HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ - Suthernland Farm HOA Board Letter to Meridian - Easy Jet REV - 10/9
SUTHERLAND FARM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
P.O. Box 191031
Boise, ID 83719-1031
board@sutherlandfarmhoa.org
October 9, 2015
City of Meridian
Attn: City Clerk and Planning Commission
Meridian City Hall, Suite 104
33 E. Broadway Avenue
Meridian, ID 83642
Subject: REVISED EASY JET SUBDIVISION APPLICATION (RZ 15-12, PP 15-016,
CUP 15-017)
Ms. Holman and Planning Commission,
The Board of Directors for the Sutherland Farm HOA respectfully submit their findings
regarding the subject application that will be open for public hearing on October 15,
2015.
Our requests for Easy Jet Subdivision, Rezone and Preliminary Plat are as follows:
1. Rezone application:
Deny the Request, and have the developer build a) office buildings, or reduced size
and density b) condos or town homes, c) multi-family duplexes or four-plexes with a
conditional use permit.
2. Conditional Use Permit: The following options are in order of preference.
Option 1: Condition project to build duplexes, four-plexes, privately owned
condominiums, or town homes
Option 2: Create a “buffer” of town homes directly adjacent to S. Nephrite Way,
where the proposed two story apartment building is located. Limit the two proposed
three story apartments to two stories.
Option 3: Limit the Density of the Multi-Family apartment project to two stories and
48 units which would be a density of 11.57 du/ac.
Limit the Density of the Multi-Family apartment project to two stories with the
maximum allowed density within an R-15 zone of 62 units (14.94 du/ac).
Restrict all residential and office building heights to twenty-five (25) feet at top of
peak.
Have all errors in density and building lots and parking spaces revised within the
application and preliminary plat maps.
Require a minimum 20’ landscape setback and screening buffer along the south
property line. Require that landscape screening match all future building heights with
trees corresponding to the approved height of all buildings.
Require stonework masonry on all sides of the façade of all proposed buildings per
Sutherland Farm ACC standards subject to approval of the ACC committee for
Sutherland Farm HOA.
Restrict multiple separate ownership of individual apartment buildings.
Require that an assessment be made on owners of the proposed residential buildings
per dwelling unit to match existing assessments of Sutherland Farm HOA (currently
$25 per month) to contribute to the maintenance of Sutherland Farm Park and
Pathways which will be utilized by the occupants of the Easy Jet development.
Sincerely,
Board of Directors
Sutherland Farm Homeowners Assoc., Inc.
Attachments: Easy Jet Subdivision Review of Revised Submittal
Architectural Rules and Standards for Sutherland Farm (2 pages)
Exhibit “A”
Exhibit “B”
EASY JET SUBDIVISION REVIEW OF REVISED SUBMITTAL
October 8, 2015
FINDINGS:
1. Revised application of 64 multi-family units still exceed maximum units
for an R-15 on 4.15 acres. (4.15 @ 15 = 62.25 units)
2. Applicant has changed the acreage within the requested L-O zone from
1.25 acres to 1.15 acres. No changes to dimensions or plot plan layout
were noted on the revised submittal. (This could be an error on the
application.)
3. Applicant has changed the acreage within the request R-15 zone from
4.15 acres to 4.25 acres. No changes to dimensions on plot plan layout
were noted on the revised submittal. Also, no revised legal descriptions
of the R-15 and L-O zones were submitted to reflect this change. (It
seems that this discrepancy was made to justify 64 multi -family units
within the R-15 zone: 4.25 @ 15 = 63.75 units.)
4. There is a conflict on the revised submittal cover letter from JUB dated
September 15, 2015. The cover letter states that there will be a reduced
number of lots (from 7 to 6) on the revised application, with the
residential building lots being reduced from four to three. However, on
the revised application, five (5) residential building lots are listed along
with the single (1) common lot and the two (2) non-residential office lots
for a total of eight (8) lots.
5. On the “Residential Project Summary” of the application, the applicant is
still including the Non-Residential portion of the project within the
requested L-O zone as part of the overall gross acreage to determine their
Gross density (5.41 acres @ 11.83 du/ac = 64 dwelling units).
6. The Net Density lists 37.9 du/ac. If this number is not revised, the
planning commission could inadvertently approve 157 -161 multi-family
dwelling units on this four acre parcel. (4.15 @ 37.9 = 157) (4.25 @ 37.9
= 161) To be within the maximum allowed density for an R-15 zone the
maximum approved units should not exceed 62 units. (4.15 @ 14.94
du/ac = 62 units) (4.25 @ 14.59 du/ac = 62 units)
7. There are still no office or maintenance facilities provided for this
project.
