Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPerkins, Tamera Group Child Care Home CUPNovember 6, 1991 Meridian City Council The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Grant P. Kingsford at 7:30 P.M.. Members Present: Ron Tolsma, Bob Giesler, Bert Myers, Max Yerrington. Others Present: Margaret Strasser, Jim Johnson, Tina Sweet, Jack Sweet, Troop 320, Harold Carlson, Boyd Bower, Kevin A. Jones, Tamera Couch, Katy Brown, Tina Crow, Bob Corrie, Doug Bail, Layne & Shelly Saxton, Neal & Inez Hudson, Lee R. Stucker, Walt Casey, Marvin Bodine, Mary Williamson, Christi Abbott, Annette Hancock, Mary Louise Aguirre, Donna L. Miller, Ray & Jane Fischer, Dennis Butterfield, Bill Gordon, Wayne Forrey, Gary Smith, Wayne Crookston, Jack Rose, MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD OCTOBER 15, 1991: The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Tolsma to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held October 15, 1991 as written: Motion Carried: All Yea: Kingsford: I'd like to welcome Boy Scout Troup #320 here to the meeting. ITEM #1: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY TAMERA PERKINS: Kingsford: I will now open the Public Hearing, if you have testimony we welcome that but would appreciate you limiting your testimony to five minutes. Fred Mack, 1117 S. Owyhee, Boise was sworn by the attorney. • •, MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOV. 6, 1991 PAGE Mack: I represent Tamera Perkins Couch. I delivered some documents to the Council in a black notebook and I would like that introduced as part of my record. I've also provided each of you, the Council members, a letter which is intended to give you a summary of what I'm going to do here tonight to try to speed things up. I will also be introducing exhibits, maps and other documents here tonight and would like that part of the record in addition to my testimony and the testimony of any other parties. Mr. Kingsford has any of the testimony that we previously had at the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing is that part of this record, if it is that would make my testimony shorter or is it not part of the record? Kingsford: Counselor can we adopt that as part of the record? Crookston: It is part of the record for this application. Mack: I will try to expedite what I have already previously provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission at the prior hearing. Before I get going I also have a letter from the Idaho Hunger Council, it is really a recommendation letter on the Tamera Perkins matter. I will submit this to you as also part of the record. Tamera Perkins is actually Tamera Perkins Couch now she got married. So in my letter you will see I refer to Mrs. Couch, the reason for that of course is that she is now married. The applicant in this case is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a Home Day Care. The applicant has had a State Child Care License facility and has been regularly caring for children from seven to twelve years, since 1984. The property in which her home is situated is located in a subdivision in which many children live. There are approximately thirty five children just in the block where the property is located. The property is only a few hundred feet from the Meridian Elementary School, which has approximately seven hundred children in the first through the six grades which attend that school. There is a great demand for in MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOV. 6, 1991 PAGE 3 home care of these children and younger children and the applicant's surrounding neighborhoods and the proposed use will help meet these needs. The applicants residence is harmonious in appearance with the existing neighborhood, there are no signs or other commercial indications of a child care operation. The proposed use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing uses nor are there any existing uses or natural features in the area which present a hazard to the children cared for on this property. The property as it now stands today has a six foot fence surrounding the back yard and I have some pictures to show you of that, which would minimize the impact on adjoining neighbors, also minimize the noise. The proposed use is adequately served by existing public facilities and will not create excessive additional requirements within the neighborhood. There is adequate roadways within the subdivision for ingress and egress which I'll get to and show you some diagrams here in a few minutes and that allows easy ingress and egress from the facility. There is no culdesacs in the subdivision. Some of the children in the applicants care simply walk to her home or others are from homes that are within the neighborhood that don't require additional vehicular use. The traffic that is generated from these uses of the property as a group child care home has never been a problem and at this time the applicant's property has the availability for three parking spaces. The applicant agrees to pay any additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges if any associated with the use. I would also assume Mr. Kingsford that all of the governmental reports, City, County, Governmental Agency reports are also part of this record and I won't go into those tonight. Generally the Conditional Use Permit that she is seeking for an in Home Care Facility, and I'd like to just as some background for you, try to give you some visual views of where her property is located. Her property is located in the Meridian Subdivision, as you can see from this subdivision, from • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOV. 6, 1991 PAGE 4 West 1st Street and West 4th Street there is adequate ingress and egress from this subdivision to allow cars to come in here. The applicant's property in this case is marked in blue. We have either the parties here tonight to either testify, which I will talk to about or in person which are the two adjoining neighbors plus that neighbor across the street. The red back here is the Elementary School, that I briefly described. I think this is important to give you a visual view of where the property is located. Presented an aerial view for Council. In addition I've got two pictures here for you, these actually show the applicant's back yard which is fully fenced. The children can't get out of the back yard without going back through the house. That's a six foot fence that is maintained by the applicant. Again I'd like these as part of the record. What I've done in an effort to expedite this hearing since we've gone through some of this ground before is, I have two types of testimony that's being presented tonight either through affidavit or through sworn testimony. As I'm sure we are all aware, there was a previously Court hearing involving this matter, at the trial of that case there was sworn testimony given by many of the people that are adjoining neighbors or affected by this matter. The notebook that I provided to you gives that sworn statement and also the affidavit's of the particular parties. Rather than read all of those for you tonight, I would like you to know that those are there by reference and I will briefly .just go through those for You in a summary fashion. The first affidavit in the notebook is from Jesse Jackson. She is a next door neighbor to Tamera Perkins, she is located about fifty feet from Tamera' s house. Basically what she'll indicate is that the facility is not noisy. She is a next door neighbor and when the children are playing that is does not disturb her or cause any undo noise within the neighborhood. The second affidavit contained in that is the affidavit Trudy Hadley. In case you don't recall Trudy Hadley is a Day Care Operator which you previously approved a Conditional Use Permit. She is literally is next door to Tamera Perkins, she also indicates that the facility is not noisy. That is one of MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOV. 6, 1991 PAGE 5 the issues that was brought up earlier is whether there was a reasonable amount of noise from this Day Care facility and she supports as a next door neighbor that there is not any undo noise within the neighborhood. The next one is from Deanna Berry, that's some sworn testimony from the court hearing. She also is directly across the street. She also indicates that the children there are no louder than any other children in the neighborhood and that the facility does not cause her any problems. So really we've drafted for you the direct adjoining neighbors best we can who indicate that they have no objection to the Care Facility. The next affidavit is Sharon Bixby. Sharon Bixby is a little unusual is a little unusual in that she is the director of the Child Care Connections and what we had her do is under sworn affidavit is give some information to you Council members about how there is a need for home day care centers. In that she reflects that the data reflects that the parents in Ada County prefer to have their children cared for in homes of day care providers located in their own homes and their children's schools rather than going to a professional facility. She says with respect to the Meridian particular circumstance according to the United States Census Bureau, as of 1980, 47% of the women in Meridian with children under the age of six were in the work force. The main family income in Meridian was $16,472.00. Child Care Connections calculations based on this data indicate that 282 children, ages 0-4 and 346 children ages 5-9 years living in Meridian need a child care. In 1989 63% of the Meridian parents calling Child Care Connections expressed a preference for home environment rather than the institution environments. Next is an affidavit of Kay Brown. She again supported that the Perkin's operation was a good quality organization and provided good quality care. We have an some testimony from Barbara Knapp. From sworn testimony she also believes that there is good child care being provided here. That her daughter actually attended Tamera's day care operation and they were very happy with the kind of service that was being provided. For your reference, and • • , MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOV. 6, 1991 PAGE 6 mostly just for your legal Counsel's and part of our record is we have the City of Meridian, Tamera Perkins memorandum decision by the Court in that and we've got that for record purposes. If I look at what happened at the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing, really I think there is only two issues that we had complaints on. The first complaint was whether or not it's a problem to have a second day care facility in this neighborhood when you've got one next door. Directing your attention to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Page 10 of the Planning and Zoning Commission, #11 states that the Ordinances of the City of Meridian do not address the location of two day care facilities next to each other, other than or within a certain radius that is concluded that the location of two day care facilities next to each other is not a ground upon which a permit for a day care facility could be denied. I would concur with that, I don't think there is any legal basis for you to deny a day care facility for that reason. The only then remaining complaint, that is evident, was the question of whether there was noise. From the affidavits that I've given you from the adjoining property owners, I don't think there is a problem with undo noise. I will admit that that has been a contested matter at the lower level. The one, although we concur with the majority of the Findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission, we take exception with one particular section and that's sections 14 D & E, found on page 11 of the Findings. What that Finding concluded is that was the requirement that if she wants to have the children outside she would have to have in essence a child or an adult of sixteen years or older actually work for her to supervise the children while they are outside. The practical affect if you require that condition is you will cause her to go out of business. She is a sole operator, she is a sole proprietor and this is her means of her livelihood. If you might imagine that if you now require her to add a second party which she really doesn't need to run the facility, you in essence are saying we don't want you to operate and we are going to in essence force you out of business. I'm hesitant at a public MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOV. 61 1991 PAGE 7 forum such as this to provide tax returns of that nature because I think they are very sensitive if the Council's believes this necessary I'd be glad to submit those to your legal Counsel with the understanding that they be confidential and you could review those. The problem with say having a sixteen year old or some other person at the facility, that's not what happens. She is going to go get workmans compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, she has to pay social security taxes, in other words she then expands her business in a whole nother fashion then if she already has that. So it's not an economic affect of just having a person there you would charge $4.50 an hour, it is all the attendant she would have to expand her business which in essence since she doesn't need it and she's on a limited amount of income that she can actually earn from that she just can't make the facility operate. We would request that the City Council consider the alternative put forth in my letter and that alternative is why don't you just limit the amount of time frames that these children can be outside. As I set forth in my letter we would propose that the children only be allowed outside the day care from 10:30 A. M. to 12:00, and from 3:30 to 5:30 obviously on days that weather permits. What this would do is restrict to a much greater degree the children being outside and if there is a noise consideration we have now reduced that substantially. I think that is a workable compromise which the applicant can live with and she can still maintain her business and not suffer this severe economic detriment that the other conditions would cause her. Does anybody have any questions? Giesler: Is there any other agency or Department of Health and Welfare that requires anything like this in their licensing or anything as far as supervision? Mack: No. Kingsford: I think an issue is the noise. I'd hate to see the children be limited but I think they ought to be attended so that there is reasonable control over the noise. 0 • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL.. NOV. b, 1991 PAGE B Mack: I would prefer that there is no regulation concerning the children being outside. Recognizing the concern that the Planning & Zoning Commission we are willing to live with this compromise. No I don't think it is in the best interest of the children but if we are addressing the concerns of the complaints within the community about noise, this is really the only practical way I can see to make it work. Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Mack? No response. Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony? Layne Saxton, 1319 W. 7th, Meridian was sworn by the attorney. Saxton: I have a petition to be entered into the record with 30 signatures of people who oppose the day care. I'm here to speak on behalf of my grandparents Neal & Inez Hudson who oppose the grant of a conditional use permit to operate a day care applied by Tamera Perkins. The Hudson's built their home 35 years ago at 232 W. Washington with the intention of retiring in this home in the small community of Meridian. Now at the time of their lives that they planned on, Much less deserved, the peace and quiet of their home and planned on spending the rest of their of their lives in there is nothing but turmoil. The Hudson's property is located directly behind Tamera Perkins. It is only 39 feet from the back of the Hudson's home to the Perkins back yard. The noise from the day care cannot be avoided. The Hudson's bedrooms are situated at the back of their home and due to their age and occasional ill health they require a great deal more rest. Pei -kin's home is located at 233 W. Cherry Ave., which used for day care purposes is located right next door to Trudy Hadley at 225 W. Cherry Ave. who also operates a day care facility in her home. It has been previously stated by Perkin's attorney at the Planning & Zoning that Mrs. Hadley cares for infants only in her day care. However, I do know on many occasions there have been older children in attendance. What it MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOV. 6, 1991 PAGE 9 all boils down to is one day care is one thing but two day cares permit to operate side by side on these tiny lots is simply unacceptable. The noise from up to twenty four children between the two day cares especially in the warmer months is greater than any noise from Meridian Elementary School, which is located 148 feet from the front of the Hudson's home to the edge of the school yard. Explained recesses at the school. (Tape on File) With the six foot fence around both Perkin's and Mrs. Hadley home they act as a noise amplifier that kind of has a band shell effect on the noise. Again it's plain and simple that there should not be two day cares permitted to operate side by side in the small area that there is to operate this type of business. Not to mention the supervision provided at this day care, which in the past has been real problems with no supervision of the children when they are placed in Perkin's back yard and left to play 75% of the time. Giesler: The thing that kind of bothers me with this list here. We have people here that completely surround in this area. We didn't if my memory serves me right, I don't recall anybody testifying against Trudy Hadley. I guess what I wonder is why this individual and not the other one? Saxton: Alot of it was that she does care for infants more than I think Tamera does. Small children. Giesler: The application was the same and at that time no one knew that. Saxton: The main deal was the amount of children that Trudy Hadley had verses to what they would have now, it's just a greater amount and a greater amount of noise. Kingsford: Anyone else from the Public who would like to offer testimony? • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOV. 6, 1991 PAGE 10 Annette Hancock, 2251 N.W. 10th, Meridian, was sworn by the attorney. Hancock: I'm here to speak on behalf of Tamera Perkins and I'm very much in favor of her receiving the Conditional Use Permit. I came to know Tamera by selling Avon in her neighborhood. At that time I did not have a need for day care. I have a 2 1/2 year old son who is now in attendance at her day care. When I went over there to deliver her Avon and those sort of things the children were always so well behaved and it was always quiet over there. I came at no certain time. I was very impressed with the way that the children behaved compared to other day cares that I had seen. There is a tremendous need from the women that I've talked to in Meridian for day care in this area. I wanted my child to be in an environment where he would be properly supervised and disciplined in a manner according with my own beliefs and feelings and I have found that he is getting that at Tamera's day care in her home. Explained times of drop—off and pick up and when picked at 6:00 he is usually always the last child there. Have never heard or seen children being extremely noisy. I have found quality care for my son at Tamera's. Kingsford: Thank you. Is there anyone else to testify? Paula Egbert, 4420 N. Five Mile, Boise, was sworn in by attorney. Egbert: My child attends Tamera's day care. I am here tonight because I value the care that my daughter receives at Tammy's day care. I received a recommendation for Tamera's day care from the Child Care Connection and from my Priest Peter Michaelson. I visited ten day cares before I chose Tamera's. I am at Tamera's house from noon until 1:30 and the atmosphere is much like our own home. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOV. 6, 1991 PAGE 11 Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Mary Louise Aguirre, 238 W. Washington, Meridian, was sworn by the attorney. Aguirre: I am here tonight to tell you what it is like to live in a neighborhood with two day cares and also to complete answering Councilman Giesler's question as far as why so many of us around the day care for Trudy Hadley signed her petition. We signed it willingly and happily because her's is a well supervised day care facility. It is not creating adverse affects such as this one. I am one of the many neighbors who are opposing this day care. We are opposing the noise, trespassing onto our property, the destruction of our property, littering and debris that is thrown onto our property, and excessive traffic. It's nerve racking to live there and see that a place is not well supervised. It's like a time bomb, when is the next child going to go in front of a garbage truck, or jump in front of the traffic and get hit or over a fence when they are not supervised and break a leg. Are we going to be sued on our property, because we are liable if they fall on our side of the fence. We are here to protect ourselves. We are not here for financial gain or to get publicity for our careers. (TAPE ON FILE) Giesler: One of the main issues that she has brought up is having two day cares side by side. How long has Trudy been there? What I'm getting at is even though Tammy was operating without a Conditional Use she was there and you guys were already used to that business being there yet you never came forth about the second one going next to her on the other side. Aguirre: Yes we signed Trudy's petition. Giesler: I know for a fact that she has been in business for at least seven years if not longer. One of your main issues is that the second business, two businesses side by side when actually you put another business next to hers. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOV. 6, 1991 PAGE 12 Aguirre: When Trudy's came around, both of them had opportunities to come around. We asked them at Planning and Zoning if we approve Trudy Hadley's operation does that mean the other one cannot go and we also asked Jack Niemann that. In our understanding, if we approved Trudy's and with this kind of business then there was no chance and that would eliminate the problems we've had for seven years. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Laura Kay Brown, 3459 Sugar Creek Drive, Meridian, was sworn by the attorney. Brown: Tamera cared for my children for five years. We have been in this with her from the beginning. During the time that she took care of them they have always received excellent care. She takes a personal interest in her kids. Even though my girls aren't at Tamera's anymore she is a dear friend and she always will be. We chose in home care for our kids because we wanted a situation similar to what they have at home. I to do not believe in a total child care facility. I want my children to be able to be kids and have fun and to play. Tamera has always worked around my schedule. When we moved into our house we changed school districts, she made arrangements with us to avoid having an additional stress on our kids of moving out of the neighborhood they were familiar with, she car pooled them back and forth to school for a year before we took them out of her facility because they had out grown a need for day care. The acquisition's as far as the supervision they receive are offensive to me. I have been there any time of the day and I have never found a situations that have been stated. There is noise, you have children your going to have noise. They have never been out of control, I've have never known of anyone being hurt or injured and if there is that little supervision someone would have been hurt by now. I sympathize with the Hudson's, MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOV. 6, 1991 PAGE 13 they built their home planning on retiring there in this quiet little community. That's not Meridian anymore, as Boise grows Meridian is going to grow. As people move in you get families, with families come kids, people need child care. Tamera has very high standards for her kids. (TAPE ON FILE) Kingsford: Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Jane Fisher, 6510 W. Ustick, was sworn by the attorney. Fisher: Tammy used to take care of my kids. I never had any problems and she did a great job. She gave them quality care. Kingsford: Anyone else to testify? Christy Abbott, 1500 Maple #A, was sworn by the attorney. Abbott: I am a single parent with two small boys. I am thankful that I have found Tamera because she does teach my children things that I want them to learn. They learn to respect each other, they are calm, they are clean when I pick them up, they are happy and look forward to going to her home. Tamera is the best day care that I have ever found. Kingsford: Anyone else to offer testimony? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. What's your official opinion Counselor with regard to additional testimony? Crookston: I don't think there has been significant variations from what was presented at Planning & Zoning. Kingsford: Any questions for the Counselor? Giesler: May we visit about two items. With regard to the additional supervision, I need clarification. • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOV. 61 1991 PAGE 14 Crookston: Apparently there must be situations where Tammy can't be around all the children all the time or not all the kids are outside all at once or they are not all inside all at once. It doesn't seem to me as though is she is with the kids supervising them all together that, she would be the adult supervisor. If that is not the case then it does address the need for additional help. This was a means the Planning and Zoning felt to control the noise that had been addressed and still provide some latitude in allowing the use to be approved. Giesler: Do you still provide the service of getting children to other schools? Perkins: No. I normally took the children with me. Kingsford: We have a situation I regret that the neighbors weren't able to resolve in the first place and further regret that the City Council has been unable to solve that. I think it is a shame that the courts had to resolve it but we have certain restrictions that the courts placed on us. With that I'd entertain a motion to approve, deny or do the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Crookston: The request was to modify the Findings for conclusion regarding the time, you may want to address that separately or address it as it is written or whatever you want to do. Myers: If you add up these folks on the petition that are against it and the ones that are in the affidavits of the court it comes out 30 to 10 against. I suspect that you could run in another 150 folks that would say they were in favor of it. I think there is a need for a day care. I have to say that I wasn't really in favor of it and I'm not really excited about it but I think this probably is something that is going to come to pass. I kind of agree with Bob that the neighbors did have the opportunity to do something about it but it didn't get done for whatever reason. