HomeMy WebLinkAboutVicci Snyder AUP
8
8
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: JUNE 8.1999
APPLICANT:
VICCI L SNYDER
ITEM NUMBER: 1
REQUEST:
CHILDREN
ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY DAYCARE WITH FIVE OR LESS
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 5/11/99
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
SEE ATTACHED FFCL
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
~~v
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
8
8
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 4
MacCoy: Okay, all in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MacCoy: If that's the way you want to work fine. We get used to new procedures all
the time. All right moving on to regular agenda item.
ITEM NO.1: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ACCESSORY USE
PERMIT FOR A F AMIL Y DA YCARE WITH FIVE OR LESS CHILDREN BY VICCI L
SNYDER-2747 S. VELVET FALLS WAY:
MacCoy: And since this is a continued public hearing, we have it open to the floor. Is
the applicant here that has anything she wants to say in that respect right now before
we move on?
VICC' SNYDER 2747 S. VELVET FALLS, MERIDIAN, IDAHO
Snyder: My little girl needed a playmate and my friend was going back to work and we
thought it was a perfect opportunity for the both of us but I spent the last nine months in
red tape through everything so that I could be up to ordinance just to watch her little
boys during the school year. We've got two weeks left and school is out and that's the
only time we planned on doing it. So I don't know what else to say. Do you have any
questions?
MacCoy: I don't think so. All right you can sit down then. Is there anyone who would
like to make a comment for that before we move on? Anybody want to make a
comment against that? Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the attorney was to review the ordinance and
let us know his interpretation on whether the applicant's children count in the five or if
they don't.
MacCoy: That's correct. We're going to do that in a moment here, but we got a public
hearing which since we're down to that, we can close the public hearing and then we'll
hear the attorney's statement.
De Weerd: If it's possible I'd like it to stay open so that the applicant might have a
chance to respond.
MacCoy: That's fine. I don't have any problem with that. Okay, we'll go ahead with the
attorney.
I
I
I
I
Meridi~n Planning and Zoning Commission
May 1 ~, 1999
Page 5
Ross~an: When this application was continued at the last public hearing, the question
that arþse was a legal issue regarding the interpretation of the section 2-403 of the
Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. Particularly the definition of childcare
facility ¡within that ordinance and the particular question that arose was whether or not in
determining whether or not a particular facility qualifies as a childcare facility under the
ordina~ce, whether or not the applicant's children should be included in the number of
children within the definition, and my reading of the ordinance and that's alii can
providé. There isn't any history and there isn't any case law interpreting the ordinance
obviou~ly. Alii can do is read the ordinance and provide a legal interpretation from the
plain I~nguage of the ordinance and that is the first paragraph of that ordinance
indicat~s that any home, structure or place where non medical care, protection or
supervision is regularly provided to children under 14 years of age for periods less than
24 hours per day and this is the important part of the definition while the parents or
guardians are not on the premises. There are three types of childcare facilities, a family
childca~e home, which provides care for five or fewer children throughout the day, a
group dhildcare home, which provides care for six to twelve children throughout the day
and a qhildcare center, which provides care for more than 12 children throughout the
day. Trere is a paragraph at the end of the definition that says that it should be noted
that determining the type of childcare facility that is being operated the total number of
childre~ cared for during the day and not the number of children at the facility at one
time is ~eterminative. That in my opinion relates to a facility that has children at
differerlt times of the day. For example some morning which are then going to school
and th~n some afternoon children, which it varies throughout the day. From reading this
ordinance, it appears on its face to me that the definition when we're counting the
I
numbe~ of children within a home whether or not it qualifies as a childcare facility or one
of the vprious care homes identified in the ordinance, I don't believe from reading this
ordinanlce that it is intended to include the children of the applicant. Particularly that
portion ¡of the first paragraph where it says while the parents or guardians are not on the
premises. That implies there are somebody else's kids that the applicant is caring for.
I
That frdm the face of it tells me that it does not include the applicant's own children.
Now whether that is how this ordinance has been historically interpreted by the
commi~sion is another issue and I'd have to defer that to Shari or other staff, since I
I
certainly haven't been here throughout the history of this particular ordinance. Does
anybody have any questions in light of that? I know it was kind of an exhaustive
statement of my interpretation of the ordinance.
I
Stiles: The five children including the children of the caregiver have always been
includecl in the number. When we have Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that's
where it was more detailed in what the requirement was where they did spell out
including their own children, but whether that's something this Planning and Zoning
Commission wants to reconsider-
i
8
8
I
I
I
I
Meridi~n Planning and Zoning Commission
I
May 1 r, 1999
Page ß
I
Ross~an: And it certainly is ambiguous enough that we can defer to how it's been.
histori~ally interpreted by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council
obviou!sly. I would offer as well that my understanding of the Idaho State regulations,
childcare regulations for licensing for facilities under state law the definitions do not
includé the particular caregivers own children from my understanding.
