HomeMy WebLinkAboutKingsbridge Subdivision AZ
AZ 04-023
MERIDIAN PlANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Vision First, LLC
September 16, 2004
ITEM NO.
16
REQUEST Public Hearing: Annexation and Zoning of 76.72 acres from RUT to R-4 zone
for proposed KIngsbridge Subdivision - 4070 South Eagle Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
See attached Staff Comments
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
No Comment
No Comment
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
No Comment
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
Emailed:
OTHER:
Contacted:
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
""g /'=~ .~.
IJYl (fndi:;:'t '\
IDAHO ß~
...
~!:'.
~ "'T""^,UREVN>!J'
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Keith Bird
William LM. Na!)'
Shaun Wardle
Charles M. Rountree
CI:IlY'ßKALL
(~--3--F,""ß~Rl3
PBBBKI~S
BBUIDDrn<ÐB~T
(~ß2-;!!I1Il~-FãXtß_SI$El
LE6I!AIDB~T
(;¡¡:!3J)!i ~~-FÆX)ISCW4Q!J5
STAFF REPORT:
Transmittal Date: September 13, 2004
P&Z Hearing Date: September 16,2004
To:
Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission
Steye Siddoway, Principal Planner ~
Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Tech ~
Kingsbridge Subdivision
From:
Re:
RECEIVED
SEP 1 3 2004
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
. Annexation and Zoning of 76.777 Acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4
(Low Density Residential District, by Vision First LLC. (File No. AZ-O4-023).
. Preliminary Plat Approval of Two Hundred Thirty Seven (237) Building Lots
and Twenty Three (23) Common Lots on 76.777 Acres in a Proposed R-4
Zone, by Vision First LLC. (File No. PP-O4-030).
. Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Residential Planned Development of
Single-Family Homes with reduced lot size, street frontage, and exceeding the
maximum block length, by SWI Associates, LLC. (File No. CUP-O4-026).
We have reviewed the above referenced submittals and offer the following comments, as
conditions of approval. These conditions shall be considered in fuU, unless expressly
modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council:
APPLICATIONS SUMMARY
The applicant, Vision First LLC, is proposing annexation of 76.777 acres (per their revised
legal description) of land located on the east side of Eagle Road, approximately halfway
between Victory Road and Amity Road. The plat for the property consists of 237 building lots
and 23 common lots. The gross density of the proposed plat is 3.09 d.u.lacre per the revised
plat application form. The net density is 3.88 d.u.lacre.
The Comprehensive Plan shows the subject property as "Low Density Residential", which is
defined as less than three units per acre. The proposed densities are in the low end of the
Medium Density range (3-& d.u. per acre). Thus the applicant is requesting a one-step
increase in density, from low to medium, as provided for per note 2 on the Comprehensive
Plan map.
AZ-04-023. PP4I-O30. cup.04.O3O
King"""" AZ.PPCUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: September 16, 2004
Page 2
The project is entirely residential and contains no use exceptions. The CUP/PD application is
for reduced lot frontages, reduced lot sizes, and a request to exceed the 1000 foot block length.
These proposed modifications are detailed below.
R-4 Zone:
Lot Size-
City ReQuirements
8,000 sq.ft.
(Minimum)
Proposed Lot Sizes
7,000 sq. ft.
(Minimum)
Lot Frontage-Citv ReQuirements
80' minimum
Proposed Frontage
70' minimum
Block Length-Citv ReQuirements
1000' Maximum
Proposed Block Length
Per Plat (approximately 1,300')
Approximately 48% of the lots are reduced below the standard 8,000 s.f lot size for the R-4
zone. 24 lots are less at 7,000 s.f. Another 90 lots are between 7,000 and 8,000 s.f. The
remaining 123 building lots are larger than 8,000 s.f., with the largest lot over 19,000 s.f.
The average lot size for the subdivision is 8,590 (excluding the 2.75 acre lot for the existing
home).
In return for the proposed modifications, the project's amenities include 10% open space,
including a community park with a swimming pool, clubhouse, full-size basketball court, tot
lot, gazebo, picnic tables, BBQ stands. Another park with gazebo is located in the northeast
portion of the project. A micropath is proposed to connect the two parks. A path and
landscaping are proposed along the Ten Mile Feeder canal. Additional amenities include a
landscaped entry boulevard, multiple smaller open spaces around the subdivision, a bridge
"monument" and ornamental street lights. Detached sidewalks and street trees are also
proposed throughout the subdivision. Plus, the applicant has offered to increase the minimum
house size from 1,400 s.f. to 1,600 s.f. for the subdivision.
The subject property includes Lot II, Block 2 of the Dartmoor Subdivision. The Dartmoor
Subdivision plat, Note 9, states that Lot II is restricted for a period of 15 years to open space per
the Non-Farm Development section of Ada County code. The property was platted in 1994,
making the sunset of the restriction fall on March 3, 2009. This is the first time a non-farm open
space development has come to the City of Meridian. It has been staff's understanding that the
County's open space restrictions are voided if the property is annexed to a city and urban
services are made available. This point, however, is disputed by the homeowners of Dartmoor
Subdivision and their legal counsel. Staff has asked the City Attorney to review this issue and
the City Attomey finds that the City can move forward with annexation and plat approval, if the
Commission and Council so choose. However, he recommends adding a condition of approval
AZ-04-023, PP-04-030, cup.04.O3O
King,"'idgoAZ.PP.CUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: September 16,2004
Page 3
that, "Approval is conditioned on the applicant demonstrating written approval by a majority of
the lot owners in Dartmoor Subdivision of the subdivision and development, or as an alternative,
a favorable final decision by the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District of the State of
Idaho declaring that applicant has the right to subdivide and develop the property
notwithstanding the non-build restriction placed on the property by Ada County." Such approval
would be required prior to submittal of any final plat applications or issuance of any building
permits. This puts the onus on the developer to demonstrate that they have a legally developable
lot.
Staff finds that the project includes one of the most generous lists of amenities in recent memory.
From the tree-lined boulevards and the large central open spaces, to the proposed CC&R
architectural controls, many things suggest that this will be a quality development. However,
staff expects that the main issue for this project will be related to the quantity, or density, of lots.
The property is nearly surrounded by lots ranging generally from I to 5 acres.
There are a handful of issues needing resolution, as discussed in the Special Considerations
section of this report. Staff recommends that they get resolved prior to approval of this project.
LOCATION
The property is east side of Eagle Road, approximately halfway between Victory Road and
Amity Road.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
North: Golden Eagle Estates, zoned RUT (Ada County).
South: Kunz Hollow and Zaldien Zerua Subdivisions, zoned RUT (Ada County).
East: Bridlewood Subdivsion and Rural Residential, zoned RUT (Ada County).
West: Dartmoor Subdivision, zoned RUT (Ada County) and Tuscany Lakes, zoned R-4.
OWNER OF RECORD
The property owners of record include David L. and Kathleen S. Palfreyman, David A. and Janie
Teeter, and Jae-D Acres, Inc. All owners have provided notarized consent for Vision First, LLC
to submit these applications.
ANNEXATION & ZONING ANALYSIS
According to Ordinance 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, both
the P&Z Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and
circumstances of each proposed zoning amendment in terms of the following standards and
shall find adequate evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning
amendment. "
The following is the list of standards found in 11-15-11 and analysis by staff:
AZ.04.023. PP-O4-030, CUP-04-032
King,b,;,I" AZPPCUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: September 16, 2004
Page 4
C.
D.
A.
Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment;
Staff finds that the requested zoning designation, R-4, represents a one-step
density increase per the City's Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map for
about 2/3 of the project area. The subject property is shown as Low Density
Residential (less than 3 d.u./acre) for the northern 2/3 of the project and as
Medium Density Residential for the southern 1/3 of the project. The proposed
density-3.09 d.u./acre gross and 3.88 net-is a Medium Density. The
Commission and Council must determine if the requested one-step density
increase is justified. Note 2 on the Comprehensive plan map allows the City to
consider other residential densities without requiring a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. For what it's worth, staff has calculated that a reduction of seven
lots in the subdivision would drop the gross density to 2.99 d.u. per acre, just less
than the 3 d.u./acre threshold.
B.
Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the
future;
Staff does not anticipate that the applicant intends to rezone the subject property
in the future.
Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the
fashion that would be aUowed under the new zoning -for example, a
residential area turning into a commercial area by means of conditional use
permits;
Staff finds that the proposed development would be allowed within the requested
R-4 zone, (if the accompanying Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development is also approved).
Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that
the area should be rezoned. For example. have the streets been widened, new
railroad access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed
in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone area;
This is perhaps the most difficult finding to make for this project. The subject
property is surrounded by one to five-acre lots-very low density. Tuscany Lakes
Subdivision to the west was platted at 2.4 d.u!acre gross density and 3.1 net. The
proposed density-3.09 d.u./acre gross and 3.88 net-is just higher than Tuscany
Lakes and much more dense than the surrounding county subdivisions. If the
Commission and Council approve the requested density increase, the proposed
density is within the anticipated range for a medium density project-and at the
AZ-O4-023. PP4I-O30, CUP.04.032
Kin"bcidgoAZPP.CUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: September 16, 2004
Page 5
G.
H.
low end of it. Additional medium density development is anticipated south of the
project per the Comprehensive Plan.
E.
Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to
be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended
character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the
essential character of the same area;
Staff finds that the proposed use (single family residential) will change the
existing character of the area, which is largely rural. However, the change is
generally harmonious with the intended character envisioned by the
Comprehensive Plan. As described above, the appropriate density is perhaps the
main question for the Commission and Council to resolve.
Staff has received several calls from adjacent property owners concerned about
the higher densities. The Commission and Council should consider the adjacent
property owners concerns and appropriate measures to address their concems.
The applicant has held neighborhood meetings with the surrounding property
owners and has described their efforts to meet the neighbors concerns on page 2
of the letter submitted with the CUP.
F.
Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future
neighboring uses;
The Commission and Council should rely on public testimony (oral and written)
to determine whether or not the proposed use will be disturbing or hazardous to
the existing or future neighboring uses. Staff does not anticipate that the proposed
uses will be hazardous or disturbing to future or existing neighbors, as long as
landscaping, fencing and other recommended conditions are exercised. The main
exception to this would be that the increase of traffic on Dartmoor Dr. will likely
be disturbing to the existing residents along in Dartmoor Subdivision.
Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services
such as highways, streets, police and fIre protection, drainage structures,
refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the
establishment of proposed zoning amendment shall be able to provide
adequately any of such services;
Staff finds that the property to be annexed may be served adequately by all
essential public facilities and services. Applicant shall be required to extend
water and sanitary sewer mains to and through the proposed development, thereby
making them available to the adjacent properties.
Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of
the community;
AZ-04-023.PP-04'()30,CUP-O4-032
King,brid"AZPP.CUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: September 16, 2004
Page 6
If approved, the developer will finance the extension of sewer, water, utilities and
pressurized irrigation to serve the project. The primary public costs to serve the
future residents will be fire and police services. Staff finds that there will not be
excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the annexation and
zoning will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare.
I.
Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any
persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of
traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors;
Staff finds that the proposed subdivision will not create excessive noise, smoke
fumes, or other nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the
surrounding area. Traffic on Dartmoor Dr. is likely to be the major issue related
to this finding. The applicant has prepared a traffic impact study for the
subdivision. Staff recommends that the applicant review the findings of the study
at the public hearing. Staff recognizes the fact that traffic and noise will increase
with the approval of this subdivision; however staff does not feel that the amount
generated will be detrimental to the general public welfare-especially related to
surrounding arterial and section line roads. However, the issue needs to be
resolved regarding traffic impacts to Dartmoor Drive.
J.
Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so
designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public
streets;
ACHD's report has not been received by staff as of the writing of this report.
Staff does not anticipate that the subdivision will cause significant interference
with traffic on the surrounding public streets. As noted above, impacts to
Dartmoor Drive need to be considered. Please refer to the ACHD report for
additional information on this subject.
K.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance; and
Any existing trees larger than 4" caliper that are removed shall be mitigated for,
per the Landscape Ordinance. If any trees are deemed to be hazardous, diseased
or dying by the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, mitigation will not be required for those
trees. Staff has not identified any features of major significance on the site.
L.
Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of
Meridian. (Ord. 592, 11-17-1992)?
AZ-O4-023. PP-<J4-O;O, CUP-04-on
King,b,idg,AZPP.CUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: September 16, 2004
Page 7
Staff fmds that the annexation of this property would be in the best interest of
the City.
AZ.O4.023. PP4l-030. CUP.O4.032
King,bridg,AZPP.crJP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: September 16, 2004
Page 8
PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS AND REOUIREMENTS
Sections 12-3-3 J.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In determining the acceptance of a proposed
subdivision, the Commission/Council shall consider the objectives of this title and at least the
following:
a. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan;
As noted above, staff finds that the subdivision appears to be in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan, provided the Commission and Council grant the requested planned
development and the one step density increase. See Annexation and Zoning Analysis item A.
b. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development;
Staff finds that public services can be made available to accommodate the proposed
development. See Annexation and Zoning Analysis item H.
c. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement program;
Staff finds that the subdivision will not conflict with the capital improvement plan. Because
the developer is installing sewer, water, local street infrastructure, utilities and irrigation, the
subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. See Annexation
and Zoning Analysis item H.
d. The public fmancial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Staff finds that the development will not require major expenditures for providing supporting
services. See Annexation and Zoning Analysis item H.
e. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the
Commission's attention.
Staff finds that there should not be any other health, safety or environmental problems
associated with this subdivision that should be brought to the Council or Commission's
attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. No hazardous natural
features have been identified on the site.
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS-PRELIMINARY PLAT
1.
All conditions of the accompanying Conditional Use Permit application shall also be
considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat.
2.
Approval of the plat is conditioned on the applicant demonstrating written approval by a
majority of the lot owners in Dartmoor Subdivision of the subdivision and development,
or as an alternative, a favorable final decision by the District Court for the Fourth Judicial
AZ-O4-023, PP-<J4-O30, CUP-O4-O32
Ki",,'b"'g' AZ.PPCUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: September 16,2004
Page 9
District of the State of Idaho declaring that the applicant has the right to subdivide and
develop the property notwithstanding the nonbuild restriction placed on the property by
Ada County. Such approval shall be required prior to submittal of any final plat
applications or issuance of any building permits.
3.
Sanitary sewer and water service to this development shall be from extensions of existing
mains that were installed as part of the Messina Village Subdivision.
4.
Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer and water mains to and through this
proposed development, thereby making them available to adjacent properties.
Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works
Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard form of easements, for
any mains or facilities that are required to provide service.
5.
The applicant has indicated that the pressurized irrigation system within this development
will be owned and operated by the homeowners association. Underground year-round
pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this development (MCC 12-5-
2.N). The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a
year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The Applicant shall be required to utilize
any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is
not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If
a single-point connection is utilized, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of
assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City
Engineer. If the system is to remain private, a draft copy of the pressurized irrigation
system O&M manual must be submitted prior to plan approval.
6.
A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted with the application for fmal plat. Fencing
shall be provided as depicted on the proposed landscape plan, with the following
changes:
. Fencing along the north and east sides, adjacent to the proposed 20-foot common
lot shall be no taller than 4- foot solid, with the option of adding 2 feet of lattice on
the top. This will provide for better visibility into the otherwise hidden open
space in that location.
. Fencing shall be added to the east property line, south of the stub street.
7.
In accordance with MCC 12-13-10-8, Applicant shall provide 5-foot detached sidewalks
adjacent to Locust Grove Road. Applicant shall also provide 4-foot detached sidewalks
internally, as proposed.
8.
The applicant shall be responsible for payment of and the actual physical sanitary sewer
and domestic water connection for the existing house.
A2.O4-023, PP-{)4-O30, CUP-04-032
Kin,"""g'AZPP.CUP
9.
10.
II.
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: September 16, 2004
Page 10
GENERAL COMMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT
I.
Please submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's approval letter for the
subdivision name, and the lot and block numbering. Make any corrections necessary to
conform.
2.
Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
3.
A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing,
landscaping, play equipment, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to
signature on the final plat.
4.
Any pathways or micropaths within the proposed subdivision shall be designed in
accordance with MCC 12-13-15 "Micropath Landscaping".
5.
A detailed landscape plan, in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance, shall be
submitted for the subdivision with the final plat application.
6.
Sidewalks within the proposed subdivision shall be built in accordance with MCC12-13-
10-8.
7.
250 and IOO-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations
designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at
subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants.
Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by
Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from
the Public Works Department prior commencing installations.
8.
All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting,
crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per
City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate
irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owner's), with written
approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users
association approval can't be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the
meridian City Engineer prior to fmal plat signature.
Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by
installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that
were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for
those trees that are removed.
Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells
may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation.
AZ-O4-023. PP-Q4-030. CUP-O4-0J2
King"""g' AZPP.CUP
C.
D.
E.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: September 16, 2004
Page II
12.
Compaction test results must be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all
building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material.
STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONAL USES
The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each
proposed conditional use in terms of the following and may approve a conditional use permit if
they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish (11-17-3):
A.
That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open
spaces, parking, landscaping and other features as may be required by this
ordinance;
Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the requested use
and all other required features. All residential lots are of adequate size and shape to
accommodate homes that would comply with the proposed bulk and dimensional
standards.