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOV. 6, 1991 PAGE 15 Kingsford: I'd just emphasize again that the decisions and the activities of the City of Meridian with regard to this have nothing to do with the care offered, as most of this testimony is an issue of zoning. Myers: I kind of agree with the attorney here. I'm not sure that the restrictions of when the kids can be inside and outside are good. However on the other hand I think there should be some supervision if they are going to be out there. Tolsma: If the children were allowed out from 10:30 till 12:00 and you had three or four of them in the house with colds, how would you monitor the kids outside plus the ones that was inside the house? Perkins: The back yard as previously stated is totally fenced. There is a gate, which is wired and the only access out of that back yard is into the garage and into the house. The kids can be fully viewed from two windows. One real large window, the entire back yard is in view. When most of my children are allowed to go outside, I have a group of infants, I have some smaller ones that are inside so that situation does arise. I'm still able to supervise those children. The state doesn't say I have to be standing over the top of those children in order to supervise them. I can see them, I can hear them and I know what they are doing so it's never been a problem. Myers: So what your saying is they are always in the back yard, they are not out in the front yard. Perkins: They have been allowed to play in the front yard but one of the conditions of the Planning and Zoning Commission was that the front yard be fenced and I have no problem with that. Myers: I think putting a time limit on those kids is not a good idea. • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOV. 6, 1991 PAGE 16 The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Yerrington to approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law excluding items D & E on page 11. Roll Call Vote: Yerrington - Yea; Giesler - Nay; Myers - Yea; Tolsma - Yea; Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Yerrington and seconded by Myers to approve the Conditional Use Permit with the conditions as provided in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as amended. Roll Call Vote: Yerrington - Yea; Giesler - Yea; Myers - Yea; Tolsma - Yea; Motion Carried: All Yea: Giesler: This has been a very tough issue and I have a number of friends who have signed this petition against this and it makes it exceptionally hard to approve this. I have a real hard time with businesses in a residential area any how. It would be tough for me to go home with one of those right next door, but we do need those day care facilities in residential areas. I think I had to vote the way I did tonight because of her already being in business and you didn't do anything about Trudy when you allowed her when in fact she was already in business, you knew what it was already like and yet you approved another one. I know we haven't made a lot of you very happy and I hope you understand where we are coming from. ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY QUANG THE DO: NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., on November 6, 1991, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Tamara Perkins for a conditional use permit at the property known by the address 233 West Cherry Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, described as Lot 7, Block 1, Fran Meridian Subdivision, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho.- The Applicant requests a conditional use permit for the operation of a group child care home at the above property. A copy of the application is on file at the City Clerk's office at City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and is available upon request. Public comment is welcome and will be taken and heard. DATED this/ day of October, 1991. JACK/ NIEMANN/ CITY CLERK AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Allorneyaand Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridien, Idaho 8.7642 Telephone8S&4461 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Allomeyeand Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 63542 Telephone BSBAOI NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, IdaFio, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., on November 6, 1991, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Tamara Perkins for a conditional use permit at the property known by the address 233 West Cherry Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, described as Lot 7, Block 1, Fran Meridian Subdivision, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. The Applicant requests a conditional use permit for the operation of a group child care home at the above property. A copy of the application is on file at the City Clerk's office at City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and is available upon request. Public comment is welcome and will be taken and heard. DATED this) Ljday of October, 1991. CITY CLERK L't s 7 t � ie �°• . y _ MAPLE AVENUE s > s' ,� s 1� s1 I s 9.•1 •e 90 90 M M 90 90 {9.0. x I o " A 140 9 8 7 6 sS 4 3 ""` �� ; W MAPLE .AVE.* 8 76 ft0 11 � • ..w'.11 p� Ito Ite _ 121 �8 5 4 3 i£ I d ., 'y 5 4 ti • so so •o I ..70� i 6 3 ' IIs . CAMELLIA AVE. S X42 ° �� 7 2 i Kw i0..• 10s q • so w .o 40 •o ago 3 i 1i N �••• 1 2 use •, S IG1[1111r e ' •o w w oo •0 110 8:11 =uo = 1 Ku sse + D Til s CHERRY s AVENUE s „"^' ItoItoCHERRY AVE. s ..,ti .,.I, H •O 5 S 4- 14 1 f •0 so ee so{0 0 0 rn IG { ) 3 1 I`� 7 7 2 70 7p 70 70 70 70 't r70 70 f0 10 10 117 Ip Lviji 12 11 B 8 5 4 3 2; 1 . s 10 0 TO 70 70f0 1 117.74 120 leo WASHINGTON STREET s j 13 14_ 15. 16 17_ 18Q� I�, ._2 1 s 21 A 5 3 i =Ito s )3- It 917..0 3D RLT ' "... '7' E— •I:o no Itp F- W 3 e0 s • 10 7 It • a 4 14 uluoI: 3 1• 1•Ito •� 7 .e 8 • no •ItTs to 70 91t0I 10 10 II 11 12 12 3 2 ' I. Y I.0 Llr ^ • %I 3 14 3 2 la 2 1 1• 1 STATE AVENUE w L r E. //4 CORNER SEC. /2 ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BOISE, .IDAHO. n = -•° Daniel, Sr. & Rosalie Quenzer 133 West Cherry Avenue Meridian., ID 83642 James O. & Nancy S. Rich 1230 West 2nd Street Meridian, ID .83642 Richard D., Jr. & Lori Ilene Scherer 201 West Oherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Thomas R. & Carolyn J. Schoenborn 209 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Irene E. Wright 217 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Trudie Hadley 225 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 J. C. & Jessie I. Jackson 239 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Richard J. & Sherron Y. Matuszek 305 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Dennis A. & Eva Golightly 313 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Michele E. Whitmore 315 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Lisa L. Cox 1230 West 4th Street Meridian, ID 83642 Charles M. & Codi B. Hale 331 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Michael D. & Sharla K. Farrell 1222 West 4th Meridian, ID 83642 Ricky L. Smith 1325 West 2nd Street Meridian, ID 83642 Steven D. & Donna F. Heinrich 214 Camellia Meridian, ID 83642 Calvin K. & Barbara A. Henderson 222 Camellia Meridian, ID 83642 Virginia A. Meyer 230 Camellia Meridian, ID 83642 Donald W. & Sharon M. Todd 236 Camellia Meridian, ID 83642 Rita M. Phillips 306 Camellia Meridian, ID 83642 Scott D. & Linda S. Farmer 314 Camellia Meridian, ID 83642 Arthur L. & Sherrie McFadden 316 Camellia Meridian, ID 83642 Manual F. Barroso 330 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Ellen M. Bailey 338 Cherry Meridian, ID 83642 David Allen & Anita B. Beck 120 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Damon L. & Shannon M. Brunmeier 126 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Timothy W. & Tammy J. McMorrow 202 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Esther Wardle 210 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 L. N. & Roma Cartwright 220 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Neal W. Hudson, et ux. 232 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Jerry L. & Angela J. Berheim 304 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Kenneth & Carol J. Kamppi 1027 Floating Feather Road Eagle, ID 83616 Harvey F. & Ruth L. Lang 330 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Robert W. & Ruth C. Mumford 336 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Wilma J. Ellensohn Jones 319 West Washington Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 William J. & Elnora V. Hutchings 9410 Shoup Avenue Boise, ID 83709 William Gus Bert, et ux. 231 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Wm. Harold Ward, et ux. 211 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Caroline V. Chandler 127 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Mary Aguire 238 West Washington Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 C Howard Waner 335 West Washington. Meridian, ID 83642 Phillip & Ginger Brodhecker 303 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Edward Baugas 339 West'Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Ellestine Adina Guthmiller 1326 West 2nd Meridian, ID 83642 Jaime K. Obenchain 3200 South 2700 East Salt Lake City, UT 84109 Eugene Robert & Andrea P. Even 132 West Cherry Lane Meridian, ID 83642 Russell L. & Patricia McFarland 1217 West First Meridian, ID 83642 Rural High School District #1 1900 West Pine Meridian, ID 83642 Delwin S. & Joyce A. Jensen 5721 Sites Drive Boise, ID 83705-2655 Timothy M. & Lisa G. Wade 237 Camellia e Meridian, ID 83642 Larry A. & M. Renee Cornwall 231 West Camellia Meridian, ID '83642 Jerry R. & Mary F. Sienknecht 223 Camellia L Meridian, ID 83642 Deanna Lynn Brower 215 Camellia 4 Meridian, ID 83642 C C Pixie L. McFadden 207 Camellia Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Wilma M. B1aYr 1239 West 2nd Meridian, ID 83642 Louie J. & Tina -Marie Neagle 216 Cherry Meridian, ID 83642 Clay O'Dell 224 Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Deanna R. Berry 232 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Walter C. & Marla K. Nicholas 238 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Duane C. & Cassandra L. Treat 312 Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 C l MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING OCTOBER 8, 1991 PAGE 2 ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND PERKINS: i ON REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY TAMERA The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Yea; Alidjani - Absent: Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Coniditonal Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, and the Uniform Building Code, and other Ordinances of the City of Meridian. The Conditional Use should be subject to annual review upon notice to the Applicant by the City. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY DENNIS & JANET BUTTERFIELD: Johnson: I will open the Public Hearing. Is there someone representing the applicant that would like to come forward and address the Commission. Hepper: I will be stepping down, I have a conflict of interest. Dennis Butterfield, 2833 Autumn Way, was sworn by the attorney. Butterfield: We are proposing to build a shop for the Meridian Plumbing Company and an office on site. We have ernest of the property just south of Franklin on Meridian Street and King. Rountree: You made the statement in your application that the proposed buildings and grounds are to be of such size that all trucks and materials can be housed inside, and in the plot plan you show a proposed building on lot 12 of block 4 but you didn't have anything identified on lot 12 of block 3. Will that be set up for storage or future development? Butterfield: That's for future use. We don't know if we will keep it or sell it. Johnson: Have you read the Ada County Highway District's recommendations? Butterfield: I scanned it the other day but I could not find it today. I don't think there is anything our of the ordinary there. They are asking us if we wanted to use that access on Williams Street to have part of it paved. However I don't think we are interested in that. AMBROSE. FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON Attomeyeend Couneelom P.O. Box 437 Meridien, Idaho &W2 Telephone8884481 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TAMI PERKINS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 233 WEST CHERRY AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing September 10, 1991, at the hour of 7:30 oIclock p.m., the Petitioner appearing through her attorney Fred Mack, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two ( 2 ) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for September 10, 1991, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the September 10, 1991, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; that a hearing on the matter was scheduled, noticed and held for July 9, 1991, but the notice for the hearing was incorrectly mailed by the Applicant, and therefore the hearing on FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 1 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD ACROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 MMldlen, Idaho $3842 TeNplwne BB&4/B, September 10, 1991, was held after proper notice having been given by the Applicant. 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and the Applicant is the owner of the property which property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein. 3. The Applicant requests that a conditional use be granted to her for the operation of a Group Child Care Home. The applicant has been operating a day care facility at the location since 1984, without a conditional use permit; that the day care facility was the subject of a lawsuit by the City against the Applicant in which the Applicant successfully challenged some of the conditional use requirements that the City had in force; that the Court ruled that the City could not enforce some of those requirements and the City has not required the Applicant to meet those requirements and they do not apply to the Applicant; that the remaining conditional use requirements are in force and do apply to the Applicant. 4. That the definition of Group Child Care Center is, "A child care facility which provides care for six (6) to twelve (12) children throughout the day"; the nofe at the end of the definition for Child Care Facility is: "It should be noted that in determining the type of child care 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 any one time is determinative". FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 2 i 5. That the property is zoned as R-4 Residential; that in the ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, Section 11-2-409 A., Residential, Group Child Care Home is listed as an allowed conditional use in the R-4 District and therefore the R-4 District requires a conditional use permit for the operation of a Group Child Care Home. 6. That the R-4 District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 1. as follows: (R-4) Low Density Residential District: The purpose oT the7—R- Districtct is to peto permi— testablishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 7. Conditional Use Permit is defined in the Zoning Ordinance as follows: "Permit allowing an exception to the uses authorized by this Ordinance in a zoning district." 8. That the property is contained in the WARRIOR neighborhood as designated on the Policy Diagram at Page 7 of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; neighborhoods, are defined in the Plan at Page 6 and states as follows: "Definition: The neighborhood is a residential area withith unii•orm characteristics of a size comparable to that usually served by an elementary school or a small business convenience center or a local park. Although AMBROSE. neighborhoods occur in various shapes and sizes, a FITZGERALD section of the City measuring one-half to one and one- BCROOKSTON half miles across is usually used for planning purposes. A1lomeye and It has facilities within easy walking distances and Co"neelore provides the basis for community identification." P.O. Box 427 Meridien. Idaho FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 8M2 Telephone99644e1 Page - 3 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON Atlomeyeend Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Telephone 889441 9. That the use proposed by the Applicant is set forth in the Application as, "to continue utilizing the property as a residence and as a group child care home"; it was represented at the hearing that the Applicant has cared for between seven and twelve children in her home since 1984; the testimony by Fred Mack indicated that the Applicant does not care for more than twelve children per day, not at any one time; that the testimony was that the Applicant has a State of Idaho Day Care license. 10. That from the minutes of the Planning And Zoning Commission of June 14, 1988, at a hearing, the Applicant testified that at that time she had eighteen children enrolled but that she did not have more than twelve children in her home at any one time. 11. That the property is located in a single-family residential subdivision; that the Meridian Elementary School is a few hundred feet from the subject property; there are approximately 35 children in the Applicant's subdivision; that next door to the subject property is a day care home which predominantly cares for younger children which day care home was previously granted a conditional use permit; that the Applicant has a six foot fence enclosing the back yard; Applicant does not use any signs indicating that she operates a day care facility; that the testimony was that there were no traffic problems created by the use; the testimony for the Applicant was that noise was not a severe problem and that the noise coming from the Elementary FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 4 School was greater than from the Applicant's property. 12. That there was testimony that Applicant provided quality day care and that there was a need for day care services in the community. 13. That the testimony in opposition to the Application was from, or on behalf of, land owners abutting the subject property; that noise was the predominant objection; the objection was the noise was not any worse during any particular time of day but pretty much during daylight hours; objection was also made to having two day care facilities next to each other; there was objection that the children were not properly supervised by the Applicant. 14. There was a Petition in opposition to the Application submitted in evidence which stated: "SINCE THERE IS ONE DAY-CARE ALREADY LOCATED AT 225 W. CHERRY AVE. WHICH IS NEXT DOOR TO 233 W. CHERRY AVE. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY-CARE LOCATED AT 233 W. CHERRY AVE. MERIDIAN ID."; that the only objection expressed in the Petition is that there already is a day care located at 225 W. Cherry Avenue; there were no objections in the Petition based on noise, traffic, that the day care facility would not be ,designed, operated or maintained to be harmonious with the intended character of the general vicinity, or that it would be disturbing to neighboring uses; that one of the signatory on the Petition, Neal Hudson, did AMBROSE, FITZGERALD appear at the hearing and addressed the Commission through Lane 6 CROOKSTON Allomsys and Saxton who stated that noise was a significant problem, the noise Counselors P.O. Box 427 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Meridian, Idaho B2 Page — 5 Telephone 88644a 1 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Boa e97 Merldlen,ldeho 0642 Telephone 6884461 i could not be avoided, and the fence that the Applicant had constructed in the backyard acted as an amplifier of the noise; that another signator, Louise Aguirre, addressed the Commission herself stating that the day care facility had an adverse impact on the neighborhood and that the noise was a problem. The testimony in opposition also stated that even though the Applicant had a fence in the back yard that the Applicant never had the children in back and that they were always in the front where there is no fence. 15. That sewer and water are already connected to the property, but the use may require additional charges or fees. 16. The City Engineer submitted comments which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein; the comments address the off-street parking requirements. 17. The Ada County Highway District submitted comments and they are hereby incorporated herein but had no specific requirements. 18. Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments and they are hereby incorporated herein. 19. Central District Health Department submitted comments and they are hereby incorporated herein. 20. That some of the testimony of Fred Mack requested that testimony he presented at the hearing held July 9, 1991, before the commission be incorporated into the testimony at the present hearing and the question arose as to whether that testimony could be included by reference; 'that much of the testimony referenced FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 6 at the prior hearing was also referenced at the hearing held September 10, 1991. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 3. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances and proceedings, other governmental statues and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and state. 4. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to that section conditions minimizing the adverse impact! on other development, controlling the duration of development, assuring the development is maintained properly, and requiring on-site or off-site facilities, may be attached to the permit; that 11-2-418 (D) AMBROSE, FITZGERALD aCROOKSTON authorizes the City to prescribe a set time period for which a Aflorneysand conditional use may be in existence. Counselors Counselors R.o.Sox aT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Meridian, Idaho 83642 Page - 7 Telephone 8884481 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON Atto Vsend Couneelore P.O. Boa /27 Merldlen, Idaho BW2 Telephone BSB44B1 5. That the City has judged this Application for a zoning amendment upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2- 416 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67 Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it may take judicial notice. 6. That it is concluded that where improper or deficient notice has been given any action taken on the application, until proper notice is given, is void, (Carter v. City of Salina, 773. F. 2d. 251, (10th Cir. 1985)); that therefore the hearing initially held on this application was void and any testimony or evidence submitted at that hearing could not be included by reference in the hearing held September 10, 1991; however much of the testimony requested to be included by reference at the July 9, 1991, hearing was also requested to be included by reference at the hearing held September 10, 1991, and that therefore that testimony and evidence requested to be included in the record on September 10, 1991, shall be included in the record of these proceedings. 7. That at the hearing testimony 4was'submitted addressing the issue as to whether the Applicant provided quality day care; that it is concluded that such issue is not a zoning matter, unless it effects how the day care facility impacts the surrounding property; likewise the need for day care facilities in the City was addressed' as an issue; that issue is also not a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 8 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON Allorneysano Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 93642 Telephone BB04481 zoning issue; that both of the above issues are licensing issues and the City does not have a day care licensing ordinance and shall not be considered. 8. That it is concluded that the only zoning issues addressed at the hearing were predominately that of whether the use will be detrimental to any person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive noise, whether it would be operated to be harmonious with the intended character of the general vicinity, whether the use would be disturbing to existing neighboring uses and whether it would be improper to allow two day care facilities next to each other; other issues relating to the standards for the issuance of a conditional use were not mentioned as specific problems. 9. It is concluded that there was conflicting testimony as to the amount of noise generated by the day care facility and its impact. Certainly noise is going to be created when a number of children are present and there are going to be children in any residentially zoned district. Certainly, also, the amount of noise generated will be greater with the greater number of children. r 10. That there are measures which can be undertaken to limit or restrict the amount of noise and the time periods when such noise is generated; that the testimony that the children are kept in the front yard most of the time seems in conflict with the testimony of the back yard neighbors that the children create a lot of noise in the back yard. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 9 AMBROSE. FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON ABomayaend Counselors P.O. Bos 437 MerlElen, Idaho au4z Telephone 0661451 11. That the ordinances of the City of Meridian do not address the location of two day care facilities next to each other or within a certain radius; that it is concluded that the location of two day care facilities next to each other is not a ground upon which a permit for a day care facility could be denied. 12. That the R-4 District does not allow incompatible non- residential uses; the Zoning Ordinance does not list Group Day Care Homes as a listed permitted use and therefore such a facility is not absolutely permitted in the R-4 District. The Zoning Ordinance Section 11-2-409 A does list Group Day Care Home as a Conditional Use in the R-4 District; the definition of Conditional Use Permit allows exceptions to the District restrictions. The Applicant's proposed use may therefore be granted a conditional use. 13. The Zoning Ordinance 11-2-418 H, Meridian Zoning Ordinance, and the Local Planning Act, 67-6512, Idaho Code, allow conditions to be placed upon the use and those sections are incorporated herein. 14. That it is concluded that the basic objection to the proposed use is noise; that since conditions may be placed upon the granting of a conditional use perm(it'to minimize adverse impact on other development, it is also concluded that the City Council should consider and investigate, at the City Council hearing, the reasonableness of the following suggested conditions of granting the conditional use, to wit: a) The hours of operation shall not be restricted since the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 10 AMBROSE. FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Bos 427 Meridian. Idaho 83042 Telephone BBS4461 hours of operation do not necessarily effect the emission or transmission of noise. b) The children shall not be allowed to play or perform other activities out of the home before 8:30 o'clock a.m. c) The children must be kept inside after 8:00 o'clock p.m. during daylight savings time and after 6:00 o'clock during standard time. d) That the Applicant shall have an adult or an assistant who is at least 16 years or older supervise the children at all times they are outside, which adult or teenager shall limit the noise to reasonable levels. e) That the Applicant or an assistant who is at least 16 years old shall supervise the children in the home at all times and shall limit the noise that is produced in the home so that it does not effect the neighbors. f) That the solid wood fence presently in the Applicant's back yard shall be maintained in good repair and kept as a solid fence. g) That the Applicant may have as many children enrolled in the Group Day Care Home as she desires since the Zoning Ordinance does not speak to enrollment; however, the Applicant shall not care for more than twelve (12) children during any day as required for a Group Day Care Home. Caring for more than 12 children during the day would be violation of the Conditional Use Permit. h) The Applicant shall keep accurate records of the number of children cared for in each day, which shall be open for inspection by the City upon reasonable request and five (5) days advance notice. i) That if the Applicant keeps children in the front yard or lets them play in the front,'yard, the front yard shall be fenced in accordance with, the City fence regulations. j) That the conditional use should not be restricted to a time period of authorization but should be reviewed annually upon notice to the applicant for violation of any of the conditions as has been done in other day care conditional uses and other conditional use applications. K) That the conditional use, pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, shall not be transferable to another owner FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 11 0 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attonneysend Counselors P.O. Bo. 427 Meridien, Idaho 83542 Telephone BBBMst of the property or to another property. L) That the Applicant must meet the requirements of the Central District Health Department and maintain her license as a Group Day Care Home. M) That the Applicant shall meet the requirements of the City Engineer and Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District. 15. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area and assuming that the above conditions or similar ones thereto would be attached to the conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit would be required by ordinance. b. The use would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use. C. The use is designed and constructed to be harmonious in appearance with the character of the general vicinity; that if the conditions set forth above are complied with the use should be operated and maintained to be harmonious with the intended character of the general vicinity and should not change the essential character of the area. , d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses if the conditions are met; that traffic should not increase significantly because of the proposed day care center as many of the children walk to the facility. e. The property has sewer and water service already connected and will be adequately served by essential public facilities. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 12 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON AtI meyeend Counselors P.O. Bos 427 Mwdlen. Idaho 8W2 Telephone66&4161 f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. If the conditions are met, the use should not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use will be required to meet the requirements of the City ordinance. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI NOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the'City of Meridian that they approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW oanc - 7I AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attorneys Nd Coun"Im P.O. Box 127 Meridian, Idaho 8361: To aphone 668-1161 described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, and the Uniform Building Cade, and other Ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to annual review upon notice to the Applicant by the City. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 14 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 PAGE #5 Johnson: Anyone else to address the Commission on this application? No response. I will close the Public Hearing. The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree to have the attorney prepare the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this request. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree to recommend approval to the Meridian City Council. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY TAMERA PERKINS: Johnson: I will now open the Public Hearing, will someone from the applicant please come forward and be sworn. Fred Mack, 1117 S. Owyhee, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Mack: I have appeared before you once before and I would request that the documentation data documents, comments and the record that was previously per -pounded before this body on July 9th be incorporated into the records that would include but -not limited to a notebook that I had prepared, aerial photo's, photo's of Tamera Perkins back yard, a plat map showing the location of her premises and various other data. I have also provided for the Commission tonight a second notebook. The notebook I'm giving you tonight is the same notebook I gave you the last time except it has my more surrent letter in it, which is really the reason I'm here tonight to reaffirm Tamera Perkins position for a Conditional Use Permit. I thought in the interest of time, I would highlight the testimony from the last hearing. Tamera Perkins is the applicant and she lives at 233 Cherry Ave in Meridian, Idaho, she lives on a parcel of real property located as lot 7, block 1 of Fran Meridian Subdivision. The copy of the deed reflecting ownership is attached with the application. The proposed use for the property is a residence utilized for group child care, it's an R-4 district. The applicant has held a state care license and regularly cared for between seven and twelve children in her home since 1984. The property which her home is situated in is located in a subdivision in which many children live. There are approximately thirty five children just in the block where the property is located. The property is only a few hundred feet from the Meridian Elemrentary School that has approximately seven hundred children in the first through.the sixth grade. There is a great demand for child care in your community because there is a shortage of that, and her proposed use would help alleviate that need. She does not use any signs or have any other thing else indicating that she has a child care operation. The proposed use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing uses. There are not any uses or hazardous features that would be dangerous to the children. The property has a six foot fence which is in the pictures that I previously provided to you, which will help give privacy and reduce noise. Proposed use is adequately served by existing public tacilities. It will not create excessive additional requirements. The roadways to the subdivision, which I believe we have previously discussed at some lengtn, have numerous access points in and out of that subdivision, there's no culdesac. When the children actually walk to her house MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 PAGE #6 to be cared for it reduces the amount of traffic. Traffic that is generated is minor and not going to impose any problems within the neighborhood. The applicant agrees to pay for any additional sewer or water or trash fees or charges associated with that use. As you may recall from the prior testimony that I gave which we've incorporated. I have two forms of sworn testimony, we have sworn testimony by affidavit which is in the notebook that I have prepared for you and we also have sworn testimony that was given in trial. Both of which are under oath and sworn. I believe that will also help you tonight to save some time in considering this matter. I will just briefly indicate to you the affidavits and sworn testimony we have. First we have an affidavit of Jessie Jackson. She is a next door neighbor, she indicated in her affidavit that right next door to Tamera's operation it is not noisy and that the children do not cause any problems to her and that actually the Elementary School is more noisy than Tamera's children. She also has some direct testimony from the hearing I just described to you, basically saying the same facts. Next we have affidavit of Trudy Hadley. She lives on the other side, she as you may recall is a day care operator. She was qualified by this group to be a day care operation. She also indicated that noise is not a problem. That she operates a day care for basically infants and there is no noise disturbance to her. Next is Deana Berry, that's a direct examination at the hearing. She indicated that Tamera does not have more than twelve people or children excuse me. I believe last time we talked at some length about how many children and I think we have resolved the issue that she never has more than twelve. That's per day not at any one time. She also testified that they are not any louder than the other children in the neighborhood. The next affidavit I provided for your benefit is the next information provided you is the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Conditional Use Permit whereas perpounded by this body concerning the. Trudy Hadley application. I think the important aspects of that document are that you listed in that document the issues which were pertinent in your consideration about whether a Conditional Use Permit would be granted. I surfice it to say that all of the issues that you found would be identical for the applicant in this case other than there was one condition, condition D that has to do with a swimming pool. You made some conditions about a swimming pool. The applicant here does not have a swimming pool. Other than that the factual basis upon which the applicant has made are really the same factual basis on which this commission has found already a basis for a conditional use permit. Next documents, we have an affidavit from Sharon Bixby. I think Sharon Bixby's affidavit is important because it shows in this community there is a high need for in care for young children. This community is a growing community and because of the need for that I think that is one of the more important aspects that there is a real need for in home care. Just listening to the previous application we are going to have certainly a larger number of influx of people in this community from the apartment housing which will increase the need for in care for children. Next we have the affidavit of Wilma K. Brown, she talks about the type of care Tamera Perkins provided indicating that she was providing good quality care for the children in her house. Next just for record purposes I have submitted to you the decision and order in the case of City of Meridian vs. Tamera Perkins, case #93197, basically that sets forth various guidelines that the court set forth to be considered --when granting this kind of application. In summary I think that Tamera Perkin's application should be granted. I think there is a need in this community. I don't think there is any adverse impact to the neighbors or the residential area in which she would be having this home care and I would request that she be granted a conditional use permit. I would be glad to respond to any questions. Johnson: Wayne do we have any problem with incorporating that testimony? Crookston: I have not addressed that before so that's something I'd have to look in to. Johnson: Let's proceed on the assumption that we can do that. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 PAGE #7 Rountree: Just a point of clarification. You indicated Ms. Perkins has had a State Permit since a period of time. Mack: Since 1984 - Rountree: She continues to have? Mack: Yes. Rountree: For my information would you refresh me on Sharon Bixby as to her qualifications to determine need in the community. Mack: Sharon Bixby, I can't affirm as of we speax uocay is but she was the director of the Child Care Connections, a child care resourse and referral project of the Mountain States Health Corporation. She has substantial background in the needs of the care of minor children. She also provided which is in the affidavit that I provided you a substantial amount of statistical data showing the need for home child care providers wihtin the County. Basically it was her conclusion that this area is in need of that facility. Johnson: Anyone else to testify. Layne Saxton, 1319 W. 7th, was sworn by the attorney. Saxton: Why are we going through all of this again? Johnson: Because the first time the notification's were not sent certified therefore we felt it needed to be redone and corrected to eliminate the chance of someone being missed. Saxton: I am here to speak on behalf of Neil & Inez Hudson who oppose zoning to allow the purchase of a conditional use permit to operate a day care by Tamera Perkins. Petitions were submitted in opposition of the day care. The Hudson's built their home 30 years ago at 232 W. Washington with the intent of retiring in this home in a small community. The Hudson's property is located directly behind the Perkins property, it is only 39 feet from the back of the Hudson's home to Perkin's back yard. The noise from the day care cannot be avoided. The Hudson's bedrooms are situated at the back of uneir nome. Wizn a six foot high fence around both Perkin's and Hadley's back yards they act as a noise amplefier. What this boils down to is one day care is one thing but two is to many. Rountree: Is there any particular time of day that the noise is a problem? Saxton: No particular time. Pretty much daylight hours. Hepper: You said that you don't feel having two of them side by side is proper, if the other one wasn't there would you have any objections to this one? Saxton: It is a little closer so yes because the noise would be nearer to their home. Hepper: So do you object to two day care center or do you just object to day care centers in general? MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 PAGE #8 Saxton: Just to the two and the one directly behind. Johnson: Your representing the Hudson's, have you personally observed the things that you stated in your written testimony? Saxton: Yes. Johnson: Anyone else to testify? Mary Louise Aguirre, 238 W. Washington, was sworn by the attorney. Aguirre: I live behind the day care, right beside the Hudson's so I directly observe what is going on. Johnson: Which side is that? Aguirre: It's behind to the south. Just west of the Hudson's. In the testimony that Mack has presented he's saying he modeled it after Trudy's day care. She properly went around and got 75% of the signatures of the people residing 300 ft. around her. We were more than glad to sign that because she runs the day care well and there is not that much of an adverse affect. Here as you have seen with the petition, those people that should be giving approval under this conditional use law, we are objecting and that's because this day care that we are talking about now, Tammy Perkins is a great adverse affect to the community, to the neighbors there and to the City of Meridian. Explained further objections (TAPE ON FILE) - Hepper: You say there were kids playing with leaves and smoking, were these day care age? Aguirre: Yes, they were from ner aay care. They are not supervised. Hepper: How old were these kids? Aguirre: Various ages, seven, ten - Crookston: I have one comment. The 75% requirement is no longer part of our ordinance due to the court decision. Johnson: Anyone else to testify? M. Kay Brown, 3459 Sugar Creek Drive, was sworn by the attorney. Brown: The quality of care that my children receive from Tamera is better than any I've ever known of. She took care of my children for 41-, Years, there was never an accident on her property that I'm aware of. The incident that Mary Louise is referring to with the children smoking, my children were there, it didn't happen. I take personal acception and I am offended that that woman continues to lie about what goes on there. As far as the supply and demand goes in Meridian, there is not adequate child care. If she were a parent trying to find day care that operate the hours that most people need child care, it is not available. My kids are at an age that they don't require daily supervision tney slay at home, but when they were at an age that we were looking for child care the only thing available in Meridian other than an in home day care was Green Leaf Academy. At the time they were full. As I say my kids were there for 4Z years and I dropped in at various times of the day and there are times when children are noisy that can't be avoided. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 PAGE #9 Brown: The fact that Meridian is growing, it's not going to be the nice quiet community that everubody remembers. If I had children of a day care age I wouldn't hesitate to put them with Tamera. Mack: As far as the need in the community, Tamera advises me that she is full and has a waiting list of four parents needing care. I think your Clerk can verify that you only have two licensed in home day cares in your city. I would request that you read the court decision concerning the courts observations of Mary Navarro. I would submit part of a direct examination of a Mary Ann Hart who talks about Mary Navarro's credability. I also have some testimony from William Musser who is a Police Officer of the community when the allegations concerning the smoking came about he was called to the house and under oath he testified there was no indication of smoking or any other acts that she claimed. Finally the one issue is a little bit disturbing but I don't think it ought to be a problem is whether or not two day cares next door to each other within this neighborhood are to large. I don't think that's an issue. I personally think Trudy Hadley has a great day care center and she does a fine job, but because of the notice issue, which I have now spent a fair amount of time at, I can affirm you that at least form my position the notice that Trudy Hadley gave that got her a conditional use permit notified approximately twenty people. Bear in mind that she is next door to my client, I had to send out fifty nine. If in fact I'm right her notice is defective so her CUP is void. I think at least we have notified everybody humanly possible that the law requires. Johnson: I think I recall you saying that the other day care center, the Hadley day care center catered to or had a lot of infants. Mack: That's correct. Johnson: That would probably explain at least in my mind a difference in noise levels. Does she also have older children there or do you know? Mack: The only thing I know is that from the affidavit she primarily takes care of infants. Alidjani: I want to make a comment just for the record. I was driving a garbage truck in front of Tammy's house today, there was two little boys outside I would say probably two feet away from the sidewalk. They were on the green grass they were four or five year old boys. The two little ones were so small that when I said hello to them they told me how old they were and they were outside. I saw Tamera come out and then she went back in, the kid was still standing outside as she went inside. Johnson: Anyone else to testify? Aguirre: She claims that she has a fence back there but she never has the kids back there, they are always in the front and there is no fence in front. Most the time they are in front there is no supervision. Mack: If the issue of the front yard is important we can certainly take steps to solve this kind of a problem. Johnson: Anyone else to testify? I will close the public hearing. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 PAGE #10 The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree to have the attorney prepare the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Motion Carried: All Yea: Johnson: No recommendation made at this time. The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree to adjourn at 8:46 P.M.: Motion Carried: All Yea: (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) JIM JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: pc: Mayor & City Council, P & Z Members, Atty., Bldg., Eng., Police, Ward, Stuart, Gass, ACHD, NMID, CDH, Settlers, Mail (5) File (5) DENVER DENVER TECH CENTER COLORADO SPRINGS ASPEN _ BILLINGS BOISE CHEYENNE WASHINGTON, D.C. Wayne G. Crookston, Ambrose, Fitzgerald P. O. Box 427 Meridian, ID 83642 HOLLAND & HART All ORNEYS AT I.AW SUITE 140 WEST ONE PLAZA BOISE, IDAHO 83702-7714 MAILING ADDRESS P.O. BOX 2527 BOISE, IDAHO 83701-2,527 August 23, 1991 Jr., Esq. & Crookston Re: City of Meridian - Tamera Perkins Dear Wayne: TELEPHONE (208) 342-5000 IELECOPIER (205) 343-8869 J. Frederick Mack Pursuant to our discussion this morning, and your approval of the language contained in the Affidavit of Mailing on the Tamera Perkins conditional use permit, I am enclosing herein the original Affidavit of Mailing, duly signed by me and notarized, which includes copies of the Notice of Hearing, the vicinity map and the list of individuals that received the Notice by certified mail, return receipt requested. As we agreed, I will bring the return receipt certificates with me at the time of the hearing. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, HOLLAND & HART Frederick Mack I/ JFM:dkb 7 Enclosure AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF IDAHO ) . ss. County of Ada ) J. FREDERICK MACK, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: That fifteen days prior to the September 10, 1991, hearing on the application for a conditional use permit of Tamera Perkins, he mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, true and correct copies of the Notice of Hearing and map attached hereto and marked Exhibit A to the property owners on the list attached hereto and marked Exhibit B. 1991. FREDERICK MACK f � SUBSCRIBED AND SWO to before me this day of August, Lam.. - ,•1,' Notary Public for Idaho;' i Residing at:5Z-C My Commission Expires: AYBR066. nTZOERAIO 6CROOK6TON Atwa "&M Oe W* F.O.ON N1 WWWWNice» NMt Te4pho"Im"Y7 AUG 22 '91 16:30 209'49690 If NOTICE OF HEARING P.2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City -of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., on September 10, 1991, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Tamara Perkins for a conditional use permit at the property known by the address 233 West Cherry Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, described at Lot 7, Block 1, Fran Meridian Subdivision, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. The Applicant requests a conditional use permit for the operation of a group child care home at the above property. A copy of the application is on file at the City Clerk's office at City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and is available upon request. ATTENTION: This Application was previously heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 9, 1991, but such hearing was void and of no effect due to improper notice given by the Applicant. If you testified or submitted evidence at the hearing held on July 9, 1991, your testimony and evidence will again have to be submitted at the hearing on September 10, 1991, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. in order for the Commission to consider it. Public comment is welcome and will be taken and heard. DATED thisa-9day of 49G.�--- , 1991. .+ Daniel, Sr. & Rosalie Quenzer 133 West Cherry Avenue Meridian., ID 83642 James O. & Nancy S. Rich 1230 West 2nd Street Meridian, ID :83642 Richard D., Jr. & Lori Ilene Scherer 201 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Thomas R. & Carolyn J. Schoenborn 209 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Irene E. Wright 217 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Trudie Hadley 225 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 J. C. & Jessie I. Jackson 239 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Richard J. & Sherron Y. Matuszek 305 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Dennis A. & Eva Golightly 313 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Michele E. Whitmore 315 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Lisa L. Cox 1230 West 4th Street Meridian, ID 83642 Charles M. & Codi B. Hale 331 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Michael -D. & Sharla K. Farrell 1222 West 4th Meridian, ID 83642 Ricky L. Smith 1325 West 2nd Street .. Meridian, ID 83642" Steven D. & Donna F. Heinrich 214 Camellia Meridian, ID 83642 Calvin K. & Barbara A. Henderson 222 Camellia Meridian, ID 83642 Virginia A. Meyer 230 Camellia Meridian, ID 83642 Donald W. & Sharon M. Todd 236 Camellia Meridian, ID 83642 Rita M. Phillips 306 Camellia Meridian, ID 83642 Scott D. & Linda S. Farmer 314 Camellia Meridian, ID 83642 Arthur L. & Sherrie McFadden 316 Camellia Meridian, ID 83642 Manual F. Barroso 330 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Ellen M. Bailey 338 Cherry Meridian, ID 83642 David Allen & Anita B. Beck 120 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Damon L. & Shannon M. Brunmeier 126 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Timothy W. & Tammy J. McMorrow 202 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Esther Wardle 210 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642' L. N. & Roma Cartwright 220 West Washington i. Meridian, ID 83642 Neal W. Hudson, et ux. 232 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Jerry L. & Angela J. Berheim 304 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Kenneth & Carol J. Kamppi 1027 Floating Feather Road Eagle, ID 83616 Harvey F. & Ruth L. Lang 330 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Robert W. & Ruth C. Mumford 336 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Wilma J. Ellensohn Jones 319 West Washington Avenue Meridian, ID 63642 William J. & Elnora V. Hutchings 9410 Shoup Avenue Boise, ID 83709 William Gus Bert, et ux. 231 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Wm. Harold Ward, et ux. 211 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Caroline V. Chandler 127 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Mary Aguire 238 West Washington Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Howard Waner 335 West Washington. Meridian, ID 83642 Phillip & Ginger Brodhecker 303 West Washington Meridian, ID 83642 Edward Baugas 339 West'Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Ellestine Adina Guthmiller 1326 West 2nd Meridian, ID 83642 Jaime K. Obenchain 3200 South 2700 East Salt Lake City, UT 84109 Eugene Robert & Andrea P. Even 132 West Cherry Lane Meridian, ID 83642 Russell L. & Patricia McFarland 1217 West First Meridian, ID 83642 Rural High School District #1 1900 West Pine Meridian, ID 83642 Delwin S. & Joyce A. Jensen 5721 Sites Drive Boise, ID 83705-2655 Timothy M. & Lisa G. Wade 237 Camellia Meridian, ID 83642 Larry A. & M. Renee Cornwall 231 West Camellia Meridian, ID 83642 Jerry R. & Mary F. Sienknecht 223 Camellia Meridian, ID 83642 Deanna Lynn Brower 215 Camellia Meridian, ID 83642 Pixie L. McFadden 207 Camellia Avenue .. Meridian, ID 83642 Wilma M. Blair 1239 West 2nd Meridian, ID 83642 Louie J. & Tina -Marie Neagle 216 Cherry Meridian, ID 83642 Clay O'Dell 224 Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Deanna R. Berry 232 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Walter C. & Marla K. Nicholas 238 West Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Duane C. & Cassandra L. Treat 312 Cherry Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 l ee.d 66 I ie 1 ie 1 To •Y fe 'l ioo6 j 3 " 5 MAPLE AVENUE ( s" ,� s� kd�l u16ow wwwa 8 l— Ito v 9 Y8 7 6 x5 4 3` B e •"'8' �" : W .0 MAPLE . AVES '• 6 12i II a 107 n'. Y w 0 w , 8 5 4 39�£: i �.{ 4e .las CAMELLIA AVE. x°42 so 6o eo 60 80 so ben 1 =2i Ni 4e\ i8 r p " 60 w b 40 40 r 4 its7 0• N .11•ru 1 y F tN t N 2 •1� 9 108s c " 3! 86.62 �,:h w.n.r Ib xt"fRR7 I 711 Ito 5 I Ito 4 s •6 3 y 7 2 • 170 8 =It0 S z ..t.66e D " I x CHERRY s AVENUE B 9 I 711 0 9• 7 sc 66.n •1 •..',rY,.. �N 14 1%•. CHERRY AVE. x IrY.v I I1—I '••: 6,,,I,.,,y SQ Ito 5• Ito s 4— s e o w o0 60 ,,, 60 o s t s'•'2 N 6 t ^I 360 IG �{ 9 y4 a3 . , 3 to 7o To rotl 7o i7 to 7o ro ro m ro } 7 2 .7o 8,12 II 885 4 3 2 110 •n fn m ... .. .. __ 1 i 8 0 ; I S 9 IX Iflto 0 r-. WASHINGTON a STREET N Wrill" 3 e Y � 120It0 21 i 5ss 4 i -6 3 .