HomeMy WebLinkAboutSanitary Services, Inc./Alidjani Annexationa
A�-'Ti.ICF` T')N �'OR A','NEXATION V- ROVAL &
ZONING
Meridian Panning 6 Zoning Commission
Filing Information
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
No subdivision required.
(Proposed Name of Subdivision)
(General Location)
Attached _
(Legal Description - attach if lengthy)
Herbert C. and Lillian Reaman
(Owner(s) of Record) (Name)
1740 E. Pine, Meridian, Idaho 83742
(Address) - - ---- --------- - —
Sanitary Service, Inc. (Mohammad Alidjani)
(Apply anti (Name) -- -- — -
P. 0. Box 626, Meridian, Idaho 83642
J -U -B ENGINEERS, In_c.
(Engineer, Surveyor or F?a-.ner) (Name)
250 S. _Beechwood Avenue, Boise, Idaho 83709
(Address) -- --
eity of Meridian Zoning Commission and City Council
(J:risdicti—on (s) Requiring Approval)
Industrial building for solid waste transfer station.
(Type of Subdivision -Residential, Commericial, Industrial;
± 50 None Acres of Land in Contiguous Ownership.
888-2435
(Telephone No. )
888-7131
888-3999
(Telephone No. )
376-7330
(Telephone No. )
(Accepted By:) -- -
_(10.1-20 Acres $480)
(Fee)
n
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
1. Present Land Use - agricultural.
2. Proposed Land Use - Industrial. Building for use as a solid waste transfer
station.
3. Present District - Ada County Agricultural Preserve - AP -2.
4. Proposed District - City of Meridian Industrial - I.
S. Characteristics of the Property - Adjacent to existing industrial zoning
and approved industrial uses. Utilities are available to the site.
6. Desirability and Harmony - The annexation and rezone are being requested
to allow the applicant to construct a solid waste transfer station. This
station will be used by the City's solid waste contractor to improve the
efficiency of solid waste disposal. All solid waste transfer activity
will be conducted inside the proposed building. The proposed activity
will have minimal aesthetic, noise and odor impacts. Adjacent properties
are industrial and the proposed use will be in harmony with these adjacent
uses.
7. Meridian Comprehensive Plan - The Meridian Comprehensive Plan allows for
industrial uses in the general area in which the applicant's property is
located. The City has recently approved large scale industrial zoning
and industrial development proposals adjacent to the applicant's property.
im
EXHIBIT "A"
PARCEL I
A portion of the S 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 8, T. 3 N.,
R. 1 E., B. M., Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described
as follows:
Beginning at the brass cap marling the Southwest corner of
the said NW 1/4 of Section 8;
thence North 88057'50" East (formerly described as North
89000' East in Instrument No. 756596) 687.40 feet alongthe Southerly
boundary of -the said S 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 8, wch is also
the center line of East Pine Avenue to an iron pin;
thence North 0041'00" West 150.00 feet along a line Easterly
of and parallel to the Westerly boundary of the said NW 1/4 of
Section 8, which is also the center line of Locust Grove Road to
an iron pin, also said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence North 88057150" East (formerly described as North
89000' East) 817.54 feet along a line Northerly of and parallel
to the said Southerly boundary of the S 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of
Section 8 to an iron pin;
thence North 0041100" West 655.73 feet (formerly described
as 656.69 feet) along a line Easterly of and parallel to the said
Westerly boundary of the NW 1/4 of Section 8 to an iron pin;
thence South 89019100" West 817.52 feet to an iron pin;
thence South 0041'00" East 660.77 feet along a line Easterly
of and parallel to the said Westerly boundary of the NW 1/4 of
Section 8 to the point of beginning, comprising 12.35 acres, more
or less.
EXCEPT PARCEL 'II Described below:
PARCEL II
A portion of the S 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 8, 'T. 3 N.,
R. 1 E., B. M., Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described
as follows:
Beginning at the brass cap marling the Southwest corner of
the said NW 1/ of Section 8;
thence North 88057'50" East (f ormerly described as North
89000' East in Instrument No. 756596) 687.40 feet along the Southerly
boundary of the said S 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 8, which is also
the center line of East Pine Avenue to an iron pin;
` thence North 0°41' 00" West 350.00 feet along a line Easterly
of and parallel to the Westerly boundary of the said NW 1 4 of
Section 8, which is also the center line of Locust Grove Road to
a point, also said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNI NG;
thence North 89019' East 208.71 feet to a point
thence North Al' 00" West 208.71 feet along a line Easterly of
and parallel to the said Westerly boundary of the NW. 1/4 of Section 8
EXHI BIT• "A ", P. 1
to a polar;
throne South SAW West 208.71 feet to a point;
tbano South Oo41' 00" Feat 208.71 feet along a line Easterly i
of and parallel to die said Westerly boundary of the NW 1/4 of
• Seodon a m die point of beginning.
9 � x
• Esther with the following described easemen
together
t which shall
• access to and from ParceolI Dove and feet, which within the
widtth Of 50.00 feet !
and length Z _
an easement for a right-oi-way, of ape" and
isgrsas seen" the following described property: !
A portion of the S 1/2 of the NW 114 of Section T. & N
. , 1as ���.M.0 Ada County, Idsh% and more pardcu�ar
• the acid NW I f BegLmda at section 8;die braspp marking the Southwest carnet d
dyme North 88057950" East (formerly described as North
89000 East in Instrument No. 756596) 687.40 teat along the
Southerly boundary of the said S 1/2 of die NW 1/4 of Section 8,
which !o also the canter line of Mat Pias Avenue to an iron pia,
the ILEAL POINT OF BEGU MING;
thence N 0041'00" W 200.00 feet along aline Easterl
of and parallel to the Westerly boundary of the acid NW 1/
' . theace S 88057'50" W NX 00 few,
thence S 0041'00" E 2400 feet;
thence N 88057950" E 50.00 feet to the REAL POINT OF BBGIN =e
It is noted that this easement is not exclusive but is biso
appurtenant to the parcel described above as•Parcel II.
�c K K 4
Subject also to an additional easement which is appurtenant to
Parcel iI which easement is also 50.00 feet in wideth and 200.00
feet in length and described as follows, to wits
FUCRL Is
As esasea st for ingress and egress over a portion of the South 1/2 of the
Worth uest 1/4 of Section 6, ?owasbip 3 North, Range 1 last, Boise Meridian, Ada
Canaty, I&M, sad sore particularly described ss follows;
Beginning at the brass cap working the Southwest corner of the said Northwest
1/4 of Section 8; the"*
'Meech 89057150" last (forsorly described as North 89.00' last is Instrueent No.
756596) 687.40 feet along the Southerly boundary of the said South 1/2 of
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8, which is also the center line of last pine
Avenue to an iron pis; thence
Mega 0041100" hest 350.00 feet alongg-a lice Easterly of and parallel to the
Westerly boundary of the said Northwest 1/4 of Section 8, which is also the
costae line of Locust Grove Road to a point, also said point being the REAL
POUR Of BIGIBtING; thence
North 89019' Salt 50 feet to a point; thence
Swath 0041100" last 200.00 feet sleag a lino Easterly of and parallel to the
said Westerly boundary of the NV 1/4 of Section 8 to a point; thence
South 8865710" West 50 feet to.a point: th ce _
!Neth O't1'00" Wast 200 feet along a line Sastorly of and parallel to the said
of the IN 1/4 9; sectiop 8 to the POW Of BEGINNING.
POTTER LAND SURVEYING
Jarrys V. Potter. L.S.
a
Surveying & Mapping a Planning ft Design a Boundary Consulting IN a i axatx.
13 May, 1985
Chairman Spencer, and fellow Commissioners
Meridian City Planning and Zoning Commission
City Nall '
Meridian, Idaho
Re: PLS File No. 85-121
City Annexation and Zoning of that certain parcel of lana? in the Si, NWf, Section
8, T.3N., RIL,'B.M., requested by Mohammad AlidjanL
Chairman Spencer and Fellow Commissioners:
My Name is James V. Potter, principal of Potter Land Surveying. I reside in Garden
Valley, Idaho. My Business address is Box 4403 Garden Valley, Idaho 83622, and my
Business telephone number is 462-3232. lam apearing this evening an behalf of the
East Meridian Property Owners Association.
I am a Licensed Land Surveyor, registered in the State of Idaho, and have practiced
in the fields of Land Planning and Land Surveying for more than thirty years. I lived
in the Meridian area for more than thirteen years, and maintained a private practice
in the City of Meridian for several years Through my local residency, private practice,
participation in the Meridian Chamber of Commerce and Citizen Advisory Committees.
I have gained a ,general knowledge of the citys plans for ,growth,
Further, I have been personally involved in several of the land development plans
affecting lards in the near vicinity of the proposed annexation. I am, therefore, very
familiar with the specific area, the present and proposed land uses.
in appearing on behalf of the East Meridian Property Owners Association, I represent
more than 50 persons, all of whom reside within the City of Meridian's Area of Impact.
As residents of the City's Area of Impact, they believe that they are entitled to fair
representation on, and before the City's Planning and Zoning Commission. Their
belief in this right is based upon Idaho Code 67-6526 (f), which states, in part "If the
area of impact has been delimited pursuant to the provisions of subsection (a) (1) of
this section, persons living within the delimited area of impact shall be entitled to
representation on the planning, zoning, to -the planning and zoning commission of
the city of impact. Such representation shall as nearly as possible reflect the proportion
of population living within the city as opposed to the population living within the areas
of impgpt for that city...." They believe this subsection to apply in as much as subsection
(a) (1) has been complied with, in -that .••"Application of the city plan and ordinances (have
been ) adopted under this chapter to the area of city impact..." Therefore, and in light
of the above cited codes, my clients believe that the questions raised concerning their
city residency at the public hearing on this matter on 8 April 1985, to be a mute point.
As indicated to you in the home owners petition filed with you during the above referenced
public hearing, My clients believe that the City's favorable consideration of this annexation
and zoning request, would be to their personal and financial detriment. They believe that
the facility planned for the site would materially and detrimentaly affect their personal
enjoyment of their own real property; and would limit the alternatives for the future use
of their land. This limitation, they believe, will significantly reduce their anticipated
profits from their lands when they desire to selL
13 May 1985
85-121
Meridian P&Z
page 2
After carefully reviewing the proposed land use, historical data concerning similar
operations, and the present and proposed land use plans of the City and County, I
believe that my clients have reason for serious concern. Based upon this research,
I believe that I can demonstrate to you this evening, that an approval of this application
would be detrimental to The populace, commerce and industry within the City's area
of impact, the City, itself as well as the concerned cit?npns lodging this testimony of
opposition.
I have prepared a composite map, showing both the City and County zoning surrounding
the subject property, including thereon certain preliminary plans which have been approved.
This map provides a reference for several specific issues which I would like to address.
( Brief explaination of map given )
Notice, if you will, the established pattern of zoning and land use. North of the site,
there is a residential zone only 200 feet from the site. Northeast is some agricultural
land beyond which is more residential and Light Industrial. To the East is Light Industrial.
The Light Industrial to the East and Northeast, is of specific consideration, since this
property is planned for a Business Center-- involving, perhaps high tech. industry and
certain allowable commercial uses. To the South and Southeast lie more agricultural
lands, beyond which is more Light Industrial. Southwest of the site, is more Light
Industrial. To the West, and Northwest, is the Old Towne planned development comprehen-
sive plan --a concept plan for twentynine individual properties ,� co-inrisfng 188 Acres,
Previously approved by this Commission and the City Council.
At first glance, it would appear that the present request for annexation and zoning
as Light Industrial would be compatible with the City's overall plan and with the area's
established trend. On the other hand, a closer examination provides several sound reasons
why this property should not be considered for Light Industrial Zoning; especially for
the intended use specified in the application.
Your attention is drawn to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, Goals, page 8, goals 1 and
2. " to preserve Meridian's environmental quality.... improve the total natural environment
....to insure growth and development occur in an orderly fashion..." and in Goal 10 " To
create an Urban Service Planning Area which is visually attractive..."
Proper planning and subsequent zoning, if it is to accomplish these goals, must look to
achieving balance of land uses and the bulk area of lands contained with each zone.
In addressing this area of community planning, noted authorities Joseph De Chiara and
Lee KoppeIman, cite the works of still another authority, George Nez, in his book
" Standards for Urban Development", published by the Urban Land Institute. In this
volume, Mr. Nez states that studies indicate that the " Total Gross Land requirement
for all industry"..in a city, is.."12 Acres/1,000 population; and that the " Land require-
ments for Light Industry"..is.."2 acres/1,000 population". In addition to the present
land requirements, Mr. 'Nez addresses the matter of reserve for future ,growth.
" Requirements for industrial land reserve: reserve land for minimum of 50 years
future growth".
The 1980 census indicated that the City of Meridian had a population within the City
of just under 7,000 ; and approximately . 9,000 in the City and that area now within its
impact area. This in -city population was down 12% from that projected in 1976.
Using this as an adjustment factor, the Ada Planning Association corrected its project-
ions for future years. Their projection for the year 2000, is now 25,150. If this
straight line projection is continued for a 50 year period, it would result in a population
13 May 1985
85-121
Meridian P&Z
page 3
of 50,500, in 2035 AD. Thus, on this basis, Meridian's present population requires
approximately 25 Acres of Light Industrial; in the year 2000, our needs will be approx-
imately 50 acres; and in the year 2035-50 years hence-- approximately 100 acres.
In contrast to this need, the City of Meridian, and its impact area, presently contain
1100 acres of lands zoned Light Industrial.
If we compare our available reserve to the regional needs, there is still great disparity.
The present population of Ada County is 197,000, and that of the entire Treasure Valley
approximately 360,000. Thus the current needs of light industrial property in our region
amount to under 400 acres for Ada County, or just over 700 acres for all of Treasure
Valley. In the year 2000, these same populations are expected to reach ,89,000 for the
County, and 550,000 for the valley. Thus, M 2000 AD the County will require a total
area of 580 Acres and the Valley of 1100 Acres of light industrial. Meridian could fill
these needs, even if there were no other light industrial lands available in all of Treasure
Valley.
In contrast to our available reserve, an inspection of those lands thus presently zoned,
will show that the actual need --as demonstrated by the acreage developed, and in use --
to be very near the guidelines for good planning, given by the authorities cited. Thus,
on the basis of available reserve vs. present and projected need for lands within the
Light Industrial Zone, 1 would suggest to you that there is no public need for further
lands to be thus zoned. To further expand the light industrial reserve, would merely
delay further, the other lands thus zoned, adversely affecting the owner's values.
The second matter of significance in this annexation and rezone request before you this
evening, is its compatibility, or lack thereof, with the surrounding present and proposed
land uses. One of the basic tenents of zoning in Meridian, as cited from Section 2-402-
A (5) of the Zoning and Development Ordinance, is " To protect residential, commercial,
industrial and civic areas from the intrusion of incompatible uses and to provide oppor-
tunities for establishments to concentrate for efficient operation in mutually beneficial
relationships to each other and to share services."
The property owners and residents of the East Meridian Property Owners Association,
perceive that the approval of the subject application would, in fact, be an intrusion
of an incompatible use; would not result in efficiency of their operations; and would
not be conducive to mutually beneficial relationships. For these reasons, they believe
that approval of this application would violate, rather than protect their established
and proposed land uses --and the rights appertaining thereto.
To assist you in analizing this claim against the counterclaims of the applicant, I would
draw your attention to the following citations and references:
Refering again, to Mr. George Nez, author of "Standards for New Urban Development,
the Urban Land Institute, he specifies certain "General Requirements for Industrial Location:
(a) Fast, easy and convenient access to good transportation facilities including rail,
highway and air.
(b) Reasonable location with respect to labor supply, raw materials source and markets
(c) An adequate amount of suitable land, free from foundation and drainage problems
(d) An adequate and reliable supply of utilities: water, waste water, power and fuel
(e) Protection from encroachment of residential or other land uses
(f) Location so as to minimize obnoxious external effects on neighboring land uses
The Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance, Section 2-413 B, provides that...
