1990 05-08
A G E N D A
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
MAY 8, 1990
MIN[TPFS OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HEfD APRIL 10, 1990:(APPROVED)
MINCTPFS OF THE SPDCLAL MEETIIJG HELD APRIL 23, 1990: (APPROVED)
1: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST W/PRELII~IINARY PLAT ON MISTY MEADOWS: (FINDINGS TO
BE PREPARED)
2: PUBLIC HEARIIVG: PROPOSID AN~IDMENTS TO THE MERIDIAN 03MPRHENSIVE PLAN:(FINDINGS TO BE
PREPARED)
3: VACATION OF EASEMENP REQUEST BY AI,BII275ONS: (APPROVED)
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 8, 1990
The Regular Meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order by
Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P.M.:
Members Present: Jim Shearer, Charlie Rountree, Tim Hepper, Moe Alidjani:
Others Present: Charles Bates, Charlene Bates, Brent L. Barham, Charles Gowing, Roy
Johnson, Jack Ruteland, Dale Atkinson, Randy Nieson, Lee & Cathy Barry, Daniel Morris,
Beverly Fricke, Erik Gabrielson, Carole Gabrielson, Wayne Crookston,
The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Shearer to approve of the Minutes of
the previous meeting held April 10, 1990 as written:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Rountree to approve of the Minutes of
the Special Meeting held April 23, 1990 as written:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #1: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST W/PRELIMINARY PLAT ON MISTY MEADOWS:
Chairman Johnson: Is there a representative for the applicant that would like to come
forward, I will now open the Public Hearing.
Roy Johnson, 6017 W. State Street, was sworn by the attorney.
Johnson: I am the project engineer for this request. The proposed subdivision is 58
lots we are proposing both a preliminary application and a zone change. The present zone
is R-4, we are asking for an R-8 Zone. The surrounding properties are the reason for
our zone change. It is the intention of the developed to have lots that are approximately
7500 sq. ft. They do not intend to have any duplex lots, all single family. One of
Gary Smith's comments was to provide access to the south which would go straight down
all the way to Cherry Lane, that would be about between lot 10 & 11, Block 1. What
he asked is that we stub the street down there to the south to provide access to that
strip of land that goes from the south boundary of this subdivision all the way to Cherry
Lane. We don't have any problem with moving the lot lines over and making provisions
for this roadway, however we would request that we do not construct the roadway at this
time, simply make an easement available on the two lots for fifty feet wide so that
in the event it did go at some time in the future, the easement would be available.
Shearer: You're talking about a fifty foot easement off those two lots, would you
change your lot configuration so those lots wouldn't be taking a full 25' out of each
lot.
Johnson: We would move the lot lines and pick up a few feet from each lot.
Rountree: What would that do to the square footage of the lots.
Johnson: It would take them down to about 7200 sq. ft.
MERIDIAN P&Z
MAY 8, 1990
PAGE #2
Rountree: How are we going to address the irrigation ordinance.
Johnson: We will put in the pressurized irrigation.
Hepper: One the easement for that street stub, would that be graveled or anything.
Johnson: It would be part of the lot, it would be owned by the adjacent lots.
We would continue the curb, gutter & sidewalk.
Crookston: Do you know if that type of arrangement is acceptable to ACHD?
Johnson: Yes, it has been in the past.
Crookston: The biggest problem that I foresee in that situation is it not being sufficiently
outlined on the plat, that that eventually will be a road someday.
Johnson: Anyone else who wishes to testify?
Hal Hatch, 2055 N. Ten MIle, was sworn by the attorney.
Hatch: I own that property in question. I would like to see it come out to the edge of
the property and I'll hook on at that point.
Rountree: Do you have an access off of Cherry Lane?
Hatch: Just off Cherry Lane straight dawn through.
Rountree: A single access.
Hatch: Yes. When I bought it I understood that it was zoned for mutiple family
dwellings. I understood that that road would come through there.
Hepper: What about the property on the other side of the road.
Hatch: They are mostly one or two acre lots.
Chairman Johnson: Anyone else from the Public who would like to come forward on this.
Brent Barham, 885 Delmar Drive, was sworn by the attorney.
Barham: I have no problem with them wanting to develop that property back there.
I do have some strong reservations about the way that this is laved out. We have
some real speeding problems down through the area of Delmar Dr. & Tana. I can see
that the way they propose W. Newport Drive being a straight shot in to connect into
11th Avenue could turn into be quite a raceway in that area. Also have problem with the
lots going any smaller than 7,000 sq.ft.. We would like some restrictions on the single
car garages.
Clerk Niemann: Our ordinance requires double car garages.
Barham: Good. I would like to see some different alternatives rather than such straight
streets.
• •
MERIDIAN P & Z
MAY 8, 1990
PAGE If3
Chairman Johnson: Anyone else who wishes to testify.
Don Fickes, 1016 Storey Avenue, was sworn by the attorney.
Fickes: Some of the neighbors couldn't be here tonight so I am submitting for the
record some petitions with approximately36 signatures opposing the rezone as well
as the preliminary plat of this subdivision. If you drive down through Cherry Manor
Subdivision and take a look at it, I am automatically opposed to them making the
lots this size. The lots at Cherry Manor or 85 and up.
Petitions entered into the record with 36 signatures.
Beverly Fricke, 924Storey Avenue, was sworn by the attoney.
Fricke: If I understand correctly the reasoning for making these lots smaller is that
it will be the same as the surrounding ones. Now if I hear correctly when they make
the easement they will be making these lots behind our houses, they will be making
the lots even smaller. I am not opposed to a nice subdivision but I am opposed
to having these so small.
Chairman Johnson: Is that the area where the smallest lots are going to be?
Sohnson: They are the smaller lots within the development. I can understand these
concerns about having smaller lots, so what we propose to do is rather than change the
lots and make them smaller we will take one lot out and make those lots wider. It
would make them about 7700 sq ft. in addition to having the easement for the roadway.
