Loading...
1992 12-08r 1 • A G E N D A MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING DECEi7BER 8, 1992 ITEM L MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD NWII~IBER 10, 1992: (APPROVED) 1: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON REQUEST FOR REZONE BY ROSS & BIDELCO, INC.: (DENIED) 2: PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSID AMIIVDMQVTS TO THE CQ'KPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHANGE OF IMPACT AREA AND URBAN SERVICE PLANNING AREA BOUNDARIES: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED) 3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING W/PRELIMINP.RY PLAT BY ANDERSON, STUCKER & JOHNSON, RUNNING BROOK ESTATES: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED) MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING DECEMBER 8, 1992 The Regular Meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission cvas called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P.M.: Members Present: Jim Shearer, Charlie Rountree, Tim Hepper, htoe Alidjani: Others Present: Bob Litz, Al Stoeger, Gordon Harris, Chet & Lorraine Hosac, Raleigh Hawe, Wayne Peterson, Julie Day, Jerry Day, Norm Lacombe, Sid Harmon, Chuch Fuller, Susan Baker Thon, Guy & Karen Amidon, R K Nichol, t9. D. Harper, Steve Anderson, Linda Winterfeld, Craig Shoemaker, John & Nancy Ebbinyhaus, Richard Jewell, Michael Caver, Wayne Crookston, Chris Corte: PIINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS t.IEETING HELD NOVEMBER 10, 1992: Alidjani: Correction on page 1, about sixth line from top should be 5 acres not 50. Also on third Iine beloca that, 100. should be 100,000. The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Rountree to approve the minutes as vrritten caith the corrections as stated. Dlotion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #l: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON REQUEST FOR REZONE BY ROSS & BEDELCO, INC.: The P-lotion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of La4r as prepared by the City Attorney. Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Yea; Alidjani - Yea; Motion Carried: All Yea: The Dlotion was made by Rountree and seconded by Hepper that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they deny the rezone requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application as set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. t~iotion Carried: All Yea: PIERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING DECEMBER 8, 1992 PAGE 2 ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHANGE OE II~iPACT AREA AND URBRN SERVICE PLANNING AREA BOUNDARIES: Johnson: This is a public hearing and I'd like to limit testimony to three minutes for each individual and please try not to be repetitive. I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone to testify? Chris Corte, 499 Main Street, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Corte: I represent ti-ro different groups of geople on this request so i would like to have three minutes for each if I may. Johnson: That would be fine if they are t~•ro different issues. I also need to enter into the record, we have fifteen letters dating back in 1992 for people requesting to be included in the Urban Service Planning Area. Corte: Handed out document prepared for Commission. I'm here representing the States investment on apiece of property that they own which is adjacent to Centennial High School, just north of McMillan Road. The document that I've given you is a written testimony regarding that change and on the third page is a map that shocas the location of that property. Attached past the map is a report that was prepared by us for inclusion of that property into the Boise Urban Service Planning Area. Both the City of Boise and Ada County did agree to include that land into the Boise Urban Service Planning Area and that process started in 1990. At that point and time there did not seem to be any opposition from the City of P-feridian or anybody else regarding that particular 80 acres. shearer: was there any contact with us at that time? Corte: The application was submitted through the City of Boise and Ada County and through the referral process I do believe the application was submitted to Meridian. Johnson: Well at that time it was in the Meridian Area of Impact. hfERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING DECEMBER 8, 1992 PAGE 3 Corte: Not it was not it was in the referral area. I submitted a copy of this to P1r. Niemann who had a copy of the report that was prepared. Our biggest concern as it relates to this request is that if in deed this site is put into the Meridian Area of Impact that it will prevent us to be able to develop this property in anything greater than 5 acre lots. Currently this piece of property does have central sewer running through it as vrell as central sewer by it and it has had a preliminary plat approved by the City of Boise. In interpreting what you have before you on this site, because it would not be included in your Urban Service Planning Area and because the new setaer study seems to indicate that you cannot service the area that indeed it would have to remain as an RT zone. I have to look at the map that you published and that map did not include the area north of McMillan Road into the Urban Service Planning Area of the City of Meridian. Clerk Niemann: We can still service Corte: Well your Comprehensive Plan only service land within your Urban Clerk Niemann: We can still service Corte: okay but it won't be included Area correct. it. indicates to me that you can iervice Planning Area. it though. in the Urban Service Planning Clerk Niemann: No. Corte: So it would have to be retained as an RT zone at this point and time with the only development opportunity on this piece of property as five acre lots. My client has unfortunately expended approximately $300,000.00 in trying to assist the l~feridian School District in making sure that the school opened with sevrer and we're kind of stuck in a rock and a hard spot. we are respectively requesting to the Planning and Zoning Commission as it relates to this 80 acres and this 80 acres only that this area not be included in the