B.
That the proposed use and development plan will be harmonious with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance;
The current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the property as Medium and
Low Density Residential. Staff finds that if the modifications required in this report are
done, the application will meet the requirements of the Planned Development and other
Zoning Ordinances. Also see items A and C under Annexation and Zoning Analysis.
That the design, construction, operation, and maintenance will be compatible with
other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character
of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential
character of the same area;
See item E under Annexation and Zoning Analysis.
That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,
will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity;
Staff does not anticipate that the proposed development will have an adverse impact on
the surrounding property values. However, it will have traffic impacts on Dartmoor
Subdivision. The Commission and Council should consider any testimony given at the
public hearings before making this finding.
That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, street, police, and fIre protection, drainage structures,
refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of
AZ-04.023. PP-<4-030, CUP-04-032
Km,"";dg' AZ.PPCUP
2.
3.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: September 16, 2004
Page 12
proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services;
See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item G.
F.
That the proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public
cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic
welfare of the community;
See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item H.
G.
That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment,
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or
general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes,
glare or odors;
See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item I.
H.
That the proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be
so designed as not to cr.eate an interference with traffic on surrounding public
streets;
See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item J.
I.
That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural,
scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance.
See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item K.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I.
()Pen Space/Lot Removal: Staff recommends removing Lots I and 2, Block 5. This
would open up the community park for one continuous frontage and have the effect of
enhancing the entry experience from both Dartmoor Drive and Kingsbridge Drive and
increase the amenity value for the subdivision.
Setbacks: Reduced street side setbacks are not requested in the applicant's letter, but the
setbacks listed on the proposed plat state that the street side setback is 10 feet. Ordinance
11-9-1 requires 20-foot street side setbacks, except that living areas may be reduced to
15-foot street side setbacks. Similarly, the plat shows rear setbacks as 5 feet, but
ordinance requires 15 feet. The applicant should clarify at the hearing whether or not they
are requesting reduced setbacks as part of the planned development.
Stub Streets: The project includes only one proposed new stub street to the east. Staff
would normally like to see additional stub streets to the north and south, but opportunities
for future connections are admittedly limited based on surrounding land uses. Staff
AZ-04-023, PP-{J4-()30, CUP.04-032
Kin"bridg, AZ.PPCUP
3.
4.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: September 16,2004
Page 13
recommends that the applicant and Commission discuss any ideas for additional stub
streets at the hearing, perhaps in alignment with Terri Drive to the north.
4.
Stormwater Pond Design: The proposed landscape plan shows a gravel access drive,
about 40 feet of cobble at the pipe outlet, and an unspecified material in the bottom of the
pond on Lot 34, Block 6. The access drive should be paved with asphalt or other dustless
surface; the cobble is only allowed to be 5-foot maximum unless designed as a landscape
feature with shrubs such as a dry creek bed; and the bottom must be vegetated. Also, the
proposed fencing cuts this lot off from the open space buffer (Lot 33) but should
probably connect for ease of maintenance.
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS (Conditional Use Permit)
I.
Applicant shall meet all of the requirements of the preliminary plat as a condition of the
Conditional Use Permit.
2.
The project shall conform to the modified dimensional standards, as follows:
. Minimum lot frontage: 70 feet
. Minimum lot size: 7,000 square feet
. Maximum Block Length: Approximately 1,300 feet (per the Preliminary Plat)
. Minimum House Size: 1,600 square feet
The following amenities are required as part of the Planned Development, per the
application: 10% open space, including a community park with a swimming pool,
clubhouse, full-size basketball court, tot lot, gazebo, picnic tables, BBQ stands. Another
park with gazebo is located in the northeast portion of the project. A micropath shall
connect the two parks. A path and landscaping are required as proposed along the Ten
Mile Feeder canal, subject to irrigation district approval. Additional amenities include a
landscaped entry boulevard, multiple smaller open spaces around the subdivision, a
bridge "monument" and ornamental street lights.
All stormwater detention areas are subject to Ordinance 12-13-14. Fencing shall not cut
off Lot 34, Block 6 from Lot 33, Block 6.
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
I. One and two family dwellings will require a fire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available
for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire flow analysis modeling will be
required for this project. If any point in the subdivision (i.e. Lot II, Block 6) has less than
1000 gallons per minute available for fire flow, water must be looped through Dartmoor
Subdivision. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart per Intemational Fire
Code Appendix D.
2. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department.
AZ.()4-023, PP4I-O30. CUP-04'()32
K;"'!>;d,, AZ".CUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: September 16, 2004
Page 14
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 W' outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle.
b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it.
c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec.
d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the
hydrant location.
e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on comers.
f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
3. The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than 150' in length that is not
provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around.
4. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside
radius.
5. Insure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation.
6. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are
combustible construction begins.
required before
7. To increase emergency access to the site a minimum of two points of access will be required
for any portion of the project, which serves more than 50 homes. The applicant shall
provide a stub street to the property to the (west/east/northJsouth). The two entrances shall
be separated by no less than Yz the diagonal measurement of the project.
8. The proposed 237-lot subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have
a total estimated population of 687 residents at build out.
9. The proposed project lies outside the five-minute response zone goal. Achievement of
this goal is subject to budgetary constraints and is intended to enhance the probability of
a favorable outcome on a request for Basic Life Support. The budget constraints are
typically defined as capital outlay for facilities that are located within 1.5 miles from a
given location and sufficient operational funds to staff the facilities.
10. The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the
development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and
efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this
installation is to be bome by the developer.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends resolving the required findings related to the one-step density increase and
related traffic impacts first. Upon resolution of those issues, staff recommends approval with the
conditions contained in this report.
^"-04-023, PP-<J4-OJO. CUP-04""
""""bridg, AZ PP CUP
09/07/2004 15: 33 FAX 2088888854
MERIDIAN P&Z DEPT.
.. CIty Clerk
~001
Greg & Bell Viertel
3835 S Gideon Place
Meridian, ID 83642
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
33 E Idaho Ave
Meridian, ID 83624
September 3,2004
Re:
Development of land adjacent to Dartmoor Subdivision
MTBR&F File No 19O898.0
RECEIVEl)
SEP 0 1 2004
City OfMeridÜll~
City Clerk OffiCE
Dear Commissioners:
We-are-writingnin'rsgards to the proposed-development~fthe land adjacentto.theDaftmoor .
SubdMsion into the Kingsbridge Subdivision. During your review of that proposal, we are
requesting that you make recommendations to the Developers that will maintain our current
quality of life. We purchased our home because of the quiet, rural atmosphere that it offered
and had understood that the undeveloped area to the east of us had restrictions for further
development. To maintain the quality of our environment, preserve our resources, and provide
for our safety we are asking for these considerations:
1. Dartmoor Road to be an emergency vehicJe, pedestrian & bike access to
Kingsbridge rather than a main access road. That road has no sidewalks to safely
accommodate children and other pedestrians were it to become a main traffic area.
2. Provisions for proper storm water management to ensure the purity levels of the
aquifers to our wells
3. Water rights and irrigation drainages need to be provided and maintained so that our
pressurized irrigation system which is part of our covenants remains functional
4., Transitional lots adjacent to exiting homes to be no more than 2 homes per 1 acre
5. Minimum lot sizes in the development to be R2 zoning
6. Open spaces need to be 10% ofthe total land which is functional open space, not
including berms or landscaping requirements. Open spacing to be located between
Dartmoor and Kingsbridge to establish transitional lines and preserve current
residential environment
Last spring, Dartmoor Homowners Association had had a meeting with the Developers of
Kingsbridge. At the ti!11e, they had. assured. lIS that they would work with us. We provided a Jist
of our needs similar to what is listed above. We have had no further correspondence from
them and noted that their current proposal does not address our considerations for safety and
maintenance of our current quality of life. This is evidenced by the fact that their initial proposal
to us was for 222 homes and now they are increasing the density to 237 homes rather than
decreasing the density. Additionally, we had had much discussion about limiting the use of
Dartmoor Road as a main access and that has not changed, which greatly impacts the safety of
our families. There is no accomodation for pedestrian traffic in the submitted plans.
We are not opposed to the development but would like our safety and quality of life maintained
in th:~~~ce, T~anl. ank you for your conSid.eratiOn.
Sinc~ ~ ¿¿ø <4- ~()~
Greg and Bev Viertel
SEP 07 '04 15:55
2088886854
PAGE. 01
RECEIVED
SEP J 3 2004
RICK R STOTT
3684 S. Caleb Place
Meridian, ID 83642
C.ïty of Meridi~n
CIty Ct..... nfÇce
September 9, 2004
City of Meridian Planning and Zoning
City Clerk's Office
Meridian City Hall
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
- Re: ProþOsed Kingsbridge Subdívísion-c- . .
4070 South Eagle Road
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is in response to the request for comments regarding the above referenced
proposed subdivision and zoning variance. We strongly object to the subdivision as
currently proposed for the following reasons:
. No consideration has been made for the quality of life and general nature of the
current residences. Dartmoor was developed 10 years ago as rural
neighborhood; consequently, there are no sidewalks, fencing is generally open,
1 + acre lot sizes, fenced corrals for cows and horses is condoned, and houses
are fairly large with detached shops and barns. The view, particularly from my
lot, is of open vistas of the Boise foothills and mountains with beautiful sunrises.
The lots are positioned to provide a high degree of privacy among neighbors and
adjoining property owners.
This quality of life will be substantially eroded under the proposed subdivision.
Heavy traffic will clog our street. Two story houses and fences will eliminate our
vistas. Our cows and horses will become a nuisance and a source of
environmental irritation to our new neighbors. Privacy of any kind will be
significantly impaired at best or eliminated at worst. The developers of the
proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision make no effort in mitigating these issues.
Where consideration for these concerns could have been proposed by the
developers - nor where.
. The traffic flow is a serious hazard to the residents in Dartmoor especially the
children. The traffic study that has been filed illustrates that the traffic flow out of
the Kingsbridge subdivision would be over 2100 cars per day. This is of concern
primarily because of the children and the unsafe conditions the excessive traffic
would create. This is a serious concern particularly for my daughter who is
profoundly deaf and relies on visual cues to avoid the few cars that pass her on
the way to the bus. As a result of the nature of our neighborhood and the lack of
sidewalks this danger becomes even more apparent. Coming and going from
the school bus, which for the most part is in the dark, creates a serious risk for
these children and appallingly more real with the significantly higher traffic levels.
The proposed subdivision's traffic will put these kids lives in serious jeopardy
without amendments to the plan.
. Invalid traffic study. The traffic study submitted to the Ada County Highway
District dated March 18, 2004 was based on 225 homes and not on 237 homes
that is currently presented to the Planning and Zoning Board. This will increase
the traffic flow beyond what is currently miscalculated. In addition, the study
implies that the majority of the traffic (which will primarily go north on Eagle
Road) would exit south of Dartmoor through the alternate outlet which is
completely illogical- Who is going to travel farther out of their way rather than
going directly through Dartmoor? I sure wouldn't.
. R-4+ vs. R-4. Even though the permit states that it conforms to a R-4 standard,
the reality is that it exceeds those specifications. In addition, during our
meetings the developers represented that they were developing a R-3
- "-- "sÜl)division. - An-apparent m Isrepresenlaflon5yll1l!! deVeI6pefsT6a-þþease---- -------
potential Dartmoor objections perhaps.
. The legal rights of the Dartmoor residents, under common law, have been at
best overlooked and more than likely ignored by the developers. Previously
submitted legal drafts from our attorneys present a reasonable case that the
Dartmoor property owners have additional rights under common law as to the
date in which the adjoining property can be subdivided. It is also our
understanding that the county and city regulations allow for land use constraints
to be modified when the property is annexed and rezoned upon the discretion of
the Planning and Zoning board. Clearly the Dartmoor property owners can
exercise our legal prerogatives based upon the opinion letter and file a court
action against the city, county and developers but that would not be my first
choice. Although some of my neighbors believe that a legal remedy should be
exercised; I believe that resolving the Dartmoor owner's concerns with the
developers in a reasonable, fair, and good faith effort would be preferable.
The developers have not dealt with us in good faith. Even though we have been
reasonable, open and fair in all our discussions it has not been reciprocated. We
have provided them a list of concerns that have been substantially ignored with
the exception of issues that the developers are obligated to comply with under
regulation. The developers apparently assumed that these token efforts would
placate the Dartmoor homeowners and mitigate our major concerns (some of
which are outlined above).
I believe there are ways to reconcile these issues while meeting the financial needs of
the developers. In order to accomplish this the developers must do more than make
hollow promises and provide insignificant accommodations to our concerns. All the
parties involved have an opportunity to develop this property providing an adequate
return for the developers, embracing the current nature of our community, while
providing the Dartmoor property owners confidence that their children aren't put at risk
each day and continue to enjoy a quality of life that the area affords.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
-¡t-~
Rick R Stott
----~-
--~-~~~-~_n_~~_~ _-n_~~---n-_-
RECEIVED
SEP 1 3 2IJOIt
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
September 8, 2004
To: City of Meridian PIa.nnmg & Zoning and Ada County Highway District
From: Rex and Tammy Cook Residents ofDartmoor Subdivision
RE: Proposed Development on the land directly east and south ofDartmoor
Estates.
This letter is concerning the proposed Kingsbridge development on
the land to the east and south of the Dartmoor subdivision.
We would request that as you review the proposal before you
concerning this new development that consideration be given to the quality
and number of homes that are allowed to be built. These two items will
directly impact not only the Dartmoor neighborhood but the surrounding
neighborhoods as well.
I'm not opposed to the land being developed however I would like to
see a continuation of the existing Dartmoor neighborhood with large open
lots and a rural feel. Knowing that the land is destined to be developed I
would just as soon have it developed now if the Vision Land Management
company doing the development is willing to propose another alternative
than what they have presented so far. Let them put in the houses but have it
fit in with the surrounding one and five acre lots that surround the proposed
development. Meridian City has within its boundaries many diverse building
developments :&om business buildings to Apartments and everything in
between, all part of a plan that hopefully includes developments that still
give that rural feeling. This is an opportunity to provide open space between
Boise and Meridian Cities so it doesn't appear to be one massive
conglomeration. We appreciate your consideration of these issues.
Sincerely,
~ ~44 (!o~
Rex and Tammy Cook
To: C:Lty of Mer:Lclian P1i1DJl:lnq & Zoni.uq
From:
Jeff and Sharon McKee, 3891 So. G.i.deon
PI., Mer:Lclian, Idaho 83642, Dartmoor
Estates,
Subject:
V:Lsion F:Lrst, LLC , For !\Imexation and
Zoni.uq of ,!f!~F,:L,~,.,,:,.,,1!~:v;LS:Lo~,.
""';;Jii"."".¡ :lilClWIiifI.,'UI,*"ij
and Ada County Bighway D:Lstr:LRE C E I
SEP 0 d 20
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Res:Ldent concerns
I deveJ.opment
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
for the Ki.uqsbrtdge
As you review V:Ls:Lon Fi.rst LLC application for the p1anned deveJ.opment of
Ki.uqsbr:Ldge I ask that you cons:Lder the follow:i.uq concerns.
Both pr:i.mazy and Secondary entrances are com:ing off of So. Eag1e road. There
are other opportun:Lties to have a secondary access off of V:Lctory or
C1overda1e. These opportun:Lties need to being earnestiy pursued by the
deveJ.oper. Whi.ch had not happened as of Sept 1st 2004?
If DartEoor has to be the Secondary entrance for Ki.uqsbr:Ldge, We wou1d request
s:Ldewallts be added down both s:Ldes for the chi.J.dren to wall< to and from the:i.r
bus stops.
The curvature of DartEoor is go:inq to make a 1eft hand turn off of G.i.deon
dangerous; the view of cars coDduq out of Ki.ngsbr:Ldge cannot be seen from
G:Ldeon. We wou1d request a stop s:Lgn or a speed bump on DartEoor and Ca1eb for
West heacliuq traff:Lc towards Eag1e road.
As the ne:i.ghborhood and surrounding properties cliscuss the Ki.ngsbridge proposa1
the overwhe.l.m:Lng theme :Ls not to keep them out but to reduce the number of
houses and make the property s:Lzes b:Lgger. Two major concerns w:Lth the number
of houses.
1. We believe the trans:Ltion from a 1 to 5 acre rura1 area into an :immediate
R-4 urban area :Ls go:inq to 100k extreme1y tacky from an :Lncomi.ng viewpo:Lnt.
2. Property va1ues of our exi.sting homes w:Ll1 be forced 10wer due to the change
:Ln traff:Lc and views, or :Ln some cases the 1ack of views as they get b10cked
:Ln.
DuriDq our meetings with the deveJ.oper, Lots of ideas and concerns have been
brought forth, however, none of them have been settled. We woul-d like to
complete ful-l agreements with the developer before they are allowed to proceed.
The traffic southbound on Eaqle road and WestboWld on Victory to Eagle is
currently backing up from 3pm to past 6pm as far as the eye can see in either
direction. I'm asking that you don't put bliDd faith into a traffic study that
was bought and paid for by Vision first. The existiDq surrounding neighborhoods
and commercial properties have not completed their developments. The collpletion
of the existUlg deveJ.opments will. already add extreme burdens on these primary
access roads as it is now. In the AM hours the traffic heading North on Eaql.e
road backs up fram Victory to the Dartmoor entrance and beyond around 7J.5 am.