8. The revised submittal letter states: “Materials used on the facades of the
buildings will reflect the high-quality aesthetics in the surrounding
neighborhood.” (Is there any stone work on the façade? The submitted
elevations of the multi-family apartment buildings do not reflect any
other decorative facade besides wood siding and two tone paint. The
structures in the surrounding neighborhoods are required to have
stonework per the ACC standards. So we find that the facades of these
apartment buildings DO NOT reflect the high-quality aesthetics in the
surrounding neighborhoods.) SEE ATTACHED ARCHITECTURAL
RULES AND STANDARDS FOR SUTHERLAND FARM
9. The revised cover letter also states: “a 20‟ landscape buffer adjacent to E.
Easy Jet Drive, S. Nephrite Way and the single family property that is
bordering this project to the south.” This comment is not reflected on the
revised preliminary plat and landscape plans. There is not a 20‟
landscape buffer between the two proposed three story apartment
buildings and the properties to the south (Kibby‟s Kennels). There looks
to be an approximate 10‟ landscape buffer shown on the revised
preliminary plan and landscape plans. The other single family residence
directly adjacent on the south to the proposed two story apartment
building (2799 S. Nephrite Way) shows an approximate 34‟ landscape
buffer. We do not want the developer to reduce this buffer to the stated
twenty feet in the future. Also, the landscape buffer of the proposed two
story apartment building along S. Nephrite Way shows an approximate
landscape width of 42‟ from the structure to the existing 6‟ fence. We do
not want the developer to reduce this landscape buffer to the stated
twenty feet in the future.
10. Residential parking required as proposed by the revised project: 48 units
of 2-3 bedrooms requires 96 spaces; 16 units 1 bedroom requires 24
spaces. The parking requirement for the residential portion of the
proposed project totals 120 spaces. The revised preliminary plat lists 131
residential parking spaces, however the actual revised plat shows
approximately 138-139 parking spaces. (The plat available for review
online is not clear.) Fifty parking spaces are provided for both office
buildings as originally proposed.
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS PER THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE “CITY” AND “SUTHERLAND
FARM, INC” ET AL RECORDED DECEMBER 2, 2002.
This Development Agreement is legally binding to the property of the
proposed Easy Jet Subdivision.
1. “No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed
without modification of this Agreement.” “Development of 308 building
lots consisting of 260 single family detached lots, 32 single family
attached lots, 11 office/multiple family lots, and five commercial lots
(north of the canal), and 30 other lots consisting of a 4-acre park/pond, a
30‟ wide pathway adjacent to the Canal, an irrigation lot, tot lots, and
landscaping lots, but the Parks and Recreation Department has requested
that the three remaining lots in the southeast corner be d eleted to allow
for the minimum 5-acre park for a city owned Neighborhood Park.
Development shall be consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan
Generalized Land Use Map which designates the property as Mixed
Residential and Single-Family Residential, and when a detailed CUP is
submitted the applicant shall go through the planned development for the
office uses. However, the commercial uses north of the
Ridenbaugh Canal are not proposed to be part of the PD and shall be
zoned separately.” (There is no mention of these office lots being used
for apartments.)
2. Easy Jet between Eagle Road and S. Nephrite Way was required to be
constructed as a “commercial/industrial roadway” by the Ada County
Highway District. (Does this type of roadway require a larger setback
and landscape berm?) (The City Planning Staff is reviewing this project
as if the proposed project is adjacent to a “local road”.)
3. Easy Jet between S. Nephrite Way and Proud Way was required to be
constructed as a “residential collector with no front-on housing” by the
Ada County Highway District. “Unless otherwise noted, parking shall be
prohibited on these street segments.”
4. “The neighborhood park located in Block 1, Lot 54 shall be far more
functional and appealing as a subdivision amenity if the seven lots in the
southeast corner were eliminated. Four of the seven lots have been
deleted, and therefore, to allow the 5-acre park, the three remaining lots
in the southeast corner shall need to be deleted. This would expand the
visibility corridor and increase the park size to approximately 5 acres.
