Loading...
1993 09-30MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1993 - 5:30 P.M. PLANNING AND ZONING SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 14, 1993: 1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: • • ORIGINAL �4ERIDLTV }l.a:v'.1.�['; ,K utJtiltiG SEPT 30. 1993 The special _ meeting, Of the Meridian __ Planning and Zoning kommission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson: Aembers Prosent: Charlie Rountree. Jim Johnson. Tim Hopper. Jim Shearer: others Present: Sheri Baker, Bohn Baker. Carmen 'Mayes. Wayne Crookston. Wall herr: MI>UfLS each PInK luLs MELTI 0 HELD SEPTEMBER 14. 1993: The Motion was made b,y Rountree and seconded by Shearer to approve the minutes of the September 14. 1993 as written. Motion Carried: All Tea: FINDINGS OF FACT AND (U C .US I ON uF LAh FOR AMENDMENT TO THE. MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Johnson: To begin that I will go through what I have ascertained to he either a questioned or a correction. If you have any additions. you can add those afterwards. Most of these are typos. Page I. after findings of fact item #l.third sentence.public— there should be something after public I would think.sentence doesn't read right. It says. That notice of public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment was published for two consecutive weeks prior to each public` lhearingf, how about hearing. okay so we insert hearing there. Next correction is page 3.I41 skip thal. 1 was ,lust questioning the word "solid", because I didn't know what it meant. Is that something like a full week? Rountree: that an page Z, item 4 Johnson: Okay. item 3. 1 have a confusing sentence under "e" in parentheses. item 5. it sa,vs.its a continuation. in mid -- sentence. and that in subdivision approval the subdivision ordinance may provide ordinance.That confused me. irookston: 1 don t have a copy. Johnson: Get one for Wayne please. Is that the only one you have: Planning* n 'Zoning sept. 30. 199: Page Z Rountree: 1 would say that's probably a starter and if strike the two. ordinance provide and provide for mitigation and effects of subdivision development etc... Johnson: Let give Wayne: a chance to look at it. He prepared 1 1 . Rountree: it's one of those thinis that happens rn W'orilprocohnors a I. I. Johnson: Does that make sense. Charlie's correction? Crookston: Khat was that again Charlie? Rountree: Strike "ordinance provide. the second one and then instead the subdivision ordinance may provide for mitigation. rather instead of the ordinance the second time. Johnson: It was strike the provide ordinance. Okay and leave it as the ordinance may provide mitigation etc... Okay. nextitem pare :i. I have: a reference to ''Black Road".[ think that is H1ackCat Road. that is down at the bottom. number 12. Next page is seven. Oh. this is kind of pickc.but under 18. if it is joint. it certainly would be used jointly. Do we need the repetition or the repeat of the word joint or jointly? Or can we ,just sac share equipment that is owned Jointly? That's pretty picky. It-. up to Nou guys. I'd say throw out the first joint. Should we throw out the first joint' Rountree: I'll second that. Johnson: Okay. next page 8. we have a couple things on this pace. l m not all together sure on this. but under B on the top of the page t think that is borrow as in "borrow pit".b-o-r-r-o-w should be. Under t. Our Planning h Zoning Commissioner. his name is jim :hearer nut June nhearer. Rountree: Put in there he too if we're going to go that far. Johnson: And then right below that. item J after better 1 think that should he better than . than better that. Page nine.this is rather picky. I had t3o things here. one was C to he consistent shouldn't that second animal he animals. with an s? And under the comments made by Vern Alleman. would that be the pertinent place to sac that is already addressed b,y that old code or not? There is som.thine in the code regarding the right to farm. Plannrny A 7.onine Sept. 30. I D03 Pace Crookston: There is. If you want to put in you can. Johnson: hell. 1 think it might clarify why we're ignoring it. Vagv ten, and this is a question. 1s it Don Bryan, or Don brunt' Lrookston: Brun. 1 heIieve, drnn; nn: Cause 1 don t. 1've never seen it the way it is spelled here. .anyway that is no big deal. page eleven. something got screwen together here under S. Looks like we should have started a new paragraph starting with "That". Because those comments are not pertinent to Mike Donahue who testified under S. Crookston: That's correct. Johnson; There should he a paragraph startinv with that Crookston: Should be T Johnson: to can make that T. sure that would do it. Okay that's page eleven. i got page twelve. there is a she in there that should he a he. Jim Baker. under "e". Okay. page thirteen. I had a quosiion. Under J, ada County Highway District submitted comment regarding the designation of four streets as being collector streets, and request that those streets be included on the Functional Street Classification Nap: they further commented as to a desire for a "calming" of traffic. The way I understood that, and 1 don t have it with me, wasn't An Count,j ' _. comment Just tc; raw,rd the statement on "calming-? Crookston: Yes. Johnson: They really wanted to change the wordintz. to more match their Yording. that's the way I read it, isn't that basically it? Rountree: fhat's how I understood it. Johnson; to in other words, what I saying is it's already there. but they wanted the wording chanvcd . They didn't like the way we worded it. which I didn't have a problem with. So can we alter, that: Rountree; We can. 0 9 Planning A Zoning Sept. 30. 