Loading...
1984 11-12 A G E N D A MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING NOVEMBER 12, 1984 ITEM: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD OCTOBER 9, 1984. (APPROVED) MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1984. (APPROVED) 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ROSS SIMERLY.(Attorney to prepare Findings) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LEON GINGRICH(Attorney to prepare Findings) 3. FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS. (APPROVED) f ~ • • MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING NOVEMBER 12, 1984 The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:30 p. m. by Chairman Bob Spencer. Members Present: Walt Morrow; Moe Alidjani; Jim Johnson; Jim S~h~Ler_- Tom Cole; Others Present: George & Margaret Strellner; Lloyd Howe; Leon Gingrich; John Ewing; Shelly Clark & Colleen; Ross & Lila Simerly; Gary Schaffer; Wayne Crookston; The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Johnson to approve the minutes of th.e previous meeting held October 9, 1984 as written. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Johnson and seconded by Cole to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting held October 18, 1984 as written. Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #1: Public Hearing, Conditional Use Permit for Ross Simerly: Chairman Spencer advised the Commission that there was two written comments received to be entered into the record which had no objection to this request, in fact they were in favor. One item was from the Oliason's who reside at 630 East Pine and one from A.E. Driscoll who resides at 533 East Pine. Mr. Simerly was present to represent his request. Mr. Simerly advised the Commission that the City of Meridian had received a complaint on his operation of a Radiator Shop from his home which had been in operation since 1978. He also stated he was retired and this was supplemental income and operated on a part time basis. Mr. Simerly advised the Commission that only one person who owned property in the area failed to sign his petition, this was the owner of the property directly to the East of him and at the present time was vacant property. The Owner of this property was not present at the Meeting. Chairman Spencer opened the meeting for public hearing. Mr. George Strellner, 527 East State, testified in favor of .the Conditional Use Permit for Mr. Simerly. Mr. John Hvezda, 635 East State, I have no objections to this use of the property. Chairman Spencer closed the Public Hearing. r (2) There was dicussion among the Commission Members regarding Ada County Highway District recommendations as well. as assessment on Water and Sewer should be required. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Alidjani to have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions on the Request. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole that the Findings reflect the Commissions recommendation of approval to the City Council and that the Ada County Highway .District recommendations not be enforced. Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #2: Public Hearing, Conditional Use Permit for Leon Gingrich. The Commission was advised the property was located in the Old Town Zoning and any construction other than single family required a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Leon Gingrich was present to represent this request. Mr. Gingrich stated he foresaw no problems with the Ada County Highway recommendations. Chairman Spencer opened the meeting for Public Hearing. Mr. John Ewing, 325 East Second, I own a duplex at this address and live in one side and am definately in favor of this project, would clean up area and be a great improvement for the City of Meridian in the Old Town District. Mr. Ewing also presented written testimony from Merlyn Schmeckpeper of 157 East Ada Street which stated he was also in favor of this project. No Further comments, Public Hearing closed. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Schearer to have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions on the Conditional Use Permit request by Leon Gingrich. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole that the findings reflect recommendation of approval by the Commission to the City Council. Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #3: Findings of Fact and Conclusions on Comprehensive Plan Amendments. (3) Chairman Spencer advised the Commission there were two sets of findings, one on the Commissions proposed Amendments and one on the Upland Industries request, that they would act first on the Commissions proposal. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions on the Planning and Zoning Commission proposed Amendments. Motion Carried: Morrow, Yea: Alidjani, Yea: Johnson, Yea: Shearer, Yea Cole, Yea: The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole that the Meridian PLanning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the Planning and Zoning Commission proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments pertaining to (1) the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure, (2) The Meridian Urban Limits Functional Transportation Map, and (3) the Area of Impact, be adopted by the City Council. Motion Carried: All Yea: Chairman Spencer does the Commission have any questions or comments on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions on the Upland Industries request? Commissioner Johnson, I notice in reading these Findings it speaks several times to not having sufficient evidence as to why this request should be granted. I feel that the Commission is partly at fault for not explaining what is needed and addressing the issues further. Chairman Spencer, is there anyone in the audience who wishes these findings read? There was no response. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Alidjani that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Motion Carried: Morrow, Yea: Alidjani, Yea: Johnson, Yea: Shearer, Yea: Cole, Yea: The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Johnsonthat the Meridian PLanning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council (1) That the Applicant's proposed amendment to remove from the North Curve Neighborhood the "Rural Residential Reserve" designation from the entire Northeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, of the Boise-Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and South of Fairview Avenue, be adopted. (2) the Applicant's proposed amendment to provide that the entire Northwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, of the Boise-Meridian, Ada County, Idaho be designated in the Comprhensive Plan as a site for a Regional Shopping Center but subject to conditions to be imposed at the time of proper zoning of the property, be adopted. Motion Carried: All Yea: (4) • Commissioner Morrow said he felt the City Attorney should be commended for the Findings of Fact that were prepared on this request, this also was the consensus of the rest of the Commission Members. Commissioner Morrow, at the recent workshop we all were of the opinion that there were several other items in the Comprehensive Plan that needed corrected and these have to be completed by February, I feel the Commission should start on them as soon as possible. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Alidjani to schedule a workshop on December 4, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. to start the process nec- essary to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Motion Carried: All Yea: Being no further business to come befor the Commission the Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Cole to adjourn at 8:10 p.m. Motion Carried: All Yea: ATTEST: `~ _. ~ Jack I~iemann, ~ity Clerk Mayor Council P&Z Commission Police, Fire, JUB Stuart, Ward, Kiebert, Atty, Hein, Mitich Valley News, Statesman ACHD, ACC, ACZ,NMID APA, CDH APPROVE . BO ENCER, CHAIRMAN File (3) Mail (3) . r, • Afilman aaa Plembera of the Meridian Flanndna & Zoning Commissions 'i'hare Gam Deea nothing which conla pomfbly be comiaered ob~sctioaaDle to the apsration.ot a radiator repair and taector Lire repair shop at 532 Seat Fine Street, Meridian, Idaho, under operation a~ ownsr• ship of Aoaa e~ bile Simerly Ye heertiP.,y endea~ae their npplicatimn for the lasnance o! n Co~ittoasIl IIae Fe~rmit to continue operation of this, buaiaeea• Not only ia, this Duaineaa ea aeaat to the community but brings a liwSihood to tha S1merTya. Ws lire directly across the street from the Simerlya and have forma ouraelwea in need of their services fsbm time to time. I~Era. Saelia P. Olieaon 603 Seat Pins Meridian, Id ~ __~~ Doris OIliaaoa 603 Ssat Fiae Meridian, Idaho r- . ~_ : • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING --~ --- -- i NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEbI, pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Peridian, and the laws of the State of Idaho, that a hear- . ~ ~! ~, ing will be held before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian, at the City Hall in the City of Meridian, 728 i ' t~;eridian Road, Meridian, Idaho, at 7:30 o'clock p.m., on the 12th ~ ~~ ~ I!~ day of 2dovember, 1984, for the purpose of considering the ap- ~i' plication for the issuance of a Conditional IIse Perr.~it to Ross ~', Simerly and Lila Simerly for the operation of a radiator repair and tractor ti re repair shop which shop has previously been operated as such since 197E at 532 Fast Pine Street, Meridian, Idaho, which location is more particularly described as Lot 1, F,1%2 of Lot 2, Blk I, Meridian Cottage Home .,ddition, records of Ada County, State of Idaho which property is zoned residentia L ', The public is welcome and all evidence, testimonial or documentary, shall be received. DATED this`~~-hday of October, 1964. JacK Niemann, City C]erk i ...,.NOS:,. ,FF<Lp 6LPJOnStOh o~~_.- .. aoe c .._.~s c ~ 5u ~4) uz ~. ~. metro E3v3 ~. -'a S'fi~~6~ •, ;` -i •. --~- -- ,, J Y r { ' ^ ~ ~n ;~-j~-ail-r?-{~~ - ! BIS:45~6 ) BI~9~.Un ~213~~G' ! ,T; ! I ~ I ~E. WASHINGTON AvE -- g.I Itiz~r~-cszez~~ Ira B -I>6 ' ~~ ~ '~i -__----. -" E ~~e~~-I~EII r~T- I -~~ ~ r~.A ~ K j 2 ,^~ ,~.( ~ r ~~ r- r ~~TfT~j?~TT74!, ~ .~'.sa] '. n~'6i0'',4 Sib ~l wlll) B_f\ -21 i '~A~~I ? i ~ ~.. rC'4[ Zf 242 .~2 ri, ue T~6~ ~ 9 9 l- I 1YI ,~ ~ ~A1:1 ~ ~ ~~ I i I , ,ice _ ~ - ~I E -~ ~ ~ -r-1 w T ~ ~^~-I ~•_~ _~~ ~ 5 Tv~-I ~ I Yi 1 , ~ T ~ _ ! ~ t~ ~'T ~'T--, V rrrT T T-rl i ,YT`ll~~ .n. I~ 4 1 3 2 i ~~ I E 5 ~~ p i 3 [ F- E t+ ~' z ~~ 6 c p i 3 ~ Z i I yp 5 6 8 N.,. ~.. a'~: c' 3 <, 5,6 B - ;. ~~ T 1 ~~~ ~ i 1.-~' U7 LI ._ ~ ~ ~J ~ ~ I ~, -(~ ~ .,.ir ~^~_<" ;~I LI ! 1 (n SI ~ _ ~..~....pG~~--t .-~....~ F -c-.~-C _L'....~'l E~.~r ~ ---I s- - ~ ti. I ~{ C!T- ~ - s~ i `TY ~S'~EI ~I^5.5~3~2.., 1g~6 14 5 6'' ~-.-~~~ '~'S2H .,2E 2.. L` 5 iE ) ~6 _ ~ ~ - ~~'` _ ~ i ' t. ~ i N "7.-~ ~ ._. l-I "t~~ ~'~ ~~~~ ~~ 'Ti ~-~.~-T-TTT .Y~r I -T t~~ ~i T '.., _ ~ ~ -r "jF r ._. - ~. .pS 4Zr ~n y.FF ..]2~ ,e,CSfi i- E' 4 i? J ~.~Cia."Ya. 81T 3F i,~.54 ice. IB E ! I ~. I ~! [b~Lt,'S/6y ,FYS _' 3Q5'~c ~<5.c ]FSk: 2'<".E ~ ~ 2i4? E Zi.. ~ c9o'.S6 P-L'!~ -, 'd'am ~ ---r T-r' T -/ i rn (' ~ r ~ ~~ //~~ tom. -r I _ _.~i... ,in i -.-~--. L Q T i-r~ i - ' T ~~T ~ l ~ j .'b) 5. ~B9! b'S,~3e E 5 ~_ 2. F)G 32 CPE~~E 2 I~~~~'_~3 c~ ~ jj it <~51~ a •-- .I Iz;c'se)Bei~o~ 1 s4.5 6 ~o~. ! u. .,<s B;zc. zi3 a"-~ r~._"~[!]-.I~~ =~~ i~~T~~ ~ I S a 3 2 0 9 b )6 e ~. O b 7 a D 2 11 _! I ~ ~ I ~i ' I I - I ~ 5 I V i I~. ~ ~- ~- - ~G ; I i ' (~~~/ 111 I `-f~ 1 1 II I .I I ', Q ~ i2 Sa ~51 ~ ' e a~a' y '. c pn' sq~t.K, '. - i i i '~ 3 p ., e t ., n _!v'E~ I~A"v ! ! _ r i - ~ 111~~~~~~. 1~=-i-1 TTY - ~'' 1 I 3p~5t~GT iEl (~~':2 a~S~6~:),.. ~'~Si i~[.'SI61 ]1 Blair~it~3`p~S~~) - ~~II •• • • BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONI2IG COM"4ISSION PLANNING AND ZONING CO2'L?-SISSION'S APPLICATION TO A21E2dD MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS OF'FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled application. to amend the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to the Amendment Procedure, the Meridian IIrban Limits Functional Transportation Map, anal the possible adoption of a new Area of Impact for the City of Peridian having come on for public hearing and the Planning and Zoninr_ Commission having heard any and all testimony that was submitted and having duly considered the evidence and its own opinions and the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission maY.es the follo~:ving: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of the public izearing on the application was published for two (2) consecutive wee Ys prior to the said public hearing scheduled for October 18, 1984, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the October 18, 1984, hearing and was duly considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission; that copies of. all notices were available to newspapers, and radio and television stations. 2.(a) That the proposed amendment on the Comprehensive Flan AMBROSE, FITZGERALD \CROOKSTON Altomaya NE CounealMs P.O. BOx 127 MMMMn, IAYro 6t6~R T~Npnm~BBBM\1 amendment procedures shortens the sequence of events in the Page 1 s • • • • amemdment process and enables the Commission and the City Council to process Plan amendments in a more timely and efficient manner; that the existing procedure requires amendments to be submitted six months prior to being finally acted upon, that a copy of the proposed procedure is on file with the City Clerk, and is hereby incorporated herein as set forth in full. (b) That the proposed amendment pertaining to the P-Seridian Urban Limits and Functional Classification Transportation ?tap is a housekeeping amendment to update the Transportation Classifications A copy of the map is on file with the City Clerk and is hereby incorporated herein as if set forth in full. (c) That the proposed amendment pertaining to the Area of Impact is an amendment which is necessitated by the fact an Area of Impact has been negotiated by the City Council and the Ada County Commissioners, that the Area of Impact is as filed with the City Clerk and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 3. That at the public hearing held October 18, 198x, at 7:30 o'clock p,m., there was no public comment, either oral or written, on the application. There ~s~as one written statement submitted at a prior hearing on the Area of Impact cahich was against the adoption o£ the Area of Impact. 