Borup Property AZ-10-003CITY OF MERIDIAN ~ IDIAI'~
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND I D A H O
DECISION & ORDER
In the Matter of Annexation & Zoning of a 0.22 Acre Portion of Land from the RUT
Zoning District in Ada County to the C-G Zoning District in the City for the Borup
Property, Located at 2250 N. Meridian Road, by Neilson, Inc.
Case No(s). AZ-10-003
For the City Council Hearing Date of: January 18, 2011 (Findings on February 1, 2011)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 18, 2011,
incorporated by reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 18, 2011,
incorporated by reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January
18, 2011, incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the
hearing date of January 18, 2011, incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code
codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of
Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002,
Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code §
11-SA.
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). AZ-10-003
-I-
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not
impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which
shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon
the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected
party requesting notice.
7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff
Report for the hearing date of January 18, 2011, incorporated by reference. The
conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements
as a condition of approval of the application.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and
based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby
ordered that:
1. The applicant's request for Annexation & Zoning is hereby approved per the attached
Staff Report for the hearing date of January 18, 2011, attached as Exhibit A.
D. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, denial of a
development application entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis.
Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than
twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request
for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for
Judicial Review maybe filed.
2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of
Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person
being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by
the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date
of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67,
Idaho Code.
E. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of January 18, 2011
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). AZ-10-003
-2-
B action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ~ day of
2011.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAVID ZAREMBA
COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT BRAD HOAGLUN
COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE
COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD
MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD
(TIE BREAKER)
Attest:
Jaycee Hralman, City Clerk
Copy served upon Applicant,
Attorney.
VOTED
VOTED ~ ~
V o~
VOTED ~ /~-
VOTED
~~~
VOTED
~..~
~` ~ ~~~ ~
Mayas Ta y de Weerd
G \~0~5~0~?.q 1~c0 /
~~~~ _
~~ z'~ ~~o"~ ~
'i~~/ '9 ~Q \\~;
The P1ar41~y~P~~ ~a }~~Iit, Public Works Department and City
By: Dated: ~ ~ /~
City ler ' Office
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). AZ-10-003
-3-
EXHIBIT A
STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: January 18, 2011
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: AZ-10-003 - Borup Property
E IDIAN~--
l~aHa
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Neilson Inc., has applied for annexation and zoning (AZ) of a 0.22 acre portion of land
from the RUT (Rural Urban Transition) zoning district in Ada County to the C-G (General Retail &
Service Commercial) zoning district in the City.
II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed AZ based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law in Exhibit D of the Staff Report.
The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on December 16, 2011. At the
public hearing they moved to recommend approval of the subiect AZ request.
a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Keith Borup
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: None
iv. Written testimony: None
v. Staff presenting application: Pete Friedman
vi. Other staff commenting on application: None
b. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:
i. None
c. KeY Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation:
i. None
d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council:
i. None
~, of City Council Public Hearing:
is In favor: Keith Borun
11. In opnosition: None
111. Commenting: None
lY, Written testimony: None
y, taff nresenting anplication: Anna Canning
Yi. Other staff commenting„ on anplication: None
lt. ev Issues of Discussion by Council:
i. None
~_ Key Council Changes to Staff/Commission Recommendation
i< None
PAGE 1
EXHIBIT A
III. PROPOSED MOTION
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number AZ-10-
003 as presented during the hearing on January 18, 2011, with the following modifications: (Add any
proposed modifications.)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number AZ-10-003 as
presented during the hearing on January 18, 2011, for the following reasons: (You should state
specific reasons for denial.)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number AZ-10-003 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date
here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
A. Site Address/Location:
Parcel No. 87039000605
Located in the southwest '/ of Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 1 East
B. Owner(s):
2250 N. Meridian Road Trust
P.O. Box 855
Meridian, ID 83680
C. Applicant:
Neilson Inc.
P.O. Box 855
Meridian, ID 83680
D. Representative:
Keith Borup
2090 Freedom Lane
Meridian, ID 83646
E. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant's narrative for this information.
V. PROCESS FACTS
A. The subject application is for an annexation and zoning request. A public hearing is required
before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on this matter, consistent with
Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5.
D. Newspaper notifications published on: November 29, and December 13, 2010 (Commission);
December 27, 2010 and January 10, 2011 (City Council)
E. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: November 24, 2010 (Commission);
December 27, 2010 (City Council)
F. Applicant posted notice on site by: November 27, 2010 (Commission); December 29, 2010 (City
Council)
PAGE 2
EXHIBIT A
VI. LAND USE
A. Existing Land Use(s): A portion of a parking lot exists on this property that is part of the abutting
property to the north owned by the applicant.
B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: This site is surrounded by
residential property, zoned R-40; a church across Meridian Road to the west, zoned L-O;
commercial (Curriculum Cottage) to the south, zoned C-C; and a recently approved pre-
school/daycare facility to the north, zoned C-G.
C. History of Previous Actions:
• This property consists of a portion of Lot 3, of J. E. Pfost's Subdivision, platted in 1908.
• A conditional use permit (CUP-10-008) was recently approved for apre-schooUdaycare
center on the adjoining property to the north that incorporates the subject property.
