Jodi Fife CUP
8
8
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN/PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JODI FIFE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GROUP DAY CARE
LOT 33, BLOCK 4 OF BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION NO.2
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
January
13,
1997,
at
the
hour
of
7:30
o'clock
p.m.,
the
Petitioners, Jodi Fife and her husband, Dean L. Fife, appearing in
person, 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 of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
A notice of a public hearing on the Condi tional Use
Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for January 13,
1998,
the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that
the matter was duly considered at
the January 13,
1998,
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.
2.
This property is located within the City of Meridian
,
and the Applicant is the owner of the property; that the property
is currently zoned R- 8 Residential.
The Application stated the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1.
JODI FIFE
8
8
property is zoned R-4; that in the ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL,
Section 11-2-409 A., Residential, Child Care Center is listed as a
conditional use in the R-8 District and,
therefore,
in the R-8
District a conditional use permit for the operation of a Child
Care Center is required.
3.
The
R-8,
Residential
District
is
described
in
the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 as follows:
(R-8) Medium Density Residential District: The purpose
of the (R-8) Districts is to permit the establishment
of single and two (2) family dwellings at a density not
exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This
district delineates those areas where such development
has or is likely to occur in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to
permit the conversion of large homes into two (2)
family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of
comparable land use. Connection to the Municipal Water
and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required.
4.
Conditional
Use
Permit
is
defined
in
the
,Zoning
Ordinance as follows:
"Permits allowing an exception to the uses
authorized by this Ordinance in a zoning district."
5.
The property is
located at BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION
NO.
2, Lot 33, Block 4, within an R-8 single-family residential
subdivision.
6.
The intention of the Applicant is to operate a child
care center for children, not to exceed twenty-four (24) children.
7.
The Applicant, Dean Fife, testified there were a couple
of changes to the plans which were previously submitted.
They
reversed the basic house plan, and repositioned the house on the
lot for more room as the play area.
Commissioner Johnson inquired if the changes were the first
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2.
JODI FIFE
8
8
time for submittal, and Mr. Fife's response was yes.
Commissioner Johnson desired Mr.
Fife to address
the Ci ty
comments and to inform the Commission as to their plans.
Mr. Fife responded they plan to have a day care for 13 or
more children, and he read the City comments and had no questions.
Commissioner Borup commented the layout he has is not reversed and
it is shifted. Mr.
Fife acknowledged they had asked to get the
plans
in and "they"
did.
Commissioner Johnson questioned who
"they"
were,
to
which
Mr.
Fife'
responded,
~~The
builder."
Commissioner Smith didn't know any other plans were submitted, but
the house wasn't mirrored over, just shifted over on the lot.
Mr.
Fife commented the original plans he received were the other way
and were mirrored. He apologized for the mistake on the
submitted
plans.
8.
Commissioner
Borup
noticed
the
packet
submitted
was
complete
but
noted
he
could
not
read
most
of
the
neighbors
signatures.
One area of concern for Commissioner Borup was the
closing of the child care center during holidays and if they tried
it before and if it worked.
His concern was for the three weeks
during the year that
the day care would close down,
and tha t
families would have to find another day care during that time.
Mr. Fife added it is a normal procedure in child care, and it is
advertised out ahead of time for comment.
9.
Jennifer
Bell
addressed
Commissioner
Borup's
concern
about closing for three weeks.
Jennifer Bell pointed out it was
standard procedure in an application.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3.
JODI FIFE
8
8
Jennifer Bell commented she currently has a day care in her
home,
and she does not close for the holidays,
except Christmas
Day and Thanksgiving Day.
The remaining vacation she is open
because people work.
10.
Commissioner
Smith
addressed
the
Applicant
regarding
the 13 or more children,
the nWTlbers bothered him since he was
familiar with the neighborhood and the size of the lots and homes.
He desired further explanation.
Mr. Fife stated one license could have up to 12 children, and
his wife and daughter would be working the day care together.
There would be between 13 to 24 children maximum.
Commissioner Smith asked, "13 and 24, where are you going to
put them all?"
Mr. Fife responded by saying,
"The house is designed to do
that and the square footage of the day care area."
"The house
meets the requirements for 35 square feet per child for a maximum
of 24."
"The area, how can I best describe that to you, do you
see the area of the garage, behind that is the kitchen and living
room,
the
family
room
and what
is
off
in
there
which would
normally be 2 bedroom, there is going to be no wall going to be
built there."
"So you will have that room plus the family, plus
the kitchen and dining room area which will be used for arts and
crafts and that total area meets the State square footage for up
to 24 children."