4. That these amendments have been proposed by the Commission itself. AMBROSE, FITZG ERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attomays m0 CounsNOn P.O. Box t2T MwWW,MYro B9MY TMapMna BBBd/61 5. That the proposed amendments are, or will be, of a house cleaning nature. Page 2 '. .]:...: ~:. F :S.C ~ t • • • • • CONCLUSIONS 1. That the City has authority to amend its Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Title h7, Chapter C5, Idaho Code, and pursuant to the Amendment Provisions and Procedures of the Comprehensive Plan 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 and are, or will be, of a house cleaning nature, the technical requirements for an amendment application may be waived, are hereby waived. 4. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government+ statutes, ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City, County, and State. 5. That pertaining to the amendment procedures the existing six months or more, from application to decision by the Com- mission is concluded to be too long for most amendments, 6. That all the amendments are concluded to be required by am error in the Plan or by a change in .the actual conditions of the area. 7. That since the proposed amendments are technical in nature and generally are, or will be, house keeping measures, the proposed amendments are hereby conl.uded to be in the best interest AMBROSE, FITZGERALD Of the Plan and the City. dCROOKSTON A"~ °„ii°, Page 3 P.O. ew {7/ MMMMn, WYw NMY ~ TMpl~aisMNM1 ... - J ` i • • • APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The PMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Roll Call Commissioner "Morrow Voted ~oS Commissioner Alidjani Voted .s Comrnissioner Johnson Voted Commissioner Shearer Vote d Commissioner Cole Voted ~C.s -t"~ Chairman Spencer (Tie Breaker) Voted RECONLMENDATION The ;Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends AMBROSE, FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON to the City Council that the Planning and Zoning Conunission's proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendrnents pertaining to 1) the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure, 2) the D4eridian Urhan Limits Functional Transportation Map, and 3) the Area of Impact br AJe/7: ~ 1 y T4 c, r Pco ~ ~. APPROVED DISAPPROVED ANOmsys.n0 Q ca,~..l«. Page P.O. Bov APT M~rIGn, MNo BJN7 T~MpNa'N lBB~1l7 II a • • • BEFORE THE PIE?IDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING CO"4~1ISSION UPLAND INDUSTRIES APPLICATION TO AMEND THE :'-4ERIDIAN COMP';EHENSIVE PL;~.N FINDINGS Of' PACT ~.ND CONCLUS~I`•N The above entitled application to amend the Meridian Cor.:nrehensive Plan having corne on for. public hearinc- and the Plan- nine and Zoning Cormmission having held a c~rorkshop on said applica- tion and having i~eard any and all testimony that was su}~mitted, including the review of some of the record from a prior Comnrehen- live P1=.n Amendment and annexation request which concerned a renio al s'szo^?;~ing cente-, and having duly considered all the evidence, officially noticed evidence, and facts, the Comprehensive T?lan itsel~, the Local Planning Act of 1975, the Planrinc~ and Boning Commission makes the following: FILdDIidGS OF FACT AMBROSE, FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON AIIOmsys an0 Counselors P.O. Boz /Z7 McNCbq IGNo 83612 TsISpMM BBBNEI 1. That the application eggs submitted b-~ Upland Industries Corporation and is not an amendment proposed by tiie Conr^.i ,lion or the City Council. 2. That the speci_`ic parcels o` pro^.e.rty to erhich the applica- tion pertains are the Nortln•:est Quarter of Section 9, Township North,ftanae 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, ('~ereafter referred to as Parcel 1) ~.vhicir is cor~monl~~ knocan as the Southeast Corner of the intersections of Eacle ::oad and Fairview Avenue, and r;~5e , ,~ • ~ ~ • the Northeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Ada County, Idaho, (hereafter referred to as Farcel Boise Meridian , 2) which is commonly knocun as the Southwest corner of the inter- section of Eagle Road and Fairvieca Avenue. 3. That the two specific parcE:ls included in the application are contained within "leridian`s Area of Impact as recently negotiated between the City and Ada Count;; the parcels are included within the Urban Service Planning Area and have been in t'.ie City limits for over two years. The Parcels were zoned industrial at t'.e time of their annexation and are presently zoned Light Industrial pursuant to the recently enacting Zoning Ordinance. 4. The Comprehensive Plan Policy Diagram appears to designate the area within which the two parcels are located as being in the "Eastern Industrial Review Area" and in the "Rural Residential Reserve" of the "North Curve Neighborhood." The Plan also general- ly designates one site for a regional shopping center, t'_Zat being at the I-84/M.eridian Road Interchange. In order to develop Farcel 1 as a regional shopping center the Applicant's proposed amendments pertaining to a regional shopping center must be approved. Like- wise the Applicant's amendments to remove the "Rural Residential Reserve" from Parcel 2 should be approved to allow the proposed industrial development and rerlove the possible conflict that exists betraeen the Plan and the present zoning of Parcel 2. 5. The application has been processed under the Amendment nMenosE, Fro vision and Procedures of tie Flan as set forth on paces 5~, 55, FITZGEfiNLD acnooKSroN and 56 of the Plan. ~ttomaya Ntl Counselors F. Pursuant to the Rmendrnent ?rovision and Procedures of the P.O. Boz t2r MetlObn, IENO B3B12 ', r.l.ononeeee~ue+ Fage 2 • • • • AMBROSE, fITZG ERALD &CROOKSTON Attorney! entl Counaebn P.O. Box /2] Merltllen, IENo &7B/2 Tsleplane BB6/N1 Plan, the Application was found to merit further study after the requisite and duly noticed public hearings were held and a Com- mission workshop; 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. 7. Subsequent to the determination that the Application merited further study the Commission held a duly noticed workshop on the Application on September 10, 1934, a duly noticed public hearing on October 18, 1984, as required by Title 67, Chapter 55, Idaho Code and the Plan, and held an additional duly noticed workshop on Dloverrl~er 1, 1984, to consider the matter; that no changes have been made in the Application or Proposed Amendment. 8. The Application addresses the Amendment requirements under Amendment Provision and Procedures set forth at page 54 of the Plan; the Applicant's reasons why the Plan should be amended are recited in the Commissior~ earlier Findings of Fact eahen it deter- mined the Application merited further study. 9. 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 that the "P.ural Residential Reserve" designa- tion of the Plan be removed frora Parcel 2. The Application continues in specific terms to request specific changes to the Policy Diagram and to many of the ~~oliries and objectives of the various components of the Plan such that the Plan's focus on a Page 3 .. 