1991 01-08
A G E N D A
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
JANUARY 8, 1991
I ITEM
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 11, 1990: (APPROVED)
1: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT ON MERIDIAN GREENS ~` 2: (APPROVED)
2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY GEMTONE, INC.
FOR PUD GENERAL: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED)
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 8, 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: Moe Alidjani, Charlie Rountree, Jim Shearer, Ted Hepper:
Others Present: Harry Jensen, Glen Scota, Don Hubble, Darrell & Shannon Spencer,
George Wilhelm, Chuck Fuller, Thomas T. Wright, Susan Lacy, Wayne Crookston,
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 11, 1990:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Alidjani to approve the Minutes
of the previous meeting held December 11, 1990 as written:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #1: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT ON MERIDIAN GREENS #2:
Johnson: I will now open the Public Hearing, is there anyone present who wishes
to come forward and testify or a representative for this request?
Don Hubble, 3952 Daisy Way, was sworn in by Chairman Johnson:
Hubble: Meridian Greens #2 is an extension of the existing Meridian Greens unit #1
thats out there. The entire project will consist of 160 acres, this second phase will
be thirty to forty of that. Presented a vicinity map to Commission. This second
phase would consist of 84 lots, the density on that would be just slightly over two
lots to the acre. Our traffic flow would connect to the existing Kingsford Drive and
S.E. 5th Way and we'd access out onto Overland. The lots are large they are averaging
between 90 to 100 ft. wide and they are over a hundred feet deep. Basically we have
read the staff report prepared by Gary Smith regarding water, sewer and misc. comments.
The only comments we have to make would be under water, Item #2 the comment is - that
provisions need to be made at this time for a new well site, this is not only necessary
from a flow & pressure requirement but also because ono= as~aly line serves this area and
it crosses under I-84. I met with Gary earlier today. We've done a little bit of work
on flows and pressure from the existing water supply and based on what we've got it
looks like our worse case senerio would be a fire hydrant at the far S.E. corner of
the project, which happens to be the highest in elevation and the farthastfrom the source_
At that point with both phases we'd have around 175 lots developed and we could provide
the water for those lots and a fire flow of a thousand gallons a minute at that most
remote point, the fire stream would be a thousand gallons a minute at 25 psi. We
haven't had a chance to talk with the Fire Department to find out what the pressure
requirements are for that. I think we might have adequate flow but will have to double
check with the fire department. The Developers of this realize the need for a well and
are willing to work with the City to come up with a well site and have the City add
another well to the system. So at a minimum tonight I would request maybe this
Commission appoint a committee or someone to work with us to find out just where to
locate that well.
Johnson: We only have one source of water out there and this is a big concern.
We do need some sort of a back up system out there.
Hubble: The only other comments on this would be under miscellaneous. #1 - Says that
the street light locations need to be shown, apparently the Ordinance requires the
developer to submit a request of variance to use yard light rather than street
MERIDIAN P & Z
JANUARY 8, 1991
PAGE #2
lights. Phase I has been done under individual yard lights and we would like to continue
the second phase in a similar fashion.
Clerk Niemann: I don't think your going to get the variance approved Don, because
I think they are going to make you put street lights at the major intersections now.
Hubble: The last condition here that we'd like to point out is #2 - Ingress & Egress
for the subdivision should be encouraged via S.E. 5th Way by paving that portion
presently having a gravel surface. We did meet with the Staff of ACHD yesterday
regarding this project and discussed access points and their requirements. Their
staff decision was that they don't believe that S.E. 5th would need to be paved at
this time to meet their standards. The request would be at this time to leave it
as it is as a gravel surface as an emergency access and our primary access would be
out S.E. 3rd Way, we'd have a secondary access we are proposing to do through to the
South and connect to Mesa Way. It looks like it would be the Developers responsibility
to make the improvements from the southerly .boundary of this project to the existing
Mesa Way. However, the Highway District wants to review that and see if there would
be an adverse impact to the Kachina Estates because of the traffic. So we request
your consideration to waive the requirement to pave at this time.
Johnson: What's the distance from the end of your subdivision to the Culdesac
on Mesa Way now?
Hubble: Roughly 200 feet. That's all I had to present, I would be happy to answer
any questions if I could.
Alidjani: The portion of the S.E. 5th that your talking about, your asking for a
variation not to be having it black-topped and stay with the gravel, is it the portion
that is already in gravel. and comes out toward the Caterpillar Company?
Hubble: Yes.
Alidjani: And there is no building around it, no houses or anything?
Hubble: No.
Shearer: I'm still a little mixed up on Mesa Way. Is the developer going to connect
this and is ACHD pushing for that at this time?
