1991 09-10
A G E N D A
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
SEPTEMBER 10, 1991
ITEM:
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1991: (AppROVID)
1: FINDINGS OF FACT' ON REZONE REQUEST BY EDWARD & JOYCE UTELY: (APPROVID)
2: FINDINGS OF FACT ON REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING BY PRIEST,STUHR &
HUNEMILLER: (APPROVID)
3: PRELIMINARY PLAT ON SUNBURST SUBDIVISION IF FINDINGS APPROVED: (APPROVED)
4: FINDINGS OF FACT ON ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUEST BY B.W. A JOINT VENTURE: (APPROVID)
5: PRELIMINAE2Y PLAT ON BENIIAM SUBDIVISION IF FINDINGS APPROVID: (APPROVID)
6: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST BY DORADO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: (FINDINGS `LlJ BE PREPARID)
7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY STUCI~R, BURHAM &
QUANG THE D0: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARID)
8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY TAMERA PERKINS:(FINDINGS TO BE
PREPARED)
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING SEPTEMBER 10, 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, Tim Hepper Charlie Rountree:
Others Present: Joan Priest, Quang Do, Dennis Baker, Don Hubble, Mary Louise Aguirre,
Frank Thomason, Layne Saxton, Mary Williamson, Lee Stucker, Fred Macx, Jack Riddlemoser,
Wayne Crookston,
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1991:
The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Rountree to approve the minutes of the
previous meeting held August 13, 1991 as written:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #1: FINDINGS OF FACT ON REZONE REQUEST BY IDWARD & JOYCE UTELY:
Shearer: I will abstain from this item, I am within the 300 feet of this request.
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Alidjani to hereby adopt and approve
these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea: Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Abstain; Alidjani - Yea:
MotionCarried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Alidjani that the Meridian Planning
& Zoning Commission hereby recommends to
the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Rezone request by the
Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the property be required to meet
the water and sewer requirements, Fire Department requirements, Sewer Department re-
quirements, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation requirements, and fire and life safety codes,
and the Uniform Building Code, and other Ordinances of the City of Meridian.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT ON REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND 'CONING BY PRIEST, STUHR &
HUNEMILLER:
Crookston: I will tie stepping down due to a conflict of interest.
Johnson: The Attorney will be replaced for this item by Jack Riddlemoser.
The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Rountree that the Meridian Planning &
Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law.
Ro11 Ca11 Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Yea; Alidjani - Yea:
Motion Carried: A11 Yea:
i
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
SEPTEMBER 10, 1991
PAGE 2
•
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Alidjani that the Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that
they approve the Annexation and zoning requested by the Applicant for the property
described in the application.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #3: PRELIMINARY PLAT ON SUNBURST SUBDIVISION IF FINDINGS APPROVED:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to approve the preliminary plat
on Sunburst Subdivision.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT ON ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY B.W. A JOINT VENTURE:
The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Alidjani that the Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
Roll Ca11 Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Yea; Alidjani - Yea;
Motion Carried: A11 Yea:
The Motion was made by Hepper 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 annexation and zoning requested by he Applicant.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #5: PRELIMINARY PLAT ON BENHAM SUBDIVISION IF FINDINGS APPROVID:
The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Shearer to approve the revised preliminary
plat on Benham Subdivision and recommend approval.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Johnson: There are some guidelines I would like to set forth before we start with the
Public Hearings. If you are represented by Counsel we need to swear in the applicant
at the same time as Counsel is sworn in. we would like to limit testimony to five minutes,
with the exception of the applicant. There will be an opportunity for at least one
rebuttal.
ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST BY DORADO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY:
Johnson:l will now open the public nearing, is there someone from the applicant that
would like to testify.
Jack Rose, 3611 Gekeler Ln., Boise, was sworn by the attorney.
Rose: Our proposal is to bring to Meridian a fourty four unit apartment complex and
it's location is 324 Gruber. Presented photo's to Council. Each building covers
approximately 2,052 sq, feet which equals twenty three percent of the entire area.
