2011 05-26E IDIAN~-- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
I p p H p COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, May 26, 2011 at 6:00 p.m.
1. Roll-call Attendance
X Tom O'Brien _X Steven Yearsley
O Michael Rohm _X Joe Marshall
X Scott Freeman -Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda Approved
3. Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of May 5, 2011 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting: Approved
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
11-001 Verizon Wireless Meridian High School by Nefi Garcia
Located 1900 W. Pine Avenue Request: Conditional Use Permit
Approval of a 100-Foot Tall Wireless Communication (Cell
Tower) Facility in an R-4 Zoning District Approved
4. Action Items
A. Public Hearing: ZOA 11-002 Unified Development Code (UDC)
Text Amendment by City of Meridian Public Works Department
Request: Amend the Surety Section, UDC 11-5C to Include
Clarifications, Increase Surety Amounts and to Provide for
Bonds as a Form of Surety Recommend Approval to City
Council
B. Request for Approval to Create/Change New Development
Application Forms/Checklists by City of Meridian Planning
Department Approved
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting Agenda -Thursday, May 26, 2011 Page 1 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting Agenda -Thursday, May 26, 2011 Page 2 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting May 26 2011
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of May 26, 2011, was called
to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Scott Freeman.
Members Present: Chairman Scott Freeman, Commissioner Joe Marshall,
Commissioner Steven Yearsley and Commissioner Tom O'Brien.
Members Absent: Commissioner Michael Rohm.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Bill Nary, Pete Friedman, Tom Barry, Bruce Freckleton,
Warren Stewart, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Steven Yearsley X Tom O'Brien
Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall
X Scott Freeman -Chairman
Freeman: Good evening, Ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to open the special
meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on this date of May 26, 2011.
Could we begin with roll call?
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Freeman: Thank you. Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the
agenda. I don't believe there are any changes this evening. So, could I get a motion to
adopt the agenda?
O'Brien: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of May 5, 2011 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
11-001 Verizon Wireless Meridian High School by Nefi Garcia
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 2 of 14
Located 1900 W. Pine Avenue Request: Conditional Use Permit
Approval of a 100-Foot Tall Wireless Communication (Cell
Tower) Facility in an R-4 Zoning District
Freeman: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have two items on
the Consent Agenda, the approval of the minutes of May 5th, 2011, Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting, and CUP 11-001 regarding Verizon Wireless Meridian
High School location. Could I get a motion to -- oh, first of all, are there any changes
noted to the minutes or anything there?
O'Brien: I have none.
Freeman: No changes? Okay. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda?
Yearsley: So moved.
O'Brien: Second.
Freeman: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: All right. At this time I'm going to open the public hearing for ZOA 11-002. I
will review a couple items first. You probably all know what the process is, but this is
good practice for me. We will open the public hearing. We will begin with the staff
report and we will hear how the item relates to the zoning ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan and, then, the applicant will have up to 15 minutes to present,
after which time we will take any public testimony. It doesn't look like we have anybody
here giving public testimony, if so you will have three minutes to present and, then,
when all the public testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another chance
to speak to any of the questions or issues that came up and, then, we will close the
public hearing, the Commissioners will discuss the item and, then, we will hopefully
make a decision this evening.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing: ZOA 11-002 Unified Development Code (UDC).
Text Amendment by City of Meridian Public Works Department
Request: Amend the Surety Section, UDC 11-5C to Include
Clarifications, Increase Surety Amounts and to Provide for
Bonds as a Form of Surety
Freeman: So, with that I would like to open the public hearing for ZOA 11-002, Unified
Development Code text amendment by the City of Meridian Public Works Department,
beginning with the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 3 of 14
Friedman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I will make my
report very quick, because our applicant probably has a better grasp of what's being
requested. I have worked with them. on this. The proposal is to amend the surety
section of Unified Development Code. We want to accomplish four objectives in doing
so. One is to distinguish sureties, which are for essentially public services and facilities,
such as water and sewer, from development amenities, such landscaping and fencing.
One of the more significant changes is now to include bonds as a form of acceptable
surety. Currently the code only allows us to take in cash or letters of credit for all forms
of surety, whether it's sewer, water, facilities or it's a landscaping plan. We also are
proposing to increase the amount of performance sureties for the installation of facilities
such as sewer and water from 110 percent to 125 percent and also include new
language addressing the inclusion of warranty sureties, where we didn't have that
before for our public infrastructure. The new language would include a process
whereby the performance surety would roll over to a warranty surety, which is reduced
from the 125 percent downwards to a much lower percentage, but that surety would be
held by the city for a period of two years until such time as the city engineer has
effectively verified and confirmed that the facilities are working and still up to the
performance standard that the city expects for them before we actually take possession.
So, that really is what the request before you tonight is. There is no real changes to any
other part of the code. Again, this is more part of the -- this falls under administrative
chapter, again, on how we reassure that both public facilities, as well as development
amenities are installed successfully. One thing I would note is there is a little bit of
difference, if you read the code, and even my staff asked me this -- they said, gee, are
we warrantying now the landscaping and the fencing and, no, the intent is that would
only be for things like sewer, water, reclaimed water and storm water in the event that
we have a city owned and maintained storm water system. Landscaping, things like
that, the code requires that they just be kept, you know, alive and thriving. If we note
that they are dead, then, it becomes a code enforcement action. So, with that I would
be happy to answer any of your questions.
Freeman: Thank you, Pete. Commissioners, do you have any questions of staff?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do.
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Do we foresee this creating an increase in costs to public projects?
Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Marshall, I believe Mr. Barry
will address this, but by having a bond as an option for providing a surety on a public
infrastructure, it actually may decrease the cost. At least it doesn't tie up the money, as
opposed to a letter of credit or cash.
Marshall: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 4 of 14
Freeman: Anymore questions of staff?
Yearsley: No.
Freeman: Okay. At the time if the applicant would like to come forward. Please state
your name and address for the record. And speak into the mike. We have had some
difficulty with that. Thank you.
Barry: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and fellow Commissioners. My name is Tom Barry,
I'm the director of Public Works for the City of Meridian. I appreciate your time this
evening to hear this UDC change. I represent the applicant in this case, obviously, City
of Meridian Public Works Department and I appreciate Mr. Friedman's explanation with
regard to the changes as they are being proposed. The changes are quite simple, but,
yet, will have a profound impact on the City of Meridian particularly as it relates to
private development projects that construct public infrastructure that is, then, turned
over to the public -- or our department to maintain. There is some history that goes on
behind the reasoning for this change and I'd rather not get into all the details, but suffice
it to say that we have a couple cases where we have had problems whereby contractors
who were supposed to warranty work, i.e., the installation of their public infrastructure or
their constructive infrastructure that became the property of and, therefore, not just
ownership, but maintenance requirements of the city, became deficient in the one year
time period that it was constructed. The developers in both of the cases we had before
-- or, excuse me, the contractors went bankrupt, so we couldn't go after the contractor to
fulfill their obligation to set aside a warranty and, therefore, the city was left holding,
essentially, the cards, if you will, or the bag, to fix that public infrastructure. We brought
this issue to the City Council, they directed us to put together a team to evaluate sort of
the surety program in the City of Meridian and we did that and in our evaluation we put
together across-divisional, cross-departmental team and we brought in some outside
assistance in experts in other fields, both legal and financial fields, bonding fields, we
conducted over a nine month period 27 different meetings, many of those were with
these industry specialists. We also brought in the developing community, we had
several representatives sit on a focus group. We had three individual meetings with
them. We also visited the BCA and I talked with both the builders and developers
council. So, this thing has gone through, as I say, about 27 different meetings over a
nine month period, been briefed twice by the City Council. The UDC change does
require us to go through the Planning Commission process, so -- but the UDC change is
one small component of a broader program to bring about these changes to both the
performance surety amounts. Just as an aside, the amount in the UDC was 110
percent. In our evaluation we have evaluated that percentage against the risk that the
city would take and, in addition, checked it against -- I think it was 24 different agencies
in the Pacific Northwest and found that that percentage is actually low, so we are
recommending with this UDC change to increase it to 125 percent and, then, on the
warranty side, because developers are not currently required to fulfill any warranty
obligations to the city and that is currently the responsibility of the developer's
contractor, it's created all sorts of legal and financial implications in particularly the two
cases we have had recently come before us and there are a few that look like they are
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 5 of 14
going to be coming our way as well as this economy continues to bear its burden on
many of our, you know, contractors and developers. So, the changes in the UDC really
do protect or are an attempt to protect the city's financial and legal liabilities and to
reconcile some of those problems that this economy and certainly a future economy,
whether it be positive or negative, might have. So, on behalf of the applicant we agree
and support the recommendation of the planning staff on this and I'd stand for any
questions you might have.