We are asking you to reduce the zoning for this area and insist that the Vision
first deveJ.oper works out agreements with the home owners before they are
allowed to proceed. There must be reasonabl.e medi1DDS we can all. agree upon.
Dated this 7th day of September, 2004
Regards, Jeff and Sharon McKee
~
~ 0 c+ L1: (5 ? "^--'
So ~ Lj ',¡S-p""-
50. ~ Lr IS- r.A-
So. ~ Y:IS-p,^"",
Sü t~ s-: I~p~
)0. &~ ð--/7 fr-----
So ¿~ ~~'6pN'-
So ~ b:/'Sp^"-
50 [~af- '5: / ~ P"^--
50 [~ ~: /5 P""-
So r~ :r':)p~
50 [~ Lo:I~pfV\..-
)6 [+?: IS-- f~
)0 é~~"):>f~
)0 é+ r;:¡7p"",--
So [~of- ~..(S- p-~ .
David & Valerie La Vigne
3317 S. Selatir PI.
Meridian, ID 83642
(208) 884-5756
RECEIVED
SEP -8 2004
September 5, 2004
City Of Meridian
Planning and Zoning Commission
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, 1083642
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Dear Commissioners:
We are writing in response to the application of Vision First, LLC for an Annexation and Zoning of 76.72 acres for the
Proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision. We live on 5.6 acres (zoned Agricuttural) located off Victory Road and S. Selatir Place on
the northeast comer of the proposed development. We were aware that the 76.72 acres would be developed, but understood
that the development: Would occur in 2009, would be developed with one-acre lots comparable to the Dartmoor Subdivision
and in harmony with the adjacent 1.0-5.0+ acre rural neighbors, would have access through Oartmoor Subdivision and off
Eagle Road. Therefore, we object to three aspects of the proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision.
Objections and Recommendations:
1. Density of the Proposed development - The current zoning for the proposed development is low density and is
compatible to the surroUndil)g area. Why Bilow a rezone to R-4 when the surroUnding area is all 1-5+ acres? We just
leamed thá\ the developer met with Dartmoor residents to incorporate their thoughts into the plan and included laryer lots
adjacent to Dartmoor. On the eastem side, we all have 5+ acres, shouldn~ laryer lots be there as well? Why haven~ we
been contacted by the developer? Why is the eastern border on the proposed plat dense? We raise hay and can1
imagine an urban neighbor wanting to live so close to the cutting and baling associated with an ag zone.
Recommendation: Reduce density to one-acre lots. At a minimum, reduce the density of the lots on the rural borders.
The Muir Woods Subdivision on Victory/Cloverdale is an example of one-acre lots bordering the subdivisions rural
neighbors.
2. Victory access stub-out - The Proposed ptat indicates a stub-out on the eastem side of the proposed development and
the third from last paragraph in the Kingsbridge rezone application indicates "..provide future connectivity to the north
(Victory Road)..". This would appear to allow access via South Selatir Place. Selatir Place is a rural road (no sidewalks,
narrow, barrow pits for irrigation drainage) and is a neighbortlood of 1-5+ acre upscale homes. It was developed with the
intent and agreement to serve as a dead-end street. Please refer to the agreement dated Septermber 10, 1993 and filed
with the Ada County Recorder which states: "The Developer shall extend South Selatir Place as a dead-end cul-de-sac
within the interior of the residential lots of the development, with no reservation of a right-of-way easement over the
residential lots for future extension of the street to other properties."
Recommendation: Eliminate the stub-out potentially affecting Selatir Place.
3. Development prior to year 2009- How this area is developed is more important than when it is developed.
Recommendation: If compromise would help, we would be agreeable to concede to early development if our first two
concems were addressed.
::~=~~4ù: ""---Q--"
David & Valerie La Vi9~
RECEIVED
SEP - 8 2004
City 0/ Meridian
City Clerk Office
Septemeber 611> , 2004
To: City of Meridian Planning & Zoning and Ada County Highway District
From: Lisa Job, Homeowner in Dartmoor Estates
Re: Propsed KINGSBRIDGE Subdivision
My concerns regarding the proposed KINGSBRIDGE Subdivision are related to
maintaining the quality of our environment, preserving our resources and providing a
high level of safety for the residents of Dartmoor Estates.
Density:
. The current proposal is not compatible with its surrounding areas. The land
under consideration for devel<;Jpment is completely surroUnded by 1 acre and 5
acre parcels. A rating ofR4 allow too many homes and the impact on our
quality of living will be extreme.
. The original plan that was proposed by the developer was for 222 home sites.
When talking about his proposal, the homeowners asked for a reduced number
of home sites, larger perimeter boundaries and larger open areas. When the
proposal was finalized for submittal to the City, it now has 15 additional home
sites, not a reduction
. 1 would like to see this subdivision zoned as an RI or possibly an R2.
. All perimeter lots ofKlNGSBRIDGE should be transitional at no more than 2
home sites per acre.
Traffic:
. The traffic flows proposed by this development allow access so that Dartmoor
Road is now a major artery to Eagle Road. This will increase the number of
cars per day by 300% or more. No improvements for children's safety, traffic
flow or environment protection to Dartmoor Road have been filed with this
proposed development.
. If possible, Dartmoor Road should be made an emergency vehicle, pedestrian
& bike access to KINGSBRIDGE only.
. Merrivale Way, within KlNGSBRIDGE needs to be ONE WAY going east.
Thiswould help direct the traffic of KlNGSBRIDGE to the south entrance.
. If Dartmoor Road is to be a main access road to KINGSBRIDGE, detached
side walks from Eagle Road east on Dartmoor as well as on the east side of
Eagle Road both north and south of the Dartmoor intersection to improve the
safety of our children and pedestrians and to provide a safe zone for the
children at the bus stop location. Dartmoor and Caleb roads are a Deaf Child
Area. Provisions need to be made to maintain a high level of safety.
Rural vs. Urban living:
. Provisions need to be made for proper storm water management to ensure the
current purity levels of the aquifers to our wells.
. If the city utilities are to be brought down Dartmoor, then they should also be
expanded down Caleb and Gideon at the same time. No utilities down
Dartmoor would allow for fewer burdens on the city utility needs by allowing
Dartmoor homeowners to maintain theÌFourrent private wells and septic
systems.
. Irrigation rights and water levels need to be maintained
. Consideration is made to the current 2009 Deed Restriction on Lot 11, Block
2 of Dartmoor Estates.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Lisa Job
3874 S. Gideon Place
Meridian, Idaho 83642
208-887-1254
d;~
September 6, 2004
RECEIVED
SEP - 8 2004
city Clerk's Office of Me~dian P&Z
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian Idaho
Dear Sir or Madam:
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
I am writing this letter in regards to the Kingsbridge development. I have some se~ous concerns with
regards to a number of points in this development in tenns of how It will impact the property value and
standards of life in my home and neighborhood. I would ask that you please consider my concerns
with respect to the development
.~~
From the plat, It appears that the density of housing planned in this development is much
higher than any other developments sunounding the Kingsbridge plan. I would ask to have
the number of homes reduced in order to blend with the sunounding homes better.
. I beHave this development willlnf~nge on my rural style of living. This portion of Ada county is
known to be a rural area. The density of homes that Kingsb~dge is planning belongs more in
the city of Meridian proper than It does in the country.
I am concerned that the added traffic will be a danger to the families of Dartmoor subdivision.
Kingsbridge Is planning to use our road as a main thoroughfare into the development. This will
be a tremendous traffic load on our subdivision.
Sincerely,
'L4¡ ! ð~
Tim OB~en
3873 S. Gideon PI
Me~dian, ID 83642
Bob and lesa L Becker
One Bar One Ranch - 3421 S. Selatir Place
Meridian, ID 83642
RECEIVED
SEP - 8 2004
September S, 2004
City of Mericlian
City Clerk Office
RE: Kingsbrldge Subdivision proposed development on deed restricted open space lot, request to
rezone from RUT to R-4 and "interior street stubbed at the easterly boundary to provide for future
connectivity to Victory Road"
Dear Commissioners:
We are writing to request that you deny the Kingsbridge Subdivision developer's request to
"rezone to R-4" and "reduce minimum lot size" since it is not compatible with existing use in the
area. Your Comprehensive Plan (Plan) indicates "existing land use development patterns provide
the basis for future land use decisions" (Chapter VII, pg. 85). This parcel of land Is surrounded by
1-5.,. acre homes ranging in value from approximately $350,000 to $7S0,OOO (pictures are
attached). The developer never approached us to discuss the proposed development. The first
time we heard about it was when we received the "Notice of Hearing."
The developer has not planned for transition lots adjacent to our S-acre estate ranches to the east
of the development. They have actually clustered the highest density lots along our property line.
The Plan for appropriate uses within rural areas ŒQJ.Iires "new urban density subdivisions...which
abut...low density residentiaL. provide landscaped screening or transitional densities with larger,
more compatible lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural
residential densities (Goal I, Objective D, pg. 103).
To put 4 homes per acre in this area would significantly reduce the property values of the
surrounding homes and destroy the area's character. The Plan further states" it is important for
citizens of the area to determine how they want development to occur in order to preserve the
City's character...." (Chapter VII, pg. 8S). Thank you for that vision and foresight.
The developer has also drawn a road on the eastern edge of the property, which appears to allow
for future access from this development to South Selatir Place. Selatir Place, a narrow rural road
with no sidewalks, was designed to access several S+ acre estate lots. Not only would allowing
this high density development traffic to access South Selatlr Place create an unsafe condition, it is
restricted by an agreement dated September 10, 1993 and filed with the Ada County Recorder
which states; 'The Developer shall extend South Selatir Place as a dead-end cul-de-sac within the
interior of the residential lots of the development, with no reservation of a right-of-way easement
over the residential lots for future extension of the street to other properties."
Finally, the lot proposed for the Kingsbridge Subdivision is deed restricted as "open space" for at
least 15 years. As a result, the land may not legally be developed until March 2009.
As native Idahoans, and long-time Meridian residents, we are proud of the quality lifestyle we
have developed in this area. We ask you to deny this development because it does not preserve
the area's character, as your Comprehensive Plan envisions, it attempts to gain future access to a
road that has restricted access and it is in violation of the 1 S-year restricted deed.
Thayk you for y~OnSideration,
~e:¿ p"
Bob and lesa Becker
,/3c/ð-ß'~
Our neighbors to the East:
RECEIVED
SEP -I 201J1t
September 2, 2004
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
City Clerks Office of Meridian P&Z
330 E Idaho Av
Meridian, ill 83642
Re: Kingsbridge Development
To Whom It May Concern:
As Homeowners in Dartmoor Subdivision, we would like to see the number of homes
planned for Kingsbridge Deveklpment reduced. What the developer has proposed is to
many homes for the area. We want to preserve our rural style of living and we worry
about the safety of having 500 plus cars going by our home each day. There would be no
privacy or safety for our family and grandchildren. We feel that Dartmoor should only be
an emergency entrance and be blocked off for any other use. The Kingsbridge
Development should have its own entrance and exit. The schools are already having
problems because of the number of kids and don't seem to have the funding they need.
There isn't a fire station yet and the roads are not set up to handle the kind of traffic
proposed. There is often a Yz hour wait to get from Overland through the Victory/Eagle
stop now. Even iflights go in it will be such a hardship to deal with every day.
Sincerely,
~Ú
Michael and Donna Rich
3742 S. Caleb PI
Meridian, ill 83642
-- <".-
RECEIVED
::EP G 9 2004
Meridian City Planning & Zoning: CITY OF MERIDIAN
I own a 5 acre parcel immediately abutting the south side of the propo&J l.Yn~iJã~< n F Fir r
Subdivision, which parcel includes a substantial portion of Zaldia Lane (private). I write to
provide my comments on the proposal submitted on behalf of the company which wants to
develop this new subdivision. .
I will be present at the meeting scheduled for Sept. 16th.
Following are my comments. My neighbors concur in these. remarks as indicated in
signatures below.
1.
LANDSCAPING FOR ZALDIA LANE, THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE
DEVELOPMENT.
A. A SUBSTANTIAL BERM - This will ensure that the present character of this area
of Meridian is maintained. There is clearly a boundary between this proposed high-density
development (and points south), and the properties to the south. Tuscany subdivision has
created similar berms which, while not aesthetically pleasing, at least dampen the visual effect of
another cookie-cutter subdivision in this area.
B. A TALL VINYL FENCE - Same comments as above.
C. LARGE,FREQUENTL Y SPACED TREES - Same comments as above
The gist of my suggestions stems from the fact that the developer's proposal has the
backyards of 12 homes facing my front door. This is tantamount to relocating my residence to
an alley.
As you know from experience, standard terms of Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions
try to protect the appearance of the front of homes (so that others in the subject development do
not suffer property valuation loss due to proximity to unsightly homes); however, the same
element would work to actually encourage storage of 'junk" in the backyards, directly affecting
my property value. The difference is that those living in the subdivision would have a remedy
against one who allows his or her property to become unsightly, while I would not.
2. DISALLOW 2 STORY HOUSES ABUTTING ZALDIA LANE.
We presently have an unobstructed country view. The terrain is flat, which would only
accentuate the obtrusiveness of 25 foot tall roofs directly in front of our home.
3. TURN THE LOTS ABUTTING ZALDIA LANE TO RUN EAST-WEST.
By turning the lots 90 degrees, you would reduce the number of houses to about 8
from the proposed 12; this is not a large loss to the developer (or the Meridian City tax base), but
would be more in line with the character of the city, and the particular area of the city. The
Dartmore subdivision immediately to the west of the proposal has large lots with open space.
c_--,~
To allow increased density goes against what Meridian city leaders have been saying for years:
"We will keep our small town, rural identity."
4. THE PROPOSED REQUEST FOR A REDUCTION IN LOT SIZE ONLY COMPOUNDS
THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED ISSUES.
5. NICE LANDSCAPING HAS BEEN PROPOSED FOR OTHER BOUNDARIES OF THE
DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING EAGLE ROAD. EQUAL CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE
GIVEN TO THE PRIV A TEL Y OWNED 5 AND 10 ACRE HOMESITES ON THE
SOUTHERN BOUNDARY. How long will it be before they start dumping their grass clippings
over the back fence? Require a real barrier and it will never happen.
Thank you
£_Ð ----
Philip and Judy' Angeli
~:~ - _l~
Frank and Sue Shoemaker
34~7 Zaldia lane, Meri.1tæ
-~--1%---------~~
Frank and Connie Stauts
4280 S Eagle road, Meridian
September 9, 2004
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
City's Clerks Office
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, ID 83642
Reference to: The application of Vision First, LLC for an annexation and zoning of 76.72 acres for the proposed
Kingsbridge Subdivision.
Dear Madame' and Sirs,
We are homeowners in the Dartmoor subdivision and our home and property is one that will directly adjoin this
development on our eastern property line and their western border. We very much enjoy the "rural" setting of our home
and neighborhood. We enjoy the farming that takes place on these 76.72 acres each year. Harvest time always signals
the coming of fall and winter and as occurred last evening, the huge flocks of ducks and geese landing in the field behind
are a joy to behold.
Having said all of this, we do understand that development is inevitable. We have received your notice of hearing and
have reviewed the development layout, the traffic impact study, the application for rezoning and annexation, the planned
development application and the master declarations of covenants, conditions and restrictions of the Kingsbridge
Subdivision development. The "general" idea of this development is reasonable to us; however, we would like to point out
a few issues we believe your commission must consider before your decision.
1- The orooosed development at R-4 is not compatible with the current neiahborhoods and properties in the area.
To allow 237 homes to be built in the center of our rural area would have a very negative impact on our
neighborhood as well as our property values. Our subdivision is one with lot sizes at one acre plus. The
developments surrounding the remainder of this proposed 76.72-ecre development are five acre plus lot sizes.
Our wish is that Meridian Planning and Zoning would allow only R-1 to a maximum of R-3 in the development of
this property and require transitional lot sizes adjacent to existing homes of not more than two homes to one acre.
2- The use of Dartmoor as a main entrance to 186 of these proposed homes creates a Great safetv concern.
Dartmoor and Caleb are desiGnated a Deaf Child Area. Adults and children walk on this little street to play &
socialize with one another, and to and from the bus on Eagle road each day. There are no sidewalks and the
"shoulders" are actually drainage ditches for the irrigation water runoff from the fields to the north and east of us
and are quite muddy most of the year. More entrances must be required, not just "stubbed ouF as proposed.
3- Provisions need to be mandated bv vour commission for proper storm water manaaement in order to ensure the
current Puritv levels of the aQuifers to our wells. We all currently have wells, which we use for drinking water. We
consider this a great attribute to our homes and way of life.
4- Our water riahts and irriGation drainaaes need to be provided for and maintained.
5- Open spaces need to be no less than 10% of the total land. This should be functional open space not includina
berms or other landscaDina reQuirements. Open spacing should be located between Dartmoor subdivision and
other surrounding properties and Kingsbridge development to establish a transitional line and preserve our
current residential environment. This open space should be located on the complete parameter of Kingsbridge,
not just along the Ten Mile Feeder canal.
