1984 10-18~1_. ' .
LT4F.RIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZON~ "SPECIAL MEETING" • OCTO~ 18TH 1984
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:30 P.M. BY CHAIRMAN BOB SPENCER.
MEMBERS PRESENT: WALT MORROW; MOE ALDIJANI, JIM JOHNSON, JIM
SHEARER; TOM COLE;
OTHERS PRESENT; AL LANCE, LEROY FENSTERMAKER, JAMES KEISER, LLOYD
HOWE, WAYNE CROOKSTON.
(ITEM ~kl)- FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION FENSTERMAKER ANNEXATION
AND ZONING REQUEST.
CHAIRMAN SPENCER, THIS TS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING AND NO TEST-
IMONY WILL BE TAKEN. THESE FINDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE PUBLIC.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES THEM READ?
MR. LANCE, IF WE CAN HAVE A COPY OF THE FINDINGS IT WILL NOT
EE NECESSARY TO READ.
CHAIRMAN SPENCER GAVE MR. LANCE A COPY OF THE FINDINGS. ARE
THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE COMMISSION?
CHAIRMAN SPENCER POINTED OUT THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE DATE
~ PAGE ~~2 OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH SHOULD READ 1978
INSTEAD OF 1984.
JOHNSON, ON PAGE ~~5 PARAGRAPH ~p13 IS THIS MANDATORY?
CROOKSTON, IT HAS BEEN CITY POLICY THAT APPLICANTS COMPLY
WITH ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY RECOMMENDATIONS.
JOHNSON, ON PAGE ~9, PARAGRAPH ~k7 OF THE CONCLUSION, I FEEL
THE WOULD NOT IN THE FIRST LINE SHOULD BE OMITTED. IN TEST-
IMONY AT THE PUBLIC HEARING THE APPLICANT DID NOT STATE HE WOULD
NOT COMPLY.
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY MORROW AND SECONDED BY COLE TO CORRECT
THE DATE'AND TO STRIKE THE WORDS WOULD NOT.
MOTION CARRIED; ALL YEA
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY MORROW AND SECONDED BY SHEARER THAT THE
MERIDIAN PLANNING & Z0N'3NG COMMISSION HEREBY ADOPT THE FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS AS CORRECTED ON THE F'EIdSTERMAKER
ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST.
MOTION CARRIED: ROLL CALL VOTE: COLE; YEA; SHEARER; YEA;
JOHNSON; YEA; ALDIJANI; YEA; MORROW; YEA.
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY MORROW AND SECONDED BY COLE THAT THE
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION HEREBY RECOMP~IENDS TO THE
CITY COUNCIL THAT THIS REQUEST BE DENIED BASED UPON THE FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL YEA
(ITEM ~k2)- PUBLIC HEARING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
CHAIRMA~SPE •R ADVISED THE COMMISSION • T THEI~E~WERE
FOUR PROPOSED AMENDP'fENTS AND EACH WOULD $E ACTED ON SEPERATELY
AND THAT EACH OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WERE VALID UNDER
THE CONDITIONS AS STATED IN IDAHO CODE, HG7-6509D.
CHAIRMAN SPENCER, AMENDMENT~kl PERTAINS TO THE AMENDMENT
PROCEDURE WHICH WOULD SHORTEN THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AND
ENABLE THE GOVERNING BODY TO PROCESS AMENDMENTS IN A MORE
TIMELY AND EFFICIENT MANNER.
SPENCER, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE COMMISSION?
THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.
CHAIRMAN SPENCER OPENED THE MEETING FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING
THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY JOHNSON AND SECONDED BY ALDIJANI
TO HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS ON THE PROPOSAL AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE. AMEND-
MENT PROCEDURE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THAT THESE
FINDINGS RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL YEA
CHAIRMAN SPENCER, AMENDMENT ~~2- PERTAINING TO THE TRANSPORT-
TION PLAN WHICH WAS APPROVED IN 1983 AND NEEDS TO BE RE-
PLACED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
CHAIRMAN SPENCER, ARE SERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE COMMISSION?
NO DISCUSSION.