1J93 PaKe 4 Johnson: okay, let's alter that. Pane nineteen. I had a question on seventeen, It says, in the last sentence."It makes good planning sense to include the Land that abuts Eagle Road into Meridian s Area of Impact. should that he more spectficallp stated since there'a road that abuts l:agie Road all the way from the desert north of Eagle. Or are we talking, 1 know what the idea is, but is worded properly? Shearer: It could be more definitive. Johnson: Should WC :ay within the ,Area of impact, or what was our thought there? Shearer: The thouc_rht is Chinden to Columbia. Johnson: I think that just leaves it open. I think we ought to be a little more specific. Crookston: Just sac it, the end of the sentence sac from Chinden hlvd to Columbia Road. Johnson: Yeah, from Chinden Blvd to South Calowhis Road. That':; all I've got. Anybody else have any corrections a1 this point in that area, before we get into any discussion? These are ,lust a"itorral. cleaning it up more or less. Rountree: Page eight, and ten. Letter C, on eicht and Letter on ten. I don t know the correct spelling of Bermensolo, but we have two there. which ever one is right. Crookston: I think it's B—e. Rcuntrca: 1 think it is too. Shearer: I'm sure it is. Johnson: Anybody else have any? Rountree: I have a clarification on page eight under letter B. from Mrs.Maces, she wasn't necessarily objecting to the incorporation of the western Ada Recreation District within the city, she was questioning theidea that the city was going to have thathappen, when in fact itwould take a vote of the public to disband the District. l think that is clearly the plan at this point. Johnson: Do you recommend any chanars in B on page eight? Planning I honln,: Sept .3t1. 1993 Page h Rountree: Kell, it does need some change in some of the wording on page seventeen. About objection of the plan. I really don't think that's necessary at that point. First paragraph on page seventeen talks about the voiced objections to the plan proposed to mercer. Johnson: Okay. 1don't recall the exact testimony. hit I do recall 1 believe her primary concern was that those areas In idc the city limits dere more or less being ignored. Did you read it that way:' h"Int.re^: Well. I just spoke, to her before. and it had her concerned. Johnson: l realize that was not a public hearing. Rountree: l know, I'm just trying clarify what I thought she said. and l think ice were on the same wavelength as opposed K, what is being said here. Johnson: Would you sive as some suggestions or rpeordirio on that. then. Charlie? To clarify. Did you want to delete somethint: on seventeen is that what you're saying? Rountree: I would recommend just deleting the paragraph on page seventeen. Johnson: The first full paragraph starting with "There was a comment..." Rountree: or the first Half of the first long sentence of that paragraph. and start the sentence. -It is concluded that the physical facilities..- And ;just have that in then.°. Johnson: Alright, well this is not earth shattering. Rountree: Ao. its not a big deal. Johnson: Okay, very good we'll take that out of there. Arc you ,going to leave eight the way it is? ttoinitrvF: 1' l l just leave it that way. Johnson: Just leave it that way, okay. E Planning & Zoning Sept. 30. 1133 Page G Crookston: Leave it the way it i:;:' Rountreo: Eight? Crookston: No, on seventeen. 9 Johnson: On seventeen we're going- to take it out. :rookston: Okat Johnson: We'll delete everything in that paragraph at the ;tart. and begin the paragraph with "It" capitalized. Anybody else have an., changes, or do you have any more Charlie? Rountree: No .iohnson: Sud-gestions. Tim. James? Hepper: No Shearer: No Johnson: Any you picked up on there Wayne`! {'rookston: No Johnson: bill" Crookston: No, there are some things 1 didn't pick up on though, but they been have corrected. Johnson: Oh. .cell it's hard to proofread your own stuff. It s very difficult. Johnson: Okay. we're roadv for the discussion regarding the Comprehensive Plan we have before us. Findings of fact on the Comprehensive plan is what I'm referring to. Rountree: There is no discussion. I'll make a motion Mr. Chairman that. the Meridian Planning & Zoninq commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings and Facts and Conclusions. Shearer: 1 second it. Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that the Planning & "Zoning Commission hereby adopt and approve the findings of Fact and Conclusion of Lan as presented this evening. all in favor? P l annrng Zoning Sept. 30. 