6- With Dartmoor Road Dlanned as one of onlv two entrances to Kinasbridae development detached sidewalks from
Eaale Road east on Dartmoor Road as well as on the east side of Eaale Road both north and south of the
DaI:imoor~RteFSElCtion are ReedeGl lo-iFRsr6\/e thesafetv œ ol: r ohikllen andPedestriansanct1a orovide a safe
zone for the children at the bus StOD location.
We understand development is inevitable, however the approval by you with restrictions that both preserve the current
environment we have invested our lives in and which are reasonable enough to ensure the developer will retain a fair
profrt, are what we are seeking.
Sincerely,
~ úiÆ¿-
Michael & Paula Reedy
3702 S Caleb Place
Meridian, Id 83642
884-4499
RECEIVED
SEP (j 3. 2004
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY CLERK OFFICF
To: City of Meridian Planning and Zoning.
RECEIVED
SEP C 8 2004
From: Troy and Kristi Quick (Dartmoor subdivision homeowners).
City Of Meridian
City Clerk OffiCé
Re: The proposed Kingsbridge subdivision.
My wife and I wanted to express our concerns about the .¡¡roposed Kingsbridge
subdivision. We are not anti-development, actually just the contrary, we run a building
contracting business ourselves. However, we feel the R-4 zoning with smãlIërlbiUil!,{)m:f
sq/ft lots would not be complimentary to the surrounding homes. AlI of the surrounding
bomes are on 1,5 and 10 acre parcels. We were one of the first homes into this
subdivision, and have enjoyed raising our children here for the past 10 years. Only 2 of
the original home owners have move out. I feel this attest to the quality of life our
subdivision has offered us. As proposed the Kingsbridge subdivision, will greatly Ì1hpact
that quality of life. We do believe that a suitable subdivision could be built that would
have less of an impact on the surrounding homeowners. The items that need to be
addressed are as follows.
1.) Larger lot sizes (1/2 to 1/3 of an acre).
2.) Larger more expensive homes.
3.) Safety of our children.
We feel that there are plenty of subdivisionsJor smaller homes. We need some
subdivisions that have larger lots for more upper scale bomes to 6é builtiiï:î1ie larger-
lots will reduce the density and the number of car trips per day that will come down
Dartmoor road. We also feel that we most have sidewalks placed on Dartmoor road to
ensure the safety of our children as the walk to the bus stop.
-----~-----~ -
?i~. ~
~::7 Q ~
Troy and Kristi Quick
-- - ---- ---------- ---------
, -
,v'
Brady & Teresa Turner
3678 S. Caleb Place
Meridian, ID 83642-7068
208-887-6832
RECEIVED
SEP 0 8 2004
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
September 7, 2004
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Meridian
,_~llEasU4ilio.Å¥<:nue,,- ,- ~-~-~---~~----- ~~-~'~,-~--~-~----
Meridian, Idaho 83642
~-~--, --,----
-- ---- ------
RE: Proposed KlNGSBRIDGE Subdivision
Dear Commissioners:
We are writing regarding our opposition to the proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision per the
Application filed by Vision First, LLC (the "Applicant"), scheduled for hearing September 16, 2004.
As residents ofDartmoor Subdivision since its inception, we believe the Kingsbridge Subdivision
will have a negative impact on our neighborhood for the following reasons:
I. Lot 11, Block 2 ofDartmoor Subdivision which the Applicant requests the City of Meridian
to annex is currently designated as open space on the recorded Plat ofDartmoor Subdivision.
Furthermore, Lot 11, Block 2 of Dartmoor Subdivision is deed restricted as noted on the
recorded Plat ofDartmoor Subdivision and on the deed from the developer to the first owner.
Residents ofDartmoor Subdivision have relied upon the open space plat designation and 15-
year agriculture use deed restriction as a prohibition on development of this land in keeping
with the rural nature ofDartmoor. The residents of Dart moor Subdivision have obtained a
legal opinion in support of our opposition to this development, a copy of which has been
--~~--~-- -'- ---SUbìnîtt:eû~fî1êy:-'--~-~--------- ~---- -- '-,-- --~ ~-'---' -
2. Section 28, Township 3 North, Range 1 East is designated for low density residential use in
the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. The Applicant is
requesting higher density than R-4 due to its request for reduction in minimum lot size to
7,000 square feet and reduced setbacks. The proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision is therefore
not in compliance with the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
3. Kingsbridge Subdivision as proposed by the Applicant is not compatible with surrounding
current land use. All of the developed parcels surrounding proposed Kingsbridge are one
acre or greater in size. The current land use is rural in character with wood rail fencing,
minimal artificial lighting, and open space, while the Kingsbridge Subdivision as proposed is
distinctly urban in character with urban improvements and density. Imposing an urban
development adjacent to our existing rural development will negatively impact the rural
character ofDartmoor Subdivision and its neighbors.
T-'~
r"
4. Kingsbridge Subdivision as proposed by the Applicant will produce, by its own studies, some
2200 additional vehicles on the roads through and surrounding Dartmoor Subdivision. The
Dartmoor Subdivision has a mere 15 residential lots connected to Dartmoor Drive, which
Applicant proposes to utilize for access to Eagle Road. The volume of traffic to be produced
by residents of Kingsbridge Subdivision will directly and negatively impact the quiet rural
character of the Dartmoor Subdivision. The many children of Dartmoor Subdivision have
always felt safe to gather and play on its streets. Dartmoor Drive has no sidewalks, no
gutters, and no street lights in keeping with its rural character and is therefore not equipped to
handle this volume of traffic from the Kingsbridge residents while protecting the safety of
pedestrians. Caleb Place and Dartmoor Drive are also a posted deaf child area.
-----. -_._._~.recogni7f'. thM thf'. AÒR C:onnty !iighWJl¥ Di.trict i.proposingimprov..ement. to
South Eagle Road, we have barely begun to absorb the impact of the Tuscany, Thousand
Springs, and Sutherland Farm developments in this area. Adding the 2200 vehicles from
Kingsbridge to the mix will add significant congestion to our roads.
._.~.~_.-
6. Applicant's agents met with the residents ofDartmoor last April, at which time Applicant
proposed 222 residential lots in Kingsbridge. The Dartmoorresidents voiced many concems
about the impact and density of the proposed urban development on our land values, streets,
and rural quality oflife. Applicant later submitted its application to the City of Meridian for
237 residential lots, addressing only a single concern ofDartmoor residents--to continue the
supply and flow of tail water we rely on for irrigation and fire suppression. Therefore,
Applicant has not negotiated in good faith with the Dartmoor residents to address our
concerns adequately.
Based on the foregoing objections, we respectfullv reQuest that the Application for Kingsbridge
Subdivision be denied as proposed. If the Applicant wishes to propose a rural development with
much lower density in keeping with the surrounding land use and mitigation of our traffic concems,
we would likely support such a proposal.
We favor controlled, sensible development with preserved rural areas and open spaces, especially in
----t:Iw-wnidor betw@e!1 H~ridi:;u;¡ and Boise We-d~illing...alLopen space bpÍV'rpen-
Meridian and Boise will enhance either municipality, and it will certainly result in the destruction of
the existing rural lifestyle of the area. We ask that any development of Lot 11, Block 2, Dartmoor
meet the following conditions: (a) density of no higher than Rl or R2; (b) lots directly contiguous to
Dartmoor lots at least 1 acre in size; (c) restricted use of Dartmoor Drive; and (4) substantial
improvements to Eagle Road prior to any further development providing access thereto.
.-----.
We thank you for your consideration.
~~
- & T - ,.,.:,., ~
Lot 6, Block 2, Dartmoor Subdivision
Sep 08 04 02:58p
Bill Lewis
208-288-1800
p.1
September 8, 2004
RlE c E IVED~
SEP 0 ~ 2004
City Of Me . ,
City Cl k ndlan
er Office
William and Shari Lewis
4200 South Eagle Road
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Mr, William Berg, City Clerk
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Dear Mr. Berg,
Re: Kingsbridge Subdivision
We recently received notification of a public hearing for the above-referenced subdivision on Eagle Road south of
Victory Road, We have some concerns andlor suggestions about the subdivision that we would like to bring to your
attention,
Although we have not seen the entire subdivision plan, our largest concern is the adverse affect it will have On our
property values at 4200 South Eagle Rd. We say this because the southern property line of Kings bridge Subdivision
is the northern boundary of the private lane leading to our property. We do not care to view the back yards of all the
homes in Kingsbridge Subdivision. We would therefore suggest that the Southern boundary of lUngs bridge be a
landscaped mound of din topped with a nice view-blocking fence,
Berter yet, please require Kingsbridge Subdivision to incorporate Za1dia Lane as its Eagle Road access. This would
reduce the number of Eagle Road accesses for ACHD pwposes, Zaldia Lane ends within direct line-of-sight with
Bort Lane which connects to CloverdaIe Road, This would be a wonderful through access for future reference, This
option would require ZaldialBott Lanes to be SO feet wide, which is doable now but not likely in the future,
We understand that the Kingsbridge preliminary design calls for Nine Mile Creek to be placed in conduit
underground. It would make more sense to divert the water under Zaldia Lane 25 feet to the south so the water
could be used for landscaping on the southern border of Zaldia Lane. This would improve property values for both
sides of Zaidia Lane and might alleviate some of the property value concerns for other Zaldia Lane homeowners.
Your careful consideration of the above-referenced matters would be especially helpful, We, as tax payers,
appreciate the efforts you make on behalf of the City of Meridian. It continues to grow and mature due to your
continued services.
Most sincerely,
,i/ (/ /1' Ò
/]/" /'-,-:,:,¿"v
~/'"t1...""")~"i 'il "-'.
- /" /-....¡
Shan"'S', LéWis
v/
WilliamJ. Lewis II
SEP 138 '04 16:12
2138 288 181313
PAGE. 131
MofJqtt Thomas
MOFFATI' THOMAS BARRE'IT ROCK & FIEIþs, CHTD.
Bo~.
'daho Falls
Pocat.,1G
Eug"". C. Tho....
John W. Bun",
R. 8. Rod<
Ri,han! C. Fi.lds
Robe" E. Bak~
Joho S. g¡mko
Joho C. Wan!
D. Jame, Manniog
Gary T. Dan",
!.any C. Hun..,
Mo'gan W. R¡ehanl,
M",k A. Elli"'n
Randall A. P"""""n
M"k S. Pmsynoo
Stephen R. Tho....
GI.nnaM. Chri"""""
G""ld T. Husch
Scott L. CampheU
Robe" B. Bu'n'
Jam.. C. Da1e
Mi,hael E. Thomas
Pau¡'ia M. OI.son
Jam.. C. doGl",
Badley J W;Uiams
Lee Radfun!
MiehodO.R-
Davids.J""~n
Jam~ L. Mattin
C. Clayn>n (;;11
David P. Ganln"
Julian E. Gabiola
Angela Schae, K.ufinann
Kimberly D. Evan, Rn"
Benjamin H. Schwanz
Jon A. Sœnqu;"
Eri,M.B""""
Brndley J. Dôxon
Ja"'n G. Mu""y
Mad< C. p""""'n
And.... J. Walde..
Shawn C. Nunley
U5 Bank Plaza Buildin9
101 5 Capitol Blvd 10th FI
PO Box 829
Boise. Idaho 83701 0829
May 27, 2004
2083452000
8004222889
208 385 5384 Fax
www.moffatl.com
~.. .\\~
~~~~.
~!(~
RECEIV:B~])
SEP 0 8 2004
W;UisCMoe;",.1907-1980
Kirk R. Helv;". 1956-2003
Rick R. Stott
Agri Beef Co.
1555 Shoreline Drive, Third Floor
Boise, Idaho 83707
Re: Dartmoor Subdivision
MTBR&F File No. 19-898.0
Dear Rick:
City Of Meridiml
City Clerk Office
You have asked me to advise you and the other homeowners in the Dartmoor Subdivision
("Dartmoor") with respect to the proposed development of Lot 11, Block 2 (the "Subject LoC),
by Vision First, L.L.C. and/or Vision Land Management, LLC üointIy, "Vision First"). More
speci.fically, you have inquired whether the Dartmoor residents may have the legal right to stop
or impede the development of the Subject Lot absent an agreement with respect to the design
and extent of the development between Vision First and the Dartmoor residents.
To assist in my responding to your inquiry, you have provided me with copies ofthe following
documents:
L
The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for
Dartmoor Subdivision (the "CC&Rs"), which were made by Skyline
Development Company ("Skyline") and recorded in March 1994;
2.
The Plat Showing Dartmoor Subdivision (the "Plat"), which was also recorded
in March 1994; and
3.
The Warranty Deed by which Skyline conveyed the Subject Lot to the
Williamsons in January 1995 (the "Deed").
In addition to these documents, I have obtained and reviewed copies of the applicable Ada
County ordinances, both as in effect in 1994 when the CC&Rs and Plat were recorded and as in
effect today. . I have not, however, obtained copies of any other documents, whether recorded or
BoLMT2:547817.1
Rick R. Stott
May 27,2004
Page 2
~ ,\1 íu
..ø~ ~~J\
y¡J~ ~ ~
v
~
unrecorded, that might pertain to the development of the Subject Lot and have assumed for
pwposes of my review that no other relevant documents exist.
Notwithstanding the fact that the CC&Rs were recorded against the Subject Lot, the third
paragraph of Article II, the frrst paragraph of Article IV, and Section 5.27 of the CC&Rs all
exclude the Subject Lot from the application of that declaration. Conversely, however, both
part (g) of Article IV and Section 5.01(b) of the CC&Rs proscribe any development of the
Subject Lot; and, in addition, the Warranty Deed conveys the Subject Lot to the Williamsons
"[sJubject to restrictive covenants of said Subdivision." Thus, because the Williamsons
acquired the Subject Lot subject to the limitations imposed by the CC&Rs, neither they nor any
successor in interest to them should be able to avoid the referenced proscriptions on
development without, at a minimum, obtaining a deed from Skyline releasing the Subject Lot
from the quoted restriction. Moreover, even if Vision First were to obtain such a deed from
Skyline (which could expose Skyline to legal claims by the Dartmoor residents), Idaho case law
supports the Dartmoor residents' right to enforce the proscriptions on development contained in
the CC&Rs.
In Middlekauffv. Lake Cascade. Inc., 110 Idaho 909 (1986), landowners in a subdivision
brought suit seeking to enjoin the fencing ofland that they had been told by the subdivision
developer would be maintained as a common recreational area. Significantly, the land at issue
was neither subjected to recorded restrictions on use nor shown in any recorded plat as a
common recreational area. Nevertheless, the Idaho Supreme Court held that the landowners
had an enforceable interest in the land and that the defendants were required to hold the
disputed open area in trust as a common area for the use of the subdivision's residents. In
reaching its decision, the court relied, in part, on a New Mexico decision holding that lot
owners held an equally enforceable interest where a developer indicated in a plat that certain
land would be maintained as a recreational area. 110 Idaho at 913.
The decision in Middlekauffshould establish the right of the Dartmoor residents to prevent the
development of the Subject Lot for the following two reasons. First, the CC&Rs proscribe any
development of the Subject Lot, as previously mentioned. Second, Note 9 of the Plat expressly
provides thatthe Subject Lot "is a deed restricted lot and may only be used for open space as
defined in. .. Ada County Code, Section 8-4B-7 . . . [and that] this lot must be used in
aforestated manner for a period of not less than fifteen (IS) years ITom the recording date of
[March 3,1994.]" Furthermore, the referenced ordinance as in effect at the time the Plat was
recorded specifically provided that the restriction contained in the Plat "shall prevent
development and/or subsequent subdivision of the open space area. . .." ADA COUNTY CODE,
§ 8-4B-7.E.1.f{4) (amended September 2003). Therefore, laying aside any representations
regarding the Subject Lot that Skyline (or its agents) may have also made directly to certain of
the Dartmoor residents, all of these residents were assured by the recordation of the Plat that the
Subject Lot would not be developed for IS years and they were further assured by the
recordation of the CC&Rs that the Subject Lot would never be developed.
801_MT2:547817.1
..
Rick R. Stott
May 27,2004
Page 3
~
~j .. ,Y
~ ~ ~ {)'b}
Accordingly, based on the Idaho Supreme Court's decision in Middlekauff, absent an agreement
with all of the homeowners in Dartmoor, anyone of the Dartmoor residents would appear to
have good grounds under Idaho law to obtain an injunction proscribing the development of the
Subject Lot by Vision First until at least March 3, 2009, ifnot until the CC&Rs are
extinguished sometime in the indefinite future.
