retail sales in Meridian. It would add to the
property tax base and increase the income of
Meridian residents. However, a regional shopping
center at another location in Meridian would do the
same.
That as far as specifics under economic development
one of the major goals of the Plan for commercial
activity centers is that the regional shopping
center could become the central business district of
Meridian and that it would be the core commercial
activity within Meridian's Urban ServicePlanning
Area. The proposed amendment does change the above
goal and indicates that the Claremont site or the
Nahas site could become a core commercial activity
center. It is felt that the development of a mall
at I-84 and Eagle Road could shift the emphasis of
the City from the East First Street corridor to
Eagle and Fairview and make "Oldtown" oldtown.
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
6CROOKSTON
ABonxys sib
Coons on
G.O. Bos 027 PAGE 42
MwIdIon, IdOo
83642
T9egwu8B6441
0 0 00
C. LAND USE
That the Applicant's location would not create or be
strip commercial, however, it could be considered
to be or create sprawl in that there is a great
amount of undeveloped ground between developed
Meridian and Applicant's site.
d. PUBLIC SERVICES. FACILITIES AND UTILITIES
That portions of this component were discussed in
these conclusions dealing with Parcel 1 as a
location for a regional mall, however; additional
comments need to be made and, as this component
includes more than just sewer, water, gas,
electricity, and telephone, the undiscussed facets
need to be mentioned.
The Nahas representative, in objecting to this
Application, relied on the record in the Quong
Application which contained extensive findings
as to the cost to the City of providing sewer,
water, police and fire services to the site now
being considered. Those findings, particulary
regarding fire and police protection, indicate
that the cost of providing services to the
Applicant's site far exceed the revenues to
be gained from a shopping mall at that site.
Claremont provided only one comment that would
tend to make the fiscal picture a little 15righter
and that was that they concluded in the first
vear the additional property tax to the City from
Applicant's mall would be $130,000.00. That state-
ment, however, is not borne out after comparing the
Quong $90,000,000.00 facility to Claremont's
$100,000,000.00 facility. The Quong Finding found
that the capital improvement costs for police and
fire would be anywhere .from a low of $694,000.00 to
high of $1,203,000.00 and that the annual costs
would be anywhere from a low of $201,072.00 to a
high of $566,231.00. The annual revenues were
found to be anvwhere from a, low of $100,160.00 to a
high of $203,995.00.
That the City Council concluded in the Quong
conclusionsthat the costs of providing
municipal services to the Eagle Road/I-34 site
were prohibitive in relation to the possible
revenues. However, the City Council when they
considered the Upland location had before them
the same costs figures regarding the Quong site
and yet did not outright deny that application
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
SCROOKSTON
ABomeys NC
Counselors
R.O. Box 427
MerMlen, M
83642
Telepllwle 8@64181
based on costs but indicated they would give
Upland an opportunity to provide evidence that
a shopping mall would actually be constructed on
Upland's site at Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue.
e. TRANSPORTATION
That this component has previously been discussed
under the specifics of Applicant's Parcel 1 as a
site for a regional shopping center and those
conclusions should be reviewed as they are
applicable here as Applicant's site, if developed,
would have a severe impact on the transportation
of the City and the Urban Service Planning Area.
However, it is concluded that the development of
any other site as a regional shopping center would
create a similar impact; that if the City of
Meridian desires to have a regional shopping center
the traffic issues will have to be addressed and
solved.
f. HOUSING
That the development of Applicant's site as proposed
would impact the housing situation in Meridian but to
a favorable extent in that it would aid the house
construction industry; that there are sufficent
house lots available to meet the possible demand.
g. COMMUNITY 7ESIGCd
That it is felt the design of the City would be
changed as the result of a regional shopping
center on Parcel 1 in that it would create a
shift of the City to the East towards Boise.
15. That the impact on the air quality of Northern Ada
is stated by the Plan to be a standard in evaluating the development
of a regional shopping center. It is concluded that evidence on
this standard would have been beneficial but that the new auto
emissions testing program should help the air quality; that the
development of one site over another would not increase or decrease
the air quality and thus the lack of evidence is not deemed
detrimental to the Application; that the development of any regional
mall in Meridian is going to adversely impact the air quality.