"I think I put that in the application how many
square feet that was."
11.
Commissioner Smith wanted to know what the ages of the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4.
JODI FIFE
8
8
children were going to be.
Mr.
Fife would have his daughter,
Jennifer Bell, address that question later on.
Commissioner Smith
also wanted know how many staff people there would be.
Mr. Fife
informed him there were two, Jodi Fife and Jennifer Bell.
Commissioner Smith questioned where the parking would be for
the staff, as the driveway would be for parent parking, but if it
were 45 feet there would be room for 4 cars.
In response, Mr.
Fife stated the staff would park in the garage;
that it was an
oversized
three
car
garage
with
almost
900
square
feet,
and
acknowledged
Commissioner
Smith's
question
concerning
the
children's
ages.
Jennifer
Bell
addressed
that
particular
question,
responding from zero to twelve was the usual ages. At
this point they have not decided on the number in each age group,
but it would be done as they go along.
12.
Commissioner Smith wanted to know if there was a clear
barrier between the living space in the house and the day care.
Mr. Fife asked, "So the children can't go from the day care area
into the house, yes there will be gates provided so that the day
care area will be gated so they can't go through."
13.
Mark Lloyd, a neighbor, is against the application, and
agreed
with
testimony
with
the
issues
already
presented.
Additionally,
he has considered the devaluing of residences and
noise factor for the subdivision.
He didn't have a chance to sign
the petition,
also
his
home
looks
over
the back part
of
the
property.
He did state he received a certified letter in the
mail notifying him of the hearing, and it was what brought him to
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5.
JODI FIFE
8
8
the hearing.
Commissioner Johnson asked if Mr. Lloyd had any contact with
the applicant,
if they knocked on his door or asked how he felt
about the application.
Mr. Lloyd answered, "No."
Commissioner Johnson inquired if Mr. Lloyd had spoke with any
'of the other neighbors about the application, and if so, what was
their response.
Mr. Lloyd responded that he had,
and there was
some confusion as to what the original plans were.
He thought
many of them felt it was going to be someone living in the house
and watching a few children,
not realizing it was a full blown
business.
He also stated there were others at the meeting with
the same realization it was going to be a business venture and
they were against it.
Commissioner Johnson proceeded to thank Mr.
Lloyd for his
comments and again questioned if his property was adjacent to the
proposed use.
Mr. Lloyd responded,
"It is not adjacent it is a
street from, one street behind."
Commissioner
Borup
asked wha t
lot Mr.
Lloyd was
on,
and
wanted to know if there was a plat.
Mr. Lloyd responded that he
lived on the corner of Arrow Wood and Moose Street.
14.
Tina
Bruce,
another
neighbor,
had
the
following
comments regarding the application.
Her property is adjacent to
the applicant's;
that their fence line is kitty corner so the
corner of their fence looks right into the applicant's back yard
and the proposed business.
According to the plans,
which she
received by certified letter, she didn't see any living space in
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6.
JODI FIFE
8
8
the house.
She was approached by Mrs. Fife and her daughter a few
months ago informing her that they would be moving into the house,
and if she had any objections to her having a day care.
She had
told them no because she has a day care with three small children,
but she didn't realize it was a business with 12 to 24 children.
She stated she made a mistake by signing the petition because she
thought it was a home day care; that she was very disappointed to
learn they had not been 100% truthful with her by not letting her
know tha t
it was going to be a center and not a home.
She
proceeded by asking the question, "Do your plans show that it is
going to be a living quarters, they are going to be living in it,
because mine do not?" "Are they going to be living there?"
Commissioner Borup commented that his plan showed the lower
floor and not the upper floor; that the application did state 2400
square feet with the lower 915 square feet for the day care.
Tine Bruce continued her testimony stating the plans showed a
day care center;
that she did not see a two story building.
Another concern was a neighbor's two large dogs barking daily and
constantly since construction began,
and what the dogs would do
with 20 children in the back yard.
Her windows are adjacent to
the yard,
and when her windows are open,
and her children are
sleeping, she was concerned about a lot of noise in the yard next
door to her.
Commissioner Smith had questions, and his first comment was
where Ms. Bruce was located, and if it was lot 1, block 7.
Ms.
Bruce responded they were in the home facing Arrow Wood in between
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7.
JODI FIFE
8
8
the
two
homes
that
face
outward,
Arrow
Wood
and
Hawk.
Commissioner Smith clarified the home faces Wakely and the home
that faces Hawk, to which Ms. Bruce stated the home right directly
next to them faces Wakely and they were the house behind it.