Very truly yours,
þþ-
RBBlkdp
BOt_Mr2,547B17.1
9-7-04
RECEIVED
SEP - 8 2004
City of Merídi:-"
City Clerk offIce
To City of Meridian P&Z,
In May of 1994 we purchased a 1.1 acre building lot in the Dartrnoor Subdivision, from
Skyline Development Company to build a new home. The lot prices were at a premium
price because oflocation, 15 year deed restriction, and we were told that the 56.6 acre
lots behind our development would be 1 to 2 acre home sites. When we met with Vision
First (Kingsbridge) Development Company February 24,2004 at a Dartmoor
Homeowners Association meeting, we were told that the 15 year deed restriction would
expire when annexation from the City of Meridian was in affect. We as homeowners
hired Moffatt Thomas Law firm to advise us on the deed restriction, (see attached letter
from Moffatt Thomas). At the same meeting the developer showed us a 222 home site
plat that the city of Meridian has never seen (see attached copy). We told them that we
would like to have R2 zoning, and if Dartrnoor drive was going to be used that they
would have to install sidewalks, landscaping, tall fencing on lots that border Dartrnoor
drive and Eagle rd, increased easement and height restrictions on all adjoining lots, speed
bumps, deaf child areas and a long list of concerns.
Vision First Development had a 2nd meeting with Dartrnoor homeowners on August 19,
2004, the new plat was 237 homes from 222 homes they did nothing in lowering the
amount of homes in this development, they did not offer to put in sidewalks,
landscaping, and fencing as you can see on your plat on Dartrnoor drive.
The traffic study prepared by Dobie Engineering shows that 550-700 cars per day will
use Dartmoor drive and 1200-1600 cars a day would use Kingsbridge drive. On paper
they can make the traffic study look that way, but if you look at the biggest part of the
development you can see that most people will use Dartrnoor drive to get to their homes,
not Kingsbridge drive. They told us that they were trying to buy up houses up above us
on Falcon drive to make that there 2nd entrance to Kingsbridge development and take our
subdivision out of any entrance to their development. We were told by 2 homeowners on
Falcon drive that they were offered twice the value of their homes. Ifthey are not able to
use Falcon drive or any other entrance to their development other then Dartmoor drive
they need to meet with our subdivision and go over our list of things that will maintain
the quality of our environment and provide a high level of safety for our residents and
meet with the 5 homeowners on Dartrnoor drive and work out some type of financial
agreement for diminished value of our homes because of the high traffic on our street. If
they are not willing to work with us, we will seek legal council from Moffatt Thomas to
uphold our legal right to obtain an injunction to stop the development in order to have
time to sell our house and move on.
Sincerely,
Tim and Laurie Wallace
3834 S. Gideon Dartmoor Subdivision
Meridian, ill 83642
Hm-884-0740
Wk-378-9887
Sepœmber 7, 2004
RECEIVED
SEP 0 9 2004
To: City of Meridian Planning and Zoning
Re: Proposed KINGSBRIDGE development
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Dear Sir or Madam:
My family and I live in Darlmoor Estates, which is located Wrectly west and north of the proposed
Kingsbridge development. Darlmoor Estates consists of nice upper end bomes. on 1 acre lots within a simple
environment, open wood pole fencing, no sidewalks and very little traffic (within the subdivision that is). We
love living here due to it> quiet, rural environment.
I am writing you to express my disapproval with the Kingsbridge development as it is currently proposed.
Listed below are my major concerns:
Minimum Lot Size. The sheer number of homes (237) is my largest concern and at the root of
most of my concerns. I request that the R4 zoWng not be allowed and that the minimum lot size
be increased to, at least, 'Iz acre (R2 zoning, I believe) due to the funowing
0
The adjacent homes are on 1 acre or greater lots. The proposed density does not fit
with any of the current surrounding properties. The majority of Kingsbridge will be
'1and-locked" by 1 and 5 acre properties.
0 The smaIl lot size will -..ct lower end homes, thus, affecting the value of the
surrounding properries.
0
It will comple1cly destroy the current rural environment that exists.
0
We (Dartmoor residents) have expressed our concern with the density to the
developers, but the number of homes has only increased since our initial meering The
current proposal seems to be. oOIy. about fining in . as rwuty homes. as . possible, which
means more money fur the developer, but destroys the quality of this area for the
current and future residentS. '
Increased Traffic on Darlmoor Road. Traffic driving to Kingsbridge via Darlmoor is both a
safety and quality of Iifu issue. I request that Darlmoor Road not be used as an access to
Kingsbridge, except fur emergency vehicle, pedestrian and bike access.
0
I am very concerned about the safety of our children. The children wáit fur the bus,
walk and play 'along Darlmoor road. There are no sidewalks and the road is just big
enough fur 2 way traffic. The Caleb and Darimoor roads are also a Deaf 01ild area.
The increased traffic through Darlmoor on to Kingsbridge, especially at the proposed
density, is a definite safety issue.
0
The homes along Darimoor road have open fencing Their property values and quality
of life will be directly affected by an increase in traffic.
Current water rights and irrigation drainage need to be provided fur and maintained.
-2-
Seprember 7, 2004
Quality of the Warer Aquirers. Darlmoor residents and surrounding properties rely on their own
wells for clean ware" I am concerned about the effect on the purity of the aquifers with such a
large number of homes in the area.
I am not against development of this area, although I had 2 expectations. First was that this area would
not be developed until 2009 due 10 the Deed Restriction on Lot 11, Block 2 of Darlmoor Estares. Second was
that it would be developed in such a way 10 fit in and compliment the current surrounding properties I do not
see the current proposed Kingsbridge development as doing either.
It is for these reasons I ask that you do not approve the current proposed Kìngsbridge development and R4
zoning;
Sincerely,
ß/ IÎ- rr
Ronald R. Pattan
3885 S. Gideon Place
Meridian, ill, 83642
(208)887-9860
RECEIVED
September 6, 2004 SEP 0 9 2004
T C. fM'd' PI . &2' dAd C High ..9tyOfMeridian
0: Ity 0 en Ian anrung onmg an a ounty way DISmiI!Y Clerk Office
From: TUn and Renee Rule family, Dartmoor Subdivision Homeowners
Re: Proposed Development on the land directly east and south of Dartmoor
Estates
designated as Kingsbridge.
To Whom It-May Concern: -
As a satisfied homeowner for eight years in the Dartmoor Subdivision off of
Eagle Road we would like to maintain the quality of our cun-ent
environment, preserve our resources and continue to provide a high level of
safety for our residents.
These goals are threatened by the proposal of the new Kingsbridge
subdivision.
Already, it appears the cun-ent 2009 Deed Restrictionon Lot 11, Block 2 of
Dartmoor Estates (which was our assnmption as we purchased our lot) will
be null on this property directly east and south of us, as a result of
annexation. Therefore, please consider these requests as this land is
developed much earlier than anticipated.
1. Minimal lot size to be R2 zoning. We already have small lots,
duplexes and apartments being built within a two-mile radius of this
property. It is justifiable to zone this property R2.
2. Dartmoor Road to be an emergency vehicle, pedestrian and bike
access to Kingsbridge only.
3. Transitional lot sizes adjacent to existing homes of not less than 2 to I
acre.
4. Water rights and irrigation drainages need to be provided for and
maintained.
5. Provisions need to be made for proper stonn water management to
ensure the cUITent purity levels of the aquifers to our wells.
6. Open spaces need to be 10% of the total land. This is to be functional
open spaces, not including benns or other landscaping requirements.
One other note: We do not feel that the developer has worked with our
subdivision in "good faith" on this project. They have listened to our
requests but not incorporated them in their plans for the land use.
In conclusion, we would ask you to consider upholding the current 2009
Deed Restriction on this property. However, if this is not possible, please
give strong consideration to a balanced growth development for the city of
Meridian and restrict this Lot 11, Block 2 of Dartmoor Estates to be deemed
R2 zomng.
T. hankS~. . ; ..... your consideration,
-.---IM~~
~Arv?t~ ø~efL-
Tim and Renee Rule
¡Ø . 3!Jl:ld 17SS98S00øz
09/02/2004 T1IU 16:14 FAX
1717:9t 170. ë:0 d3S
~ 001/004
~ ~;--:<
iZ:,~
,-
~..
...
THE LAND GROUP, INC.
September 2, 2004
Fa..
City of Meridian Planning and Zoning
Altn: Planning and Zoning Commission
660 Watertower Ln.. SIC. 202
Meridian, Idaho 83642
ç:Ol../..O',r,1
Re: Kingsbridge Subdivision Rezone
Dear Commissioners and Staff:
The Kingsbridge Subdivision property has been pOSted as required for the Panning and Zoning
hearing for the Annexalion/Rezone, Planned Development and Preliminary Plat. Nole that the
sign was ordered on 8/23/04. Thus, the picture date of 8116104 is in error. Signs were installed at
the end of Dartmoor Drive 3 ]d along Eagle Road per the atlached sketch.
Sincerely,
h~~
Gordon D. Bates, P.E.
The Land Group
I~Js"'1""' "¡'¡(rr"'r< -S/lrPlr...;~! -CJ"II:.Û"";'" -CøJjc..,.,,/mJdllønó"ß"!iN""Ag -Cfflplm.'C".",m",n¡;,.
.1(,2 J;. ;1"". J)riv..;re. 100, ¡",gr., .L1h.. 83GIG - [' W8.939A04¡ II2(]U39.40'J> - W\"",.,h<i,..odgn",I';"c,«,",
,.
too~
'!,¡e¡;) ¿It;) +-
. .Ld3:([ 2'1'" NVI([!HffiI1
tSS9SS8S0¡¡ XV" C¡¡: 9f tOOV7.0/RO
>:0 '3!Jl:Jd 17£89888802:
09/0212004 TIIU 16: 15 FAX
817:9t 170, 2:0 d3S
~003/004
coo~
}{.:ca{~ ':lt~ ..
'.Ld!lŒ Z\'d NVIŒHI!!W
HSSSSgSOZ XV.:! SZ: 9! ÞOOZIZO/60
æ " 3!Jttd 17S8988æl2lë:
09/02/2004 T1!U 16: 14 FAX
917:9't17I21,ë:0d3S
iii 002/004
zoo~
) .!ey:) .£11:) ~
".Lcl1!( ZWcI NVI( H!1!W
tSeeeeeeoz XV.:! cz: 9I tOOZlZO/60
t"1:j-ælOd
09/02/2004 THU 17£898888
18: a FAX Øë:
I
Î
i
I "16~
I
¡-,_o-
J~~~
i
I . ~ ~.....
¡l-..--._... i
, ~ .~~......!
II ~ :-'l~ 'I
~, ' ~ I
g; I
.; of.; - . ,e
! ~ ,--'" .I-
t . "",. .;g
i "'--" 0'00 'j< <
, ~" §" ..- .
-'_o_--~_o_- ..::;4.. i! " $I, :I~ m~
,- .,' .>
I"',;¡;p- . . ,," .,
, .~". ,.,
! ~i - -' ,/"
I .1- ." ..... '
I ~~ "'5 "-.--
,I _o-
roe I
... I ...! ~, . '^
IN, t<..'-~' ,£~"
i i ¡ - ,!",.", ' "'...
I l I I "". ~
¡ ~ i ~-?,.\.
i
L...
ÞOO/ÞOO ~
'I.lay::> .ó:lT::> ..
. J.dllΠzv
..._"""'. cI NVIŒH!1IW
ÞS8988880Z XV
d H:9T Þ
OOV2n/.n
ë:0:¿T 17"
"" ë:0 d3S
IQOO4/004
<0
September 9, 2004
RE C E IVEI)
TO: Meridian City Planning and Zoning
FROM: Frank Shoemaker
, ¡:
, "
RE: Kingsbridge Subdivision
Vision First, LLC Developer
CiTY OF MERIDIAN
::;IT( CU:::RK OFFiCF
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above proposed project.
I currently own a five acre parcel at 3497 Zaldia Lane, Zaldia Lane is a private lane, abutting
the south boundary of the Kingsbridge project. This private lane currently provides access for
seven dwellings. When built, mine will be #8. All of the dwellings are located on at least five
acre parcels. All are custom built homes, estimated value range from $350,000 to $750,000 for
the large estate setting.
THE PROJECT:
The Kingsbridge Subdivision, as proposed, appears to be very basic, that which is copied from
developer to developer. Reference is bing made to minimal common area, street landscaping
and extensive street corridor landscaping along traveled streets. Developer mentions no
specific architectural design, style or minimun price category. Typically seen are the same to
similar variations of homes by several builders. Most tend to mirror each other.
The North Meridian Area Plan where diversity in residential design and housing variety is
encouraged would be my preference. Although at this stage of the game, is not likely.
BUILDING SITES ALONG ZALDIA LANE
As proposed, Plympton Drive within the Kingsbridge project, will be the frontage street for 12
building lots. Each lot being high density, 7,000 sq ft parcels. Note that this is approximately
50% of the stated 24 sites within the project to be this small. Thus, dictating two level
configuration dwellings will most likely be constructed.
Zaldia Lane will be adjacent to the rear of these properties.
LARGER LOT'S
Developer states larger building sites, excess of 12,500 Square Feet are arranged along the
westerly perimeter of the subject project as a buffer and transition to the larger lots in the
Dartmoor Subdivision, adjacent to the subject project. The Dartmoor lots are approximately one
acre in size. Some are closer to half acre lots.
Along Zaldia Lane, minimum five acre sites exist. Yet, no transition of larger sites are viewed as
necessary. Instead we have high density 7,000 Sq Ft building sites.
LANDSCAPING:
The Landscaping design notes extensive plantings of 6' trees, large bermed area's with 6'
privacy fencing. Everywhere that is except along Zaldia Lane. End result is a direct view of two
level homes and a view of the of the rear yard. Developer proposes a see through wrought iron
fencing and minimal landscaping along Zaldia Lane.
PARKING OF RV'S MOTOR HOMES:
Typically, the subdivision CC&R'S 'specify no parking of boats, motor homes, etc along the
street corridors. No restriction however to the rear yard area, especially if no other dwelling
borders the rear property boundary. Viewed in some area's are extended garage's with drive
through garage doors or RV gates along the side with extended concrete area's. Thus, in
addition to the direct view of the dwelling, parking of boat's campers, etc is likely. Further
diminishing the curb appeal along Zaldia Lane.
CONCLUSION:
As proposed, the developer appears to have minimal concern for those individuals who use
Zaldia Lane as their street access and what the end result will be. Property value's are not
being enhanced by what the end result of Large two level homes, no buffer zone for
landscaping, and most likely the parking of RVS, boat's, campers, in the rear yard will
create.
As a transition to the larger acreage parcels, along Zaldia lane, larger lots should be created
and no two level configuration should be permitted. Parking of RVS etc with extensive harmed
landscaping along Zaldia Lane and only allowing only one level designed homes would be
acceptable.
I have included photos for your review, showing in detail what currently exist on Zaldia Lane
and the projected curb appeal of allowing two level homes to be built, absent any buffer zone of
landscaping.
~f~
Frank Shoemaker
3497 Zaldia Lane
Meridian, Idaho
?~c:2~
Phil D:~~~ .
3405 Zaldia Lane
Meridian, Idaho
COllllll8llls:
ZALDIA LANE, LOOKING WEST.
KINGSSRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED ON THE RIGHT
SIDE OF THIS PHOTO. NORTH SIDE OF STREET.
Comrneró:
ZALDIA LANE
PHOTO IS LOOKING NORTH FROM THE COMMON DRIVEWAY
OF FRANK SHOEMAKER AND PHIL DEANGELI
KlNGSBRJDGE PROJECT WOULD BE ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF THE WHITE FENCING
CommenIs:
ZALDIA LANE, LOOKING EAST FROM SOUTH EAGLE ROAD
KlNGSBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IS TO THE LEFT.
CommønIS:
Comments:
LOOKING SOUTH ALONG SOUTH EAGLE ROAD.
TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED ON THE RIGHT.
NOTE EXTENSIVE lANDSCAPING.
DARTMOOR SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED ON THE LEFT. NOTE
THAT THE DWELLINGS ARE ALL ONE LEVEL HOMES WITH
EXTENSIVE BUFFER ZONE OF LANDSCAPING
Comments:
TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION. ACROSS FROM THE
PROPOSED KINGSBRIDGE PROJECT.
NO LANDSACPING, CANAL ACCESS ROAD.
, ----
Comments:
TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION NEW CONSTRUCTION
ALLlWO LEVEL HOMES, NO lANDSCAPING AS THEY BACK
UP TO A CANAl ACCESS ROAD. VINYL FENCING HOWEVER
PROVIDES MORE PRIVACY THAN A WROUGHT IRON FENCE
Comments:
TUSCANY lAKES SUBDIVISION. RV GATE AND EXTENDED
CONCRETE PARKING
IF INADEQUATE SIDE YARD, DRIVE THRU GARAGE DOOR TO
ACCESS THE REAR YARD IS DONE.
Commenls:
NEW SUBDIVISION WHERE NO BUFFER LANDSCAPING WAS
REQUIRED.
Comments:
lWO LEVEL HOMES, GOOD VIEW OF REAR YARD'S
COIIIIIIIInIs:
NEW WOODBRIDGE SUBDIVISION, ALL lWO LEVEL HOMES
NO LANDSCAPING BUFFER FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY
Comments:
ONE LEVEL PROJECT, MINIMAL LANDSCAPING. WROUGHT
IRON FENCING
WITH EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING, AND PRIVACY FENCE,
THIS WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. MAJORITY OF THE ROOF
LINE WOULD NOT BE VISIBLE
""
TomS.
3300 EDartmoor
Meridian ID 83642
ú¡ ~ 5 bri ~:~ vel OpWlftkJC EIVED
SEP 09 2004
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Dear City Council,
Our family have been residents of Dartmoor subdivision for nearly ten years. We
have been concerned about our future quality of life since Kingsbrige became an issue.