" No land or building in any district shall be used or occupied in any manner creating
dangerous, injurious, noxious, or otherwise objectional conditions which could adversely
13 May 1985
85-121
Meridian P&Z
page 4
affect the surrounding areas or adjoining premises...... And in the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan, Section I-4, under Comprehensive Plan Objectives, it states..." The following
land use activities are not in compliance with the basic goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan: (a) Polluting industries. There is strong evidence to suggest
that a Solid Waste Transfer Station is, in fact, a polluting industry and cannot be
operated and managed in a manner to avoid the creation of dangerous, injurious, noxious,
or otherwise objectionable conditions, as called for in the City's Comprehensive
Pian and Zoning and Development Ordinance.
The first piece of such evidence is drawn from State of Idaho Code, Title 31, Chapter
44. This law provides that all solid waste systems—other than those established and/or
maintained by a city—shall come under the jurisdiction of the Board of County Commiss-
ioners. It also provides that all solid waste systems be located, maintained and operated
in accordance to the rules and regulations adopted by the State Board of Health and
Welfare. The Board of Health rules and regulations stated purpose in governing this
activity, is..." To protect the public health, prevent nuisances, prevent saftey hazards,
prevent pollution of water and air, prevent excessive land abuse..." Section 1-6001.01.
These rules specifically include a solid waste transfer station in the term 'system'....
"Solid waste management site means any land area used for storage, transfer, processing,
separation, incineration, composting, treatment, recycling, reuse, or disposal of solid
wastes." Section 1-6001.33
These rules further specifically define a Transfer Station, as follows:.."means a fixed
or mobile facility used as an adjunct to a solid waste management system whereby solid
wastes mcW be recompacted or otherwise processed and transferred from one vehicle or
container to another for transportation to another place." Section 1-6001.36 Further,
section 1-6013.01 requires that "Transfer stations for solid waste shall be operated under
a conditional use permit issued by the department."
To obtain such a permit, these rules provide that ..." Pians, maps, specifications, and a
report on operational proceedures for solid waste management sites and facilities.....
shall be submitted to the Department for review and approval before any construction
or operation is begun..." Section 1-6005.01. Regarding the criteria for issuance of such
a permit, the rules state......." To be considered for qualification of a conditional use
permit, several of these conditions or circumstances shall prevail: subsection (1).....
"Extreemely low population density in an isolated area." Section 1-6005.02 (b) (1).
This process is conducted as a joint endeavor by and between the State Board of Health
and Welfare and the Central District Health Department. The review is designed to
insure that the environment is protected, thus protecting the general public.
A review of the referenced legislation and rules and regulations, indicates that a
solid waste transfer station is not considered as normal light industry. It has certain
aspects which require it to be governed by a State Conditional Use Permit. These
aspects, are clearly defined as its potential for environmental polution and general
health hazards. This would indicate that such a facility is clearly considered as a
poluting industry, and as such does not meet the basic goals and objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Plan ---that poluting industries are in non compliance therewith.
Further, a careful review of Idaho Code 31-44, would appear to indicate that the
location of such facilities within the corporate limits of a city was not envisioned,
since the operation thereof was left clearly under the jurisdiction of the Board of
County Commissioners.
13 May 1985
85-121
Meridian P&Z
page 5
In reference to the polution capabilities of solid waste transfer stations, you have
been invited, by several of my clients, to visit the site at 2785 South Liberty Road,
in Boise. The operator has indicated to my clients that we should not use their
facilities as an example, as there are better operations. However, the important
fact about this site, is that it is apparently operating within the norm considered
in the preparation and promulgation of the State Board of Health's rules and regulations.
Their conditional use permit has not been cancelled, nor their operation suspended.
It would also appear that Ada County Board of County Commissioners, under whose
jurisdiction they operate, are satisfied with the present practices. It is important to
remember that these same regulatory agencies will be jurisdictionaly responsible for
any such operation in the environs of Meridian.
In defference to the operator of the Liberty Road site, and his opinion that there
were better operations to use as examples, I have contacted other governmental units
in our adjacent states to gain first hand knowledge of their operations and associated
problems. The most in-depth interview I was able to obtain was with Mr. Dave Nyblom,
Manager of the Solid Waste Department, Public Works Division, of King County, Washington.
This contact was made on 7 May 1985, and Mr. Nyblom was most cooperative. His
observations and recommendations conceming the siting and operation of a solid waste
transfer station are as follows:
General statistics and operational problems regarding Solid Waste Transfer Stations
Assumptions given conceming proposed Meridian operation:
a) 20 Trucks per day, hauling an average of 5 Tons each of compacted solid waste
b) 100 Ton/day operation, with room for expansion
c) possible public access for delivering waste to transfer station
General site requirements
a) 8 to 10 acres required for 100-150 ton/day operation, plus additional space
if overnight parking of trucks and/or truck maintainance is to be on-site
b) Site should be surrounded with cyclone fencing to reduce litter problems
c) transfer station should be in an enclosed structure of concrete or metal --
wood structures more easily infested with rats, mice and other vermin.
d) Facility should be served by central sewers. Wash down water is often
highly toxic, and the concentration of solids therein makes septic systems
subject to early failure. Optional, is an on-site waste treatment lagoon
General siting requirements
a) preferably no residences within one quarter mile
b) preferably no residential developments within a third mile
c) preferably no commercial, technical or office space within one-half mile
d) should be considered as a nusiance industrial use, as far as planning and zoning
e) best placed in area with low land value for any other use
f) best adjacent land uses are: Truck/Transport terminal, Gravel pits, Concrete
or asphalt plants ( King County tried putting'one in a warehousing zone, and
found the results to be very unsatisfactory)
13 May 1985
85-121
Meridian P&Z
page 6
Environmental concerns in siting consideration
a) Traffic
b) Noise
c) Odor
d) Dust
e) Litter
f) Lighting
g) Wastewater Disposal
h) Visual or Asthetic
i) Rodents and other vermin
General Operational Problems
a) Greatest operational problem is public access to transfer station. Public's
transport of waste causes greatest amount of Iitter. They also contribute
to traffic problem, and are a significant problem to the operator. Seattle,
Washington has been sued on numerous occasions for the public getting hurt
on the premises. Estimate that nearly two-thirds of the operational problems
are associated with public's access to the facilities.
b) Traffic can be a significant problem. Each collection truck load represents
two daily trips on access roads. In addition, each three to four collection
trucks represents one transport trailer load to land fill, resulting in two more
trips on the same access roads. Public access to the facility exaberates these
traffic concerns.
c) Odor is a significant problem. Transport trailers must leave for land fill
within a very few hours of loading. Facility washdown also creates additional
orors. If the facility cannot be located in an area remote from higher land
uses, a spray system with dedorant feed is a must.
d) Noise is a major concern. The operation of the re_ compacting unit, while
the most constant noise, is not the greatest. The unloading of the collection
trucks, and dipsy dumpsters creates the greatest noise. Even with an enclosed
structure located on 8 to 10 acres, the noise level at the property line will
often exceed 90 to 100 decibels.
e) Dust is the most prevasive problem. No good answer for dust control has been
found, according to Mr. Nyblom. Moreover, the problem is not simplistic. The
dust often contains contaminants including certain construction material residue,
household and agricultural pesticides, etc. Proper screening by natural topography,
or other means is best available control at present.
f) Litter is a continual problem. Even in their best operated transfer stations,
there is a noticible increase of litter within a quarter mile radius, and will be
noticible along transport routes to the transfer station and to the land fill.
g) Lighting can be a problem for adjacent land uses. Waste transfer operations
require very good lighting for proper operation. Estimates that plant needs
about 50% more candle power than other uses in any industrial zone.
h) Wastewater disposal has been addressed above, but its toxicity should be stressed.
great care should be taken to insure that site wastewater does not enter shallow
groundwater acquifiers.
i) Visual or asthetic values should be considered. Presence of solid waste transfer
stations in close proximity with other land uses has been found to beunsatisfactory,
except whrn located in association with other nuisance industrial uses.
j) Rodents and Vermin have not been a significant problem with King County,
in view of the fact that Their Health Department maintains rodent and vermin
bait stations surrounding each site. These are monitored, and when necessary,
an area extermination program is conducted. The transport of rodents and
vermin to and from the station, in loads of solid waste is greatest concern in
this area.
13 May 1985
85-121
Meridian P&Z
page 7
General Recommendations
a) keep away from higher land uses wherever possible
b) install horizontal ram type transfer trailer units— no vertical load system
is litter tight
c) Biggest complaint from public is increased litter and odor. attendants must pick
up litter on a daily basis, and must use some type of deodorant spray in washdown
operations
d) Protect operators and the public, insofar as possible, from the air borne dust
which is often toxic
e) siting of structure important to insure it doesn't operate as an air tunnel
distributing litter
f) keep public out of facility if at all possible
g) make sure that land fill operator will provide additional turnaround and unloading
areas
h) King County Transfer Station to Land Fill trip averages about 45 miles. 10
mile transport is considered minimum break even transport trip to justify
transfer station.
i) in siting, consider it a nusinance industrial use, because this is how the public
perceives it.
To assit you in considering Mr. Nyblom's comments, and their relationship to the site
now under consideration—that is, the effect on the environment and the socio-economic
values of the City, its impact area, and the property owners of the East Meridian Property
Owners Association, I have prepared an overlay to the composite zoning and land use map.
The first item of consideration is traffic. The comprehensive plan of the city, states
that ...." Access to industrial areas from collector and local streets should be discouraged."
SectionIV, Industrial Policies No.5. Locust Grove Road is considered a minor arterial;
however Locust Grove cannot be accessed continually without passage over a portion
of East Pine Avenue, which is classified as a Collector. Further, the site has no public
road access, but is proposed to be served by an easement. Traffic will increase along
Pine Avenue principally, as the most direct route from the. city to the site. This will be
particularly grevious if public transport of solid waste is permitted to the site. As an
example of this problem, Snohomish County, Washington operates three transfer stations.
At the site most nearly compatible to the one proposed, a 200 ton/ day station, they
expect an average of 500 to 600 private vehicles a day during the weekends. In addition,
the transport vehicles used by both King County and Snohomish County, have a loaded
gross weight of approximately 40 tons. These loads, the increase of traffic—together
with the present concentration of School District busses in the site vicinity could
result in premature failure of the base materials on the streets subjected to this increase.
Further, the fact that the proposed site is accessed by an easement, rather than a
public right - of- way, appears to violate the intent of the city's Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning and Development Ordinances. A private street_ ever an easement
seems inappropriate to an industrial site which will serve commerce (commercial
solid waste collectors) and the ,general public (persons delivering their own solid
waste to the station.
The second item of concern is the noise factor. King County has indicated that the
noise generated by their facility is in the range of 100 decibels at the property line.
Based upon this assumption, then noticable noise polution will exist for nearly one-third
mile from the center of the site to the point at which the decibel rating has dropped to
50. It should be noted that the normal household noise level is around 40 decibels, so
that even at this distance, the noise of the operation would be descernable.
13 May 1985
85-121
Meridian P&Z
page 8
Odor and dust are related problems, in that they are dispursed with the wind currents.
The Annual Surface Wind Rose for the Meridain area, as published by the U.S. Department
of the Interior, indicates that Meridain air currents are traveling at 4 to 15 miles per
hour, for nearly fifty percent of the time. � velocities of 16 to 31 miles per hour _
ten percent of the time; and under three miles per hour for the remaining
40 percent. This results in an average wind velocity of 8.4 miles per hour. Twentyfive
Percent of the time the kind is from the Northwest, and twentythree percent of the time
from the Southeast. Thus, any dust or odor problems and liter carried aloft would
be expected to concentrate in the direction of these prevailing surface winds. For
the purpose of demonstrating the effect of the wind carried litter, dust polutants
and ordors, we have delimited the area affected within a two and five minute range
at the average wind velocity of 8.4 miles per hour. This area of contamination can,
of course, be much worse, depending on the particulate size of the material and the
velocity of the wind .
The litter problem, is directly associated with the visual or asthetic values of the
Iocal environment. Again, using Mr. Nyblom's comments that there will be a visual
difference in the amount of litter within one quarter mile of the facility, and along
the principle transport and collection routes, we have deliniated the- area potentialy
affected by the proposed land use.
Waste water disposal, and its potential effect on the shallow ground water acquifiers,
is of major concern. Both Mr. Nyblom, of King County, and Mr. Costa of Snohomish
County, stress the mandatory requirement of central sanitary sewers for disposal
of process and wash down water from such a facility. Both stress the problem of
the waste water rapidly blinding out a septic type disposal system, and Mr. Costa,
in particular, stressed the effect of a septic disposa,`. system on the ground water.
He points out that said waste water carries large amounts of leachates, oil and
greases, and common household pesticides and herbicides.
The Meridian Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Development Ordinances recognize
the potential effect of industrial uses on our acquifiers. Section 2-408 / 12 of the
Zoning and Development Ordinance states "this district must also be in such proximity
to insure connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian."
And in Section IV, Industrial Policy No. 13, it states "Industrial uses should be located
where their generated water can be properly treated and pretreated to eliminate
any adverse impacts upon the city sewer treatment facility and irrigated lands
that recieve industrial runoff water." And under Policies, page 4, Sewage Facilities
and Service, item 1, it states " all new subdivisions, planned developments, and
large commercial and industrial development projects shall be required to connect
to the municipal sewer service.'and under Municipal waste treatment, policy No.2,
page 69, of the Comprehensive Plan it states " the City of Meridian shall assure that
any industrial or commercial discharges to their public wastewater treatment facility
shall provide pre-treatment as specified by their NPDES permit....."
While it may well be the applicants intent to extend the community services to
the site and provide for pre-treatment- no evidence of this has been made available to
my clients. This is of particular concern service the ,ground water on the subject site
is extreemly high, preventing even most agricultural pursuits.
In this reguard, I would note that on page 71 of the Comprehensive PIan, it states
"the City of Meridian will encourage and support studies that will determine
ground water quality conditions for the purpose of protecting the publics' health
and will determine mans impact on the groundwater aquifiers."
13 May 1985
85-121
Meridian P&Z
page 9
Based upon previous studies, Meridian is aware of the fact that our shallow ground
acquifiers flow generaly to the Northwest, following the patterns of the areas irrigation
and drainage facilities. This was of great enough significance to the city several years
ago to prompt it to support the "Southwest Ada County Building and Development
moritorium. The concern was primarily based on the infulence of the great number
of septic systems in that area on the wells and surface waters in Meridian Less than
300 feet Northerly of the proposed site, the Creason drain carries shallow ground water
drainage to the Northwest. This source could carry contaminants to wells located
in that direction—particularity in the Carol subdivision and surrounding Iands. The
general area of influence has been delineated on the overlay.
The problem of rodents and other vermin, and their potential disbursement from the
site, cannot be readily mapped. However, the potential health hazard is real. Left
unchecked, this problem could result in the vermin spreading out into surrounding
areas, particularly Southeast and Northwest, where their travel would be aided by
water course travel along the existing waterways. On the other hand, proper extermin-
ation measures carried forth could mitigate the outward disbursement, but at the
same time result in dead and dying vermin being consumed by household pets, thus
spreading the hazard of any disease they might carry and the pesticides used to
exterminate them onto the surrounding properties. This is, no doubt, one of the
principle reasons why the criteria published by the State for these facilities, recommends
a remote very low density area with good drainage.
Lighting, is a lessor, but still important concern. You will recall that Mr. "Nyblom, of
King County Washington, states that a solid waste transfer station requires approxi-
mately 50% more lighting than most other light industrial uses. In this requard, the
Citys Zoning and Development Ordinance, &cticn 2-413. B (1) (f) stages "No direct
or reflected glare shall be permitted which is visible from any property outside an
industrial district or from any street."
Based on the foregoing analysis it is difficult to see how the applicants proposed use of
the site can meet the following criteria of the City Ordinances:
"to protect residential, commercial, industrial, and civic areas from the intrusion of
incompatible uses........," Section 2 - 402, 5 Zoning Ordinance, and
"Industrial uses adjacent to residential areas should not create noise, odor, air
pollution and visual pollution, greater than levels normally associated with surround-
ing residential activities." Comprehensive Plan, page 17, Industrial Policy No. 6.