Meridian Area of Impact and that we be allowed to proceed forward caith a reasonable use of the property and develop it. I would answer any questions you may have pertaining to this property. Johnson: Thank you. h1ERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING DECEMBER 8, 1992 PAGE 4 Corte: The properties we are talking about are attached on the map and they contain approximately 450 acres of land. They are located generally south of bicllillan Road, a quarter mile south of Ustick Road to a quarter mile west of Eagle and a quarter mile west of Cloverdale Road. Approximately a square mile within that area. Again it totals approximately 450 acres of land. That map also shows the owners of those parcels, which some of those owners are here tonight and will probably testify before the Commission. we undertook a study of this area in 1991 regarding which area could best service this piece of property. The conclusion of that study was that we had determined that Boise City could best service that area. Not only with the issue of central sewer but the issue of urban standard fire protection, police protection and urban standard parks as well. Based upon that finding we met Fvith the County Commissioners and requested that that area be excluded from the Meridian's Area of Impact. The County agreed to allow that area to be included in Meridian's Area of Impact but also indicated that if indeed the people in that area wished that it be removed from the area of impact that they would again indeed rehear that issue. That letter from the County Commissioners is attached to the document that I have given you. Also attached is a letter from Grant Kingsford indicating that the City Council would also agree to allow this area to be reconsidered for inclusion within the Meridian's Area of Impact. Since the letter was sent to the County Commissioner's,cae were informed that Meridian has updated or is in the process of updating your master sewer plan. What my clients have asked is that you allow us a two week period of time to study the amended master sewer plan to see if indeed the area can be served in a reasonable period of time. If indeed the area can be served in a reasonable period of time my clients it's up to them, would make a decision as to whether they wish to remain in the Meridian Area of Impact and Urban service Planning or proceed as their May 5th letter indicates. Currently it is my opinion that the site is not within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area, it is located within the Meridian Area of Impact and that the hearing that your having this evening is to consider the inclusion of that area into the Urban Service Planning Area. We would like a two week period of time to access the modification to your master sewer plan to determine if indeed it is appropriate, if my clients wish to, to proceed with continuing under the City of Meridian's Impact Area or go to the City of Boise's Impact Area. Again we are stuck in a rather tricky situation out here. {Further - See Tape) - Johnson: Thank you. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING DECEMBER 8, 1992 PAGE 5 Crookston: You requested two caeek deferral from today? Corte: Yes. Crookston: Under our procedure there vrould not be Findings of Fact prepared for approximately a month so that should give you enough time. Johnson: Anyone else to testify? Don Smitchger, 3890 E. Ustick Rd., was sworn by the attorney. Smitchger: We are very unhappy with the way this vahole thing eras handled to start with. It was advertised in the Meridian paper, we got sucked into this. We always felt we'd be in the Boise Impact Area. our family has lived there since 1898 so I don't think we moved out there just for the fun of it. At this time, like Mr. Corte said we'd like to have a chance to look at this new comprehensive plan but we feel that we were told at that time two years ago that you'd have sewer out there in two years and they are not any closer. We received a letter from the Mayor to the effect that we felt we'd be better served in Boise we could go to Boise. We'd like for that Mayor to honor that letter. We've spent quite a lot of money now with you people putting us where we don't want to be. I think it's darn bad when politician's can tell people where they want to be. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Raleigh Hawe, 530 Blue Heron Lane, was sworn by the attorney. Hawe: I have some property I own jointly on the north side of McMillan Road between Cloverdale and Eagle Aoads. At this time the services that are there, they have the gas and the water through to Eagle Road on McMillan Road. This has fallen into the Boise City Impact Area at one time and I understand that there is litigation going on on that north half of the Eagle/Cloverdale north of McMillan Road right now going on. The question that I have is that in the event that Meridian wants to move with this acquisition of area, I'd like to know what time frame is set up to have a sewer into that area or to have that service provided to that area generally. Also who would do the fronting for this sewer project in that area? That's all I have at this time. Johnson: We don't have the information on the time table. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING DECEMBER 8, 1992 PAGE 6 Crookston: I can reflect what has been the policy of Meridian is that they will be able to provide that service as it's constructed by the developer. Discussion (See Tape) Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Larry Laraway, 1024 Arlington Drive, Eagle, was sworn by the attorney. Laraway: I presently have a piece of property on the south side of McMillan between Cloverdale and Eagle Road. I have expended a lot of money on the plats. we have sewer to the property cause we have an adjacent Boise subdivision there, we have water there and due to this law suit that's going on are've now been prohibited from developing that property. The original homeowner who originally owned that property who had planned on having their nesv home built has been prohibited from building their new home and no action can take place on that. I'm requesting that cve have this area released to Boise so that those services can be utilized and expeditiously service those people that want to live in and around that area. As well as owning that land I am in the Real Estate business, we have at least twenty families that are pending to wait and see and have been on hold for the past three or four months while we've gone through this law suite situation on whether their going to be able to live there or not. They can't wait indefinitely. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Norm Lacombe, 1895 S. Meridian Rd., was scrorn by the attorney. Lacombe: I'm representing the development group this evening and we own a piece of property on S. Meridian Road that was the Davenport property. It's a fifteen acre parcel and tae were hoping to have that included in the extending of the Urban Service boundaries and the City of Meridian. we are hoping to make that into a four lot per acre minimum house size of about 1350 square feet up to about 1550 square feet of living space. Crookston: Athere is the property that you represent? Lacombe: It's 1895 Meridian Road and it's 2005 ieridian Road. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else? MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING DECEMBER 8, 1992 PAGE 7 John Ebbinghaus, 1437 w. Mclfillan Rd., ~°~as scorn by the attorney. Evinyhouse: It's not easy to do planning taken the developers that are only a mile away from the facilities, it's not easy to do good planning. I know you want to avoid leap frogging and said well we'll put the sewers in if somebody comes up with the money and everyone knows it's going to be far less to put in one mile of sewer than it is five miles. Your responsible as a planning entity. 3 think though that the area that you've included in your area of impact and your area of residential services as adequate and it's clear and well defined. I think that Boise nota extends to Cloverdale and is getting on the fringes of good service. I certainly encourage you to continue your planning process to recommend it to the City Council that this be adopted and that any political decisions be made by the City Council. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else? Gary Lee, JUB Engineers, 1750 Summertree, was sworn by the attorney. Lee: I'm here this evening representing the Updike parcel, which is about a quarter mile north of Ustick Road on Linder. That particular piece of ground is mapped in your proposed urban services planning area and we agree with the boundary that you have identified. There is setaer and water available, it's between a quarter and a half mile from this site but can be extended. There will be a proposed subdivision plat on that particular piece of ground, there's about 4o acres there. If this urban service boundary area is revised as put forth by the Commission and the City we'll proceed with that application. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else? No response. I will close the public hearing. Rountree: I'd like Mr. Johnson or Clerk Niemann to explain the process to these people. Johnson: {Gave Explanation of Process - see tape) The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer that Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law be prepared. Motion Carried: All Yea: P4ERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING DECEMBER 8, 1992 PAGE 8 The APotion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree to amend original motion to include written responses for the next two weeks in those Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #3: PUBLIC HERRING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT BY ANDERSON, STUCKER & JOHNSON: Johnson: I will open the public hearing. Is there a representative present caho caishes to speak? Richard Jewell, 1082 Arlington, Eagle, was sworn by the attorney. Jewell: I'm representing the developer on behalf of the Running Brook Subdivision previously known as Creekside l~fanor. This resubmittal includes the addition of a road across the creek to t~feridian Road. The access through Country Terrace subdivision has been eliminated from access. The wetlands issues have been resolved with the Core of Engineers and all required permits will be applied for. This subdivision ~~as previously submitted and recommended for approval by the Meridian city Council however, due to the variety of concerns that were brought up previously we've made a special effort in meeting the wishes of the surrounding residences. We agree with the conditions as outlined with the following comments. These are comments from your City Engineer. Item #1: The legal description provided for annexation does not match the plat boundary. There was an error on the plat. The legal description is correct. Item #3: Discussed the well lot and an access road to the well lot caith fencing on both sides of the access and also fencing the lot itself. We have agreed to place fencing around the existing building but request the fence on each side of the gravel driveway not be enforced so the property owners can adequately maintain it. We agree to the gravel surface. Johnson: Did you have time to discuss not wanting to do the fencing with Gary Smith? Jewell: No I haven't. 1~1ERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING DECEMBER 8, 1942 PAGE 9 Item #10: Regarding the 45' culdesac - we've already discussed that with the Highway District and the one culdesac going out towards the well lot is in a very tight area there by just increasing the five foot dimensions on both sides would cut down the lots tremendously. They've agreed to the 45' providing that the curbs extend out to their standard dimension. So the curb and sidewalk will be placed the same as a 50' however, the actually right of way will only be at a 45' radius. Item #11: It was recommended that a culdesac be placed at the end of Calderwood. That was also discussed in the previous plat, our previous submittal and we have no problem with providing that. Item #12: Regarding the sewer line that crosses underneath the creek and then goes along one of the lot lines. This #12 requests that an all weather gravel surface be provided and fenced on both sides. We have a problem with this also especially with the fence because of the same reason as far as maintenance. If it is fenced nobody is going to maintain the grass and weeds. If it's not fenced the property owner that owns that property vrill maintain it. Jewell: As mentioned we agree with all the other comments as identified. We request that you consider this project favorably and we thank you for your time and patience on this project. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Sid Harmon, 1635 Country Terrace Way, Baas sworn by the attorney. Harmon: I'm a resident of Country Terrace Estates and I have two concerns that I would like to address concerning the proposed Running Brook Estates. Since Country Terrace is adjacent to the proposed Runniny Brook subdivision these concerns would impact all residents of Country Terrace Estates. There are two storm drains on Country Terrace Way on opposite sides of the street. One is located in front of 1765 Country Terrace way, one is located in front of 1757 Country Terrace Way, they are connected together and the drain pipe is buried on the north side of 1757 Country Terrace. we would like to have some assurances that the construction will not make these storm drains inoperable or damage 11ERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING DECEMBER 8, 1992 PAGE 10 them in any way. One other area of possible damage that tae would like to preclude during any construction that may occur is that the well that is down that direction we would like to have some assurances that the water lines and the power to that well house would remain undisturbed. Additionally I have a couple other questions concerning this proposed subdivision. At the end of Country Terrace Way there vaas a dedicated right of way of about fifty feet, the current plat shows a thirty foot right of way now. I'm just curious about what happened to the other 20'? Concerns about wetlands (see tape). Are there any questions? Johnson: No questions. Thank you very much. Crookston: I do have one, I'm not familiar with the wetlands situation. Are you knowledgeable of that? Harmon: I'm no expert. There are portions of those lots that I so indicated that there is indication that those are designated as wetlands due to the cat-tails and things that are on there. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else? Susan Baker Thon, 1889 Country Terrace way, was sworn by the attorney. Thon: I would like to address the easement to the well lot, lot 13 for Country Terrace subdivision. I feel as well as several of the homeowners in our subdivision that we need assurance that that easement to the lot is a dedicated easement that will not be fenced by a homeoraner or landscaped in such a way that will be upsetting someone or disturbing someone when vae need access to our well lot. Is there any way we can have that assurance? Clerk Niemann: It will be a dedicated easement. Johnson: We will ask the developer to address some of the concerns after we're done. (Read Engineer comments concerning well lot - see tape) Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else to testify? Grey Shoemaker, 1901 Country Terrace, was sworn by the attorney. Shoemaker: I'm looking at the plat of part of Country Terrace and most of the new subdivision we're talking about tonight and when I look on that on lot 16, on this 50' easement that used to be there nova is at a 30' easement and there has been discussion on myself C~ C MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING DECEMBER 8, 1992 PAGE 11 and the neighbor across whether the middle and then in turn give driveway that 30' foot easement Then in turn they would give me asking the question if this goes it's to late. we would vacate that property in them back some property for their that was talked about earlier. some of property 16. I'm only through and then they go oh sorry Clerk Niemann: That would be a deal between you and the developer. Johnson: They may be prepared to address that tonight. Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Does Mr. Jewell want to address some of the comments that were made tonight and address some of the concerns. Secaell: If any construction is performed in that caetland it required a 404 permit, especially when dumping any fill in the area. These issues have been addressed with the Core of Engineers and they have responded back I believe with a letter to the City. Rountree: They did make a decision that the wetlands are under their jurisdiction. Sewell: The wetlands are definitely the Core's jurisdiction. The question about the flag lot, that is something that has to take place after they actually submit the request doesn't it? P7e haven't provided for a flag lot at this time. Johnson: Would you comment on the one concern about the storm drains? Jewell: our property has nothing to do with that. Explained where pipe runs. Will not be affecting it. Johnson: Have you had discussion with Core of Engineers on that specific piece of property? Jewell: Yes. Rountree: I have a question related to the issue about the end of Country Terrace Way that vacation of existing dedicated right of way and the 30' approach to lot 20, is there room for the adjacent properties? MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING DECEMBER 8, 1992 PAGE 12 Jewell: Yes there is. I believe the comment as far as that being resolved through the highway district is correct. As far as agreement to additional trades of properties, as the gentleman mentioned we are in negotiation with him and if anything takes place there will probably be a quick claim deed or something. PJe've been asked by Gary Smith to provide sewer and water up to Country Terrace Subdivision even though it won't be connected at this time we are putting the expense out to provide it up to the culdesac. This is part of our request for having some access to the culdesac up there for that upper lot. Hepper: Is the subdivision going to have composition shingle roof or wood shake? Have you addressed that yet? Jewell: I think it was addressed in the covenants but it's been so long ago I can't answer that. Clerk Niemann: One comment I have, I think you will need to apply for a variance on that one culdesac because it's to long. Jewell: Yes we are aware of that. (Discussion - see tape) Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? No response. I caill close the public heariny. The Pdotion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Rountree to have Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Laca prepared by attorney. Motion Carried: All Yea: The tdotion was made by Rountree and seconded by Alidjani to pass a favorable recommendation to the Meridian City Council for this request. Notion Carried: All Yea: Johnson: There's a public information meeting on December 17, 1992 at Meridian City Hall. Also the City of P~lountain Home on January 23, 1993 from 9 to 5 is going to hold a workshop. It's their intention to present an overview of the Idaho Planning Act. If anyone is interested in going please let me know. ,. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING DECEMBER 8, 1992 PAGE 13 The Diotion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree to adjourn at 8:45 P.M.: Motion Carried: All Yea: (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ATTEST: CHAIRMAN clt BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GLENN L. JOHNSON ANNEXATION AND ZONING SW 1/4 NW 1/4 OF SECTION 19, T.3 N., R.1 E., B.M. MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on December 8, 1992, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing in person and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for December 8, 1992, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the December 8, 1992, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations; that this matter has been considered and heard by the Commission before; that hearings were held on April 14, 1992; that the Commission FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 1 takes judicial knowledge of the testimony and evidence from the April 14, 1992, hearing and the hearing held December 8, 1992. 2. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 8.9 acres in size; it is near the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Meridian-Kuna Highway and Overland Road. 3. That the property is presently zoned by the county as R- 2; that the Applicant requests that the property be zoned R-4 and stated that the use proposed would be for R-4 Residential. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially; that the residential property to the east is not within the City limits but other land in the area Meridian Greens subdivision is in the City limits and is zoned R-4 but developed at less density than R-4. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property and the owners of record are Steven and Marcia Anderson and Lee R. Stucker and Fae M. Stucker and they have consented to the application to be annexed. 7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 8. That the parcel of ground requested to be annexed is not presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 2 as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, but the City is processing an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Urban Service Planning Area (USPA) boundary and the property would be included in the USPA if that amendment is passed and adopted. 9. As found above the Application requested that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-4. The applicant has indicated that the intended development of the property is for an R-4 subdivision and the Applicant has submitted a proposed preliminary plat and has submitted an Amended Plat. 10. There were property owners in the immediate area that testified at the April 14, 1992, hearing objecting to the Application; the objections were based on increase in traffic, that there was a wetlands area in the property that needed protection, that connection to Meridian-Kuna Highway needed to be completed as part of this development, ground water and drainage problems in the area, and concerns about road connection to Meridian Greens subdivision; that property owners also appeared at the December 8, 1992, hearing and their concerns were protection of the storm drain system and well and water lines in Country Terrace Estates and protection of access to the well lot in Country Terrace. 11. That the property is in the MERIDIAN HILLS Neighborhood as set forth in Policy Diagram in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that under Housing Development on page 25 and 26 of the Comprehensive Plan, property inside the Urban Service Planning Area FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 3 may be developed at greater densities than one dwelling unit per acre and it is the policy that a density of greater than 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres may not be exceeded outside of the Urban Service Planning Area; if the property is included in the USPA it may be developed at a density greater than one dwelling unit per five acres. 12. That property outside the Urban Service Planning Area, but within the Area of Impact, may be annexed and developed but only at densities allowed; however, the Meridian Zoning Ordinance requires all residential zones to connect to City water and sewer and if the property is outside the Urban Service Planning Area it cannot receive water or sewer; connection to water and sewer would be resolved and required if the property is included in USPA and annexed and zoned. 13. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 14. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer if included in the Urban Service Planning Area the Urban Service Planning Area which the City is now in the process of amending and it is likely that the property will be in the USPA. 15. Ada County Highway District, the Department of Health, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, Settlers Irrigation FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 4 District, City Engineer, Bureau of Reclamation and City Fire Department may submit comments and such shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 16. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 1 as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominantly residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan or the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non- residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwellings units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 17. That the Applicant stated in the Application that Applicant intends to have a density of about 3.37 dwelling units per acre and stated at the hearing that the house sizes would be a minimum of 1,800 square feet and probably 2,000 square feet plus, with the lot sizes having a range of 8,000 to 11,000 square feet. 18. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 5 within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning use application contained in Section 50-222; Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant with the consent of the owners and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 6 upon the annexation of land. 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616 which pertains to development time schedules and requirements; that before development can occur the Urban Service Planning Area will have to be amended to include the property into the Urban Service Planning Area; if the Urban Service Planning Area is amended, the Applicant shall be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the property will be subject to Site Planning Review and the Subdivision and Development Ordinance. 10. That since the Applicant's property is in the MERIDIAN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD of the Comprehensive Plan, the annexation is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the requested Zoning would be if the land is included within the Urban Service Planning Area. 11. Therefore, based on the Application, the testimony and evidence, these Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, it is ultimately concluded that Applicant's property should be annexed and zoned as requested; it is assumed that since the City is processing an amendment to the USPA that would include the property within the USPA, that the property will eventually be in USPA. If the land is ultimately included in the Urban Service Planning Area, the conditions should be those stated above and upon issuance of final platting and other conditions to be explored at FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 7 the City Council level; annexation would be orderly development and reasonable if the conditions are met; that the property shall be subject to de-annexation if the R-4 density is exceeded or if dwellings other than single family dwellings are allowed and this restriction shall be noted on the plat of the subdivision. 12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation; the concern over the wetlands issue must addressed before the City Council as there have been wetlands along Ten Mile Creek. 13. That the requirements of the irrigation districts and Ada County Highway District shall be met as well the requirements of the Bureau Reclamation and the City Engineer. 14. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of R-4, Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 8 .~ 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 VOTED C'`-- SHEARER VOTED ALIDJANI VOTED ;~'-~ 1- CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that if the property is included in the Urban Service Planning Area, as it likely will be, they approve the annexation and zoning requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that it is also recommended that annexation and zoning not occur until the USPA is in fact amended. MOTION: APPROVED DISAPPROVED: / - _~ FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 9 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF MERIDIAN'S NOVEMBER 1992 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 December 8, 1992, at 7:30 o'clock p.m., and having considered all written and oral testimony including that which was submitted in the two weeks that the Commission kept the record open, 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 the Application was submitted by the Planning and Zoning Commission and is an amendment proposed by the Commission. 2. That the Commission desires to amend the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for two reasons. One is to amend the Area of Impact Map, as shown in Exhibit "A" attached to the Petition. The other is to enlarge the Community Urban Service Planning Boundary, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 1 hereafter referred to as USPB, as shown on Exhibit "B", attached to the Petition. Both Exhibits are by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 3. That the amendment to the Area of Impact Map would specifically include what is now referred to as the Southern Impact Referral Area and on the north to in include what is now referred to as the Northern Impact Referral Area. Also on the north it would extend the northern boundary along Chinden Boulevard from approximately 1/4 mile west of Cloverdale Road to McDermott Road. The proposed amendment would place the western boundary of the Area of Impact at McDermott Road. 4. That the Urban Service Planning Boundary is proposed to be amended by the Petition as shown on Exhibit "B" 5. 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 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. 6. 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 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 2 s • been changed and it is now advantageous for cities to annex additional property. 7. That there have been subdivisions south of Overland Road submitted for approval to the City of Meridian in which part of the land lies within the existing USPB and part of it lies outside of the USPB; that it is the policy of City of Meridian not to annex ground that is outside of the USPB; the City has had to postpone planning of the area outside of the USPB and withhold annexation of the property outside of the USPB simply because it was outside of the USPB. 8. That there has been a new Sewer Facility Plan performed by J-U-B Engineers, at the request of the City, that shows that the City can provide gravity flow sewer service to what is being proposed as the new USPB and even outside of that boundary; the sewer study was requested specifically for the Northern Impact Referral Area but it shows that the Meridian sewer treatment plant can provide gravity flow sewer treatment for a much larger area that the present USPB. 9. That sewer and water lines have 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, and interest has been expressed in extending those lines to the intersection of Locust Grove Road and Ustick Road. 10. That Meridian is the fastest growing city in the State COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 3 of Idaho and is experiencing substantial residential development which requires urban services. 