Loading...
1992 10-13i • • A G E N D A MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING OCTOBER 13, 1992 ITEM: MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 8, 1992: (APPROVED) 1: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUEST BY JOINT CLASS SCHOOL DISTRICT # 2: (APPROVED) 2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN AREA OF IMPACT BOUNDRY BY BEDELCO, INC. (APPROVED) 3: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ON STRATEGIC PLANNING: (PRESENTATION GIVEN) MERIDIAN _PLANN,ING_ $ ZONING ___._ OCTOBER. 13. 1992 The Regular Meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P. M.: Members Present: Charlie Rountree, Jim Shearer, Tim Hepper, Moe Alidjani: Others Present: Grant Kingsford, Ron Tolsma, Bob Giesler, Bob Corrie, Max Yerrington, Bill Gordon, Gary Smith, Rich Allison, Dr. Nancy Napier, Michele Sherer, Jerry Nyman, Becky Bowcutt, Dan Mabe, Wayne Crookston: MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 8, 1992: The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Shearer to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held September 8, 1992 as written: Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #1: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUEST BY JOINT CLASS SCHOOL DISTRICT #2: Chairman Johnson: I will now open the Public Hearing. Rich Allison, 1108 W. 4th, was sworn by the attorney. Allison: As you know the Meridian School District is beginning some long range planning in order to meet the future requirements of the district. They acquired some property which is located immediately east of Fuller Park. We've asked for the property to be annexed and zoned for two reasons, one of which is that there's an additional one acre parcel which the school district would like to purchase, currently belonging to a Mr. Massengale. We couldn't buy an additional acre without the property being annexed and zoned for the City of Meridian because we would create an illegal parcel for Mr. Massengale. We have read the comments from the various departments. We have reviewed the site plan with the developer. The Creekside Subdivision which is immediately to the north, he's willing to provide access to include a 50 foot street which would not have homes built on the street. Secondary access is required. We further checked with the City Engineer prior to considering the site with regard to fire flow to meet the minimum requirements for an Elementary School. Further reviewed drainage plans and other utilities which would be provided 6y the developer to include water, sewer, gas and proper fire flow. r~ MERIDIRN PLANNING & ZONING OCTOBER 13, 1992 PAGE 2 Chairman Johnson: There is subdivision to the immediate Creekside. Any questions of the else to testify on this request? public hearing. one correction, I believe the north is Parkside rather than applicant? No response. Anyone No response. I will close the The Motion was made by Alid~ani and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Yea; Alidjani - Yea; Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion 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 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 Ordinance of the City of Meridian. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #2: PUBLIC HERRING: REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN AREA OF IMPACT BOUNDARY BY BEDELCO, INC.: Chairman Johnson: I will now open the Public Hearing. Is there a representative that would like to come forward and address the commission. Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering, 1111 S. Orchard, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Bowcutt: I am representing Bedelco tonight for this request. This particular parcel consists of 74.33 acres. It's under primary jurisdiction of Ada County and it is split by the Area of City Impact Boundary for Boise and Meridian. 85.3% of the property lies within Boise's Rrea of City Impact. We have applied with Rda County for 155 residential lot plan development with ten open space lots consisting of medians and then we also have a potential well site for south county water company. We have also extended to the Meridian School District and the Boise Parks Department a site for a school and park. The beauty of our MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING OCTOBER 13, 1992 PAGE 3 proposal is that the school and the park would have to purchase just at cost less acreage than they normally purchase for this type of usage. The developers have offered to the Parks Department to provide a buffer which would consist of a berm and fence along Cloverdale along Interstate 84 would also plant a variety of grass. They discussed with Meridian School District if this site was acceptable to them providing services to this particular parcel and then doing curbing and so forth. Pasically what we are coming to you for is this 10.94 acres which consists of this portion here (shown on map), we cannot get services to it because Boise will not allow their sewer^ line to pass the area of City Impact Boundary. We do have this natural barrier here, the Ridenbaugh Canal, which runs all the way around the north and west side of the property. We met with the Mayor of Meridian, Boise Public Works, Planning Departments and Jack and everyone agreed that it only made sense that this portion be excluded from Meridian's Area of City Impact and Boise be allowed to take that in. Our request if to remove that from Meridian's City Impact and to allow Boise to pick it up. Rre there any