8
8
Borup: Mr. Chairman, the only concern I think I would have is a situation perhaps
where ~he operator had several children that were not in school that were home during
the saTe time, and I can see a concern there where that would a problem with properly
taking care of all of them, and this situation she just has the one child at home. The
others lare school age and high school and junior high. I think in my mind the concern
would be on limiting that number. It would be to proper care. I mean you know a family
could have three children under five years of age theoretically and to have five more in
additioh to that one person, it would not be feasible to handle.
¡
Rossmlan: And if I may add to that, we can't this commission or the City Council can't
interpret this ordinance in a manner that is not uniform between the applications. In
other ~ords, if an applicant comes before the commission and they have one child, the
Council can't choose to interpret it as not including that particular child and then when
,
the next applicant comes with seven of their own children interpret it the other way. So
you ha~e to keep in mind when you're interpreting this ordinance that you have to take
into ac~ount all potential applications of the particular interpretation that you provide to
I
the ord¡nance, and in this case it's one child. But you also have to consider the next
case where you may have seven or eight children.
I
Borup: ¡That's the way I've been interpreting it. I may have been wrong, but on previous
ones, if,they've had -I think we've had some that had two children and they realize they
could ohly have three more. So that's been my interpretation. It may not have been
right, bilit that is the understanding that I had voted on things in the past with.
De welrd: Were those kids in school at the time or were those kids that would also be
a part II the childcare?
Borup: ¡I'm saying not in school would count towards the number, and perhaps even
half dal I think a full day of school is what would count there.
RossmJn: And that's correct. I mean I don't think there can be any interpretation that it
doesn't apply to children that are in school, because the definition specifically says in
that paragraph that it should be noted that in determining the type of childcare facility
that is bleing operated, the total number of children cared for during the day and not the
number'lof children at the facility at anyone time as determinative. So anytime during
the day ,and that's identified in the first paragraph for periods less than 24 hours per day,
so I think it would apply to school age children and non school age children. The
I
I
I
Meridibn Planning and Zoning Commission
I
May 111, 1999
Page Y
I
questibn is do the applicants own children, are they included in the ordinance or are'
they npt and my interpretation is that they are not but whether it's been historically
applie<l1 that way I don't know.
BoruP: And I may be wrong again I'm repeating myself how I thought we were applying
it is that their own children count if they're young enough not attending school. If they're
older, t hasn't counted.
Rossfllan: I don't think you can provide that interpretation on there. I don't think
whether they're in or out of school -
Borup: I Well you asked how it's been interpreted. That's my understanding how we
have ir! the past.
Macc~: Okay, Shari do you have anything else you want to add to this at this
moment?
Stiles: ¡If I think I heard what he said, historically it has been interpreted that way. You
also ne¡ed to consider what happens if there are several grandchildren, foster children,
where ttlo you end the definition of their own children too.
I
Rossmkn: Well the definition speaks for itself. It says parent or guardian, and whether
the person is a parent or guardian that's a legal issue and it certainly can be - you know
there's !no ambiguity in whether someone is a parent or guardian. If they have legal
custod~ of the child, then they're the parent or the guardian. I don't think that's a
subjectlof ambiguity in the ordinance there, but according to Shari if it has been
interpr~ted in the past to include the applicant's own children, I certainly couldn't argue
with that, and it certainly wouldn't be inconsistent with the ordinance in light of the
I
ambiguity that is there.
Maccol Okay, Commissioners, are you ready to make a motion and then a vote?
I
De We~rd: This is still a public hearing. Is there anyone else that would like to
comment?
I
8
8
MacCoy: Well we've already gone through that. Is there a hand that went up I see?
Unidentified: I was just going to say-
Rossman: Step up to the microphone sir.
MacCoy: Identify yourself please.
8
8
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 8
Rossman: Name and address.
DAVE TUCKER, 4014 HARBOR POINT
Tucker: My name is Dave Tucker and I live on Harbor Point, 4014. I see why your
meetings take so long. I don't know why you just don't give this lady what she wants.
She's been asking for a long time. Whatever you decide, tell her that's what it is and
that's it. Let's move on.
Borup: We were getting ready to do that before you stood up.
Rossman: You have to understand it's not that easy. You don't just make decisions
flippantly without thorough consideration. This is something that we can't interpret
ordinances inconsistently. It may be very easy to just say -
Tucker: She is saying she asked months ago.
