Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAshford Greens Subdivision CUPOFFICIALS WILLIAM G. SERG, Jr., Clty Clerk JANICE L. GASS, Clty Troasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. Clty Enpfneer BRUCE D. 8TUART, Watsr Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waats Watsr Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARt 8. STILES, P 32 Adm. KENNETH W. BOWERS, Flra Chlaf W. L "SILL" GORDON, Pollca Chlsf WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney 33 EAST IDAHO P 6 ZCOMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, chairman MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 886433 • FAX (208) 887813 '+ ~' Public Works/Buildi ~~~ na Department (206) say-ul ~ MOE AuoJANI JIM SHEARER CHARLIE ROUNTREE TIM HEPPER cRArrr P. xtrtcsFOxD ~ Q ~ 2 1 1~~~ Mayor ~rll~ ~~° F'~~~Y 1~~~~ 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 Hatl, Attn: Will Berg, City Cterk by: December 5. 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 11/20/95 HEARING DATE: 1ZM?J95 , REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for James Place at Asford Subdivision BY: Brighton Comoration LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: East of Black Cat Road and North of Chemr Lane JIM JOHNSON, P2 MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P/Z CHARLES ROUNTREE, P2 TIM HEPPER, P/Z GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C MAX YERRINGTON, 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 >~ FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM 8 FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: ~UB OF TREASURE VALLEY COUNCIL MEMBERS A Good Place to Live RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON CITY OF MERIDLAN R08ERTD.CORRIE WALT W. MORROW • ARCHITECTURE PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING DOWNING THORPE JaMEs JAMES PLACE AT ASHFORD GREENS CONCEPT STATEMENT: James Place is a 15-acre parcel within the Planned Residential Community of Ashford Greens, in Meridian, Idaho. Surrounded on three sides by the Cherry Lane Golf Course, this neighborhood offers both desirable amenities and handsomely designed residence's making James Place a unique addition to the Ashford Greens Community. James Place features small-lot single-family homes, designed for active, adult families. The houses are clustered around cul-de-sacs and meaningful common open-space amenities. Green belts extend throughout the development providing pedestrian and golf cart access to West Ashford Boulevard and east to the golf course club house. Additionally, "windows" to the golf course and lakes are opened-up at key points to enhance the view of the amenities each time a homeowner drives or walks through the neighborhood. This ,carefully designed site plan incorporates "patio home" architecture that is an integral part of the success of this community. Indoor views and outdoor spaces off the patio are expanded five feet beyond the property line (with a "use easement") to the adjacent wall of the neighbors house. This wall is mostly without windows and allows each home maximum privacy. As a new community with distinctive amenities and lifestyle housing, James Place will surely become a special addition to the residential opportunities at Ashford Greens. s:\wp\miscproj.a-h\ashjames.plc 1881 Ninth Street, Suite 103 Boulder, Colorado 80302 303-443-7533 Fax 303-443-7534 res •s~ \9 y/ • RUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC. 9550 Bethel Court • Boise, Idaho 83709 208/322-8992 ^ Fax 208/378.0329 PROJECT NO. 9524800 NOVEMBER 9 1995 JAMES PLACE AT ASHFORD A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 4, 9, 10 AND THE SAID SECTION 3; THENCE NORTH 00°38'11" EAST, 2651.19 FEET TO THE 1/4 CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 3 AND 4; THENCE NORTH 00°38" 27" EAST, 182.17 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 3 TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 89°21'33" EAST, 536.39 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING (INITIAL POINT). THENCE SOUTH 44°03'20" EAST, 91.36 FEET TO A POINT;. THENCE 408.68 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 350.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 66°54'09", AND A LONG CHORD BEARING SOUTH 77°30'25" EAST, 385.86 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 69°02'30" EAST, 173.69 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE 502.12 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 47°56'57", AND A LONG CHORD BEARING SOUTH 86°59'01" EAST 487.60 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 10°33'50" WEST, 560.21 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 71 °43'34" WEST, 442.46 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 89°13'51" WEST, 540.22 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 16°18'25" EAST, 218.04 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 8°18'10" WEST, 606.45 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 15.10 ACRES MORE OR LESS. PREPARED BY: RUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC. 4431 ~ ~ -9'9~ o 9TFOF`ap O ~~RRY pE~U~ DTP/VW/1055.DES D. TERRY PEUGH, P.L.S. Meridian City Council July 10, 1996 Page 20 Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I would move that the City of Meridian hereby adopt and approves the findings of fact and conclusions of law referenced (inaudible) denial on its first page. Morrow: Second Corrie: Motion is made that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law on the facts and conclusions with the recommendation of denial, any further discussion? Roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: The decision? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that the Meridian City Council hereby denies this conditional use application which decision is supported by the above findings of fact and conclusions of law. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Bentley on the decision, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Corrie: Is there a representative from Brighton? Wardle: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Mike Wardle, as much as we would like to complete the process and as close as I believe we are we did review the document and have submitted to you an item that is highlighted that shows some desire for action and others are simply informational. Even some of the action items are trivial and perhaps don't really deserve any significant discussion. There are three issues that we still believe could be cleared up before the Council acts. One of them is simply the continued references to senior citizen living community which was not in the application which we don't find any evidence of having been introduced in our discussions. But that could clearly cause some problem because one specific reference in the findings on page 21 • Meridian City Council July 10, 1996 Page 21 item 12 states that the residents should be seniors as represented. And all laws federal or state pertaining to a senior citizens residential area must be met. In as much as that was not our representation that particular thing probably should be deleted from the findings. There is also a similar statement on page 13, item 17 that is highlighted that again makes a comment about senior citizen, it is on the bottom of page 17 in which the attribution to my testimony the April 26 letter that this is not a senior citizen living complex which was referred to in the conditional use application. My comment there simply is the application does not refer to the senior citizen living complex. So I think those issues as far as senior citizens would really be helpful to strike out from the documents. Then the other really significant one doesn't have any direct bearing on this application but it does on the subsequent applications and that refen'ed the items referring to Intertachen and there is a reference on page 18 number 8 in the findings that says that implies that we don't want to address the issue, item 8 states that relating to Interlachen Way and again this is an attribution to my comments paragraph 15 of the paragraph 10 on page 20 be changed to not require that it be shown how Interlachen Way and Dawson Drive connect. That wasn't our intent what we have submitted the last time and I have given you a single page that accompanies this and would be identified as comment 15. Is that we are simply asking that decision be made when we deal with the parcel in question_ Let me just illustrate the problem that might provide a catch 22 to not only the developer but also the Council in the future. The recommended condition on the original findings said that for any other phase to be considered the decision relative to the item in green would have to be addressed. The first plat for Ashford No. 1 is shown in yellow, the second one is shown in blue. It is very likely that the next plat or two will occur also in that northerly area rather than get down into this vici~~ity. Simply because that is the direction from which the utility services must be extended. Therefore to say that we have to make this decision when we probably won't have any plans for that parcel at that early point. It forces some type of a decision that probably won't stand the test of time because it wouldn't be hypothetical, it would not likely be based on an actual site plan that deals with that parcel. So we have never suggested that we don't want to address the issue. We are saying let us address the issue when we acts pally plan this and if it turns out to be single family and -~ot a cluster development as proposed in Ashford No. 2 then it will be a fairly easy thing to frx. If it ends up being a cluster development and a PUD configuration then it will be a bit more-df a challenge but we want to deal with it when we get to that point., So we believe that our recommendation from the previous meeting that is contained on that item actually is valid and that would refer them to a second reference on page 21, item 15 of the current findings that says the same thing. This is a parenthetic addition that the Council put on item 15, it says this conclusions is not changed or modified since the applicant has not addressed the question and it is concluded that it is a matter that must be addressed for any development on Ashford Greens and that it must be presented. We don't disagree that it must be presented and dealt with we just think that perhaps to say the next phase is probably not the best time to deal with that. The last two items come up on page 25, item • Meridian City Council July 10, 1996 Page 22 7 we would four words to be added and those would be to construct entry gates into the subdivision if streets are private. You recall earlier that on the findings and conclusions that there is a caveat provided that if ACHD grants a waiver to the standard then the streets can be public. And so we believe that the qualification here is that if the streets were private than certainly the entry gates would be constructed. If the streets are by (inaudible) allowed to be public then that would go away with that particular reference. Then finally the very last sentence on that page dealing with the deed of the golf course and Mr. Turnbull's attomey Joann Butler is here this evening to discuss the issue. I think we have a problem with the date that is identified here that it shall be delivered to the City on or before May 16, 1996. In as much as that date has passed and there are negotiations going on currently between Mr. Turnbull and his attorney and the City Attorney I believe. We just don't want to have something in the document that comes bads and bites anybody. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these Mr. Mayor and would be even willing to work with the City Attorney on any of these items after this meeting hopefully for your next session that we can have it totally prepared for adoption. I would be happy to answer questions. Corrie: (Inaudible) Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have questions for Wayne City Attorney, I guess I don't quite understand the format here, I can appreciate Mr. Wardle's comments but as I read through these findings and conclusions you need to explain to me why we have parentheses and those kinds of things as opposed to just changing the findings of fact and conclusions. The issue with for senior citizen living complex why don't we just the reference out of the document for that when we talked about amended findings of fact and conclusions at our last meeting. Crookston: They were done in that fashion only to show you what the requests were and have they related to the findings. Morrow: I guess from my perspective doesn't that cause confusion for those in the future maybe reading these findings and conclusions. I was somewhat confused but that is easy to do. It seemed to me like it was (inaudible) (Discussion Inaudible) Morrow: I guess the question in my mind is would it not be easier to have deleted those things and maybe more clear or concise? Crookston: It would be and the reason I did it that as I said was to show what the changes were. I think it would be appropriate for the Council to inform me as to changes as to what Meridian City Council July 10, 1996 Page 23 - they want to do. I think that there art still some questions about whether or not the Council wants to make those changes, any of them as Mr. Wardle suggested are very appropriate. Rountree: I believe that was our motion at the last meeting that we amend the previous findings to include those findings and corrections. I guess as far as direction from this Councilman in the future I would rather not have the parenthetical side by side comparison including the change and I can hopefully go back and figure out what went on if that helps. Crookston: I have no problem with that. The one concern that I think needs to be addressed by the Council is the Interlachen question. Because that was stated some time ago that had to be done. Rountree: I would have probably two questions related to the content here and that is one of them. My preference would be that it be identified that be done as part of the phase of development of part of that. So that could continue in any future findings and plats and so forth brought before the Council. The other would be the timing or the date for the transfer of the deed. I think we need to hammer that down and get it speck. Wardle: Mr. Mayor, at the last meeting I think I could almost quote the motion and the motion was with the items that we had ident~ed that they be adopted that the findings and conclusions be amended verbatim including the discussion on Interlachen which said we would deal with it when we get to that parcel. So I really didn't expect the confusion that we found in the document at this particular time. I would be happy to work with counsel on that outsiae of this meeting. Cowie: Council? Rountree: I guess I am at the point now that I think we ought to go forth with this with the amendments as suggested they are fairly easy identified. I think they can be made and I think v+~v can probably approve the findings with those amendments and not have to see this another time. That would be my position. - Morrow: I think my position is that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions subject to the amendments being adopted and incorporated within the document. If I might address what Counselor has prepared for us there is that probably for a draft the comparison is fine, I don't necessarily disagree with that, but for a document that we are going to adopt what I want to see is a nice clean clear and concise document so that everybody understands not only today but in the future what it is the deal tha# was struck. So, that is how I see the issue. I do think that we address immediately the deed transfer, and press on from there. I am a little concerned about if the streets are private it seems to me the whole concept of this development was that they were going to be private streets, • Meridian City Council July 10, 1996 Page 24 " that is what the development work in my mind so I don't think that we should support a waiver to be public streets because they would be substantially less than standard and it would create easy ingress and egress which would create the confusion that the fire department was concemed about, the confusion that the police department was concerned about and so on and so forth. I guess 1 missed somewhere along the long that they might be public, I don't recall that as being part of the testimony anywhere. So that would be my position. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Morrow: It would have been preferably May 16, but we will settle for something like tomorrow. Corrie: Are you that close? Morrow: I think we are very close. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Morrow: Well you have to put a date certain within the document is that correct? Crookston: It can be dated when it is signed that is not, if you want a date. Morrow: Okay, so we can have this (inaudible) it is dated upon signature of the deed agreement? Crookston: You could Crookston: The reason that the May 16 date is in there is the May 16 date is how it started out. The motion was by the Council was to have that d~:,eded to the City on or before May 16. Rountree: But you are saying that is not necessary, just the fact that it be delivered to the City would be sufficient. Crookston: It is whatever the City wants to do with the deed as far as a requirement. I have no preference one way or another. The date comes from because that was the motion of the Council. (End of Tape) Meridian City Council July 10, 1996 Page 25 " Crookston: There are some concerns that Joann Butler has addressed as to whether or not the deed should reference a reversion of the property and if it ceases to be developed as a golf course and it comes back to Brighton Corporation if it does cease to be used. The question that she and I have discussed is I indicated to her that I did not feel that if my language and what I used because no other develop who has deeded property to the City previously has requested a reversionary clause in their deed. She referenced well maybe we can deal with that in an agreement so that if it is not then it is kind of like a default provision that if it isn't or it isn't used for a golf course anymore that they can send the City a default if it isn't again used as a golf course within that default period then they have the right to declare that and request that it either be deeded or go through a foreclosure to get it back. The reason that I have that reference is that no other developer who has deeded property and that goes back to Leavitt New Pacific that deeded the initial nine holes to the City and it goes to Jim Fuller who deeded property to the City that is being developed as part of the back nine. And to Kent Barney he did not have that restriction that he gave to the City, the reversionary right. I have no problem with having an agreement to that effect but that is up to the Council as to how they want deal with that. That has been the reversionary striking the reversionary clauses is not, it is a Council decision it is not mine. Rountree: That is not necessarily subject to this findings of fact. Crookston: No it is not, other than stating that the deed needs to be delivered. How it is delivered and the terms are not in the findings. Butler: Council and Mr. Mayor, Joann Butler, I am just here to answer some questions and clarify this for the Council if you would like. As you know this is a generous gift to the City but it if very intricately interwoven with this particular development. As consideration for this generous gift to the city one of the things that the developer is asking is that for at least a period of time that we have an understanding that the City will be developing this as a golf course and maintaining it as a golf course over a certain period of time. Counselor is correct that we did discuss this e; ~d I had said that I am happy to work with Council and Counselor to put this in place either through a deed of gift with a reversionary clause which would indicate that say in 10 years the City did not develop this as a golf course and maintain it as a golf course that it would revert back to Brighton or in lieu of that do an agreement with the city where the same indication would be made that the City would develop it as a golf course and maintain it and that would just say for a period of ten years and the developer would have the right if that did not happen during that time to specifically enforce or ask the City to specfically perform its agreement to do that. One of two ways, really as you can see from the plat this is very important to this development that it not become other residential or other commercial right in the middle of this residential and that is the reason for this. If you had any questions I would be happy to answer them. We are very close, I don't know the 16th, we can try for sure. ff you wanted • • Meridian City Council July 10, 1996 Page 26 to stick a date in but we can certainly get that done as soon as possible. Crookston: Just to reaffirm the Council I will not be here on the 16th. She has prepared a document, it still has the reversionary references in it. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I believe it may be appropriate, let's deal with the findings of fact and conclusions and then move on to the deed issue so that we are not clouding the two. I think that what I would like to do is propose a motion that we approve and adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as amended by the City Attorney with two exceptions on page 25 we delete the suggestion if streets are private and that we insert the date July 16, 1996 for May 16, 1996. Rountree: I will second. Cowie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, you have heard the motion is there any discussion? Rountree: I just want a point of clarification on the motion, those amendments include amendments to language suggested by Mr. Wardle about senior living and private roads as opposed to public roads? Morrow: That is absolutely correct, those are the same issues that we asked to be amended last time. So the intent of the motion is to include all of those items as recapped by Mr. Wardle and that we had requested on our last (inaudible). Cowie: Any further discussion? Roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Is there a decision? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the Meridian City Council hereby grants and approves this conditional use application for a planned unit development under the conditions stated above and these amended findings of fact and conclusions of law. This approval is subject to all City ordinances except as allowed not to be met as stated herein. Specifically including design review and plat approval and the procedures of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance. Rountree: Second Meridian City Council July 10, 1996 Page 27 Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree and second by Mr. Rountree on the decision, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: Mr. Mayor, could we not deal with the issue of the deed now? Corrie: You are right Morrow: I guess from my position, I want to state two things, first is that Joann Butler and I have worked together on other projects so if the Council foresees that was a conflict I will stand down. Rountree: I don't Morrow: Having resolved that issue then from my perspective I would like to see a clean deed. I am not opposed to a side agreement that reaffirms that we are developing and maintaining that donated ground as a golf course. I believe the standards that we are held to by the original agreement with Leavitt New Pack is USGA standards. So I do not have a problem with continuing that commitment. From the perspective of the July 16th date, as we get into later issues tonight we will be prepared on July 16 to actually award bids for the construction of the golf course subject to the City Council approval. So before we can award those bids we need to have that deed and be able to go to work right away. That is my interest in having the July 16th deadline as a drop dead date. Rountree: Good information, good that we have it by the 16th. I don't have any problems with what he said. By clean deed Morrow: Clean deed is just like anyone elses deed. Rountree: No reversionary. Morrow: No nothing but the deed to the property, execute a side agreement that clarifies exactly what our position is and our commitment to develop and maintain which nears the commitment of the original nine holes with Leavitt New Pacific. Rountree: Sounds good to me. Corrie: Is that a motion? Morrow: Yes sir. Meridian City Council July 10, 1996 Page 28 Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, you have heard the motion any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: TABLED JUNE 18, 1996: ORDINANCE #731 - OLSON BUSH SUBDIVISION NO. 2 ANNEXATION: Corrie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED ON THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 8, T.3N. R.1 E, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have Ordinance #731 read in its entirety. Hearing none, entertain a motion on Ordinance #731. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I move that we adopt Ordinance #731 with the suspension of the rules. Tolsma: Second Con'ie: Motion by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma that we approve Ordinance #731 with the suspension of rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea FIVE MINUTE RECESS ITEM #9: AMENDED ORDINANCE #180 - CATV SYSTEM/ORDINANCE #734: Corrie: AN ORDINANCE AMENDED TITLE 3 OF THE REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN BY REPEALING CHAPTER 15, REVISING AND RE-ENACTING SAID CHAPTER 15 TO GRANT TO THE UNITED CABLE TELEVISION CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS AS TCI CABLEVISION OF TREASURE VALLEY A FRANCHISE RENEWAL TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERCEPTION, SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF TELEVISION AND RADIO SIGNALS TO THE INHABITANTS OF SAID CITY. AND WHICH PROVIDES DEFINITIONS, AUTHORIZES A GRANT OF AUTHORITY PROVIDING THAT SAID FRANCHISE SHALL 50 Rtoadway Ave. Suite B, Boise, iD 83702 Wardle & Associates May 2, 1996 ~.~:kii~~ ~~ JUN - 7 ~~~~ (QTY OF ~`l~~l•';1~1°~ TO: Will Berg Meridian City Clerk FROM: Michael b. W .._._1 RE: Ashford 2 Exhibits I have been working with Jim Rabbitt to secure the release of the mounted exhibits for Ashford 2. A bit of backgound: • The original CU/preplat application included colored 8 1/2 X 11 reductions of the Technical and Illustrative site plans. • boring the hearings, color copies of the building elevations and 11 X 17 color copies of the two site plans were once again provided. Inasmuch as your files do have record copies of the site plans and building elevations, and with the provision of the attached blueprints of the floor plans for your files, we hope that we will be able to retrieve the ,nounted drawings for use and marketing. Please let me know when we can pick them up. cc: David Turnbull Tim Rabbitt ~~l 2' ~~~ ~~~,~ ~ ~;~ i~w V- ~ s __/ v e ~~r" Q, ~ a ~ ~ ,~ ~ _ ~~~~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~ C Telephone: 208-34q-3448 Fax: 208-344-3922 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: July 2.1996 APPLICANT: BRIGHTON CORPORATION ITEM NUMBER; 7 REQUEST:AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CUP FOR ASHFORD NO. 2 SUBDIVISION 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 OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. r~ ~~ ~~c~no JAMES E. BRUCE, President SHERRY R. HUBER, Vice President SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, Secretary r~~~~=au~;~. ~~ ~~~: June 26, 1996 TO: Brighton Corporation Boise Research Center, Inc. 12301 W Explorer, Suite 200 Boise, ID 83713 FROM: Karen Gallagher, Coordinatot'~ Development Services Division' SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat-Ashford Greens #2 Subdi ' on/MCU-24-95 Black Cat Rd and Cherry Ln On June 19, 1996, the Commissioners of the Ada County Highway District (hereafter called "District") took action on the Preliminary Plat as stated on the attached staff report. In order that the Final Plat may be considered by the District for acceptance, the Developer shall cause the following applicable standard conditions to be satisfied prior to District certification and endorsement: Drainage plans shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District. 2. If public street improvements are ree~uired: Prior to any construction within the existing or proposed public right-of--way, the following shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District: a. Three complete sets of detailed street construction drawings prepared by an Idaho Registered Professional Engineer, tosether with payment of plan review fee. b. Execute and Inspection Agreement between the Developer and the District together with initial payment deposit for inspection and/or testing services. c. Complete all street improvements to the satisfaction of the District, or execute Surety Agreement between the Developer and the District to guarantee the completion of construction of all street improvements. ada county highway district 318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714-6499 • Phone (208)- 345-7680 ~ ~ June 26, 1996 Page 2 3. Furnish copy of Final Plat showing street names as approved by the Local _ __ Government Agency having such authority together with payment of fee chazged for the manufacturing and installation of all street signs, as required. 4. If Public Rights-of--Way Trust Find deposit is required, make deposit to the District in the form of cash or cashier's check for the amount specified by the District. 5. Furnish easements, agreements, and all other datum or documents as required by the District. 6. Furnish Final Plat drawings for District acceptance, certifications, and endorsement. The final plat must contain the signed endorsement. The final plat must contain the signed endorsement of the Owner's and Land Surveyor's certification. 7. Approval of the plat is valid for one year. An extension of one year will be considered by the Commission if requested within 15-days prior to the expiration date. Please contact me at 345-7680, should you have any questions. KG cc: Development Services Chron John Edney Chuck Rinaldi Hubble Engineering City of Meridian ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Development Services Division ` Development Application Report Preliminary Plat -James Place/MCU-24-95 Black Cat Road n/o Cherry Lane Meridian James Place is a 74-lot residential subdivision on 15.2-acres. The site is located on Black Cat Road n/o Cherry Lane. This development is estimated to generate 740 additional vehicle trips per day. Roads impacted by development: Ashford Boulevard Black Cat Road Note: This application was reconsidered as ASHFORD GREENS NO. 2 by the Commission on June 19, 1996 and modifications to the Site Specific Requirements were adopted by the Commission. In the event of a conflict of meaning between the Facts and Findings and the Site Specific Requirements, the Site Specific Requirements prevail. ACRD Commission Date -June 19, 1996 - 12:00 p.m. Ashford (not constructed) SITE rr ~ `° m - - ~~ ~ ~ N S •--~--- .__. , ;.~ \ ~ ar---~ - `v* v rv '; ~ oro~p~x m oho • ® ® ~ e .. „(~I-'1v • ~ ~~~ s s o o e ~ ®~ ~~ o • ~+o: ------ ' ,>ti a ~ ' ® ~ ' '~~' sa ~~ s o e o t s r o~ ~~ t o ~ e r~T+ • ('" ~ t as /1 ~ s ~a o' ~ ' t is , ---~~ ~a /% ~ ~ • ioU `~' a t® ® e e ~ ~ ® `L' y~~ o s' ~ ,1 ~sm~r~auao,a 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 Q ..~..___ ....r ~ O ® 1, 1 ~~.... ~.........~ / i ~ 8 9 ' a! 1 ar c.~ ' ! '3 ® ®~ ~~aow~twnr ' ~~ ~ I ~ 8 ~ ~ s~v S! , 1 i ~ 8 0 8 ~' ~ J~~~ i i • J ~ ~ ® t 9 ! , OP~ I;j~ ~ ~~ J 1®) I 8 I ~ 1 'Q a I) ® 1 m~ ~.~.,1~ I I. ~ ~ ! p ~I ~ ' ® - - -- --, ,1 ! O O ® i i _ ~' o ~ ® : ~ 1 ® ~ o qro ® 1 sr B I - , ,t~ ~a ali 1 ~ t L I ~ i~~ \ ~ 1 ~' ~1 ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ;1 91 ~szhe '~;~ 'gyp e ~ a p i ` ~ ~ ~~, ~~ ~ e ~~ ,a' ~~ ' :I 1 r e r~ \ ~ J ;~ i \ ~felle~eya~® el all ellalia ~a' a ~''~ ~ I ~ ~' ,, I err®N ®yap~ e ~ .~ ,, ~ y~ '` ~\ wuJl ~a ~ _ _ ~ aF rtt ~ ~ 9O~YM ~ ?' ` ~' ~ „~~~ ~ ~ . ~ir~=~1~~~~ HUBBL!!' 3RiGHTpN CCRP. a5Mi0R0 GREENS ~ _. ~ 6,YGlNSSRlNG, LYC. ~~ ~ ~ •:~t w. ;rPICRER DRIVE. Y2C0 ~ :C~ CCUg3E PUO) d~~/// dC~SE. C~MO 43704 i ~iEUNINAgY P(fT _ •~L r $ ~ i~ ffl; I i _ ? ~ ! i~ i ~ S77 ~ ~ '-l~s ~[ ~~ f* i3 ~ ; ~' ~ !;! x" sai I~S51 a a_sl f ! i _ ~f ~ t L 3 i ~n'si~=[ ~ •' ~t - -ny'~=3~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ .^' :~~ -{! a~ v 7Te 7ir-+.~--_ ~ li ~ ~: ~~~ ~• ~ T i ~~ 'E'SL.. !Z ~ ~ S..:j t: 9 y T 2 i ~ ~! ~~~; i ,1;i~ E~! , s ~__ tea: ' c=~~ i s=',i \. ~ - _~ :~; ~; :,~ _ ~_ - ~i I ~.. ~. a ~ i cir tlii3~i ~ ~' 3iF t ~ ~ '` '' ~ ~- ./. / _ • ~~ \ ~ _ ``~ '~ a '~ ~ i^ [yam :1 ~~.. ~, \ ... 7 ~ ~ ~. ~r ~ Z 3 \ I ~ Y, '/ '. ~~~ ,f J i~ of ~. ~C'~I \ , ~ i ~~• ~ , '` ~ ~ ~ I I ~~ ~ ~ ~ CiM ~ ~'"~ :r « ~Y~ ~ Isl. ~e~ ~;f J '= f 'i SEE'" ,^_, .. a ~~. ~ .\ ,• /~ ~ v ,! ~~" 'i~L.'""X~ 1 -'tea. - ~ .n;pr~'.~~a. ; ;~,, r ~ , - : --~ • / ---- ~ ~ ~~ °r : "'~~ ~~,~~ ~ n~ r, III ! r i; -t I Ii~ljli I III , Iil~li~ III ~l I~ iii ~; Iil ill ;, .. ~:i!1. • BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL ~~~ ? BRIGHTON CORPORATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EAST OF BLACK CAT ROAD BETWEEN USTICR AND CHERRY LANE MERIDIAN. IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing March 19, 1996, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., which was tabled and continued to April 2, 1996, but was not brought on for consideration on that date because the Council did not have these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Petitioner appearing through the project's engineer, Mike Wardle, the City Council of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for March 19, 1996, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the March 19, 1996, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 1 2. That the property is located within the City of Meridian; it is located on the east side of Hlack Cat Road between Ustick and Cherry Lane; the parcel is part of a parcel of property that was annexed by the City over fourteen years ago and part of a parcel that has recently been annexed; the property is zoned R-4, Low Density Residential. 3. The application for conditional use permit stated that this proposal presents the first of two. (2) medium density parcels approved in the Ashford Green PUD (Planned Unit Development), that the land is intended to be developed into 74 detached single family dwellings on 15.2 acres, at a density of 4.87 dwellings per acre, that the Applicant stated that the square footage of homes range from 1,200 square feet and above. 4. That at the P & Z hearing Mike Wardle testified and his testimony is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; he basically stated, in part, as follows: The Application is for approval of 74 dwelling units, the density would be 4.9 units per acre; that the homes would be detached single family dwellings with living space to the rear and side, that there would be a recreational building, that the roads would be private, that there would be two car garages, that there would be parking islands that augment the roadways, that drainage would feed into the adjacent lakes, there would be five foot wide sidewalks but only on.one side of the road, that there would be some 0-lot lines, that street setbacks would be met, that the house size of 1,400 would not be met in all cases but the City can grant waivers or accept smaller house sizes in a planned unit development, and that the house sizes would vary from 1, 225 square feet up to 1, 881. square feet. He further testified that they would present a landscape plan and that the landscaping would be commonly maintained, that this proposed development offers the opportunity for a life-style choice, smaller dwellings in a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 2 clustered configuration with open space and home owner's association maintained common areas; that the project will be an "enclave", surrounded on three sides by the golf course, providing a physical and visual connection to the golf course open space and water amenities and will fit well with the Ashford Greens and Cherry Lane Golf Course community. Mr. Wardle also stated that the carefully designed site plan incorporates "patio home" architecture; that indoor views and outdoor .spaces off the patios-are expanded five (5) feet beyond the property line with a "use easement" to the adjacent wall of the neighbor's home; that this development is a 15 acre parcel within the Planned Residential Community of Ashford Greens; that it is surrounded on three sides by the Cherry Lane Golf Course; that it features small-lot single- family homes designed for active, adult families; that the houses are clustered around cul-de-sacs and meaningful common open-space amenities; that green belts extend throughout the development providing pedestrian and golf cart access. Mr. Wardle stated at the January 9, 1996, meeting that the homes would range from 1,225 to 1,886 square feet. Mr. David Turnbull also stated at that meeting that 4 out of 5 homes would be 1,400 square feet or larger and 1 out of 5 would be smaller than 1,400 square feet, down to 1,225 square feet, but he did not state particular percentages for the different size homes. In regards to the streets being public or private, it was stated that initially the streets were to be public streets but. that it was Meridian's choice. Mr. .Wardle finally stated that they were now proposing that as a result of ACHD's input, that Meridian consider approving the street system as a private street system. Mike Wardle submitted a letter dated January 17, 1996, concerning fencing, which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 5. That at the City Council hearing the following, basic, testimony was given: Mr. Wardle testified that the parcel in the center was approved, conceptually, for up to 8 units to the acre. Overall density of the entire project was originally approved was 3.55 units to the acre. This parcel is submitted at a density of 4.9 with a detached dwelling concept. The proposal submitted to the Commission as they recommended for approval accommodated five different dwelling units ranging from 1225 square feet up to 1881 square feet. Dwellings would have lap siding and shake roofs. He showed a technical site plan which identified the proposed setbacks and the size of the parcels, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW~ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 3 • which typically would be 46 by 100 or 4600 square foot. There are only 12 units that take frontage from the loop street that goes through the project. Others are clustered on cul-de-sacs, and some private drives which may in some cases accommodate access for up to four units. As we originally submitted the project it had a public street system with. streets to ACHD standard of 29 feet back to back, that is back of curb. ACHD felt that it would be appropriate for the loop street to be expanded to its full 50 foot right of way which is a 37 foot back to back standard. We have a system with a one sidewalk system along the streets and extensive internal circulation system that provides access the golf course club house area and to the recreation center to be constructed in this area. The Planning Commission actually agreed with the sidewalk and the pathway system. But they recommended to the Council that the roadway be public and conform to ACRD standards and there was a caveat in their recommendation, which was that the road be public and meet ACHD requirements, unless ACHD allowed a variance from its requirements. A variance has not been submitted to ACHD. Our proposal to you this evening is to act upon the request with the stipulation that we be allowed to do private streets unless ACHD grants a variance. He submitted some photographs that showed existing public streets with a street 29 foot back to back street section, which is what we propose here and there is still room for parking. There is a provision for islands and gated entry at both ends of the project.-The project provides enclaves for the. residences rather than lining up streets with garages frontages. There is a significant amount of open space, 19$ of the area in fact is and would be privately owned and maintained open space. The project with public streets would also have the necessary funding mechanism set up in the bylaws, covenants and restrictions for operation and maintenance of the roadway system. The change in findings and conclusions we requests is as follows: No. 1, be modified to state that the road shall be private, but shall meet ACHD construction standards. And then the same terminology unless ACHD allows a variance from its public street requirement City. No. 2, be modified to state that all setback and yard requirements shall be in conformance with standards submitted in the project application and detailed in the technical site plan. No. 3, not be changed. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 4 No. 4, regarding set backs that they be changed to require a 25$ reduction, and not 20$. No. 5, regarding sidewalks, that it be changed to state that street sidewalks and internal pathway systems be in accordance with the technical site plan and preliminary plat. Mr. Wardle showed a tissue overlay that showed the way they would add entrance islands with no change on the lots at one end but change to the private driveway access on the other end. fle stated they have a preliminary plat modification that shows the change. In conclusion Mr. Mayor in as much as the Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit and the preliminary plat and did extensively discuss it. In concluding, he discussed private versus public streets, and stated the only way to accommodate a private street system is the inclusion of these entry facilities for gating purposes we would ask that the Council proceed to approve the conditional use permit to modify the findings and conclusions that would allow private street and make these other modifications. 