PAGE 43
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
AttomsysarM
cw.ro
P.O. Box 427
87042
TOHWII na 8884481
0 • 00
16. That in light of the above conclusions on the
planning components and the air quality it is concluded that on the
whole Applicant's amendment would not have a great adverse impact or
population, economic development, land use, housing, or air quality
and certainly regarding economic development would have a beneficial
impact; that there would be an adverse impact on transportation and
that has previously been discussed but that adverse impact would be
the same if any regional mall were developed and will have to be
resolved whichever site is developed; that specifically under
population and in general under community design Applicant's
development of a regional center on Parcel 1 would tend to violate
the policy against urban sprawl, and would shift the emphasis of the
City to the East spreading it out; that considering the cost firidin€
contained in the Quong application, public services, facilities and
utilities would be more adversely effected by a regional mall locat4
at Eagle Road and I-34 rather than at Meridian Road and I-34 even
though the latter site would likewise adversely impact the public
services, facilities and utilities provided by the City of Meridian
17. That a representative of the Nahas site did object to
the present application based on the record and the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions in the Quong Application concerning this
same site; that it is concluded, as the City concluded in the
Upland Findings and Conclusions; that the Quong record and Findings
of Facts and Conclusions do not necessarily dictate a denial of
this Application; that there are significant differences between tht
PAGE 44
R.
AMBROSE,
FIT GERALD
6 CROOKSTON
Attomsys wd
O nmla
P.O. Box 121
MwMMn,MMo
536,2
TNlpNon666M01
factual situations concerning the Eagle Road/I-84 site when it was
presented by Quong as compared to this presentation: Those factors
which make it different are included in Findings 22 and 25.
18. That the Commission concludes that, even though the
Applicant's proposal pertains specifically to two parcels, the
Application effects the entire plan. The change from a single site
designation of a regional shopping mall to a two site designation
would effect many of the components of the Plan and their policies.
The original Plan is so oriented to the present Meridian Road/I-84
site that a change to add an additional site would ripple through
the Plan.
19. That one of the major themes, if not the most prominent
theme, of the Plan is that Meridian wants growth and development
which is orderly and balanced. This is evidenced by Finding 29.
Likewise, it is evidenced by the Plan at page 2:
"The goals, objectives and policies herein expressed
underline and shape the character and orientation of
Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. They deal with three
major concerns of the people of Meridian:
1) Orderly growth and developement;
2) Economic growth and balance; and
3) Improvement of the quality of life."
20. That throughout the Plan the theme and desire for econom
growth and jobs and self-sufficiency is repeated. One of the major
means the Plan states as achieving the above was, and is, the
development of a regional shopping center in Meridian. Much of the
Plan's focus is upon a regional shopping center. The Plan
specifically located the site for such a center as the Meridian Roa
I-84 intersection. This site designation may have been contrary to
PAGE 45
�c
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
&CROOKSTON
ABomeys YNI
Counselors
P.O. Boz 421
Mn101sn, Idaho
83542
• • N
the idea that the Plan is a general guideline and not a legalistic,
definitive document but at the time of adoption of the Plan it was
the only "site" in "sight." The area has changed. The development
of an additional interchange, the extension of the Urban Service
Planning Area and the extension of water and sewer lines make re-
evaluation of the Plan, and possibly the single designation of a
regional shopping center, appropriate. Whether there is one site
designated or two or more, the desire of the people of Meridian
is for a shopping center and the fact that the Plan strenuously
endorses a regional shopping center as a means to achieve economic
growth, jobs and self-sufficiency cannot be easily disregarded and
any proposal that would, in fact, be developed as a regional shoppi
center must receive serious consideration.
21. It can be, and is, judicially noticed that the people of
the City of Meridian would like to have a regional shopping center
located in Meridian. It can likewise be judically noticed that th
are and will be differences of opinion as to where such a center
should be located or what site has the better likelihood of drawi
tenants and of actually being developed.
22. The Commission concludes that the facts presented by the
Applicant and the officially noticed facts, are sufficient to amend
the Plan; that the facts, particularly that there has been a site
designated for a regional shopping center for some time and yet it
has not developed, that the Claremont site is serviced by two
principal arteriels, that there will soon be an Eagle Road/I-34
interchange, that sewer and water are getting closer to the eastern
edge of the Urban Service Planning Area, that if the Claremont site
PAGE 46
AMBROSE.