The Parks Department has a 5-acre minimum for a city owned
Neighborhood Park. If the maintenance costs for the 5-acre private park
were a burden for the homeowners in the future, the Parks Department
would consider maintaining the site if it was deeded to the City. (This is
not a guarantee by the City to maintain the park, they “would consider”
maintaining the park. Also, the city, by this statement, is recognizing that
there are maintenance costs for the park and it is a burden on the
homeowners. How is the city going to propose that the submitted
apartment project - which you will see by additional comments posted
further in this discussion - will utilize this park and that the proposed
project is within walking distance of this park. How will the owners of
the apartment buildings help offset maintenance costs by the anticipated
use of their occupants?)
5. “The applicant shall restrict the building of homes on Lots 12, 13 and 14
of Block 9 and Lots 5 and 6 of Block 9, and Block 15, Lots 12, 13 and
19, and Block 16, Lots 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, not to exceed a peak
height of 25‟ or less.” (Precedent: Building heights restricted)
6. “The Memorandum of Understanding, dated June 13, 2002, between the
developer, and Sutherland Farm, Inc. for Sutherland Farm Subdivision,
and Mr. Gale Sasser, pertaining to the design elements for the interface
between the two properties to ensure compatibility, shall be complied
with by Sutherland Farm, Inc. as agreed upon by the two parties.
(Precedent: Design compatibility and interface between two properties.)
7. “An 8 foot cedar fence shall be built along the entire length of the
western and northern property boundaries.” (Precedent: Variance for
installing an 8 foot fence as a buffer between properties at the project
boundary.)
8. “Landscaping shall be extensive with a mixture of evergreen and
deciduous trees and agreed upon between the applicant and adjacent
property owners. (Precedent: To require extensive landscaping, and
require agreement with neighboring property owners.)
9. “The applicant shall increase the rear setback of 30 feet for Lots 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, and 8 of Block 9.” (Precedent: Increasing setback requirements
to insure privacy of neighboring property owners - so that newly
constructed homes would not have a view into the yards of the existing
neighboring homes.) (This same issue should apply for the neighboring
homes of the proposed project.)
10. “Applicant has only submitted a conceptual plan on the office uses to
date, at a later time applicant shall submit a detailed CUP for the planned
development for the office uses.” (No mention of multi-family apartment
project was mentioned in the original development where it is now being
proposed - within the lots designated for office use.)
11. “ZONING: “City” shall, following recordation of the duly approved
Agreement, enact a valid and binding ordinance zoning the “Property” as
specified herein.” (Property is zoned R-4) “This Agreement shall be
enforceable in any court of competent jurisdiction ”
12. “That “Owner/Developer” agrees to abide by all ordinances of the City
of Meridian”
13. “BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding
upon and inure to the benefit of the parties „ respective heirs, successors,
assigns and personal representatives, including “City„s“ corporate
authorities and their successors in office. This Agreement shall be
binding on the owner of the “Property“, each subsequent owner and any
other person acquiring an interest in the “Property“. Nothing herein shall
in any way prevent sale or alienation of the “Property“, or portions
thereof, except that any sale or alienation shall be subject to the
provisions hereof and any successor owner or owners shall be both
benefited and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein.”
14. “The site which lies west of the residential area, and the commercial
general use area to the north, shall require conditional use permits.”
15. “It is also found that the development considerations as referenced in
Finding No. 10 are reasonable to require and must be taken into account,
in order to assure the proposed development is designed, constructed,
operated and maintained in a manner which is harmonious and
appropriate in appearance with the existing, or intended character of the
general vicinity, in order to assure that the proposed use will not change
the essential character of the affected vicinity and will insure that the
proposed uses will not be hazardous or disturbing to the existing, or
future neighboring uses, particularly considering the impact of proposed
development or potential to produce excessive traffic, noise, smoke,
fumes, glare and odors.” (Three (3) story apartment buildings are not
harmonious.)
16. “The subject annexation request and zoning designation and proposed
development relates to and is compatible with the goals and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan of the City as follows: Goals Section Goal 4: To
provide housing opportunities for all economic groups within the
community. Goal 8: To establish compatible and efficient use of land
through the use of innovative and functional site design.” (The finding of
housing opportunities for all economic groups was made without this
property being developed with apartments.) (As proposed in 2002 the
project was found to have compatible and efficient use of land, adding
apartments directly next door to a single family residence and a rural
agriculture property is not a compatible use of land.)
17. “Economic Development 1.3 The character, site improvements and type
of new commercial or industrial developments should be harmonized
with the natural environment and respect the unique needs and features of
each area. 3.1U Approve quality housing projects that meet the needs of
all economic levels. 3.2U Encourage efforts to develop and maintain
quality neighborhood and housing. . .” (As proposed, the apartment
buildings do not reflect quality building materials , only painted siding is
proposed on the submitted elevations, no decorative stonework is
provided.)
