Loading...
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 ~