Hubble: ACHD hasn't decided whether they would like that or not. If ACRD won't
participate in that paving then the developer is going to do that.
Rountree: Is S.E. 5th a Public Right of Way?
Hubble: That portion outside the subdivision, you know I'm not sure I think that
might just be an easement right now.
Rountree: What's the width?
Hubble: I'm pretty sure that's 50 feet, might even be 60 feet.
Rountree: You indicated that the developer is willing to at least sit with the City
and try and resolve the situation with the water, what percentage participation is
the developer considering at this point and time, if any.
MERIDIAN P & Z
JANUARY 8, 1991
PAGE #3
Hubble: It hasn't been discussed enough to know really what the cost of the well is,
and what they are willing to participate withr other than they realize the value
of having an additional well for this project. The subjects that have been discussed
is that the last couple of wells that the city has done have been on donated property
and the City has paid for the improvements, drilling the wells and putting in the pumps
and so forth.
Hepper: Is this going to be done in phases, like the first unit was?
Hubble: Yes, construction phases. This probably would be done in roughly three phases.
It would be 30 lots each.
Hepper: The last phase would be the farthest south or would that be the along with
E. Kingsford, would that be the first or last phase?
Hubble: We haven't discussed phases enough to know which way to go. One option would
be to construct the entire length of that the extension of Kingsford Way which would
make that tie. The other option would be to build 30 lots in the northwesterly portion
which would stop Kingsford Way down there 200 or 300 feet.
Hepper: If ACHD decided that they wanted that connected up to Mesa Way there, if that
would be something that wouldbe quite a ways in the future or would that be something
that would be done right away.
Hubble: Horsed on their Standards it doesn't look like we would have to do that
to comply with their requirements. They 've got new standards out now that a
residential street can handle 100 lots and a collector street can handle approximately
200 lots, and right now SE 3rd Way has been constructed to the Collector Standards.
So according to their standards that would handle 200 lots.
Hepper: Can a Collector Street have houses facing onto the street?
Hubble: There true collector they require on-site turn arounds for the collector
streets rather than have direct lot access.
Hepper: So it wouldn't be considered a true collector street.
Hubble: No it's not. S.E. 5th is also the portion that has been constructed to
collector street standards as well as far as width and .right of way.
Johnson: Anyone else from the Public that would like to come forward and address the
Commission on this application? Please come forward and be sworn.
Bert Lafferty, 2555 Mesa Way, was sworn by the attorney.
Lafferty: My only concern, I understand there is an easement coming on through into
Mesa Way and obviously Ada County hasn't shown up and dictated what their plans are.
There is a few of these people that is familiar with this subdivision, it's a five
acre tract development, the road constructed as it was, there is no curb, gutter or
sidewalk. I don't want to hold up this mans development but I think something needs
MERIDIAN P & Z
JANUARY 8, 1991
PAGE #4
to be kept in consideration there as far as the impact to that subdivision that we are
in. I understand they need more egress also, but its easy to figure out that anybody
from that end of the subdivision is going to come out that way.
Johnson: Anyone else to testify? Hearing no response I will close the Public
Hearing. Any Discussion.
Rountree: I'm a little concerned that granted S.E. 5th is a dedicated easement but it
is not a dedicated public right of way for transportation facility. It seems to me
that that ought to beset up as a public right of way for future improvement.
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to recommend approval of this
preliminary plat with the following conditions: A steady committee be put together
including at a minimum the City Engineer and the developer to resolve the well issue,
and water pressure issue for fire, also that the Developer adhere to the comments
of ACHD once they are received,. that ACHD, the developer and the City resolve the
issue of the interconnector that connect with Mesa Way, and that there be
resolution of the Public Access on the extension of S.E. 5th from the development to
Overland Road.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY GEMTONE, INC. FOR
PUD GENERAL:
Johnson: I will now open the Public Hearing, is there a representative here?
Thomas Wright, 1412 W. Idaho, Boise, was sworn by the attorney.
Wright: I'm both a part owner of this project and in turn the marketing representative.
We have applied to the City of Meridian for a Conditional Use Permit under a Planned
Unit Development - General of as you are aware the TreasureValley Business Center.
They asked for and received a Industrial Light Zoning for the entire property. There
was a time when this City did issue the eastern portion of this property a temporary
retail zone for a potential regional shopping center. That zoning has since
expired so the entire 300 acres is zoned as Light Industrial. Presented a photo
and explained to the Commission. (TAPE ON FILE)
Rountree: I have a plat of Phase I here could you outline that on your drawing.
Wright: There is roughly 160 acres on both sides of Eagle Road, and about half of
that west side was platted.