Commissioner Smith inquired when the applicant approached her with
the petition, if she had a specific number of children identified
or
if
she
had
discussed
it.
Ms.
Bruce
commented
they were
building a home and wondered if she had any obj ections to her
watching some children in the home.
Since she was just beginning
her own day care, she had told her no, and it would be fine so she
signed the petition.
She wishes now she wouldn't have signed it.
Commissioner Johnson pointed out that Ms. Bruce's name was at
the top of the petition, drew attention to the wording at the top
regarding
13
or more
children,
and allowed her
to
review her
signature and the petition.
Ms. Bruce stated she had not read the
top of the petition due to the discussion with Mrs. Fife at the
time, and her excitement about her own business and for Mrs. Fife.
She realized it was her mistake for not reading the top of the
petition.
15.
John Alverson, another neighbor, lives right behind and
has the two big dogs.
Their biggest concern is the safety of the
children between the back of his fence and the where the house is
going to be.
He has not seen the plans but thought somewhere
between 15 and 20 feet in between the house and they felt that was
not enough room for the kids to play safely.
His concern for when
the children played football, baseball or whatever the balls, etc.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8.
JODI FIFE
8
8
they would be hi t over the fence.
Another factor is his wife
works nights at Micron and she sleeps during the day, and with the
children outside they would be noisy, and therefore his dogs would
be barking.
He is totally against the application.
The value of
hi s property would go down,
and he was never approached by the
applicant to sign a petition,
and further he never would have
signed it.
He feels it is a bad area for a day care, because the
lot is small and he feels there isn't enough room regarding safety
for the children.
Commissioner
Smith
questioned
Mr.
Alverson,
and
felt
he
should have asked the other two who had testified, as to whether
he was
opposed
to
the day care or
if
it were
the number of
children.
Mr. Alverson responded it wasn't the day care, but the
number of children and the age groups.
He purchased his home with
the
understanding
this
would
not
be
a
business
area,
just
residential. When he found out a business was going in he became
concerned, plus the number of children, noise factor, and his wife
sleeping during the day are bothersome to him.
Commissioner Smith
asked if there were a number of kids he felt he could support in a
day care,
and Mr. Alverson responded that it depended upon the
ages.
Babies to 3 and 4 year olds would stay in the house so
there wouldn't be a lot of noise, and he had no problem with how
many babies there would be.
The problem is when kids get bigger
noise while playing outside becomes a factor.
His dogs could be
barking
all
the
time,
which
would
result
in
complaints
from
neighbors, and he isn't comfortable with that.
Commissioner Smith
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9.
JODI FIFE
8
8
then confi~ed Mr. Alverson's lot as lot 3, the second house off
of Arrow Wood, and it was corrected to off of Hawk.
16.
Commissioner Smith had comment pertaining to the little
lot, and the amount of traffic that would be coming off Meridian
Road onto Woodbury and then onto Arrow Wood.
Basically, he did
not feel the majority of the traffic flow would be off of Ustick.
He personally feels it's too many children for a day care within
the neighborhood.
Commissioner Borup agreed with Commissioner Smith's comment
regarding the traffic flow, adding the comment, people would come
to whatever would be easiest for them.
17.
Jodi
Fife
had
the
following
remarks
to
add
to
the
testimony.
She had a problem with the issue of property being
devalued, due to the fact of the size, construction, quality, and
architecture of the home.
The house would not be on the low end
scale for the area, and therefore didn't feel there was a problem
with devaluing the area.
Her comments pertaining to ages, there
probably wouldn't be very many children over age 7 because day
cares don't usually have that many in them; that was normally what
they took up to.
She also felt the day care would be younger age
children.
Mrs. Fife stated there won't be much noise.
She felt
the dog issue was not hers.
Regarding the
traffic
flow,
she
expects
to
draw
from
the
subdivision,
or
at
least
a
large
percentage,
and
if
it
would
be
the
case
there
wouldn't
be
increased traffic.
In further comment, Mrs. Fife wanted to apologize publicly to
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 10.
JODI FIFE
8
8
Tina Bruce in regards to the matter of going door to door to
obtain signatures, in that, they did not intend to mislead anyone
about the number of children for the day care.
She thought she
had mentioned 13, and had no intention of misleading anyone.
The
approximate number of children they were thinking about was 13,
and probably between the ages of 3 to 5.
Once children begin
kindergarten they usually don't go to day care, and if they do it
is part-time.
Sometimes a day care can get children after school
for a short period of time.
She figures 80% to 90% of their
children will be under the kindergarten age.
