1988 03-15•
A G E N D A
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 15, 1988
ITEM:
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 1, 1988: (APPROVED)
l: PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST BY TWAYNE WP.LRER ON HOUSE
SQUARE FOOTAGE: FINDINGS OF FACT: (APPROVED)
2: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUEST WITH CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT BY THE CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS:
3: ORDINANCE ~ 493 ANNEXATION & ZONING OF LDS PROPERTY (APPROVED)
4: DAY CARE OPERATORS:
5: REAPPOINT WALT MORROW TO BOARD OF EDC: (APPROVED FOR THREE YEAR TERM)
6: DEPARTMENT REPORTS
~' •
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MARCH 15, 1988
Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council called to order by Acting
Mayor Bill Brewer~at 7:30 p.m.:
Members Present: Ron Tolsma, Bob Giesler, Bert Myers:
Members Absent: Mayor Grant Kingsford:
Others Present: Ray & Jane Fisher, Howard & Ruby Brown, Rus & Sonia
Heyghins, Joyce Borup, Carolyn Shadduck, Tamera Perkins, Trudee Hadley,
Denise Sturgis, Debra Cavanaugh, Judy Todd, Tonia Schondal, Jean Jordan,
Lori Babbitt, Susan Bernen, Mary Wilson, Wanda,Michaelson, James Gipson,
Al Lance, Twayne Walker, Gary Smith, Earl Ward, Bob Mitich, Kenny Bowers,
Wayne Crookston.
The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Tolsma to approve the Minutes
of the previous meeting held March 1, 1988 as written:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Acting Mayor Brewer read a Resolution of the American People to adopt
the fundamental principal of NO USE OF ANY ILLEGAL DRUG and NO ILLEGAL
USE OF ANY LEGAL DRUG.
Public Hearing: Variance Request by Twayne Walker on House
~Ec~uare Footage: -- ---- - - -
Brewer: Is there anyone here to to represent this request; if so would
they please come forward and give their name for the record.
Mr. Twayne Walker 3965 N. Eagle Road, Mr. Walker was sworn by the City
Attorney.
Walker: I would like to have a Variance for the remaining Lot on Fairwood
Court in Meadow View Subdivision, I need this Variance to be able to
construct a 900 square foot home on this lot, the way this lot is situated
in there it is°`difficult one to sell and we would like to build a home
in there that would meet the needs of a potential buyer. I ~.ust found
out last week that the home next. to this lot is four feet over on this
lot which make it smaller than ever..but even with this with the Variance
we could still build the 900 square foot home and be able to meet the
setback requirements.
Brewer: I will now open the PUblic Hearing, is there anyone else in the
audience who wishes to testify on this matter?
Alan Lance, 77 East Idaho, Mr. Lance was sworn by the City Attorney.
Lance: I am not here to support or to oppose .Mr. Walkers request, I am
here as a matter of infornnation , I represent Mr . & Mrs . Schondal _ .a~io - __ ,
own Lot 24 in Meadow View II Subdivision, it is that lot and tY~eir ~~. ~_Q
home that encroachs by approximately five feet on Mr. Walker°s Lot, the
Title Companies have been notified of the error, we have had the property
surveyed to definitely establish the lot line, I would like to present
this information to the City Clerk that we have on a drawing here to show
•
MERYDIAN CITY COUNCIL •
MARCH 15, 1988
PAGE ;~ 2
the encroachment. That is all I have unless there are some questions.
~s?••ewer: Are there any questions of the Council?
Myers: What was th~.s a mismeasurement when it was built?
Lance: My client did not build the home,they.bought the :_struetur® in
1987, I believe the former owners had it built dnd I do not know why it
was built over the property line.
City Attorney: Do you have any feelings one way or the other whether this
encroachment effects the issue of the variance?
Lance: Assuming that the five foot strip is purchased from Mr. Walker, it
would reduce his lot size from about 4900 square feet to less than 4500
square feet, I am not in a position to comme~~t on that but that is one of
our concerns this body granting a variance kCeping in mind that this lot
will be smaller if we can negotiate a sale of the five feet.
City Attorney: Are you specifically objecting to the granting of the
Variance?
Lance: No.
Brewer: Is there anyone else form the public who wishes to testify?
Evan Royal, 2221 NW 10th, Mr. Royal was sworn by the City Attorney:
Royal: I am of the opinion, with just the one ?ot Left, if someone wants
to build a 900 square foot house on that lot they should be allowed to
do so.
Brewer:Is there anyone else who wishes to testify, there was no response,
the Public Hearing was closed. We have Preliminary Findings of Fact on
this request, what is the Council's pleasure?
Giesler: I have a couple of questions, can this be approved with this
pending?
City Attorney: It can oe approved, there is no objection to the granting
of the Variance, it is up to the Council as to whether or not they want
to grant it.
Giesler: Are you in fact sure that is the last lot in the subdivision?
Walker: The last one on that culdesac, there are two other lots I own
on NW 10th, one I am building on the other is still for sale.
Crookston: The Findings of Fact should be amended to reflect that this
is the last lot in the culdesac and also to include the t~:stimony made
here tonite or else redo the Findings, it would probably be more conv-
ient for Mr. Walker if ,you are going to approve to incorporate the
testimony tonite.
The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Giesler to amend the
Findings, of Fact that this is not the last lot in the Subdivision and
to also ~?1GOrporate the testimony presented tonite at the Public Hearing
-. .,
M.c~RIDIAN CITY COUNCIL • •
MARCH 15, 1988
PAGE # 3
into the Findings of Fact that were prepared by the City Attorney.
Motion Carried:
All Yea:
The Motion was made by Myers and seconded Ay Tolsma that the City %ounr_il
of the City of Meridian does hereby adopt and approve the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions as amended.
M~ti~n Carried; Roll Call Vote: Giesler, Yea: Myers, Yea: Tolsma, Yea:
Brewer, Yea:
The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Tolsma to approve of the
Variance request by Twayne Walker to construct a nine hundred square
foot home on Lot # 25 Block 12 of Meadow View #II Subdivision.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Item # 2: Public Hearing: Annexation & Zoning Request w/Conditional Use
Permit by Church of Latter Day Saints:
Brewer: Is there anyone in the audience who represents this request?
James Gipson, 82 East State St. Eagle, Idaho, Mr. Gipson was sworn by
the City Attorney.
