Lake at Cherry Lane, The CUP (2)OFFICIALS
WILLIAM G. BF_RG, JR., City Clerk
JANICE L. LASS, Clty Treasurer
GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt.
DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt.
SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator
PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor
KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief
W.L. "BILL" CORDON, Police Chief
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney
~B OF TREASURE VALLEY
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
Phone (208) 888-4433.1=AX (208) 887-4813
Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211
Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443
ROBERT D. CORRIE
Mayor
COUNCIL MEMBERS
WALT W. MORROW, President
RONALD R. TOLSMA
CHARLES M.ROUNTREE
GLENN R. BENTLEY
P & Z COMMISSION
JIM JOHNSON, Chairman
TIM HEPPER
JIM SHEARER
GREG OSLUND
MALCOLM MACCOY
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning 8< Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to
Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: November 5. 1996
TRANSMITTAL DATE: 10/17/96 HEARING DATE: 11/12/96
REQUEST:__Conditional Use Permit for The Lake at Cherry Lane No 7
BY: Steiner Development
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: West of Ten Mile Road East of The Lake
at Cherrv Lane No 5
JIM JOHNSON, P/Z
MALCOLM MACCOY, P2
JIM SHEARER, P2
GREG OSLUND, P/Z
KEITH BORUP, P/Z
BOB CORRIE, MAYOR
RONALD TOLSMA, C/C
CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C
WALT MORROW, C/C
GLENN BENTLEY, C/C
WATER DEPARTMENT
SEWER DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
--POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT)
_ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM ~ FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PREUM & FINAL PLAT)
CITY FILES
OTHER:
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS:
CITY OF MERIDIAN
APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NAME: STEINER DEVELOPMENT. L.L.C. PHONE: 884-2076
ADDRESS: P O BOX 190472 BOISE ID 83719
GENERAL LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: 61 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED SENIOR/
ADULT LIVING• 1 LOT RECREATION PARK
ZONING CLASSIFICATION: R-15
PLAN: A plan of the proposed site for the conditional use showin he to ion of all buildings,
parking and loading areas, trafi'ic access and traffic cir i en spaces,
landscaping, refuse and service areas, utilities, signs d ya (submit 30 copies).
Sign re of A licant
LEGAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Pursuant to established procedure, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission will hold a Public Hearing in the Meridian City hall on
at .m. The purpose of the
Hearing is to consider a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT submitted by
for the property generally described as located at
SUBDIVISION, BLOCK ,LOT
TO
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
•
1. Name, address and phone number of applicant.
Steiner Development, L.L.C.
P.O. Box 190472
Boise, ID 83719
208-884-2076
2. Name, address and phone number of owner of subject property.
Bill & Viola Teter
2201 N. Allumbaugh
Boise, ID 83704
208-376-8465
3. Legal description of property.
Please see Attachment A.
4. Proof of ownership of subject property (warranty deed) and notarized consent of property
owner.
Please see Attachment B.
5. Description of existing use.
6.95 acre farm land.
6. Present use of subject property.
Farm land.
T. Proposed use of subject property.
Single family attached seniorladuft housing - 60 units P.V.D.
8. The District (present zoning) that pertains to the subject property.
R-15
9. Thirty (30) copies of a vicinity map of a scale of one inch equals three hundred feet (1" _
300').
Please see Attachment C.
10. Characteristics of subject property which make a conditional use desirable.
Infill site next to existing city annexed land. Property is for senior/adult living located near city
owned golf course.
11. A listing of the mailing addresses of all property owners (from authentic tax records of
Ada County) who are within three hundred feet (300') of the external boundaries of the
land being considered, and a list of all owners within the area being considered for a
conditional use.
Please see Attachment D.
12. A fee as established by the Council; $275.00 + $1.42 each for certified mailings for each
property owner listed within the 300 feet =Total Fee.
$275.00 + 1.42 for 79 labels = $527.18
13. A statement that the applicant or user of the property agrees to pay any additional sewer,
water or trash fees or charges, if any, associated with the use, whether that use be
residential, commercial or industrial.
Application agrees with Statement No. 13.
14. The application shall be verified by the applicant which shall state the he has read the
contents. thereof and verifies that the information contained therein is true and correct.
Please see Attachment E.
15. The property will be posted 1 week before the hearing stating they have applied for a
Conditional Use Permit or Zoning. There must be a signed affidavit that this will be done
as part of the application.
Please see Attachment F.
SEP-12-96 01:47 PM F.A CUSTOMERSVC
~~~~~~~~
6'764523
r,a:'1':'tJ:1N pl:'EU
3750997
C~
P. 03
THIS 1~~rS a -~~~ ~ ~
°'G(tC, r: z, c3 .. _^ i s _/.. day of ~~'(,-"Z 3._/
~ l
198,, betw•~en ~:;;:Iam F. '~=ter and viola "1, '.."etcr, husband an::
r:ifE, or Bo:S:_., Coun'; t.r 1, c: t,, ::ate of 7dahc, the par'.)' of -y~
first p<zrt an6 F,ec'ocz,i~le Li'.•in,: :'rust of t9i1'_izm E. Teter and
viola >K, 'Peter wiio=e mai 1 in!f adc3res; is 22A1 l~llumbaugtr, tiois~,
County v.` Ada, Stet<: of Idz,ho, thE• Harty vC the second f,z,rt,
~ •r , ;~` '*a ~ the f 1
I \f t. ., that :h.. nu"~; t). rfi: pa: t, for clncl in
consic3 ration o` the slr:ti of Tin and na/IP13 i;o:lars (Slfa.0la)
lawful money- o` thA Cnitec: ;:aces of AmF_rioa and other good anc3
valu~,YJle conSld2rati~.n, ;~ 7iJ::J Uf tn~: rlrSt ?dC: In hi~nCl '_.','.
;:
by the party of the s~•c:one p;~rt, !?ie rcoipt whereof is h~;r~`~y
aCknowledgec3, GToe, by these f~r•~sunts remisE, release and f'oce•ic•r
QfJI'f{:L11I?'1, unta tt)C> ~alcl p.:irty of thF_ soconc part, and to party
of thc~ ,~3car.c3 psrt's hc~ir5 c-ncl ,~~si,ins, forgiver sll right, tit's
and intCC~35t n0i~ oWn~';I t~f h=~r~zJf•Cr;: aC tllre(f ti' ~ ~ Y
q , y th,. p~~rty of t.iF
first p<,rt in a'_1 rht follo;rin:~ c:~.c:ribed rea'. estate, situated
in County o.° =.ca, Stett~ o.` Idaho, to-wit:
The Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter in Section ~,
Town,hir 3 North, Ran<Je 1 'nest, Boise Meridian, Acla Cotn'y,
Idaho.
TOGETHER, with all ar~d singular the ter.crrents, hereditam~nts
and ~,ppurtenan~es thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining,
and the reversion and reversions, remainder and r:emainc9crs, and
rents, issuzs anc: profits t;:ter•zof;
•
EXHIBIT B
RECORD OWNER AFFIDAVIT
1, William Teter, do hereby certify that I am the record owner of the land described as the "Lake at Cheny
Lane # 7 Subdivision" in an application for Preliminary Plat being submitted to the City of Meridian for
consideration.
Dated this ~d day of.~ , 19~
By: ~~_A~~ci.~u~a~ ~~/ ~~
William Teter
STATE OF IDAHO
ss.
County of Ada )
ON THIS ~0 day of OL..LBI~s.u,~ , 19~, before me a notary public in and for
said State, personally appeared William Teter, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed
to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that William Teter executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and
year first above written.
My Notary Commission Expires ~(~ ~ ~ 'al't ,~9~~
My Notary Bond Expires D ~ - ~ ~ - , 1~' ~G`}~O
N ary Public for Idaho
Residing at ~_I)/11 ,Idaho
ATTACHMENT E
I, Douq Campbell, a principle of Steiner Development, do verify that the information contained herein is
true and correct.
•
ATTACHMENT F
CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION
POSTING AFFIDAVIT
I, Doug Campbell, a principal of Steiner Development, do hereby certify that Steiner Development is the
applicant of the land described as "The Lake at Cherry Lane No. 7 Subdivision" in an application for
Conditional Use Permit being submitted to the City for Meridian for consideration.
I further state that I hereby officially request a Conditional Use Permit of said property by the City of
Meridian, Idaho.
In addition, I hereby state and certify that the subject property will be posted one week before the public
hearing staf t the above-mentioned applications with the City of Meridian have been made.
Dated t ~ day of , 19
By: ~.
oug Cam ell
STATE OF IDAHO )
~ ss.
County of Ada )
ON THIS ~3 ~ day of J C^~f~~~~~, 19~~, before me a notary public in and for
said State, personally appeared Doug Campbell, known to me to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and
year first ab~~~written.
CC..
Notary Pu Id ho
Residing at v ~ ~7 S' f-r - ,Idaho O ~ 2 ~ ~~~ ~
My Notary Commission Expires
a~dav.doc
i •
OPTION TO BUY AFFIDAVIT
PRELIMINARY PLAT
POSTING AFFIDAVIT
I, Doug Campbell, a principal of Steiner Development, do hereby certify that Steiner Development has
an option to buy from the record owner of the land described as "The Lake at Cheny Lane No. 7
Subdivision" in an application for Preliminary Plat being submitted to the City for Meridian for
consideration.
In addition, I hereby state and certify that the subject property will be posted one week before the public
hearing statj~that the above-mentioned applications with the City of Meridian have been mace.
~'
,_
Dated ztiis day of , 19
By: ~ /h,
~~Doug Ca bell
STATE OF IDAHO
ss.
County of Ada )
ON THIS ~~~ day of J ~' ~~~'~~f'~19~~, before me a notary public in and for
said State, personally appeared Doug Campbell, known to me to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and
year first above written.
My Notary Commission Expires ~~ ' ~ ~ , ~8 ~/On1
My Notary Bond Expires "" , 19_
1 ~
Notary Public f
Residing at ~ O~-s'~ - ,Idaho
1
i ~
290 North Maple Grove Road Boise, ID 83704 (208) 378-6380 Fax (208) 378-0025
PROJECT: 549024
DATE: July 31, 1996
REVISED: September 13, 1996
DESCRIPTION FOR
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 7
A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 31, BLOCK 6, THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5
BEING A PORTION OF SECTION 3
T. 3 N., R 1 W., B.M.
MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
A parcel of land being a portion of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 3, T. 3 N.,
R. 1 W., B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows:
thence along the Easterly boundary of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 3,
North 00°24'34" East 1325.91 feet to a found 5/8" iron pin marking the Northeast comer of the said
Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 3;
thence leaving said Easterly boundary and along the Northerly boundary of said Southeast Quarter of
the the Northeast Quarter, Section 3, North 89°02'00" West 65.00 feet to an iron pin;
thence South 00°24'34" West 20.00 feet to an iron pin, said iron pin marking the REAL POINT OF
BEGINNING;
thence continuing South 00°24'34" West 548.61 feet to an iron pin marking a point of non-tangent
curve;
thence along a curve to the left 27.82 feet, said curve having a central angle of 53°0730", a radius of
30.00 feet, tangents of 15.00 feet, and a long chord of 26.83 feet bearing South 42°26' 16" West to an iron
pin mazking a point of non-tangent curve;
thence along a curve to the left 56.44 feet, said curve having a central angle of 80°50'40", a radius of
40.00 feet, tangents of 34.07 feet, and a long chord of 51.87 feet bearing South 49°55'03" West to an iron
pin mazlcing a point of non-tangent curve;
thence along a curve to the left 43.23 feet, said curve having a central angle of 61°55'29", a radius of
40.00 feet, tangents of 24.00 feet, and a long chord of 41.16 feet bearing South 70°03' 14" West to an iron
pin;
thence North 89°35'26" West 127.00 feet to an iron pin marking a point of curve;
thence along a curve to the right 31.42 feet, said curve having a central angle of 90°00'00", a radius of
20.00 feet, tangents of 20.00 feet, and a long chord of 28.28 feet bearing North 44°35'26" West to an iron
pin;
thence South 88°41'19" West 80.04 feet to an iron pin marking a.point of non-tangent curve;
thence along a curve to the right 30.07 feet, said curve having a central angle of 86°08'27", a radius of
20.00 feet, tangents of 18.70 feet, and a long chord of 27.32 feet bearing South 43°28'48" West to an iron
pin marking a point of reverse curve;
Pacific Land Surveyors, a division of POWER Engineers, Inc., an Idaho Corporation
•
thence along a curve to the left 134.88 feet, said curve having a central angle of 7°25'51", a radius of
1040.00 feet, tangents of 67.54 feet, and a long chord of 134.79 feet bearing South 82°50'06" West to an
iron pin;
thence North 00°26'04" East 641.29 feet to an iron pin;
thence South 89°02'00" East 475.01 feet to the point of beginning, comprising 6.67 acres more or less.
SUBJECT TO:
All existing easements and road rights~f--way of record or appearing on the above-described
parcel of land.
Prepared by:
Pacific Land Surveyors
CWE/jte
John T. (Tom) Eddy (P.L.S.)
~ ~
Memorandum
To: MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE
CC: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIONER JOHNSON
CfTY CLERK WILLIAM G. BERG
From: WII.LIAM F. GRIGRAY
R,~CE~D
S E P 1 5 1998
CITY OF MERIDIAN
Date: 09/15/98
Re: WILKINS RANCH SUBDIVISION & LAKE C~ CHERRY LANE #7
I am in receipt of the September 11, 1998 letter from Stephen Bradbury; my
recommendation regarding his request for postponement can be taken up at the City
Council Meeting tonight.
Regarding my response to the request that the Council consider a modification of the
conditional use permit for the Lake at Cherry Lane #7 Subdivision (which was
approved. Feb. 18`x, 1997), this is a request that should have be made to the Planning
and Zoning Commission. In my opinion, all matters wherein a developer would
seek modification of a condition use permit would have to follow the same process
as'the original application due to the rights of the affected parties to have public
hearings and to address any requested modifications.
I am also of the opinion that the criteria and consideration for condition use permit
modification are the same as the original application for condition use permit.
Further, my recommendation that notification should be given to Mr. Bradbury as to
whether the City intends to proceed with the modification of the conditional use
permit. I am willing to assist the Zoning Administrator on this matter if authorized
to do so.
Very truly yours,
~~ ~~
William F. Gi ay
Meridian City Attorney
1
• L
~ Gledhill .Hess .Andrews .
Bradbury & Eiden, P.A.
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
StepE,en A. Bradbury
September 11, 1998
BY FACSIMILE
Mayor Robert Corrie
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Avenue
Meridian, ID 83642
RE: Wilkins Ranch Subdivision
The Lake at Cherry Lane No. 7 Subdivision
Dear Mayor Corrie:
REcErv~D
SEP 1 1 199
CITY OF MERIDIAN
As you know, this firm represents the developer of the above-referenced
subdivision projects, Steiner Development LLC. The Meridian City Council
currently has scheduled for its consideration on September 15, 1998 applications
for a conditional use permit and preliminary plat for the Wilkins Ranch
Subdivision. I have been asked to request that the Council postpone
consideration of those applications until its meeting of October 6, 1998. The
reason for the requested delay is to permit the applicant to compile and submit to
the City as complete and accurate a package in support of its application as
possible.
I have also been asked to request the Council to consider a modification
to the conditional use permit for The Lake at Cherry Lane No. 7 Subdivision
which was approved on February 18, 1997, to delete the requirement that the
residents in the subdivision be age 55 or older. It is Steiner Development's hope
that this request can be scheduled for consideration by the City Council at its
September 15, 1998 meeting, in place of the Wilkins Ranch Subdivision matter.
P.O. Dox 1097 • 877 Main Street, Suite 500 ~ Boise, Idaho 53701
Phone (208)331-1170 • Fax(208)331-1529
1rMail Address: j,@idalaw.com
SEP 11 '98 14 54
PAGE.02
Mayor Robert ~rie
September 11, 1998
Page 2
In the event that you have any questions or concerns, or should you with
to discuss this matter further, please feel free to give me a call.
SAB:II
cc: Doug Campbell (by fax)
Will Berg (by fax)
Very truly yours,
tephen A. Bradbury
SEP 11 '98 14 54 PAGE.03
•
NOTICE OF HEARING
•
NOTICE 1S HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and
the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a
public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour
of 7:30 p.m., on January 7, 1997, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the
Application of Steiner Development, for a Conditional Use Permit for land located in the
SE 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, and which property is
generally located 1/4 mile S. of Ustick Road W. of Ten Mile Road. The application
requests a Conditional Use Permit fora 61-unit attached single-family senior development
with aone -lot recreation center in an R-15 zone.
A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's
office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during
regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all
interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and
invited to submit testimony.
Dated this 18th day of December, 1996.
,~ ~~
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., ITY CLERK
•.. C \~ ~• ~~ 1 N ~.
r ~~ C
' QII ~ ~.~_7 d ~ ^ ~ f +Q-~• ~1 _ - 'Y w ~j '~d NHS ~~
Z Q ~~ 7 \ V
~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~
7M ..•urlw ~ ~
~w ~ t ~+w~7r r+~ •r+~ r . ..
alt • ~~~r~~w~s~.~+~•
~ ~~ +:+3gg ~ ,
~ p a v •n •N g 7 a D ;
m
~ ~ i
p- 8~ a r~ ~ ZNOIt •N O 1 O •
~ g
S ~ 48-A 'N S ~ ~ ~
~ - 11 ~
a ~ ~ ~
ooo~~ a nn~~t~. ~
~ W ~ ~
4~ ~ ~
~ ~ _ D
1 4 ~,-
,~ _ i .
. ,
.w
' ~
_.
y • I ~ ~ ~
• ~ ~
'iV
~~~~ ~' ~ ~
~._
... ~ ~ ~
1 yM ?1 ~8 N?1r-.L
1 • ~ a • ~ • s t ~ ~ ~
~ ~ •
v r
1 • •` ~ ~M A
•~ ~ -~
J ~
Of • ~ ~ .y ~~ ~~
k' ~M
i ~ s ~ J~ i ~ ~ ~ ~s~ ~ ~ O w -~/ ~~1~ ~
.+L G ^
~ ` ~ r J ~~ ,
ti
~ ~ « ~ N = ~•
i
f C
•
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and
the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street,
Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., on November 12, 1996, for the purpose of
reviewing and considering the Application of Steiner Development, for a Conditional Use
Permit for land located in the SE 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., Ada County,
Idaho, and which property is generally located 1/4 mile S. of Ustick Road W. of Ten Mile
Road. The application requests a Conditional Use Permit fora 61-unit attached single-
family senior development with cone -lot recreation center in an R-15 zone.
Amore particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's
office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during
regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all
interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and
invited to submit testimony.
Dated this 16th day of October, 1996.
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI CL RK
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: February 18 1997
APPLICANT: ITEM NUMBER; 6 ~ 7
REQUEST: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LAND NO.7 WITH PRELIMIARY PLAT
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
COMMENTS
of
~( L
~~~~
~ ~~ ~
~~~ ~~~
a a ~c
y°~~
alp
OTHER:
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
• •
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO 7
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WEST OF TEN MILE ROAD. EAST OF THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO 5
MERIDIAN. IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled conditional use permit application having
come on for a public hearing and consideration initially on January
7, 1997, was continued to January 21, 1997, for preparation of
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law' (FF&CL), and was again
continued to February 18, 1997, for additional changes to the
~-
FF&CL, each at the approximate hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said
__
date,.. as soon as the matter could be .heard, at the Meridian City
Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the City Council
having considered the record, having heard and taken oral and
written testimony, and the Applicant appearing through its
representative, Steve Bradbury, and having duly considered the
matter, the City Council makes the following Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use
Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for January 7, 1997, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 1
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
that the public hearing was continued to January 21, 1997, and the
matter was duly considered at both sessions of the public hearing,
and the public was given full opportunity to express comments and
submit evidence and copies of all notices were available to
newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That the property is located within the City of Meridian;
that the general location of the property is West of Ten Mile Road,
East of The Lake at Cherry Lane No. 5 and is described in the
Application, which description is incorporated herein.
3. That the property is currently zoned R-15, Medium-High
Density.
4. That the R-15 District is defined and set out in the
Zanin~ Ordinance as follows:
(R-15) Medium High Density Residential District - The purpose
of the (R-15) District is to permit the establishment of
- -medium-high: -density- sng3:e=family attached and multi-family
.dwellings at a density not exceeding fifteen (15) dwelling
units per acre. All such districts must have direct access
to a transportation arterial or collector, abut or have direct
access to a park or open space corridor, and be connected to
the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian.
The predominant housing types in this district will be patio
homes, zero lot line single-family dwellings, town houses,
apartment buildings and condominiums.
5. That the Applicant is not the owner of record of the
property, but Bill and Viola Teter are and they have requested that
this Conditional Use be granted, and Steiner Corporation has
requested this Conditional Use Permit be granted and the
Application is not at the request of the City of Meridian.
6. That the property was being used as farm land.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 2
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
7. That the proposed use by the .Applicant is for single
family attached senior/adult living with a density of nine units
per acre, with one lot being used both as a recreation park and as
a drainage/holding pond for ground water.
8. That sewer and water is available to the property, but
the property will have to comply with the residential sewer and
water rates.
9. That at the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing
the Applicant's representative, Steve Bradbury, submitted testimony
and gave comments to the Commission, which are incorporated herein
as if set forth in full; that his testimony before the Commission
can be summarized as follows:
:That..this. would be a planned development with 60 units
in the northeast section of the development in the more
-moderately---price .range; that two-of the units would be 0 lot
__
line dwellings; that the density-units would be 9 units per
acre;..that thin would-be two-more units--than originally 58;
that the minimum square footage would be 800 to 1,160; that.
the staff says 1,300 sq. ft. is required by ordinance; that
the set back in the front will be 18 to 20 feet which is less
that requirement; the street side would be to 15 feet; that
this conditional use is consistent with other multi-dwelling
projects; that the units would be all one level with a two car
garage; that there would be 16 off-street parking spaces but
the Fire Dept. objected and wanted it to be 12; that the Fire
Department also wanted the off-street parking to be directly
off the street and that there would be parking on just one
side of the street; that this project would meet the ACRD
street requirements; 50 feet of frontage is required but they
only want 33 feet; that thee would be 66 feet for each duplex
unit; that these units would have a gated security entrance
which will be a masonry wall; that there would be 20 foot of
buffer and landscaping on Ten Mile; that this would be a
recreation .and drainage area need to be met; that the
amenities-were referenced and that the 10$ of open space
requirement would be met.
Mr. Bradbury commented that the staff comments were okay
except #8; pressurized irrigation will be done which Nampa &
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 3
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
~ ~
Meridian Irrigation District is doing; that the pressurized
system will be included in the same system that is proposed
for The Lake at Cherry Lane Nos 3, 4, 5, and 6; there will be
street lights; they desire to place 4' sidewalks rather than
5' -- but that is not a do or die situation; he says if
required would they would do 5' sidewalks; they are willing
to work with staff to minimize confusion; that they will do
CC&R's; that their goal is have home minimum home size of
1,160 sq. ft.; they will enter into a development agreement.
Mr. Bradbury also stated the City could place conditions
on it but asked not to be hamstrung; additionally he testified
on the 60 units and that they would meet the requirements of
the Ordinance, which he says is 800 sq. ft., that they are
exceeding the 800 square feet, and he desired that the
Commission consider reducing the sidewalk size.
10. At the City Council Public Hearing on January 7, 1997,
Steve Bradbury testified as follows:
The project was a planned development for a 60 unit
senior living development;. Steiner Development is proposing
a more moderately priced senior area which consist of mostly
two unit, zero lot line buildings; there are two three unit
buildings and three four unit buildings; there is a total of
60 units on 60 separate building lots; there would be about
9 units per acre;, the lot sizes range from 3,200 square feet
to about 4,800 square feet and that exceeds the 2,400 square
__foot_minimum-for the zone. The home sizes proposed are not
less than 1,160. square feet; the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended that the homes be a minimum of 1100
square feet . We are asking for some relief from the set backs
pursuant to the Planned Unit Development provisions of the
City's code. We are asking for relief from the standard 20
foot front setback and the 20 foot street side set back so
that the front set backs would be 18 feet and the street side
yard setback would be 15 feet. The rear set backs are 15 and
that is standard in the zone.
The required street frontage on each lot under this zone
is 50 feet. The lots proposed for this project have 33 feet
of width except on the corners they are something a little bit
less than that. We are asking for relief from the standard
50 foot street frontage requirement required in this zone.
Each building will consist of two units on two lots. So
we will have a total of 66 feet of frontage for each building,
minimum 66 feet of frontage for each building. With the 4
unit buildings it will be even more than that; we are asking
for relief from the 50 foot street frontage requirement; each
unit will have at least a two car garage; we are asking for
relief from the four foot set back requirement from the right
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 4
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
i
of way; we would like to be able to take access directly onto
the street; the streets are proposed to be private streets on
40 feet of right of way, 28 feet of pavement, 2 feet of curb
and gutter on each side.
The Planning and Zoning Commission preferred a five foot
wide sidewalk on one side; the streets would be constructed
to the Ada County Highway District construction standards;
there would be a gated security entrance; there will be a
privacy wall that surrounds the project; there is also a
common area which consists of approximately ~ acre and is a
dual purpose-common area; this area would be used as a
drainage retention facility during the wet time of the year;
it would drain out except when there are storms like last week
and then there would be water in it and theoretically this
week there would not be; it would be dry most of the year; the
area would be improved with sod and a pond developed into it
and it would have sloping sides and then there would be a
drainage facility constructed in the bottom of it; it would
be improved with sod on the sides and the bottom and it would
be landscaped with trees and shrubs around the edges and there
would be picnic tables and benches put in; it would be owned
and maintained by the homeowners through the homeowners
association.
For the most part the staff report is acceptable; the
only. ..concern that we_have there is the requirement that the
off street parking areas are not to be closer than 4 feet to
any street right of-way and we-are-asking for relief from that
particular.. requirement;_: pressurized irrigation will be
provided:...-through the Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District;
parking will be permitted on one side of the street only,
which would be contained in a provision within the restrictive
covenants to deal with that and the homeowners association
would then be charged with the responsibility of enforcing it .
The developer understands that approval is subject to
capacity in the waste water treatment plant; the common areas
would include the recreation area along with the landscaping
treatment along the boundary and into the entry and our
engineers calculate that it meets the required 10~ common area
under the code. We are now proposing a five foot sidewalk one
side of the road as P & Z suggested; we will prepare
restrictive covenants.
Staff is suggesting that we perhaps should have 1300
square foot homes in this phase of the subdivision. Planning
& Zoning recommended approval for 1100 which is consistent
with what is proposed and we would ask the Council to do the
same; a development agreement is required and we will provide
the City with a development agreement and will provide a
written response to the City Staff's comments; the vast
majority of the common area, where the drainage pond is going
to be, will be usable by the seniors. The area of slope in
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 5
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
that area is going to be 15 feet wide. There will be a 3 to
1 slope, so those sloped areas themselves probably won't be
particularly usable for seniors. The rest of the area though
would all be usable. You have the outside edges on the top
and then you have all of the inside area that would all be
usable. The gazebo is not going to be in the water. It will
be above water. Except for the actual sloped portion of the
pond itself, the entire lot would be usable space. In
response to questions from the Council, Mr. Bradbury suggested
that they would have no problem with meeting the ADA
requirements as a condition.
In response to Councilman Bentley's inquiry regarding the
narrowness of the streets with sidewalks on only one side of
the street; Mr. Bradbury stated that with the gated entrance
the only people who are going to be coming and going are the
people that live there and their guests and because it is a
relatively controlled area and confined space he did not think
that sidewalks on only one side are going to be too hard to
find. They have plenty of parking spaces for the residents
and there are four parking spots for each unit. The
restrictive--covenants would prohibit parking on the street by
residents and guests.
In response to Councilman Ron Tolsma's comment about the
18 foot setback proposed, Mr. Bradbury stated that the setback
does`not include the sidewalk and would be in addition; that
they have 40 feet of right of way, actually only 37 feet of
-that would be improved; that they have 3 extra feet of
unimproved right of way. The Planning and Zoning Commission
suggested that the way to solve-the very problem that you are
talking about was to be certain that the improvements are
centered in the right of way so that there is a maximum amount
of space in front of each lot, from the building to the actual
improvements of the right of way. That by laying the project
out correctly we can minimize the concern that you have got.
Councilman Morrow stated concerns that he had with private
roads not being properly repaired and that a fund should be
established similar to the way it was done in Ashford Greens
Subdivision. City Engineer, Gary Smith, commented that a sinking
fund had been established for Ashford Greens and such a similar
fund should be established for all private roads.
Mr. Smith had several comments relating to the plat of the
subdivision, which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 6
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
and Mr. Bradbury made comments about which are also incorporated
herein as if set forth in full.
11. At the continued City Council public hearing on January
21, 1997, Mr. Bradbury testified as follows and the Mayor, City
Councilmen, and City Staff had the following comments:
Keith Jacobs concluded that there is plenty of distance
to put the sidewalk, which was desired to be near the gazebo,
along the slope and maintain a 12 to 1 slope which is what we
understand to be the ADA requirements.
Councilman Morrow questioned how functional the green
space would be and the' water issue; the City Engineer
responded that concerning the storm drain detention area, it
is proposed to be used for common area; that the Applicant's
engineer is proposing that they tie the subsurface drain
system into a perforated pipe in order to evacuate the water
from the detention pond common area into Nine Mile Drain. He
also stated that the subsurface drain on this pond is for
relief of ground water, not of the surface run off water.