Rossman: Sir, it may be very easy to say give her - accept her application in this
position, but then this council has to consider what kind of precedent that's going to set
for the next person that comes through the door. They've got to interpret these
ordinances uniformly and they've got to thoroughly consider each of them, and they
haven't wasted their with this particular application. Is there anything else you have to
offer?
Tucker: Yeah, I hope the rest of it moves a little faster.
Rossman: Well we'll see.
MacCoy: But to answer your question, the reason she was carried to this time was the
fact that because of the legal implications the commissioners which are all professional
people felt that we wanted a legal decision, so in her behalf which was in favor for her
because if it taken the vote before we would have had probably to do something
different. I don't know what it would have been, but-
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: Well I can too, but we're also we explained to her last time we were carrying it
forward for the standpoint of a legal decision.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment. You know this application came in front
of us just last month, so this is the first we've seen of it. She has five children under the
age of 14, which are all in school but one. When you can only have five kids in a home
daycare like she's applying, we are trying to find the fairest way for this applicant, and in
8
8
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 9
doing so we needed an interpretation of our own ordinance because as our ordinance
reads, she cannot have more than her own kids in her home. So we are trying to be fair
to her and giving her that consideration. So that's what this is all about. We're trying to
find a way that she can care for her friend's two additional kids.
MacCoy: All right commissioners, what about the public hearing?
Borup: I move we close the public hearing and let's move on.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
MacCoy: Public hearing is now closed. What's the discussion between the
commissioners if any?
Barbeiro: I am inclined to follow Eric's recommendation that it is interpreted as children
that are not her own. Yet the frustration is how do we resolve that with how it has been
interpreted in the past and do we have the right to change that interpretation here
today?
MacCoy: You are going to have to base your decision personally on how you
understand the way the material has been read by the attorney, and how this affect this
case and it's up to you to make that decision.
Barbeiro: And could you please define if we vote yes, then we vote in favor of her
having a daycare in her home?
MacCoy: That's correct, yes.
Barbeiro: Thank you.
De Weerd: I guess Mr. Chairman the concern is what kind of precedence we're setting.
In this particular case I would like to see this accessory use permit granted, but will the
next applicant then have five kids and want five additional kids? That puts it in a whole
different category. So can we deal with this Mr. Attorney on a case by case basis.
That's how I would like to see this happen.
Rossman: You can't deal with it on a case by case basis in the sense that you develop
an arbitrary standard that is not in the ordinance. For example that someone with one
of their children in the home is acceptable but then someone with seven of their own
children is not acceptable. The ordinance doesn't provide for that kind of an
interpretation. You have to either decide whether it includes their own children or
whether it doesn't and apply it uniformly.
8
8
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 10
Borup: What was all the discussion about historic interpretation then?
Rossman: Because the ordinance is ambiguous enough that you could decide either
way is what I'm saying. There's not a clear answer that says yes, they're included or
no, they're not included. My reading of the ordinance is that they're not included, but if
you have historically interpreted it in the way that they are included, then there's
certainly something to be said for uniform application of an ordinance. But the question
is whether you include them or you don't include them. There's no other ambiguity
involved.
MacCoy: Do I hear a motion?
Borup: Mr. Chairman I move we approve this application for accessory use permit for a
family childcare facility.
MacCoy: Do I hear a second?
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: I think we would have both liked to have added one - maybe not, I'm not sure
what Tammy was leading to. I would like to approve it.
MacCoy: All right go ahead. You want to make a recommendation for a correction?
Borup: My recommendation would be for no more than four children outside of her own
family.
MacCoy: For this one here?
Borup: Yes, and I believe that's what the applicant was intending all along. That's what
she said in her letter of application.
MacCoy: Okay, do I hear a second his -
Borup: So I think that's consistent with what she was - I don't know if it's necessary,
but-
MacCoy: Well you can still make it that way.
8
8
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 11
Borup: Yeah, I'd like to amend my motion.
MacCoy: Okay, is there a second to the amended motion?
Barbeiro: I'll second the motion.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, this is the last hearing on this so we do need to ask for
Findings from our City Attorney.
Rossman: No, I believe this still goes to City Council. Oh, this is accessory use. Yes,
we will do findings. You're right.
De Weerd: Do we need that in a motion?
Borup: Yeah.-
Rossman: It will come back before the Commission. Make a motion that we prepare
Findings, and they'll come before the Commission next month.