1993 Pngc . Roll Call Vote: Alidjani - :Absent. Hepper - yea. Rountree - yea, Shearer - yea. Motion Carried: all vea Johnson: Is this the recommendation we wish to pass on to the City Council at this point. Rountree: I move that the Meridian Plannino& ZoDi na commission hereby recommend this to the City Council that the Planning &. Zoninc commission proposed amendments to the Meridian ompre.hensive, Llan he approved and adopted. Shearer: Seconded ,o,; nn: It has been moved and seconded that the Meridian Planning & Zoning commission recommend to the City Council that W Comprehensive Plan be approved and adopted, all in favor? Motion Carried: 411 yea WNns.:ua: okay. anything else anybody wants to bring up this evening before we adjourn? Heppor: Mr. Vhairman 1 move that we adjourn. Shearer: l second it Motion Carried: All lea Johnson: Thank you for cominv down, on an off nicht. (TAPE. OF FILE OF THESE PROCEDDIRGS) AJLI- ATTEST: EDi VILLIAM G. BRRG.JR akd PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET NAME: PHONE NUMBER: -------------------------------------------------------- -- 9-x8 - ss -y `/ g87 -,/) ��� • 0. BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF MERIDIAN'S JULY 1993 APPLICATION TO AMEND THE MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled application to amend the Meridian Comprehensive Plan having come on for public hearing on August 10, 1993, at approximately 7:30 p. m., and the Commission having held a workshop on the amendment on August 16, 1993, at approximately 6:00 p.m., and having held an additional public hearing on September 14, 1993, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m., and having considered all written and oral testimony including that which was submitted, and the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard any and all testimony that was submitted, and considering 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 notice of public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to each public, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the August 10, and September 14, 1993, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1 0 0 copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations; that copies of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments were available for inspection at the Meridian Library, at the Meridian Post Office, and at City Hall, and were available for purchase at the Meridian City Hall. 2. That the Application was submitted by the Planning and zoning Commission and is an amendment proposed by the Commission. 3. That the Commission desires to amend the Meridian Comprehensive Plan due to the fact that it was initially passed in 1978 and has not had an overall evaluation since that time; there have been amendments to the plan at various times, but there has been no complete analysis since 1978; that the Meridian Area of Impact has changed and there has been significant growth since 1978. 4. That as part of the procedure to adopt the proposed amendments to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Director, Wayne Forrey had two solid weeks of public workshops to help draft the Comprehensive Plan amendments. 5. That there have been amendments to the Local Planning Act, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, which provide that cities and counties, in their planning duties, provide (a) an analysis of public school capacity consideration associated with future development, (b) that notice to amend the comprehensive plan be sent to all political subdivisions, including school districts, providing services within the planning jurisdiction, (c) that in zoning changes consideration shall be given to the effects of any FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 proposed zoning change upon the delivery of services by any political subdivisions, including school districts, providing services within the planning jurisdiction, (d) that in applications for conditional use permits such a permit may be conditioned upon the applicant mitigating the effects of the proposed development upon service delivery by any political subdivisions, including school districts, providing services within the planning jurisdiction, (e) and that in subdivision approval the subdivision ordinance may provide ordinance provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the proposed subdivision. 6. That the current Comprehensive Plan did not have schools as a planning component and did not address, in any fashion, the above requirements; that the City was, and is, experiencing demand for growth which created development questions about parks, schools, recreation facilities, police and fire protection, public services, and how to fund those, that were not answered by the current Comprehensive Plan. 7. That the Area of Impact is proposed to be amended as shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, Generalized Land Use Map, incorporated herein by this reference; that the Area is proposed to be expanded to the north to Chinden, to the west to McDermott Road, to the south to Amity Road until it intersects with Meridian Road FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 0 0 and then continuing south to Columbia Road, and the east boundary continues to be 1/4 mile west of Cloverdale Road, except where modified. 8. That the original Area of Impact adopted by the City of Meridian in 1978 included all of what is now proposed to be included in the Area of Impact under this Petition to Amend the Comprehensive Plan, except for a small parcel along Columbia Road in the western portion of what is now referred to as the Southern Impact Referral Area; that the reason that the 1978 Area of Impact extended so far to the southeast was because the ground water and surface water migrated and flowed to and through Meridian; that fact has not changed; that the Area of Impact cannot extend further east than 1/4 mile west of Cloverdale Road, however, since it has been agreed that this area shall be in Boise's Area of Impact. 9. That the reason the City agreed with Ada County to reduce the size of the 1978 Impact Area was because it was not advantageous for cities to annex property in 1984 when it was agreed to reduce the size of the Area of Impact; that the laws have been changed and it is now advantageous for cities to annex additional property. 