Councilman Morrow asked what was the likelihood this
design configuration, this-retention common area, is in fact
usable and whether it would. retain water for great periods of
time. Mr. Smith responded that if you had a design storm
occur and you had that much water in this pond area, obviously
it is not going to be usable; he also stated that
theoretically over a period of time that water is going to
dissipate through that exit structure into Nine Mile Drain.
In response to Mr. Morrow's question whether the common
area would it serve as a functioning common area Mr . Smith
stated that he did not know and that his opinion right at the
time was he was really bit sure.
The Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles,
commented that the City staff had not yet seen a drainage
system such as this type function as it was proposed to
function.
That the requirement that a planned unit development
include common area of loo and Mr. Smith commented that 10~s
of the land within the subdivision would require .75 of an
acre, which is 32,670 square feet; that Mr. Bradbury had
stated that there was 9,500 square feet of land dedicated to
the City as sewer easement along the north boundary and that
there was also 12,500 square feet of landscape buffer between
Ten Mile Road, and with the combination of those two plus the
detention pond area, the 10$ requirement is exceeded. Mr.
Smith also commented, however, that he was unsure if the sewer
easement was is accessible as common area or not.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 7
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
r ~
Councilman Rountree asked Miss Stiles the same question
that Mr. Morrow asked Gary Smith which was whether in your
opinion is the space that is being provided by this
development suitable and usable. Miss Stiles responded that
if the representations made as to how they plan. to landscape
it and how the drainage facility will function are correct,
then I would say it is usable.
Councilman Morrow inquired if there was a guarantee that
the pressurized irrigation system would be operational by the
start of the 1997 irrigation season and whether or not it was
felt that the necessary safe guards are in place for that
pressurized system to be activated by April 15, 1997, to which
Mr. Smith responded yes, it was.
The question came up as to the width of the street right-
of-way and Mr. Smith commented that on this Number 7
subdivision we talked pretty specifically about 40 foot right
of ways and in the same breath I think we talked about the
roadway being similar the same as the Number 6 subdivision.
The right of ways in number 6 are 42 feet in width.
Mr. Bradbury stated that the total square footage of the
drainage pond common area is about 18, 500 square feet and that
Keith Jacobs just did a quick calculation and determined that
the pond itself consumes about 480 of that lot; that 9,000 of
the 18,000 square feet is the pond itself; that with respect
to the calculations of open space for Number 7, we did not
include the fire station site. He questioned if that two feet
difference.. in .the right-of-was_ important enough to require
that either the project be redesigned in order to pick up
those two feet or that additional setback relief could be
granted in the front yards or the back yards. He stated that
the-Fire Chief was satisfied with the roadways as proposed for
a life safety standpoint. He also stated that if, in fact,
the City would be more comfortable with 42 foot of right of
way, it could be accomplished.
10. That the Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce
Freckleton, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, the
Meridian City Police and Fire Departments, Central District Health
Department, Joint School District No. 2, and the Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District submitted comments and they are incorporated
herein as if set forth in full.
That the comments submitted by Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to
the City Engineer, and Shari Stiles, the Planning and Zoning
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 8
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
Administrator, included the following:
a. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the
property shall be tiled;
b. That any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems
within this project will have to be removed from their
domestic service per City Ordinance, but wells may be
used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape
irrigation;
c. That a drainage plan designed by an architect or an
engineer shall be submitted for all off-street parking
areas and that off-street parking shall be provided in
accordance with Section 11-2-414 of the City of Meridian
Zoning and Development Ordinance and/or as detailed in
site-specific requirements;
d. That outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as
to not direct illumination on any nearby residences;
e. That all signage shall be in accordance with Meridian
City Ordinances;
f. That the paving and striping shall be in accordance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act and off-street
parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-
2-414 and/or as detailed-in site-specific requirements.
In no case shall any part of a parking area be closer
than four feet to any established street or alley right-
of-way;
g. That a master street drainage plan be submitted,
including the method of disposal & approval from the Ada
County Highway District, and the affected
irrigation/drainage districts(s);
h. That determination of the seasonal high groundwater
elevation and profile of the subsurface soil conditions,
shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or soil
scientists;
i. That a copy of the proposed restrictive covenants and/or
deed restrictions be submitted for review;
j. That 5 foot wide sidewalks shall be provided in
accordance with City Ordinance;
k. That placement of the fire hydrants be coordinated with
the City of Meridian's Water Works Superintendent;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 9
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
~ ~
1. That a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee
be submitted, approving the subdivision and street names,
making any necessary corrections to the Preliminary Plat
map prior to re-submittal to the City; and.
m. Indicate any existing FEMA Flood Plain Boundaries on the
Preliminary Plat Map, and/or any plans to reduce said
boundaries.
n. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be
approved and activated, pressurized irrigation system
shall be approved and activated, perimeter fencing shall
be installed, and road base is to approved by ACHD prior
to any building permits being issued.
That Miss Stiles and Mr. Freckleton submitted site specific
comments which are as follows:
a. Pressurized irrigation system shall be designed such that
no lateral lines run parallel within the street right-
of-ways; that crossing from block to block will be
allowed; that any proposal for a supplementary connection
from the City's water system to the pressurized
irrigation system being proposed will need to be reviewed
.closely due to the size of the area to be watered; that
the Applicant shall provide a statement as to the
ownership of and operation/maintenance of the pressurized
irrigation system;
b. That 250 and 100 watt high pressure sodium street lights
will be required at locations designated by the Meridian
Public Works Department; that all street lights shall be
installed at subdivider's expense;
c. That the Meridian Fire Department and Meridian School
District need to review and approve of the travel way
widths. We are very concerned about the narrower width
of the roadways, as it will make it more difficult to
navigate with school busses and emergency vehicles. As
an absolute minimum, "No Parking" signs should be posted
along one side of the street; we know how enforcement of
the "NO Parking" will be accomplished. On-street parking
would only allow a ten-foot-wide travel area to remain.
d. That the treatment capacity of Meridian's Waste Water
Treatment Plant is currently being evaluated and that
approval of this application needs to be contingent upon
our ability to accept the additional sanitary sewage
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 10
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
C7
r
generated by this proposed development; and
e. Many concept versions of this project have been submitted
to the City of Meridian over the last year or so. The
annexation/zoning request and Applicant's prior testimony
indicated that this development would occupy 7.5 acres
with a total density of 7,75 units per acre. The present
application includes 6.67 acres with a density of 9.0
units per acre.
f. This application has some similarities to the La Playa
Subdivision. The Applicant, Commission and Council
should consider the problems encountered by that
developer in marketing small lots with all duplex units.
If zero-lot line development is later determined to be
infeasible, City Ordinance requires that a minimum of ten
feet be provided between buildings, making the lots
virtually unbuildable.
g. The R-15 zone requires that the development be adjacent
to a park or open space corridor, and the planned
development guidelines require a minimum of lOg of the
gross area designated as common area. The previous
proposal showed a greater percentage of open area, as all
area except for the building footprint area was common
area to be maintained by a homeowners association. The
only common area, besides the planting .strip along Ten
Mile Road, is a drainage pond. The Commission and
Council should visit-the-drainage areas at Los Alamitos,
Sportsman Pointe, Salmon Rapids, Kentfield Manor and
Tuthill Estates to gain a better perspective of whether
a drainage pond is acceptable for designation as a
recreational facility. With 3:1 slopes, it is extremely
questionable, especially for seniors from an
accessibility standpoint, whether this area is feasible
to include as part of the 10~ common area.
h. Applicant is proposing a four-foot-wide sidewalk on one
side of the street only. Given the density of the
development, five-foot-wide sidewalks should be provided
on both sides of the street in accordance with City
Ordinance.
i. The Fair Housing Act does not allow designation of this
subdivision as an adult community. The Applicant shall
not market the development discriminating in this manner.
j. Applicant currently has approval for The Lake at Cherry
Lane No. 4, The Lake at Cherry Lane No. 5, and the Lake
at Cherry Lane No. 6. As a requirement of the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page it
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
~ ~
conditional use permit, no development of Phase 7 should
be permitted until prior phases have been completed, in
the order they were approved. It is questionable whether
this development should even be considered at this time,
given the fact that four developments have been approved,
but only one development has been construed. No
variances for extension of time on these developments
should be permitted, as it makes it very difficult for
staff to keep going back to look up conditions and
policies that were in force at the time of approval.
City Ordinance on development time requirements should
prevail, with no exceptions taken.
k. Careful attention will need to be paid to the covenants
for this development to ensure appropriate measures for
maintaining all common areas and the private roadways are
taken.
1. City Ordinance requires that all new single-family
detached housing in Zone R-15 shall contain 1,301 square
feet or more, unless there is dispersed among the new
residential development houses of varying sizes per
Ordinance Section i1-2-411.D. Although this development
proposes a giant cluster of 1,160-square-foot homes,
apparently completely identical in design, that will tend
to present a monotonous row-house effect.
m. All ordinances of the City of Meridian shall be met,
whether expressly noted herein or not, unless
specifically waived in writing by the City Council.
n. A development agreement is required as a condition of
annexation. No development agreement for any phase of
the 40-acre parcel has been entered into as of this date.
11. That at the City Council meeting on February 4, 1997,
Councilman Bentley state that he was not satisfied with the common
area being used as a water basin and for drainage and was whether
elderly people would have the ability to use the common area.
12. Councilman Morrow questioned the City Engineer, Gary
Smith, if the City had seen any specifics regarding the pond/common
area and ramping in and out of the area, to which Mr. Smith
responded that he had not seen anything. Mr. Morrow additionally
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 12
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
asked about water coming and going out, cross drainage, and the use
of the pond for settlement, to which Mr. Smith responded the pond
design incorporated two different things: 1) a liner and 2) a
subsurface perforated drainage system that would drain into an
existing perforated drain paralleling-Ten Mile. Mr. Smith also
stated that there was a transfer structure in the northeast corner
of the pond that takes the storm water from the pond and discharges
it to the Nine Mile Drain at a predetermined rate. He also stated
that the significance of the liner was to prevent ground water from
coming into the pond under hydrostatic pressure.
13. Councilman Tolsma questioned the setback from the road
and stated that there would not be enough room to park standard
sized cars in the driveways if they were only eighteen feet long
and that if the homes were set differently, the garages could be
set so that would be sufficient room for driveway parking, to which
Mr. Bradbury responded that if the road was centered properly that
there actually was going to be additional space for the parking of
cars in the front driveways. Mr. Tolsma also stated that since
the roadways were going to be private there would be police
enforcement of the proposed parking restrictions, to which Mr.
Bradbury responded that the Applicant could cover that in the
CC&R's which would be enforced by the homeowners association.
14. Councilman Morrow responded to the length of the
driveways question by stating that since the roads were private and
there was going to be gated entries, that the parking situation
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 13
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
could be handled in the CC&R's. Mr. Morrow also stated that the
present FF&CL required design review and that process could resolve
the length of the driveways, garage setbacks, and putting the
garage back from the front of the house.
15. Councilman Rountree commented that it needed to be
definitely stated that design review was a condition for providing
the City -~- an opportunity to review the concepts that present
multiple different street elevations. He also .stated that he was
concerned about the open space required in PUD's and the
/Jrz7jt'c t"
Applicant's numbers showed that the'~met the 10°s open space
~n~ t ft1~ i~a tin. r~~ U~'t~rz s,~ac~
requirement, but he questioned whether'; because much of the grass
area was intended to be used also for a retention pond for water
and the space would likely not be usable. He felt that additional
open space should be required and that it be usable space and that
that should be stated in the FF&CL.
16. That 11-2-410 A requires the following yard setbacks when
there is a single-family structure and the house is on a local
road:
Minimum front yard set-back 20 feet
Minimum rear yard set-back 15 feet
Minimum side yard set-back 5 feet per story;
and requires the following minimum lot sizes:
Lots in the R-15 District 2,400 square feet/per
dwelling unit;
and requires the following minimum street frontage for each zone,
to wit.
Lots in the R-15 District 50 feet.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 14
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
! •
17. That Section 11-2-409 A lists Planned Residential
Developments as a conditional use in the R-15 zone; that the
Subdivision and Development Ordinance speaks to planned unit
developments in 11-9-607 and such is incorporated herein as if set
forth in full; that section 11-9-607 E states as follows:
"A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each
district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in
this Section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations of
the district or districts in which said. PD is located. The
approval of the Final Development Plan fo.r a PD may provide
for such exceptions from the district regulations governing
use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other
regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of
the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with
the standards and criteria contained in this section.";
Section i1-9-607 G. 8. also provides that~all Planned Development
shall be subject to design review by the City staff and Council;
that Sections 11-9-607 A through H are incorporated herein as if
set forth in full; that portions of Section 11-9-607 E. states that
______ . .
a PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each district,
shall be governed by the regulations of the district in which it
is located, that a PD may provide for such exceptions from the
district regulations governing use, density, area, bulk, parking,
sign, and other regulations as may be desirable to achieve the
objectives of the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are
consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this
Section; Section 11-9-607 D. states that the developer shall
provide the Council with a colored rendering of adequate scale to
show the completed development that will include at least the
following: architectural style and building design, building
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 15
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
•
materials and color, landscaping screening, garbage area, parking,
and open space.
18. That Section 11-9-607 F 3. states that the Owner's
Association Bylaws, and other similar deed restrictions, shall meet
with the approval of the Council; that Applicant has now submitted
bylaws or covenants, conditions and restrictions to the City and
they must be reviewed and approved.
19. That any comments from the Ada County Highway District
will be incorporated as if set forth in full.
20. Applicant has indicated that the streets within the
subdivision will be private but will meet ACHD standards.
Applicant has requested that several Ordinance requirements not be
required, which is allowed in a Planned Unit Development; it
specifically requested the following exceptions:
1. Private streets.
2. 5 foot sidewalks only on one side of the roadway.
3. Street frontages less than required.
4. Smaller minimum roadway widths.
5. Parking areas closer than 4' to the road right-of-way.
6. Smaller front setbacks rather than 20 feet.
7. Side yard setbacks, on some lots, be reduced.
8. Smaller lot sizes.
9. And others.
21. That sewer and water is available to the property and is
required.
22. That the property is zoned R-15, Residential District,
which is described in the Zoning Ordinance, i1-2-408 B. 5. as
follows:
(R-15) Medium High Density Residential Distri t - The purpose
of the (R-15) District is to permit the establishment of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 16
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
! •
medium-high density single-family attached and multi-family
dwellings at a density not exceeding fifteen (15) dwelling
units per acre. All such districts must have. direct access
to a transportation arterial or collector, abut or have direct
access to a park or open space corridor, and be connected to
the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian.
The predominant housing types in this district will be patio
homes, zero lot line single-family dwellings, town houses,
apartment buildings and condominiums.
23. That the R-15 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,301
square feet to be included in the single family detached houses,
unless there are dispersed among the development., houses of varying
size as allowed in 11-4-411 d 2., however, the Applicant has not
stated he is proposing single family detached houses, but is
proposing single family attached structures.
24. That Section i1-2-411 B states as follows:
"All new residential housing developments in the City of
Meridian shall be designed to insure compatibility with
adjacent existing. and/or proposed developments."
that regarding the conditional use finding that must be addressed
pursuant to 11-2-418 C 3., as to the harmony of the project to the
general vicinity, it is concluded that the harmony must be with the
general vicinity, which is the entire golf course area, including
Cherry Lane Subdivision, The Lake at Cherry Lane and Golf View
Estates; that by making this proposed subdivision for a senior
citizen living complex does not remove the conditional use
requirement that the proposed use be harmonious with the general
vicinity.
25. That Section i1-2-409 A lists Planned Residential
Developments as a conditional use in the R-15 zone; that the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 17
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
•
Subdivision and Development Ordinance speaks to planned unit
developments in i1-9-607 and such is incorporated herein as if set
forth in full; that section 11-9-607 E states as follows:
"A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each
district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in
this Section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations of
the district or districts in which said PD is located. The
approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide
for such exceptions from the district regulations governing
use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other
regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of
the proposed PD, arovided such exceptions are consistent with
the standards and criteria contained in this section.";
26. That Section i1-9-607 F 3. states that the Owner's
Association Bylaws, and other similar deed restrictions, shall meet
with the approval of the Council.; that Applicant has now submitted
bylaws or covenants, conditions and restrictions to the City.
27. That there was no other public testimony submitted to the
City; however, this Applicant has submitted several Applications
for annexation, conditional uses, and plats, and all such
Applications, their record, each set of findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and the City's decision is incorporated herein
as if set forth in full, as they are instructional to the City
Council and provide additional relevant evidence relating to this
Application.
28. The proper notice has been given as required by law and
all procedures before the City Council and Planning and Zoning
Commission have been given.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 18
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant
conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to
11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian.
3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property
pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to i1-2-418 D of the
Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho.
4. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice
of its own ordinances, other governmental statues and ordinances,
and of actual conditions existing within the City and state.
5. That Section i1-2-409 A lists Planned Residential
Developments as a conditional use in the R-15 District and a
conditional use must be obtained by the Applicant for the City of
Meridian to allow this development.
6. That the Subdivision and Development Ordinance speaks to
planned unit developments in 11-9-607 and such has been
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
7. That Section 1i-9-607 E states that a. PD shall be allowed
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 19
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
•
only as a Conditional Use in each district, subject to the
standards and procedures set forth in section 11-9-607; that a PD
shall be governed by the regulations of the district or districts
in which said PD is located; the approval for a PD may provide for
such exceptions from the district regulations governing use,
density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other regulations as may
be desireable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD,
provided such exceptions are consistent with .the standards and
criteria contained in this section. It is therefore concluded that
this Application for a Planned Unit Development should be approved
under the conditions and requirements stated herein.
8. That Section 11-9-607 G. 8. provides that all Planned
Developments shall be subject to design review by the City staff
and Council; that it is concluded that the above section shall be
a requirement and Applicant is required to comply with it for each
of the structures, whether they be single homes, duplexes, tri-
plexes, or larger, to be constructed on the land, and design
review, or plan and construction over-view, shall be required for
the size of the pond, its elevations, height, depth, its use for
drainage and its use as a recreation and picnic area; that the
design review shall specifically include review of street and front
elevations, set-backs of garages and houses from the streets and
other structures, width of streets and roadways, size and length
of sidewalks and which side of the street the sidewalks are located
on to make sure that the placement of the sidewalks is compatible
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 20
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
•
with other sidewalks and good pedestrian traffic; the design review
shall be initially conducted by City Staff and they may approve the
design review, but if questions arise the City Staff may bring the
question or issue to the attention of the City Council, where it
shall be decided.
9. That it is concluded that the Applicant shall be required
to meet, and comply with, the requirements of Gary Smith, Meridian
City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to .the City Engineer,
Shari Stiles, City Planning and Zoning Administrator, the Meridian
Police and Fire Departments, The Central District Health
Department, and the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation Department.
10. That it is concluded the City reserves the right to place
appropriate conditions on the land contained in this application,
in accordance with Ordinance requirements, and the City has the
right and duty to place conditions when the application is for a
conditional use; it is further concluded that if Applicant obtains
approval from Shari Stiles, the Planning and Zoning Administrator,
and/or Gary Smith, the City Engineer, and/or from Bruce Freckleton,
Assistant to the City Engineer, it may receive the following
changes to the Ordinance requirements, and the procedure set forth
in paragraph EIGHT (8) of the CONCLUSIONS OF LAW shall control, to
wit.
1. That the streets may be private but shall be constructed
to meet ACRD construction standards and requirements; if
the streets are private they must be 42 feet back-to-back
and if they are public they must meet ACHD standards and
requirements; if the streets are. private that the
Applicant shall establish, in the Covenants, Conditions
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 21
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
•
and Restriction's (CC & R's), a means of collecting, each
year, a depreciation fund sufficient to build a fund to
maintain the streets at any, and all times, of the year
such maintenance is required and to totally reconstruct
them in twenty (20) years.
2. That 5 foot sidewalks must be constructed but only on one
side of the roadway, if the sidewalks are in fact
private, but if public they shall be constructed on both
sides of the road; Applicant shall place and construct
the internal pedestrian system represented; and the
Applicant shall establish, in the CC & R's, a means of
collecting, each year, a depreciation fund sufficient to
build a fund to maintain the sidewalks at any and all
times of the year such maintenance is required, and to
totally reconstruct them in thirty (20) years.
3. That street frontage as presented to the City of 66 feet
for two housing units shall be allowed, and each set of
two lots, having direct access to a street, must have
that amount of frontage.
4. Front setbacks of 18 feet may be allowed rather than 20
feet and must be met; and a 15 foot side yard setback
will also be allowed; that all homes shall have rear
yards of fifteen (15) feet; the minimum side yard set
back shall be five (5) feet per story, or minimum
building separation shall be ten feet for single level
homes adjacent to each other.
5. That the minimum lot size required shall not be less than
3,200 square feet which was represented as the minimum
size which exceeds the 2,400 square foot minimum for the
zone. The home sizes shall not be less than 1,160 square
feet.
6. That no more than 60 lots shall be allowed in the
development of the parcel and the density shall not be
more than 9.00 dwelling units per acre.
7. That there must be the parking as shown in the
Applicant's presentation to the City and there shall be
signs placed showing the allowed parking and a means of
enforcing that requirement in the CC & R's must be
established and adopted, particularly as they relate to
parking.
8. That the gazebo and the common/drainage lot as presented
and represented to be in the subdivision, must be
constructed and continuously maintained; that they must
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 22
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
•
be constructed on or before .the first house in the
subdivision if sold.
9. That the street entries .into the subdivision shall be
gated.
10. That the residents should be "seniors" as represented and
all laws, federal or state, pertaining to a senior
citizens residential area must be met.
il. That Applicant shall present CC & R's to the City showing
compliance with the terms of these Findings and
Conclusions including the parking restrictions, if any,
but the City of Meridian shall not enforce them but
compliance must be shown and the CC .& R's must contain
the necessary provisions stated herein for collection of
funds for the street and sidewalk maintenance.
12. Applicant must obtain design approval of the City Staff,
and/or if necessary, the City Council, for each structure
to constructed or placed on the property.
il. That the Applicant and its agents made representations
regarding the Application and the development of the property to
achieve approval of the Application, or ,parts thereof, many of
which are in these Findings and Conclusions, but all of which are
in the record and have been, or are hereby, incorporated herein;
that all representations made and the requirements of these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, shall be met; that if the
above are not met the approvals made shall be subject to withdrawal
and cancellation, and the property subject to de-annexation.
12. That all Ordinances of the City of Meridian shall be met,
including but not limited to, the Zoning Ordinance and the
Subdivision and Development Ordinance, both as modified by Section
i1-9-607 of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance, and the
Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 23
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
C~
•
Uniform Electrical Code, the Fire and Life Safety Code, and all
parking and landscaping requirements.
13. That 11-2-418 C of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances
of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the
City Council reviews applications for Conditional Use Permits; that
upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts
presented and the conditions of the area, the City Council
concludes as follows:
a. The Planned Development use, would in fact,
constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit
is required by ordinance.
b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance and
the Subdivision and Development Ordinance require a
conditional use permit to allow the use.
c. The Applicant did not specifically state that the
development would be designed and constructed to be
harmonious in appearance with the intended character of
the general vicinity, which has been previously stated
to be, the Cherry Lane Village Subdivision, The Lake at
Cherry Lane, and Golf View Estates; Applicant did,
however, represent that the character of the development
and the homes would comport to existing homes, with two-
car garages, gross density would be not more than 9.00
per acre, some 0-lot line development, roofs as shown in
the presentations and on the documents, and the square
footages as represented.
d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it
be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses.
e. The property has sewer and water service available
and, such, will have to be installed and connected by the
Applicant.
f. The use would not create excessive additional
requirements at public cost for public facilities and
services and the use would not be detrimental to the
economic welfare of the community.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 24
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
• •
g. The use would not involve a use., activity, process,
material, equipment or conditions of operation that would
be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare
by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise.
h. That sufficient parking for the property and the
proposed use is required.
i. The development and uses will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
14. That regarding the conditional use finding that must be
addressed pursuant to 1i-2-418 C 3. as to the harmony of the
project to the general vicinity, it is concluded that the harmony
must be with the general vicinity, which is the entire golf course
area, including Cherry Lane Subdivision, Golf View, The Lake at
Cherry Lane and Golf View Estates; that by making this proposed
subdivision for a senior citizen living complex does not remove the
conditional use requirement that the proposed use be harmonious
with the general vicinity.
15. That the representations made by Applicant, or its
agents, have been filed with the City or stated at the meetings and
public hearings, and such are incorporated herein as if set forth
in full; that if Applicant does not comply with those
representations the approvals given to the Applicant and the
property shall be subject to revocation and the property subject
to de-annexation.
16. That the representations made by Applicant, or its
agents, and the requirements of the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian shall be met and complied with
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 25
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
• i
17. That a warranty deed for the fire station was issued and
delivered to the City but the legal description was not valid at
the time of issuance of the .deed, and the Applicant must see that
a proper deed is delivered to the City of Meridian; that if such
deed is not delivered on or after the recording of the plat for
this development, procedures to revoke all approvals of development
on this property shall be instituted.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN B$N'I'LEY
COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
VOTED
VOTED
MAYOR CORRIL (TIE BREAKER) VOTED V
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 26
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
• •
DECISION
The Meridian City Council hereby approves and grants this
Conditional Use Application for a Planned Unit Development under
the conditions stated above in these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law; that this approval is subject to all City
Ordinances, except as allowed not to be met as.stated herein, but
specifically including design review and plat approval under the
procedures of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance.
MOTION:
APPRO DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 27
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
Meridian City Council
February 4, 1997
Page 10
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, it seems kind of obvious that the two engineers are not on the
same page on this. I would not be prepared to render a decision until they can get
together and maybe see if there is a problem 6~etween the preliminary drawing with the
38 lots and what is being talked about here.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, since this on the agenda as a discussion is seems to me that it be
appropriate that at this juncture, 1 am satisfied with the discussion, we have talked
about the concepts, we have talked about possible, solutions. I vw~uld like the
discussion to continue between the engineering staff, the developer and see where it
goes from there. 1 think the desire of the Council is pretty clear that they don't want to
be involved in a lift station if at all possible. Also that the City Engineer needs to be
giving some direction to Mr. Goldsmith and his engineers as to what is acceptable to
him. Whatever that proposal is it comes bads. before the City Council at that time.
Corrie: Do I hear any objections from the Council? Okay, that is it. Before I go to item
2, I want to welcome Scout Troop #81, forgive me for not recognizing you guys before I
started the meeting.
ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 7 BY STEiNER
DEVELOPMENT:
Corrie: Council you have the conditional use permit, I believe in front of you now.
Morrow. It would be nice Mr. Mayor if we could pause for a few minutes and preview
this.
Corrie: We will take a pause for just a moment here.
PAUSE IN MEETING
Corrie: Mr. Rountree?
Rountree: I have a question for staff Mr. Mayor an this, it would be for Shari. Are you up
to the assignment of design review for this proposal if we were to act favorably on the
conditional use permit, be honest?
Stiles: Well I guess are you ready too, it says City Staff and Council.
Rountree: You know my position.
Stites: I don't know if the applicant would accept it under those conditions.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 1997
Page 11
Rountree: Thank you that answers my question.
Corrie: Any further comment of Council, questions?
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I am still not satisfied with this common area being used as a water
basin and a drainage situation on it. I still don't feel that has been addressed
adequately for myself along with the design review. That is all I have.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, question for Mr. Bentley, what do you want to see more on the
basin issue, your thoughts there.
Bentley: My thoughts are like I stated before I am really concerned on how the elderly
are going to be able to use an open area, if it is floating in water. They speak of putting
a liner in and I just know how the water is going to get out of there. With the sloped
edge, even though they say they will put a ramp or something down in there I am just
really concerned on the elderly's ability to use this.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, question for Gary Smith, when we last met and discussed this there
was some study stuff being done with respect to the layout of this drainage
pond/common area. Have we seen anything come forward in terms of drawings or
specifics that address the question of the ramping in and out and those issues?
Smith: Mr. Councilman, 1 haven't seen anything personally, I don't know if it was
submitted to any of my staff or not, but I haven't seen it personally.
Morrow: I think the drainage issue that Councilman Bentley talks about is by virtue of
the over flow that flows into the drain fine and that type of thing is pretty well addressed
is it not from a technical stand point if I recall?
Smith: Could you say that again?
Morrow. On this retention pond the drainage issue for when the water comes in and
then it actively goes out in terms of piping into the drain ditch and is carried away. The
issue that. Mr. Bentley is talking about with respect to the liner, is to prevent the cross
drainages of the infiltration basin that is in the old ditch right of way as t recall, is that
correct? And this detention pond. The detention pond has a settlement provision by
virtue of the out flow device being higher than the bottom of the pond. Is that how that
works? And the liner is to prevent (inaudible} mingling.
Smith: There is, the pond design incorporated two different things. One was a liner, the
second was a subsurface perforated drainage system that would drain into an existing
drain perforated drain paralleling Ten Mile. There is a, I guess you can- call it a transfer
structure in the northeast corner of this pond that takes the storm water from the pond
and discharges it to Nine Mile Drain at a predetermined rate, at the pre-development
Meridian City Council
February 4, 1997
Page 12
rate. So if you had a design storm, I haven't chased through this calculation that made
but if you had a design storm the pond would fill up to a certain. level and then it would
drain through the transfer structure into Nine Mile Creek or Drain. The size of the
opening in the transfer structure determines how much water is draining into Nine Mile
Drain. After a period of time the pond would be empty. Did I answer your question on
that?