MQ2IDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
SEPTIINBER 10, 1991
PAGE #3
This is a moderate income apartment conq~lex. We do see the rents working at approximately
$475.00 a month. This is in no way a low income project.
Alidjani: You mentioned the square footage in the building to be 2200, is that
correct?
Rose: That is correct. The actual size of each apartment is ti94 square feet. They are
two bedroom, one bath apartments.
Alidjani: If this is approved tonight, wnat is your time table?
Rose: we are finding that financing is extremely tough We have been pre-approved
in our financing. Our time table is to start as soon as we have approval.
Alidjani: The picture you are showing, is this a type of quality of the work that you
are doing. It is almost identidal?
Rose: That's correct.
Rountree: You are going to emphasize landscaping.
Rose: Again, over 36~ of the project is landscaping.
Rountree: Will there be on-site management of the complex?
Rose; Yes there will.
Hepper: Is the parking covered?
Rose: No at this point there has not been a decision made. We have a total of 91 parking
spaces at this time.
Hepper: Will there be any fencing around the project?
Rose: We would anticipate fencing the 2z Street side because of a difference of
elevation.
Hepper: There is a residential house on the corner, will there be fencing there?
Rose: Yes.
Hepper: On the square footage you said 894 sq. feet, is that living area?
Rose: Yes.
Crookston: Just for clarification. You said the building size is 2,052 and each
apartment has 894 sq. feet.
Rose: That's correct your looking at a four plex building with two down and two
up.
Johnson: Have you read all the comments from the specific agencies?
.J
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
SEPTEMBER 10, 1991
PAGE #4
Do you have any questions about any of the comments?
Rose: No not at this time.
Rountree: Do you do this all at once or do you have phases?
Rose: It will be built all at once.
Johnson: Is there anyone else from the public to testify? No response. I will close
the Public Hearing.
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Alidjani to have Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law prepared by the attorney with a favorable recommendation.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITII~I #7: PUBLIC HEARING: R~UEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY STUCI~R, BURHAM &
QUANG THE DO:
Johnson: I will now open the Public Hearing. Is there a representative from the
applicant that is here?
Mary Williamson, 11535 W. Hazeldale, Boise was sworn by the attorney.
Quang The Do, 48319 Fieldhurst Ave., California, was sworn by the attorney.
Williamson: Presented a map on project. Quang The Do would like to have a nursery here
about 250 feet on Cherry Lane and 871 ft. deep or_south of Cherry Lane, to grow trees,
shrubs and flowers. Explained this would make a good buffer. Presented letters to be
entered into record in favor of this request. He would also like to have a home at the
back of the property.
Hepper: Have you seen the comments from the City Engineer?
Williamson: No.
Hepper: The main item listed was the parking. It shows there is nine parking spaces
shown on the site plan and he states that the nine spaces don't appear to be enough.
Qiiang The Do: The parking is not to scale, I think there is more parking than that.
Williamson: I really don't see where they would be any problem. He probably won't
develop for about three years.
Rountree: We have one item that is not addressed in the Engineer's comments and that
is the setback requirements for right of way off Cherry Lane.
Discussion.
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: A11 Yea:
The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree to recommend approval to the
Meridian City Council.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITII~1 #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY TAMERA PERKINS:
Johnson: 1 will now open the Public xearing, will someone from the applicant please come
forward and be sworh.
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 conrnunity 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 king 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 facilities. It will
not create sexcessiue.additional requirements. The roadways to the subdivision, which I
believe we nave previously discussed at some iengtn, have nwnerous 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. 'T'hat 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 boay 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 ib 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 Loaay 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 2 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 oz Lneir Home. Wien 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 75g 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 42 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 stay 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 tnat
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.