Rountree: =So there wouldn't be any change in the access points.
Wright: No, no changes. The property that we are trying to market are the platted
lots. We have a major company that has asked for 100 acres.
Rountree: You show two accesses onto Eagle Road, do you have a distance between those?
Wright: They are approximately 600+ Ft., we have those approved.
Rountree: One condition of that PUD-General is the 10~ open space, can you show that
in the concept, what that's going to include.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
JANUARY 8, 1991
PAGE #5
Wright: No. Presented an aerial picture taken in spring of 1990. Explained.
We haven't addressed the 10~ space specifically.
Rountree: My question is, what would you consider those kinds of uses?
Crookston: What are the plans for access to those lots that are in that corner on
Fairview and Eagle? What about the access off the major, I mean onto these smaller
lots.
Wright: Showed Attorney where accesses are intended to be and these have been
approved.
Crookston: Are you talking about even re-doing some of this for interior roads
coming off of Jewell Street.
Wright: No.
Crookston: What is your plan for coming to the City again when you have a business
lined out thats ready to go, they know the property they want what is your thinking
as to how that's going to be approached as far as additional improvements such as
if the City required design review and things of that nature.
Wright: Just that now the Conditional Use Permit that we anticipate that we need
would be eliminated as a step but we still have to come in for Design Review and
obviously a Building Permit. Then any improvements that that user would require
would also come back in.
Johnson: Is there anyone else from the Public who would like to come forward?
Harry Jensen 2075 E. Fairview, Meridian, was sworn by the attorney.
Jensen: I was in on the original when UP wanted to develop that particular piece of
property over there in Phase I, we did not object to any of it thatthey did with
the exception of when they wanted to put in the spur line along the west side.
When they were doing Phase I I requested a right of way to my property and at that
time Mr. Lloyd Howell stated to the Board here it was alright if we took that up
in Phase 2 and being a sucker a said yes that was fine, and they didn't put it down
in the minutes and consequently Phase 2 never come about and now I own the property
on the west side of Phase I. Showed Commission where abouts the property is located.
Previously we have brought our equipment down through an existing road that came
down through that property from Eagle Road, well when UP took over and rebuilt that
whole area, they constructed a pipe line which was to our advantage, and bring it
around to the edge so we didn't have to come all that way and service that ditch, and
it made it better for us for irrigation, but it did not give me access to the back
piece of property. The only thing I am requesting of Mr. Wright or this group is to
see somehow if we can work out a way to get an access to that back 15 acres.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
JANUARY 8, 1991
PAGE #6
Alidjani: Wouldn't that southeast corner of that property your saying a portion
of it is not under their control and there is a green house sitting there that
somebody else owns that.
Jensen: Yes. Mine goes to a drainage ditch which is a ditch that can be covered
up in the future. The purpose of that drainage ditch was for the farms in that
area which included the farms that ,the different properties had, mine and the
neighbors and so on for the water to drain off the land and go down. It's all
developed, there is no use for a drainage ditch.
Clerk Niemann: Don't you have access off Fairview?
Jensen: I have access, my home is off Fairview. If I took fifty feet off of that
property for a right of way, it would put the road within about 25 ft. from my house.
Also for fire purposes I think they would want a second access to that property.
The only thing I'm requesting this Board and Mr. Wright to do is see if we can work
our something as a right of way for that property so it won't be an island.
Alidjani: Didn't you just say that if you couldn't make a deal with them you
do have a way to put access to your own property?
Jensen: I own my house and four acres up front on Fairview. If you took a fifty
foot right of way all the way down my property -
Alidjani: How many feet would that be from your four and the other fifteen acres?
Jensen: The length of that road is I think 800 ft.. The whole problem is that
canal .
Johnson: You indicated you had access to this property previous to the development
is that included on a deed or some kind of a document somewhere?
Jensen: Explained to Commission. (TAPE ON FILE) They didn't make the curb cut or
right of way like they said they were going to.
Johnson: The cold hard facts of it might be that you will have to eventually
work something out with the owners of the, property. It may be something that
we can not address right now, because we are really talking about something
that's outside of what we are considering tonight. Anyone else from the Public
that would like to testify?
Nick Nichols, 5107 Overland, Boise, was sworn by the attorney.
Nichols: I represent (BME) Business .Management Enterprises, Inc.. We hold an
option of the property owned by Mr. Harry Jensen. We took that option and began
attempts to develop that land based on the premise that there was a old time agreement
probably with Union Pacific for an entry from that land into the fourteen acres
addressed by Mr. Jensen. We have plats ready for Meridian and we have been in
contact with Ada. Planning & Zoning in preliminary to this Committee and have been
advised that it is necessary to have a second entrance into that area of land.