Morrow: Yes to that portion, now explain the significance of the liner, please, as it
relates to this drainage pond that is allowing settlement and then drainage into Nine
Mile Drain.
Smith: Typically in this area we don't have much storm water during the summer
months. But we do have a high ground water. So the comb~-ation of the bed liner or
the pond liner and the subsurface collection system, pipe collection system, would keep
the ground water out of the pond. Because the bottom of the pond is below the ground
water level. You would have some hydrostatic pressure against that pond liner that
would want to force that thing up if they had 6 inches of soil, 6 inches of, well 6 inches
of sand and 6 inches of sod you would call it, 12 inches above that bed liner to keep it
in place. Then the subsurface collection system, was installed to further ensure that the
hydrostatic pressure wasn't going to uproot that bed liner. So the combination of those
two units, 2 installations are meant to keep the ground water ~t of the pond, out of the
depressed area because the elevation of the grass and the Qond is below the historic
ground water level out there. If you didn't have that in place then you would have a
couple of feet of wa#er in the bottom of that pond throughout the summer months when
the ground water level is up. Does that answer your question sir'?
Morrow. Yes, that explains it the way I was after. I thought there may be some
confusion as to (End of Tape)
Corrie: Any further discussion from Council?
Tolsma: (Inaudible) the average passenger car (inaudible) o~rer 20 feet (inaudible) off
the sidewalk (inaudible) I walked (inaudible) Now if they orgy have one sidewalk on
one side of the street. that makes it twice as bad. I think Mr. Bradbury last time
mentioned something about seeking out a solution to that problem. The possibility if
you .could have the garages with the 24 foot setback or 20 foot setback (inaudible).
Would that be a solution?
Bradbury: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Tolsma, unfortunately I think perhaps maybe you
weren't .here at the last Council meeting when we raised this and what we had done is
prepared a drawing showing how if the roadway is centered and being constructed so
that it leaves, since the width of the actual improvements of the roadway are less than
the right of way width that if the roadway is centered properly there is actually going to
be additional space made available for the parking of cars in those front driveways, that
Meridian City Council
February 4, 1997
Page 13
is there is not going to be just only the 18 feet setback there is also going to be at least
an additional foot on each, between the lot line and the improvements to the roadway
making it a total of 19 feet theoretically from the nearest point in the structure to the
point where the sidewalk is. Although that doesn't entirely solve your concerns.
Tolsma: (Inaudible) with the five foot sidewalk that would be 25 feet from the house to
the edge of the street then?
Bradbury: Right, exactly, there is, because we have this extra space that is contained in
the right of way but is not actually improved with right of way then. it appeared to us and
according to the drawings that were submitted last time it appeared to us that there was
going to be enough room to park most cars. tf you are parking a suburban there you
are probably going to have some troubles. We thought that with that additional space it
would satisfy hopefully 90% of those concerns if not more of them. In addition so that
this doesn't get lost in the shuffle, each of these units is of course provided with a two
car garage. So, I am expecting that most of the time the vehicles are going to be
parked in the garage and there will only be on those occasions when there are guests
that are parking in the driveway and that certainly is going to happen from time to time
but I don't suspect that every driveway is going to be covered with cars every day. I
think that there is going to be enough space to resolve those concerns, we are certainly
willing to look at any other solutions that might help you.
Tolsma: The second problem (inaudible) no law enforcement inside the subdivision as
far as blocking the sidewalks or parking on the sidewalks. If the streets are public then
at least maybe they can go in there and enforce that (inaudible) two fold problem here
you are short a distance and you block the sidewalk, there is really no way to enforce it
if you are a private street.
Bradbury: I understand your concern with respect to that and we can sure include
provisions in the restrictive covenants which would prohibit people from parking on or
across the sidewalks just as the CC&R's will include provisions that prohibit people
from parking on the street or on one side of the street, I have only just been through
these findings just briefly, assuming that would be approved. Then we can certainly
include some enforcement mechanism through the homeowners association and that
may not be as good as getting a ticket. It at least provides you with hopefully some
comfort.
Tolsma: If the garage (inaudible) I notice a tot of garages on buildings now the garages
are set forward away from the front of the house. I have also seen several that the
garages are set back and the houses are set forward. That could be a plus situation
there if the garage was set 2 or 3 foot back further away from the driveway. I was
looking at it as 20 foot and most of the cars are 21 feet today, the average mid-size car,
unless they run them up against the garage door they are still going to be sitting on the
sidewalk. Most people walk back far enough so they can walk across the front of the
Meridian City Council
February 4, 1997
Page 14
car which is 2 or 3 feet back. So they are literally going to be blocking the sidewalk
anyway, with 20 feet.
Bradbury: I certainly understand your concern and I guess hopefully that with the
provisions that have been made for off street parking and with provisions that are made
for space to park in the garage I would hope that those kinds of conflicts would be
minimized. 1 am not going to try to pretend to fell you that you will never see it happen
because you wouldn't believe me if I tried to say that. I guess we can't solve every
problem, every potential ill I the world here ton~ht but what we can do is try to minimize
them and I think that the design that is proposed certainly intends to do that. Maybe we
can, maybe there is way to redesign these units or to take another look of a different
design that would push these garages back. !don't think that the developer is adverse
to the idea of at least looking at that possibility. I do know that he has already worked
on some alternate designs, elevations so that we can solve some of the concerns that
some of the council people had with respect to the fact that everything was going to
look the same. So that work is already undervray. There is perhaps the issue with the
location of the garages can also be taken a look at too.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I think that the answer to part of your issue there Ron is that in a
development like this that is a gated community and it is private streets clearly
historically the enforcement provision rides, that responsibility rides within the
subdivision itself and the association there. There is more than ample precedent for
those CC&R's to constructed so that it can reduce to a minimum that type of thing that
you are talking about. The other thing is that if we do adopt these findings of fact and
conclusions it clearly stipulates that there is design review to resolve the problem of the
front elevations and the things that were proposed to us before. Which would go a long
ways towards cleaning up some of those issues with respect to the garages and you
can you are absolutely right, you can off set the house 20 feet and set the unit, put the
garage back. You can also do things like side entry garages. I have worked in
subdivisions where the side entry garage system was used and it allowed a seven foot
setback from the back of sidewalk. Clearly the same type of proposal as this is. So
there is lots of flexibility there. I think very candidly I was one of those who strongly
objected and still strongly feels that it looks life an army base barracks system based
on the elevations that were presented to us and that is clearly unacceptable. I am a
strong proponent of the design review by staff and by Council so that we don't see that
in fact happen. Perhaps in that scenario there is some flexibility for those designs to
solve those parking issues. Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, as far as the language in .the findings of fact, I still have two
concerns. I think it needs to be more clear that the design review is in there as a
condition of providing an opportunity for the City to review a concept that presents
multiple different street elevations. I am also concerned about the open space required
Meridian City Council
February 4, 1997
Page 15
by the PUD even though in numbers they have 10%, that concept means to me that is
usable space to those residents for their enjoyment. When it is full of rain water 1 don't
think it is going to be too particularly enjoyable. So I think additional open space per
our ordinance would be required. I would like to see that specifically pointed out in the
findings of fact. If we can do that this evening I have no objections with the conclusions
reached. If not I would recommend that we take .another run at them and get that
included.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I have no problem with Councilman Rountree's suggestions from
my perspective I am in agreement with those. 1 guess the question would be rightfully
posed to the counselor, if we can get that handled tonight, then that would be fine. If he
feels more comfortable reworking it and bringing it back next meeting that is fine also.
Your opinion please?
Crookston: I would rather do it out of the meeting time and get it worked out as best
that I can and so that it is presentable to the Council would be my preference.
Morrow. That being the case Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the City Attorney
to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 7 by
Steiner Development for our review on the meeting of February 18"'
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to do new findings of fact
and conclusions of law to be prepared at the next council meeting, any further
discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Smith: Mr. Mayor, can staff have a clarification on design review? Qoes that involve
the structures that are to be built on the lots that have been proposed to be platted.
Does that have to do with the location of the streets? How extensive is the design
review. I don't think that is formally part of our ordinances.
Morrow: The design review is part of our subdivision and development ordinances
(inaudible)
Crookston: It is part of our- zoning ordinance, alf it says is that City Staff and City
Council have the right of design review. You are correct that we do not have any
ordinance that says specifically what is required to be done. That is correct Gary.
Smith: I guess I just need some as your staff, Shari and I need some clarification as to
what that involves.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 1997
Page 1 fi
Morrow. Well the design review from my perspective is the Council would be the frontal
elevations it would not be things such as colors and paints and location of landscaping
and those types of issues. I think that what I would like to see from staff and from the
Council standpoint is and it can be accomplished if there is going to be five different
plans for this subdivision then we design review the five elevations for those plans and
the placement on the plat of those plans. If it is something that each one is going to be
individually built and sold as a unit then, and each might be designed slightly different
we take a look at the front elevations, it meets the other conditions of the staff with
respect to setbacks and. all of those kinds of things then that is all there is to it in this
case. It is not a in my mind it is not an extensive design review that you can see done
sometimes this is an elevation design review and that is it.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I would add one other point in this particular instance it would
include the usability of space or amenities in the facility. The open space for the
enjoyment of the residents as well as how well the storm water detention pond
functions. I think those are critical portions of this particular development.
ITEM #3: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 7 BY
STEINER DEVELOPMENT; TABLED JANUARY 21, 1997:
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, point of order did we vote on the last motion?
Cowie: I think we did. Steve, would you like to say anything in reference to the
preliminary plat?
Bradbury: I don't have anything to add. I suspect that it might make sense to go ahead
and table the plat until you are happy with your findings on the conditional use because
obviously one follows from the other.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move we table the preliminary plat for the Lake at Cheny Lane
No. 7 until February 18t"
Rountree: Second
Cowie: Motion made and seconded that we table the preliminary plat until the February
18t" meeting, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: FINAL PLAT: WHITESTONE ESTATES SUBDIVISION NO. 2, 37 LOTS
NORTH OF WALTMAN, WEST OF CINDER ROAD BY WHITESTONE
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY:
Cowie: Is there a representative from Whitestone, are they here?
Meridian City Counc~ •
January 21, 1997
Page 33
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree that we adopt Ordinance
#751 with suspension of rules, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -1Fea~S~~
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #6: ORDINANCE #752 -EUGENE PETERS REZONE/C-C:
Corrie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING AND CHANGING
THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IW: THE CITY OF MERIDIAN WHICH
IS DESCRIBED AS THE BEGINNING OF THE POINT WHICH LIES AT THE
CENTERLINE OF MERIDIAN STREET 1135.8 FEET SOUTH OF THE NE CORNER
OF SECTION 12, T.3N. R.1 W, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. This is the rezone ordinance of Eugene
Peters, is there anyone from the audience that would like to have Ordinance #752 read
in its entirety? Hearing none I will entertain a motion on Ordinance #752.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor; I move we adopt Ordinance #752 with suspension of rules.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Ntr. Rountree to adopt Ordinance #752
with suspension of rules, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma - aFea ~}-6Se~t
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 7, 1997: REQUEST
FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE
SUBDIVISION NO. 7 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
Corrie: At this time I will ask the developer or his representative to come to the stand.
Steve Bradbury, 300 N. 6"' Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bradbury: Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, we had delivered to you
on Friday a package of materials which the Counal requested two weeks ago when this
matter was taken up. What you have and I assume that you all have something like
this, it starts out with something on my letterhead. What we have got and what we
submitted to you were the written comments, vwitten responses excuse me to staff
comments and that is the first document you have there. Then behind that are the
restrictive covenants or proposed restrictive covenants which would be applicable to
• •
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 34
the project. Then you have a map behind that showing the landscape buffered areas
around the exterior of the project. Then behind that you have got a letter and some
drainage facility design documents aril drawings whac s ava able to answer any
consulting engineer Keith Jacobs. He is thaere about that. Behind that you will have a
specific or particular questions you may
preliminary landscape plan that is intended to giveinall thedlast documentns a tYp cal
space is being made available in the prod. Then f y
street section plan which shows the location and distae1therf spdes' 09 the st e`e s.l That
made available for each of the various bu~ld~ng tots on
was something that Mr. Tolsma was concerned with annd concdem exp~essed'a couple
also, I guess you folks can see that, there was also co
of weeks ago about out it is that people might take aca san artistncreate areendering
set aside as a recreational area. So INlar. Campbell h
which would give you a conceptual idea of what it is th M~ a obs th s evlening he d d
a sidewalk in which (End of Tape) in speaking with
some rough calculations and concluded that there e ~ cnY ~att~~ derstand to
sidewalk along that slope and maintain a 12 to 1 slop
be the ADA requirements. Rather than going in a lot o ~ tdtletabit ate laalm think ng that
that you have in front of you and since the hour is a articular questions you
maybe the best thing to do is for me to simplyhere and I sten tto me talk about a bunch
may have. That way you don't have to sit. up
of things that maybe aren't of particular interest. As le { dhM~• he can certainly espond
have particular questions that you would like to pos
Thank you.
Morrow: Gary, have you reviewed the documents that are in our P stkmeet n was the
with respect to grades and slopes. I th~ d ase °een space as requ red f~ this use. The
accessibility, this portion is being cou gThere was also a question talking about
question is how functional is the green space. ear round water.
the possibility of the bottom of the pond or portions of it having y
There was also some on site work done in determining s ed n terms o~the green space
I discussed earlier this week. Can you bring us up to spe
usable issue, the water issue and then the site work that was done earlier within the
last week to ten days and its purposes and results please?
Smith: Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council, I have reviewed the correspondence
that Steve Bradbury submitted to you that you havnforrnation and I transm tteda my
January 17`h. I have made some comments on I have not seen the artist rendition of
comments by telephone today to Mr. Bradbury.
the common area that is being presented to you tonight until tonight. So I don't know
from an engineering dimensional standards how that actaVa~ll'y~ t scale Cloncem ngrt e
the artists rendition, but I haven t seen a sed to 'be used for common area. The
storm drain detention area that is pry de artment for removing
applicant's engineer Keith Jacobs has submitted a -plan to my p
•
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 35
•
ground water and presenting a dry condition common area. I in tum reviewed that
proposal and sent comments back to Mr. Jacobs via facsimile today with some requests
for some additional information on the sizing of the subsurface drain system that was
proposed. The applicant's contractor did expose a subsurface perforated drainage
pipe that was installed parallel to Ten Mile Creek or excuse me parallel to Ten Mile
Road extending south from Nine Mile Drain when the property was starting to be
developed. That drain pipe that perforated drain pipe is in place and we have
confirmed with the contractor that it was enclosed or encased in drain g/. inch chip rock
they call it which is used for bedding and pipe zone .back fill around sanitary sewers.
So that it has some water carrying capabilities from the ground to the perforated pipe.
My assistant engineer did confirm that the pipe is running water at this time into Nine
Mile Drain. The applicant's engineer is proposing that they tie the subsurface drain
system into this perforated pipe in order to evacuate the water from the detention pond
common area into Nine Mile Drain. Did I answer all of your question Mr. Morrow?
Morrow: Well yes, a couple points of clarification. This detention pond, retention pond
is designed to handle the drainage from all 40 acres is that correct?
Smith: Yes
Morrow. And so that could be a substantial flowing of water. The other point, this is a
point of interest on my part is that if this is tied into the subsurface drain how does the
filtration process take place for surface contaminants and those kinds of things oils and
that type, can you explain how that process works?
Smith: The subsurface drain on this pond is for relief of ground water, not of the surface
run off water. Surface run off water will come into this detenion area via stone drain
pipes from the street system. The storm drain pipes from the street system will
discharge into a sand and grease trap ahead of this detention pond slash common
area. The water then will spill along the length of this pond from west to east toward
Ten Mile Drain. At the northeast comer of this pond slash common area is a box,
concrete structure that has an outlet pipe from it into Nine Mile Drain. There is a
screened inlet structure that will allow the water to flow at opts-determined rate from
the detention pond slash common area into Nine Mile Drain. That, the flow rate has to
be equated to predevelopment discharge of storm water. So that the Nine Mile drain
does not receive more water in a development stage of this 40 acres than it received in
the pre-development of the farming stage of the 40 acres. The grass lining of the
detention pond will help filter out some of the contaminants of the storm water before it
enters Nine Mile Drain. That is a recommendation from Central District Health among
others. It is in some areas, I guess it is not actually, what they call a bioswale, but it
does have some of the characteristics of a bioswale.
• •
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 36
Morrow. Final point would be what is the likelihood then ~~sable and gdoesnnot retain
that the bottom of this retention common area is in #act .
water for great periods of time?
Smith: I think that, well, let me answer that two ways. m~~ tonths f thetundeadrain
going to be wet, that is our wet season. During the su
system is capable it will be dry. If the under drain systuS b the res detnts f they are so
that it needs to carry off the bottom would be dry for y water level in the pond
inclined. I believe that Keith Jacob ation~of somethi g~ik ~ 3 I believe and a pond
or in the detention area of an elev
bottom of 46.0. So you have roughly the capability! rt of those st etets'drainingo nto th s
a designed storm off the 40 acres of streets. A portio
detention pond are public which would be the numbertfidva~sbnto this detention pond.
and number 7 subdivision are private streets. AI of tha
I have notified the Highway District that they in th s;n a9~ that half of this daainage
heavy maintenance of this pond area that I was advi g
is from private streets that they have no ju~e n'writing thatVthey understand and
jurisdiction. I am requesting that they cor>frrm to
that they will maintain by heavy maintenance th ad that tmuch ewate~ in these Pond aaeea
If you had the design storm occur and you h
obviously it is not going to be usable. But theoreticallyne file Dra~n. oThamoftcoursetes
is going to dissipate through that exit structure into N
the total function of this retention pond. That is o astorm twaterf ar~head'of' Nine Mi e
purpose in my opinion. It is a detention facility
Drain. Its secondary use would be as a common area if you were so inclined.
Morrow. I am going to ask for an opinion now from you cow mi~m anwe a~ a talked
about from a practical standpoint. Will it serve as a fund 9
Smith: Well, I don't know, I guess my opinion is that it is difficult for me to express an
opinion to say yes. And only because when I go out there and look at it I don't see it as
the applicant has presented it tonight in the artist{h ~ ditianting of grassewith the
excavated hole m the dirt and those things change P
planting of trees,. with the construction of sidewalks. I e°n'to~are a 6 footer I'k myself
that it is five feet deep and if you are down m there unl y
maybe you are not looking ,out. If it is big enought and Yma be t~s notlctosed in. tlt s
picnic lunch maybe you don t need to be looking ou Y
a concept of the physical dimensions of the pond area, the length and width of it as
compared to the depth of it that have to be taken into accod section °bdon'tl recalglethe
the east west direction than it is in the north sout o inion ri ht at this moment
dimensions, the exact dimensions of it. So I guess my p 9
Councilman is I am not really sure.
•
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 37
Morrow. Final question, how many others of that concept has the City of Meridian
approved? How many others of this kind of des gns where it is a common area slash
detention pond as the City of Meridian approved .
Smith: Sportsman Point Subdivision is one that leaps to my mind. It is a larger area
than what this subdivision is proposing. It has a basketball court in the bottom of it, it
has a volley ball court in the bottom of it and it is not as deep as I recall. Sunnybrook
Subdivision years ago-built a small private park on its north end, you may recall when
the property to the west of it was before you for approval as a preliminary there was a
lot consternation over that private park. That park area is actually a detention basin,
you really wouldn't know it by looking at it because of its size. By the time you get to
the north end of it there is a small outlet structure down there for storm drainage water.
I think the ponds, the detention areas that we have the most problem with are those
that are not designated as usable common area~s.t~ evel.~ Thatswatereevel seems to
ponds and they were landscaped down to the
always be there. You have one on the north end of .the Meridian Ford complex and I
think when you access I-84 on the on ramp off of Highway 69 you will always notice
water in that pond. It does not drain away. That is not, 1 guess it is not a particular
problem for that site because there aren't any homes around it. Although if that water is
still there this summer I would expect that it could be breeding some mosquitoes and
may cause some problems with people looking at new vehicles. The detention pond at
Los Alamitos has been a continuing sore spot. The detention.pond at Chamberlain
Estates you recall of the foray that went on with that one. That one was, I don't know
that it was so much ground water problem but there was an inflow for adjacent irrigation
ditches that caused a great deal of problems with that one. I can't think of any other
installations off hand Councilman that I can refer you to.
Morrow. Thank you
Rountree: I have the same q hestions far Shari, have your concerns and issues been
addressed by the January 17 letter and I have another question relative to common
areas and PUD type activities.
Stiles: Councilman Rountree, Mayor and Council, 1 believe they have addressed all of
the items expressed in our comments. A lot of comments were observations of the
initial concept. 1 am concerned about the use of the drainage pond as a common area
even though we met with Ada County Highway District and they indicated they had
approved several of these that worked as a park area, however we have not seen any
of them in Meridian. I don't know if that is because of the soil conditions or the ground
water. But we have yet to see one function as it was proposed to function.
Rountree: Have you a number that would tell us what percent would be in common area
with this development that would exclude that portion that is being utilized solely for
the design storm event?
• •
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 38
Stiles: I don't have those figures but I would think that the applicant's engineer could
provide us with those figures.
Corrie: Do you happen to have that Steve?
Bradbury: I can tell you the approximate square footage of, actually I think it is in this
letter. The approximate square footage of that lot, is that the question you are asking?
Rountree: No, the question is taking out that portion that is required to meet the design
storm event what is the percent of that remainder of open space?
Bradbury: I don't know that answer I am lookikg ~ the engineer to see if he gives me
any kind of an indication of whether he migh
Rountree: He won't know. How about a percentage of that lot size that is dedicated for
(inaudible).
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Rountree, I think that pond area is about 18,000 square
feet. It is 203 foot east west and it has an irregular shape north south but I would guess
it is somewhere around 90 feet, maybe on the average north and south. So you are
about 18,000 square feet for that whole lot wh ~ common of yalh the~way around n its my
pond is very close to the boundary lines of tha
understanding and Shari can correct me, that there is 10°~ required of common area for
a PUD. If this is 7.5 acres that would be .75 acres required of common area, which is
32,670 square feet. Mr. Bradbury responded in his comma atg a s i~ easement along
that there is 9500 square feet of land dedicated to the City
the north boundary. I don't know if that is accessible as common area or not but there
is also, he said there is also 12,500 square feet of landscape buffer between Ten Mite
Road and we haven't calculated that either. But the combination of those two plus the
detention pond area exceeds the 10% requirement if there are 7.5 acres in this project.
Rountree: Do we have a definition of common area and does that include properties
that would be established for sewer easements or drainage facilities. Or is the sense
that the common areas are to be utilized by the community for more recreation and
open space experience?
Stites: Councilman Rountree, Mayor and Council, I don't remember exactly what the
common area description is, but it is to be determined suitable for use by the Planning
and Zoning Commission and the Council.
Rountree: I would ask you the same question that Walt asked Gary, in your opinion is
the space that is being provided by this development suitable and usable?
• •
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 39
Stiles: If the representations made as to how they plan to landscape it and how the
drainage facility will function are correct then I would say it is usable.. I also may have
made, I don't know if it was an error, but I believe I have made the statement to the
applicant that we would consider the fire station dedication as part of their 10%.
Rountree: Thank you.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I have a follow up question for Mr. Smith, in my notes it said one of
the conditions we were short on this must have pressurized irrigation by 1997. Was
there guarantee anywhere in these documents that pressurized irrig~on system would
be operational by the start of the 1997 irrigation season?
Smith: Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council, yes, let me find that, just a moment
please. The number 3 subdivision which has all of the off site improvements completed
is serviceable by this pump station along with the number 4, the nurr~er 5, the number
6 and the number 7, Englewood Creek Subdivision and Fire Light Estates Subdivision.
As I mentioned number 3 has been completed and the irrigatia~n pipe has been
installed. The pump station according to the developer has been completed and is
ready to be tested. I asked Mr. Bradbury about the status of the pressurized irrigation
system that has been installed and the pump station with Nampa Meridian and their
acceptance of the system. He tells me that has been done. The application for the
number. five subdivision is being process now by Nampa Meridian fio add that to their
existing agreement to accept and maintain the system. So apparently the pipes are in
the ground, they have been pressure tested I believe, the pump s~tion is complete,
and I don't believe it has been tested yet, but it needs to be. I think before any building
permits, I think that we had a deal worked out with the developer that before any
building permits were issued that the pressurized irrigation system would be
functioning. That agreement was amended slightly for the number three subdivision in
that he had some homes that needed an irrigation system. I allowed them to connect to
the City system so that they could put their sod in and maintain they landscaping with
the provision that once this pressurized system was activated they would disconnect
from the City system and the developer agreed to that condition.
Morrow. So then you feel that the necessary safe guards are in place for that system to
be activated Aprit 15th, 1997?
Smith: Yes, if it is not Councilman there won't be any building permits in the number 5
and I think Mr. Campbell understands that.
Morrow. I have a follow up question for Shari, you indicated that part of the common
area ground was to be the fire station site, is that correct?
Stiles: Yes I did
•
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 40
Morrow. We have the deed to that fire station site?
Stiles: We have it, it hasn't been executed yet, it will be upon the recording of number
5.
Morrow. So as it stands right now we couldn't build on that particular site with that
particular deed because it is not an executed deed is that correct?
Stiles: That is correct.
Morrow. Counselor, could you. explain to us the process by v~hich that deed would have
to be executed?
Crookston: The deed itself is executed, the problem with the deed is it describes a lot
and block. At this juncture there is no lot and block because the plat has not been
recorded. When the plat is recorded that legal description becomes valid and the deed
becomes valid to the City as an after acquired title. Right now we don't have anything,
when the plat is recorded we do.
Morrow: Thank you
Smith: Mr. Mayor; just a note of clarification the plat as it has been presented to you is
for the 40 acres. It includes subdivision no. 5, subdivision no. 6 and subdivision no. 7
except number 6 and number 7 are delineated on the plat as a large lot. The plats that
are coming in for 6 and 7 are resubdivisions of those two large lots. The fire station site
is designated as a lot on that plat. So when that plat is recorded it is a recordation of 40
acres not just the number 5, not just the residential section. The whole 40 acres is
called number 5 subdivision. Did, t guess maybe you already understood that but I just
wanted to clarify and make sure. One other item that I had and I talked to Mr. Bradbury
today. On this number 7 subdivision, at the last public hearing we talked pretty
specifically about 40 foot right of ways and in the same breath I think we talked about
the roadway being similar the same as the number 6 subdivision. When I was
researching the file after I received Mr. Bradbury's correspondence 1 found that the
right of ,ways in number 6 are 42 feet in width. So I think chat needs to be clarified, it
may present a bit of a problem because of the setback variances that they have
requested with the additional two foot. If that is your desire it shortens up those
setbacks from 18 foot as requested to 17 feet.
Morrow: If memory serves me did not Councilman Tolsma ask the question concerning
car overhang already at the 18 foot?
Smith: Yes
Corrie: Any other questions from Council?
Meridian City Council • •
January 21, 1997
Page 41
Bradbury: Mr. Mayor, just a couple of brief responses. To answer Councilman
Rountree's question, the total square footage of the lot which encompasses this
drainage pond common area is about 18;500 square feet, Keith Jacobs just did a quick
calculation and determined that the. pond itself consur~tes about 48% of that lot. So you
just call it roughly half about 9,000 of the 18,000 square feet is the pond itself. The
other question that Councilman Rountree asked was whether or not there was a
definition of common area of open space that you should be relying on and in fact there
is. In your ordinance at section, I don't have a number here, in the definition section
whatever that number is, it reads this. Open space, common, any private open space
intended for use by occupants, by use of a developrr~ent. The space may include but is
not limited to recreation areas, landscape plazas, fountains, sitting areas, natural
areas, and it meant to provide an open atmosphere. Common private open space does
not include parking areas, vacant or undeveloped lasts, or any other space which does
not contribute to the aesthetic quality of the development. Certainly we would contend
that is what we are attempting, that is what the applicant is attempting to accomplish
here. With respect to the fire station site, in any of the materials that I have submitted
to you with respect to the calculations of open space for number 7, we did not include
the fire station site, it is not in any of those calculations. So I think the numbers that we
have given you we are just talking about the space that is right there that acts and
functions as intended open space for the occupar~ of number 7. The right of way
widths that Mr. Smith has pointed out, he is correct, the number six subdivision did in
fact have 42 foot right of way widths, that was something that I think changed during
the process. This one is designed for 40 foot right of way widths. One of the things that
I guess we need to ask is that two feet important enough to require that either the
project be redesigned in order to pick up those two feet or that an additional setback,
additional relief be given to setbacks whether it be in the front yards or the back yards
where you pick up those extra two feet. Given the fact that it is a private street number
one, it is going to enclosed behind a private security gate, number two and is going to
be the project intends to provide housing for older persons on the Fair Housing Act so
we are not expecting to see a great deal of traffic in and out, not a lot of young people
driving cars in and out. And in fact as I recall you haue in your packages a review from
the Fire Chief who has indicated that he is satisfied with the roadways as proposed for
a life safety standpoint. If in fact you are more comfortable with 42 foot of right of way, it
can be accomplished. But it is going to require sane revisions to the plat and some
other work to be done. If that is something that is important to you by all means please
say so and we will work with it. Were there other questions that somebody had that
didn't get answered? I think that is all the notes that I had on those issues. Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would I'rke to enter testimony on this
conditional use permit? Council, comments that you would like to make before I close
the public hearing? Hearing none I will close the public hearing.