questions? Crookston: How far does the Ridenbaugh Canal extend to the south? Bowcutt: Explained location of Ridenbaugh on map. Crookston: The Ridenbaugh Canal does that further extend back into Boise's Area of Impact upon the southern area or does it extend more into the Meridian Area of Impact? Bowcutt: Explained on map. At the angle it appears to be coming back into Meridian's Area of Impact. Crookston: Do you know whether or not it goes in and out and in and out of the Area of Impact? Bowcutt: The Ridenbaugh is zig-zagged all over the County, I really couldn't tell you I'm sorry. Crookston: Explained concerns about the Ridenbaugh. What I'm thinking is that it might be wise to include the whole Canal into Boise's Area of Impact. Bowcutt: This only involves this particular property and I believe it was stated that in no way did the City of Meridian want to stipulate that it would include anything other than just this. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING OCTOBER 13, 1992 PAGE 4 Chairman Johnson: Is there anyone else from the public who would like to come forward and address the commission? No response. I will close the Public Hearing. The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Alidjani that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Yea; Alidjani - Yea; Motion Carried: R11 Yea: The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Hepper that the Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the Applicant's proposed Rmendments to the Area of Impact boundary and the Urban Service Planning Rrea Boundary approved and adopted. Motion Carried: R11 Yea: ITEM #3: RDR CDUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ON STRATEGIC PLANNING: Chairman Johnson: R11 the City Council Members are present tonight for this presentation. Jerry Nyman, Dr. Nancy Napier and Michele Sherer gave presentation on Strategic Planning. (See tape for presentation) The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to adjourn at 8:50 P. M.: Motion Carried: All Yea: (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) Rttest: Approved: Ji J hnson, Chairman 9.~~~8~w...~oa,j °~~.~ ~~.°~ C 8~ o ~y~Jf'~-f7p'C Ji*'N~N• n CT mrt ~~7 y'~ < m ~m pf " ° O ~ ~ ~. N .~ O ~' m N ~i tp ~' ~°°• .. ^. o o ~''" ~ 5.... •v ... , ~ "~ ~ ~ ~. °,9 5, ~ ~ ° sr 2 a a, " ~s. g 8 `r gg o ~e ~ ~ 8 ~e 4 ~ .~ ~ 7 ,.. ~iX ~ ~ ~. Rio ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ O ¢: ~D ~ ¢. n ~ c~ fD A~ ~ m ~.pa,~ ~' oa ~mC~ ~8F o•d m~~i6~np~.~ ~ ~0~~° cg ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ m ao p' ~ a. ~ d N ~~~R~~:~ _ . ~ ~,n a~b aa~ y o ~•~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ao ,~, y 8 ~, a, ee R ~~~c ° o ° ~ ee tx~ ~ ~ q0 V1 ~ ~ a'~ ~,ii$, v ~`F °a a~~T ex t A '~wa~iw ~~ ego ~ d ~,,~ o z ~ g ,,,,~ n ,;:_ x ~ /~' ~~'~o d ~ `~ c ~, rt r~ O O ~ rt .,. ~~ ..~~ ., . ~a,o •~am ~+ ~~~ a~ ~ ' gm ~v ~ K A 5C age ~~~ w y Z 8g .,," A~ A. qy .. ~~~ ~a ~ ~ w 3d _ ~~~ 5t ~~ ~~ ~ ego ~~ ~~~a ~~~ '~ ~ ~~~ ~' ~ `U ~~° gad ~°~~~ ~~ o~~' °~.~~ !~F a IMF ~ ~ ~ T r ~ ~T -" ~_ ~ _x e ~u ..._._ _ua. _ ,., _.:. sw s'~xsa°Z>a.A' a.-titlrtS.,. --.~.~~._._wrz - '~.5'~:a ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~, ~. ~~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ , ~ c m ~, ~ ~~~F 'D~ -~ ~~~~ ~~ ® ~ '© ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ® ~ ~;~ ~. O ~z ® ~.~. ~8 a ~, ~~~ ~. g~~ b~ ~, ~'' ~~ ~~ a~~~.~ ~.~ ~. ~ ~~~ ~v ~: p C ~~ ~ ~.~~~ ~~g ~~~. ~.~ , Ada Count Hi hway District Y ~ coMMtss~oNSrss: STRATEGIC PLA1Vl~TING UPDATE l~®~ce, v=ce ~d~,°~ ~~~: ~s~~ `• Volume I, Issue I Cktober 1992 ACHD Strategic Planning Process Is Well Underway The Ada County Highway District's Strategic Planning Pro- cess is well underway and on target. The public input phase will be completed by early No- vember, followed by imple- mentation before spring of 1993. Following is a recap of activity in recent months, and a preview of what's to come: STAFF INPUT From December through March we gathered input from ACHD staff to determine their strategic priorities. More than 70 issues were deemed strategic in nature and needed to be ad- dressed. ACHD management consoli- dated those issues into the fol- lowing eight areas of focus: 1) Congestion management 2) System expansion 3) Maintenance 4) Safety 5) Drainage/Storm water 6) Alternative transportation 7) Land use/Transportation planning 8) Environmental and related issues The first four issues are clearly within ACHD's current man- date; the second four overlap with other public entities. The essence of our strategic planning process is to determine if people in the community believe that ACHD should be doing more or less in each of the eight areas. LIVELY FOCUS GROUPS From April through November these eight focus areas were the central theme of a series of lively meetings with groups interested in and knowledgeable of the highway district's role. The groups, identified as ACHD "stakeholders;' include en- gineering and contractor as- sociations, city councils, Cham- bers of Commerce, planning & zoning commissions, Ada County legislators, the Ada County commissioners, neigh- borhood associations, special cit- izenadvisory groups and school officials, including Boise State University. For each of the eight areas, fo- cus group participants were asked to identify activities in which ACRD should be more or less active. They also were given the opportunity to make sugges- tions outside the eight areas of focus. REACHING OUT WITH SURVEYS In addition to the focus groups, we mailed a brief survey to