Our home has more frontage on Dartmoor drive than II!lY other. We have many reasons
to oppose ~ development ofKingsbridge subdivision. We understand your time is
precioUII and will do our best to keep things brief.
First, we oppose the development on any grounds as to the legal moratorium of 15
years placed on the property at the time of the Dartmoor development. What good is a 15
year milepost if it is not enforeed? I am not sure we would have purchased our property
cc~?'>;~'~ cc..- "c...c'ìl'_iIíIl!ÌS~iiiöw¡ì'¡¡eiåW:~,UIi;; ~'ãIit-tlft~:"¿"3~'c'¿, -.
Second, is the issue of1n .ffic flow. Over the years the children in our
neighborhoo4 have come 1:Q feeI,8IIie on it's streets and, wiJth some caution, feel free to
roam its byways. We feel.øn,inqrease in this flow, however small, may result in a tragedy
merely because our childreÞ,(:Ii¡Qn the ages of3 month and up (37 total» are creatures of
habit. We also feel quite sure ~ NEW drivers on our -. while exiting Eagle road at
over 50 MPH, will fail to know the sheer number of YOU11Ø children that occupy our area.
This does not even consider the young children standing on the corner of Eagle and
Dartmoor awaiting and returnin¡ from the bus each day. We fear strongly that if access
to over 1200 cars a day is granted someone will soon perish. We heard an emergency
only use is a possibility and feel that would be appropriate. Please at a minimum make
the effort to restrict or prohibit any flow of traffic on OlD'street.
T1úrdly, the sheer number of homes proposed furtlllis area is ludicrous. 1 thought
some attempt would be made, by the developer, to keep with the theme of Dartmoor
Estates, an4 have large one acre lots with a mix of Yz acre lots. This would be more
acceptable to UII and would automatically reduce traffic flow. We feel a buffer area
_ù/--~. .~ ~en our devç~ts(pos~b1X¥jlaTkarea) should be I'e'luiredalso.
,.,.-., "-.~,,. =, ':' .~,_5~"c:~' >-'::;F~¡T'i';-'-'-~:>_--~~c.~--",f~T'J<"""=-"'~' -' ':. "-"-~~-~-c->
We don't want to be petty! We understand th8t~day there will be a future
devel~œ the land behindDartmoor Estates. There þre many other issues we have
feeling$: $bout but nooe,4\II'!ItrOJ!.8 as the above mentioned. We love the community we
live in. the neighb~o\¥ wÞÍ.ch was originally planned by OlD' elected officials. We
trust ~you will exeromse patdudgment and put yourself in our position. Please
remember we, the little 1I~,;C!tJunt on you to put q\Hl:lã1:)! oflife above tax revenue and
the greed of a developer to squeeze every penny out of every square inch of his property.
Some things are just more important!
~,'='="c~,~~~-~,' -
, ',' '
Sincerely, ~
--:~ ~
~m th
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 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Meridian win hold a public hearing at the Meridian City HaD, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian,
Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 16, 2004 for the purpose of reviewing
and considering the appli~tíon of Vision First, LLC for an Annexation and Zoning of 76. n
acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision;
Furthermore, the applicant requests a Preliminary Plat approval for 237 single-family
residential building lots and 23 common lots on 76.72 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for
proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision; and a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development consisting of single-family residential lots with reductions to the minimum
requirements for lot size, street frontage and request to exceed the maximum block length
aDowed for proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision located at 4070 South Eagle Road.
A more particular description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at
Meridian City HaD, 33 East Idaho Avenue, and is available for inspection during regular
business hours, Mondsy through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
A copy of the application is available for review. Any and all interested persons shall be
heard at said public hearing, and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Oral
testimony may be limited to three (3) minutes per person. Written materials may be submitted
seven (7) days prior to the above hearing date so that all interested parties may examine them
prior to the hearing. All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the
City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or
hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 72 hours prior to the public
meeting.
DATED 21" of August, 2004
PUBUSH 30th of August and 13th of September, 2004
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
September 16, 2004
ITEM #
16
DATE
PROJECT NUMBER
AZ 04-023
PROJECT NAME
Kingsbridge Subdivision
FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL
¡;...----
t
.--[7
.,
GIVE€JPtSLBY LLP
LAWOPFICEI
eo. W.8Ioo""-
PO ... mo. ...... -. 83701
TElJEJ'HON",'" "",.120.
FACS"""""""'"
"""T",-..-"""""'"
OarvG.AJIen
"'~T.-
.....- L ..-
'Mlliam 0. CoI8
.......0.-
..........-
Rav ..- lllgumn
l1methyP. P.....".
J_o.-
St......J.Hlppllr
KI.T.-
CebDr. .. ""_...
.....o.""nl<ol
_9."""
..._G.""
September 16,2004
City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
Anna Borchers Canning, Planning Director
City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Department
660 E. Watertower, Suite 202
Meridian, ill 83642
RECEIVED
SEP 1 6 2004
City of Meridian
City Clerk Offioll
,,- c. On
KemothL."""'ey
BmOeyV.Snoed
H. ..... Thom.. LI-M.
J. WlUIom Va'"
",",layE. w...
...... B Wh'"
"""'"" v. We""",,,.
""""' R, Lomba'"
D."""""".J',
Em"""""""'"
I<I,""OIIyD."""'"
- M. ""10'.11
Komloth..Me"""
- 0...... McConMII
<:)0I11III .. MaUl"
Ch..,.,,"'H.M-
L. Edward "ID..
-"J, Mill.. JomuA.MoC...
Ju- S. """omarv OF COUNSEl
An",a.. .......
""'omh E. NO"'" . ,,",m"" D. 0-
W.HU¡¡hO'R.....n.LL.". ....,"""
Kingsbridge Subdivision
Annexation & Zoning, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use & Planned Development
City of Meridian File Nos. AZ-O4-023; PP-04-030; CUP-04-032
RE:
Dear Commissioners and Director Canning:
This fmn represents Vision First, LLC., the developer for Kingsbridge Subdivision.
Vision First is very pleased to present a development that the City Staff characterizes as a
"quality development" with "one of the most generous lists of amenities in recent memory."
Vision First hu strived to achieve a first-clus development and it is nice for their efforts to be
recognized.
Vision First concurs with Staff's recommended conditions of approval except Site
Specific Condition No.2, which would reqnire Vision FiIst to get the written consent of a
majority of Dartmoor Subdivision lot owners to develop that portion of Kings bridge Subdivision
located on Lot II, Block 2 of Dartmoor Subdivision ("Lot 11"). To begin, we note that Vision
First already meets Condition No.2 because each and every lot owner in Dartmoor Subdivision
hu already consented to the resubdivision and developml!:l1t of Lot II. However, Vision First
objects to the proposed condition because it might be interpreted to mean that Vision First must
get a new, separate written approval of a majority of the Dartmoor Lot owners. Because the
Dartmoor owners have already consented to the resubdivision and development of Lot 11, there
would be no other reason for the condition. In addition to being legally flawed, such a condition
would set bad precedent for the City and it would create an unnecessary lawsuit between Vision
First and the Dartmoor owners. For those reasons, as further discussed below, we respectfully
request that the City of Meridilll1 approve the proposed development without Site Specific
Condition No.2.
,....
....
City of Meridian Planning and Zoning CommiJ¡sion
September 16,2004
Page 2
Site Specific Condition No.2 would be legally flawed for several reasons. First, the
proposed condition exhibits a misunderstanding of the nature ,of Ada County's "open space"
restriction. Second, the proposed condition would diminish the City's exclusive power to control
development within its corporate limits. Third, the proposed condition would apply Ada
County's ordinances in a manner that Ada County wou1d not apply its ordinances.
The proposed Condition No.2 reads:
Approval of the plat is conditioned on the applicant demonstrating written
approval by a majority of the lot owners in Dartmoor Subdivision of the
subdivision and development, or as an alternative, a favorable finaJ decision by
the Dis1rict Court for the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho declaring
that the applicant has the right to subdivide and develop the property
notwithstanding the non-build restriction placed on the property by Ada County.
Such approval shall be required prior to submittal of any final plat applications or
issuance of any building permits.
As noted above, the proposed condition is already met because each and every lot owner
in Dartmoor has expressly and conclusively consented to the resubdivision and development of
Lot 1 L in accordance with applicable zoning ordinances by conspicuous language placed on the
front page of the CC&Rs for Dartmoor Subdivision. See' 3, Article II, Dartmoor CC&Rs.
Each and every lot owner knew, before they purchased their lot, that Lot 11 would be
resubdivided and developed in the future according to the then applicable zoning ordinances.
The language in Article II of the CC&Rs, as follows, cou1d not have been more clear:
"As provided in Section 5.28 [sic-actually 5.27] of this Declaration, Lots 1 and
11, Block 2 are excluded by the Grantor from coverage of this Declaration. By
accepting a Deed to a Lot within Dartmoor Subdivision, each Owner shall be
conclusively deemed to have waived any objection to the exclusion of said Lot 1
and 11. Block 2 and consents to the re-subdivision and develoDment thereof in
accordance with the zoninl! ordinances then in force and effect and applicable to
Lot 1 and 11, Block 2, includ.i.n2 such re-subdividine: and develoDment as shall
reQuire that access to Lot 1 and 11. Block 2 will be nrovided bv the DubUc rilZht(s)
of wav within Dartmoor Subdivision. and that the utility facilities located within
Dartmoor Subdivision may be extended to serve said Lot 1 and 11, Block 2,
including a re-subdivision thereof." (Emphasis added.)
Ifproposed Site Specific Condition No.2 is interpreted to mean that Vision First must get
a new, separate written approval of a majority of the Dartmoor Lot owners, the proposed
condition essentially gives the neighbors absolute veto rights that were never contemplated by
anyonc. There is no legal basis in any Ada County or City of Meridian ordinance for granting
veto rights to neighbors. If the City does not delete Site Specific Condition No.2, the City needs
to identify the legal basis for granting veto rights to the neighbors. Furthermore, the
interpretation would set a very bad precedent for the City by creating a new class of
.
City of Meridian Planning and ZoJúng Commii.ion
September 16, 2004
Page 3
neighborhood "veto" rights based on a mere assertion of a private right from private covenants.
If the above condition is adopted, Vision First would be forced to sue each and every one of its
Dartmoor neighbors, or the City, or both. It is not in anyone's interest to begin this development
with lawsuits.
Furthermore, proposed Condition No.2 exhibits a misunderstanding of the natUÍ'e of Ada
County's "open space" restriction and the exclusive right of the City of Meridian to control
development within its corporate limits. First, Ada County would not apply thc open space
limitation to prohibit any future development on Lot II. The old Section 8.4B- 7 of the Ada
County Code (which was referenced in note 9 on the plat of Dartmoor Subdivision) was
amended and recodified by Ada County in 2000 as Article J, Chapter 4, Title 8. The current
open space standards - which Ada County would apply to Lot II - allows open space lots to be
developed once it has been rezoned to a district that allows a density of 5 acres or less per
dwelling and urban services are avlÜlable. See Ada County Code § 8-4J-3.D.La. The City of
Meridian's annexation and rezone of Lot II clearly meets the above requirements and would
allow development of the property.
Second, prohibiting development of Lot 11 because of a repealed Ada County open space
requirement runs contrary to the City of Meridian's exclusive power to control the zoning and
development of the lands within its corporate limits. The Staffis exactly right when it stated that
"It has been staff's understanding that the County's open space restrictions are voided if the
property is annexed to a city and urban services are avlÜlable." The entire purpose of annexation
is to subject the annexed lands to a good urban planning and zoning scheme. Even if the old
open space requirements were still in force, it would create very bad precedent for the City to
apply Ada County's development ordinances to City lands.
It appears that proposed Condition No.2 was motivated by a letter from Robert Bums to
one of the Dartmoor residents dated May 27, 2004. The letter, however, is factually and legally
flawed and it would be dangerous for the City to rely on Mr. Bum's analysis to support the
proposed condition. In brief, Mr. Bums asserts that Dartrnoor residents were "assured by the
recordation of the Plat that [Lot 11] would not be developed for 15 years and they were further
assured by the recordation of the CC&Rs that [Lot 11] would never be developed." Bums
Letter, Page 2, , 3. The Plat and CC&Rs, however, expressly state the contrary. The CC&Rs
plainly state, in conspicuous language on the first page, that Lot II may be resubdivided and
developed "in accordance with the zoning ordinances then in effect and applicable" (Le., at the
time of application, April 2004). Note 9 of the Plat plainly states that Lot 11 is subject to the
"open space" requirements of then Section 8-4B-7, now codified as Article 8-4J, which would
pennit resubdivision and development of Lot II. Of comse, none of Ada County's ordinances
will apply to the property once it is annexed into the City. Annexation is proper because Lot 11
is within the Meridian Area of City hnpact, is contiguous to the Meridian city limits and is
serviceable by public utilities.
City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2004
Page 4
Mr. Bums' reliance on Sections IV(g} and 5.01(b) of the CC&Rs "to proscribe any
development of [Lot 11]" is misplaced. Both provisions expressly limit their applicability to
avoid conflicting with the clear language in Article 11 of the CC&Rs. See Section IV(g) (limited
the use of Lot II to agricultural purposes "except as otherwise provided herein") and Section
5.01(b) (restating the same limitation "subject to the limitations as provided in this Declaration").
The only proper reading of the above sections is that Lot II would be used for agi:icultural
purposes until resubdivision and development is allowed by then applicable zoning ordinances as
clearly indicated on the first page of the CC&Rs.
The assertions of Mr. Bums are only that - mere assertions. If the City adopts Site
Specific Condition No.2, it will be picking sides in a private dispute between Vision First and
the Dartmoor owners about the interpretation of private CC&Rs and outdated Ada County
zoning ordinances. The City should not put itself in the middle of such a private dispute where it
would be defending Mr. Bums' misplaced assertions.
For the reasons discussed above, we respectfully request that the City of Meridian
approve our proposed development without Site Specific Condition No.2.
Very truly yours,
LEMlFGL:ebk
Enclosures: Plat of Dartmoor Subdivision
CC&Rs ofDarbnoor Subdivision
Ada County Code § 8-4J-3.D
cc:
Jill Holinka, City Attorney
Steve Siddoway, Principal Planner
Bruce FreckJeton, Sr. Engineering Tech
Vision First, LL.C.
B
il J I
h: i~~: .w"...
~l& ~.~& """" 1"'--
~=. -- - - - - ~
J ~ ¡)A.tl,~.~' - - -........ - .-
01 h, :r;~i
i¡ . -: l ß
> I 'J Ii =
i2; r' U
~::J I - "~
~IIJ ¡ ~
CI) - . ~
I- It ~ :~ a ,£
<0 i .:
[0.. -:
~ ~ .. ~ :~
to-!I Ii ~~
It ~. <
~¡ ~~
& ~~
I
c
~ ~ ~ ~i
.H U
§ m ~ i! i h,¡n ! I m
::; ':t.~~--'I&æi.Ie.<!I:.~H~
I ~ H ~ ~ ~n ~ h
. _L
s ' . . . 'I
ð
~;.
. . 3,"'"
o.
~~ i
< .. ...
n Œ!a '~"T
nSi ~;,
e ~ .
~I)I ~ ¡¡
~ ;¡;.~N:¥/
oJ ~~~~
~. 1 a;;\ ; ~ ..
ffi~lkJ. ~..
p m
lit ..~ !....,
. ,.,......
Ii ~I~'
~!I'i i ~ i
~i!i&i ~ ;
~¡in I ~
1111 ;1: !
~ ;~i~:U ~
~ -¡Innl ¡
id' h ~~ i~
~t ! I. I. .j
l~t. II .¡ h
~mi!lil~
~ '-1 .
I Ii !
~~ ~ ~ ~
h .~! ~
Ð) i~I'
I. i~ ID
WI ,u~
ili~~
. oli ¡
!i !id~
!, ~';;I
~~§ ~~!ï!
III Ii! II
: ~
!! :
\ is I
.1 .
i~ i
ft. .
Sd
.- ,
-I ~
~Ia ~
~-..
~;~ !
al~ .
iií I
~il J
! ~
Š .
, ;.
-L .......-~,7.;."'¡';-- G¥_";""....noe -"
:,:-.;-r..::::J ' ,.,'" wm ". .""" ..':.;j,"':'..~,
II .! 0'111
<
Q.
III
W -
~ iN ~
g" .
~lIIih;¡ Ii
áI' ". q
i~t!i~ ~
h~H! .
Wi"
D;¡ -
z ~
< ;
oJ 8
~ ~
Œ
f
~
~ :~
è .~
ffi*-
~:;:
d&
~ ~
U'
> t
8 ~
w i ~
~ i~~
() ~~§
it- .
. I- ~i.
, III ~~.
\¡ ~ ~:I
~
I
I,
:'
i'
I'
"
~
.
i ~ c
,........' : ;~ ~
.. ~ ÈI
~. . .'
!
'I~
n~
.!
t
~
(
~
"
;,
"\'\~\\.,..."\ :I'IUU:l~~
~ UECL.\ItATION OF . ..Jl",¿~~~~~~¡44.