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 shopping center portion of the Plan, but with other components of the Plan that would be effected by a two site designation, one at Eagle Foad and Fairview and one at Meridian Road and I-8n. However, the requested changes are mainly a result of two site designations. The Application, however, requests that even in the event the Eagle Road/Fairview Avenue site is not approved for a regional shopping center, that approval be given for removal of "Rural Residential Reserve" designation South of Fairview Avenue so the present Light Industrial zoning is definitely not in conflict with the Plan. 10. The Application sets forth in paragraph Seven as follows: "It is respectfully submitted that the suitability for a regional shopping center of this location at the intersection of Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue in the City of Meridian will be amply demonstrated by the testimony and exhibits to be introduced at the hearings on this cause, which will consist generally of reference to the suitability of the site itself for development, transportation access to and from the site, demographic study of trends for the growth of the City of Meridian and Northern Ada County and the Tranportation Plan for Northern Ada County, together with Petitioner's proposed improve- ments to be made to the property." AM 9ROSE, FITZGERALO B CROOKSTON Attorneys anE Coun9el0ra D.O. Boc 127 MerfEl•n, IOMo exaz Talaplwna 8B8•Mt The Applicant presented to the Commission no testimony or exhibits at the hearings held on this Application along the lines re- presented by the above .quoted statement. 11. That the Plan, in dealing with Commercial Activity Centers of which a regional shopping center is one, states as follows under Page • Commercial Activity Centers at pages 19 ,. 20: REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER: .?~s the largest of the Commercial Activity Centers, 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 Residential Areas Accessibility of Site Parking Demands Pedestrian Circulation Available Utility Syste~Ts Aesthetics jDesign Considerations) Drainage Meridian is encouraging the potential development of a Regional Shopping Center near the Meridian/Kung Road Freeway interchange. G;tzen it becomes a reality, it will have a significant impact upon r",eridian 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 sup- porting commercial uses (such as office complexes, multi- family residential units, medical clinics, motels and entertainment facilities). POLICIES AM BROSE, FITZGERALO B CROOKSTON Attomeya anE Counselors P.O. Box IZ] McNOlsn, IAMo BBBIZ NspKpro BBBa181 It is the policy of the City of A^.eridian 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. The evaluation of the Regional Shopping Center development shall be primarily based upon its consistency with the land use policies of *^er- dan'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 established, the evaluation and review of the Regional Shopping Page 5 • Center development shall he conducted through an Environmental Impact Analysis procedure. AMBROSE, FIRCaERALO dCROOKSTON AROmsys nM Counsslaz The Applicant in its Application addressed the standard of availa- bility of utility systems and the drainage but did not address the other standards for the location of a commercial activity center. Likewise, the Applicant did not address the effect his application would have on land use policies or the air quality plan of northern Ada County which are stated above to be primary factors in con- sidering the development of a regional shopping center. 12. The Local Planning Act of 1973 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. At the public hearincs the Applicant did not address how the above planning components would be effected by its proposed amendment or whether hose components would be effected at all. 13. At page 7 of the Plan, the Policy Diagram indicates that a regional shopping center site is designated in the nort'ieast quadrant of the T4eridian Road/I-84 Interchange. The Application would add an additional site at the southeast quadrant of Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road but would not remove the `teridian Road site. 14. 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 Page 6 P.O. Boz 11] MwMin,MNo B9Mt • Regional Shopping Center, northeast of the I-84/J•teridian Road Intersection" or such other single reference terminology that the Applicant's requests 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 cneter. 15. That at the hearing held before the Commission on October 18, 1984, testimony was presented by James W. Kiser, representing c4r. Nahas and P4elvin Simon and Associates who own the tiieridian Road/I-84 shopping center site; that the testimony objected to the adoption of the applicant's proposed Plan Amendment; that Mr. Kiser based his objection on the testimony his client put into the record during the Quong-Watkin Properties Annexation request and associated Comprehensive Plan Amendments hereafter referred to as the'huang Record." That it was unclear from "•ir. Kiser's statements whether he solely based his objection on the prior testimony submitted or whether he also requested that the Com- mission take official or judicial notice of the testimony he and his clients has submitted in opposition to the Quong-Watkins Annexation and accompanying Plan Amendments. That the Commission members familiarized themselves with ~MBROSE, FIRGERALO 6 CROOKSTON AR«n.y. ma cW~.~a, P.O. Bax 121 MwMlan, MYro l2M2 TMplgro lB61M1 i3. _ ..... ._ the Quong record including specifically the Findings of Pact and Conclusions; that the Commission sees some similarities with the Quong-Nahas situation and the Upland Industries-Nahas situation; however, it also sees some significant dissimilarities and additi ally sees some similarities between the Nahas site and. the Upland site. Page 7 • • • w 16. The similarities, cahen comparing the Quong Eagle Road site and the Upland Eagle Road site which rnight dictate deniel of the Upland Application, are as follows:. a) Neither site is adjacent to the existing retail center of Meridian; b) Both sites may require greater service costs for water, sewer, police and fire protection, than the rleridian Road site; c) The revenues to the City of tderidian from a regional shopping center at either site may not offset the expenses to the City; d) The basic property tax structure has not changed since the Quong Annexation request. 17. The dissimilarities, or in some cases similarities,between the Quong site and the Upland site and the record in each case which might lend support for approval of the present Application are as follows: a) The Quong site was not already annexed to the City and zoned, as the Upland site is; b) The Quong site, to become annexed and a reality require an annexation route that went south of the interstate to encor~ipass lands that would not have been serviced by water and sewer even thouoh annexed. AMBROSE, FITZG ERALO BCROOKSTON A1tOmeys xW Couneslwz P.O. Boz IRT MwMIn,MYa B3E/2 c) tduch of the Quong site was not included in the then existing Urban Service Planning Area; d) Plater and sewer lines are presently being extended to land adjacent to the Upland site by the Applicant at its cost; e) Police and fire vehicles would not be required to tray outside the City limits when taking the quickest route to the Upland site; f) The site is already zoned industrial and adjacent land is presently being developed industrially; Page E • g) The Upland site does not .have as much adjacent existing. residential property which could be impacted adversely by development. h} The Upland site is already serviced by Fairview Avenue, a four lane principal artereal; i) The Eagle Road intersection at I-8n is planned to be developed into an interchange; j) The Upland site is a little closer to *4eridain's existing retail center and is connected to that existing retail by Fairview Avenue which is likely to be developed commercially as evidenced b_y the commercial development along Fairview toward and in Boise; k) The Upland site is closer to Boise where the majority of people in the Treasure galley are :rho would use a regional shopping center and yet the upland site is still in rgeridian".s City limits. 