FITZGERALD
&CROOKSTON
ABorne"ene
Coun"Iom
P.O. Box 427
MnMWI, Mello
831142
TeWphl 8811e161
0 • so
were developed it would have less of an adverse impact on traffic
in the Downtown area, and that it is located on the major trans-
portation arteriel, I-84,in the Treasure Valley, ,present cogent
reasons for looking further into the designation of the Eagle Road/
I-84 site as a regional shopping center site.
23. That even though the Commission has concluded in
Conclusion 22 that the Applicant has presented sufficient evidence
to support an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, there are
several items of great concern to the Commission which must be
specifically and strenuously pointed out. These items are: 1)
the traffic improvements necessary and the costs thereof; 2) the
possibility of loss of retail business downtown and the shift of
emphasis of the City to the East; 3) the possibility of creating of
contributing to urban sprawl; 4) the possibility that the City
would have two or three sites capable of being developed as a
regional shopping center and yet no center; and 5) the cost of
providing City services,
24. That certainly, only one site in Meridian, if any, is
going to be developed as a regional shopping, center; that the tr
and cost of City services problems are going to exist whichever
site, if any, is developed and thus those concerns are greatly
nullified assuming the residents want a center at any cost.
25. That it has previously been concluded that the Plan is a
plan and should not dictate exact locations and that the designa
of Meridian Road/I-84 as the only site for a regional shopping cen
may have been in error; that the Commission takes judicial notice
PAGE 47
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
6CROOKSTON
Atto ys amE
Cm."Iem
P.O. Boz 427
MW W W, IdIM
63042
TSWVB 80461
0 0 00
of its own initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment which removes all
designations for regional shopping centers and makes the location of
such a center a zoning matter. The present Commission now believes
that the designation of one site for a regional shopping center was
a mistake and should now be corrected. By this statement, however,
the Commission does not indicate that it would necessarily approve
a zoning request by Claremont to have their resnecti've
sites zoned for a regional shopping center as the Commission still
has concerns over that site as stated herein.
26. The Commission concludes that since it believes the
designation of regional shopping centers should be a zoning matter
and taken out of the Comprehensive Plan arena, that the Applicant's
application should be granted. This conclusion is made even though
the Commission recognizes the site has its drawback's and which have
been referred to herein. The Commission, however, in addition to
its position on the zoning and regional shopping centers, concludes
that the statements, policies, and goals in the Plan and included
in Finding 30 outweigh the possible deletorious impacts of a
regional shopping center at Claremont's site.
27. The Commission concludes that even though the Applicant'!
site has its drawbacks it also concludes that all three sites have
their drawbacks, the most important of which, the Commission con-
cludes, is the failure to have the existing site developed when it
has been capable of being so developed for such a long time. The
Commission believes that the other sites should receive a chance to
see if they can prove their merit
PAGE 48
The Commission concludes that
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attomo" wd
Counwima
P.O. Boz IRT
MMOMn, WAIIo
831542
0 • ft
citizens of Meridian and 'the Area of Impact want a regional shoppin
mall in the City of Meridian or at one of the three proposed sites
and that all sites and developers should be afforded the opportunit
to succeed.
28. The Commission concludes that that portion of the
Applicant's proposal to have Parcel 2 designated as being included
in the Eastern Industrial Review Area meets the policies and guide-
lines of the Plan.
PAGE 49
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
&CROOKSTON
Atlor s rid
Coon"K,n
P.O. Box 427
MMdYn. MMn
OW2
TSIpMna OMM41
• M
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 Morrow
Commissioner Alidjani
Commissioner Johnson
Commissioner Shearer
Commissioner Cole
Chairman Spencer (Tie Breaker)
PAGE 50
Voted y
Voted eJ
VotedA,
Voted
Doted �
Voted-'
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
6 CROOKSTON
Attom * d
Cow"W.