Chairman Johnson: What is proposed for an average value for the home & the square
footage of the homes.
Johnson: Thesquare footage of the homes is pretty much fixed by the Ordinances.
Value of the homes will be from $70,000. to $90,000.
Chairman Johnson: You're looking at a minimum of $70,000.?
Johnson: It's possible that there might be a few of them in the mid to high $60's.
C. Johnson: What would the square footage be for a $70,000. home?
Johnson: Probably 1100 to 1200 sq. ft.
Alidjani: Is it correct that you are taking one lot out plus the easement?
Johnson: Yes.
C. Johnson: Anyone else from the public?
Charlie Cowing, 1111 Delmar Drive, was sworn by the attorney.
Cowing: I have a couple of concerns, the first is the schools. I question whether
he is going to get $70,000. for those houses.
Johnson: There are no new homes sitting empty.
• •
MERIDIAN P & Z
MAY 8, 1990
PAGE #4
Gowing: Street drainage is going to be a problem still. The speeding is also a problem.
I want an R-4.
C. Johnson: Anyone else?
Charles Bates, 2182 NW 11th, was sworn by the attorney.
Bates: Voiced concerns about overcrowding in schools, and would like it to stay as
an R-4.
C. Johnson: Anyone else from the public?
Randolph Niesen, 1122 Delmar, was sworn by the attorney.
Niesen: Also concerned about over-crowding in schools. I would hope that you gentlemen
would limit the size and the number of these subdivisions to allow our schools and other
public facilities to catch up to the number of homes that have been built. Second concern
is the value of these homes. I feel there is an excess amount of homes empty that are
less than five years old.
Shearer: If those houses were priced properly they would sell.
Eric Gabrielson, 2016 NW 8th, was sworn by the attorney.
Gabrielson: With this being the final phase I would like to see the lot & zoning remains
at R-4 level. Voiced concerns on schools, effect on property values & traffic.
Johnson: The R-8 would allow us to go to 6000 sq. ft. we are not proposing that at
all, we are proposing to go to 7500 sq. ft.. Made comments on traffic problems. The
homes that are built on these lots are going to based upon what's existing and what's
marketable.
Chairman Johnson: I will close the Public Hearing.
Hepper: I don't really see how you can require another man to build a street on your
property.
Shearer: Your providing an easement if he wants to build it okay and if he doesn't
okay.
Discussion. (TAPE ON FILE)
The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree to have the attorney prepare
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Johnson: These have been published in the paper and you have copies in front of you.
I will open the Public Hearing, is there anyone present who wishes to testify. Being
no response the Public Hearing was closed. Explained the amendments.
Hepper: Could you explain the difference between the area of city impact and the urban
service planning area?
• •
MERIDIAN P & Z
MAY 8, 1990
PAGE #5
Clerk Niemann: The area of impact is the land that we think someday down the road might
be in the City limits, the urban service planning area is what we can actually serve
with our water & sewer.
Discussion about frontage roads - tape on file.
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to amend the petition Item 8-U
to change that item to allow the section dealing with the frontage roads to remain
but to delete the reference of frontage roads and indication o£ €rontage:roads on the
policy diagram.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Alidjani to have the attorney prepare
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #3: VACATION OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY ALBERTSONS:
The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Alidjani to recommend to the City Council to allow
the vacation of easement request by Albertsons.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Johnson: One of the things that has come up quite often is the street light situation.
As a replacement for street lighting we have allowed in the past yard lights to be
put in. This is something we need to talk about. Discussion. (Tape on File)
Also read a letter received from Winston Moore thanking the City for a pleasurable experience
in dealing with the City.
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to adjourn at 8:45 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
JI JO SON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
J CK NIEMAN~, CITY CLERK
~ / Valle News, Statesman, ACRD,
~~ d.c. Mayor & Council Y
~ P&Z Members, Atty, NIMD, CDH, ACC, SID, Bldg. Dept.
Eng., Fire, Police, Mail (2)
Stuart, Ward, Hallett, Gass File (2)
,. i ~ ~
. •°
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
ALICE CULVER
REZONE AND PRELIMINARY PLAT
NW 8TH STREET 1J4 MILE NORTN OF CHERRY LANE
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
May 8, 1990, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner
appearing in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the
matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Rezone
AM BROSE,
FITZG ERALD
6 CROOKSTON
Atbrneys ana
Counaelora
P.O. eor t2]
MerlElen, IOallo
8]N]
TelaP~one BSe~aa81
Application and Preliminary Plat was published for two (2)
consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled
for May 8, 1990, the first publication of which was fifteen
(15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly
considered at the May 8, 1990, hearing; that the public was
given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence;
and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper,
radio and television stations;
2. That this property is located within the City of
Meridian and the Applicant is the owner of said property, the
property is described in the Application which description is
:,
incorporated herein; the property is North of Cherry Manor
Subdivision and South of Meadowview Subdivision adjacent to and
West of Northwest 8th Street.
3. That the Applicant requests that the property, which
is now zoned R-4, be rezoned to R-8; that the Applicant also
requests approval of a preliminary plat of the property of
approximately 12.89 acres for R-8 Residential for 58 single
family building lots.
4. That the R-8 District is described in the Zoning
Ordinance, 11-2-408 B 2 as follows:
(R-8) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
he purpose o the R- istrict is to
permit the establishment of single and two
(2) family dwellings at a density not
exceeding eight (8) dwelling units pre acre.
This district delineates those areas where
such development has or is likely to occur
in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the
City and is also designed to permit the
conversion of large homes into two (2)
family dwellings in well-established
neighborhoods of comparable land use.
Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer
systems of the City of Meridian is required.
AMRROSE,
FITZG ERALD
dCROOKSTON
Allorneye entl
C.OUn6B10r8
P.O. Bo. <2T
MerlOlan, Itla~o
BIZ
Telephone B88-N61
5. For single family dwellings the minimum lot size is R-
4 is 8,000 square feet and the minimum street frontage is 70
feet; that in the R-8 zone the minimum lot size is 6,000 square
feet and the minimum street frontage is 60.00 feet.