CHAIRMAN SPENCER OPENED THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
THERE WAS NO RESPONSE,
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY MORROW AND SECONDED BY COLE TO RAVE
THE CITY ATTORNEY PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ON
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ADD THE TRANSPORTATION MAP TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & THAT THESE FINDINGS RECOMMEND APPROVAL
TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL YEA
CHAIRMAN SPENCER, AMENDMENT ~p3 PERTAINS TO ADDING TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THE AREA OF IMPACT WHICH HAS BEEN AGREED
UPON BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND ADA COUNTY.
SPENCER, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION?
NO RESPONSE,
CHAIRMAN SPENCER OPEIQED THE P~ETING FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
MR. JAMES KISER, DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE ORDIANANCES
AND AGREEMENT WITH ADA COUNTY?
MR KISER WAS ADVISED HE COULD PICK UP A COPY AFTER THE MEETING.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY MORROW AND SECONDED BY ALDIJANI TO
HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
5
THE PROD AlIDMENT TO ADD THE NEW .IMP AREA THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT THESE FINDINGS. REC ND A~OVAL
_..
TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL YEA-
CHAIRMAN SPENCER, AMENDMENT ~p4 PERTAINS TO THE REQUEST MADE
BY UPLAND INDUSTRIES TO DESIGNATE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN THAT THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THEM ON THE EAST SIDE OF
EAGLE ROAD BE A SITE FOR A REGIIII4AL SHOPPING CENTER AND
THAT THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL RESERVE AREA DESIGNATION ON THE
SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW AND ON THE WEST OF EAGLE ROAD BE REMOVED.
THERE WAS DISCUSSION AMONG-THE COMMISSION MEMBERS OVER THIS
REQUEST AS TO WHETHER CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS COULD BE PLACED
UPON IF APPROVED.
CHAIRMAN SPENCER, OPENED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.
MR LLOYD HOWE- UPLAND INDUSTRIES REPRESENTATIVE STATED
THAT IF THEY WERE TO PUT A TIME TABLE ON THIS IT WOULD BE
QUITE A HANDICAP.
JAMES KISER,
GLENNBROOK PROPERTIES, 5000 FAIRVIEW AVENUE, BOISE, IDAHO
iMR. KISER REPRESENTS THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE SITE AT
MERIDIAN INTERCHANGE WHICH AT THE PRESENT TIME IS DESIGNATED
FOR THE REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER.
MR. KISER ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT HE WANTED TO GO ON
RECORD AS OPPOSED TO THIS AP~NDMENT BASED ON THE TESTIMONY
THAT WAS SUBMITTED PREVIOUSLY AT THE TIME OF THEt;TJONG
REQUEST.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.
THERE WAS DICUSSION WITH THE COA44iSSI0~I MEMBERS A'1D THE
CITY ATTORNEY AS TO HOW THIS REQUEST COULD BE RESOLVED '
AS FAR AS THE OTHER AMENDMENT WERE INVOLVED AND WHAT KIND
OF RESTRICTIONS COULD BE PALCED UPON THE AMENDMENT.
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY MORROW AND SECONDED BY SHEARER TO
HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY PREPARE FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
ON THE UPLAND INDUSTRY REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLAN.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL YEA
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY MORROW AND SECONDED BY JOHNSON TO
HAVE THE FINDINGS FO FACT AND CONCLUSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL
TO THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS TO BE IMPOSED AT
THE TIME OF PROPER ZONING OF THE PROPERTY,
MOTION CARRIED; ALL YEA
TAPE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS ON FILE AT THE CITY CLERKS OFFICE.
AS THIS WAS A SPECIAL MEETING AND NO OTHER BUSINESS COULD
BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COMMISSION THE MOTION WAS MADE BY
JOHNSON AND SECONDED BY COLE TO ADJOURN AT 8:55 P.M.