In, Summary, my clients believe;
1. That there is no justification or public need to rezone any more Iand as light
industrial at this time.
2. That the proposed annexation and zoning, and stated use, would be in conflict
with established and proposed land uses in the area.
3. That the environmental and socio - economic effect of the approval of this
application would result in a taking a value from them.
4. That any action by the City, other than denial, would be inappropriate since the
applicant has not;
(a) "Provided a detailed economic analysis, so that specifics of ...plans, designs
and development will be known ....1' as called for under the Industrial review area
guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan.
(b) applied for consideration and approval of the Ada County Board of County
Commissioners, under whose jurisdiction he must operate.
13 May 1985
85-121
Meridian P&Z
page 10
(c) Applied for review and approval of the Central District Health, who
may specify certain approval conditions, such as groundwater monitoring of the
site prior to approval.
(d) Applied for a Conditional use Permit from the State Board of Health
and Welfare.
Finally, my clients would tike Moe to know that they appreciate the service that
he provides the community, and they applaud his efforts to improve this service
by making a very substantial capital investment. They do, however, feel that Moe
has done an inadequate job in the site selection and in pursuing the necessary
permits and approvals.
1030 N. Locust Grove Rd.
�►�� Meridian, ID 83642
August 13, 1985
Mr. Grant Kingsford and
Members of Meridian City
720 Meridian St.,
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Sirs:
I am sending this letter to you as a very concerned property owner of East
Meridian Home Owners, objecting to the'Me-ridian City Council granting M. Alidjanis
request for the annexation of land (11 acres) on which to build a Garbage Waste
Transfer Station. Martin Fabricius pointed out at the hearing August 5 at City
Hall that 1100 acres in Ada County were zoned for Light Tndustry. Why take in
eleven acres more, almost in the center of the City of Meridian? The negative
reaction for this annexation far outweighs the positive. I surely hope the
negative gets due consideration.
Some of the objections I have and am personally concerned about, living
so close to the proposed project with just a wire fence between the two
properties:
1. There is no way to keep litter confined in the transfer from the trucks to
crates or boxes, no matter what Mr. Alidjani says.
2. M. Alidjani plans to use two acres, of the eleven acres for his plant, and
sell the remaining nine, to finance his venture. Just what industry would go
into land next to a garbage plant?
3. Meridian Comprehensive Plans and Goals were drawn up to keep Meridian free
from undesirable industry in the city. Goals 1 and 2 state "To preserve Meridian's
Environmental Quality, improve the total natural environment, to insure
growth and development occur in an orderly fashion", and in Goal 10 "To
create an Urban Service Planning Area which is visually attractive".
Would any one of you want this plant in your backyard? I am only asking
you to give some consideration to those of us who live in the East side area.
I am very opposed to this facility going in, in the very center of this
section, and just a mile from City Hall.
I am requesting this letter to be entered into the minutes of the meeting
August 19, 1985.
_CV0
IN411 os
Respectfullyrz
Blanche M. Wolff
1030 N. Locust Grove
Meridian, ID 83642
lir. K-ingsford and Members of the city Council,
x
uentlemen,
`-ug-14,1905
rerhaps it is not too late to persuade youjt4 listen to our
views on the proposal f&oe _`llidjani has before uou to Mzoile alld anne-x-,
the lend L.,,'u the end of !past mine. he prop6sc)s to install C. solid waste
traiisfer station-. Idr. zilidj_-Ili h,-js stated that it is a matter of
economics as to what he do, --s acid at w1lat time and his personal business
besides. Now really., It seems, to me that it is very much our business
as it will effect our lives from now on. _,`md ecconomically speaking,
it will nearl-, wipe us all out. will not be able to give our land
away. i;ach one of you has admitted that you surelly wouldn-t want that
kind of business newt to you. Can't you please understand our position.
-pie have no quarrel. with far. AlidjLmi as apergon. j.1ra sure he is a
11nice guy,, as he says, ana a &_,od friend to you all. but that does
not enter into the business at hand. rriendship must be laid aside
when you are responsible for the city of meridian's welefare. A
waste dump- ka rose is a rose is a rose) just doesn't so -mid like good
planning to me, when it is a mile from. City hall. },Ie have spoken --,'fith
many many people about thi's and Eur. Plidjani and you fellows are the
only ones who have not been horrified at the thought of such a tenture.
bill- Brewer being the exception. Thank you bill, for your insight.
my petition thb-t was submitted with upwards of 180 signatures was
litteral-y tossed aside, and i- really resent thG-A. "ill of those poople
live -within one mile of the proposed site and all were very upset to
think you might pass fovor'ably on such an important issue. Sone of
those folks live in lovely expensive homes and i don't blame them for
being upset.
The water table must, be addressed. �,,Ve have to r -mi our pump all day
and most of the night; to keep
eep water out of our basement. The most
aarefully planned business, this nature would still pollute the
surrounding ground water. Those trucks do drip. i�nd what of our
well -s. i shudder to think of that.
The 501 easement is not suffecient for access to accomadate that
size truck.. -i 'o think of entering the street on this blind corner is
la-gghable. Vie do raise corn in the adjacent field, you know, and you
can't see either way.'
Mr. iUngsford, you took, offense to our attorneys statements at the
la.s� meeting. tie merely stated facts th�.tseem to have been over-
looked. :oid as for feeling threatened please dont feel. lonely.: Lour
rlanning and Zoning board told us A the first meeting that none of us
who protested Dir. 2,-.lidjanils request should ever come before then with
a zoning request, as it would be turned down. now s that for being
threatened. ubo started this little game Emyvjay-i
We wish to have this letter entered into public record in protest
of this zoning and aniiixation request.►
5
imik you,
;3incerely,
A G E N D A
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL -
AUGUST 5, 1985
TEM:
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985: (APPROVED)
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1985: (APPROVED)
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD JULY 22, 1985: (APPROVED)
1. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUEST BY MOEAUGUSTAI9,(1985ED UNTIL
2. PRE -TERMINATION HEARING: WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: (APPROVED)
3. APPROVE THE BILLS: (APPROVED)
4. APPROVE NECESSARY AGREEMENTS PERTAINING TO REVOLVING LOAN FUND GRANT:
(APPROVED)
5. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
t
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 5, 1985
Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council called to order by Mayor
Grant Kingsfprd at 7:30 p.m.
Members Present:.Bill Brewer; Ron Tolsma; Bert Myers; Bob Giesler: _
Others Present: Gary Schaffer, Lloyd Howe, Helen Alidjani, Kevin Keyt,
S,. Michaelson, Dale Newberry, Dick & Susan Weaver, Eugene & Pat Keith,
Dwayne & Linda Mikeal Benedict, Betty Muccic, Art Moore, Genevieve Moore,
Betty Wolde, Andrew Wolfe, Richard Orton, Opal Farrington, Bill Barkell,
Pat Fabricius, Aline DeNardi, Joe DeNardi, Richard Parcells, Blanche .
Wolff, Martin Fabricuis, Marcella Heffner, Elaine Smith, Vera Hornbaker,
Art Finnell, Lawrence Smith, Loren Hornbaker, Gary Harr, Mr. & Mrs.
Leonard .Rhodes, Ila_Thomson, Bill Thongson, JoAnne LaCasse, Paul Bolinger_,
Alma Bolinger, Mary Jensen, Harry Jensen, Doris Oliason, S.C. Anderson,
Steve Gratton, Fred Martin, Bill Ebert, Janet Ebert, G.R. Peterson,
Delmar Ouderkirk, Shirley Peterson, Terry McCarthy,Jim Potter, Wayne
Crookston, Mohammad Alidjani, Michael Burkett, Ronda Lowe, Walt Morrow,
Bob Spencer, Gary Smith, Miriam Barr,
The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Giesler to approve the minutes
of the regular meeting held July 15, 1985 as written:
Motion Carried: All Yea;
The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Myers to approve the minutes
of the Special Meeting held July 16, 1985 as written:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Brewer to approve the minutes
of the Special Meeting held July 22, 1985 as written:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Item #1: Annexation & Zoning Request by Mohammad Alidjani:
Mayor Kingsford, according to the rules adopted by the Meridian City
Council by Ordinance #446 all those people giving testimony will be asked
to take an oath swearing that the testimony they give true and I will
ask the City Attorney to admister this oath. I would like to begin by
having everyone look at the map of the City, those area colored orange
are currently annexed and zoned Light Industrial, according to our
Ordinances a permitted use in any of that area would be for a trash
collection service, the issue at hand if it occurred in any of that land
this meeting would not take place, the applicant co!.Lld just pick up a
building permit, this is for your information ahead time, we could make
no conditions what so ever. Mr. Alidjani I might ask you to point out on
the map the land that has been asked to be annexed, Mr. Alidjani pointed
out the property on the map. Mayor opened the Public Hearing and advised
it would be done by order of sign in. "
Pat Fabricius, I defer my time to Martin Fabricius.
Aline DeNardi, I defer my time to Jim Potter;
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 5, 1985
Page #2
Joe DeNardi, I defer my time to Jim Potter:
Richard Parcells, I defer my time to Jim Potter:
Blanche Wolff, I defer my time to Jim Potter:
Martin Fabricius, Mr. Fabricius was sworn by the City Attorney.
Mr. Fabricius, before my remarks this evening gentlemen, I would like
to submit for your consideration this statement I made before the Plan-
ning & Zoning on June 10, 1985, and I want to make absolutly sure it is --
made a part of the record, it giveVa bit of the background what has --
transpired out there as far as some of the exiting property owners, I _
think it is very important to us. (This item made part of the record
as Exibit "A"). I would also like to make the comment somehow I was _ -
enticed in to making a television appearance today, I did not ask for _
that, and there were four comments I was supposed to have made and I
only made one of them. Mr. Fabricius resides at 1235 Atkins Road, Meridian
, Idaho, Mr. Fabricius gave testimony from a prepared statement which is
made part of the record as Exhibit "B".
Mayor Kingsford, any questions of Mr. Fabricius by the Council? There were
none.
Marcella Heffner, I defer my time to Jim Potter.
Elaine Smith, I have a petition here with 171 signatures and the one that
was handed into the Planning & Zoning probably has one page more`that is
not included in this, so there will be approximately 180-185 signatures
protesting this. (Petition on file with these minutes)
Councilman Giesler had a'question for Mrs. Smith, Attorney Crookston
swore Mrs. Smith as she had not been sworn previously.
Giesler, how large of an area do these signatures cover? - -
Mrs. Smith West of Eagle Road, to the City Limits on Pine,
Mayor Kingsford, how far North & South?
Smith, Franklin & Fairview, just our area that will be directly impacted.-- -
Vera Hornbaker, I defer my time to Jim Potter:
Lawrence Smith, I defer my time to Jim Potter:
Loren Hornbaker, I defer my time to Jim Potter:
Michael Burkett, Mr. Burkett was sworn by Attorney Crookston:
Mr. Burkett, I am here as attorney for the East Meridian Property Owners -
Association and I will be raising some more or less procedural issues
rather than testimony to facts. The first issue I would like to address
is the authority that is before this Council as well as Planning & Zoning
Commission to make this determination on placement of a Solid Waste
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 5, 1985
PAGE # 3
System, or a plant that is in effect part of a solid waste disposal system.
I would like to point to the Council that under Idaho Code, Chapter 44,
Section 4401, or Chapter 44, Idaho Code 31 that,, it states that this type of
system, solid waste system is to be located in the County and that the _
County, which would be Ada County would have jurisdiction over site locat-
ion and application to obtain and construct such a site. I will qoute in
part the very first section which is 4401, it is hereby declared to be the
policy of the State of Idaho that the solid waste disposal.systems be
established, maintained and operated in each of the several counties, that
is in the counties as opposed to inside a city limits. I think by your
annexation proposal, you are proposing to bring this property inside the
city limits and at that point and time a solid waste disposal system woul3
be developed inside the city limits as opposed to in the county. The next
section, Section 31-4402 goes on to state that the Board of County Commiss
ioners in each of the several counties is hereby authorized to aquire,
establish & etc. solid disposal systems, so I would like the Council to -
be aware of these provisions and address in your Findings of Fact & Con-
clusion of Law regarding what authority the Council has to basically
determine a - site -location for a solid_ waste disposal system. I think by
that point alone the appropriate action by the Council would be to deny
this application and make note that this application should be submitted
to the County. The second issue, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law which were issued by the Planning & Zoning Commission, which are now
before this Council, in my brief review of these Findings, I found virtuely
no consideration for the great amount of testimony in evidence which was
supplied by those who object to the application. I think the Findings are
seriously flawed in that regard, in the fact that there is no means in
those Findings to address these valid points that were brought up by those
who object to the application, certainly when a body of evidence is
before the Commission of that magnitude it is their duty tosaddress those
facts and evidenceand information that is'put in front of them, I don't
think that was done, I think this Council could appropriately return this
application to the Planning & Zoning Commission for additional findings.
Findings in particular regarding the objections and those facts and
evidence presented to those who object to this application. At this time
the vast amount of information from those who object is not before you.
Additionally regarding the Planning & Zoning Hearing and the process the
Commission went through I think there were irregularities in the manner
in which that evidence and testimony was heard and conducted, there are
comments within the transcript itself, which indicate that testimony which
was presented by persons outside the City Limits was either not considered '
ter was given -less weight simply because those people were outside the City
Limits. In this particular application the property is in the Meridian
Impact Zone which is currently outside the City Limits and the testimony
and evidence and information provided by the residents in that area should
if anything be given greater weight. I think the comments that are on
record which indicate and can be inferred to indicate that these people
were living outside the City Limits and questioning the validity of the
testimony they were giving as inappropriate, and this action as well would
support, provide a basis for this Council to return this application to
the Planning Commission to make sure that information is given proper
weight. Another point I would like to make to the the Council which I
think is of some interest and I realize in a town the size of Meridian
there is always bound to be conflicts of interest, I think something that
should be given serious consideration by this Council is the obvious conflict
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 5, 1985
PAGE # 4
of interest in this situation between the applicant and the Planning &
Zoning Commission, when that applicant sits on the Commission, even though
I realize he abstained from any vote on this application. Also we have an
applicant that is under contract with the City actually you have an agent
of the City applying to the City through its Planning & Zoning process for -
special consideration. There inherent conflicts of interests here, these
parties, many of those who are represented by the same parties, this is
something that should be given serious consideration by this Council. I
think an appropriate decision on the part of the Council in that regard
would be to require this application process, in order to attempt to avoid
conflicts of interest to go through the rezoning procedure, which is norm--
ally
orm-
ally used in a rezoning application, which is opposed to the procedure be—
ing used which I understand is an annexation and new zoning. I think those
conflicts of interest in particular warrant a closer scrutiny that is
required under a rezoning application. I understand this property is zoned -
agricutural under the County Zoning at this time and I think that the _
appropriate procedure for this Council is to only consider the Annexation
at this point.After,the annexation if it occurs do a rezone on the property,
as opposed to doing. twth.the_proc�dure that is now in placethe Zoning
it-
with
the Annexation all in one swoop. I think that point as well would
require this Council to essentially deny this application and require that
new application be submitted for annexation only. The final point I see no
evidence in the Findings that Federal Law or Statutes which apply to this
situation have been addressed with the Planning Commission or are before
this Council for consideration, in particular I think there are EPA
regulation that must be followed. I think in general that there are EPA
requirements that are designed to protect the human hazards that might be
generated by this project, and the health hazards that might be generated
and that is one of the major considerations that should be before this
body. This is something that should be looked into and the applicant should
be required to come forward with these requirements. Finally I would like
to put the Council on notice that if this Annexation & Zoning does take
place that there is, it is in the process right now of planning what
litigation or what action would be appropriate on the taking of property
by the property owners that live in that area without just compensation
so I would urge the Council to look into that issue as to what might be
just compensation for those property owners out there who's property is
obviously going to be devalued or debased as a result of allowing a
solid waste disposal center to go in there. Finally there is a lot of
property that is already Zoned Light Industrial which would allow this
type of use.