10. That the Urban Service Planning Area Boundary is proposed to be amended as shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, Generalized Land Use Map; that the Urban Service Planning Area Boundary is proposed to be extended to include most of the Area of Impact except for the area in the southwest corners of the proposed Area of Impact as shown on the Generalized Land Use Map because an FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 0 9 analysis of current and future sewer service has shown that these southwest areas cannot be feasibly served by the City of Meridian. 11. That there have been many significant changes in the Meridian Area of Impact; that the major changes are the increase in the population from 6,349 in 1975 as stated in the initial Plan, to 11,958 in 1990, and to an estimated population in 1993 in excess of 17,000; the significant residential development as a result of the populations increase; the addition of an Interstate 84 interchange at Eagle Road; improvements of the interchange at I-84 and Meridian Road; significant residential and industrial development south of I-84; extension of the Urban Service Planning Area Boundary in March of 1993; the loss of a substantial portion of the Northern Referral Area due to court decision; the interest in development in the Southern Referral Area; a comprehensive sewer study of the area; and the removal of possible sites for a regional shopping center from the Area of Impact. 12. That there are pressures to develop land west and north of the current Urban Service Planning Area Boundary; that the City has annexed property to the west of Black Road; that the City has had a sewer study performed which shows that the City would have the ability to provide sewer service to the areas included in the proposed Urban Service Planning Area Boundary; that proposed sewer line extensions are shown on the Generalized Land Use Map; that extension of water service can be made to the Urban Service Planning Area Boundary with the addition of additional wells and water lines as needed. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 0 0 13. That sewer and water lines have already been extended almost to the intersection of Ten Mile Road and Ustick Road; that they have been extended to the intersection of Meridian Road and Ustick Road; that they have been almost extended along Locust Grove Road to the intersection of Ustick Road. 14. That Meridian is the fastest growing city in the State of Idaho and is experiencing substantial residential development which requires urban services. 15. The City has received letters from property owners outside Meridian's Area of Impact requesting that they be included in the Area of Impact so that five acre development can occur; Ada County has rezoned portions of Ada County to Rural Transition (RT) which allows development of five acre tracts if the land is located in a city's area of impact. 16. 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 the sewer ettluent's adverse impacts on the ground water it is necessary to plan and require sewer and water plans and facilities in areas where it is likely residential development will occur in the hopes of preventing adverse sewer impacts in the five (5) acre tract development areas. 17. That during procedures for a prior Comprehensive Plan Amendment the Commission received written comment from the public regarding those proposed amendments which was to extend the Urban FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 0 Service Planning Area Boundary; the Commission entered into the record fifteen letters from people requesting that their property be included into the Urban Service Planning Area Boundary or the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 18. That the Meridian Rural Fire District includes most of the land that is being requested to be included in the Area of Impact; that the City of Meridian and the Meridian Rural Fire District have existing agreements to use and share joint equipment that the Meridian and Rural Fire District own jointly. 19. That the Meridian Library District includes much of the land that is being proposed to be included in Meridian's Area of Impact. 20. Eagle Road has been widened and improved from Overland Road to Fairview Avenue; that Eagle Road is planned to be improved from Fairview Avenue to at least Chinden Boulevard; it is the experience of the Commission that along with road and transportation improvements, land development follows. 21. That the Meridian Planning Director, Wayne S. Forrey, testified at both public hearings explaining the necessity for the amendments to the Plan; that his comments are in the minutes to both public hearings and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 22. That the public testimony at the August 10, 1993, public hearing can be summarized as follows: A. Dave Lewis - Desired that sewer and water be placed in Overland Road and Eagle Road South of Overland Road. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 • 0 B. Carmen Mayes - Desired that Franklin Road be widened. She had concern over bicycle safety and sufficient room for barrow pits in the roads and concern over pollution and weed control. She also expressed concern over the Western Ada Recreation District being incorporated into the City and she objected to that. She also testified that farm land removed from farming and developed into residences should retain its water rights and use that water for sprinkling. C. Doris Oliason - Testified that she desired that a roadway be put into her land for an additional access and desired that a weed ordinance be put in place that was enforceable. She desired more space between houses. D. Ruth Miller - Had concerns about sewer service being available to her property and desired that a park be placed near her land. She also expressed concern over the weeds in the County. E. Mike Cavin - Testified that he desired the northeast corner in the area of impact to go into the Boise area of impact. F. George Yost - Also testified that he wanted the northeast corner of the area impact to go into the Boise area of impact. G. Betty Bermensolo - Testified as a member of the Southwest Ada County Alliance; she desired a buffer between properties developed in higher and lower densities; she desired 5 acres next to 2.5 acres and 1 acres next to .5 acres and requested that developers contact neighbors about their proposed developments and desired to preserve rural areas. H. Virgil Smitzger - Desired that his land be placed in the Boise area of impact. I. June Shearer - Testified that she desired that the design review portion of the proposed comprehensive plan be deleted. J. Greg Johnson - Testified that impact fee's are needed but that they were only better that nothing and that he actually supported transfer fees; he desired more mixed residential in additional areas; he supported not having any design review; he additionally supported developers going to neighbors with their plans for development. K. Raleigh Hawe - Testified that he supported mixed used FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8 • densities and desired mixed use North of Fairview and Cherry Lane. L. Mo Alidjani - Testified that the language in the proposed comprehensive plan supports the September 1993 bond election and he stated that his feeling was that he might personally agree with that statement, but that such statement should not be included in the plan, but left up to each individual. M. Arnold Stubblefield - Testified that he agreed that either impact fees or transfer fees should be adopted. But he was certainly more desirous of having transfer fees. 23. That the public testimony at the September 14, 1993, public hearing can be summarized as follows: A. Cheryl Josephson - Testified that she was in favor of the shift to the Boise area of impact for the land located in the Northeast corner of the Meridian area of impact. B. Lola Sept - Also testified that she wanted the area in the Northeast corner of the Meridian area of impact to be transferred to the Boise area of impact. C. Diane Beaulieu - Testified that she wanted bike lanes along Locust Grove Road, that she wanted the City to look at individual land to determine what should remain rural lands, and that she desired that people who have animals to have grandfather rights to keep their animal. She further desired that water and irrigation rights be maintained in areas that are developed. D. Ross Dodge - A planner for the Ada Planning Association encouraged the adoption of the pathway plan. E. John Baker - He indicated that a very good job had been done on the Plan. However, he desired that improvements be made to the Fire Department. F. Vern Alleman - Desired that some provisions be inserted to protect farming when residential and farm land conflict and he desired that fences be placed between subdivisions and farm land. He submitted a petition that stated there should be added to the land use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan a right to farm which addresses the continuation of farming activities without disruption as a result of adjacent residential development; the FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9 s petition was signed by an excess of 50 people. G. Warren Watson - Had a question on how much commercial was included within the plan at the location of the intersection of Ustick and Linder Roads. H. Dave Tucker - He had a question as whether the Shoshoni Building and land around it been annexed. I. Robert Morrison - Testified as to problems he was having with the Cherry Lane Village Golf Course. J. Eldon Kelley - Inquired as to whether or not there where any other Golf Courses included in the plan or planned for. K. Vernon Croft - Testified that he felt that there should be a greenbelt around any golf courses and he stressed that pressurized irrigation be required and street lights be required. L. Randi Stevens - Testified that she desired impact fees to be adopted and desired buffer areas next to one acre subdivisions so that owners of the one acre lots could be able to keep horses. M. Sherry Baker - Testified that she wanted a fire standard of one fireman to 1,000 population on a full-time basis and she requested that recycling be required. N. Don Bryan - Had a question as to what was defined as rural and he recommended that rural be defined as 2 acres or more; he desired a fence between rural lands and subdivisions. O. Carmen Mayes - Said that there was nothing in the Comprehensive Plan addressing a requirement of 4 lanes on Franklin road and that she desired the design review process be placed back into the Comprehensive plan. P. Max Boesiger - Testified that impact fees were a fair tax on growth, that he hates to see them