' i•
• •
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FENSTERMAKER ANNEXATION
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled annexation having come on for considera-
tion on October 9, 1984, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on
said date, at the Ieridian City Hall, 728. Meridian Street, T.'Ieridian
Idaho, and the Commission having heard and taken oral and written
testimony and the applicant, Leroy Fenstermaker, and his attorney,
Alan Lance, appearing in person and having duly considered the
matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following:
FINDINGS OF' FACT
1. That notice of the public hearing on the annexation was
published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public
hearing scheduled for October 9, 1984., the first publication of
which was 15 days prior to said hearing; that the matter tags duly
considered at the October 9, 1984 hearing; that copies of all
notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television
stations.
2. ^hat notice of the public ?searing is required to be sent
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
S CROOKSTON
Attorneys and
Counaalora
R.o. Boa ~zT
Maddlan, Idaho
eaeaz
Tsbplions l
to property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries
of the land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E, Revised and
Compiled Ordinances of the CS.'ty of Meridian; that one individual
Leona Price was at the Public Hearing who testified that she was
an owner within 300 feet of the property in question and had not
received notice of the Public I3earina; that Leona Price resides
at 1775 W. Pine Street and on the map attached to the Applicant's
application that property appears to be designated as f13; that
measuring on the map at a scale of 1 inch equal 200 feet which
map apears to be at that scale, the property known as 1775 '+dest
Pine Street is within 300 feet of the applicants property at
1775 hest Pine Street.
That additionally, by letter dated. November 3, ~ ~ with an
attached drawing of his property and others who had also requested
annexation, requested annexation to the City as residential prope
The applicant's letter and map are attached hereto as Exhibit "A"
and by this reference incorporated herein; t'_iat the attached map
reveals that the Price property is within 300 feet of the
applicants.
3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & 'L Comm.)
received both oral and written testimony.
4. That the property included in the Application for
Annexation is described in the application, and by this reference
is incorporated herein; that the property is generally known as
1775 Tdest Pine Street, ;~eridian, Idaho;. that the property is
presently zoned by Ada County as R-4 Residential.
5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
gMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
6 CROOKSTON
Attorneys ano
Counselors
V.O. BoM X27
Merlolen, IoeNo
878sY
NapliOne BBB-~~81
City limits;
6. That the property included in the annexation is within
the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian as adopted by Ordinance
No. 324, but which Area of Impact has not been adopted by Ada
County.
7. That the entire parcel of ground is included within the
Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning
Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
II. That the application for annexation requests that the
parcel be annexed and zoned as follows:
iv'orth 137 feet as (R-4) Residential
South 146 feet as (I-L) Light Industrial;
that the property has been used in the past as residential
property and as a shop for the repair of automobiles; that the
repair shop was destroyed by fire.
9. That when the initial repair shop was constructed the
land was governed by Ada County which required a Zoning Certifi-
cate prior to construction of a building; that the auplicant or
his builder failed to obtain a Zoning Certificate prior to con-
struction; that the applicant has petitioned Ada County to allow
him to reconstruct his repair facility but the County denied his
Fetition; that the reason the Applicant cave for this denial was
the County felt the Applicant 's land should be part of and
r_;overned by the City of D~eridian.
10. That the property is located for Comprehensive Plan
AMRROSE,
FITZG ERALD
d CROONSTON
Atlomeye entl
Counselors
P.O. Bos ~P7
MxitlNn, IONo
&7M2
Talaplrone BBB~/1B1
purposes within what is referred to as "wARRIOP." which is
a neighborhood as defined by the. Comprehensive Plan and designed
generally .for residential uses; that the property in question lies
adjacent to industrially zoned property on the South and East whic
is utilized by Meridian Storage for a large storage facility;
that the Meridian Storage property was annexed and zoned
industrially in 1977 prior to adoption of the 1978 Meridian
Comprehensive Plan; that also adjacent to the property and across
West Pine Street are residences; that the Meridian High School
is in the immediate area and its tennis courts are within 300
feet of the applicant's property.
11. That street access for the Meridian Storage property
is from Linder Road and there is substantial street frontage on
that property; that access to the land proposed by Applicant
to be zoned light industrial is from West Pine Street and
would be through that part o£ Applicant's land which he proposes
to be zoned residential; that the Applicant's .property which
he proposes to be zoned light industrial has no access to Linder
Road; that the access to the parcel to be zoned light industrial
is the same access as that which would be used by the residential
portion of the property.
12. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, Industrial
Policies, state as follows:
p. 17 "5. Access to industrial areas from collector
and local streets should be discouraged."
"6. Industrial uses adjacent to residential
areas should not create noise, odor, air
pollution and visual pollution greater
than levels normally associated with
surrounding residential activities."
AM BROSE,
FIT2G ERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys antl
Counselors
P.O. Bos 19T
Merltllen,ltle~O
89!12
TeleWtone 888-IMl
"7. Industrial development should not be lo-
cated adjacent to primary and. secondary
schools."
"8. Industrial uses that exist within areas
planned for other types of uses should
be encouraged to relocate to existing
Industrial Review Area;"
that West Pine Street is designated as a collector street in, the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan at page 30.
13. That in its comments on the application the Ada County
Highway District (ACHD) had several recommendations; that the
applicant indicated he had problems with the requirements of
putting in curb, gutter, and sidewalks and improving the south
1/2 of Pine Street adjacent to the property in question and did
not want to or would not comply with the recommendations; that
it has been the policy of the City of Meridian to require
compliances with ACHD recommendations as a condition of annexation
and development.
14. That objections to the annexation and zoning and use
of the property as an automotive repair shop were voiced at the
public hearing; that a petition signed by several people living
in the area in question was submitted which petition objected
to the building and operating of an automobile repair shop; that
another petition was submitted the signers of which stated that
if the application was granted it should be only granted con-
ditioned upon the following:
a. Six (6) foot screening fence be installed around
the property;
b. Automobile parts should not be stored outside;
AM BROSE,
FITZG ERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attomaya antl
Counselors
P.O. Boa s2]
Merblen, ItlsNo
838,2
TelsvNOne BBB~ss81
c. No wrecked cars should be within 150 feet of the
front property line;
d. Regular business hours should be maintained;
e. All repair work to be done within the shop;
f. Regular inspection of the premises;
g. Enforcement of the above conditions.
15. That Becci Carmack, one of the signers of the petition
objecting to the application testified that the applicant in
the past conducted business at all hours, parked unsightly
vehicles on the premises for years at a time, operated his
business such that a great amount of noise was created and at
late night and early morning hours, used offensive language,
and testified the applicant's business was and would be incom-
patible with the neighborhood.
16. That August Hein Superintendent of the Meridian School
District submitted a letter indicating that although the School
Board had not had an opportunity to take action on the matter,
he was recommending to the School Board that they deny the
application; that his reasons for recommending deniel were:
1. that the business operated there had a junk-yard appearance
and the business was not compatible with the residential area
that exists there; 2. that the High School was designed to be
compatible with the residences; and 3, that West Pine Street
should be maintained for residential use.
17. That the applicant submitted a form. conditional use
AMBROSE,
EITZGEBALD
B CROOKBTON
Attomeya antl
Counaelon
P.O. Box 42]
Maddian, ItleNo
83812
TeNP1aM 88&4181
application that had been signed by six (6) individuals indicating
they had no objection to the Applicant rebuilding his auto repair
shop under a conditional use permit; that Loth air B. Rich was
one of the signatures on the conditional use form; that Loth air
B. Rich subsequently wrote a letter clarifying her consent and in
the letter stated some of the conditions referenced in paragraph
thirteen (13) above should be required if the application was
granted.
18. That the .Applicant was not familiar with some of the
names of signers on the two petitions objecting to the application
or requesting that it be granted only conditionally; that ad-
ditionally the Applicant indicated some of the signers vie re more
than 300 feet from his property or did not have authority to sign
for the property owner.
19. That the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District voiced
no objection so long as the lateral ditch crossing the property
on the south edge was protected.
20. That the Central District Health Department indicated
it could approve the application so long as central water and
sewer were required.
C O N C L U S I O N S
1. That the City has authority to annex land pursuant to
AMBROSE,
FIT2GERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attomeye end
Counselors
P.O. Boa ~P7
MarlElen, IEa~o
8918a2
TelepNOne ~~51
50-222, Idaho Code; that exercise of the City's annexation
authority is a Legislative function.
2. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged the
annexation application by the guidelines, standards, criteria,
and policies contained in Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65,
Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, P-leridian Comprehensive
Plan, and the record submitted to it and things of c.~hich it can
take judicial notice..
3. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City
of Meridian have been complied with, except that it appears one
property. owner owning land within 300 feet of the Applicants'
did not receive notice of the public hearing by certified mail
as required by 11-2-416 E of the Qevised and Compiled Ordinances
of the City of Meridian nor did the Applicant mail the notice to
the property owner as required by said Ordinance. which failure
to mail is shown by the receipts of certified mail submitted by
the Applicant; that the property owner claiming she did not receive
notice of the hearing, Leona Price, was in attendance at the
hearing and did testify; that the failure to notify the property
owner is a violation of the annexation procedure which alone
would be sufficient to deny the applications however, since the
owner did appear and did testify the violation, itself, is not
felt to justify deniel of the application.
4. That the City may take judicial notice of governmental
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALO
6 CROOKSTON
Attornaya entl
Counesloro
P.O. Bo: KRT
MerMl~n, ItlehO
89B~R
TelepNOns BBBNBI
statutes, ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions
existing within the City and State.
5. That all land within the proposed annexation is contig-
uous to the present City limits of the City of Ieridian, and the
annexation would not be a shoestring annexation.
6. That the annexation application has been initiated by
the Applicants, Leroy and Ida Fenstermaker and is not at the
request or initiation of the City of Meridian.
7. That the Applicant indicated that he or did
not want to comply with the recommendations of the Ada County
Highway District; that such an indication, if in fact became
the case,such would be in violation of City policy that all
development within the City meet the Highway District requirements;
that the Applicant did not even indicate he would try to negotiate
with the Highway District on the requirements.
8. That the annexation of Applicant's land which he proposes
to be zoned light industrial and used as an automotive repair shop
would not be compatible with the residential character of a majorit
the surrounding parcels and would not be in line with the *_deridian
Comprehensive Plan policies on the location of industrial uses.
The Applicant's proposed light industrial parcel would only have
a small access from the collector street of West Pine; the past
operation of Applicants business has created noise and visual
pollution at levels greater than is normal for the residential
activities in the area; the parcel is too close to a secondary
school; and the Comprehensive Plan indicates. existing industrial
in residential areas, uses should be encouraged to locate in
industrial areas.
9. That while .the Meridian Storage pro~~-~erty is zoned Light
nMRROSE,
FITZGERq~G
acaooKSroN Industrial if was so zoned prior to the adoption of the 1978
/uorneya antl
Couneelon
P.O. Box 02T
Merlelen, Itle~o
83812
TelepBOne 88&NB1
Comprehensive Plan; the testimony revealed that Meridian Storage's
operation did not create the noise or other interference with
the residential activities in the area that the Applicants'
business had created; and Meridian Storage is located on Linder
Road, a minor arterial; all which distinguishes applicants land
and proposed uses from the Meridian Storage parcel.
10. That the testimony at the Public Hearing and the
documentary evidence received clearly weigh against the granting
of the application as it wa.s submitted. The Applicant indicated
that some of the signatures of people who had signed the petitions
objecting to his proposal were people who were beyond 300 feet
of his property. This objection is no doubt valid but the 300
foot limit is included in the notice provision of the annexation
procedures only to assure that those property ownexsin the im-
mediate area are notified and who likely will have an interest in
the application. The 300 foot limit is a limit only on those
people who applicant must notify it is not a limit on those per-
sons who can validly object to the application. If such were
the case there would be no valid reason in giving the general
public and those owning property beyond 300 feet of the property
notice of the hearing and application by means of a general pub-
lication in the official newspaper of the City.
11. Many of the objections included in the record were valid
AMBFOSE,
FITZGEBgLD
S CBOOKSTON
Attomaye N~
Cooneeloro
P.O. Boa /Z]
MMGI~n,1OMo
83814
ielepNOne BBBdMt
objections and in and of themselves are sufficient to deny the
application. Under the application, as submitted, the City
would have no real enforceable control over the Applicant and his
business if the proposed application was granted as submitted,
even though the Applicant made some attempt to agree to remedy
the cause for the objections.