18. The similarities and dissimilarities bebA~een the Upland site and the Nahas site which might tend to lend support to approval of the Upland Application or at least make it a toss-up as to which site is preferable are as follows: a) Both sites are already in the urban Service Planning Area and the City limits and zoned; b) Both sites will soon have water and sevrer services adjacent to the land; c) The City is already obligated to provide fire and police protection to the sites regardless of cost albeit one may cost more than the other: d) Neither site if developed as a regional shopping center will increase the revenues of the City significantly and for sure not enough to pay for the costs of service e) The transportation impact on t'~e present downtown of tderidian would be less if the Upland site were develope AMBROSE, FITZGERALD d CROOKSTON AKOrnays rM c~~.a«. P.O. BoK t27 MMWMn,MMo 0.9N2 TN~pllwuBl6{Nt f) The Nahas site has been annexed and zoned and capable of being developed as a regional shopping center for almost ten years and yet the major retailers have not decided to locate at that site. Page 9 =a 's :. • 19. That the above facts pertaining to the Upland site, other than those pertaining to water, sewer and drainage, have been obtained from the material submitted during the nuong Annexation and accompanying Plan Amendment either by the Nakias people or by the Quong people or have been officially or judicially noticed by the Commission; some. facts, in addition to those referenced above, which the Commission has taken notice of are as follows, some of which may have already been stated above: a) The Applicant's land is in ^4eridian's Area of Impact and Urban Service Planning Area; b) The land is annexed and is presently zoned light industrial; c) Sewer and water lines are presently being extended by the Applicant to service its industrail ground in the southwest quadrant of the Eagle Road/Fairview Avenue intersection and thus water and sewer. lines will he adjacent to the Applicant's proposed site of a regional shopping center; d) The proposed site is serviced by two principal trans tation arteriels, Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road; e) The State of Idaho Department of Transportation has existing plans for construction of an interchange at Eagle Road and 2-84 and designation of Eagle Road from Fairview Avenue to I-84 as part of. U.S. Highway 30; that there will thus be two interstate interchanges in the Urban Service Planning Area; f) That since the land is already in the City, it has the obligation to provide municipal services to the land, those being specifically police and fire protection and cvater and secaer; AM BROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON AKOmeys ~M COU11NIpD P.O. BOa X27 Msrl0lr~, M,No BBHt q) There is very limited residential development near the Applicant's land and what is there is sparse and limited to farm homes and buildings; Fage 10 • , • h) That the industrial zoning of the southwest quadrant of the Eagle Road/Fairview Avenue intersection may be in conflict with the "Rural Residential P.eserve" designation of the Plan; i) when the 1973 Meridian Comprehensive Plan was adopted the only suggested site f_or a regional shopping center was at Meridian Road. and I-84; also the only inter- change in the Meridian Area of Impact or Urban Service Planning Area was at that site and now there is one planned for Eagle Road and I-$4; j) The Meridian Road shopping center site has been an- nexed and zoned for at least 10 years and has been capable of being developed as a regional shopping center for that amount of time and yet no center has been constructed nor does it appear one will be soon. 20. That the following goals, policies, and objectives in the Plan are noted: p.8 "GOALS OF THE COP4PREHENSIVE PLAN Goal 3: To encourage the kind of economic gro~rth 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 "l. The City of Meridian intends to plan for the periodic reviewing, monitoring and updating of land uses within the Area of Impact and the Urban 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" AMBROSE, PIRGERALD acROOKSror+ Attan~ys uM Cqunsalore R.D. R(1R 42] M~rWIAn, 10Yio ~~ TN~p~on~aBBaN1 p.14 EONOMIC DEVELOPMENT "Stimulate, encourage and give perference to those Page 11 ~ • types of economic activities and developments which provide opportunities for the employment of. ?4eridian citizens and area residents and reduce the need for persons to commute to neighboring cities. "The City of t?eridian and its residents view the economic enterprises of industry, retail commercial 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 opportnities, To accomp- lish the above objective, the Comprehensive Flan provides for INDUSTRIAL REVIELV AREAS, COk4~4ERCIAL ACTIVITY CENTERS and D1I`;ED-USE RF,VIEW AREAS. "INDUSTRIAL REVIE:V AREAS The Comprehensive Plan intends to prepare for Meridian' 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 DEVELOPt1ENT, POLICIES "2. Every effort shall he made by the City of *terid- ian to encourage commercial and industrial growth and development cahich furthers employment and economic self-sufficiency and reduces Meridian's present reliance on Boise's r4etropolitan economic and employment center." p.53 OTHER PROJECTS "2. Support and encourage development of Commercial Activity Centers Regional Shopping Center .... ,~ 21. The following statements of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan are noted: p.l FORWARD AM BROSE, FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON AttaMy! Yq CwnNbrs P.O. BOa /3] MMWI~n, Malmo OJ01II T~Mplan!!lB~M1 Page 12 • • "The Comprehensive P1a.n is primarily a policy document identifying policies to guide future development ~uith- in and outside of the City of Teridian. The Compre- hensive Plan is recocnizably the primary step in identifying the quality of-life .the City residents desire and relating croals 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 ident- ified by the City residents. NATUP.E OF THE COh4PREHENSIVE PLAN A Comprehensive Plan is an official document, adopted 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 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 the community and all functional elements which bear on physical development. General means that tine elan 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 aspect of problems which the com- munity may face in the future. Finally, as a process (not a product), the Comprehensive Plan is an ongoing process for elirecting change that occurs inevitably in a community---not a document that is c•*ritten once, for all time." p.14 "CONLMERCIAL ACTIVITY CENTERS Retail commercial and office development are frequent partners within Commercial Activity Centers. Soth general categories often share locational needs and often prove mutually supportive. In order to coordin- ate with the supportive areas of residential and industrial developments, areas should be set aside as Commercial Activity Centers and their development carefully guided." p.15 "ECONO!4IC POhICIES RGERALD BCROOKSTON 1. The City of Meridian shall make every effort to Almmsy~ vM CounNlon P.O. Boa J2] ~~.