11. 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. 12. 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 effluent'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. 13. That the Commission received written comment from the public regarding the proposed amendments; the Commission entered into the record fifteen letters from people requesting that their property be included into the USPB or the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian; these letters were from Greg Johnson, Steve Anderson and Glenn Johnson, Richard Jewel,Gordon Harris, Robert L Christensen and Donna M. Christensen, Lavon H. Davenport and Ethel L. Davenport, J. g. McDermott, Gene A. Babbitt, Clifford D. Babbitt COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 4 i • and Freda E. L. Babbitt, Patrick A. Tealey for Ted Sigmont „ Dean E. Peterson, Richard S. Schaffer, Carol Lotspeich and Theran Scott, Margaret Boyack, Lester R. Updike and Homco, Inc., Bryce L. Peterson President, and Sally D. Martin. 14. That there was testimony at the hearing from Chris Corte, representative of States Investment which owns property west of a quarter mile west of Cloverdale Road and north of McMillan Road; that this property is involved in the litigation between the City of Meridian and Boise and Ada County; that the representative requested that this property not be included in the Area of Impact because he felt that the land could not be provided sewer and water by Meridian because it was not included in the USPB and because the owner had already been dealing with the City of Boise for development and had invested a substantial sum of money in sewer lines; even though the land is not included in the USPB, the Sewer Facility Plan indicates that this land can be provided sewer service by gravity flow. 15. That Mr. Corte also appeared on behalf of property owners in the square mile bounded by 1/4 mile west of Cloverdale Road, 1/4 mile south of McMillan Road, 1/4 mile west of Eagle Road, and 1/4 mile south of Ustick Road; the testimony for these owners was that they were not now in the Meridian USPB but that they would be under the pending amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and they desired two weeks to study the sewer plan to see if the area can be served in a reasonable period of time; Mr. Corte also submitted letters, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 5 one from the Ada County Commissioners and one from Mayor Grant Kingsford to the Ada County Commissioners, that indicated that if the property owners desired to petition to removed from Meridian's Area of Impact and added to Boise's there would be no objection to the petition; the letters do not indicate that there would not be objection to the request to be removed from Meridian's Area of Impact. The property owners in the square mile referred to in the paragraph above did submit written testimony in the two week period; their testimony was that their property could best be served by the City of Boise with a complete range of services; that they submitted their analysis which in summary states that Boise urban services were physically closer and could be provided to their land sooner and at less development cost and that annexation to Boise could occur quicker. 16. That Raleigh Hawe, a property owner in the land north of a 1/4 mile south of McMillan Road and 1/4 mile west of Cloverdale Road, testified by means of a question and that question was when Meridian could provide sewer to the area; there was no specific response by the Commission to the question since the timing depends on demand for development of the land. 17. That Larry Layaway, a property owner in the land north of a 1/4 mile south of McMillan Road and 1/4 mile west of Cloverdale Road, testified that the lawsuit that was pending between Meridian and Ada county and Boise was prohibiting COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 6 development and wanted that area removed from the Meridian Area of Impact. 18. That Norm Lacombe, representing the Davenports, 1895 South Meridian Road, who had previously submitted a letter asking that their property be included in USPB, and Gary Lee, representing the Updikes, whose property is on Linder Road north of Ustick Road, testified that they desired the USPB extended to include the land that they were representing. 19. John Ebbinghaus testified that the Boise was getting on the fringes of good service at Cloverdale Road and testified that the proposed amendment should be adopted. 20. That the Meridian 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. 21. That the Meridian Library District includes much of the land that is being proposed to be included in Meridian's Area of Impact. 22. 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; it is the experience of the Commission that along with road and transportation improvement come development. 23. That it is the experience of the Commission that along COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 7 • s with school development also comes residential development; there is already significant residential development in the Boise Area of Impact around Centennial High School; that residential development pressures are now being made into the Northern Impact Referral Area. 24. 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 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 8 of existing conditions in the City, County and State, and of governmental actions, policies and ordinances and of its own prior findings in other land use 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 Citv of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.2d 1075 ( 1983) . That even though this is a legislative function, the Local Planning Act requires that Findings of Fact and Conclusions be made for any application provided for in the 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 does not effect all components of the Comprehensive Plan and therefore those components other than the USPB and the Area of Impact Map boundary are concluded not to be relevant to this Application. 