Freeman: Thank you. Are there any questions?
Yearsley: I have --
Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I guess I have one. With the warranty for the 125 -- or the guarantee for the
125 percent, how did that come about? I mean was it varying -- because I have seen
most of those come in about 150 percent and I was just curious what your take on that
was.
Barry: Yeah. Commissioner Yearsley, it's a fantastic question. What we did as a staff
-- an internal team is we reviewed not only what we had from a benchmarking survey
standpoint, but we also reviewed existing projects, both recent past and current and
came up with what we thought was a good balance between a forecasted risk and
experience. The amount could really be anything between a hundred and two hundred
percent and that's what our survey sort of came up with. But the reality is we don't want
that to be overly burdensome for the developing community, but not cover our liability as
a city. So, by collecting a lot of different information, talking with bonding agents, talking
with those in other communities, we settled at 125 percent and we also established a
formulaic approach to that, which I could bring up for you, if you are interested, but we,
essentially, looked at the amount of rework, the amount of rebidding, the cost
escalators, the surface restoration, a lot of different components, project administration,
that go into and substantiate that number as well. So, you're correct, it could be a
number far higher than the one we have settled on, but we figure we would try to be
incremental in increasing this and seeing if it wouldn't resolve some of the concerns we
have without being overly burdensome to the developing community.
Yearsley: Okay.
Freeman: Thank you. Any further questions?
O'Brien: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: So, first of all, I think you guys did a great job of going in and delving into the
complexities of -- of this kind of thing, especially when you're dealing between the city
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 6 of 14
and the community, it's a fine line there, and I think that you folks have come up with an
agreement. However, I think that -- I just can't help feel that we are selling ourselves
short in some cases where you could look at something and there is a lot more risk in
this particular type of construction versus another and it seems like, wow, I hate to see
us open ourselves up to -- to something that was beyond the ability for someone to
comply with. And I'm sure that in focus groups that was discussed, I'm sure, you know.
At least I would bring it up. So, I don't know, what is your take on that? I mean 125
percent seems low to me in some things. So, was there any discussion on possibly
going job by job based upon risk assessment? Is that part of the formula there? I don't
know.
Barry: Commissioner O'Brien, I appreciate your question. That was discussed and the
reality as a public agency we want to preserve and protect not only our fiduciary
responsibility to our taxpayers and rate payers, but also make sure we have a level
playing field for all developers in the community and that means trying to come up with
policies and standards and procedures that do not place us in a situation where we
have to be -- or inadvertently are arbitrary or capricious in our decision making. So, the
across-the-board percentage is what we feel is a good percentage based on a risk to
the city versus cost to developer. The other component I wanted to mention is that as I
think your question was pointed at, there are two types of sureties that we are
discussing this evening. The performance surety, which is not a surety that's required
by any stretch of the means, unless the developer chooses not to construct the
infrastructure. If a -- if a developer decides that they want to construct infrastructure,
they do not have to post a surety of any kind, where it to be a bond, which is the
recommendation to be added as a surety vehicle, or our conventional sureties, such as
cash, letters of credit. Those kinds of things. So, that's all still the same. Under the
performance surety side, the only two -- the only two changes we are proposing here
are, A, to increase the amount from the existing 110 percent to 125 percent of total
construction cost to cover our risk and, two, to allow for the bond as a potential vehicle,
but not a required one, so they could still -- if they do want a bond or, excuse me, if they
do want to post a surety they can still do it under cash or letter of credit. On that
warranty side, just to be clear on that, we are recommending with the UDC to change
an ordinance that will go to the City Council next month, a two year warranty period for -
- and a warranty bond or surety I should say, a bond being one type of that kind of
surety. Again, we would still take a letter of credit, cash, those sorts of things, in
addition to the bond. So, hopefully that clarifies maybe -- I don't know if I have
answered your question --
O'Brien: Yeah. You have and I -- you know, it's -- it isn't something that needs to be
cast in concrete, but it's -- it just worries me that some things may be pressed for --
against our best interest at a higher risk environment. That's my only concern for the
city and it just seems like there is so many variables up there, especially with
contractors, some are prudent, some are not, and things can go array in a hurry and,
then, I'd just hate for something to really back up and they file bankruptcy and there was
-- whatever. So, I don't know how that's taken care of -- with a bond, I guess, if that's
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 7 of 14
what has to happen, would do it, I guess, but -- anyway -- yeah, you have answered my
question and I appreciate your time.
Barry: Thank you, Commissioner. I do appreciate your question.
Freeman: Are there any further questions of the applicant?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, just a --
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Tom, I'm wondering just slightly -- as Pete said that it would actually -- this
potentially lowers costs simply by making a bond available, whereas before we did
either cash or letter of credit only. Is that correct?
Friedman: Correct.
Marshall: And now we are also introducing the option for a bond and that that potential
-- but if they were still coming in with an letter of credit or cash, I can't see how that
would lower costs to developers, it's got to increase, because they are tying up a larger
sum now over a period of time. So, it's the bond that actually potentially lowers the cost
for the developer.
Barry: I think what you have to do to clarify that subject -- or that issue is kind of look at
this from either the glass is half full or the glass is half empty. So, if you're the
developer you might look at it one way, if you're the city you might look at it another.
But the reality is it probably will increase the cost slightly and if we break the two kinds
of sureties up, performance, that's, again, for the guarantee of improvements that are
not constructed, right, let's look at that for just a moment. Simply the increase in the
amount of the surety from 110 percent, as it's currently required, to 125 percent, will be
an increase -- a slight increase in cost. Now, if you are a good developer and you have
a good bank and you can get a letter of credit for no charge, right, it's really
inconsequential, except that it ties up that credit, that additional amount, that additional
15 percent of credit, which you could argue you're not getting interest on or whatnot. It
sort of depends on how you look at it. If you do want to get a bond, in either case,
whether it be warranty or performance, that is an insurance vehicle that does require a
premium payment. So, you would have to buy that insurance vehicle and that would
come at a cost. Now, the bonding agents and specialists we had on our project team
said that, essentially, to purchase bonds you can get those generally between three-
quarters of a percent to about three percent. That just depends upon your financial
backing, your performance as a contractor or alternatively a developer. It has a lot to do
with sort of your -- your rate has a lot to do with your financial stability and performance
and those kinds of things. So, that's why there is a variance there. If the developer
wants to pursue a bond in either case, like I say, there will be a premium. So, there will
be a slight cost. Now, our analysis shows that the cost itself is inconsequential for the
guarantee that you get. Now, I shouldn't say that lightly, because the developers will
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 8 of 14
clobber me over the head for using the term inconsequential, so I don't want to
disrespect the fact that there is a cost, but it's very very minimal. And so our -- I think
our numbers have shown on the warranty side for the cost to be -- if you're subdividing
land to be about 20 dollars a lot for the warranty guarantee. And, then, on the
performance side, you know, again, it depends. If you want to build the improvements
you don't have to get a surety at all, whether it be a bond or letter of credit or cash. If
you do want to build those, then, you have got choices. You have got the existing
choices, which are the letter of credit, cash, those kinds of things, which -- which may
not cost you money; right? But if you want to buy the performance bond, then, there will
be a premium for that. Now, the good news is if you buy the performance bond it will
cover also the warranty period. So, you buy one insurance vehicle to cover both the
performance and the warranty -- the two year warranty at the same time. If you choose
not to buy a performance bond and you build your improvements at the time of
acceptance, the city will require you to go out and guarantee the warranty, either in cash
or letter of credit, or a warranty bond and, then, you would do whichever you chose at
that point in time to guarantee that warranty for the next two years. So, I just wanted to
be real clear and, yes, there is probably going to be an incremental cost and, you know,
I think -- I think what we have heard from the developers is not just some concern about
that, but some concern about a change in process, really. Kind of we don't want to do
bonds and we said you don't have to do bonds, you know, you can still use a
conventional vehicle that we have available, we are not taking those away from you,
which is giving you more options. So, we think that it's a good balance between risk to
the city, as well as being cost conscious with the developing community.