Addressing another
concern
about
the
children
playing,
types
of
games,
such
as
football or baseball, etc., she felt it wasn't an issue as the day
care would be more toddlers.
Jennifer Bell addressed the issue on the noise level.
She
stated that
they are
intending
to erec t
a
tall wooden
fence,
rather than a chain link fence, to help with the noise.
They do
not intend to allow the children to freely play in the yard, as
they will be supervised at all times.
The play would be more of a
structured
type.
The main
focus
for
Commissioners
Borup
and
Johnson were the number of children for the facility.
Mrs. Fife
and Jennifer Bell are licensed, so they could accommodate up to 24
children, but state they prefer to focus on 8 to 10.
Commissioner
Johnson did inform Mrs. Fife if the application was denied they
could re-submit at a lower number of children from the 13 to 24.
Commissioner
Smith
clarified
the
two
main
issues
with
neighbors
were
the
number
of
children
and
their
ages.
He
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 11.
JODI FIFE
8
8
indicated there appeared to be a conflict between Mrs.
Fife's
number and Mrs.
Bell's number.
Mrs.
Fife responded she thought
Jennifer Bell referred to the number as being licensed with the
State.
Commissioner Johnson questioned about watching kids during
the summer time and older children.
Mrs. Fife said they desire to
watch pre-schoolers and little children.
l8.
The Assistant to the City Engineer,
Bruce Freckleton,
and the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, submitted
comments which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full;
that
off-street
parking
shall
be
provided
in
accordance
with
Section 11-2-414 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development
Ordinance; that outside lighting shall be designed and placed so
as not to direct illumination on any nearby residential areas and
in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-414 D. 3.; that no
signage shall be allowed;
tha t sani tary sewer and water to the
facility would be through existing service lines and plans for
sewer and water service will be reviewed to see if the additional
load would justify additional assessments;
that applicant is to
provide information with regard to anticipated water demand; that
Applicant will be required to enter into an Assessment Agreement
with
the
City
prior
to
operation;
that
the
use
will
be
a
conunercial use and charged accordingly;
that Zoning Certificate
and Certificate of Occupancy for day care are required prior to
operation;
that screened trash enclosures are to be provided in
accordance wi th Ci ty Ordinance;
that the family child care home
shall
not
adversely
impact
surrounding
properties
due
to
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 12.
JODI FIFE
8
8
children's noise, traffic and other activities; that the Applicant
will
provide
a
copy
of
the
daycare
license
from
the
Idaho
Department of Health & Welfare; that the operators' licenses shall
be available on the premises for inspection at all times; that the
Applicant
shall
screen
adjacent
residential
properties
through
landscaping and fencing to protect children from adverse impact
and to provide a buffer; that Applicant shall provide a fence of
appropriate height/construction to enclose play areas;
that
if
approved,
the Applicant shall schedule an appointment with the
Meridian Fire Department for inspection prior to operating; that
without approval revocation of the conditional use permit will
result; that the use shall be subject to annual review.
19.
That
the Meridian Fire Chief,
Kenny Bowers,
requires
all codes be met.
20.
The
Ada
County
Highway
District
had
the
following
comments, that this application would not be heard unless the site
plan was changed to require Commission review;
that all future
design plans
and
construction will
be
in
accordance with
the
ACHD's Policy Manual,
ISPWC Standards and approved supplements,
Construction
Services
procedures
and
all
applicable
ACHD
Ordinances, unless wavied in writing.
21.
The
Central
District
Health
Department
submitted
comments pertaining to the written approval from the appropriate
entities they would approve central sewage and water.
Also, they
would require plans be submitted for a plan review for the day
care.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 13.
JODI FIFE
8
8
22.
There was no further testimony given at the hearing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
All the procedural, requirements of the Local Planning
Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met
1.
including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300
feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property.
2.
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.
The City has the authority to take judicial notice of
its own ordinances and proceedings,
other governmental statutes
and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City
and state of Idaho.
4.
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 on-site or off-site facilities may be
attached to the permit; that 11-2-418
(D) authorizes the City to
prescribe a set time period for which a conditional use may be in
existence.
5.
Section 11-2-418 D. states as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 14.
JODI FIFE
8
8
In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and
Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds,
and safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance.
Violations of such conditions, bonds or safeguards,
when made a part of the terms under which the
Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation
of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the Conditional
Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a set
time period for which a Conditional Use may be in
existence.
6.
The City has judged this Application for a conditional
use upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-418 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.
7.