Gipson: This project is to be located on Ten Mile Road on a five acre
parcel south of Cherry Lane, it is a church project as illustrated in the
picture nefore you, it will accomodate two existing wards of the church,
the people are already living in the area and are presently attending
church at another building which is considerably further away, there
are ar~out four hundred members per ward, so this facility would serve
about eight hundred members, there would be at the church on Sunday
which is the day of heaviest use approximately 120 cars at one time,
We have worked with the appropriate utilities and other public services
and feel all the conditions are appropriate for this development and
do not forsee any unusual problems.
Brewer: Does the Council have any questions of Mr. Gipson?
Giesler: The only thing I would like to ask is there is nothing sure
what you are going to do with the sewer being it is so far away, what
is your decision on this?
Gipson: We have pursued that question rather diligently over the past
months, there are two available and resonable options, one is to put in
a septic system for the facility, the other is to construct a distance
of sewer line and hook in to the sewer, that appears now that this
would be a very feasible option and that is probably the way we will
go but either way would work as far as the Health Department is concern-
ed, ground water testing can not. be completed until the high irrigation
season but the information we have so far indicates the septic system
would work. It is the desire of the applicant to construct the sewer
and connect to the sewer, that we believe will work with the cooperation
of one or two of the other property owners.
1 •
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL •
MARCH 15, 1988
PAGE # 4
Brewer: Are there any other questions of the Council? There were none.
I will now open the Public Hearing, is there anyone in the audience who
wishes to testify on this request? There .was no response, The Public
Hearing was closed.
The Motion was made by Tolsma and
Findings of Fact and Conclusions
Commission on this application.
seconded by Myers to approve the
as prepared for the Planning & Zoning
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Item ##: Ordinance #493: Annexation & Zoning of the Property of the
Latter Day Saints Church:
Brewer: An Ordinance Annexing and Zoning a portion of the Norti~aest"-1J4
Northwest 1/4, Section 11, T. 3N., R. 1 W, Boise, Meridian, Ada County
Idaho; and providing an effective date, Is there anyone in the audience
who wishes Ordinance #493 read in its entirety? There was no response.
The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Myers that the rules and
provisions of 50-902 and all rules and provisions requiring that Ordinances
be read on three different days be dispensed with and that Ordinance #493
as read be passed and approved.
Motion Carried: Roll Call Vote: Giesler, Yea: Myers, Yea: Tolsma, Yea:
Brewer, Yea:
The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Myers to approve of the
Conditional Use Permit as requested by the Church of Latter Day Saints.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Item #4: Day Care Operators:
Brewer: I believe you have a spokesperson for the group, Wanda Michaelson
would you please come forward and make the presentation.
Mrs. Michaelson had a prepared presentation which is attached as exhibit
"A" of these minutes. Mrs. Michaelson also presented the Council with a
rough draft of a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for their
consideration.
Brewer: Thank you Mrs. Michaelson, you certainly did your homework, I
do not remember using this type of care for my family when they were
growing up, I have known all along that the monetary rewards are very
meager and the various reasons for doing this. type of thing you have
qualified. I would like for the Council~to be able to ask you some
questions, I cannot help but think we may need to have our City Attorney
address the possibilities of making the suggested changes you have
submitted, in regards to the Ordinance and definitions, making it
possibile to clear this whole thing up without going any further.
Giesler: I have children but I have never had to handle this type of
thing but what is the difference between a day care and a child care?
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL • •
MARCH 15, 1988
PAGE # 5
Michaelson: Day Care sound systematic, some people prefer child care
and some use: .day care, I used child care in the definitions that were
submitted because lots of providers prefer that as opposed to day care.
Mitich: The Building Code defines where there are six or more children
as a day care.
Brewer: So that change would have to be made as well?
Mitich: Yes, because in the Building Code where there are six or more
there are additional requirements.
Giesler: One thing additional I would like to say, is I do not know if
everyone is aware why we have the Conditional Use Permit, there are some
very important reasons why we do it that way, do not get me wrong, I am
willing to look into this to see if we can make these changes and believe
me I understand we need all of you out there, the thing is basically you
are conducting your operation illegally at this time and now it has kind
of caught up with you, we did not impose that on you it wasn't us, the
only thing the Conditional Use does it gives the people around you the
opportunity to say their peace of mind as to whether they want that type
of use around them, everyone has their home, they work all day, they come
home at night,they want to stay home~or weekends, they have that option of
being able to say wnether they want that use next door to them or within
three hundred feet, they are able to voice their opinion and I think that
is very important, you might say I do not have any of those problems well
maybe no-one has ever said anything about it, they maybe have keep quite
and went along with it. In ways I have some real problems with doing away
with the Conditional Use Permit because you are operating a business out
of the home and I think that is the place for them, but I do feel the
neighbors should have that opportunity to say whether they want you there
or not. It seems to me like the last application we had for this type of
thing got very ugly, there were some people aroung them that protested
and finally the lady got so fed up she just dropped the application and
it was from the neighbors in fact that gave. her such a problem and then
she did not like going though. the whole process but that is the way it
is set up. I know this would be quite involved as we would have to hear
each one of these people individually, everyone would have to make out
an application, there would have to be a Public Hearing for each and
everyone of them therefor- we would have to have the findings and every
thing and it could get very expensive, I have no idea what it would be
but it would be a lot more than $160.00. I want you folksy to be aware
that it is also the people next to you that really have the right to
say whether they want this type of thing there or not, if no one shows
up and everthing looks good the traffic and etc. then we generally do
not have any problem but I think that is very important that the people
you have next to your location have some say.
Michaelson: I would say that we do not have a single one that could
afford to go through the Conditional Use Permit even if the fee was
waived. I might say these are the ones that have came forward to
obtain their license when they really did not need their license and
are out there trying to do their best for the children, I don't know
how many more homes there are who will never try to get licenses and
never have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit and it is almost
impossible to find them.
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL ~ •
MARCH 15, 1988
PAGE # 6
Mary Wilson: I am the person they were talking about that attempted to
go through this procedure and the comment I would like to make is it
cost considerably more than $160.00, it has cost me including my attorney
fees and the commercial location I finally went to according to my
accountant the other day $7,282.00 and I did not get the Conditional
Use Permit because I withdrew my application. Another comment I would
like to make is it is truly up to the City Council as to whether any
Conditional Use Permit would be allowec:,=when--I went through my process
I went to all of my neighbors and I do not have a day care center, I am
not providing care for children, what I asked for was a pre-school
program for a limited number of children for a 22 hour session, two
sessions per day. As I went through my process I contacted 29 neighbors,
only one neighbor objected but the Council was so concerned about that
one neighbor that it did become an enormous situation and on advise of
my counsel I withdrew. I feel it is up to you as the Council for the
City of Meridian as to whether you want to provide adequate care adequate
educational opportunities for the children of Meridian and give a meager
livelihood to: some of,'.t~ women that is going to make the difference
between welfare or putting their own children in a day care and finding
another job elsewhere outside of Meridian.