Mayor Kingsford, any questions of the Council?
Myers, you mentioned that only Ada County can control sewage treatment
plants, as I understand this application,this application is not for a
sewerage treatment plant it is for a solid waste transfer station, there
is a difference there.
Burkett, The ordinance speaks to solid waste disposal system, I don"t
know that this Code has been construed but I definately think it is broad -
enough to include, this would be a system, it would be something that would
be used in handling solid waste disposal.
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 5, 1985
PAGE # 5
Mayor Kingsford, I would like to make a comment as to your regard to
your conflict of interest, I was interagated in Federal Court some two
years ago on the same subject and the Federal Judge insured us that no
matter what happens in a small town you are going to have the possibility
of conflict of interest and you do the best you can and I am certainly
not going to shirk that duty to someone else because of your saying we
may have a conflict of interest. I also despise your threats, every-
thing we do we are open to some attorney saying they are going to sue
us, I do not think that should be a consideration here today, I don't
appreciate in a public hearing being threatened by a attorney, attorneys
are not my favorite people in the world anyway, in regard to the EPA _
I think you have taken a broad interpretation there. I do agree with
several of your comments however. Any other questions or comments? `
Councilman Brewer, I would concur with the Mayors' comments, for some _ -
reason attorneys, you have the ability to antagonize my soul and undes-_
ervinly I feel, I take heart to some of your comments however you have
made several comments proposed that can tie this whole thing up in the
Court system for two or three years, which would cost the City of Meridian
and the people involved with no good coming with any of it.
Mayor Kingsford, you mentioned possiblity of Annexing and keeping in
present zone, we do not have provision in the City of Meridian for
Agricultural Zone.
Burkett, my comments were not ment as a threat at all.
Kingsford, they certainly sounded like it.
Burkett, in regard to the conflict of interest, hopefully that was my
suggestion -to do the best you cane maybe if it is possible go through
a process that can avoid as much as possible.
Gary Harr, I defer my time to Jim Potter:
Richard Weaver, I defer my time to Jim Potter:
JaAnne La Crosse, I defer my time to Jim Potter:
Paul Bolinger, Mr. Bolinger was not present at this time. -
Mary Jensen,--l-would like the Council -aware that my husband & I submitted
a letter to the Planning & Zoning and we also submitted one to the Council
please take these into consideration:
Alma Bolinger, Mrs. Bolinger was not present at this time:
Harry Jensen, Mr. Jensen was swore by City Attorney:
Mr. Jensen, we own 20 acres which is North of the eleven -acres and have
invested a large sum of money in our property, most of the winds come
from the South, we are not within the 300 foot area from the eleven acres,
we would like to develop our property into area for homes like we have.
we are really opposed to this application, we feel it is the wrong area.
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 5, 1985
PAGE 4 6
Councilman Giesler, Mr. Jensen you stated this is not the right place
for something like this, I am concerned also, have you thought about
where in the City would be a place for this? --
Mr. Jensen, at present time City boundaries are to small, they have to
be expanded where these types of business would not bother residential,
areas. I know you can't do this out on the desert but there is better
areas than one mile from town. I think this would be determental to the
area.
Mayor Kingsford, this operation is closer to the center of town now than ---
it would be out there. I echo Mr. Gieslers comment, I would like to know
where, I think this was the reason for my preliminary remarks, anywhere
(referring to the Zoning Map) on there where it is orange he could buy -
and we are talking one.inch from where he is asking and we would have
no control whatsoever, under our Ordinances'. I really want.you to consider
this, I certainly echo your concern about having the amount of land in
the City Industrial that we have today not being used.
Jim Potter, Mr. Potter was sworn by City Attorney.
Mr. Potter, Mr. Potter had a prepared testimony which is made a part of
these minutes for the record. This is basically the same testimony that
was presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission.
This is made a part of these minutes as Exhibit "C".)
Mr. Potter asked that the maps submitted to the Planning & Zoning be
allowed to be used in this hearing.
Mayor Kingsford questioned Mr. Potter about the Old Towne concept being
approved and if it was approved whether it would still be valid.
Mr. Potter demonstratedto the Council with the maps and overlays the area
which could be effected by the noise, trash blowing & etc.
Mohammad Alidjani, Mr. Alidjani was sworn by City Attorney:
Mr. Alidjani, I have asked for annexation & zoning of this eleven acres
and I feel in reviewing everthing available it meets all the criteria
for being annexed to the City. I am aware of the conditions that are req-
uired by the various Government Agencies. We have no problems with these -
conditions as we have been working under these regualations since 1948.
I assure you even though -they -have problems in other areas , We do not
have any problems at our present location which is a lot closer to
residential than this proposed new location would be. I do not see any
thing in the Ordinances or Comprehensive Plan why I should Se annexed.
The problems that have been brought up are with someone elses location
not mine. I will abide by any regulations you want to put on my operation
within reason.
Giesler, what do you actually plan on doing, what is your proposal? _
Alidjani, I would plan to put a shop for myself and that would be all
enclosed.with shrubbery and trees that would be phase I and phase II
if it is possible put a transfer station with all the regulations met
if we can do it.
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 5, 1985
PAGE # 7
This operation would only use about 18 % of the land the rest would
be developed for some other use.
Gieslex, then you do not plan on starting up with the transfer station?
Alidjani, No.
Giesler, then at first you will just have a shop and office?
Alidjani, Yes.
Giesler, how do you propose the next phase if it does work out for you?
Alidjani, that is probably two years or more down the road, I have no - "-
idea at this time.
Giesler, it does state in the application it will be enclosed?
Alidjani, everything will be enclosed.
Giesler, any plans to widen the road that you have seen?
Alidjani, I have checked and this is a collector road and has never been
developed. As far as I know there is no plans at this time to improve.
Giesler, where do you plan on setting this operation?
Alidjani, at this time we are planning on having operation on the far
NE corner of the property. The closest house would be about 800 feet away
from the shop.Mr. Alidjani the Council on the map the egress to the
property and where the plant would be located. Should be no problem
getting in & out.
Giesler, supposing you construct the transfer station and the small trucks
are dumped, how do you get the garbage to the land fill?
Alidjani, they have several different types of ways to do this. Mr. Alidjani-
explained the different ways this could be done. This would happen inside
a building. If roadway stays the way it is a semi could never get in or
out. -
There was discussion on the traffic problem the compatability of the school
buses and the garbage trucks.
Mr. Potter, have you done any market anaylsis what your trips are going
to increase, lets say if the regional shopping center goes in or if the
Upland site develops?
Alidjani, I have no idea at this time as it might take five years for
full occupancy.
Potter, if this transpires and the mall is built and Upland develops, it
seem to me under the County ordinances this could be a County wide transfer
station, I wonder if that area is really large enough.
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 5, 1985
PAGE # 8
Alidjani, I feel if I own the ground that they could not do this. -
Potter, I think this is one of the major questions by the people I --
am working for. The additional trips and the County wide transfer
station. This is some of the concerns my clients have.
Mayor Kingsford, in regards to that Mr. Potter and in answer to some -
ones question back here awhile ago, the City does have a Contract with
Mr. Alidjani it is a matter of Public Record. He has had it for some
time and that contract specifies he will haul all the trash in the City
of Meridian. He can only handle City of Meridian trash. If he was to take -
in the County that would be violation of his contract, we would have to
approve that. _
Potter, would that be true of transfer as well as collection? -
Mayor Kingsford, Yes, it specifically speaks to the transportation of
trash over City Streets.
Mayor Kingsford, again on my pr�iminary remarks about him being able to
buy another piece that is already zoned, I feel a lot better about repre-
senting you people on this where we can put some stringent controls than
having him purchase property where we have no controls.
Potter, I think my clients would feel more comfortable if it has to be
there if it were a conditional Use Permit with some time period rather
than something permanent so that if Mr. Alidjani is not there it could
keep from creating a problem.
Mayor Kingsford, I can see some value to that.
Fabricuis, As I recall at one of the other meetings the question was asked
of Mr. Alidjani with all the property already zoned Industrial why don't
you take your operation on some of this land and as I hear him tonite
he has given a different answer basically something to the effect that
I am going this route because I can purchase 11 acres for the same price
I would have to pay for 3 acres that is already zoned. I am hearing a
differenot reason tonite why you are going on this property and I would
like to hear your comment on why.
Alidjani, many reasons why I am going on this property, not just one,
the reason I am over there is for economy reasons.
Mary Jensen, Mr. Jensen was sworn by City Attorney.
Mrs. Jensen, I am confused, is this request for Annexation & Zoning
simply to move the business from where it is presently located to that
location, or to continue the Ipresent location and a solid waste transfer
on the eleven acres, he simply wants to move his business to this new
location?
Mayor Kingsford, that certainly was my understanding.
Mrs. Jensen, this was not my interpetation of the request.
a
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 5,1985
PAGE # 9
Alidjani, at the present location it is quite small for my operation
and we do plan in a two phase project hopefully to occupy approximately
18% of that property and move our operation from where it is presently
to that location.
Mrs. Jensen, I was totally confused then as to what was taking place.
Mayor Kingsford, I heard him say before that before that transfer station
if it were to take place that he would have to get all the approval from
other governmental agencies. -_
Potter, if in fact he is moving his business and in fact there may or may --
not be a transfer station, in fact he may sell part of the land to other
users, it would appear to me that we are looking at a sub -standard access
to an Industrial Park.
Mayor Kingsford, I don't think there is any question to that unless like
he said before he was able to improve that access.
Smith, you say you have no complaints from the neighbors where you are
now located, I believe there are some on record and you do not have a
transfer station down there so this is something entirely different in our
neighborhood.
Alidjani, I might have a transfer station out there and I might never have
one out there it would depend on the economy.
Richard Parcell, Mr. Parcell was sworn by City Attorney:
Mr. Parcell, I would like to know if he is going to park his garbage
trucks out there if that is his proposal, would these trucks be parked
in an enclosed area, or would they be parked out on cement slabs.
Would trucks be free of debris when parked or would he be allowed to
keep garbage in them when parked out there
Alidjani, when they are parked out there they will be inside buildings.
Mayor Kingsford, I have two letters that are to be entered for the record
one from Blanche Wolff 1030 N. Locust Grove Road which opposes this
application and one from D'Arlene Stutzman 1960 East Franklin Road who
also opposes this use. (Letters on file with these Minutes)
Mayor Kingsford read these letters for the record.
Mayor Kingsford thanked the people for their testimony and appearance
at the hearing, being no other testimony the Public Hearing was closed.
Any comments from the Council?
Councilman Tolsma, due to all the testimony brought forward tonite and
the discrepencies brought up in the Findings for the Planning & Zoning
I would like to see this tabled for about 30 days to look over and check
on the facts.Mr. Tolsma made this in the form of a motion.
Councilman Brewer, I feel even though this application does meet a great
deal of the critera for and Industrial Annexation & Zoning there are many
points against it as was testified here tonite, with the large amount of
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 5, 1985
PAGE # 10
property already zoned Industrial, I do not see any reason to have addit-
ional property for something along this line. When you take into consid-
eration the Public opposition to this request, I personally would not --
want to pursue anything that had this kind of opposition. I think there
has to be some place for Mr. Alidjani and his business and I believe it -
should be somewhere between Meridian and the landfill. I don't feel this
should be in the City Limits should be in the County, I would personally
recommend denial of the request. Testimony is all negative.
Councilman Giesler, we have heard a lot of negative things on this, and
some very good points although I have not had the opportunity to go out
and look the sitution over. I feel I would like to look into this more.
I have some real problems with it that I would like answered, therefore
I would second the motion. "
Councilman Myers, I have a conflict of interest as I am the Sewer &
Sanitation Commissioner and have to work with Mr. Alidjani. I can
appreciate the problems the people have brought tonite, there have been
a lot of rumors floating around and some of them have been dispelled,
there have been a lot of facts brought before us. Knowing Mr. Alidjani
he is not going to do anything that is going to hurt anybody, sure he
can go in there and buy two acres right next door and open up the operat-
ion tomorrow, but he wanted to come through this process and it stirred
up some controversity. The transfer station is somewhere down the road.
I am not sure he is going to ever put one in there but it is possible.
I am looking at it as to the cost to the taxpayers of the City, if he can
save some money it will save the taxpayers money.
Brewer, I think we are wasting 30 days by doing this.
Mr. Tolsma withdrew his motion and Giesler withdrew the second.
The Motion was made by Tolsma and and seconded by Giesler to table this
request until the August 19, 1985 meeting. _
Motion Carried: Tolsma, Yea: Myers, Yea: Giesler, Yea: Brewer, Nay:
Item #2: Pre -Termination Hearing Wate/Sewer/ Trash Delinquencies:
Mayor Kingsford, This is to inform you if you choose, you are entitled -
to the right to a pre -termination hearing August 5 before the Mayor
and Council, to appear in person to be judged on facts and defend the
claim made by the City that your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent.
You may retain counsel. This service will be discontinued August 13 unless
payment is made in full.
Is there anyone present who wishes a hearing?No one was present.
Due to their failure to pay their water bill or to present any valid
reason why the bill has not been paid, their water shall be turned off
on August 13, 1985. In order to have their water turned back on, there
will be an additional fee of $10.00. They are hereby informed that they
may appeal or have the decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth
Judicial District Court, Pursuant to Idaho Code. Even though the appeal
the water will be shut off.
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 5, 1985
PAGE # 11
The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Giesler to approve the -
turn-off list.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Mayor Kingsford announced the amount of delinquencies was $4,749.20:
Item # #: Approve the Bills:
The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Myers to approve the bills.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Item #4: Approve Necessary Agreements Pertaining to RLF GRant:
The Motion was made by Brewer and seconded by Giesler to approve all
the necessary agreements and documents involved in the Revolving Loan
Fund Grant between the City and the Economic Development Corporation
of the City of Meridian and authorized the Mayor to execute these
agreements & documents.
Motion Carried: Brewer, Yea: Tolsma, Yea: Myers, Yea: Giesler, Yea:
Department Reports:
Mayor Kingsford, I would ask the Council to carefully look over the
Late Comer's Ordinance prepared by the City Attorney, I would like to
have that on the next meetings agenda.
Councilman Myers brought up the subject of the creamery building and
Mr. Amyx. There was discussion on this subject. It was suggested a Civil
Suit be brought against Mr. Amyx.
Councilman Tolsma, I have had some complaints about the trailer repair
in the middle of town. I also have been advised that we have no access
over the curbs at the Park for the handicapped.
Mayor Kingsford, I suggest that you work with the Park Superintendent
and get this problem resolved in regards to handicapped access. In reg
ards to the mobile home repair and dismantling I again suggest if it
your pleasure to get with the City Attorney and proceed with Civil Actionr-
Councilman Brewer, I have had a call on Mr. Nesmith, problems with cars
parked around fire hydrants, junk cars, wreckers parked and other items.
Mayor Kingsford, again I suggest you contact the Attorney and proceed with
Civil Action.
Being no further business to come beforathe Council the Motion was made
by Myers and seconded by Tolsma to adjourn at 9:50 p.m.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED:
ATTEST:
GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR
Jack Niemann, City Clerk
Statement pros rated to the Meridian Plarinirig and Zoning Commission
on June 10, 1985.
By: Martin H. Fabricius
19-35 Adkins Rd. -
Meridian, Idaho
Subject: Property owners concerns on the proposal to annex
and rezone approximately eleven (11) acres of
land east of the City of Meridian for use as a
Garbage Transfer Station.
While much has been said regarding Mr. Alidjani's proposal to
establish a garbage transfer station in the subject area over the
past several weeks, my remarks this evening are limited to two -
major areas of concern. The first of these remarks are on the
live-ablility of surrounding property impacted by such an oper-
ation and secondly the effect on future property values in the
impact area.
Following the meeting of the Meridian Planning and.Zoning Com-
mission on April 8, 1985, I must admit to having some pretty
:-nxious thoughts on the issue. Given the line of questioning and
statements by the Commission Members that evening, it appeared that
the annexation and rezoning request presented by Mr. Alidjani
had a better thn even chance of being approved. Hopefully, that
will not be the case.
