Loading...
1985 07-08f A G E N D A MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JULY 8, 1985 ITEM: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JUNE 10, 1985: (APPROVED) 1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ON REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING BY MOE ALIDJANI: (APPROVED, RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY E. FAYE BREWER: (HEARING OFFICER APPOINTED, TO PREPARE FINDINGS, HUGH MOSSMAN) MERIDIAN PLANNING & JULY 8. 1985 Regular Meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission called to order by Chairman Bob Spencer at 7:30 p.m.: Members Present: Walt Morrow, Jim Johnson, Jim Shearer, Tom Cole: Others Present: Elaine Smith, Pat Fabricius, Vera Hornbaker, Opal Farrington, E. Faye Brewer, Darwin Buchanan, Helen Alidjani, Moe Alidjani, Olive Clouss, Max Yerrington, Lloyd Howe, Lawerence Smith, Martin Fabricius, Norma Thompson, Wayne Crookston, Ronda Lowe, Miriam Barr: The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Johnson to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held June 10, 1985 as written: Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #1: Findings of Fact and Conclusions on Annexation & Zoning Request by Moe Alidjani. Chairman Spencer, has the Commission read the F~dingS and is there any questions or discussion? There was no response. Chairman Spencer, at the Council Meeting held June 3, 1985, Councilman Giesler had some comments about the Fenstermaker Conditional Use Applic- ation that I would like to bring to your attention. The Councilman made the recommendation that in the future the Council should take a hard look at application for Condtional Use Permits. Mr. Giesler's reasons for mak- ing this recommendation, and I quote from the minutes of that meeting, we have a lot of annexed and zoned property all ready to go. I think that we need to try to promote our business to these areas, and I feel that we really need to keep our residential areas as residential as we can. Mayor Kingsford and Councilman Brewer both made statements in support of Councilman Giesler's statements. I have concerns with the approximately 800 acres of Industrial and 300 acres of Commercial property that has been annexed over the years and now sits idle. I also have concerns with the several commercial and industrial parcels that are developed and now sit empty with for sale or lease signs on them. In my opinion we should be looking very hard at each and every annexation and zoning, zoning change and conditional use application that come before us to assure that a recommendation of approval is in the best interest of the City or, barring unique circumstances, it would not be in the City's best interest to recommend that the applicant locate in an established Commercial or Industrial Area. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves the Findings of Fact and Conclusions as prepared on the annexation & zoning request by Sanitary Services, Inc. Moe Alidjani: Motion Carried: Morrow, Yea: Johnson, Yea: Shearer, Abstain: Cole, Yea: MERIDIAN P & Z • . JULY 8, 1985 PAGE # 2 The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole That the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the Annexation & Zoning request by Moe Alidjani be granted under the conditions and restrictions as stated in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Motion Carried: Morrow, Yea: Johnson, Yea: Shearer, Abstained: Cole, Yea: Item #2: Public Hearing, Conditional Use Permit for E. Faye Brewer: Chairman Spencer, it of the Commission as lication, therefore ing Mr. Hugh Mossman pare the Findings of on this application. has came to my attention that some of the members well as myself may have conflicts with this app- I will ask the Commission to make a motion appoint- as a Hearing Officer, to hear the testimony, pre- Fact and make a recommendation to the Commission Morrow, it seems to me at the P & Z level we are nothing more than a recommending body to the City Council, I also think at this level it is a waste of the City's money to use a Hearing Officer as nothing is conc- rete or binding at this level. Chairman Spencer, when this came up I knew I had a conflict as I live with- in 300 feet of this property, also Tom Cole may have a conflict and Wayne Crookston may have a conflict. The reason the Hearing Officer was decided on was these possible conflicts. Morrow , does everybody feel the potential for conflict that they would conflict themselves out? Spencer, I do myself. Cole, My potential conflict is that I have looked at the house and would like to buy it if possible. Crookston, I have done personal work for Mr. Bill Brewer. Morrow, basically under thoese condition I have no problem with Hearing Officer. Johnson, I think the point that is most important is Crookstons position, based upon the possible conflict I would agree to Hearing Officer. The tAOtion was made by Morrow and Hugh Mossman as Hearing Officer to E. Faye Brewer application. Motion Carried: All Yea: seconded by Shearer to appoint Mr. conduct the Public Hearing for the Chairman Spencer turned the Meeting over to Mr. Hugh Mossman. For the record my name is Hugh Mossman & I am the appointed Hearing Officer for this matter, for the record this is the Conditional Use Permit for E. Faye Brewer for property located at 1303 East First St. for office space for a Funeral Service Center. MERIDIAN P &Z • • JULY 8, 1985 PAGE # 3 Mr. Mossman, I will open the Public Hearing at this time, questions of the