Brewer: Mrs. Michealson, in your research did you come across the Cities
that have adopted the State Regulations and etc., in order to get around
this issue?
Michaelson: I have not done very much research on that, I know that Boise
has, Pocatello has its own Ordinance.
City Attorney: I just have a couple of comments, to address some of the
comments of Mary Wilson, I think the big problem Mrs. Wilson ran into
and I think she would agree with me, was that the convenants in her sub-
division, which you should all check, prohibited her from having a home
occupation or doing a business from her house and that was the big concern
that the Council had as to whether they could, we do not normally get in-
to the covenants, but you should all check into your covenants, if you
have them in your subdivision you should find out whether or not you can
even operate a business out of your home no matter what kind it is. If
you do have those covenants, your neighbors can or any property owner in
the subdivision can even though they are outside the 300 feet area they
could take you to court and prohibit you from operating that business.
The other thing would be a question to Mrs. Michaelson, what is going on
in Boise, do they have a Conditional Use Permit or how are the people
operating, what do they do there?
Michaelson: In Boise, family child care homes and group child care homes
are permitted uses in residential districts and there is no requirements
for Conditional Uses, they are required by the Boise Code to be licensed,
in the rest of the State there is no requirements for them to be licensed.
Brewer: They have adopted the State Statutes that you were recommending?
Michaelson: The State Statutes require that Child Care Centers be licensed,
and Child Care Homes may be licensed if they wish to.
Myers: Then for your plans they have to be licensed?
Michaelson: Yes, the only ones we work with is the licensed ones.
i
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 15, 1988
PAGE # 7
City Attorney: The only comment
along completely with what you
problems.
I would have on that is even if we went
requested they still have their covenant
Michaelson: And I said that, this would not get around that problem.
City Attorney: The City would not be the enforcer, that is for sure but
your neighbors could be.
Brewer: It seems to me as far as covenants go, that puts them in a policy
where they become their own policeman and I suppose that those of you that
had neighbors that did complain might eventually find yourselves caught
up in that sort of thing. The ecomony the last seveal years has caused
this Council and many governing bodies a real problem that when the ecomony
is poor it tends to cause people to want to do business out of their home
and away from the usual business locations, to the point to where you
could say various types of operations are being conducted out of homes
that we are not aware of. We have been told that there are other child
care operations that are not represented by you people. It has also been
said that if we have to pursue the Conditional Use Permit situation it
probably would drive a lot of you underground so to speak that we will
just not hear from you again and you will continue operating as you have
been. I think my suggestion would still stand that we authorize our City
Attorney during the time if we still have it to look into all the legal
aspects of this as far as the City is concerned, we are not always able
to do what we want to do but if it has been done in Boise and other areas
it is certainly very possible that we could cut the corners and make it
right here as well.
Myers: What I would like to see happen and we would have to clear this
with the City Attorney, it looks to me like here and I kind of .agree
with Councilman Giesler that you need to check with your neighbors to
see what they are going to say about having this type of ,thing in the
neighborhood. Apparently nobne has had any problems as the neighbors
evidently have not complained or at least the City has not heard about
them. What would be the easiest and simpliest thing would be to find out
how many neighbors are within. that 300 hundred foot region and then just
go out and have them, just have a form of some kind that says they have
no objection and have them sign it and bring it back to the Council and
we could approve it.
Someone in the audience commented this type of thing probably would not
work as it would upset the neighbors and it was possible that several of
them did not know they were even doing this.
Alice Allen, 1065 Chateau: I am not a day care center person, but I have
one in my subdivision and I use one in an adjoining subdivision, I thank
god for day care centers, I am a working mother outside the home and my
husband works, I have three children ranging in age from a six months old
to a six year old, I feel there is no problem with these day care centers
in my subdivision and the one in the adjoining subdivision which I use,
if they were to have to go to the Ordinances and Fire Codes it would end
up being a burden on me, them having to up their fees that I am currently
paying. I see no problem with the traffic going to and from these centers.
Brewer: I want to remind you all, as family people ourselves we are all
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL • •
MARCH 15, 1988
PAGE # 8
aware of all the things you have touched upon, every one of them so it
is not like we have to be educated along that line, the way I feel about
it is any baby sitter could qualify under this explanation regardless of
whether you take your child to a babysitter for an evening, they all fit
this, so that in my opinion is all that you. are is babysitters during the
day along with the nights but I did not mean that as an insult. In compar-
ision you are caring for children just like a babysitter of any sort
whether you take your child to a babysitter while you go to a movie or go
to get your groceries or what whatever, you are caring for children so
what I am trying to do is broaden the field as far as the need that is
there and if we choose to make you people apply then I believe we need to
go after every babysitter in Meridian.
Howard Brown: There has been a lot said here tonite about all of the
monetary things that happen, the money that is spent in Meridian, the
money that is spent on licensing, I think we have failed to look at the
most important fact, that is the fact of the family factor, we have our
children in a day care because both of us work we prefer to have them in
a home type setting during the day rather than generic type care center
where it is the standard type thing. I believe the home type sttting is
a very important thing and that is one of the things I think is most
important to look at.
Brewer: What is the Council's decision on this?
Tolsma: I think we need the City Attorney to investigate this matter
and check with the Fire Marshal on the Life and Safety Codes and see
if there are any changes in that and also on the Building Codes and see
if we have to make any changes in that.
Brewer: Is there a time factor we are dealing with here?
Michaelson: The homes that were formally licensed under the volunteer
license program were given a temporary license for one hundred and twenty
days from March 1, 1988.
The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Myers to have the City
Attorney investigate the different options and the needed changes that
would have to be made and that we have some type of report by the first
meeting in April.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Item #5: Reappoint Walt Morrow to EDC Board:
The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Tolsma to reappoint Walt
Morrow to another three years term on the Board of the Economic Devel-
opment Corporation of the City of Meridian.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Department Reports:
There were none:
' MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL • •
MARCH 15, 1988
PAGE ~ 9
Being no further business to come before the Council the Motion was made
by Myers and seconded by Tolsma to adjourn at 8:40 p.m.:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROV D:
BILL BREWER, ACTING MAYOR
ATTEST:
ac~k Niemanr~ City Clerk
Mayor & Council
P & Z Commission
Atty, Eng, Ward
Stuart, Mitich, Fire
Police, Gass, Valley News
Statesman, Hallett,
ACHD, NIMD, CDH, ACC
Settlers Irrg.