Since that earlier meeting on April 5, the residents and property _
owners located immediately East of Meridian have become more know-
ledgable on the location and operation of garbage transfer stations.
Their findings have not eliminated any ea'r'ly concerns -quite the
contrary. Further, contacts with responsible State and County
officials and persons from other states familiar with garbage
transfer operations have not reduced the concerns of surrounding -
residents and property owners. The conclusion reached from these
observations and contacts is always the same- garbage transfer
or handling stations are not acceptable if we are to maintain the
live -ability of our neighborhood and community.
And while we are on the subject of neighborhood and community _
I believe some comments on that issue are appropriate. During
the April 5th meeting, those persons voicing opposition to Mr.
Alidjani's request were asked whether they reside within the City
v �I
,��Ib- r -I-
Of Meridian. Further members of the Planning and Zoning Commission
-
directly or indirectly made comments to the effect that the area
to be impacted by'the proposed transfer station is not a neigh-
borhood. For the record, it must be recognized that those of us
who have, are, or will voice opposition to the proposed transfer
station are residents of the impact zone within the jurisdiction
of the City of Meridian. As such we are entitled to the same
considerations as Mr. Alidjani even though'.e is a Meridian City -
resident businessman, and member of the Planning and Zoning Com-
mission. As to whether the impacted area is a neighborhood, every --
available definition of the term indicates that it is. As a --
resident of the area for twenty (20) years, I can assure you
that the 25 to 30 households most immediately effected by the
proposed garbage transfer station represent a cross section of
nearlyany subdivision of similar size in Treasure Valley. If
we can't be recognized and represented as such, then our neighbor-
hood has a problem and the Planning and Zoning Commission has a
problem, because we are headed on a collision course.
Earlier, I indicated concern over the effect on surrounding
property values if a garbage transfer station were to be placed
on the site in question. From conversations with realtor's and
others familiar with property values, there is complete agreement
that -a drastic reduction of value would occur in the vicinity _
of the transfer station and greatly reduced values would be experi-
enced within a wide radius of the site. While each property owner
in the neighborhood would be effected differently depending upon
the location, size and type of property involved, we all have a
legitirate concern.
In my own particular situation, my wife and I own a home and
approximately 45 acres of land located East of the Meridian City
limits and extending to Locust Grove Road. This property is es-
sentially bordered by Pine Street on the South and Fairview Avenue
on the North. On two seperate occasions, in 1976 and again in 1980,
we worked closely and cooperatively with Meridians Planning and _
Zoning Commission and City Council on planned developments in this
area which were conceived to be worthy additions to the City and
—2—
a
and surrounding community. The first of these efforts took place
when the City was constructing a r,ew and expanded sewage treatment
plant. At that time City officials contacted us and expressed an --
interest in locating one of the main service lines on our property -
East of the City limits to better serve what was considered to be
a growth area. For our part, we were asked to formulate a plan
for a future residential neighborhood that would include a major
North-South connector road aligned on top d'f the sewer service
These plans were undertaken, completed, and approved by all parties
involved. I might add, they were not completed without the expen= .
diture of many thousands of dollars and many months of effort by
my wife and I.
The second effort to come up with a planned development of the
area which includes our property, is referred to as the Old Towne
Development. Generally, speaking, this was an expansion of the
earlier plan to include existing commercial properties along Fair-
view Avenue and those of some 28 other small property owners within
the area bordered by the City Limits, Pine Street, Locust Grove
Road and Fairview Avenue, Despite the broader sharing of costs and
efforts with other landowners this was also an expensive under-
taking.
Given the background outlined above, I find it quite ironic to
be here this evening attempting to stop a garbage transfer station -_
from being located one-quarter mile from our property line. Such
a development is certainly not compatible with single family
dwellings and multiple housing units included in the earlier plans.
If Mr. Alidjani's request is favorably acted upon by the existing
Planning and Zoning Commission, I can only assume there has been
a change in the thinking of Meridian City Officials. For those of _
us who have already expended our dollars, time, and effort toward
an orderly and acceptable growth pattern for Meridian, this is very
disappointing and we will have to pursue whatever recourse we might
have.
-3-
Statement Presented to the Meridian City Council on August 5, 1985.
By: Martin H. Fabricius
1235 Adkins Rd.
Meridian, Idaho. '
Subject: A Proposal to Annex and Rezone approximately eleven -
acres of land located East of the City of Meridian
for the purpose of establishing a Garbage Transfer
Station.
In setting down some thoughts to be presented here this even-
ing, I will admit that is has been very tempting to review the pro=_
ceedings with regard to Mr. Alidjani's request that have taken
place over the past three months. It is tempting because of the
time, effort, expense and emotions spent by a lot of good friends
and neighbors in opposing Mr. Alidjani's proposed development and
any "like uses" that may come up for consideration iri the future.
It is also very tempting because those of us opposing the rezoning
and annexation request have, despite our efforts, observed the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Council, adopt a ruling in favor of
the proposal which we feel is not supportable on the basis of test-
imony presented.
However, the matter is now before this Council and each of
you have or will, in the near future, review the oral and written
testimony presented by Mr. Alidjani and those opposing this request._ _
With that in mind, we can only ask that you review the facts and
thoughts presented and reach your decision accordingly. In doing
so I might suggest that the lack of pertinent facts could be equal-
ly if not more important in arriving at that decision.
Before getting directly to the points I wish to cover this `
evening there is one other item worthy of comment. In the Findings
of Facts and Conclusions prepared for the Planning and Zoning Com-
mission, the assertion is made several times that citizens of the
-1-
.npacied area appear to he more concerned with the proposed use
of the land to be rezoned than the rezoning action itself.
While this can be refuted by the earlier testimony given, we do
admit to being very concerned over the liveability of our neighbor-
hood. This is a result of having to put up with the many problems
created by a poorly managed drive -in -theatre, a junk yard being
operated illegally, and an inadequate road'.system each and every-
day of our lives. So, we are under no illusions as to how addi-
tional nonselective development in our neighborhood will impact
its liveability.
The land area most immediately impacted by the current rezoning
proposal can generally be described as being located between Five
Mile Creek to the West, Pine Street to the South, Fairview Avenue
to the North, and within approximately 2 mile of Eagle Road to the
East. As most of you know this is an area currently made up of
homes on residential size lots and small acreages devoted to agri-
culture. Due to the existing ownership pattern, the location of
any so called "nuisance industry or business" will have an immediate -
depressing effect upon a large number of the property owners.
People actively engaged in the real estate market assure me this
will be the case. For those of us who, may for some reason, have
to dispose of our property in the future, the longer range econ-
omic impact is even more bleak. If the above described area is
to be considered for commercial and light industrial use only,
then we property owners will have to directly compete with some
1,100 acres of land already zoned commercial - light industrial -
for potential buyers and tenants. Our chances of doing that are
quite remote since most,of the 1,100 acres is more ideally located
for such purposes and has already been through the rezoning,
-2-
-,nexation, and in some cases pre -development stages. Our buyers
will be those who can purchase property at bargain Mates and hold
their investment over a long period of time until the demand for
commercial and industrial property finally exceeds the supply which `
is available.
Residents and property owners in the area East of Meridian
know they cannot afford to become part of a."no mans land" with
regard to development on either a short or long term basis.
Certainly, the question has to be asked whether the City of Meridian
can afford that either in view of expenditures already made to ex-
tend services into the area and a need to expand its taxing author-
ity. As recently as S years ago, City Officials shared the view
that the area in question had the potential for mixed use develop-
ment including plans for single family and multiple unit housing.
p►1
This concept was basedAexisting studies for preferred urban -suburban
tire A -
growth and the fact that the existing coreAof Meridian was favorably
located to service this growth. From comments made during the
recent deliberations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, we
are nOw led to believe City Officials have a different view of
how Meridian should grow and develop. If this is the case, then
we property owners in the impact area who have so much at stake -
should be so advised and afforded an opportunity for input into
the process.
Thus far, most of the emphasis has dealt with losses to be
incurred from Mr. Alidjani's request. When someone loses it seems
there should be some gains realized but will this be the case -
The consultant hired by the East Side Property Owners has
researched and provided ample evidence that Mr. Alidjani cannot
now, or in the foreseeable future , economically justify the
-3-
V 1 1 '4
operation of a garbage transfer station given the volumn of u;aterial
to he handled. An official located in this area, whose duties
permit him to observe gargage transfer station operations throughout
the Western United States, also commented to me that such an oper-
ation did not appear feasible at this time. Mr. Alidjani has, him-
self cast doubt upon the advisability of constructing the transfer
station at this time but until business warrants this facility, }ie
proposes to use the rezoned property as a parking area for his _-
existing equipment and utilize the unneeded portion for "like uses_"
Given these conditions, it does not sound as though the customers
of Mit. Alidjani stand a very good chance of benefiting from his
venture either.
If adjacent landowners are to incur reduced land values,
the City of Meridian is to lose or at the very minimum defer devel-
opment of an area within its impact zone, and existing customers
cannot be assurred of stabilized or reduced rate schedules, then
who stands to gain from Mr. Alidjani's proposal? This question
needs to be considered by each of you and answered to your satis-
faction before arriving at a decision.
Your time and patience in hearing my thoughts on this matter
are greatly appreciated and if there are any quesitons I will
attempt to answer them to the best of my knowledge.
-4-
i 4 �
I 0POTTER LAND SURVEYING
-J Surveying Et Mapping • Planning Et Design • Boundary Consulting AnVWM1XXMx=XXx:
13 May, 1885
Chairman Spencer, and fellow Commissioners
Meridian City Planning and Zoning Commission
City Hall
Meridian, Idaho
Re: PLS File No. 8S-121
City Annexation and Zoning of that certain parcel of land in the Si, NWi, Section _
8, T.3N., Ii1E.,'B.M., requested by Mohammad Alidjani. _
Chairman Spencer and Fellow Commissioners: -
My Name is James V. Potter, principal of Potter Land Surveying. I reside in Garden '
Valley, Idaho. My Business address is Box 4403 Garden Valley, Idaho 83622, and my
Business telephone number is 462-3232. I am apearing this evening on behalf of the
East Meridian Property Owners Association.
I am a Licensed Land Surveyor, registered in the State of Idaho, and have practiced
in the fields of Land Planning and Land Surveying for more than thirty years. I lived
in the Meridian area for more than thirteen years, and maintained a private practice
In the City of Meridian for several years. Through my local residency, private practice,
participation in the Meridian Chamber of Commerce and Citizen Advisory Committees.
I have gained a general knowledge of the citys plans for ,growth,
Further, 1 have been personally involved in several of the land development planus
affecting lands in the near vicinity of the proposed annexation. Ian, therefore, very
familiar with the specific area, the present and proposed land uses.
�ape on behalf of the East Meridian Property Owners Association, I represent
persons, all of whom reside within the City of Meridian's Area of Impact
residents of the City's Area of Impact, they believe that they are entitled to fair
representation on, and before the City's Planning and Zoning Commission. Their
belief to this right is based upon Idaho Code 67-6526 (f), which states, in part "If the _
area of impact has been delimited pursuant to the provisions of subsection (� (1) of
a �,, this section, persons living within the delimited area of impact shall be entitled to
representation on the planning, zoning, to. the planning and zoning commission of
the city of impact. Such representation shall as nearly as possible reflect the proportion
of population living within the city as opposed to the population living within the areas
of impart for that city...." They believe this subsection to apply in as much as subsection _
(a) (1) has been complied with, in _that... "Application of the city pian and ordinances f have
been ) adopted under this chapter to the area of city impoct»." ?herefore, and in tight
of the above cited codes, my clients believe that the questions raised concerning their
i y residency at the public hearing on this matter on 8 April 1885, to be a mute point.
As indicated to you in the home owners petition filed with you during the above referenced
public hearing, My clients believe that the City's favorable consideration of this annexation
and zoning request, would be to their personal and financial detriment. They believe that
the facility planned for the site would materially and detrimentaly affect their personal
enjoyment of their own real property; and would limit the alternatives for the future use
of their land. This limitation, they believe, will significantly reduce their anticipated
profits from their lands when they desire to sell.
13 May 1985
85-121
Meridian P&Z
page 2
After carefully reviewing. the proposed land use, historical data concerning similar
operations, and the present and proposed land use plans of the City and County, 1
believe that my clients have reason for serious concern. Based upon this research,
I believe that I can demonstrate to you this evening, that an approval of this application
would be detrimental to The populace, commerce and industry within the City's area
of impact, the City, itself as well as the concerned citi -pns lodging this testimony of
opposition.
I have prepared a composite map, showing both the City and County zoning surrounding .
the subject property, including thereon certain preliminary pians which have been approved,
This map provides a reference for several specific issues which I would Iike to address.
( Brief explaination of map given )
Notice, if you will, the established pattern of zoning and land use. North of the site,
there is a residential zone only 200 feet from the site. Northeast is some agricultural
land beyond which is more residential and Light Industrial. To the East is Light Industrial.
The Light Industrial to the East and Northeast, is of specific consideration, since this
property is planned for a Business Center— involving, perhaps high tech. industry and
certain allowable commercial uses. To the South and Southeast lie more agricultural
lands, beyond which is more Light Industrial. Southwest of the site, is more Light
Industrial. To the West, and Northwest, is the Old Towne planned development comprehen-
sive plan --a concept plan for twentynine individual properties , comprising 188 Acres,
previously approved by this Commission and the City Council.
At first glance, it would appear that the present request for annexation and zoning
as Light Industrial would be compatible with the City's overall plan and with the area's
established trend. On the other hand, a closer examination provides several sound reasons
why this property should not be considered for Light Industrial Zoning; especially for
the intended use specified in the application.
Your attention is drawn to the Meridian Comprehensive PIan, Goals, page 8, goals 1 and
2. " to preserve Meridian's environmental quality.... improve the total natural environment
....to insure growth and development occur in an orderly fashion..." and in Goal 10 " To
create an Urban Service Planning Area which is visually attractive..."
CProper planning and subsequent zoning, if it is to accomplish these goals, must look to
achieving balance of land uses and the bulk area of lands contained with each zone.
In addressing this area of community planning, noted authorities Joseph De Chiara and _
Lee Koppelman, cite the works of still another authority, George Nez, in his book
" Standards for Urban Development" published by the Urban Land Institute. In this
volume, Mr. Nez states that studies indicate that the " Total Gross Land requirement
for all industry"..in a city, is.."12 Acres/1,000 population; and that the " Land require-
ments for Light Industry"..1s.."2 acres/1,000 population". In addition to the present
land requirements, W. TTez addresses the matter of reserve for future ,growth.
" Requirements for industrial land reserve: reserve land for minimum of 50 years
future growth".
The 1980 census indicated that the City of Meridian had a population within the City
of just under 7,000 ; and approximately 9,000 in the City and that area now within its
impact area. This in -city population was down 12% from that projected in 1976.
Using this as an adjustment factor, the Ada Planning Association corrected its project-
ions for future years. Their projection for the year 2000, is now 25,150. If this
straight line projection is continued for a 50 year period, it would result in a population
13 May 1985
85-121
Meridian P&Z
page 3
of 50,500, in 2035 AD. Thus, on this basis, Meridian's present population requires
approximately 25 Acres of Light Industrial; in the year 2000, our needs will be approx-
imately 50 acres; and in the year 2035--50 years hence-- approximately 100 acres.
In contrast to this need, the City of Meridian, and its impact area, presently contain
1100 acres of lands zoned Light Industrial.
If we compare our available reserve to the regional needs, there is still great disparity.
The present population of Ada County is 197,000, and that of the entire TreasureValley
t
approximately 360,000. Thus the current needs of light industrial property region- -
amount to under 400 acres for Ada County, or just over 700 acres for all of Treasure
Valley. In the year 2000, these same populations are expected to reach X89,000 for the
County, and 550,000 for the valley. Thus, in 2000 AD the County will require a total _ +
area ofn ed Acres and the welr�e no othery of
Acres of light industrial. light industrial lands available inan could fill
all of Treasure
these needs, even if there
Valley.