Marshall: Well, actually, 1'd like to commend you for offering the bonds, because there
are -- my financial background screams that there are opportunities costs to tying up
money and that potentially other options might avail themselves during that two year
cycle that they may want to take advantage of and they would have the opportunity to
move towards a bond instead. So, that could be a change mid stream -- is that
possible?
Barry: Generally you would make the decision on the performance side right at the
beginning.
Marshall: Right.
Barry: If you did purchase a bond and you're paying one to three percent or so for that,
Commissioner Marshall, you made a very good observation, which is one we have
made to the developing community, and that is you're not tying up 125 percent of your
cash, you have already bought an insurance vehicle, leveraged that 125 percent as an
opportunity to go after something else and so there is some support by developers who
really do see the bonding options as a legitimate and viable way for them to maximize
their credit, as well as their cash on hand.
Marshall: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 9 of 14
Barry: Sure.
Freeman: Great. Thank you, Mr. Barry.
O'Brien: I have one.
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: Thank you. So, I'm sometimes a little bit confused, since I'm not involved in so
much of these kind of things all the time, so when you talk about performance and, then,
you -- and you also said that if they are putting in an infrastructure that this doesn't
apply. Can you explain that? And also give me an example of performance issues.
Barry: Absolutely. So, the term performance I can understand could be confusing. The
term we use performance surety is a type of guarantee, cash, letter of credit, and now
we are recommending bond, to guarantee the developer will construct the
improvements that they have come in and, essentially, applied for a short plat, so -- or
plat in general. So, if you're coming in and you're dividing land or you're making
improvements to land and you have the obligation to construct improvements -- in our
case in Public Works we are concerned about four types of utilities, storm water,
reclaimed water, water and sanitary sewer. If somebody says, well, I want to sell lots,
right, but I don't want to have to build that infrastructure, but I need to sell those lots -- I
will just give you the example here. I want to sell those lots to generate cash, so that I
can eventually build those improvements that are required of me, they could post a
bond, for example, and we would sign the plat -- the city engineer would sign the plat
and say, yes, you are now allowed to sell those lots, because you have posted a
guarantee that you will build the infrastructure. Otherwise, we are not -- we are not
allowed to allow for the subdivision and land, unless those required utilities are installed.
So, that's what we call performance. Performance isn't so much related to warranty
here -- I think the two terms might be confusing you. Performance is just did you
perform your obligation to build the improvements? That's all performance means here.
And if you say, look, I'm not going to ask you to sign off the plat prior to me building the
improvements, I'm just going to build the improvements before I subdivide, well, then,
you don't have to guarantee your performance, because you're going to go do it; right?
We just won't sign off on the plat until it's done. If in the first case, as I mentioned, you
decide, well, I want to subdivide the land, for example, but I don't have the money to put
the improvements on it. You can guarantee that you will put those on, sell the land,
generate cash, the problem is, you know, if you have got a letter of credit or cash, it's
really difficult to use that performance vehicle effectively, which is why we think a bond
is better. You know, if you take a hundred thousand dollar project, for example, just to
use round numbers, the UDC says on performance if you don't want to build the
infrastructure and you want a plat signature so you can sell lots, you have got to come
in with either a letter of credit, meaning you're trying up legitimate money or cash
currently of 110,000 dollars; right? A hundred and ten percent -- 110,000 dollars. What
we are saying is, look, we will let you bond for that 110,000 dollars -- and, again, we are
recommending here that it's 125 percent. I'm just using the current reality. So, we'd let
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 10 of 14
you bond for that 110,000 dollars at one to three percent of the total cost. So, now all
you need is maybe three to five thousand dollars; right? If my math is right. To bond for
that and take the remainder that you might have had as cash on hand or as credit and
apply it to something else. Another project or something else. So, we see this as a
tremendous vehicle, not only in our economic climate to sort of institute the recovery
locally, but also as a way to not tie up that money and give the developers other options
here. Now, the warranty side it's a little bit different, because once they complete the
installation of the improvement or the infrastructure, what we want to do is we want to
make sure that it works, right? And we have found out that a one year evaluation period
is not enough, particularly in slow economies, right? Because they will come in, they
will build the improvements and they will put one home in, maybe two homes over a
couple month period, maybe the third home goes in, so we don't even have a period of
time to realistically test the system. That's why we want a two year period. And, then,
in addition, we have no way to guarantee that this system is going to work if it fails or to
correct the system if it fails, right? Because in some cases -- and we have two cases
right now as mentioned -- we have had contractors go belly up and there is no one left
to fix the problem, even though they are under our existing ordinances obligated to do it.
The only way we can do it is to take them to court and that's, of course, costly and who
knows what the outcome would be. So, I don't know if I have helped to --
O'Brien: Yeah. Tremendously.
Freeman: I think you have. The examples really helped clarify quite a lot I believe.
Barry: Great. I'm sorry I didn't start out with that.
O'Brien: No. That's great. That's -- you answered my question perfectly. Thank you
very much.
Barry: You're more than welcome.
Freeman: Thank you. Thank you for answering all of those questions, too. I think we
are done with you for the moment.
Barry: Okay. Great. Thank you for your time.
Freeman: I don't have a list of anybody wanting to give us public testimony. Is there
anyone in the audience? Okay. No public testimony to be taken. Therefore, can I get a
motion to close the public hearing on ZOA 11-002, Unified Development Code text
amendment.
O'Brien: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 11 of 14
Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: Okay. Commissioners, discussion?
O'Brien: I like It. I think it's -- I understand it a lot better now than I did an hour ago,
that's for sure, and I can understand the appreciation of the -- of where they are trying to
go and how they are trying to do it and I think it's a good move for the city to enter into
this.
Freeman: Thank you. I believe it looks -- you have, obviously, done your homework,
you have spent a lot of time with this. You know, risk is a funny thing. Being an
architect I know you can't guarantee the building will stand no matter what happens
catastrophically, so you target something less then everything possible. There is a
balance there and it sounds like you have done your homework, you have set that
number at 125 percent, I believe that you're correct, that's a good number, you have
done your homework, so I'm all for this. It sounds like a great improvement to -- to our
UDC as it stands currently. Any other comments?
Marshall: I simply want to agree that I would defer the choice of the percentage to the
experts in this case, that have, obviously, looked over historical values and I think it's a
good move on the city's part and I'm very much for it.
Freeman: Well, in that case, could I get a motion?
O'Brien: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file ZOA 11-002 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of May 26, 2011, with no modifications.