Mail (3)
File (3)
~ i
~lah® uncr Acti®n council
205 N. 10th, Suite 602 Boise, ID 83702 (208) 336-7010
March 15, 1988
PRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF CHILD CARE HOMES
PROBLEM•
As Director of the Idaho Hunger Action Council, I know of 14 licensed
child care homes in Meridian. These homes do not have to be licensed, even
under the new licensing law which took effect March 1, 1988, but they may
be licensed.
The Idaho Hunger Action Council has a contract with the state Department
of Education to feed children in child care homes. We subcontract with providers
who care for children in their own homes, but they must be licensed. They then
keep accurate records of the children in attendence for each meal and the menu
served. Parents are informed that their children are enrolled in this program.
Providers must submit monthly reports, attend required nutrition education
workshops, and are visited at least three times a year, usually without warning.
Their meals must meet standards established by the US Department of Agriculture
and must introduce the children to a variety of foods, especially fresh fruits
and vegetables.
Aa of March 1, child care homes which wish to be licensed in order to
participate in the Child Care Feeding Program must pay a fee of at least $75.00,
pass a health inspection, a fire inspection and a background check. Thin fee
is one of the highest i£ not the highest in the nation.
When child care providers wnet to the Meridian fire marshall, they discovered
they needed a conditional use permit under the Meridian zoning ordinance.
Thin would coat them a fee of $160 plus coats, on top of the new licensing fee
of $75.00. Getting the permit is also a complicated process.
PROPOSED SOLUTION:
Since Meridian was using the definition of day care center from the
Idaho code rather than the one in the Meridian ordinance, we propose that
Meridian change the zoning ordinance to adopt the current Idaho code definitions
of child care center, family child care home and group child care home. This
would in effect declare that child care homes caring for twelve (12) or fewer
children is permissible in residential zones. However, since the zoning code
states that only specifically designated permiasablA uses are permissible, we
recommend that family child care homes and group child care homes be designated
permissible in residential sections.
Here is a rough draft of a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED SOLUTION:
1. This is the simplest solution. While it does not require extensive
rewriting of the zoning ordinance, it does offer a permanent solution that case
by case hardship waivers would not provide.
EXHIBIT "A" TO MINUTES OF MARCH 15,1988
.' • •
Presentation on behalf of child care homes
March 15, 1988
Arguments for Proposed Solution continued;
page 2
2. The proposed definitions conform to the Idaho code, which will make
them easier to enforce. This is especially true since apparently Meridian
used the former definitions in the Idaho code without officially changing
the ordinance.
3. This proposed solution does not negate subdivision covenants that
may prohibit day care in some residential areas. Since child care is done
traditionally in residential areas, this will not change the conditions of
the neighborhood from what they were when a resident built or bought their
home.
4. This solution is in keeping with the purpose and standards of the
Meridian Zoning Ordinance.
The purpose of the Meridian zoning ordinance is to advance the City
of Meridian as a self-sufficient employment and economic center. It includes
improvement of the character and quality of Meridian's man-made environment
while maintaining its identity as a self-sufficient community.
Standards listed at the beginning of the Meridian zoning ordinance
include:
harmonious with the comprehensive plan;
will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained
to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or
intended character of the general vicinity and such use will not change
the essential character of the area;
not hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighborhood uses;
will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for
public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the
economic welfare of the co~nunity;
will not generate excessive traffic, noise, smoke, ,fumes, glare or odors;
will not interfere with traffic on surrounding streets and
is in the best interest of Meridian.
A survey of the fourteen currently licensed child care homes in Meridian
shows that they have 178 children enrolled, but that their average daily
attendance varies from three (3) to twelve (12). One provider, although she
has an average daily attendance of twelve, had only five children after the
older ones left for school, and one was her own child. She had only two
children (one of whom was her own) when the other three left for afternoon
kindergarten, until 3:30 or so.
' - ~ 4~
•
Presentation on behalf of child care homes
March 15, 1988
Arguments for Proposed Solution continued:
page 3
The total average daily attendence for these fourteen homes is 115 children,
or 8.2 children per home. Many of our families are larger than this. Most of
these children are from the immediate neighborhood, often walking to the child
care provider's house.
To illustrate that child care homes do not impact the community sufficiently
to warrant requiring a conditional use permit , these fourteen providers know
of many additional unlicensed child care providers. You cannot walk or drive
down the street and tell which homes are child care homes. They use the same
outdoor play equipment you purchased for your own children. When they go out
to the park, they look no different from airy other mother who allows her child
to bring a few playmates along.
5. This solution provides positive support for home child care providers
in providing essential service for the community and in turn contributing to
the general health of Meridian businesses.
A quick survey of the fourteen aforementioned currently licensed child
care providers revealed that they currently work from 50 to 110 hours a
week (with 62 hours a week being the average), without paid coffee breaks or
lunch hours, paid vacations or sick leave. They earn between $.86 and $6.50
an hour (for an average of $3.26 an hour, which is below the minimum wage).
They do not get fringe benefits like health or life insurance. They do it
in order to stay home with their own children or because they love children
and their friends have talked them into providing this needed service.
These fourteen providers also contribute to other Meridian businesses,
purchasing between $300.00 and $600.00 worth of food and supplies each from
Meridian retailers, per month. That's an average of $6,300.00 per month
spent locally by these child care homes.
6. This solution provides positive support for Meridian families.
Child Care Connections, an information and referral program in Boise, reports
they received 98 calls from Meridian parents searching for child care in
Meridian. They only have three homes listed that will accept infants.
Most are full.
A recent survey of working parents at five banks in Boise showed that
677 were using child care outside their own homes. Over two-thirds preferred
child care facilities near their home rather than•near their work. Twenty
out of 203 would like to find facilities closer to home in the Meridian area.
Of children cared for outside their own homes, 347 were cared for in child
care homes, compared to 247. cared for in centers.
IN CONCLUSION: Adoption of this proposed solution would be pro-business, pro-
family and pro-Meridian.
,~?
• •
I® ~Iun~~r ~ct~®n C®uncil
205 fV. 10th, Suite 602 Boise, ID 83702 (208) 336-7010
March 15, 1988
PRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF CHILD CARE HOMES
PROBLEM:
As Director of the Idaho Hunger Action Council, I know of 14 licensed
child care homes in Meridian. These homes do not have to be licensed, even
under the new licensing law which took effect March 1, 1988, but they may
be licensed.