6. That Meridian Manor Subdivision is an R-4 type
subdivision which was developed prior to the adoption of R-4, R-
8 zones under the 1984 Zoning Ordinance; that Meadowview
Subdivision was developed prior to the adoption of the R-4 and
R-8 designation but is actually developed in an R-8 fashion and
has smaller lots and street frontages than now required in an R-
4 development; that there is a new subdivision being developed
by Capital Development, Inc „ which has been approved as an R-8
zone but where only single family dwellings will be constructed
which is to the West and South of the subject property.
7. That the property is contained in the CAIRNS
NEIGHBORHOOD as designated on the Policy Diagram at Page 7 of
the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; neighborhoods are defined in
the Plan at Page 6 and states as follows:
"Definition: The neighborhood is a residential area
withith unii`orm characteristics of a size comparable to
that usually served by an elementary school or a
small business convenience center or a local park.
Although neighborhoods occur in various shapes and
sizes, a section of the City measuring one-half to
one and one-half miles across is usually used for
planning purposes. It has facilities within easy
walking distances and provides the basis for community
identification."
8. That the use proposed by the Applicant is set forth
above and the Applicant proposes to provide for 58 single family
building lots.
9. That the uses proposed by the Applicant of a single-
family subdivision and the applicant has indicated that there
will be no duplexes in the subdivision even though the requested
zoning would allow for such and the purpose of the zoning is to
allow for smaller lots than required in the R-4 zone.
10. That the property is a parcel of ground that is
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
b CROOKSTON
Attorneys ano
Counselors
P.O. Box l2]
Merlolen, loaho
83842
rlapKOne BBB-!!B1
approximately 12.89 acres in size.
11. That the property is connected to City sewer and
water and those services are available.
12. That the Applicant has submitted a proposed
subdivision plat of the subject property; that the density would
be approximately 4.5 dwelling units per acre.
13. That comments may be submitted by the City Engineer,
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, and by the Ada County
Highway District; if submitted those comments are incorporated
herein.
14. That there was testimony at the public hearing
objecting to possible increase of traffic but no problem with
the actual development; desiring that the parcel be connected to
Cherry Lane with a road; objection to the smaller lot size that
R-4 requirements; objecting to an increased load on school
facilities; objecting that the proposed development, due to
smaller lots, could reduce property values. The Applicant's
Engineer responded that smaller lot sizes does not necessarily
mean more school children than larger lots would mean, and
testified the home values would probably be between $70,000.00
and $90,000.00.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
B CROOKSTON
Altorneya ena
Couneelora
P.O. 80. X27
MerlElan, IEeNo
BBNP
Telepftpne 888-NBt
zoning amendments and rezones pursuant to Title 67, Chapter 65,
Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-41b of the Revised and
Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho.
3. That the City has the authority to take judicial
notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statues and
ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City
and state.
4. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
conditions upon granting a zoning amendment.
5. That the City has judged this Application upon the
basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-416 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and upon the
basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67 Chapter 65,
Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and
the record submitted to it and the things of which it can take
judicial notice.
6. That 11-2-416 (K) of the Revised and Compiled
Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards
under which City shall review applications for zoning
amendments; that upon a review of those requirements and a
review of the facts presented and conditions of the area, the
Planning and Zoning Commission specifically concludes as
follows:
a. The new zoning would be harmonious with
an in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan
and no Comprehensive Plan amendment is
required.
AM BROSE,
PITZGERAlO
BCROO KSTON
Attorneys and
Counselors
P.O. Box 027
MerlElan, IES~o
87812
Talepnone 8880181
b. The area is in the CAIRNS neighborhood
which is designed for residential uses and a
mix of those uses and a rezone of the
subject property is in line with that
designation,
c. The area included in the zoning
amendment was intended to be developed in a
neighborhood fashion which is the fashion
proposed.
d. There are R-8 Residential developments
existing and planned for in the area which
tends to dictate that the area may lend
itself to be rezoned.
e. That the property should be designed
and constructed to be harmonious with the
surrounding area, and such is a requirement
and condition of the rezone.
f. The proposed uses would not be
hazardous or disturbing to the existing or
future uses of the neighborhood.
g. The property will be able to be
adequately served with public facilities,
and connection to municipal sewer and water
is required.
h. The proposed use would not create
excessive additional requirements at public
cost for public facilities and services and
would not be detrimental to the economic
welfare of the community but should in fact
be beneficial; however, see the comments
below regarding schools.
i. The proposed uses will not involve any
detrimental activity to any person's
property or the general welfare.
j. Development would not cause a
significant increase in vehicular traffic
and should not interfere with surrounding
traffic patterns.
k. That this rezone will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of any natural
or scenic feature or major importance.
1. The proposed zoning amendment is in the best
interest of the City of Meridian.
7. That the comments, if submitted, by the Nampa &
AMRROSE,
FITZG ERALD
d CROOKSTON
AIIpmAye Ant)
CounaelorA
P.O. Bov A2]
MAtlCIOn, IOAno
838A2
TAIApKOnB BBB~JAeI
Meridian Irrigation District, the Ada County Highway District,
and the City Engineer as incorporated herein and shall be a
requirement for the rezone.
8. That all applicable fire, life safety, building codes,
and other codes and regulations and all of the ordinances of the
City of Meridian shall be met prior to any occupancy.
9. That even though the requested rezone is to R-8 which
allows duplexes the use of the property shall be limited to
single-family dwellings and such shall be a restriction in the
rezone ordinance.