18. “Land Use 1.10U Promote the design of attractive roadway entryways
into Meridian which will clearly identify the community. 2.1U Support a
variety of residential categories for the purposes of providing the City
with a range of affordable housing opportunities. 5.9 The integrity and
identity of any adjoining residential neighborhood should be preserved
through the use of buffering techniques, including screen plantings, open
space and other landscaping techniques. 5.14 Because these areas are
near I-84 and Franklin Roads, high-quality visual appearance is essential.
All development proposals in this area will be subject to development
review guidelines and conditional use permitting procedures. (There is
no screen planting or buffering provided between the three story
apartment buildings and the adjacent rural property to the south. The
elevations of the two and three story apartment buildings do not have a
“high quality visual appearance”.)
19. “Promote well-planned and well-designed affordable housing in all
Meridian neighborhoods. (We encourage the planning commission to
place conditions on this project to make sure it is visually attractive and
enhances the neighboring properties. I.e. Placing height restrictions,
increase landscape screening buffers, requiring high quality stone
facades, reducing the proposed density, scaling down the large apartment
buildings with smaller 4-plex style buildings.)
20. “Although, the Schedule of Use Control (MCC11-8-1) states that only
detached single-family dwellings are permitted within the R-4 zone, the
Planned Development Ordinance allows for a mixture of different
housing types, (townhouses, duplexes, and detached single family
dwellings) within a single planned development, regardless of the
underlying zone, so long as the overall density of the residential portion
of the planned development is not exceeded (MCC12-6-4 A).”
(Apartments are not listed - we respectfully request that scaled down
multi-family homes are provided within the boundaries of the previously
approved Planned Development of Sutherland Farm.)
21. “No plans to re-zone the property in the future have been presented, and
it is not anticipated that an application for re-zone will be received in the
future.” (We respectfully request that the proposed zone change from R-4
to R-15 be denied. This property can be developed with townhouses,
duplexes, or fourplexes on the existing R-4 Zone within the Planned
Development of Sutherland Farm via a conditional use permit, and would
be more cohesive with the abutting properties and development.)
22. “It is not anticipated that the proposed uses will be hazardous or
disturbing to future or existing neighbors.” (The “future” neighbors
which have been developed by Sutherland Farm Planned Development
do find that the proposed apartment project will be disturbing. The three
story building will obstruct site lines and will remove existing or implied
privacy by the existing, adjacent homes.)
23. “Community Design 2.3U Encourage the beautification of street and
parking lots . . . Etc.” (We find that the revised application for the
apartment complex has increased its proposed landscaping with
additional open space, a landscaped round-about within the parking and
driveway areas.)
24. “Transportation Chapter 1.19U Encourage proper design of residential
neighborhoods to ensure their safety and tranquility. 1.14U Design and
performance standards should be applied to infilling development in
order to reduce adverse impacts upon existing adjacent development .”
(Increased density will not provide tranquility. It will also have adverse
impacts on traffic within the surrounding area and adverse impacts on
noise levels to adjacent properties. It also must be brought to the
planning commission‟s attention that the proposed apartment buildings
are being placed within 10-12 feet of Kibby‟s Kennels. This business
houses many dogs that can bark all day and all night. Homes on the
north side of Easy Jet can hear these dogs bark and they are over 300 feet
away. What impact are you putting on the lower economic scale of
housing by placing them near a business that could potentially cause
complaints and lack of tranquil sleeping at night. Kibby‟s Kennels was
told that only commercial/offices would be constructed along this south
property line. Keeping this property developed as office buildings, which
typically are closed after 6:00 p.m. would reduce any noise impacts from
the existing kennel business to future development of the proposed Easy
Jet subdivision.) (Constructing apartments next to the dog kennels pushes
the boundaries of environment discrimination by providing living
accommodations for the lower economic class next to an area where they
will find it difficult to sleep due to the existing noise of the adjacent
property to the south. The original Sutherland Farm Planned
Development provided for office buildings in this location which would
provide a sound buffer for the residents north of Easy Jet)
FINDINGS FROM JUB SUTHERLAND FARM PROJECT
SUBMITTAL LETTER DATED February 3, 2002
1. “The office portion of the development is comprised of 11 lots and
contains approximately 19 acres (15.2% of the total land area or
approximately 16.5% of the total land area included within the PUD).