6. Discussion was had at the hearing with Mr. Wardle and with Mr. Turnbull, which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full, and related to the size of the lots; Mr. Wardle stated that P & Z had approved 4,600 square foot lots and approved a waiver of the R-4 requirements; Mr. Turnbull then stated that they had prepared five house plans ranging from 1,200 to 1,800 square feet and stated that Commissioner Hepper talked about a 25~ restriction on the homes under 1,400 square feet and that he, Mr. Turnbull, did not desire to limit his options. He also testified that he would anticipate that there would be some masonry, probably not stucco but would prefer the lap siding for dimensional character, brick or stone; that the testimony before the Planning and Zoning Commission stated the sizes; that FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASflFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 5 • Commissioner Hepper did talk about something like a 25$ restriction on the homes under 1,40.0 square feet; that the Applicant's testimony at that point was simply that they didn't necessarily want to limit options for empty nest professionals; that Applicant's experience would be that it would probably be less than the 25$ and that only one of the five plans falls under that 1,400 square foot level; that a conditional use conceptual approval of S units per acre was approved and that it is now down to less than 5 units per acre. However, the Mixed Density parcels were only conceptually approved. 7. Mr. Morrow asked Shari Stiles if all her conditions and concerns were met through the P & Z process and she stated that she did not know if they had submitted things on the architectural style and building design. She stated i:n response to the question that she could not definitely say that all the items of frontages, roadway requirements, sidewalks, and the deed to the golf course property had not been addressed 'and perhaps Mr. Wardle could expound on whether the City had received the architectural style, building design, building materials and color. She also stated that the City had not received the landscaping plan and one of the Findings on the initial application related to prior Mayor Kingsford being adamant that Interlachen connect to Dawson Drive. Mr. Wardle testified that Interlachen Drive did not relate to this parcel. 8. That the owner of record is Brighton Corporation/Boise Research Center, Inc.; that it is .stated in the proposal that the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 6 density would be 4.87 dwellings units per acre, there would be public streets with a waiver of the requirement of sidewalks on both sides of the street, there would be streets of 29 feet back- to-back, private access drives for some parcels, a waiver of set- back provisions is requested, dwellings would be from 1,200 square feet and above, and zero-lot-line development was desired; that at the public hearing the Applicant's representative stated that the main loop road is only 45 feet in comparison to ACHD's 50 foot section; that the initial application stated that the streets would be public, which was changed during the proceedings on the Application that they were going to be public, if the City consented. 9. Under 11-2-409 ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, A, a Planned Development Residential (PD-R) requires a conditional use permit; that a conditional use permit was applied for but only conceptually approved for the medium density development to be developed as a planned unit development. (See the Finding 23. below dealing with this approval.) 10. That the Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, submitted comments; that any existing irrigation and drainage ditches crossing the property shall be tiled; 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; that a master street drainage plan be submitted, including the method of disposal and approval from the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 7 i M- Ada County Highway District and the affected irrigation/drainage districts(s); 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; that a copy of the proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions be submitted by review; that 5 foot wide sidewalks shall be provided in accordance with City Ordinance; that water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by the City's computer model; and that placement of the. fire hydrants be coordinated with the City of Meridian's Water Works Superintendent. That Mr. Freckleton submitted site specific comments which are as follows: a. That the sanitary sewer service and water service to this site will be via an extension of proposed sewer mains to be installed as part of the Ashford Greens Development; that the Applicant will be responsible to construct; b. That 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; that as an absolute minimum, "No Parking" signs should be posted along one side of the street; d. That the Applicant shall provide a statement as to who the ownership, and operation and maintenance of the pressurized irrigation system will be, and; e. That Hubble Engineering shall submit lot closure/area calculations for all lots within this development for the verification of minimum square footage standards. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 8 11. That comments were submitted by Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, .stating that it is common in a Planned Unit Development that exceptions can be made by Council to district regulations when they are desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed planned development; that to be consistent, this project should either be held to the same requirements as required for with the Highlands project and The Lake at Cherry Lane Nos. 5 & 6, which were not allowed housing sizes less than 1,400 square feet, or the other projects should be allowed to have housing sizes of less than 1,400 square feet; that other variances/exceptions that would need to be approved to grant this conditional use permit in an R-4 zone as presented, would be of the following: 1. Minimum lot sizes 2. Frontages 3. Minimum roadway widths/private drives/lots not fronting on roadway 4. Parking areas closer than 4' from road right-of-way; depths less than Ordinance requires 5. Ditches remaining open 6. Provision of 5' sidewalks on each side of roadway in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 7. Front and side yard setbacks (5' per story on side] Mrs. Stiles additionally commented that the Applicant shall submit the following additional information: 1. A colored rendering of adequate scale to show the completed development that will include at least the following items: a. Architectural style and building design; b. Building materials and color; c. Landscaping (is submittal showing actual or conceptual landscaping? Sizes and species need to be detailedj; d. Screening; e. Garbage areas (or to be provided by each individual homeowner?); f. Parking (shownj; and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 9 • g. Open space (shown) 2. That an Ada County Street Name Committee approval needs to be obtained .and the numbering of lots and blocks, needs to be approved. 3. That a plan for the connection of Interlachen to Dawson Drive and the clubhouse connection be submitted 4. Golf Course property deeded to the City in a manner acceptable to Council prior to final plat approval. 5. Proposed restrictive covenants and deed restrictions submitted. 6. Approval. of the Ada County Highway District Technical Review Committee. 7. Master street drainage plan submitted. 8. Indicate the minimum house sizes on the plat. 9. Pressurized irrigation, fire hydrants and street lights shown on the plat. 12. That the Meridian Fire Chief commented; he stated that all common areas will need to be kept clean of trash and weeds; all street name signs need to be up and in place before building is started; that he does not like the private drives because there will be vehicles parked on the private drives; that there can be "No Parking" in the cul-de-sacs and there. needs to be "No Parking" signs posted; that he does not like the narrow streets; that there can be "No Parking" on both sides of the street and he questioned who could enforce this; and he attached a document on Water Fire Flow. 13. That the Meridian School District commented that it had a problem with the amount of students that would be generated by this development;. that a school site was needed in this section, and the cost to the District for educating them asking for help in dealing with the impact of growth on schools; the Central District Health Department commented that high ground water has been observed at less than six feet below grade at this proposed FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW~ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 10 project; that Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District commented that all laterals and waste ways must be protected and that municipal surface drainage must be retained on site; that Idaho Power Company commented that a permanent 10 foot wide public utilities easement along all lots adjacent to the road right-of-way be dedicated to public or private use;. that all of the above comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 14. That Section 11-2-409 A lists Planned Residential Developments as a conditional use in the R-4 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 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, provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this section."; 15. That Section 11-9-607 G. 8. also provides that all Planned Developments shall be subject to design review by the City staff and Council; that 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 11 i • 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 architectural style and building design, building materials and color, landscaping, screening, garbage area, parking, and open space. 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 not submitted bylaws or covenants, conditions and ,restrictions to the City. 16. That the property is zoned R'-4 Residential which is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3. as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominantly residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan or the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non- residential uses. The (R-4~) District allows for a maximum of four ( 4 ) dwellings units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. That the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square feet to be included in houses in that zone. 17. That Section 11-2-411 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #Z PAGE 12 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. 18. That any comments from the Ada County Sighway District not yet received will be incorporated as if set forth in full. 19. That sewer and water is available to the property and is required. 20. That Larry Sale, from the Ada County Highway District, commented during the Ashford- Greens conditional use process, regarding the linkage between Interlachen Way and Dawson Lane; he did not desire Interlachen -Way to connect to this development, stating that Interlachen was only a connector road from Cherry Lane to where it ends now and should not be continued as a collector. 21. That 11-2-410 A requires the following yard setbacks when there is a single-fan-ily structure and the house is on a local road: Minimum front yard set-back ZO feet Minimum rear .yard set-back 15 feet Minimum side yard set-back 5 feet per story; requires the following minimum lot sizes: Lots in the R-4 District 8,000 square feet Lots in the R-15 District 2,400 square feet/per dwelling unit; and requires the following minimum street frontage for each zone, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 13 to wit: Lots in the R-4 District 80 feet Lots in the R-5 District 50 feet. 23. That the City Council previously adopted a motion approving the residential concept plan for Ashford Greens Planned Development, which plan included the concept of this medium density area; that the motion of approval stated, in part, pertaining to this medium density parcel, as follows, to wit: "That the Meridian City Council hereby accepts the recommendation of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission as supported by the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law adopted 12-2-94 and approves the Ashford Greens Planned Development Residential Concept Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. The maximum gross density concept of the entire project represented to be 3.59 units per acre (444 units) is approved. 5. The City reserves the right to place appropriate conditions on the single family lots and areas in -accordance with Ordinance requirements, for the following, including but not limited to: streets, pedestrian walkways, planting and reserve strips, public sites and open spaces, lineal open space corridors, pedestrian and bike pathways, piping of ditches, pressurized irrigation, access, parking, paving, striping, utilities, landscaping, screening, drainage, and so forth, including provisions for golf cart and pedestrian access to the club house from the existing subdivisions. 7. The concept of "medium density" parcels is approved, conceptually only. 8. The maximum gross density of the ''medium density" parcels shall not exceed 8 units per acre. 9. Prior to any development of the medium density parcels, the .developer shall submit a detailed application and site plan for review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 14 • 10. The City reserves the right to place appropriate conditions on the medium density areas in accordance with Ordinance requirements for the following, including but not limited to: streets, pedestrian walkways, planting and reserve strips, public sites and open spaces, lineal open space corridors, pedestrian and bike pathways, piping of ditches, pressurized irrigation, access, parking, paving, striping, utilities, landscaping, screening, drainage, and so forth, including provisions for golf cart and pedestrian access to the club house from the existing subdivisions. 11. The applicant shall work with City staff and ACHD to address the connection of Interlachen to Dawson Drive. Said connection, if required, shall be designed to minimize speed and shall, be included in any consideration for development of the medium density parcel, shown as Lot 5, Block 22. Upon approval of the connection by the City, the applicant shall provide a revised overall Master Plan/Preliminary Plat incorporating that revision. 12. Section 11-9-607 G. 8. provides that all Planned Developments shall be subject to design review by the City staff and Council and therefore this section is required to be met. 13. Section 11-9-607 D, PROCEDURES FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, states: "All applicants shall follow the procedures as provided in Section 9-604 of this Ordinance, PROCEDURES FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. In addition, 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: 1. Architectural style 2. Building materials 3. Landscaping; 4. Screening; 5. Garbage areas; 6. Parking; and 7. Open space." 14. and building design; and color; The Applicant has not submitted this rendering. As a condition of this concept approval, this Section shall be met by the Applicant for the medium density parcels. Section 11-9-607 E, MODIFICATION:OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS states: ASHFORD GREENS MOTION Page 15 "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, provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this Section." Since the property is in an R-4 district, the Applicant and the City shall be guided by the R-4 requirements. The density of the entire project is within the four units per acre requirement of the R-4 district even though there is a .medium density provision in the development of the entire area. The other requirements of the R-4 district may be varied to meet the objectives of this proposed planned development, as long as they are desireable. A detailed development plan for the medium density and a new preliminary plat of the single family layout is necessary so that they can be reviewed to determine if the exceptions to the R-4 requirements are desireable. 15. site plan for the. medium density parcels shall be reviewed and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, meeting all required procedures. - __ 16. the Applicant deed the golf course property, included as part of the residential planned development immediately, to the City. 24. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Meridian City Council have been given and followed. 25. That there was no testimony objecting to the application. 26. That any and all Applications, maps, drawings, documents, testimony, and statements, made by Applicant or its representatives at public hearings or meetings, and all other items, writings, and documents made or given as a part of :this Application, are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. ASHFORD GREENS MOTION Page 16 ! ~ coxcLUSioxs 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418 D of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho. 4. That 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 11-2-409 A lists Planned Residential Developments as a conditional use in the R-4 District. 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 11-9-607 E states that a PD shall be allowed 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 ASHFORD GREENS MOTION Page 17 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 required to comply with it. 9. -That it is concluded that the Applicant shall be required to meet, and comply with, the requirements of Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, and-Shari Stiles, City Planning and Zoning Administrator.. 10. That it is concluded the City reserves the right to place appropriate conditions on this medium density 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 from Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, it may receive the following changes to the Ordinance requirements, to wit: 1. That the streets may be private but shall be constructed to meet ACHD construction standards and requirements; if ASHFORD GREENS MOTION Page 18 • the streets are private they must be 29 feet back-to-back and if they are public they must meet ACHD standards and requirement; if the streets are private that the Applicant shall establish, in the Covenants, Conditions 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 may be constructed only on one side of the roadway, if allowed by ACHD; 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 (30) years. 3. That street frontage of 46 feet is allowed for all lots and all lots having direct access to a street must have that amount of frontage; that the lots that have private drives for access shall have frontage on the private drive for a minimum of twenty (20) feet. 4. Front setbacks of 20 feet must be met and no reductions in any required setbacks are allowed, unless the house is on a 0-lot line; that all yard depth requirements shall be met; that all homes shall have rear yards of twenty (20 ) feet, as represented; 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, but if a single level home is adjacent to a two story home the separation must be fifteen (15) , five feet for the single level and ten feet for the two storey home; that if two two story homes are adjacent the separation must be twenty ( 20) , ten feet for each home. 5. That the minimum lot size required in the R-4 District, of 8,000 square feet, need not be met for all homes because this is a planned unit development, but the lot sizes-shall not be smaller than 4,600 square feet. 6. That no more than 74 lots shall be allowed in the development of the parcel and the density shall not be more than 4.87 dwelling units per acre. 7. There must be parking pods, as shown on the submitted plats and drawings, only for guests, scattered throughout the subdivision and there shall be signs placed showing ASHFORD GREENS MOTION Page 19 that they are for guests only and a means. of enforcing that requirement in the CC & R's must be established and adopted. 8. That the minimum lot size required in the R-4 District, of 8,000 square feet, need not be met for all homes because this is a planned unit development, but the lot sizes shall .not be smaller than as shown on the preliminary plat submitted for approval along with this application for a conditional use. 9. That only one-fifth of the homes constructed may be less than 1,400 square feet, but there shall be no homes smaller than 1,225 square feet; that all-other homes must be 1,400 square feet or .larger, as represented. 10. That the club house/recreation center represented to be in the subdivision must be constructed; that it must be constructed on or before the first twenty-five lots are sold. That the parking areas for the club house/recreation center may be closer than 4' from road right-of-way. 11. That both street entries into the subdivision shall be gated. 12. That the residents should be "seniors" as represented and all laws, federal or state, pertaining to a senior citizens residential area must be met. 13. That only single-family detached homes may be constructed. 14. That Applicant shall present CC & R's to the City showing compliance with the terms of these Findings and Conclusions, but the City of Meridian shall not enforce them but compliance must be shown 15. That it must be shown how Interlachen and Dawson Drive will connect; that it need not be shown on a plat for this subdivision but it must be shown prior to submittal of any additional development application involved in Ashford Greens. 11. That the A~plicant 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 ASHFORD GREENS MOTION Page 20 • 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 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 11-9-607 of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance, and the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, 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 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 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 is the Cherry Lane Village Subdivision, The Lake at Cherry Lane, and Golf View ASHFORD GREENS MOTION Page 21 • Estates; Applicant did, however, state that the character of the homes would comport to existing homes, that they would have only detached single-family dwellings, two-car garages, gross density would be 3.55 to 3.2, some 0-lot line development, shake roofs, and discussed the square footages of some of the proposed homes. d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. e. The property ha.s 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. g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or. conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use will be required. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural .or scenic feature of major importance. - 14. 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, 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 ASHFORD GREENS MOTION Page 22 • 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, these representations and requirements include, but are not liunited to, the following: 1. All Ordinances of the City, except which are allowed not to be complied with herein. 2. Meeting the requirements of City Staff. 3. Meeting all of Applicant's representations regarding development, included in the testimony, the applications, in, or on, the plats and drawings, or in any way made a part of the application. 4. Construction of not more than one-fifth of the homes in the subdivision at 1, 225 square feet to 1, 400 square feet single story homes all other homes shall be 1.400 square feet or larger; all homes, regardless of their size, shall have at least a two car garage. 5. .Constructing and placing the recreation/club house and all amenities thereto on or before 25 lots are sold. 6. Constructing, planting and.placing all landscaping at the perimeter, entrance and within the subdivision. 7. Construct entry gates into the subdivision, 8. Meet the comments of the Fire Chief regarding parking and the placing of signs to reflect the parking restrictions. 9. Tile all waterways, unless a variance is applied for and granted, and construct and supply pressurized irrigation. 10. Construct and place .the parking pods as shown. . 17. That the Applicant shall meet and perform all of the requirements of the Motion passed and approved for the entire Planned Unit Development which Motion is stated in Finding Number 23. 18. That a warranty deed for the golf course property, included in any of the land owned or being developed by Applicant, ASHFORD GREENS MOTION Page 23 ~ ~ 4 by David Turnbull, or any entity in which David Turnbull has an interest in, shall be delivered to the City on or before May 16, 1996; that if such deed is not delivered on or before that date procedures to revoke all approvals of development on the property surrounding the back nine of the golf course 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 VOTED_~ COUNCILMAN BENTLEY VOTED_G,~(~( COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE VOTED COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED V~ MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED (/ 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: APPROVED• DISAPPROVED: ASHFORD GREENS MOTION Page 24 • BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL BRIGHTON CORPORATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EAST OF BLACK CAT ROAD BETWEEN USTICR AND CHERRY LAMS MERIDIAN. IDAHO s FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing March 19, 1996, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., which was tabled and continued to April 2, 1996, but was not brought on for consideration on that date because the Council did not have these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of. Law, the Petitioner appearing through the project's engineer, Mike Wardle, the City Council of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for March 19, 1996, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the March 19, 1996, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 1 B • 2. That the property is located within the City of Meridian; it is located on the east side of Black Cat Road between Ustick and Cherry Lane; the parcel is part of a parcel of property that was annexed by the City over fourteen years ago and part of a parcel that has recently been annexed; the property is zoned R-4, Low Density Residential. 3. The application for conditional use permit stated that this proposal presents the first of two (2) medium density parcels approved in the Ashford Green PUD (Planned Unit Development), that the land is intended to be developed into 74 detached single family dwellings on 15.2 acres, at a density of 4.87 dwellings per acre, that the Applicant stated that the square footage of homes range from 1,200 square feet and above. 4. That at the P & Z hearing Mike Wardle testified and his testimony is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; he basically stated, in part, as follows: The Application is for approval of 74 dwelling units, the density would be 4.9 units per acre; that the homes would be detached single family dwellings with living space to the rear and side, that there would be a recreational building, that the roads would be private, that there would be two car garages, that there would be parking islands that augment the roadways, that drainage would feed into the adjacent lakes, there would be five foot wide sidewalks but only on one side of the road, that there would be some 0-lot lines, [Mr. Wardle asserted in the request for reconsideration that the concept for the project was 0-lot line] that street setbacks would be met, that the house size of 1,400 would not be met in all cases but the City can grant waivers or accept smaller house sizes in a planned unit development, and that the house sizes would vary from 1,225 square feet up to 1,881. square feet. He further testified that they would present a landscape plan and that the landscaping would be commonly FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 2 • . maintained, that this proposed development offers the opportunity for a life-style choice, smaller dwellings in a clustered configuration with open space and home owner's association maintained common areas; that the project will be an "enclave", surrounded on three sides by the golf coarse, providing a physical and visual connection to the golf course open space and water amenities and will fit well with the Ashford Greens and Cherry Lane Golf Course community. Mr. Wardle also stated that the carefully designed site plan incorporates "patio home" architecture; that indoor views and outdoor spaces off the patios are expanded five (5) feet beyond the property line with a "use easement" to the adjacent wall of the neighbor's home; that this development is a 15 acre parcel within the Planned Residential Community of Ashford Greens; that it is surrounded on three sides by the Cherry Lane Golf Course; that it features small-lot single- family homes designed for active, adult families; [Mr. Wardle Mr. Wardle asserted in the request for reconsideration that the "active, adult families" language vas asserted by the architect's description of the project in the conditional use application which the City changed that to "senior citizen living complex.] that the houses are clustered around cul-de- sacs and meaningful common open-space amenities; that green belts extend throughout the development providing pedestrian and golf cart access. Mr. Wardle stated at the January 9, 1996, meeting that the homes would range from 1,225 to 1,886 square feet. Mr. David Turnbull also stated at that meeting that 4 out of 5 homes would be 1,400 square feet or larger and 1 out of 5 would be smaller than 1,400 square feet, down to 1,225 square feet, but he did not state particular percentages for the different size homes. In regards to the .streets being public or private, it was stated that initially the streets were to be public streets but that it was Meridian's choice. Mr. Wardle finally stated that they were now proposing that as a result of ACHD's input, that Meridian consider approving the street system as a private street system. Mike Wardle submitted a letter dated January 17, 1996, concerning fencing, which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 5. That at the City Council hearing the following, basic, testimony was given: Mr. Wardle testified that the parcel in the center was approved, conceptually, for up to 8 units to the acre. Overall density of the entire project was originally approved FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW~ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 3 was 3.55 units to the acre. This parcel is submitted at a density of 4.9 with a detached dwelling concept. The proposal submitted to the Commission as they recommended for approval accommodated five different dwelling units ranging from 1225 square feet up to 1881 square feet. Dwellings would have lap siding and shake roofs. He showed a technical site plan which identified the proposed setbacks and the size of the parcels, which typically would be 46 by 100 or 4600 square foot. There are only 12 units that take frontage from the loop street that goes through the project. Others are clustered on cul-de-sacs, and some private drives which may in some cases accommodate access for up to four units. As we originally submitted the project it had a public street system with streets to ACHD standard of 29 feet back to back, that is back of curb. ACHD felt that it would be appropriate for the loop street to be expanded to its full 50 foot right of way which is a 37 foot back to back standard. We have a system with a one sidewalk system along the streets and extensive internal circulation system that provides access the golf course club house area and to the recreation center to be constructed in this area. The Planning Commission actually agreed with the sidewalk and the pathway system. But they recommended to the Council that the roadway be public and conform to ACHD standards and there was a caveat in their recommendation, which was that the road be public and meet ACRD requirements, unless ACHD allowed a variance from its requirements. A variance has not been submitted to ACRD. Our proposal to you this evening is to act upon the request with the stipulation that we be allowed to do private streets unless ACHD grants a variance. [Mr. Wardle asserted in the request for reconsideration that the word "public" should be changed to "private" when the Findings of Fact discusses the street.] . He submitted some photographs. that showed existing public streets with a street 29 foot back to back street section, which is what we propose here and there is still room for parking. There is a provision for islands and gated entry at both ends of the project. The project provides enclaves for the residences rather than lining up streets with garages frontages . There is a significant amount of open space, 19$ of the area in fact is and would be privately owned and maintained open space. The project with public streets would also have the necessary funding mechanism set up in the bylaws, covenants. and restrictions for operation and maintenance of the roadway system. The change in findings and conclusions we requests [changed] is as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 4 • • No. 1, be modified to state that the road shall be private, but shall meet ACHD construction standards. And then the same terminology unless ACHD allows a variance from its public street requirement City. No. 2, be modified to state that all setback and yard requirements shall be in conformance with standards submitted in the project application and detailed in the technical site plan. No. 3, not be changed. No. 4, regarding set backs that they be changed to require a 25$ reduction, and not 20~. No. 5, regarding sidewalks, that it be changed to state that street sidewalks and internal pathway systems be in accordance with the technical site plan and preliminary plat. Mr. Wardle showed a tissue overlay that showed the way they would add entrance islands with no change on the lots at one end but change to the private driveway access on the other end. He stated they have a preliminary plat modification that shows the change. In conclusion Mr. Mayor in as much as the Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit and the preliminary plat and did extensively discuss it. In concluding, he discussed private versus public streets, and stated the only way to accommodate a private street system is the inclusion of these entry facilities for gating purposes we would ask that the Council proceed to approve the conditional .use permit to modify the findings and conclusions that would allow private street and make these other modifications. 6. Discussion was had at the hearing with Mr. Wardle and with Mr. Turnbull, which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full, and related to the size of the lots; Mr. Wardle stated that P & Z had approved 4,600 square foot lots and approved a waiver of the R-4 requirements; Mr. Turnbull then stated that they had prepared five house plans ranging from 1,200 to 1,800 square feet and stated that Commissioner Hepper talked about a 25~ restriction FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 5 • • on the homes under 1,400 square feet and that he, Mr. Turnbull, did not desire to limit his options. He also testified that he would anticipate that there would be some masonry, probably not stucco but would prefer the lap siding for dimensional character, brick or stone; that the testimony before the Planning and Zoning Commission stated the sizes; that Commissioner Hepper did talk about something like a 25~ restriction on the homes under 1,400 square feet; that the Applicant's testimony at that point was simply that they didn't necessarily want to limit options for empty nest professionals; that Applicant's experience would be that it would probably be less than the 25~ and that only one of the five plans falls under that 1,400 square foot level; that a conditional use conceptual approval of 8 units per acre was approved and that it is now down to less than 5 units per acre. However, the Mixed Density parcels were only conceptually approved. 7. Mr. Morrow asked Shari Stiles if all her conditions and concerns were met through the P & Z process and she stated that she did not know if they had submitted things on the architectural style and building design. She stated in response to the question that she could not definitely say that all the items of frontages, roadway requirements, sidewalks, and the deed to the golf course property had not been addressed and perhaps Mr. Wardle could expound on whether the City had received the architectural style, building design, building materials and color. She also stated that the City had not received the landscaping plan and one of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\A$HFORD GREENS ~2 PAGE 6 Findings on the initial application related to prior Mayor Kingsford being adamant that Interlachen connect to Dawson Drive. Mr. Wardle testified that Interlachen Drive did not relate to this parcel. 8. That the owner of record is Brighton Corporation/Boise Research Center, Inc.; that it is stated in the proposal that the density would be 4.87 dwellings units per acre, there would be public streets with a waiver of the requirement of sidewalks on both sides of the street, there would be streets of 29 feet back- to-back, private access drives for some parcels, a waiver of set- back provisions is requested, dwellings would be from 1,200 square feet and above, and zero-lot-line development was desired; that at the public hearing the Applicant's representative stated that the main loop road is only 45 feet in comparison to ACHD's 50 foot section; that the initial application stated that the streets would be public, which was changed during the proceedings on the Application that they were going to be public, if the City consented. 9. Under 11-2-409 ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, A, a Planned Development Residential (PD-R) requires a conditional use permit; that a conditional use permit was applied for but only conceptually approved for the medium density development to be developed as a planned unit development. (See the Finding 22. below dealing with this approval.) 10. That the Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, submitted comments; that any existing irrigation and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 7 drainage ditches crossing the property shall be tiled; 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; that a master street drainage plan be submitted, including the method of disposal and approval from the Ada County Highway District and the affected irrigation/drainage districts(s); 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; that a copy of the proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions be submitted by review; that 5 foot wide sidewalks shall be provided in accordance with City Ordinance; that water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by the City's computer model; and that placement of the fire hydrants be coordinated with the City of Meridian's Water Works Superintendent. That Mr. Freckleton submitted site specific comments which are as follows: a. That the sanitary sewer service and water service to this site will be via an extension of proposed sewer mains to be installed as part of the Ashford Greens Development; that the Applicant will be responsible to construct; b. That 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; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 8 ~~ that as an absolute minimum, "No Parking" signs should be posted along one side of the street; d. That the Applicant shall provide a statement as to who the_ ownership, and operation and maintenance of the pressurized irrigation system will be, and; e. That Hubble Engineering shall submit lot closure/area calculations for all lots within this development for the verification of minimum square footage standards. 11. That comments were submitted by Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, stating that it is common in a Planned Unit Development that exceptions can be made by Council to district regulations when they are desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed planned development; that to be consistent, this project should either be held to the same requirements as required for with the Highlands project and .The Lake at Cherry Lane Nos. 5 & 6, which were not allowed housing sizes less than 1,400 square feet, or the other projects should be allowed to have housing sizes of less than 1,400 square feet; that other variances/exceptions that would need to be approved to grant this conditional use permit in an R-4 zone as presented, would be of the .following: 1. Minimum lot sizes 2. Frontages 3. Minimum roadway widths/private drives/lots not fronting on roadway 4. Parking areas closer than 4' from road right-of-way; depths less than Ordinance requires 5. Ditches remaining open 6. Provision of 5' sidewalts on each side of roadway in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 7. Front and side yard setbacks (5' per story on side) Mrs. Stiles additionally consented that the Applicant shall submit the. following additional information: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OBE' LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 9 • . 1. A colored rendering of adequate scale to show the completed development that will include at least the following items: a. Architectural style and building design; b. Building materials and color; c. Landscaping (is submittal showing actual or conceptual landscaping? Sizes and species need to be detailed); d. Screening; e. Garbage areas (or to be provided by each individual homeowner?); f. Parking (shown); and g. Open space (shown) 2. That an Ada County Street Name Committee approval needs to be obtained and the numbering of lots and blocks, needs~to be approved. 3. That a plan for the connection of Interlachen to Dawson Drive and the clubhouse connection be submitted 4. Golf Course property deeded to the City in a manner acceptable to Council prior to final plat approval. 5. Proposed restrictive covenants and deed restrictions submitted. 6. Approval of the Ada County Highway District Technical Review Committee. 7. Master street drainage plan submitted. 8. Indicate the minimum house sizes on the plat. 9. Pressurized irrigation, fire hydrants and street lights shown on the plat. 12. That the Meridian Fire Chief commented; he stated that all common areas will need to be kept clean of trash and weeds; all street name signs need to be up and in place before building is started; that he does not like the private drives because there will be vehicles parked on the private drives; that there can be "No Parking" in the cul-de-sacs and there needs to be "Ho Parking" signs posted; that he does not like the narrow streets; that there can be "No Parking" on both sides of the street and he questioned who could enforce this;. and he attached a document on Water Fire Flow. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS ~2 PAGE 10 • • 13. That the Meridian School District commented that it had a problem with the amount of students that would be generated by this development; that a school site was needed in this section, and .the cost to the District for educating them asking for help in dealing with the impact of growth on schools; the Central District Health Department commented that high ground water has been observed at less than six feet below grade at this proposed project; that Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District commented that all laterals and waste ways must be protected and that municipal surface drainage must be retained on site; that Idaho Power Company commented that a permanent 10 foot wide public utilities easement along all lots adjacent to the road right-of-way be dedicated to public or private use; that all- of the above comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 14. That Section 11-2-409 A lists Planned Residential Developments as a conditional use in the R-4 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 i.s 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, provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this section."; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GRBENS #2 PAGE 11 • 15. That Section 11-9-607 G. 8. also provides that all Planned Developments shall be subject to design review by the City staff and Council; that 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 architectural style and building design, building materials and color, landscaping, screening, garbage area, parking, and open space. 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 not submitted bylaws or covenants, conditions and restrictions to the City. 16. That the property is zoned R-4 Residential which is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3. as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of the (.R-4) District is to permit the establishment of law density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominantly residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan or the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non- residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four ( 4 ) dwellings units per acre and requires FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW~ASAFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 12 connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. That the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square feet to be included~in houses in that zone. 17. That Section 1~-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. 18. That any comments from the Ada County Highway District not yet received will be incorporated as if set forth in full. 19. That sewer and water is available to the property and is required. 20. That Larry Sale, from the Ada County Highway District, commented .during the Ashford Greens conditional use process, regarding the linkage between Interlachen Way and Dawson Lane; he did not desire Interlachen Way to connect to this development, stating that Interlachen was only a connector road from Cherry Lane to where it ends now and should not be continued as a collector. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 13 21. 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; requires the following minimum-lot sizes: Lots in the R-4 District Lots in the R-15 District 8,000 square feet 2,400 square feet/per dwelling unit; and requires the following minimum street frontage for each zone, to wit: Lots in the R-4 District 80 feet Lots in the R-15 District 50 feet. [5 to 15] [Mr. Wardle requested that the R-15 designation be completely excluded since, the property is R-4. This was not done because it is only a listing of what the Ordinance says the R-15 requirements are.] 22. That the City Council previously adopted a motion approving the residential concept plan for Ashford Greens Planned Development, which plan included the concept of this medium density area; that the motion of approval stated, in. part, pertaining to this medium density parcel, as follows, to wit: "That the Meridian City Council hereby accepts the recommendation of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission as supported by the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law adopted 12-2-94 and approves the Ashford Greens Planned Development Residential Concept Plan subject to the following. conditions: 1. The maximum gross density concept of the entire project represented to be 3.59 units per acre (444 units) is approved. [Mr. Wardle requested that the numbering be changed because it was confusing. Since it is from a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW~AS$FORD GREENS ~2 PAGE 14 • quotation the numbering cannot be changed.] 5. The City reserves the right to place appropriate conditions on the single family lots and areas in accordance with Ordinance requirements, for the following, including but not limited to: streets, pedestrian walkways, planting and reserve strips, public sites and open spaces, lineal open space corridors, pedestrian and bike pathways, piping of ditches, pressurized irrigation, access, parking, paving, striping, utilities, landscaping, screening, drainage, and so forth, including provisions for golf cart and pedestrian access to the club house from the existing subdivisions. 7. The concept of "medium density" parcels is approved, conceptually only. [ It is noted that the Site Plan showed the Rear Yard set back as being 20 feet but it is now requested that it be 15 feet.] 8. The maximum gross density of the "medium density" parcels shall not exceed 8 units per acre. 9. Prior to any development of the medium density parcels, the developer shall submit a detailed application and site plan for review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. 10. The City reserves the right to place appropriate conditions on the medium density areas in accordance with Ordinance requirements for the following, including but not limited to: streets, pedestrian walkways, planting and reserve strips,. public-sites and open spaces, lineal open space corridors, pedestrian and bike pathways, piping of ditches, pressurized irrigation, access, parking, paving, striping, utilities, landscaping, screening, drainage, and so forth, including provisions for golf cart and pedestrian access to the club house from the existing subdivisions. 11. The applicant shall work with City staff and ACRD to address the connection of Interlachen to Dawson Drive. .Said connection, if required, shall be designed to minimize speed and shall be included in any consideration for development of the medium density parcel, shown as Lot 5, Block 22. Upon approval of the connection by the City, the applicant shall provide a revised overall Master Plan/Preliminary Plat incorporating that revision. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 15 12. Section 11-9-607 G. 8. provides that all Planned Developments shall be subject to design review by the City staff and Council and therefore this section is required to be met. 13. Section 11-9-607-D, PROCEDURES FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, states: "All applicants shall follow the procedures as provided in Section 9-604 of this Ordinance, PROCEDURES FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. In addition, the developer shall provide the Council with a colored rendering of adequate scale to show the completed development that will include at least the followings 1. Architectural style 2. Building materials 3. Landscaping; 4. Screening; 5. Garbage areas; 6. Parking; and 7. Open space." 14. and building design; and color; The Applicant has not submitted this rendering. As a condition of this concept approval, this Section shall be met by the Applicant for the medium density parcels. Section 11-9-607 E, MODIFICATION OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, states: "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, provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this Section." Since the property is in an R-4 district, the Applicant and the City shall be guided by the R-4 requirements. .The density of the entire project is within the four units per acre requirement of the R-4 district even though there is a medium density provision in the development of the entire area. The other requirements of the R-4 district may be varied to meet the objectives of this proposed planned development, as long as they are desireable. A detailed development plan for the medium density and a new preliminary plat of the single family FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 16 • layout is necessary so that they can be reviewed to determine if the exceptions to the R-4 requirements are desireable. 15. site plan for the medium density parcels shall be -reviewed and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, meeting all required procedures. 16. the Applicant deed the golf course property, included as part of the residential planned development immediately, to the City. 23. That proper notice has been given as required by Iaw and all procedures before the Meridian City Council have been given and followed. 24. That there was no testimony objecting to the application. 25. That any and all Applications, maps, drawings, documents, testimony, and statements, made by Applicant or its representatives at public hearings or meetings, and all other items, writings, and documents made or given as a part of this Application, are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 26. That the Applicant filed a request for reconsideration which was heard on June 18, 1996; that Applicant's representative, Mike Wardle, testified; he stated that he believed that the intent of the Council was to approve the Application as submitted; Mr. Wardle submitted a letter dated April 26, 1996, which was received by the City on April 29, 1996; that April 26, 1996, letter is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; the letter states requested changes to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law; that many of the requested changes or comments were as follow follows: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS ~2 PAGE 17 1. That the entire project is based on a zero-lot line concept. 2. That it is not a "senior citizen living complex", which was referred to in the Conditional Use Application, but is "an adult-oriented lifestyle" use. 3. ~ The word "public" needs to be changed to "private" when referring to the streets. 4. References to specific requirements for R-15 lots should be deleted. 5. Delete, "if allowed by ACRD", because the streets are private. 6. That lots are. typically 46 feet wide, but as the Technical Site Plan and preliminary plat shave, many of the lots having direct access to a street do not have 46 feet of frontage. That Applicant desired the following language: "Street frontages shall be in accordance with those depicted on the approved Technical Site Plan and Preliminary Plat." 7. That Ashford 2 is designed as a zero-lot-line project and the Technical Site Plan clearly identifies the setbacks and yard requirements necessary to achieve the desired goal. That Applicant desired a complete replacement of paragraph 4 in paragraph 10 of the Conclusions on page 19 and set forth what Applicant's desired requirements should be. [It is noted that the Site Plan showed the Rear Yard set back as being 20 feet but it is now requested that it be 15 feet.] 8. That relating to Interlachen Way, paragraph 15 of paragraph 10 on page 20 be changed to not require that it be shown how Interlachen Way and Dawson Drive will connect. 9. That "Planning and Zoning Commission" should be changed in paragraph 13 on Page 21. 10. That paragraph 13 c. on pages 21 and 22 of the Conclusions should be changed in that the Applicant did state at the public hearings that the development would be harmonious in design and construction with the general vicinity, that the density for Ashford 2 would be 4.9 units to the acre, and, again, that the entire project is designed to be 0-lot line. 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 Bpplicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASAFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 18 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian.. 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418 D o€ 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 11-2-409 A lists Planned Residential Developments as a conditional use in the R-4 District. 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 11-9-607 E states that a PD shall be allowed 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 required to comply with it. 9. That it is concluded that the Applicant shall be required to meet, and comply with, the requirements of Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, and Shari Stiles, City Planning and Zoning Administrator. 10. That it is concluded the City reserves the right to place appropriate conditions on this medium density 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 from Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, it may receive the following changes to the Ordinance requirements, to wit: 1. .That the streets may be private but shall be constrgcted to meet ACRD construction standards and requirements; if the streets are private they must be 29 feet back-to-back and if they are public they must meet ACRD standards and requirement; if the streets are private that the Applicant shall establish, in the Covenants, Conditions and Restriction's ( CC & R' s) , a means of collecting, each year, a depreciation fund sufficient to build a fund to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 19 C~ • 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 may be constructed only on one side of the roadway [~'. if allowed by ACHD;" deleted.]; 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 (30) years. 3. That street frontage of 46 feet is allowed for all lots and a]:1 lots having direct access to a street must have that amount of frontage; that for those lots that do not have direct access to a street and have access by means of an easement, the street frontages shall be in accordance with those depicted on the approved Technical Site Plan and Preliminary Plat. [This was changed, basically, to meet the suggested change by the Applicant.] 4. That setbacks shall be in accordance with the Development Standards listed on the approved Technical Site Plan, to wit: Front Yard - Front-on Garage Side-on Garage Livable Area 20' 15' 15' Side Yard - Interior Lots 5' Corner Lots, adjacent to street 15' Corner Lots, adjacent to driveway 10' Rear Yard Minimum Building Separation Minimum Building Height 15' 10' 35' 5. That the minimum lot size required in the R-4 District, of 8.,000 square feet, need not be met for all homes .because this is a planned unit development, but the lot sizes shall not be smaller than 4,600 square feet. 6. That no more than 74 lots shall be allowed in the development of the parcel and the density shall not be more than 4.87 dwelling units per acre. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 20 • 7. There must be parking pods, as shown on the submitted plats and drawings, only for guests, scattered throughout the subdivision and there shall be signs placed showing that they are for guests only and a means of enforcing that requirement in the CC & R's must be established and adopted. 8. That the minimum lot size required in the R-4 District, of 8,000 square feet, need-not be met for all homes because this is a planned unit development, but the lot sizes shall not be smaller .than as shown on the preliminary plat submitted for approval along with this application for a conditional use. 9. That only one-fifth of the homes constructed may be less than 1,400 square feet, but there shall be no homes smaller than 1, 225 square feet; that all other homes must be 1,400 square feet or larger, as represented. 10. That the club house/recreation center represented to be in the subdivision must be constructed; that it must be constructed on or before the first twenty-five lots are sold. That the parking areas for the club house/recreation center may be closer than 4' from road right-of-way . 11. That both street entries into the subdivision shall be gated. 12. That the residents should be "seniors" as represented and all laws, federal or state, pertaining to a senior citizens residential area must be met. 13. That only single-family detached homes may be constructed. 14. That Applicant shall present CC & R's to the City showing compliance with the terms of these Findings and Conclusions, but the City of Meridian shall not enforce them but compliance must be shown 15. That it must be shown how Interlachen and Dawson Drive will connect; that it need not be shown on a plat for this subdivision but it must be shown prior to submittal of any additional development application involved in Ashford Greens. [This Conclusion is not changed or modified since it the Applicant has not addressed the question and it is concluded that it is a matter that must be addressed for any development in Ashford Greens and that it must be presented.] FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW~ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 21 • 11. 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 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 11-9-607 of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance, and the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, 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 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 City Council [Planning and Zoning Commission was deleted.) concludes as follows: a. The Planned Development use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS ~2 PAGE 22 • • 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 is the Cherry Lane Village Subdivision, The Lake at Cherry Lane, and Golf View Estates; Applicant did, however, state that the character of the homes would comport to existing homes, that they would have only detached single-family dwellings, two-car garages, gross density would be 4.9 units to the acre, some 0-lot line development, shake roofs, and discussed the square ~footages of some of the proposed homes . [That Applicant in its request for consideration did state that it had represented that its density would be 4.9 units per acre, which it did and that has been put into the Conclusions. It further requested that the Conclusions be changed to reflect that it stated that "development would be harmonious in design and construction with the general vicinity". That all of the minutes of the Planning and Zoning hearing and meetings were not checked, but it is concluded that the record was checked at the time of the initial preparation of the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for that representation and that representation was not noted. Since the Applicant's Application has been approved it is further concluded that that representation is not material. It is further concluded that the Applicant did not specifically state that the entire project was a 0-lot line project and that was not represented on the site plan, preliminary plat, and was not specifically stated. That such representation was not made to the Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council is the recollection of the Planning and Zoning Administrator and the City Attorney. However, it is further concluded that since the Applicant's project is now approved as an entire 0-lot line project, whether Applicant, or its representative's, specifically represented whether or not the project was an entire 0-lot line project is immaterial.] d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW~ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 23 a • 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. g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use will be required. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 14. 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, 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASflFORD GREENS ~2 PAGE 24 • 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, these representations and requirements include, but.are not limited. to, the following: 1. All Ordinances of the City, except which are allowed not to be complied with herein. 2. Meeting the requirements of City Staff." 3. Meeting all of Applicaat's representations regarding development, included in the testimony, the applications, in, or on, the plats and drawings, or in any way made a part of the application. 4. Construction of not more than one-fifth of the homes in the subdivision at 1, 225 square feet to 1, 400 square feet single story homes all other homes shall be 1.400 square feet or larger; all hones, regardless of their size, shall have at least a two car garage. 5. Constructing and placing the recreation/club house and all amenities thereto on or before 25 lots are sold. 6. Constructing, planting and placing all landscaping at the perimeter, entrance and within the subdivision. 7. Construct entry gates into the subdivision, 8. Meet the comments of the Fire Chief regarding parking and the placing of signs to reflect the parking restrictions . 9. Tile all waterways, unless a variance is applied for and granted, and construct and supply pressurized irrigation. 10. Construct and place the parking pods as shown. 17. That the Applicant shall meet and perform all of the requirements of the Motion passed and approved for the entire Planned Unit Development which Motion is stated in Finding Number 22. 18. That a warranty deed for the golf course property, included in any of the land owned or being developed by Applicant, by David Turnbull, or any entity in which David Turnbull has an interest in, shall be delivered to the City on or before May 16, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW~ASHFORD GREENS #2 PAGE 25 • 1996; that if such deed is not delivered on or before that date procedures to revoke all approvals of development on the property surrounding the back nine of the golf course 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 VOTED COUNCILMAN BENTLEY VOTED COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE VOTED COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED 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: APPROVED DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS ~2 PAGE 26 • Facts and Findings: A. General Information R-4 -Zoning 74 -Lots 74 -Proposed dwelling units 15.2 -Acres 2,200 -Total lineal feet of proposed public streets (approx) 259 -Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada- Impact Fee Benefit Zone Western Cities- Impact Fee Assessment District Ashford Boulevard Future local street with no pathway designation (serves as a residential collector) 1,180-feet of frontage (approx) Right-of--way to be dedicated with Ashford Greens Subdivision plat No additional required right-of--way Ashford Boulevard is not constructed. Black Cat Road Collector street with bike route designation Traffic count 584 on 9-9-94 No frontage Black Cat Road is improved with 24-feet of pavement with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. B. The site is currently undeveloped. On June 22, 1994, the Commission acted on the preliminary plat for Ashford Greens Subdivision of which this site was a part. At that time this parcel was shown as a future multi-family site and the District required the developer to submit a site plan for District review when a development plan was completed. The submitted plat shows the proposed development. C. As previously required with Ashford Greens, staff recommends that the applicant construct Ashford Boulevard to a 62-foot street section with 20-foot wide medians and a 5-foot wide sidewalk. The outbound lane to Black Cat Road should be 24-foot wide from face to face from Black Cat Road to Roseberg Place. D. The applicant is proposing to construct the interior loop street (Fairway Drive/Benton Drive) to a 29-foot street section with curb and gutter on both sides. It appears that a meandering sidewalk is proposed throughout the development. District policy requires a 37-foot street section with curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides within 50-feet of right-of--way. Staff • • recommends that the applicant construct the loop street (Fairway Drive/Benton Drive) with a 37-foot street section with curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides within 50-feet of right-of- way. The sidewalk may be detached but it must be constructed as a 5-foot (Meridian's minimum width) wide concrete sidewalk on both sides of the street and should be within the right-of--way or an easement to be approved by the Development Services staff. Note: On June 19, 1996, the Commission reconsidered its previous approval of this application and approved a 29-foot street section for Fairway Drive/Benton Drive with certain requirements for redesign of the project to reduce the number of individual driveways that would enter into the street. E. There are four cul-de-sacs within the proposed development. The applicant is proposing to construct the cul-de-sacs with 29-foot street sections decreasing to 20-foot street sections around a center landscape island. District policy will allow a reduced street section within these cul-de-sacs, however the minimum street section permitted by District policy is a 29- foot street section with curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides. Staff recommends that the applicant construct the cul-de-sac streets with 29-foot street sections without sidewalks because the overall development is being provided with a coordinated pathway system. F. The proposed landscape islands within the cul-de-sacs should be designated as separate lots to be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association. G. The site is proposed to be surrounded by a golf course and no stub streets were required when the plat for Ashford Greens was reviewed. Staff recommends that no stub streets be required with this application. H. Staff recommends that driveways on interior loop street (Fairway Drive/Benton Drive) should be located a minimum of 50-feet from the intersection with Ashford Boulevard. Access restrictions should be noted on the final plat. Staff recommends that direct lot or parcel access to Ashford Boulevard be prohibited. J. At the Technical Review Committee meeting held on December 29, 1995, the applicant's representative stated that the subdivision may be built with private streets. K. The transportation system will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposed development. L. This application was scheduled for a public hearing by the Meridian City Planning and Zoning Commission on December 12, 1995. • . The following requirements are provided to the City of Meridian as conditions for approval: Site Specific Requirements: Construct Ashford Boulevard to a 62-foot street section with 20-foot wide medians and a 5- foot wide sidewalk on both sides. The outbound lane to Black Cat Road shall be 24-foot wide from face-to-face from Black Cat Road to Roseberg Place. 2. If the loop street (Fairway Drive/Benton Drive) is to be public, construct the loop street with a 29-foot street section with vertical curb and gutter within a minimum of 42-feet of right- of-way. The project shall be redesigned to orient as many lots to common driveways as possible instead of individual driveways entering into Fairway Drive/Benton Drive. Coordinate the design with District staff. Benton Drive shall be signed to prohibit on- street parking on the southeast side of the street; and Fairway Street shall be signed to prohibit on-street parking on the east side of the street. The off-street parking spaces shown near the recreation area shall be redesigned or relocated to eliminate the necessity of vehicles backing into the public street. Every lot shall be provided with direct pedestrian access to a pathway connection. The centerline radius of the curve west of Nine Iron Court shall be greater than 150-feet. If the cul-de-sacs are to be public, construct the cul-de-sac with 29-foot street sections with vertical curb and gutter on both sides. The lanes around the landscape islands in the cul-de- sac shall be constructed to a minimum width of 21-feet back of curb to back of curb. 4. If the cul-de-sacs are to be public, the proposed landscape islands within the cul-de-sacs shall be designated as separate lots and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association. 5. If the loop street (Fairway Drive/Benton Drive) is public or private, driveways on the interior loop street shall be located a minimum of 50-feet from the intersection with Ashford Boulevard. Access restrictions shall be noted on the final plat. 6. Direct lot or parcel access to Ashford Boulevard is prohibited. Lot access restrictions shall be stated on the final plat. ~ ~ Standard Requirements: 1. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the Development Services Supervisor. The request shall specifically identi each requirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation of why such a requirement would result in a cuhctanrial hardch'p or inequ~. Requests received prior to the date scheduled for Commission action shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. 2. A request for an appeal of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Development Services Supervisor within 15 calendar days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The appeal will be scheduled to be heard by the Commission within 20 calendar days after receipt. The request for anneal shall specifically identi each requirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation of why such a requirement would result in a substantial hardship or ineauitX. 3. Aright-of--way permit must be obtained from ACRD for any street or utility construction within the public right-of--way. Utility cuts should be combined where practical to limit pavement damage. Utility street cuts in roads Waved within the last five years will not be allowed unless approved by the District Commission. Contact Construction Services at 345- 7667 (with file number) for details. 4. Submit site drainage plans and calculations for review and appropriate action by ACRD prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits). The proposed drainage system shall retain all storm water on-site and shall conform to the requirements of the city or county having jurisdiction. Public street drainage facilities shall be located in the public right-of--way or in a common lot owned by a homeowners association set aside specifically for that use. There shall be no trees, fences, bushes, sheds, or other valuable amenities placed in said easement. Drainage lots and their use restrictions shall be noted on the plat (when applicable). 5. Locate driveway curb cuts a minimum of 5-feet from the side lot property lines when driveways are not being shared with the adjacent property. 6. Construct pedestrian ramps on the corner of all street intersection in compliance with Idaho Code, Section 40-1335. 7. Dedicate a up to a 20-foot x 20-foot right-of--way triangle (or appropriate curve) to keep street improvements within the public right-of--way at all intersections abutting and/or within the development prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits). 8. Continue existing irrigation and drainage systems across parcel. i • 9. Continue borrow ditch drainage abutting parcel (culvert may be required). 10. Provide written approval from the appropriate irrigation drainage district authorizing storm runoff into their system. 11. If street improvements are required, locate obstructions (utility facilities, irrigation and drainage ditches and appurtenances, etc.) outside of the public right-of--way. Authorization for relocations shall be obtained from the appropriate entity. If determined by the District, existing irrigation facilities may remain in the right-of--way with District review and approval of easements recorded for future relocation at a later date. 12. Locate proposed sign(s) out of the public right-of--way and out of the clear-vision sight- triangle of all street and driveway intersections. 13. Install a stop sign on every unsignalized approach of a project street to an intersection involving a collector or arterial as the cross-street. The stop sign shall be installed when the project street is first accessible to the motoring public. 14. The developer is required to install street name signs at the locations approved by the Ada County Highway District. Purchase street name signs, sign poles, and mounting hardware from ACHD's Traffic Operations Department or an approved outside supplier. The District will not manufacture street signs until a copy of the recorded plat showing the recording data has been provided to Development Services staff. 15. Provide a clear vision sight triangle at all driveway and street intersections. Within this triangle no obstruction higher than 36-inches above the top of pavement will be allowed, including but not limited to landscaping, berms, fences, walls or shrubs. The triangle shall be defined with the long leg measured 200-feet to 540-feet (depending on speed limit) along the centerline of any road; and the short leg measured from the curb line of the road 20-feet along the centerline of the intersecting driveway or street (see District policy Figure F7). Provide notes of these restrictions on the plat/site plan and street construction plans. 16. Submit three sets of street construction plans to the District for review and appropriate action. 17. Provide design data for proposed access to public streets for review and appropriate action by ACHD. 18. All public streets and drainage systems shall be designed and constructed in conformance with District standards and policies. 19. Specifications, land surveys, reports, plats, drawings, plans, design information and calculations presented to ACRD shall be sealed, signed and dated by a Registered r, Professional Engineer or Professional Land Surveyor, in compliance with Idaho Code, Section 54-1215. 20. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 21. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Development Services Division at 345-7662. Submitted bv: Date of Commission Approval: Development Services Staff • • 50 Broadway Ave. Suite B, Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: 208-344-3448 Fax: 208-344-3922 Wardle & Associates ~i~:~,~JE~' May 2, 1996 MAY - Z 1~'~~ CITY OF ~tERIDIAK TO: Will Berg Meridian City Clerk FROM: Michael D. W RE: Ashford 2 Exhibits I have been working with Jun Rabbitt to secure the release of the mounted exhibits for Ashford 2. A bit of background: • The original CU/preplat application included colored 8 1/2 X 11 reductions of the Technical and Illustrative site plans. • During the hearings, color copies of the' building elevations and l l X 17 color copies of the .two. site p1.ans were once again provided. Inasmuch as your files do .have re cord copies of the site plans a:~d building elevations, an3 with the t revision of the attached blueprints of the floor pl~ais fbr your f les, we' hope that we will be able to retrieve the ~rounted drawisngs for Ilse and marketing. Please let me know when we can pick them up. cc: .David Turnbull Jim Rabbitt • DOBIE ENGINEERING, INC. 777 Hearthstone Dr. Boise, ID 83702 (208)345-3290 June 12, 1996 Will Berg City Clerk City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 RE: Ashford Greens Subdivision -Phase 2 Dear Mr. Berg: ~C~IVEI) ~uN t 2 ~sss CITY OF MF.~IDIAN The City of Meridian approved the preliminary plat of the Ashford Greens No.2 development subject to a condition that a fund be established to maintain and replace the private roads and walkways. This analysis was prepared to help the City determine an appropriate dollar amount needed to fund this obligation. A set of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R) would be established for the subdivision and administered by the homeowner's association. The CC&R's could require the following: 1. An annual contribution of $77.00 from each subdivision lot to fund the maintenance and replacement of the neighborhood streets and sidewalks (see Appendix A for details of this calculation); 2. An obligation that the abutting property owner remove snow and otherwise maintain their share of sidewalk; and 3. An annual contribution of $34.00 from each lot in the subdivision to fund the maintenance and future replacement of the paved pathways (see Appendix B). Sidewalk maintenance was assigned to the adjacent properties to encourage prompt responses and to be consistent with public street requirements. Both ACHD and the City of Meridian require sidewalk snow removal by the adjacent business or residence. I hope these suggestions will help to address the City's concerns. Please call, if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~~ Patrick Dobie, P.E. Dobie Engineering, Inc. cc: Dave Turnbull, Brighton Corp. Mike Wardle, Wardle & Associates • • APPENDIX Ashford Greens No.2 -Street System Replacement & Maintenance Progam APPENDIX A: ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT A. Road Replacement Cost The annual contribution to a road replacement fund maybe determined by calculating the life expectancy of the road and the estimated future construction cost. Life C,Ycle The life expectancy of a roadway can be estimated from the projected average daily traffic volumes (ADT) and the traffic index (TI) of the structural road section. A residential street section per ACRD standards has a TI value of 6 and projected traffic volumes on the Ashford Greens loop street should approach 500 vpd. Therefore, by converting both factors to equivalent axle loads (EAL) the life expectancy may be estimated as follows*: a. EAL/yr. = ADT x %Trucks x (Ave. EAL/Truck) x 365/#lanes EAL/yr. = 685 at an ADT of 500 vpd b. A residential street with a TI value of 6 has the capacity to accommodate 35,000 EAL per life cycle. Therefore: Life Expectancy = 35,000 = 51 years 685 Use 50 year life cycle. *Methodology from ACRD Capital Budgeting Progam 3-30-93 2. Future Construction Cost The 1996 construction cost of a standard residential street with curb, gutter and sidewalks is $60.00 per foot. Ashford Greens No.2 has approximately 27501inear feet of new streets, which amounts to a current total construction cost of $165,000. Assuming a term of 50 years and an annual cost inflation of 2%, future replacement cost will be $444,000. [FV = PV(1+i)"J 3. Annual Replacement Fund A total annual contribution of $2120 will provide the future capital resources to replace the subdivision streets and sidewalks (assuming a 5% return on investment). [PMT = FV (i / (1+i)° - 1)] • J APPENDIX Ashford Greens No.2 -Street System Replacement & Maintenance Program B. Annual Maintenance Cost Road maintenance costs vary considerably depending on annual snowfall and surface maintenance conditions. In 1996 ACRD budgeted $9.3 million for the operations and maintenance of 1,349 centerline miles of roadway and 398 bridges. This amounts to an average annual cost of $6,894 per centerline mile. Applying this same level of expenditure to the Ashford Greens streets yields an annual maintenance budget of $3590 per year. C. Projected Budget Annual Replacement Cost $2120 Annual Maintenance Cost 3590 Total Annual Cost $5710 Annual Cost per Lot $ 77 APPENDIX Ashford Greens No.2 -Street System Replacement & Maintenance Program APPENDIX B: PATHWAY MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT Proposed in the Ada County Ridge to Rivers Pathway Plan (March 1993) is a budget for the public pathway system. Offstreet multiple use pathways were estimated to cost $175,000 per mile to construct and $6060 per mile per year to maintain. Ashford Greens No.2 will develop approximately 1200 ft. (.23 miles) of off-street pathways. Assuming a 30 year life span together with the interest and inflation factors used in Appendix A, the following maintenance and replacement costs should be budgeted: Annual Replacement Cost $1100 Annual Maintenance Cost $1400 Total Annual Cost $2500 Annual Cost per Lot $ 34 r • Meridian City Council March 19, 1996 Page 38 Rountree: Second FIVE MINUTE RECESS ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 74 UNIT PUD WITH DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS FOR ASHFORD GREENS NO. 2 (FORMERLY JAMES PLACE): Corrie: twill now open the public hearing Mr. Wardle. Mike Wardle, 50 Broadway Avenue, Suite D, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wardle: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, this project is similar in some respects to that that you just reviewed but substantially different in the planned character. I want to spend just a few minutes if we possible can so we don't belabor this evening. It is a little background, the location of this project for Ashford No. 2 is in the center part of the conditional use permit that the Council approved in December of 1994. This is actually the first of two medium density parcels. The parcel in the center was approved at that point conceptually for up to 8 units to the acre. Overall density of the project at that time as originally approved was 3.55 units to the acre including the medium density parcels. With this change as submitted this property is coming in at a density of approximately 4.9 units to the acre. We are going to show you a detached dwelling concept. So the overall density of the project is as a result also reduced. I guess there is probably nothing more on the overall site but this one simply shows the location and a layout that, I want to just quickly go through the fact that what we are going to talk about are again detached dwellings. The proposal as submitted to the Commission and as discussed and as recommended for approval both as a conditional use permit and as a preliminary plat accommodates five different dwelling units ranging from 1225 square feet up to 1881 square feet. All of the information that was presented is in the packet that you received last week so I am trusting you will have read that if you have questions specifically we can go through but generally we are talking about just a variety of fairly traditional appearing dwellings, lap siding, shake roofs, and the floor plans. all of these floor plans and elevations are in blue print form in the files in your planning department. In addition these boards have been retained here during the hearing process and were there for review. I think it is probably more appropriate to look at the cluster concept that is being proposed. I would like to provide to the Council two different renderings. These are actually copies of the renderings