10. That the comments regarding the impact of new
AMBROSE,
F1T2G ERAlO
6 OROOKSTON
Attomeya enC
Counaeloro
P.O. Boy {27
MBrlElen, IBaPo
&7812
TeleP~one BBBJeBt
residential development on already overcrowded schools are
greatly appreciated and understood. Overcrowded schools are of
great concern to the Commission and it is hoped that measures
can be taken to alleviate that overcrowding. However, the
problem is not the result of the City allowing new residential
subdivisions. The problem is a result of general growth and
economic development of the Treasure Valley creating new jobs
and people moving to this Valley to fulfill those jobs, many of
whom desire to live in the City of Meridian, and the Meridian
School District. Another aspect of the problem is the financial
burdens of the Meridian School District. It is burdened with
the following: 1) underfunding and inequitable funding from the
State of Idaho; 2) with a bond election procedure which requires
the electorate to approve bond levies for new school facilities
by a 2/3's majority rather than the simple majority required in
most elections in a democratic society; and 3) with a
residential tax base rather a more income producing industrial
or commercial base.
It is concluded that, while the school overcrowding is of
great concern to the Commission, it is not within the province
or power of the City to solve the problem by denying one new
residential development, or even all new residential
developments, within the City of Meridian. The problem is a
societal problem of this City, the Valley, the school district,
the State of Idaho, and particularly the citizens and electorate
thereof, which all must work together co-operatively to salve.
AMBROSE,
FIT2GERAlD
d CROO KSTON
Atlorneye and
Counaelore
P.O. Boa a2]
MerlElan, IENo
83812
TelsD~one BBB~M61
,-
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED iJ-QS~~
VOTE D
VOTED
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
AMRROSE,
FITZG ERALD
fl CROOKSTON
Allorneys entl
('iOn n9BlO r9
P.O. Bo. ~Y]
Meritllan, IOMo
83b1Y
TeleO~one BB&d~81
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they
approve the Rezone and the Preliminary Plat requested by the
Applicant for the property described in the application.
M OT ION:
L~
APP RO VE Df
DISAPPROVED:
_ -
The below listed citizens of Meridian Idaho are opposed to the rezoning of
Misty Meadows Subdivision from R4 to RS as well as the proposed preliminary plat
of this subdivision. We are concerned that the lowering of the zoning to R8
will solicit the type of houses that will significantly decrease our property
value. We are concerned that these lower priced homes will not be of the type
of construction nor maintained as well as the existing homes pride themselves
in. Request the Planning and Zoning Commission consider our desires and
concerns and disapprove this rezoning request.
/~
S
n
/J :C~
TURE
~~
n
~~~i 1 ~~. ~ ~~
NUMBER
<<
;~ , i<< l
1 ~~ a l I ..
/P b~r~~S ~VC~~C= 'J75~1 ~~~o~q_:. l_(2 CC'~C ~~I( I~~~~ ~~(~c~~ yam. ~.~r~~ ~_ lll~~
~V f~191 ~ S ~~~ /~l(l~s i %Ci /C/J -~-51~ /"f=1" ~~J'S - l / ~ ~ ~'~~>u - ~~/~
NAMF. ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER' SIGMA
AME ADDRESS ~-' TELEPHONE NUMBEx si~nniurn
NAME ADDRE~ TELEPHONE NUMBER SI T RE %~
_~
NOTICE OF HEARING
AMBROBE,
9TZOERAlO
CROOI(BTON
counwan
'.o. Be. ~xr
.nei.n. w.ne
ax~x
P11ons BBlJIl1
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the
City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the
Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold
a public hearing at the Meridian City Ha11, 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., on
May 8, 1990, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the
Application of Alice Culver for a rezone of a portion of the
- _
N.E. 1/4 of S. W. 1/4 of Section 1 T. 3 N. R. 1 W., Boise
Meridian, Misty Meadows Subdivision, Meridian, Ada County,
Idaho, frorn R-4 Residential to R-8 Residential. Hearing will
also be held on Applicant's requests approval of a preliminary
plat of Misty Meadaws Subdiv=ision-which is to be located on the
above described property, which requested approval is of
approximately 12.-89 acres for. R-8 Residential for 58 single
family building lots. The property is generally located at NW
- -- __
- - --
8th Street 1/4 mile-North of Cherry Lane. `
A more particular legal description is on file in the
office of the Ci-t;y-Gl-e~-k--o-f--the--City of Meridian and is
available upon regnESt. - - -- - -
_--
---- - --
Public comment is we~i~trtre-an~+-w#a_1-beataken and=Heard.
- - - _ -
-__ _ __ -
DATED this ~~ -
l~__ day of April, 1990. - "---
- - _ -_ 3fiCK N3fMAN CITY CLfRK -- _
~..
33 M~1S
I `
I ^.~ ~ •. pr~ a~ e D s
^m r
h0 ° tJ i A v Q • D Lt ~ ,~~.
~_dEe I R0 m e ~~ a ^vlow•Ir. r (e ,d.
~~i ~ - _ ' ~
s i~ • r' ,
v ~ ~ = s .
^e'~~'~yy;' <• W3Da '3AV 4101'M'N W ^wo•ur,ry 1332l1;S
$:?6858 > r... ... • •. •10 ^ ^ m t Z n
• • ~ ... • .~ v ~ ~ • ~ Y . r t s G •i
~ • • S
~ r >< m ~ r s tg a '~
3 x • _ ` e • ~ a ~?
• A 7 <
^ O <' < I
V 4111 'M'N aru+r lun • * '
~ 0
• / O < ^ V
a ~ o• 9 . %~ c a a ~
~ , t ~_ e
r 3 °'° ~~~{{ ~ ~ t b
~ r ~ le, • ~ • • A r R R r w a ~ ~y~
~~ b • . • ^ f~ e s
i ~'~~. ~ A • lr~ -.rn .