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 condi tional use permi t would be required by
ordinance;
b. The use would not be harmonious with and in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning
Ordinance requires a condi tional use permi t to allow
the use;
It
states
under
the
Neighborhood
Identify
Goal
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 15.
JODI FIFE
8
8
Statement,
Meridian:
6.4U of
the Comprehensive Plan of
the City of
6.4U Limi t conversion of predominately residential
neighborhoods to non-residential uses, and require effective
buffers and mitigation measures through conditional use
permits when appropriate non-residential uses are proposed.
This Applicant proposes putting a child care center in a
residential neighborhood. The number of children, along with
the increased traffic and noise, affects the character of the
residential neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan limits non-
residential uses in residential neighborhoods.
c. The use is designed and constructed to be
harmonious in appearance with the character of the
general vicinity; but the use would operate and would
be maintained not to be harmonious with the intended
character of the general vicinity and would change the
essential character of the area;
A child care center business in a wholly residential
neighborhood would change the essential character of the
neighborhood.
d. That the use would not be hazardous but would be
disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses even
if the conditions are met; that traffic will increase,
and the number of children on site could constitute a
noise problem;
e. The property has sewer and water service already
connected, but Applicant may have to pay additional
fees for the use;
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. The use would 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. Sufficient parking for the proposed use would be a
problem but if approved it needs to meet the
requirements of the City ordinance; and
i.
The development and uses will not resul t in the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 16.
JODI FIFE
8
8
destruction, loss or damage
feature of major importance.
of
a
natural
or
scenic
8.
It is recommended that the Conditional Use Permit not
be granted.
9.
However,
if
the penni t
is granted conditions may be
placed upon the granting of the conditional use permit to minimize
adverse
impact on other development,
it
is
recommended by the
Planning and Zoning Commission that the following conditions of
granting the conditional use be required, to wit:
a. The children, if outside,
fenced area, as required below;
shall be maintained in the
b. There shall be fencing, gates and locks for the outside
play area such that no children can leave the property
without an adult unlocking and opening the gate to let the
child or children out of the play area; no children shall be
allowed outside of the play area or the home without an adult
being present; the fence shall be maintained in god repair
and the children, when outside, shall stay in the fenced area
and the children shall not be allowed outside of the fenced
area or the home, except for drop-off and pick-up times, but
an adult shall be with them at all times if the child or
children are waiting to be picked up;
c. The Applicant shall meet the
requirements for staff to children ratio;
state
of
Idaho
d. The Central District Health Department and the state of
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare have requirements for
day cares and the Applicant shall meet those requirements of
the Central District Health Department and the state of Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare;
e. The conditional use, pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance,
shall not be transferable to another owner of the property or
to another property;
f. The Applicant shall meet the requirements of the City
Engineer's office, the Planning and Zoning Administrator, and
other governmental agencies submitting comments, which
comments specifically include:
1.
Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 17.
JODI FIFE
7.
8.
9.
8
8
with Section 11-2-414 of the City
Zoning and Development Ordinance;
of
Meridian
2.
Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so
as not to direct illumination on any nearby
residential areas and in accordance with City
Ordinance Section 11-2-414 D. 3.;
3.
All signs shall be in accordance with the
standards set forth in 2-415 of the City of
Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance;
4.
The Applicant shall enter into an Assessment
Agreement with the City of Meridian and
assessments for sewer and water service will be
reviewed to determine whether additional load
justifies an adjustment to the assessments;
5.
The Applicant shall hold, maintain a daycare
license from the state of Idaho and provide a copy
thereof to the City of Meridian;
6.
The operators' licenses shall be available on the
premises for inspection at all times;
The Applicant shall obtain a Certificate of
Occupancy from the City of Meridian prior to
commencing operation of the group day care home;
The Applicant shall screen adjacent residential
properties through landscaping and fencing;
Any proposed
review.
signage
shall
be
subject
to
plan
The conditional use should not be restricted to a
period of authorization but may be reviewed annually,
upon notice to the Applicant, for violation of any
conditions imposed herein and in other day care
conditional uses and other conditional use
applications.
g.
9.
if
permit
The above-conditions are concluded to be reasonable and
is
meet
these
the
conditions.
10.
granted
the
Applicant
shall
It is recommended that the conditional use permit not
be granted to the Applicant.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 18.
JODI FIFE
8
8
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law...
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER BORUP
VOTED
VOTED
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER NELSON
VOTED
COMMISSIONER MACCOY
VOTED
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they deny the
..-
Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property
::::~ed in t::;(Cation,
APPROVED :~
2-5-98 - Final ID .,;ff
~_.
DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 19.
JODI FIFE