P.O. Boy 127
Mariam, MM10
BBB12
TPMphm OBB 41
0 • 00
RECO:RQENDATION A
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian
hereby recommends to the Meridian City Council that the Application
of Claremont Development Company to amend the Meridian Comprehensiv
Plan be approved if and when Claremont Development Company can
provide !xxaA1oQe44e commitments from 3 major retailers which
commitments are satisfactory to the City Council.
APPROVED
PAGE 51
DISAPPROVED
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
Cm,n" S
P.O. Box 427
Mww1w, IOMG
83642
TGWPWW 81111,44611
RECOMMENDATION B
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian
hereby recommends to the Meridian City Council that the Application
of Claremont Development Company to amend the Meridian Comprehensi
Plan be approved,
APPROVED
PAGE 52
DISAPPROVED
E
TO THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE COMMISSION'S AMENDMENT
TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHILE I AGREE THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS INTENDED TO
BE GENERAL IN NATURE AND SHOULD NOT CONTAIN SPECIFIC SITES
AND DETAILS OF DEVELOPMENT. I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT DELETING
THE REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER SITES FROM THE PLAN.
I: BELIEVE THE HEARINGS ON CLARMONT, THE PLAN AND
FACTS ON CLAREMONT, UPLAND. AND OUANG ALL POINT
OUT THAT THE SITE OF THE REGIONAL. SHOPPING CENTER IS A
MAYOR IF NOT THE MOST INPORTANT COMPONENT OF OUR PLANNING
PROCESS AT THIS TIME.
0
THE WHOLE STRUCTURE OF OUR FLAN AND EVAN OF OUR CITY MAY
BE CHANGED AS A RESULT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OR LACK: OF
DEVELOPMENT AT ONE OF THE 7 SITES THAT HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED
AS REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER SITES TO DATE.
I FEEL THAT IN THIS ONE AREA WE SHOULD
DEVIATE FROM THE GENERAL THEME AND DEAL WITH EACH OF THE
SITES IN THE PLAN. IN FACT I THINK: THAT WE SHOULD
BE DOING MORE SPECIFIC PLANNING ON EACH OF THESE SITES AND
ATTEMPTING-, TO DEFINE IN MORE SPECIFIC TERMS THE IMPACTS OF
EACH AND FORMULATE CONTINGENT PLANS FOR DEALING WITH
THESE IMPACTS (WEATHER THEY BE FAVERABEL OF ADVERSE)
THEREFORE I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD NOT TAKE THE SPECIFIC
REGIONAL._ SHOPPING CENTER SITES OUT OF THE FLAN BUT SHOULD
INCORPORATE EACH SITE,ALONG WITH CONTINGENT PLANNING FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF EACH,INTO THE PLAN
R.C. SPENCER
AMBROSE.
FITZGERALD
d CROOKSTON
ANonnysu
Coun"Im
P.O. Box 477
Menolsn, Wart
67842
E
0
BEFORE THE MERIDIA?9 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S
APPLICATION TO AMEND
MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
FINDING6 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled application to amend the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan having come on for public hearing and the Plan-
ning and Zoning Commission having heard any and all testimony that
was submitted and having duly considered the evidence, the facts
judicially noticed and its own opinions and the matter, the Planni
and Zoning Commission makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of the public hearing on the application was
published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public
hearing scheduled for April 8, 1985, the first publication of which
was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was
duly considered at the April 8, 1985, hearing and was duly
considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission; that the
Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed
amendment on March 7, 1985, which hearing was held to take evidence
and testimony and to determine whether the application merited
further study; that copies of all notices were available to news-
papers, and radio and television stations.
2. That the proposed amendments are as set forth in the
Application which is incorporated herein by this reference as if
set forth in full hereat. That the application sets forth as the
PAGE 1
e.i
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
d CROOKSTON
AttomayxvlA
Counealm
P.O. Box 427
Memian, IC
BSM2
TQWPI n 11864461
E
L
reason and purpose of the amendment to make the plan general where
Commission felt it had become too specific and detailed.
3. That these amendments have been proposed by the Commiss
itself.
4. That at the public hearing held April 8, 1985, at 7:30
o'clock p.m., there was no public comment, either oral or written,
on the application.
5. That some of the proposed amendments are of a house
cleaning nature, some spelling corrections, the reorganization of
Commercial Activity Centers and the change in where Air Quality
should be placed as far as determining locations and development
of commercial activity centers.