D. Utilities:
1. Public Works:
a. Location of sewer: Services are available from N Meridian Road
b. Location of water: Services are available from N Meridian Road
c. Issues or concerns: None
E. Physical Features:
Canals/Ditches Irrigation: There is a shallow ditch that traverses this site from east to west.
2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this property.
3. Flood Plain: A large portion of this site lies within flood zone XS and a smaller portion within
flood zone AE. This site is not within the floodplain.
F. Access: There is no access to this site via N. Meridian Road; access is provided to the parking lot
on this property via one access to Meridian Road on the abutting property to the north.
VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
The subject property is designated "Mixed Use -Neighborhood (MU-N)" on the Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map. Per the Comprehensive Plan (page 103), the following standards apply to MU-
N areas: Up to 10 acres may be non-residential uses; up to 100,000 square feet of non-residential
building area; residential densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. Sample uses include: grocery
stores, drug stores, coffee/sandwich shops, dry cleaner/Laundromat, salons, daycare, professional
offices, medical/dental clinics, retaiUgift shops, schools, parks, churches, clubhouses, and public uses.
Staff finds the recently approved pre-schooUdaycare center that incorporates this property is a
compatible use in the MU-N category.
Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to
the proposed use (staff analysis in italics):
• Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 -Require that development projects have planned
for the provision of all public services.
When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide Ciry services to the
subject property. The City of Meridian currently provides municipal services to the subject
property in the following manner:
• Sanitary sewer and water service is provided to the property.
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT A
• The lands are serviced by the Meridian Fire Department (MFD).
• The lands are serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD).
• The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada
County Highway District (ACHD). This service will not change.
• The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will
not change.
• The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will
not change.
Municipal, fee-supported, services will continue to be provided by the Meridian Building
Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the
Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing
Services, and Sanitary Services Company.
• Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective B (page 109) -Plan for a variety of commercial and retail
opportunities within the Impact Area.
Staff is of the opinion that the recently approved pre-school will contribute to the variety of
educational and commercial opportunities available within the City.
• Chapter VII, Goal N (page 112) -Encourage compatible uses to minimize conflicts and
maximize use of land.
Staff is of the opinion the pre-school/daycare use of this property is compatible with surrounding
residential, church, and commercial uses for the following reasons: 1) the pre-school will serve
the needs of nearby residents; 2) the appearance of the structure is consistent with adjacent
buildings as it is a former dwelling; and 3) its location on an arterial street will not create
additional traffic which would affect other properties.
• Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2 (page 114) -Restrict curb cuts and access points on
collectors and arterial streets.
One access to the site is provided via N. Meridian Road, a minor arterial street, on the abutting
property to the north which serves as an access to the parking lot on this site.
• Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 5 (page 114) -Require appropriate landscape and
buffers along transportation corridor (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.).
A 25 foot wide landscape buffer is required to be provided along N. Meridian Road, an arterial
street, on this property as required by UDC Table 11-2B-3 and CUP-10-008.
VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
A. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the commercial districts is to provide for the retail
and service needs of the community in accordance with the Meridian comprehensive plan. Six (6)
districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated
in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in
proximity to streets and highways.
B. Schedule of Use: Unified Development Code (UDC) Table 11-2B-21ists the permitted,
accessory, conditional, and prohibited uses in the C-G zoning district. A CUP was recently
approved for apre-school/daycare center on this site as required in the C-G zoning district.
C. Dimensional Standards: The dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G
zoning district apply to this site.
PAGE 4
EXHIBIT A
D. Landscaping Standards (UDC 11-3B):
1. Width of street buffer(s): NA
2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: NA
3. Percentage of site as open space: NA
4. Tree Preservation: NA
E. Off-Street Parking: NA
IX. ANALYSIS
A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
The applicant requests approval to annex and zone 0.22 of an acre of land from the RUT zoning
district in Ada County to the C-G district in the City.
This property was developed with the adjoining property to the north and is held in common
ownership. A portion of the parking lot for the adjoining business is contained on this property.
When a conditional use permit for apre-schooUdaycare center was recently approved on the
property to the north which also included this property, it came to staff's attention that this small
sliver of land had not been annexed with the abutting parcel in 1982. When the Commission
approved the CUP a condition of approval was that the applicant obtains annexation and zoning
approval from the City Council within one year of the date of CUP approval.
Due to its small size, irregular shape and being developed as part of the property to the north,
staff is not recommending that a development agreement be required as a provision of
annexation.
Approval of the proposed annexation will clean-up the zoning on this property where a use has
already been approved in the City and allow the applicant to comply with a previous condition of
approval.
X. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Vicinity/Zoning Map & Aerial Map
2. Site Plan (dated: July 15, 2010)
B. Agency Comments
1. Planning Department
2. Public Works Department
3. Fire Department
4. Police Department
5. Sanitary Service Company
6. Ada County Highway District
7. Parks Department
C. Legal Description and Exhibit Map
D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
PAGE 5
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.1: Vicinity/Zoning Map & Aerial Map
-T---
_~~
-"1 \, ,
%'~~';~.