Yearsley: Second.
Freeman: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve ZOA 11-002 with no
modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
B. Request for Approval to Create/Change New Development
Application Forms/Checklists by City of Meridian Planning
Department
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 12 of 14
Freeman: Thank you. The next item on the agenda -- I'm going to turn it over to staff to
discuss some changes and creation of some forms, I believe. Pete.
Friedman: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Actually, in
accordance with the UDC when we have major changes to our development application
checklists we run them -- have to run them by you -- by the Commission for your review
and approval. We are proposing two changes. One to the preliminary plat checklist
and one to the certificate of zoning compliance checklist. Right now our checklists
require that when those applications are brought to the city that they include a copy of
the traffic impact study that goes to ACHD. Well, since the city does not have any
authority over the road system, nor do we have the technical expertise in-house to
evaluate those, we thought, well, this is -- you know, it doesn't make sense for us to
hold something unti{ that study has been made, so what we are proposing is that with
those applications that they merely bring us written confirmation or a-mail confirmation
that either a traffic study has been submitted to the highway district or that the highway
district has determined that one is not necessary, rather than having to burden them
with having to provide the city with a traffic impact study that goes into a file and does
absolutely nothing. So, those are the proposed changes and that would be for
preliminary plats, certificates of zoning compliance, and certificate of zoning compliance
verification.
Freeman: Thank you. Are there any questions of staff?
Marshall: Just as a point of clarification, Mr. Chair, I do.
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: As a point of clarification, Pete, we still have that check-off for ACHD's
response?
Friedman: We still get their response as part of the normal transmittal of the projects.
Marshall: And does ACHD still make the choice as to whether or not to require a traffic
study?
Friedman: They make the call. We have nothing to do with that.
Marshall: Thank you.
Friedman: Yep.
Freeman: Any other questions?
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 13 of 14
Yearsley: Would it make sense to go one step farther to actually say that it has been
approved by ACHD, instead of just submitted to ACHD?
Friedman: Well, Commissioner Yearsley, Members of the Commission, we don't want
to hold an application up based on their approval, we just want to make sure that it's
been submitted, because to get back to Commissioner Marshall's question, we still
wouldn't move forward with the recommendation to this body anyway unless -- in most
cases we already had their -- the district's recommendation.
Yearsley: Okay.
Friedman: We have on a couple of occasions gone forward, but knowing that typically
their comments will get to us between the Commission and the Council. So, we are
doing this as a -- actually, expediting the process.
Marshall: If I recall, Pete, in those cases we were pretty confident what the traffic study
was going to show anyway, but -- but ACHD was overwhelmed at the time and not able
to respond in a timely manner, so --
Yearsley: Okay.
Freeman: Okay. This is not a public hearing item, but you are requesting approval --
Friedman: Yes, I am.
Freeman: -- of these changes; correct?
Friedman: Yes, please.
Freeman: So, could I get a motion? Unless there is further questions.
O'Brien: I have none.
Freeman: Okay.
Yearsley: I'll make a motion that we approve the changes to the application checklist.
Marshall: And I will second that.
Freeman: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the application checklist
revisions. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: I need one more motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 14 of 14
O'Brien: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: Move to adjourn.
Marshall: Second.
Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: Thank you.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:35 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
/ ~~ / II
DATE APPROVED
woe Mcc.~~ s ~ l 1 ~ U i` ce - ~~~ ~'
ATTEST: IV( Gt _ ~ ~L~'
JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, CITY CL
r ~.~~"
coaPORa ~~~~
T~ .~v s
V ~a ..~ o
* a SEAL ~~
~ -» , ,
~ ~ .;~. r
~ ST 15t~.,e!. ,,1
y ` ~~
~~ r~l ~ ~~ ~ ~ ..~~~
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: May 26, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 3A
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Approve Minutes of May 5, 2011 Planning and Zoning Meeting
MEETING NOTES
~w~ sy I ~n2
~-o
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: May 26, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 36
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 11-001
ITEM TITLE: Verizon Wireless Meridian HS
FFCL -Conditional Use Permit approval of a 100-foot tall wireless communication (cell
tower) facility in an R-4 zoning district by Nefi Garcia, Technology Associates - 1900 W.
Pine Avenue
MEETING NOTES
~P ~~-~
5~ ~ ~~
~-c~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
~f ~ m~-
CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND
DECISION & ORDER
~E IDIZ IAN+~-
~J
In the Matter of Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless Communication Facility for Verizon
Wireless in the R-4 Zoning District, Located at 1900 W. Pine Avenue in the R-4 Zoning District, by
Nefi Garcia, Technology Associates.
Case No(s). CUP-11-001
For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: May 5, 2011 (Findings on May 26, 2011)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 5, 2011, incorporated by
reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 5, 2011, incorporated by
reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 5, 2011,
incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing
date of May 5, 2011, incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development
Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of
Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan
of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-SA.
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose
expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision, which shall be
signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk
upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected
party requesting notice.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CiJP-1 I-001
Page 1
7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the
hearing date of May 5, 2011, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be
reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the
application.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-
SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby
ordered that:
1. The applicant's request for conditional use permit is hereby conditionally approved per the
conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of May 5, 2011, attached
as Exhibit A.
D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits
Notice of Two (2) Year Conditional Use Permit Duration
Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum
period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-SB-6F.1.
During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the
conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and
acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or
in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be
signed by the City Engineer within this two (2) year period in accord with UDC 11-SB-6F.2.
Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord
with 11-SB-6.F.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the
use not to exceed one (1) two (2) year period. Additional time extensions up to two (2) years as
determined and approved by the Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director
or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian
City Code Title 11.
E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a conditional
use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in
writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the
final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will
toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed.
2. Please take notice that this is a fmal action of the governing body of the City of Meridian.
When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person
who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by the final action of the
governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order
seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code.
F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of May 5, 2011
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP-11-001
Page 2
By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the d ~ day of
2011.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT FREEMAN
(Chairman)
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM
COMMISSIONER TOM O'BRIEN
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED_ ~~ ~~I,~,~,
'rr!7lrlrr~r~i~itttt`
w
By: ~, _,,~D ~ ,i,,,~~, Dated: ~ -1 1l
City Clerk's Offi e
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP-11-001
Page 3
COMMISSIONER JOE MARSHALL VOTED
EXHIBIT A
STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: May 5, 2011 T
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission ~ +~~~~
IDAHO
FROM: Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: CUP-11-001 - Verizon Wireless Meridian High School
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Nefi Garcia, Technology Associates, has applied for conditional use permit (CUP)
approval of a wireless communication facility in an R-4 zoning district on the grounds of Meridian
High School. See Section IXAnalysis for more information.
II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions listed in Exhibit B, based on the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit C.
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on May 5, 2011. At the public
hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subiect CUP request.
a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Nefi Garcia
ii. In opposition: Richard Geile
iii. Commenting: Mike Harmon; Ed HIopfenstein
iv. Written testimony: Nefi Garcia, Applicant
v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Watters
vi. Other staff commenting on application: None
b. Kev Issues of Discussion by Commission:
i. The proposed location of the wireless facility in relation to the location
previously approved by the football field and its impact on neighbors.
c. Kev Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation:
i. At the request of staff, condition of approval #1.7 was amended to reflect
current UDC requirements pertaining to term of permits.
ii. Because the applicant decided not to place microwave dishes on the lower
portion of the pole as shown on the elevation, the microwave dishes are not
approved with this application (see change to Exhibit A.3).
III. PROPOSED MOTION
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP-11-
001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 5, 2011, with the following
modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Ifurther move to direct Staff to prepare an
appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing
on May 26, 2011.
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny CUP-11-001 as
presented during the hearing on May 5, 2011, for the following reasons: (You should state specific
reasons for denial.)