� 7 2 ' so Ito S Ito elt0lo d14 a $ 7 6 4 43 3 2 2 II I STATE AVENUE so s' r E. //4 CORNER SEC. /2 I 3"` ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BOISE,. IDAHO. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Allorneysand Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone0864481 NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., on September 10, 1991, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Tamara Perkins for a conditional use permit at the property known by the address 233 West Cherry Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, described at lot 7, Block 1, Fran Meridian Subdivision, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. The Applicant requests a conditional use permit for the operation of a group child care home at the above property. A copy of the application is on file at the City Clerk's office at City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and is available upon request. ATTENTION: This Application was previously heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 9, 1991, but such hearing was void and of no effect due to improper notice given by the Applicant. If you testified or submitted evidence at the hearing held on July 9, 1991, your testimony and evidence will again have to be submitted at the hearing on September 10, 1991, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. in order for the Commission to consider it. Public comment is welcome and will be taken and heard. DATED thisabday of1991. OFFICIALS JACK NIEMAN N. City Clerk JANICE GASS, Treasurer BRUCE D. STUART. Water Work. Supl. WAYNE O. CROOKSTON. JR.. Attorney EARL WARD, Waste Water Supl. KENNY BOWERS, Fire Chief BILL GORDON, Police Chief GARY SMITH, City Engineer HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone 988-4433 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mar August Merr, 1991 Mona Dobaran-Mack DAVIS, WRIGHT & TREMAINE 350 North Ninth Street - Suite 400 Boise, Idaho 83702 RE: CITY OF MERIDIAN v. TAMERA PERKINS Dear Mrs. Mack: COUNCILMEN RONALD R. TOLSMA J. E. BERT MYERS ROBERTOIESLER MAX YERRINOTON Chairman Zoning It Planning JIM JOHNSON Wayne Crookston has informed me that you instructed him that since Fred Mack was out of town for a period of time that correspondence should be forwarded to you and that you were working as his assistant for his law firm and not your own. Therefore I am writing to you with a copy to Fred Mack. Wayne has discussed with me the conversation that he has had with Mr. Mack and with you regarding the mailing of notice for the hearing held by the Planning and Zoning Commission and he has delivered to me copies of the correspondence you and Mr. Mack had sent to him. He has also informed me of the discussions he has had with all of the Commission members and I have confirmed those conversation with the members. Since you did not mail the notice of the hearing by certified mail as required by the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, and following the opinion of the Attorney General, the hearing held on July 9, 1991, is void and basically the Commission had no Jurisdiction to hear the matter. Since the hearing is void there is no need for findings of fact and conclusions of law. The City cannot disregard its own Ordinance requirements, as you have suggested to Wayne, by just going forward as if the proper notice had been given and then mail notice by certified mail for the City Council hearing or you certifying that the notice was mailed. Your certification is to state that you mailed by certified mail, and since you did not so mail you cannot give the required certification. Both of these options ignore the language of the Ordinance. You are therefore informed that you will have to mail out notice by certified mail for a new hearing which is now set for September 10, 1991, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho. If you desire to double mail, that is both by certified mail and first class mail, that is up to you but the certified is required. Enclosed is the new Notice of Hearing which I have requested GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor Wayne to prepare. I will be delivering this Notice to the Valley News for publication. Also, you were going to send me a letter explaining why you mailed the Notice for the first hearing by first class mail instead of certified. I have not received that letter as of yet. Please forward it to me. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Very truly yours, JACK NIEMANN Zoning Administrator WGC:msg Enc. (1) Pc: Fred Mack NUB OF TREASURE VALLEY OFFICIALS A Good Place to Live ,TACK NIEMANN, City Clerk JANICEBRUCE CITY OF MERIDIAN COUNCILMEN RONALD ' BRUCE D. STUART,BTUART, Weler Worke Supl. . Water E. BERT MYERSA WAYNE O. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney 33 EAST IDAHO ROBERT GIESLER EARL WARD, Waste Water Supt. MAX YERRiNGTON KENNY BOWERS, Fire Chief MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 BILL GORDON, Police Chief Phone 888-4433 Chairmen Zoning 6 Planning GARY SMITH, City Engineer JIM JOHNSON GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor Wayne to prepare. I will be delivering this Notice to the Valley News for publication. Also, you were going to send me a letter explaining why you mailed the Notice for the first hearing by first class mail instead of certified. I have not received that letter as of yet. Please forward it to me. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Very truly yours, JACK NIEMANN Zoning Administrator WGC:msg Enc. (1) Pc: Fred Mack AMBROSE, FITZGERALD &CROOKSTON Attorneyeend Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 8884481 NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the laws, of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., on September 10, 1991, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Tamara Perkins for a conditional use permit at the property known by the address 233 West Cherry Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, described at Lot 7, Block 1, Fran Meridian Subdivision, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. The Applicant requests a conditional use permit for the operation of a group child care home at the above property. A copy of the application is on file at the City Clerk's office at City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and is available upon request. ATTENTION: This Application was previously heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 9, 1991, but such hearing was void and of no effect due to improper notice given by the Applicant. If you testified or submitted evidence at the hearing held on July 9, 1991, your testimony and evidence will again have to be submitted at the hearing on September 10, 1991, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. in order for the Commission to consider it. Public comment is welcome and will be taken and heard. DATED this day of , 1991. ACK NI NN, CITY CLERK ����� July 30, 1991 DELIVERY VIA TELECOPY: lEIEPHONE 1'-'081342 5000 IELECOPIER (206) 34.8869 J. Frederick Mack NUMBER OF PAGES BEING TRANSMITTED = IF ALL PAGES ARE NOT H CEIVED, PLEASE CALL (?OB 342.6000 TELECOPY OPERATOR: I TIME SENT; A.M. , , P.M. PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES "rLIE Wayne G. Crookston, Jr., Esq. Ambrose, Fitzgerald & Crookston FAX 888-3969 Re: Tammy Perkins C.U.P. Permit Dear Wayne.- Since ayne: Since we have not resolved the issue of the mailing, I hereby request that the City of Meridian provide to me the followings 1. A copy of the taped Planning & Zoning meeting held on the Tammy Perkins C.U.P. application; and 2. A copy of any written transcription from said tape. I will be glad to pay for any transcription or copy costs. I would like to obtain the copy of the tape before it is destroyed by the City. I will call you upon my return. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, HOLLAND & HART Dictated by Mr. Mack and mailed In his absGrrce to avoid delay J. Frederick Mack JFM:dkb HOLLAND & FIART ATrOR \IFYS AlLAW DENVER SDIIE 14D0 DENVER TECH CENTER WES I orlt PLAZA COLORADO SPRINGS BOISE. IQAHO 89702.7714 ASPEN MAILING ADDRESS BILLINOS P.O. Box 1547 BOISE 8C'ISt, IDAHO 83701-4527 CHEYENNE WASHINGTON, D.C. July 30, 1991 DELIVERY VIA TELECOPY: lEIEPHONE 1'-'081342 5000 IELECOPIER (206) 34.8869 J. Frederick Mack NUMBER OF PAGES BEING TRANSMITTED = IF ALL PAGES ARE NOT H CEIVED, PLEASE CALL (?OB 342.6000 TELECOPY OPERATOR: I TIME SENT; A.M. , , P.M. PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES "rLIE Wayne G. Crookston, Jr., Esq. Ambrose, Fitzgerald & Crookston FAX 888-3969 Re: Tammy Perkins C.U.P. Permit Dear Wayne.- Since ayne: Since we have not resolved the issue of the mailing, I hereby request that the City of Meridian provide to me the followings 1. A copy of the taped Planning & Zoning meeting held on the Tammy Perkins C.U.P. application; and 2. A copy of any written transcription from said tape. I will be glad to pay for any transcription or copy costs. I would like to obtain the copy of the tape before it is destroyed by the City. I will call you upon my return. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, HOLLAND & HART Dictated by Mr. Mack and mailed In his absGrrce to avoid delay J. Frederick Mack JFM:dkb DENVER DENVER TECH CENTER COLORADO SPRINGS ASPEN BILLINGS 8015E CHEYENNE WASHINGTON, D.C, HOLLAND & HART ATTORNEYS Kr LAW 504E 1400 WEST ONE PLAZA B015f, IDAHO 637.12.7714 MAILING ADDRESS P.O. BCX2527 BOISE, 1DAHO83701 2577 July 30, 1991 DELIVERY VIA TELECOPY: TELEPHONE 12081342-5000 TELECOPIER (206) 343-6869 J. Frederick Mack NUMBER OF PAGES BEING TRANSMITTED Y 5 IF ALL PAGES ARE NOT R EIVED, PLEASE CALL (2(-)6-M2-5000 TELECOPY OPERATOR: TIME SENT: �OA.M. P.M. PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO: Wayne 0. Crookston, Jr., Esq. ATuu.rcpse, Fitzgerald & Crookston klL: 888-3969 Re: Tammy Perkins C.U.P. permit Dear Wayne; Following our conversation yesterday, I would like to again address the issue of sending notice to the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing by regular mail instead of certified mail. As 1 indicated to you, the concern I have is that by mailing the notice certified, the due process requirements of the local planning act would not be satisfied. As you and I agreed by phone, this is clearly a due process issue. I am enclosing herein a copy of a recent opinion from the Attorney General's Office addressing the consequences of failure to provide notice to all property owners within 300 feet. The opinion indicates that when mailed, if notice is not provided to all such property owners for approval of a zoning application, it is not just voidable but is void. If notice is sent by certified mail, it must be personally received, and therefore, one or more property owners will quite likely not receive notice, thus, any such action taken by the application a nullity. Although the certified mailing requirement is more restrictive by the City of Meridian, I don't believe this is in the best interest of either of our respective clients. This issue was obviously avoided by certifying that the mailing had been sent rather than sending it by certified mail, since the purpose of the certification requirement is jimply to verify the mailing. The City of Meridian's deviation from the local planning act, which merely requires notice by regular mail as you have Wayne Crookston July 30, 1991 Page 2 indicated, is authorized because, as a general proposition, the city may pass an ordinance that is more restrictive than state law. in general, I agree with this assumption, but only with. respect to an ordinance predicated upon the exercise of police power. An Idaho supreme Court case cite that supports this v les v. itv of Meridian, 97 Idaho 597, 548 P.2d position isy�.�� ---- 1217 (1976). By requiring notice to be sent by certified mail, the city has not made a police power ordinance more restrictive, but instead, the city has made a state due process requirement less effective. As you can imagine, we are concerned as the city that the proceedings go forward and satisfy all due process requirements. If a challenge of the Planning & 'Zoning Commission hearing should occur based upon action on failure to provide certified notice, the city council can always rescind the C.U.P. application and require Tammy Perkins to start over. I trust that this letter clarifies the issue somewhat in order for the city to make their decision. If you have any questions coneorninq this, please advise. sincerely, HOLLAND & HART azi JF'M : dkb /T. Frederick Mack l.. Enclosure LARRY ECHOHAWK ATTORNEY GENERAL Mayor Steve Guerber Eagle City Hall P.O. Box 477 Eagle, Idaho 83616 Dear Mr. Guerber: STATE OF IDAHO OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BOISE W201000 April 221 1991 InZ--;rl 2 00/005 TELEPHONE (2001334-1400 TELECOPIEN 12001334 2530 NATURAL RESOURCES TELECOPIEF1 12081334.2090 By letter dated March 26, 1991, you presented the following questions to this office for response: 1. Does the requirement. in Idaho Code Section 67-6511, that in the case of a zoni_.ng district boundary change notice be provided by mail to property owners within three hundred feet of the boundaries of the land being considered, apply to all such property owners regardless of whether they are residents of the municipality considering the boundary change? 2. If notice is not provided to the property owners within three hundred feet, as required by Section 67-65111 is the action of the municipality void or voidable? For the reasons set forth below, it is the opinion of this office that the notice requirements set forth .in T.C. 67-6511 apply to all land owners in question and are not dependent upon residency. Further, if a zoning ordinance is amended without proper notice as required by I.C. S 67-6511, the ordinance would be void. T.C. § 67-651.1 provides in part: ordinances establishing zoning districts shall be amended as follows: (b) If the request is in accordance with the adopted plan, the zoning or planning and zoning commission may recommend and the governing board may isel `VLVO JYV VVVV i. vuu-- w —.... re Guerber ril 22, 1991 age 2 adopt or reject the ordinance amendment under the notice and hearing procedures provided in section 67- 6509, Idaho Code, provided that in the case of a zoning district boundary change, additional notice shall be provided by mail to property owners or purchasers of record within the land being considered, and within three hundred (300) feet of the external boundaries of the land being considered, and any additional area that may be impacted by the proposed change as determined by the commission. The Idaho Supreme Court gDYJrnment v.. Coglity PIY y, (1973): stated in citizens for Be ter 95 Idaho 3201 322, 508 P.2d 550 It is a well settled principle that notice and hearing requirements in zoning enabling acts are conditions precedent to the proper exercise of the zoning authority. In considering an analogous constitutional provision in .relation to statutory requirements of notice in a zoning enabling act the Supreme Court of California stated: "When the statute requires notice and hearing as to the possible effect of a zoning law upon property rights the action of the legislative body becomes quasi judicial in character, and t_he ncyc „ ad.}. a �. ...... .,-_- - - - d+�e process an ma not be dispeng d with. °. Hurst V. City of Burlingame, 207 Cal. 134, 277 P. 308, 311 (1929). Cf. Sohnston V. Board of sup'rs of Marin county, 31 Cal.2d 66, 187 P.2d 686 (1947). (Emphasis added.) See also cooper v doa 101 Idaho 407, 614 P.2d 947 (1980). Along the same lines, numerous jurisdictions have held that since zoning ordinances are in derogation of common law property rights, such statutes must be strictly construed. To n of Milton v. ecla e, 282 A.2d 843 (Vt. 1971); Mc ntxre v._ Mahave City, 620 P.2d 696 (Ariz., 1980)p Stockwell v, City of Ritz i11e, 663 P.2d 151 (Wash. App. 1963). Thus, in construing I.C. 5 67-6511, the clear language indicates that property owners or purchasers of record "shall" be notified of proposed amendments to existing ordinances. This notice requirement is mandatory. From the ""0208 :343 8869 HOLLAND & HART 4005!005 Guerber tl 22, 1991 As 3 language writtenlthere is no basis to ienotification solely to res de tsland . In regard to your second question, if the city of Eav;'� took action pursuant to Z.C. 5 67-6511 without follow] -I',? the procedural requirements set forth in the statute, the landowners who were not given proper notice were denied their constitutional right to due process•Cooper v _ oer� oComm3ss,}overs of - Pada County, supra. Furthermore, the failure to give the land owners notice renders the ordinance invalid. Gay__ v�Coun^y Co)Dmisgionerss ,of conn Xti i le County_, 103 Idaho 626; 651 P.2d 560 77 (App. 1982), No Idaho cases have addressed zoning ordinance is void or Jurisdictions that have addressed that ordinances enacted without mandatory procedural requirements a a i a, 773 F.2d 251, 254 (10th Cir the issue whether an invalid voidable. However, other the issue have routinely held substantial compliance with re void. in Carter y�Citv--Q—f . 1985) the court stated: It is the general rule that zoning ordinances are in derogation of common-law property rights and find their authority through the state police power; accordingly, Municipalities and other political subdivisions must scrupulously comply witil statutory requirements, including notice and hearing, in order to provide due process of law. . . . Ordinances which fail to comply with the state enabling statutes requiring notice and hearing are void. (citations omitted, emphasis original.) see also McIntyre v.- Mohave._Cily, su ra; ow_n of -Milton v._ Clai s rat Kirk v. Town of,West ake_, 421 So.2d 473 (La. App. 1982)- I have been unable to locate any case law that reaches the conclusion that invalid ordinances are voidable thereby necessitating some administrative challenge. Therefore, it is the opinion of this office that an invalid zoning ordinance is considered void. rs WKER FRAN . Si . Deputy Attorney General FPW/pb cc: Mona Dobar•an-Mack L040591A DENVER 06NVER TECH CENTER COLCRADO SPRINGS ASPEN 81LLINOS BOISE CHEYENNE YVASMINOTON, D.C. HOLLAND & HART ATTORNFYS A'!' L •.';: SWTE I4DO WEST CNE PLAZA 801$E, IDMCSI?f9 '21,1 MAILINO AO^' Po. Box z. Dols[, )C. A 2527 July 29, 1991 DELIVFAY VIA TELECOPY: TELEPHONE. (208; 342.5000 FELECONER (208) 348.8869 J. Frede•Iok Mack NUMBER OF PAGES BEING TRANSMITTED = IF ALL PAGES ARE NO81FQeEIVED, PLEASE CALL. (208 342.5000 TELECOPY OPERATOR: !LKb_ TIME SENT: A.M.:a: �) P.M. PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO: Wayne G. Crookston, Jr., Esq. iatnbrose, Fitzgerald & cl,00kstor, FAX 888-3969 Re: Tammy Perkins C,U.P. Permit Dear Wayne: Thank you for the call, last week concerning the above - referenced matter. On reviewing your questions concerning the certified mailing of the notice of hearing, what initial research 2 have done indicates that this is not a police power question but a due process question. In essence, what the city wants is some verification that mailing has been done. Tn order to cure the alleged defect of the first mailing, I would propose to have Mona provide a written certification under oath to you in lieu of the: certified mailing. For your record purposes, T believe this would address the concerns you expressed to me by phone. if this Option is not acceptable, we would agree that for the hearing in front of the city council that the mailings will be done by certified mail, T am hesitant to do this unless absolutely required because of the extreme cost to my client in this matter. This will cost hes, approximately $180. If neither of these options are agreeable to you, T would request that you solicit advice from the Attorney General's Office concerning the applicantls compliance, i am confident that if the proposals 7: have submittoa to you in this letter are addressed with them, they will dpom them to be adequate notice for your purposes. Finally, hearing, worst of.allpos.i.tions� ecity's hearing Wayne Crookston July 29, 1991 Page 2 out, you may end tap with different neighbors showing up at the hearing than showed up at the original hearing. At that point, you will end up with a •record. different than the first record, which would seem to rause confusion and would possibly impair your record. I am going to be out of town after noon on Tuesday, July 30 to August 12. Please give me a call. before I leave so we can discuss this matter. Sincerely, HOLLAND & HAR�T1%�j� �_`--- ,c;C� J. Frederick Mack 3'FM: dkb N /q I NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., on July 9, 1991, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Tamara Perkins for a conditional use permit at the property known by the address 233 West Cherry Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, described at Lot 7, Block 1, Fran Meridian Subdivision, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. The Applicant requests a conditional use permit for the operation of a group child care home at the above property. A copy of the application is on file at the City Clerk's office at City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and is available upon request. Public comment is welcome and will be taken and heard. DATED this%� day 1991. JACK INIEMANNICITY CLERK MAPLE AVENUE 7• t••0•S_ C 6 ��•,I .N+w. 10 •0 w w w •0 w '50, ii 8 Ll- - - no 1 no =8 C7 6 i5 4 3 ;'''' % qW S MAPLE AVE.° 814 "go so ^ so so ' u[ I• .,,,,..>) it leo I IOU : 4 3 6 S 4 3:t�:1 84 t•o so w co w w 110.10 N 3 z .... .0 so CAMELLIA AVE. 3 242 ►: `= 2 10; 40 40 so e0 40 •0 los• • 3 71 F- RCHE1II v p • 40 so b •0• \ ••0..-.'.�•.7 •r. =1[0 LJ3 ssts E D z % CHERRY C AVENUE $ 13 9 I CII 0 9• 7 ec •0.77 Ta.'s • R !.. to i 1rs11� F •Q • • 17� 14 ""' CHERRY AVE. 1 •o w so • so 60, 1v '+91 74 i �310J'2 j LLJ LL 3 6 3 ,i All19 12 1 e7 7 . /0 10 70 70 70 70 70 f0 se m m ns .� WASHINGTON STREET • 3; 13 1 I4 IS 111 17 Mn lo' .. i I s i 5 — e Ifo I[0 to 6 11 S H 12 s 1! s W 14 t 3 le Ilio se 161to 5:Ito � I 31.) 6 G 1D n 117.7• e Ifo I[0 - ~ e - 21 5:Ito � it :19.90- :4 ' 6 3 ;.07 2 ' so 11 I Ito t Ito - ^ alto 70 d14r STATE AVENUE I' 7 I a i S . 4 I 2 s hto.70 so to l` { o j i r E. //4 CORNER SEC. /Y t i ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BOISE. IDAHO AL%4-' —ee C.. F l -•- NEW GHT TREMAINE o ` (� m �W VLFlCES ID STREET . SU,TE BOO 24 J i 1d , IDAHO 837- i MR AND MRS NEAL W HUDSON 232 W WASHINGTON MERIDIAN ID 83642 25• 1J)D 1 1 1I 1 GHT TREMAINE o kW OFFICES - 10 STREET - SUITE 700 IDAHO 83702 MR AND MRS NEAL W HUDSON 232 W WASHINGTON MERIDIAN ID 83642 'AL ■1 x'1.1 4...-�� l�15F "ZIP D l ��W 11 11 1111..111111111 1611 1 1 1 1" 1, 11.1111111166 1 1 July 15, 1991 Mona Dobaran Mack Davis Wright Tremaine 702 West Idaho St., Suite 700 Boise, Idaho 83702 RE: Conditional Use Permit Dear Mona, I have reviewed the notarized statement you submitted regarding compliance with the City's Ordinance on Conditional Uses. Your statement does not state that you mailed the notice's by certified mailing. If you did mail it by certified mail please forward to me a new notarized statement or a statement from the post office that the notices were mailed and delivered as certified mail. If you did not mail it by certified mail please let me know. Very truly yours, Ja edan 1,r"` CitV CierkK Zoning Administrator C HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live OFFICIALS COUNCILMEN JACK MAN N, JANICE GASS, Treasurer 1`rl CITY OF MERIDIAN RJ.E.BEATMY BRUCE STUART.Clerk BRUCE D. Works Supt. RSA G CROOK, TON,Wate WAYNEG.C. Attorney 33 EAST IDAHO ROBERTGIESLER Waste Water Su EARL WARD, Waste Weter Supt MAX YERRINGTON KENNY BOWERS, Fire Chief MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 BILL GORDON, Police Chief Phone 888-0433 Chairman Zoning a Planning GARY SMITH, City Engineer JIM JOHNSON GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor July 15, 1991 Mona Dobaran Mack Davis Wright Tremaine 702 West Idaho St., Suite 700 Boise, Idaho 83702 RE: Conditional Use Permit Dear Mona, I have reviewed the notarized statement you submitted regarding compliance with the City's Ordinance on Conditional Uses. Your statement does not state that you mailed the notice's by certified mailing. If you did mail it by certified mail please forward to me a new notarized statement or a statement from the post office that the notices were mailed and delivered as certified mail. If you did not mail it by certified mail please let me know. Very truly yours, Ja edan 1,r"` CitV CierkK Zoning Administrator MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JULY 9, 1991 The Regular Meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P.M.: Members Present: Jim Shearer, Moe Alidjani, Charlie Rountree, Tim Hepper: Others Present: J. Frederick Mack, Mona Dobaran Mack, Karin Hagon & Parents, Layne Saxton, Ray Fisher, Mary Louise Aguirre, Neal & Inez Hudson, William Berg, Ted Hepper, Jessie Jackson, Tamera Perkins, Mark Burnham: MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JUNE 11, 1991: The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Rountree to approve the Minutes of the previous meeting held June 11, 1991 as written: Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #1: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DAY CARE BY TAMERA PERKINS: Johnson: I will now open the Public Hearing, is there anyone present who wishes to testify on this request, if so please come forward and be sworn. Fred Mack, 1117 S. Owyhee, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Mack: I am here tonight representing Tamera Perkins with reference to her applying for a Conditional Use Permit. Explained that a six foot high fence had been installed about six months ago. Tamera does agree to -pay fees involved. Presented an aerial map of the Fran Meridian Subdivision and a plat map showing where the property is located. Photographs of Tamera Perkins back yard were also presented. Affidavit and testimony of Jessie Jackson were entered into the record. Also testimony of Deanna Berry and affidavit of Trudy Hadley. Excerpts from the Minutes of June 14, 1988, Planning & Zoning Meeting were read. Read from Sharon Bixby's affidavit, "the data reflects that parents in Ada County prefer to have their children cared for in the homes of the Day Care providers located near their own homes and children's schools." With respect to Meridian's particular circumstances according the the United States Census Bureau as of 1980, 47% of the woman in Meridian with children under the age of six were in the work force. The medium family income in Meridian was 16,472.00, child care connections calculations based upon this data indicate that 282 children ages 0 to 4 years, and 346 children ages 5 to 9 years living in Meridian needed child care. This number undoubtedly is larger in 1990, a decade later. She further went on to say that in 1989, 628 of the Meridian parents calling child care connections expressed a preference for a home environment rather than a commercial center. She also indicated the income levels of the Meridian residents limit the type of care that they can afford. 