--'- w waTEaeum as
W WILLOWBROOK DR L--,-
_,._,,,
~. t
~W CRAMMER DR --J
....._,........... _ „f
~--
i
z
R-8 I
R1
i NI2 !~
~_ ~ Z --
~_
W~
a T
', ~, E6t-UENEYt~~SS
F
ny
', °4'~e --- -
3
F F~77R70GF 5 7
PAGE6
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.2: Site Plan
] '[ ~ ~_ t~ t ~ ~ ~~I' ~ ~'[ @ ~ X100
~ C~~t tfa Ga,i~ - Hei 1i ~.~na~ b~c ~
K40 - +~ 633
r _ _ lira ^ ?+I4
.-.__._:
°-
~: ~ ~a~'
i
,~ ~ ~ t
t"" UI+1 ftnn~ C[aUr t
~ x~ ~'r ancrt+c} ~ o
'` ~ ~ ~
1 ~ ` !
~'4 ', ~, .'~ Orin
yf~
~• ~ tit
~ ~ ~ i ~f3
F '
'," ~ t ~ ~~
F1' i'`. ~a ~~IiiIM~
C9 1 ,. `s i t'~u ~ l,Ly
i ~ •
`~ - ` I'S ~
Y ~ ~ ~ l~,
i. `° ~ ,
v
~,
. ~{
3~
~j
r ~,
,i
~=
~`
~/.1
~~.._ -~
rei,
i
t
i
C~~
1
r
I
~r ~~~h
Su ~~ t~. ~C1~
~ '' -- +ta
1~,z; 4~h Bro.wp
.~+ ~ 50 M. +~nec~dw ~.{ T.;s
1? 0 , ~~x $5S
~ t+~i liaK , r'dal~e ~ 3bgo
~to-73t3 37~ - r39o
PAGE 7
EXHIBIT A
B. Agency Comments
1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1.1 The legal description for the proposed annexation submitted with the application (prepared on
September 24, 2010, by James R. Prince, PLS) shows the property within the existing
corporate boundary of the City of Meridian (see Exhibit C).
2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2.1 Public Works has no issues with this application.
3. FIRE DEPARTMENT
3.1 The Fire Department has no comments related to this application.
4. POLICE DEPARTMENT
4.1 The Police Department has no comments related to this application.
5. SANITARY SERVICES
5.1 SSC has no comments related to this application.
6. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
6.1 ACRD did not submit comments on this application.
7. PARKS DEPARTMENT
7.1 The Parks Department has no comments related to this application.
PAGE 8
EXHIBIT A
C. Legal Description and Exhibit Map
KLSTRCL L~4ND
SCJRVCYJNG
~~
~ P~ Mnea~Mon
E.n~ of De~crlpllort
Pra~a1 t~i~.1t1-1~
~'~
rr
PAGE 9
EXHIBIT A
~IB~t'fi 'A,~°
A ~A 17t7W' Pry.
,~ ~~t rte' ~a e~ ,~ ~~av a~ ear ~ ,erwar r +ar .~ ~asrs suaot~~oaMr
f tom` fiif1413 AT ~~' t',JT« ' OF Ail COIiiWTM; AMID A ApP1wOM ~ IfiE
~ ~ ~ JiiaRD RApMT. ~IMtiI>r DIY ?/'~/ of ,~.^ALW ~ T.~A1~'. Rriw ~.AR
1~# ~, CttY f~ ~ ,Ai~+1 CGRNI~f; A~AIi~O
1 6
~` ~5
1"-~a -e~ r e,ME
~:~.~
y1y~.rYYr i~«R•!ih
?JON AY~1 ~ 1~-J'-~ M~F~
Fl.# ' +if]'~3t
~ J l,AX PARIC~I IPA $ ~$#w~«~• w ~
~ ~ r~.ot'
6GLE~ ~'-Sq"
~~
r
PAIL trll~'
Y ~ ~~~ ~F
Pas t+awt a+~ arc
FAX PAIL ~77nWapap7~iT
i~4 ~'+k3«18" '~ 165.Q2' ~GM1F ~-4tid
e ~ SiDO#~'5~,3~ ~
4 ~AJ~' PAS, A~
~ ' G-C
.~
I.d"'11 ~Y ~JE.~1w. M ~~
PAGE 10
EXHIBIT A
D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
1. Annexation & Zoning Findings:
Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation
and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation
and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings:
a. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive
Plan;
The Applicant is proposing to annex and zone the subject property from RUT in Ada County
to C-G. The City Council finds that the proposed map amendment is consistent with the MU-
N future land use designation for this site. Therefore, the City Council finds the amendment is
consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
b. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district,
specifically the purpose statement;
The City Council finds that the proposed map amendment to the C-G district and recently
approved daycare use of this property is consistent with the purpose statement of the
commercial district in that it provides for the service needs of the community.
c. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety,
and welfare;
The City Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare.
d. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services
by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not
limited to, school districts; and,
The City Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse
impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this
site.
e. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-SB-3.E).
Because the applicant/owner was required to annex and zone the subject property as a
condition of approval of CUP-10-008, the City Council finds the annexation of this property
is in the best interest of the City.
PAGE 11