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