adopted and he encourages the adoption of transfer fees; he further questioned the taking of land for schools and parks. Q. Betty Burmensolo - Stated that she wants development to add to schools if their development impacts the school; she desired to protect land uses such as farms from intrusion; that the Plan should have the design review process reinstated; that their should be a pre - application procedure set up so that the developer has to FINDINGS OF FACT 6 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10 go to neighboring property owners to point out his development; and she indicated that it was an incorrect decision to go from 9 school policies to 3 school policies. She submitted proposed changes in the plan relating to school policies (enrollment), 2.10 U land use general policies, 1.15 U residential policies, 2.2 U, and rural areas 6.9 U, 6.7 U, and 6.11 U and submitted recommendations pertaining to design review and a statement that recommended that Meridian School District be allowed to purchase the elementary school sites at developer acquisition costs. R. Beverly Donahue - Submitted general comments in regard to school financing and educating the public on that and stated that the school have no room for new students; ,she was also concerned about rural areas and buffers around them. S. Mike Donahue - Testified that building in California was not killed by impact fees but by the economy and urged impact fees to be adopted. That also at the public hearing a written statement submitted by Larry Sale from the Ada County Highway District was admitted into evidence as was a letter from Jay Gray, and a letter from Diane Beaulieu that relates to care of landscaping and the noise of traffic. 24. That the City received written comments from several people and entities which can be summarized as follows: a. From the Bureau of Reclamation, United States Department of the Interior stated that it supports 1) the City's support of the APA Pathway Plan; 2) the City's desire to protect canals and the special characteristics of Five Mile and Ten Mile Drains and suggested including Nine Mile Drain; 3) that it supported the policies stated at page 31, 1.1U, at page 32, 2.1U,3.1U, and 3.2U, at page 33, 5.4 and 5.7 which basically state that irrigation systems shall not be jeopardized by subdivision developments and that runoff shall be controlled on site; 4) that it supports other policies and in summary stated that it applauded "the City's aggressive, far sighted planning effort." b. There were two submittals from Betty Bermensolo that stated 1) that the plan should only be looking at a land use map for the next five years rather the next fifty years; that design review needed to part of the plan; that developers need to make FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11 0 contact with existing neighborhoods prior to Planning and Zoning hearings; that the school policies should not have been reduced to three from nine and that Meridian children deserve a quality education and 2) suggested some proposed changes to the Plan pertaining to her initial comments. C. There was a submittal from Dennis R. Stover which stated that he was generally in favor of the Plan but suggested some changes, some of which were put into the second draft of the Plan, one of which was to show the planned sewer routes. d. Michael D. Caven submitted a letter that suggested a change to the land in the northeast corner of the Area of impact suggesting that the forty acres in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Ustick and Eagle roads remain in the Meridian Area of Impact and that the eighty acre parcel adjacent to it on the east go the Boise Area of Impact; that he additionally suggested that that intersection be designated as a commercial area. e. Jim Baker submitted two letters. In the first he stressed that fire protection be increased and suggested 24 hour manning of the fire station and a full time staff. In the second he further stressed the need for full time staff and the need for better funding. She also made a comparison of the funding for the police department and the fire department. f. Ruth E. Miller and George B. Miller submitted a letter which requested that the mixed use plan designated at the corner of Locust Grove and Lake Hazel Roads be moved to the corner of Meridian and Lake Hazel Roads. q. Matt Aaron Holbert of the Sustainable Living Institute submitted a letter that disapproved of the Plan indicating that it would lead to urban sprawl h. Barbara C. Myall submitted a letter stating that she was in general agreement with the Plan but did not want multi -family construction at the corner of Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue. i. The Ada County Commissioners submitted a letter that indicated that they were not of the opinion that the Meridian Area of Impact should be expanded FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 12 9 9 unless the Meridian City limits were pushing the Area of Impact out. j. Ada County Highway District submitted comment regarding the designation of four streets as being collector streets and requested that those streets be included on the Functional Street Classification Map; they further commented as to a desire for a "calming" of traffic. 25. That the Comprehensive Plan itself recognizes that if 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 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 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. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 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 recommend amendment to 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 13 0 0 governmental actions, policies and ordinances and of its own prior findings in other land use and comprehensive plan amendment applications and those of the City Council. 4. That the function of adopting, amending, or repealing a comprehensive plan is a legislative function. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 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 Local Planning Act. 5. That as required by the Local Planning Act there are representatives on the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission that are not residents of the City of Meridian but are residents of the Impact Area. 6. 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 effects all components of the Comprehensive Plan. 7. That it was previously concluded in prior 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. 8. 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 develop detailed site plans". The comment to the Policy Diagram indicates that the Diagram "The Policy Diagram is to be FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 14 0 .• 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. 9. That there has been significant changes in the area warranting changes in the Comprehensive Plan; that one of those changes is the fact that the recent Sewer Facility Plan has shown that the Meridian sewer plant and system has the capability of providing sewer service by means of gravity flow or lift stations to the area proposed to become the Urban Service Planning Area; that the City has received annexation and subdivision requests from owners of land that are partially in the Urban Service Planning Area Boundary and partially outside of Urban Service Planning Area Boundary; that the Sewer Facility Plan indicates that those parcels of land can be provided with gravity flow sewer service; that it is not desireable to have subdivisions only partially developed due to a part of the subdivision not being in the Urban Service Planning Area Boundary; that development in Meridian has outstripped the current Urban Service Planning Area Boundary and it is in need of being enlarged; that the Meridian Sewer Plant can provide service to an enlarged Urban Service Planning Area Boundary. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 15 0 0 10. That another significant change, which has been previously noted in Findings of Fact and Conclusions for a previous amendment to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, is the change by the Ada County Commissioners to allow development of five (5) acre tracts within the unincorporated areas of Ada County which are in a city's area of Impact; the desire for people to develop their property into five acre tracts has not diminished since the last Comprehensive Plan amendment. 11. It is concluded that the improvements to Eagle Road will precipitate development along Eagle Road from south of Amity Road to Chinden Boulevard and constitute substantial and significant changes in the area warranting the proposed changes in the Comprehensive Plan. 12. It is concluded that most of the testimony and written comment submitted at the public hearings generally supported the proposed amendment to the Plan. Many people testified with more specific comments, but the comments pertained to specific parcels of land or sites, specific detailed desires, or matters that are, or will be, addressed in the Zoning Ordinance or the Subdivision and Development Ordinance, or amendments thereto. Most testimony submitted on the issue supported the deletion from the Meridian Area of Impact of the land in the northeast corner. However, the Commission does not desire to make a conclusion on deleting this land, but desires to leave this up to the City Council. There was one written comment that stated the proposed Plan FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 16 0 0 was too "far sighted" and desired that it be limited to a five year planning period. It is concluded that a comprehensive plan is designed to be a plan for at least ten years and be an assistance to long term planning. It is concluded that a five year period is too short of a period. There was a comment that voiced objection to the Plan proposal to merge the recreational functions of the City and the Western Ada Recreation District; it is concluded that the physical facilities of the Western Ada Recreation District are now basically included within the City limits and that merger may be the most economical route to follow rather than having two separate taxing districts that have the ability to provide the same services. There were comments both in favor and against the inclusion of a separate design review committee into the Plan; there was a goal for a separate design review committee initially included within the Plan but it was removed from the Plan after the initial hearing because it was felt that a special separate review committee outside of the Commission and City Council was not necessary and that such design review could be supplied by the Commission and City staff. That it is concluded that a separate design review committee is not necessary because it adds a layer of bureaucracy that is not needed and the Plan is not an appropriate document to place such authority, but it is