• •
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 42
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, for the record I want to make a couple of comments in terms of
observation. I have some reservations about the project from the standpoint of the
proposed layout. We briefly discussed last time that we were here concept similar to
this that haven't worked for lack of market appeal. !guess that it seems to me that and
again that is a private sector thing it may or may not work depending on what the
marketing is. I am a little concerned about the repetitiveness of the elevations as they
were presented in the drawing to us last week. !think that for most of us you can go to
Five Mile between Franklin and Ustick and there are three or four streets in there
maybe that are 1000 foot long with culdesacs that have~the basic same concept except
in a duplex format. They were built some ten or fifteen years erso a tv a itVis ayword of
bad, I mean really bad. So, it seems to me that from my p p
caution to the developer that this may or may not work very well and that there ought to
be an alternate plan for the utilization such as we have just done in terms of helping out
the people at La Playa who tried the same concept and had it fail miserably to some
degree. So, I for one have reservations about the concept, I would be a great fan and a
great supporter of it, hoping that it worked. I would like to see different elevations to
break up the sameness of it. It begins to sane extent to look like a development of
duplexes or a development of military housing. I think that is a fair criticism from my
standpoint and that would conclude my comments. Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Rountree: I have the same reservations tonight as I had the last time we saw this. I
guess, specifically and Walt said it better than !that it is the ticky tacky cookie cutter
house same house, same elevation 60 some times. I think the concept is good, I think
the, my preference would be to see a little more open space. We have concessions on
sidewalks, we have concessions on setbadc,.we have concessions on side yards being
requested with this proposal. And to a degree I think we have a concession a little bit
on open space. All that aside 1 think a lot of that can be taken care of or caald be taken
care of by looking at a concept that was not repetitive in nature. Break up some of
those street fronts and elevations. I support this high density kind of living, t think it is a
good thing but I am not sure that this is in my opinion a concept I want to see in this
neighborhood or in Meridian in general as far as architecture. Being as vue have no
design review at this time we have to deal with those kinds of things.
Bentley: I have the same concerns, the, repetitiveness of it. It sort of reminds me of
Sergeant City. I think that we can charge the perspective of the buildings, the
elevations as stated and I still have a real concem over this pond situation. This is a
development for the elderly and I have some questions on the safety aspects of it. That
is all.
Corrie: Okay, has the Council decided what they are going to do, I think you have a
pretty good idea where the Council is coming from at this point.
Meridian City Council ~ •
January 21, 1997
Page 43
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings
of fact and conclusions for the request for a conditional use permit for the Lake at
Cherry Lane Subdivision No. 7 by Steiner Development.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to instruct the City Attorney
to draw up the findings of fact and conclusions of law for conditional use permit for the
Lake at Cherry Lane No. 7 by Steiner Development, any further discussion? Hearing
none, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 7, 1997: REQUEST
FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 7 BY STEINER
DEVELOPMENT:
Corrie: I will open the public hearing, Steve?
Steve Bradbury, 300 N. 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bradbury: I don't have anything Mr. Mayor, members. of the Council, I would simply ask
that the comments from the previous public hearing be incorporated Ito the record for
this one and I would of course respond to any questions you may have that are
particular to the plat.
Corrie: Council, any particular questions? Anyone else from the public that would like
to enter testimony with reference to the preliminary plat? Hearing none I will close the
public hearing, Council, pleasure?
Crookston: There are no findings on this but we generally hold off making. a decision.
Rountree: I would move Mr. Mayor that we table item 8, the request for preliminary plat
for Cherry Lane No. 7 until our next regularly scheduled meeting which is February 4.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Bentley to table the preliminary plat
until February 4, 1997, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: MARTY GOLDSMITH: DISCUSSION OF SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3:
. ~ ~~
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 43
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings
of fact and conclusions for the request for a conditional use permit for the Lake at
Cherry Lane Subdivision No. 7 by Steiner Development.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to instruct the City Attorney
to draw up the findings of fact and conclusions of law for conditional use permit for the
Lake at Cherry Lane No. 7 by Steiner Development, any further discussion? Hearing
none, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
#~: pU~3E.1C f~EAtt~ Ct7~N~hiUED Ft~ 1t1~ ~, 19~~: RG+4~*
BUR A PRE~thil'~At~'PLAT fQR L,A~CE AT CHF~tRY CA~:E~1~Q. 7 BY1'
.P'Id~'~': .
Corrie: I will open the public hearing, Steve?
Steve Bradbury, 300 N. 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bradbury: I don't have anything Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I would simply ask
that the comments from the previous public hearing be incorporated into the record for
this one and I would of course respond to any questions you may have that are
particular to the plat.
Corrie: Council, any particular questions? Anyone else from the public that would like
to enter testimony with reference to the preliminary plat? Hearing none I will close the
public hearing, Council, pleasure?
Crookston: There are no findings on this but we generally hold off making a decision.
Rountree; I would move Mr. Mayor that we table item 8, the request for preliminary plat
for Cherry Lane No. 7 until our next regularly scheduled meeting which is February 4.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Bentley to table the preliminary plat
until February 4, 1997, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: MARTY GOLDSMITH: DISCUSSION OF SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3:
Meridian City Council •
January 7, 1997
Page 26
Morrow: Mr. Mayor (inaudible) instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for
the zone change from R-4 to C-C for an antique, craft and collectible shop by Eugene
Peters.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow second by Mr. Rountree to have the City Attomey
prepare an ordinance for the zone change, any further discussion? All those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
FIVE MINUTE RECESS
ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE SUBDIVISION NO.7 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and ask if a representative from
Steiner Development would like to speak first.
Steve Bradbury, 300 N. 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Bradbury: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council my name is Steve Bradbury, I have
been asked to represent Steiner Development tonight. What you have before you I
guess technically on the agenda is an application for a conditional use permit for a
planned development fora 60 unit senior living development. You also ,have a
preliminary plat which is the next item on the agenda. In order to save time I am going
to try to go through everything at one time and just incorporate my comments into the
record for the second one. This is the last of a multi-part development project on what
was Mr. & Mrs. Teters 40 acre parcel over on Ten Mile Road. In order to orient you,
you might get behind tab 1 in the booklet that we passed out and pull out this color
coded map so we can give you an idea of where we are. The colored portion of that
map is the entire 40 acres and what you will recall you have approved in the past is the,
in the westerly well a little over half of the property is a single family detached
residential subdivision which is partly an R-4 zone which is in pink and partly an R-8
zone which is in blue. You have also previously passed upon and approved a single
family detached single living subdivision or area of the subdivision which is shown in
yellow. That is in the southeast quadrant. The parcel that we are talking about here
tonight is the northeast quadrant of the 40 acres and is shown in orange on this map
and the rest of the Lake at Cherry Lane Subdivision is of course also shown on the
map. Hopefully that gives you an idea of just where we are. Now you will probably
also recall that the concept for this project the entire project was to provide a variety of
housing choices in a single planned area. What we have is we have traditional single
family detached dwellings on 8,000 square foot lots, that is in the R-4 zones. Some
Meridian City Council
January 7, 1997
Page 27
similar sized homes and in slightly smaller Pots those. are 6,000 square foot lots in the
R-8 portion of the property that is the blue that l showed you on the map then we have
the senior single family detached senior area which includes the club house which is in
the yellow portion on the map. Now what Steiner Development is proposing is a more
moderately priced senior area which consist of mostly two unit, zero lot line buildings
and you can see a drawing of the proposed lay out (inaudible) there on the board in
front of you. Most of them I said are two unit zero lot line buildings, there are also two
three unit buildings and three four unit buildings. (Inaudible) most of them are two
units. There is a total of 60 units on 60 separate building lots most of them being zero
lot lines. Behind tab 1, but in front of the map, you will see a list of the kind of project
features, it is the second page in behind tab one I believe. The size of the parcel is
about 62/3 acre. You might recall and the staff pointed out in their report that this
parcel was once shown as 7 '/ acres. What we think has happened to those other, that
over half plus that 2/3 acre or whatever it is, is that some of that ground got platted into
the number 5 subdivision for the 20 foot landscape buffer out on Ten Mile Road. This
ground hasn't diminished it is just that the area got calculated into a different phase of
the project. The density of the project as you can see would be about 9 units per acre
which of course is substantially less than the 15 units per acre maximum under the
zone. The lot sizes range from 3200 square feet to about 4800 square feet and of
course that exceeds the 2400 square foot minimum for the zone. The home sizes were
proposed by Steiner Development to be 1160 square feet, the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval of this project with a requirement that the homes
be a minimum of 1100 square feet. So the proposal exceeds the minimum by 60 square
feet for each unit. We are asking for some relief from the set backs pursuant to the
Planned Unit Development provisions of the City's code. Which in case you are
interested is 9-607 E. What we are asking for is relief from the standard 20 foot front
setback and the 20 foot street side set back so that the front set backs would be 18 feet
and the street side yard setbacks would be 15 feet. The rear set backs are 15 and that
is standard in the zone. The internal side yard setbacks are 5 feet which is a standard
in the zone. This request is consistent with what the City approved in senior
development on the other side of the street with the one that was previous approved.
The Planning and Zoning Commission by the way recommended approval of that relief.
The structures are proposed to be single story, originally when this plan was first
brought to you or shown to you some couple of years ago they were talking about 2
story town house development. Steiner development is committed to constructing a
senior citizens project so the idea of two story structures didn't really make much sense
and we figured that seniors are not likely to want to be going up and down stairs. That
is one reason, the second reason is that we would they would like to keep the buildings
with a little bit lower profile at the entry to the subdivision. As you recall this will be
immediately adjacent to the very to the entry off of Ten Mile. We are trying to keep the
buildings low in that location. In any event, what is being proposed is 60 units that
previously we were showing 58 units in this area. So that doesn't change the number of
units dramatically. The street frontages, required street frontages on each lot under the
zone is 50 feet. The lots that are proposed for this project are 33 feet each except on
Meridian City Council
January 7, 1997
Page 28
the corners and they are something a little bit less. What we, I guess what we need to
do is ask for relief from the standard 50 foot street frontage requirement. What I would
like to suggest that you do and I think what. the Planning and Zoning Commission
recognized is that since we are talking about zero lot line units that is each building will
consist of two units on two lots: So we will have a total of 66 feet of frontage for each
building minimum 66 feet of frontage for each building. With the 4 unit buildings it will
be even more than that. What you get is you get essentially the same amount of
frontage for each building, you just don't have exactly that 50 foot frontage for each lot.
I think what you end up with is as you can see is you end up with something that has
essentially the appearance of single family dwelling or nearly to a single family
dwelling on reasonably sized lots. So, what we are asking for is relief from the 50 foot
street frontage requirement in order to comply with what is shown on the preliminary
plat. Parking facilities, each unit will have at least a two car garage and there will be a
drive way for each unit that will hold at least two cars. There is some off street parking
that is shown on the plat (inaudible)that is a total of 12 spaces I believe. Consistent
with what was approved for the senior project on the other side of the street we are
asking for relief from the four foot set back requirement from the right of way. Typically
of street parking needs to be four feet back from the street right of way. Since these are
private streets and consistent with what was approved before we would like to be able
to take access directly onto the street for these parking spaces. Essentially what we are
talking about is these are used for guests. The streets will be proposed to be private
streets on 40 feet of right of way, 28 feet of pavement, 2 feet of curb and gutter on each
side. Steiner Development originally proposed a 4 foot sidewalk on one side the
Planning and Zoning Commission preferred a five foot wide sidewalk on one side and
that is what they recommended approval of and that is acceptable, we will go along
with that. The streets would be constructed to the Ada County Highway .District
construction standards and all of that is also consistent with what was approved for the
senior project across the street. On the next page of your booklet there you will find a
list of amenities and I won't go through them all. One of them is the gated security
entrance we would like to provide some, a little more security for the residents of the
subdivision similar to the one across the street. There will be the privacy wall that
surrounds the project and that too is consistent what is approved for the project across
the street. The 20 foot landscape buffer along Ten Mile Road. There is also a common
area, the drawing that you see here shows the entrance to that common area betvNeen
two lots here (inaudible). The common area consists of approximately'/ acre. Now it is
a dual purpose common area and it is going to sound a little bit funny to you but the
engineers tell us it really works. What we have in mind here is that this area would be
used as a drainage retention facility during the wet tune of the year. It would drain out
except when there are storms obviously, like last week there would be water in it and
theoretically this week there wouldn't. Dry most of the year. The typical storm the
engineers tell us would bring two feet of water into this area and it would take 48 hours
to drain. In 100 year storm this area would have 4 '~ feet of water in it and then it
would take a little bit longer to drain that out. The idea is to make use of these
drainage areas rather than to have them simply be ponds when it is wet and weeds
Meridian City Council • .
January 7, 1997
Page 29
when it is dry. So this area would be improved with sod, let me back up a little bit. This
area first of course there would be a pond developed into it and it would have sloping
sides and then there would be a drainage facility constructed in the bottom of it
according to engineering plans. Then it would 6e improved with sod on the sides and
the bottom and it would be landscaped with trees and shrubs around the edges and
there would be picnic tables and benches put in strategic locations and you can see
that there is a proposed kind of gathering area gazebo area that would be built to the
front. Obviously when it is wet and stormy that area would not be very usable. But of
course when it is wet and stormy we are not expecting there will be too many people
out wandering around wanting to use that area. On the other hand when in the spring
and the summer and fall months when it is dryer that area will be usable rather than
being a weed patch which I know the City is concerned with in some of the other
subdivisions. So the idea is to make this a nice area that would be usable by the
homeowners, it would be owned and maintained by the homeowners through the
homeowners association. What else can I tell you, behind tab 2 in the book are the
application materials, I don't know that we need to go through those unless you have
any questions about any of them. Behind tab 3 in the booklet is a drawing of the
preliminary plat, there are actually 2 versions one just shows the lot lines and the
second shows the footprints of the buildings for those buildings on those lots. Behind
tab 4 you will find a typical floor plan for a two unit building and a typical elevation for a
two unit building. These are two bedroom, tvw bath, two car garage. Behind tab 5 you
will find proposed construction materials for the units. I guess we are talking about
stucco aid siding colors and the type of brick accents and roofing materials and what
not and we can talk about those if you are particularly interested in any of them. Of
course we received the staff report for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
and went through that in some little detail that night. We can go through it again a little
bit more. For the most part the staff report is acceptable. Under general comments the
number 8, the only concern that we have there is the requirement that the off street
parking areas are not to be closer than 4 feet to any street right of way. Of course we
are asking for relief from that particular requirement. Under the site specific comments
and requirements, number one pressurized imgation, yes pressurized irrigation wilt be
provided through the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. It will be the same system that
provides pressurized irrigation for the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 3 and 4 and 5 as they
come on line. Street lights, yes, the developer would like to probably put in some more
decorative street lighting rather than the standard stuff and we will work with staff to
make sure that the staff is satisfied with the street lighting issues. The parking along
number three, parking along the private roads, .the proposal would be to treat these
roads consistent with those across the street that is parking be permitted on one side of
the street only. That would be a provision contained within the restrictive covenants to
deal with that and the homeowners association would then be charged with the
responsibility of enforcing it. Signs could be installed, whatever it is that the Fire Chief
would like to have done is certainly satisfactory. Number 4, the developer understands
that approval is subject to capacity in the waste water treatment plant. Number 5, we
were talking about the size of the acreage and density, I already talked about that one.
Meridian City Council
January 7, 1997
Page 30
Number 6, the common areas as indicated with the common area that is shown with the
recreation area along with the landscaping treatment that comes along down through
here along the boundary and into entry, our engineers calculate that meets the required
10% under the code, actually it exceeds it. Number 7, sidewalk, yes, we are proposing
rather than a four foot we are talking about a five foot sidewalk one side as P & Z
suggested be approved. Number 8, Fair Housing Act, we intend to comply with all of
the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. As a matter of fact just this past month I took
another run at trying to understand the Fair Housing Act and discovered that last
December the statute was amended significantly and new regulations are proposed
and not yet final. But when they are made final of course we will do everything that is
required in order to meet the requirements of that act and the regulations. Number 9, I
think staff is expressing a little bit of frustration about the difficulty we have had in
keeping all of the various phases of this project straight and consistent and moving
along. I can give you a little bit of an update. Number 3 is built and lots are being sold.
Number 4 has been approved for final plat approval, it has not yet been constructed
because of the difficulty in obtaining required sewer easements. Las# month anon-
development agreement was submitted to the City Council which I understand the City
Council passed upon with some changes and the City Attorney and I are trying to get
our heads together to figure out exactly what it is we need to fix up on that. Number 5
has got -final plat approval and is under construction. Number 6 has preliminary plat
approval and final plat has been submitted and scheduled for consideration by the
Council next month. That brings us to number 7 which is the one that we have here. So
I think there has been fairly reasonable progress, progress is being made in the order
of the development applications. What we would like to ask the Council not to do is to
put the developer into a position where he is in a lock step where one project has to be
completed before the next project can be started. That will simply make, it will not be
very efficient and it will simply slow things down before, it has been slow enough
without having that happen to us I think is what I am trying to say. Number 10, yes we
will prepare restrictive covenants, I have a draft of the restrictive covenants that I have
prepared for the project across the street and I expect these will be very similar to it.
We can provide that to the City whenever they would like to see it. Number 11, staff is
suggesting that we perhaps should have 1300 square feet homes in this phase of the
subdivision. Planning & Zoning recommended approval for 1100 which is consistent
with what is proposed and we would ask the Council to do the same. Number 12, all
ordinances of the City of Meridian shall be met, we understand that, subject of course
to the various requests for relief that are embodied in this application. Finally number
13, the development agreement is required, we understand that, we will provide the
City with a development agreement at just any stage of the proceedings that you might
like. If you want to see a development agreement at final plat, if you vwuld like to see it
before final plat that is fine. You tell us when you want it and we will have it for you.
With that I will answer any questions.
Corrie: Council, questions?
Meridian City Council
January 7, 1997
Page 31
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I haven't seen, I am just going to ask, have you submitted a
written response to the City StaFPs letter of November 8th to the staff?
Bradbury: Have not, would be pleased to do that if you would like.
Rountree: It is part of their comments.
Corrie: Steve, the common area is it also irrigated with sprinkler system, so when there
isn't any water it will be green?
Bradbury: Yes, the whole idea it to make it into something that would be usable.
Bentley: On that common where you are going to have your drainage pond how much
of that area is going to be actually usable to these seniors?
Bradbury: Well theoretically the vast majority of it v~rould be, as I recall, let me pull it out
so I don't guess. 1 have these engineered drawings here. It is a little iffy to have a
lawyer try to interpret engineering drawings but I am going to do my best because it
looked to me like I looked at this distance before. The slopes, the area of slope in that
area are. going to be 15 feet wide, there will be a slope, I guess a 3 to 1 slope, so those
sloped areas themselves the 15 feet that constitutes the slope probably won't be
particularly usable for seniors. The rest of the area though would all be usable. So what
we have is the, 1 am going to estimate the pond area is going to be in an area about
like this. So you have the outside edges on the top and then you have all of the inside
area in there that would all be usable. Of course the gazebo is not going to be in the
water it will be above water. Then you can see that there are other areas there.
(Inaudible)
Bradbury: Except for the actual sloped portion of the pond itself, the theory is that the
entire site, the entire lot would be usable space.
Bentley: Next, are all of these units, I haven't dug through the book, but are all of these
going to be identical?
Bradbury: The proposal is to create them to all be of the same floor plan and basic
elevation. But cosmetically they can be different, they might have different treatments
on the exterior treatments, slightly different brick treatments. Then there are going to be
some color choices. Structurally and floor plan they are all the same.
Morrow: Steve a question, I want to revisit this slope issue on the retention pond, you
indicate that it is a 3 to 1 and the wall is 15 feet. That means from the, if I am
understanding this correctly from the level at where the gazebo is the bottom of the
retention pond is five feet belowground level?
Meridian City Council
January 7, 1997
Page 32
Bradbury: You can probably do the math better than [ can, I had the idea we were
about 4 feet, maybe 4'/z (inaudible). Three to one you are right it would be five feet.
Morrow. My follow up question here is how do you expect senior citizens to traverse
that 3 to 1 slope to have access to the bottom so that it qualifies as green space.
Bradbury: That is a good question and I didn't fully explain it. The front portion of that
the entry way portion here will be a 4 to 1 so it won't be ~as steep. The idea is to put in
some also to provide ramps and steps so that people can get down into it and in and.
out of that area.
Morrow. I guess my concern here is that a senior citizens housing project if you are
going to use that as green space to qualify for the 10% requirement and it is going to
be usable a good percentage of these folks may have canes, they may have walkers
and so on and so forth. I think what you will find very candidly is that 3 to 1 and 4 to 1
slopes are just not acceptable for those folks.
Bradbury: 1 have no doubt that you are right, certainly about the 3 to 1 and you could
very well be right about the 4 to 1. If the City would like to see an alternate
arrangement for access into the area I am sure we will do it. We certainly don't want,
one of the things you have to understand this is conceptual. That is that the idea for the
use of this is not carved in stone but that is the proposal is something we would like to
see accomplished. If you are concerned about access let us know we will do
something with it.
Morrow. I think the issue in my mind is that if it is going to count as usable green space,
it has to be usable.
Bradbury: You have to be able to get to it and I agree with that.
Morrow: The rules that apply to senior citizens don't apply to the normal public.
Bradbury: What if just as a suggestion what if we were to suggest that there be a
condition imposed that area be made accessible under the requirements of the ADA,
does that do it?
Morrow. That is fine as far as I am concerned.
Bradbury: Maybe that can take care of it.
Morrow: 1 guess my next question is, this is a hypothetical question and it was alluded
to by the staff, based on my recent experience in other areas plus one before our
Council in terms of La Playa is that the concept here in terms of joint ownership and
Meridian City Council
January 7, 1997
Page 33
small lots and so on and so forth, hasn't worked in the marketplace in Treasure Valley,
Idaho. I guess and certainly this is the private- sector, it is not up to us to dictate what
the private sector is going to do and try because there may be a new gimmick here that
does work. I guess from my standpoint is if the concept fails, does this layout lend itself
to conversion of something that we don't end up with a problem like we have at La
Playa for example. Again, I guess maybe that is a word of caution. From my
perspective is we are approving this and buying this and if for whatever reasons it fails,
you are basically stuck.
Bradbury: I understand your concern and I have to tell you I am not a marketing person
either as you all know, I am just a lawyer. So I have to think that these guys aren't
going to invest the kind of money that they are going to have to invest on this project
without having given that some thought. I guess I share your observation that yes this
is the private sector and if they don't do it, t€ it doesn't work it is on their nickel and I
think these guys understand that.
Morrow: The point I am making is don't come to governmental sector and expect us to
bail your buns out of an issue that you got yourselves into.
Bradbury: I understand, caution dully noted.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I have a question too on the, with the narrow streets and sidewalks
on -one side and controlled parking on one side, what are you going to do with the
seniors that decide to go strolling around out there with cars parked on one side and no
sidewalks on the side they are on?
Bradbury: Because we have a rather controlled environment our thinking is that with
the gated entrance that the only people who are going to be coming and going are the
people that live their and their guests. And I am going to tell you just what I think, that
is, I don't think we are going to see a lot of traffic, a lot of activity in and out of this
place. I don't think. Because it is in a relatively controlled area and it is a relatively
confined space I don't think that sidewalks on one side are going to be too hard to find.
I think if people want to get onto a sidewalk ~ most all they are going to have to do is
walk across the street in order to get there. The parking issue, again, we have plenty of
parking spaces for the residents and most of the time any guests that vuould be there
because we have on each unit four parking spots. So the restrictive covenants that I
just drafted and which are proposed for across the street would prohibit parking on the
street by residents and only for guests. So it would be only those occasions where
there are theoretically more than two car loads of people visiting any one un~ at any
one time that we are going to see too much on the street, I think. So, I understand your
concern but I think because this is a relatively controlled environment I don't foresee
that there are likely to be any conflicts.
Bentley: What type of mail delivery are you going to have in there?
Meridian City Council
January 7, 1997
Page 34
Bradbury: I don't know the answer to that question.
Bentley: If it is curb delivery that is going to impact your sidewalks too.
Bradbury: I have to think that it is going to be curb delivery although I did talk to Mr.
Campbell about putting a single delivery spot out at some location in the project. The
concept is something that I think the developer might like to try. Assuming the post
office would agree to it.
Bentley: I don't think the seniors are going to like it.
Bradbury: They would have to walk to get their mail so they may not be too happy
about that, I don't know. It is a good question and I don't know the answer to it.
Tolsma: This 18 foot setback you propose, does that include the sidewalk?
Bradbury: It does not, the sidewalk would be in addition. Actually if you look at the
street section on the plat
Tolsma: What I was getting at (inaudible)
Bradbury: One of the things, and we talked about that a little bit at the Planning and
Zoning Commission too. What we have with 40 feet of right of way, only, well it would
be 37 feet of that would be improved. (Inaudible) so we have an extra 3 feet of right of
way unimproved right of way. What the Planning and Zoning Commission suggested
that be done in order to solve the very problem that you are talking about is to be
certain that the improvements are centered in the right of way such that there is some
additional space on either side of the street so that we won't have the conflict, so that
we provide a maximum amount of space in front of each lot, from the building to the
actual improvements of the right of way. So what we end up with is I mess 3 extra feet
that we can work with there. Which helps some, perhaps doesn't help in the case of the
suburban that gets parked there that would certainly be long. I think we can, by laying
the thing out we can minimize the concern that you have got.
Bentley: Now, how does that apply to the lots that don't have sidewalks?
Bradbury: It will be exactly the same thing, because we have got 37, the sidewalk is not
included in the 18 feet all right so we will have an equal amount of space on either side.
The space would be the same on either side. (Inaudible)
Bentley: But the problem would be though if we have the big car that he is talking about
on the side of the street that doesn't have a sidewalk, and instead of overhanging on
the sidewalk he is ovefianging now on the street.
Meridian City Council
January 7, 1997
Page 35
Bradbury: Well no because we will have there will be an extra, the, some additional
distance that is not included in the 18 foot setback (Inaudible) it just won't be improved.
So there will be that extra space, that is part of the right of way. For all intensive
purposes it is going to look like a part of the lot because it will be landscaped.
Corrie: Any further questions? Thank you Steve, anyone else from the public that
would like to issue testimony on the request for a conditional use permit?
Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I probably have to ask the Council here if I should declare a conflict
of interest mainly because these two people here that (inaudible)
Crookston: You do need to declare that you feel that way and make the declaration
and then it is up to the Council as to whether or not should be allowed to submit a vote
or participate in the proceedings at all.
Morrow: Mr. Tolsma, I think the answer this time is the same as it was last time, we are
not going to let you off the hook as far as I am concerned.
Rountree: But you can make that decision on your own.
Morrow. I don't have a problem with you making a decision given your history of long
standing fairness, that is fine. (Inaudible) I don't have a problem with that either.
Corrie: Mr. Tolsma it is up to you.
Tolsma: I don't have a problem with it, I just wanted to make sure the Council was
aware of that.
Corrie: Council is all in agreement that the conflict of interest is not there. So you are
back on (inaudible). Hearing no other testimony I will close the public hearing.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I have some questions of staff, would you please re-open the
hearing so that the staff comments could be part of it?
Corrie: Okay, I will re-open the public hearing.
Morrow. Thank you, Gary and Shari, in the past when we have had a private road
situation it seems to me and I am thinking that it was Ashford Greens in particular one
of the requirements that the City Council placed on private roads within the
homeowners association was that there be a fund established for repair and
maintenance of those roads. I want to make sure that any application that comes
before us with private roads if we are going to accept those private roads that is
comments in terms of site specific or whatever that same funding mechanism and
Meridian City Council
January 7, 1997
Page 36
requirement be included in any application for private roads so that at such time those
roads need to be repaired they can be repaired and not do as we have seen done in
other areas that there is an attempt to have them made public so that the burden of
repairing the roads is placed on us the general public and not on those that have
benefited from it.
Smith: Yes Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council, as I recall from Ashford Greens
No. 2 subdivision that is the case, the Council placed a requirement on them to
establish a sinking fund that would generate moneys to replace the roadways and I
believe there was a ten year time period placed in there that the money would be
available after ten years to completely replace the roadway.
Morrow: Was that not done with negotiations back and forth between, the numbers that
were arrived at with (inaudible)
Smith: I think their traffic engineer had submitted that information to you. Those
requirements 1 believe to be part of the CC&R's.
Morrow. Was that to be included in the development agreement and addressed in there
also, I am asking 1 don't know, was it just the CC&R's?
Smith: Shari said Ashford didn't have one, a development agreement.
Morrow. That same thing would apply to this and any other private road.
Smith: We would recommend that be made a requirement from the City Council, yes
sir.
Morrow. I guess what I am asking in the future in terms of site specific comments could
you include that verbiage in your site specific comments?
Smith: Yes we will.
Morrow: Thank you
Corrie: Did I understand it would be in the CC&R's or the development agreement one
of the two?
Smith: Or both yes sir. May I make a couple of comments concerning this plat?
Corrie: Go ahead.