The Idaho Hunger Action Council has a contract with the state Department
of Education to feed children in child care homes. We subcontract with providers
who care for children in their own homes, but they must be licensed. They then
keep accurate records of the children in attendance for each meal and the menu
served. Parents are informed that their children are enrolled in this program.
Providers must submit monthly reports, attend required nutrition education
workshops, and are visited at least three times a year, usually without warning.
Their meals must meet standards established by the US Department of Agriculture
and must introduce the children to a variety of foods, especially fresh fruits
and vegetables.
As of March 1, child care homes which wish to be licensed in order to
participate in the Child Care Feeding Program must pay a fee of at least $75.00,
pass a health inspection, a fire inspection and a background check. This fee
is one of the highest i£ not the highest in the nation.
When child care providers whet to the Meridian fire marshall, they discovered
they needed a conditional use permit under the Meridian zoning ordinance.
This would cost them a fee of $160 plus costs, on top of the new licensing fee
of $75.00. Getting the permit is also a complicated process.
PROPOSED SOLUTION:
Since Meridian was using the definition of day care center from the
Idaho coda rather than the one in the Meridian ordinance, we propose that
Meridian change the zoning ordinance to adopt the current Idaho code definitions
of child care center, family child care home and group child care home. This
would in effect declare that child care homes caring for twelve (12) or fewer
children is permissible in residential zones. However, since the zoning code
states that only specifically designated permissabl~ uses are permissible, we
recommend that family child care homes and group child care homes be designated
permissible in residential sections.
Here is a rough draft of a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE P8OP0SED SOLUTION:
1. This is the simplest solution. While it does not require extensive
rewriting of the zoning ordinance, it does offer a permanent solution that case
by case hardship waivers would not provide.
•
Presentation on behalf of child care homes
March 15, 1988
Arguments for Proposed Solution continued:
•
page 2
2. The proposed definitions conform to the Idaho code, which will make
them easier to enforce. This is especially true since apparently Meridian
used the former definitions in the Idaho code without officially changing
the ordinance.
3. This proposed solution does not negate subdivision covenants that
may prohibit day care in some residential areas. Since child care is done
traditionally in residential areas, this will not change the conditions of
the neighborhood from what they were when a resident built or bought their
home.
4. This solution is in keeping with the purpose and standards of the
Meridian Zoning Ordinance.
The purpose of the Meridian zoning ordinance is to advance the City
of Meridian as a self-sufficient employment and economic center. It includes
improvement of the character and quality of Meridian's man-made environment
while maintaining its identity as a self-sufficient community.
Standards listed at the beginning of the Meridian zoning ordinance
include:
harmonious with the comprehensive plan;
will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained
to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or
intended character of the general vicinity and such use will not change
the essential character of the area;
not hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighborhood uses;
will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for
public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the
economic welfare of the community;
will not generate excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors;
will not interfere with traffic on surrounding streets and
is in the best interest of Meridian.
A survey of the fourteen currently licensed child care homes in Meridian
shows that they have 178 children enrolled, but that their average daily
attendance varies from three (3) to twelve (12). One provider, although she
has an average daily attendance of twelve, had only five children after the
older ones left for school, and one was her own child. She had only two
children (one of whom was her own) when the other three left for afternoon
kindergarten, until 3:30 or so.
•
Presentation on behalf of child care homes
March 15, 1988
Arguments for Proposed Solution continued:
•
page 3
The total average daily attendance for these fourteen homes is 115 children,
or 8.2 children per home. Many of our families are larger than this. Most of
these children are from the immediate neighborhood, often walking to the child
care provider's house.
To illustrate that child care homes do not impact the community sufficiently
to warrant requiring a conditional use permit these fourteen providers know
of many additional unlicensed child care providers. You cannot walk or drive
dower the street and tell which homes are child care homes. They use the same
outdoor play equipment you purchased for your own children. When they go out
to the park, they look no different from any other mother who allows her child
to bring a few playmates along.
5. This solution provides positive support for home child care providers
in providing essential service for the community and in turn contributing to
the general health of Meridian businesses.
A quick surrey of the fourteen aforementioned currently licensed child
care providers revealed that they currently work from 50 to 110 hours a
week (with 62 hours a week being the average), without paid coffee breaks or
lunch hours, paid vacations or sick leave. They earn between $.86 and $6.50
an hour (for an average of $3.26 an hour, which is below the minimum wage).
They do not get fringe benefits like health or life insurance. They do it
in order to stay home with their own children or because they love children
and their friends have talked them into providing this needed service.
These fourteen providers also contribute to other Meridian businesses,
purchasing between $300.00 and $600.00 worth of food and supplies each from
Meridian retailers, per month. That's an average of $6,300.00 per month
spent locally by these child care homes.
6. This solution provides positive support for Meridian families.
Child Care Connections, an information and referral program in Boise, reports
they received 98 calls from Meridian parents searching for child care in
Meridian. They only have three homes listed that will accept infants.
Most are full.
A recent survey of working parents at five banks in Boise showed that
677 were using child care outside their own homes. Over two-thirds preferred
child care facilities near their home rather than near their work. Twenty
out of 203 would like to find facilities closer to home in the Meridian area.
Of children cared for outside their own homes, 347. were cared for in child
care homes, compared to 247. cared for in centers.
IN CONCLUSION: Adoption of this proposed solution would be pro-business, pro-
family and pro-Meridian.
i
Idaho Hunger Act on Council
205 N.10th, Suite 602 Boise, ID 83702 (208) 336-7010
CHILD CARE FOOD PROGRAM
The United States Department of Agriculture provides a Child
Care Food Program for home-based day care sites. This program
offers cash reimbursement to certain types of state licensed
home-based day care operations for the day care (and some
natural) children's meals and snacks.
The IDAHO HUNGER ACTION COUNCIL, a non-profit organization which
addresses hunger issues in Idaho is the "umbrella" sponsor for
this program.
WHO CAN PARTICIPATE?
Child Care Providers who are:
1. Licensed by the state
2. Care for children in their own home
3. Licensed for 12 or less children
REIMBURSEMENTS FOR MEALS SERVED ARE:
1. Breakfasts .64 1/2 per child, per meal
2. Lunch/Dinners 1.20 1/2 per child, per meal
3. Snacks .36 per child, per meal
You are limited to three meals per day, per child, one of those
meals must be a snack.