6. That on page 1 of the Comprehensive Plan under FORWARD
NATURE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, it states as follows:
PAGE 2
TITTA
"The Comprehensive Plan is primarily a policy
document identifying policies to guide future
development within and outside of the City of
Meridian. The Comprehenisve Plan is recognizably
the primary step in identifying the quality of
life the City residents desire and relating goals
to its capacity to achieve particular end results.
It was developed with a broad base of community-
wide citizen input and is both sensitive to the
changing needs of the community and recognizes
a commitment to preserve the values identified by
the City residents.
NATURE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A Comprehensive Plan is an official document,
by local governments and public agencies, which
serves as a policy guide for decisions concerning
the physical development of a community. It
indicates, in a general way, how the community
may develop in the next 20 to 30 years.
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
&CROOKSTON
Attomsy0 and
Co Aqw s
P.O. Boz 427
Mw10Mn, kWw
85012
TMOp�on� BBF{M1
0 0
The essential characteristics of the Comprehensive
Plan are that it is Comprehensive, general, long-
range and represents a process --not a product.
Comprehensive_ means that the plan encompasses all
areas of
t e community and all functional elements
which bear on physical development. General means
that the plan summarizes policies and proposals
and does not develop detailed site plans. Long-
range means that the plan looks beyond the pressing
current issues toward the aspects of problems which
the community may face in the future. Finally, as a
process (not a product), the Comprehensive Plan is an
ongoing process for directing change that occurs
inevitably in a community --not a document that is
written once, for all time."
That on page 6 of the Plan under POLICY DIAGRAM it states
as follows:
POLICY DIAGRAM
"With the anticipation of growth and development
pressures during the next decade, the
Comprehensive Plan summarizes the potential
distributions of land use activities within the
Urban Service Planning Area that are based upon
policy recommendations. The Policy Diagram
attempts to make general designations of
appropriate and compatible land use, expresses
the ultimate growth of the Meridian community
if all the land were developed, and provides a
flexible framework for further detailed land
use decisions.
The Policy Diagram is to be used as a general
guide for land use decision -making --not as a
legalistic, literal and definitive map. As
applications and proposals of land uses are
submitted, the Policy Diagram is not intended to
be used as the sole, authoritative means for
decision-making. Rather, it is but one of the
many tools which are available for public
officials as they exercise their responsibility
regarding the health, safety and welfare of the
general public."
8. That on page 50 of the Plan under COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
REVIEW it states as follows:
PAGE 3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW
If the Comprehensive Plan is to be useful and
effective, it should not be filed away but
should be continually reviewed and updated. The
recommendations within the Comprehensive Plan
should not be interpreted as unalterable com-
mitments, but rather as a reflection of the best
foreseeable direction at a given point in time.
It is recommended by the Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission that at least a yearly review
shall be held of the Comprehensive Plan to update
and/or reaffirm the Plan to fit the changing
needs as well as unforeseen planning problems
and opportunities.
9. That on the Policy Diagram on page 7 of the Plan a
specific site is designated as the site for a regional shopping
center and this is in the northeast quadrant of the I-84/Meridian
Road Intersection; likewise, on the policy diagram a specific site
is designated for a community shopping center which site is at the
intersection of Fairview Avenue and East First Street; that the sam
specific designations appear on the Arterial Transportation Concept
Plan at page 32 of the Plan; that on page 34 under paragraph 8 ther
is a specific reference to Cherry Plazza; and that on page 37 there
is a specific reference to the named contract holder.
10. That on page 35 under RURAL AREAS it states that "the
Meridian Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances shall apply in the rural
areas which are outside Meridian's Urban Service Planning Area and
within the Meridian Impact Area; that the City of Meridian and Ada
County entered into Area of Impact Agreements under which the land
outside Meridian's City limits but within Meridian's Area of Impact
AMBROSE, are governed by the Ada County Comprehensive Plan-Rural Area Polici s.