Smith: Number as Mr. Bradbury commented we would like to receive written comments
responding to the staff comments. The second item that I would like to address is the
Meridian City Council
January 7, 1997
Page 37
drainage pond, I don't know the elevation of the pond bottom at this point but there is
standing water in the pond. There has been and there was before we were diluted with
rain, I am concerned with the depth of that pond there is going to be water in it. We are
not in a high ground water period of time right now. The chief made a comment, I think
that area could be used year round, could ioe skate in the winter, fish in the spring,
water ski in the summer, duck hunt in the fall. On a more serious note, we are right at
this moment making a study of our water system in that area, the Cherry Lane Village
area and I don't have any information that I can give you. We have got some areas in
Cherry Lane Village that are experiencing some low water pressure and we don't know
why. But, I am supposed to have some preliminary information back by the end of this
week. I just want you to know and the applicant to know that we have got to get that
figured out before we can start plumbing any more homes into our water system. The
pressurized irrigation system is critical as far as the use of domestic water. It is an
absolute requirement as far as I am concerned that these subdivisions be connected to
a pressurized irrigation system when the first building permit is issued. That system is
going. Not only from the standpoint of utilizing irrigation water that is available in lieu of
putting domestic water on the ground. But also, we circumvent a resident having a
double connection. Making connection to the Gity system and then later connecting to
the irrigation system that has been required. t don't know the status of the irrigation
system, Mr. Campbell maybe can enlighten us on that right now. But as I understand it
it is mostly done, this irrigation system is a combined effort that is supposed to supply
irrigation water to Firelight I believe and I am not sure if Englewood is involved in that,
I think it'is. And also the Lake at Cherry Lane, all of the phases of the Lake at Cheny
Lane. As Mr. Bradbury outlined the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 3 off site improvements
have been constructed, that is the streets, everything has been built there, homes are
being constructed and there have been some homes that had to be connected to the
City water system for sprinkling purposes. That was an agreement that I made with Mr.
Campbell the minute that pressurized irrigation system is available those houses are
disconnected from that irrigation system. But the important. thing is that irrigation
system be completed before irrigation season starts Spring of 1997. As far as the use
of the pond area to ADA purposes, Shari informed that the maximum slope on an ADA
bases is 12 to 1. If we are going to be five feet in the ground that is 60 feet
horizontally. So, you may have to look at that again. The other concern that both Shari
and 1 have and just discussing it informally is how the amount of open space was
calculated. It doesn't appear on a visual basis that there is 10°~ of open space outside
of the platted lots. I think we need to see some drawings, scaled, calculated drawings
that show yes there is a minimum of 10% open space if this is a PUD. I guess that they
have answered for the most part the comments that were made on site specific item 9,
which concerns the numbering and the development of the different phases of the
subdivision. (End of Tape) We would like to see the CC8~R's submitted as soon as
possible. They should be submitted with the preliminary plat at least a draft copy of the
CC&R's that is an ordinance requirement. I think as far as the development a~eement
is concerned we would like to see that developed as soon as possible also. I think the
Meridian City Council
January 7, 1997
Page 38
more of these documents that we get up front the better off we are all going to be when
we get to a final plat stage. That is all I have Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Do you have all of these conditions that he is referring to?
Bradbury: I wrote down notes as Gary went along: The written responses to the staff
comments we can have those things back to you this week, next vveek at the latest.
The concern with the depth of the pond and the ground water, we recognize that too, I
say we, the owners recognize that too. The engineer has been retained to come up
with a solution to that. Some preliminary engineering plans have been prepared which
would utilize a combination drainage system, pertorated pipe and a bed liner in order to
prevent ground water and surface water from coming together. We have those
preliminary drawings now, they are not final but we should be able to submit those for
Gary to take a look at any time real soon. Water system, okay, we have water pressure
problems, we understand we have to resolve that issue first. Pressurized irrigation
system, it essentially completed, the pumps are installed, the lines are in. I don't know
what else is required other than just turning it on and making it wcxl'c. I guess we
probably don't want to do that until this spring. The issue on access to the common
area, yes, that is a legitimate concern and I think that what we would propose to do is
provide you folks with some sort of a drawing that would show you how we propose to
solve that problem. Open space calculations we had some, I was leafing through my
file, I can't find them, we will have to provide those to Gary and would be happy to do
that too. Restrictive covenants, we can have a proposed set of restrictive covenants for
Gary to look at, probably the same time that we have these other materials that is in
another week I would think. A development agreement, I am going to suggest that we
probably need to sit down with staff and decide just exactly what we want with respect
to a development agreement. That is, do we want to talk about a development
agreement that covers all 4 acres, all three phases of this project. Do we want a
separate development agreement for each of the three phases of the project. I want to
try and make it so it is not too complicated but at the same time I think we want to cover
all of the bases. So I suggest that we sit down with staff and figure out what the best
route might be. Once we can come to an understanding on that we will get you one.
Bentley: You mentioned that talking about a pond liner, if you are having trouble
getting rid of the water without it, how are you going to get rid of it with it?
Bradbury: The idea of the liner is to keep ground water or surface water from mingling
but the whole system here is designed to drain into the Nine Mile Drain.. That pond is
just a collecting pond and then with the drainage structure all of the water eventually
goes into the Nine Mile Drain which has been approved pursuant to a license
agreement with Nampa Meridian.
Tolsma: So you also in that proposed (inaudible)
Meridian City Council ~ •
January 7, 1997
Page 39
Bradbury: We will sure see if we can't figure out a way to properly depict that.
Tolsma: I think there is a drain ditch that (inaudible)
Bradbury: I don't know exactly what they have done with it, but I understand that ditch
was their and has been taken into account in the entire scheme, the drainage scheme
out there. Unfortunately we don't have an engineer here tonight who can address
those engineering concerns and I have just got to rely on Mr. Jacobs to, I guess Mr.
Jacobs (inaudible) Mr. Smith gets to look at it and Ada County Highway District gets to
look at it and I suspect that the Ada County Engineer might have an opportunity to look
at the drainage issues on this thing. I understand that there are some drainage
concerns but the engineers are working on those. We certainty want to make sure that
Mr. Smith is entirely satisfied. I am making a note about the car parking here.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Corrie: Any further comments or questions?
Morrow: My concern is about this drainage pond and the fact that it is going to be
counted as landscape area. I think that what Mr. Bradbury describes is accurate to this
extent that it does go into the Nine Mile Drain. But the reality is that it is designed in
such a manner to settle out in (inaudible) and so the elevation and the drain line is
some distance above the bottom of the pond allowing sediment to settle out so in reality
the water could stay in the pond pretty much as Mr. Smith has observed now for a
portion of the year. I guess the second thing is in terms of comments is from my
standpoint we are dealing with 7 or S major issues that need to be resolved. I think that
is clearly outside of what we ought to approve tonight subject to all of these things
being resolved. I would like to see the resolution of most of these things in the public
arena before the Council and have it be a matter of public record. From that standpoint
I think I would be inclined to support a motion of some sort that continues the public
hearing until our next meeting to give the staff and representatives of Steiner an
opportunity to resolve these 8 or 9 issues and then come back before Council and
present those issues in the public forum and adopt them as part of the public record.
Bentley: I would agree, I think we have a couple of pretty major issues here especially
on this drainage pond that I think need to be addressed. I too think it should be
continued.
Rountree: I have been looking at this thing for the last 25 minutes trying to figure out
why 1 would as a consumer want to live in this community and I can't find anything
appealing about the whole concept. It is so squeezed in there it is about ready to pop.
I think that there needs to be consideration for open space more than what has been
given. It appears that this open space is more of a side line, a spin off if you will to
accommodate the engineering requirements of drainage for the community. At a
Meridian City Council
January 7, 1997
Page 40
minimum it looks to me like they are probably going to lose 4 units to even
accommodate their drainage needs in that area. I can't say that I am particularly
excited about 60 units that all look the same. Maybe there is a magic price point for this
kind of housing that will make them look good, I can't see it. I .agree there are some
significant issues that need to be resolved and maybe by continuing the hearing I might
find some redeeming factors in this particular proposal.
Tolsma: I think we need to continue the public hearing (inaudible)
Corrie: It seems to be pretty unanimous of the Council, I would entertain a motion for
continuance of public hearing.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we continue the public hearing on both agenda
items 10 and 11 those being the request for conditional use permit for the Lake at
Cherry Lane Subdivision No. 7 by Steiner Development, I am sony I wish to start the
motion again because we are only dealing Wirth item 10. Mr. Mayor I would move the
public hearing for the request for conditional use permit for the Lake at Cherry Lane
(inaudible) until January 21, 1997 to .allow our staff and the representatives of Steiner
Development to work ,out the 8 or 9 issues that have been discussed tonight that have
not been resolved.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to continue the public
hearing on item 10 request for conditional use permit for the Lake at Cheny Lane No.
7, any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE
LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 7 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing, Mr. Bradbury.
Steven Bradbury, 300 N. 6t'' Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bradbury: I have no additional comments, I would simply like to ask that the comments
made in the previous item be incorporated into the record into this one and suggest that
in light of the tabling of the previous to simply table this item as well.
Corrie: Noted and recorded. Anybody from the public that would like to enter public
testimony at this time? Hearing none I will entertain a motion of Council.
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: January 7,1997
APPLICANT: Steiner Develoament ITEM NUMBER; 10
REQUEST: Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the Lake at Cherry Lane No 7
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: Minutes from 11-12-96
CITY ENGINEER: See Attached Comments
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Comments
CITY ATTORNEY: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
"Reviewed"
See /~ttar_had Comments
~, '~ "
S~
~~, .
C ~
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
See Attached Comments
See Attached Comments
OTHER:
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
• •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 10, 1996
Page 16
ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup -Yea, Oslund -Yea, Shearer -Yea, MacCoy -Absent
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Recommendation to the City?
Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move we recommend or the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby recommends approval of this conditional use permit request by the
applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in these
findings of fact and that the property and applicant be required to meet the water and
sewer requirements, fire and life safety codes, UBC and other ordinances of the City of
Meridian including that all parking areas shall be paved.
Borup: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded that we send onto the City the comments as read, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 7 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
Johnson: There is a blank in the findings that needs to be completed with respect to
square footage on page 8. Is there any other discussion of any other items? Would the
commissioners like to address item 5 on page 8?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I think it has been determined that the ordinance does read 800 feet
on a duplex, I know there is some confusion on that. I am a little confused on what the
applicant is proposing though. They have mentioned the fic ure 1160 feet that is their goal.
I would be curious to know if they have firmed that up any more or not. I don't know how
we find that out at this point. (End of Tape)
Bradbury: (Inaudible) minimum square footage of each of the dwelling units, individual
units of 1160 that is what the applicant proposes and is certainly willing to live with a
minimum requirement of 1160 per unit.
Johnson: Thank you, Counsel, your statement in here has to do with whether or not 1160
would satisfy the statement of it being harmonious with (Inaudible) is that what you are
saying there?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission --
December 10, 1996
Page 17
Crookston: That is correct, what our ordinance says is that for a duplex, the minimum
square footage requirement is 800 square feet per unit. Also in our ordinance it states that
the City is to determine whether or not units, whether it is the size or design and I assume
also the color of paint whatever, as to whether or not that is compatible with the
surrounding structures or area around the area that the application pertains. to. The
reason that I left the blank was to give the Commission an opportunity to do exactly what
you are doing now to decide whether or not the 1160 square feet as proposed by the
applicant meets the requirement that the City determine what is compatible with the
surrounding area. If the Commissioners agree with that them I would entertain a motion.
Shearer. Mr. Chairman, I move that we set that minimum on this project at 1100 feet, that
gives them a 60 foot clearance.
Borup: Second
Johnson: Well I would like to, I know we have a motion and a second, I would like to
assume that you are recommending approval of the findings with that insertion is that
correct, for clarification.
Shearer: I was clarifying that in the findings and I can also.
Borup: I withdraw my second.
Shearer: I will also recommend that we adopt these findings with that added in.
Johnson: Could you restate your motion and withdraw your original please.
Shearer: Okay, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission adopt these
findings of fact and conclusions with the insertion of 1100 square feet as a minimum.
Borup: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact with the minimum
square footage of 1100, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup -Yea, Oslund -Yea, Shearer -Yea, MacCoy -Absent
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Recommendation to the City please?
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission --
December 10, 1996
Page 18
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommend to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional
use request by the applicant for the property described in the application with the
conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Borup: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass that recommendation onto the City
Council as stated by Commissioner Shearer, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: 2 Yea, 1 Nay
ITEM #11: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO.7 BY STEINER
DEVELOPMENT (TABLED NOVEMBER 12, 1996):
Johnson: What would you like to do with the preliminary plat?
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the preliminary plat, we had- some discussion
on that didn't we.
Borup: Second
Johnson: Discussion, we have a motion and second to approve the preliminary plat,
discussion?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I think one of the items that was still pending was the sidewalk width
and street location. I believe we left the last one maybe with a recommendation that the
sidewalk width be increased to 5 feet and to accommodate that the street be moved over
one foot to the east.
Shearer: Let's make an amendment to my motion to that affect, that I will second. I move
we amend
Johnson: We have a motion and a second (inaudible)
Shearer. No we don't, I can amend the motion anybody can amend the motion Jim that is
parliamentary procedure.
Johnson: Yes you can amend the motion but we are not done with the discussion part yet.
I want to get some feedback from staff on that on moving the street, have you had any
discussion about that do you recall that? Are you doing this from memory or do you have
• •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission -
November 12, 1996
Page 31
some plants like that and space them at appropriate intervals I think it would grow real
nicely.
Johnson: That makes sense, and it is probably something that you can work out with staff.
Anything else? That is it, I will close the public hearing.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law on this project.
MacCoy: Second
Johnson: Motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: I see Mr. Butterfield sitting there, did we act on number 8? We approved the
findings of fact and it will go onto City Council for their next meeting. Do you have a copy
of those, now that we have approved them you can have a copy if you don't already. You
are welcome to mine, I could give you mine right now if you would like.
ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 7 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and ask Steiner Development or their
representative to address the Commission.
Steve Bradbury, 300 N. 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission my name is Steve Bradbury and
I have been asked to .present the application that is before you on behalf of Steiner
Development. This is a project that you folks have seen before, at least parts of it. It might
help to go through a little bit of background to try to get you up to speed and help Mr.
Borup who I don't think has seen the project before. What you have before you is an
application for a preliminary plat and a conditional use permit for a planned development.
This particular phase of the development is for a 60 unit senior living project. What I might
suggest you do, you all have a booklet that looks something like this. I will be going
through the booklet and will be referring to various tabs throughout the booklet. What you
might do right now, you might want to get behind tap 3 and pull out one of these
preliminary plats because it will help to show you what we have in mind. There are actually
two of them behind tab three, the first one of these pull out maps just shows the lot lines
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission -
November 12, 1996
Page 32
and the preliminary plat. The second preliminary plat -and the second pull out also shows
the proposed foot prints for the buildings that would be placed on those lots. So you pull
those out now it might be a little bit easier for you to refer to things as we go along. As you
probably know this is the last of a multipart development project on a 40 acre parcel of
property on Ten Mile Road that has been owned by Mr. Teter, Bill Teter who is here
tonight with us. Probably the easiest thing to do, but this one might be good too, i will pass
those out. Those are just smaller versions of, maybe it will be a little easier for you to get
a look at it. If you get, I keep telling you to pull out maps and look at things, behind tab 1
there is a map that looks like this. Maybe we can start there. The pull out map, the
colored map that you have got kind of helps you to get a feel for what it is that has gone
on before, behind tab 1, multi-colored, to give you an idea of what has gone on before.
You folks first saw this project in January of 1995. At that time there was a proposed
preliminary plat for the entire 40 acre parcel. That parcel was divided up into what I would
call 4 distinct areas. Those four areas would be an R-4 zoned area for single family
detached residential dwellings. That is shown in the pink or red on this map that you have
pulled out there. The blue part which was incorporated into that same application was an
R-8 single family detached residential development. That was previously approved and a
matter of a fact there is a final plat for that along v~th the pink R-4 area. That has already
been through the City process. to the lower right hand corner, the yellow portion that was
a proposed senior living area as well and that had a number of single family detached
building lots for single family detached dwellings as well together with a club house. That
was approved for preliminary plat I guess it was in January of 1996, earlier this year. What
is left then is the orange portion which is in the upper right hand comer of the map and that
is about a little under 7 acre parcel that was originally proposed for some kind of town
house or condominium project development. That has an R-15 zone. By the way the. yellow
portion is also an R-15 zone. So what we are here to talk about tonight after all of that is
the proposal of what we are going to put on that orange portion. You will probably recall
that the project as originally proposed -the concept was for the development to provide a
variety of housing choices in a planned area. So we can get one area with a multiple
choices in living environments. We have the single family, tt~e traditional detached single
family dwellings on 8,000 square foot lots in the R-4 area. Similar homes on smaller lots
in the R-8 area and then we have the single family detached senior citizens area in the R-
15and the yellow area on the map and now of oaurse we are proposing a similar type of
living area in the orange portion. Only what we are trying to accomplish there is to find a
little bit more moderately priced facility for people who might not be able to afford to get
into the little bit nicer project that has already been approved. What is proposed here is
mostly two unit, zero lot line developments, some people might call them duplexes but that
is not really technically right. They are zero !~ line, they are single story town houses
although people get confused when you say that too. Basically is it two unit zero lot line
dwellings most of them. There are also two proposed three unit zero lot line buildings and
then 3 four unit zero lot line buildings. If you lode on the foot prints that you have got there
• •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 33
(inaudible). Now, back to the book, behind tab one,-about two pages in you will find the
page that talks about the, it gives you some basic information about the project. The parcel
size is about 6 and 2/3 acres. When the project was originally proposed, when you
originally saw it we were talking about 71/2 acres in this parcel. The staff in the staff report
pointed out and questioned what happened to that additional half 2/3 of an acre. It took
us a little while to figure it out too, and we think we have. We didn't give any of that ground
away. I think what happened, I have it up here, what we think happened here is during the
platting process because we have had several plats. We had a plat for the R-4 area and
then another plat for the R-15 area down here and then a third plat for this R-15 area that
is under consideration. What happened we think is that during the platting process for this
parcel, this area that is in yellow here which is the sewer easement up to the north the 20
foot landscape easement, landscape buffer along Ten Mile Road and then the landscaping
along the entry road didn't get included in the calculation for the total acreage in this
phase. What happened is those portions all got included in the total acreage in the
previously approved phase. So the ground is all there it is just that it didn't get included
in that calculation. So you can see you add all that additional ground up I am fairly
confident that we are at 2/3 of an acre and probably just a little more than that. So the
project still has the same amount of dirt under it, it is just that it got aflacated into, it got
perhaps platted in the wrong spot, but it is all still there.
(Inaudible)
Bradbury: I can explain some of the reason why that ground got in the previous plats and
that was because when the final plat was submitted for number 5 which is the R-4 area the
City imposed a requirement that we provide a 20 foot buffer along Ten Mile at that point
in time. Of course it was originally contemplated that 20 foot buffer would be included in
the plat for number 7. Like I say, the dirt is there the 20 foot buffer is going to be there it
is just didn't get calculated into the square footage of the plat that you have before you. If
it creates a problem, we can untangle it. I am hoping that we won't let these little
technicalities bother us. The density is about ~ units per acre and that is of course
substantially less then.the 15 units per-acre maximum allowable under an R-15 zone. It
is probably, 1 might as well point out to you, that there are two units more being proposed
tonight then were proposed originally for this piece of ground.. There are 60, originally
when you first saw this project two years ago we were talking about having 58 units. The
net density however in all the R-15 zone is a minus 9 because there were 11 fewer units
finally approved in the other project, in the other R-15 senior project. So there is plus 2
here, minus 11 there, that leaves a negative 9 total. So overall density we are under what
was originally suggested as what (inaudible). And I think you have to realize of course at
that time it was nothing more than just target and that is what we were aiming for. The
home sizes we are proposing, they will be 1160 square foot minimum. I spent a little bit if
time looking in the ordinance for requirements for minimum square footage of homes like
• •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 34
this, two unit and 3 unit homes. The only thing that I could find was the requirement that
these things meet a minimum 800 square foot. which is found if you are interested at
section 2-411 I. Maybe I missed but I couldn't fnd anything else. The reason I raise the
issue at all is because the staff report suggests that perhaps the minimum square footage
on these dwellings ought to be 1300 square feet as well. Whether or not l guess that is
a good idea something for you folks to ponder. The 1160 square feet which are proposed
here meets the requirements of your ordinance by quite a little bit. The setbacks, you can
see the setbacks that are shown on this page here, front 18 feet, side 5 feet, rear 15 feet.
What you don't see is street side yard setbacks we are proposing 15 feet. Now that is less
than is required under the typical R-15 zone. Of course since this is a planned
development we are asking that the Commission consider allowing some relief from a
number of standard requirements in this zone and the setbacks would be one of them.
What we would like to ask for is the front yard setback be reduced from 20 feet to 18 feet,
and that the street side yard setback be reduced from 20 feet to 15 feet. Let me point out
something in the application materials that you have got, there are a couple of references
to seeking a 10 foot street side yard setback. That is wrong, it is 15, we did a little bit of
calculating and we can get it done in 15. What I would like to remind you of for those of
you that might not remember is this is consistent with what was proposed for the senior
project to the south that has previously been approved over there was the same thing.
Eighteen foot side front yard and 15 foot street side yard. So we are asking. for the same
consideration on this as was provided on the other project. I have already said if once, I
will say it again, the project contemplates that all of dwellings will be single story at one
time when it•was originally brought to you and there was some concept drawing shown.
We thought that we might want to have two story town houses there. Those have been
eliminated for a couple of reasons. First of all we were committed to the idea that it was
going to be a senior living area and we are thinking that most seniors don't want to be
walking up and down stairs, so we will try to keep them all down on one level. Second we
wanted to have a lower profile near the entry to the project (inaudible) we would like to
keep the buildings down a little bit lower profile there at that front entry. I think that will
help the aesthetics a little bit in the entry area. Third frankly similar` units over in
subdivision No. 3 I think it is have been very successful and we think there is a market for
them. Parking requirements, each of the units would have a two car garage, and in
addition there is a driveway for each of the units which will hold two cars. So we have that
off street parking. In addition there is proposed off street parking in a couple of areas that
are shown on the plat. The plat shows a total of 16 I think off street parking places. This
isn't showing (inaudible) there were four spaces shown on the plat, off street parking
places on the plat here, the fire department has suggested that those are likely to ~terfere
with the driveway. We figure they may so we are figuring that those will probably be
eliminated. We will end up with a total of (inaudible) 12 and if we need to mice some
adjustments on those we certainly can. One other issue with respect to off street parking
is that your ordinance requires that off street parking be set back four feet from the right
• •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission -
November 12, 1996
Page 35
of way. We are proposing that the City give relief, waive that requirement the four foot
setback. As they are shown we are showing the parking areas to be directed accessed
from the street. That too is consistent with the approval that was given on subdivision No.
6 the other senior citizen area. Streets, we are proposing private street, with forty foot total
right of way, 28 feet of pavement, 2 feet of curb and gutter on each side, a 4 foot sidewalk
on one side. Our proposal is to permit parking only on one side of the street and we will
work out with the fire department on which side they like best or least or however they want
to look at it. The streets will be built to the construction standards of Ada County Highway
District. All of that is consistent again with the approval that was given for subdivision no.
6. Street frontages that you will see on your plat the standard R-15 street frontage
requirements are that each lot have 50 feet of frontage along the street. It won't take me
very long to recognize on the plat that we are proposing a whole bunch of lots that have
33 feet of frontage. What we would like to suggest to you is that again under the planned
development requirements the 50 foot street frontage requirements be waived and maybe
what may make some sense to you is that since we are proposing two unit one building
consisting of two units and those two units will be built on two lots, zero lot line in the
middle that what you really have is 66 feet of frontage for each building. Perhaps if you
look at it that way it won't feel quite like we are trying to squeeze so much in as asking for
33 foot frontages. Although the lots themselves are technically 33 feet. Each building really
has G6 feet of frontage on the street. So if you add all those together I think .we get there.
There are also some frontages, some flag lots around the comers where the frontages
don't add up to 50 of course. But generally we have been able to get past those
requirements as well and would like to ask you to do that for us as well. Okay, the next
page in your booklet is a list of amenities on the project. 1 don't know if I need to go
through them all but there is a proposed gated security entrance to provide. added
measure of security to the people who live there. There is a privacy wall that will surround
the entire project. Just so that you can remember, we talked about this a couple of years
ago. We were talking about this masonry wall that goes all the way around the project up
and down Ten Mile and then extends into the subdivision and beyond. So this project on
those two sides the main thoroughfare (inaudible) will have this redly nice masonry wall
and then comply with the fencing requirements. Of course you know about the 20 foot
landscape buffer along Ten Mile Road. There is a bus stop proposed in there open space.
We have a proposal for an open space that I think consisted of about 18,000 square feet.
An open space recreation area. It serves a duel purpose of being a storm drainage area
and I know that sounds a little funny. Maybe I can help show you what I am talking about
is this area right in here. Of course we have also got the open space that (inaudible) That
recreation area and drainage area has been we thought about it quite a little bit and talked
to the engineers about whether or not it makes sense that you can have a drainage area
and a recreation area all in the same spot. Apparently it really does work.. Our
consultations with the engineer tell us that this area is going to be dry most of the year and
it is really only wet when it rains. Of course in an outdoor recreation there, probably aren't
• •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 36
too many people who are going to be using it when it is wet, when it is raining. As we
understand it, a typical storm that we have here= will put about 2 feet of water into this
drainage area. Within 48 hours that 2 feet of water drains away. If we have a 100 year
storm the storm that theoretically happens every 100 years we might have 41/2 feet of
water in that thing and of course it is going to take a little longer for that to drain away.
Generally speaking most of the time, most of the year certainly most of the time of the
year where people want to be outdoor using the facility that ground is going to be dry. So
the proposal is to make some use of that ground by landscaping it around the perimeter,
putting in a gazebo up front, I have a picture of that so you can get an idea of what we are
talking about. If you are looking at it from the street toward this spot right here (inaudible)
a gazebo and a deck. There will be picnic tables and benches throughout the area along
with like I said some landscaping facilities. Now we really want to make this into a
recreation facility that can be used. I know it is a challenge. That is what we are working
on and hoping that we can find some good solid uses for this area. And certainly willing
to take any suggestions that you might have as to what other facilities we might put in
there. But like we say we are thinking of picnic areas and benches and tables with the
gazebo. Perhaps even a barbecue pit or something like that. The 10% requirement of
open space by a fairly wide margin. We roughly calculated when we were sitting down,
there are well over 30,000 square feet of open space there. So I think that issue is fairly
well dealt with. Behind tab 2 in the booklet in the application materials, I don't think we
need to go through any of those unless anyone has a particular question about anything
they saw in there. Behind tab 3 I already told you has the plats and the proposed building
footprint layouts. We can talk about those if anybody has any specific questions. Behind
tab 4 in the booklet you will end a typical floor plan for the proposed units. Typical
elevation drawing of the proposed units and a typical site plan for the proposed units
showing you the dimensions and how they fit onto the lots. Two bedroom, Two bath, Two
car garage, fairly standard units. Behind tab you will find the proposed construction
materials that we are talking about using in the project. And of course we have materials
dealing with the roof, the architectural shingles. We have an exterior color chart we can
show you the kind of siding and stucco that is intended to be used. And the bride accent
is shown back there as.well. So I think that pretty well covers all the basic amenities and
features in the project. We received a staff report this morning and went through it in some
detail. I think it is probably worth going through again right now. Because there are a
couple of issues that we probably ought to talk about. Let me get some of this other paper
out of my way. First of all the general comments we are all perfectly okay with all of those
except for just one 1 think and that would be number 8. The last sentence of number 8
indicates that the off street parking areas are not supposed to be within four feet of an
established right of way and we are seeking relief from that 4 foot setback provision. Other
than that all of the general requirements are acceptable to the applicant. The site specific
comments, number 1 pressurized irrigation. We proposed pressurized irrigation, it will be
included in the same system that is proposed for the Lake at Chevy Lane no. 3, 4,5 and
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 37
6. Nampa Meridian Irrigation District has already approved the system for number 3, it has
been oversized to accommodate the entire project. It is ~ shared system with Englewood
Subdivision and Firelight. So that is certainly we are aware of and the intention is fia build
it to Nampa Meridian irrigation District specifications. Number 2, the street lights you bet,
what we would like to do and keeping with the rest of the project is probably install some
more decorative lighting as opposed to the standard poles and we will work with the staff
to come up with the materials that are satisfactory. Number 3 is dealing with the width of
the roadways, as I said the roadways that we are proposing here are the same as were
proposed for number 6. We agree that there shouldn't be parking on both sides of the
street so we will restrict parking to one side of the street and we will work with the fire
department to get the details of how they would like us to handle that one. Number 4,
dealing with the treatment capacity of the waste water treatment plant. Yes we understand
the application is subject to the capacity. Number 5, that one has to do with the density
issues and the number of units and I have already spoken to you about that. Hopefully I
haven't completely confused you about where we are. Number 6, dealing with the amount
of open space, the 10% open space, we have talked about that a little bit. One of the
things that I didn't mention is that number six suggested the slopes in this retention fiacility
are 3 to 1, that is right except at the entry where people would be coming and going. That
will be a 4 to 1 slope there to make it a little bit easier to get in and out. Of course if we can
figure out a way to install ramps and steps and things like that it would make access even
easier I think that we would be able to do that: Number 7 is talking about sidewalk, in the
other senior project in Number 6 we had a sidewalk on one side of the street. We are
proposing, we are asking that the Commission allow to do the same thing on this project.
What we are trying to avoid is having a whole lot of hard surface and create a little bit
more soft surface. One of the things that might be worth noting is that since the idea is to
provide a senior living area, I know these people walk, so I don't want to suggest that we
don't need sidewalks. But I don't think you are likely to see as much traffic in and out of
this area. We are talking 60 units, people are probably going; to be staying home they are
not going to be children. Theoretically if the project is developed as proposed there wont'
be any children running around and playing in there except those that are coming to visit.