other selected stakeholders, asking them to rank the eight ar- eas and comment on what ACHD's role should be in each. The survey was mailed to in- dividuals who were unable to attend scheduled focus group meetings. ACHD contracted with the Boise State University Survey Research Center to do a tele- phone survey of 810 Ada County citizens to determine what they believe to be the important stra- tegic issues. The phone surveys - each lasting 15 minutes - were completed in June. Preliminary Particular group (i.e., en- gineers and developers felt Responses ACHD should take the lead on drainage issues) Although it is too early to make firm conclusions, we wish to share some preliminary re- sults: FOCUS GROUPS AND WRITTEN SURVEYS Input so far from foe groups and written sur- veys indicate it is dif- ficult to identify work areas where ACHD should do less. In fact, many participants see an even greater role for the highway district in some areas. Here are some preliminary results: 1) 2) 3) There is broad support for continuing current efforts in congestion management, sys- tem expansion, maintenance and safety. Support was frequently men- tioned for ACHD assuming a greater role in transportation planning. Some focus group paticipants recommended greater in- volvement of ACHD in drainage, alternative frans- portation and environmental issues. These recommenda- tions generally followed ar- eas of specific concern to the BSU TELEPHONE SURVEY A total of 810 Ada County res- idents were interviewed by phone this summer. Here are results of the 2) 3) survey: U 60% said they 'knew which agency was responsible for the streets and roads." However, 4996 be- lieved it was the county governments responsibility, not ACHD. This echoes data gathered in the past. 94% had heard of ACHD. However, 86'% knew only some or little about the district. This also repeats past data gathered by the dis- trict. Congestion manage- ment was the most im portant issue identifieu by respondents. System ex- pansion was least important to them. Areas identified as needing more attention from ACHD are: signal timing and pro- moting ride-sharing and car- pooling. These issues also were mentioned often in fo- cus group meetings. Respondents said ACHD was doing very well in the fol- lowingareas: snow removal, street sweeping, building new bridges; reconstruction or expansion of existing bridges; reconstruction of ex- isting streets, roads and high- 4) 5) ways; and participation in land use planning. 6) There was significant support for ACHD taking on new re- sponsibilities for bike paths, trail systems and park-and- ride lots. 7) There was significant support (although not a clear major- ity) for ACHD taking on a greater role in drainage and public transit. Similar sup- port was voiced in focus groups. WHAT'S NEXTT By the end of November, about 30 focus groups will have been held to seek input. We will share more con- elusive and detailed data in a future newsletter after the public input phase of our strategic plan is com- pleted in November. The input will be compiled into final report and presented > the ACHD staff and com- missioners. The strategic plan, consisting of goals and ob- jectives for the future, will be implemented by spring. iF YOU HAVE MORE TO SAY .. . We encourage you to contact ACHD with any additional com- ments. Please mail them to: Jerry Nyman Ada County Highway District 318 E. 37th St. Boise, ID 83714 or call Jerryat 345-7680 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BEDELCO, INC. APPLICATION TO AMEND THE MERIDIAN AREA OF IMPACT AND URBAN SERVICE PLANNING AREA PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled Application to amend the Meridian Comprehensive Plan having come on for public hearing on October 13, 1992, at 7:30 o'clock p.m., and the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard any and all testimony that was submitted, including judicial knowledge, and including its knowledge of existing plans for the areas under consideration and having duly considered all the evidence, officially noticed evidence and the facts of the Comprehensive Plan itself, the Local Planning Act of 1975, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the Application was submitted by the Applicant representative, Briggs Engineering and is not an application of the City of Meridian. 2. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning AM BROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON Atlomays en0 Counselors P.O. Bow 127 MsrlElen, IGeho B3B12 TslspMne BBSJ1l1 was published for two ( 2 ) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for October 13, 1992, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the October 13, 1992, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 1 made available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 3. That the property included in the application is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property requested to be deleted from the Meridian Area of Impact and the Urban Service Planning Area Boundary is 10.94 acres in size; it is a little more than one quarter of a mile west of Cloverdale Road. 4. That the specific parcel of property to which the Application applies is now contained within the Meridian Area of Impact and Urban Service Planning Area but not within the City Limits of the City of Meridian and is zoned by the County and not by the City of Meridian. 