Commission may be allowed at any time. E. Faye Brewer was sworn by Mr. Mossman. Brewer, I do not want to open a full fledged mortuary per-say, would have to have embalming room, I have checked with the Health Department and know ~? those regulations. I would have to have a. license, regulations state having a casket selection room and I have made provisions for that. I plan to have a small facility and would meet all regulations and require- ments. I would leave the home the same and preserve the looks of the home. There would be a circle drive to the back with parking for at least ten cars which should be adequate. The garage would be a drivethru to the back and ramp would be installed for the handicapped. I plan on living quarters in the basement There would be some necessary remodeling to meet the needs, but I would leave the charm of the home. Brewer explained further what she planned to do with the interior of the house to meet. the require- ments of the State Licensing There is a few of the planting at the front of the house that would have to be removed, some of these are nearly dead or so large they cover the front of the house. At the Funeral Directors Convention which was held last month and of which I am a member and was made a honorary member they basically approved the concept. It would be a very small facility and I don't believe it would be in direct competit- ion with the Chapel of the Chimes as I would be doing graveside services and cremations and working with the Churches in the area and the Minister- ial Association. The ones I have spoken to are in favor of me and what I can do for people. They are in favor of using churches for funerals. I plan on making a in and out driveway similar to the one down the Street at the Sells place. Johnson, I have a couple of questions, basically you answered most of the things I had and I think I have it clear what the difference is in what you are proposing and a full service mortuary, basically what you are saying is it is lacking the service part, the sit down service. Brewer, this is correct. Johnson, is there a like operation comparable to this in the Valley at this time? Brewer, no there isn't. Johnson, would you operation have the automobile traffic? Brewer, no I would not have all the cars. The cars would be going from a Church or School. Johnson, does the State Licensing not only address the embalming but how about the facility as far as restrooms square footage and etc? Brewer, it does not state any thing about square footage, it only states about the embalming room, casket selection room, viewing room and they call it and or any chapel area. MERIDIAN P & Z • JULY 8, 1985 PAGE # 4. • Johnson, one other question, in obtaining your required signatures for the Conditional Use Permit, did you encounter any opposition, were there any who would not sign? Brewer, there were a couple of people, one was the Thompson who live across the street, they were going to sign and then they were concerned about the traffic. I did also want to say I have had the support from the other people in the Idaho State Association, including those in Boise that is our closest competitor in Meridian, in additon to this, as it would be a very small operation and with my emblaming abilities, if I could run what they call a first call service, the Weiser Chapel for instance 60 g of their cases last year the people died in Boise and he would like very much for me to have a operation where I could embalm those people for him, it would make it easier for him. I have support from every one in the valley. Morrow, firt of all I would like to make a comment as to Dors. Brewers ability as a mortician, I am familiar with her work and it is without a doubt some of the finest work I have ever seen, my first question is why did you use the Conditional Use Permit instead of a Rezone, the point being that where we have had problems enforcing conditions of Conditional Use Permits, I think the trend is going to be allow less Conditional Use Permit and have more Rezones. Brewer, the rezone was discussed, but I think several people along East First Street are concerned about the property along this Street be Zoned Commercial. I think this would upset the residents along this street. Morrow, in terms of the Chapel, in researching the code it is my under- standing the Chapel is a necessary part of a funeral establishment, what determines whether a room is a Chapel or not a Chapel for purposes of licensing and if we have to arrive at what a definition of a Chapel is and what the size is, decide what the parking requirements for the facil- ity are, which must be off-street on on-street? Brewer, I have allowed for off-street parking, when I spoke to the Execut- ive Secretary of the Association he said Chapel within the State Law is a hazy area and it does not say exactly waht a Chapel is. I will have seating for between twenty and twenty five, and that was what was suggest- ed to me for a number.This could be accomplished with folding chairs and the couches in the living room area. I am planning on ten off-street parking places and it is possible there might be room for at least two more. Morrow, have you checked with the Fire Department as far as access? Brewer, I have not checked with them, but believe it would be more acessible than it is now. Morrow, have you reviewed the comments of the Building Inspector? Brewer, the way the house is built I do not foresee any problems. Morrow, you have read the comments of the City Engineer, Gary Smith, do