63% of those contacting child care connections in 1989 earned less than $20,000. annually. I think that this data is very important and there are also graphs that she has set out that really support that there is a real need within your community to allow this kind of service to be done. Next I have an affidavit of Loa Kay Brown. She has resided in the City of Meridian for seven years, both she and her husband work. I think it is important in this affidavit that we note what she is showing is the quality of care that the applicant has given. She is very complimentary about how she cared for her children over the last five years and the quality of care. For example she said we have visited homes of MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JULY 9, 1991 PAGE #2 women other than Tamera who care for children in their homes and we have also been dissatified with the quality of the care evidence. They also indicate it is difficult to find a care provider who will have flexible schedules to allow them to come and go at later times in the evening, all of which the applicant has been willing to do for them. So again that shows the willingness and the need of this individual to act responsibly for the care of these children. Next I have some testimony from a Barbara Knapp. She has basically had Tamera caring for her daughter for the last five years and she also is very complimentary about the care that has been provided in this facility. She has also indicated that her impression of the noise level from the school is quite loud during recesses and that she has never noticed any problem with noise from the applicant's facility. She did make one interesting observation, it says do you have an impression of how many children are in the neighborhood or in that area? Then it says by neighborhood, do you mean just around my home or the entire subdivision? Oh I would think there would be a couple hundred that live in the subdivision. That really supports that this area has alot of younger children and alot of families that can benefit from this type of use. Again she has an opinion as to the quality of the care she has received for her child and she indicated that that was excellent. Finally I've submitted a decision and order from the District Court, mostly that's for historic respective and to set forth the standards that the District Court has previously enounciated. There is one portion of that language which is found on page 153 of the exhibit thatI've provided you that I think is really pertinent here today and the court stated there moreover in this case where the court actually listened to the neighbors and their concerns it is clear that some conditions on the use would be more than adequately protect the neighbors real interest. The significance of that statement by the court is the conflict that was previously arisen of whether or not a child care facility should be established and the objections of various individuals in the community have already been addressed. We actually have the benefit of history for us here tonight because that issue has already been presented to a court and this court has indicated that under the information they had before that the Conditional Use Permit should be granted. In summary I would submit that based upon the data being provided to you in wrotten form and the testimony that I have given here today that we have satisfied all the elements of your Ordinances to qualify for a Conditional Use Permit. I would request, not knowing what kind of response we are going to get here tonight that I be allowed to respond after any objections that have been raised concerning this Conditional Use Permit. Johnson: In your testimonies that you have presented in the affidavit's you seen to zero in on one issue, which was noise. There was no comment made regarding traffic. Mack: Actually I did mention that. Johnson: You mentioned something about egress but that had nothing to do with testimony you presented as I recall. Mack: I think it's all part of the same thing. The issue of traffic is whether or not the location of the facility is such that traffic would create a burden on the existing street system in the subdivision. As our map clearly indicates you have at least two and probably three exit points which would prevent any congestion. I also read you the affidavit of one of the mother's that indicated that a number of the children walked to the facility rather than having parents driving. So I would think that in this case I actually probably have better minimal traffic problems than I would have in a normal circumstance because of the unusual number of points of ingress and egress from the subdivision which would prevent any traffic problems in the area. Secondly. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JULY 9, 1991 PAGE #3 Johnson: You say they walk to the facility, but I assume that they still have to be picked up. Mack: Well I would say that if they can walk to the facility they can walk home. Johnson: Not necessarily, if they are walking from school, that was one of the points I wanted to make. The other thing is, I was referring specifically to the three in the green, and there was no comment there regarding traffic as I recall. Mack: The affidavit's do not make reference specifically to the traffic. Johnson: That was my point. Any questions of the Commission? Shearer: I presume that there are no real changes in the number of children or anything else in the facility since it began in 1984. Mack: There's been no significant changes. My only point on limiting the number was the issue that was brought up between your Ordinance verses the State statute. Rountree: You've indicated as Jim said a number of times that this isn't a noisy situation, is that in fact a perceived problem? They also indicated a disturbance with the Day Care Center, has that been a problem? Mack: I guess in some ways I'm anticipating if there's any objections to the hearing. We have one either advantage or disadvantage depending on how any of us want to look at it and that is we've already had a courts intervention into the factual basis of that and the disputes that were arisen were those two and that's why I was enunciating those up front. Rountree: You indicated that one of the advantages of this particular group care situation was the flexibility of the hours and I think you mentioned the availability of later times, what is the proposed operating schedule? Mack: Tammy, do you want to respond to that. Perkins: Currently the operating hours are from eight to six but during school year they run from six to six. Mack: His question is do you allow flex time. If a parent needs you to take care of a child until nine o'clock at night, are you willing to do that? Perkins: I have done it on occcasion but not very often. Rountree: It's not standard procedure? Perkins: No, because of the amount of hours that I am currently working. Hepper: You said there is another Day Care right next door, at what point of density would you think that the number of Day Cares would begin to have an impact on the neighborhood? Mack: Adversly? Hepper: Right. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JULY 9, 1991 PAGE #4 Hepper: You've got another one there and your proposing another one right beside it, potentially we could have another one right beside that. Mack: I think it's a question of need for starters and the ability of whether or not each successive applicant can qualify under the standards that you set under your Ordinances. Addressing the need issue, we know from the data I've already given you that there is somewhere between, there is an estimate somewhere between (in -audible) children that actually live physically on the block where Tamera is located. We know that and we also have the testimony that within the whole subdivision we have over two hundred. Since you have limitations of a maximum of twelve I would submit that there's plenty of need within your system to warrant that. I think the primary key though is whether or not the individual applicants in the future can qualify to the requirements that you have already set, and your going to have to look at those on a one to one basis on whether their individual qualifications are met. Hepper: As you said, one of the things that might be brought up is the noise and traffic congestion. If you have twelve kids there and the one next door has twelve kids, potentially we have twenty four drop offs and pick ups. Mack: First I do not even think, and this is my perception, but I don't think that traffic is even close. I think that you for whatever reason the applicant in this case is fortunate to have the ability to have automobiles come into this subdivision at three different points set forth on this map. You come in off of Maple Avenue, you can come in off of Cherry Lane or you can come in on Cherry, so you have all kinds of ingress and egress points, to have congestion, roads are designed for residential standards and these roads being designed for residential standards there certainly is nothing indicating that there is a congestion of cars. Second the limitation on the number of children that she can have during the day and part of them walking would seem to me that that isn't even a close call. The noise factor is, your always going to have some noise, nobody can livein a house and not have any noise. I dbn't think the standard for anyone to look at is that noone has the right to say that I get to live in a noise free environment, because none of us do. What happens if you live on a major street as I do in Boise. I live on Kootenai, I mean on Kootenai Street I got twelve thousand cars there a day, I hate it but I don't have any rights to say cars can't go down the street. So it's not a question of not having noise, the questions is is that noise greater than what is reasonable, and we would say one it is not and secondly the pecular nature of this neighborhood is such that you have the Elementary School literally a couple hundred feet away that's got seven hundred children which obviously create a tremendously greater amount of noise than twelve children in this house. So I don't think that's a problem. Johnson: There is a difference in hours though. When those children are there and when the children are at the Day Care. Mack: I'm sorry I don't understand that. Johnson: Well you talk about noise during the day and noise at night when you are at home are two different things to most people. Mack: What the applicant testified to is that on rare occassion to accomodate a parent she would do that. You have to remember that at that point and time of the day all the other children have gone home. So her hours are set basically I assume what your work hours are and it's only in an unusual circumstances to accomodate a parent who is working MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING` JULY 9, 1991 PAGE #5 that she does keep it, that's one child that's not twelve children. One child isn't going to make an appreciable amount of noise to bother anybody. Atty Crookston: I'd just like to clarify one issue that I think was raised which I see as a non -issue and that's the quality issue. I don't think that is an issue before us, because we don't have a Day Care Licensing. I appreciate the testimony but I don't think this Commission needs to get into whether she is a good or bad Day Care Operator, that's outside of the issue. Would you agree with that, quality is not an issue? Mack: No I would not Wayne. The reason I would not is I think it goes to the Comprehensive Plan and the concept behind the Comprehensive Plan that municipalities should be self contained and be able to provide the quality and the services that that Community needs to benefit all of the people in your community. My view and the only reason I'm giving you that is to show that we are fulfilling that concept. No I will agree with you that I can't go to your eight lists of criteria to say that it falls directly within one of those, although I think it's collateral. Crookston: You didn't raise this for the Commission's benefit, in the past there has been some concern about the drop off facilities, can you explain to the Commission how that has worked in the past and how it will work in the future, what kinds of facilities they have for parking, things of that nature. Mack: Okay Wayne, I'm not sure that I understand what a drop off facility is. Crookston: Well, do you have an open driveway, do you have a separate entrance, do you have a fifty foot wide driveway with alot of room for cars? Mack: What it is is a standard residential house where you drive into a single driveway with a garage. In front of the house there is room for three cars to be parked and the applicant keeps her car in the garage. So if you were coming to drop off a child you'd have three parking places in front of the house. Crookston: Off street or on street? Mack: On street, curb side parking. Crookston: How long is her driveway, what I'm looking for is off street parking, how much off street parking? Mack: How many cars can her driveway hold? Crookston: Yes. Mack: Tammy? Perkins: I'm sure just one. Mack: Maybe two if you parked them side by side and the person didn't want to get out of the passenger side. I would submit it's a standard driveway within that subdivision. Rountree: Is there going to be anybody else employed in this operation? Mack: Just Tammy. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JULY 9, 1991 PAGE #6 Hepper: It states here on the comments by the City Engineer that reportedly the applicant has three off street spaces which would meet the requirements of the City and apparently that's wrong, there's only one off street parking. Mack: I'm not sure what off street to the City Engineer is. I think you can get three cars in front of the house and I think you can get one or two in the driveway. Hepper: I don't know if you've seen this by the City Engineer, it states that City Ordinances require one space for each vehicle used in the conduct of the Day Care, for example one space for the owner and one for each staff person. Ideally one space should also be provided for children drop off and pick up reportedly the applicant has three off street spaces which meet the requirements if there was only one staff person. Mack: I guess to respond to that in this case, she has no staff people. She can park her car in the garage that would be one I guess, she could although it would be tight put two cars in her driveway and three on the front, curb side parking. Johnson: This is a garage used for parking right, when I was over there it didn't look like that to me. Mack: She parks her car in it. Johnson: Any other questions? This is a Public Hearing is there anyone else here to testify? Layne Saxton, 1319 W. 7th, Meridian, was sworn by the attorney. Saxton: I'm here to speak on behalf of my grandparents, Neil & Inez Hudson who oppose zoning to allow the purchase of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Day Care applied for by Tamera Perkins. I have here six copies of petitions to oppose the use of the Day Care in that area, there are 31 signatures there. The Hudson's built their home 35 years ago at 232 W. Washington with the intent of retiring in this home. The Hudson's property is located directly behind Tamera Perkins, it is only 39 feet from the back of the Hudson's home to the Perkins back yard. The noise from a Day Care fcan not be avoided. The Perkins home is located right next to the Hadley home which also has a Day Care. Not only two weeks ago a two year old baby got out of the Perkin's Day Care and wondered unnoticed to a neighbors house accross the street. The children are placed in the back yard and are simply not supervised to say the least. The noise from the two Day Cares is greater than the noise from the Elementary School. Alidjani: These thirty one signatures that you got approximately how close are these people? Saxton: They are immediate neighbors. Rountree: You've indicated a problem with noise is there any particular time of the day this happens, morning or afternoon? Saxton: Mainly morning and afternoon. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JULY 9, 1991 PAGE #7 Rountree: Your grandparents have obviously been there for quite some time, back in 1989 when we had a hearing for the Hadley care center as my memory serves me, I don't remember much if any objections to that situation. It seems to me that there is more here than just what I'm hearing. Saxton: Just the added noise to the Day Care. It's a total of up to 24 children at one time between the two places. Rountree: To your knowledge has there ever been any communication between your grandparents and Perkin's with regard to this problem. Saxton: I know that they have tried talking to one another about the noise. Johnson: Anyone else to testify? Mary Louise Aguirre, 238 W. Washington, was sworn by the attorney. Aguirre: I live right behind Tamera Perkins, kitty corner right beside the Hudson's. I've lived there for nineteen years and I could give you a little history on this in the sense that yes it has been going on for seven years and as far as I concerned as representing some other people on our street, we've tried to work with them and it got to the point we had to work with the police with them. There must be a reason for Ordinance #430 which states that you are supposed to get 75% approval from the neighbors around you. You can't get those people around there to sign this. There must be a problem if the majority of the people in that area won't sign the petition. This whole thing is a family affair and it's costing the tax payers alot of money. Alidjani: Have you signed this petition that was turned in? Aguirre: Yes I have. Rountree: You've indicated you've signed the petition, the petition doesn't say anything other than opposition. You've addressed noise - Aguirre: I think there is alot of traffic problem. The noise starts in at swen in the morning and continues. Many of us signed in favor of the Hadley Day Care because it is a well operated Day Care, this is not. Rountree: Is the noise particularly a problem at any certain time of the day? Aguirre: Like I say it runs from seven in the morning and continues many times when the parents work late, like she said until nine at night. Rountree: Have you observed more than one individual at those late hours? Aguirre: Yes I have. Johnson: This petition is not dated, can you tell me when these signatures were obtained? Aguirre: We ran two petitions, we ran one in January of 1990 and this petition was started approximately about a month and a half ago. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JULY 9, 1991 PAGE #8 Johnson: The numbers that they gave regarding the number of children in the immediate block would you agree with those figures? Aguirre: Absolutely not, our neighborhood is an old established neighborhood. There are very few children on our streets. Those numbers are far exagerated. Johnson: Anyone else to testify? Bill Berg, 231 W. Washington, was sworn by the attorney. Berg: I have some questions for the Commission? One, is this a business, is a business required to get signatures from the neighbors and so forth? urookston: The signature requirement was held to be invalid by the court. It is technically a business but there is no requirement for signatures. Berg: Does that mean that anybody can start up anything they want in our subdivision? Johnson: No it doesn't mean that, they still have to have the approval of the City Council. Berg: I just don't like something crammed down my throat. Mrs. Hadley came around and was very nice about it. Johnson: Anyone else to testify? Is there anyone else that has testified that would like to add additional statements? Mack: The unfortunate problem we have here today is we really have some neighbors pitted against one another and unfortunately for all of us in my view that occurred because of the litigation that was involved in this. None of us here today can do anything to get rid of that prejudice unfortunately because it's already occurred. What I'd like to do is just briefly try to show you that some of the presentation that you just heard from these complaining witnesses is not accurate. Number one we had an individual discuss here that the Hudson's view that the fence that was put up by my client and applicant actually causes an echo effect. What they_are trying to tell you here today, that the Hudson's are saying is the fence we put up to help any possible concerns with the neighbors is acutally caused a problem to them. There was a trial on this issue and not unforceable the three individuals that were here today we also participants in that trial. Mr. Hudson was cross-examined at that trial. Let me tell you what Mr. Hudson said about the noise factor. Mr. Hudson you testified in the last month there hadn't been a problem with the noise from the children, has anything happened in the last month with respect to your yard and the defendents? Answer - I put a six foot fence, a cedar fence in in the last month. Since the fence was put up have you had any problem with trespassing? No. So what he said under oath gentlemen is the fence mitigated noise, so if there was any noise that noise was mitigated. This man testified under oath. Johnson: Excuse me, I didn't hear you mention noise, I heard you mention trespass. Mack: Okay, I'll read it again for you Mr. Johnson. Mr. Hudson you testified in the last month there hadn't been a problem with the noise from the children. Had anything happened in the last month with respect to your yard and the defendents? I put up a MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JULY 9, 1991 PAGE #9 six foot fence, a cedar fence in the last month. Johnson: What was the next sentence? Crookston: That is a little problem, whose the "I"? Mack: Well he, yes when it was transcribed obviously he was referring to my client that did it. It's misleading, the important point here is he testified under oath he testified the fence cured the problem. Now - Johnson: I don't understand it. What was the next sentence? Mack: The next sentence is, since the fence was put up have you had any problems with trespassing? No. Number one I want this in the record, number two I'm referring to page 106 of the transcript of the trial and I would request that it be deemed part of the record. Secondly, it's infortunate that we have to get to this but I think it's important that you gentlemen understand that with this neighbors being pitted against one another you've got to make a decision of who is telling the truth and who isn't. What I'm telling you is this person testified under oath contrary to what you just heard and that's inappropriate. Secondly you had heard testimony from Mary Louise Navarro, basically she is making comments that my client is not a well run operation and secondly there is noise and disturbing activity because of this Day Care Center. Number one it appears to me that she doesn't live on the Street so there wouldn't be any traffic problems that she indicated because she doesn't live on the street. Two I would like the record to reflect that all of the affidavit's that I have submitted to you gentlemen that I read to you tonight are people who live on my clients street and made no observations of problems with traffic. Thirdly at the trial she basically made the same kind of representations that she made here to you today. So we are talking again a court proceedings where we are talking the same issues here today and at that point there was testimony given by Mary Ann Hart who was a prior employer of this individual, and the answer to that was during, and what it shows is whether or not you should believe the creditability of this individual. The testimony was as follows: "During the period of times that she worked for you were you able to form an opinion as to whether or not she is a truthful individual? Answer - Yes. What is that opinion? I don't believe she is truthful. Given that opinion would you believe Ms. Aguirre Navarro under oath? No. So what we have here is court sworn testimony that this individual does not tend to tell the truth. Secondly I would like to submit to you that the decision that you have in the file that I have previously submitted to you also talks about the issue of the testimony by Mrs. Navarro. Here's what the court said on page 153 and you have that opinion before you. The court said, "the unusual and peculiar responses that Ms. Navarro cast considerable doubt upon the reasonableness of her objections." So what do we have here? We have one advantage and that is we have the advantage of insight, we've had a trial on this issue and we have the court making a decision addressing the specific individual. So I would submit to you that the comments by Mary Louise Navarro are not creditable and should not be relied upon. In support of that for record purposes, I would like to augment the record with the testimony of Mary Ann Hart that I just previously testified to. Gentlemen what we really have got to get here today is has my client complied with the statutory requirements of your Ordinance. I would submit to you that the answer to that is yes. I've seen nothing before you this evening that tells me that she has done anything but comply with your requirements. I do not believe the noise issue is a factor and that has also been ajudicated or at least stated for by a court in a previous action on this. I believe that it is unfortunate that the people that have testified here today have personal animosity but the issue before you is has my client complied with the requirements. This is not a popularity contest, my client is not here to say MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JULY 9, 1991 PAGE #10 I got fifteen people who want to have a Day Care Center and I got twenty who don't. That is not the standard that we have to meet or that this group should rule from. We're not talking popularity, we're talking has my client complied with the rules and regulations of your Ordinance and I would submit that she has and I would request that you grant her a Conditional Use Permit. Alidjani: Is this true that your client is having business hours from 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., is that correct? Mack: Six to six, yes. Alidjani: And is it true that you told us that your client does not have a helper during those hours? Mack: She does not have a full time staff person or employee, no she does not. Alidjani: So, is it alright if I say that it is impossible for a person working twelve hours without eating, freshing up and do other things in twelve hours without help. So there is going to be somebody helping her within that twelve hours, is that correct? Mack: She's in her own home so if she has to use the facilities or if she wants to eat she can eat during the same time the children are eating. I think she can operate her facility on an individual basis while she's there. The advantage she has is she's in her own home, now if she was in an office building or something and had to do this your right, she'd have to go down the hall or whatever. She lives in her house and she operates out of it. Alidjani: At the time that she is in the wash room washing her hands who is taking care of the children? Mack: Technically she is. Hopefully she's got them in the living room or the back yard so they are taken care of. Alidjani: See the point I'm bringing up. There has got to be somebody else in that facility to take care of the children at the twelve hour basis. There has got to be two people there. Mack: I disagree with that. I think your asking are the children unattended wh6h she goes to use the facilities, the answer would be she has the duty to make sure that they were properly supervised while she goes and uses the facilities. The issue of quality which I think is what your getting at sir is if the quality is appropriate as a State licensing question and not a land use question then we are here before this group - - Alidjani: My question was, you said there's no other full time help or part time help or any kind. Mack: There's not. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JULY 9, 1991 PAGE #11 Johnson: We have thirty one signatures within close proximity of the residence, how do you account for that number being opposed other than a popularity contest? Mack: You mean in this particular case? Johnson: Well yes, that's the case we are talking about. Mack: I think the problem Mr. Johnson that has arisen has been that this case has polarized people in this community. The reason it is polarized is because it went to litigation, now that's unfortunate, none of us wanted that. Johnson: There was a petition opposing it prior to litigation. Mack: If there was I don't have any personal knowledge of that. I don't think it's relevant. I don't think you can - - Johnson: It's relevant to me. Mack: Well it shouldn't. Johnson: This isn't a court. That's why I asked the question because it's relevant to me. Mack: My answer to that is there are people who are opposed to what she is doing because they have either been influenced by other individuals or they don't like what is going on there. My real answer to your questions is from a Council view or from a Commission view is that it isn't relevant. We don't look to make decision for land use based on popularity. Johnson: Well I tend to differ with that. History shows we have made alot of decisions based on public objection. Mack: I would defer to your legal counsel for whatever advise he wants to give you concerning that. I'm saying that I don't think that is a proper standard. Crookston: Mr. Rountree asked if the numbers would be different. What has happened in the past, she has had up to thirteen, fifteen kids throughout the day. Now if your meeting our ordinance there will only be twelve so wouldn't there be a lessing of impact because of the number of kids? Do you see what I'm getting at? Mack: No I don't. Crookston: It would appear to me that there would be less impact the fewer number of kids. If you meet our ordinance then she will be allowed fewer kids than I understood she has taken care of in the past. Mack: The information that I have and what I testified to is that she has up to twelve a day, which complies with your standards. I believe this is compliance with your rules and regulations in your ordinance which she is willing to do. I don't have any personal knowledge that she had more than twelve. I'm saying that she will only have up to twelve. Crookston: I appreciate that. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JULY 9, 1991 PAGE #12 Johnson: Anyone else from the public who would like to respond? Aguirre: I'd like to speak on behalf of myself and Mr. Hudson. I think fast Freddy was a little inaccurate in terms of things around so to clarify those in that Hudson testified and knows the answers to that question but not to mislead you the board as you can tell from Layne's testimony and my testimony the fence has caused a greater problem for us. As far as whatever Mrs. Hart or whoever, I was on a management board and I wrote her up and if there is vindictiveness and she is a personal friend of these people that's her perogative to say what she says. There must be a reason that she can't get 75% so we'll let the numbers speak for themselves. Mona Mack, 1117 S. Owyhee, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Mack: I'd like to offer some points just as clarification. I've been in a position where I've been involved in this matter at least since 1988 so I have some particular insight that perhaps Mr. Mack is lacking. Starting backwards perhaps with respect to Mr. Crookston's question regarding compliance with the ordinance and whether or not that will serve to minimize the impact of the operation upon the neighbors. It is true that in the past prior to being made aware of the City's interpretations of it's laws that the defendant, that the applicant Ms. Perkins calculated on the number of children per the state requirement. Because some children were not there during the entire day she would acutally have more than the twelve children throughout the day on her property, although not more than twelve at any one time. Since she will now be having only twelve children throughout the day upon her property that should lessen the impact. Also just by point of clarification, although the application is for a group child care home in reality Ms. Perkins usually has far fewer than twelve children on her property at any one time. Often there are only three or four children,especially during the school days when some of the children that she cares for are in school and she only keeps them in the late afternoon hours until the parents return home from work. Let me also clarify this flex time reference that was made earlier in one of the affidavits. When that parent was talking about flex time and I think she acutally referred to the flexible schedule of Ms. Perkins what she was eluding to was the willingness of Ms. Perkins to take children for only part of a day. Many operators because of economic considerations unless they have the child on the premises for a full eight hours won't even agree to care for a child. Mr. Perkins has again been willing to care for them only if it's for three or four hours in the afternoon. Frankly because of the restrictions on the number of children throughout a day that may not be something that occurs in the future. I'd like to refer to some of the testimony that was presented during the trial. Although the issue is really not that court proceeding related to certain ordinance provisions there was a full array of testimony presented by both sides with respect to the impact of this impact on the neighbors. I would testify under oath having listened to Mr. Hudson's testimony that although the excerpt that was read is not entirely clear that it was at least my understanding during that court proceeding that what Mr. Hudson was testifying to was that there was a lesser impact upon his property after that fence was put up, and needless to say that was the entire purpose of putting up the fence was to attempt to accommodate the neighbors. During that proceeding Ms. Aguirre testified to a number of things. Things that we haven't heard about fortunately in this proceedings, but I'm going to elude to them because again I think it again may help you access the creditability of what's going on here. There were accusations made about the children smoking in addition to the accusations of thievery which she has eluded to. The testimony at one point became quite bazaar. She testified that the children were throwing vegetables over the fence and that one of the problems created by this day care operation were that stray animals would prowl at night to consume this food. It'sthat sort of testimony l MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JULY 9, 1991 PAGE #13 that the court is eluding to when she indicated that there was some peculiar responses that made her question the reasonableness of this particular neighbors objections. I would also note that in response to one of Ms. Aguirre's complaints regarding noise that the City has sent an officer to the sight. Officer Musser testified in court upon the time of the response in response to that particular complaint arriving at the scene there were children out in the back yard playing but there was not any undue or excessive noise that those children were creating. Also with respect to the reasonableness of the neighbors complaints. Mr. Crookston has followed up I think quite deligently when the Hudson's have complained to him. In one particular instance after they had contacted Mr. Crookston, he contacted me and I contacted Ms. Perkins regarding allegedly excessive noise from the children in her home. On that particular day that particular time nobody was at home. The children weren't there nor was Ms. Perkins. They were at a completly different home in Ada County. This was something that was substantiated, they had appointments that day and so the children been kept at her parents home. Part of the problem that has arisen is with respect to these noise complaints in many instances it hasn't been clear where the noise has been coming from. Again there are children throughout this neighborhood and they are all making noise and it's not always even certain when the children in the homes next doors are playing or even accross the street whose children they are in some instances. Lastly I want to comment upon the petition and the Hadley Conditional Use Permit. In response to Truman Johnsons question when he was searching for reasons as to why some of these neighbors would have signed this petition. If you look at the question that's posed, the petition that they are signing is whether or not they would agree or think it is agreeable to have another day care when there is already one in existence. Given the way that question is phrased I think any number of individuals are going to sign it and say no we've already got one why would we want another one. I don't think that that has any bearing in terms of a number of the criteria with respect to whether or not this is an appropriate use on that property. I would also note that Ms. Hadley principly if not exclusively cares for infants in her home. We don't have a duplication of services being provided in that she doesn't traditionally care for older children although her conditional use permit does not preclude her from doing so. I believe that when Ms. Hadley's application was circulated that was the (in -audible) that was made in terms of securing some of those necessary consent signatures. Mr. Crookston can correct me if I am misrepresenting what my understanding was but I had been under the impression that Ms. Aguirre contacted Mr. Crookston to inquire specifically if Ms. Hadley's conditional use permit was granted whether or not Ms. Perkins would be allowed to have one. So part of what's going on in terms of this conditional use permit process and Ms. Hadley having secured one before Ms. Perkins I believe was a deliberate attempt orchestrated by Ms. Aguirre and perhaps in conjunction with Mrs. Hudson to preclude Ms. Perkins from obtaining a conditional use permit. Because of the requirement at that time and those neighbors we deemed after the City Clerk had prepared a list of neighbors whose consent had to be obtained at the outside it appeared quite impossible for Ms. Perkins to obtain the necessary consent because among those who's consent's were necessary were Ms. Aguirre's and Mrs. Hudson's. I do not think in any way that this applicant should be penalized because of her inability to comply with that ordinance requirement to get a conditional use permit application in and considered at the same time while Ms. Hadley's was under consideration. Those were the rebuttal remarks that I wished to make and would answer any questions. Johnson: In your opinion do the residents of a neighborhood have any say or feel or concern or do they have any right to be concerned about what takes place in their neighborhood with respect to increased traffic, with respect to noise? Mack: Of course. We ourselves, our neighbors are going to be concerned about what happens in our neighborhood. Our expressions of concern should be and need to be voiced C PLANNING & ZONING MEETING JULY 9, 1991 PAGE #14 and there should be a quorum in which to voice them, all of that is appropriate. That is my opinion with respect to voicing those concerns. I'd like to go further and give you my legal thought in terms of what you - Johnson: I didn't ask for that, I just wanted a personal opinion. Mack: I would like to say then in clarifying that remark and that is that when those expressions of concern are expressed you have the difficult task of determining whether or not they are reasonable. I'm going to echo what was said earlier, to the extent of those expressions of concern determine whether or not, and it becomes simply a popular vote. Determine whether or not a conditional use permit is granted or denied, that's increditably inappropriate and wrong. Because what you are talking about is land use and this body is a judicial body. Your sitting as a court in essence when you consider this application. Crookston: I'd like to hear the legal opinion. Mack: Mr. Crookston with respect to the input that neighbors have and how it's to be considered, the decision that was rendered in City of Meridian vs. Perkins really is very much on point. What the judge says in that decision and it's echoed throughout numerous Supreme decisions in Idaho is that the neighbors are definitely entitled to input but you can not take that input and have essentially those neighbors determine for you whether or not a permit or any other zoning application should or should not issue or be granted. You can not put these matters up to a popular vote because there are always going to be other considerations beyond what is appropriate for the community, what your community needs, the appropriateness of the use in that area and those are the sorts of things you need to be looking at. When you put something up to a popular vote in terms of circulating a petition and granting or denying a use of property based upon that petition you take away property rights. If I went to every individual on that petition and approached them on this conditional use permit and sat down and talked with them about it and asked them to take their names off that petition for me personally or maybe even gave them money I could change that petition dramatically. That's the problem with petitions. In section 418 when you list those points as you prepare in your findings of fact and conclusions of law as you did for Trudy Hadley. When you list those points and consider whether or not this is an appropriate use looking at those nine different factors, that's what your decision is all about. It's not whether or not somebody next door wants it. If you look at this petition now it's no different than what was just struck down as being void before. Crookston: I do one other question that related to your initial remarks. How long has Tammy been down to the not more than twelve throughout the day? Mack: I would have to refer that to Tammy. Perkins: It's been that way from the very beginning. There were more children listed on the roll sheets, but all that means is that they can walk in the door because they are enrolled. They may only come one day a month, - Mack: I think that those food sheets that were prepared, I don't know if you went into those in any detail at all - - Crookston: I did but it seems like I recall some testimony when we went through the amendment to the zoning ordinance to begin with that there was seventeen children. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JULY 9, 1991 PAGE #15 Mack: The confusion there was that, there were never seventeen children on her property throughout the day. With that number related when she had a roster of children that she would care for sometimes on different days. It was never a throughout the day number, it was simply a number of children on what she called an enrollment at different times throughout the week. Crookston: With that understanding how long have we been dealing with twelve throughout any one day? Mack: I think that since the school year has ended she has only five or six, but even prior to that throughout the course of the court proceeding she only had twelve. Johnson: Anyone else from the public? Saxton: I was sworn in before and what I said was not purgering myself, I told the truth to the best of my knowledge. I personally work for the Meridian School District which is in my opinion maybe the second largest day care in the State of Idaho. What we are saying is the ccmmunity may need another day care but not at this facility. As far as what Mary Navarro says I support everything she has said here tonight. Johnson: Any other comments? Aguirre -Navarro: I would just like to clarify a few inaccuracies and one that there is no children, she's supposed to have twelve children on licensing. We want to show you a video we got it, there's more on the property than that at the same time. So we offer that at proof, we also offer when the Idaho Statesman came to take a picture of you, did you not take three children off your property so you would not be over the number? Johnson: You have to be talking to us. Aguirre -Navarro: She said Hadley does not have older children, that's an inaccurate statement also. She does have older children, she's a day care and she has them from very young to older. She's saying the testimony of a police officer, she forgot to tell you this is a guy testifying for her, how about all the other police officers that had to come down there? Johnson: Thank you all for all your testimony. I'm going to close the Public Hearing now. The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Hepper to have the attorney prepare the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Perkins application. Motion Carried: All Yea: There was no recommendation to pass on to the City Council at this time. ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTI -FAMILY DWELLING BY HEPPER HOMES: Hepper: Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd like to step down due to a conflict of interest. a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 i8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 146 (Exhibit U marked.) MS. MACK: Your Honor, defense would call Mary Ann Hart to the stand. THE COURT: All right. MARY ANN HART, produced -as a witness at the instance of the Defense, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. MACKt Q. . Would you please state your full name for the record, spelling your last. A. Mary Ann Hart, H -a -r -t. Q. Mrs. Hart, were you in the courtroom when the witness for the city, Mary Louise Aguirre Navarro testified? A. Yes, I was. Q. Do you know Mary Louise Aguirre Navarro? A. Yes. Q. How do you know her? A. She worked under me at the Boise Senior Center in 1981. Q. What was the position you held with the HART Defense Direct 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C 147 soise Senior Center? A. I was executive director and director of aging for the Center and the non-profit corporation. Q. How long did she work for you at the Center? A. She was functionally in the job for two weeks. it took about six weeks for me to terminate her after the initial time. Q. During the period of time that she worked for you, were you able to form an opinion as to whether or not she is a truthful individual? A. Yes. Q. And what is that opinion? A. I don't believe she is truthful. Q. Given that opinion, would you even believe Miss Aguirre Navarro under oath? A. NO. MS. MACK: Thank you, no further questions. THE COURT: You may inquire.. MR. CROOKSTONs No questions. THE COURT: You may step down. Do you want the witness excused? MS. MACK: Please excuse the witness. THE COURT: Any problem with that? MR. CROOKSTONs Mo. HART Defense Direct V 117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 123 WILLIAM E. MUSSER, produced as a witness at the instance of the Defendant, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION 1SY MS. MACRt Q. Officer, would you please state your full name for the record, spelling your last name. A. It's William E. Musser, M -u -s -s -e -r. Q. Officer Musser, how are you employed? A. I am a law enforcement officer for the City of Meridian. Q. On July 25th, 1988, were you so employed? A. Yes, I was. Q. On that date at approximately 10:30 in the morning, were you on duty? A. Yes, I was. Q. And at such time were you dispatched to 233 West Cherry Avenue? A. Yes. Q. What was the nature of the dispatch that you received to that property? A. I was advised there was a problem with juveniles, reference noise and possible tobacco use. mriccon nnfnnas r%4 e 4 FOR 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C 124 Q. Upon receiving the dispatch, approximately how much time did it take you to respond? A. To the best of my recollection, it was in approximately three minutes. Q. Upon arriving at the scene, what did you observe? A.- I first made contact at the house there and made contact with the party living there, advised her of the situation, and then she took me around to the backyard area. Q. The party living there, is that the defendant in this case? A. From what I can recollect, she looks like Tamera Perkins. Q. Okay. When you were taken to the back of the property, what did you observe in the back? A. There was a number of children in the back playing, running around the yard, typical children, from what I could see. Q. Did you observe any tobacco? A. I didn't see any tobacco being used at that time or any evidence of it. Q. Did you recall how many children were in the backyard? A. Not at this time. I couldn't give you a MUSSER Defense Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 125 definite number. Q. The noise that the children were making, did it appear excessive to you? A. To me it didn't appear excessive on it. They were playing. There was some high-pitched squealing and all. It's typical kids playing. There was a number of them there. Q. Did you issue a citation to the defendant for any violation? A. No, I didn't. MS. MACK: Thank you, no further questions. MR. CROOKSTON: No questions. THE COURT: Thank you. (The witness left the stand.) MS. MACK: Defense would next call Mary Ann Hart. She apparently isn't here yet, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MS. MACKs We would call instead Jack Niemann to the stand. TAB COURTS All right. 1 -MR. CROOKSTON: May Mr. Musser be excused? THE COURT: I think that might be a good idea. MS. MACK: Of course. I apologize. THE COURT: All right, you are excused. MUSSER Defense Direct TAMERA PERKINS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT COMMENTS 1: Ada County Highway Dist: NO REQUIREMENTS: 2: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ALL LATERALS & WASTE WAYS MUST BE PROTECTED, DRAINAGE MUST BE RETAINED ON SITE: 3: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: CAN APPROVE WITH CENTRAL WATER & SEWER: WE WILL REQUIRE PLANS BE SUBMITTED FOR PLAN REVIEW FOR ANY DAY CARE ESTABLISHMENT: 4: CITY ENGINEER: SEE ATTACHED: 5: POLICE DEPT: NO COMMENTS: 6: BUILDING DEPT: NO COMMENTS: 7: PUBLIC HEARING HELD BEFORE THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ON JULY 9, 1991: NOTICE REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT CORRECT, HEARING NULL & VOID: 8: PUBLIC HEARING HELD AGAIN BEFORE THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 10, 1991: FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED: 9: PLANNING & ZONING MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1991, COMMISSION APPROVED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AS STATED IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS: 10: PETITION SIGNED BY RESIDENTS IN THE AREA OPPOSED TO THIS REQUEST: t ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 318 EAST 37TH STREET BOISE, IDAHO 83714 Inter -Department Correspondence Ada County Highway District Commission To: Development Services From: MERIDIAN CU - 233 CHERRY AVENUE Subject: FACTS & FINDINGS: February 14, 1991 Date: DAY CARE 1. Tamera Perkins requests conditional use approval to operate a group child care facility at her residence located at 233 Cherry Avenue. 2. Cherry Avenue has 50 -feet of right-of-way (which is adequate) , and is fully improved. Requirements are provided to Meridian Planning & Zoning as conditions for compliance. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS: 1. A right-of-way permit must be obtained from ACHD for all street and utility construction within the public right-of-way. Combine utility cuts where practical to limit the number of pavement cuts. Contact Quality Control at 345-7667 (with zoning file number) for details. STAFF SUBMITTING: Pat Dobie. P. MERIDIAN. CU/DSTECH 2-21-91 DATE OF_ COM1V VSION APPROVAL: FEB 21 1991 #X.H.D.. ENG. IIc,11111111111111114114 ��7 b d d r ►+ IC ,� � � r 4 cc �p ►•� yy y p�� K1pp 3 ►�' y � � 7 � O � � v � � 7 7 $Q,� � � � R O R F+ � m pfp, � � c� 7 � W � W.yF• � � dto e o r~ rr w WG• Car rt rt r OD �o w a ~ w 6 rt o ry K n r w rr m r rc rrr x m w JZ --4 � � ►� z is i7i tG�N HC O Njom Y.r�.� T (D b b' G) ❑ m w w n m N H r F m o w n p g w r Y•� G G ur Y•n7 rt Mw w o w o n n n a m o m OQn ❑ r h u, Y• C w rt � 0 N to O w L7 S w rr oo w H K m n H w H A O H • HG H n o rt n w 7 Pr W H t�J .C) r~n [�O z 'i cY H P. m 7 ti H 0 Fdr• n w v n tr rt p. n m x r R fo r hx9 F,. O ro zU' Z rt � w w o �o r n 'TJ i -C �' �. Y. (D .'ti H O G7 m W rt CrtUl Z . I. R+ O (D y H ID til F' q w O w ►a x o cn nw z Y a ff H y M d z cr K CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION 1455 North Orchard Boise, Idaho 83706 REVIEW SHEET _ Rezone # _✓ Conditional Use # 1,61f t _ Preliminary/Final/Short Plat 1. _ We have no objections to this proposal, 2. _ We recommend denial of this proposal. Return to: Boise Eagle 4--IILFridian _ Kuna ACZ 3. _ Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this proposal. 4. _ We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this proposal before we can comment. 5. _ We will require more data concerning the depth of (high seasonal ground water)(solid lava) from original grade before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal. 6. _ We can approve this proposal for individual sewage disposal to be located (2,4) feet above solid lava layers. 7. We can approve this proposal for: _UCentr sewage _Interim sewage Individual sewage _ Community sewage system and Central water Individual water _ Community water well. 8. _✓ Plans for LCr°'tral sewage _Cam tUnty sewage system _Sewage dry lines, and (.E6ntral water _Community water must be submitted to and approved by the Regional Health and Welfare Environmental Services Field Office. 9. _ Street runoff is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. 10. _ This department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. 11. If restroom facilities are to be installed then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. 12. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for is eage establishTent)(swimning pools or spas)(grocery store)( y mf-.��, 13. Reviewed by - Date o+ �• Cdr to rt cr m ;► 7 ggno it, R yy p P~ ter -or K V Q, 0 K R 1 Cu nr " cn T n ros r _ ie tu O N •CF' r F a� at S 3 -p N V-� r+ H D -is 5 T' OT & o T G M RL a r o 6 r F S p n r to (l1 Q O N N G D-10 S p 1S o R zs m S s m tt m Zs a G m tA S S D a y ® In qA TR 3 n S tA p � � NCA n G CA M rl � 0 ! I N N O y 0 O � "r-4 3 � fl 7R �F+7 r. o ✓. � y 4 R LA A 00 9 �.o m Nco m m to d _N N z G) 6 m Z _ fR S d H Q o Z y H �4 a9 S til ~ y IL 1t 11 ti a s R -V N F-� � 00 d`9 00 Vl Q m O to O C H V-% 9 0 6 S 6 3 '�il m tA C,1 to io 3 r 3110 s S s � 3 A R }b K w`7G O yy K H w ��DD xl �• H t7 n n J Q ? H m b y ? N R F� W F,. m t7 O C7 z n I-jV g t�rJ z z tv O to ,b r ' . z N W W z R H 1+ p a z g M �R" I•• �3 r L* M SINCE THERE IS ONE DAY-CARE ALREADY LOCATED AT 225 W. CHERRY AVE. WHICH IS NEXT DOOR TO 233 W.CHERRY AVE. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY-CARE LOCATED AT 233 W. CHERRY AVE. MERIDIAN ID. ll .wlo ADDRESS PHONE (i i n �r�m�cr�pr 3 0 3. 1J/• 4Ucy5hL+�#oa _ _ Y Sfi�' &63 - i9_�_l��u�P�i s ti �� yn �Y 3azi LIJLI L IL/1,L/is. h_I ✓� %Y�C�/j _f f _8-3 3i3 All�WI s3QL WaShi `-m 'Cod9� - -r- - a of _ w 0 �-�- 4—k _ _ 5'YS5-yj_ 336Cherr� ue _- _ SiN --9So9 330 wkvy ✓au -e 75,2 33�A c Ise. � f,I -- % v-2. 7aF (Q 3 362 gi,.a, ----J------- m AL2, SB7-W5' SINCE THERE IS ONE DAY-CARE ALREADY LOCATED AT 225 W. CHERRY AVE. WHICH IS NEXT DOOR TO 233 W.CHERRY AVE. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY-CARE LOCATED AT 233 W. CHERRY AVE. MERIDIAN ID, . NAME ADDRESS PHONE la, f, cw. Af 4 J 3 Wadt po-1v 2 - om,)7(o_-qi5 4_ x a,��j� rynpowl r• w `C F+ � N W rr �•r rr � r n u• oC �' Nd re 7 r• w- �f 7 N W. S rr n �o rUrr rot a r�"'n o ► .� FN�++ ri 7 r. K r• m rt N g r K rr W. to i�p r•• P r~ 4+ 9 rat O- 9 �] R+ r • 0 f] ? p Z ?