~ Page 13 ex~z e.Pno~~eee+ai create a positive atmosphere which encourages industrial and conuiercial enterprises to locate in Meridian. 2. it is the policy of the City of *lridian to set aside areas where commercial and industrail in- terest 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 economic development. 6. 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. 8. The City of reridian intends to establish Commerc Development Design Guides which: a. Provide for the grouping of commercial buildi on a single parcel of land in such a manner as to create a harmonious, efficient and convenient retail shopping environment:" p.6 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 Polic Diagram attempts to make general designations of appropriate and compatible land use, expresses the ultimate growth of. the ^4ridian .community if all the land were developed, and provides a flexible framework far further detailed land use decisions. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attonroys uM GOUnN10A P.O. BOx IT/ MMOIN, MWo Ilplgn~ B!&N! (f ~t- r~. Page In 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. p.50 COMPREHENSIVE PIlP.N REVIE6;~ If the Comprehensive Plan is to be useful and effective, it should not be filed away but should be continually reviewed and updated. The recom- mendations within the Comprehensive Plan should not be interpreted as unalterable commitments, but rather as a reflection of the best foreseeable direction at a given point in time. It is recommended by the !`leridian 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. 22. That there was no testimony at any of the public hearings contrary to the Applicant's request except at the last public hearing when James LV. Kiser, representing the owners of the Meridian Road site spoke in opposition; that no public comment was received from persons not having an economic interest in either the Meridian Road site or the Eagle Road/Fairview Avenue site. CONCLUSIONS AMBROBE, F172GERALD B CROOKBTON ANOmeys nE R.o. Bo: ~zT MM04n, bMo ax/z rwplw»ees++ei 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Peridian Comprehensive Plan, hereafter refered to as the Plan, and of the Local Planning Act, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code , in- cluding all notice and hearing requirements, have been met; that the Commission has authority to amend the Plan. 2. That Upland Industries Application to amend the Plan ~.aas Pace 15 i ~ ~ • initiated by the Applicant and not by the Commission or the City Council. 3. That the Commission may take judicial or official notice of existing conditions in the City „County and State and of govern- mental actions, policies, and .ordinances. 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 F.2d 1075 (1983). That even though this is a legis]ative function, the Local Planning _~ct requires that Findings of .Fact and Conclusions be made for any application provided -for in the Act. 5. That the Application itself was previously concluded to have met tze requirements of the Amendment Provision and Procedures of the Plan and such conclusion is reaffirmed. 6. That paragraph K. of the Amendment Provision and Procedures of the Plan provides in part a.s follows; "k. Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan may be granted only to correct an error in the Plan or because of sub- stantial 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." That this Application has been processed under the above require- ment and must be judged on that basis; hotaever, it is noted that such a requirement is more restrictive than allowed or required under the Local Planning Act; that the Commission itself has recommended an amendment to Section K which removes the idea that AMBROSE, FITZGERALD an amendment may only be granted to correct an error or change BCROOKSTON Anomaye ano page 16 Coun/ebn P.O. BOx/27 MsrMl~n. MNo B~!/2 KpBaMlB6Wt Mgt:.'-1~ Ilf~ ~' J ~ 1 ~ . ~ - - .,..s ~.k ,. ..,r..~,kt ,..x r ,.. • AM BROSE, FIRGERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attwnsy..nC CounNlwe v.o. ao: ~x~ MuMMn, W.Iw e~e.x T.ISpIgM BBB..l1 in actual conditions; such restrictive requirement caas an error in itself since it is difficult to plan for the future and make necessary changes when the Con•,cnission and Council must be guided by actual conditions. Such is a conflict in terminology and the function of a Comprehensive Flan to "plan." 7. That the Plan is what it says it is. It is a Plan. The portions of the Plan set forth in Finding number 21 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" k>ut "is to be used as a general guide for land use decision-making---not as a legalistic, literal and definitive map." The Plan therefore should be liberal construed but still maintained as the functional guideline for land use decisions; i.e., the Plan policies and objectives cannot be willy-Hilly disregarded when there is an apparent conflict between the Plan and a proposed use. 8. That the Commission has the duty, as does the City Council, to continually plan; that the Commission treats amendments propose by private entities as part of that planning duty and function; the Commission cannot, and should 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 planned for the Eagle Road/I-84 intersections also at the time of Page 17 • initial adoption of the Plan the Eagle Road/Fairview Avenue area was not in the City limits and some of it not in the Orb an Service Planning Area; likewise, sewer and water was not to or adjacent to the land owned by the Applicant. It is concluded that these changes and others noted in the Findings, are a substantial change in the actual conditions of the area, and even of the entire Urban Service Planning Area, which has resulted in a substantial change in the actual conditions of the area which resulted in a material discrepancy or disparity between the conditions of the area and all or part of the Plan sufficient to meet the requirements of paragraph ::. of the Amendment Provisions and Procedures of. the Plan AMBROSE, FITZG ENALD 6CROOKSTON Attamsye rM COUnNIOp P.O. Bo>t,7/ MMEMn, MYa C9MII TNplwn~ M6M01 10. It is likewise concluded that the above referenced changes warranted a review of the Plan, and amendment of the Plan if deemed appropriate, regardless 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 caould have to be adopted to alloca the development intentions of the Applicant as set forth in the Application; that the Application pertaining to the removal of the "Rural Resident- ial Reserve" south of Fairview Avenue should be adopted to conform the Plan to the fact that the area is zoned Light Industrial. Page 18 • ~ • 12. That since "Rural Residential Reserve" is defined in the Glossary of the Plan at page 58 as: "Areas of the Urban Service Planning Area which are intended for specified future use (residential or industrial).;..." and them Parcels 1 and 2 could easily be found to be located in the Eastern Industrial Review Area, and becuase there is very sparse residential development in the area and because Fairview Avenue caould he a buffer between possible residential development north of Fairview and industrial development south of Fairview, it is concluded that that portion of the Applicants' Application requesting removal of_ the Rural Residential Reserve .from Parcels 1 and 2 should be c?ranted. 