Borup: Mr. Chairman I make a motion we request the City Attorney to prepare Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this application for approval.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
ITEM NO.2: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR SHERBROOKE HOLLOWS SUBDIVISION NO.4 (5 SINGLE FAMILY
BUILDING LOTS ON 3.98 ACRES) BY GEM PARK II-NORTH OF VICTORY RD. &
EAST OF LOCUST GROVE RD:
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we withdraw number two, the continued public
hearing for request for preliminary plat for Sherbrooke Hollows Subdivision No.4.
Borup: Second.
8
8
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING:
MAY 11,1999
APPLICANT:
VICCI L. SNYDER
ITEM NUMBER:
1
REQUEST:
ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR FAMILY DAYCARE WITH FIVE OR LESS CHILDREN
COMMENTS
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 4/13/99
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
¡
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
d'1S~-dq (p~ - - _I .k'~ '";\ ...J-
Viw - Sftk£. {V Y\QA.. . lbld.- \'leY"' Sn.e...-. (\~S '1 U KJZ \n?_-~.eA'\J.
MERIDIAN PLA+G & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 31
8
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Item No.6 public hearing
request for a vacation of lots 8 & 9, block 8 Meridian Greens Subdivision by
Charles Fuller.
Borup: Just a clarification of the motion, I believe our agenda was typed wrong...
De Weerd: Vacation of easement.
Borup: Right, vacation of the easement rather than vacation of the lot. Is that
what your motion was?
Barbeiro: I stand corrected.
Rossman: So amended.
Barbeiro: So amended.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO.7: REQUEST FOR ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY
DAYCARE WITH FIVE OR LESS CHILDREN B VICCI L SNYDER - 2747 S
VELVET FALLS WAY:
VICCI L. SNYDER, 2747 S VELVET FALLS WAY, MERIDIAN, ID.
Snyder: I have several children that are in high school and middle school and we
had a surprise two years ago. Family is very important to me, so I wanted her to
have some playmates as well. I wanted to open a family daycare. A friend of
mine needed someone to watch her two sons because she has gone back to
work. I thought this was a great opportunity for me, she has playmates and
these two boys needed someone to care for them. I didn't know it was going to
be such an ordeal to watch my friend's children. I don't plan on having a lot of
children, I just want a couple of playmates for my daughter, until she is able to go
to school. Is there any questions?
MacCoy: Before we start with them, lets ask the staff-staff do you have any
comments on this right now?
De Weerd: Since we didn't prepare comments we would just like the comments,
the ordinance prevail in the requirements for this and also to inform you that the
MERIDIÄN PLANr8G & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13,1999
PAGE 32
8
definition of childcare would be children under 14 years of age, in counting the
number of children.
MacCoy: Which also includes your own children. I think you realize that.
Snyder: Yes I do.
MacCoy: That's a total number of five or less. Anything else staff? Okay,
commissioners?
De Weerd: I guess, how many children do you have under 14?
Snyder: I have five children under 14, but they are gone at school, they are not
even home during the day. They are gone before the daycare kids get there and
because of their activities with basketball, track, and drama and everything else
that teenagers are into, that the daycare the two boys are gone before they come
home.
De Weerd: You mentioned in your letter your hours of operation were 6AM to
6PM.
Snyder: The two boys actually come somewhere between 7:45AM and 10AM
depending on whether mother or father brings them and they are usually gone
between 4PM and 4:30PM.
De Weerd: Okay, I did notice in your drawings you have a fence and they are
adequately locked or opened and closed...
Snyder: They are locked, there is a sub-fence that is also locked to keep them in
the direct backyard so they are not running off onto the side yard.
De Weerd: That's a four foot fence?
Snyder: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay, do you have any water features in your backyard?
Snyder: Yes, there is a faucet.
De Weerd: I mean like a pool or fountains.
Snyder: No.
De Weerd: Okay, thank you.
MERIDIAN PLANr8G & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 33
8
MacCoy: Any other questions from the commissioners?
Borup: I have none.
MacCoy: All right thank you. Is there anyone here who would like to speak in
favor of what you have just heard about a daycare center? Having nobody stand
up for that, is anybody here who would like to speak on the negative side of this
daycare center? Seeing none, commissioners?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion?
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, point of clarification we have a couple of letters in here
in the file from a Cheri Moore and a Vicci Snyder, do we want to incorporate
those into the record?
Barbeiro: Vicci Snyder is the applicant?
Rossman: Cheri Moore, but there is also a letter from Vicci Snyder do you want
to include that in the record?
Borup: Yes I do.
De Weerd: Yes, since I've already brought information into the testimony on that
letter.
Rossman: Move that they be added to the record.
De Weerd: I would move that the two letters be added into the record.
Borup: We haven't made the motion yet have we?