~ If;J' W\'I!NAm, CONUI'nONI. :UICrlOI'fS AND BAi1.~~r~OI~'I"~~ .
\J ~ UAltTMOOOSUJl1)IV1SKJN AP Ütt.LUAlU.
MAItCIII,1994 '~~!!J!ø r~'1 }j,°o do' ~,
'ØE~
AnTI"'" I. RIICI'r.\U!
WIlD_". ."","""""_O.."""Iwd, ...-.-,.............1'_1""'. loA" C""",,. hI."-
""""""",1_,,-
IAÞ lilt.",,",,"" h_,...rIIDU,..., Lali. U!"" 1. """",,œ"~DÞM.'DN, ....,,1.., ...
""'OII)'.ld~lo.."'-"'_I""'"
".UllAl'm, .....,."...,
Wll1lllDAl.1Ioo P"""...IboII..-IopoI... _1'/IuII1Od _.IIII1ID&n1o¡"'. II doflnod I. ", .nII..,....,
, ,.enwqo, h"".. rnr_,...............pblmmI_oaI.ånIIIor--_b, t...,.""""",
...-.,....,"'...
WlI1IREII&'" .""or-h.. tuOtl!¡ lot... .......,tu"""'-"'- ...-... """""', ...,....-.
Ibnl"- N~ ""~""""- _aI - ..1.... '" PI""""", -"'" Imp..""'" ,,",... 01'"
I't.."",hr." - ....R.............. "...ÞIoo """r on"""",,",""'" on I......, I,... ..""".
AllTIC1Jt or. """1""""..
,......_....., .w..plhalll..- _.._A, "" -....-..""",-",-.."",
;::~== ::::= =:. =..~ =.~~.;;. "':1=
_..._".~~....., 001'" _","'_""o1oto1"",_""","""I..In'-
ol' IIO",~"""'U...-"",--,.-.......",_...'uhd1"'1om""'obl'"
::u. -: :':f:::': =-:::::.r ~ =~ ~ =r=~ :::~:,,~"::,=
I""..""" ""'O_,....LaI"""""...""" 101"""""'" "'...... bI""",, IIJ'Iß ,.. "".."...,..,."""'"
"""'",,""'.. ".!...... .1'............,." """",I.,.. 0- ."1"... 0-, II ""nII.. p",,""",'
"""'_,DoI,"""'...I""'I""""""". """""".."11100"""" ....-........ ......" II.. an""e.
=:':dÞ.;:".'~':'~ :.".::= :0:= ~:::"",::,:=!",,: ~=:~~:r~,':'.~.::~~¡~
...... ..........., 1""""- "'I'"",........I..........ICII- lllu1lqlU..",,",m'dm'O""'l"""'.'" "I.'
..~I..1u"0""","""_.II"_~_,........,,,....od'1I1n_"_"'IO"""""""""""""'"I",
...,...""-,.,........r..oIc"",p.......nI"",.tuOt""""""""bIuu\'.....II.,,.r"'~"'IJ"""'-
.._nlotpn""""","'M1Ieo.I",""""'...œ"'IIIhoIf..m_."'..."liI...,IyI,u",,aI""""'Id"'... I.
"""""""""""""""""".IÇIIu¡\~.II",..,...""",..,......,.r",""-'....b""'ll)nllItIo""."""
"""""""""1'1110'-'-"" CuI"'" eoo".III..(ACCl.I"Iß'hIdOo,"'",Ioo,oImIIlio rer .",...\111 I"""" ",Imo.
'" """""'" .... ..... -_... ....... ",-.,,"""""'0""" D,'-tom.
[""'."""""-""""'-"""'" 1I.""""'UI_IIJOIIo-r>ao"........"...
t__. Oy-""""""""",-"""""""""",-_..."",,"""""""""'b'"
-"",,¡,¡,Þ"'o""',,""""'aldl.lllwlll.""""'_IOIk"""""-"'-."""""'"
"',"""'m"'UlI'm"_"""_UI..I.r....""""'DI~"""I...tI. Il1o,",1001"8...""",,
-"....."......,..........'111......"""........\.01 '""II.-'."I00..""",..""",',"',I,,,"ÞII' '
"""""""",..."......"",..."",............,___a..........'u""",Iu"."""'",lnl"'....,
""'.... ,.'" II. 01ocO 1.""""""'."'_"""'.
",,10 ,..." "",..,.-..,.¡", 1boI11.....,_,O "lfto.",S"""",I........",U"."""I,,,1P CIIr ,,'.,,~,"',,'"
II. c.,..n..., ....rF."~"" 0..... "0.. L",InIJ.""",'uboIMl1.."..." ",,"¡dIç dood ,.. L" Iu D""'.'"
Ihllnß....",..........,dtn""""'.I",~""""""""","", 11IUI11._..."IoI'!I""CI",I.n n"",!.
"""".."......,..'O..~...I_""""'~II1o.".ldLols,.,""..II,IIIDo1:"...rall""d'II"""',,""""",11b
II"",'tlnI"'~""" .nI!,._IIm.lo _..d,I"'.
AR"CLE III .lImNlTlOH!
..,..."",._..'Iu.. ...... U. _.."'....10..""... "-"",11m.....""""""""",, ,.... """""
.ro"'"
.ua:. "", ^",IU"..nI """"""",,,mIIIoo"'D.-orSulnll'W....
I!I!!!J!!mR A.n1Cl""........",...L.....,'....n"I)"'I"".""hoIb,...,..I...,p,oIro"'...",..",,,.1oI"
_..dtn'.., .............",.Im...-",........",....Iu.......I..""",,1Ih.
JWlnœl!sn 1111'1..,"""...."""Im....."""...._..'I....
I!wIwIœIII 'I1oe 1'II uI" '" .........., 11m - -œ"" I"'" -_nI nr D....... SoIoIM""~ Indo¡þ""
........p\e¡l......"""..._or""_.UI!IIIy_..."",...........""",...I..",, ",On......"
IIEt.'LARA,'IOH OFCOYJ!NAHTS. )/oR'lMOIIR
'-;N.:' .'
'¡;;'.
'~'" ' )-
.;;: .~
-' . .~:/:b*,'-,:
" ..'.,;.I:,;.,'!.t4!-'
, '" ,.; >;;i.1{. .
.' .~. .:.:.:'\;~~{~'
,n
,'.
;':~
':'~j:
:',
þ!
It.i~OOO1745
"'J~ ':; ~~':. ': =~:~...,,- In dO> ---.. ..........
.
!/!!IIID 'IIJ.mIoøI omlC......uI"'....._..-,..
-.. A"""""¡'....,.......-"-.oIaBldJ>b,,,¡-.nllloJboo,h,,...\ImtI""""',lhI......dr.
iiiIioioo-,.;......Ik'.-""""""""'-'-""'I""'._""""I""""""""."""""'"
- ""'...... "' -",..\I ..111<....1...h 1.""""",,-,. -11'-"""" ...... .......
1l1li. ^"""",~""........."IoIuI._"".~_",.","""'~noIwItI..",......""II"'1un'"
_"'_.1..."""""""""""""""""""""""""""'-""
~... AItr...".... .....UulO....._O,..._IInu of"" _..UtIO_.,,"""""" Iu......'"
...._or........... u__....rncdl'..........,.........-..."MIII'.P"""""""""""'"
"""""""""'"..p'.""'I1... _"""nlT.....
~:~~~~ ==~,:-",;ï:"':~ :::.": :::: ~i.":' ::".~¡:;. ==
"'.lh'D"'"""..... .......1,......__. """"","oø/¡w.
I~ AL".....IhmIIn"".,'.".I""'.nllIUlllhoU""'I""..l'Iøu..""""""'"
~;.'=':="='1:r'. .::~:.::::~::t =:.=~=:-.:~:.:::.':.:."'::.:
""""""1" Ioot..\Io¡I.. "",I..,...~..,..."", ',"""""11:-" pIOIIfJIodalo"'.."""","", om"'Y
',ú""""""'....-,..r.w,........"-...""""",,,.,,¡,.........toIdn&""lIlluuIJ.....ml""'"
.._,_oI"hlU"""""-.",-"",,,,-,
I3aI1 A IImI """'hllDI 1'Iø'-'" """""" I. "'...................._'" I. O..-nlW. """'"
_nIor."'" ""...,.hI,......".........1oc_",...,....-..,.................
~~":LooIIhoIh.uøol__""""""""""""'1do".ID"""""'-""U""!III:""'I".'"
A"""".H"',""""'"
-,""-.""....'."......"...,,......,,_..."""__I0"""""""'..~I.r......... J ...k.-
"':=~":=,:,:,.:~n'ô":'.':.i=...==.t"==øø~~~':::' ~
i;;..... """""". ÐII1'nw--. u. our ,_""'., uI Do"",", -M,I"Iho" """",.~
~cWJ
~I
I","¡.. ""....."" o""I"m. ,r"""I1 ."~.II~ .rdot1Ro.""¡"I""II. ..,..,..............
..Im........ ..n 1'-"" ........ "" ",_.. ",.... oI.n Loll.... ;.~r...,,"'"
~='::~::.=- ..::::::':"',~s:ro=,~~,::,.:..-:.":r=:w:: "'-"'" w",
II~
ÞI
.""""""""""""""._1.' "01Jol"""",,'..........,....0...... .,.~,,~ri,,'" ""',..
...." -.- S."...,-
'....rh""""""""IIII""""""'obr""",""""""o""",.........b""""""",,,"'"
"""01IIt....... """,'.1........,........ ,,""..1. ,.. _...... ",.Iro......
(II)
Ie)
19
....,,10,...... _,... wU'd. nn......5UboII""'" ..._¡Wllllowlll,"')"'" ...........
","'_IyI_._11.
L1mMolo.....~LnII1.IIII""""",- 1"1\'"",_",,_"""""1001""""'"
~... '". 11....,.."n 01""". """""n""""""""
1"1
I\oo JllIuaIlo"nI\Y"","lM>!un nI.Lo.."" "'1I1"IW""""nj1 dÞ:nIIl"""""""""""'" """,....
"..,1.".....
An'l1L'tI! V, "'U'IITmlII1I"
I"CTlUlUJI1 1l1li 'IIJ.L"'_D....."_...,..~.."",,.o"'...rnD...In.I"""""
:¡.t ØQ
'j
7fj'.f ':.~.;.:. :
~~'(':.;~:: .
.,~f!;i':" ~..
~. ':.: ~
'I-..' ,.
ÞI
:t':~;-:;""':I~~w:.~:,:.;:: =o~~,,'f :,r""" ...W""" PO...... ...
"""'.<.',0.'.""10.12.12. ".I!.IG.n."lloIlIIooiI..o."""SIOtul1,-......UI",..
lb. I'ItI th....r.
(u
0... a_. LaIft Th.InIl"'¡'I"'" tlnn '" UKðIlr ...IouTI...I--. ........ ...1ImItoø- u
~...1Unðlnllort__\1I-,.,..S llnllLoIt")I
LIJ\ 'I. oro"",.. 0"""""""""""""'1111100,, ~"'I1....t
~ 1.oI.""If.".,.......hUoIIIIndII....",...h...........""""¡,,,-
lo"oIwt>1o.,.. ..."........ ....uIdu.
DECLARATION 011 COVENANTS. DAJm\IOOIl
2
iJjè}~
'f':;~:
!G!lUUU.17o16
::~:::-'~"~~a\..':i::"=::'-~,¡;:' ,:':=:~~~ ::.;~~
tIo.afIII 11...- _ia.........,,¡I IJWIWaI""" N:1:1n_...wllhlh.,.........., ^""'" v,. _w.
~:;-r::: ;.:n.':f:':"'~"'::~~o;.:: ~=.-. 1coI. ~mct, _. ........,."Udto¡ .r... -...
BUL"I1IJNI.M ~!!IIIItLOIa A.,I""'U'I.,....,...,..""'oIoudolLolall.U..\IÞ JI¡'MII1U,,r.....111II
....10"""""";
1
PJ"..wu..
_LoIIJ..
.LotLIna
",,""'(119'
_1'I..."..(2I'
_""""""(211
'to
"",",,."" ,.""_-1..'" ^""........"".....
I',".w.d.do' 1..."'- ,"".....In'-~.U ."CJ'I'Ir 1D"",,~I0110¡....... .....d..ar ""' U..s.øoI...
A"."""..I...d..........InUoIaU_.. "I-!'I1d"...u....""",.......""d.allal...,&...U..."....r....,
11ao.1 ",....e."",..CII""""".u-',,""P".'" uno......., 'h.""" .r......~ld_..U,,""
.....Ia,'tnncl, clU. 'al II...
1IRI."f' NSJlS lisI!IDIDIaI!""aM"p~'~ AII '",....IuooI,.....,bItildIa.!""I""""""'.""""'ru
,_""""~"'.I"O"""".II.ODD 'I¡o """"""""ÞI I,Ol'lloOI4ft,.....- .
P........ u.o
.... LDI U.
..t.....U.
",..."...\0111
"""1'uI1G'J
,....., "" .... IU"I
,
^'" "'b""...............M:c.-"1'I"""I-
t".=::.;~ :::..::.:===: ?::::"" .r.... .r_.'" _.In.Imk.r In..... ",o¡,
""""""""", ....-. ....... -,,-.... If ... C O dbhlo - "... ""'.._\ CIIIft, I.."",
þ._'nr"....n""""",_w.. """,ICtilooU oIUtO....II1on.... pmldta1llU11n, I"'..... ,carI.......n ",...1,
~i.:'.~ ~- '"'=:""..,~ ~:í::- ..:=.=m.::.a:::: .::'=:--~::".:'.'w":":
"""".,MO ""1-...or_lItIotMdI,,... .......,11(1) ""....1- ...t..~m...... .r."I," ..1111,
lUll"'" ., ,n !o1ndn.1ao!oa11llo ...u.. -................. abIooo, u.......- oIuI_""U ." ... ....... ....
:;.n..::, ~;'81":1~ -"~ :".:.:ï':"'..::'::; :~:, :':.=:.::-::~,;:~,:-:
",""'k'...""..,....,...".,...,........."""",..",... rot"'..tn"'""""..""nrb.~,....""",""I"
"'r",..I""'......,".......,..- or.."'" .......,'" """.""~""'....~ ........ ..tbcr. "d""lotno1 ,,1
"" or...., ........",....",....... ""'_"".""" """ul.......""r....oIuo. 111. an"or. "rl"""
"""""""t" ,I" ""......."...,nsW"""""þ "."...,~..",...I",...011""" ......... D"""","I"""""
"""""""""""",."""""",_,
RKt.~l"Ns." ~ _.""IJoIllilltlomdlnlori"u,"",aII,""'.u..'hIo'Io1II...""ocoIh"""'..,...,...,.,wIU
""_.I..,.........I..II IJoLIJIIIIn......_.........
"'.:"""..,. ðl!mJlla No_. ..............., .....,..... ,baI1 ","""'"",,, "k....."'t""","t...,ak
""""""""""" "",r"",. I1onon.IÞ........... nII"rcJm1Ia,_'_".'_.~' r^"""lo") r.,aw"",
,.......t'..'arl'.Ioo]......""IbnI...II",....1Iar'-Þ"""IIO I~b.......-"lo;mIlbr.., _"""""""
aøI, ...."'" In.'"" "'" """"""""111 ^"",~PID1 b.-I2lAod....lndJc .-,. wI""""-.""",
.........., or ".lIler"" "". (.!1.r""'I."",'" IIO II or """',od"""" ^", I""""'" ...,..",""". ~"n...
1",'~I,"'n."""...."...."",.""IIn..,."..._...ho,_,{.._.t..., ",hCwuorta>...II'.
.'n""",n,......' ...,.,.............".."""", LoI"""'" 0"",.... "-"oIhI..."""O"_",,.,' ,"
".1'.""""" hll'."""" """,._",..,....lntnhn.I....I..oI"".....I,OI""" 'I""L..,.""":CI
1."""'.."", LI" I,."..."..."",.............. "r"_I"""",'I.oID""""',I1""""I,,,"klrn"
..nu."""I"""'....."".n. UwIu............,......."....ÞI.....nlllodlullor""I""",...hl",bll.......
..btI"""I, M"".,b.........t'Ior._.nol1....I.,"',~kI*............""...loh1l........",.,_..or
,0_.t""""""",..1þhI."IInII..W..."__""""" U"""","",...,,~ \...bbt1.11..._,.,!
:.=::=:::\':=.. '= ';Q~';: ~'::ri=.=,~ ~:~;,:::-,:;;::::;",:
-",~""",._,nIo""""'..^cc.a1..."'..""a.IuIt"'b',....
~~':'.J;:"~';':'~ ~=::::rn': ~:.:':::,:::;=::lt:' ..;::::.... ;:, ~~::".:.;
"n""'..."rt.l1l,ntt,n"I..:.:t'ball"""m1.....I..d..dor.......,"...."'t.nt; """..h..,.."...",OoH,III'"
"'lm...."II.'ur."""..."..,....