So we are thinking the .requirement for sidewalks on both sides of the street really might
not be necessary. Number 8 addresses
MacCoy: (Inaudible) the width (inaudible)
Bradbury: The proposal is for a four foot sidewalk and I know that staff is suggesting 5,
we would like to stay at 4 in order to help reduce some of the hard surface area that would
be there. 1 suspect that if it is a do or die we will go along with what the City requires.
Johnson: It is part of the ordinance, you would have to get a variance is the Wray I
understand it.
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 38
Bradbury: Well I guess what I would suggest is the- Commission consider reducing the
sidewalk size under the same planned development provisions that are allowed for
reducing setbacks and densities and or increase densities and those things. Like I said
the four foot sidewalk is what we would really like to do. We think it is enough. We don't
want the project to look too institutional with too much concrete and pavement every
where. And that is the thinking.
Johnson: What was the resolution on 6? Phase 6, what did we do for sidewalks there?
Bradbury: I can't remember if it is was four or five, I don't recall
MacCoy: While you are looking I would like to put a two bits in for a five foot because you
talked about the senior citizen lifestyle and they do a lot of walking. Four foot is really too
small to allow 2 people side by side to go walking, five is more comfortable.
Bradbury: Yes I understand, and I don't know that this is do or die. We are just trying to
like I say to get to much hard surface: I can't seem to find anything that tells me here, wait
a minute. Well the section, the street section that I am showing on the preliminary plat for
number 6 shows a four foot sidewalk. I can't remember for sure what was specifically
approved other than looking at that.
Oslund: Are the mail boxes on the sidewalk?
Bradbury: I would imagine although I don't know. I guess that is probably what the post
office requires these days isn't it.
MacCoy: (Inaudible)
Bradbury: Maybe what we could do is to provide some additional meandering around it
to keep a little bit of extra space there. I guESS what I would like to suggest is a (inaudible)
probably not be a deal killer and although that is what we would certainly prefer if it is
going to cause the Commission a great deal of heartache then I think maybe we ought to
just move on. Number 8 is an issue addressing the requirements of the fair housing act.
The proposal is to have this be a seniors 55 and older project. We are fully aware of the
requirements of the fair housing act and intend to comply with them. If we can't compiy
with them we won't build it, but I don't think we are going to have any trouble with that.
Number 9, this one is kind of an issue that I have to say I can certainly emphasize with
staffs problems. It has been kind of a difficult project and a little bit confusing because of
the manner in which it was proposed. That is that we have got a preliminary plat for 40
acre parcel that includes two big lots in it and now we are coming, we have been back in
and asked for preliminary plat approval for a resubdivision of one of those big lots. That
i •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 39
was in January, now we are back in asking for a resubdivision of another one of those big
lots and that is number 7 the one you have before you now. I can see that it might be a
little difficult for people to keep it all straight. What are w~ talking about no. 6 or number
7, number 3 who knows. We are certainly willing to work with staff to try and make it as
easy as we can make it on staff so that the confusion, is minimized: We certainly
understand that you have to build these things in some reasonable order. We understand
that plats have to be recorded numerically and we are willing to record the plats
numerically. What we are really hoping that we can avoid however is to be placed into a
lock step requirement of you have to build one before you. start on the next. We might
want to build them all together. We might want to start one and jump over and start on
another depending on what the marketing demand is. Recognizing that the plats have to
be filed as they go along. As much as I can emphasize with staffs concerns I certainly
hope the commission will permit some measure of flexibility and not impose a lock step
build one before you can start on the next one type of condition on this project. It just takes
the flexibility away and we just know that we would like to build them in exactly the order
that they have been proposed to you. We know that marketing changes that the desires
of the people, that is what drives, that is what sells,
Johnson: Rather than be general can you be specific as to why you haven't built these
other four?
Bradbury: I can be specific on, let's go back through it, number 3 is built and is for sale.
Number 4 has a final plat approved .and we have gotten caught up in a sewer easement
glitch. We had negotiated easements from the entity that had acquired an option on the
property adjacent to it. That option expired and now we are attempting to acquire those
necessary easements from the owner of the property. Those easements have been in the
hands of the individual who optioned the property for morrths and months and we have just
gotten caught in that glitch. So that is what has held up number 4. Number 5, you have
final plat approval, that has been given but unfortunately as I understand it the plans for
that one are being held pending resolution of the sewer issues on number 4. You have to
remember these things aren't even adjacent to each other. They are remote from each
other. So number 5 the circulation of final documents and final plans are being held while
we try to get the number 4 worked out. Hopefully we will be able to find a solution to that
one real soon. Number 6 of course we just got preliminary plat approval, the final
approvals, working on the final construction plans and Doug what did you tell me
(inaudible). The construction plans for number 6 are in works and we intend to submit
those next week. Of course that brings us now to number 7. So although again I sound
like I am repeating myself and I probably am. Although from the outside it may appear we
are not making any progress, I think we are. There is a lot of work in progress on each and
every one of these phases. You got to know that the owner of this thing doesn't want to
sit on this land and not be able to market these tots for no good reason. I think you all have
• •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 40
to understand if we can get all of the little glitches straightened out and get the things built
and start selling them nobody is going to be any happier than the people who own this
thing.
Johnson: I think we understand that as long as you understand what the City ordinance
is on development time requirements.
Bradbury: I certainly do, you bet, and we will do everything we can to meet all of those
requirements and if it looks like we are not going to make them then you will know that we
will be here explaining why. So I probably beat that one to death. Number 10, covenants,
you bet, we will show them. to the City Attorney and anybody else who might be interested
in reading them. We are perfectly happy to have review of the restrictive covenants and
submit those whenever you would like to see them. Number 11 is dealing with the
minimum square footage for the homes. I already talked about that our proposal is 1160
square feet. Number 12 says all ordinances of the City of Meridian need to be met. We
understand that and have no problem with that. Of course we have asked for relieve form
certain requirements under the planned development ordinance. Number 13 is a reference
to a development agreement being required. Yes, we understand that we will provide a
development agreement for the cities review just at any point in this process that you folks
feel like you need to see one. If you need it now we will give it to you know If you would
like to see it when you see the final plat, we will give it to you when you see the final plat.
You tell us and we will build it. I think that covers everything that I intended to talk about.
One more thing, in your packet or at least in the packet that I received there is a litter from
the School District expressing some concern about the number of students that are likely
to be placed in the schools as a result of this project. I think maybe they didn't' understand
we are talking about a senior project. Theoretically there are not going to be any children
out of this project at all. If for some reason there is I doubt there will be very many.
Johnson: I think their figures represent a typical subdivision.
Bradbury: I think so too, I just wanted to point that out so that didn't get lost. That is all the
comments that I had prepared to make. If you have any questions for me I would be
pleased to answer them. Mr. Campbell of course is here and he can answer questions that
I can't hopefully.
Johnson: Okay, questions from the commissioners?
Borup: Maybe more of just a comment, staff did have a lot of site specific items here (End
of Tape) questions and concern on. I think Mr. MacCoy mentioned that seniors do quite
a bit of walking, I think I have to, from what I (inaudible) four foot would be adequate. I
don't know (inaudible) the applicant will be willing to go either way. But 1 guess more of
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission -
November 12, 1996
Page 41
just a comment, that was the only item I think,
Johnson: Thank you, Commissioner Oslund?
Oslund: In general I can't remember staff comments come in that had as many concerns
that seemed to be so focused on the issue of are you going to deliver. This issue of when
are you going to build something. I don't work with the applicant every day and I was on
the Commission when we passed on 6. So I guess I just have concems about that.
Obviously Shari has been working with you folks and if she has got some what appear to
be fairly serious concems I just wonder, I wish she was here tonight so she could elaborate
on these. To me the issue of trust and are you going to deliver that is key. I don't think the
City, I think the City, most people would agree we want people that are here for that can
be proud of what they have built and they will stand by it. That was the one concem. The
other more specific and technical concern I had was about that drainage basin, that
retention basin. Now you talked about landscaping the perimeter, now what about actually
down in the bottom of the basin? Let me just elaborate a little further, I am kind of
concerned if we don't irrigate that then what we have is a landscape strip about a weed
field.
Bradbury: I am glad you raise the question because I don't want you to leave with a bad
impression or an erroneous impression. The anly reason I didn't talk about what is going
in the bottom is because we are not really absolutely certain yet. When we have talked
about in the past we have talked about having it planted with grass so that it can be used
kind of as walking and recreation area. There has also been some thought given to well
maybe if we can figure out a way to build it maybe we can even put a tennis court down
there. I don't know if that is feasible but that is a possibility. Maybe some other kind of
recreation use that we might be able to put down there as well. We just don't know and that
is an honest answer, we just know for sure what we want to try and put down there. It
depends on what we can feasibly build. Yes I understand I have seen some of these
drainage retention areas and some of them look pretty bad'.
Oslund: That is okay if that is what it is. But you are talking about doing something that
is quite special here and
Bradbury: Exactly the applicant has seen these things too and says that is not what we
want to do. We want to make this a functional area, we want to actually be able to provide
something that number one is useful and two is attractive because we want to ~ able to
sell these things and keep people happy. So you are right, to the extent of hearing it from
me helps you my discussions with my client the applicant we have talked about it a lot. We
talked about it quite a bit today. I am convinced in any event that these folks have every
intention of building something there that is useful and that is attractive. I am sure that if
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission -
November 12, 1996
Page 42
you would like to hear from Mr. Campbell he would be happy to reiterate those thoughts.
As to the other, are you ever really going to build anything. (Inaudible) maybe 1 can help,
I don't know if this helps or not because you folks see a lot of land deve~pers come and
go and some of them probably do a better job than others. You haven't had a whole lot
of opportunity yet to see exactly what Steiner Development can and will do. But I can tell
you this little bit. I know for a fact that these guys have got a whole lot of money already
invested in this thing. They already own a pretty good share of the dirt out there. I don't
think that these folks are going to walkaway. If nothing else just the pure tenacity of these
folks and how many times they have been before you. I have been before you on their
behalf ought to send some message hopefully. They are not going to be spending all of
this money on me and all of this money on the engineers and all that ocher work if they
don't figure they are going to build something. Unfortunately we have really had a couple
of issues that have just, a couple of issues that really caused us a problem. One thing I
didn't tell you why didn't build subdivision no. 4 well we didn't even the dirt, Steiner
Development didn't own the dirt until really just recently. That is done.
Johnson: Well I think you can understand also if you were here earlier our first four items
have been going on forever and so we are a bit gun shy. So I think that these comments
and I really appreciate these comments from staff, because they are poignant and they are
specific and they reflect past disappointments. They refer specifically to you. to look at the
drainage sites and specific areas and also the situation with the lot lines and the lots out
at La Playa Subdivision. Those are the type of things that are helpful because really what
they are telling me this is recent experience that didn't' work out favorably.
Bradbury: And we need to do better.
Oslund: You have a credibility problem I think, not from me, (inaudible}
Bradbury: I guess what I would like to suggest to you along those lines that you have the
opportunity here because you have a conditional usF~ permit in front you. You can place
reasonable conditions on the applicant's future conduct and if you have concerns in a
particular areas well condition them. What I would like to ask you not to do and what I will
ask you not to do is to hamstring these folks so they end up getting into a lock step that
is going to make it even harder for them to actually do it. It is a two edged sword, you string
out all the conditions with the idea that by (inaudible) these guys are going to do it our way
or they are not going to do it at all and you might get your wish, they might not do it at all.
That is really what we would like to try to avoid if at all possible. I had another thought and
I probably rambled long enough. If you have more questions.
Johnson: In your behalf, this type of development, not necessary specifically this one but
this type of development is something that Meridian has a need for. I think that is why we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 43
are as far as we are on this sort of thing. This is an attractive concept and I am confident
that it would be a successful project if done right because the demand is certainly there
for this type of housing.
Bradbury: And it does remind me of the other comment I did want to make and it kind of
has to do, it comes off of that same thought. If there is anything quite like this in Meridian
now, I don't know where it is. It is the first time that I think that you folks have seen a
project that was constructed like this one. When I say that I am talking about the approval
process of coming in and having several different concepts proposed. It is the first time I
think that staff at least here has seen something quite like this. It has been a little tough,
it has been a little bit harder to get through the approval process. It has taken a little bit
longer than the typical 8,000 square foot residential subdivision. Nobody is more
frustrated about that then the owners are.
Shearer: Can you clarify the road right of way for me?
Bradbury: I will try, I am not sure I can.
Shearer: On the survey it shows 42 foot right of way and then it is dimensioned at 40 feet.
Bradbury: Are you talking about the street section, (noticed that too. You are right it is
labeled a 42 foot right of way but then it is dimensioned as a 40 foot. The intention is that
it is a 40 foot and I hope the numbers add up. I know we went through this once before
when they didn't but I think they do this time.
Shearer: If that sidewalk is expanded to 5 feet I would recommend that you off set that
street a little bit in there because you only have an 18 foot driveway and some of those
cars are in the neighborhood of 19 feet in an older vehicle. So you might want to cut that
3 foot down on the one side and put afoot on the other side.
Bradbury: Just move it over a little bit, I follow you.
Shearer: You might give some consideration to that.
Bradbury: As a matter of fact that is exactly what we did on the other senior project.
Although we had the 40 foot right of way, we didn't put it right in the middle, we got it and
moved it over one side or the other so it all fit better and would work for setbacks and what
not.
Shearer: You need all of that driveway, all of that overlap onto the right of way that you can
get.
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 44
Bradbury: You bet, we will be happy to work with Mr. Smith on what works best in that
respect.
Johnson: Commissioner MacCoy?
MacCoy: You might want to clarify something here on one of your materials you have
listed is 61 units and then your drawing shows 60 units so there is a discrepancy
someplace in there. Frankly I am little concerned, in fact I am very concerned about the
structure thing. I think you need to work a little bit on that from the stand point you speak,
I know I read the same material, you have an 800 and 1100 and a 1301 type (inaudible)
you are going to need to clean up that item with our staff. I was going to bring up the same
thing that Mr. Shearer brought in here because the walkway is a concern since they are
a walking public that are going to live here I think we ought to do everything we can to
accommodate them. I think his suggestion about staggering is a good one. I was going
to do the same thing (inaudible) you are going to have to do something to support that.
Johnson: Any other questions?
Bradbury: Maybe I can respond very quickly, with respect to the number of units if there
is a 61 in there I think that is a mistake. It ought to be a 60, my understanding is the
proposal is 60 units total. We will make sure we count them and give you the right number
if we have a problem. The size of the units clearly we are intending to meet the
requirements of the ordinance. As I read the ordinance it is 800 square foot minimum and
we are sure going to beat that by a fair amount. And then the sidewalk we talked about
that a lot. I don't think we want that to be a deal killer.
Johnson: Thank you very much, is there anyone else that would like to come before the
Commission on this application?
Jeff Dorma ~, 3747 Summerset Way, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Dorman: My name is Jeff Dorman, I work for Coldwell Banker, Aspen Realty. I am the
marketing agent for Steiner Development on this particular project. I wanted to kind of set
your mind at ease as far as the dedication and the ability of this developer to go through
with the project on the previous application you had in there on the senior development.
We have pushed through and we have sold that complete development for the developer
already. -The development is going through, he is planning on putting in the single family
homes on this particular development that we are doing right now. For this hearing here
we are expecting to have this contract also sold this week for a one developer to come in
and develop all of this project. So we are moving forward. We have on the other
developments where we have the single family homes we have 6 individual builders
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission _.
November 12, 1996
Page 45
coming in, each of them here in the last 3 weeks have optioned 3 to 4 lots to start in the
spring time. So in keeping with the mind that we are trying to progressively seek and get
these projects sold so that we are not waiting in the wings and we are not lagging our feet
on this thing. So you know we are pushing fonnrard as much as we can on the sales and
the marketing part of this also.
Johnson: Thank you very much, anyone else that would like to come before the
Commission? Hearing and seeing no one I will close the public hearing at this time. We
are addressing item 13 only which is the conditional use permit.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I .move that we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law for this project.
Oslund: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of
fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE
AT CHERRY LANE N0. 7 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing.
Steve Bradbury, 300 N. 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bradbury: We have talked about all of the issues that I have to talk about with respect to
the preliminary plat in the previous hearing. !would simply ask that all of my comments
and discussion that we Engaged in with connection to comments be included in the record
for this hearing and then I won't have to repeat it all.
Johnson: Thank you, this is a public hearing, is there anyone .that would like to come
forward on the preliminary plat portion? Any further questions from staff? From the
Commissioners? I will close the public hearing at this time.
Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this item pending the, until the next meeting
when we will get the findings back on the con~tional use permit.
MacCoy: Second
WILLIAM G. BF_RG, JR., City Clerk
JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer
GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt.
DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt.
SHARI L. STILES, P 8 Z Administrator
PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor
KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief
W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Polioe Chief
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney
• HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY •
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813
Public WorksBuitding Department (208) 887-2211
Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443
ROBERT D. CORRIE
Mayor
MEMORANDUM:
To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning
From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer c~
Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator ~~
COUNCIL MEMBERS
WALT W. MORROW, President
RONALD R. TOLSMA
CHARLES M. ROUNTREE
GLENN R. BENTLEY
P & Z COMMISSION
JIM JOHNSON, Chairman
TIM HEPPER
JIM SHEARER
GREG OSLUND
MALCOLM MACCOY
November 8, 1996
Re: THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 7
(Preliminary Plat /Conditional Use - By Steiner Development)
We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, for your information and
consideration as conditions of the Applicant during the hearing process:
1. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project,
shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. The ditches to be piped are to be shown on
the Preliminary Plat. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage
district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted
to the Public Works Department. No variances have been requested for tiling of any
ditches crossing this project.
2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be
used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation.
3. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface
soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with the street development plans.
4. Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions for our review.
5. Submit letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision
and street names. Make any necessary corrections to the Preliminary Plat map prior to
resubmittal to the City.
A:~I.AKEAPI.PP
• .
P&Z Commission/Mayor & Council
November 8, 1996
Page 2
6. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian's Water Works
Superintendent.
7. Indicate any existing FEMA Flood Plain Boundaries on the Preliminary Plat Map, and/or
any plans to reduce said boundaries.
8. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-2-414 of the City of
Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance and/or as detailed in site-specific
requirements. In no case shall any part of a parking area be closer than four feet to any
established street or alley right-of--way.
9. Paving and striping shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Sections
11-2-414.D.4 and 11-2-414.D.5 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development
Ordinance and in accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
10. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and
shall be submitted for all off-street parking areas and shall be approved by the City
Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91).
11. Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as to not direct illumination on any nearby
residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-414.D.3.
12. All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-2-415 of the
City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance.
13. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, pressurized
irrigation system shall be approved and activated, perimeter fencing shall be installed, and
road base is to be approved by the Ada County Highway District prior to any building
permits being issued.
14. Respond, in writing, to each of the comments contained in this memorandum, and submit
with copies of the revised Preliminary Plat Map to the City Clerk's Office prior to the
scheduled hearing date.
A:\LAKH//.PP
• •
P&Z Commission/Mayor & Council
November 8, 1996
Page 3
SITE SPECIFIC COMMENT
1. Pressurized irrigation system shall be designed such that no lateral lines run parallel within
the street right-of-ways. Crossings from block to block will be allowed. Any proposal for
a supplementary connection from the City's water system to the pressurized irrigation
system being proposed will need to be reviewed closely due to the size of the area to be
watered. Applicant shall provide a statement as to the ownership of and
operation/maintenance of the pressurized irrigation system.
2. Install 250- and 100-watt high pressure sodium street lights at locations designated by the
Meridian Public Works Department. All street lights shall be installed, at subdivider's
expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants.
3. The Meridian Fire Department and Meridian School District need to review and approve
the travel way widths. We are very concerned about the narrower width of the roadways,
as it will make it more difficult to navigate with school buses and emergency vehicles. As
an absolute minimum, "No Parking" signs should be posted along one side of the street.
We don't know how enforcement of the "No Parking" will be accomplished. On-street
parking would only allow aten-foot-wide travelway to remain.
4. The treatment capacity of the City of Meridian's Wastwater Treatment Plant is currently
being evaluated. Approval of this application needs to be contingent upon our ability to
accept the additional sanitary sewage generated by this proposed development.
5. Many concept versions of this project have been submitted to the City of Meridian over
the last year or so. The annexation/zoning request and Applicant's prior testimony
indicated that this development would occupy 7.5 acres with a total density of 7.75 units
per acre. The present application includes 6.67 acres with a density of 9.0 units per acre.
This application has some similarities to the La Playa Subdivision. The Applicant,
Commission and Council should consider the problems encountered by that developer in
marketing small lots with all duplex units. If zero-lot line development is later determined
to be infeasible, City Ordinance requires that a minimum of ten feet be provided between
buildings, making the lots virtually unbuildable.
• •
P&Z Commission/Mayor & Council
November 8, 1996
Page 4
6. The R-15 zone requires that the development be adjacent to a park or open space
corridor, and the planned development guidelines require a minimum of 10 % of the
gross area designated as common area. The previous proposal showed a greater
percentage of open area, as all area except for the building footprint area was common
area to be maintained by a homeowners association. The only common area, besides
the planting strip along Ten Mile Road, is a drainage pond. The Commission and
Council should visit the drainage areas at Los Alamitos, Sportsman Pointe, Salmon
Rapids, Kentfield Manor and Tuthill Estates to gain a better perspective of whether a
drainage pond is acceptable for designation as a recreational facility. With 3:1 slopes,
it is extremely questionable, especially for seniors from an accessibility standpoint,
whether this area is feasible to include as part of the 10% common area.
7. Applicant is proposing afour-foot-wide sidewalk on one side of the street only. Given
the density of the development, five-foot-wide sidewalks should be provided on both
sides of the street in accordance with City Ordinance.
8. The Fair Housing Act does not allow designation of this subdivision as an adult
community. The Applicant shall not market the development discriminating in this
manner.
9. Applicant currently has approval for The Lake at Cherry Lane No. 4, The Lake at
Cherry Lane No. 5, and the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 6. As a requirement of the
conditional use permit, no development of Phase 7 should be permitted until prior
phases have been completed, in the order they were approved. It is questionable
whether this development should even be considered at this time, given the fact that
four developments have been approved, but only one development has been
constructed. No variances for extension of time on these developments should be
permitted, as it makes it very difficult for staff to keep going back to look up
conditions and policies that were in force at the time of approval. City Ordinance on
development time requirements should prevail, with no exceptions taken.
10. Careful attention will need to be paid to the covenants for this development to ensure
appropriate measures for maintaining all common areas and the private roadway are
taken.
~ ~
P&Z Commission/Mayor & Council
November 8, 1996
Page 5
11. City Ordinance requires that all new single-family detached housing in Zone R-15 shall
contain 1,301 square feet or more, unless there is dispersed among the new residential
development houses of varying sizes per Ordinance Section 11-2-411.D. Although this
development proposes attached housing, the same requirements should apply.
Applicant proposes a giant cluster of 1,160-square-foot homes, apparently completely
identical in design, that will tend to present a monotonous row-house effect.
12. All ordinances of the City of Meridian shall be met, whether expressly noted herein or
not, unless specifically waived in writing by the City Council.
13. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. No development
agreement for any phase of the 40-acre parcel has been entered into as of this date.
• •
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: December 10.1996
APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 10 ~ 11
REQUEST: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH
A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO 7
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: ,/ J
CITY ENGINEER: ~~ ~~l/
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: V ~~
~ ~ ~1"
~v Q ~
CITY ATTORNEY: ~ /~}
CITY POLICE DEPT: J L V
CITY FIRE DEPT: ~~~ ~~~j
CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~ ~ } (Q'
~. t~/
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: (~
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ~ ~ ,W}
i l~
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
a
ADA COUNTY STRE T
E NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ~'~~
.,Il r
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: f~,
SETTLERS IRRIGATION: ~ ~ ~.
~ 1~
IDAHO POWER: ,4C
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
+~ •
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 7
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WEST OF TEN MILE ROAD. EAST OF THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5
MERIDIAN, IDASO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled conditional use permit application having
come on for consideration on November 12, 1996, at the hour of 7:30
o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Planning and Zoning Commission
having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant
appearing through its representatives, Steve Bradbury, and having
duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission
maces the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use
Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
Said public hearing scheduled for November 12, 1996, the .first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the ~~atter was duly considered at the November 12, 1996,
hearing; that tl-~e 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 the property is located within the City of Meridian;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 1
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
! •
that the general location of the property is West of Ten Mile Road,
East of The Lake at Cherry Lane No. 5 and is described in the
Application, which description is incorporated herein.
3. That the property is currently zoned R-15, Medium-High
Density.
4. That the R-15 District is defined and set -out in the
Zoning Ordinance as follows:
tR-151 Medium Hiah Density Residential District - The purpose
of the (R-15) District is to permit the establishment of
medium-high density single-family attached and. multi-family
dwellings at a density not exceeding fifteen (15j dwelling
units per acre. All such districts must have direct access to
a transportation arterial or collector, abut or have direct
access to a park or open space corridor, and be connected to
the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian.
The predominant housing types in this district will be patio
homes, zero lot line single-family dwellings, town houses,
apartment buildings and condominiums.
5. That the Applicant is not the owner of record of the
property, but Bill and Viola Teter are and they have requested that
this Conditional Use be granted, and Steiner Corporation has
requested this Conditional Use Permit be granted. and the
Application is not at the request of the City of Meridian.
6. That the property was being used as farm land.
7. That the proposed use by the Applicant is for single
family attached senior/adult living, a densi'..y of nine units per
acre with one lot as a recreation park.
8. That sewer and water is available to the property, but
the property will have to comply with the commercial sewer and
water rates.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 2
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
• •
9. That Steve Bradbury submitted testimony and gave
comments, which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full, as
are the responses of the Commissioners; that his testimony can be
summarized as being that this would be a planned development with
60 units in the northeast section of the development in the more
moderately price range; that two of the units would be.0 lot line
dwellings; that the density units would be 9 units per acre; that
this would be two more units than originally 58; that the minimum
square footage would be 800 to 1,160; that the staff says 1,300 sq.
ft. is required by ordinance; that the set back in the front will
be 18 to 20 feet which is less that requirement; the street side
would be to 15 feet; that this conditional use is consistent with
other multi-dwelling projects; that the units would be all one
level with a two car garage; that there would be 16 off-street
parking spaces but the Fire Dept. objected and wanted it. to be 12;
that the Fire Department also wanted the off-street parking to be
directly off the street and that there would be parking on just one,
side of the street; that this project would meet the ACRD street
requirements; 50 foot of frontage is required but they only want 33
feet; that there would be 66 feet for each duplex unit; that these
units would have a gated security entrance which will be a masonry
wall; that there would be 20 foot of buffer and landscaping on Ten
Mile; that this would be a recreation and drainage area that need
to be met; that the amenities were referenced and that the 10$ of
open space requirement would be met.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 3
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CDP
Mr. Bradbury commented that the staff comments were okay
except #8; pressurized irrigation will be done which Nampa &
Meridian Irrigation District is doing; that the pressurized system
will be included in the same system that is proposed for The Lake
at Cherry Lane Nos 3, 4, 5, and 6; there will be street lights;
they desire to place 4' sidewalks rather than 5' -- but .that is not
a do or die situation; he says if required would they would do 5'
sidewalks; they are willing to work with staff to minimize
confusion; that they will do CC&R's; that their goal is have home
minimum home size of 1,160 sq. €t.; they will enter into a
development agreement.
Mr. Bradbury also stated the City could place conditions on it
but asked not to be hamstrung.
10. That Commissioner Shearer had questions on the
Applicant's roadway intention of 40 feet.
11. That Commissioner MacCoy commented, on the sidewalk size,
that the square footage needed to be cleared up and suggested that
4 feet was too small for the sidewalks because senior citizens, to
be able to walk side-by-side needed more than 4 feet; Mr. MacCoy
also commented that he was very concerned about the structure thing
and that anywh=~.~re from 800 to 1,301 square foot homes were
mentioned and that the Applicant is going to need to clean up that
item with the Meridian Staff.
12. Commissioner Borup indicated that he thought a 4 foot
sidewalk was adequate.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 4
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
•
13. That Steve Bradbury additionally testified on the NCO
units and that they would meet the requirements of the ordinance
which controls duplex size, which he salts is 800 sq. ft., that they
are exceeding the 800 square feet, and he desired that the
Commission consider reducing the sidewalk size.
14. Commissioner Oslund had concerns over. the drainage basin
in the northeast corner and questioned what was going to be done
with the bottom of the basin, to which Mr. Bradbury answered that
they were not sure what would be done in the bottom.
15. That Jeff Dorman, a real estate agent, testified to the
fact that the first phase has been sold and they are going forward.
16. That the comments and proposed requirements of Shari
Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Bruce Freckleton,
Assistant to the City Engineer, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District, Ada County Highway District, Meridian School District,
and any other comments received by the City, are incorporated
herein as if set forth in full, if given.
17. That Section 11-2-411, RESIDENTIAL HOUSING STANDARDS,
states the minimum sizes for single family detached houses that can
be constructed in each of the Residential Districts. It also
states in Section B as follows:
"All new residential housing developments in the City of
Meridian shall be designed to insure compatibility with
adjacent existing and/or proposed. developments."
18. That Section 11-2-411 A, states as follows:
"All new residential housing built in the City of Meridian
shall comply with the most recent edition of the Department of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 5
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
•
Housing and Urban Development Minimum Property Standards, fhe
Uniform Building Code, and the State of Idaho regulatory
agencies and the Ordinances, Resolutions and Policies of the
City of Meridian, and see Subdivision Ordinance Section 9-601,
et al."