PAGE 1
EXHIBIT A
Continuance
I move to continue File Number CUP-11-001 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date
here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
A. Site Address/Location:
1900 W. Pine Avenue (Parcel No. S1211131625)
Located in the northeast % of Section 11, Township 3 North, Range 1 West
B. Owner(s):
Meridian Joint School District No. 2
2301 E. Lanark Street
Meridian, ID 83642
C. ApplicantfRepresentative:
Nefi Garcia, Technology Associates
9847 S. 500 W.
Sandy, UT 84070
D. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant's narrative for this information.
V. PROCESS FACTS
A. The subject application is for a conditional use permit. A public hearing is required before the
Planning & Zoning Commission on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11,
Chapter 5.
B. Newspaper notifications published on: April 18, and May 2, 2011
C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 1,000 feet on: Apri17, 2011
D. Applicant posted notice on site by: April 25, 2011
VI. LAND USE
A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: The site where the wireless communication facility is proposed
is currently zoned R-4 and is developed with a public high school.
B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: This is a school site that is
surrounded by residential properties.
North: Baseball field and residential properties in Vineyards Subdivision, zoned R-4
West: Rural residential/agricultural property, zoned RUT in Ada County
South: School property, Pine Avenue, & residential properties in Merrywood Subdivision, zoned
R-8
East: School property, zoned R-4
C. History of Previous Actions:
• A Conditional Use Permit (CUP-10-009) was approved on November 4, 2010 for a wireless
communication facility by the football field. The applicant was approved to remove the
existing 80 foot tall light pole on which Clearwire equipment is mounted and replace it with a
new 100 foot tall pole. Verizon equipment would be located at the top of the new pole at 100
PAGE 2
EXHIBIT A
feet; Clearwire equipment would be re-installed at 65 feet; and lighting for the football field
would remain at 80 feet. (Note: The applicant does not intend to construct the taller pole if
the subject CUP is approved.)
D. Utilities:
1. Public Works:
a. Location of sewer: No utilities required
b. Location of water: No utilities required
c. Issues or concerns: None
E. Physical Features:
1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Rutledge Lateral runs across this site but is tiled.
2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this property.
3. Flood Plain: This property is not within the floodplain.
VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
The subject property is designated "Civic" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Per the
Comprehensive Plan (page 106), the following standards apply to Civic areas where schools exist:
These areas are designated to provide areas throughout the Area of Impact which provide educational
opportunities, community gathering places, and green space. The proposed wireless communication
facility is an accepted use in areas such as this.
Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to
the proposed use (staff analysis in italics):
• Chapter VII, Goal IV (page 112) -Encourage compatible uses to minimize conflicts and
maximize use of land.
Staff believes the proposed use of this property is compatible with surrounding school and
residential uses as the proposed tower will only extend 20 feet above the height of the existing
light pole and serve a dual purpose of lighting & wireless communication facility.
• Chapter IV, Goal I, Objective A (page 26) -Ensure that facilities and services keep up with
growth.
The addition of the proposed wireless communication facility will allow i~erizon Wireless to
provide better service coverage in this area. The proposed tower will also allow for collocation
for other service providers in the area thereby reducing the potential for expansion of other
cellular facilities in the area.
VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
A. Schedule of Use: Unified Development Code (UDC) Table 11-2A-21ists the permitted,
accessory, conditional, and prohibited uses in the R-4 zoning district. The proposed wireless
communication facility is listed as a conditional use in the R-4 district. There are specific use
standards for wireless communication facilities listed in UDC 11-4-3-43.
B. Dimensional Standards: The dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5 for the R-4
zoning district apply to this site. (Note: The maximum height limitations do not apply to wireless
communication facilities per UDC 11-2A-3E.2.)
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT A
IX. ANALYSIS
A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
The applicant requests conditional use approval of a wireless communication facility in an R-4
zoning district on the Meridian High School property. The applicant proposes to remove the
existing 80-foot tall light pole located at the southeast line of the baseball field on the west end of
the school property and replace it with a new 100-foot tall pole.
The applicant proposes to place the Verizon equipment at the top of the new pole at 100 feet and
re-mount the lights at their current height of 80-feet. Verizon also plans to construct a 12' x 26'
shelter on the east side of the tower that will house all of the electronic equipment. The tower &
equipment shelter are proposed to be enclosed with a 6-foot tall solid vinyl fence; arborvitaes are
proposed to be planted at the east and west ends of the enclosure for screening purposes.
As noted above, a CUP for another wireless facility was approved for this site last year but has
not yet been constructed. That facility was proposed to be located by the football field
approximately 950 feet to the northeast of this site on the school property. The applicant states
that if this facility is approved, the previously approved facility will not be constructed. In order
to avoid an overabundance of wireless facilities in this area, staff is including a condition of
approval that only one or the other of the facilities be constructed but not both.
Specific Use Standards: The UDC (11-4-3-43) contains specific use standards for wireless
communication facilities that the applicant must comply with. At this time, a revision to the UDC
is in the works to change this section of code. The applicant will be required to comply with the
standards in effect at the time of development when the Certificate of Zoning Compliance
application is submitted.
Certificate of Zoning Compliance: The applicant is required to submit an application for
Certificate of Zoning Compliance for the proposed use prior to establishment of the new use in
accord with UDC 11-SB-1.
Design Review: The applicant is required to submit an application for Design Review concurrent
with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application in accord with UDC 11-SB-8.
Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request subject to the conditions of approval listed
in Exhibit B.
X. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Vicinity/Zoning & Aerial Map
2. Site Plan (Sheet SURV, dated 8/25/09; C100 & C101, dated: 9/23/10; C102, dated 6/16/10)
3. Elevations (dated: 6/16/10)
B. Conditions of Approval
1. Planning Department
2. Public Works Department
3. Fire Department
4. Police Department
5. Sanitary Service Company
6. Ada County Highway District
PAGE 4
EXHIBIT A
7. Parks Department
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
PAGE 5
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.1: Vicinity & Aerial Map
PAGE 6
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.2: Site Plan (dated: 4/11/11)
PARCEL DIPoI I I ~+
1~(pU{NJgNP efUl00L `t
I
dtmumNO.x % I ~
stxtt/ata7 _
`1
4
I '~
~•
I , ~
` Q
lEd BASEBALL PIELD
~ ,n.~
.- -
I _ .
..
~ :
. o ,
PARCEL WPO: _
_
_
l_ __... _ =i.`I
f
I
1 YERID4N JOMT 6C/IOOL pp''
tlI7TRICTNg7 I .j €i
~
i i
I BSN1f71NIB i ~ 1 I I
R4Y i i I
II
4
~ ~
~
~ 9 ~ ~
I A~~ ~
1 ~ i
I
I
{ 4 ~~5~ ~
!!! I
/,/r-~~y
IkU ~tO~~+mwn
it
t 1 PARCEL INFD: I
i NERIWAN JOINi7C110o1
DISTRICT N0
3 1 t I
!
L ,
8/t1/1917M i 1
I I
_ _ ^-._ li
-~
'- If
al
~I
~I
It .>~
MRCEI INfOt l
ARNKE 9UBOIY1810M 1
II
!i
!t
ii
..__.. __ `-__ _.__.~.. _~_~.r
Il
u ~~^'t.
S 1
1
~~__._._.~___.____.
~ ''..~~MM~~AA i
1AB~~
i
IfERRDN WN~.E~ j
~- 71 roE xm
rAr .~ar~"nr""~°"
(~ ' IEI eu¢DINC
~" iEl BUaoiNC M~
- TECNNOI.DOY K8061ATE8~
~W W7TaptE
,IE78U0.DING ~~. ~. I
NCAN7N7t P1NNW 0lllq
If.wm.ee ao<r I
~~._ ,~ .