12. That the record revealed that the majority of people
effected by the application either did not want the application
granted, wanted the area maintained residentially, or would
only go along with the application if conditions were placed on
it which conditions could not be placed on the application as
submitted and probably could not be realistically enforced even
if they could be placed on the .application.
13. That it is concluded that the annexation of the property
is not in the best interest of the City in light of the proposed
use of the property; that since the annexation is not in the best
interest the question of zoning is not reached even though the
permitted use to which the property would have been put was
considered and was helpful in reaching file question of annexation.
It would be difficult,and place an undue burden on the City. to
try and determine whether an annexation is in the best interest
of the City without knowing and considering the intended use,
and thereby the possible zoning, of the property.
14. The Commission lastly concludes that the application
AM BROSE,
FITZGERALD
&CROOKSTON
AROnroya an0
Counaaloro
P.O. Boz ~2y
MallUlan, IONo
BJN2
Talspllone BBSJ.IEt
was judged as submitted and these findings of fact and conclusions
should not be interpreted as precluding a subsequent application
for the annexation as residential property with a conidtional use
permit. The procedure there would allow conditions and would,
of course, require the permission of 75% of the owners of the
property within 300 feet of the Applicant's parcel.
15. That in summary, the application should be denied on the
basis of the objections to the Applicants' conduct in the past and
proposed use of the property, the objections of the surrounding
residents, the failure to be willing to comply with ACHD recom-
mendations, the conflict with the industrial locations policies
contained in the Meridian Corlprehensive Plan, and as a result
the Application for Annexation is not in the best interest of the
City. Any of the above first 4 reasons would be sufficient in
themselves to deny the Application and certainly taken all to-
gether justify deniel. The failure to give the required notice
to the one property owner vaithin 300 feet as that failure occured
is not grounds to deny the Application in itself, but only
because since the property owner was in attendance at the hearing
and did testify.
F.PPROVAL OF FINDIN,S OI' FACT A'_VD COPdCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
Roll Call
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Chairman Spe
Cole Voted=-
Shearer Voted
Johnson Voted
Alidjani Voted ~,~
Morrow ~.%o to d_ _~~I"~_
zcer (Tie Breaker) Voted'_
DECISIOLd AND RECO^4MENDATION
The Peridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby re
AM BROSE,
FITZGERAlO
BOROOKSTON
Attornaye And
Counselors
to the City Council that this annexation request be denied based
upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
Motion:
P.O. Boy KZ]
Maiai.n, iasNO Approved { Disapproved
aTUx
TalspNOne BBB HBI
;.~, ,
'`
i
1665 W. Pine Street
Meridian, Idaho 83642
November 3, 1978
City of Meridian
City !{a11
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Gentlemen:
Thia letter is my request to be annexed into the City of Meridian
with a residential zoning.
The following is the legal description of my property to be annexed:
That portion of the SE quarter of Section 1i, Township 3 North,
Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, described as
foiiows:
Commencing at a point 25 feet F,'est of the East quarter corner of
said Sec*_ion 11; thence West 130 feet to the true point of
beginning; thence South 283 feet; thence West 225 feet; thence
North 80 feet; thence East 100 feet; thence North 203 feet; thence
East 125 feet to the true point of beginning.
Very truly yours,
~~ G ~
~j'''
inn ..i a~i~ ~.'J 4lC"!n'(~:Z~
/'
Lcrny i~enstermaker
1665 W. Pine Street
Meridian, Idaho
~ _
C i
t
\ \
1~
I ^v
U 1 \~ ~
~~ ~~ ~
~ ~~ 1, '
~I I ~ `~
i a
~~ ~ .~ ~ I
\ v
i ~
j I ~ !
I
i ~ ~ ~ N
i I ~ ~
'~
i
~ ~ ~
!~ - ~ `~
;, ~
~ N
i i i
A
~ ~ ~ ~
,~_ i /
i-----~ 4 -~----{-.~ ~ -
~ i ~ ~ it ^ ~~ ~ a
,~
Y I ~
~ n 3
`'' ~ ~ ~ ~ >a ~ ~ ~ ~
~._~r_____~ _s ,,
~ V
I ~