BENEFITS FROM PROGRAM:
1. Enables provider to introduce wider varities of nutritious
foods to children.
2. Provider must meet meal requirements set by the USDA
nutrition guidelines.
3. Parents are assured that children cared for in a
participating home are served balanced nutritious meals.
4. This program allows the provider to realize a little profit
from her child care fees and encourages her to continue this
service to the community. Keeps child care rates down.
5. No fee is charged to the provider for this service.
6. Since a home day care site must be licensed to participate,
this program encourages day care homes to become licensed.
If you would like more information, please contact Idaho Hunger
Action Council and ask for the Child Care Food Program, 336-7010.
Diane Terwilleger
CCFP Administrator
Alvina Spencer
Coordinator
eatte~l a:i~Je. gyp. or lae6tny. I[
,w D.ll~w boa Oaw D.m 4w4A mt~lsl~
le a~a~itie/ taei ra~laa Mua~~ of aaw.
Judy Sanders Sharon Whittam ~..~. e.umt ~..... ~ mds
Clerk Receptionist ~~~ a~`~~ ""`
. ~ o . •
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
APPLICATION OF TWAYNE WALRER
FOR A VARIANCE AT 1033 FAIRWOOD COURT
PRE-LIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled variance request having come on for
consideration on March 15, 1988, at approximately 7:30 o'clock
p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the City Council having heard and
taken oral and written testimony, the City Council of the City of
Meridian makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. .That notice of the public hearing on the variance was
published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled
hearing for March 15, 1988, the first publication of which was
fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was dul
considered at the March 15, 1988 hearing; that copies of
notices were available to newspaper, radio. and tele
stations.
2. That the notice of public hearing is requ,~
sent to property owners within 300 feet of
boundaries of the land being considered pursue
and 11-2-419 D of the Revised and Compiled Ord'
aMBROS~, of Meridian; that this requirement has been
Firzaean~
& CROOKSTON
Attomeye and
Coun~ima
P.O. Box 427
Meridian. Idaho
83812
Telephone 88B4t81
//
•
nlNS~os~,
FITZOERALD
& CRCOK8TON
AttomeysarM
Counselors
P.O. Box 427
Meridisn, Idaho
83642
Telephone 8881461
3. That the Plat of Meadowview Subdivision Aio. 2 requires
certain size homes to be constructed on certain lots all as
allowed under section 11-2-411 and its predessessor ordinances;
that the lot in question, Lot 25, Block 12, Meadowview
Subdivision No. 2 must have a 1200 square foot or larger home
consructed thereon; that 11-2-411 D 1 allows no single family
houses to be constructed less than 999 square feet; that this
particular subdivision was granted a prior variance to the
housing square footage requirements.
4. That the Applicant has requested that he not be
required to build a 1200 square foot home; Applicant has
requested to be allowed to construct a 900 square foot single
family dwelling..
5. The size of the lot in question is approximately 85 x
57 or approximately 4,845 square feet.
6. That the set back ordinances require a 5 foot side set
back on each side of the structure, a 20 foot yard front set back
and a 15 foot rear yard set back, the maximum possible square
footage a residential structure, including garage, could contain
on the lot, is 2350 square feet.
7. That the houses in the immediate area are generally of
a size similar to 900 to 1,000 square feet.
8. That the lot is zoned R-4 Residential; that some of the
lots are "0" lot line lots; that Applicant would .have to meet the
set back requirements, if applicable.
•
9. That the plans show that a single family dwelling will
be construed.
10. That the Applicant set forth the following pertinent
comments as his reasons for justification of the variance the
following:
1) Lack of frontage on the .lot;
2) 'Adjoining homes are misplaced on their
lots, making the subject lot undesireable;
3) Applicant has an interested buyer for the
lot and a small home;
4) The lot is the last lot available in the
subdivision because of its layout and
location; -
5) Adjoining homes have the same approximate
square footage.
AMBROSE,
FlTZaERALD
& CROOKSTON
Attomeysahd
Couneelor9
P.O. Box 427
~MeHdisn.Ideho
83812
Telephone888r481
11. That the misplacement of adjoining homes is not due to
the action of the Applicant; that the "O" lot line configuration
had no beginning or end point such that ultimately one lot was
bound to be "squeezed".
12. That these Findings of-Fact were made preliminarily and
may have to be changed, altered, or amended as a result of the
public hearing.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That alb. the procedural requirements of the Local
• •
AMBROSE,
FITLaERALD
& CROOKSTON
Attomays and
Counoetora
P.O. Box 427
McHdlan, Idaho
83842
Telaphoire 8884481
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 has authority to grant variances pursuant
to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. That the City Council has judged this application by
the guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in
the Zoning Ordinance and upon the record submitted to it and the
things upon which it may take judicial notice.
4. That the Council may take judicial notice of its own
proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes,
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing
within the City and the State.
5. That the following provisions of Section 11-2-419,
Variances, of the Zoning Ordinance is noted which is pertinent to
the Application:
11-2-419 A GENERAL
The Council may authorize in specific cases a variance
from the terms of this Ordinance as will not be
contrary to the public interest where, owing to special
conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of
this Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. No
non-conforming use of neighboring land, structures or
buildings in the same district and no permited or non-
conforming use of lands, structures or buildings in
other districts shall be considered grounds for
issuance of a variance. Variances shall be granted
only where strict application of the provisions of this
Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. A
variance application does not go to the Commission
unless directed by the Council.
•
•
6. That the specific requirements regarding a variance
that must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as
follows:
11-2-419 C FINDINGS
A variance shall not be granted unless tas a result
of a public hearing) the Council makes a statement
of supportive reasons based directly on the evidence
presented to it which supports conclusions that the
mentioned standards and conditions of this Ordinance
have been met by the applicant and unless all of the
following exist:
1. That there are such special circumstances or
conditions affecting the property that the strict
application of the provisions of this Ordinance would
clearly be impracticable or unreasonable;
2. That strict compliance with the requirements of
this Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship
to the owner, subdivider or developer because of
unusual topography, other physical conditions or other
conditions which are not self-inflicted, or that these
conditions will result in inhibiting the achievements
or the objectives of this Ordinance.
3. That the granting of the specified variance will not
be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to
other property in the area in which the property is
situated.
4. That such variance will not have the effect of
altering the interest and purpose of this Ordinance and
the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
7. That the consideration of profit, economic gain or
AMBROBE,
F1IZQERALD
& CROOKSTON
Attorneys arld
Counselors
P.O. Box 427
Merldlen, Idaho
83842
Telephorre 88B~4481
convenience to the Applicant was removed from the variance
ordinance regarding specific findings.