FITZGERAIO
d CROOKSTON
PAGE 4
Anorn"s and
Coun,a ws
P.O. Sos 477
VAMIan. losoo
831144
TeNphons 88BA461
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
6 CROOKSTON
Anomsys u
Coons
P.O. Boz 427
MwIdion, WOO
B7b/2
Tehwho yBBBiMI
0 •
11. That OLD TOWN contains many commercial and retail business;
that it is not designated as one of the Commercial Activity Centers.
12. That the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Meridian in its
definitions of Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Center and Communi
Shopping Center contain square footage minimums and maximums.
PAGE 5
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
A CROOKSTON
Attorneys uM
Coonselm
P.O. Box 127
MWRfi n,kW,*
11]042
TeMPNone S$SI l
0 0
CONCLUSIONS
1. That the City has authority to amend its Comprehensive
Plan pursuant to Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and pursuant
to the Amendment Provisions and Procedures of the Comprehensive
of Meridian, as amended April 2, 1984.
2. That all notices and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian, and the Comprehensive Plan have been complied with.
3. That since the proposed amendments are proposed by the
Commission, the technical requirements for an amendment application
may be waived, and are hereby waived; however, the application itse
is concluded to meet the application requirements of the Plan's
Amendment Provision and Procedures.
4. That the function of adopting, amending or repealing a
Comprehensive Plan is a legislative function. Burt vs City of I
Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.2d 1075 (1983); that even though it is a
legislative function, the Local Planning Act requires that Findings
of Fact and Conclusions be made for any application provided for
in the Act.
5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of
governmental statutes, ordinances, and policies, and of actual
conditions existing within the City, County, and State.
6. That it is concluded that the amendments of 1) changing
the designation of I -84N to I-84 as a result of depicting the
PAGE 6
Lf
AMBROSE.
FITZGERALD
&CROOKSTON
Attomeyet
Coon"Iom
P.O. Box I
MMIEWt, MMa
83M
T*I*Ph tM 836418/
0
the freeway by its correct name, 2) some spelling corrections, 3)
the reorganization of commercial activity centers, and 4) the chang
where air quality should be placed as a consideration for locating
commercial activity centers, are house cleaning amendments and that
they are not substantive changes but are mostly semantic changes th
will have no effect other than to make the Plan easier to read,
understand and interpre'tand it is concluded that they are in the
best interest of the City.
7. That it is concluded that the specific site designations
for a regional shopping center and a community shopping center
throughout the Plan are contrary to the underlying theme and
substance of the Plan that it be general and that it not be a
legalistic, definitive document but a document that is used as a
general guide and not used as the sole, authoritative means for
decision making.
8. That it is concluded that the changes under RURAL AREAS
are dictated by the Area of Impact Agreement and Ordinances.
9. That it is concluded that OLD TOWN is a commercial activi
center and that it should have always been included under that
designation and that it was in error not to have done so.
10. That it is concluded that the definitions in the Zoning
Ordinance and the policies of the Plan should reflect the same
ideas and that the inclusion of the minimum and maximum square
footages in the Plan will only aid a better understanding of what
is allowed for those types of shopping centers.
PAGE 7
11. That the Amendments are in the best interest of a clear
understanding of the Plan and what is permitted and are in the best
interest of the City.
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
PAGE 8
ANornepe
GoonaNas
P.O. Box Q7
83842
TMp11 BB&4481
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
6 CROOKSTON
ABomys Ona
Coun"Im
V.O. Box 427
Mwwhm , M4Ao
83542
TOWPM M 9es4461
0 •
APPROVAL OF FINDINCS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
Commissioner
Morrow
Voted
Commissioner
Alidjani
Voted
�
Commissioner
Johnson
Voted Jas
Commissioner
Shearer
Voted
Commissioner
Cole
Voted�1
Chairman Spencer (Tie Breaker)
Voted
RECO14MENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council that the Planning and Zoning Commission's
proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments should be approved and
adopted.