• 6T ~ r 1D Y�j W R r LTJ m COG W pK K mM N H > -. n K t' F3 y z rn H 0 m z � y C)0 1 m gel x K t7 N N � 0 N b z � H •• z r rn G] o m S r m 10 H10 w c+ m In tr oOrr K) d yw n dto � m z w m O o ti y G W. y all7 '� bJ H ID C] m w It 009 1• rrr x K r z P' t 0 N pi H. 0 r4 'd t7 z H r• 0 � 7y rAEl O LTl H z m w m m L m L+7 ID W zIn ID W l�°J w'•' g"" rrt �. m rr z M rOr En I •• y O M mil � m � z r z z H x N r O N z H z � Ot7l IJ W. R O w N rr Y < H w �D �1 r• H O J [-] 7 N H is x r* � t7' n b r Oo rr x n H y O t wry to p LTJ H H z (n �0, a, ^ x $ r aU w z yy n 41 z ��qq F+• � 1•+ L'] 1+• 1 0 04 ao I.. H C M• � �I I I I I I I� � ( ( I I I I I I I � I I I I I I I4 I L4 wV. M �• r 7 {� n a w (] R K o N�p O two. A r• �G to DAoo A e w rG• R�o w top w n P ~ P 9 K 2 Ar O S 8 '* ry R � fb'r 9 r n AC7F- t* r F3 � KI AR b O H � �yy � c w m a, x N H G O N 'RG m'•C z - w H O z H G) 10r 10 KI AR b O w c w Ll G yO L*7 'RG m'•C H w N O Pr •• nI 1O�a Ul b r• F H 7, M x 0 : H z 5 r• n [T] Zd W- On u O 'd try1�ii C7 H F3 Z z Hz ' K $ x z z c r „ m y m U N � w R t7 N n w z H pr C�i p7w� C) OFFICIALS JACK NIEMAN N, City Clerk JANICE GASS, Treasurer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney EARL WARD, Waste Water SupL KENNY BOWERS, Fire Chief BILL GORDON, Police Chief GARY SMITH, City Engineer June 11, 1991 Mrs. Mona Dobaran-Mack Davis Wright Tremaine 702 West Idaho Street Boise, Idaho 83702 Dear Mona, Enclosed is a copy of the Notice of Hearing for the application of Tamera Perkins for a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a Group Child Care Home. It will be necessary that the certified mailings to the property owners within the three hundred feet area be sent out on the 21st of June which will be the first publication of the Notice of Hearing. There also needs to be a vicinity map included with the certified mailings. I will be out of town from the 19th through the 23rd of June, therefore if you have any questions please contact me prior to that time. Sincerely, irk & Zoning Administrator Meridian, ID. pc: File Tamera Perkins HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live COUNCILMEN CITY OF MERIDIAN RJ.E.BERTMYERSA 33 EAST IDAHO ROBERT GIESLER MAIL YERRINGTON MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Chairman Zoning 8 Planning Phone 888-4433 JIM JOHNSON GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor Mrs. Mona Dobaran-Mack Davis Wright Tremaine 702 West Idaho Street Boise, Idaho 83702 Dear Mona, Enclosed is a copy of the Notice of Hearing for the application of Tamera Perkins for a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a Group Child Care Home. It will be necessary that the certified mailings to the property owners within the three hundred feet area be sent out on the 21st of June which will be the first publication of the Notice of Hearing. There also needs to be a vicinity map included with the certified mailings. I will be out of town from the 19th through the 23rd of June, therefore if you have any questions please contact me prior to that time. Sincerely, irk & Zoning Administrator Meridian, ID. pc: File Tamera Perkins NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., on July 9, 1991, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Tamara Perkins for a conditional use permit at the property known by the address 233 West Cherry Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, described at Lot 7, Block 1, Fran Meridian Subdivision, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. The Applicant requests a conditional use permit for the operation of a group child care home at the above property. A copy of the application is on file at the City Clerk's office at City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and is available upon request. Public comment is welc and will be taken and heard. DATED thi� day of 1991. JACK MIEMANN/, CITY CLERK DAVIS WMGHT TREMAINE LAW OFFICES 702 WEST IDAHO STREET - SUITE 700 - BOISE, IDAHO 83702 (208) 338-82oo MONA DOBARAN MACK (208) 338-8215 May 22, 1991 Jack Niemann City Clerk Meridian City Hall 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Tamara Perkins - Conditional Use Permit Dear Jack: I am writing to request that the public hearing on Tamils application for a conditional use permit be held on July 9 instead of June 11. Unfortunately, prior to my learning of the proposed June 11 hearing date, the City of Eagle, for which the firm serves as general counsel, scheduled a hearing to be held that evening on the creation of a local improvement district. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE rm u -- Mona obaran Mack FAx: (208) 338-8299 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA - BELLEWE, WASHINGTON - LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - PORTLAND, OREGON PUCHLAND, WASHINGTON - SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - WASHINGTON, D.C. J7r,r c �. 4��iA.Ae^J—. iG NOT1u,_ ,j to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., on June 11, 1991, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Tamara Perkins for a conditional use permit at the property known by the address 233 West Cherry Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, described as Lot 7, Block 1, Fran Meridian Subdivision, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. The Applicant requests a conditional use permit for the operation of a group child care home at the above property. A copy of the application is on file at the City Clerk's office at City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and is available upon request. Public comment is welcome and will be taken and heard. DATED this day of May, 1991. JACK NIEMANN, CIT L C NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour• of 7:30 o'clock p.m., on June 11, 1991, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Tamara Perkins for a conditional use permit at the property known by the address 233 West Cherry Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, described as Lot 7, Block 1, Fran Meridian Subdivision, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. The Applicant requests a conditional use permit for the operation of a group child care home at the above property. A copy of the application is on file at the City Clerk's office at City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and is available upon request. Public comment is welcome and will be taken and heard. DATED this day of May, 1991. JACK NIL 011 CITY NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour- of 7:30 o'clock p.m., on June 11, 1991, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Tamara Perkins for a conditional use permit at the property known by the address 233 West Cherry Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, described as Lot 7, Block 1, Fran Meridian Subdivision, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. The Applicant requests a conditional use permit for the operation of a group child care home at the above property. A copy of the application is on file at the City Clerk's office at City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and is available upon request. Public comment is welcome and will be taken and heard. DATED this day of May, 1991. JACK NIEMANN, CIT NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., on March 12, 1991, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Tamara Perkins for a conditional use permit at the property known by the address 233 West Cherry Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, described at lot 7, Block 1, Fran Meridian Subdivision, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. The Applicant requests a conditional use permit for the operation of a group child care home at the above property. A copy of the application is on file at the City Clerk's office at City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and is available upon request. Public comment is welcome and will be taken and heard. DATED this/)]t day of February, 1991. NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant City of Meridian and the laws of the Planning and Zoning Commission of hold a public hearing at the Meridian Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour March 12, 1991, for the purpose of the Application of Tamara Perkins for at the property known by the address Meridian, Idaho, described at Lot Subdivision, Meridian, Ada County, requests a conditional use permit for child care home at the above property. A copy of the application is office at City Hall, 33 East Idaho is available upon request. to the Ordinances of the State of Idaho, that the the City of Meridian will City Hall, 33 East Idaho of 7:30 o'clock p.m., on reviewing and considering a conditional use permit 233 West Cherry Avenue, 7, Block 1, Fran Meridian Idaho. The Applicant the operation of a group on file at the City Clerk's Street, Meridian, Idaho, and Public comment is welcome and will be taken and heard. DATED this/.H/ day of February, 1991. II CITY OF MERIDIAN, "Hub of Treasure Valley" 33 E. Idaho McHdlan, Idaho 83842 888.4433 o�R / (] \ j § a ■ La "I § m 8 ~ 2 § ® $a s » m < § a § @ S G f 2 a m q § ,. j / k \ § J N9 \ . / 44 \ 4-1 4j 43 \ j § E� / \ k § J @ \ \ / k ƒJ§' § § ol ol / IN j B \ 2 ) ) CZ3 G. ~ ci 31 2 / . « > 2 4J 9� = w 7 m 46 o 2£41 ) j � s \ K kj \ k §j §c Q 7IN« 43 El« « 4J ] A g © .1 q 2 } ] . ® | m Q w � tow I 8 § -A / a \ c c]§.§.§ 7 3 § k 4.1 4 a B 2 j R® \ R5 Q k'0 oo$4 , e _ R R•{/ U� } g 2 §) j§§ g f m R 5 A : o ,§>, s s a a. 3 k t.3 CITY OF MERIDIAN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NAME: AM,'P .9 PHONE S2j- L794;) ADDRESS. X33 f Auc 7--L iiaj an GENERAL LOCATION: or -J /lc / eAn! 7�JEerr1ipnl 4Gi,,DJJ iyrs ro-.,� DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: p o� p �'1J�c �A2E No.nE ZONING CLASSIFICATION: le- ¢ PLAN: A plan of the proposed site for the conditional use showing the location of all buildings, parking and loading areas, traffic access and traffic circu- lation, open spaces, landscaping, refuse and service areas, utilities, signs and yards. LEGAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to established procedure, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a Public Hearing in the Meridian City Hall on at The purpose of the Hearing is to consider a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT submitted by for the property generally described as located at BLOCK LOT NUMBER 0 PO e_'A �// � ADDENDUM TO CUP APPLICATION 1. Name, address and Phone number of applicant: Tamara Perkins, 233 Cherry Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642, telephone no. 888-6790 2. Name, address and Phone number of owner of subiect Property: The applicant is the owner of the property. 3. Legal description of property: The legal description of the property is lot 7, block 1, Fran Meridian Subdivision. 4. Proof of ownership of subiect Property: A copy of the deed reflecting ownership of the property is attached hereto. 5. Description of existing use: The property is a residence used as a group child care home. 6. Present use of subiect property: See No. 5. 7. Proposed use of subiect Property: The proposed use is to continue utilizing the residence as a group child care home. 8. The District that pertains to the subject Property: The property is located in a R-4 district. 9. Twenty seven (27) copies of a vicinity map of a scale of one (1) inch equals three hundred (300) feet: The requisite number of copies of the required vicinity map accompany this application. 10. Characteristics of subject Property which make a conditional use Permit desirable: The Applicant has held a state child care license and regularly cared for between seven to twelve children in her home since 1984. The property upon which her home is situated is located in a subdivision in which many children live: there are approximately 35 just in the block where the property is located. The property is only a few hundred feet from the Meridian Elementary School, which approximately 700 children in the first through sixth grades attend. There is a great demand for the in- home care of these children and younger children in the Applicant's and surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed use will help meet these needs. The Applicant's residence is harmonious in appearance with the existing neighborhood. There are no signs or any other commercial indicia of the child care operation. The proposed use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing, uses nor are there any existing uses or natural features in the area which present a hazard to the children cared for upon the property. The property has a 6 foot fence surrounding the backyard of the property to minimize the use's impact upon adjoining properties. The proposed use is adequately served by existing public facilities and will not create excessive additional requirements. The roadways of the subdivision in which the property is located are designed in a manner which allows easy access to the property without any interference with traffic on surrounding streets. There are no cul-de-sacs in the subdivision. Some of the children in the Applicant's care simply walk to her home from school and from there to their own homes so no additional vehicular traffic is generated. The traffic that is generated form the use of the property as a group child care home has never been a problem. The Applicant's property has three parking places. 11. neina considered for a conditional use: A list of the property owners within 300 feet is attached. The Applicant is not aware of any owners within the area seeking a conditional use. The Applicant agrees to pay any additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges, if any, associated with the use. The Applicant will also provide the City with an affidavit of publication after she has mailed notice of her CUP hearing to the property owners within 300 feet and posted her property. The Applicant certifies that she has read the contents of this Application and that the information contained herein is true and correct. DATED this day of February, 1991. Tamara Perkins Chao O(Ink, y e-rlc O-" h fic • vJo�e°r'r ou le clri c�-w O �o sIIh r u `r~, s cyJ':t c o a o r IL, ; ® f,_c e on-s¢re-��- Park.tnc� � f 'fCn 7 6>I 35440 `I v1 4 x 7 2 90 ro re ro ro ro a 3 ^ 5 $ MAPLE AVENUE_ ��' _ H = ,to L o s as4 wKo w w wm�� 9 RB7�.s 6 R5 4 3 e 1""''% W R MAPLE AVE» 0 7 . 6 )t0 ;r w 0 Ila I4 .rwra2• .'� 1!0 Ito 12 rz , 62�f 5 4 3: r : v� ' 5 4 Y 6S t.0 .o so so .o .o I�e.eo~ C , • �j• 3 Z {` •, 4 I I o .�9 CAMELLIA AVE. R 042 10: 9 4o ao 00 60 a0 40 w Ioa4 F- I 7 2 ,.... s.. 1 =2" 3 4"" 6 : 3 (;h N RCNERRY 0 4o so w 40 40 aa.at ' ...• •„ •,. a u0 a '2501 - Ito 3 D - u2a 5.60 R CHERRY �r1 AVENUE $ 13� I •MI O 9E •7 sc ee.n" �.......Y,., Ito I:o 40 .-. 1 •_ 11'I :0 5 „ : L1- 14� •:r• CHERRY AVE. S 1 4o w meNso so.oas IG t4 =,33'01,1 Z.1 t ,. .. ,,..r ... "...., il.. 7sel2 I 0 0 II A 16120 0 r-' WASHINGTON STREET 3p .TON"*"-' 'r E � o Y q 99.5 21 s^ 120 5N-ls�i • 120 4 19.90 '•6 3 ;07 2 ' ro e 8.- l " " S Ito n- 61zo ro 6 - 7 — 6 6 �' 5 4 4 '"2 ]141 3 32 21 STATE AVENUE 6 I I F 60 r E. //4 CORNER — — SEC. /P ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BOISE,. IDAHO. _�' =u -m (,pe=mAa0Ata(�4e UlJ oath --- - li w,.r� �wrwr�r,rrrr Tar Imm "Vas, Uwe W dy of NOrsmber , V w vw d AV led er khau - : roe beadtmd sal eLIhty-f Lae Ieter Ila MMU W. VMIR:., Nusband, w tae _ y d Ant p t mad TAWraA L. tZRXIW1, Wife, YM9am y of68mswdpm% 17) Cherry Avenue, yerLdlen, Idaho 11447 Wr 'tmxim '.td tM ry Pon y of 'hs Int pti. 15r w Y ewdrmlba Of Wr MIN d OWr (11.00) and other 1004 and valuable ssmsideratlon-----------.pages bwIW any of Ce Udwd lwre d Anwim if his b Mp try by the mW twW d tie erwd tat. the mdot w rW Y Wmby mbwwbdpl, Im a gmmw bfplmed, edd and aw wyed, mad by tame pwwr & ea /rt. MWK r9 amd eeewy ear do ry art y d of aefatd Wt. mad to bar MM mad mrisr, frmff. of that NwV Ow f pmad of Iniad dmm% lybeg mad Mr9 b tM Cm mty of A4 med ber of Iftb% p AVANky 6mr6w an him 1►wkt Lot 7, block 1, PAP IOi OZAN WADIVI/IOW, aeowdlptl to the OffLeLl vlet thereof, filed in Book 50 of Plato at saga 199 , roeorda of Ada County, Idaho. ADWWT TO Mal Natats dbrtVages dated My 24, 1974, record" As Imtmetrent No. 909159, and October U, 1913, both In carer of United /tater of America, acting through the faamers Note Administration, United $tate@ Departewre of Ageloulturs. 140&bw with a5 mad tlerybr dr rmm mt4 Iwwk mar ad mppelrmart dwrmy y f r w•iw AppWWfthIand &o iM sed the maid k I r.rd.a tamldr mad mrdmdw% meta batr W peft damdwem and mw ar the octet% tigbR in letrem iV w dewrJ e.amt,mmar, r esti V" of u0 ry m..m a d W AM P. % 01, &1 1rw�j g ry I+e61% sed MW pan mad wed tMnd, s7tm lM mggrwamefr. To Nave An to Hata, Al sed dWAW W rid pwete tegtlber With dr appitremma tow tw am tan y of tlr road pat sad to bar bdm sed wpm hm w, In Wnwm Wtmmw, Ike ry pit y of the bet pn hr betwutto act his yr and ted the day and yw Ant abmn rifer bore. ALUM An Dnjvnu IN Pmeanam w ...... ........... .............. __..._ .._ _....................... ........_..• _ ...._.._.. __.........._.._. _ __.......derp 1 RTATC 0r IDAHO. a Cwrq'd Can ON" Ja m w r MDvemb" tM taMswl�sM rN &Ap^ yprN RtMMwwlt N. runw, boot ofoss ,wlwrm II.Iwr r mw ww wwwrrMwwHw+ www Iisimmo mhmwtowa"br=@KOr wh wwdpr w r rn w meow w wra d Wmm wrrarn, 1 ww wn rt wN W �in1.o rii ar w M Nw Y Nr Wdit" *A AM wApa ^` Mrlrl warm �1 ••C:.491(-yy • fu ryM .rpn nl ,F,,,������, �" �'wTf7� 3 Nlti� i�• 7�0 �I 8 u 6 kl 5 RI4�1 W 5 W t 7.I = MAPLE AVENUE 00 ; '� •�1kto �---- H •sA 40 eD w w •o t0 w N.0• 6 Iw 9 S8 7 t6 35 4 3t ' BI ""8' Is t. MAPLE AVES 14 9 JXX 16 Ito t- - Mme'• ' 1 � 0 w w o •o IN Ilo.f ..\.. I 153 161[0 I!0 ILO I 1 • 1• 5l: 4 6 3 6 +10 so 40 ' "'!0 soM6040r "!' • P42 � c ~ = CAMELLIA AVE.° oe.1 . 1°s N F 7 2 , z . H.•t . 8,J9Ab.6 '+^ ✓-4.q .rI Ito S CHERRY AVENUE 9 ell O 9 9 7 sc ee.71 ^ •iI•..,. �,.. 10 ,r..• -i I� CHERRY AVE. r ' '` sa ; 110 'Q 5 Ito : 4-40 s ti ~ 6 3 9t ( ifs ;;3 i;�f: „1 3 l0 70 70 70 70 70 10 70 111 i0 e �sc 6 5 4 3 2 9 I p o b To 12 To 0 7 70 70 117.71 ItoB Ito �,. WASHINGTON STREET e - -- -- -- --WA nAl &6 96 1 - 119.5 V r Ito Ito ND t: ® 04.; �P W4W 3 so ymo5 I 153 161[0 4 '• 1Ito (n so AT I 1 I 1 I 543 4 : 6 3 7 2 ' 8. l,, � I u Ito ^ toto 8 r 5 12 oz 1 4. 4 14 3 2 15 2 I 16 1 STATE AVENUE so -- SEC. /2 • i ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BOISE,. IDAHO: s 7 0 * l e I- n 4 ii 5d4i4ot W n 5 7 2 S MAPLE AVENUE s; n alto s �- - - - 1— k s9 so so w w w so �w e°.osl p 8 .up i W o MAPLE AVE: 9 t8 .' t6 t55 4S 3t B ••••8„ ,. W • 7r.n 'n 16120 0 wsow so so ` " w 14 ..nn,a � Ito . Ito 120 r 5a�a It 4 t ,tibL1 p5: 4 3:2tc. C •� a ,� i�' y ' a 5 s 4 i S. t 40 40 so s0 ! 40 • 40 3 6 3 IF 7 Z CAMELLIA AVE. s e42 ►: �= so a � a +0 10 10 s0 10 40 " I— 7 2 Is2. 3 4n 8"6n \ • " +0 " I n 3# se.i2 . .r -•:..a _ 6 = al:o 6 p s0" W s0" 40 qr '•° Ito II 6 �' LJ " n Qt n 9 CHERRY 2 s AVENUE `" B 1 3 e� ell" 3 14 3 CHERRY AVE. 4p .rr.r I r• , `; ;,.11� 2 1!0 "D 5 Ito 16 1 +o w 40 i0 i0 s0 a 0 ' ,�.z y uj 3so FI 9; I n,4 ir3 �6 70 TO a 29 j 3 7 2 70 70 70 TO ! bo B ; 70 To 70 70 11770 6 5 4 3 1 to tl 0 7 70 70 117.74 " I208 Ito WASHINGTON STREET 9 �P-0 �r 0a: _ 0_- /� 6 ` 19. ' 21 s� 120 r 5a�a It 4 6 STATE AVENUE I-' 12 5 F, 12 5 W13 4 (p 13 4 I 3 14 3 W 14 3 15 3 15 2 ° s0 16120 1120 so I61t0.70 10 IIL0.70 s0 ]03' ow r E. //4 CORNER SEC. /2 1\� 3� ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BOISE.: IDAHO.:"-!f'u -� ` 19. ' 21 s� 120 r 5a�a It 4 19.00 ' •6 3 IF 7 2 ' so a � a 130 ISD n 612070 9120 Ia 6 i 10 r 6 II 6 �' 5 12 4 1 3 4 '"a 3 14 3 2 15 2 I 16 1 STATE AVENUE I-' 12 5 F, 12 5 W13 4 (p 13 4 I 3 14 3 W 14 3 15 3 15 2 ° s0 16120 1120 so I61t0.70 10 IIL0.70 s0 ]03' ow r E. //4 CORNER SEC. /2 1\� 3� ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BOISE.: IDAHO.:"-!f'u -� ' r 4 S uiei i0• I 7�o'I 8 c 6 el 4'. .. C 3 •� !� 2 (\ n 5 $ MAPLE AVENUE f" �,i _ Ito kzJ t12 w140 W o MAPLE AVE.° w8 % 6 1255 4. 4 .Mre.1 e n . 3 BI S 7 :Wso w m o�� R uo Ito so so.� : F- 5 3 4 i ,tibso 5 4 3:?�sl s 0 �7 �;wi4o so so co eo 40 l�•.to •� 6 3 Zi soCAMELLIA AVE. s .42 �: 72 8 +o so eo so so 40 ot°1 u.• n 1 S2 w 3 4 n so n n ; (; ,.f (A . �CHERRY 0 +o so w eo \ 40 o seas . w•.:.,7 .n ° Ito g r =Ito 3 R l w.:s s.so CHERRY o " o I ell 0 80 s7 sc se.77n -01-1111-111,AVENUE 1�,.. 13 D � +0 •>9 � � leo I:o .:,•. CHERRY AVE. ea 5 4 14; _ [ sit •0 s0 e0 • a0 ;a0 0 C M t It 1•Q12 • �•r 1 t. '� 67 . ' 6 0 • 7 2 .70 f0 70 70 f0 f0 7e fe •n m m .�,,.. 31 s WASHINGTON • C WANn MIIIIIII n 16 R 161[0 0 STREET 16 I I I 01 STATE AVENUE 6 - 11 6 - II5 H12 5 12 4 W 13 4 N 13 W43 W 14 3 15 llto so 16120 Oto so 16120.70L16di so to a^ 0 r r E. //4 CORNER -- SEC. /2 ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BOISE. -IDAHO : ".T=26 -m 'un. •' 0 Y 9. + 21 s� 120 *-,U) 5s�s • 1[0 4 19.90 ;� 7 .2 ' •0 120 � l., It0 r n 612070 912016 6 - - 7 10 +` — 6 11 6 6j 5 12 4 1 3 3 14 3 2 15 2 1 16 1 I STATE AVENUE 6 - 11 6 - II5 H12 5 12 4 W 13 4 N 13 W43 W 14 3 15 llto so 16120 Oto so 16120.70L16di so to a^ 0 r r E. //4 CORNER -- SEC. /2 ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BOISE. -IDAHO : ".T=26 -m 'un. l NI til f0 I 9 wI B 1 O 1�p �I 7p./ qi. • 161.40,� 2�« MAPLEAVENUE--alto =t12 t0 s0 sp s0 so 0 Os / W °,w °8 7 615 4 MAPLE AVE° ){ 3 so I 10nr)`av�• Ito r'It0 • SS6t1� .3 4 :ps � + 5 s 4 i 440 sD W 6D sD .D .CS 6 3 "me CAMELLIA AVE. s e4272 9 +o so so so so 40 m I-h •t•• I s2 w 3 4 ^ \b" 6 :if CHER go ° +o soa so so a +o , •• •., ,�. n Ito 8 = =Ito 2 ^ D — g , M' Is 5.e5 ^ f S CHERRY s AVENUE = JI 0 9^ a% it N.77^ rJ)•..nrru SII I31 a •0 ( e rr.. Ito Ito 1 e •..16 66 a I I—j a 5 I r 14; " CHERRY AVE. w Q t 21" +o w so so ,so) o y o t. N IG �a 9� — Y_ 60 i [� 67 f 3 ) 1 .70 7O 70 7o 70 70 70 70 TD 10 70 117 70 1 7 2 &12 11 8 ;�D 6 5 4 3 2; 1 60 To 70 700 70 1 70 117.71 a It° a r Ito a WASHINGTON STREET `, s 1 I '° I 9i I 'i I 96 196A ^A 96 1 j 09.5 Ito ao 11— 3D e 120 — 16 6120 Iz0 Ito w 14 1s n 16 ° IX 16120 e e-- 9 7 It 6 11 e F 12 4 (n 13 3 W 14 z 3 u i I Ito so 16120 s21 x r :19.00 (f)5s1s 4 s � r ^g 3 ;07 2 I. +o • 8a. S I Ito leo a ..__.:.:......Jar .. J.L.. 612070 - 612070 91z0 6 n N Ii 10 7 — % 10 )• II 5 11 12 5 12 13 4 1 3 14 3 I4 3 15 2 15 2 16 I 16 1 STATE AVENUE so S r E. //4 CORNER SEC. /Ir t\� ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BOISE.:IDAHO. P;=A'—O^ M A S T E R U P D A T E -Parcel 82917150050 Code Area 03 Type NameSOLIBHTLY DENNIS A & EVA, 200 410 Buyer.,., 990 C/O Address 313 W CHERRY AVE MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change By Legal LOT 10 BLK 1 FKAN MERIDIAN SUB #8427333 1/24/90 14:12:08 Qty Value .13 10000 41500 Bank Code WOF 20750- Lien Code Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Total 30750 Circuit Breaker NO M07010010100 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 -Property Address 00313 W CHERRY Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice J� I ef, PFMD01 M A S .T E R U P D A T E Parcel R2917150052 Code Area 03 Type Qty Name WHITMORE MICHELE E 200 .15 410 Buyer 990 C/O Address 315 W CHERRY AVE MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change 86/04/21 By ; ASR -MAP -2 Total Legal PAR #0052 OF LOT 11 BLK 1 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB #0055-B #8618542 1/24/90 14:13:40 Value 10000 30100 Bank Code 15050- Lien Code MFH Trust L.I. D. Bankrupt Sub.Code 25050 Circuit Breaker NO M0701001011A 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Addness.00315 W CHERRY Zoning R-1 ACTIVE *-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice 8' PFMDOI, M-A>S T E R U P D A T E 1/24/90 14:13:58 Parcel R2917150072 Code Area 03 Type Qty Value Name COX, LISA L 200 .04 600 Bank Code 'Buyer - Lien Code C/O Trust Address 1230 W 4TH ST L.I.D. Bankrupt MERIDIAN ID Sub.Code 83642 - 0000 Last Change : 89/02/09 By : ASR MAP_2 Total 600 Legal PAR #0072 OF LOT 11 BLK I FRAN MERIDIANSUB #0055-5 #8902911* Circuit Breaker NO M07UlOO1Q11B 3N 1W 12 Hardship U Property Address 00000 Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change * D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMDOI M A S T E R U P D A T E Parcel R2917150060 Code Area 03 Type Name HALE CHARLES M & CODI B 200 410 Buyer 990 C/0 Addr$ss 331 W -CHERRY AVE MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change : By Legal LOT 12 BLR 1 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB #8367135 1/24/90 .14:14:15 oty Value ell 10000 33200 Bank.Code WOF 16600 Lien Code Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Total 26600 Circuit Breaker NO M07010010120 3N iW 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 00331 W CHERRY Zoning R-1 ACTIVE *-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMD01 1. .11 M A S T E ,R U P D A T E Parcel R2917150065 Code Area 03 Type Name TOLMAN ARTHUR E & SUSAN 200 410 Buyer 990 C/O Address.339 W CHERRY AVE MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change 86/09/02 By : ASR -MAP -2 Legal LOT 13 BLK 1 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB #8650001 1/24/90 14:14:24 Qty Value .11 10000 35600 Bank Code FMC 17800- Lien Code Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Total 27800 Circuit Breaker NO Property M07010010130 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Address 00339 W CHERRY Zoning R-1 ACTIVE, *-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFS -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMD01 M A S T E R U P D• A T E Parcel R2917150070 Code Area 03 Type Name COX LISA ,L,, . 200 410 Buyer 990 C/O Address 1230 W 4TH MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change : 87/05/05 By : ASR -MAP -2 Legal LOT 14 BLK 1 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB #8722407 1/24/90 14:14:34 Qty Value .11 10000 30100 Bank Code 15050•- Lien Code MFH Trust L. •I. D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Total 25050 Circuit Breaker NO Property M07010010140 3N 1W 12 Hardship O Address 01230,W 04TH Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected •Notice Circuit Breaker NO MO701001O150 3N 1W 12 Hardship O >Property Address 01222 W 04TH Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMD01 M A S T E R U P D A T E 1/24/90 14r14t46 Parcel R2917150075 Code Area 03 Type Qty Value Name FARRELL MICHAEL D & SHARLA K 200 .11 10000 410 41600 Bank Code CWM Byer 990 20800- Lien Code C/O Trust Address 1222.W 4TH L.I.D. Bankrupt MERIDIAN ID Sub.Code 83642 - 0000 Last Change By : Total 30800 Legal LOT 15 BLK 1 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB #8456194 Circuit Breaker NO MO701001O150 3N 1W 12 Hardship O >Property Address 01222 W 04TH Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMDOI M A S T E R U P D A T E 1/24/90 141l5cO7 Parcel R2917150080 Code Area 03 Type Qty Value Name JENSEN DELWIN S & JOYCE A 200 .11 10000 410 28400 Bank Code Buyer Lien Code MFH C/O Trust Address 5712 SITES DR L.I.D. BankruptSub.Code BOISE ID 83705,.- 2655 Last Change : 86/01/06 By : AP Total 38400 Legal LOT 1 BLk 2 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB Circuit Breaker NO M07010020010 3N IW -12 Hardship O Property Address 003152CAMELLIA Zoning R-1 ACTIVE M -Change D.D. Type i REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit .CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMDOI M A S T E R U P D A T E Parcel R2917150085 Code Area 03 Type Name WADE -TIMOTHY M.& LISA G 200 410 Buyer 990 C/O Address 237•CAMELLIA MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change a 98/05/25 By : ASR_CHILDE Legal LOT 2 BLK 2 FRAN MERIDIAN SUS #8817768 1/24/90 14e15e16 Qty Value .11 10000 32300 Bank Code GRC 16150- Lien Code MFH Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Total 26150 Circuit Breaker NO M07010020020 3N IW 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 00237CAMELLIA Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Rall 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice q,iLl n,s PFMD01 M A S T E R U P D A T �E .Parcel R2917150090 Code Area 03 Type Qty Name CORNWALL LARRY A & M RENEE 200 .11 410 Bayer, 990 C/O Address 231 W CAMELLIA MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change : 85/05/21 By : A3 Total Legal LOT 3 SLK 2 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB #8525548 1/24/90 14:15:30 Value 10000 36100 Bank Code NOF 18050- Lien Code Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code 28050 Circuit Breaker NO M07010020030 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 00231 W CAMELLIA Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMDOI M A S T E R U -P D A T E 1/24/90 14:15:43 Parcel R291715O095 Code Area 03 Type Qty Value Name- SIENKNECHT JERRY R & MARY F 200 .11 10000 410 35800 Bank Code Buyer 4 990 17900- Lien Code MFH C/O Trust Address 223 CAMELLIA L.I.D. Bankrupt MERIDIAN ID -Sub.Code 83642 —0000 Last Change s By ; Total 27900 Legal LOT 4 BLK 2 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB M07030020040 3N iW 12 Circuit Breaker NOHardship 0 Property Address 00223 CAMELLIA Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll i PRIMARY Occ. O CFS -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-CLLrrected-Notice O Q,q ,S PFMD01 M A S T E R U .P D A T E Farcel R2917150100 Code Area 03 Type Name BROWER DEANNA LYNN 200 410 Buyer ,. 