In contrast to our available reserve, an inspection of those lands thus presently zoned,
will show that the actual need --as demonstrated by the acreage developed, and in use --
to be very near the guidelines for good planning, given by the authorities cited. Thus,
on the basis of available reserve vs. present and projected need for lands within the
Light Industrial Zone, I would suggest to you that there is no public need for further
lands to be thus zoned. To further expand the light industrial reserve, would merely
delay fyrt er, the other and thus zoned, adversely affecting the own is values.
iQ $ 51 o ve, - )%IN td _%p.Z;0 ne. C.0 V n,� L 6 ro) - Mi S -
The second matter of significance in this annexation and rezone request before you this
evening, is its compatibility, or lack thereof, with the surrounding present and proposed
land uses. One of the basic tenents of zoning in Meridian, as cited from Section 2-402-
A (5) of the Zoning and Development Ordinance, is " To protect residential, commercial,
industrial and civic areas from the intrusion of incompatible uses and to provide oppor-
tunities for establishments to concentrate for efficient operation in mutually beneficial
relationships to each other and to share services."
The property owners and residents of the East Meridian Property Owners Association,
perceive that the approval of the subject application would, in fact, be an intrusion
of an incompatible use; would not result in efficiency of their operations;
and would
not be conducive to mutually beneficial relationships. For these reasons, they believe
that approval of this application would violate, rather than protect their established
and proposed land uses—and the rights appertaining thereto.
To assist you in analizing this claim against the counterclaims of the applicant, I would - -
draw your attention to the following citations and references:
Refering again, to Mr. George Nez, author of "Standards for New Urban Development,
the Urban Land Institute, he specifies certain "General Requirements for Industrial Location: -
(a) Fast, easy and convenient access to ,good transportation facilities including rail,
highway and air. row materials source and markets
(b) Reasonable location with respect to labor supply,
(c) An adequate amount of suitable land, free from foundation and drainage problems
(d) An adequate and reliable supply of utilities: water, waste water, power and fuel
(e) Protection from encroachment of residential or other land uses
(f) Location so as to minimize obnoxious external effects on neighboring land uses
The Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance, Section 2-413 B, provides that...
" No land or building in any district shall be used or occupied in any manner creating
dangerous, injurious, noxious, or otherwise objectional conditions which could adversely
13 May 1985
85-121
Meridian P&Z
page 4
affect the surrounding areas or adjoining premises.....". And in the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan, Section 1-4, under Comprehensive Plan Objectives, it states..." The following
land use activities are not In compliance with the basic goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan: (a) Polluting industries. There is strong -evidence to suggest
that a Solid Waste Transfer Station is, in fact, a polluting industry and cannot be
operated and managed in a manner to avoid the creation of dangerous, injurious, noxious,
or otherwise objectionable conditions, as called for in the City's Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning and Development Ordinance. C V-.%%1 ••a i �+►��'- `^''"��� °`^ y lYs
C d wpr a�w. V S . -e1` ;PQk:(ThTi Chapter
e first piece of such evidence is drawn from State of Idaho Code, Title 31,
44. This law provides that all solid waste systems—other than those established and/or
maintained by a city--;; al cng Cr the iurisdiction of the Board of County Commiss-
igners. It also provides that all solid waste systems be located, maantained and operated
in accordance to the rules and regulations adopted by the State Board of Health and
Welfare. The Board of Health rules and regulations stated purpose in governing this
activity, is..." To protect the public health, prevent nuisances, prevent saftey hazards,
prevent pollution of water and air, prevent excessive land abuse... 11 Section 1-6001.01.
These rules specifically include a solid waste transfer station in the term 'system'....
"Solid waste management site means any land area used for storage, transfer, processing,
separation, incineration, composting, treatment, recycling, reuse, or disposal of solid
wastes." Section 1-6001.33
These rules further specifically define a Transfer Station, as follows:.."means a fixed
or mobile facility used as an adjunct to a solid waste management system whereby solid
wastes may be recompacted or otherwise processed and transferred from one vehicle or
container to another for transportation to another place." Section 1-6001.36 Further,
section 1-6013.01 requires that "Transfer stations for solid waste shall be operated under
a conditional use permit issued by the departmen PFw
To obtain such a permit, these rules provide that ..." Pians, maps, specifications, and a
report on operational proceedures for solid waste management sites and facilities.....
shall be submitted to the Department for review and approval before any construction
or operation is begun..." Section 1-6005.01. Regarding the criteria for issuance of such
a permit, the rules state......." To be considered for qualification of a conditional use
permit, several of these conditions or circumstances shall prevail: subsection (1).....
"Extreemely low population density in an isolated area." Section 1-6005.02 (b) 0).
This process is conducted as a joint endeavor by and between the State Board of Health
and Welfare and the Central District Health Department. The review is designed to
insure that the environment is protected. thus protecting the general public.
A review of the referenced legislation and rules and regulations, indicates that a
solid waste transfer station is not considered as normal light industry. It has certain
aspects which require it to be governed by a State Conditional Use Permit. These
aspects, are clearly defined as its potential for environmental polution and general
health hazards. This would indicate that such a facility is clearly considered as a
poluting industry, and as such does not meet the basic goals and objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Plan ---that poluting industries are in non compliance therewith.
Further, a careful review of Idaho Code 31-44, would appear to indicate that the
location of such facilities within the corporate limits of a city was not envisioned,
since the operation thereof was left clearly under the jurisdiction of the Board of
County Commissioners.
13 May 1985
85-121
Meridian P&Z
page 5
In reference to the polution capabilities of solid waste transfer stations, you have
been invited, by several of my clients, to visit the site at 2785 South Liberty Road,
in Boise. The operator has indicated to my clients that we "should not use their
facilities as an example, as there are better operations. However, the important
fact about this site, is that it is apparently operating within the norm considered
in the preparation and promulgation of the State Board of Health's rules and regulations.
Their conditional use permit has not been cancelled, nor their operation suspended.
It would also appear that Ada County Board of County Commissioners, under whose
jurisdiction they operate, are satisfied with the present practices. It is important to
remember that these same regulatory agencies will be jurisdictionaly responsible for _
any such operation in the environs o Mer-dia17dsitVe, In defference to the operator of the Liberty and his opinion that there
were better operations to use as examples, I have contacted other governmental units
in our adjacent states to gain first hand knowledge of their operations and associated _
problems. The most in-depth interview I was able to obtain was with Mr. Dave Nyblom,
Manager of the Solid Waste Department, Public Works Division, of King County, Washington.
This contact was made on 7 May 1985, and Mr. Nyblom was most cooperative. His
observations and recommendations concerning the siting and operation of a solid waste
transfer station are as follows:
General statistics and operational problems regarding Solid Waste Transfer Stations
Assumptions given concerning proposed Meridian operation:
a) 20 Trucks per day, hauling an average of 5 Tons each of compacted solid waste
b) 100 Ton/day operation with room for expansion
c) possible public access for delivering waste to transfer station
General site requirements
a) 8 to 10 acres required for 100-150 ton/day operation, plus additional space
if overnight parking of trucks and/or truck maintainance is to be on-site
b) - Site should be surrounded with cyclone fencing to reduce litter problems
c) transfer station should be in an enclosed structure of concrete or metal— _
wood structures more easily infested with rats, mice and other vermin.
d) Facility should be served by central sewers. Wash down water is often
highly toxic, and the concentration of solids therein makes septic systems
subject to early failure. Optional, is an on-site waste treatment lagoon
General siting requirements
a) preferably no residences within one quarter mile
b) preferably no residential developments within a third mile
c) preferably no commercial, technical or office space within one-half mile
d) should be considered as a nusiance industrial use, as far as planning and zoning
e) best placed in area with low land value for any other use
f) best adjacent land uses are: Truck/Transport terminal, Gravel pits, Concrete
or asphalt plants ( King County tried putting'one in a warehousing zone, and
found the results to be very unsatisfactory)
13 May 1985
85-121
Meridian P&Z
page 6
Environmental concerns in siting consideration
a)
Traffic
b)
Noise
W
Dior
d)
Dust
e)
Litter
f)
Lighting
g)
Wastewater Disposal
h)
Visual or Asthetic -
0
Rodents and other vermin '
General Operational Problems
a) Greatest operational problem is public access to transfer station. Public's -
transport of waste causes greatest amount of litter. They also contribute _
to traffic problem, and are a significant problem to the operator. Seattle,
Washington has been sued on numerous occasions for the public getting hurt
on the premises. Estimate that nearly two-thirds of the operational problems
are associated with public's access to the facilities.
b)
Traffic can be a significant problem. Each collection truck load represents
two daily trips on access roads. In addition, each three to four collection
trucks represents one transport trailer load to land fill, resulting in two more
trips on the same access roads. Public access to the facility exabe rates. these
c)
traffic concerns.
Odor is a significant problem. Transport trailers must leave for land fill
within a very few hours of loading. Facility washdown also creates additional
orors. If the facility cannot be located in an area remote from higher land
d)
uses, a spray system with dedorant feed is a must.
Noise is a major concern. The operation of the re -compacting unit, while
the most constant noise, is not the greatest. The unloading of the collection
Even with an enclosed
trucks, and dipsy dumpsters creates the greatest noise.
level at the property line will
structure located on 8 to 10 acres, the noise
e)
often exceed 90 to 100 decibels.
Dust is the most prevasive problem. No good answer for dust control has been
found, according to Mr. Nyblom. Moreover, the problem is not simplistic. The
dust often contains contaminants including certain construction material residue,
household and agricultural pesticides, etc. Proper screening by natural topography,
or other means is best available control at present.
f)
Litter is a continual problem. Even in their best operated transfer stations, _
mile radius, and will be
there is a noticible increase of litter within a quarter
to the transfer station and to the land fill.
g)
noticible along transport routes
Lighting can be a problem for adjacent land uses. Waste transfer operations
require very good lighting for proper operation. Estimates that plant needs
about 50% more candle power than other uses in any industrial zone.
but its toxicity should be stressed.
h)
Wastewater disposal has been addressed above,
great care should be taken to insure that site wastewater does not enter shallow
i)
groundwater acquifiers.
Visual or asthetic values should be considered. Presence of solid waste transfer
stations in close proximity with other land uses has been found to beunsatisfactory, _
except whrn located in association with other nuisance industrial uses.
j)
Rodents and Vermin have not been a significant problem with King County,
in view of the fact that Their Health Department maintains rodent and vermin
bait stations surrounding each site. These are monitored, and when necessary,
The transport of rodents and
an area extermination program is conducted.
vermin to and from the station, in loads of solid waste is greatest concern in
this area.
• 13 May 1985
85-121
Meridian P&Z
page 7
General Recommendations
a) keep away from higher land uses wherever possible,
b) install horizontal ram type transfer trailer units-- no vertical load system
is litter tight
c) Biggest complaint from public is increased litter and odor. attendants must pick
up litter on a daily basis, and must use some type of deodorant spray in washdown
operations
d) Protect operators and the public, insofar as possible, from the air borne dust
which is often toxic
e) siting of structure important to insure it doesn't operate as an air tunnel --
distributing litter
f) keep public out of facility if at all possible
g) make sure that land fill operator will provide additional turnaround and unloading
areas
h) King County Transfer Station to Land Fill trip averages about 45 miles. 10
mile transport is considered minimum break even transport trip to justify
transfer station.
i) in siting, consider it a nusinance industrial use, because this is how the public
perceives it.
To assit you in considering Mr. Nyblom's comments, and their relationship to the site
now under consideration--thet is, the effect on the environment and the socio-economic
values of the City, its impact area, and the property owners of the East Meridian Property
Owners Association, I have prepared an overlay to the composite zoning and land use map.
The first item of consideration is traffic. The comprehensive plan of the city, states
that ....11 Access to industrial areas from collector and Iocal streets should be discouraged."
SectionIV, Industrial Policies No.5. Locust Grove Road is considered a minor arterial;-
however
rterial;however Locust Grove cannot be accessed continually without passage over a portion
of East Pine Avenue, which is classified as a Collector. Further, the site has no public
mad access, but is proposed to be served by an easement. Traffic will increase along
Pine Avenue principally, as the most direct mute from the city to the site. This will be
particularly grevious if public transport of solid waste is permitted to the site. As an —
example of this problem, Snohomish County, Washington operates three transfer stations.
At the site most nearly compatible to the one proposed, a 200 ton/ day station, they
expect an average of 500 to 600 private vehicles a day during the weekends. In addition,
the transport vehicles used by both King County and Snohomish County, have a loaded
,gross weight of approximately 40 tons. These loads, the increase of traffic—together
with the present concentration of School District busses in the site vicinity could
result in premature failure of the base materials on the streets subjected to this increase.
Further, the fact that the proposed site is accessed by an easement, rather than a
public right.- of- way, appears to violate the intent of the city's Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning and Development Ordinances. A private street ever an easawnt
seems inappropriate to an industrial site which will serve commerce (commercial
solid waste c ollectors) and the ,general public (persons delivering their own solid
waste to the station.
The second item of concern is the noise factor. King County has indicated that the
noise generated by their facility is in the range of 100 decibels at the property line.
Based upon this assumption, then noticable noise polution will exist for nearly one-third
mile from the center of the site to the point at which the decibel rating has dropped to
50. It should be noted that the normal household noise level is around 40 decibels, so
that even at this distance, the noise of the operation would be descernable.
13 May 1985
85-121
'Meridian P&Z
page 8
Odor and dust are related problems, in that they are dispursed with the wind currents.
The Annual Surface Wind Rose for the Meridain area, as published by the U.S Department
of the Interior, indicates that Meridaan air currents are traveling at 4 to 15 miles per -
hour, for nearly My percent of the time. ! velocities of 16 to 31 miles per hour _
ten percent of the time; and under three miles per hour for the remaining
40 percent. This results in an average wind velocity of 8.4 miles per hour. Twentyfive
percent of the time the wind is from the Northwest, and twentythree percent of the time
from the Southeast. Thus, any dust or odor problems and liter carr'eaaioft would
be expected to concentrate in the direction of these prevailing surface winds. For
the purpose of demonstrating the effect of the wind carried litter, dust polutants - -
and ordors, we have delimited the area affected within a two and five minute range -
at the average wind velocity of 8.4 miles per hour. This area of contamination can,
of course, be much worse, depending on the particulate size of the material and the _
velocity of the wind . _ -
The litter problem, is directly associated with the visual or asthetic values of the -
local environment. Again, using Mr. Nyblom's comments that there will be a visual
difference in the amount of litter within one quarter mile of the facility, and along
the principle transport and collection routes, we have deliniated the- area potentialy
affected by the proposed Iand use.
Waste water disposal, and its potential effect on the shallow ground water acquifiers,
is of major concern. Both Mr. Nyblom, of King County, and Mr. Costa of Snohomish
County, stress the mandatory requirement of central sanitary sewers for disposal
of process and wash down water from such a facility. Both stress the problem of
the waste water rapidly blinding out a septic type disposal system, and Mr. Costa,
in particular, stressed the effect of a septic dispom*. system on the ground water.
He points out that said waste water carries large amounts of leachates, oil and
greases, and common household pesticides and herbicides.
The Meridian Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Development Ordinances recognize
the potential effect of industrial uses on our acquifiers. Section 2-408 / 12 of the
Zoning and Development Ordinance states "this district must also be in such proximity
to insure connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian."
And in Section IV, Industrial Policy No. 13, it states "Industrial uses should be located - —
where their generated water can be properly treated and pretreated to eliminate
any adverse impacts upon the city sewer treatment facility and irrigated lands
that recieve industrial runoff water." And under Policies, page 4, Sewage Facilities
and Service, item 1, it states '► all new subdivisions, planned developments, and
large commercial and industrial development projects shall be reauired to connect
to the municipal sewer service."
and under Municipal waste treatment, policy No.2, -
page 69, of the Comprehensive Pian it states '► the City of Meridian shall assure that
any industrial or commercial discharges to their public wastewater treatment facility -
shall provide pre-treatment as specified by their NPDES permit....."