19. That the property included in this Application, other
than land owned by the Applicant, is surrounded by land that is
zones R-4 Residential; that Section 11-2-411 D, SINGLE-FAMILY
DETACHED HOUSING SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS, 1., states. in part,
as follows:
". all new single-family detached housing in the R-4
District shall be constructed to contain at least one thousand
four hundred (1,400)-square feet of living space (garage not
to be included in determining living space).
21. There was no other public testimony given.
21. That proper notice has been given as required by law and
all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been
given and followed..
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant
conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to
11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 6
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CLIP
3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property
pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418 0 of the
Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho.
4. That 11-2-418 C of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of
the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review
applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of
those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the
conditions of the area, the Planning and. Zoning Commission
concludes as follows:
a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and
a conditional use permit is required by Ordinance.
b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance with
the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
c. That it is concluded that there is a question if the
minimum size of the dwellings, of 1,160 square feet, as
proposed by the Applicant, would be harmonious in
appearance with the intended character of the general
vicinity.
d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be
disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses.
e. The property has sewer and water service available.
f. The use would not create excessive additional
requirements at public cost for public facilities and
services and the use would not be detrimental to the
economic welfare of the community.
g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process,
material, equipment or conditions of operation that would
be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare
by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise.
h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ Page 7
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
use will be required.
•
i. The development and uses will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
5. That since Section 11-2-411, B, states that "All new
residential housing developments shall be designed to insure
compatibility with adjacent existing .and/or proposed
developments.", it is concluded that the minimum square footage of
the housing unit: included in this development shall be
~l-~'f/2 ~? h~ `2C~Y-P_ ~ square feet.
6. That the Applicant shall be required to do, and perform,
the following:
a. Meet the requirements, all at Applicant's cost and
expense, placed on the property during its annexation and
zoning.
b. ~See% the requirements of the Development Agreement
that will be entered into by Applicant, which will be
determined by the CITY, all at Applicant's cost and
expense.
c. Meet the requirements and comments of the CITY
Engineer, the Assistant to the CITY Engineer, and the
Planning and Zoning Administrator, all a~ Applicant's
cost and expense.
d. Meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian,
including but not limited to, the ~Jniform Building Code,
TJniform Fire Code, Uniform Fire and Life Safety Code,
Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Electrical Code, Uniform
Mechanical Code, all parking and landscaping
requirements, all at Applicant's cost and expense.
e. Meet the requirements and conditions of the Ada
County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District, Central District Health Department, CITY Fire
and Police Departments, all at Applicant's cost and
expense.
f. Meet all of the representations of the Applicant
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ page g
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
•
unless they are in conflict with the requirements._of .
these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or CITY
Ordinances, all at Applicant's cost and expense.
g• Enter into a Development Agreement, if not done so
as part of the annexation requirements.
h. Execute and deliver it to the City, if it is in
agreement with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, a statement that it is in agreement.
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 BORUP
COMMISSIONER OSLUND
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER MacCOY
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
DECISION AND RSCOMMENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property
described in the Application with the conditions set forth in these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
MOTION : 1 (~a~
APPROVE
DENIED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED l ~~ ~ ,/
VOTED eV'ZI~"'" "
i
VOTED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/ page 9
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 -- CUP
• HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY •
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk
JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer
GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt.
DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt.
SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator
PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor
KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief
W.L. "BILL" CORDON, Police Chief
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813
Public WorksBuilding Depa~ (208) 887-2211
Motor Vehicle/Drivers Liccme (208) 888-4443
ROBERT D. CORR>E
Mayor
COttNGIL MEMBERc
WALT W. MORROW, President
RONALD R. TOLSMA
CHARLES M. ROUNTREE
GLENN R. BENTLEY
P A Z COMMISSION
JIM JOHNSON, Chairman
TIM HEPPER
JIM SHEARER
GREG OSLUND
MALCOLM MACCOY
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to
Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: November 5, 1996
TRANSMITTAL DATE: 10/17/96 HEARING DATE: 11/12/96
REQUEST: Conditional Use Penmit for The Lake at Cherry Lane No 7
BY: Steiner Development
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: West of Ten Mile Road East of The Lake
at Cherrv Lane No 5
JIM JOHNSON, P2
MALCOLM MACCOY, P2
JIM SHEARER, P/Z
-GREG OSLUND, P/Z
KEITH BORUP, P2
BOB CORRIE, MAYOR
RONALD TOLSMA, C/C
CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C
WALT MORROW, C/C
GLENN BENTLEY, C/C
WATER DEPARTMENT
SEWER DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
__ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GA (P M & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RE~ - O PRELIM 8yFJ(~IAL Phi
CITY FILES /%) /1
YOUR CONCISE
~. ~~
CITY OF MERiDlA1~
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk
JANICE L. GASS, Clty Treasurer
CyRY D. SMITH, P.E., Clty Engineer
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt.
DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt.
SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administretor
PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor
KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief
W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813
Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211
Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443
ROBERT D. CORRIE
Mayor
COUN I ti~EA~pFpC
WALT W. MORROW, President
RONALD R. TOLSMA
CHARLES M. ROUNTREE
GLENN R. BENTLEY
P & Z COMMISSION
JIM JOHNSON, Chaim~an
TIM HEPPER
JIM SHEARER
GREG OSLUND
MALCOLM MACCOY
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning ~ Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to
Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: November 5. 1996
TRANSMITTAL DATE: 10/17/96 HEARING DATE: 'f1/12/96
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for The Lake at Cherry Lane No 7
BY: _ Steiner Development
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: _ West of Ten Mile Road ast of The Lake
at herrv Lane No 5
JIM JOHNSON, P2 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MALCOLM MACCOY, P2 MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT)
JIM SHEARER, P/Z ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
GREG OSLUND, P2 ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
KEITH BORUP, P/Z CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
-BOB CORRIE, MAYOR NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
RONALD TOLSMA, C/C SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
.-CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
WALT MORROW, C/C U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
-GLENN BENTLEY, C/C INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
-WATER DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM ~ FINAI ?LAT)
SEWER DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY FILES
OTHER:
~-
FIRE DEPARTMENT -
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS:
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ENGINEER ~,,r ~•,,, s, ~ ~~
CITY PLANNER .er ~ ~ .~ ~,
C' p l~.~
o s ~ ~ s- e N .~~
hl^~~
w s.
c~l~ic~~v~
r' n ~ 0 ~ 199fi
,.
~I°~~~ :~ ~aE~tlDlt~l<~
CENTRAL C
•• DISTRICT
`i~'HEALTH
DEPARTMENT
DISTRICT HEALTH DEPA
Environmental Health Division
v~[~
;~ r ~ 2, ~ 1996
;I-rr~ ~~a~ ~tERID1Ar
Rezone #
Conditional Use # ~i ~
Preliminary /Final /Short Plat
~~
Return to:
^ Boise
~ ^ Eagle
^ Garden city
Meridian
^ Kuna
^ Acz
^ I. We have No Objections to this Proposal.
^ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal.
^ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal.
^ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment.
^ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of:
^ high seasonal ground water
^ solid lava from original grade
^ 6. We can Approve this Proposal for individual sewage disposal to be located above solid lava layers:
^ 2 feet
^ 4 feet
^ 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and
water availability.
,~ 8. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for:
,central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water well
^ interim sewage .1~-central water
^ individual sewage ^ individual water
^ 9. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare,
Division of Environmental Quality:
^ central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water
^ sewage dry lines ^ central water
^ 10. Street Runoff is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
^ I I. Stormwater disposal systems shall be reviewed by relative to: ^ Waste Disposal ^ Injection Well rules.
^ Groundwater Protection
^ 12. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other
considerations indicate approval.
^ 13. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage
Regulations.
^ 14. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any:
^ food establishment ^ swimming pools or spas ^ child care center
^ beverage establishment ^ grocery store
^ 15. Date: ~~/ / (o
Reviewed By:
CDND 10191 ~~, «~. ~~95 Review Sheet
OFFICIALS ~ HUB OF TREASURE vf1LI.E}' ~ GOUNGIL A"-Fti!aFpS
WILLIAM G. BF_RG, JR., City Clerk
JANICE,_. GASS
Clty Treasurer A Good Place to Live WALT W. MORROW, President
,
GARY D. SMITH, P.E., Clty Engineer
$ ' ~~~~ RONALD R. TOLSMA
~~~~ O
CHARLES M. ROUNTREE
RUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. l
GLENN R. BENTLEY
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt.
DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. 33 EAST IDAHO
SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administratpr MERIDIAN, IDAHU $3642 P & Z COMMIS ION
PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV SupeMsor
KENNETH W. BOWERS, Flre Chief
W
L
"BI
" Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 88781
~~~~nn~,~AJOHNSON, Chairman
Public WorksBuilding Depachneat (208) 887-
.
.
LL
GORDON, Police Chief v UUp TIM HEPPER
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney Motor Vehicle/Drivers I.ic:ense (208) 888443 JIM SHEARER
ROBERT D. CORRIE 0 ~ T 7 1 1996 MALCOLM MACCOY
M~ NAMPA ~ MERIDIAN
IRRIGATION DISTRICT
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to
Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: November 5. 1996
TRANSMITTAL DATE: 10/17/96 HEARING DATE: 11/12/96
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for The Lake at Cherry Lane No 7
BY: Steiner Development
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: West of Ten Mile Road East of The Lake
at Cherrv Lane No 5
JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MALCOLM MACCOY, P2 MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
JIM SHEARER, P/Z ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
-GREG OSLUND, P2 ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
-KEITH BORUP, P2 CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
-BOB CORRIE, MAYOR NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
-RONALD TOLSMA, C/C SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
-CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
-WALT MORROW, C/C U.S. WEST(PRELIM dr FINAL PLAT)
-GLENN BENTLEY, C/C -INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
-WATER DEPARTMENT Bl'QEAU OF RECLF-MATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
-SEWER DEPARTMENT CITY FILES
BUILDING DEPARTMENT OTHER:
FIRE DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
POLICE DEPARTMENT District requires that a Land Use Change Site
CITY ATTORNEY Development application be filed for review prior
CITY ENGINEER to final platting. Contact Donna Moore at 343-1884
CITY PLANNER or 466-7861 for further information.
All laterals and waste ways must be protected All municipal surface drainage
must he r a, Prl nn si P_ T
M
l anv surface drainage leaves the site Nampa &
Pr,r
,an Trr,Qar,nn n,G r,~r must r ~;P~ drainag~,plans The developer must
rmm~l v- w, rh Trlahn rn~o ~ t_ZQn~ T.. _ _ --- _ -_-_ ..
is within Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District.
~BiI1 Henson, Asst. Water Superintendent
NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
t
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 10, 1996
Page 16
•
ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup -Yea, Oslund -Yea, Shearer -Yea, MacCoy -Absent
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Recommendation to the City?
Oslund: Mr. Chairman, 1 move we recommend or the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby recommends approval of this conditional use permit request by the
applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in these
findings of fact and that the property and applicant be required to meet the water and
sewer requirements, fire and life safety codes, UBC and other ordinances of the City of
Meridian including that all parking areas shall be paved.
Borup: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded that we send onto the City the comments as read, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 7 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
Johnson: There is a blank in the findings that needs to be completed with respect to
square footage on page 8. Is there any other discussion of any other items? Would the
commissioners like to address item 5 on page 8?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I think it has been determined that the ordinance does read 800 feet
on a duplex, I know there is some confusion on that. I am a little confused on what the
applicant is proposing though. They have mentioned the figure 1160 feet that is their goal.
I would be curious to know if they have firmed that up any more or not. I don't know how
we find that out at this point. (End of Tape)
Bradbury: (Inaudible) minimum square footage of each of the dwelling units, individual
units of 1160 that is what the applicant proposes and is certainly willing to live with a
minimum requirement of 1160 per unit.
Johnson: Thank you, Counsel, your statement in here has to do with whether or not 1160
would satisfy the statement of it being harmonious with (Inaudible) is that what you are
saying there?
• •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 10, 1996
Page 17
Crookston: That is correct, what our ordinance says is that for a duplex, the minimum
square footage requirement is 800 square feet per unit. Also in our ordinance it states that
the City is to determine whether or not units, whether it is the size or design and I assume
also the color of paint whatever, as to whether or not that is compatible with the
surrounding structures or area around the area that the application pertains. to. The
reason that 1 left the blank was to give the Commission an opportunity to do exactly what
you are doing now to decide whether or not the 1160 square feet as proposed by the
applicant meets the requirement that the City determine what is compatible with the
surrounding area. If the Commissioners agree with that then I would entertain a motion.
Shearer. Mr. Chairman, I move that we set that minimum on this project at 1100 feet, that
gives them a 60 foot clearance.
Borup: Second
Johnson: Well I would like to, I know we have a motion and a second, I would like to
assume that you are recommending approval of the findings with that insertion is that
correct, for clarification.
Shearer: I was clarifying that in the findings and I can also.
Borup: I withdraw my second.
Shearer: I will also recommend that we adopt these findings with that added in.
Johnson: Could you restate your motion and withdraw your original please.
Shearer: Okay, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission adopt these
findings of fact and conclusions with the insertion of 1100 square feet as a minimum.
Borup: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact with the minimum
square footage of 1100, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup -Yea, Oslund -Yea, Shearer -Yea, MacCoy -Absent
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Recommendation to the City please?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 10, 1996
Page 18
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommend to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional
use request by the applicant for the property described in the application with the
conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Borup: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass that recommendation onto the City
Council as stated by Commissioner Shearer, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: 2 Yea, 1 Nay
ITEM #11: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.7 BY STEINER
DEVELOPMENT (TABLED NOVEMBER 12, 1996):
Johnson: What would you like to do with the preliminary plat?
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the preliminary plat, we had some discussion
on that didn't we.
Borup: Second
Johnson: Discussion, we have a motion and second to approve the preliminary plat,
discussion?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I think one of the items that was still pending was the sidewalk width
and street location. I believe we left the last one maybe with a recommendation that the
sidewalk width be increased to 5 feet and to accommodate that the street be moved over
one foot to the east.
Shearer. Let's make an amendment to my motion to that affect, that I will second. I move
we amend
Johnson: We have a motion and a second (inaudible)
Shearer: No we don't, I can amend the motion anybody can amend the motion Jim that is
parliamentary procedure.
Johnson: Yes you can amend the motion but we are not done with the discussion part yet.
I want to get some feedback from staff on that on moving the street, have you had any
discussion about that do you recall that? Are you doing this from memory or do you have
• •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 31
some plants like that and space them at appropriate intervals I think it would grow real
nicely.
Johnson: That makes sense, and it is probably something that you can work out with staff.
Anything else? That is it, I will close the public hearing.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law on this project.
MacCoy: Second
Johnson: Motion and a second to have the City Attomey prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: I see Mr. ButterField sitting there, did we act on number 8? We approved the
findings of fact and it will go onto City Council for their next meeting. Do you have a copy
of those, now that we have approved them you can have a copy if you don't already. You
are welcome to mine, I could give you mine right now if you would like.
ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 7 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and ask Steiner Development or their
representative to address the Commission.
Steve Bradbury, 300 N. 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission my name is Steve Bradbury and
I have been asked to present the application that is before you on behalf of Steiner
Development. This is a project that you folks have seen before, at least parts of it. It might
help to go through a little bit of background to try to get you up to speed and help Mr.
Borup who I don't think has seen the project before. What you have before you is an
application for a preliminary plat and a conditional use permit for a planned development.
This particular phase of the development is for a 60 unit senior living project. What I might
suggest you do, you all have a booklet that looks something like this. I will be going
through the booklet and will be referring to various tabs throughout the booklet. What you
might do right now, you might want to get behind tap 3 and pull out one of these
preliminary plats because it viii help to show you what we have in mind. There are actually
two of them behind tab three, the first one of these pull out maps just shows the lot lines
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 32
and the preliminary plat. The second preliminary plat and the second pull out also shows
the proposed foot prints for the buildings that would be placed on those lots. So you pull
those out now it might be a little bit easier for you to refer to things as we go along. As you
probably know this is the last of a multipart development project on a 40 acre parcel of
property on Ten Mile Road that has been owned by Mr. Teter, Bill Teter who is here
tonight with us. Probably the easiest thing to do, but this one might be good too, I will pass
those out. Those are just smaller versions of, maybe it wilt be a little easier for you to get
a look at it. If you get, I keep telling you to pull out maps and look at things, behind tab 1
there is a map that looks like this. Maybe we can start there. The pull out map, the
colored map that you have got kind of helps you to get a feel for what it is that has gone
on before, behind tab 1, multi-colored, to give you an idea of what has gone on before.
You folks first saw this project in January of 1995. At that time there was a proposed
preliminary plat for the entire 40 acre parcel. That parcel was divided up into what I would
call 4 distinct areas. Those four areas would be an R-4 zoned area for single family
detached residential dwellings. That is shown in the pink or red on this map that you have
pulled out there. The blue part which was incorporated into that same application was an
R-8 single family detached residential development. That was previously approved and a
matter of a fact there is a final plat for that along with the pink R-4 area. That has already
been through the City process. In the lower right hand comer, the yellow portion that was
a proposed senior living area as well and that had a number of single family detached
building lots for single family detached dwellings as well together with a club house. That
was approved for preliminary plat I guess it was in January of 1996, earlier this year. What
is left then is the orange portion which is in the upper right hand comer of the map and that
is about a little under 7 acre parcel that was originally proposed for some kind of town
house or condominium project development. That has an R-15 zone. By the way the yellow
portion is also an R-15 zone. So what we are here to talk about tonight after all of that is
the proposal of what we are going to put on that orange portion. You will probably recall
that the project as originally proposed the concept was for the development to provide a
variety of housing choices in a planned area. So we can get one area with a multiple
choices in living environments. We have the single family, the traditional detached single
family dwellings on 8,000 square foot lots in the R-4 area. Similar homes on smaller lots
in the R~ area and then we have the single family detached senior citizens area in the R-
15and the yellow area on the map and now of course we are proposing a similar type of
living area in the orange portion. Only what we are trying to acxom~ish there is to find a
little bit more moderately priced facility for people who might not be able to afford to get
into the little bit nicer project that has already been approved. What is proposed here is
mostly two unit, zero lot line developments, some people might call them duplexes but that
is not really technically right. They are zero lot line, they are sings story town houses
although people get confused when you say that too. Basically is it two unit zero lot tine
dwellings most of them. There are also two proposed three unit zero lot line buildings and
then 3 four unit zero lot line. buildings. If you look on the foot prints that you have got there
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 33
(inaudible). Now, back to the book, behind tab one, about two pages in you will find the
page that talks about the, it gives you some basic information about the project. The parcel
size is about 6 and 2/3 acres. When the project was originally proposed, when you
originally saw it we were talking about 71/2 acxes in this parcel. The staff in the staff report
pointed out and questioned what happened to that additional half 2/3 of an acre. It took
us a little while to figure it out too, and we think we have. We didn't give any of that ground
away. I think what happened, I have it up here, what we think happened here is during the
platting process because we have had several plats. We had a plat for the R-4 area and
then another plat for the R-15 area down here and then a third plat for this R-15 area that
is under consideration. What happened we thir~c is that during the platting process for this
parcel, this area that is in yellow here which is the sewer easement up to the north the 20
foot landscape easement, landscape buffer along Ten Mile Road and then the landscaping
along the entry road didn't gef included in the calculation for the total acreage in this
phase. What happened is those portions all got included in the total acreage in the
previously approved phase. 3o the ground is all there it is just that it didn't get included
in that calculation. So you can see you add all that additional ground up I am fairly
confident that we are at 2/3 of an acre and probably just a little more than that. So the
project still has the same amount of dirt under it, it is just that it got allocated into, it got
perhaps platted in the wrong spot, but it is all still there.
(Inaudible)
Bradbury: I can explain some of the reason why that ground got in the previous plats and
that was because when the final plat was submitted for number 5 which is the R-4 area the
City imposed a requirement that we provide a 20 foot buffer along Ten Mile at that point
in time. Of course it was originally contemplated that 20 foot buffer would be included in
the plat for number 7. Like I say, the dirt is there the 20 foot buffer is going to be there it
is just didn't get calculated into the square footage of the plat that you have before you. If
it creates a problem, we can untangle it. I am hoping that we won't let these little
technicalities bother us. The density is about 9 units per acre and that is of course
substantially less then the 15 units per acre maximum allowable under an R-15 zone. It
is probably, I might as well point out to you, that there are two units more being proposed
tonight then were proposed originally for this piece of ground. There are 60, originally
when you first saw this project two years ago we were talking about having 58 units. The
net density however in all the R-15 zone is a minus 9 because there were 11 fewer units
finally approved in the other project, in the other R-15 senior project. So there is plus 2
here, minus 11 there, that leaves a negative 9 total. So overall. density we are under what
was originally suggested as what (inaudible). And I think you have to realize of course at
that time it was nothing more than just targe# and that is what we were aiming for. The
home sizes we are proposing, they will be 1160 square foot minimum. I spent a little bit if
time looking in the ordinance for requirements for minimum square footage of homes like
s ~-
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 34
this, two unit and 3 unit homes. The only thing that f could find was the requirement that
these things meet a minimum .800 square foot which is found if you are interested at
section 2-411 I. Maybe I missed but I couldn't find anything else. The reason I raise the
issue at all is because the staff report suggests that perhaps the minimum square footage
on these dwellings ought to be 1300 square feet as well. Whether or not I guess that is
a good idea something for you folks to ponder. The '1160 square feet which are proposed
here meets the requirements of your ordinance by quite a little bit. The setbacks, you can
see the setbacks that are shown on this page here, front 18 feet, side 5 feet, rear 15 feet.
What you don't see is street side yard setbacks we are proposing 15 feet. Now that is less
than is required under the typical R-15 zone. Of course since this is a Wined
development we are asking that the Commission consider allowing some relief ifom a
number of standard requirements in this zone and the setbacks would be one of them.
What we would like to ask for is the front yard setback be reduced from 20 feet to i8 feet,
and that the street side yard setback be reduced from 20 feet to 15 feet. Let me pant out
something in the application materials that you have got, there are a couple of references
to seeking a 10 foot street side yard setback. That is wrong, it is 15, we did a little bit of
calculating and we can get it done in 15. What I would like to remind you of for those of
you that might not remember is this is consistent wwrtth what was proposed for the senior
project to the south that has previously been approved over there was the same thing.
Eighteen foot side front yard and 15 foot street side yard. So we are asking for the same
consideration on this as was provided on the other project. I have already said it once, I
will say it again, the project contemplates that all of dwellings will be single story ~ one
time when it was originally brought to you and there was some concept drawing shown.
We thought that we might want to have two story town houses there. Those have been
eliminated for a couple of reasons. First of ali we were committed to the idea the it was
going to be a senior living area and we are thinking: that most seniors don't want th be
walking up and down stairs, so we wall try to keep them all down on one level. Second we
wanted to have a lower profile near the entry to the project (inaudible) we would Nce to
keep the buildings down a little bit lower profile there at that front entry. I think Brat will
help the aesthetics a little bit in the entry area Third frankly similar units oMer in
subdivision No. 3 I think it is have been very successful and we think there is a marie~ for
them. Parking requirements, each of the units vwuld have a two car garage, and in
addition there is a .driveway for each of the units wh~will hold two cars. So we have that
off street parking. In addition there is proposed off street parking in a couple of areas. that
are shown on the plat. The plat shows a total of 161 think off street parking places. This
isn't showing (inaudible) there were four spaces shown on the plat, off street perking
places on the plat here, the fire department has suggested that those are likely to interfere
with the driveway. We figure they may so w+e are figuring that those will probat~iir be
eliminated. We will end up with a total of (inaudible) 12 and if we need to make some
adjustments on those we certainly can. One other issue with respect to off street partkir~
is that your ordinance requires that off street parking be set back four feet from the right
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 35
of way. We are proposing that the City give relief, waive that requirement the four foot
setback. As they are shown we are showing the parking areas to be directed accessed
from the street. That too is consistent with the approval that was given on subdivision No.
6 the other senior citizen area. Streets, we ane proposing private street, with forty foot total
right of way, 28 feet of pavement, 2 feet of curb and gutter on each side, a 4 foot sidewalk
on one side. Our proposal is to permit parking only on one side of the street and we will
work out with the fire department on which side they like best or least or howe~rer they want
to look at it. The streets will be built to the construction standards of Ada County Highway
District. All of that is consistent again with the approval that was given for subdivision no.
6: Street frontages that you will see on your plat the standard R-15 street frontage
requirements are that each lot have 50 feet of frontage along the street. It v~on't take me
very long to recognize on the plat that we are proposing a whole bunch of tots that have
33 feet of frontage. What we would like to suggest to you is that again under the planned
development requirements the 50 foot street frontage requirements be waived and- maybe
what may make some sense to you is that since we are proposing two unit one building
consisting of two units and those two units will be built on two lots, zero bt line in the
middle that what you really have is 66 feet of frontage for each building. Perhaps if you
look at it that way it won't feel quite like we are trying to squeeze so much in as asking for
33 foot frontages. Although the lots themselves are technically 33 feet. Each building really
has 66 feet of frontage on the street. So if you add all those together I think we get there.
There are also some frontages, some flag lots around the comers where the frontages
don't add up to 50 of course. But generally we have. been able to get past those
requirements as well and would like to ask you to do that for us as well. Okay, the next
page in your booklet is a list of amenities on the project. I don't know if I need to go
through them all but there is a proposed gated security entrance to provide added
measure of security to the people who live there. There is a privacy wall that will surround
the entire project. Just so that you can remember, we talked about this a couple, of years
ago. We were talking about this masonry wall that goes all the way around the project up
and down Ten Mile and then extends. into the subdivision and beyond. So this project on
those two sides the main thoroughfare (inaudible) will have this really nice masonry wall
and then comply with the fencing requirements. Of course you know about the 20 foot
landscape buffer along Ten Mile Road. There is a bus stop proposed in there open space.
We have a proposal for an open space that I chink consisted of about 18,000 square feet.
An open space recreation area. It serves a duel purpose of being a storm drainage area
and I know that sounds a little funny. Maybe f can help show you what I am talking about
is this area right in here. Of course we have also got the open space that (inaudible) That
recreation area and drainage area has been we thought about it quite a little bit and talked
to the engineers about whether or not it makes sense that you can have a drainage area
and a recreation area all in the same spot. Apparently it really does work. Our
consultations with the engineer tell us that this area is going to be dry most of the year and
it is really only wet when it rains. Of course in an outdoor recreation there probably aren't
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 36
too many people who are going to be using it when it is wet, when it is raining. As we
understand it, a typical storm that we have here, will put about 2 feet of water into this
drainage area. Within 48 hours that 2 feet of water drains away. tf we have a 100 year
storm the storm that theoretically happens every 100 years we might have 41 /2 feet of
water in that thing and of course it is going to take a little longer for that to drain away.
Generally speaking most of the time, most of the year certainly most of the time of the
year where people want to be outdoor using the facility that ground is going to be dry. So
the proposal is to make some use of that ground by landscaping it around the perimeter,
putting in a gazebo up ftont, I have a picture of that so you can get an idea of what we are
talking about. If you are looking at it from the street toward this spot right here (inaudible)
a gazebo and a deck. There will be picnic tables and benches throughout the area along
with like I said some landscaping facilities. Now we really want to make this into a
recreation facility that can be used. I know it is a challenge. That is what we are working
on and hoping that we can find some good solid uses for this area And certainly willing
to take any suggestions that you might have as to what other faalities we might put in
there. But like we say we are thinking of picnic areas and benches and tables with the
gazebo. Perhaps even a barbecue pit or something like that. The 10% requirement of
open space by a fairly wide margin. We roughly calculated when vNe were sitting down,
there are well over 30,000 square feet of open space there. So I thihk that issue is fairly
well dealt with. Behind tab 2 in the booklet in the application materials, I don't think we
need to go through any of those unless anyone has a particular question about anything
they saw in there. Behind tab 3 I already told you has the plats and the proposed building
footprint layouts. We can talk about those if anybody has any specific questions. Behind
tab 4 in the booklet you will find a typical floor plan for the proposed units. Typical
elevation drawing of the proposed units and a typical site plan for the proposed units
showing you the dimensions and how they fit onto the lots. Two bedroom, Two bath, Two
car garage, fairly standard units. Behind tab you will find the proposed construction
materials that we are talking about using in the project. And of course we have materials
dealing with the roof, the architectural shingles. We have an exterior color chart we can
show you the kind of siding and stucco that is intended to be used. And the brick accent
is shown back there as well. So I think that pretty well covers all the basic amenities and
features in the project. We received a staff report this morning and went through it in some
detail. I think it is probably worth going through again right now. Because there are a
couple of issues that we probably ought to talk about. Let me get some of this other paper
out of my way. First of all the general comments we are all perfectly okay with all of those
except for just one I think and that would be number 8. The last sentence of number 8
indicates that the off street parking areas are not supposed to be within four feet of an
established right of way and we are seeking relief from that 4 foot setbeGc provision. Other
than that all of the general requirements are acceptable to the applicant. The site specific
comments, number 1 pressurized irrigation. We proposed pressurized irrigation, it will be
included in the same system that as proposed for the Lake at Cherry Lane no. 3, 4,5 and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 37
6. Nampa Meridian Irrigation District has already approved the system for number 3, it has
been oversized to accommodate the entire project. It is a shared system with Englewood
Subdivision and Firelight. So that is certainly we are aware of and the intention is to build
it to Nampa Meridian irrigation District specifications. Number 2, the street lights you bet,
what we would like to do and keeping with the rest of the project is probably install some
more decorative lighting as opposed to the standard poles and we will work with the staff
to come up with the materials that are satisfactory. Number 3 is dealing with the width of
the roadways, as I said the roadways that we are proposing here are the same as were
proposed for number 6. We agree that there shouldn't be parking on both sides of the
street so we will restrict parking to one side of the street and we will work with the fire
department to get the details of how they would like us to handle that one. Number 4,
dealing with the treatment capacity of the waste water treatment plant. Yes we understand
the application is subject to the capacity. Number 5, that one has to do with the density
issues and the number of units and I have already spoken to you about that. Hopefully I
haven't completely confused you about where we are. Number 6, dealing with the amount
of open space, the 10°~ open space, we have talked about that a little bit. One of the
things that I didn't mention is that number six suggested the slopes in this retention facility
are 3 to 1, that is right except at the entry where people would be coming and going. That
will be a 4 to 1 slope there to make it a little bit easier to get in and out. Of course if we can
figure out a way to install ramps and steps. and things like that it would make access even
easier I think that we would be able to do that. Number 7 is talking about sidewalk, in the
other senior project in Number 6 we had a sidewalk on one side of the street. We are
proposing, we are asking that the Commission allow to do the same thing on this project.