APPROVED �� eq DISAPPROVED
PAGE 9
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
&CROOKSTON
Attom4ys sno
Coun"Im
P.O. Box 427
MM010n, k%ho
03042
TOIGPWO US 4401
•
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING# COMMISSION
RUSSELL MARTENSEN and JOHN DOBARON
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
521 E. 1st Street South
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
April 8, 1985, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioners
appearing in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City
of Mbridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter make
the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use
Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the sai
public hearing secheduled for April 8, 1985, the first publication
of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matt
was duly considered at the April 8, 1985 hearing; that the public
was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence;
and that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper,
radio and television stations;
2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian
and is owned by the applicant, John Dobaron, and is described as
Parcel #3660 of Government Lot 2, Section 18, T. 3N., R. 1E., Boiso-
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; and is known as 521 East First Street $-
3. That the property is located in a commercial district, whi
PAGE ONE
requires a conditional use permit for the operation of a mobile
sales lot and which is the use the application requests.
4. That a proper notice has been given as required by law and
all approvals and procedures before the Planning and Zoning Com-
mission have been given and followed;
5. That no persons appeared at the hearing objecting to the
use of the property as a mobile home sales lot;
6. That the property is presently used for commercial purposesj;
7. That at the public hearing there was no public comment
except for the applicants';
8. That the City Engineer commented that the sewer manhole
on the north side of the existing building must be kept free at all
times for access; that any sign meet the City's Sign Ordinance; tha
any additional sewer and water hook-up fees be required to be paid;
and that the applicant submit a plan showing the placement size,
and location of buildings, parking area, loading areas, traffic
access, traffic circulation, open spaces, landscapping refuse area
utilities, signs, and yards. Additionally, the Nampa and Meridian
Irrigation District commented that there shall be no encroachment
on the right-of-way for the Eight mile Lateral.
9. That a mobile home sales lot is allowed in a commercial
district under a Conditional Use Permit.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Plann
Act and of the Ordinances of the City of meridian have been met
I AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
PAGE TWO
ANorneys wd
Co 8~5
P.O. Boz 427
MSN81so, who
88642
TSNPh Y 8054461
— i. _+.8`.r" , __,
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys and
Counselors
P.O. Box 127
Meridien, Idaho
&9812
Telphon1886//81
0
0
including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300
feet of the external boundaries of the applicant's property and
having obtained the consent of 750 of the owners of property within
300 feet of the external boundaries of the applicant's property;
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional
uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of
the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho;
3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place condition
on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to
67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418(D) of the Revised and
Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho;
4. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances
of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review
applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of
those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the con-
ditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission specificall
concludes as follows:
a. The use, in fact, constitutEsa conditional use and a
conditional use permit is required by ordinance.
b. The use will be harmonious with and in accordance with
the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
C. The use will be designed, constructed, operated, and
maintained to be harmonious in appearance with the in-
tended character of the general vicinity such being des-
ignated for commercial uses.
d. That the use will not be hazardous or disturbing to ex-
isting or future neighboring uses.
PAGE THREE
AMBROSE.
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys end
Counsxxv
P.O. Sox 427
MMMIsn, IEsho
03042
TSNptIoM $064461
E
P
e. The property if not already connected to sewer and water
must be so connected and those services should be able to
be provided adequatley.
f. The use will not create excessive additional requirements
at public cost for public facilities and services and will
not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community
g. The use will not involve uses, activities, processes,
materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will
be detrimental to any person, property or the general wel-
fare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise,
smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
h. The applicant shall be required to have parking for the
property which shall be so designed as not to create an
interference with traffic and parking on surrounding public
streets and must meet the parking requirements.
i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction
loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major
importance.
5. That the Applicant shall be required to pay appropriate
rates for sewer, water, and trash and shall be required to pay for
any and all connection fees for water and sewer necessitated by his
uses. That the comments of the City Engineer and the Nampa and
Meridian Irrigation District are reasonable and must be complied wi
by the Applicant.
6. That the permit once granted shall be personal to the
Applicants and shall not be transferrable to other individuals or
property.
PAGE FOUR
0 0
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 Morrow
Commissioner Alidjani
Commissioner Johnson
Commissioner Shbarer
Commissioner Cole
Chairman Spencer (Tie Breaker)
Voted
Voted en1
Voted yj
Voted
Voted
Voted
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
Theileridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicants for the property
described in the application under the conditions stated herein.
MOTION:
APPROVED ✓
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
6 CROOKSTON
Attom"ss
CoonW
P.O. Box Ill
MnWgY10 PAGE FIVE
M
ese4x
DISAPPROVED