De Weerd: Well actually we have a motion on the floor to close...
Borup: Oh, I'm sorry, because it wasn't in the public testimony. I understand.
De Weerd: So we need to do that before we close the public hearing?
Rossman: You can do it now.
De Weerd: We have a motion on the floor to close the public hearing.
MERIDIÅN PLANA & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 34
8
MacCoy: Hold it right here, staff wants to say something here.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, I would just like to point out that the way
the ordinance is written, it's the number of children cared for throughout the day
that is determinative, not the number that are there at one time. So if the
applicants testimony regarding her children 14 and under they're throughout the
day those five children would have to be included as part of their five.
Borup: Is this consistent with the passed application?
Stiles: Yes. It's the number of children cared for throughout the day.
MacCoy: What if they are not home?
Stiles: But they are still cared for sometime throughout that day. That means
you couldn't have five children come in the morning and another five children
come in the afternoon.
MacCoy: I understand that, I was just thinking about her own children that leave
in the morning and don't come home tilL..
Borup: Off to school.
De Weerd: Who wrote that ordinance.
Stiles: You are responsible for that ordinance.
Borup: I don't think that's something that has come up in the past.
MacCoy: Not that way it hasn't anyway.
Borup: This is the first time I think it's been mentioned in the 14 years of age.
MacCoy: Usually the applicant has small children so it's easy to lump those all
together because you just count noses. We haven't had somebody that I can
remember that has come forward as teenagers.
Borup: I don't think it's been mentioned either way. That's the problem. I mean
the small children have been, under school age, it's always come up, but school
age children I don't think it's been an issue.
Rossman: Well, I'm not sure Shari's interpretation of the ordinance that is there
is incorrect. There are days of perhaps inservicing days when all the children will
be there. There are, even though on an average day, they are not all there, I
MERIDIAN PLANA & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 35
8
think it is designed to anticipate any days where the particular homeowners own
children will be there as well as the additional children.
MacCoy: Spoken like an attorney.
Rossman: All though I didn't draft the ordinance.
Borup: So question for staff, do we have any options to try and help
accommodate Mrs. Snyder here?
Stiles: Not the way the ordinance is currently written, I don't see how.
De Weerd: Does this ordinance follow state guidelines?
Stiles: I'm not sure what the state requirements are, it might be 11 or 12 that you
can leave a child home alone and not be committing a crime.
Rossman: What, I don't think you are right on that one.
Stiles: This is health and welfare, not state code.
MacCoy: What you are telling us is there is no way we have any leeway to put a
variance in this thing based on conditions. Is that what I'm hearing from you?
Stiles: The way I read the ordinance, I don't see how.
MacCoy: I'll give it back to the attorney, how do you see it?
Rossman: I see it that if the ordinance, if that's the way the ordinance reads as
Shari has described it, we can take a look at it, but assuming that is the way that
it reads, you can't ignore the ordinance. You can't create a variance to an
ordinance requirement.
MacCoy: Commissioners hearing from staff and from the attorney, do you want
to table this for one month and have it reviewed?
Rossman: That probably would be advisable to allow me sufficient time to review
the ordinance and see if there are any alternatives to denial.
Barbeiro: Shari, can you define (Inaudible) one more time. It is five children that
can be cared for?
Stiles: A family childcare home is for a maximum of five children. You have your
ordinance or want to refer to it later, it's basically under the definitions that are
contained on page 8 for a family childcare home and directly from the ordinance
MERIDIAN PLANa & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 36
8
it says it should be noted that in determining the type of childcare facility that is
being operated, the total number of children cared for during the day and not the
number of children at the facility at anyone time is determinative.
Snyder: Mr. Commissioner, I have some information that may help.
Rossman: Public hearing hasn't been closed. If you want to withdraw the
motion.
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: You drop the second.
Borup: Yes.
MacCoy: Okay, the public hearing is still open and you can talk.
Snyder: The two boys that I watch have older siblings that are also in middle
school and for the days that there is no school, the older brother watches them
and they do not come to my home.
MacCoy: So it's not a double up situation, it's not just your kids plus them no
matter when it comes.
Snyder: No, no. When there is no school, the older brother watches them.
MacCoy: All right.
Barbeiro: What's involved in the difference between a family childcare home and
a group childcare? That seems to be the step up for her to allow for those.
De Weerd: An R-4 only allows the accessory use doesn't it?
Stiles: It's the zoning, the R-4 zoning is a lower density and only allows a family
child care home, they don't allow the group child care home.
MacCoy: Do you have any children over 14?
Snyder: Yes, I have a daughter that is 15.
MacCoy: You still have a total of five?