that were submitted to and reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. (Inaudible) Believe it or not through the modem technology the exact duplication of what we show as kind of a salmon pink here is kind of a faded out yellowish green on your copies. This is the technical site plan and I want to emphasize the fact that the architectural fine that designed the units has also designed the layout. They have placed the buildings they have • \J Meridian City Council March 19, 1996 Page 39 put the configuration of these dwellings together to meet the way the architectural plans would work best. The technical site plan identifies the proposed setbacks, the size of the parcels which typically would be 46 by 100 or 4600 square foot. There are some of the parcels that in fact it is interesting I did a count the other day and there are only 12 of the units that will actually take frontage from the loop street that goes through the project. Others are clustered on culdesacs, and .some private drives which in some cases accommodate access for up to four units instead of taking frontage on the street they have those little private cluster drives. As we originally propose the project we submitted it to be a public street system., The standards that were proposed and also detailed on the preliminary plat and this technical site plan by the architect indicated that we were proposing to build the streets to ACRD standard of 29 foot back to back that is back of curb, that is the standard, minimum standard for ACRD. It fits atl of their criteria for the culdesac areas, but ACHD felt that it would be appropriate for the loop street to be expanded to their full 50 foot right of way which is a 37 foot back to back standard. So at the second there were actually two hearings on this issue before the Planning Commission, the original meeting in December, there was a second meeting in January because there was some concern about the street system. At the original hearing ACRD had not yet had the opportunity to review or discuss the concept, they had done so by the second meeting. So at the second meeting it became apparent that if in fact we had to meet the standards of the expanded right of way on the loop street system that it would have an impact on the site plan from a couple of stand points. You can see this is similar to what you had just heard that we have a system of basically a one sidewalk system along the streets and then we have an extensive internal circulation system that provides access from the main boulevard leading back to the golf course club house area to the recreation center that would be constructed in this area. In addition there then would be a pathway that would lead off to the area toward the golf course club house and provide access for those in the project that chose to go to the club house for either golfing or social purposes. The Planning Commission in its recommendation actually agreed with the sidewalk and the pathway system. What they did recommend to the Council was that the roadway be public and that it conform to ACHD standards or they put a caveat in their recommendation. That statement was that the road shall be public and meet ACRD requirements unless ACHD allows a variance from its requirements and that variance should also be approved by the City. Now in as much as the process has gone forward before the ACRD had a chance to review a request for a variance actually has not been submitted to ACHD. So I think the commission realized there was an opportunity to do something a little more sensitive than just a standard full bore street system. I want to pass an item that shows photographs of a variety of different private drive accesses and public streets as well as entry monuments for a public street system because our proposal to you this evening will be to act upon the request with the stipulation that we be allowed to do private streets unless ACHD grants a variance. Before I hand this to the Clerk what we have on the top of this page above this first red line are private streets in a variety of ... Meridian City Council March 19, 1996 Page 40 projects throughout the area, some down in the vicinity, well it is the Riverside Village area of Garden City, Wood Duck Island in East Boise along the river, then there is a series of interesting private driveways and streets in the area of Mountain View Drive in Boise. The one that I want you to particularly look at is the one marked with the red asterisk on this private drive situation. This is exactly what we would be talking about for these little private drive stubs that would provide access only to just a couple of homes or up to four. This is a roadway called North Cole Lane. It lies just north of Mountain View Drive east of Cole Road. It is 18 foot wide and serves 9 fairly expensive single family dwellings. We are. not proposing anything of that number we are simply saying that this particular section is what would be consistent with these little private drive stubs that are shown in various places on the plat. The second issue, we do intend even with a private street system if we have to go that way we still intend to build streets, they would look like ACRD roadways. This second set of photos shows three existing public streets. One is 27 feet wide back to back and was obviously constructed before. some recent standard changes at ACHD. The second to and including the one that has the red asterisk on this side this is actually a 29 foot back to back street section it is a public street, it is what we propose here. It is interesting when you look at that and you see the width of the pavement but there are actually, even though we realize this would be a one side only parking situation for fire access there is still room enough on that street for the parking and this in a public situation is not restricted. (End of Tape) revised preliminary plat and I want to put a caveat we are not talking about a lot of changes we are talking only about the provision of islands for gated entry at both ends of this project. (Inaudible) in the revised preliminary plat we had to reverse these two lots so that the private drive was on this end rather than on the north end so that there was room up here and then we had to do a similar situation to turn these two lots 90 degrees and put a private drive stub here. You will be able to see that in a moment when I have passed that to the Council as well. All other elements of the project that were reviewed by the Planning Commission the setbacks, all of the issues are the same. We are not asking for any differences on that. I want to stress the fact that the character of this project provides enclaves for the residences rather than lining up the streets with the units so that you have total street frontages that are identified by garages. You have a cluster of dwellings on this small culdesac, you have a cluster in here, cluster, cluster, then you do have a few units here but then with the use of those little private stubs it helps soften the impact. There is a significant amount of open space, 19°~ of the area in fact is and would be privately owned and maintained open space. The project with public streets would also have the necessary funding mechanism set up in the bylaws, covenants and restrictions for operation and maintenance of the roadway system down the years. So we are talking about something that is very harmonious in the sense that we are looking at detached single family dwellings. They would probably be more toward the empty nester professionals. We anticipate that a number of people that want the golf course relationship since this is surrounded literally on three sides by golf course would provide a very good option for lifestyle differences from those that would probably choose • Meridian City Council March 19, 1996 Page 41 the larger lots in the subdivision itself. t do have one hand out that identifies what would- necessitate a modification of the findings and conclusions. Mr. Mayor, the change in findings and conclusions would relate to condition no. 1 coming from page 13 of the findings and conclusions. Wherein the Commission had stated the road should be public, we are requesting that it be modified to state that the road shall be private but shall meet ACHD construction standards. And then the same terminology unless ACRD allows a variance from its public street requirement which variance shall also be received by the City. Condition No. 2~by the Planningocthe urn is areOe oposeduto have a use easemeln9or we simply believe m as much as al P a zero lot line arrangement where they would be a minimum of 10 feet of separation between units but that 10 feet would be used by one of the dwellings instead of split between the two. We believe that condition number two could be modified to state that all setback and yard requirements shall be in conformance with standards submitted in the project application and detailed in the technical site plan that I am holding in my hands. No change in condition number three. Condition number four we believe should, it did have a percentage of the front setbacks of the lots may not be 20% less than required or wasn't exactly certain but in order to be consistent with what is actually on the technical site plan where if it was a side entry garage instead of a 20 foot setback it would be a 15, that would be a 25% reduction rather than 20%. Then finally condition number 5 it did in the Planning Commission findings state that there may be five foot sidewalks on one side only and then it got some other wording that was a little hard to understand. We are simply asking them to state that street sidewalks and internal pathway systems shall be in accordance with the technical site plan and preliminary plat submitted with the project application. Finally Mr. Mayor, Council members, I am going to give you a tissue overlay that shows what, the way we would add entrance islands with absolutely no change on the lots on this end but does necessitate as I pointed out earlier that the private driveway acxess on these would be reversed from the north to the south and then the two lots on the other side be turned 90 degrees from what they were shown. We do have a preliminary plat modification that shows that. In conclusion Mr. Mayor in as much as the Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit and the preliminary plat and did extensively discuss the issue of private versus public streets and the only way to accommodate a private street system is the inclusion of these entry facilities for gating purposes we would ask that the Council proceed to approve the conditional use permit to modify the findings and conclusions that would allow the private street and make these other modifications that I believe are minor in character but are helpful in clarifying the issue before the Council. I would stop there and answer any questions that you have. Mr. Turnbull the developer is here if you have any specific items for him. Corrie: Council any questions? Morrow: I have a question with respect to those elevations, did you indicate that on the • Meridian City Council March 19, 1996 Page 42 • homes there as masonry involved on the front of the elevations? (Inaudible) Wardle: I did not so indicate Mr. Morrow because I have not really been involved in that part of it, Mr. Turnbull might be able to answer that question. David Turnbull, 12301 W. Explorer Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Turnbull: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Morrow, these plans here are the preliminary plans that were developed that are going, once we have approval on the concept or the conditional use permit we are going into full working drawings. I would anticipate that there would be some masonry probably not stucco. I prefer the lap siding for dimensional character. Morrow: So you are proposing siding and brick then? Turnbull: Correct, brick or stone. Morrow: Thank you Rountree: One of the issues that was discussed at length in the Planning and Zoning session was the square footage of the homes. Is it your understanding that issue was resolved at Planning and Zoning? Or at least with them? Wardle: That is a good question because it was discussed and yet they didn't actually put what the number would be. There was discussion by Mr. Hepper specifically and I believe he was going toward like a 25% factor for that that would be at the 1225 square foot limit which is below what the normal R-4 standard is. But it did not come out in the findings and conclusions. Corrie: Any further questions from Council? Tolsma: (Inaudible) now you are speaking strictly the private drives and not the (inaudible) Wardle: No Mr. Tolsma I am speaking of the loop system in that context. Let me just restate what was discussed with the Planning Commission. The culdesac streets these three facilities all meet ACRD standards as drawn. These could be constructed today and meet their standards period. They were simply talking about this one, they had no issue at all with these little private stubs that serve one or two homes that was not their concern. But it was their recommendation that this loop street only be expanded to the 37 foot section with sidewalks on both sides. That does impact the system. We believe that this at the 29 foot section which is also ACRD standard but it is the smaller standard works. Meridian City Council March 19, 1996 Page 43 This is not a heavy, it doesn't go through to any other facility it splits fairly well between the two entrances but we did not submit it to them in a request for a variance. It was only submitted to be considered as public in the context of these drawings. Tolsma: (Inaudible) you are not going to have 8000 square foot lots (inaudible) Wardle: That is correct, the Planning Commission recommended that this site plan be approved, they approved the concept of a 4600 square foot minimum size. That is what the conditional use permit allows, it allows waivers for all of those normal standards in the R-4 and when we were here about a year and a half ago going through the approval process it was apparent that if we were to do something of a higher density it could be an 8000 square foot lot. We had to come back and show you and that is what this does. Turnbull: Mr. Mayor, just to follow up on Councilman Rountree's question on these housing sizes. We had prepared five plans ranging from 1200 to 1800 square feet. Our testimony and position before the Planning and Zoning Commission was that and Commissioner Hepper did talk about something like a 25% restriction on the homes under 1400 square feet. Our testimony at that point was simply that we didn't necessarily want to limit options for empty nest professionals. Our experience would be that it would probably be less than the 25% that is why we prepared five plans and only one of those falls under that 1400 square foot level. But again on the conditional use permit and also pertaining to the lot sizes it is fairly, we had a conditional use conceptual approval of 8 units per acre we are down to less than 5 units per acre it is quite obvious that you can't accomplish any of those things on a standard R-4 8000 square foot lot and all of those requirements which is right through the conditional use process and the PUD process we have asked for these exceptions. Thank you. Corrie: Mr. Rountree are you satisfied with that? Rountree: Yes, I understand his response. Corrie: Any further questions from Council? Morrow: Yes, I have one question, 29 foot section of private road that you are discussing how much asphalt is that? You are talking about 2 feet and 2 feet of curb for (inaudible) Wardle: Is that correct Mr. Sale, I haven't measured ACHD's, 25 foot of asphalt yes. Corrie: Any further questions of these two? Turnbull: Mr. Mayor could I make one more comment again? One of the pictures that Mr. Meridian City Council March 19, 1996 Page 44 Wardle has submitted to you for a private drive access is in my neighborhood where I live in the Hickories. There are three homes, fairly large homes with families that access off that street. I drive by it four times everyday and I have yet to see a car parked on that private drive it works and functions very well. Corrie: Is there anybody else from the public that would like to give testimony on the request for conditional use permit? Any further discussion, questions from Council or staff? Morrow: I have some questions for Shari if I might Mr. Mayor. Shari in your fetter on December 8, 1995, which is I think a preliminary analysis of this proposal you had several items and points that you were making there to and including something about the applicant needs to submit the following additional information. I guess I am asking you know were all of your conditions and concerns met through the P & Z process and to this point where we are at now? Stiles: Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council, I would have to go in the file to see if we have received anything as far as architectural style and building design. That was a presentation during a meeting it is likely that I was not able to see it when it was presented. Are you referring to item one on page two? Morrow: Well the entire letter has several things, I guess my primary concern was the modification of district regulations (inaudible) some of which we talked about here in terms of the square footage sizes. You talked about frontages, roadway requirements, sidewalks and so on and so forth. Then you went into specifics in terms of additional comments such as the golf course deed the property to the City and connection of Dawson and Interlachen and so on and so forth. My question to you is that in these presentations have all those issues and at least addressed to your satisfaction? Stiles: Mr. Morrow, I am not, I couldn't say definitively that all of these items have been addressed no. The first page was just a section out of the ordinance that shows what can be done with the planned development and the first list of items are all of the things which could be granted by the Council if they wanted to grant variances on those items any, for all or none of those items could be approved as part of a planned development but that would be up to Council. As far as the rest of it perhaps Mr. Wardle could expound on whether we have received the architectural style and building design, the building materials and color, we have not received the landscaping plan except a concept that is shown. If they want to submit that is the plan that they will be required to bond for that would be acceptable provided there are some species and sizes determined. Screening is one of the items that is required under the PUD process. I don't think in this case there is anything that needs to be screened out. I don't think the garbage areas has been Meridian City Council March 19, 1996 Page 45 • addressed as far as how they expect garbage trucks to pick up in these private driveways. The parking and open space has been zoned. One of the comments in the findings for the initial application prior Mayor Kingsford was very adamant that Interlachen connect to that Dawson Drive and the clubhouse. I am not stxe it met the intent of what he wanted at that time. We have yet to receive covenants. The street drainage plan I don't know if that has been addressed. Basically that is, I don't know if this new plan that we have shows the pressurized irrigation and fire hydrants and street lights but I am assuming we will be provided a revised plat prior to your,action on the plat. Wardle: Mr. Morrow I wilt respond, we wrote a letter to the Planning Commission in response to Shari's comments that letter was dated the 12th of December and it is in your packet. In some respects the issues that were presented were conceptual. In other words the renderings that Mr. Turnbull talked about and the renderings and floor plans are in the planning staff file in blue print form. So there was a concept of the intent it is not finished drawings. The one primary issue that we didn't feel and I appreciate this coming up, the question on Interlachen does not relate to this parcel. The parcel we are talking about this evening is up in the center of the area. Interlachen is down here and when we actually come in with a development proposal for this parcel we realize that we have to deal with that issue. So that, it is premature to deal with even though we know that is one of the conditions of the overall project has to deal with it does not relate to this one. I have no problem with City Council stipulating in fact the recommendation the findings and conclusions from the planning commission do state that we have to address both Mr. Freckleton and Shari Stiles comments. We will provide all of that as we get down to more detail. But this is still conditional use not all of those issues have been related. But please I would ask specifically that the question of Interlachen not be applied to this parcel but that it be applied to the appropriate parcel the second medium density tract that will be presented some time in the future. Cowie: Any further questions from Council? Any further comments from the public on the hearing? Council any further questions? I will close the public hearing. Counselor, where are we on this? There have been changes. Crookston: There are changes, yes there are. Cowie: Recommendation? Crookston: I think that there needs to be new findings of fact and conclusions of law. Morrow: So moved Rountree: Second ~ ~ Meridian City Council March 19, 1996 Page 46 Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that new findings of fact and " conclusions of law be written, any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Rountree: Let me point out here Mr. Mayor that on the existing findings of fact, page 6, there is a statement that I believe is in error. It is a minor change that I think needs to be made. Fourth line down, Highlands project and the Lake at Cheny lane No. 5 and 6 to and you should insert the word "not" allow housing sizes less than 1400 square feet. I believe that is what was said by Ms. Stiles. Crookston: That is correct. ITEM #15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHFORD GREENS NO.2 (FORMERLY JAMES PLACE} BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Corrie: I will open the public hearing and invite Mr. Wardle. Mike Wardle, 50 Broadway Ave. Suite D, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wardle: Mr. Mayor in as much as you will draw up new findings and conclusions it would be appropriate to retain this item for that next meeting when you have that before you. I have nothing further. Corrie: Any further testimony from the public on this public hearing for the preliminary plat for Ashford Greens? Hearing none any further discussion from the Council? I will close the public hearing. Entertain a motion. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move we table this item until our next regularly scheduled meeting. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Tolsma that we table the public, I guess we have to continue. Crookston: We the public hearing in effect you would need to continue it. Corrie: Charlie was that your motion to continue the public hearing? Rountree: I think my motion was to table but if we need to continue it I will withdraw my ~ ~ ~. ~YBr~ 6~2-9~ f~ll~~0~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING:- __ JUNE 18.1996 APPLICANT: BRIGHTON CORPORATION ITEM NUMBER; 8 REQUEST:PUBLIC HEARING• RECONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ASHFORD SUBDNISION NO 2 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: COMMENTS +~ ~~ ~ a~~~~ ~~~~ 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: OTHER: ~~, ~;~~~~ ~' ~yl~~~, All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 16 " Morrow: I don't think we need to restate the motion, just have a separate motion to approve that. Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the development agreement for Tumble Creek Subdivision by Arnold Stubblefield. Rountree: Second Corrie: We have a motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree and that also includes the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: RECONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORA 74 UNIT PUD FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION N0. 2 BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Corrie: Mr. Wardle? I will now open the public hearing on item #8. Mike Wardle, 50 Broadway Avenue, Suite B, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wardle: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, on the 16th of April the Council approved the subject project; Ashford No. 2 which is a 74 lot PUD of detached single family dwellings in a cluster concept development with significant open space. I believe it was clearly the intent of the Council to approve the project as submitted but in the reading of the findings and conclusions that we received after the meeting it became apparent that there were some problems and contradictions that would make it difficult to construct the project based on the findings and conclusions that did not agree with the site plan specifically related to building frontages or lot frontages and set back requirements. We responded approximately two weeks after receiving those findings and just prior to the next Council meeting a ~d it is not seven weeks later to bring this matter back. to the Council. I think this was one case where the opportunity to have reviewed the findings and conclusions in advance of that adoption probably would have cut maybe 4 to 6 weeks off of this process and hopefully would have resolved the issue before adoption. Probably at that point would have necessitated a tabling until those issues were addressed. I would like to pass out and I only have five copies but an amended letter that was submitted on, it was received by the City on the 29th and is dated April 26 from Mr. Turnbull. And then additional copies of the annotated findings and conclusions also of that same date that accompanied that letter. There have been a couple of modifications to that that are highlighted and would like to present those for your review. Mr. Mayor and Mr. Bentley you have those but there are two, a wording revision on one of the existing and then one new item to be brought to the Council. So I will give your five copies of the findings and • • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 17 ' five copies of that letter. Mr. Mayor, I think, I don't intend to go through all of the items because items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 are procedural relate to just some errors and wording modifications that probably do not change any of the intent. But the others are substantive and I would like to address those. I bring to your attention the fact that we have added a new item #14 at the bottom of that letter and this is ail hand written today. As we reviewed what our final comments and concerns were. This relates to a letter that was submitted by Dobie Engineering on items 1 and 2, page 18 and 19 that deal with depreciation funds for private streets and sidewalks. Mr. Dobie is here and will address that. He submitted a letter on the 12th of April to Mr. Berg, he had copies if the Council has not yet received those. I would like to go quickly and respond to questions perhaps as we do this. Item #1 talks in the terminology of the findings and conclusions state there would be some zero lot lines and in fact the entire project is based an concept that there would be and I am going to use the term zero lot line. What we really are dealing with is lots that have a property line between the two buildings with a use easement a'eating essentially a zero lot line configuration. When zero lot lines products first came onto the market some 20 years ago they in fact did build them on the lot lines. There came to be problems with access because in some cases easements were not granted for the maintenance of a person's own building wall. So subsequently the evolution of zero lot line uses came down to a point where a property would have the use of up to 5 feet of the additional property owners land. that use easement then effectively in this particular case the property line is shown in red the use area for this particular individuals yard actually goes to the blank wall of the adjacent property. So he has the use of a five foot easement for his own enjoyment and activity. That is the concept that was depicted in the technical site plan throughout and this is simply a blow up of that particular issue. Rountree: Mike, the reverse of that is true as well, the other neighbor has the same use of that other five foot on the other side of the property line? Wardle: Correct, so in this particular case, this property owner uses five feet from this lot, this proper':; owner uses five feet from that lot and so forth. Now th rre are some variations of this and that is why there is a critical element to both the technical site plan building envelopes and setbacks and there is wording change in item #10 that tries to address that. Because you get to this end parcel and this individual in fact doesn't do that. So it is just the anomaly of having this particular lot being at the end of those little private stub drives and you can't really give this person the same situation. So there are some variations but the combination of the building envelopes and the setbacks are cxitical to the project. Now, I don't want to belabor the point of the issue but in the covenants and on the subdivision plat, that easement will be noted. So that there is no misunderstanding on each and every lot as to what the individual owns and what the adjacent property gets to use. These are color copies of that particular area site plan and then the blow up of the one just for the record if you choose to (inaudible). So item #1 is simply a restatement and • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 18 • clarification that in fact the project in fact is based on this relationship that is detailed in comment #10. Item 2 doesn't necessarily require any substantive impact on the project or have any impact on the project but the comments made that we have seen in the minutes we did refer to the active adult lifestyle. The project that proceeded us during the hearings was a senior citizen living complex and I think perhaps the two got mixed. We clearly are not trying to identify this project as a senior citizen living complex. Again items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are simply wording problems that I believe can be addressed by a simply look at those issues. Item 8 on page 19, item 2 the second line, we are asking for the deletion of the term or phrase if allowed by ACRD. And that is simply based on the fact that the Council in its action did approve a private street system hence ACHD will not be involved in the internal street system. Just a little editorial note on that, you did however at the same time require us to construct the streets to ACHD standards and that will be done. Item #9, again, if you use the typical lot width of 46 feet which is the standard designed by the architect and I want to stress the fact that this project is like a puzzle. This is put together with these unit relationships the streets and the little private subs and all working together so that these buildings have a relationship one with another. However, we don't have 46 feet of frontage on all of the lots and that is clearly shown on the technical site plan as well as the preliminary plat. So we simply are asking for acknowledgement of that with the statement modifying the phrasing street frontage shall be in accordance with those depicted on the approved technical site plan and preliminary plat. Perhaps the most critical element of the project is item or comment #10 which relates to the setbacks. On page 19, item 4, the setback delineation in the findings and conclusions are basically a restatement of those that come directly from the R-4 zone. They are not in harmony with what is intended for and were depicted on the plat and this again being the technical site plan where it identified the development standards and this was the site plan that was reviewed and approved. The specific problem is when you get down to the relationship between buildings in the R-4 zone it is 5 feet per story. We are showing that we have a minimum of 10 feet between buildings and we can't construct this project with the standard R-4 setbacks. In as much as this is a conditional use permit it essentially should be a wai~. 2r of that requirement and the adoption of these develr rxnent standards. Now I have noted an error in the written information. The rear yard for whatever reason by the architect was identified as 20 feet, the R-4 zone only requires 15 and in fact the dimensional standard on the building envelopes as depicted on the technical site plan is 15 feet which does conform. So, that is the one correction that needs to be made from what was depicted and presented in the site plan. So we do ask that the Council modify that entire paragraph item 4 on page 19 and this is where we have amended the wording today because we have this relationship between the building envelopes and the setbacks that we have to qualify it by saying the building envelopes and setbacks shall be in accordance with the development standards depicted by and listed on the approved technical site plan/preliminary plat and then as noted. Then item 11 on page 20, item 15 is the restatement of the issue on Interlachen and the terminology that we are asking for • • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 19 - there is to delete a word and then replace some other phrasing with involving the medium density parcel at the end of Interlachen Way. I didn't bring the bigger site plan with me but you recall that is the other medium density parcel. We are saying that when we get to that one we will deal with it. So this helps I believe keep that issue in front of us in the logical sequence of discussion and decision. In conclusion of my comments I would simply point out that item #14 that I will turn the time to Mr. Dobie to address will speak to the depreciation fund situation for the private streets and pathway system. But I would ask at the end of the meeting this evening that the Council make a decision and then direct the attorney to appropriately amend the findings and conclusions so we can begin the process of design. This has taken much longer than anticipated to bring it back to the Council and we do need to be on with this project. I would answer any questions Mr. Mayor and then I would like to have Mr. Dobie speak to the Council. Corrie: Are there any questions of Mr. Wardle? Pat Dobie, 777 Hearthstone Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Dobie: There was, one of the conditions dealt with setting up a fund to pay for the replacement cost and the maintenance of the private roads in the subdivision. That was sort of a very open condition so I took a stab at trying to nail it down a little bit more. What I proposed in the letter that was sent was a methodology for determining, I have extra copies in hand of that report if anybody needs them. Rountree: Is that the one of June 12th? (Inaudible) Dobie: In the approach that I suggested, as to follow a methodology it was developed by the Ada County Highway District incorporated in the study they did called the capital budgeting program. It was a study to try and d ~termine how much of their capital resources should be allocated between maintenance needs and expansion of the system. In that report they identified a life cycle calculation for determining the frequency of road reconstruction for the various types and classifications of roads that existed. In that analysis and the calculations that I have presented to you in my opinion a 50 year life cycle is appropriate for residential street. Now, in addition to that there is a certain amount of annual maintenance that needs that takes place. In addition to snow removal and deicing there is a maintenance cost associated with periodically seal coating the roads, repairing pot holes and that sort of thing. Those costs are included in as the maintenance cost category that was added to the system replacement cost. Also included in there was a calculation of the cost of replacing the trail system. In this case I used a definition of the trail system as being those pathways that are outside of the road right of way. The Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 20 pathways within the right of way were included as the cost of sidewalks and sort of aggregated together into a cost per foot far the construction of a local road. In the accounting approach that I used it was one to estimate the present construction cost of the road, project the replacement cost of the roads and pathways at the end of the life cycle and then to calculate an annual contribution to a sinking fund based upon taking into account a normal rate of return on the invested funds that would be available to the homeowners association and in the mean time the maintenance costs were taken from the ACHD annual report for their cost per linear mile for maintaining all of the roads in this system. Which for the most part at considerably higher than the cost of maintaining residential type streets because there is a much higher frequency of response that is needed for winter snow removal. I have proposed this as a methodology for the City to consider as a way to determine and appropriate amount of money to be paid by the Homeowners Association on an annual basis in order to take care of these long term replacement needs. The cost that I have used in that report were based upon ACHD cost and Ada Planning Association cost for trails. Those trail costs in my opinion are fairly high they include things like the acquisition of right of way, construction of bridges, retaining walls, fences things that really aren't appropriate for the pathways that are proposed within this subdivision. I would trust that once the actual cost of the improvements have been determined and the improvements have been built that those real dollar costs will be plugged into this methodology and with the staffs review you can determine and approve an appropriate amount. Does anybody have any questions about this? Corrie: Thank you Mr. Dobie. David Turnbull, 12426 W. Explorer Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attamey. Turnbull: I don't have very much to add other than the fact that we did retain Mr. Dobie's services a former ACHD employee and currently an engineer specializing in this field to review the maintenance and replacement provisions for the private streets. I was interested to team from Mr. Dobie though at tt~ time in fact Ada County Highway District doesn't have any sinking fund for their local streets. Basically when those streets fall apart it is replaced and an LID is formed of which the adjoining property owners pay into at the time that the street improvements are required. So perhaps you might want to start looking at creating a sinking fund for your public street projects as well. But like Mr. Dobie has said we would like to actually verify the actual construction costs. We will document those as the project is put in. As Mr. Wardle stated before and I have to commend Mr. Wardle and our architectural team, the architectural team is out of Boulder and we haven't flown them up here at our expense to make their presentations here. But they are a very professional outfit and they have done these kinds of projects in Boise, the River Run project was one of theirs and all over the country. Like Mr. Wardle said this whole project is one integrated whole that fits together like a puzzle and when you see this project • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 21 ' coming out of the ground I think you will be very pleased with i~ But it does need to adhere to the technical site plan and the various drawings and preliminary plats that have been submitted here. If there is any question at all about how that works we sure want to answer them. We think we have a pretty special project here and we would like to get it approved and be able to move forward with it fast. Some of these revisions that we have suggested here a good share of the lots would be non-buildable lots. So we wouldn't be able to build the project as proposed. I would answer any questions that the Council may have. Corrie: Council any questions? Morrow: Question, halfway in jest, is this the architectural team from Colorado that refers to this as the dreaded "M" City? Turnbull: No, you are talking about Mr. Klinger? Morrow: I didn't say that. Turnbull: I didn't think so. I think he was referring to Middleton. Morrow: I thought it was Melba until somebody corrected me. Turnbull: Okay, this is a different firm, this is a firm from Boulder. Tolsma: I have a question, on the side yard set backs, if you say you have a problem with the side yard set back the 5 feet for the single family, 10 feet for a two story, you don't (inaudible) Turnbull: We would be forced to go to 65 foot wide lots for 2 story buildings adjacent to each other. This project was concept~,ally approved at 8 to the acre, we have less than 5 _ to the acre. Without, we should be able to do better than what we have done here. But -- the 5 feet per story as we have noted before since there is a zero iot line concept there would not be a fence separating property lines. The concern there is perhaps access for safety reasons, you don't have that fence splitting two property lines with two five foot alley ways that are essentially useless alley ways. Nobody gets any benefit or use out of them. So, we believe this concept is much safer from a public safety standpoint. Tolsma: Fire safety is (inaudible) Turnbull: Well that is the standard for an R-8 zone so I guess it must not be the primary consideration or you wouldn't be allowing an R-8 zone either. • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 22 Tolsma: I have a problem-with that (inaudible) • Turnbull: Like I said this plan the way it is submitted with the setbacks that we have proposed even with that we got 5 units to the acre or a little less than that. If we have to go to 65 foot wide lots that just reduces the number of units and makes the project unfeasible. We have put in 20% open space into this project as it is. Rountree: One of the conditions in the original findings of fact was the delivery of a warranty deed for the golf course property by May 16, has that been done? Tumbull: We met with the Mayor and Councilman, who was there, Walt you were there and the City Attorney, it was the day before our attorney was scheduled for surgery, I am sad to report that his surgery didn't go well he developed an infection and he lost 40 pounds and our attorney Bob Venice didn't have 40 pounds to lose and he has since been in and out of the hospital for the last 6 weeks. He is just travelled to Stanford University to check in down there to see if they can help solve his problem. Before he left he did transfer all of the information files and disks and everything to Joann Butler and I had a conversation with her today and she will be handling that for us now but unfortunately Mr. Ennis has been incapacitated. Morrow: If I might add to that, was not there some conversation between Mr. Ennis and Mr. Crookston, concerning Mr. Crookston is now going to write the prototype deed, that is our impression that we are laboring under and I have been kind of hammering on him to get that done. Can you bring us up t~ speed? Tumbull: He related something to that effect and also we had talked in that meeting about some of the previous, the original golf course deed containing certain provisions. We did a title search for those provisions and when I was here about 4 weeks ago I passed a note to the Mayor telling him that we couldn't find those in any of the recorded documents at the County and asked if the City had those in their files and if they could furnish the7. I haven't received anything on that yet. Crookston: Mr. Mayor and Council I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Ennis approximately a week to possibly ten days ago. He asked, or he said that he did not have that information and wondered if the City could prepare the deed because as he informed me as Mr. Turnbull stated his surgery didn't go well and he had been in the office for maybe as long as two hours a day and even that was not going well. So I told him that I would do the deed. I haven't yet found the time to do it but it is my full intention to draw the deed. That is going to have to be sent to Mr. Tumbull and he is going to have to approve it because he is signing the deed. That is where that stands. If Mr. Tumbull desires to have Ms. Joann Butler prepare the deed I don't have any problem with that, the City also Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 23 has to accept the deed. Turnbull: I will have her get in touch with Mr. Crookston. And again we had the best of intentions but we knew Mr. Ennis was going in for surgery and unfortunately he developed some sort of infection through the intestinal surgery that has basically incapacitated him. The few times I have been able to talk to him well just last week I think he had to call 911 to get out of his office, he almost didn't make it out. So I apologize for that, but it is something a little bit beyond our control. Corrie: Other questions? Morrow: I wanted to get something ironed out here with respect to the deed. We are in the position where we are pressing ahead with the golf course construction we need the resolution of the deed issue immediately if not sooner. So I would suggest to you Dave and Wayne that whatever it takes to get that expedited within the next couple of days that we in fact do that. Because we have reached the point of no return from all different angles and we are just simply out of time. I am very sensitive to Mr. Ennis's dilemma we will take it and between the three of us make sure it gets worked out and going from there. Please relay our condolences to him. Turnbull: I believe that we have most everything worked out in our meeting and it is simply, we went over it for nearly an hour and I had all the details pretty well ironed out. There might have been a few things that were going to be suggested back and forth but given a healthy attorney that is something that should be done rather quickly. Crookston: I would advise the Council and Mayor and Mr. Turnbull that I am going to the Association of Idaho Cities conference and I am leaving Thursday approximately at noon so I am not going to be around for a day and a half. Just to inform as to what is going on my side. Corrie: Any further questions of Mr. Turnbull? Anybody else from the public that would like - to enter testimony at this time? Council further discussion? - Rountree: Looking at the comments and the e~lanation from Mr. Wardle it appears to me that it makes sense to modify the findings and facts. If that is what we have to do for reconsideration. Morrow: From my perspective I don't have any problem with modifying the thing. Basically with the side yards and the setbacks and so on and so forth is a valid issue in terms of generally speaking in these types of projects that is how the side yards and the set backs are done. I think we did this with the intent of having it to be a planned unit development • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 24 ' that it had some of those things in terms of concessions about private roads and so on and so forth. I am sensitive to what Mr. Dobie has cxafted in terms of a sinking fund to take care of the roads within there. The 50 year life cycle seems a mite long to me but on the same token on the other side the funding for the trail system seems a bit strong. And so I think in principal I have no problem with the corrections or the changes to the findings of fact and conclusions. 