O w ^ q i rpm .i8 ~.- : ~mp~ .f s~ • ~ y'•T .._ ~Ji -
(. G.r. f ) ft y I~ i K a! 'ate .wr a a a - a
I- ! t • IIO 1 < 1 r t ij ~ •e O <r rr r< is ti~•
A
~
S ~ ' ~ ~ nfZ/I
tf• H1ZI'M'
•w '1S H121 ~ i1 • p~
•..f~
~-° l ,y
>
I
V le ° ± I t • iS ~a q ~ . r b
~"
i e
M • . tl I ... 2 t ~ \s Iji \ • ; • r0 a „m.•
r
•
+
u .. 3 ~V~iyi i
~ e P oar
k P ~°,
e
e rl I
_ F < .
la • q f J1. • w •xi
'`
a .al ~. b t s Ia as ~ r !y .• .
~
I ~ f
I ~
I Q -erw- .tcr Dar Dar Dw D • )r f + -, d .
~
' a ~
ai ffi
~
t + r _
•
p~» < :s '1S Hlbl 'M'N : a~;; a I
. t . _° 4 ~ ^ r
~ . w
Is i. v
li
a
._ __ .Y __ __
1.
as ..ail' ° a y~
F~< ,In o ~~.~ Z.
<.• ~ ~ ~-
t'i~li~s' o<`.~ ~
. y w
w t '1S 191'M'N 3 ~=~.y ~i 3 ~ w,
? I ^ a i IS•_ IGS ~y :__ i_^ fll ii ` _ ; a°
O ` Ala .e e • r s-e • t< ja t ~ era Mla ! .ra - i
~• _ ur _.rnr _ _ .;1 ~R21
lw
t tih
7,
,1
~0
0~
q
~~
q
~ J; -:i,
• •
T ~ / _ ~ -
FAME ADD E S TELEP ONE NUMBER ~ - G U
~/-E I n ~~F r~ K ~,~ ~'i;;~~ i 11,E i , ~J, ~:, ~ ~ <I ~~ n ~ - ~ ~ ~~t ~ ~ E~ ~~ C' /-~<<.~~,~R;,,
tA~~ ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER SIGNATURE
-~//i ~c b`~ ~
The below listed citizens of Meridian Idaho are opposed to the rezoning of
Misty Meadows Subdivision from R4 to R8 as well as the proposed preliminary plat
of this subdivision. We are concerned that the lowering of the zoning to R8
will solicit the type of houses that will significantly decrease our property
value. We are concerned that these lower priced homes will not be of the type
of construction nor maintained as well as the existing homes pride themselves
in. Request the Planning and Zoning Commission consider our desires and
concerns and disapprove this rezzoning request.
I~~ I~~C U ,~( ~-~~-~ i~ ~l ~~~~~ ~i~ /L I'~I ~~~rl l~. ~; ~'i~ ~ ~`i~ ~~ ~!,'_ ~.~ r~~l. L~i~ <<~
NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER SIGNATURE
~ ~
r ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~
I~,I~.C- ~~ G~I~U-1 i~ c.CY~ ICI ~
NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBE~2!~ SIGNATURE
NAtiE ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER SIGNATURE
~. 7
_ ~J~,~C: Diu ~ ~
j
~~li A'~(-._ IIC~_ Il~Pt i [~~A ~~ L~ ~.i 4-`l~ i, ;A ~11;~ y'~'~~~.C~~~~.t'~ _
NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER SIGNATURE
/ ~ ,
NAMEi ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER ~ ~ SIGNATURE
TELEPHONE NUMBER ~~ SIGNATURE
$gS DeJNSt!`
TELEPHONE NUMBER S NATURE
a )c,c
-~'s~~
~ti
~< JJC ~~~ ~~~
ATURE
NAME
F ~
• •
NOTICE OF HEARING
AMBROBE,
~~T20ERAL0
CROOKBTON
tian.~n rxt
camNwn
•.o. so. ~n
ulebe, ~e~no
ne+z
ones.MBJYI
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the
City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the
Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold
a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., on
May 8, 1990, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the
Application of Alice Culver for a rezone of a portion of the
N.E. 1/4 of S. W. 1/4 of Section 1 T. 3 N. R. 1 W., Boise
Meridian, Misty Meadows Subdivision, Meridian, Ada County,
Idaho, frorn R-4 Residential to R-8 Residential. Hearing will
also be held on Applicant's requests approval of a preliminary
plat of -Misty Meadews- Subdivision--which is to be located on the
above described property, which requested approval is of
approximately 12.89 acres for. R-8 .Residential for 58 single.
family building lots. The property is generally located at NW
8th Street 1/4 mile--North of Cherry Lane. - - --
A more particular legal description is on file in the
office o_f the L-i=t~y:=G-l-ex-k-~f---the--City of Meridian and -is -_
available upon regaESt_. --_--- - - ---____- _.._
Public comment is we~cZme~nd_wfiaj=betaken andh_eard.= _ =~
- --
DATED this -
l~,_ day'of April, 1990. -- - -
- SACK Ni-EidAN CITY CLERK -- -
. O
____ _. y .
A
s• _ tl i ~ p
~ } C ~ -! `L ~- ~`• i=14.-~a• ail a~ ii.~'i.ial •` 1 a
i it N i »»I a
~i - °-• i i ~ n.° a f • it li • i is j + « ! • ~ • % ~ t ~«~~cI';
• i „• t 0 G U w'~• ~ L N.W. 15 ST. w'
'~ i i~ a+N ~ ~ D
-i
• rn i o~•2 •'m 5 iii' •=z
•
~ •t a t s ! s ~ ~
t
'
! ! ! t
is n w • • ~
a I
A • •. [I
x 9
1
m • p
• . i ~ m i .' ~, it ~ • 14TH ST.
: N.W. : Dc l .Y•
~ y
flt _ a
i
~,i i i f •q
.rav.Ya a
~' a .~ ••/ 4'•• ~Ria
. .; ~ ;
'.
f
`.. 1
$ X
11 1
~ .
a ~
,
a
.•,
a ~
. 0 g
~ g
..__- -__-~ -__._-. F` .. _ -
~i •• t/ ° S • i
t IR I % T t
-•,I
9 pp
N. W. 12TH `a
c• ~a
I~ .. y. t2TH ST. 4 ~
~ `
ar nr
+ 1 a 1
;_ ~
9
n«
. f 4 O
a.. f i ." t• s, .«EI ..»