While it may well be the applicants intent to extend the community services to
the site and provide for pre-treatment- no evidence of this has been made available to
my clients. This is of particular concern service the ground water on the subject site
is extreemly high, preventing even most agricultural pursuits.
In this reguard, I would note that on page 71 of the Comprehensive Plan, it states
"the City of Meridian will encourage and support studies that will determine
ground water quality conditions for the purpose of protecting the publics' health
and will determine mans impact on the groundwater aquifiers."
13 May 1985
85-121
Meridian P&Z
page 9
Based upon previous studies, Meridian is aware of the fact that our shallow ground
acquifiers flow generaly to the Northwest, following the patterns of the areas irrigation
and drainage facilities. This was of great enough significance to the city several years
ago to prompt it to support the "Southwest Ada County Building and Development
moritorium. The concem was primarily based on the infulence of the great number
of septic systems in that area on the wells and surface waters in Meridian. Less than
300 feet Northerly of the proposed site, the Creason drain carries shallow ground water
drainage to the Northwest. This source could carry contaminants to wells located
In that direction—particularity in the Carol subdivision and surrounding lands. The
general area of influence hos been delineated on the overlay. -
The problem of rodents and other vermin, and their potential disbursement from the - - site, cannot be readily mapped. However, the potential health hazard is real. Left _
unchecked, this problem could result in the vermin spreading out into surrounding
areas, particularly Southeast and Northwest, where their travel would be aided by
water course travel along the existing waterways. On the other hand, proper extermin-
ation measures carried forth could mitigate the outward disbursement, but at the
same time result in dead arrd dying vermin being consumed by household pets, thus
spreading the hazard of any disease they might carry and the pesticides used to
exterminate them onto the surrounding properties. This is, no doubt, one of the
principle reasons why the criteria published by the State for these facilities, recommends
a remote very low density area with good drainage.
Lighting, is a lessor, but still important concem. You will recall that Mr. Nybiom, of
King County Washington, states that a solid waste transfer station requires approxi-
mately 50% more lighting than most other light industrial uses. In this requard, the
Citys Zoning and Development Ordinance, pct ian 2-413. B (1) (f) states "No direct
or reflected glare shall be permitted which is visible from any property outside an
industrial district or from any street."
Based on the foregoing analysis it is difficult to see how the applicants proposed use of
the site -can meet the following criteria of the City Ordinances:
"to protect residential, commercial, industrial, and civic areas from the intrusion of - -
incompatible uses........," Section 2 - 402, 5 Zoning Ordinance, and
" Industrial uses adjacent to residential areas should not create noise, odor, air
pollution and visual pollution, greater than levels normally associated with surround-
ing residential activities." Comprehensive Plan, page 17, Industrial Policy No. 6.
In, Summary, my clients believe;
1. That there is no justification or public need to rezone any more Iand as light
industrial at this time. -
2. 77iat the proposed annexation and zoning, and stated use, would be in conflict
with established and proposed land uses in the area.
3. 77iat the environmental and socio - economic effect of the approval of this
application would result in a taking a value from them.
4. That any action by the City, other than denial, would be inappropriate since the
applicant has not; -
(a) "provided a detailed economic analysis, so that specifics of ...plans, designs
and development will be known ...." as called for under the Industrial review area
guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan.
(b) applied for consideration and approval of the Ada County Board of County
Commissioners, under whose jurisdiction he must operate.
13 May 1985
85-121
Meridian P&Z
page 10
(c) Applied for review and approval of the Central -District Health, who
may specify certain approval conditions, such as groundwater monitoring of the
site prior to approval
(d) Applied for a Conditional use Permit from the State Board of Health
and Welfare.
Finally, my clients would like Moe to know that they appreciate the service that
he provides the community, and they applaud his efforts to improve this service
by making a very substantial capital investment. They do, however, feel that Moe -
has done an inadequate job in the site selection and in pursuing the necessary
permits and approvals.
6 f •
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SANITARY SERVICES, INC.
ANNEXATION AND ZONING APPLICATION
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
a C.
The above entitled annexation and zoning application
having come on for final consideration on June 10, 1985, at
approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the
Meridian City Hall, 728 Meridian Street, Meridian, Idaho,
and the 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 the public hearing on the annexation
and zoning application was published for two (2)
consecutive weeks prior to the public hearing sechuled for
April 8, 1985, the first publication of which was 15 days
prior to said hearing; that the Public Hearing was
continued to May 13, 1985 and again continued to June 10,
1985, at which time additional testimony and evidence was
received; that the matter was duly considered at the April
8 and June 10, 1985 hearings; that copies of all notices
were made available to newspaper, radio and television
stations.
2. That notice of the public hearing is required to be
sent to property owners within 300 feet of the external
boudaries of the land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416
E, of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian; that this requirement has been met. _
3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z
Comm.) received both oral and written testimony.
4. That the property included in the Application for
Annexation and conditional use is described in the
application, and by this reference is incorporated herein;
that the property is generally known as 1800 East Pine
Street, Meridian, Idaho; that the property is presently
zoned by Ada County as Agricultural Preserve (AP -2); that
the land is titled in the name of Herbert C. and Lillian
Reaman; that Donald Harris and Mary T. Rhoades are contract
purchasers from the Reamans.
5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the
present City limits-.
6. That the property included in the annexation
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of
Meridian.
7. That the entire parcel of ground 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 application for annexation requests that
the parcel be annexed and zoned '(I -L) Light Industrial with
a proposed Phase I use of the operation of a solid waste
disposal business and eventually in Phase II a solid waste
transfer station; that the Applicant's present business .
location is 423 W. Broadway, Meridian, Idaho which area is
a predominantly residential area, even though zoned
industrial, containing mostly single family dwellings of an
approximate denisty of four units to the acre; that the
property has been used in the past as agricultural
property.
9. That the subject property is located basically at
the intersection of East Pine Avenue and Locust Grove Road;
that the entrance to the property would be by means of a 50
foot easement which would be an extension of Locust Grove
Road since Locust Grove Road does not at this time extend
North beyond East Pine Avenue; that Locust Grove Road from
Fairview Avenue to Overland Road is a minor arteriel which
includes a portion of East Pine Avenue.
10. That the Meridian comprehensive Plan designates the
area within which the Applicant's property is located
as being the Eastern Industrial Review Area; Applicant's
proposed use is an industrial use; that under the Economic
Development section of the Plan beginning at Page 16 there
are stated the general industrial policies and those
particularly pertinant to this Application are as follows:
"1. The development considerations for each of the In-
dustrial Review Areas should be phased and priori-
tized to provide for oderly growth and development,
minimize the cost of providing utilities and trans-
•
within the Urban Service Planning Area.
2. Industrial development within the City limits should
receive the highest priority.
3. An annexation program shall be established in con-
junction with the development for each Industrial
Review Area.
5. Access tqrindustrial areas from collector and local
streets be discouraged.
6. Industrial uses adjacent to residential areas should
not create noise, odor, air pollution and visual
pollution -greater than levels normally associated
with surrounding residential activities.
7. Industrial development should not be located adja-
cent to primary and secondary schools.
8. Industrial uses that exist within areas planned for
other types of uses should be encouraged to
relocate to an Industrial Review Area.
9. Industrial development should be encouraged to
locate adjacent to existing industrial uses.
10 .Industrial areas should be located within proximity
to major utility, transportation and service
facilities.
11. Industrial uses which require the storage or the
production of large quanities of explosive or toxic
materials should not be located near residential _ _
•
•r
areas, and should conform to disposal, spill and
storage measures as outlined within the 208
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
13. Industrial uses should be located where their
generated water can be properly treated and
pretreated to elimiate any adverse impacts upon
the City sewer treatment facility and irrigated
lands that receive industrial runoff water.
14. Industrial areas should be located where adequate
water supply and pressure are available for fire
protection.
15. Zoning and development within each of the
industrial review areas should be analyzed to
ascertain if there are potential problems or
conflicts which would hinder the development of
these areas by private industrial and business
interests.
16. All industrial proposals that pertain to the
industrial review areas shall be reviewed and
monitored so that approved uses are compatible
with surrounding uses and preserve the integrity
of the review areas.
11. That on page 18 of the Plan there are contained
Industrial Policies, that pertain specifically to the
Eastern Industrial Review Area and among those are to
promote an overpass at I-84 and the Locust Grove Road and
that the character, site improvements and type of
industrial developments should be harmonized with the
residential area to the south (on the upper bench) and the
contiguous residential area to the north.
12. Under Transportation Policies pertaining to the
Eastern Industrial Review Area on page 33 of the Plan it
states that access points to the Eastern Industrial Review
Area should be encouraged either from Locust Grove Road or
Eagle Road.
13. That under Solid Waste Management Policies of the
Plan at page 37 the following is stated:
"1. Services as provided by the contract holders
should be reviewed as growth and developement
continues within the Meridian Urban Service
Planning Area to ensure that both the present
and anticipated populations are served.
2. The location of a central (County or Bi -County)
solid waste transfer station within the Meridian
Area of Impact should be investigated and
coordinated with solid waste plans for Ada
and Canyon Counties.
3. Interest concerning the recycling of solid waste
should be coordinated with any feasible study
for a County or Bi -County recycling plant."
•
14. Additionally at page 69 of the Plan under Municipal
Waste Water Treatment Policies it states that industrial
discharges to the sewage facility should provide
pre-treatment as specified by the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit as issued by the EPA.
15. That under the Intent and Purpose section of the
Zoning Ordinance in Section 11-2-402 A. 5. it states that
one of the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance is to
"protect residential, commercial, industrial and civic
areas from the intrusion of incompatible uses and to
provide opportunities for establishments to concentrate for
effecient operation in mutually beneficial relationships to
each other and to shared services."
16. That under Section 11-2-408 B, Zoning Districts,
the Light Industrial District is outlined as follows:
"11. (I -L) Light Industrial: The purpose of the
(I-L)Light Industrial District is to provide for light
industrial development opportunities for employment of
Meridian citizens and area residents and reduce the need to
commute to neighboring cities; to encourage the development
of manufacturing and wholesale establishments which are
clean, quiet and free of hazardous or objectionable
elements, such as noise, odor, dust, smoke or glare and
that are operated entirely or almost entirely within
enclosed structures; to delineate areas best suited for
industrial development because of location, topography,
existing facilities and relationship to other land uses.
This District must also be in such proximity to insure
connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer Systems of the
City of Meridian. Uses incompatible with light industry are
not permitted, and strip development is prohibited."
18. That uder Section 11-2-413 B. 1., Provisions For
Commercial and Industrial Uses, it states that no land or
building in any district shall be used or occupied in any
manner creating dangerous, noxious, or otherwise
objectionable conditions which could adversely affect the
surrounding areas or adjoining premises except that any use
permitted by this Ordinance may be undertaken and
maintained if acceptable measures and safeguards to reduce
dangerous and objectionable conditions to acceptable limits
as established by the performance requirments stated in
this section; that the section goes on to set the
performance requirments for fire hazard, radioactivity and
electrical disturbances, noise, vibration, air pollution,
glare, erosion, and water pollution.
19. That Section 11-2-413 B. 2. provides that the
Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Zoning Compliance may require the submission
of statements and plans indicating the manner is which
dangerous and objectionable elements involved in the
processing and in equipment operations are to be eliminated
or reduced to acceptable limits and tolerances.
20. That the property is contained in a survey section
in which a large portion of the land is already zoned
industrial; that the land is adjacent to the Upland
Industrial Park; that it is across Locust Grove Road and
East Pine Avenue from industrially zoned property; that it
is in close proximity to industrial ground which is being
used for an industrial purpose on the corner of Locust
Grove Road and East Pine Avenue by a tooling manufacturer.
21. That there were many people testifying at the
public hearing objecting to the use of the property as
proposed by the Applicant; that their objections basically
related to possible traffic, noise, odor, debris, and dust
problems with some objecting that the conduct of the
Applicant's operation would tend to reduce their property
values; some of those persons objecting owned residences
nearby and some were quite distant.
22. That the Applicant testified that his operation
would be operated within an enclosed building, that his
business hours would basically be between 8:00 a.m and 5:00
p.m., that his operation in the first phase would use about
15% to 18% of the eleven acres, that the location of the
building would be apporximately 800 feet from the nearest
house, that at the present time his operation would include
his present business operation, shop, and a place to repair
and store his garbage trucks; additionally the Applicant
testified that at this time he is not planning on a
transfer station but would in the future, that his business
does not include a recycling operation, and the public
would not have access to his location for delivery of
garbage; he additionally testified that whatever type of
operation he installed regarding a transfer station that it
would be an entirely enclosed system; he testified that the
location would be landscaped and a buffer zone would be
provided and that garbage would not be maintained on the
premises longer than for a period of 24 hours.
23. That there is property in the immediate vicinity
that is already zoned industrial and upon which the
Applicant need only obtain a building permit and he could
locate and construct his business and a transfer station
without meeting many of the requirements that can now be
place upon him due to the annexation procedure.
24. That the Central District Health Department
submitted a comment sheet regarding the Applicant's
proposal; that the comments did not evidence an objection
to the proposal or to the use; that the commnent on the
report was that the Applicant would have to obtain approval
from Central District Health and the State of Idaho
Division of Environment for a solid waste transfer station
and in that regard plans would have to be submitted.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procudural 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
subject property.
2. That the City has authority to annex land pursuant
to 50-222, Idaho Code; that the exercise of the City's
annexation authority is a legislative function; that as a
legislative function, the City may place conditions on an
annexation.
3. That the Planning and zoning Commision has judged
the annexation and zoning application by the guidelines,
standards, criteria, and policies contained in Section
50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the
Meridian Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, and
the record submitted to it and the things of which it can
take judicial notice.
4. That the Commission may take judicial notice of its
own proceedings, governmental statutes, ordinances, and
policies, and actual conditions existing within the City
and State.
5. That all 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.
6. That the annexation application has been initiated
by the Applicant and is not at the request or initiation of
the City of Meridian.
7. That the annexation and zoning of (I -L) Light
Industrial would be in compliance with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordiance; that the annexation
and zoning would be in the best interests of the City of
Meridian.
B. That the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Meridian
allows a solid waste business and solid waste transfer
station in the (I -L) Light Industrial zone and such is a
permitted use in that zone.
9. That many of the industrial policies contained
in paragraph 10 of the Findings indicate that Applicant's
zoning and use are in compliance with the Plan for the
following reasons:
a. Applicant's proposal would be phased and would be
oderly growth and would minimize the cost of
transportation.
b. It is an industrial use which industrial uses
receive the highest priority in the Plan;
c. It is a request for annexation in an industrial _ _
review area;
d. Acess will be from a minor arteriel;
e. It is an industrial use that is not adjacent to a
residential area as such residential areas are depicted in
the Plan; the area is an Industrial Review Area even though
the area contains residences and small farms; that the
possible problems of noise, odor, air and visual pollution
are legitimate concerns, however, they can be controlled by
conditions being placed under the annexation procedure and
under Section 11-2-413 B. of the Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to Provisions For Commercial and Industrial
Uses;
f. Applicant's present business operation is in a
predominanty residentail area even though it is zoned
industrial and the Plan encourages industrial operations
located in truly residential areas to relocate;
g. There are existing industrial uses operating and
planned in the area where Applicant proposes to`locate and
such location next to similar uses in encouraged in the
Plan;
h. The policies regarding industrial uses that
produce large quantities of explosive or toxic materials do
not dictate deniel of the application since the area is not
designated residential but rather industrial and no
evidence was shown as the quantity of toxic material that
would be produced, if any;
i. The Applicant will have to connect to City water
and sewer and if pre-treatment is required by the waste
water management policies then pre-treatment will have to
be performed by the Applicant;
j. That the Applicant could locate his operation on
the industrial ground which is in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed site without meeting some requirements that
may now be imposed and it in the best interest of the City
and those objecting that those requirements and
restrictions be imposed under the present procedure.
10. That the objections to the Application went
predominantly to the proposed use and not to the annexation
or the zoning; that even where there were many people
objecting to the proposed use, where the use is an allowed
use under the Zoning Ordinance and the zoning is not
objected to, the allowed uses in the Zoning Ordincance are
controlling, that is, of course, assuming that the
annexation itself is also not objected to, which in this
case it was not.