Snyder: I have a total of six children.
MacCoy: A total of five under fourteen and under, right?
MERIDiÀN PLA.G & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13,1999
PAGE 37
8
Snyder: Yes.
MacCoy: All right, do you want to table this one month so we can get this thing
straightened out?
De Weerd: We could see if there is any option that we have.
MacCoy: Yes, I think we sitting here-we are in a muddle right now. I would like
to give the attorney a chance to review this.
Borup: I'm sure there is plenty of them around this town that are in the same
situation.
Rossman: Let's table it and let me take a look at that, because there is nothing
in there that spells out, to my review that spells out whether or not your own
children have to be included or not. Let me take a look at it and lets table it for a
month and I'll provide a report in the mean time.
MacCoy: Do I hear a motion to close the public hearing again so we can do this.
We can't-we want to continue the public hearing, then make a motion about,
yeah.
De Weerd: Does the applicant understand why we would postpone it another
month? Okay. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we continue the
public hearing for the accessory use permit for family daycare with five or less
children.
MacCoy: To what date?
De Weerd: To May 11th.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: To the applicant, it will be to your benefit that we've done this because
we are going to look into the legality of this and see if there is a way that we can
hopefully support your request.
(END OF TAPE)
ITEM NO.8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING
8
8
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING:
APRIL 13. 1999
APPLICANT:
VlCCI L. SNYDER
ITEM NUMBER: 7
REQUEST:
ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY DAYCARE WITH FIVE OR LESS CHILDREN
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED LETTERS
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
REVIEWED
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
REVIEWED
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
~~
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS t ~
REVIEWED IIVV~. J
~11'
P I~
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
~ Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
;)?f{, - ~lD;;¡ V'I C(À ~:1 clv1 ~ ~ ~ - 0-
CI V~ I"~ d IIßC-
.'
8
.
B$CEIVED
FEB 2 2 1999
CITY OF MEBIDZONIIANNG
pLANNING" :x
February 18, 1999
Shari Stiles
Zoning Administrator
City of Meridian
200 East Carlton, Suite #201
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Ms. Stiles:
I received a notification of an application for an Accessory Use Permit for the operation of a
Family Child Care Home at 2747 S. Velvet Falls Way, Meridian, Idaho.
This address is directly across the street from my home. I do not have any outright objections to
such a facility at this location but I do have concerns:
1)
The family at this address contains several children (I believe five) and the possible
addition of five more is not insignificant. I prefer no more than three children be allowed
in the daycare.
2)
I want to know that the children and any equipment involved will be confined to the
interior of the home and the back yard to prevent the deterioration of my property value
due to a messy appearance from the street of the daycare home.
3)
I am extremely adamant that the hours of the daycare encompass only normal business
hours, say 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM so that there will be no extra traffic on the street during
the evening, late night, and early morning hours.
4)
I want to know that the area of the street directly in front of my home will not be used for
parking for daycare customers.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to voice my concerns.
-- - --- - --
Sincerely,
CJ£~c Ð --f}lJ reIIß
Cheri D. Moore
2732 S. Velvet Falls Way
Meridian, 10 83642
8
RECErvlD
MAR \ 6 1999
City of Meridi!1n
.~ City Clerk OffICe
RECE~D
MAR. 16 1999
pelJ:.!?!. MERIDIAN
. n'¡"LJ."IG & ZONING
March 13, 1999
Shari Stiles
Zoning Administrator
City of Meridian
200 East Carlton, Suite #201
Meridian, Idaho
-
Dear Ms. Stiles,
It has come to my attention that one of my neighbors has some concerns about my
home being a Family Child Care Home. All of her concerns could have been addressed, if
she would have talked to me. However since she didn't I will address her concerns this
way.
First of all , my children are not little ones. We are talking about teenagers, who are in
school or off at their varies activities during the day. My children are gone before the
children arrive in the mornings. And they are only home for an hour in the afternoons, if
that, before the children leave. I do have one child that will be counted with the daycare.
So the maximum amount of children, I can have is four.
As you can see in my application that the front yard in not intended for daycare use.
Velvet Falls seems to be a busy street. I would not let little children play where they would
be in danger.
I understand her concern about traffic, however what are normal business hours for a
daycare. My hours are 6am to 6pm Monday thru Friday. My driveway will hold four cars.
I started my daycare in January. I applied for a accessory use permit as soon as I found
out I needed one. Yesterday I called to find out the status of my application. I found out,
that I should have had the permit before I started. I am trying to rectify this matter as
quickly as possible, so that I am in accordance with city regulations.