,
, i .•
i '1
i ~
.
w-:.
- ai. r _ •_. ~
ml.c~ _
:a_ s>r. s~
s+t
i•
- O
.a.u. ~~ _
. i ~
S Y 'E: i y i• . . . • N
D i i i ~•
•
•N.W.
»
AVE.
Ith r_.
w
W~ Ei ~ C • ~ •
• a ~ ° ,
~7 • ^ °
~
1 _
B~ -
• . ~ w r
»
p• « a ++n. •+a•R N.W. I1 f h n ~
- -
+» s a O e i . a a
. - • • C d S
'
i¢
! 3t •
V i
t _
a1
~!
t
. "'
FA a i e m .a =
• ~ _ -
• (
•• ` l
m ~
STREET ~
'
L aanwa+aa i r a
N.W. IOIh AVE. i •' E
!~?:
E
•• :
~ a
D
'
t a s • -
1A/
I
.
1
>
~
M R
g+•j
,
~
GN.M .
~
i~i
~~~
+ . m ° ~ g n p fl
fl ~ ~
a i
~~
i~
•
P L • <r t a
~ ~
J ~
as +vn. aat C ;
~ ees
0~
~ 6
i I ~ 4
C
~• ` ` _
_ » ~
a~ ~ x <
m y
o I -
The below listed citizens of Meridian Idaho are opposed to the rezoning of
Misty Meadows Subdivision from R4 to RS as well as the proposed preliminary plat
of this subdivision. We are concerned that the lowering of the zoning to R8
will solicit the type of houses that will significantly decrease our property
value. We are concerned that these lower priced homes will not be of the type
of construction nor maintained as well as the existing homes pride themselves
in. Request the Planning and Zoning Commission consider our desires and
concerns and disapprove this rezoning request.
~i~ ~ ~(l~Kt~~~) %'%/ J~~~~))~~z~ -~i; x'0`5 - «`~C= ~`~~ ~i~Ylll~' I,L.iJ
L_ ~~1~1
AMA E ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER STGNATIIR:
i
NUMBER
~ ~ ~ \
~ s i.~ : t %~tY~. ,. ~,C:,1 ,
NAMFr~ ~ ADD~tES3
cci~ ~T ~ C=~. ,~.(~
/~. ,
NAME ADDRESS
~..
Ci-> i ~
NAME ~ ADDRESS
/~,, ~
ADDRESS
"_'ELEPHONE NUMBER
t~Y~
~ ~. Cj "-. 1'-~VI-AJl
TELEPHONE NUMBER
~~
~- ~i~
TELEPHONE NUMBER
~~
~~~'~ ~V~ ~~~'~ --A
TELEPHONE NUMBER
S1
A ~ _.
SIGNATURE
~r
~:~~C .~,
~ ~i`~~
SIGNATURE
~ti ~ 9_~.~/~l~ ~ ~'~ vU ~,/ / ~ ~~i :~ ~ _~~~ d" % i )~'i i~', ~', if
NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUt4BER SIGNATURE
..
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the
AMBROSE,
iTZGERI1lD
CROOIfSTON
nanM uy
cw~~«w.
'.o. eo. u~
.now, ~e.no
paz
onon.eeeas~
City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the
Planning and Zoning .Commission of the City of Meridian will hold
a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., on
May 8, 1990, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the
Application of Alice Culver for a rezone of a portion of the
_ - -
N.E. 1/4 of S. W. 1/4 of Section 1 T. 3 N. R. 1 W., Boise
Meridian, Misty Meadows Subdivision, Meridian, Ada County,
Idaho, from R-4 Residential to R-8 Residential. Hearing will
also be held on Applicant's requests approval of a preliminary
plat of Misty Meadows-Sub0i:Jision--which is to be located on the
above described property, which requested approval is of
approximately 12.89 acres for- R-8 Residential for 58 single
family building lots. The property is generally located at NW
--°° . - - _
8th Street 1/4 mile--North of Cherry Lane. -
A more particular legal description is on file in the
office of the Ga=ty--~1--e~k-~-f---tie-i;ity of Meridian and is
available upon rega-est -- ---- - - - ---- - -
-----
~_ _ _ - -
Public commen-t is we~cs~r~-and-w#al _be-taken sand heard.'
_ -- - - ,
DATED thi~~_- day~of April, 1990.
- d~fK N3fMAN CITY CLERK --
~_
._.. . .
i "~
O .
__
h E
a a
p1 _ s . ~ D wu t~ u qlf u i
-.. - si•
' -- --
~ ~zt
is ~ r
t ° ~ a
~ ~
.
•. _ .I ~ ~ ~
I o
Z
^ I A
_. , a
.~
~
R -_ ~
, ^ _ ~ • i O v tl
~ U k
µ' a
a t t N.W.15 ST. t ~_
__.
• = N
N D
^ ~ __ __ S• ~ __ _ !
° • i O f ° t T O
{I t_ D :~ .r w" 97 _ 7t S v
~ ~
t d l ~ m •
^ ^
^ ~ m ~
i ° . °
~. ll
~. R . a
14
N.
W
t
TH SL
t ~ q
a
1
t
~_
~
.«
..
~ V -J
.• at t v ~ P a ai ~ • ai i^l .Y91 1u ~VL ~ ~ I
i
~
~ ~ •
• •
- . _i .a ..a ~ rv !~
° ^
n•
r t1 ..
rd ~'
e °' ~•~~ tl
- as tl o°r it
Sr 7 I Lt + y
P ..y1
• o
w f
i
,
e/
~
°'
t 9 U
'
~ r.
I' °.
p
~
• SI t
i C• ~° !q`i~~° e to ~~ ti.~. .. O }•~ ~ i a tl
N
fl
' °
I
..__' _..___-.'_
' a .
a
°
fa ' . «.
t i tl
"
i li
bs
• ff
'. " ~ i e •
.
e a~ !