D'1 BlHl0 PIG
PARCEL 01id
WERIDIMI JOINi7CN00t DpTRICT N0. R
Btxll/eEa
%NE AVENUE
RDI - CNERR'P ~
NC SEC 11, TJM. RiW
1700 WEST PINE AVENUE
NCRDNAL IDANO 876Q
1 - RLWLIND 517E --
(- f®u
' OVERALL BITE PIAN
1
O
~ ~ _•-`~-. ~ ~~•-._._. VZt PfARRN) I1'-f N 1L IIE-MB [plNiMl
RIRIW A.a PRC alNt IID .aP NNRL
~
w
_
Iu1E maRNialpp RAR 11N]aN
/" A r rva as x nla wNn f[
c
IFWf
slaVsal Pal minR,q 10UOVPI.
-
/ M.~ W7 F[ 1NN! NM O! M16f~ lai/1® l0
Y
' f+DSM IFk tEE 4'W/t. CJOO/; aY O00.
~ '~
-
s- (9 mxu (m+1 ~ • •_.- q
~
.~ - - ,• +~~'. WJV Y711N MLN, f0`. c1p{/1.
v-f W 9CMiUC Ia1W11 ivEi.'mWY W fY NR
PAGE 7
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.3: Elevations (dated: 4/11/11)
KEYED NOTES _~m~ _ _ ~ ~_ ~ ~ 817E ELEVATION ~""`~.
W1R eEn3NA Il'!` k M' NEJNI LYUNOR LEN~K GIN
91C1I14 NM(n MYL LMr9 fY0 INk FKPIE
t±-. tEnIIIAIIM wa x emrem w ~ aN3ier 4
mum. a[ mq4 rat uuw~rn Laver ~ [•.~.~1~.....
.w ala/sla ma xrmr~[vwm~moe. ~fNC~W7
kk 1
~.*.,~ vtV a• ,~ ¢xrre rom [Tkcxo. f VEAI20N VflFELE33 ~
~, Vx¢ ix' Ve[ snE ttr¢ss, fri a• ¢[e wnE vnn :[v A°iMeaa~
una
m ~ro• r~ IKxlnnc kw a~ TE4EC
C~:J aluanen >EF n[rt8 N'MI[KTF91 eKv
aweas eon xswl No ~nrwkw8 ~ ^®'
m a' vu rmgwa. (q ea [[rwA 1+19 mug TEgINOIOOYAStOCIATE3
.'~ .krtkws n A w Nm cn¢n ¢pel m m kr Y ~ ( .
a~akrmmok sir. ~ v
m ww¢eem[ ro mru O) s[ uanmT m~xewumr ante
,~ OOM, tIN iaWM m 8[ OflBakm •~ ~ ~~ 9 .6 ~1t~mx MME
"v'im' A E M ~ i~¢!~A MY#W[+4'i'n~Mpl NaM6 yC 'Q ~ ¢PRt ¢¢Iw ~w1~ ~
T ~s
cmwk[x'LLr e~w,~n4i~ in s ~i mSw ~imi ~ ~ ~ ~'+r c
¢r nE s¢E ccaA~tlo¢ nut uark~ na. ~
mkl¢V:Ipt m elMe (~~) NlOe¢[K OOkkNPI ~ $ amm en ~ _ an ¢
~~
missrmein nnax
i
t -t _=
__ _ _
9 ~
~. 811E ELEVATION ~ ,~~~~~ ~ '
Microwave Dishes I,~N.aT
Not Approved '°' °°[ -~-°°°'°°`----~
~- --
~~
'^~~. _ I
E
fq ww~ws8 «r
f
~ ~~
~$~ ~ I
~ ~~ s 1
n oo~~
~ ~-, nE sEC r1, tna. N1w
1900 1VE97 PINE AYENiIE
~ NCRID4N~IONAOIq~36¢2
$ ~ i
8 ~..._.__ ~~ ._~_
I 81TE ELEVATTON8
~. __.___Y,i
~(- ((a~~~m~~ar~(eo~~
PAGE 8
EXHIBIT A
B. Conditions of Approval
1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1.1 The site plan and tower/building elevations prepared by Technology Associates (dated 4/11/11)
contained in Exhibit A are approved with the comments and conditions in this report.
1.2 The applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-43 for wireless
communication facilities in effect at the time of submittal of the Certificate of Zoning
Compliance application.
1.3 The two (2) existing trees that are proposed to be removed on the site plan (sheet C100) should be
relocated elsewhere on the site. If relocating the trees is not feasible, the applicant shall comply
with the standards for mitigation listed in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5.
1.4 Only one wireless communication facility shall be allowed to be constructed at this time on the
subject property. If the facility is constructed by the football field that was approved under CUP-
10-009, the subject facility shall not be allowed. However, if the subject facility is constructed,
the previously approved facility shall not be allowed. This requirement is to ensure against an
overabundance of wireless communication facilities in this area.
1.5 The applicant shall submit an application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance for the proposed
use prior to establishment of the new use in accord with UDC 11-SB-1.
1.6 The applicant shall submit an application for Design Review concurrent with the Certificate of
Zoning Compliance application in accord with UDC 11-SB-8.
1.7 The applicant shall have a maximum of '~~s two (2Zyears to commence the use as
permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within
~ two (2) years of approval, a time extension may be requested in accord with UDC 11-
SB-6F prior to expiration. If a time extension is not requested or granted and the CUP expires, a
new conditional use permit must be obtained.
1.8 The applicant shall submit a statement regarding compliance with regulations administered and
enforced by the federal aviation administration (FAA) prior to issuance of a Certificate of Zoning
Compliance for the proposed use in accord with UDC 11-4-3-43D.4.
1.9 Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does
not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance.
2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2.1 Public Works has no issues or concerns with this application.
3. FIRE DEPARTMENT
3.1 In accordance with International Fire Code Section 503.2.5 and Appendix D, any roadway greater
than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved
turn around. Phasing of the project may require a temporary approved turn around on streets
greater than 150' in length with no outlet.
3.2 Private Alleys and Fire Lanes shall have a 20' wide improved surface capable of supporting an
imposed load of 75,000 lbs. All roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D
Section D103.6 Signs.
3.3 Afire extinguisher (#ZA1 OBC) is required to be placed in the mechanical building.
3.4 The applicant shall meet the requirements for a fire department access road as outlined in
PAGE 9
EXHIBIT A
Appendix D of the International Fire Code.
4. POLICE DEPARTMENT
4.1 The Police Department did not submit comments on this application.
5. SANITARY SERVICES
5.1 SSC has no comments related to this application.
6. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
6.1 ACRD will not be taking any action on this application.
7. PARKS DEPARTMENT
7.1 The Parks Department has no comments related to this application.
PAGE 10
EXHIBIT A
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
1. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E)
The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon
the following:
a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the
dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located.
The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed
use and dimensional and development regulations of the R-4 district. (see Analysis Section
IX for more information).
b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and
in accord with the requirements of this Title.
The Commission finds that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
future land use map designation of Civic for this site. Further, the Commission finds the
proposed use of the site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed
addition of a wireless communication facility will assist in facilities and services keeping up
with growth in this area of the City.
c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other
uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of
the same area.
The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this
report, the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood
and with the existing and intended character of the area.
d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will
not adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this
report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the area.
e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection,
drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer.
The Commission finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public
facilities and services listed above.
f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for the proposed use.
The Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and
that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare.
PAGE I 1 .
EXHIBIT A
g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
The Commission finds the proposed use will not involve any of the above listed activities or
processes that would be detrimental to persons, property, or the general welfare.
h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a
natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance.
The Commission finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of
any natural, scenic or historic feature.