C,
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
SEPTEMBER 10, 1991
PAGE #10
r~
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:
ATTEST:
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
Mail (5)
File (5)
pc: Mayor & City Council,
P & Z Members, Atty., Bldg.,
Eng., Police, Ward, Stuart,
Gass, ACRD, NMID, CDH,
Settlers,
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
DORADO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
REZONE APPLICATION
324 GRUBER STREET
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
AM BROSE,
FIT2GERAlD
S CROOKSTON
Attorneys end
Counaelore
P.O. Boa 12]
Mett0lan, IEa~o
83812
Telephone 8881181
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
September 10, 1991 at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the
Petitioner 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:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Rezone
Application 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;
2. That this property is located within the City of
Meridian and is owned by the Church of God Seventh Day and the
applicant has an agreement to purchase the property, and which
property is described in the application which description is
FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 1
incorporated herein; that the property is presently zoned R-8
Residential; the area in which Applicants' property is located is
developed in large part as a residential area; that some of the
nearby land is used commercially for a Payless Store and other
retail shops; that the majority of residential units in the area
are single-family dwellings; that there are commercial uses on the
property to the north of the subject property.
3. That the Applicants propose to have the property zoned
R-40 Residential and construct an apartment complex on the
property housing 44 housing units.
4. That the R-40 District is described in the Zoning
Ordinance, i1-2-408 B. 4 as follows:
(R-a0) High Density Residential District:
the purpose the (R- District--'s to
permit the establishment of high density
residential uses at a density not exceeding
forty (40) dwelling units per acre.
Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer
System of the City of Meridian is required.
5. That the property is contained in the NORTH CURUE
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALO
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys aM
Couneelora
P.O. Boa IT]
Meritllan, ItlaKo
83812
Teleplwne BB&Ilet
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
wit'~F~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
neighborhoods occur in various shapes and sizes, a
section of the City measuring one-half to one and one-
half miles across is usually used for planning purposes.
It has facilities within easy walking distances and
provides the basis for community identification."
6. That the property where the complex is to be located
FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 2
has frontage on Gruber and East 3rd Street; that the portion of
the property to be used for the complex is presently vacant
property.
7. That sewer and water is available to the property, but
the use will require additional charges and fees.
8. That comments may be submitted by the Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District, Meridian Police Department, Ada County
Highway District, Meridian Fire Department, and the Meridian Sewer
Department and other agencies and those comments will be
incorporated herein as if set forth in herein.
9. That proper notice has been given as required by law and
all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been
followed.
CONCLUSIONS
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
BCROOKSTON
Attorneys and
Counselors
R.D. BOY a27
Msrltllen, baNO
eaeax
TeleDKOna BBB.IN1
I. 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 Applicants'
property.
2. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice
of its own ordinances, other governmental statues and ordinances,
and of actual conditions existing within the City and state.
3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
conditions upon granting a zoning amendment.
4. That the City has judged this Application for a zoning
FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 3
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 can take judicial notice.
5. That 11-2-416 (K) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances
of the City of Meridian sets forth standards under which the City
shall review applications for zoning amendments; that upon a
review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented
and conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission
specifically concludes as follows:
(a) The new zoning would be harmonious with and in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and no
Comprehensive Plan amendment is required.
(b) The area is in the NORTH CURVE neighborhood which
is designed for residential and other uses which support
residential needs and a mix of those uses and a rezone
of the subject property is in line with that
designation.
(c) The area around the proposed zoning amendment is
developed in a residential and commercial fashion that
would be allowed in the North Curve Neighborhood and the
new zoning would not be contrary to the allowed uses in
the area and would be a buffer between the adjacent
commercial uses.
(d) There has not been a change in the area or adjacent
area which may dictate that the property should be
rezoned but the use to be developed would act as a
buffer.
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys ena
Counselors
P.O. Boz ~P7
MerlClen, IONo
eae~z
TelsPtiona SSSJMI
(e) That the property is proposed to be designed and
constructed to be harmonious with the surrounding area.
(f) The proposed uses should not be hazardous or
disturbing to the existing or future uses of the
neighborhood.
FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 4
(g) The property will be able to be adequately served
with public facilities, and connection to municipal
sewer and water is required.