~
°~ f r
~ `I a
It ~t 4
q
!1
Z 1 ~ ~. 4 ~ a. H
"`~~~ •
/ 12T
ST
~
/
r
a °
4 .. 1
a'
i I
~
, N.W. @TH
~~w
y .
y
H
I
.. nr ti aw'
s.
~
r 1 a t a 1 • 1 S^ jj .~.. .. .. ... ,
.a
,. ! + 1• •
t °
~ s I
i 'I
i; t: .
_
r • s wrra. ~
b.. tl
`
'
.
l . C~sl
. O
~rt S tt 'E ^ _
• y V
- ~~N.W. Ith AVE.
1 F _ f
f • •' ... r
~1 • ~ % -a
~ a - • f y j _I
~ ? kr • ~ • O
Y
1
a
tt C
•
p
0
0
p
r.
»
w a nnr ewa^
NW. Illh t
•
. y
n y
y \
1
• a . ., a
,
~
y
• .
a4
a a
i a s i 6 a 2 F I
i
N
7!
~ °
! =
° y
! a 1
r p
1 ~
' - ~ ce • 7
. C a C
S ° ^ ~ .~
• a
` Y e "' ~ . .. ....... ~
a g @
SR R E E T ~' wa tr. araa /m. t i4m
N.W. 10th AVE. ~ a e 3 ~ ~ s"'
~
i a
•
~
~
S
• ~ _
-
i v ~'
~
t
~
•
_
a6- E:~
~n
~ =
~
•
n ~
i. O
m P
. •
w °
+fy ~
sa/.l -
y
.~i 3k
C
~~~
.. ..
~ c t
^ i
'~ s
~
•r tt n is
~• °
~ (^(rr:c
i^j6it
t
,PLC S rta roar aaat t: O~ o= !i 1 ;- f
r `• ` t t
_ ~ i m a„ ^' •
_ 0
~
I
~,
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF MERIDIAN'S
APRIL 1990 APPLICATION TO AMEND
THE MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AMSROSE,
FITZGERAI.D
d CROOKSTON
Attorneys ano
Counaelon
P.O. Boz 42]
McMCian, IEMo
83842
TelepMne 8884481
The above entitled application to amend the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan having come on for public hearing on May 8,
1990, at 7:30 o'clock p.m., and the Planning and Zoning
Commission having heard any and all testimony that was
submitted, including judicial knowledge, and including its
knowledge of existing plans for the areas under consideration
and having duly considered all the evidence, officially noticed
evidence and the facts of the Comprehensive Plan itself, the
Local Planning Act of 1975, the Planning and Zoning Commission
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the Application was submitted by the Planning and
Zoning Commission and is an amendment proposed by the
commission.
2. That there are two parcels of property specifically
involved in this Application which are i) the area between
Ustick Road and One Quarter Mile North of Ustick Road,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1
basically extending from Blackcat Road to Eagle Road, and 2) the
Northeast Quadrant of the intersection of Eagle Road and
Interstate I-84; that there are other changes being proposed
which do not relate to any specific parcel of property, but are
text amendments; that the Application of the Planning and
Zoning Commission to amend the Meridian Comprehensive Plan is
hereby incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
3. That the two specific parcels of property to which the
Application applies are contained within the Meridian Area of
Impact, are not contained within the City Limits of the City of
Meridian, and are zoned by the County and not by the City of
Meridian.
4. That there has been developed in the City of Boise a
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERAID
A OROOKSTON
Allorneye ene
Counealon
D.o. eo..v
MerlGlen, IENo
S38/S
TeIaDKOne e8B~M81
Regional Shopping Center; that a Regional Shopping Center has
very little likelihood, if any, of being developed at the
intersection of Eagle Road and I-84.
5. That the specific property to which the Application
deals with regarding the Urban Service Planning Area boundary
change is between Ustick Road and One Quarter Mile North of
Ustick Road is used for residential acreages, pasture land and
farm ground.
6. The reasons for the proposed amendments are stated in
the Application.
7. That there are factual changes within the area covered
by the Comprehensive Plan and they include 1) that the Eagle
Road Interchange at I-84 is completed and is not just planned or
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 2
encouraged, 2) that a Regional Shopping Center has been
constructed in Boise and is a fact and it is therefore quite
likely that no Regional Shopping Center will be constructed in
the City of Meridian or within its Area of Impact for some years
in the future, 3) that Ada County has changed its rural area
policies and now allows for some five (5) acre developments; 4)
the City Hall complex has been completed and it includes a new
police station, 5) that it is likely that there will be no
branch office of the Ada County Prosecutors Office and not
likely to have a separate judge with chambers in Meridian, and
there was in fact no jail Constructed in the new City Hall, and
the City uses the Ada County Jail; 6) that Eagle Road is planned
for and is presently being constructed and improvement to a five
and six lane road from Overland Road to Fairview Avenue and will
be continued to be improvement through to Chinden Blvd., 7) that
it is likely that development will continue around the
Interchange of Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue and will continue
North, 8) that residential development is pushing westward from
Boise into the areas between Cloverdale Road and Eagle Road, and
9) that there is an Application presently pending for
development for a commercial facility at an intersection where
one corner is already zoned as a commercial development.
8. That the Comprehensive Plan itself recognizes that if
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attomeya and
Coonaelora
P.O. Boy 027
MeriElen, IEeho
838x2
Telephone BBB-N81
it is to be useful and effective it should not be filed away and
should be continually reviewed and updated. The recommendations
within the Comprehensive Plan should not be interpreted as
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 3
unalterable commitments, but rather as a reflection of the best
foreseeable direction at a given point in time. It is
recommended by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission that
at least a yearly review shall be held of the Comprehensive Plan
to update and/or reaffirm the Plan to fit the changing needs as
well as unforseen planning problems and opportunities.
