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