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. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 9 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 "is to be used as a general guide for land use decision-making, not as a legalistic or literal and definitive map". The Plan therefore should be liberally construed but still maintained as the functional guideline for land use decisions; i.e., the Plan policies and objectives cannot be willingly disregarded when there is an apparent conflict between the Plan and the proposed use. The City has the duty to continually plan; that the Commission treats amendments proposed either by private entities or the City itself as part of the planning duty and function. 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 to a significantly larger area than previously thought and by use of lift stations to an even larger area; that the City has received annexation and subdivision requests from owners of land that is partially in the USPB and partially outside of USPB; 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 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 10 in the USPB; that development in Meridian has outstripped the current USPB and it is in need of being enlarged; that the Meridian Sewer Plant can provide service to an enlarged USPB. 10. That another significant change, which has been previously noted in Findings of Fact and Conclusions for an 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. That the testimony and objections of the property owners in the square mile bounded by 1/4 mile west of Cloverdale Road, 1/4 mile south of McMillan Road, 1/4 mile west of Eagle Road, and 1/4 mile south of Ustick Road are duly noted; that it is concluded that these objections are based, not on good planning for Meridian and Meridian's Area of Impact, but on immediate development and profit motives; the land in this area was included in Meridian's Area of Impact in 1978; the land was removed from Meridian's Area of Impact in 1984 by agreement with the Ada County Commissioners because at that time it was not advantageous for a city to annex land; that the effect of annexation laws have been changed; that the area, however, has always been of significant interest to the City of Meridian and that is why the square mile was added back into Meridian's Area of Impact in 1990; that to the commission's COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 11 knowledge there was no objection from the residents of this area when they were included in the Meridian's 1978 Area of Impact and there was no stated desire that they should be placed in Boise's Area of Impact in 1984 when Meridian's Area of Impact was again amended; it is concluded that those residents in the area are objecting because they believe that they can develop their land or sell their land for development sooner if they are in Boise's Area of Impact, not because they believe it is poor planning to have their area included in Meridian's Area of Impact or USPB; their testimony and comment related to how soon their land could be developed. 12. The objections of the land owners in Meridian's Northern Impact Referral Area are also duly noted; that like the property owners in the square mile 1/4 mile south of McMillan Road, it is concluded that the objections are based on a development and profit motive and not necessarily on good planning. 13. It is concluded that the improvements to Eagle Road will precipitate development along Eagle Road from south of Overland Road to Chinden Boulevard and constitute substantial and significant changes in the area warranting the proposed changes in the Comprehensive Plan. 14. 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 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 12 the best interest of the City of Meridian and the residents of the Area of Impact to reinclude into Meridian's Area of Impact all of the Southern Impact Referral Area. 15. It is concluded that since Eagle Road is already included in Meridian's Area of Impact, the Urban Service Planning Boundary, and the Referral Impact Areas, 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. 16. 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 service by the Meridian Rural Fire Department and the Meridian Library District. 17. 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 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 13 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. 18. However, the Commission takes judicial notice that the land which is bounded by 1/4 mile west of Cloverdale Road, Chinden Boulevard, 1/4 mile west of Eagle Road, and 1/4 mile south of McMillan Road, which land is in Meridian's Northern Impact Referral Area, is involved in the law suit between the City of Meridian, Ada County and the City of Boise that is pending; that the outcome of that law suit will effect which city's area of impact the land is placed and therefore it is also concluded that if, as a result of the lawsuit, Meridian or Boise ends up with the land bounded by 1/4 mile west of Cloverdale Road, 1/4 mile south of McMillan Road, 1/4 mile west of Eagle Road, and Chinden Boulevard, there shall be no requirement for additional applications to amend the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan shall be deemed amended by the Court decision. 19. That the Commission concludes that the facts presented and the officially noticed facts are sufficient to amend the 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: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 14 ~~ Commissioner Hepper Commissioner Rountree Commissioner Shearer Commissioner Alidjani Chairman Johnson (Tie Breaker) RECOMMENDATION votea 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: DATED This 8th day of January, 1993 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 15