13. 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 11 and 12, 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 if it were amended. 14. The Application and the testimony in its favor dealt with sewer, water and drainage; it dealt with the fact that Meridian has an existing regional shopping center location but yet it has not been developed as one for probably over ten years; the Application concludes, without support, that the Applicant's Parce 1 is "amenable to development of a Regional Shopping Center" and makes conclusionary remarks as to the public need and benefit from AMeaosE, FITZG ERALD fiCROOKSTON its proposed Plan Amendment. The Application states that the AHOmpys M0 COYAMIOf! "suitability of the Eagle Road/Fairview Avenue as a regional P.O. BOx /Z] MvWIY~, IANo 830' Page 19 r.IwnoA.eesuei I AM BROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON I Attw~roye rW CoonMkrt P.O. Box 177 MwW n. bNo Bb17 • • shopping center site will be amply demonstrated by testimony and exhibits to he introduced at the hearings.'" No such testimony was subitted. However, the process of this Application is not completed in that the City Council must consider it and at least one hearing must be held at which time such testimony could be presented. 15. Other than those items mentioned in paragraph 14 above, the Applicant did not address the standards for the location of a commercial acitivty center contained in Finding Pdo. 11; nor were the Planning Components of Section 67-6508, Idaho Code, addressed. 16. That the representative of the owners of the meridian Road/I-84 site objected to the approval of the Application based on the testimony those owners had submitted into the Quong record. The Commission concludes that while many of the costs objections to the Quong Application apply to Upland Application they also apply to any regional shopping center that is developed in the City limits. Certainly, the costs are greater the farther the development is from the existing services or means of service. However, the significant differences between the Quong Application and this Application and which make comparison difficult and in many cases useless are: 1) Uplands' land is already annexed, 2) the City must provide municipal services regardless of the nature of the development, and 3) sewer and water are or will be adjacent to the site, all three of which were differences in the Page 20 ~s sf .. .-;3 :: f., i ~ • ~ comparison between the Quong site and the Nahas site which were felt to make the Nahas site more desire able when comparing those two sites and are not reasons to deny this Application, but supporti~t. Additional differences are that the Upland site is a little closer to existing Deridian retail, the site is located on Fairview Avenue which has historically proved to be a good location for commercial activity as evidenced by development in Boise and at Cherry Plaza in Meridian, the site is already served by two principal arteriels, and there would be little if any impact on residential areas. 17. It is thus concluded that the Quong record does not dictate deniel of the Application but may lend evidence for apuroval. 18. That one of the major themes, if not the most prominent theme, of the Plan is that Meridian wants growth and development whic'_i is orderly and balanced. This is evidenced by PindincT 20. Likewise, it is evidenced by the Plan at page 2~ "The goals, objectives and policies herein expressed underlie and shape the character and orientation of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. They deal with three major concerns of the people of eridian: 1) Orderly growth and development; 2) Economic growth and balance; and 3) Improvement of the quality of life." AMBROSE, FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON ARam~ye rq cwnNlon R.o. eo. ceT MNWbn, la.no ex.x rlwnwi. eee+~ei 19. That throughout the Plan the theme and desire for econor.~ic growth and jobs and self-sufficienc;~ is repeated. One of the major means the Plan states as achieving the a:>ove was, and is, the development of a regional shopping center in '-leridian. 'luch of the Plan's focus is upon a regional shopping center. The Plan Page 21 • specifically located the site for such a center as the Meridian Road/I-84 intersection. This site designation may have been con- trary to 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 izas 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. Hotaever, wether there is one site designated or tcao 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 shopping center must receive serious consideration at the Planning and Zoning Commission level and the City Council level. Thus, while the evidentiary presentation was lacking before the Commission, the Application and the Applicant must be sent to the Council. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON Atlomeys ~nE Counpbn 20. It can be, and is, judicially noticed that the people of the City of Deridian would like to have a regional shopping center located in Teridian. It can likewise be judicial noticed that there are and will be differences of opinion as tb where such a center should be located or what site has the better likelihood of drawing tenants and of actually being developed. Page 22 P.O. Boa t9 MNM4n, IMo 0.7612 • 21. Other than the designation of an exact site for a regional AM BROSE, FIRGERALD B CROOKSTON Anorrroye end Counselors P.O. BOx 147 MsrMlsn, IEela B1M2 TeNgIapBB61Mt shopping center the Application meets the general approval of the goals, policies and objectives of the Plan as it exists. Of course, if the Amendments were approved it would then fall more completely in line with the goals, policies, and objectives of the Plan. There could be some objection that the designation of a regional shopping center at Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue would not entail orderly growth but since no specific evidence was put forth in that regard such is not concluded, and in any event that one factor alone would not necessarily be grounds to deny the Application. The Application must be held to a balanced review without single ling out one or more factors. 