8. That since this is the last lot in the subdivision
available for construction it is concluded to be in the best
interest of the surrounding homes, and owners thereof, and of the
City, that it is better to have a smaller home constructed on the
lot rather than continue to have a weed patch, which would be a
fire hazard.
9. That regarding Section 11-2-419C it is specifically
concluded as follows:
a. That there are special circumstances or
conditions affecting the property that the strict
application of the provisions of this Ordinance and
the Plat of Meadowview Subdivision No. 2 would
clearly be unreasonable when most structures in the
area are of similar size as the one proposed.
b. That strict compliance with the requirements of
this Ordinance would result in extraordinary
hardship to the owner, subdivider or developer
because of unusual topography, other physical
conditions or other conditions which are not self-
inflicted;
c. That the granting of the specified variance would not
be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious
to other property in the area in which the property is
situtated;
d. That such variance would not have the effect of
altering the interest and purpose of this Ordinance and
the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. ;~'
E,'
AMBROSE,
FITZCiERALD
& CROOKSTON
Attomeye and
Counaelore
P.O. Boz427
McNdlan, Idaho
83842
Telephone 888.1481
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby adopt
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
- _ ' S - FY
,,, ~ A „~!
.-
,..
r ,~ ~~ ~r
' , >c
? a ~} `~,.
ROLL. CALL : ~ '~'"9.~8 , ~'Y } ~~ f '-
x3 ~ ~ ~~ cv y
C~uinc~t~~aaii Gie~Yer V'ot ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ` ~ ~>k ~ r
_ CCT1~d C~2.lRa~1 ~.~l.~B~$~. Vet r ~~ .~~rt t l+lxd x} Q~1'~,r ~~G.
.. ~ , . Conncf loran Tod `Voted ' ~ ~ *;~~`~ ° ~~` ~ ~. ~ .y.
%¢ , , ti ~. psi
' , ..~ ~~
Cou~ac~maa 8><,ew~r .Voted ~ ~ _ Jy ~ 4
~~
- ,t R 4
t r ~ , ~1 ~L
Mayor ~~G-ngsford .-~ ~ , ' ,' ~~} ,~
,~
~` x $ ,~
.• ~ :, ,
ss pp n A L~ .•~ R ,~.. i,,~ ~ a,yf` Y
,., „.. m ,
r ~~1~+ H~ea~Q~~?'~~Totad~t w~ - '-~ ~ o- rS+ ~.r~ r`a~
t: ,7i Y
APPRE~VED:~~~~, DISAPPRQV$Ds. ~ ~` ~ ~~`' .•y'
~ -; j < ~,
F "~
- ~` ; Tw ~~ ?s~2
t ~ .. t {.,~ 4'a . ~ yI{{ 12
< ~,. ~ ~
t ,
..
.,
•:
,„ ~ t;~ r
.~~ ' a.
',,.{( p ~
~~y ~. ;
`~ 4
- ~r i ~ ~ -!
¢ `~ .~ r k`y~ X12 .,H
.. ~ - rf a ~ _'~ '' 1'. ~ WC`s' ~~~',4`'A'r.'r t~ ti
.~' - ~ ~ ;~
~ ~.[ '. .. 2~.'
A ~yy ~ ~ r
~1i ~'~a''~{5 '6 ~/. A y~` .r '•. ~ F ~~_~YT 'J4 L ~eY~' A„ .- ~~
l
/~iBd1CSE, '~ ` ,'~4 ,~' ~3``
FITT.piE`RALD ~ ~ s . r'" 3~ 3 d ~ +t ` ,o, ti '` „ .,~ ~ ';°~ "x w ~y .+' r * ~_ '` is ~ ' ~ rZ
dCROOKSTON F's ~ ,~ ~ :. ~ y.' ~ ~ ~ , r p ~ : + ~~~' •~#c.,~jW ~~.'~~ Y~;:: ,i{_ r
~y~~y ~ '~IF- ~ • ,> s.,L ~ - ~ rr. ~b~MV' ~ Ss ~~ 6+f., ~tp y~ ~~~.I} ~i, ~
QOYMlIIOIW~ ...w +c ~. ~n,r,, sEh. a ,~ ~ ,~ro~ ,yM ~ ' ~ t ~_~ ~
ROe gox~17 t.:: ~ ~,f C ~ ~'"'} P ~~`~:4 ~ ,~ r ~ ~ ~~
~ M~rkNlu~,adiho ~ ' „ ~ 4 .. ~ 4 ~ ,t ~ , ~ > „ry* ,~ ` ~ ~ •-~ - ;
s~ ;' a rf ' f:
,. ~,,
~'
l ~x
t N
~ ~
OAVISC TOOTHMAN
RICHARD F. ORTON, JR
Alan G. Lance
Foley & Lance
Heritage Building, Suite 300
77 East Idaho Street
P.0. Box >314
Meridian, Idaho K364l
Dear Mr. Lance:
PAUL S.KUNZ
DON O. PAVNE
(~~p}~ ,
Enclosed please find three copies of the survey we performed f'or
Mr. and Mrs. James Schondel in MEADOWVIF.W N0. L SUBDIVISION. The
house encroaches onto Lot l5 by approximately five feet (from the
eave overhang t.o the property line). Because there is zero
setback on these lots, 1 have shown a proposed loi line 3.00 feet
from the building wall which would leave U.y feet from the eave
overhang to the proposed lot line. This would prevent anyone
from Lot 25 building right up to the edge of the overhang.
I have not set any pins to mark the new boundary corners at this
time. If the proposed lot. line is agreeable to all the parties
involved, let me know and I will set the new boundary corners
and file the record of survey. If'~it is not agreeable, let me
know and I will make the necessary changes on the drawing, set
the boundary corners and file the record of survey.
If' you have any questions or need me t.o attend the Planning and
Zoning meeting to answer any questions about the survey, please
contact me.
Sincerely,
T00 AN-ORTO 'GINEERING COMPANY
Glenn K. Benn L.S.
Chief' of Surveys
• •
TOOTHMAN-ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
1102 NORTH 33RD STREET
BOISE, IDAHO 83703
TELEPHONE (208) 342-5511
FaRwooo couRT
LOT 2B
EDGE OF CONC.
ORNE
y
EASEA~EM
UNE
ROLLED CURB -
BacK of
S/DEWi1L/(
LOT 24 PLOTTED
4793 SQ. FT. LOT L/NE PROPOSE
LOT UNE
LAWN
4 ~ ~ f D'
i
I ~
J
O'
2 /,
.