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: May 26, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 4A
PROJECT NUMBER: ZOA 11-002
ITEM TITLE: UDC Text Amendment
Public Hearing -Amend the surety section, UDC 11-SC to include clarifications, increase
surety amounts and to provide for bonds as a form of surety by City of Meridian Public
Works Dept.
MEETING NOTES
~ ~~~
~ r. -{ar C~Lr
-to "yC.
Goa ~
-~ / v vr~ ~--o
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: May 26, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 4B
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Approval to Create/Change New Development Application Forms/Checklists by
Planning Department
MEETING NOTES
-~vev2
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
~~E IDR IAN*--
IDAHO
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kristy Vigil, Assistant Planner
MayorTammy de Weerd
City Council Members:
Keith Bird
Brad Hoaglun
Charles Rountree
David Zaremba
RE: Request for approval to create/change new Development Application
Forms/Checklists
DATE: On Commission Agenda May 26, 2010
CC: City Clerk, Legal Department
Per UDC 11-SA-3B2, the Planning Department is requesting approval from the Planning
& Zoning Commission to create/change a new specific development application forms
(checklists), as follows:
• Change the Preliminary Plat, Certificate of Zoning Compliance, and Certificate of
Zoning Compliance Verification checklists to require written confirmation from
ACHD for change of use and/or traffic impact study requirements.
Planning Department . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, ID 83642
Phone 208-884-5533 Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org
E IDIAI~T.~--
Planning Department
PRELIMINARY PLAT ^ Application Checklist
Project name: File #:
Applicant/agent:
All applications are required to contain one copy of the following:
Ap (~) ant Description S off
Com leted & si ed Commission & Council Review A lication
Narrative full describin the ro osed ro'ect
Legal description of the subject property (Lot, Block, and Subdivision name if located in a recorded
subdivision OR a metes and bounds le al descri tion of the roe if not in a subdivision.)
Recorded warran deed for the subject ro e
Affidavit of Legal Interest signed & notarized by the property owner (if owner is a corporation,
submit a co of the Articles of Inco oration or other evidence to show that the erson si in is an authorized ent.)
Scaled vicini ma showin the location of the subject ro e
Pre-apphcatlori meeting rioteS (All applications that require a public hearing aze required to conduct apre-
a lication meetin with the Plannin De artment.)
Neighborhood meeting Sign-in Sheet (Applicants aze required to hold a neighborhood meeting to provide
an o ortuni for ublic review of the ro osed ro'ect rior to the submittal of an a lication.)
Commitment of Pro a Postin form si ed b the a licant/a ent
Fee (Please call Planning Department to calculate correct fee. Applications with
incorrect ees will not be acce ted.
Note: Only one copy of the above items need be submitted when submitting multiple applications
Additional Requirements for Preliminary Plat Applications:
Applicant
(~)
Description Staff
(~)
Include the following additional information in the project narrative:
- Address whether or not a variance will be requested with respect to any provision of
the ordinance describing the particular provision, the variance requested, and the
reason thereof
- Development features and/or commitments by the applicant
- Description of any covenant or deed restrictions that support the proposed
develo ment. (e. ., lar er rear setback to buffer ad'oinin ro erties, etc.)
A royal of the ro osed subdivision name from the Ada Coun Surve or's office
Preliminary Plat-* 1 copy (folded to 8 ''/z" x 11" size)
The followin items must be included on the relimina lat:
• Pro Osed Subdivision name (Do not use numbers in preliminary plat names.)
• Draftin date
• Section location and coon (situate statement)
• North arrow
• Scale (not less than 1"=100')
• Name, address and phone number of owner(s), applicant, and engineer, surveyor or
lanner who re aced the relimin lat
• Pro osed site(s) for arks, la ounds, schools, churches or other ublic uses
• Pro osed common area lots and/or landsca a easements
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 210 • Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: (208) 884-5533 • Facsimile: (208) 888-6854 • Website: www.meridiancity.org
(Rev. 11/4/08)
• Streets, street names, rights-of--way and roadway widths, including adjoining streets
or roadwa s (details on lan)
• Proposed and existing lot lines and blocks showing scaled dimensions and numbers
of each
• Le end of s bols
• Minimum residential house size (for R-2 and R-4 zones onl )
• Contour lines shown at 5' intervals where land slope is greater than 10% and at 2'
intervals where land slope is 10% or less, referenced to an established benchmark,
includin location and elevation
• Any proposed or existing utilities including, but not limited to, storm and sanitary
sewers, irrigation laterals, ditches, drainage, bridges, culverts, water mains, fire
h drants, streetli ts, ressurized irri ation and their res ective roflles.
• Any dedications to the public and easements together with a statement of location,
dimensions and oses of such
• Master street draina a lan, includin method of dis osal
• Flood lain bound as determined b FEMA or measures to amend this bound
• Stub streets to rovide access to ad'acent undevelo ed land or existin roadwa s
• Block faces not more than seven hundred fifty feet (750') in length without an
tntersectin ,street or alle (residential districts only)
• Block lengths not greater than thirteen hundred feet (1,300') without a pedestrian
COnnectlori (residential districts only)
• Cul-de-sac len hs not in excess of 450'
Reduction of the relimin lat (8 'h" x 11 ")
Landscape plan - * 1 copy (folded to 8 ''/z" x 11" size)
Plan must have a scale no smaller than 1 " = SO' (1 " = 20' is preferred) and be on a standard drawing
sheet, not to exceed 36" x 48" (24" x 36" is preferred). A plan which cannot be drawn in its entirety
on a single sheet must be drawn with appropriate match lines on two or more sheets.
The followin items must be included on the landsca a lan:
• Date, scale, north arrow, and ro'ect name
• Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the developer and the person and/or
firm re arin the lan
• Existing natural features such as canals, creeks, drains, ponds, wetlands,
flood lains, hi h oundwater areas, and rock outcro in s.
• Location, size, and species of all existing trees on site with trunks 4 inches or
greater in diameter, measured 6 inches above the ground. Indicate whether the tree
will be retained or removed.
• A statement of how existing healthy trees proposed to be retained will be protected
from dama a durin construction
• Existing buildings, structures, planting areas, light poles, power poles, walls,
fences, berms, parking and loading areas, vehicular drives, trash areas, sidewalks,
pathways, stormwater detention areas, signs, street furniture, and other man-made
elements.
• Existing and proposed contours for all areas steeper than 20% slope. Berms shall
be shown with one-foot contours.
• Si ht Trian les as defined in 11-3A-5 of this ordinance.
• Pro osed landsca in
• Pro osed screenin structures
• Calculations of project components to demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of this ordinance, including:
- Width of street buffers, lineal feet of street frontage, and number of street trees
- Residential subdivision trees
- Acreage dedicated for common open space
- Number of trees rovided on common lot(s)
- Miti ation for removal of existin trees
Reduction of the landsca e Ian (8 'h" x 11 ")
Site report of the highest seasonal groundwater elevation prepared by a registered soils
scientist
Written confirmation that a traffic impact study is not required and/or has been submitted for
review to ACRD. Please contact Mindi Wallace at 387-6178 or Christy Little at 387-6144
for more information.
Submit two (2) sets of conceptual engineering plans, including respective profiles to Public
Works fora royal (208-898-5500).
Conce tual elevations of ro osed structures, includin buildin materials
Disk with electronic version of the conceptual engineering plans in a format
that complies with the Specifications for Project Drawings found at:
http://www.meridianci .or ublic works/autocad standards/index.asp
Electronic version of the preliminary plat & landscape plan in pdf format submitted on a disk
with the files named with project name & plan type (i.e. preliminary plat, landscape plan,
etc.). We encoura a ou to also submit at least one color version for resentation oses.