11. That the Eastern Industrial Review Area Policies of
the Plan referred to in Finding 11 do not pertain to the
residences in the Eastern Industrial Review Area but to the
North Curve and Locust Grove Neighborhoods as shown on the
Policy Diagram at page 7 of the Plan and thus the location
of an industrial use within the Eastern Industrial Review
Area, even though next to existing residences, does not
violate those policies.
12. The solid waste management policies on page 37 of
the Plan indicate that a transfer station should be located
within the Meridian Area of Impact and Applicant's proposed
location is in the Meridian Area of Impact.
13. Under Section 11-2-402 A. 5. of the Zoning
Ordinance referred to in Finding 15, the location of
Applicant's business in the Eastern Industrial Review Area
would not constitute an intrusion of an incompatible use
since the area is an industrial area and Applicant's use is
industrial.
14. That under 11-2-413 B. 1. of the Zoning Ordinance
referred to in Finding 18 and since the zoning allows
Applicant's use, the Applicant's use can be undertaken and
maintained provided acceptable measures and safeguards to
control dangerous and objectionable conditions are set up,
followed, performed, and if necessary enforced; the
safeguards can be imposed under the above zoning ordinance
section or as a condition of annexation.
15. That as long as the annexation and the zoning are
not really objectionable, as evidenced by the testimony,
and since Section 11-2-413 B. basically allows a permitted
use to begin operation even though possibly some dangerous
' 0 0
or objectionable conditions could be created, if those
dangerous and objectionable conditions are controlled, the
Commission concludes that the use should be allowed under
certain restrictions which should control any objectionable
conditions, if they arise.
16. That the Zoning Administrator has authority under
11-2-413 B. 2. to require submission of statements and
plans which show objectionable elements will be eliminated
or reduced to acceptable levels; in this regard the
Commission concludes that the following areas are of
concern and the zoning Administrator shall see that
measures are undertaken and maintained to control odor,
noise, vibration, litter and debris, air and water
pollution, rodent control and glare; that the Commission
concludes that screening and buffer fences or landscaping
should be required; that some form of deodorant system
shall be required, if deemed necessary, particularly if the
Applicant proceeds with plans to operate a transfer
station; and the Commission further concludes that the
controls referred to in Section 11-2-413 B. be enforced and
that the operation should be monitored for continued
compliance; additionally the Commission concludes that the
above measures and controls should be in addition to any
requirements of the Central District Health Department or
the State of Idaho Division of Envirommnent.
17. The Commission concludes that the representations
made by the Applicant as set forth in Finding 22 should be
requirements, particularly, the hours of operation, that
all work be performed within a building, and that no
garbage be allowed to sit at the location longer than 24
hours.
18 The Commission finally concludes that the annexation
and zoning are in the best interests of the City; that the
proposed use, while it could be -offensive and objectionable
if not operated properly, can be operated under the above
controls so as not to be objectionable; that at present the
proposed use is a permitted use in the industrial zone and
therefore the application should receive approval from the
City Council with the above restrictions and any others the
Council may deem appropriate.
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
Cole
Voted 1yell-
Commissioner
Shearer
Voted�6T
Commissioner
Johnson
Voted od-
Commissioner
Morrow
Voted-)626�-
Chairman Spencer (Tie Breaker) Voted-----
��`{. 0
•C
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council that this Annexation and
Zoning Application be granted under the conditions and
restrictions above stated in these Findings of fact and
Conclusions.
MOTION:
APPROVED --z- DISAPPROVED --------
S�/4 T11ze-- �\ Ds-tq t 'i Q \t4-
i
&tn" � Zo�Ur� �e lD�%l9�.r
72�,,,�6��' aiv,
afcxX v
C3 xlmutee -4Anz� �;k.�7 )
':LJh,tt�.t, -tE�+/Kang d/z4i dt�/rmet�neF
�h� rC¢uu.�C �
1&h
I/��✓,�ni✓ C/Jf -mar no{�� cha�vjw
an
D Akan a� � o� �' -
.�ftnr��� �Ge s�vn�/
Q ,w ae - �n v�nD
OIL
Via.
M�,a, �� no-ep"-1
v
o l4�N�U� L4-c"ssE --
S-t/'A L l �
yeeNeWfec-
y6
'I
f I
f �
f f
f
"Ala
FG6c/; n 'i,c4s
-, �W/Am '5M"ml
aces z�
c7w6--PLP(!�kT� TtAk n -
I gl�w
2, T(: -s -
za)9 SztZVE q"2,
--176YL 13 LI�S 1 �
7V
peco
6LO -PI PPNVU L)Esf)8-zPRO)T—
� a
O�j
�,i
i
azo
ell
, o e- — 1A Pe- ri (4 )
neo
in�Ct�al�/u4
J/�ff7-D��
iii
/,\,l Su.lrm'!-ec.E,1aJ-L�eGLy C'awnctQ
]J A�
142
�I
�f
it r
t
gra � �
/PNaP" e -L s
i e �� �`Q,�� �aA. j�ce✓
C
Tlk I )
n
(I
9 CA)c% ���'� Ig-sc, t),
i
I/
217 "
�1 s
a ; �
a.,— F� Y,
,.
t',-.
MA
NOTICE -OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY.r:IVEN, pursuant to Ordinances of the City of
Meridian, that a Public Hearing will be held before the Planning
and Zoning Commission on Monday, the 8th day of April, 1985, at
7:30 o'clock p.m., at the Meridian Primary School, 48 W. State Avenin
Meridian, Idaho, on the Application of Mohammad Alidjani, for the
purpose of annexing and zoning of real property which is generally
described as a portion of the S1/2 of the NW1/4 of Section 8, T. -
3N., R. 1E.,.Boise-Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and -a more particular
description of the property is on file with the City Clerk's Office
and such may be inspected at any time and the general address of
which is known as: 1740 E. Pine Street, Meridian, Idaho; said
property has been requested to be zoned as (I -L) Light Industrial.
The proposed use of said property is to locate an industrial
building for a solid waste transfer station.
Any and all interested persons will be heard at said hearing.
DATED this_/f day of March, 1985.
_5A ty C 1 e
AMBROSE,
iTZOERALO
]ROOKSTON
110nWP aM
:ounaa W4
0. an 427
Alan, ld"
nunaM►+kiN
a �
1
s>`iCa�i
G '�. � �<i �f5�t'r�riar°��c .��, (� �y-,Y�:� }��,,�,-,:-�•— is=- �
150
POFy �—
go-
° ,• /! hPSSPs
/ I
wt /ov Asoles 61z
amea doll hdadIss- awe, •t;!.t =,
o
A&b
r 'ros ' e rAAA
r
F C
1AA.-OlArve Mi D
v
1
May 9, 1985
TO: Meridian Planning and Zoning Council
Mr. Mohammad Alidjani
Mr. Tom Cole
Mr. Jim Johnson
Mr. Walt Morrow
Mr. Jim Shearer
Mr. Bob Spencer
Dear Gentlemen:
We are residents of the East Meridian Neighborhood. We ob:
rezoning of land purchased by Mr. Alidjani in our neighborl
understand that Mr. Alidjani originally purchased the land
a solid waste transfer station.
to the
We
build
1. We are aware that rezoning this land would not automatically
allow a solid waste transfer station to be built. It would,
however, automatically allow Mr. Alidjani to park his garbage
trucks there. We are very concerned about the effect on the
traffic on North Locust Grove. The road is not wide en ugh to
pass a school bus without driving on the shoulder. Adding
garbage truck traffic to the current school bus traffic will
be noisy, destructive, and dangerous.
2. We understand from our legal counsel that rezoning land for
a special purpose is called Contract Zoning and is ille al.
Since there is already a great deal of unused Industria land
already in our area, there is no reason to rezone Mr. A idjani's
land unless you are doing so for a special purpose - parking
garbage trucks.
Please believe that we can appreciate the economics of a so id waste
transfer station somewhere in the vicinity of Meridian. We just ask that
you, Mr. Alidjani and the rest of the Council look at the 1 ng term goals
of Meridian planning and ask yourselves if rezoning this laid is in the
best interests of all concerned and react accordingly.
THESE ARE ITEMS NEEDED FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUESTS
1. Name, address and phone number of applicant;
2. Name, address and phone number of owner of subject property,
and proof of title in said owner;
3. Notarized request for zoning amendment from titled owner,
a!� successor of said owner, or valid title option h lder or contract
purchaser with consent from the titled owner if not requested
by the titled owner;
4. Legal description of property; ,..
5. Legal description of all adjoining rights -of way, railroads,
roadways, highways and easements the full length of the property;
6. Present land use;
7. Proposed land use;
8. Present district;
9. Proposed district;
10. Characteristics of subject property which make the zoning
amendment desirable;
11. Necessity or desirability of development pertaining to the
zoning amendment and its harmony with adjacent development;
12. one (1) map -of scale one (1) inch equals one huridred (100) feet
of the property concerning the zoning amendment;
13. Twenty-seven (27) copies of a vicinity map of a scale of one
(1) inch equals three hundred (300) feet;
14. •A list of the mailing addresses of all property owners, from
authentic tax records of Ada County, who are within three
hundred (300) feet of the external boundaries of the land being '
con$idered, and all property owners included within the property
being considered;
15. A statement of how the proposed zoning amendment. relates to the }
Meridian Comprehensive Plan;
A fee as established by the Council; (see 2-.422 A)
17 A statement that the owner grants a lien against said property
for payment of all costs incurred by the City inc uding engineer-
ing, publication and attorneys fees.
PROCEDURES FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUESTS
1. The Applicant Shall:
a. Give notice of the hearing, at least fifteen(15)
days
prior to the hearing, by certified mail to
property
owners within the land being considered and
to owners
within 300 feet of the external boundaries
of the land
being considered. Said notice of certified
mail must .,-.
be deposited with the United States Post Office
at
least 15 days prior to the hearing. Said notice
shall
contain a vincinity map of the property, a
ibrief state-
ment of the nature of the application, the
name and ='
address of the applicant.
b. Provide the City Clerk with the names and addresses
of
property owners notified, a notarized statement
of _
complaince and a copy of the notification.
2. The Commission Shall:
a. Conduct at least one public hearing at whica interested
persons will have the opportunity to be heard. At
least 15 days prior to hearing notice of the time and
place shall be published in newspaper.
b. Within 45 days after hearing the Commission, shall
transmit its recommendation to the Council with supp-
orative reasons, the Commend shall recommend the
application be approved, approved with conditions or
denied. The Commission shall insure that any approval
is in occordance with the Comp Plan, this O dinance
and State Law.
3. The Council:
a. The Council shall conduct one public hearin' after -notice
requirements as above.
b. After hearing the Council shall approve, aprove with
conditions or deny, with supporative reason .
4
OFFICIALS
JACK NIEMANN, City Clerk
A.M. KIEBERT, Treasurer
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney
EARL WARD, Waste Water Supt.
KENNY BOWERS, Fire Chief
April 25, 1985
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
A Good Place to Live
COUNCILMEN
CITY OF MERIDIAN
BILL BREWER
RONALD R. TOLSMA
728 Meridian Street
J. E. BERT MYERS
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
ROBERT GIESLER
83642
BOB SPENCER
Phone 8884433
Chairman Zoning & Planning
GRANT P. KINGSFORD
Mayor
Mr. Donald R. Miller
6815 W. Vernon
Phoenix, AZ. 85035
Dear Mr. Miller,
I am attaching a set of the minutes in regards to the
request of Mr. Alidjani from the April 8, 1985 P & Z
Meeting for your information.
Sincerely,
n, ID.
Mr. Jack Neiman April 2091985
City Clerk
City of Meridian.
Meridian, Idaho
Dear lir. Neiman:
Am vritiag in regards to the Planning and Zoning
Commission -meeting of 8)April, 1985 concerning the
application -of' -Mr• Ali,dlani for rezoning.
What was the outcome of the hearing?
Thank You for the help,
Donald R. Miller
L
Donald R. Miller
6815 W. Vernon Av.
Phoenix, Az. 85035
City of Meridian .
Planning and Zoning Commission
Mr. Jack Nieman, City Clerk
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Honorable Sirs:
Concerning the Public Hearing regarding the application of Mr.
Mohammed Alidjani for annexation and zoning of the real property,
located at 1740 E. Pine St., Meridian, Idaho; generally described as
a portion of S 1/2 of NW 1/4 of Sec. 8, T 3N., R. 1E., Boise -
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho.
Said purpose of which is to build a waste treatment plant or
pumping station. Our property, generally described as a portion of
the S. 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 89 Township 3N9 Range 1E, Boise -
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. More particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the brass cap marking the SW corner of the said NW 1/4
of Sec. $, thence:
North 88 57'50' East (formerly described as N 89000' E in Instrument
No. 756596) 687.40 feet along the Southerly boundary of the said S
1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 89 which is also the center line of E. Pine
St. to an iron pin, thence:
North 0041'00 W. 350.00 feet along a line Easterly of and parallel
to the Westerly boundary of the said NW 1/4 of sec. 8, to a point,
also said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING, thence:
North 89019' East 208.71 feet to a point, thence:
North 0041'00 " West 208.71 feet along a, line Easterly of and parallel
to the said Westerly boundary of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 8 to a point,
thence:
South 8019' Voest 208.71 feet to a point, thence:
South 0 41100" East 208.71 feet along a line Easterly of and parallel
to the said Westerly boundary of the NW 1/4 of Sec.8 to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Said property more generally known as 1800 E. Pine St.
In other words right in the middle of the property in question.
A rezoning of the said g-roperty for Mr. Alidjani for stated purpose
of locating a waste treatment plant or pumping station will be by
its very nature make the value of the property it surrounds 10go down
the toilet", in a manner of speaking.
9-
��
I
-2-
Mr. Alidjani and the City of Meridian have nothing to loose
by this rezoning, Mr. Alidjani makes a profit, and the City of
Meridian gains an Industrial Sewage Facility, of which the useage
fees would go on into the next century. Mr. and Mrs. Donald R, Miller
loose the value of their investment of said 1800 E. Pine St.
As the nature of said property, located at 1800 E. Pine St.,
is Residential, it is our belief that the members of the Planning
and Zoning Commission can come to the same conclusion as we did.
We would not want to have to try and sell our property that would
have as its nearest neighbor, a sewage processing station, which
would become public knowledge as soon as the surrounding property
is rezoned and construction begins.
This letter is not to say we are against rezoning of Mr.
Alidjani's property, because the City of Meridian, of the County of
Ada, and the State of Idaho would claim right of eminent domain, and
in all probability condemn said residential property to get the much
needed waste treatment facility for the eastern Lection of the
industrial impact area of Meridian. All that we are asking is that
some consideration be given, by the powers that be, to help in
disposing of said property to clear the way for progress that is
much needed in the impact area.
Sincerely Yours,
Mr. and Mrs. Donald R. Miller
DRM: kjm
c c : Tom Clark G.R.I.
Wright Patterson Real Estate
Meridian, Idaho
file
I I
a
:0V
w
Or
to coast
VMS# " I Mvp
TV
il!N
kyr t a- a6 Awk A", a 1
Yu
Qq
-kA ot' 40- "dg�n"
Oyq �ll"�,�ll""Ill""Ill",ll""Ill""Ill""I'll""I'll"-.�""I'l"""""""""'I'l""""""""'I'I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- ITS i i 411 Oil 0 0
tea
An
Qjfy.' A
ANNE, 11
_ww. wy M I
fn"g
NOUN;
. . . . . . .
........
W �"Q
AQ4
OWN
KFIR
MINOR li"" "Inks
I N
oilelm "Pt;_
4
wall:, a
i R N
410",Ot+ N '114, -
6
v
A 11001
�14
rr'k
WS '"rift to
S
10,
.fi
yy
Sim
k� 1 Q-
s #
x it
;4,
i
PA
v
SS
(« a.
lot, I
b
t�
k, 6' -
'
r
MIT
is, AS
c ,g
T t
WOO X63
7
f
y�y
��� A:.