According to the paperwork I was given, there was a two week window that concerns
could be addressed. My application was received on the 3rd of February. That two week
window should of been from the 3rd of February, the date the application was received,
thru the 17th of February, which is 14 days later. Mrs. Moore's letter wasn't written until
the 18th of February, and wasn't recieved until the 22nd of February. I understand her
concerns, however I have four children, including my own, at the present. If she- hasn't -
noticed the daycare she surely shouldn't.
I feel that Mrs. Moore's letter wasn't written within the two week time line. I also feel
that the neighborly thing to do was to speak with me. Nevertheless, I have addressed each
of her concerns. I would like to know, what happens next and what do I need to do. I am
sorry that this matter has taken so much of your time. Please let me know what I need to
do to rectify this matter.
S~IY'd
~ ifJ:-À ~~~
Vicci L. Snyder
2747 S. Velvet Falls Way
Meridian,ill 83642
8
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY 8
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 884-4264
Mayor
ROBERT D. CORRIE
Council Members
CHARLES ROUNTREE
GLENN BENnEY
RON ANDERSON
KEITH BIRD
PUBLIC WORKS
33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 836420 GEl (208) 887-2211
Phone (208) 888-4433 . Fax (208) 887fi1V :v.EfiLANNING AND ZONING
DEPARTMENT
MAR 0 2 1999 (208) 884-5533
City of Meridian
City Clerk effie,,;
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: April 6. 1999
TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 26.1999 HEARING DATE: April 13. 1999
FILE NUMBER: AUP-99-003
REQUEST: ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FORA FAMILY DAYCARE
BY: VICCI L. SNYDER
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: 2747 S VELVET FALLS WAY
- TAMMY DE WEERD P/Z
- MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z
_MARK NELSON, P/Z
_BYRON SMITH, P/Z
_KEITH BORUP, P/Z
_ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR
_RON ANDERSON, C/C
_CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C
_KEITH BIRD, C/C
_GLENN BENTLEY, C/C
_WATER DEPARTMENT
_SEWER DEPARTMENT
_BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
::~::)OLlCE DEPARTMENT
_CITY ATTORNEY
_CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
_MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO. (PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL)
IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
==ADA COUNTY (ANNEXATION)
CHARLES ROUNTREE
GLENN BENTLEY
RON ANDERSON
KEITH BIRD
PLANNING AND ZONING
R~~¥VED
MAR 0 8 1999
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT P~Gi~:mridian
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN City Clerk Office
8 HUB OF TREASURE VAUEY 8
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
Phone (208) 888-4433. Fax (208) 887-4813
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 884-4264
Mayor
ROBERT D. CORRIE
Council Memhers
PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 887-2211
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: April 6, 1999
TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 26.1999 HEARING DATE: April 13. 1999
FILE NUMBER: AUP~99-003
REQUEST: ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY DAYCARE
BY: VICCI L. SNYDER
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: 2747 S VELVET FALLS WAY
- TAMMY DE WEERD P/Z
- MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z
_MARK NELSON, P/Z
_BYRON SMITH, P/Z
_KEITH BORUP, P/Z
_ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR
_RON ANDERSON. C/C
_CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C
_KEITH BIRD, C/C
_GLENN BENTLEY, C/C
_WATER DEPARTMENT
_SEWER DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
X FIRE DEPARTMENT
_POLICE DEPARTMENT
_CITY ATTORNEY
_CITY ENGINEER
_CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
_MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO. (PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMAT1ON(PRELIM & FINAL)
- IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
- ADA COUNTY (ANNEXATION)
3- g'-q 9
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS:
\Iou- NLoIlc9 T e Cel<-,.., f fh..iZ... /.IiD:r fl..e-" A-LllwA¿;&j
, . J ~
A,p} e 4¡vÙ ADD 5",0 (".e... f<¡ ¡J.;:i. ..:c- -rl,; "" K
'fk.t:-j III.¿ '" ¿:; 10 ¡, ~ ".L /f )I:J ,..ð~ ~ e.~e",
þL-. I~ ¡¿ÌJS ??