you have any problems with them? Brewer, yes I have no problems with them. MERIDIAN P & Z • • JULY 8, 1985 PAGE # 5 Spencer, have you talked to the Highway Department to see if you can obtain that other driveway cut? Brewer, no I Have not. Cole, there is a permit you have to obtain. Mr. Mossman, I have a couple of questions, first for the driveway out there is no curb cut as of now for the exit? Brewer, No., and I plan to put in a sidewalk as there is no sidewalk across the front of the property now. Mossman, that driveway looks awfully narrow you have it measured at eleven feet on this drawing. Brewer, at the present time there is cement curbing along the driveway and a small sidewalk which make the driveway appear smaller than it is, there would have to be some work done with that. Mossman, I was wondering if particularly with the garage driving though there if making a turn if there would be enough room to make that turn. Brewer, my drawing is not the best but I beleive there would be plenty of room to make the turn. Mossman, now if you rent a hearse would it be here? Brewer, I would have that kind of vehicle, I would have a hearse or a van type vehicle, more and more the funeral homes are going to the van type vehicle as it can be used far more practical. Mossman, you are planning to use the basement as a personal residence? Brewer, Yes. Mossman, you would have another personal vehicle parked there? Brewer, that is one reason I hoped to get a van so it could be used for both. It could be parked out of the way of the other parking. Mosman, right now you are planning signage somewhere in the middle of the front yard, what type of hours of operation would you expect? Brewer, a Mortuary typically runs from 9 to 5 but we are a 24 hour service visitation generally go to 8 or 9 p.m. but otherwise you do not have other people there. Mossman, the 24 hour service would include the embalming or the emergency service which could happen at any time? Brewer, Yes. Mossman, all that would involve would be the delivery of the body to the home? MERIDIAN P & Z~ • JULY 8, 1985 PAGE # 6 Brewer, right and that could be done privately at the back entrance, either at the back entrance or through the garage I do not know how that would work yet but plan to use the back entrance. Mossman, I was not clear from your description what exterior modifications if any you had planned. Brewer, none, other than the driveway through the garage. Mossman, now you are planning to remove both of the older mature trees in the front yard? Brewer, there is one at the very side that is in the fourteen foot area where the driveway is planned that would have to come out and there is a very large blue spruce in front and I believe that would have to be removed. It is very overgrown and growing at a angle. I plan on putting smaller planting in front of the house. There is also one tree that is dead. Mossman, is there any other questions of the Commission? There were none. Mossman, would any other members of the Public like to testify? Max Yerrington, Mr. Yerrington was sworn by Mr. Mossman. Yerrington, Mrs. Brewer I am one of the people who did not sign your application. Brewer, I am sorry I did not mention this your wife said she was neither for or against. I did not talk to you but they were upset over the Hoaslt Anderson property down the street. Yerrington, I am formly a member of the Ada County Zoning Commission, I do not think we need a infill in our City of these residential things. You grant Conditional Use Permits and they are supposed to do certain things and then they go over to Churches and rent their parking space and do things like this, I don't say she would do this, I am not for this type of thing if you are going to be Commercial be zoned Commercial, if residential be residential. don't have infill between the two. Morrow, you are against the concept of Conditionl Use? Yerrington, Yes, rezone thats the way to do it. Johnson, for the record you live at 1402 Meridian street? Yerrington, Yes. Norma Thompson, Mrs. Thompson was sworn by Mr. Mossman. Thompson, we live across the street from this residence at 1310 East First Street, I felt I should be on record, we are one of the parties who did not sign the application, our biggest concern is the traffic, we have owned our property for nine years and are raising our family and have no intention of MERIDIAN P &Z • • JULY 8, 1985 PAGE # 7 moving and as I stated before the biggest concern is traffic, we have heard the rumors that East First will be Commercial. Even with the in and out driveway like at the Sells property it seems to create a traffic problem. When we bought we purchased as residential and I am for it staying residential and the Conditional Use bother me, what I want to know is how much enforcement do you have in enforcing the rules you say people have to abide by,I am also wondering how much they are required to leave the homes looking like homes when they are granted a Conditonal Use. I am just interested in it staying a nice residential area. I was interested in the sign and the size of it. Mr. Mossman, there is just for the record, a recommendation and require- ment, I assume from the Meridian City Ordinances that the sign would have to be in accordance with the Uniform Sign Code which would dictate size and so forth. Thompson, in talking with one of their neighbors, in regards with the other driveway and the tree removal I don't think it was made clear to everybody, at least I am thinking specifically of