also concluded that some ordinance provisions may be necessary to institute design review by the Commission or City staff for particular areas of the City. There was a written comment from the Bureau of Reclamation FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 17 i 9 voicing its approval of the Plan's approval of Ada Planning Association's Pathway Plan and the way that the Plan treats canals and drainages; it comments, however, that Nine Mile Drain was not treated the same was that Ten Mile and Five Mile Drains were and it desired that Nine Mile Drain be treated the same was as those two drains; the Commission concludes that such should be done; the Commission further concludes that the addition of Nine Mile Drain to be treated the same as Ten and Five Mile Drains would not be a significant change in the Plan requiring any additional hearings either before the Commission or the City Council. 13. The Ada County Commissioners' commented that an Area of Impact change was not needed until the Meridian City limits were pushing the Area of Impact out; such a comment then limits the City to planning, basically, for its City limits. It is concluded that such is not the instruction of the Local Planning Act and such limitation would forgo good long term planning, and the means therefore. 14. It is concluded that the Generalized Land Use Map will benefit ongoing planning, zoning and development decisions that confront the public, City staff, the Planning and Zoning commission and the City Council. 15. It is concluded that the Sewer Facilities Plan Trunkline Schematic and drainage boundaries, as shown on the General Land Use Map, will benefit the public and it makes good planning sense to incorporate the sewer Facilities Plan into the Generalized Land Use Map and the comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 18 0 � ] 16. That it is concluded that since the annexation laws have changed and it is now more feasible for cities to annex land and since it is necessary to attempt to prevent the septic problem that has occurred in the southwestern Boise metropolitan area, it is in the best interest of the City of Meridian and the residents of the Area of Impact to re -include into Meridian's Area of Impact all of the Southern Impact Referral Area. 17. It is concluded that since Eagle Road is already included in Meridian's Area of Impact, the Urban Service Planning Area Boundary, and the Southern Referral Impact Area, and almost all of the area requested to be included into Meridian's Area of Impact is already in the Meridian Rural Fire District and the Meridian Library District, it makes good planning sense to include the land that abuts Eagle Road into Meridian's Area of Impact. 18. That it is concluded that it makes good planning sense that dividing lines between two cities' areas of impact should be made on continuous, straight lines and not on jagged lines that traverse many different parcels and roads; that the line 1/4 mile west of Cloverdale Road, which is a straight line and does not weave between various parcels of land, has been the dividing line between Meridian's and Boise's Areas of Impact since 1984 and it is concluded that good planning requires that the dividing line remain the same; that this dividing line also makes sense for the reason that most of the area west of a 1/4 mile west of Cloverdale Road is serviced by the Meridian Rural Fire Department and the Meridian Library District. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 19 0 0 19. The Commission concludes that it is in the best interest of the City of Meridian, the residents of the City, and in the best planning interests of the residents of the areas that are intended to be included in the proposed Area of Impact, that the proposed amendments to Area of Impact and to the Urban Service Planning Area be adopted and approved. 20. That the Commission concludes that the process to amend the Meridian Comprehensive Plan has only been assisted, and not detracted, by the substantial public input that the City has received; that there have been different, and sometimes conflicting, views presented but they have been supported by a view and version of the facts and logical thinking; that some positions have not been adopted and some positions were deemed to be better addressed in the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision and Development Ordinance, and the eventual amendments to those Ordinances. 21. That the Commission hereby thanks the residents and citizens of the City, and of the area, for their participation and co-operation in this process and encourage them to continue their co-operation and input before the City Council. 22. That the Commission concludes that the proposed Plan meets the requirements of the Local Planning Act, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and specifically the Purposes of the Act, stated in Section 65-6702, Idaho Code, and the Planning Duties of the Act stated in Section 65-6508, Idaho Code. 23. That the Commission concludes that the facts presented, FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 20 0 0 and officially noticed, and these conclusions support the proposed amendments to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 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 Pr Voted 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 be approved and adopted. MOTION: APPROVED• DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 21