(h) The proposed use would not create excessive
additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and would not be detrimental to
the economic welfare of the community.
(i) The proposed use should not involve any detrimental
activity to any person's property or the general
welfare.
(j) Development should not cause a significant increase
in vehicular traffic and should not interfere with
surrounding traffic patterns in that the property has
substantial street frontage.
(k) That this rezone will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of any natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
(1) The proposed zoning amendment is in the best
interest of City of Meridian.
8. It is further concluded that the comments,
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
A OROOKSTON
Altomsye sno
Counselors
P.O. Bov I9
MeriEian, IO~ho
eae~z
Talsp~ona S88~Mi
recommendations and requirements of other governmental agencies
will have to met and complied with.
FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 5
AMRROSE,
FIRGERALD
B CROOKSTON
Atlorlroya an0
L"iOUnNloro
P.O. BoM /3]
MaIEIAn, IONo
83813
TsIaOKOne 88&1181
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
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (T1E BREAKER)
VOTED _
VOTED _
VOTED
VOTED~~
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
Rezone 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 and that the property be required to
meet the water and sewer requirements, Fire Department
requirements, Sewer Department requirements, the Nampa Meridian
Irrigation requirements, the fire and life safety codes, and the
Uniform Building Code, and other Ordinances of the City of
Meridian.
MOTION:
APPROVED:C~X'" L_- DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 6
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
QUANG THE D0, STOCKER & BURNHAM
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WEST OF 2695 WEST CHERRY LANE
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
AMSROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys enC
Cquneelore
P.O. BOZ IY7
MerlOlen, IGMo
e3eex
TsIePNOna SS6eM1
PRELIMINARY
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
September 10, 1991, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the
Petitioner 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:
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;
2. That this property is located within the City of
Meridian and is owned by the Applicant and is described in the
application which description is incorporated herein.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 1
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALO
B CROOKSTON
AROrneys end
Counselors
P.O. Box /2]
Marltllen, Idaho
BJU2
Tslepllone 8881x81
3. That the property is zoned R-4 Residential, which
requires a conditional use permit for the operation of a
horticultural nursery which the application requests; that the
proposed use is a retail nursery; that the applicant further
request to construct a residence on the back of the property which
is a permitted use in the R-4 District.
4. That the R-4 Residential District is described in the Zoning
Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 10 as follows:
(R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The
purpose of the - istrict is-' to permit
the establishment 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.
5. That the use proposed by Applicant is an allowed
conditional use in the R-4 district pursuant to 11-2-409 B.
6. That other property in the area is used residentially,
as farm ground and for church purposes.
7. That proper notice has been given as required by law
and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have
been given and followed.
8. That sewer and water is available to the property.
9. That. the City Engineer submitted comments and they are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF lAW -- PAGE 2
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALO
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys an0
Couneeloro
R.G. BoY a2T
MariCbn, IEMo
8382
TslsOtrona (188J~81
10. That the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) may submit
comments and they will be incorporated herein as if set forth in
full herein.
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 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 11-2-418(D) of
the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian,
Idaho;
4. 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, the Planning and Zoning Commission
concludes as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 3
a. The use, Would in fact, constitute a
conditional use and a conditional use permit
is 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 apparently would be designed and
constructed, to be harmonious in appearance
with the intended character of the general
vicinity.
d. That the use would not be hazardous nor
should it be disturbing to existing or future
neighboring uses.
e. The property has sewer and water service
available.
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 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 or noise.
h. That sufficient parking for the property
and the proposed use will be required.
i. The development and uses will not result
in the destruction, loss or damage of a
natural or scenic feature of major
importance.
5. That the comments of the City Engineer must be met and
AMBROSE,
F1T2G ERALD
d CROONSTON
Allom,ye end
Counselors
P.O. Boa 147
Meridian, IdNo
83814
Telsp~one 886481
complied with.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 4
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
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
AM BROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys and
rqunealora
P.O. Boz r9
Madtllan, ICNo
89llK2
TelaPNOne BBB-a~81
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
Conditional 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 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.