Supplementary information at the discretion of the Director or City Engineer may be required to Buff ciently detail
the proposed development within arty special development area, including but not limited to hillside, planned unit
development, floodplain, cemetery, manufactured home parks, and/or hazardous or unique areas of development.
*Once an application is accepted, staff will contactyou to let you know how marry additional copies ofplans are
required. All plans are required to be olded to 8 '/z " x 11 "size.
APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS ON THE CHECK£,IST ARE
SUBMITTED. THIS APPLICATION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE (NOR WILL A PUBLIC
HEARING BE SET) UNTIL STAFF HAS RECEIVED ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION.
E IDIA~~' Planning Department
.... CERTIFICATE OF ZONING COMPLIANCE
Application Checklist
Project name: File #:
Applicant/agent:
All applications are required to contain one copy of the following unless otherwise noted:
Applicant Staff
(~) Description
Com leted & si ed Administrative Review A lication
Narrative fully describing the proposed use of the property, including the following:
- Information on any previous approvals or requirements for the requested use
(i.e:, a licable conditions of a royal or Develo ment A Bement)
Recorded warran deed for the sub'ect ro e
Affidavit of Legal Interest signed & notarized by the property owner (if owner is a corporation,
submit a co of the Articles of Inco oration or other evidence to show that the erson si in is an authorized ent.
Written confirmation that a traffic impact study or change of use is not required and/or has
been submitted for review to ACRD. Please contact Mindi Wallace at 387-6178 or Christy
Little at 387-6144 for more information.
Scaled vicini ma showin the location of the sub'ect ro e
Fire Marshall a royal for access and turn around (stamped, full size site plan)
Sanitary Service Company approval for trash enclosure & access drive (stamped, full size site
lan)
Civil Site/Dimension Plan - 1 full size co (folded to 8 %2" x 11" size)
A photometric test report for any light fixture(s) with a maximum output of 1,8001umens
or more (see UDC 11-3A-11)
Co of the recorded lat the roe lies within (8 'h" x 11"
Address verification letter from Develo ment Services (887-2211)
Site Plan-* 1 copy (folded to 8 'h" x 11" size)
The followin items must be shown on the site lan:
• Date, scale, north arrow, and ro'ect name (scale not less than 1"=50')
• Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the developer and the person and/or
firm re arin the lan
• Parkin stalls and drive aisles
• Trash enclosure(s) location
• Detail Of trash enclosure (must be screened on 3 sides)
• Location and specifications for underground irrigation (Pressurized irrigation can only be
waived if ou rove no water ri is exist to sub'ect roe )
• Sidewalks or athwa S (proposed and existing)
• Location of ro osed buildin on lot (include dimensions to property lines)
• Fencin (proposed and existing)
• Calculations table including the following:
Number of parking stalls required & provided (specify handicap & compact stalls)
- Building size (sq. ft.)
- Lot size (sq. ft.)
- Setbacks
- Zonin district
• Reduction of the site lan (8 ''/2" x 11 ")
Landscape plan - * 1 copy (folded to 8 ''/z" x 11" size)
Plan must have a scale no smaller than 1 " = 50' (1 " = 20' is preferred) and be on a standard
drawin sheet, not to exceed 36"x 48" 24" x 36" is re erred). A lan which cannot be drawn in
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 210 • Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: (208) 884-5533 • Facsimile: (208) 888-6854 • Website: www.meridiancity.org
its entirety on a single sheet must be drawn with appropriate match lines on two or more sheets.
The followin items must be included on the landsca a lan:
• Date, scale, north arrow, and ro'ect name
• Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the developer and the person and/or
fain re arin the lan
• Stamp/signature of a landscape architect, landscape designer, or qualified
nurse an re grin the lan
• Existing natural features such as canals, creeks, drains, ponds, wetlands,
flood lains, hi h oundwater areas, and rock outcro in s
• Location, size, and species of all existing trees on site with trunks 4 inches or
greater in diameter, measured 6 inches above the ground. Indicate whether the
tree will be retained or removed
• A statement of how existing healthy trees proposed to be retained will be
rotected from dama a durin construction
• Existing structures, planting areas, light poles, power poles, walls, fences, berms,
parking and loading areas, vehicular drives, trash areas, sidewalks, pathways,
stormwater detention areas, si s, street furniture, and other man-made elements
• Existing and proposed contours for all areas steeper than 20% slope. Berms shall
be shown with one-foot contours
• Si t Trian les as defined in 11-3A-5 of this ordinance
• Location and labels for all proposed plants, including trees, shrubs, and
grOtmdcOVers (trees must not be planted in City water or sewer easements). Scale shown for
!ant materials shall reflect a roximate mature size
• A plant list that shows the plant symbol, quantity, botanical name, common name,
minimum planting size and container, tree class (I, II, or III), and comments (for
s acin , stakin ,and installation as a ro riate)
• Planting and installation details as necessary to ensure conformance with all
re aired standards
• Desi drawin (s) of all fencin ro osed for screenin oses
Reduction of the landsca a lan (8 %2" x 11")
Buildin elevations showin construction materials - * 1 co (folded to 8 ''/z" x 11" size)
Reduction of the elevations (8 'h" x 11 ")
Electronic version of the site plan, landscape plan, & building elevations in pdf format
submitted on a disk with the files named with project name & plan type (i.e. site plan,
landsca a lan, elevations, etc.). We encoura a ou to submit at least one color version.
If applying for approval of a public school, provide additional information as required by
the Public School Facili su lemental checklist er §67-6519
Fee (If this ro'ect had rior a royal on a site lan, reduced fees ma a 1 )
*Once an application is accepted, staff will contactyou to let you know how marry additional copies ofplans are
required. All plans are required to be olded to 8 % " x 11 "size.
ACHD Acceptance: Applicant shall be responsible for meeting the requirements ofACHD as theypertain to this
application. All impact fees, if arty, shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. If arty changes must be
made to the site plan to accommodate the ACHD requirements, anew site plan shall be submitted to the City of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Department for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Your buildingpermit
will not be issued until ACHD has approved your plans and all associated fees have been paid
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 210 • Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: (208) 884-5533 • Facsimile: (208) 888-6854 • Website: www.meridiancity.org
(Rev. 2/11!2010)
E IDIAl~~ ,
Planning Department
CERTIFICATE OF ZONING COMPLIANCE
VERIFICATION
Application Checklist
Project name: File #:
Applicant/agent:
All applications are required to contain one copy of the following unless otherwise noted:
Applicant
(~) Description Staff
Com leted & si ned Administrative Review A lication
Letter and/or Narrative full describin the ro osed use of the ro e
Recorded warran deed for the sub'ect ro e
Affidavit of Legal Interest signed & notarized by the property owner (if owner is a corporation,
submit a co of the Articles of Inco oration or other evidence to show that the on si ni is an authorized ent.)
Written confirmation that a change of use is not required and/or has been submitted for
review to ACRD. Please contact Mindi Wallace at 387-6178 or Christy Little at 387-6144
for more information.
Scaled vicini ma showin the location of the sub'ect ro e
Co of the recorded lot the roe lies within (8 '/z" x 11")
Address verification letter from Develo ment Services (887-2211)
Fee (If this ro'ect had rior a royal on a site lan, reduced fees ma a 1 )
ACHD A cceptance: Applicant shall be responsible for meeting the requirements of ACHD as they pertain to this
application. All impact fees, if arty, shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. If arty changes must be
made to the site plan to accommodate the ACHD requirements, a new siteplan shall be submitted to the City of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Department for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Your building permit will not be issued until ACHD has approved your plans and all associated fees have been paid
THIS APPLICATION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE UNTIL STAFF HAS
RECEIVED ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION.
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 210 • Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: (208) 884-5533 • Facsimile: (208) 888-6854 • Website: www.meridiancity.org
(10/05/09)