3.0f'
I BU/LD/NG W,4LL o
h °j
I $~ I
WW 3
w
(
b' I '
a
,_
,~ o
~~
I a
bb b
EDGE OF E4VE I ~.h 2
O~ERHANC
3.0'
I ?. 1'
3. f4'
1.0' ~
aLOCx lz `~W"
MEADOWVIEW ND. z SIlBDIYISION
y ~~
O ~~` O
~s
~~"
.~~~ ~9
"~~
WEEDS
DEBR/S
LOT 25
4913 SO. FT.
EDGE OF LAWN
6' WOODEN
FENCE
2.s4'
(2so~
3.78'
,S•~ 'S4,1a.
?4• SO•
E sirs,
s,~so J
LOT 13
LOT 12
. QT
h~
°~' °a
33
h~
w
~~
bb
22
3.34'
(3 ~)
•
A RESOLUTION OF THE A1~RICAN PEOPLE
TO ADOPT THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPAL OF
I~® ~TSE ®~ QTY ~I.I.~EGAI. DRUG
anc~.
~® ~L~G1~I. USE ®F I.~EG~Y. DRUG
Whereas, America is said to be the most illegal drug using and legal drug abusing nation in the
world;
Whereas, In the past ten years there has been a steady decline in the beginning age of drug use
and is currently twelve yeazs of age;
Whereas, The ramifications of such use negatively impact every aspect of American life
today-economy, crime, education, health, national security-and this impact in turn
threatens the very future of our country;
Whereas, The Nation is in a mire of confusion due to mixed messages and misinformation
pertaining to illegal and legal drugs;
Whereas, The People have already enacted laws concerning illegal drugs and illegal use of
alcohol and other legal drugs; and
Whereas, A clear, consistant` and legal Fundamental Principle and frame of reference is
necessary from which to establish a coordinated plan of action setting policies and programs
ensuring the most efficient and effective realization of the goal of a Drug-Free America; now
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Fundamental Principal of NO USE OF ANY ILLEGAL DRUG and
NO II.LEGAL USE OF ANY LEGAL DRUG shall be accepted by the American people
in their quest for aDrug-Free America; and be it
Resolved, That this Fundamental Principle be cleazly communicated throughout the Nation's
communities and families through legislative actions, educational programs, government
edicts, publications, and all facets of media dealing with the issue of illegal and legal drugs; and
Resolved, That the Fundamental Principle of NO USE OF ANY ILLEGAL DRUG and
NO ILLEGAL USE OF ANY LEGAL DRUG set the standard for international prevention
efforts as countries throughout the world work for Drug-Free nations.
~~;
-'>f ~- -
. ~;?
,h;,s.=
;, ,* .. ~ `
~.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING AND ZONING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4
NORTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 11, T. 3N., R. 1 W., BOISE, MERIDIAN, ADA
COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council and the-Mayor of the City of
Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest
of said City to annex zone, R-4, Residential, the real property
which is hereinbelow described:
LDS CHURCH ANNEXATION
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST 1/4 NORTHWEST
1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST,
BOISE-MERIDIAN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST 1/4
NORTHWEST 1/4 MONIIMENTED WITH A BRASS MONUMENT;
THENCE SOUTH 300.00 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE
OF SAID NORTHWEST 1/4 NORTHWEST 1/4 TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 89°03'40" EAST 726.15 FEET TO A POINT;
THENCE SOUTH 300.00 FEET TO A POINT;
THENCE NORTH 89°03'40" WEST 726.15 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST 1/4 NORTH-
WEST 1/4 TO A POINT;
THENCE NORTH 300.00 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY
LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST 1/4 NORTHWEST 1/4 TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO:
a~ntaaosE,
FITZGERALD
& CR001(BTON
Attomeya and
Counealore
P.O. Box 427
Maridlan, Idaho
83842
Tetephone888~481
r
a~neROSE,
FITLdERALD
&CROOKSTON
namne~rea~
Cou~etore
P.O.BOx127
McHdian, Idaho
83812
Talaphotro 8881181
..- ~ .•
Section 1: That the above. described real property is hereby
annexed and is hereby zoned R-4, Residential.
Section 2: That this Ordinance does-not supercede the
record, particularly the Findings of Fact and Conclusions,
pertaining to this annexation, but said record is made a part
hereof by this reference and incorporated herein.
Section 3: That the City Clerk shall cause one (1) copy of
the legal description .and .map which shall plainly and clearly
designate the boundaries of said property, to be filed with the
Ada County Recorder, Ada County Assessor, and the State Tax
Commission within ten (10) days following the effective date of
this Ordinance.
Section 4: WHEREAS, there is an emergency therefor, which
emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall take
effect and be in force from and after its passage, approval and
publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council and approved by the Mayor of the
City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this~.~~h day of r ,
1988.
APPROVED: .~
A~i Do+~h-, IcMho, '+s
81it Of
Ma r--Grant P. Ri g ord
*~ ~~9A: ~
D~ E
JOHN $ASTIDAo
RECD DER
gY
. o~l~
/_
r
• • •
ATTEST:
y c:ler
AMBROSE,
FITZaERALD
6CROOKBTON
Attorneys arM
t.ounaelora
P.O. Box 427
Meridian Idaho
63842
Telephorro 88&4481
3fiATE OF ;-1DAH0, )
ss.
County of Ada, )
I, Jack Niemann, City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Ada
County, .Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is
a true, full and correct copy of an Ordinance entitled "AN
ORDINANCE ANNEXING AND .ZONING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4
NORTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 11, T. 3N., R. 1 W., BOISE-MERIDIAN, ADA
COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE," passed as
Ordinance No. , by the City Council and Mayor of
the City of Meridian, on the ~~~ day of
~P ° ,.R~-c~ , 1988, as t e same appears in .my office.
DATED this ~ day of /~o ~c~, , 1988.
STATE OF IDAHO,
ss.
County of Ada, )
On this ~~~'/ day of ~ r ~ , 1988, before me, the
undersiged, a Notary Publ c in and for said State, personally
appeared Jack Niemann, known to me to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that he executed the same.
iN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed
my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above
written.
SEAL ~'~~„ ~~®`T~~y p~t~+~ N t ry Pu is for Idaho
R iding at: Meridian, Idaho
'~, ~~~ 1.~Co ~ ~ E,~P~rrs ~- ~4qg