5. That the western boundary of the parcel is the Ridenbaugh Canal; that the can is a large can; that it would inhibit Meridian in attempting to provide services of sewer, water, fire and police protection to the area. 6. The reasons for the proposed amendments are stated in the Application. 7. That the Area of Impact Agreements between the City of AMBROSE, FIT2GERALD B CROOKSTON Allompye enE Couneelore P.O. eo4 427 MarlClan, IENa 83842 TalspNOne 88&N81 Meridian and Ada County states in part as follows: "That if a parcel under single ownership is divided by the boundary line of the Meridian Area of Impact and the line divides such property so that one or both of the parts has a depth of three hundred feet or less, such part may be included in the jurisdiction within which the remainder and larger portion of the property is located" that the depth of the subject parcel, as measured from the boundary of the Meridian Area of Impact varies from 0.00 feet to FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 2 approximately 575 feet; that the subject parcel is a triangular piece of property. 8. That the parcel is a part of 74.33 acres of land owned by the Applicant; that Applicant has proposed to develop the entire parcel to include 155 residential lots, ten open space lots and one lot designated as a potential elementary school and park site; that the Applicant represented that if the parcel is deleted from the Meridian Area of Impact and the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area that the City of Boise would provided services to the parcel. 9. That then Meridian Comprehensive Plan recognizes that if it is to be useful and effective it should not be filed away and should be continually reviewed and updated. The Area of Impact and Urban Service Planning Areas are integral components of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The recommendations and components 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. 10. That the ground water in the area where the parcel is located likely flows towards Meridian or through Meridian. 11. That these findings of fact have been prepared prior to hearing and the Commission reserves the right to amend these findings, if necessary, after the hearing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AMBROSE, FITZG ERALO BCROOKSTON Atlorneys ~n0 Counselors P.O. Bow 127 Meri0lAn, IENo 83812 TelepBOne BBB~M1 1. That the procedural requirements of the Local Planning FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 3 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 amends to the Comprehensive Plan, the Area of Impact and the Urban Service Planning Area. 2. That the Application was initiated by the Applicant and not by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. That the Commission may take judicial or official notice of existing conditions in the City, County and State, and of governmental actions, policies and ordinances and of its own prior findings in other land use Applications and those of the City Council. 4. That the function of adopting, amending, or repealing a Comprehensive Plan, the Area of Impact or the Urban Service Planning Area is a legislative function. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls. 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.2d 1075 (1983). That even though this is a legislative function, the Local Planning Act requires that Findings of Fact and Conclusions be made for any Application provided for in the Act. 5. That the Application itself is concluded to be sufficient. 6. That it was previously concluded in prior Comprehensive AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys Ntl CDUneelore P.O. Box 12l Merbioq Itleho 83812 relevnone33Ba1ai 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; that the same reasoning applies to amendments to the Area of Impact and the Urban Service Planning Area. FINDINGS OF FACT 6 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 4 7. That since the Area of Impact and Urban Service Planning Area are parts of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the Plan and the Plan is what it says it is, ie. 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 , and its components, 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 the Commission concludes that the facts presented and the officially noticed facts are sufficient to amend the Plan. 10. That these conclusions of law have been prepared prior to hearing and the Commission reserves the right to amend these conclusions, if necessary, after the hearing. APPROVAL OF FINDINt~S OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts AMBROSE, FITZG ERALD dCROOKSTON and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL: Commissioner Hepper Attomaya anE G°""°.'°re FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 5 P.O. Boz {Z77 MM°len, WMo &'1812 Telsplrone BB&L181 Voted Commissioner Rountree Commissioner Shearer Commissioner Alidjani Chairman Johnson (Tie Breaker) Voted ~' ~ ~`' Voted Voted IJL~~ ~ Voted C) RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the Applicant's proposed Amendments to the Area of Impact boundary and the Urban Service Planning Area Boundary approved and adopted. MOTION: APPROVED: Cti DISAPPROVED: ~! AMBROSE, FIT2GERALD 6 CROOKSTON Atlomeye end Counselors p.0. Box Iz) Merlalan, lacno naeax Telephone SSB~eBt FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 6 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT #2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, ADA COUNTY MERIDIAN, IDAHO AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attomaya end Counaelon R.o. eo: azT MerWlen, IW~o 838x2 TalapNOne 888-U81 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on October 13, 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 Planning and Zoning Commission 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 October 13, 1992, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the October 13, 1992, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 1 AMBROSE, FIRGERALD dCROOKSTON Altomaye entl Counselors P.O. Boz /Y7 Marltllsn, ItlMo 8981E Te1sD~one BB8~1161 reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 12 acres in size; it is near the southwest corner of the intersection of Cherry Lane and Ten Mile Road, it is adjacent to the East boundary of Fuller Park and the South boundary of Parkside Creek Subdivision. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as AG Agricultural; that the Applicant requested that the property be zoned by the City as R-4 Residential. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally, for a park and a subdivision is being developed to the north. 5. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property and has requested the annexation and zoning. 6. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 7. That the parcel of ground requested to be annexed is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 8. That the property is in the WARRIOR NEIGHBORHOOD as set forth in Policy Diagram in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that NEIGHBORHOOD is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as follows: The neighborhood is a residential area with uniform characteristics of a size comparable to that usually served by an elementary school or a small business convenience center or a local park. Although neighborhoods occur in various shapes and sizes, a section of the City measuring one-half to one-and-one-half miles across is usually used PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 2 for planning purposes. It has facilities within easy walking distances and provides the basis for community identification. 9. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until it is no longer economical to exclude orderly growth and development to maintain agricultural pursuits. 10. 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 which will require schools. 11. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 12. Ada County Highway District, the Department of Health, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation 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. 13. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the AMBROSE, F1T2GERALD d CROOKSTON Attomays ~nE Counselors P.O. sox l2] MBrlClin, IEMo BS8/2 Teleplrona S86!!S1 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 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 3 Meridian. 14. That public schools are an allowed use in the R-4 Residential District; the ordinances of the City also require that land be zoned upon annexation. 15. That the Applicant intends to construct an elementary school. 16. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. 17. That these Findings of Fact have been prepared prior to hearing and the Planning and Zoning Commission reserves the right to amend them if necessary, after the public hearing. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to Section 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 AMBROSE, FITZG ERALD d CROOKSTON Attorneys en0 Counselors P.O. Bo. l27 MsrlElen, IANo 83W2 Telephone BB6!!81 annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 4 Code; 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 annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 6. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and AMBROSE, FITZGERALO B CROOKSTON AgOmeye m0 Cooneeloro P.O. Boa 127 MBr101en,IEeOo &9814 TelepNOns 88B.1Mt comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and 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 WARRIOR NEIGHBORHOOD of the Comprehensive Plan, the annexation and zoning would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 5 11. Therefore, based on the Application, the probable testimony and evidence, these Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, it is ultimately concluded that Applicant's property could be annexed and zoned; that such annexation and zoning would be orderly development and reasonable. 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. 13. That the requirements of any irrigation district and Ada County Highway District shall be met as well the requirements of the City Engineer. 14. That the annexation and zoning of R-4, Residential would AMSROSE, FIRGERALD d CROOKSTON Attorneys eno Gounseloro P.O. Boz sRT MMOlen, leNo BtU2 Taleplrona 98BdN1 be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 15. That these Conclusions of Law have been prepared prior to hearing and the Planning and Zoning Commission reserves the right to amend them in necessary, after the public hearing. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 6 ~, 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 VOTED~_ COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED~~ SS O ER SHEARER VOTED ~ tom"' COMMI I N COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends AM BROSE, FIT2GERALO 6 CROOKSTON AtlOme'/e entl Counselors R.o. ao. azT Merltllan, Itlal~o BBBSR Taleplwne BBB-M81 to the City Council of the City of Meridian that 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 Ordinance of the City of Meridian. MOTION: APPROVED • ~!'~ DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 7