Johnson: Anyone else to testify? Hearing no response I will close the Public
Hearing.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
JANUARY 9, 1991
PAGE #7
The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Shearer to have the Attorney
prepare the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
No Recommendation made to the Council at this time.
Johnson: We do have a Special Meeting set up for January 22nd. One other item,
you got my letter regarding the possibility of changing our Ordinances to allow
for amendment to a Conditional Use Permit. Discussion.
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer .to adjourn at 8:45 P.M.:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
APPROVED:
JIM ~7 HN ONr CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
pc: Mayor & Council
P & Z, Atty, Eng.,
Bldg., Police, Valley News,
Statesman, ACRD, NMID, CDH,
School District, Ward,
Stuart, Gass,
Mail (2)
File (2)
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GEMTONE, INC.
FAIRVIEW AVENUE AND EAGLE ROAD
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT--GENERAL
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
January 8, 1991, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the
Petitioner appearing through Tom Wright, the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the
evidence and the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of public hearing on the Conditional Use
AM BROSE,
FITZGERALD
6 CROOKSTON
Attomays aM
GDUI1NIWa
P.O. BOx 1Y7
MeriGian, 108ho
838!2
Telaplrona BBB-N8/
Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for January 8, 1991, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said
hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 8,
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 Petitioner, and is described in the
application, which description is incorporated herein as if set
forth in full; the property is in the southeast and the
southwest quadrants of the intersection of the Fairview Avenue
and Eagle Road; Petitioners propose to develop the property in
mixed use fashion containing both Commercial and Light
Industrial uses as a planned unit development-general.
3. That the property is located in what is presently
designated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as the Eastern
Industrial Review Area; the Industrial Review Areas are
generally addressed in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan at Page
15 and read as follows:
INDUSTRIAL REVIEW AREAS: The Industrial Review Areas
are an essen is a ement of the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan. Special uses of land must be recognized as
having special needs and diverse impacts. Designating
certain areas for business uses, as a method of
guiding business expansion, is an appropriate approach
to Meridian's economic future and provides for the
essential difference between the City's business land
market and the residential land market. The
Comprehensive Plan intends to prepare for Meridian's
business and employment future by reserving land for
industrial, retail, commercial and office uses and so
removing them from the categories of land on which
residential development can be proposed. In all
review areas, detailed economic analysis is essential,
so that the specifics of industrial plans, designs and
development will be known.
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
6 CROOKSTON
~tlomeys ~n0
Counselors
P.O. BOa IZ7
MsrlClur, IUMo
S3B~Y
TelapNOns BBBJa61
Each Industrial Review Area is recognized as
possessing unique physical and locational
characteristics, both natural and man-made, which make
it a desireable business environment. These
characteristics are relatively level topography,
potentially good access to rail and freeway
facilities, and being relatively free from
environmental hazards. A specific set of policies has
been prepared for the development of each of the
Review Areas and is discussed in a later section of
the plan document.
4. That the specific Eastern Industrial Review Area is
(discussed at Page 19 of the Comprehensive Plan and reads as
(follows:
EASTERN INDUSTRIAL REVIEW AREA/POLICIES:
1. It is the policy of the City of Meridian to
encourage and promote the development of an
interchange (egress and ingress) at the intersection
of Eagle Road and Interstate I-84 by the Idaho
Department of Transportation. (This policy was
recently deleted from the Plan since the interchange
has been constructed.)
2. It is the policy of the City of Meridian to
encourage and promote the development of an overpass,
if an interchange is not feasible, at the intersection
of Locust Grove and I-84 by the Idaho Department of
Transportation.
3. The character, site improvements and type of
industrial developments should be harmonized with the
residential area to the south (on the upper bench),
the contiguous residential area to the east and north.
4. The utilization of the linear open space corridor
of Five Mile Creek, which passes through the Eastern
Industrial Review Area, should be maintained as
natural resource for both aesthetic and environmental
reasons.
5. That the land is presently zoned I-L, Light
Industrial.
6. That a planned general development is defined as
(follows:
Planned General Development (PD-G) - A development not
otherwise ~stinguishe un er Tanned Commercial,
Industrial, Residential Developments, or which in the
proposed use of interior and exterior spaces requires
unusual design flexibility to achieve a completely
logical and complementary conjunction of uses and
functions. This PD classification applies to
essential public services, public or private
recreation facilities, institutional uses, community
facilities or a PD which includes a mix of
residential, commercial or industrial uses.