,tr t-L- eO DES L(); t.c .AI Jl.£c9 1::i:> í3JL /y¡.¿-f,
~
/
Mayor
ROBERT D. CORRIE
8 HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY 8
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
Phone (208) 8884433 . Fax (208) 887-4813
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 884~4264
Council Members
CHARLES ROUNTREE
GLENN BENl1.EY
RON ANDERSON
KEITH BIRD
PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 887-2211
PLANNING AND ZONING
DEPARTMENT
(208) 884~5533
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: April 6. 1999
TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 26.1999 HEARING DATE: April 13, 1999
FILE NUMBER: AUP-99-003
REQUEST: ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY DAYCARE
BY: VICCI L. SNYDER
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: 2747 S VELVET FALLS WAY
- TAMMY DE WEERD P/Z
- MALCOLM MACCOY. P/Z
_MARK NELSON, P/Z
_BYRON SMITH, P/Z
_KEITH BORUP, P/Z
_ROBERT CORRIE. MAYOR
_RON ANDERSON, C/C
_CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C
_KEITH BIRD, C/C
_GLENN BENTLEY, C/C
~ATER DEPARTMENT
_SEWER DEPARTMENT
_BUILDING DEPARTMENT
_FIRE DEPARTMENT
_POLICE DEPARTMENT
_CITY ATTORNEY
_CITY ENGINEER
_CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO. (PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL)
- IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
- ADA COUNTY (ANNEXATION)
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS:,¡f/¡; (ldfJ¡r,-)(5
~~ø-
RECEIVED
MAf? - 3 1~)9~:
CITY OF MERIDIAN
Ada County JJ¡ hwUtJ ::Dijtricl
EIVEI
318 East 37th Street
Garden City, Idaho 83714-64PfAR 1 2 1999
Phone~08)387~100
Fax (208) 387-6391 JJITY Of1ME~lDW
e-mail: tellus@achd.adaJ~NNING & ZON1JN
Sherry R. Huber, President
Judy Peavey-Derr, Vice President
Marlyss Meyer Routson, Secretary
Dave Bivens, Commissioner
Susan S. Eastlake, Commissioner
March 10, 1999
/I¡'t ¿; SAy j e.--
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
Re:
MAUP-99-003
2747 S. Velvet Falls Way
The Ada County Highway District (ACHD) staffbas received and reviewed the application
and site plan for the item referenced above. This item will not be heard by the ACHD
Commission unless the site plan is changed in such a manner as to require Commission
reVIew.
All future design plans and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County
Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction
Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived in
writing by the District.
Contact Ms. Joyce Newton for payment of possible road impact fees prior to building
construction in accordance with Ordinance #188, also known as Ada County Highway
District Road Impact Fee Ordinance.
If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 387-6170.
Smcerely, 5¡L- fJ
Steve Arnold
Development Analyst
cc:
Project file
(I CENTRAL CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPART ENT
(lfHËALTH EnvironmenulHeakhDivision.
DEPARTMENT RECEIVED
MAR 0 8 1999
Return to:
0 Boise
0 Eagle
0 Garden City
;:B'Meridian
0 Kuna
DACZ
g¡ I.
0 2.
-0 3.
D 4.
0 S.
0 6.
0 7.
~ 8.
D 9.
0 10.
0 II.
0 12.
~13.
0 14.
tlr<-
We have No Objections to this Proposal.
We recommend Denial of this Proposal.
Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can -comment on this Prop.osat- --
We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment.
Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal. we will require more data concerning the depth of:
0 high seasonal ground water 0 waste flow characteristics
0 or bedrock from original grade 0 other
This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or
surface waters.
This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and
water availability.
After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for:
B central sewage 0 community sewage system 0 community water well
0 interim sewage B central water
0 individual sewage 0 individual water
The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare.
Division of Environmental Quality:
0 central sewage 0 community sewage system 0 community water
0 sewage dry lines 0 central water
Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other
considerations indicate approval.
If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage
Regulations.
We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any:
0 food establishment 0 swimming pools or spas
0 beverage establishment 0 grocery store
ft child care center (DAy C A--/t!.'C )
Date: ~ /~/~
Rev;ewed By,~ -?
CÞHÞ 10191 rtb. m. 719)
Review Sheet
.
8
RE"C 'C!, "'-'f '-", ',""",
, ¡ -,--,',L \¡ ,- :, J
' - -",~,!,t
" ',";J.. t,:
" ,,' ': ': "j
'1A -- ....~ .L.. -- & IfII1þU -~ -- J -- - - " ..cJTY OF MERIDIAN
,~ ,,~ -/~ VtaUet
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
3 March 1999
phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
Will Berg, City Clerk SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
City of Meridian
,-- 33..E:asLI4aho",--"- '--".----' -, --- ..-"-"" ---..' _n, -'----~-~--'--------'-'-'--""--'-'-' -- ------,-..--------------""
Meridian, ID 83642
RE:
Accessory Pennit for Family Daycare - Vieci L. Snyder
Dear Commissioners:
The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above referenced application.
Sincerely,
/J U/ øI~
Bill Henson, Asst. Water Superintendent
NAMP A & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
BH:dln
cc:
File - Shop
File-Office
Water Superintendent
'-
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000