990 C/0 Address 215 CAMELLIA MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 - Last Change : 88/04/25 By : ASR -MAP -2 Legal LOT 5 BLK 2 FRAN MERIDIANSUB #8817658 1/24/90 14:16:01 Qty Value .11 10000 31400 Bank Cade OSL" 15700- Lien Code MFH Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Suh.Code Total 25700 Circuit Breaker NO M07010020050 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 00215 CAMELLIA Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMD01 M A S T E R U P D A T E Parcel 82917150105 Code Area 03 Type Qty Name MCFADDEN PIXIE L 200 .11 410 .Buyer C/O Address 207 -CAMELLIA AVE MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 2225 Last Change : 89/02/10 By : ASR -MAP -2 Total Legal LOT 6 BLK 2 FRAN, MERI•D•IAN SUB #8904009 1/24/-90 14z4 6:.10 Value 10000 33800 Bank Code Lien Code MFH Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code 43600 Circuit Breaker NO M07010020060 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 00207 CAMELLIA I Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change * D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. O CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Carrected Notice PFMDOI MASTER U P D A T E 1/24/90 14:16:20 Parcel R2917150110 Code Area 03 Type Qty .Value Name BLAIR WILMA M 200 .11 10000 410 26900 Bank Code Buyer, 990 13450- Lien Code MFH C/O Trust Address 1239=W 2ND L.I.D. Bankrupt MERIDIAN ID 9ub:Code 83642 - 0000 Last Change By Total 23450 Legal LOT 7 BLK 2 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB Circuit Breaker NO M07010020070 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 01239-.'W 02ND Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI-Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected,Notice PFMD0I M A S T E R U• P D A. T E Parcel R2917150115 Code Area 03 Type Name- NEAOLE LOUIE J & TINA -MARIE 200 410 Buyer .. 990 C/O Address 216 CHERRY MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change 88/11/02 By : ASR -MAP -2 Legal LOT 8 BLK 2 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB #8849764 1/24/90 14:16e32 Qty Value .11 10000 36500 Bank Code KIS 18250- Lien Code Trust L.I..D. Bankrupt Su6.Code Total. 28250 Circuit Breaker NO M07010020080 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 R%openty. Address 00216- CHERRY Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Conrected•Notice PFMDOI M A S T E R U P.D-A T E 1/24/90 14216:48 Parcel R2917150120 Code Area 03 Type Qty Value Name O'.DELL CLAY. 200 .11 10000 410 29100 Bank Code KBR Buyer Lien Code C/O Trust Address 224 CHERRY AVE L.I.D. Bankrupt MERIDIAN ID Sub.Code 83642 - 2231 Last Change : 87/06/05 By : ASR_CHILDE Total 39100 Legal LOT 9 BLK 2 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB #8649661 62 Circuit Breaker NO M07010020090 3N 1W 12 Hardship O Property Address 00224 CHERRY Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. O CFI-Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMD01 M A S T E R U P D A T E 1/24/90 14:17:00 Parcel 82917150125 Code Area 03 Type Qty Value Name BERRY.-DEANNA,R 200 .11 10000 410 27800 Bank Code Buyer - 990 13900- Lien Code C/O Trust Address 232,,W CHERRY AVE L.I.D. Bankrupt MERIDIAN ID Sub.Code 83642 - 0000 Last Change By : Total 23900 Legal LOT 10 BLK 2 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB Circuit Breaker NO M07010020100 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 00232 W CHERRY Zoning R-1 ACTIVE M -Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected-Notice PFMD01, M A-S T E R U P D A T E - 1/24/90 14:17:11 Parcel R2917150130 Code Area 03 Type Qty Value Name NICHOLS WALTER C & MARLA K 200 .11 10000 410 37600 Bank Code-KSS Buyer, 990 18800- Lien Code C/O Trust Address 238 W CHERRY AVE L.I.D. Bankrupt MERIDIAN ID Sub.Code 1 83642 - 0000 Last Change : -88/10/13 By : ASR-MAP-2 Total 28800 Legal LOT 11 BLK 2 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB #8845501 Circuit Breaker NO M07010020110 3N IW 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 00238-W CHERRY Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI-Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice � SCO 1� l 1q- PFMD01 M A S T E R U- P D A T E Parcel R2917150135 Code Area 03 Type Uty Name TREAT DUANE C & CASSANDRA L 200 .11 410 .Buyer.., 990 C/O Address 312 -CHERRY AVE MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last ,Change By Total Legal LOT 12 BLK 2 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB M07010020120 3N 1W 12 Property 1/24/90 14:17:22 Value 10000 28600 Bank Code 14300- Lien Code MFH Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code 24300 Circuit Breaker NO Hardship 0 Address 00312 W CHERRY Zoning R-1 ACTIVE k -Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CF1-Exit •CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice i PFMDOI M A S T E R U P D A T E 1/24/90 14t17t33 Parcel R2917150140 Code Area 03 Type Qty Value Name SMITH RICKY L 200 .I1 10000 410 28100 Bank Code Buyer 990 14050- Lien Code MFH C/0 Trust Address 1325 W 2ND ST L.I.D. Bankrupt MERIDIAN ID Sub. Code 83642 - 0000 Last Change : 88/08/11 By : ASR -MAP -2 Total 24050 Legal LOT 1 BLY, 3 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB #8836580 Circuit Breaker NO M07010030010 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 01325 W 02ND Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFS -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice 00 7 PFMDOI M A S T E R U P D A T E Parcel R2917150145 , Code Area.03 Type Name HEINRICH STEVEN D & DONNA F 200 410 Buyer - 990 C/O Address 214 CAMELLIA• MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change By Legal LOT 2 BLY. 3 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB 1/24/90 14:17:42 Qty Value .11 10000 36600 Bank Code CWM 18300- Lien Code Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Total 28300 Circuit Breaker NO MQ701003O02O 3N 1W 12 Hardship O Property Address 00214 CAMELLIA Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type I REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. O CFS -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice n PFMD01 M A S T E R U P D A T E Parcel R2917150.150 Code Area 03 Type Qty Name HENDERSON CALVIN K & BARBARA A 200 .11 410 Buyer - 990 C/O Address 222 CAMELLIA MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change By Total Legal LOT 3 BLK: 3 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB 1/24/90. 14:17:54 Value 10000 29800 Bank Code CWM 14900- Lien Code Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code 24900 Circuit Breaker NO M07010030030 3N IW 12 Hardship O Prtoperty Address 00222- CAMELLIA Zoning R-1 ACTIVE *-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll I PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PvW�� PFMD01 M A S T E R U P D A T E Parcel R2917150155 Code Area 03 Type Name MEYER VIRGINIA A 200 410 "Buyer . -990 C/O Address 230 CAMELLIA MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change By Legal LOT 4 BLK 3 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB 1/24/90 14:18:03 Qty Value .11 10000 29000 Bank Code 14500- - Li err Code Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Su6.Code Total 24500 Circuit Breaker YES M07010030040 3N 1W 12 Hardship O Property Address 00230 CAMELLIA Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CF1-Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMDUI M A S T E R U P D A E 1/24/90 14e18s26 Parcel R2917150160 Code Area 03 Type Qty Value Name TODD DONALD W & SHARON.M 200 .11 10000 410 37000 Bank Code OSL Buyer, 990 18500- Lien Code MFH C/O Trust Address 236 CAMELLIA L.I.D.-.- Bankrupt MERIDIAN ID Sub.Code 83642 - 0000 Last Change By Total 28500 Legal LOT 5 BLK 3 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB Circuit Breaker NO M07010030050 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 00236 CAMELLIA Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFS-Exit CF2-Next-Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice 7'l PFMDOI M A S. T E R U P D •A T E Parcel R2917150165 Code Area 03 Type Name PHILLIPS RITA M- 200 410 Buyer 990 C/O Address 306 CAMELLIA MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change By : Legal LOT,6 BLY 3 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB #8239394 1/24/90 14:18:.35• Qty Value .11 10000 28500 Bank Cade 14250- Lien Code MFH Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Total 24250 Circuit Breaker NO M07010030060 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 00306 CAMELLIA Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMD01, M A S T E R U P D A T E Parcel R2917150170 Code Area 03 Type Name FARMER SCOTT DONN & LINDA S 200 410 Buyer - 990 C/O Address 314 CAMELLIA MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change By Legal LOT 7 BLK 3 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB #8316303 1/24/90 14:18:47 Gty Value .13 10000 30300 Bank Code GRC 15150- Lien Code Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Total 25150 Circuit Breaker NO M07010030070 3N 1W 12 Hardship Property Address 00314 CAMELLIA Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PF.MD01 M A S T E R U P D A T E 1/24/90 14:19:02 Parcel R2917150175 Code Area 03 Type Qty Value Name MCFADDEN ARTHUR L & SHERRIE 200 .13 10000 410 40900 Bank Code FMF Buyee 990• 20450- Lien Code C/o Trust Address 316 CAMELLIA L.I.D. Bankrupt MERIDIAN ID Sub.Code 83642 - 0000 Last Change 87/08/20 By : ASR-MAP-2 dotal 30450 Legal LU'f S ELK 3 rnrSry mt-KIDIAN SUB wu (,46V94 Circuit Breaker NO M07010030080 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 00316, CAMELLIA Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CF1-Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMD01 M A•S T E•R U P D A T E 1/24/90 14:19:18 Parcel R2917150180 Code Area 03 Type Qty Value Name BARROSO MANUA6 F 200 .11 10000 410 32600Bank Cade •Buyer• 990 16300- Lien Code MFH C/O Trust Address 330 W CHERRY AVE L.I.D. Bankrupt MERIDIAN ID Sub.Code 83642 - 0000 Last Change 86/10/08 By : ASR-MAP-2 Total 26300 Legal LOT 9 BLK 3 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB #8659563 Circuit Breaker NO M07010030090 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Aodress cxva.iw w LHERRY Zoning R-1 ACTIVE 8-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CF1-Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMD01 M A S T E R U P D A T E 1/24/90 14:19:26 Parcel R2917150185 Code Area 03 Type Qty Value Name. BAILEY ELLEN M 200 .11 10000 410 37200 Bank Code WAS Buyer• - 990 18600- Lien Code C/O Trust Address 338 CHERRY L.I.D. Bankrupt MERIDIAN ID iSub.Code - 83642 - 0000 Last Change : 88/04/06 By : ASR -MAP -2 Total 28600 Legal LOT 10 BLK 3 FRAN•MERIDIAN SUB #wW 1: 839 40 Circuit Breaker NO M07010030100 3N 1W 12 Hardship O Property Address 00338 CHERRY Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMDOI M A S T E R U P D A T E Parcel R2917150190 Code Area 03 Type Name MARSTON.JAMES B & CHARLOTTE K 200 410 eluyer Ciu mooress i51U 41H ST WEST MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change : 89/05/12 By : ASR -MAP Legal LOT 11 BLK 3 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB #8920819 1/24/90 14e19:37, Qty Value .11 10000 29000 Bank Code BFM Lien Code, Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Suh.Code Total 39000 Circuit Breaker NO M0701O030110 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 01318 W 04TH Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change * D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMD01 M A T E•R U P D A T E 1/24/90. 14:20:04 Parcel R2917150195 Code Area 03 Type Qty Value Name MARTIN-THOMAS WAYNE 200 .11 10000 410 27900 Bank Code SLM Buyer Lien Code.. C/O Trust Address 1915 5TH ST S L.I.D. Bankrupt NAMPA ID Sub.Code 83651 - 5341 Last Change : 88/11/17 By ASR-MAP-2 Total 37900 Legal LOT 12 BLk 3 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB #5552491 8853267 Circuit Breaker NO• M07010030120 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 01326 W 04TH. Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CF1-Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMDOI M -A S T E R U P D A T E Parcel R2941000005 Code Area 03 Type Name ROGERS JAMES L & COLLEEN -M 200 410 Buyer: 990 C/O Address 1205,W 1ST - MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change By Legal LOT 1 MERIDIAN FROST ADD #8221718 1/24/90 14.24:30 Qty Value .25 16700 44000 Bank Code BWM 22000- Lion Code Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Total 38700 Circuit Breaker NO M07190000010 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 01205 W 01ST Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Rall 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMD01 M A S T E R U P D A T E Parcel R2941000010 Code Area 03 Type Name BECK DAVID ALLEN & ANITA B 200 410 Buyer, 990 C/O Address 120 W WASHINGTON MERIDIAN ID 93642 - 0000 Last Change By Legal LOT 2 MERIDIANFROSTADD 1/24/90 14:24:19 Qty Value .15 10000 47300 Bank Code MFC 23650- Lien Code Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Total 33650 Circuit Breaker NO M07190000020 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 00120 W WASHINGTON Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice , 0 <z'Cj� PFMDOI M A S T E R U P D A T E Parcel R2941000015 Code Area 03 Type Qty Name BRUNMEIER DAMON L & SHANNON M 200 .15 410 Buyer. C/O Address 126 W WASHINGTON MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change : 89/11/08 By : ASR -MAP Total Legal LOT 3 MERIDIAN FROST ADD #8948624 1/24/90 14:24:05 Value 10000 25300 Bank Code Lien Code Trust L.I.D: Bankrupt Sub.Code 35300 Circuit Breaker NO M07190000030 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 00126 .W WASHINGTON Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice - PFMDOI M A S T E R U P D A T E 1/24/90 14:06:58 Parcel R2941000020 Code Area 03 Type Qty Value Name MCMORROW TIMOTHY W & TAMMY J 200 .15 10000 410 22700 Bank Code Buyer 990 11350- Lien Code MFH C/O Trust Address 202 W WASHINGTON L.I.D. Bankrupt -MERIDIAN ID Sub.Code 63642 - 0000 Last Change 88/06/17 By : ASR-MAP-2 Total 21350 Legal LOT 4 MERIDIAN FROST ADD #8826299 Circuit Breaker NO M07190000040 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 00202 W WASHINGTON Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CF1-Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMD0.1 M A S T E R?, U P D A T E Parcel R2.941000025 Code Area 03 Type Name WARDLE ESTHER 200 410 Buyer 990 C/O Address 210 W WASHINGTON MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change : 86/12/08 By : ASR -MAP -2 Legal LOT 5 MERIDIAN FROST ADD #8672894 M07190000050 3N 1W 12 Property 1/24/90 14:07:25 Qty Value .15 10000 25700 Baak,Code FMC 12850- Lien.Code WOF Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Total 22850 Circuit Breaker• YES Hardship 0 Address 002210 W WASHINGTON Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #--Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next.Parcel CF4-Corrected Not -ice M A S T E R U P D A T E 1/24/90 14s07s38 PFMD01 Parcel R2941000030 Code Area 03 Type Qty Value Name CARTWRIGHT L N & ROMA 200 .15 10000 410 31500 Bank Code Buyer 990 15750- Lien Code C/0 Trust Address 220 W WASHINGTON L.I.D. Bankrupt MERIDIAN ID Sub.Code 83642 - 0000 Last Change : 88/02/17 By : ASR -MAP -2 Total 25750 Legal LOT 6 MERIDIAN FROST -ADD - #8035506 Circuit Breaker NO M07190000060 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property - Address 002YU W WASHINGTON Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Rall 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice UP PFMD01­ MASTER UPDATE Parcel R2941000035 Code Area 03 Type :Name HUDSON NEAL W ET UX- 200 410 Buyer 990 C/0 Address 232 W WASHINGTON MERIDIAN ID 83642 -0000 Last Change : By x Legal LOT 7 MERIDIAN FROST ADD 1/24/90 14:07:49 Qty Value .15 10000 40900 Bank Code 20450 Lien Code Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Total 30450 Circuit Breaker YES M07190000070 3N iW'12 Hardship 0 Property Address 00232 W WASHINGTON Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMD01 M A S T E R U P D A T E 1/24/90 14&08:00 Parcel R2941000040 Code Area 03 Type Qty Value Name NAVARRO-RICHARD J 200 .15 10000 410 30500 Bank Code Buyer 990 15250- Lien Code C/O Trust Address 238 W WASHINGTON AVE L.S.D. Bankrupt MERIDIAN ID Sub.Code 83642 - 0000 Last Change By Total 25250 Legal LOT 8 MERIDIAN FROST ADD Circuit Breaker NO M07190000080 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 00238•W WASHINSTON Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMD01 M A S T E R U P D A T E 1/24/90. 14:08:23 Parcel 82941000045 Code Area 03 Type Qty Value Name BERHEIM JERRY L & ANGELA,J 200 .15 10000 410 26400 Bank Code WOF Buyer.. 990 13200- Lien Code C/0 Trust Address 304 W WASHINGTON L.I.D. Bankrupt MERIDIAN ID Sub.Code 83642 - 0000 Last Change : 89/08/30 By : ASR-MAP Total 23200 Legal LOT 9 MERIDIAN FROST ADD #8931783 Circuit Breaker YES M07190000090 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 00304 W WASHINGTON Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. - Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI-Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice Total 1 43000 Legal LOT 10 MERIDIAN FROST ADD #8413232 Circuit Breaker NO M07190000100 3N 1W 42 Hardship O Property. .._ Address 00314 W- WASHINGTON Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF^c-Next Parcel CF4--Corrected Notice .0 3� PFMD01 M A S T E R U P D A T E 1/24/90 14:37:18 Parcel R2941000050 Code Area 03 Type Qty Value Name KAMPPI-KENNETH & CAROL J • 200 .15 10000 430 33000 Bank Code WM Buyer Lien Code C/O Trust Address 1027 FLOATING FEATHER RD- L.I.D. Bankrupt EAGLE ID Sub.Code 83616 - 0000 Last Change By : Total 1 43000 Legal LOT 10 MERIDIAN FROST ADD #8413232 Circuit Breaker NO M07190000100 3N 1W 42 Hardship O Property. .._ Address 00314 W- WASHINGTON Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF^c-Next Parcel CF4--Corrected Notice PFMD01 M A S T E R U P D A T E, Parcel R2941000055 Code Area 03 Type Name LANG .HARVEY F & RUTH L 200 410 Buyer„ 990 C/O Address 330 W WASHINGTON 1/24/90 14:37:30 4ty Value .15 10000. 33700 Bank Code 16850- Lien Code Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt MERIDIAN ID Sub.Code 83642 - 0000 Last,Change : 87/12/01 By : ASR -MAP -2 Total 26850 Legal LOT 11 MERIDIAN FROST ADD #8348797-98 8763628 Circuit Breaker NO M07190000110 3N 1W 12 Hardship O Property Address 00330 W WASHINGTON Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice i PFMDOI M A S T E R UP D. A T E Parcel R2941000060 Code Area 03 Type Name MUMFORD ROBERT W &°-RUTH C 200 410 Byer :. 990 C/O Address 336 W WASHINGTON MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change By s Legal LOT 12 MERIDIAN FROST ADD 1/24/90 .14:37:53 Qty Value .15 10000 31500 Bank Code 15750- Lien Code Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Total 25750 Circuit Breaker YES M07190000120 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 ,Property - Address;00336-W WASHINGTON Zoning R-1 ACTIVE M -Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMDOI -, 1 M A S T E R U P. D A T E Parcel R2941000065 Code Area 03 Type Name DAVIDSON JOY S 200 410 Buyer.. .990 C/O Address 335 W WASHINGTON MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change: By Legal LOT 13 MERIDIAN FROST ADD - #8319233 1/24/90 14:38:47 Qty Value .14 10000 39100 Bank Code 19550- Lien Code Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Su6.Code Total 29550 Circuit Breaker NO M07190000130 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 00335 W WASHINGTON Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMD01 I IM A .S- T E R U P D A T E Parcel R294100007O Code Area 03 Type Name JONES WILMA J /ELLENSOHN/ 200 410 Buyer 990 C /-U Address 319 W WASHINGTON AVE MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change : 86/01/06 By : AP Legal LOT 14 MERIDIAN FROST ADD 1/24/90 1413B:56 Qty Value .14 10000 35500 Bank Code 17750 Lien Cade• Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Total . 27750 Circuit Breaker NO M071900O0140 3N 1W 12 Hardship O -Property- Address:00319 W WASHINGTON Zoning R -lm ACTIVE 4 -Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFL -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice 11 i,1ALly PFMDOI M A S T E R U P D A TE Parcel R2941000075 Code Area 03 Type Name HUTCHINGS WILLIAM.J & ELNORA V 200 'Buyer 410 C/O Address 9410 SHOUP AVE BOISE ID B3709 - 0000 Last Change : 86/06/12 By : ASR -MAP -2 Legal LOT 15 MERIDIAN FROST ADD #8630293 1/24/90 14:09:06 Qty Value .14 10000 22700 Bank Code WM Lien Code Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Total 32700 M0719O00015O , Circuit Breaker NO 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 00309-W WASHINGTON Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMDOI M A S T E R U P D A T E Parcel R2941000080 Code Area 03 Type Name BRODHECKER GINGER 200 410 Buyer, 990 C/O Address 303 W WASHINGTON MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change By Legal LOT 16 MERIDIAN FROST ADD 1/24/90 14:09:21 Qty Value .14 10000 31000 Bank Code 15500- Lien Code MFH Trust L.S.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Total 25500 Circuit Breaker NO M07190000160 3N 1W 12 Hardship O Property Address 00303 W WASHINGTON Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice Circuit Breaker NO M07190000170 3N 1W 12 Hardship O Property Address 00231 W WASHINGTON Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel. CF4-Corrected Notice PFMD01 M A S T E R U D A T E 1/24/90 14t09s32 Parcel R2941000085 Cade Area 03 Type Qty Value Name BERG WILLIAM GUS ET UX 200 .14 10000 410 25800 Bank Code Buyer 990 12900-- Lien Code C/O Trust Address 231 W WASHINGTON L.I.D. Bankrupt MERIDIAN ID Sub.Code 83642 - 0000 Last Change By Total 22900 Legal LOT 17 MERIDIAN FROST ADD Circuit Breaker NO M07190000170 3N 1W 12 Hardship O Property Address 00231 W WASHINGTON Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel. CF4-Corrected Notice Di PFMDOI M A S T E R U P D A T E Parcel R2941000090 Code Area 03 Type Name WARD WM HAROLD ET UX 200 410 Buyer: 990 C/O Address 211 W WASHINGTON MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change By ; Legal LOT 18 NEKIVIAN FROST ADD 1/24/90 14:09:44 Qty Value .14 10000 35200 Bank Code 17600- Lien Code Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Total 27600 Circuit Breaker NO MO71900OO18O 3N IW 12 Hardship O Property Address 00211 W WASHINGTON Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Ro11 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMDOI M A S T E R, U P D A T E Parcel R2941000096 Code Area 03 Type Name CHANDLER CAROLINE V 200 410 Buyer - 990 C/0 Address 127 W. WASHINGTON MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change By ; Legal W 91' OF LOT 19 MERIDIAN FROST ADD 1/24/90 14:32:02 Qty Value .13 10000 35400 Bank. Code 17700- Lien Code Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Total 27700 Circuit Breaker NO ,.Property M0719000019A 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Address 00127 W WASHINGTON Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CF1-Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMD01 M A S T,E R- U P D A T E 1/24/90 14:32x51 Parcel R2941000106 Code Area 03 Type Qty Value Name JONES ROLAND,J & EMMA L 200 .09 6000 410 28i0O Bank Code 'lsuyer Lien-Code MFH C/O Trust Address 2717 MALIBU, L.I.D. Bankrupt BOISE ID Sub.Code 83705 - 0000 Last Change 90/01/12-By : ASR_TADDIC Total 34100 Legal E 5' OF LOT 19 & W 57' OF LOT 20 MERIDIAN FROST ADD #8837247 Circuit Breaker NO- M0719000O20B 3N 1W 12 Hardship Q Property - Address 00121-W WASHINGTON Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI-Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMDOI M A S .T E R U P D A T E Parcel R2941000100 Code Area 03 Type Name MCFADDEN G LEONARD ET UX 200 410 Buyer. C/O Address PO BOX 275 MERIDIAN ID 53642 - 0275 Last Change : By ; Legal LOT 20 EXC W 57 FT MERIDIAN FROST ADD 1/24/90 14;26:11 - Qty Value .05- 3300 18300 Bank Code - Lien Code Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Total 21600 Circuit Breaker NO M0719000020A 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Nryop er t y r.uuress OU110 wASHINGTON Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CF1-Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice r PFMD01 M A S T E R U P D A T E 1/24/90 14:10:17 Parcel R2917150005 Code Area 03 Type Qty Value Name QUENZER DANIEL SR & ROSALIE 200 .14 10000 410 35500 Bank Cade buyer 990 17750- Lien Code, C/o Trust Address 133 W CHERRY AVE L.I.D. Bankrupt MERIDIAN ID Sub.Code 83642 — 0000 Last Change By Total 27750 Legal LOT 1 BLK 1 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB' Circuit Breaker NO M07010010010 3N'IW 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 00133 W CHERRY Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type I REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI-Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected-Notice Circuit Breaker NO M07010010050 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 00217 W CHERRY Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMD01 M A S T E R U P D A T E 1/24/90 14:10:59 Parcel R2917150025 Code Area 03 Type Qty Value Name WRIGHT IRENE E 200 .11 10000, 410 - 30000 Bank Code FMF 990 15000- Lien Code MFH /O C/o Trust Address 217 W CHERRY AVE L.I.D. BankruptSub.Code MERIDIAN ID 53642 - 0000 Last Change By Total 25000 Legal LOT 5 SLK 1 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB Circuit Breaker NO M07010010050 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 Property Address 00217 W CHERRY Zoning R-1 ACTIVE #-Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice Circuit Breaker YES MO701001008O 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 •Pr..operty ... Address 00239 W CHERRY Zoning R-1 ACTIVE *-Change D.•D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice PFMDOI M A,S,T E R- U-P.D A T E 1✓24/90 141.11&43 -Parcel. R2917150040 Code Area 03 Type Qty Value Name JACKSON -J C,&.JESSIE I - 200 .11 10000 •410 34800 Bank Code Buyer _- 990 17400- Lien Code MFH C/O Trust Address 239 W CHERRY AVE L.I.D. Bankrupt MERIDIAN ID Sub.Code 83642 - 0000 Last Change c By e Total 27400 Legal LOT B.BLK 1 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB #8445967 Circuit Breaker YES MO701001008O 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 •Pr..operty ... Address 00239 W CHERRY Zoning R-1 ACTIVE *-Change D.•D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice all mob' lj'$°�� � PFMD01 M A S T E R U P D A T E Parcel R2917150045 Code Area 03 Type Name MATUSZEK RICHARD J & SHERRON Y 200 410 .Buyer 990 C/O Address 305,W CHERRY AVE MERIDIAN ID 83642. - 0000. Last Change a By Legal LOT 9 BLK 1 FRAN MERIDIAN SUB 1/24/90 14:11-c58 Qty Value .11 10000 37100 Bank Code 18550 Lion.Code.. Trust L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Total 25550 Circuit Breaker NO M07010010090 3N 1W 12 Hardship 0 .P rraperty -Auur-wtwu- civSvn -W CHERRY Zoning R-1, ACTIVE M -Change D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Dec. 0 CFI -Exit CF2-Next Parcel CF4-Corrected Notice- --• r a'. m4'2 1 w:j+• i��