These lots are intended to develop primarily with prof essional offices
with the possibility for some limited multi-family development,
depending on future market conditions and demand. A conceptual site
plan has been prepared for the office area and indicates 284,000 square
feet of office area with 878 parking spaces. The applicant requests that
the approval of the PUD allow for development of a multi -family
complex subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. . . . . The
residential area includes lot sizes ranging from approximately 3,800
square feet minimum up to about 19,000 square feet in area. The
smallest lots (intended for attached single-family dwelling types such as
town homes) are located adjacent to the office and retail areas with lots
getting larger moving to the east and south ends of the project. The
smaller lots are intended to serve as a transition between the
commercial areas and the single-family residential portion of the
development. . . . In general, density is higher adjacent to
commercial areas in the west end of the property and are lower
moving to the east and south. . . . . The smallest residential lots are
located adjacent to the office area and is intended to accommodate
attached single family dwellings (town homes). These lots are alley
loaded and generally contain between 3,800 - 5,000 square feet. The
majority of the residential lots are intended for single family dwellings
and contain 7,000 - 12,000 square feet. In addition, there is the
possibility of providing multi-family housing in the eastern end of the
office area adjacent to the town homes. (Reviewing the Preliminary
Plat for the Sutherland Farm Subdivision, there was a large lot created
west of the proposed town homes on the north side of Easy Jet. The
developer has already opted to construct their proposed multi-family
project with town homes and single family detached homes within what
is now known as the Sutherland Downs Subdivision. There is now no
buffer of “town homes” between the existing larger lot single family
residences along S. Nephrite Way and the proposed large scaled
apartment buildings as submitted for the Easy Jet Subdivision
Conditional Use Permit.) SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT „A‟ AND
EXHIBIT „B‟
FINDINGS WITHIN CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING STAFF
REPORT DATED MAY 15, 2002
1. Staff recommends that the Commission and the City Council consider
reducing or eliminating the seven (7) homes located on the southeast
corner of Lot 54, Block 1. The reduction or elimination of the houses
would create larger, open and useable park for the entire subdivision.”
(The “subdivision” at the time included the proposed Easy Jet
Subdivision property. How will this proposed project be conditioned to
help maintain the park that city staff in 2002 anticipated would be used
by occupants of the proposed project, as in their words, the park is
“open”.) (This would also include the costs for maintenance of the 30‟
wide trail that is currently maintained by the subdivision.) (We would
suggest that a $25 per month per unit assessment (or current assessment
rates should rates increase) be made to the future apartment owners made
payable to Sutherland Farm HOA to contribute their share of the
maintenance costs. This is currently the amount paid by all Sutherland
Farm homeowners. This would also apply should condos or town houses
be approved for this project in lieu of apartments. We also request that
use of the park and pathways by future owners/occupants of the Easy Jet
Subdivision be subject to the restrictions of Sutherland Farm
Homeowners Association.)
2. Staff also states: 4. The uses permitted by the exception are integrated
into the overall project by: a. Being located to and within convenient
walking distance of the primary uses. Staff finds that the
office/multiple-family/townhouse uses will be within convenient
walking distance of the park and open space provided within the
residential development; b. Utilizing on or more of the main vehicular
accesses to the primary use site as the main access to the exception site or
interconnection through a system of private roadways and/or pathways.
Staff finds that the site design incorporates interconnectivity through
shared vehicular access points. The applicant has provided a pathway
system that would connect the excepted uses with the R-4 residential
uses.
3. Staff states in 4e. Continuing architecture, landscaping, and building
bulk concepts from the primary use into the use of the exception site
so they are consistent and harmonious throughout the development.
Staff finds that the landscaping is consistent throughout the development.
Architectural and building bulk concepts will be hard to maintain, as this
is primarily a residential neighborhood with a variety of lot sizes, housing
options and lot dimensions. The Commission and Council should
determine what, if any, architectural/design concepts (residential
and/or commercial) should be incorporated into all buildings within
this development. (We request that the proposed density be reduced,
that the building heights for the proposed multi-family project be limited
to two stories, that decorative stonework be included on all sides of the
facades, that additional landscape screening would be provided, and that
a transitional area of town homes be provided on the property directly
adjacent to S. Nephrite Way and the single family residence that abuts the
project along S. Nephrite Way.)