Mrs. Patch, she has had conversation with Mrs. Brewer but she did not seem to be aware of the exit drive that was right next to her property. Mossman, have you seen the drawing of the plot plan of the facitilty, would you like to look at it? It shows the location of the driveway on there, let the record reflect that I handed the plot plan to the witness for viewing. Thompson, again our may concern is the traffic and I see it as a problem, and the changing of the residence from a home to anything else. There were no question of Mrs. Thompson by the Commission. Mossman, any one further who would like to tsetify in this matter, there was no response, would the applicant like to respond? Brewer, yes, on the sign I have not had this designed as yet but plan on a wooden carved sign, this sign would be small and blend in with the decor of the home. I tried to explain to the residents when I talked to them about the petition how the garage would be a drivethru and about the exit drive- way, maybe this was not thoughly understood. The one tree on the side would definately have to come out, I have not had a tree trimmer look at the tree in front, but it covers so much of the house and is so large it is doubful if it could be trimmed back. There is also some large shubs that would have to come out and other put in their place. I do not plan for this to be a huge business , I hope to do at least one a month and poss- ible two, I do not expect a large amount of traffic with this type of business. Spencer, let me clarify one comment you made, you said you would have seat- ing for 20 to 25 people and there would not be services there. Brewer, no full funeral services, chapel area would be kind of a reflection area, or like a small chapel like the churches have, people would not be coming to my facility for a funeral service, they would be going to a church or a graveside service, would have just family at my facitlity and some families are large that is why I said 20 to 25. MERIDIAN P & Z • • JULY 8, 1985 PAGE # 8 Morrow, I wish to make a comment in addressing that paticular issue and in terms of getting back to the Conditional Use Permit, therein lies the potential problem , at some point in time if the building is sold it could. create a problem for us at that time enforcing the Conditions set forth and if at some point in time it is a actual Chapel and you hold services there, even though intend not to have services there, if it is a Condition- al Use Permit that has been issued then you are in violation of the Permit because it is going to be stipulated that you can not use it as a Chapel, the problem the City has is how do they enforce it, what we use to think we had in terms of pretty good enforcement has been shown to us that we really do not have much enforcement power in terms of the Conditional Use Permit. This is my primary concern about your application. Brewer, I appreciate your concern , there is no way I can have funeral service there in this facility because there is not seating and it would not be conducive to my business where everyone had to stand.This facility is going to meet my needs for what I have invisioned. Mossman, is there any other questions, no response, being no other questions or testimony let the record reflect the Hearing is closed. Mr. Mossman turned the meeting back to Chairman Spencer at 8:40 p.m. Mossman, I will have the findings completed some time before your August 12, 1985 meeting. Being no further business to come before the Commission the Motion was made Shearer and seconded by Johnson to adjourn at 8:43 p.m.: Motion Carried: All Yea: TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS: APPROV B NCER, CHAIRMAN ST: Mayor ~ouncil Mail (3) P & Z ommission File (2) Atty, Police, Fire, Eng, Ward, Stuart, Mitich, Kiebert, Valley News, Statesman Hallett, ACHD,ACC,APA CDH, NIMD,ACZ. Hugh Mossman BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SANITARY SERVICES, INC. ANNEXATION AND ZONING APPLICATION FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 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, 1965, 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. B. 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 pertinent 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 to industrial 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 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 e. 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 6:00 a.m and 5:00 p.m., that his operation in the first phase would use about 158 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 r~ 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. 8. 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 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 Enviromm~ent. 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 Commissioner Shearer Commissioner Johnson Commissioner Morrow Voted ~~- Voted~6~ voted ~e~- Voted-y~-- Chairman Spencer (Tie Breaker) Voted----- 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--\~- DISAPPROVED-------- ~ ~. ~ -Iy S, l S 8`s ~~ ~ ` ~. ~~ ~~~~~~ ~¢ .~ /I7. ~ ,~ .. _r.. G-- ~~~~~ ~~ `~~j-ovv~~. -1 ~~~. i~~ J~~~~r~s CITY COUNCIL and PLANNIWG and ZONING City of Meridian • • Ada County, Idaho • • ORDINANCE 446 VERBAL TESTIMONY of SPEAKERS at PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET liV~3YUNL hiU3P SIGN THh~ a':.:::"P Ir LPi:'.Z' wI:;H ~"~) .ii'EAYi: PRINTED NAME SIGNID NAME RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS TO SPEAK YES NO ~ Y~9 ~ ..~ 1 I I ~~ ~SV