1 don't have a problem with the adjusting of the lot cost for the depreciation fund for trails based upon the actual cost to produce those trails. With respect to the $77 for the road cost I am a little concerned about that but perhaps that can be covered in the CC&R's so that is a minimum cost and the homeowners association can make an adjustment upwards from that if in fact that is needed. I offer those for points discussion. Rountree: I would agree with the methodology that Mr. Dobie put forth and I think he is correct he is going to have to adjust, they are going to have to be able to adjust those based on their actual cost but the methodology I think is right on the mark Corrie: Any further comments? Then you are agreeing with the comments that we were submitted then am I correct that the actions and modifications set forth by Mr. Wardle, is that correct? Morrow: That would be my position Mr. Mayor. (End of Tape) Corrie: (Inaudible) Morrow: Question Mr. Mayor, Counselor, does this take a motion to instruct the City Attorney to modify the findings of fact and conclusions? Crookston: Yes it would. Morrow: Mr. M€yor, I would move that we instruct the City Attorney tc modify the findings of fact and conclusions for Ashford Greens No. 2 to reflect the adjustments on items #1 through 13 and also to adopt as item 14 the study as submitted in appendix A and B by Mr. Dobie and the modifier to that be that Appendix B that annual cost per lot would be based on the replacement cost of the actual cost of the past system. Rountree: Second Corrie: You heard the motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED All Yea Brighton ~ Corporation Apri126, 1996 TO: Mayor Robert D. Corrie Meridian City Council Wayne Crookston FROM: David W. Turnbull, President RE: Ashford 2 -Findings and Conclusions ~EcE~vE4 APR 2 9 1996 ~~ OF MERIDIAI9 We have completed a thorough review of the adopted findings and conclusions (F/C's), and offer clarifications or request modifications per the following comments ~a copy ofF/C's with notations is attachedJ.• 1) Page 2, item 4, 6th line from bottom of 2nd paragraph states "there would be some 0-lot lines" when, in fact, the entire project is based on the zero-lot-line concept. All of the side-yard space between two dwellings will be granted as a `use easement" to one of them. That concept is described in greater detail in the 2nd paragraph, page 3 and on the Technical Site Plan. ACTION.• Clarification only. 2) Page 3 item 4, 2nd para 4th line from bottom refers to "active, adult families." That terminology comes from the architect's description of the project in the CU application. During our testimony we made similar references to an adult-oriented lifestyle. How- ever, later F/C's terminology changes to "senior citizen living complex" which has quite a different connotation that should be deleted, specifically: item 17,13, last sentence• item 12 p 20• and item 14Lp 22 last sentence. ACTION: Modify as noted. 3) Page 4, item 5, 3rd para. last sentence: The word `public" should be changed to private. Same error referring to the street system is found in item 8Yp.7, next-to-last- line, 1st Para abh. ACTION.• Modify. 4) Page 4, item 5, 4th ara.: Grammatical error `eve Requests". ACTION: Modify. 5) Page 13, item 21: Delete the reference to "lots in the R-15 zone" as not applicable to this project. Also delete the reference to `tots in the R-5 District," top of page 14 for the same reason. ACTION: Modify. 12426 W. Explorer Drive, Suite 220 Boise, Idaho 83713 TEL 208-378-4000 FAX 208-377-8962 • 6) Page 15: The `Tooter" title changes from Findings and Conclusions to Motion. The reader maybe led to think that there are two different documents. ACTION.• Modify. 7) The transition between items 16 & 24, pagel6 is very confusing, as are numerous others in the document--p.10, items 9/12; p.18, items 10/l, p.20, items 15/11; p.23, items 16/1 and 10/17--for example. Prime and subordinate paragraphs are numbered the same. Perhaps a more standard alpha-numeric system could be used for clarity. ACTION.• Suggestion only. 8) Page 19, item 2, 2nd line: Delete "if allowed by ACHD." Approval of private streets for the project means that ACHD will not be involved in the internal street system, ACTION.• Modify. 9) Page 19, item 3: Lots are typically 46 feet wide. However, as the Technical Site Plan and preliminary plat clearly show, many of the lots `having direct access to a street" do not have 46 feet of frontage that the statement requires. ACTION.• Modify by deleting the first phrase and replacing it with "Street frontages shall be in accordance with those depicted on the approved Technical Site Plan and Preliminary Plat; " 10) Page 19, item 4: Ashford 2 is designed as azero-lot-line project and the Technical Site Plan clearly identifies the setbacks and yard requirements necessary to achieve the desired goal. ACTION.• Modify by replacing the entire paragraph with the following: Setbacks shall be in accordance with the Development Standards listed on the approved Technical Site Plan, to wit: Front Yard -Front-on Garage 20' Side-on Garage 15' Livable Area 15' Side Yard -- Interior Lots 5' Comer Lots, adjacent to street 15' Corner Lots, adjacent to driveway 10' Rear Yard 15' Muumum Building Separation 10' Maximum Building Height 3 5' *[Corrects the Site Plan which states 20' but is actually 1 S' dimensionally) • • 11) Page 20, item 15: The reference is to a condition of the original project approval, but does not relate to this phase or perhaps the next. Since the intent seems to be to ass~.re that the issue is addressed, the action should be related to the medium density parcel at the end of Interlachen. ACTION.• Modify. by deleting "additional" from next-to-last-line and replacing `Snvolved in Ashford Greens" with: involving the medium density parcel at the end of Interlachen Way. 12) Page 21, item 13. next-to-last-line opening~ara~raph: "Planning and Zoning Commission" should be changed to City Council. ACTION.• Modify. 13) Pages 21 and 22, item 13.c: Clarifications - A. The applicant did specifically state in the public hearings that the development would be harmonious in design and construction with the general vicinity. ACTION: Clarification only. B. "... gross density would be 3.55 to 3.2 ..." refers to a density reduction for the entire Ashford Greens project and not to the proposed density for Ashford 2, which is approximately 4.9 d.u./ac. ACTION: Clarification only. C. "... some 0-lot line ..." as has been noted previously, is incorrect; the entire project phase is designed as azero-lot-line project. ACTION.• Clarification only. In conclusion, we would appreciate City Council action on these comments so that the record of the conditional use permit and preliminary plat hearings and approval is clear as we move toward construction design and final platting of Ashford 2. Please let us know when this will be scheduled so that we can attend the Council meeting to respond to questions to expedite the process. ~ Brighton Corporation Apri126, 1996 ~Q~/, ~ • I ~ ~ ~ib~ TO: Mayor Robert D. Come Meridian City Council Wayne Crookston FROM: David W. Turnbull, President RE: Ashford 2 -Findings and Conclusions REcE~vE~ APR 2 9 1996 CITY OF MERIDIAN We have completed a thorough review of the adopted findings and conchisions (F/C's), and offer clarifications or request modifications per the following comments [a copy ofF/C's with notations is attachedJ: 1) Page 2. item 4.6th line from bottom of 2nd paragraph states "there would be some 0-lot lines" when, in fact, the entire project is based on the zero-lot-line concept. All of the side-yazd space between two dwellings will be granted as a `5~se easement" to one of them That concept is described in greater detail in the 2nd paza~raph, page 3 and on the Technical Site Plan. ACTION.• Clarification only. 2) Page 3. item 4 2nd Para 4th line from bottom refers to "active, adult families." That terminology comes from the architect's description of the project in the CU application. During our testimony we made similar references to an.adult-oriented lifestyle. How ever, later F/C's terminology changes to "senior citizen living complex" which has quite a different connotation that should be deleted, specifically: item 17 p.13, last sentence: item 12 a 20• and item 14, p.22 last sentence. ACTION.• Modify as noted. 3) Page 4. item 5.3rd paza last sentence: The word `public" should be changed to private. Same error referring to the street system is found in item 8. p.7. next-to-last- line. 1 st ~ aph. ACTION: Modify. 4) Page 4. item S. 4th pars :Grammatical error `eve Requests". ACTION.• Modify. 5) Page 13. item 21: Delete the reference to `dots in the R-15 zone" as not applicable to this project. Also delete the reference to "lots in the R-5 District," top of page 14 for the same reason. ACTION: Modify. i2~CeiYed~~?/" "O~ ~ ~-l~6 ~ 12426 W. Explorer Drive, Suite 220 Boise, Idaho 83713 TEL 208-378-4000 FAX 208-377-8962 • 6) Page 15: The `Tooter" title changes from Findings and Conclusions to Motion. The reader maybe led to think that there are two different documents. ACTION.• Modify. 7) The transition between items 16 & 24 pagel6 is very confusing, as are numerous others in the document--p.10, items 9/12; p.18, items 10/1, p.20, items 15/11; p.23, items 16/1 and 10/17--for example. Prime and subordinate paragraphs are numbered the same. Perhaps a more standard alpha-numeric system could be used for clarity. ACTION: Suggestion only. 8) Page 19, item 2 2nd line: Delete "if allowed by ACHD." Approval of private streets for the project means that ACHD will not be involved in the internal street system. ACTION.• Modify. 9) Page 19. item 3: Lots aze typically 46 feet wide. However, as the Technical Site Plan and preliminary plat clearly show, many of the lots `having direct access to a street" do not have 46 feet of frontage that the statement requires. ACTION.• Modify by deleting the first phrase and replacing it with "Street frontages shall be in accordance with those depicted on the approved Technical Site Plan and Preliminary Plat; " 10) Page 19, item 4: Ashford 2 is designed as azero-lot-line project and the Technical Site Plan clearly identifies the setbacks and yazd requirements necessary to achieve the desired goal ACTION.• Modify by replacing the entire aragravh with the following: '~ui~.~Dt~(ts ENJEI.OPCb Pk1JD -'flePlC~tt'T~ 8~ A~ltl /~ Setbacks shall be in accordance with the Development Standard listed on the approved Technical Site P to wit: ~fREUrV-tNA~ PLC'' Front Yard -Front-on Garage 20° Side-on Garage 15' Livable Area ~ 1 S' Side Yard -- Interior Lots 5 Comer Lots, adjacent to street 15' Comer Lots, adjacent to driveway 10' Rear Yard 15' Mmimum Budding Separation 10' Maximum Buildmg Height 3 5 *[Corrects the Site Plan which states 20' but is actually 1 S' dimensionally) 2 • • 11) Page 20, item 15: The reference is to a condition of the original project approval, but does not relate to this phase or perhaps the next. Since the intent seems to be to assure that the issue is addressed, the action should be related to the medium density parcel at the end of Interlachen. ACTION.• Modify by deleting "additional" from next-to-last-line and replacing `5nvolved in Ashford Greens" with: involving the medium density parcel at the end of Interlachen Way. 12) Page 21. item 13 next-to-last-line opening ~agrayh: "Planning and Zoning Commission" should be changed to City Council. ACTION.• Modify. 13) Pages 21 and 22, item 13 c:.Clarifications - A. -The applicant did specifically state in the public hearings that the development would be harmonious in design and construction with the general vicinity. ACTION.• Clarification only. . . B. "... gross density would be 3.55 to 3.2 ..." refers fo a density reduction for the entire Ashford Greens project and not to the proposed density.for Ashford 2, . which is approximately 4.9 d.u./ac. . ACTION.• Clarification only. C. "... some 0-lot line ..." as lias been-noted previously, is incorrect; the entire project phase is designed as azero-lot-line project. ~ . ACTION: Clarification only. In conclusion, we would appreciate City Council action on these comments so that the record of the conditional use permit and preliminary plat hearings and approval is clear as we move toward construction design and final platting of Ashford 2. Please let us larow . when this will be scheduled so that we can attend the Council meeting to respond to ..questions to expedite the process. I~'~ ~AL~C-~ I S ADD IGi , iT~~ I Ar.ID 2 o N~EPfZECt 1~-trt flN ~UN.DS l: o~ Pt21 Ut~1'E ~Tn2E~'S -~1D S i ~~ u9~t,~~ ~ C-I'I,01~ : (~c ~ --(-C~ X715 G1~ ~Ct ~1 T] t A~1r- /1L1(/-~L4'~f ~ P12~PJ4-i2t`D ¢~ ~? ~~P.~l C E~I"1rIlUG-~?lll~7r.. YVIO'DIF4' >%ilNbtl~fL- ~1eQu12t=/1~t~lrt"S. 3 • • Meridian .City Council April 16, 1996 Page 10 you so desire but if you want to leave it the 7th that is perfectly alright. Morrow: My preference would be to deal with the issue as it comes and to get it cleared. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, to table until May the 7th meeting, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: TABLED APRIL 2, 1996: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ASHFORD GREENS NO. 2 BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Corrie: Does the Council have any discussion before we take up the findings of fact and conclusions? Is the representative here; I have one question. On Interlachen what are the plans for that street that go into your subdivision? Wardle: Mr. Mayor in the original approval of the conditional use permit we were required to deal with a connection but until that parcel through which that must pass to make the connection is actually put into design mode it is premature to determine what that might be. ACRD was reluctant to have a connection for fear that it would put traffic on Interlachen that they never anticipated. So whatever is done is going to have to be done with the City staff as well as ACRD. Corrie: Thank you Morrow: Mr. Mayor, for the record in the findings of fact and conclusions there is a reference to the deed for the golf course property to bring the Council up to speed the first draft of the second deed or second time around yesterday afternoon and that is being reviewed so that is under progress as we speak. Corrie: Mr. Morrow did they take off the restrictions that were on there previously? Morrow: That is correct. Corrie: Any further discussion? Rountree: I have a question Mr. Mayor, the delivery of that warranty deed does that meet the terms of Item 18 on page 23 of the findings of fact, actually page 24 with (inaudible) Crookston: I have not seen the deed myself so I don't know. ,, • • Meridian .City Council April 16, 1996 Page 11 Morrow: I think by the time we get done reviewing it it will meet that deed there was both . a deed and an easement covering some of the other issues at our committee meeting yesterday afternoon I gave those to the former Mayor Kingsford because he had originally reviewed those documents that were rejected and I asked him to spend the evening reviewing these new documents to make sure that it covered the issues with respect to the layout on the golf course in teens of easements and the planing and such. He assured he would do that and return them and he would have attorney Crookston review both documents. Council then would review any changes that came from any of the tree of those groups and (inaudible) Mr. Turnbull for him to (inaudible). Mr. Mayor I would move that we adopt and approve these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for Ashford Greens No. 2, any discussion? Roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Entertain a motion for the decision. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the Meridian City Councl hereby approves and grants this conditional use permit for a planned development (inaudible) findings of fact and conclusions of law (inaudible) not to be met as stated herein. Specifically including design review and plat approval (inaudible). Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree of the decision that was just read, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: TABLED APRIL 2, 1996: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHFORD GREENS NO. 2 BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Corrie: Any discussion? Rountree: Mr. Mayor I have a question for staff. Bruce, have you seen a preliminary plat meeting the engineering standards on this and if so have your concerns and issues been • • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: APRIL 16.1996 APPLICANT: BRIGHTON CORPORATION ITEM NUMBER; 4 8~ 5 REQUEST; FF/CL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHFORD GREENS NO 2 SUBDMSION AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CITY POLICE DEPT: G~ CITY FIRE DEPT: ~~ - ~ ~~ ~~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~~ ~ ~ ~,Q MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ~ l~ ~ MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: r 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: P"`?~/~ Rc~~ ~~~~ ~f OTHER: X11 Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. I • • Meridian City Council April 16, 1996 Page 11 Morrow: I think by the time we get done reviewing it it will meet that deed there was Both- a deed and an easement covering some of the other issues at our committee meeting yesterday afternoon I gave those to the former Mayor Kingsford because he had originally reviewed those documents that were rejected and I asked him to spend the evening reviewing these new documents to make sure that it covered the issues with respect to the layout on the golf course in terms of easements and the planing and such. He assured he would do that and return them and he would have attorney Crookston review both documents. Council then would review any changes that came from any of the tree of those groups and (inaudible) Mr. Turnbull for him to (inaudible). Mr. Mayor I would move that we adopt and approve these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Tolsma: Second Cowie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for Ashford Greens No. 2, any discussion? Roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Cowie: Entertain a motion for the decision. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the Meridian City Council hereby approves and grants this conditional use permit for a planned development. (inaudible) findings of fact and conclusions of law (inaudible) not to be met as stated herein. Specifically including design review and plat approval (inaudible). Rountree: Second Come: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree of the decision that was just read, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: TABLED APRIL 2, 1996: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHFORD GREENS NO. 2 BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Corrie: Any discussion? Rountree: Mr. Mayor I have a question for staff. Bruce, have you seen a preliminary plat meeting the engineering standards on this and if so have your concerns and issues been b Meridian City Council April 16, 1996 Page 12 met? Freckleton: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, we did receive written response to our comments on December 12, 1995 and they have addressed all of our concerns. There was only one item that we did bring up that still I guess is a question and that is the issue of the sidewalks being on both sides of the streets, five foot sidewalks. My comments we required that and their request is to have sidewalks on one side of the street only. Other than that everything seems to be in order. Rountree: Thank you.. Mr. Mayor I -would move that we approve the preliminary plat for Ashford Greens No. 2. Monow: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Morrow that we approve the preliminary plat for Ashford Greens No. 2 by Brighton Corporation, any further discussion? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would ask, apparently Shari is not here this evening. Corrie: Shari will be here a little bit Later. Morrow: Okay, that is fine, did you wish to approve them subject to all staff conditions? Rountree: That certainly would be my intention yes. Morrow: Do you wish to amend the motion? Rountree: If you withdraw your second I will withdraw my motion. Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve Ashford Greens No. 2 conditions of preliminary plat meeting all the conditions of City staff and City ordinances and ACHD's comments. Morrow: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Morrow that we approve the preliminary plat for Ashford Greens No. 2 conditioned that all staff conditions be met, all ordinances to be met and ACHD conditions to be met, any further discussion? All those in favor of the Motion? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea (END OF TAPE) • . Meridian City Council April 2, 1996 Page 18 Bradbury: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, the preliminary plat that you have before - you was delivered to the City a little bit later than we what we had hoped we would be able to accomplish when we were here two weeks ago. It is my understanding although I have not had an opportunity to meet with him that the City Engineer has reviewed the plat and has some concerns with respect to some of the features of the plat. What we would like to ask you to do is table the matter for another two weeks in order to give us an opportunity to meet with the City Engineer and -buff this thing up so we can take a rather unique approach to this and actually give. you something to approve that is exactly right if we can get there. Morrow: So moved Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley that the preliminary plat for the Lake at Cheny Lane No. 5 be tabled until April 16, all those in favor say aye? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ASHFORD GREENS N0.2 BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Corrie: We don't have the findings of fact and conclusions of law completed at this time, is that correct Mr. Crookston? We don't Crookston: That is correct Mr. Mayor, it is not that the City doesn't have them it is that the City Attorney did not find (inaudible) at 6:28 this evening. Corrie: I will entertain a motion to table the findings of fact and conclusions of law for Ashford Greens No. 2 until the next meeting April 16. Bentley: So moved Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we table this item #7, all those in favor say aye? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHFORD GREENS NO. 2 BY BRIGHTON ~ r MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: MARCH 19.1996 APPLICANT: BRIGHTON CORPORATION ITEM NUMBER; 14 REQUEST; PUBLIC HEARING• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ASHFORD NO 2 (FORMERLY JAMES .PLACE) GA ENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: COMMENTS P ~ Z MINUTES FROM 1-9-96 SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW "REVIEWED" 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: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ply ~/G~ SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS 4' SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS I,~` ~~ I }~ ~~ c ^~ ~~' J OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 9, 1996 Page 5 Johnson: We had a late arrival on this from ACHD, did you get an opportunity to review their comments, they came in yesterday. Oslund: Yes, a little bit. Johnson: I think their comments in general cover your concern. I tend to agree with Commissioner Shearer that the vision (inaudible). is covered by our ordinance. At this time probably my opinion we don't need to redo anything on that. They will have to comply with those ACRD comments which should have been here prior to our last meeting but they didn't arrive until January 8. ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORA 74 UNIT PUD FOR JAMES PLACE AT ASHFORD SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Johnson: We do not have findings of facts prepared for that tonight because there was discussion which the conclusion of which that perhaps we as a Commission could have done a little better job in asking some questions last time. There are some unanswered questions. I would invite the representative for the Brighton Corporation, Mr. Mike Wardle to come forward at this time if he would and would like to see if we couldn't move forward with this and answer some of the questions that were brought up during the preparation of the findings of fact which never came to conclusion. Would it be necessary for him to be sworn at this point or not? Crookston: No, it is not. Johnson: Mike, one of the, you and I have talked briefly, one of the concerns that came up during the preparation of the findings of fact is the width of street. I believe the width proposed was 29 feet. The concern came, and those are in culdesac areas, as to how emergency vehicles might function. I don't see anything in our minutes where we properly addressed that. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, let me address a couple issues that does relate to the question of whether these will become public or private streets. (Inaudible) something that I thought we had discussed at the meeting but nevertheless the proposal that was before the Commission at the last meeting did not yet have the benefit of Ada County Highway District review. As proposed and as submitted to ACHD the street system was to be a public street system. There are two considerations, there is a loop street so identified on this particular plan that ties the project to Ashford Boulevard at the west and east ends. That street was proposed to be a 29 foot back to back section within a 45 foot right of way with sidewalk generally on one side in a detached mode. There are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 9, 1996 Page 11 Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Crookston, generally that is correct. You recall that when the original conceptual approval was granted in December of 1994 that this project was not detailed but had a maximum density allowance of 8 units to the acre. This particular application comes in considerably less than that in the range of five point something and I don't have that information. So it is clear that of necessity there would have to be something substantially less than the standard 80 foot frontage of an R-4 parcel in anything that would equate to a medium density project of up to 8 units to the acre. I think the key is the way the particular project itself details and the feeling that you would get of these units with a great deal of open space and a variety of orientations so that you don't end up feeling like you have a lot of small lots facing a street. In fact the way they work out you won't have that feeling at all. There are just a few places where there is a run of those parcels, a lot of them are turned to the side and a lot of them back into the open space. Johnson: Anything further? Oslund: A couple of things. Last time we talked a little bit about the fencing and the need to keep the rear fences open using shorter fences or fences with more open area in them to keep the openness in the common areas. Because this is a conditional use permit I think that my opinion anyway it would be useful anyway as part of this conditional use to have some discussions, specific discussion about just what you have in mind with that. Maybe it is, ultimately you are going to handle it with covenants and restrictions maybe if you have some covenants and restrictions from another development that have been used similar to what you have in mind here if we can look at those and incorporate those right into the conditions. Turnbull: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Oslund, we did have some discussion on that at the last meeting and we discussed what we have done at our Hobble Creek subdivision where backing onto common areas the maximum height of solid fencing is four feet high. We allow fences up to 6 feet high but the portion from 4 to 6 feet high is open and I do have some details that I can submit to the Commission a detail of what we would be proposing to do on this project which would be the same as we have done in the Hobble Creek project. Oslund: Great, the second thing is also last time we talked about there was concern expressed about the small floor plan, the smallest of those, I think it was 1250 or so. The question was asked about, t don't know if there was a question asked, but there was some testimony given to the fact that the development was going to be higher quality, kind of a step above what you typically see in terms of amenities and features. So I guess my concern is just what are those and possibly if you have some ideas in terms of materials and things like that, siding, roofing, fencing those kinds of things that would be useful as N Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 9, 1996 Page 12 well to take a look at. Turnbull: Okay N Johnson: Any questions from staff at all? Any comments? Anyone else from the Commission here have any comments? Hepper: I had a question for the counselor, there is a stipulation, I believe it is in our comp plan, maybe an ordinance, that says that with a density transfer where they donate land to the City as park area or golf course area that they can transfer some of the, they can end up with a higher density and perhaps lower square footage. We had this question come up before, does it mention a 25% reduction, the question is that all the lots can have a 25% reduction in their square footage or 25% of the houses can have a reduction in footage? Has that been decided upon what the interpretation is on that? Crookston: Not that I am aware of. That does need to be answered but it is not answered in this application. That just needs to be decided. Hepper: My interpretation of that if we have a 1400 square foot minimum and we have a reduction of square footage of 25% that would say that all the houses could go down as low as 1050 square feet. And I don't feel that was the interpretation that was intended. My interpretation of it is that 25% of the homes could be less than 1400 square feet. In this case where we have five different plans one of which is 1225 I would think I would like to see incorporated. in the findings that no more than 25% of the homes could be less than 1400 square feet and that would be my interpretation of that unless we are looking at some other interpretation. Crookston: The City does need to interpret that to basically declare what the meaning of that language is in the ordinance. It is in the planned development section of our subdivision and development ordinance. It is not in the comprehensive plan it is in the ordinance. That does need to be decided. Hepper: Did you follow that? Turnbull: I followed you. Johnson: Anyone else? Gary Smith did you have a comment? Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, I know there has been an ongoing question concerning street widths. We had a subdivision, Haven Cove No. 5 Subdivision that was also proposing a less than 50 foot street right of way. I submitted a memo to our fire, N N Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 9, 1996 Page 13 police and school district asking for their input on that particular subdivision and I just received that on the 4th of January. I know we talked to Mr. Wardle and Mr. Turnbull about the width of the right of way and it was part of our comments on the review of this plat and conditional use permit. I gave Mr. Wardle a copy of these comments this evening. If it is appropriate I will give you one also for your reading pleasure but there is some concern from police, fire and school district concerning the width of the streets. Johnson: I would appreciate it if we can have a copy of the comments. (End of Tape) Crookston: I was concerned with the street widths because of Kenny Bowers comments from the fire department where he says with streets of the 29 foot size that he would have to back his emergency vehicle from however he got in he would have to back it out. I thought that was something that needed to be discussed. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, may I discuss that one more time in the sense that a PUD offers an opportunity to create a living environment that differs from a standard subdivision. Now, I don't know what Haven Cove No. 5 subdivision looks like, I don't know if it is a thru street system or not. In this particular case with the exception of the question on the whether the loop street can function under the standards as proposed. These culdesacs conform to Ada County Highway District Standards. They can be constructed just as shown if ACHD agrees. The only thing that ACHD questions on these is whether or not you would have sidewalks on both sides which is their standard. The street is exactly the same, therefore if this project were to go forward and the loop street was upgraded to a 37 foot back to back we would construct these culdesacs just as shown and ACHD would stamp the plat they would sign it and agree to take maintenance. So, there certainly needs to be some dialogue between the safety departments of the various communities and ACHD, but this conforms. So if under any normal circumstance the fire department got into one of these and had to back out it would be exactly the same under a standard subdivision because these all conform to that requirement. It is purely the loop street and since this loop street really diffuses a fairly small area we believe that the narrower street is not going to create a safety concern for any of the fire or police departments. Johnson: I think that is a good point, the responses by the three entities (inaudible) by Gary Smith I think will be well anticipated. Anything else that we should gather here so that we can go on with findings of fact at our next meeting. We are going to await your remodel and redesign of our digs here so that you can submit that whenever you are interested, we will subcontract that to you on the side and you can build it in your garage. We are tabling seven because we can't act on that until we get the findings of fact. Shearer: I move we table item #7 to February 13, our regular meeting. N w Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 9, 1996 Page 14 MacCoy: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we table item #7 until February 13, our next scheduled meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF .95 ACRES TO R BY KENT & MARY BARNEY: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative to come forward and address the Commission. Steve Bradbury, 300 N. 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bradbury: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. This item and the next item are annexation which are really I think what I might describe as clean up matters. They were little parcels of ground that were, at least the next one is a little parcel of ground that was inadvertently left out of a previous annexation approval by the City for I believe it was the Lake at Cheny Lane No. 3. Mr. and Mrs. Bamey's property is immediately adjacent to that other piece and it was also intended to be annexed by the City in connection with the previous application and simply got left out through inadvertence or some other mistake. Beyond that I don't have anything in addition to tell you and I would be pleased to respond to questions if I can. Johnson: Thank you very much, any questions concerning the applicant or the application. This is a fill in project. Does anyone have any comments? Anything at all from staff? Thank you very much, this is a public hearing, is there anyone from the public that would like to address the Commission on this application at this time? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. What is your pleasure this requires findings of fact and conclusions of law. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded to have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea • HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk A Good Place to Live RONALD R. TOLSMA JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer CITY OF MERIDIAN MAX YERRINGTON WALT W M BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. . ORROW JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. 33 EAST IDAHO P & Z COMMISS O DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. I N SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 JIM JOHNSON, Chairman PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 MOE ALIDJANI KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 JIM SHEARER W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G CROOKSTON JR Attorne Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 CHARLIE ROUNTREE . , ., y TIM HEPPER GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor MEMORANDUM: December 8, 1995 To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer ~`~~~~ Re: JAMES PLACE AT ASHFORD SUBDIVISION (Preliminary Plat/Conditional Use Permit - By Brighton Corporation) I have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, for your information and consideration as conditions of the Applicant during the hearing process: GENERAL COMMENT 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, Lateral Users Association or Down Stream Users, 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 qualifies Engineer or soil scientist, with the subdivision construction plans. 4. Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions for our review. 5. Provide 5 foot wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606. B. 6. Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 7. Make any necessary mapping corrections to comply with the requirements of the Ada County Street Name Committee prior to resubmittal to the City. C: \WP' W INGO\GENERALVA[viESPLC.P&Z • • Mayor, Council and P&Z December 8, 1995 Page. 2 8. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian's Water Works Superintendent. 4. Submit a master street drainage plan, including the method of disposal & approval from the Ada County Highway District, and the affected irrigation/drainage district(s). The subdivision construction plans will no be approved for construction by the City until X11 approvals are obtained. 1Q. Respond in writing, to the each of the comments contained in this memorandum, and submit with the revised Preliminary Plat Map to the City Clerks Qffice. SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1. Sanitary Sewer service to this site will be via an extension of proposed sewer mains to be installed as part of the Ashford Greens Development. Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of the centerline. 2. Water service to this site will be via an extension of the proposed water mains to the installed as part of the Ashford Greens Development. Applicant will be responsible to construct the water mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. 3. 1IX? watt high pressure sodium street lights will be required 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. 4. If it is your intention to phase the development of this Subdivision, please indicate on the Preliminary Plat map a line dividing each phase along with their sequence. 5. The Meridian Fire Department and Meridian School District need to review and approve of the travel way widths. I am 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. I don't know how enforcement of the "No Parking" will be accomplished. 6. Applicant shall provide a statement as to who the ownership, and operation and maintenance of the pressurized irrigation system is to be with. C: \WPWIN60\GENERALUAMESPLC. P&.Z ~ • 1CSay or, Council and 1'~,Z Becember g, 1995 Page 3 7. Hubble Engineering shall submit lot closure; area calculations for all lots within this development for the verification of minimum square footage standards. C:\WPVS'Il~I~4\GErIEAAL ~3AMESPL~:P&Z ~ N Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 12, 1995 Page 19 Johnson: Any further comments from the Commission? At this point I will close the public hearing and ask you what you would like to do. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. Alidjani: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for item #10 request for rezone by Meridian Free Library District, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: For you Edna and others that may not know, the next step is like we handled items tonight on 5, 6 and 7 the City Attorney prepares findings of fact which incorporates your testimony and others and then we approve those or change them and amend them whatever and then send them onto City Council. At that point there is another public hearing at City Council. So you will have another opportunity after the findings of fact are approved and once they are approved they are available to anybody that wants to come down and pick them up at City Hall. That incorporates what we have said here tonight. So your testimony will be a matter of record. I just wanted you to know that. ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR JAMES PLACE AT ASHFORD SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant's representative to come forward and address the Commission. Mike Wardle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wardle: Mr. Chairman I wonder if perhaps the order of this might first be the conditional use permit consideration which would really be #12 because the conditional use permit is probably pre-requisite to the preliminary plat approval. Johnson: I think that is a good recommendation I dully note that as well. We will now then address item #12 on the public hearing and I will open that public hearing and item #11 will follow. Wardle: If you will give me a moment to take a whole bunch of exhibits out of a box. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 12, 1995 Page 20 Crookston: Just for the record you are still sworn for this application as you were on number 11. Wardle: I understand that Mr. Attorney. It has been one year short just a few days since the City Council approved the Ashford Greens PUD project. I have a summary of that information and a response to, I have received two staff comments, one from Bruce Freckleton the City Engineer's office to whom we have responded in writing by a hand passed document to Mr. Smith this evening and also to Shari Stiles that was handed to Mr. Rabbit this evening. I would like to present to the Commission members now a packet that includes some reduction of items that we will be looking at. As noted on December 20, 1994 the Meridian City Council did approve a conditional use permit for Ashford Greens. The project was approved with a total of 438 dwelling units. The break down of those units is in a small matrix just below the first paragraph where it says as approved 222 single family lots, 216 conceptually approved parcels or units in 2 medium density parcels as shown on this particular site plan. This is the item that was presented at those hearings a year ago. There have been a few modifications in the final platting that has taken place subsequently but the parcel that we are dealing with this evening is just south of the main collector roadway that goes through the center of the project into what will become the new clubhouse area of the golf course in the future. The other medium density parcels lying further southeasterly has not yet been subjected to any detail planning or architectural work. This particular subject parcel had been approved for 116 units at a maximum density of 8 units per acre. Again that was conceptual. In reality the proposal that we are presenting this evening is for 74 units instead of 116 which leaving the other medium density parcel as projected .until a future plan is projected. In reality reduces the overall density of the project from the approved 438 now to 396. Thus the gross density of the project excluding the acreage that had been previously dedicated to the City by Mr. Fuller but inclusive of property that was to be dedicated by the Brighton Corporation for the remainder of the golf course reduces the density of the project from the 3.55 of a year ago down to approximately 3.2. The density is noted on the proposal where we are talking about 74 detached single family dwellings on 15.18 acres is actually a density of 4.9 units per acre within that area. Again, far short of the conceptual 8 units that had been considered. I would like now to put on the easel a drawing of the site plan. I wish the light was a little bit better there Mr. Chairman. For the moment, this is an illustrative site plan, I will go to a more detailed plan in a momerrt and it is also in a reduction form in your packet. This shows the relationship of the detached units. Again these are detached single family units but in a cluster format where there is common area. There is a unique roadway system and a relationship of those units to each other. Wherein the actual living space orientation of the dwellings is to the rear and to the side. In the information presented by the architect on the project and I don't know if you have been given anything that was originally submitted in the application or not but there was a brief statement by the architect talking about the concept of the zero lot line configuration of the style of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 12, 1995 Page 21 home that was designed. In that particular configuration there is an easement, a use easement granted from one parcel to another so that in reality the open space between the buildings becomes the living and use area of an individual yard for one of the two residents. It moves from building to building so that each has instead of 5 foot sideyards they have .essentially 10 feet more depending on which unit goes in on each lot. It becomes their use area. In addition the way the buildings and the open space work there is literally every rear and side yard living area. has vision access to common area. Either common area internally or and this is not common area in the sense of a homeowner ownership but the visual open space of the golf course which actually surrounds this parcel on three sides. There is also on the technical site plan presented by the architect which architectural firm by the way has been involved in cluster home projects in the river run area of Boise and many such projects throughout the country. They have identified and have presented in that slight reduction as well a graphic that shows how those yards and that open space works from building to building. Again to illustrate there is a fence line shown that is an extension of the side of the building and the use area for this parcel for instance would be inclusive of that sideyard area between those two buildings as well as the area behind. Some of the units are accessible by private driveways that will be platted lots that will provide perpetual ingress, egress access for several of those parcels. In fact I believe I counted 23 of the 74 have their access and frontage via such a private drive situation. And even in the case where some of the lots actually have frontage they could take their access from that private drive. That would be an option available to the individual siting of those units. That is, this particular graphic is a blow up of this area. In Shari Stiles' memo of December S she did address the fact that the Commission through the Planned Development process section 907 E of the subdivision and development ordinance has the authority to recommend exceptions to standards of the ordinance. In this particular case she specifically talked about minimum lot sizes and the minimum lot size proposed in this cluster configuration is 4600 square feet. Lot frontages in many cases the lots have full frontage on a public right of way but in some cases they have a reduced frontage and others their actual frontage comes through that private lot that would provide their access. That again is an exception that would come through the planned development process. In addition the Commission can speak to roadway widths, what have been proposed are streets that would be constructed to ACHD standards at a 29 foot back to back section which is their standard with a detached meandering sidewalk on one side only. Typically there are a few places along that roadway where there are double sidewalk but it is a meandering way and that would be largely through the real core where the open space is bunched at the center of the project in the vicinity of what will become some type of a recreational facility. A structure that has been proposed that would be proposed that has not yet been detailed. The question really comes up with respect to ACRD standards is that the right of way proposed for the main loop road is only 45 feet in comparison to ACHD's 50 foot section. ACRD has not yet had the opportunity to review this application: They indicated to me since we had anticipated that they would have seen Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 12, 1995 Page 22 this but they had not been able to get this scheduled into their technical review schedule as yet. So just to clarify we are talking about ACRD standard street section in terms of width of the improvements, sidewalk on one side generally and a narrower right of way for the loop street. The other streets do conform to their 42 foot right of way section. So those issues will have to be addressed with the Commission. Now I did not in Mr. Freckleton's comments that there was concem about Fire Department and School bus access. We met with Fire Chief Bowers some five or six weeks ago to discuss the issues and he had similar concems about the enforceability of parking concems because under ACHD policy and guidelines there would be an allowance of parking on one side only of any of the streets within this project. And so this is not abnormal it is the same situation that would be faced in any project that has that particular street standard and they deal with it in several ways. One would be signage on the part of ACHD to identify no parking on one side of the street. They would identify which side that would be. The second is something that Boise City has started to do recently as a means of really bringing that to the public attention and that is in some cases that are now requiring a red striped paint on the side that is no parking, that red stripe on the curb itself. I don't know if that is something the City of Meridian would be interested in doing or not. It is one of the potential enforcement provisions that could be used to address those concerns. Shari also addressed the fact that the Commission must specifically accept the private drive and the facts that there are lots not fronting on a right of way. In my notes t indicate that 23 of those do not have roadway frontage but they are accessible by those plated private driveway lots. Parking areas, each of the units will have a 2 car garage with a standard 2 car driveway. In addition to that there is guest parking provided throughout the project and number of locations. They vary on some of the cul-de-sacs in a few pods one on the main loop street, two in the parking islands over here. So those additional spaces simply augment the two garage spaces and the two driveway spaces that would be provided on each parcel. Shari also discussed ditches remaining open and I suspect she was concerned about what was shown on the illustrative plan. I have to first state that there is one irrigation ditch that barely clips the northerly part of this project that will be tiled. That is a conveyance facility that will be tiled and no encumbrance made as a result of this project. What has been shown through the central core and in this particular area as waterway is really a dry creek bed that would become part of the on site drainage system and feed into the lakes that are surrounding this particular property on the south and the westerly side. A drainage plan has not yet been engineered but the concept is not for live water. It is simply a landscape amenity feature that becomes part of the common area accompanied by a pathway that leads from the sidewalk along the main boulevard down to a recreation center and on into the rest of the project. With respect to 5 foot sidewalks, the sidewalks will be provided but not in necessarily both sides of each street as identified on the site plan. And then with respect to setbacks. Again the Commission can vary the standards through that citation and the standards have been identified but on the plans provided both in the conditional use application did provide blue line prints with the standards on it. They Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 12, 1995 Page 23 are also on that small reduction which may or may not be readable to you. But they are not dramatically different do take into account however the zero lot line sideyard use and enjoyment easement they still stick with the general standards for street setbacks and other areas and there is no congestion as a result of the orientation of the units as designed. There is one other item that is of concern that Shari has specifically addressed that I don't necessarily that the interpretation is correct. That relates to the specific size of the buildings within the PUD remember that this is an R-4 zone and a standard R-4 zoned project would have a minimum 1400 square foot housing minimum. As we read the provision that Shari has sited this ordinance does state that the approval of the final development plan for a PD may provide for such exceptions from the district regulations governing use, density, area, bulk. According to the zoning ordinance provision, bulk is defined as dealing with this size of dwellings. We believe that since there is only one of the five floor plans that potentially would provide that option that the Commission can through its recommendation of the City Council express its feelings and we would hope those feelings are that one of the units could have a smaller than 1400 square foot character. I would like to go through briefly what these floor plans are. I do have just one copy that you can look at up close of the elevations (inaudible) (End of Tape). The character of the dwellings is very consistent with what the standard single family character of the project whether it is within Ashford Greens the regular single family lots or even the adjacent Cherry Lane Development the various other subdivisions that have been developed in that vicinity. The configuration of these are preliminary elevations provided by Downing, Thorpe and James the architect. It shows a very standard appearance lap siting in this case I would guess they are shake roofs because we are talking about a smaller more compact but a very well done unit. The possibility of varying the front street scape by either side entry or front entry garages and that option can be site specific. And specific option when an individual buys those units. The smallest of the units as noted is a 1225 square foot single story building. We will, we are going to box these Mr. Chairman and we will leave these here and through the process and hope that maybe we can use these for marketing purposes once the City Council has addressed them, but we can also have photo reductions or copies made for the file because these would be very hard to fold and put into a permanent storage situation. Anyway the single story 1225 square foot configuration actually comes in two variations, a two bedroom unit with a den, in other words a 3 bedroom possibility or an extended master suite and a den which would become essentially a 2 bedroom unit. There would certainly be in the potential market of purchasers a desire for a building of this size. This is not tiny, it just happens to be a compact but a very nicety done unit. The second building plan two is a 1425 square foot again a single story building that has also a 3 bedroom or a two bedroom and den configuration. There are options that certainly could be done by the individual buyer of choice. Plan three is a 1640 square foot two story and again if you want to look at these closely I would certainly be willing to provide them to .you, but I think the size and orientation is the appropriate information. Building plan 4 has several different variations N N Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 12, 1995 Page 24 depending on whether a sun room option is included or not. It would range from 1721 to 1836 square feet depending on that option but it is again a 2 story building. Not full two story it is a partial two story with two bedrooms upstairs. Then plan number 5 is an 1881 square foot building that has a little bit deeper upper area with the three bedrooms upstairs and a combination family room/den downstairs. So primarily living area downstairs, sleeping accommodations up. With respect to the information that we have seen from staff Mr. Chairman we believe that the Commission does have the authority to grant the exceptions that would be involved in this planned development. Again I want to stress the fact that this does not stand on its own in terms of the overall density because the 4.9 units to the acre was originally considered in the' overall project and for a density of up to 8 units to the acre. All of the other exceptions that have been noted we believe the Commission has the authority to recommend to the Council in the annotated comments that have gone back to Shari we have addressed some of the other elements with respect to the architectural features. The fact that the landscape plan shown is conceptual only at this point, a detailed landscape plan would be submitted to the City for staff review and approval. Garbage areas would be individual homeowner because they are individual single family detached dwellings. The project actually will be re-named and the information that we provided indicates that the name James Place was denied by the County Engineer and so we will simply identify this project in all future correspondence and all subsequent approvals or plat submissions as Ashford Greens No. 2. Mr. Chairman, that is a lot of information I would be happy to respond to your questions, you may have some questions also of Mr. Turnbull who is here who is the developer. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Wardle, .any questions of the applicant's representative Mr. Wardle? Alidjani: I have one question, what is the percentage of plan number 1 versus plan number 5 and 4 and 2 regarding the square footage, they have (inaudible). Wardle: The square footages are identified here. Johnson: You addressed that in your next paragraph, he wanted to know in accordance with our ordinances how many in 1 and what percent would that be at the total build out. I believe you have answered that in your next paragraph. Wardle: In reality Mr. Chairman, since all but one of these units is larger than the ordinance requirements the percentage factor 1 don't think is relevant anyway. We don't know yet what the individuals will purchase when they make their selection of the unit for each individual lot. It may be that they will all be larger, could be that there will be a substantial number of smaller units for the older empty nesters. That is why that we believe it is critical that the Commission through its recommendation to the Council provide Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 12, 1995 Page 25 that option. Mr. Alidjani have we given you enough information? Alidjani: Well actually I didn't get the answer I would have liked to hear but I guess what it is, what I am worrying about is all of the sudden all 74 lots is going to have 1225 square feet of building then what because they have a choice to build minimum or a choice to build maximum and a choice to build in between. The way it has been written and the way if we approve it that way they can go all minimum they can go mixed or whatever. Wardle: Correct, and what Mr. Alidjani the result would be is still the same basic character of a project but you would have probably a little bit more open area because the foot print is a little bit smaller than some of the larger units. So, you are talking about a specialty type lifestyle area within a larger PUD. The emphasis frankly is toward either the retirement or the empty nester or the young professional perhaps with no children. Not that they couldn't have children if they opted to do so. It does afford a different lifestyle because the exterior areas common areas would all be maintained in contrast to having to go out and deal with your own yard the entire area. Alidjani: I understand that lifestyle real well, I live all alone. Wardle: It can be good and it can be bad. Oslund: I have a question, in terms of the fencing on your details there you showed some fencing scheme for each of those lots, and I don't know if I am reading this correctly the way I understand it is you will have fencing at the rear of the yard is that true? Wardle: There is the option and I am going to have Mr. Turnbull address that specifically because I believe that there would be the provisions if they are chosen to be fenced. But I have done projects of a simpler nature before where a lot of the units did not fence the entire yard areas, they fenced a privacy area around patios but opted not to take the view of in this particular case some quality open space internally and externally golf course. t think if you go around the golf course now it has been a while since I have been there but my recollection is that most all of the adjacent properties are not solid fenced. This is identifying the possibility that it could. Oslund: I guess that is what I am getting at that when you look at the illustrative below, at least from here l don't see the fences, it really is, it looks, it is a nice appearance that it has that appearance but if there is nothing for instance in the covenants that would restrict the kind of fencing then you may not have a new concept at all. It seems to me that one of the big advantages is the openness and somehow you don't control that they could all close in conceivably and you would lose. one of the benefits that you are trying to build into this it looks like. M N Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 12, 1995 Page 26 Wardle: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Oslund, I appreciate that and I think perhaps it is something that the developer needs to take into consideration. Again the very nature of the use of the sideyard gives the potential for the privacy area essentially between the buildings versus having all of that at the rear. I haven't studied the units I wanted to look and see, well, we would have to look at a more detailed layout. I think with that possibility-where if they really want to sit on a patio and have something that they are not going to be seen and bothered by people either on the golf course or common area that is the area between the buildings whereas the rear hopefully I agree is it much more desirable to have the vision unimpaired along those open space corridors. Oslund: You suggested earlier about the smaller privacy areas that you have seen, I think something like that would be really nice in a situation like this. I don't want to tell you how to design your project, it is not the intent at all I guess I am just expressing a concern that there must be someway to control the fencing. I would just be afraid that people would come in like they do everyplace else. Wardle: I appreciate the comment because it is something that we do need to keep in mind when the covenants are actually prepared and presented. Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Wardle? Hepper: No, I just had a comment on the smaller house sizes too along Moe's line of thinking. I think typically given the option that when we have a minimum allowed standard of some sort that typically the majority of the plans or things are built to the minimum even though there is an option to go higher it seems like that is always the way it works out. Subdivisions out here of 1400 square foot minimums and typically every house in the subdivision is between 1400 and 1500 square feet unless the restrictive covenants for the subdivision call for something higher. If you have 1500 square feet minimum you are going to end up with houses between 1500 and 1600 square feet. You are not going to end up with 2000 or 2100 square foot houses. It just seems like when the lower standard is available that is the way most people go. My concern is the same as Moe's that the majority of the homes in there would end up at the 1200 square feet and that is a big concern of mine where you have 5 different plans I would feel a lot more comfortable if perhaps there was a percentage at least on the plan 1 the 1200 square feet that no more than perhaps 20% could be 1200 square feet and then that would give us some assurance that we are not going to end up with 60 or 70% that are 1200 square feet. I don't know if that is a marketing feasibility or what but I know that is a pretty big concern of ours. Wardle: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Hepper, maybe Mr. Turnbull will address that when he gets up. Let me just make one comment, much of what you addressed with respect to the minimum size of the units will occur generally in terms of trying to, the affordabilty factor. N N Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 12, 1995 Page 27 So they will go minimum through these standard subdivisions essentially to keep the price of the units down. This is going to be a little bit different, I am not at all suggesting that there won't be the tendency because in reality most of these units are purchased by a couple and they have no children at home then they probably aren't going to put more than they want. Generally these people are going to have the resources to put whatever they feel is comfortable for their lifestyle. A lot of people even without children have some pretty comfortable and pretty nice houses. So, it may well be that a percentage I am not certain if 20% is the right number that would be approximately 15 of the units. 1 don't know what the number should be, but it is certainly a consideration that may well be expressed to the Council. David do you want to defend any of your (inaudible). Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Wardle before we swear in Mr. Turnbull? Oslund: I had one other technical question. Any thought given to mailboxes and their location whether they are going to be clustered or single or up the street? Wardle: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Oslund, not specifically. They would be at the street of course and I think under at least the way ACRD likes to deal with it you do a cluster of at least two and in the case of each of these private drive areas those would all be clustered at the street entrance so there would be no need for mail delivery internally. So there will be some type of clustering but we specifically have not addressed that. Oslund: My only concern is when you take a mail box and combine it with our 5 foot minimum sidewalk width when it is right adjacent to the roadway and curb and gutter is that in effect we end up with a 3 foot walk. Wardle: Yes, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Oslund what will happen in this case is the sidewalk in only a couple of instances is actually adjacent to the curb and gutter, in most cases it is detached and meandering somewhat. So access to those would not impede sidewalk usage. Oslund: Thank you. Wardle: Thank you very much. David Turnbull, 12301 W. Explorer Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Turnbull: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Oslund you brought up a good point about fencing and we do intend to have a fencing standard, a common fencing standard throughout the project. We have in fact instituted that in a project that we have in Boise City on a park and basically what we have done on any fencing that is abutting a common N N Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 12, 1995 Page 28 area such as park or green belts going to the park the fencing has been limited to provide for some open vision. Now, I would be a little more restrictive in this project simply because, I can give you an example in the Hobble Creek project which is adjacent to a Boise City park, the fencing standard on the park is either a 4 foot or 6 foot high rod iron fence which has full vision or a 4 foot high cedar fence so that you can see over the fence. Or in the event that they want something a little more secure we have gone with a 6 foot high cedar fence but it essentially has every third bat in the fence missing or only every third, two out of every 3 bats is missing, so there is an open vision panel the top two feet of the fence. We allowed that simply because in parks it is more of a security issue and some parents are concerned about hoodlums vaulting their fence and taking their kids and we don't have that concern I don't think in this neighborhood. So what I would be proposing is anything on the golf course be limited to a 4 foot high fence and we could probably allow the rod iron or the solid cedar fence. One thing I actually like about a cedar fence and we don't allow the dog eared type fence where it is jagged on the top of the fence, we actually have what is a two sided fence that appears the same on one side as it does on the other. there is a 6 inch band across the fop and a 4 inch band across the bottom so it is a more expensive fence. We also require a common color finish so it has some uniformity in appearance. We would be proposing a four foot high maximum on the golf course. We would propose six foot high fences to maintain privacy around patio areas but back off of the external border of the property. So your point is well taken and we had considered that issue and that is what we plan to do. As for the house plans in general, as Mr. Wardle mentioned, I actually a year ago January went to Houston to go the the national home builders show specifically to find an architect, land planning design firm that specialize in this kind of project. The architect we found is out of Boulder, Colorado, they did the project at River Run in Boise. It was just by chance that I was flipping through their portfolio with them and saw that and was fairly impressed with that. They projects all over the country, they do golf course communities and they are known for their expertise in this field. What we have here despite what size we talk about whether it is 1225 square feet or 1800 or 1900 square feet these are high amenity homes. I understand what the Commissions concern is in general in Meridian is the entry level home market saturated with that type of market. We are not talking here about homes however that are going to be priced out in the. $75 a square foot price range, these are high amenity homes they have a lot of flare particularly. Inside and out,. a lot of vaulted ceilings, and they are probably although I haven't had any final working drawings prepared yet obviously because we don't have the project through the Commission nor the City Council yet. Our supposition is these homes are going to be more in the neighborhood of $100 per square foot. they are not your typical entry level homes. Hopefully that alleviates some of the concerns that the Commission may have. This obviously is a high amenity project and we intend to build it in a first class manner. Is there another question I needed to address? Johnson: No, I don't think so, the only other question I recall is the mail box question. N N Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 12, 1995 Page 29 Turnbull: We don't have a final clustering plan but there would be some clustering involved in this. As Mr. Wardle noted most of the sidewalk is detached and that really works well. In fact we have done that in other projects where we had a standard five foot parkway strip between the curb and the sidewalk and it sure helps particularly in a family neighborhood where you have kids bicycling up and down, they don't have to be dodging mail box posts and also you tend to keep people from parking up over the rolled curb with their cars on top of the sidewalk. They stay off grass .but they won't stay off sidewalks when the sidewalk is attached. Johnson: Anything else? Anyone else from the public, since you are here Malcolm did you come to listen? Is there anyone else behind this easel 1 can't see? Any other discussion before I close the public hearing? I will close the public hearing at this time on item #12. This is a conditional use permit it would require findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR JAMES PLACE AT ASHFORD SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Johnson: At this point I will open the public hearing and once again invite the applicant's representative Mr. Wardle to address the Commission, you need to be sworn again. Mike Wardle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, 1 won't add anything except that we did provide at the same time along with these architectural drawings for the conditional use a preliminary plat that is almost a carbon copy except is does detail the standard elements of a preliminary plat and I trust that drawing was also provided in your packets. Unless there are any other specific or different questions I would not go further. Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Wardle? Thank you Mike, is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? I will close the public hearing at this time. 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 PATNA. 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 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor MEMORANDUM: TO: Planning & Zoning mmission/Mayor and City Council ~i~~~s FROM: Sh~ P&Z Administrator COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MOE ALIDJANI JIM SHEARER CHARLIE ROUNTREE TIM HEPPER December 8, 1995 SUBJECT: Request for Conditional Use Permit with Preliminary Plat for James Place at Ashford Greens by Brighton Corporation As is common in a planned development, exceptions can be made by Council to district regulations when they are desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD. "9-607 E MODIFICATION OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS 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 goverting use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD, rovided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this Section. " Other Conditional Use Permits have been conceptually approved/approved with variances to certain aspects of the Zoning and Development Ordinance. The Greg Johnson/Highlands project was not allowed to have housing sizes less than 1,400 square feet; neither was The Lake at Cherry Lane Nos. 5 and 6, as interpreted by legal counsel. To be consistent, this project should either be held to the same requirement, or the other projects be allowed to have housing sizes of less than 1,400 square feet. Other variances/exceptions that would need to be approved to grant this CUP in an R-4 zone as presented would be: 1. Minimum lot sizes • • Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor and Council December 8, 1995 Page Two 2. Frontages 3. Minimum roadway widths/private drives/lots not fronting on roadway 4. Parking areas closer than 4' from road right-of-way; depths less than Ordinance requires 5. Ditches remaining open 6. Provision of 5' sidewalks on each side of roadway in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 7. Front and side yard setbacks (5' per story on side) Applicant needs to submit the following additional information: 1. Colored rendering of adequate scale to show the completed development that will include at least the following: a. Architectural style and building design; b. Building materials and color; c. Landscaping (is submittal showing actual or conceptual landscaping? Sizes and species need to be detailed); d. Screening; e. Garbage areas (provided by each individual homeowner?); f. Parking (shown); and g. Open space (shown). 2. Ada County Street Name Committee approval letter -Five of the street names submitted have been. rejected -- including Ashford -- and the numbering of lots and blocks has not been approved. 3. Plan for Interlachen connection to Dawson Drive and clubhouse connection. 4. Golf course property deeded to City in a manner acceptable to Council prior to final plat approval. 5. Proposed restrictive covenants/deed restrictions. 6. Master street drainage plan. 7. ACHD Technical Review Committee approval. • Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor and Council December 8, 1995 Page Three 8. Indicate minimum house size on plat. 9. Pressurized imgation, fire hydrants, and streetlights need to be shown on preliminary plat. As a note for consideration by the Developer, there currently exists James Court Apartments off of James Court in the City of Meridian. This is aloes-income housing project that may have an impact,on the marketability of the project in some prospective homeowners' minds. • • BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMIYIISSION BRIGHTON CORPORATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EAST OF BLACK CAT-ROAD BETWEEN USTICR AND CHERRY LAMS MERIDIAN. IDAHO ^ FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW _ _ __ _ The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing December 12, 1995, at the--hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner _ .appearing through the project's engineer, Mike Wardle, the. Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter, makes the following ____ _ Findings. of Pact--and- Conciusians:- _ _ _._._. _ _________. _~_._.,._~~._.._._.,_K_.__~:.~- _. ___ _ _ 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 December 12, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the December 12, 1995, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the property is located within the City of Meridian; it is located on the east side of Black Cat Road between Ustick and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1 JAMES PLACE/BRIGHTON • Cherry Lane; the parcel is part of a parcel of property that was annexed. by the-City over fourteen-years ..ago and part: of a parcel that has recently been annexed. 3. The application for conditional use permit stated that this proposal presents the first of two (2) medium density parcels approved in the Ashford Green PUD (Planned Unit Development), that the land is intended to be developed into 74 detached single family dwellings on 15.2 acres, at a density of 4.87 dwellings per acre, that the Applicant stated that the square footage of homes range from 1,200 square feet and above. 4. That the City Council previously approved two (2) medium density parcels for up to eight (8) units per acre subject with specific future applications for a detailed project and site plan. 5. That Mike Wardle testified at the public hearing; that ~~-Tis~testimonyi ncorporated herein as if set forth in full; that he stated at the hearing, in part,. that this. Application is for approval of 74 dwelling units, that the density would be 4.9 units per acre; that the homes would be detached single family dwellings with living space to the rear and side, that there would be a recreational building, that the roads would be private, that there would be two car garages, that there are parking islands that augment the roadways, that drainage would feed into the adjacent lakes, there would be five foot wide sidewalks but only on one side of the road, that there would be some 0-lot lines, that street setbacks would be met, that the house size of 1,400 would not be met in all cases but the City can grant waivers or accept smaller FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 JAMES PLACE/BRIGHTON • house sizes in a planned unit development, that the house sizes would vary from 1,225 square feet up to 1,881 square feet, that David Turnbull stated at the January 9, 1996, Commission meeting that 4 out of 5 homes would be 1,200 square feet or larger and 1 out of 5 would be smaller down to 1,225 square feet, that they would present a landscape plan. and that the landscaping would be commonly maintained, that this proposed development offers the opportunity for a life-style choice, smaller dwellings in a - -clustered'confguraton-with open space and homeowner association maintained common areas; that the project will be an "enclave", surrounded on three sides by the golf course, providing a physical and visual connection to the golf course open space and water 1 -- - _ _ ~~.._ amenities and will fit well with the Ashford Greens and Cherry Lane Golf Course community. __ ____ __ _.