TO:
FROM
DATE:
17
TO SUTHERLAND FARM BUILDERS AND LISTING AGENTS
Architectural Control Committee
Darlene Wheeler, Margie Schroeder, & Doug Johnston
February 9, 2006 underlined words in item # 3 updated March 6, 2006
Updated August -1 , 200
Italic words updated August 3, 2006
Architectural Rules and Standards
Here is an update letter regC-e
f the Rules a Standards for Architectural
Approvals in Sutherland Fad Phase 6.
Each home will be revieweure to submit your plans for ACC
review and receive approvaa r permits.
The home is not to be started before the lot is paid off and you have received approval for
a plan on a certain lot. If you decide to build a different plan on that lot, you will need to
resubmit the new home plans for review with a $225 check made out to Great Sky, Inc.
(see Section 5.03 of CC&Rs)
This letter is an attachment to the ACC Rules and Standards.
Exterior Elevations
The front elevation will be reviewed and approved based on the overall curb appeal of the
home. We are encouraging all builders to include the following on their homes, as this
may become a condition of your approval: stone/stucco/brick, broken roof lines, hip
roofs, dormers, bayed windows, pop -out windows, attractive gable vents, etc.
At a minimum, the following is required:
1) All gables on the front or any street corner side must have a siding material
change with a horizontal trim piece separating the material change.
The exception to this requirement will be if masonry is installed around the
entire exterior of the home.
2) A good amount of stone, stucco and/or brick on front elevations will be needed.
(Ex. Columns, sides and tops of garage doors, face fronts of walls, etc.) All stone,
stucco, or brick wainscot must be at least 3 feet high. All comers must be
wrapped a minimum of 2 -feet back.
3) Vertical siding may be allowed on the body of the home on a case by case bases.
The gable areas are an exception, when you use a vertical style siding such as
board & batt.
Corner Lots
Homes on corner lots are considered to have two front elevations. Therefore, extra
attention needs to be given on the side elevations facing the street on a corner lot.
Additional conditions may be required on side elevations facing streets to enhance the
overall curb appeal on that side.
Plan Submittals
All features, designs, or finish items included on your elevations are expected to be
installed, such as garage windows, shutters, etc. If you do not intend to install them or
you plan to add / change these materials/features located on your plan elevations, please
make sure to delete, add, or change them prior to submitting for approval. For additional
reviews, you will need to include a check for $45 made out to Great Sky, Inc.
1) Plans to be submitted on 11x17 sized paper (Site Plan, Floor Plans & Elevations).
The exception to this will be that you can submit 8.5 x 11 sets as long as all
dimensions & other items on the plans are legible.
2) The pages to be submitted (along with the submittal form) are:
Plot plan
Floor plan for each floor . ►�ii��Scp�i�is� �'
Front, Back and both Side elevations
Exterior Colors
1) When submitting the Exterior Color Submittal Form for approval of your exterior
colors, you must include complete color samples/swatches with your form due to the
large number of paint manufacturers and color codes.
Homes within 4 lots of each other on all sides will be discouraged from having
the same colors on the exterior of the home, and may possibly be denied.
As of Aug. 1, 2008 Garage doors may be darker than body color or may be white -
ACC Rules/ACC Standards for Fences:
Phase 5 and 6: Fences must be all tan vinyl like the style on Easy Jet common area.
Wrought Iron may be approved on an individual basis.
If sides and/or back yard is not landscaped within 30 from completion of home, side wing
fences need to be put up. On a corner Iot, side fence must be put up.
Owner needs to check with the City of Meridian as to fence ordinances and if a permit is
needed before a fence is built.
ACC Rules/ACC Standards for Landscaping: Minimum requirement for landscaping
are:
Front yard of lots: at least one 2" or more in diameter deciduous tree or one 6 feet or
more in height conifer tree and five three gallon shrubs and/or flowering bushes. Front
yards are to be sodded.
Side yard of corner lots: at least one 2" or more in diameter deciduous tree or one 6 feet
or more in height conifer tree and five three gallon shrubs and/or flowering bushes. Side
yards are to sodded from the front to the back property line.
We are excited about you building in Phase 5 and 6 of Sutherland Farm. Please call me if
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
DcwlenelWhee e'rr
oRl6jN�� I.,OGATION PR,.OPOSSD BY
,SUB IN 2002 FOK-F.UTUfW
Tt- FAMI
m
0
1
c'D:
mm(
a2(
Ln0:
gift
on
■,�►,�,� a �■■�■■■■
u
CO
0
-Z --- -J�
�Z
00
0X
Ln 00
a
Ln
L
20
W
c
z
r
rn
rn
0
10
N14
w
&. M II LP tMRKI� W;
4