What we are trying to avoid is having a whole lot of hard surface and create a little bit
more soft surface. One of the things that might be worth noting is that since the idea is to
provide a senior living area, I know these people walk, so I don't want to suggest that we
don't need sidewalks. But I don't think you are likely to see as much traffic in and out of
this area. We are talking 60 units, people are probably going to be staying home they are
not going to be children. Theoretically if the project is developed as proposed there wont'
be any cthildren running aro~d and playing in there except those that are coming to visit.
So we are thinking the requirement for sidewalks on both sides of the street really might
not be necessary. Number 8 addresses
MacCoy: (Inaudible) the width (inaudible)
Bradbury: The proposal is for a four foot sidewalk and I know that staff is suggesting 5,
we would like to stay at 4 in order to help reduce some of the hard surface area that would
be there. I suspect that if it is a do or die we will go along with what the City requires.
Johnson: It is part of the ordinance, you would have to get a variance is the way I
understand it.
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 38
Bradbury: Well I guess what I would suggest is the Commission consider reducing the
sidewalk size under the same. planned development provisions that are allowed for
reducing setbacks and densities and or increase densities and those things. Like I said
the four foot sidewalk is what we would really like to do. We think it is enough. We don't
want the project to look too institutional with too much concrete and pavement every
where. And that is the thinking.
Johnson: What was the resolution on 6? Phase 6, what did we do for sidewalks there?
Bradbury: I can't remember if it is was four or five, I don't recall.
MacCoy: While you are looking I would like to put a two bits in for a five foot because you
talked about the senior citizen lifestyle and they do a lot of walking. Four foot is really too
small to allow 2 people side by side to go walking, five is more comfortable.
Bradbury: Yes I understand, and I don't know that this is do or die. We are just trying to
like I say to get to much hard surface. I can't seem to find anything that tells me here, wait
a minute. Well the section, the street section that I am showing on the preliminary plat for
number 6 shows a four foot sidewalk. I can't remember for sure what was specifically
approved other than looking at that.
Oslund: Are the mail boxes on the sidewalk?
Bradbury: I would imagine although I don't know. I guess that is probably what the post
office requires these days isn't it.
MacCoy: (Inaudible)
Bradbury: Maybe what we could do is to provide some additional meandering around it
to keep a little bit of extra space there. I guess what I would like to suggest is a (inaudible)
probably not be a deal killer and although that is what we would certainly prefer if it is
going to cause the Commission a great deal of heartache then I think maybe we ought to
just move on. Number 8 is an issue addressing the requirements of the fair housing act.
The proposal is to have this be a seniors 55 and older project. We are fully aware of the
requirements of the fair housing act and intend to comply with them. If we can't comply
with them we won't build it, but I don't think we are going to have any trouble with that.
Number 9, this one is kind of an issue that I have to say I can certainty emphasize with
staffs problems. It has been kind of a difficult project and a little bit confusing because of
the manner in which it was proposed. That is that we have got a preliminary plat for 40
acre parcel that includes two big lots in it and now w+e are coming, we have been bade in
and asked for preliminary plat approval for a resubdivision of one of those big lots. That
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 39
was in January, now we are back in asking for a resubdivision of another one of those big
lots and that is number 7 the one you have before you now. I can see that it might be a
little difficult for people to keep it all straight. What are we talking about no. 6 or number
7, number 3 who knows. We are certainly willing to work with staff to try and make it as
easy as we can make it on staff so that the confusion is minimized. We certainly
understand that you have to build these things in some reasonable order. We understand
that plats have to be recorded numerically and we are willing to record the plats
numerically. What we are really hoping that we can avoid however is to be placed into a
lock step requirement of you have to build one before you start on the next. We might
want to build them all together. We might want to start one and jump over and start on
another depending on what the marketing demand is. Recognizing that the plats have to
be filed as they go along. As much as I can emphasize with staffs concerns I certainly
hope the commission will permit some measure of flexibility and not impose a lock step
build one before you can start on the next one type of condition on this project It just takes
the flexibility away and we just know that we would like to build them in exactly the order
that they have been proposed to you. We know that marketing changes that the desires
of the people, that is what drives, that is what sells,
Johnson: Rather than be general can you be specific as to why you haven't built these
other four?
Bradbury: I can be specific on, let's go back through it, number 3 is built and is for sale.
Number 4 has a final plat approved and we have gotten caught up in a sewer easement
glitch. We had negotiated easements from the entity that had acquired an option on the
property adjacent to it. That option expired and now we are attempting to acquire those
necessary easements from the owner of the property. Those easements have been in the
hands of the individual who optioned the property for months and months and we have just
gotten caught in that glitch. So that is what has held up number 4. Number 5, you have
final plat approval, that has been given .but unfortunately as I understand it the plans for
that one are being held pending resolution of the sewer issues on number 4. You have to
remember these things aren't even adjacent to each other. They are remote from each
other. So number 5 the circulation of final docwnents and final plans are being held while
we try to get the number 4 worked out. Hopefully we will be able to find a sop~tion to that
one real soon. Number 6 of course we just got preliminary plat approval, the final
approvals, working on the final construc~i~ plans and Doug what did you tell me
(inaudible). The construction plans for number 6 are in works and we intend to submit
those next week. Of course that brings us now to number 7. So although again I sound
like I am repeating myself and I probably am. Although from the outside it may appear we
are not making any progress, I think we are. There is a lot of work in progress on each and
every one of these phases. Yau got to knowthat the owner of this thing doesn't want to
sit on this land and not be able to market these bts for no good reason. I think you all have
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 40
to understand if we can get all of the tittle glitches straightened out and get the things built
and start selling them nobody is going to be any happier than the people who own this
thing.
Johnson: I think we understand that. as long as you understand what the City ordinance
is on development time requirements.
Bradbury: I certainly do, you bet, and we will do everything we can to meet all of those
requirements and if it looks like we are not going to make them then you will know that we
will be here explaining why. So I probably beat that one to death. Number 10, covenants,
you bet, we will show them to the City Attorney and anybody else who might be interested
in reading them. We are perfectly happy to have review of the restrictive covenants and
submit those whenever you would Bice to see them. Number 11 is dealing with the
minimum square footage for the homes. t already talked about that our proposal is 1160
square feet. Number 12 says all ordinances of the City of Meridian need to be met. We
understand that and have no problem with that. Of course we have asked for relieve form
certain requirements under the planned development ordinance. Number 13 is a reference
to a development agreement being required. Yes, we understand that we will provide a
development agreement for the cities review just at any point in this process that you folks
feel like you need to see one. If you need it now we will give it to you know. If you would
like to see it when you see the final plat, we will give it to you when you seethe final plat.
You tell us and we will build it. I think that covers everything that I intended to talk about.
One more thing, in your packet or at feast in the packet that I received there is a litter from
the School District expressing some ooncem about the number of students that are likely
to be placed in the schools as a result of this project. I think maybe they didn't' understand
we are talking about a senior project. Theoretically there are not going to be any children
out of this project at all. If for some reason there is I doubt there will be very many.
Johnson: I think their figures represent a typical subdivision.
Bradbury: I think so too, I just wanted do point that out so that didn't get lost. That is all the
comments that I had prepared to make.. If you have any questions for me I would be
pleased to answer them. Mr. Campbell of course is here and he cwt answer questions that
I can't hopefully.
Johnson: Okay, questions from the commissioners?
Borup: Maybe more of just a comment, staff did have a lot of site speafic items here (End
of Tape) questions and concern on. I think Mr. MacCoy mentioned that seniors do quite
a bit of walking, I think # have; ~o, from what I (inaudible) four foot wo~.ild be adequate.
don't know (inaudible) the apNl~cant will be willing to go either way. But I guess more of
• •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 41
just a comment, that was the only item I think.
Johnson: Thank you, Commissioner Oslund?
Oslund: In general I can't remember staff comments come in that had as many concems
that seemed to be so focused on the issue of are you going to deliver. This issue of when
are you going to build something. I don't work with the applicant every day and I was on
the Commission when we passed on 6. So I guess I just have concerns about that.
Obviously Shari has been working with you folks and if she has got some what appear to
be fairly serious concems I just wonder, I wish she was here tionight so she could elaborate
on these. To me the issue of trust and are you going to deliver that is key. I don't think the
City, I think the City, most people would agree we want people that are here for that can
be proud of what they have built and they will stand by it. That was the one concem. The
other more specific and technical concern I had was about that drainage basin, that
retention basin. Now you talked about landscaping the perimeter, now what about actually
down in the bottom of the basin? Let me just elaborate a little further, I am kind of
concerned if we don't irrigate that then what we have is a landscape strip about a weed
field.
Bradbury: I am glad you raise the question because I dons want you to leave with a bad
impression or an erroneous impression. The only reason I didn't talk about what is going
in the bottom is because w+e are not really absolutely certain yet. When we have talked
about in the past we have talked about having it planted with grass so that it can be used
kind of as walking and recreation area. There has also been some thought given to well
maybe if we can figure out a way to build it maybe we can even put a tennis court down
there. I don't know if that is feasible but that is a possibility. Maybe some other kind of
recreation use that we might be able to put down there as well. We just don't know and that
is an honest answer, we just know for sure what we want to try and put down there. It
depends on what we can feasibly build. Yes I understand I have seen some of these
drainage retention areas and some of them look pretty bad.
Oslund: That is okay if that is what it is. But you are talking about doing something that
is quite special here and
Bradbury: Exactly the applicant has seen these things too and says that is not what we
want to do. We want to make this a functional area, we want to actually be able to provide
something that number one is useful and two is attractive because we want to be able to
sell these things and keep people happy. So you are right, to the extent of hearing it from
me helps you my discussions with my client the applicant we have talked about it a lot. We
talked about it quite a bit today. I am convinced in any everrt that these folks have every
intention of building something there that is useful and that is attractive. I am sure that if
. •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 42
you would like to hear from Mr. Campbell he would be happy to reiterate those thoughts.
As to the other, are you ever really going to build anything. (Inaudible) maybe I cart help,
I don't know if this helps or not because you folks see a lot of land developers come and
go and some of them probably do a better job than others. You haven't had a whole lot
of opportunity yet to see exactly what Steiner Development can and will do. But I can tell
you this little bit. I know for a fact that these guys have got a whole lot of money already
invested in this thing. They already own a pretty good share of the dirt out there. f don't
think that these folks are going to walkaway. ff nothing else just the pure tenacity of these
folks and how many times they have been before you. I have been before you on their
behalf ought to send some message hopefully. They are not going to be spending all of
this money on me and all of this money on the engineers and all that other work if they
don't figure they are going to build something. Unfortunately we have really had a couple
of issues that have just, a couple of issues that really caused us a problem. One thing I
didn't tell you why didn't build subdivision no. 4 well we didn't even the dirt, Steiner
Development didn't own the dirt until really just rec:entty. That is done.
Johnson: Well I think you can understand also if you were here earlier our first four items
have been going on forever and so we are a bit gun shy. So I think that these comments
and I really appreciate these comments from staff, because they are poignant and they are
specific and they reflect past disappointments. They refer specifically to you to look at the
drainage sites and specific areas and also the situation with the lot lines and the bts out
at La Playa Subdivision. Those are the type of things that are helpful because really what
they are telling me this is recent experience that didn't' work out favorably.
Bradbury: And we need to do better.
Oslund: You have a credibility problem I think, not from me, (inaudible)
Bradbury: I guess what I would like to suggest to you along those lines that you have the
opportunity here because you have a conditional use permit in front you. You can place
reasonable conditions on the applicant's future conduct and if you have concem~s in a
particular areas well condition them. What I would I~ to ask you not to do and why I will
ask you not to do is to hamstring these folks so they end up getting into a lock step that
is going to make it even harder for them to actually do i#. It is a two edged sword, you string
out all the conditions with the idea that by (inaudible) fhese guys are going to do it our way
or they are not going to do it at all and you might get your wish, they might not do it at all.
That is really what we would like to try to avoid ~ at a~ possible. I had another thought and
I probably rambled long enough. If you have more questions.
Johnson: In your behalf, this type of development, nut necessary specifically this one but
this type of development is something that Meridian has a need for. I think that is why we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 43
are as far as we are on this sort of thing. This is an attractive concept and f am confident
that it would be a successful project if done right because the demand is certainly there
for this type of housing.
Bradbury: And it does remind me of the other comment I did want to make and it kind of
has to do, it comes off of that same thought. ff there is anything quite like this in Meridian
now, I don't know where it is. It is the first time that I think that you folks have seen a
project that was constructed like this one. When I say that I am talking about the approval
process of coming in and having several different concepts proposed. It is the first time I
think that staff at least here has seen something quite like this. It has been a little tough,
it has been a little bit harder to get through the approval process. It has taken a little bit
longer than the typical 8,000 square foot residential subdivision. Nobody is more
frustrated about that then the owners are.
Shearer: Can you clarify the road right of way for me?
Bradbury: I will try, I am not sure I can.
Shearer. On the survey it shows 42 foot right of way and then it is dimensioned at 40 feet.
Bradbury: Are you talking about the street section, I noticed that too. You are right it is
labeled a 42 foot right of way but then it is dimensioned as a 40 foot. The intention is that
it is a 40 foot and I hope the numbers add up. I know we went through this once before
when they didn't but I think they do this time.
Shearer: If that sidewalk is expanded to 5 feet I would recommend that you off set that
street a little bit in there because you only have an 18 foot driveway and some of those
cars are in the neighbofiood of 19 feet in an older vehicle. So you might want to cut that
3 foot down on the one side and put afoot on the other side.
Bradbury: Just move it over a little bit, I follow you.
Shearer: You might give some consideration to that.
Bradbury: As a matter of fact that is exactly what we did on the other senior project.
Although we had the 40 foot right of way, we didn't put it right in the middle, we got it and
moved it over one side or the other so it all fit better and would work for setbacks and what
not.
Shearer: You need all of that driveway, all of that overlap onto the right of way that you can
get.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 44
Bradbury: You bet, we will be happy to work with Mr. Smith on what works best in that
respect.
Johnson: Commissioner MacCoy?
MacCoy: You might want to clarify something hereon one of your materials you have
listed is 61 units and then your drawing shows 60 units so there is a discrepancy
someplace in there. Frankly I am little concerned, in fact I am very concerned about the
structure thing. I think you need to work a little bit on that from the stand point you speak,
I know I read the same material, you have an 800 and 1100 and a 1301 type (inaudible)
you are going to need to clean up that item with our staff. I was going to bring up the same
thing that Mr. Shearer brought in here because the walkway is a concern since they are
a walking public that are going to live here I think we ought to do everything we can to
accommodate them. I think his suggestion about staggering is a good one. I was going
to do the same thing (inaudible) you are going to have to do something to support that.
Johnson: Any other questions?
Bradbury: Maybe I can respond very quickly, with respect to the number of units if there
is a 61 in there I think that is a mistake. It ought to be a 60, my understanding is the
proposal is 60 units total. We will make sure we count them and give you the right number
if we have a problem. The size of the units clearly we are intending to meet the
requirements of the ordinance. As I read the ordinance it is 800 square foot minimum and
we are sure going to beat that by a fair amount. And then the sidewalk we talked about
that a lot. I don't think we want that to be a deal killer.
Johnson: Thank you very much, is there anyone else that would like to come before the
Commission on this application?
Jeff Dorman, 3747 Summerset Way, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Dorman: My name is Jeff Dorman, I work for Coldwell Banker, Aspen Realty. I am the
marketing agent for Steiner Development on this particular project. I wanted to kind of set
your mind at ease as far as the dedication and the ability of this developer to go through
with the project on the previous application you had in there on the senior development.
We have pushed through and we have sold that complete development for the developer
already. The development is going through, he is planning on putting in the single family
homes on this particular developmerrt that we are doing right now. For this hearing here
we are expecting to have this contract also sold this week for a one developer to come in
and develop all of this project. So we are moving forward. We have on the other
developments where we have the single family homes we have 6 individual builders
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 12, 1996
Page 45
coming in, each of them here in the last 3 weeks have optioned 3 to 4 lots to start in the
spring time. So in keeping with the mind that we are trying to progressively seek and get
these projects sold so that we are not waiting in the wings and we are not lagging our feet
on this thing. So you know we are pushing forward as much as we can on the sales and
the marketing part of this also.
Johnson: Thank you very much, anyone else that would -like to come before the
Commission? Hearing and seeing no one I will close the public hearing at this time. We
are addressing item 13 only which is the conditional use permit.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law for this project.
Oslund: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of
fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE
AT CHERRY LANE NO. 7 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing.
Steve Bradbury, 300 N. 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Bradbury: We have talked about all of the issues that I have to talk about with respect to
the preliminary plat in the previous hearing. I would simply ask that all of my comments
and discussion that we engaged in with connection to comments be included in the record
for this hearing and then I won't have to repeat it all.
Johnson: Thank you; this is a public hearing, is there anyone that would like to come
forward on the preliminary plat portion? Any further questions from staff? From the
Commissioners? I will close the public hearing at this time.
Oslund: Mr. Chairman, t move that we table this item pending the, until the next meeting
when we will get the findings back on the conditional use permit.
MacCoy: Second
• •
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: November 12.1996
APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 13
REQUEST; PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMTI FOR THE LAKE AT
CHERRY LANE N0.7
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
"REVIEWED" [ ~~
'¢~
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ~ b
U'~
f" ~~
U~` ~
C
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
OTHER:
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
• ," ,
1 RUNFT & LONGETEIG, CHARTERED
2 ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW
P.O. BOX 953
420 WEST BANNOCK STREET
3 BOISE, IDAHO 83701
TELEPHONE (208) 345-6521
4
AGREEMENT OF LEASE
5
6 AGREEMENT made this day of ~
7 1978, by and between CITY OF MERIDIAN, a municipal corporation of
g the State of Idaho, party of the first part, hereinafter called
g LESSOR, and Cherry Lane Golf Course, Inc., an Idaho corporation,
10 Party of the second part, hereinafter called LESSEE..
11 1. LEASE. LESSOR hereby leases to LESSEE the following
12 described real property situate in Ada County, City'of Meridian,
13 Idaho, which property is described and set forth on •Exhibit "A"
14 attached hereto and incorporated herein.
•. -
15 2. TERM OF LEASE. 'The term of this LEASE shall ~be
16 fifty-five (55) years, commencing on the 1st day of September, 19'78,
17 and terminating on the 31st day of August, 2033, both dates
18 inclusive, unless sooner terminated as herein provided.
19 3. CONSIDERATION OF RENTAL. In consideration of paying
20 any monetary lease rental, LESSEE shall,. at its own cost, and
21 without any obligation, liability or indebtedness of LESSOR, and.
22 within a reasonable time, operate, conduct and carry on a golf
23 club upon the leased premises for the use and benefit of the public
24 generally in accordance with the objects or purposes o~ its
25 incorporation.
26 Additionally, LESSEE shall pay the sum of X6,000.00 per
27 year, in advance, as rental. This annual payment shall first become
28 due on the first day of September next following the date upon which
29 an additional nine-hole golf course shall have been constructed
30 by or on behalf of LESSOR and leased by it to LESSEE herein on
1
2
3
4,
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
i
4. USE OF LEASED PREMISES.
n
(a) LESSEE may use and occupy the leased premises for
the purpose of operating, conducting and carrying on a golf club
for the use and benefit.of the public generally; build, own,
operate and conduct a clubhouse restaurant, including the
dispensing and .sale of foods and beverages; and build, own, operate
and conduct amusement enterprises such as tennis court and
racquet club.
(b) LESSEE agrees, insofar as it is economically
ssible, to promote .and encourage use of the leased premises for
the entertainment, instruction and social opportunities for
children, pursuant to scheduling and rules and regulations adopted
and promulgated by LESSEE and its assigned, Further, LESSEE agrees
to cooperate and work with the Recreation Committee of LESSOR in
loping City recreation programs for the youth of the
unity.
5. TAXES AND UTILITIES. The .tenant shall pay all taxes
18
and assessments upon the leased premises and upon the buildings
19
and improvements to be .constructed thereon, which may be assessed
20
during the initial term or any extended term of this LEASE, and
21
it shall also pay all charges for gas, electricity, light, heat,,
22
power, and telephone or other communication service used, rendered
23
or supplied upon or in connection with the leased property,
24
agreeing to indemnify LESSOR against any liability, claims or
25
damages for failure to pay and discharge such taxes, utility
26
charges, and any other expenditure incurred or assumed in the
27
construction, operation and conduct of a golf club and related
28
uses, which uses are provided by Paragraph 4 above.
29
6. POSSESSION.- LESSEE shall be given possession of the
30
above-described property at the time of executing-this Agreement
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
•
•
layout of the intended improvements, and make preliminary plans
and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, installed
and erected upon the above-described premises.
7. IMPROVEMENTS. LESSEE shall have the right to make
such alterations and improvements in and-upon the leased premises
as shall be reasonably necessary or appropriate by which to possess
Iand enjoy the leased premises for the use herein provided, LESSOR
agreeing to execute any and all easements for the purposes of
constructing any utility, including, .but not excluding by
lenumeration, sewers, power, telephone, water and gas. All such
buildings, improvements and appurtenances in, on or within the
to LESSOR for approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably
25
elayed or withheld, plans and specifications for the construction
26 and' improvement of the leased premises for the purposes herein
27
rovided,_LESSEE shall diligently pursue such work to completion
28
so that said golf course shall be open for business not later
29
than the first day of June, 1979, except as .such date may be
30
extended by the number of working days lost by reason of strikes,
31
21
incorporation within one year from the date of .this agreemEnt,
22 LESSOR shall, without notice in writing, have the right to declare
23 this LEASE forfeited and cancel-led. After LESSEE has submitted
24
12 leased premises .and which have been erected, inst~l~.led or affixed
13 during the term of this LEASE shall not be removed by LESSEE with-
14 out the consent of LESSOR, it being the intenf, of -the parties
15 hereto that-such buildings, improvements and appurtenances at the
16 termination of this-LEASE shall become the property of LESSOR, free
17 of any and alT liens and encumbrances except as assumed by LESSOR.
18 8. .DEFAULT. If LESSEE shall fail to build, operate,
19 conduct and carry on a golf club in .accordance with the use herein
20 granted and in accordance with its purposes and objects of
. ,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Further, if LESSEE is in default of any terms and
conditions of the Agreement of Lease and fails or refuses after
sixty (60) days' written notice to perform or correct the conditions
in which said LEASE is in default, then this Agreement shall be
deemed terminated and forfeited and all rights of LESSEE in and to
the leased .property shall .thereupon be terminated, subject to
the provisions of Paragraph 12 of this LEASE.
If, within five (5) years of the date of this agreement,
an .additional 9-hole golf course has not been constructed by or on
behalf of LESSOR,. and leased to LESSEE upon substantially the
(same terms and conditions as contained herein, then LESSEE may at
its option terminate this .lease without further obligation of
'either party to the other. Such additional 9-hole golf course
t be in such close proximity to the premises leased herein as
Ito enable LESSEE to .operate the two as an 18-hole golf course.
9. DISCRIMiNATION. LESSEE, in the use of the lands
herein leased, will not, on the grounds of race, color, or national
origin, discriminate or permit discrimination to any person or
group of persons in any manner. To indulge or permit such
discrimination shall constitute a breach and default of this
21 Agreement and may be cause .for termination as provided herein.
22 10. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURADICE. LESSEE shall
23 indemnify and save and hold harmless LESSOR from and for any and
24 all losses, claims, actions or judgments for damages or injury to
25 ersons or property and losses and expenses caused or incurred by
26 LESSEE, its servants, agents, employees, guests-and other business
27 invitees. However, LESSOR covenants and agrees to indemnify and
28 save and hold harmless LESSEE from and for any and all losses,
29 laims, actions indebtedness or
judgments if, after making the
30 ril~rovemer~ts,as provided in Paragraph 7, pea~able possession of
31
.F4:CFF mf i-hc 1 o~cer7 r,romi ~o~ i e+ a-e~.~.m„~.~~...7 ~...7 ...~,......7 1... .. .7 ..~...,.~.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
herein described, it being understood by both parties to this
LEASE that LESSOR's title to Tract 2 is contingent upon Leavitt--
~Nu Pacific Company's conveying to the City of Meridian per the
agreement between those parties dated
11. COMPLIANCE WITH. LAW. LESSEE, at its sole expense,
shall comply with all laws, orders and regulations of Federal,
State and municipal authorities, and, at its sole expense, shall
obtain all licenses or permits which may be required for the
conduct of its business within the terms of this LEASE, or for
making of repairs, alterations, improvements or additions, and
LESSOR, where necessary, will join with LESSEE in applying for
fall such permits..
12. SURRENDER AND TERMINATION. LESSEE shall, on the
expiration, or the sooner termination as herein provided, of this
LEASE, surrender to LESSOR the leased property, including all
buildings, replacements, additions and improvements constructed
or placed by LESSEE thereon, with all equipment in or appurtenant
thereto, free of all liens, encumbrances and subtanancies and in
good condition and repair., .reasonable wear and tear excepted.
Upon termination of this lease, LESSEE, its successors
land assigns, shall at all times execute, or cause to be executed,
all necessary documents required to surrender leased property,
including all buildings, replacements, additions and improvements
constructed or placed thereon. by LESSEE, its successors and
assigns, with all .equipment in or appurtenant thereto.
13. ASSIGNMENT AND. SUBLETTING. LESSEE shall not assign,
27 transfer or sublet this LEASE, or any portion thereof, or any
28
privilege hereunder, either voluntarily or involuntarily, without
29
the prior written consent of LESSOR, which consent shall not be
30
withheld unreasonably; except that LESSEE may assign its right,
31
1
2
3
4
9~i
10 i
11 'i
12 ICI
13 'I
14 ~,
i
15 ~'
16'
17'
18
19
U
14. BINDING EFFECT. This Agreement of Lease is binding
upon .the successors, assigns and subtenants of both parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this
Agreement of Lease to be executed by their duly authorized officers
the day and year first above Written,
LESSOR:
City of Meridian
(ATTEST:
By ~~
Mayor
'(City Clerk
ST:
LESSEE:
Cherry Lane Golf Course, Inc.
By
President
Secretary
20'
211,
22
23
2~
2~
2f
2;
2~
2~
3(
3:
.~ r
pct; `'L~ ~ ~jo ~{~ov~~S~C
~.{n <~~
1
2
3 MEMORANDUM OF LEASE
4
This Memorandum of October ~_ 1978, is entered
5
into between the parties for the purpose of giving public notice
6
that a lease has been executed between the parties in accordance
7
with the general provisions below.
8
1. Parties. The City of Meridian, a municipal
9
corporation, as Lessor and Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc., an
10
Idaho corporation, as Lessee.
11
2. Term. Twenty-five (25) years with an option to
12
renew for thirt to be negotiated~~G~
13 Y (30) years and successive optionsHof ten (10)
years beginning October 3, 1978.
14
3. Pro ert Affected. Part of Section 3, Township
15
3 North, Range 1 West Boise Meridian in Ada County, Idaho, as is
16
more particularly described on a deed from Nu Pacific Company,
17
an Oregon corporation, to the City of Meridian, Idaho, a
18
19 municipal corporation, recorded in the records of Ada County,
20 Idaho as Instrument No.
21 4• Consideration..- For good and valuable consideration
22 CITY OF MERIDIAN
23 b
Y
24 ATTES,T~:" Ma or
25
rj; ity Clerk
26 CHERRY LANE RECREATION INC.
27 by ~ /.~ O//.~l iA, ~ T1 /~i _
.... " •
11
2
3
4
5 I'
6'~
7'
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27.
STATE OF IDAHO )
ss.
County of Ada )
On this ~ day of October, 1978, before me, the
undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally
appeared~n /~. Sf•rs
known to me to be the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and
known to me to be the persons whose name is subscribed to the
within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the
same on behalf of the City of Meridian.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate
first above written.
~ STATE OF IDAHO )
c
o ary P is in and or Idaho
Residing at B~is~: Idaho
7n
ss.
County of Ada ) .{,~//
On this ~ day of October, 1978, before me, the
undersigned, a Not Public in and for said State, personally
appeared ~ .~, known to me to be the President of
Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc., whose name is subscribed to the
within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the
same on behalf of Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate
first above written.
G
No ary P is in and or Idaho
Residin at $e~.ftc~ Idaho
~,