22. It should be noted at this juncture since in the above paragraph mention is made as to how the proposed amendment would fit into the Plan, 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 sinale 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 ^~eridian Road/2-84 site that a change to add an additional site would, and sould, ripple through the Plan, 23. The Commission ultimately concludes that the facts pre- sented by the Applicant and the officially noticed facts contained in the Findings, .particularly Finding No. 19, are sufficient to meet the requirements of Paragraph IC of the Amendment Provision and Paae 23 • • Procedures of the Plan to amend the Plan; that the facts, part- icularly that there has been a site designated for a regional shopping center for some time and Vet it has not developed, that the Upland site is serviced by two principal arteriels, that there will soon be an Eagle Road/I-84 interchange, that sewer and water are or will be available to the Upland site, that the Upland site is connected to Meridian's existing retail by means of Fairview Avenue, an historically well developed commercial arteriel, and that the site is already annexed and must be provi<]ed with munici- pal services regardless of how it is developed, present cogent reasons for looking further into the designation of the Eagle Road/ Fairview Avenue site as a regional shopping center site; that the Applicant has, however, failed to address how his proposal would effect the planning components contained in Section 67-650(; or why the site should be designated as a commercial activity center, regional shopping center, when held to the standards at pace 19 of the Plan and recited in Finding 11 for determining the location of a commercial activity center and thus the Applicant has failed to show that the location of a regional shopping center at Fairview and Eagle Road is the appropriate way to amend the Plan even though there are changes in the area urhich justify an amendment if that amendment itself is deemed beneficial and ap- propriate. In short, the Applicant has met the requirements to amend. the Plan but has failed to show that its amendment is appropriate AMeROSE, FITZGERALU 6 CROOKSTON or how it would effect the other Planning Components. Attpnsys uM CounsNOn Page Zq P.O. Bo><!47 MMIE4n, MNo 83M7 TMpNOn~ BBMMt • 2d_ It is concluded, however, that since the people of P4eridian AMBROSE, F1T2GERALO BCROOKSTON Attorneys end Counselors P.O. Bos s2) MerWlrl, McNo QBS3 rleONerM BBS/s!1 desire a regional shopping center, since the one site capable of being developed has not developed, since the Plan states that a regional shopping center, regardless of. location, is a means of economic growth and would provide jobs and allow P-Ieridian to be self-sufficient and not have to rely on Boise, since the Commission is a recommending body since the Plan is a planning document and device and this amendment procedure is part of the planning process and since this is a legi€;lative process and the governing body should have an opportunity to revie:v the matter, and since the Applicant has an .opportunity to have one or more additional hearing before the City Council and thus an opportunity to present addition facts which may justify approval of the location of a regional shopping center at Applicant's site, that the Application should be forwarded on to the City Council with the recommendation set forth below in the Recommendation. It is, o£ course, realized that the Council may deny the Application or take action as it deems fit but it is felt the City Council should have an opportunity to review it without the "sceptor" of a deniel hanging over its head. 25. That there was no evidence t'~at even if Applicants proposed amendment regarding a regional shopping center were approved that it would be constructed; that the Commission does not like to change the Plan solely to fit particular land use proposals that may not be actually constructed; and that since Parcels 1 and 2 were annexed prior to the adoption of the Zoning and Development Ordinance on April 2, 1984, and therefore Parcel 1 is not subject Fags 25 .. 1 .~ ~ • to Section 11-9-616 which require s development to take place within a certain time, that there should be some means to condition approval of Applicant's proposal or tie approval to the actual development, assuming, of course, that its Application receives ultimate approval by the City Cou ncil. 26. It is finally concluded by the Commission that any change in designations of or for regiona l shopping centers in the Plan is not to be interpretted in any fashion as a rezoning or down- zoning of the Meridian Road/I-$4 site; that that site is still viewed with support and adoption of the Applicant's proposal, if accepted, would not change the ability to develop that site. AM BROSE. FITZGERAID B CROOKSTON Page 26 Atlormys uM Couneebn P.O. BOa /4] MwI01n, IGNo 87M2 TNp1gM BB6~1l7 II • • • • APPF.OVhL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLPSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts AMBROSE, FITZGERALO B CROONSTON Attomeya an0 r~~~~ P.O. Boa /2] M~tI01~n, IE~11o ti7l~1 and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Roll Call Commissioner Morrow Vote d Commissioner Alidjani ~~oted ~ Commissioner Johnson Vote d Conunissioner Shearer Voted ~!„s Commissioner Cole Voted/oa Chairman Spen cer (Tie Breaker.) Voted Page 27 • RECONLIENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council as follows: 1) That the Applicants' from the North Curve Residential Reserve" Northeast Quarter of_ Range"l East, of the Idaho and South of F proposed amendment to remove Neighborhood the "Rural .designation from the entire Section II, Township 3 North, Boise-Peridian, Ada County, 3irview Avenue, be adopted. 2) That the Applicants' proposed amendment to provide that the entire Northwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, of the Boise-b'[eridian, Ada County, Idaho be designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a site for a Regional Shpooing Center but subject to conditions to be imposed at the time of proper zoning of the property, be adopted. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON Altomsys nC Dount~lora P.O. Bos t2] MwIEMn, Mano B3!'2 APPROVED )1 DISAPPROVED Page 28 .~ • RECOIIIIENDATION The I.leridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council as follocas: 1) That the P_pplicants' proposed amendment to remove from the North Curve Neighborhood the "Rural Residential Reserve" designation from the entire Northeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, of the Boise- ~4eridian, Ada County, Idaho and South of Fairview Avenue, be adopted. 2) That the Applicants' proposed amendment to provide that the entire Northwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, of the Boise-Pleridian, Ada County, Idaho be designate in the Comprehensive Plan as a site for a Regional Shopping Center receive no recommendation from the Commission but that amendment should be sent to the Council and the City Council should hold the requisite hearings and take furti1er evidence and consider the matter in light of the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions and thereafter make a decision in the best interest of the City of Aleridian. AMBROSE, F172GERALD /CROOKSTON ARanWS nO CounsNaa R.o. ao: ~~ Mnlal.n. a.no axu tw.pno~weesue~ APPROVED Page 29 DISAPPRO\?ED