AM BROSE,
F1T2GERALD
6 CROOKSTON
Attorneys entl
Counseloro
P.O. Box /tl
Merltllen, ItleNo
B381Y
rmeenone eBBUei
7. That the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11-2-409
presently contains a category for general or industrial planned
snit developments; that the schedule allows a planned unit
levelopment-general as a conditional use in the I-L; that a
M anned Unit Development - Industrial is an allowed use in the
[-L zone without a conditional use permit.
8. That the property to the west is vacant ground with
:ome residential, farm and commercial uses; the property to the
past is vacant property and farm ground with a few residences;
:he property to the south is farm ground and Light Industrial;
:he property to the north is farm ground and residences.
9. That proper notice has been given as required by law
ind all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission
lave been given and followed.
10. That part of the property has been platted and is
presently developed with roads, curb and gutter and sidewalks in
some areas; there is one existing business in the area which is
~ freight and trucking depot; that the other portion of the
subject property has not been platted or developed; that the
portion which has been platted has sewer and water lines
installed.
11. That the Applicant has not submitted a petition signed
~y at least 75% of the people owning property within 300 feet of
:he property indicating their approval of the use of the
property as requested by Applicant as such is not required under
the conditional use requirement in the I-L zone.
12. That the City of Meridian does have control guidelines
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
B OROOKSTON
Attorneys and
CouneNOra
P.O. Boz /Z7
MerIU4n, IaaKo
&b/R
Tsleptwne BBBA/81
and requirements for planned developments in 11-9-607 and such
are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Tanning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
le en met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property
lithin 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
iroperty;
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant
onditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant
0 11-2-418 of the Revised and Complied Ordinances of the City
.f Meridian, Idaho;
3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
onditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the
roperty pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-
18(D) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
leridian, Idaho;
4. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Complied
irdinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards
nder which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City
ouncil shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits;
.hat upon a review of those requirements and a review of the
acts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and
oning Commission concludes as follows:
a. The use would, in fact, constitute and a conditional
use permit would be required by ordinances.
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
BCROOKSTON
Attomays ane
CounselOn
P.O. Box l2i
MMEIen, IEMo
83812
TelsplgM BB&e/81
b. The proposed possible uses apparently would be
harmonious with and in accordance with the
Comprehensive PTan as amended, but the Zoning
Ordinance, as amended, requires a conditional use
permit to allow the use.
c. The proposed possible uses apparently would be
designed and constructed, to be harmonious in
appearance with the intended character of the general
vicinity.
d. That the proposed possible uses should not be
hazardous nor should they be disturbing to existing or
future neighboring uses.
e. Sewer and water service are installed in some of
the area.
f. The possible proposed uses would not create
excessive additional requirements at public cost for
public facilities and services and the possible
proposed uses would not be detrimental to the economic
welfare of the community.
g. The proposed possible uses would apparently 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. Sufficient parking for the property and the
proposed use must be provided.
i. The development and probable uses will likely not
result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural
or scenic feature of major importance.
5. That all development in the area shall be controlled
and guided by design review, and shall be guided and controlled
under 11-9-607, Planned Development, and shall meet all of the
ordinances of the City of Meridian,
6. That the application and proposed possible uses are in
~ornpliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and with the
granting of the Conditional Use, if done so, the application and
proposed possible uses and development would be in compliance
vith the Zoning Ordinance.
AM BROSE, 7, That the granting of this application would be in the
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
pest interest of the City of Meridian,
Atlomeya ere
Counselor
P.O. Box a27
Merielen, lento
83812
Telepiro~ro 886//81
:_ ii • •
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 Nepper
Commissioner Rountree
Commissioner Shearer
Commissioner Alidjani
Chairman Johnson (Tie Breaker}
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
...__
Voted
Votedtyd~~-
Voted C .lam
V o t e d filf~---
Voted
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
6CROOKSTON
Attomaya aM
GOUna6lan
P.O. Boa IZT
Msrlolan, MNo
83642
TalaplwM 8864x81
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that the
Council approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the
Applicant for the property describ/e~~d/ in the applicatiJon under
YYLtf/`/ ~ ~ ~ -~J- tn~ FN ~j~L~
the conditions contained herein,,specifically 11-9-507 of the
~.
Revised and Complied Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that
any Conditional Use granted by conditioned on compliance with
the conditions herein and that the Conditional Use be revoked
for failure to comply with the cyondition(1s. }1,
~~i>- ~)iN`1}t'-, ~f~yNl ~?~-? file 1'~C'J.. ~~iJ /0'`~ -'l> ~. )'~c-~M^.i ~Ad l~~~
MOTION : ,l\`t~d---=tyjq.
j
APPROVED ~~ ~ DISAPPROVED:
~~