9. That Ada County's change of rural development now
allowing five (5) acre tracts poses substantial possibilities
for adverse impact upon ground water from private septic systems
as evidenced by development in the southwestern portion of the
Boise Metropolitan Area; that to avoid sewer effluent's adverse
impacts it is necessary to plan and require sewer and water
plans and facilities in areas where possible and likely
residential development will occur in the hopes of preventing
adverse sewer impacts in the five (5) acre tract development
areas.
10. That there are a substantial number of text amendments
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALO
B CROONBTON
Attorneys and
Counselors
P.O. Box ~~l
Marl0len, Idaho
&'1812
Talepftone 888-t,Bl
of a clerical or typographical error nature and no specific
findings or conclusions need to be made regarding them.
11. That there are areas within the City Limits of the
City where more than one commercial development has occurred at
an intersection, and the refusal to allow commercial development
in the future on more than one corner of an intersection may not
be preferable, and there are other ways of limiting strip
development than just allowing only one development at an
intersection.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 4
12. That under Economic Policies it states in part as
follows:
1) The City of Meridian shall make every effort to
create a positive atmosphere which encourages
industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in the
City of Meridian.
2) It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set
aside areas where commercial and industrial interests
and activities are to dominate.
5) Stripping of industrial and commercial uses are
not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
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.
13) With regard to Commercial Activity Centers and
their locations the Plan states at Page 20 as follows:
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 Systems
Aesthetics (Design Considerations)
Use Impacts Upon Other Adjacent Uses
Internal Circulation Design
Drainage
14) That the Plan also states at Page 22 that
Neighborhood Commercial Centers should not be located
at more than one corner of an intersection.
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
80ROOKSTON
Albrneyn enC
Couneelom
P.O. Bo. ~P1
MsrlElen, IEe~o
BSB12
Te1ePKOne BSe~l~81
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 5
1. That the procedural requirements of the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan, hereafter referred to as the "Plan", and of
the Local Planning Act, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code,
including all notice and hearing requirements have been met;
that the Planning and Zoning Commission has authority to amend
the Comprehensive Plan.
2. That the Application was initiated by the Planning and
Zoning Commission and not by any individual or private entity.
3. That the Commission may take judicial or official
notice of existing conditions in the City, County and State, and
of governmental actions, policies and ordinances and of its own
prior findings in other land use Applications and those of the
City Council.
4. That the function of adopting, amending, or repealing
AM BROSE,
F1T2G ERAlD
S CROOKSTON
Attornaya antl
Counaelora
P.O. Box d]]
Meritlian, Itla~o
B3Sd2
TelepNOne BBB~dd81
a Comprehensive Plan is a legislative function. Burt vs. The
City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.2d 1075 (1983). That
even though this is a legislative function, the Local Planning
Act requires that Findings of fact and Conclusions be made for
any Application provided for in the Act.
5. That the Application itself is concluded to meet the
requirements of the Amendment Provision and Procedures of the
Plan; that it is concluded that the Application does not affect
all components of the Comprehensive Plan and therefore those
components other than land use and economic development are
concluded not to be relevant to this Application.
6. That it was previously concluded in prior
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 6
Comprehensive Plan Amendments that the Plan can be amended to
reflect "Good Planning" and the desires and goals of the
citizens and the City Council and the Planning and Zoning
Commission, as the citizens representatives.
7. That the Plan is what it says it is. It is a Plan.
The Plan itself states that it "Summarizes Policies and
Proposals and does not develops detailed site plans". The
comment to the Policy Diagram indicates that the Diagram " is to
be used as a general guide for land use decision-making, not as
a legalistic or literal and definitive map". The Plan therefore
should be liberally construed but still maintained as the
functional guideline for land use decisions; i.e., the Plan
policies and objectives cannot be willingly disregarded when
there is an apparent conflict between the Plan and the proposed
use. The City has the duty to continually plan; that the
Commission treats amendments proposed either by private entities
or the City itself as part of the planning duty and function.
8. That there has been significant changes in the area
AMSROSE,
FITZG ERALD
B CROO KSTON
Attorneys enE
Counselors
P.O. Box dZ]
MatlEian, IESho
83862
Telephone BeS~<det
warranting changes in the Comprehensive Plan; that one of those
changes is the fact that a regional shopping center has been
constructed in Boise and it is concluded to be very unlikely
that an additional one will be constructed at the specific site
location dealt with in the Application. That another
significant change is the change by the Ada County Commissioners
to allow development of five (5) acre tracts within the
unincorporated areas of Ada County; also the changes along Eagle
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 7
~~. r • •
AM BROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys and
Counselors
P.O. Boa lZ]
MerlElan, ICMo
e3esi
TeleOAOne BBe-a81
Road also constitute substantial and significant changes in the
area warranting changes in the Comprehensive Plan.
9. That it is concluded that the current statement in the
Plan that no more than one corner of an intersection should be
developed commercially with a neighborhood center is too
restrictive, that each intersection development must be treated
on a case by case basis; and that the location guidelines for
Activity Centers on Page 20 of the Plan are sufficient to guide
location of all types of Activity Centers; it is further
concluded that development of more than one corner of an
intersection commercially does not necessarily lead to strip
development, but may reduce tendency for strip development.
10. That the Commission concludes that the facts presented
and the officially noticed facts are sufficient to amend the
Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 8
r
r
L
u
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioner Hepper
Commissioner Rountree
Commissioner Shearer
Commissioner Alidjani
Chairman Johnson (Tie Breaker)
RECOMMENDATION
Voted~_
Voted i~r~`
Voted
Voted
Voted
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council that the Planning and Zoning
Commission's proposed Amendments to the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan should be approved and adopted.
MOTION:
APPROVED: /' DISAPPROVED:
AMBROSE,
FITZGERAID
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys antl
Counselors
P.O. Boz a2T
Marltlian, Itlaho
BBBa2
Telephone BBB-NB1
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 9