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