____^6 ._ Mr Wardle also stated that~the carefully designed site _ -plan incorporates "patio home" architecture; that indoor views and outdoor spaces off the patio are expanded five (5) feet beyond the property line, with a "use easement", to the adjacent wall of the neighbor's home; that this development is a 15 acre parcel within the Planned Residential Community of Ashford Greens; that it is surrounded on three sides by the Cherry Lane Golf Course; that it features small-lot, single-family homes, designed for active, adult families; that the houses are clustered around cul-de-sacs and meaningful common open-space amenities; that green belts extend throughout the development providing pedestrian and golf cart access. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 JAMES PLACE/BRIGHTON • • 7. That the owner of record is Brighton Corporation/Boise Research. Center.,...Inc,.-; that it is stated_in the proposal that the density was 4.87 dwellings units per acre, there would be public streets with a waiver of the requirement of sidewalks on both sides of the street.,. that there would be streets of 29 feet back-to-back, private access drives for some parcels, a waiver of set-back provisions was requested, dwellings would be from 1,200 square feet and above, and zero-lot-line development was desired; that at the public hearing the P,pplicant's representative stated that the main loop road is only 45 feet in comparison to ACHD's 50 foot section. 8. Under 11-2-409 ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, A, a Planned Development Residential. (PD-R) requires a conditional use permit; that a conditional use permit was applied for and granted _. for this development to be developed as a planned unit developmwent. 9. That the Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, submitted comments; that any existing irrigation and drainage ditches crossing the property shall be tiled; 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; 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); that determination of the seasonal high groundwater elevation and profile of the subsurface soil conditions, shall be FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 JAMES PLACE/BRIGHTON prepared by a qualified Engineer or soil scientists; that a copy of the proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions be submitted by review; that 5 foot wide sidewalks shall be provided in accordance with City Ordinance; that water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by the City's computer model; and that placement of the fire hydrants be coordinated with the City of Meridian's Water Works Superintendent. That Mr. Freckleton submitted site specific comments which are as follows: a. That the sanitary sewer service and water service to - this site will be via an extension of proposed sewer mains to be installed as part of the Ashford Greens Development; that the Applicant will be responsible to construct; b. That 100 watt high pressure sodium street lights __will. be__requ3.red_at locations designated b _-the~~~!~~ri-di-ar -~~ ~° :.__~_ _, public Works Department; that all street la.ghts shall be -_ _ installed at subdividers`expense; c. That the Meridian Fire Department and Meridian School District deed to review and approve of the travel way widths; that as an absolute minimum, "No Parking" signs should be posted along one side of the street; d. That the Applicant shall provide a statement as to who the ownership, and operation and maintenance of the pressurized irrigation system will be, and; e. That Hubble Engineering shall submit lot closure/area calculations for all lots within this development for the verification of minimum square footage standards. 10. That comments were submitted by Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, stating that it is common in a Planned Unit Development that exceptions can be made by Council to district FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 JAMES PLACE/BRIGHTON • • regulations when they are desirable to achieve the objectives of the,_proposed _pla,nned development; hat_ to. be consistent, this project should either be held to the same requirement as with the 7-ot Highlands project and The Lake at Cherry Lane Nos. 5 & 6, to~allow housing sizes less than 1,400 square feet, or the other projects be allowed to have housing sizes of less than 1,400 square feet; that other variances/exceptions that would need to be approved to grant this conditional use permit in an R-4 zone as presented would be: 1. Minimum lot sizes 2. Frontages 3. Minimum roadway widths/private drives/lots not fronting on roadway 4. Parking areas closer than 4' from road right-of-way; depths less than Ordinance requires 5. Ditches remaining ogen 6. Provision of 5' sidewalks on each side of roadway in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 7. Front and side yard setbacks (5' per story on side) ghat. _the:- -A iioant-- ~8ha3i:--submit_Lire----fait ~~---~dct~B~__ ._---------- - __- ~._~ -PP-._:._ _ __ _ information: 1. A colored rendering of adequate scale to show the completed development that will include at least the following items: a. Architectural style and building design; b. Building materials and color; c. Landscaping (is submittal showing actual or conceptual landscaping? Sizes and species need to be detailed);: d. Screening; e. Garbage areas (or to be provided by each individual homeowner?); f. Parking (shown); and g. Open space (shown) 2. That an Ada County Street Name Committee approval needs to be obtained and the numbering of lots and blocks, needs to be approved. 3. That a plan for the connection of Interlachen to Dawson Drive and the clubhouse connection be submitted 4. Golf Course property deeded to the City in a manner acceptable to Council prior to final plat approval. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 JAMES PLACE/BRIGHTON • r: 5. Proposed restrictive covenants and deed restrictions submitted. 6. Approval of the Ada County Highway District Technical Review Committee. 7. Master street drainage plan submitted. 8. Indicate the minimum house sizes on the plat. 9. Pressurized irrigation, fire hydrants and street lights shown on the plat. 11. That the Meridian Fire Chief commented on the private ^ drives being 18 to 20 feet wide; he stated that if one vehicle. parks on the private drive, fire emergency vehicles cannot get by; that the roads of this size will make evergency vehicles back up to get out; that the club house will need access to the building for 'emergene:es;-he also questioned who will enforce the parking; that the Chief attached the Fire Protection information sheet regarding -__ __ fire flow requirements. 12. That the Meridian School. District commented that it had _ `J ___~__a_problem with the`.amount _._9f~students aha~ would"_,~e " genera e _ k ~"~ __ __ this development and the cost to the District for educating-them and asked for help in dealing with the impact; the Central District __ .Health. Department commented that high ground water has been observed at less than six feet below grade at this proposed project; that Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District commented that all laterals and waste ways must be protected; that municipal surface drainage must be retained on site; that Idaho Power Company commented that a permanent 10 foot wide public utilities easement along all lots adjacent to the road right-of-way be dedicated to public or private use; that all of the above comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 JAMES PLACE/BRIGHTON • 13. That Section 11-2-409 A lists Planned Residential Developments as a conditional .use in the R-4 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 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, provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this section."; Section 11-9-607 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 fuil;~ that. ~~1-9-607___H states-- that a -FD 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8 JAMES PLACE/BRIGHTON • style and building design, building materials and color, landscaping screening, garbage area, parking, and open space. 14. That any comments from the Ada County Highway District not yet received will be incorporated as if set forth in full. 15. That sewer and water is available to the property and is required. 16. That Larry Sale, from Ada County Highway District, commented during the Ashford Greens conditional use process, regarding the linkage between Interlachen Way and.. Dawson Lane; he did not desire Interlachen Way to connect to this development, stating that Interlachen was only a connector road from Cherry Lane to where it ends-now-and should not be continued as a collector. 17. That the developer, David Turnbull, addressed the Commission and stated that the project does intend to have standard - ~~ ~~" ~--fencing common ~~hrougiou~; --that fences -along the ~go1f course wau d not be higher than four (4 )._.feet, probably rod iron or the solid cedar fence type, which is,a two sided fence that appears the same on one side as the other with a 6 inch band across the top and a 4 inch band across the bottom; that there could be six (6) foot high fencing to maintain privacy around patio areas but back off of the external border of the property; that a common color finish will be used to give uniformity. 18. That in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council when the Applicant initially submitted its request for a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9 JAMES PLACE/BRIGHTON • ~ ._. property.. _,. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 3. .That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418 D of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho. conditional use permit for both of its planned unit developments at the golf course, it was found, in part, as follows, to wit: " that prior to any development of the medium parcels the developer must submit a detailed application for approval, and that the Commission reserves the right to place appropriate conditions on the medium density application in accordance with ordinance requirements for access, roadways, parking, utilities, open space, landscaping and so forth." and that section 11-9-607 E way quoted, as above stated in. paragraph 13 of the Findings of fact. 19. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and followed. 20. That there was no testimony. objecting to the application. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances.. Qf the Ci~~of _.1~'Ier, d, an have_.- ___ been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 3.00 .feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10 JAMES PLACE/BRIGHTON • 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 since Section 11-9-607 E states that a PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in section 11-9-607 and that 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 desireable to achieve the objectives of the proposed- PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this section. -- -- -- ---- ~ That- 11-~-~18 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 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. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11 JAMES PLACE/BRIGHTON 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 is the Cherry Lane Village Subdivision, The Lake at Cherry Lane, and Golf View Estates; Appliccant did, however, state that the character of the homes would comport to existing homes, that they would have only detached single-family dwellings, two-car garages, gross density would be 3.55 to 3.2, some 0-lot line development, shake roofs, and discussed the square footages of some of the proposed homes. 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 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. g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property Nor, the general .welfare ,.- __ ~" "- ~1" ~"~ -`by reason ~of ~ excessive production of traffic or noise. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use will be required. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 6. That it was concluded in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the Applicant's initial conditional use that the Commission reserves the right to place appropriate conditions on the medium density application in accordance with ordinance requirements. 7. That Section 11-9-607 G. 8. provides that all Planned Development shall be subject to design review by the City staff and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 12 JAMES PLACE/BRIGHTON Council; that the above section shall be a requirement and Applicant required to comply with it. 8. That it is concluded that the Applicant should be required to meet, and comply with, the requirements of Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, and Shari Stiles, City Planning and Zoning Administrator. 9. That it is concluded that since the Commission and Council concluded in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the Applicant's initial conditional use permit that the Commission reserves the right to place appropriate conditions on the medium density application in accordance with ordinance requirements and since this is a conditional use application and the City has the right and duty to place conditions when the application is for a conditional use, except in regards to item number 1 below, it is ~~.. further concluded that if Applicant obtains approval from Shari Stiles, the Planning and Zoning Administrator and/or from Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, it may receive the following changes to the Ordinance requirements, to wit: 1. That the roads shall be public and meet ACRD requirements, unless ACRD allows a variance from its requirements and that variance should also be approved by the City. 2. That all setbacks and yard requirements shall be met, unless the house is on a 0-lot line. 3. That the minimum lot size required in the R-4 District need not be met for all homes because this is a planned unit development, but the lot sizes shall not be smaller than as shown on the preliminary plat submitted for approval along with this application for a conditional use. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 13 JAMES PLACE/BRIGHTON • • 4. That the parking areas may be closer than 4' from road right-of-way and the front setbacks of the lots may not be 20~ less than required. 5. That there may be 5' sidewalks only on one side of the roadway, but all lots shall either have access to a sidewalk adjacent to the home that will be on the lot, have the sidewalk directly across the street from the home on the lot, or directly across the street from the access to the home. JO ~ That this Planned Development shall be subject to design review by the City staff and Council. (~,~~. That if the conditional use permit is granted for the ~ planned unit development applied for, all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met, including but not limited to, the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision and Development Ordinance, both as modified by Section 11-9-607, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Electrical Code, the Fire and Life Safety Code,_and all parking . and_ 1andsca~ing req~:„~ nt4 APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER OSLUND COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER MacCOY CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW JAMES PLACE/BRIGHTON VOTED VOTED-~~ VOTED VOTED VOTED Page 14 RECOI~II~IENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that this Application be approved under the conditions stated above in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; that any ultimate approval should be subject to all City Ordinances, specifically including design review and plat approval under the procedures of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance. __..MOTION: APPROVED; DISAPPROVED: _~~~.~t~ _~ FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 15 JAMES PLACE/BRIGHTON OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, J-., City Clerk JANICE L. GASS, City Troasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waate Water Supt. DENN18 J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI S. STILES, P 6 Z Adm. KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chlsf W. L "BILL" GORDON, Police Chlsf WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY ~ COUNCIL MEMBERS A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDLAN MAX YERR NGITONA f~BERTD.CORRIE WALT W. MORROW 33 EAST IDAHO P 8 Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Cl+atrman MERIDIAN IDAHO 83642 MoE AuorANl JIM SHEARER Phone (206) 888433 • FAX (206) 887-4813 ~~pp ~~ Y CHARLIE ROUNTREE Public Works/Building De~[tmettt (208) 887-2211 l<11G~~1~~D TIM HEPPER GRANT P1~liCWGSFORD N O V ~ ~ 199 J CITY OF ~iE1R1 13IAld TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY QF 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:~ecember 5. 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 11/20/95 HEARING DATE: 12/12/95 REQUEST: -Conditional Use Permit for James Place at Asford Subdivision BY: Brighton Comoration LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: East of Black Cat Road and North of Cherrv Lane JIM JOHNSON, P2 MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P2 CHARLES ROUNTREE, P2 TIM HEPPER, P/Z GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C MAX YERRINGTON, 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 8~ FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PR LIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMA (P ELIM & I AL PLAT) CITY FILES / . ~ ~ _ YOUR CONCISE 'OFFICIALS Wi'ZLIAM G. BERG, Jr., Clty Clerk JANICE L. GASS, Clty Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. Clty Enplneer BRUCE D. 3TUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Wuts Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. 3HAR1 S. STILES, P b Z Adm. KENNETH W. BOWERS, Flro Chlsf W. L "BILL" GORDON, Pollcs Chlef WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Placx to Live CITY OF MERIDLAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAIiO 83642 Phone (208) 888433 • PAX X208) 887813 Public Works/Building Deperfaa+t (208) 887-2211 GRAINY P. ICf1VGSFORD Mafia COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT 0. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW P 8 t COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MOE AUDJANI JtM SHEARER CHARUEROUNTREE TIM HEPPER 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:December 5, 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 11/20/95 HEARING DATE: 12/12/95 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for James Place at Asford Subdivision BY:~clhton Corporation LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: _ East of Black Cat Road and Nort of Cherrv Lane JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P2 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM 8~ FINA~ ~~1~:~ ` ~, JIM SHEARER, P2 ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/z ADA PLANNBVG ASSOCIATION G ~ C 0 5 1995 TIM HEPPER, P2 CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH , GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR NAMPA MERMAN IRRIGATION DIST~~ ~~' i'~;i.~i~: ~ ~~ RONALD TOLSMA, C/C SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT BOB CORRIE, C/C IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) WALT MORROW, C/C U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8 FINAL PLAT) MAX YERRINGTON, C/C INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) WATER DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY FILES ~~ _ ~ ~~ FIRE D OTHER: EPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY Priya f~ Y~r; / e S , /8Ft ~ a2D FT ~~ CITY ENGINEER ' CITY PLANNER D ~ .e k pc, ~ .9~ ~ 6,y ~ r; ~,v, r Ar, ~~' ~n1~rQ' ve„~c~ .the / Ck+./ ~yv>F O U . "~1f Se OVA W ;ce._ /h~~,e S ftc.- O i.~-r ~ ~. -~' ~r>/ c f i .e h; c ~-' tit. r Li'd` 0 e ~ / sc b ~ k sE' W , 4 ~- N ~. ~ ~ f4 G G~SS7.ad _ e u f / ~ sc.o~ /fo i- j°aa ~ rg ~ ~vcGi _'r- . ~D f~r ie~ /~/c ~,v o ~ cv ,q.~'~r' , r ~ < ~ p A '~ ,.i ~' A3 n ~'... ~ Cps. y' 7e ~ n o a ~rtao~'NG ~ 'r7.~ °'~'~ ~A JrJF~ °qq~ ~ ~'C~7 K7 ~ rJ'~tS an Y~ ~°'~ q ~~ ~ E ee ~ A ~•° ~, ~ m w c'O~1 N ~ ~e~ .r ~ ~- F d ' o ~ ~.'o s I e cr ~ ~ I c; ~ y ~ ( ~ ~ ~ c~c~ a H Z cow 3• "1f ~ ~ '~ 3 " o ~ ~ m -oi w ~ ~ ~+ ~ p ~ ~ ee •v 7f ~• o ~. a ~ o o• 3~ o ~ 'ti ~ D co a E~ 00 E g a~ o ao `'~. y " cEo ~< r ~ ?7 •° ° o a m m c'a ~ 3 a n ^ 'm ^ x , O 3. =' ~~pi ry ~°. ~ B c ~ ~. 3 c ~ 3• Z co ~ o t1.z o g ~ y ~ ~ ~Fn ~.o W~ ~ 3. DWI ^~ ~~p~ a~i ~ aQ ~'.3 ~ ~ cad ~= 9-n~~ ~ ~,~ "off a'"' E~ 3g, ~. ° .a c: o o y o• a cog g -n • F ;o ~ o. o $. Joao tID ~o~ a~°c_c°o p3oF og ~,~ Co~ ao~ g w E wF 8 ~ ~ ° O GrJ'. ?a ~'~j ~ ~ y ~' o ~ o• ~ E 'Q~ •o p ^. p' p ny ^ t~ ~ o co r w~ W C G ? ~. 7 A A F a7 ~g ~ ~ H ~ ~ ~ in Fn d o. m ~ rtrrEn ~c o~sua cn m rt G rt r•~C (D ~ N a a ~ ~ i u • rfi r t t r ~ a ~ ~~ rt r ~ o cn ~' ~ ~ ~ o mro N ~m ro ~ "~ r• r• ~ r• -•i K ~ ~C rt W m "~ , o ~ f " r rt ~ C rr 1 ~ . ~ 1 ~ V• Y / / 0 ' O ,~ 'b r• r• cu rn y ~//~~ K W y ') ~ ~ ~ N G r• fD ~ r• a a K K ~ r• a ~ ^ ~-~+ ~ 8 ~ F N N n O Z N C1 O m ~.,a ~bJANOOOrpn~A a a a a a i a i~ N~ J~ JW• %A N~~O OD ~ c JUp W(y~J1~ C•D OO JAN ~~88~8~8~ J~IJ 8888 ~~~88g -~ UWN•+O OD a a a a a a~ a a~ 88606888 8S JOB A b6~8 wWNN~'p" g~8~68 $ ~ yJO~UAWtNJ ee~~pp 00 OOJp~ UU ~gOJy~O•U~o Utn UiiO~~..~J~O ~•WOQQ~~CjjN~~ ~ ~ AAppWt1~~ p.O5~Up ~ tNJN~•~ ~ tn~~INy~Oy~O ~~ ~ iS MM i'SgiB 25Z5$25$$$S$$$ 25gg $ 25258 ? ^ ~ /3~- wN~~pp~D~p ~JJJpp~~UUAAW NJ W O ~{OD ~pp Jp pO O~pU Op ~~ G~8W JJ ~W8J p p~. 0 WNNNNN per W(~ O.1 U ~ N ~DJO OA O p U P ~ pp pp pp p p p p p p p p n ~l 8000 OOO HOOOOOOO~ p p HOO~ p p p OOO~ ~ /~ y~ODJJ p~p~ UUAAWWWNNN u~ppOp ppA~p~p~ppAp pO Up rp pJp ppW pbp~O8~ppN~~pD j~O~j.pW OOOO OOO OOOGOOOOO '.f N~~~ pOp~8~p~p~ApW 0000 c ~' 'O y~p~~apO pJ ONp~ppAOp 0000 }S ~ 0 Og8O ~iaJ,,NgJ J~CpTOg8~ JUNU J~ANAg8 ~ ~ ~ J~WgW J7N~,NgN Jt~U [~ J ~¢~ iY. 6OOO OOO O OHOC 00 0000 pOOOOH eS~ ~ ~ A W N ~~~ m O C 7° m m z ~o X N o~ C v_ z N c 0 0 0 W E ~~k ~g~ ~~z ~~ 3 ~~ c s' ~ S ~ ,~ ~ ~ }~rp ~ 5.+ ~s ~• w yam.. ~~ m c ;• g ~~ a? E ., m v '~ c m ~_ O Z ~ a ew .• ~ ~ ~ C a~~~' - .,, a o e ~~ a~ ~_ N a ^? ~a a4 n~ 7 W N ~ 3 _ ~. ~ C3. 3 ~~ ~~ ~°• E 7 O c'o E m Z X z O m O m S s s m O m CENTRAL C •• DISTRICT i1'rHEALTH DEPARTMENT Rezone # l.F~` 1~?' f:+Ia ~ ~ n J~ ~'n IF~t~,a.r~t4. Conditional Use # ~,A,t~S Pc,~-c.E ~ ~,~'tl~=orz<J ~i~~'~-~ S~r3ni~'I1I~.J Preliminary /Final /Short Plat ^ 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 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. ^ II ^ 12. Stormwater disposal systems shall be reviewed by relative to: ^ Waste Disposal ^ Injection Well rules. ^ Groundwater Protection 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. S~=- ~- c ort rr ~r~ rS S i7+7~~ Fbt2 ~ f2e~ Li H-,ry.~'F iz y P ~'> Date: ~~ l Z `1 / 9...~ ~~ ~/ ~"n ~~`-~ Reviewed By: _ (OHD ID/91 rc6, rev. I/95 Review Sheet DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARE,~IT y;. Environmental Health Division ' ~.~:~`~ ry:~m `~r ~'' Return to: OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, Jr., Clty Clerk JANICE L. GASS, Clty Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. Clty Enplnesr BRUCE D. STUART, Wstsr Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Weste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHAR18. STILES, P i Z Adm. KENNETH W. SOWERS, FIroChlsf W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chlef WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney 1YUB OF TREASURE VALLEY ~ _COUNCtL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA A GOON PIBCC to L.IVC MAxYERRINGTON WALT W. MORROW CITY OF MERIDLAN ROBERTD.CORRIE P i i COMMI88ION 33 EAST IDAHO JIM JOHNSON, Cnalnnan MERIDIAN, IDAHO H3642 MOEAUDJANI JIM SNEAKER Phone (206) 888433 • FAX (206) 887813 CHARLIE ROUNTREE Public Works/Building Depa[tmdlt (Z08) 867-2211 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ Dp TIM HEPPER GRANT P. IUNGSPORD ~~ NOV 2 2 1995 NAMPA & MERIDIeeAN TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELI~~~U~CTS 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 recommQndation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: December 5,1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 11/20/95 HEARING DATE: 1Z/12/95 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for J es Place at Asford Subdivision BY: _ Brighton Corporation LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: East of Black Cat Road nd North of Cherrv Lane JIM JOHNSON, P2 MOE ALIDJANI, P2 JIM SHEARER, P/Z CHARLES ROUNTREE, P2 TIM HEPPER, P2 GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C MAX YERRINGTON, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDI~W 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 8t FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM ~ FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRF_LIM I~ FINAL PLAT} BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: atera s an waste ways must be protected. Municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the site, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. It is recommended that ilable to all developments within this District. Nampa & M r; d; an 7 ;gat; on District requires that a Land Use Change/Site Ile_~reln~ment a~nliratinn hP f;lad for review prior to final platting Contact Tlnnna MnnrP~t 34'i-IR84 nr 466-7861 or urther information Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District u ~ ~ a e X995 ~. ~ .~ ~ i 50 Broadway Ave. Suite B, Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: 208-344-3448 Fax: 208-344-3922 Wardle & Associates RECE'v~~ JAN 171996 CITY OF MERIDIAN January 17, 1996 TO: MERIDIAN CITY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION c/o Will Berg, City Clerk ' Meridian City Hall- FROM: Michael D. Wardle Project: Manager RE: Ashford Greens No. 2 (James Place) Fe~~~~pg concerns were raised at the two conditional use permit and preliminary plat hearings held for the Ashford No. 2 PUD (submitted as James Place). The attached information is provided for your consideration in formulating findings and conclusions, and the placing of any fencing conditions on the project approval. co David Turnbull Bri hton l~Y• g i • • 1 ' ' F. Fences: Section 5.28 of the Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&R's) provides that the Architectural Control Committee may promulgate ACC Rules or Standards relating to the construction of improvements within the Hobble Creek Subdivision. Without proper design, construction, and maintenance standards, ,. perimeter fencing can often present a hodgepodge look which can rapidly deteriorate and degrade the character of the neighborhood. _, Section x.24 of the CC&R's states, "The type, design, material and finish of all privacy fences shall be as specified in the ACC Rules/ACC Standards, it being the intent of the Grantor that all such privacy fencing shall present, to the extent reasonably practicable, a __ uniform appearance throughout the Property." '' Prior to the construction of any fence, plans shall be submitted to and approved in writing ,. by the ACC. The submittal shall include a site plan showing the location of fencing proposed, including setback dimensions, and shall designate the type and height offence and the finish proposed. If the finish color proposed varies from the standard finish specified below, a color sample shall be submitted for approval.. ?. Wood Fencing All wood fencing shall be constructed according to the details for Fence Type A or Fence Type B (see Appendix B -Fence Details). Fence shall be constructed of 1 x 4 ` ~ ~1 common no-hole (or better) rough sawn cedaz pickets on 4 x 4 cedaz or redwood posts. Horizontal trim pieces shall be 1 x 4 or 1 x 6 TM1 common no-hole (or better) . rough sawn cedar as designated. The standard wood finish shall be Columbia Woodtech Pigmented Wood Finish (Series OS-600). The standard color shall be Beige Gray. 3. Wrought Iron Fencing ,~ _ Wrought iron fencing shall be Fence Type C (see Appendix B -Fence Details) unless otherwise approved in writing by the ACC. Color shall be black for wrought iron and `' Beige Gray for the wood members, unless otherwise approved in writing by the ACC. ~3. iYlasonry Fencing ,~ The ACC has not adopted any standard designs for masonry fencing. The Owner or ~ Builder shall submit plans and specifications for any proposed masonry fencing to the ACC for approval Courtyazd walls constructed of brick, stone, stucco, or other materials matching the approved exterior finish of the house and not exceeding 3 feet ~ in height maybe allowed in front yards with written ACC approval of location, design and materials. The Meadows at Hobble Creek October 1, 1994 Architectural Design Standards and Construction Guidelines Page 5 ~., • • 5. Fencing Restrictions a. Fencing Adjacent to Common Area Landscaping Fences constructed adjacent to common area landscaping along Hobble Creek Drive, Park Meadow Way, Eagle Road, and Chinden Boulevard shall be Fence Type A, 4 feet high or ci feet high. b. Fencing Adjacent to Community Park and Greenbelt Fences constructed adjacent to the Community Park and the Greenbelt shall be Fence Type B, consisting of either a 4 foot high solid cedar fence or a 6 foot high cedar fence solid to 4 feet and a vision opening as detailed from 4 feet to 6 feet high. Fencing along Lot 2 Block 18 ,Lot 2 Block 19, Lot 2 Block 20, and Lot 2 Block 21, where they front North Wellspring Way shall be Fence Type B, 6 feet high. c. Finish All fencing adjacent to Common Area Landscaping, the Community Park, and the Greenbelt shall be finished and maintained by the Owner or Builder with Cohunbia Woodtech Pigmented Wood Finish (Series 08-600). The color shall be Beige Gray. Other perimeter lot.fencing shall be finished as specified above unless otherwise approved in writing by the ACC. Other stain colors maybe considered provided they blend with the color scheme of the house and color samples are submitted to and approved in writing by the ACC. d. Height Restrictions All fences shall be 4 feet high or 6 feet high, unless otherwise approved by the AG C. e. Other Requirements Wherever possible, adjoining lots shall use common corner posts. Front fence setbacks shall be 2 feet behind the principle setback of the house on each side of the lot. Transitions in fence height from 4 feet to 6 feet shall be accomplished by stepping, (not angling) the fence top. Where a 4 foot fence abuts the Community Park, Greenbelt, or Common Area Landscaping, fences perpendicular to and tying into The Meadows at Hobble Creek October 1, 1994 Architectural Design Standards and Construction Guidelines Page 6 9. • • ~~~ the 4 foot high fence shall remain at 4 feet high for a minimum of 8 feet before stepping up to 6 feet high. The rough sawn, outside face (as shown on the Typical Wood Fence Section attached) shall face all street frontages, Community Park, Greenbelt, or Common Area Landscape area _ G. Landscaping: n A landscape plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Architectural Control Committee for approval. Although certain minimum standards have been established, additional ~~ landscaping is encouraged and maybe required by the ACC. The ACC will consider how _ the proposed landscaping blends with and promotes the overall aesthetics of the site in conjunction with structures. The use ofberms and clustered planting groups such as "`' garden beds with trees, shrubs and flowers will be encouraged. Exterior mounted utility meters, heat pumps, air conditioners, and other such equipment ,,~, shall be properly screened from view of the street and surrounding homes by landscaping -- or fencing. . ,.~ Landscaping of front ,rear ,and side yards is required to the following minimum standards '~' within. 60 days of substantial completion of the home: 1. An automatic underground sprinkler system shall be installed throughout. ~~ 2. Except at garden bed locations, sod shall be laid throughout. Hydroseed maybe ~- substituted for sod in rear yards only. ,~ 3. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in the front yard accordmg to the following minimum standard: ~. Two trees. Deciduous trees shall be 3" caliper or greater and evergreen trees shall be 8' high or greater. _ Twelve 2-gallon shrubs or larger. _ The side yard facing the street on comer lots •shall be treated the same as the front yard and will require a minimum of one tree and nine shrubs according to the minimum sizes listed above. The parkway landscape strip between the curb and sidewalk fronting each lot shall be ~~ landscaped and maintained by the owner with an automatic underground sprinkler system - and sod laid throughout. In addition, one tree shall be planted in the parkway landscape ,~ strip at each intersection of the front lot line and side lot lines. On corner lots, one additional tree shall be planted in the parkway landscape strip 2/3 of the distance from the front lot line to the rear lot line. Parkway trees shall be pruned and maintained in such a u manner that they do not interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Parkway trees shall W The Meadows at Hobble Creek October 1, 1994 - Architectural Design Standards and Construction Guidelines Page 7 Y • ^ l-. :., ... _ FENCE TYPE B SCALE: Z" = 1'-0" ~ L\ FENCE TYPE A • • WROUGHT IRON PANEL W/ WOOD FRAME ~~ ~~ ~~ r c. ~ ~. l4 SCALE: Z" = 1'-0" PEi~C~ TYPE C i • • SO Broadway Ave. Suite B, Boise, ID 83702 Wardle & Associates iViarch 19, 1996 RE: Ashford Greens No. 2 PUD /Preliminary Plat • rece,ve~ 3-/~ y6 C/C~~.~l~~, Telephone: 208-.~44-3448 Fax: 208-344-3922 The following modifications are proposed in the conditions forwarded by the Planning and Zoning Commission with its favorable reconunendation for approval of Ashford Greens No. 2 PUD and Preliminary Plat: Condition 1, page 13, Findings and Conclusions That the roads shall be private but shall meet ACRD construction standards, unless ACRD allows a variance from its public street requirements which variance shall also be approved by the City. Condition 2, page 13. Findings and Conclusions That all setbacks and yard requirements shall be in accordance with standards submitted in the project application and detailed on the Technical Site Plan. Condition 3. sage 13, Findings and Conclusions No change Condition 4. sage 14, Findings and Conclusions Change 20% to 25% to coincide with the setback standards described in Condition 2, above. Condition 5, Wage 14, Findings and Conclusions That street sidewalks and internal pathway systems shall be in accordance with the Technical Site Plan and Preliminary Plat submitted with the project application. Add a new condition: That a revised Preliminary Plat be submitted to the City staff whicl- includes the modifications necessary for private, gated entries but which does not increase the number of dwellings proposed in the application or project plans. . t r. •re c~rVe ~ /-~ ~~6 December 12, 1995 Subject: Ashford Greens No. 2 (formerly James Place at Ashford) On December 20, 1994, the Meridian City Council approved a conditional use permit for Ashford Greens, a residential Planned Unit Development with 438 dwelling units. The proposed project included the majority of property for the 9-hole expansion of the Cherry Lane Golf Course. In addition to single family lots, two "medium" density parcels were approved for future project submissions at densities of up to 8 dwellings per acre. The proposed density has changed since the project was first submitted in May, 1994: Original As Revised by sub itta approved Ashford 2 228 222 222 216 2~f1 174 444 438 396 single family lots medium density units total density calculation @ 123.55 acres 3.59 DU/ac 3.55 DU/ac 3.20 DU/ac The Proposal -Ashford Greens No. 2 • 74 detached single-family dwellings on a 15.1 acre parcel lying south of the collector roadway leading to the proposed clubhouse area of the Cherry Lane Golf Course which "frames" the other 3 sides of the parcel. • The parcel was approved conceptually for up to 8 dwelling units per acre. The actual density as submitted is 4.9 DU's/acre, a reduction from 116 dwellings to 74. Exceptions Required In her 12/8/95 Memo to the Commission, Shari Stiles noted all of the exceptions that may specifically be granted under the provisions of Section 9-607 E of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance, including: • minimum lot sizes • lot frontages • roadway widths [Note: Public Streets are proposed to be constructed to ACHD standards at 29 feet back-to-back with a detached, meandering S foot sidewalk on one side only; right-of--way • width for the loop street is S feet narrower than standard. ACRD has not yet had a formal opportunity to review the project.) • private drives/lots not fronting on roadway [Noce: 231ors donor have roadway frontage. They are accessible by private driveways which will be platted lots.) • parking areas [Note: Each dwelling has a two car garage with a standard two-car driveway; additional guest parking is provided throughout the project.) • ditches remaining open [Note: The waterway shown on the project architect's Illustrative Site Plan is a "dry "creek bed, part of the site amenity and landscape plan and may be included in the site drainage system. All irrigation ditches will be tiled in accordance with City standards. J • 5 foot Sidewalks on both sides [Addressed above under roadway widths.) • Setbacks [Note: Proposed setbacks vary from City standards as detailed on the project architect's Technical Site Plan. They are essential to the cluster character of the dwellings and zero-lot-line side yard use and enjoyment.) The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council also have the authority per the ordinance citation in Shari's Memo to approve exceptions to "bulk" which, according to the City Zoning Ordinance, includes building size. Apparently, the city has not exercised that authority through the Planned Development process. You are requested to do so for this project which is clearly intended to offer alife-style alternative to the single-family home owner both in the size of the lot and also in the size of the dwelling itself. Five floor plans have been developed by the project architect--one of which necessitates an exception from the 1,400 square foot requirements of the R-4 zone: Plan 1 one-story Plan 2 one-story Plan 3 two-story Plan 4 two-story Plan 5 two-story 1,225 square feet 1,425 square feet 1,640 square feet 1,721 to 1,836 square feet 1,881 square feet The purchasers of the lots will have the choice of dwelling size. There is no way to determine what the dwelling mix will be at this time. But we ask the City not to preclude an individual or empty-nest couple from making a choice that is appropriate to their need. This exception will not apply to other areas of Ashford Greens--only to this self- contained, island enclave. The cost of the additional square footage (from 1,225 to 1,400) could range from $15,000 to $20,000--a substantial difference in the market range for what may be the retirement home for some of the residents. ~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 4 Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that a recommendation to the City Council is to approve the preliminary plat, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 74 UNIT PUD REQUEST FOR ASHFORD SUBDIVISION N0. 2 (FORMERLY JAMES PLACE) BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Johnson: Any comments or discussion regarding the findings of fact as prepared by the City Attorney? I have one minor correction on page 13, number nine, spelling of Bruce. So it has been corrected good. Any other corrections, any other discussion? Oslund: I have one Mr. Chairman, page 13. #21, there near the bottom, that the road shall be public and meet ACHD requirements. The proposal was that. t believe the proposal was that it could be either or public or private. These findings are that it is going to be public streets. Now my concern is is they are public how does that affect the overall proposal. Because the proposal that we saw had non-standard ACHD streets. Johnson: What we are saying is that is our recommendation to the City Council. There will be an opportunity for the applicant to respond to that at the City Council hearing. But it is the consensus of this Commission, their recommendation is that these streets be public and that is the message we are sending forth. But it would affect things that would have to be addressed. Is there anything else? Entertain a motion for approval of findings of fact. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move. the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact. Shearer: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Oslund -Yea, Shearer -Yea, MacCoy -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any recommendation you would like to pass onto City Council at this time? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby Y ~ ~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 5 recommend that this application be approved under the conditions stated above in these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Any ultimate approval should be subject to all City ordinances. Specifically including design review and plat approval under the procedures of the subdivision and development ordinance. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHFORD SUBDIVISION NO. 2(FORMERLY JAMES PLACE) BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION; TABLED JANUARY 9, 1996: Johnson: What would you like to do with the preliminary plat? Hepper: Discussion? If we change the road widths to public than that is going to change some of the potentially some of the layouts or some of the setbacks. I am wondering if, would any of that be considered a significant change? Johnson: It is possible. Shearer: I think the sidewalks were the only thing not up to standard weren't. We only had sidewalk on one side. Johnson: Sidewalk on one side five feet wide. Oslund: They had 29 feet for roadway. However, part of their proposal what that they include a security gate at the entrance and if these were public streets that couldn't occur. (Discussion Inaudible) Oslund: I jumped to the next application. Johnson: Any other discussion? What would you like to do with this preliminary plat. We need some kind of motion. Hepper: It seems that we had some discussion last time about square footages of the houses. t ~ MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: FEBRUARY 13.1996 APPLICANT: BRIGHTON CORPORATION AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 4 8~ 5 REQUEST: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 74 UNIT PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDMSION NO 2 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: COMMENTS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OFLAW ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: ~ ~ ~7- ~° ~~~ ~~~ c ~~ ~ ~~` ~J wF~ ~~ ~~~~~ OTHER: IL~~I~C~~ All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: JANUARY 9.7996 APPLICANT: BRIGHTON CORPORATION AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 6 & 7 REQUEST: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 74 UNIT PUD AND A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR JAMES PLACE AT ASHFORD SUBDMSION (ASHFORD SUBDMSION N0.2) AG N Y COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: 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: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~. t • • t~c~u DEC 1 2 1~5 December 12, 1995 Ct1Y OF A~tERIDUN Subject: Ashford Greens No. 2 (formerly James Place at Ashford) On December 20, 1994, the Meridian City Council approved a conditional use permit for Ashford Greens, a residential Planned Unit Development with 438 dwelling units. The proposed project included the majority of property for the 9-hole expansion of the Cherry Lane Golf Course. In addition to single family lots, two "medium" density parcels were approved for future project submissions at densities of up to 8 dwellings per acre. The proposed density has changed since the project was first submitted in May, 1994: Original As Revised by sub itta approved Ashford 2 single family lots 228 222 222 medium density units 21 ~ 6 174 total 444 438 396 density calculation 3.59 DU/ac 3.55 DU/ac 3.20 DU/ac @ 123.55 acres The Proposal -Ashford Greens No. 2 • 74 detached single-family dwellings on a 15.1 acre parcel lying south of the collector roadway leading to the proposed clubhouse area of the Cherry Lane Golf Course which "frames" the other 3 sides of the parcel. • The parcel was approved conceptually for up to 8 dwelling units per acre. The actual density as submitted is 4.9 DU's/acre, a reduction from 116 dwellings to 74. Exceptions Required In her 12/8/95 Memo to the Commission, Shari Stiles noted all of the exceptions that may specifically be granted under the provisions of Section 9-607 E of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance, including: • minimum lot sizes • lot frontages • roadway widths (Note: Public Streets are proposed to be constructed to ACHD standards at 29 feet back-to-back with a detached, meandering S foot sidewalk on one side only; right-of--way • • width for the loop street is S feet narrower than standard. ACHD has not yet had a formal opportunity to review the project.) • private drives/lots not fronting on roadway [Noce: 231ors do nor have roadway frontage. They are accessible by private driveways which will be platted Iots.J • parklrig areas [Note: Each dwelling has a two car garage with a standard two-car driveway; additional guest parking is provided throughout the project.) • ditches remairiing open [Note: The waterway shown on the project architect's Illustrative Site Plan is a "dry" creek bed, part of the site amenity and landscape plan and may be included in the site drainage system. All irrigation ditches will be tiled in accordance with City standards.) • 5 foot sidewalks on both sides [Addressed above under roadway widths.) • Setbacks [Note: Proposed setbacks vary from Ciry standards as detailed on the project architect's Technical Site Plan. They are essential to the cluster character of the dwellings and zero-lot-line side yard use and enjoyment.) The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council also have the authority per the ordinance citation in Shari's Memo to approve exceptions to "bulk" which, according to the City Zoning Ordinance, includes building size. Apparently, the city has not exercised that authority through the Planned Development process. You are requested to do so for this project which is clearly intended to offer alife-style alternative to the single-family home owner both in the size of the lot and also in the size of the dwelling itself. Five floor plans have been developed by the project architect--one of which necessitates an exception from the 1,400 square foot requirements of the R-4 zone: Plan 1 one-story 1,225 square feet Plan 2 one-story 1,425 square feet Plan 3 two-story 1,640 square feet Plan 4 two-story 1,721 to 1,836 square feet Plan 5 two-story 1,881 square feet The purchasers of the lots will have the choice of dwelling size. There is no way to determine what the dwelling mix will be at this time. But we ask the City not to preclude an individual or empty-nest couple from making a choice that is appropriate to their need. This exception will not apply to other areas of Ashford Greens--only to this self- contained, island enclave. The cost of the additional square footage (from 1,225 to 1,400) could range from $15,000 to $20,000--a substantial difference in the market range for what may be the retirement home for some of the residents. ~~ ~ ~~~ a~ pao~ysy .gyp ~~ I -~ ~~ x~a i~ a~~~d saute( ~~ fy~ :Z ;U N .F W = W H N Q N W 0 i U ~ .4 _-_ Ir / v f. / _ , ` a e°' ~_ ,lfyr v ~ I n ~11 11~ ~_~__ _ _ _ _.. _ _ I.. __ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ,, ~ ,Ir ,, .~ ~\ J ~ ,I //y ~6 ~;~ 1 ~- ` ~ r ~J ~ f .f ~.. ~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ / ~ ~~; .~/r Ali ~ 1I ' I L __ ~~~ y` Q~ ~~ W // , 1 / .Fy.) ~ I 11 ill 11~ ^-___ ~ V/`_ ~ ~/ ~ 1 ~ ,~ _ (~ ~ Z H U W H W W F J U° a ' ~H os - ~._ ;' ,, -„ I~i ~ r~ '"pro ., _~ L ' i ';~_ ~ _ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ s~ls ?~~ aO~~ ~n"~ E LL~ lg f\ g; ~/ ~y1s ~ a ~ ~~) iir___~~ _~ _ '~ ~~~ r ~i~'. ~j r; ~ ;~/~ ~~~ , ~I ,11 ~ _ - ~ i~ _ - ,~` ~~6 Lip --' ~ - r~ ~ ,~ ~ S~Q' . ~1` ~_ __ , „b, ¢ _~~ ~ , ~ ~.1I ,il ', 1 •^e`'~ S s ~o ~~ N •~ ii. V Q W o 7 F QOO J C7 Z J m J a~ U ;~ a~ ~~ nF ~s a~ &X R3 ~~£yEE~gs~ ~~N~~ ~gE m ~a~~ ~ ~ mE O Q 0 z Z W a O `' Boa"° .~°'i ~%. ~I ~ O~ o<< ~~ ' ^~ ~ &i~ s ^'P~a ~~, ~ -_-~- `~ __=' / ~ i~ _ ' ~ ~y 'j''u~' / ;~, ,, ~ ~;~ '~~, 1 ~, ~ 1r ~~ --~ '~: tip ~ 1~ ~ ... 'b ~ ~~ _ Sua~ p~o,~s~ ,E~ a ~~ ~ d s a uui( . ~: \" W `.,! ~ d i j z °' a ~~ :,a ~;! .~ ~~ ..' ~. p ,f::~~ . ~. m e o o ~ A w a~ a Z N ~i A ~~ W r~ Li, O MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: DECEMBER 12.1995 APPLICANT: BRIGHTON CORPORATION AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 12 REQUEST: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR JAMES PLACE AT ASHFORD GREENS SUBDMSION 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: OTHER: COMMENTS "REVIEWED" n / 3EE ATTACHED COMMENTS /~' p U ~~ C-~'7 ~ SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS Ail Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~ ~ 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 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 June 18, 1996, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Brighton Corporation, for reconsideration of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law for a Conditional Use Permit for land located in the W 1 /2 of Section 3, T.3N, R.1 W, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located East of Black Cat Road, North of Cherry Lane. The Application requests a Conditional Use Permit fora 74 unit PUD with detached single family dwellings at a density of 4.87 D.U./acre. 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 30th day of May, 1996. WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., I CLERK OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, J-., Clty Clerk JANICE L. GABS, Clty Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Enplnaer BRUCE D. STUART, WatN Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Watsr Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI S. STILES, P b Z Adm. KENNETH W. BOWERS, FlrsChlef W. L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attomsy MEMORANDUM ~UB OF TREASURE VALLEY COUNCIL MEM9ERS A Good Place to Live RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON CITY OF 1VIEIZIDLAN ROBERT D. CORRIE WALTW.MORROW P i Z COMMISSION 33 EAST IDAHO JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 M M 8 ~RER Phone (208) 888433 • FAX (208) 887813 CHARLIE ROUNTREE Public Works/Building Department (206)887-2211 TIM HEPPER GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor To: City Staff and Public Agencies ~{~~ '~D From: City Clerk's office N O V 2 2 1995 Date: November 22, 1995 CITY OF ~IERIDIA~ RE: James Place at Ashford Greens Application Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit Attached are some supplemental materials for your review for the Planning & Zoning meeting on December 12, 1995. • .ARCHITECTURE PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING DOWrTING THORPE I~ JAMES PLACE AT ASHFORD GREENS CONCEPT STATEMENT: James Place is a 15-acre parcel within the Planned Residential Community of Ashford Greens, in Meridian, Idaho. Surrounded on three sides by the Cherry Lane Golf Course, this neighborhood offers both desirable amenities and handsomely designed residence's making James Place a unique addition to the Ashford Greens Community. James Place features small-lot single-family homes, designed for active, adult families. The houses are clustered around cul-de-sacs and meaningful common open-space amenities. Green belts extend throughout the development providing pedestrian and golf cart access to West Ashford Boulevard and east to the golf course club house. Additionally, "windows" to the golf course and lakes are opened-up at key points to enhance the view of the amenities each time a homeowner drives or walks through the neighborhood. This .carefully designed site plan incorporates "patio home" architecture that is an integral part of the success of this community. Indoor views and outdoor spaces off the patio are expanded five feet beyond the property line (with a "use easement") to the adjacent wall of the neighbors house. This wall is mostly without windows and allows each home maximum privacy. As a new community with distinctive amenities and lifestyle housing, James Place will surely become a special addition to the residential opportunities at Ashford Greens. s:\wp\miscproj.a-h\ashjames.plc 1881 Ninth Street, Suite 103 Boulder. Colorado 80302 303.443-7533 Fax 303-443-7534 `,\~ ENGriyF~~ `' ~ `~ RUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC. < 9550 Bethel Court ^ Boise, Idaho 83709 208/322-8992 ^ Fax 2081378-0329 9~0 SURV~~O~y PROJECT NO. 9524800 NOVEMBER 9 1995 JAMES PLACE AT ASHFORD A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 4, 9, 10 AND THE SAID SECTION 3; THENCE NORTH 00°38'11" EAST, 2651.19 FEET TO THE 1/4 CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 3 AND 4; THENCE NORTH 00°38" 27" EAST, 182.17 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 3 TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 89°21'33" EAST, 536.39 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING (INITIAL POINT). THENCE SOUTH 44°03'20" EAST, 91.36 FEET TO A POINT;. THENCE 408.68 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 350.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 66°54'09", AND A LONG CHORD BEARING SOUTH 77°30'25" EAST, 385.86 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 69°02'30" EAST, 173.69 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE 502.12 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 47°56'57", AND A LONG CHORD BEARING SOUTH 86°59'01" EAST 487.60 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 10°33'50" WEST, 560.21 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 71 °43'34" WEST, 442.46 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 89°13'51" WEST, 540.22 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 16°18'25" EAST, 218.04 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 8°18'10" WEST, 606.45 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 15.10 ACRES MORE OR LESS. PREPARED BY: NUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC. 4431 ~~, i ~ -9-9so O 9TF O F \~P~ ~~RRY p~~~~ DTP/VW/1055.DES D. TERRY PEUGH, P.L.S. `\~ ENG~;yF~~ `' ~ `~ RUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC. ,r a 9550 Bethel Court ^ Boise, Idaho 83709 2081322-8992 ^ Fax 2081378-0329 PROJECT NO. 9524800 NOVEMBER 9 1995 JAMES PLACE AT ASHFORD A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 4, 9, 10 AND THE SAID SECTION 3; THENCE NORTH 00°38'11" EAST, 2651.19 FEET TO THE 1/4 CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 3 AND 4; THENCE NORTH 00°38"27" EAST, 182.17 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 3 TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 89°21'33" EAST, 536.39 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING (INITIAL POINT). THENCE SOUTH 44°03'20" EAST, 91.36 FEET TO A POINT;. THENCE 408.68 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 350.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 66°54'09", AND A LONG CHORD BEARING SOUTH 77°30'25" EAST, 385.86 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 69°02'30" EAST, 173.69 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE 502.12 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 47°56'57", AND A LONG CHORD BEARING SOUTH 86°59'01" EAST 487.60 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 10°33'50" WEST, 560.21 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 71 °43'34" WEST, 442.46 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 89°13'51" WEST, 540.22 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 16°18'25" EAST, 218.04 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 8°18'10" WEST, 606.45 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 15.10 ACRES MORE OR LESS. PREPARED BY: NUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC. 4431 ~~,<< -9-9~ o O 9rE of ~~~G~ ~RRY P~ DTP/VW/1055.DES D. TERRY PEUGH, P.L.S. RT of o~e.~u. RT ~~~ ~ ~~ RT i _1 1 ~~~ -.-1- - - t~~ ~s~ fir, RT ~_ ~, ;' .. -- RT • EXH•IBIT• "A" • '~/~t-\"\ RUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC. 9~I ~ ~ Jy J 9550 Bethel Court ^ Bolse, Idaho 83709 2081322-8992 ^ Fax 2081378.0329 Project No. 93082 January 13, 1995 Ashford Greens Golf Course ~ CORRECTED CHERRY LANE GOLF COURSE PARCEL (BOUNDARY REVISED AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OMITTED) A portion of SW1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the corner common to Sections 4, 9, 10 and the said Section 3; thence North 0°38'11" East, 2651.19 feet to the quarter corner common to said sections 3 and 4 as same was reestablished by LS 972 (CP & F Instrument No. 7852146, records of Ada County, Idaho); from which the Northwest corner of said Section 3 bears North 0°38'27" East, 2697.49 feet; thence North 0 ° 38'27" East 22.64 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence South 88°55'31" East, 379.53 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence North 5°39'31" East, 290.28 feet to a point; thence 46.45 feet along the arc of anon-tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 250.00 feet, a central angle of 10°38'46", and a long chord bearing South 49°22'43" East, 46.39 feet to a point; thence South 44°03'20" East, 136.41 feet to a point; . thence South 8°18'10"East, 165.80 feet to a point; thence North 88°55'31"West, 182.65 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 0.82 acres, more or less. AND ALSO: A portion of Government Lot 4 and the SW1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the corner common to Sections 4, 9, 10 and the said Section 3; thence North 0°38'11" East, 2651..19 feet to the quarter corner common to said sections 3 and 4 as same was reestablished by LS 972 (CP & F Instrument No. 7852146, records of Ada County, Idaho); from which the Northwest corner of said Section 3 bears North 0 ° 38'27" East, 2697.49 feet; thence North 0 ° 38'27" East 22.64 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence South 88°55'31" East, 834.71 feet to a point; thence North 1°04'29" East, 77.45 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. • ~ Page 1 of 6 • • Thence 199.31 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a ra ws o feet, a central angle of 42°17'41" and a long chord bearing North 65°12'11: West, 19.4.81 feet to a point; thence North 44°03'20" West, 198.06 feet to a point; thence North 3 ~ 8'05" East, 125.90 feet to a point; thence North 4°26'20" West, 178.94 feet to a point; thence North 49 ° 13'43" West, 619.18 feet to a point; thence North 89°21'33" West, 39.72 feet to a point; thence North 0°38'27" East, 178.61 feet to a point; thence South 89°21'33" East, 104.94 feet to a point; thence North 26°46'55" East, 463.73 feet to a point; thence North 13°05'08" East, 186.18 feet to a point; thence South 89°23'04" East, 221.37 feet to a point; thence South 0 ° 36'56" West; 30:00 feet to a point; ' thence North 89°23'04" West,.114.43 feet to.a point; ~.... thence South 10°38'11" West, 162.48 feet to a point; thence South 5 ° 36'09" East, 160.95 feet to a point; .. . thence South 48°58'55" West, 66.41 feet to a point; thence South 10°49'04" West, 123.62 feet to a point; thence South 12°00'00" East, 85.00 feet to.a point; thence South 53°26'21" East, 142.60 feet to a point; thence South 6 ° 51'51" West, 151.05 feet to a point; thence South 41 ° 14'14" East, 171.06 feet to a point; thence South 89 ° 12'26" East, 122.33 feet to a point; thence South 43 ° 03'05" East, 60.00 feet to a point; Page 2 of 6 ~~ • thence South 0°36'15" West, 671.50 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 10.64 acres, more or less. AND ALSO: A portion of the NW1/4 of Section 3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the corner common to Sections 4, 9, 10 and'tiae said Section 3; thence North 0°38'11" East, 2651.19 feet to the quarter corner common to said sections 3 and 4 as same was reestablished by LS 972 (CP & F Instrument No. 7852146, records of Ada County, Idaho); from which the Northwest corner of said Section 3 bears North 0°38'27" East, 2697.49 feet; thence North 0°38'27" East 22.64 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence South 88°55'31" East, 1784.61 feet to a point; thence North 1°04'29" East, 303.15 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence North 66°28'40" West, 157.70 feet to a point; thence North 56°56'39" West, 717.37 feet to~~a point; thence North 89°23'44" West, 36.12 feet to a point; .. thence North-0°36'28" East, 5.00 feet to-a point;•~..•:~~.• thence 154.59 feet along the arc of anon-tangent .curve to the : left, ~~~having a.... radius of 225.00 feet, a central angle .of 39°22'00", and"a:long. chord. bearing North - . 19°04'45" West; 151.57 fe~erto a point; . thence North 38°45'45" West, 39.00 feet to a point;. thence North 51 ° 14'15" East, 110.00 feet to a point;. thence North 26° 11'31"West, 134.78 feet to a-point; thence North 4°04'20" West, 277.45 feet to a point; thence North 31°46'35" West, 241.56 feet to a point; thence North 0°36'56" East, 132.59 feet to a point; thence North 89°23'04" West, 110.00 feet to a point; thence North 0 ° 36'56" East, 30.00 feet to a point; thence South 89°23'04" East, 175.94 feet to a point; thence South 78 ° 05'29" East, 71.13 feet to a point; Page 3 of 6 • - • thence South 63°13'16" East, 65.34 feet to a point; thence South 56°28'32" East,,79.07 feet to a point; thence South 53 ° 15'09" East, 86.07 feet to a point; thence South 42 ° 31' 18" East, 70.53 feet to a point; thence South 35°28'22" East, 77.08 feet to a point; thence South 5°49'06" East, 249.89 feet to a point; thence South 8 ° 16'07" East, 125.42 feet to a point; thence South 13°56'20" East, 266.06 feet to a point; thence South 42°43'29" East, 283.07 feet to a point; thence North 61°49'13" East, 165.37 feet to a point; thence North 11 ° 00'42" West, 399.24 feet to a point; thence South 89° 18'49" East, 398.40 feet to a point;• ~ • - - thence South 79°02'15" East, 61.16 feet to a point; thence South 60°40'15" East, 164.39 feet to a point; thence. South 85 ° 10' 18" East, 136.30 feet to a point; thence South 0°30'15" West, 235.93 feet to a point; thence North 89°29'45" West, 80.00 feet to a point; thence South 78°33'49" West, 182.71 feet to a point; thence South 11°45'15" West, 185.77 feet to a point; thence South 0°30'15" West, 154.10 feet to a point; thence 288.86 feet along the arc of anon-tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 425.00 feet, a central angle of 38°56'31", and a long chord bearing South 63°04'11" West, 283.33 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 19.29 acres, more or less. Page 4 of 6 ': .. ~ • AND ALSO: . A portion of the SE1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the corner common to .Sections 4, 9, 10 and the said Section 3; thence North 0°38'11" East, 2651.19 feet to the quarter corner common to said sections 3 and 4 as same was reestablished by LS 972 (CP & F Instrument No. 7852146, records of Ada County, Idaho); from which the~lorthwest corner of said Section 3 bears North 0°38'27" East, 2697.49 feet; thence North 0°38'27" East 22.64 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence South 88°55'31" East, 1614.53 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence North 10 ° 33'50" East, 72.37 feet to a point; thence 129.52 feet along the arc of anon-tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 600.00 feet, a central angle of 12°22'07", and a long chord bearing South 56°49'29" East, 129.27 feet to a point; thence South 50°38'25" East, 4.33 feet to a point; thence North 88°55'31" West, 124.84 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 0.11 acre, more or less. AND ALSO: A portion of the SE1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the corner common to Sections 4, 9, 10 and the said Section 3; thence North 0°38'11" East, 2651.19 feet to the quarter comer common to said sections 3 and 4 as same was reestablished by LS 97'2 (CP & F Instrument No. 7852146, records of Ada County, Idaho); from which the Northwest corner of said Section 3 bears North 0°38'27" East, 2697.49 feet; thence North 0°38'27" East 22.64 feet to a 518" iron pin; thence South 88°55'31" East, 1977.72 feet to a 5/8" iron pin and the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence North 88°55'31" West, 109.62 feet to a point; thence 11.06 feet along the arc of anon-tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 249.75 feet, a central angle of 2°32'16", and a long chord bearing North 49°22'17" West, 11.06 feet to a point; thence North 50 ° 38'25" West, 94.32 feet to a point; thence 60.45 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 680.00 feet, a central angle of 5°05'36",and a long chord bearing North 53°11'13"West, 60.43 feet to a point; Page 5 of 6 • • thence 30.13 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 20.00 feet, a central angle of 86°18'51",and a long chord bearing North 12°34'36"West, 27.36 feet to a point; thence North 30°34'50" East, 84.13 feet to a point; thence 269.77 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 375.00 feet, a central angle o~41 ° 13'04", and a long chord bearing North 51 ° 11'21" East, 263.99 feet to a point; thence South 0°30'15" West, 369.89 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 1.42 acres, more or less. The above described parcels containing a total of 32.28 acres. Prepared by: NUBBLE ENGI ~-, `4431' J},II69syp. ~. ~ DTP/vw/des.734 ING, INC. ~.;_ D. Terry Peugh, P.L.S. Page 6 of 6 ~`,\~ ENGlIyF~~~ ~ • RUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC. ~ 9550 Bethel Court ^ Boise, Idaho 83709 208/322-8992 ^ Fax 208/378-0329 y 9~'O SURVEr~Q PROJECT NO. 9524800 NOVEMBER 9 1995 JAMES PLACE AT ASHFORD A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 4, 9, 10 AND THE SAID SECTION 3; THENCE NORTH 00°38'11" EAST, 2651.19 FEET TO THE 1/4 CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 3 AND 4; THENCE NORTH 00°38"27" EAST, 182.17 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 3 TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 89°21'33" EAST, 536.39 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING (INITIAL POINT). THENCE SOUTH 44°03'20" EAST, 91.36 FEET TO A POINT;. THENCE 408.68 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 350.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 66°54'09", AND A LONG CHORD BEARING SOUTH 77°30'25" EAST, 385.86 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 69°02'30" EAST, 173.69 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE 502.12 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 47°56'57", AND A LONG CHORD BEARING SOUTH 86°59'01" EAST 487.60 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 10°33'50" WEST, 560.21 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 71°43'34" WEST, 442:46 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 89°13'51" WEST, 540.22 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 16°18'25" EAST, 218.04 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 8°18'10" WEST, 606.45 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 15.10 ACRES MORE OR LESS. PREPARED BY: NUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC. ' 4431 ~~, < < -9-9~ a o ~ of ~~~~•~ ~RRY PE/ DTP/VW/1055.DES D. TERRY PEUGH, P.L.S. ~UB OF TREASURE VALLEY OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, Jr., Clty Clerk JANICE L GABS, Clty Troasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. Clty Enplnser BRUCE 0.3TUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Wasta Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parke Supt. SHARI S. STILES, P ti 2 Adm. KENNETH W. BOWERS, Flro Chlef W. L "BILL" GORDON, Pollee Chlet WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney 33 EAST IDAHO IviERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 _ _ Phone (208) 886433 • FAX (206) 867813 ~~ ~;, ~~'~,~ ,~ Public Works/Building Department(208)687-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRtE wAU w. MORROW P ~ Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, CAalrman MOE AUDJANI JIM SHEARER CHARUEROUNTREE TIM HEPPER Q Y 2 ~ ~~~~ CITY Oi=" ~~~i~l~~ 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: nR~gmber 5 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 11/20/95 HEARING DATE: 1ZNTJlS REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for James Place at Asford Subdivision BY: Bri ton Co-Iporation LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: East of Blac Cat Road and North of C er ~ ane JIM JOHNSON, P2 MOE ALIDJANI, P2 JIM SHEARER, P2 CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z TIM HEPPER, P2 GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C MAX YERRINGTON, 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 8~ FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8 FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDLAN • • ARCHITECTURE PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING DOWNING THORPE J~Es JAMES PLACE AT ASHFORD GREENS CONCEPT STATEMENT: James Place is a 15-acre parcel within the Planned Residential Community of Ashford Greens, in Meridian, Idaho. Surrounded on three sides by the Cherry Lane Golf Course, this neighborhood offers both desirable amenities and handsomely designed residence's making James Place a unique addition to the Ashford Greens Community. James Place features small-lot single-family homes, designed for active, adult families. The houses are clustered around cul-de-sacs and meaningful common open-space amenities. Green belts extend throughout the development providing pedestrian and golf cart access to West Ashford Boulevard and east to the golf course club house. Additionally, "windows" to the golf course and lakes are opened-up at key points to enhance the view of the amenities each time a homeowner drives or walks through the neighborhood. This ,carefully designed site plan incorporates "patio home" architecture that is an integral part of the success of this community. Indoor views and outdoor spaces off the patio are expanded five feet beyond the property line (with a "use easement"1 to the adjacent wall of the neighbors house. This wall is mostly without windows and allows each home maximum privacy. As a new community with distinctive amenities and lifestyle housing, James Place will surely become a special addition to the residential opportunities at Ashford Greens. s:\wp\miscproj.a-h\ashjames.plc 1881 Ninth Street, Suite 103 Boulder, Colorado 80302 303-443-7533 Fax 303-443-7534 ,~.,- ~,, ~_ ~i • • RUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC. 9550 Bethel Court ^ Boise, Idaho 83709 208/322-8992 ^ Fax 2081378-0329 PROJECT NO. 9524800 NOVEMBER 9 1995 JAMES PLACE AT ASHFORD A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 4, 9, 10 AND THE SAID SECTION 3; THENCE NORTH 00°38'11" EAST, 2651.19 FEET TO THE 1/4 CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 3 AND 4; THENCE NORTH 00°38" 27" EAST, 182.17 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 3 TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 89°21'33" EAST, 536.39 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING (INITIAL POINT). THENCE SOUTH 44°03'20" EAST, 91.36 FEET TO A POINT;. THENCE 408.68 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 350.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 66°54'09", AND A LONG CHORD BEARING SOUTH 77°30'25" EAST, 385.86 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 69°02'30" EAST, 173.69 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE 502.12 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 47°56'57", AND A LONG CHORD BEARING SOUTH 86°59'01" EAST 487.60 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 10°33'50" WEST, 560.21 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 71 °43'34" WEST, 442.46 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 89°13'51" WEST, 540.22 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 16°18'25" EAST, 218.04 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 8°18'10" WEST, 606.45 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 15.10 ACRES MORE OR LESS. PREPARED BY: NUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC. ~. 0 ~ a 4431 ~~,<< -9-9~ o O 9TF 0 F ~~P~~ ~RRY PEV~ DTP/VW/1055.DES D. TERRY PEUGH, P.L.S. r CITY OF MERIDIAN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NAME: Brighton Corporation PHONE: 378-4000 ADDRESS: 12301 W Explorer Dr Suite 200 Boise ID 83713 GENERAL LOCATION: N Blackcat Road between Cherry Lane and Ustick Road DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: A 74-unit PUD with detached sin lg e-family dwellings at a density of 4 87 D U /Acre ZONING CLASSIFICATION: R-4/PUD PLAN: A plan of the proposed site for the conditional use showing the location of all buildings, parking and loading areas, traffic access and traffic circulation, open spaces, landscaping, refuse and service areas, utilities, signs and yards (submit 35 copies). I certify that the information contained herein is true and correct. ~~~ ~ O y~ Signature of Applicant Social Security Number ~~' _ OoZ. 5~~'d~.3~ 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 Brighton Corporation for the property generally described as located at Blackcat Road north of Cherry Lane in the Ashford Greens SUBDIVISION, BLOCK N/A ,LOT N/A TO develop 74 detached single-family dwellings on platted lots in a PUD. L~ Bri hton g Corporation November 15, 1995 Meridian City Planning Commission Meridian, ID 83642 SUBJECT: JAMES PLACE AT ASHFORD GREENS The accompanying application for conditional use permit and preliminary plat approval presents the first of two `medium density" parcels approved in the Ashford Green PUD subject to a specific development plan. PROPOSAL • 74 detached single-family dwellings on 15.2 acres at a density of 4.87 dwellings per acre. • Public Streets with a waiver of requirements for sidewalks on both sides in favor of an internal pedestrian system with sidewalk on at least one side of the street. • Narrower right-of-waywith ACRD standard 29 ft. back-to-back section. • Parking pods for guests scattered throughout. • Private access drive parcels for some lots. • Waiver of set back provisions as noted by the architectural site plan. • Dwellings ranging from 1,200 square feet and above. • Granting of use easements to adjacent lots in a "zero-lot-line" configuration. NARRATIVE In December 1994, the City Council approved two medium density parcels for up to eight (8) units per acre subject to specific future application for a detailed project and site plan. "James Place at Ashford Greens" offers the opportunity for alife-style choice--smaller dwellings in a clustered configuration with open space and homeowner association- maintained common areas. 12301 W. Explorer Drive, Suite 200 Boise, Idaho 83713 TEL 208-378-4000 FAX 208-377-8962 ~ ~ At 4.87 units per acre, the proposal is substantially below the overall density allowance approved by the City Council. The project will be an "enclave", surrounded on three sides by golf course. The interior open spaces provide a physical and visual connection to golf course open space and water amenities. The single-family character of the project will fit well with the Ashford Greens and Cherry Lane Golf Course "community". . COMMENTS • Brighton agrees to comply with Meridian City rates and fees for services as required. • The property will be posted one week prior to the hearing. • .The information submitted in the joint conditional use and preliminary plat applications is true and correct. BY: David W. Turnbull, Presi ent DATE: // • /7.45 STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) ON THIS 15th day of November, 1995, before me a notary public in and or said State, personally appeared DAVID W. TLTRNBULL known to me to be the President of the corporation that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set me hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. ~~•a•`'R"`w •••, My Notary Commis ' Expires 6/28/2001 ~.•~~ ••••sAn°m~ (~t/ • :* AUBLZG ~* Nota Publi for Idaho ~j ~• Residing at Boise, Idaho ~'•.,~J.!?!•...... ~,~~•.•'~ •.,. 8 OF 19_..x•' • James Place at Ashford Subdivision In compliance with the conditions for submittal of a Conditional Use Permit application: 5. The description of existing use for the subject property is undeveloped land. 6. The present use of the subject property is undeveloped land. ~' RUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC. ~ y 9550 Bethel Court ^ Boise, Idaho 83709 2081322-8992 ^ Fax 2081378-0329 9~O SURVE~~Q PROJECT NO. 9524800 NOVEMBER 9 1995 JAMES PLACE AT ASHFORD A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 4, 9, 10 AND THE SAID SECTION 3; THENCE NORTH 00°38'11" EAST, 2651.19 FEET TO THE 1/4 CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 3 AND 4; THENCE NORTH 00°38" 27" EAST, 182.17 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 3 TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 89°21'33" EAST, 536.39 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING (INITIAL POINT). THENCE SOUTH 44°03'20" EAST, 91.36 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE 408.68 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 350.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 66°54'09", AND A LONG CHORD BEARING SOUTH 77°30'25" EAST, 385.86 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 69°02'30" EAST, 173.69 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE 502.12 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 47°56'57", AND A LONG CHORD BEARING SOUTH 86°59'01" EAST 487.60 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 10°33'50" WEST, 560.21 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 71°43'34" WEST, 442.46 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 89°13'51" WEST, 540.22 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 16°18'25" EAST, 218.04 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 8°18'10" WEST, 606.45 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 15.10 ACRES MORE OR LESS. PREPARED BY: NUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC. 431 ° 4, ~q~F O F ~~ ~G~ ~~RRY Pti DTP/VW/1055.DES D. TERRY PEUGH, P.L.S. I.-'..- • • EXCHANGE WARRANTY DEED THIS EXCHANGE WARRANTY DEED this ~!~day of November, 1993, between HAROLD E. THOMAS and PHYLLIS S. THOMAS, husband and wife ("Grantors"), and BOISE RESEARCH CENTER, INC., an Idaho Corporation ("Grantee"), whose address is 12301 W. Explorer Dr., Suite 200, Boise, Idaho 83704; WITN ESSETH: The Grantors, for and in consideration of the conveyance by the Grantee to the Grantors of certain real property by an Exchange Warranty Deed of even date herewith, and other good and valuable consideration, to them in hand paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the Grantee, and to its successors and assigns forever, all of the following described real property situate in the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit: Real property described on "Exhibit A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. SUBJECT TO: 1. General taxes for the. year 1993 and subsequent years. 2. Non-delinquent special assessments for the City of Meridian, if any. 3. Non-delinquent liens and assessments of Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, and the rights and powers of said District as by law provided. 4. Rights and claims in and to that portion of the real property lying within the rights-of-way of ditches, canals and/or laterals. 5. Easement in favor of Goifview Associates, a Umited Partnership, recorded June 19, 1992, as Instrument N~ 9240406, records of Ada County, Idaho. 6. Matters disclosed by R cord of Survey recorded January 13, 1993, as Instrument Np~9303162, records of Ada County, Idaho. 7. Rights of tenant(s) in possession. TOGETHER WITH all and singular the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, including any and all water rights, easements, rights-of-way, and ail improvements located thereon; the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof; EXCHANGE WARRANTY DEED - 1 .. '- ~ ~ • and all estate, right, title and interest in and to the said real property, as well in law as in equity, of the said Grantors. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD all and singular the above-described real property, together with the appurtenances unto the said Grantee, and to its successors and assigns forever, and the Grantors, and its heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns, do hereby covenant to and with the said Grantee and its successors and assigns, that the Grantors are the owners in fee simple of said real property; that said real property is free from all encumbrances except as may be otherwise expressly specified herein; and ,that the Grantors will warrant and defend said real property from all lawful claims whatsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, .the Grantors has hereunto set their hands and seals as of the day and year first above written. H ROLD E. THO AS ~. PHYLLI S. THOMAS STATE OF IDAHO ) ss: County of Ada ) On this ~ day of 1993, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said fate, personally appeared HAROLD E. THOMAS and PHYLLIS S. THOMAS, husband and wife, known or identified to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged io me that they executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. .. ~. ~% .~•' ~~,. . '. ~ , ,. EXCHANGE WARRANTY DEED - 2 :~ "~ EXHIBIT A (Description of Subject Property) A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE PORTIONS OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER ANO THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, Pn~SE-MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO AND MORE PP.!?71CULARLY DESCRIBE'? AS '-OLLOWS: BEGINNING A7 THE BRASS CAP MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SAID SOUTHWEST OUARTER OF SECTION 3; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREE 38'01" EAST A DISTANCE OF 2,181.88 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, WHICH IS ALSO THE CENTERLINE OF BLACK CAT ROAD, TO A POINT,.ALSO~SAID POINT BEING THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 0 DEGREE 38'01" EAST A DISTANCE OF 469.28 FEET ALONG THE SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3 TO A BRASS CAP MARKING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREE 38'27' EAST A DISTANCE OF 22.72 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE SAID NORTHWEST OUARTER OF SECTION 3 TO AN IRON PIN; THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 55'29" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1,977.76 FEET TO AN IRON PIN; THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREE 30'11' WEST A DISTANCE OF 1,187.78 FEETTO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF THE SAFFORD SUB LATERAL; THENCE NORTH 74 DEGREES 43'44" WEST A DISTANCE OF 46.27 FEET ALONG THE SAID CENTERLINE OF THE SAFFORD SUB LATERAL TO A POINT OF A CURVE; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SAID CENTERLINE OF THE SAFFORD SUB LATERAL ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT" 34.28 FEET SAID CURVE HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28 DEGREES 08'20". A RADIUS OF 69.80 FEET, TANGENTS OF 1'7.49 FEET AND A LONG CHORD OF 33.94 FEET BEARING NORTH 88 DEGREES 47'54' WEST TO A POINT OF TANGENT; THENCE SOUTH 77 DEGREES 07'56" WEST A DISTANCE OF 25.12 FEET ALONG THE SAID CENTERLINE OF THE SAFFORD SUB LATERAL TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 19'47" WEST A DISTANCE OF 573.58 FEET ALONG THE SAID CENTERLINE OF THE SAFFORD SUB LATERAL' TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 18'03" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1;303.70 FEET ALONG THE SAID CENTERLINE OF THE SAFFORD SUB LATERAL TO A POINT ON:THE WEST LINE~OF SAID SECTION 3; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREE 38'01" EAST A DISTANCE OF 703.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN BLACK CAT ROAD RIGHT OF WAY. ENO OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION O ~IOMEER TOITLE C~. AD„ C'J. RECORDER J. DAVID ~;f1~1l~r,fi0 BOISE ID '93 NOU 4 Pfd `f 19 FEE _.~._.._. DLr ~~Q/pf-~~ RECORDED AT THErIE~UEST OF EXHIBIT A ~ .o i V m.,~,-,~'' ~~ • ~ I' v , 1\ ~~r ,~ 81 ~ ~,'° /~ ~ ,~ I ~~' of 44~a 444 ~; j ': ~ 1 ~,\ ~ ~ ~ '+ ~I Pill.. ~r~, n ,_<. ~ N `~ `; SC 1 ICI' I /'~ ~ ~ C ~ ~~ ~ / \ \1 ~ ~ 1 ^~~,. ~ , ~, 1 ~. I Sat C ~~ r 1 s ~, J ~^ ~ ~ ~ ~4 v / { ~i ~ v .~ ~. ~~ m~~ ~ C ~\ ~~1 ,~C I 1 N-~ \ ~ a C.; q~ b Nm~ , ~,_~ Q r r C ;~ c~ \ \} '~ ~ I AI ~I V i ~ x `, ~ .~ (j~ 1 I FX P~~ Igo 1 AJ 1 7 J r„~ ff f ~~b I~ ~I , ~ # v ~€ €_~f ZJk ~ /f j LL` R~- 7 !„ s€ e~ nBP~ I€~ ~ 1 j , Ala a ~~, i ~~~ E ~ ~ - - - ,~ __ s , ;~l~U '' !'r. C ~~ ~ ~ ~ `~ l y %~ ~~'~~ ' '__-- _-- y\ _ ~~ ,\\ ~ ` _ _ ~` 1 ~~ ~ `i,1'1 \ ~ 1 "' N I~ ~ ~ ,~ 1 ~ h N U , I + I y ~~ ~ ~I T _~ L" ~~ ~ ~ ~ '~' ! s ~~ ~~ a ..J / f;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,~ ~~ / ~; ,~ ;' ,,~ ~ ~ ', -~ m r• ~ S .- ~~ ly ~ i ~ 6r ~, 6 1 , - o {~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~q ~ ~~1 n I ' _ ~ ~ R i ~ i .. f C ~ ~ ~~ ~' ~ii g i~ titi l ~€ i:z. 41 ~!G € ~`T~~` ~ ~ ~ ~ E %~ z '`' ~ S _ ~ S p L . ~,. ~~ ~ lir ' t I ~ d ~ IS I ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ E F~ ~ ~~4 J ~ f e , s 4' c `- ~.. ~, ~ _. ~ i ~ ~ ~ ##° I , I' _1 ~C f • ~ ~ E ~ F v £ ~ , ~> ? ~ £ o w ? L _ S J.