MOTION:
APPROVED:~'f5~" DISAPPROVED:-
FINDINGS OFFINDINGS OF FACT AN"D CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 5
;'
6EFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
TAMI PERKINS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
233 WEST CHERRY AVENUE
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
AMBROBE,
FITZG ERALD
6 CROOKSTON
Attomeya end
Coun6elora
D.O. Box 12]
Merlolen, loaho
Baaz
Telephone BBB~Net
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 o'clock 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
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
AMBROSE,
F1T2G ERALD
6CROOKSTON
Attomaya anE
Counaelore
P.O. Box d]]
Meritlian, nano
B3adz
TalapKOne 88&6661
child care facility which provides care for six (6) to twelve (12)
children throughout the day"; the note 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
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
o theme istrict is -to permit the establishment 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.
AMBR08E,
FITZG ERALD
B CROOKSTON
Aflomeye and
Couneelore
P.O. Boz 127
Meritlian, ItlNo
83812
T81apMne BBBi181
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
wit'~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
neighborhoods occur in various shapes and sizes, a
section of the City measuring one-half to one and one-
half miles across is usually used for planning purposes.
It has facilities within easy walking distances and
provides the basis for community identification."
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Page - 3
AMBROSE,
FIRGERALD
B OROOKSTON
Attomeye end
Counselors
P.O. Boa e2]
Merlelen, lee~o
BsBez
TNepNOne BBBeM1
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.
il. 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
AMBROSE,
FIT2GERALD
BCROOKSTON
A1lomeya erM
Counselors
P.U. BoY /Z]
MerlClen, ICeho
eas/x
Telephone BSSJ/B1
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
appear at the hearing and addressed the Commission through Lane
Saxton who stated that noise was a significant problem, the noise
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Page - 5
gMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
HCROOKSTON
gitomays en0
C.OYn9BlOff
P.O. Bor l2]
MerlAlen, ICMo
eye.:
TeleP~one eBeJM1
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 - 5
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALO
6CROOKSTON
ALLOmeye antl
Coonaelora
p.0. Boa 02]
Metltllan, ICMo
898x2
Telephone BBSJeB1
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 67-5512, 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)
authorizes the City to prescribe a set time period for which a
conditional use may be in existence.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Page - 7
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
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
6CROOKSTON
AtiMneya and
Counselore
P.O. Boz OR7
Meridian, IdNo
eaeaz
TelePNOne 98&g81
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 was 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.
FITZGERALO
B OROOKSTON
Atlorneyf m0
Counsaloro
P.O. Bow X17
MlrlEiAn, IENo
eae~z
Tslsp~ona 988.~M1
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 detrirnental 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.
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
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 aground 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
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
SCROOKSTON
Attorneys antl
Counssloro
v.o. ao. ~xT
MerlAlsn, IdaKo
esa~z
TeleyKOne 888~/M1
Ordinance, and the local Planning Act, 67-5512, 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 permit 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
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.
f1 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.
AM BROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys and
Counselors
P.O. BOY ~2T
Meridlen, IEello
ese~x
Teleplrone BSBJS81
j) That the conditional use should not be restricted to a
tune 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
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.
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
BCROOKSTON
Attomsystmtl
Counsoloro
R.O. Boz ~2T
Mbitllon, ItlNo
aTe~s
Teltgtrone BBB M81
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
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
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED
VOTED --
VOTED __
VOTED ~7~
VOTED
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
6CROOKSTON
Allomeya Ntl
Coonaelora
P.O. Boa 147
Melltlian, Itleno
83812
TalePnone 88&1161
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
Page - 13
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERA~O
B CROOKSTON
Atlomsye ~nE
GOVIItBIO(8
P.O. Boz •4]
MsNEIan, IEMo
eae.z
TsIePKUne BB8 a,8t
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:
APPROUED:_~~ DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Page - 14