~;':~:~..!\".~ .:m:::::~ ~=m:D~b.'d~;I':,\:~ ':::~,;':=:::':r.. ~:.:'t:'I>'ï:';,
WIll"...,.....,."""....", ..... aru.."'IIcr",r...." 01 d" Io>Ibndono""""" "",ocI.....,.. "'..1.""'." 0
""'~"'nd.........."".r,,-_- ^"n,"OII.....I..orllu\11oJ,I"."""""""'.""""'hltnl,
RlR:I'IIINS.1J IIIIIuIåIdImIL -....",..m"IJy",..loIodl.tIII,D"I"""R\DI"'_I1'.IIDLmDUl 'b"'I1'"
.."n.w... ""'nn)"'or"""" .."Irot-I- 111,..101........ 111.""", ",_ad,,"'" """"11",.."....Wd,
h........"" ,""'hl hcooln """'... ""'...........,.", OW... ho.. _""0"""'" Loll> """'0' ..........
",""'III'~""'"."""'h"'-.JIdnI-.".....o,...."""""...._..,dt¡-."'I"""""1""""""""
oI",,'CC,
DllCLAlU.TJOH Of COYI!NANTS-IWI1MOOR
;
,;
v
:ï
'.m.. ,:".~,
,~:~;.;..)
.:J~:,"',:". "!""""~;rf'
:. ..:, .", , ','>, "~'~~.I~:. ."',:~
~" """~~""
;!~;,;.""",'~:"/:\'i..,,~~;.'
:,";',: . ~f" .
,~, . . ,
,..' '~',l
.' .: k'
¡,
,í
, .
>
J"U'""'U..,.J.,",
:~~;"~~h~t~~.:i.,"'~':,'~ ,=..,~:-=~~~'g~'\t"== """;'::2'::-":=:;
1""".11,,. "."""""""' """""""""""-"""~I::;';;ii.."""IcoI"-"""'~""""""'1""
""""II""""" .........""""....--01."""""""""",-"..""",-",.,."",,
.. """.""""""".",1..........""...",..1....",...",11.. .....,¡/IIIbtI....",......IIoaI. .U~-
I" ......",..: '0...."'.....,...-........... "....,Im' I... ....,,"'-"""'" """-'-"
""""",.."~1I,,""".h ...""", '-,,""'......' """"",I1..,...",..."h"""", ,_..,t....." 'n,...hIt
I""""'" H".......tJ.~II".U""""""_""","'_I1"" """"I-....,a.._,..,..,.cc.,...
_lh""""'\Ir,.,"""'aD_"-""","",.......-...,,~............I...tImt,'fI"....,...,,r"'"
"""""""",""""-""""'I1II_""""h"_.,................wr"....IhIo"I.,,...n-...
'."""""""'."'-..,.4....
=: :~: .:= '"u =: ~": ;: ::::: ~~~== :~ n;:-h ::"-:""" I:
....J,oIn_..",."I"drlll....nI_.."III._...."wcII...........oIltual.al. -.:1:,.-.1:""'-,
::::~:::'~.:';~~I=': =-:~:- .;:o:::~:: ::"'J~~:'-~:':::~ = :\'~:;::":
............,.....t.., p".........I- _Jln."",di..IIm.."
_'T'IIN'.IJI ""..No.. W.I.... ""Gt""""'I""'IdaIou1l~..".IoI!"'I..".tIDa""""""IntIla..r........
;;:: :~',::::=~:, ":':,t::"" : ~ .r:=::::,:::= :"":r:ï: ':':'::.'t::':;:':'::
..IÞ 8'." "",......"",.."...""IIwIwfo..,"I,"."..""""...... _I""""ar>,......ht..-,...toll
"'0.......""",.""..",."......... l,otpI1an-",~..Io._I....""I""'d"'oIl........'."I1oaI""'"
.,'" ,.. ".....,
""... ....IJIrr,...~.I..........ÙUO"'."""""""" .11......_01..,""" -. 01""""".... W....oI',
"""'11 ..,t" ........ ,..-.......-.. dol..... _....lTobJII"'_.""'" """"aldll' ..1ttIitI......
......,..1.."",.....-.......-
:.= ;.:,:=r.:.:r.. ~~~= :""':"'..':':':':"=~~"':::~,d~~ ,~~: ':."=~
~:";:".~ ',;-:..~,:\~~, dlr.;:: =-';'=nr"I::ï...¡:..~,!;!~':;"=:'~~::~ d!
""""""'1"",..."" """""""""""'..juI"'.'" mo,. _01"01'......' wkhln """.....lld,""". '"
.nIöm 01. ".,...... .,,"'" ""In~ """"'MY"""" o.o.p" .........~.."...
11.......""...."... ""URI' I..... """"",.01 ..01........ ,lIholrrlp\loJOqalAln....I"1 ~"."",..11 '" ",W..
.,IWhIo,.,.",...w,lodmI,
;:. = ~.= ~":!:~J:= ::.."=:: :C::::',,=.-.=.m:r=.:: ..~:::'~ :
....",............"""",........._.....I""""""""",-",__"""'.ACeln.-
~.""'Ih"oll'...hJod'" -'_""""""lna"", hd....
~~~:r.::::"::',~";::";;';':""": ~':':'~:: :'~':"',ß~::::' :':::,':':::: :':,:-,,~ ~::.'\:;::.:
".""","""I'\8I"'.""_DIII"""""""¡I'b'IrrI_-"bI,""lI'no¡.InoI.........b..."..,r..t'
::; ~I:'.. ';:~!',..:r =-:~~;.=::-.:~ .::~":',:= :::.":r..='L:'I~':'::':::";:::=
....."".."_"rlb............"""IoIoo.",,.jnIIoo"""""'oaI, """'_don,,.....'~II..h""'II"
"""""""""I"",..I......-"""...,.,.,..."I1,,.........,~....d. Dnl""."""""""'I"."""'"
,'""I...,...""""-"""""""""-""",,,,,~
1I!C'ItIlNS.I1!þ- ,.._"_h""ltlDa.....~n"'.........ull""""'IIIm",_,,,IU~""'"
(.J
_".."."r.""d8l'_taollhn...........""...,_...1nplAd.....m""",roI"""'"
k.."........,.......,......................oL""""".._bnrrb"".s. -,.....,~..I-
.".,t"' """"""""".II""."""wl........",........~,.,......I."'h,d..II,rtoo.....
,"""'h'. "'m1IßA'Im.........~.nr..."""..,..,...IIIIW.....h.n k"1'b ...,"'. .."......hl""'"
"0"""1""'. ..,..""..............'b,I..".ibhIIh"..1 ,t"",.."",.nto'1,tI-I"",.....
.."......,
M
I........... .....,........ .r~"............ OlD' .....d",."" .....,.,..I",n....~I..
"".II1.-""II",_"""",""""loI"".........."".""",r...I"""._,......
."",Ior.. "" U.."",. ,. ......""""'.1"" I,,_...wllh DtI"~,,I........ 'I dlb D""".".
',"IIIdIo.""""'-"""I'""...mtl"""",-,,"""_"""""I,.nI""'I-
........by--'"
^'.-"'. IOc1Ikl... "IA\>mOIt.aI1I..,.noI..cdlll"..._IIt'Im"""......."""""".
...mmbl$ ..."""".. ,"".,.. ..whlol, ""I... .....111111111 wi""" Da..,... ""h"",, """I"
.............I..""8IIIdn."",-tOJI.-.. ""^CC"'I'JIR"""'" """""" 'Ab"""".
.,~
'"
""
~~:: ':i~~ :~~':\::'=:.:.~:~= r."::".. ".:.=~ ~ =.'::..""".'I;~=~
."""hl",.."....,"h..I.c""""...III........ItI-or",.",._". """"".._",.......",..
"""hl"I"..M... ""..." .."" r.... "', LaL.... lob .na,.¡.. .._101"'" ,,""Lalwldltn D......"
"""""."""..,.....,....,n......r...tnlm......",, WIIIn"'ImIII'ulh."."",UI,aI'..,.rl.................h....
"",Im..1 "_'.1""'. """..... - ,..""" ,..", d......~"", ...........,....... .,,~ ...r......,. '.......ok,
""1"'10) .Iad"" I""'.~II",I Al tltoccd....,LnI .11111.. u.........1IIdI\'Io1om.
œo.AIIATION OF C:OVJ!NAImi 0 DAJnMOOR
~
"
'<
-Q.:.,,"'.'
I:r:~. '~.'.;"'. ";:~';'
,,< "
~ 'f.~ ,,'::-
:::~1; J~'::' ,(;/;~;.7:;~:~f.;
. ."- '0, ," 'i.',::
,,"" ", " ".
, , "
¡ . ~\!,r~.~
","
..
J.1J:JUUU1. 7'18
~~ \'.:.~:..~'~ 1t'. ~,.=.":'.r;;.-=':' ==.r:' :.:.: :::.'i'.:::-:'::::
"'~II."", M '" _In.. ,1~.1111.'"."'0" an....1 h.. 13<'11>- "" II... t: ""n...... .....100..
....r,.,.,., I. I""""""""" ,...,.11&Iho....1nI............-"".......-
".Mod. ....1"""'....."""",......., """""'r ",......",..,..... nor......................" """" "",,"','
"""1""""
:':~~'~~~: ==~:';.....-::.::::-: r.:::;: :='~i:'.~ ':'::~~,=~~~
..0"'."""'" ...........,01.....,.... will",. ,......w,ItI",~....w ,~ f" IICJ:.""" .."... poaII Q ,01,1""..
'1'1""-"""" """'" p...."........, IhlAI."C.
:;:;'~'?~j',';;=. =:..:;..~::.~~=~ '=~ ~øü';= ::~'~.:::::; :';':;
."b1t1""""""'- ....,...r........"""""," ""'..,'" "",--"""" ,. ....",...,......
...m_.wltl"""""""""""~I-...""",....""",...."",.....ItI,,""IL 1.."..."'bø"'I\Ih'n""-r..
on,'" .."".""""",..... .....0. .un"'.'" "'"I."" ..w""" ...... ........,."..,...... .,..11 0.,...... .."..
:~~:'....:~, '::-;~~:::~~~:::: ::::;0;;: ~'d..~,,~-::':I::/~.~:~::':::='¡;'~~:":,:::: ù~~~
....'1....,."""""""""",
:;;;:::.r:. ~ ,~~~..=.:':C.t::::.;:-~....::~~ =~:::::. ø:::..';;:,,=.
""""'m"(~","""I..."....,..._............."d.....rl,..""a"",,. .........."",.to"
=::";¡::'::.:::'.."':";~:,:" ..:~:::......t'.J'::'.,: ~=:.:' ~.=::;:.~,'~~":;::
.,... ...",.. ""'I,....,......,.........th" '-"'.
,,'" '_IaIk'" aI""".I........omupIe.............,...,.-"'kld""...'" LoII,lIbI.".. ,,~,,"',aI..
",¡..bllnII."þ ........wÞIII._ßll.ldIyJ.h"wlitlat,.....d.lhfmdI\JIIIoGII-..'" ""....th.a""""""'1
""""f..."",,~"""'baLdu-P.......t._...._.nb"""I"fIOn"""br""""'~"""'"
-r Iha ACe. ,
::':"~~~'.:ft :?:=~":::,~. '~~.==""::-='" ....:::=: .~r~:".::'.~
"""-"","-""'."""Ina."".."",In""""""""""",,,,,_"IbI"""",""'I"'""'~
""".""""_".""""",......_"""..........",..,..............",..",,,....,.......,.1-
",.."'o_"t~lb, """.."..p~"",".d.. .....'baa_,_-......."""",."""""""""""""""",
1...I,"""""r. .........,.."rlba.IO U"_.""".....n....II"........._nar"",'"."'.wrih.....,....",,
"",.Iw.,d."""""",-þ_""",........ ,.......-,oi1on""'pd"~""""".."""""",,,...
~~ ~ -= ~ ~..:: ~::"O:';.~'::"'::: ~ =-~~~.=:- :.='~
""""""""""'mtlar..."tJla_ OOII\'J"""""¡I\J.tJm.......""_u"....""ø¡"""...........,,
"""1""""""'" w..,.--I...""o..........a.....,mnlØI""""'-"--"""""'"
...,""",""""'.,"" ",......,...,.......-."""I.oI.Iho"""""Ød"lllullwllh"'.....,..."""
..PI'" "r'" .............. ..._Wor_"'" 111""""""._""""l'IoII'" Lo~ "'If'" """"'"
....,....._....._-_IIIa........"""......,..sIlia",.............TI"ø..""""'-"
=:',"t:'r.:U~ ":=, ~ .:.=.-:.\"',...~...~: .i.'Œ~ .:-~::=: ~~:r~~,;::
."01,,,,'.1"_,
.. ,.., 0...... .......,............",,'...n_a..,"" ......!In:
Inl
"""0] ," """..1 "'d. Ace "'.. pl... II1II"""ilooii...",.,,_l1li'1 d..t".......-
10._""-""""""",1.0,......",,,1\1"".""""'"
ah..""". b""dll",-,, "0m lb. .rr",- ,.-., """rItI" ouIhouldnp ._un.r."
""þ,..w _11n..... ..1.., h..._U ..PI"'" "'1b,MC;..~
~~
....",~",...."h"""",..,""'~""bøISlo."'D.lIG wIII........"......""~""",,
C".'",,'h.._..1b.L..
=~'~ ~.,~~,~~~~=.:.-:..= ;:... :".:;.:.;;~:".:
'.><..""""-""'-"" ....Wy\lllll"-'IIr>-jooI_...",,,.............y
._,..._II1II010-1 \till"'""" """'M"'..__.... 0""", """ "".".,1......
'....... do Om""', nolo........... In ...-ø. ...,. """'11111"'-"""""""11 1"" "",.....
"....."""...~dII1""""'--;'" 'I1I:""""."""-"d¡dO""...".,.,......,,,...._I....
",.................LOoI.._W........ Jrø"_"""""""""""""""""",,,""'O....,.IodI"
""""..._...,,11""'_""_"" LoI"",...,_................o.....,. TIrc""'L...,'ho
-,aIJ......."--IHI)-..""'h,........-_ar.._ar...""'tD'_þ
~:b;'":::':. ~a;.;:~.:":..: =:?:: =-:~~.. ':.~"ØI= ':: =:r~:.":~.~
,¡;..,.."",.Llh,Ih"""...""".....oI,....aw......."It...oId"Lot,hohJdl","'p,,"iI..',"1"""I""'",,,
I,d", ,"'01&.01 """"".""_.10.. ........ P) "" ",paI'boI.... "'............ I""". " '11)'."""""0""
...,.,..."a......,.".lt:I!"D""',""", ,."",.............IM"".L".."...""."'U"....,aI."1!I!II"D""'"
"i""I. """" I""'" "."""", 0....-......1..... 01'.."'.........""'.- ..,..t.nI lual I,..",.."" '""'"
ot."""""¡............tt....ldl"..,..",t._.......-,,.........-,..u..,,... ""'ct"".."r'h.
""",....otth.L."". ......"........."""."""",...., "","",...."""""...............rn...."w.....",
u.., In"'" .td.. "..-""ourl'l"d""".IIII1IR"""r.."'.....O..,.""""""iI'd..-rU..'h"" lb. am.'"
whirl, ....opt II.. ,... ",... aw,.,. 11,111011"""',, 0...' "'011'"." IIIIIh ,... 01""", ""'" ....".., "Dial... lion
........ "'.""""1""..,_..."...1""""" .."..I_p.",. "....~...."I"I""w""",'."'Iø""".
101
DBCLAM nON OF COVI!NANrB . DAltTMOOR
f
~
j.
~
;
;,
.
....t". , (.'
}f. ".'-:,'
~:it:' : {
,/,'~ ',;':::~:;~.:>
::~~.
. '1:-
.~?~'
,:.,.
, -.,.
..
..,.
'.
,.
~,.
"J>.
1.G~()UO1'74~
'-"a!.ÞI.U<t. "m""..", """,,""""_1.""'"'0 """"1U"al""IU",""II.~"a_.....
Imp............ AÞ".....-oIûolD¡¡_"",""",I""","........,..m"'_I8_.ICIII.,I1o"""".tho
,_,_oImIllII"d""""""'_,"""""""p..I'oI."""_".-.""',..."""'"
",.....-..s,...' ,
""'."""""~.".'a""""""""""",,,""bc_u"_"_.-_'~""'d""""""'"
1Is"',~JI)""",""<n_""oI_...._,......-"" bc"...h""...,,,,(Z .I"'p""'II"~ "..
"..."",.,~,.. .""181"11"I0Io10 MI"'."""'pol... .......IIa_oIl,),...lIoIool-....,.....I.,; ¡,....
...1"",........_u._"'lIJ:aw..,...IhInI""""fJlÞWI..~., --...... 01 lIa............II'.
1..."OI""""",.""",Iho-.. """""'",'.I"",'II1o."""...U......,1mI","...".t....o......u..
",...ho." """ .., "'00 ,a...uot ... 10 I"" Iq ,Iœ 01..... .. """ 1IUI L.. ....."..... - ,.........., n... ...
"........- '
:~=;u., ~= ~:m": :x:.r .: :,.:"~ =:'.: =~ ":":'0:::':
"""......"""",.nll.oIo""I"',1ImD_lUhI.......IIIIWOIJIt"..Ir"..."ar......lohold1ll8""""--
.."""......""""",.
=-;;,~":J:...C:::""t.~ . =:;~=~::'..~.:=" "" w"..... ..... ...."...",
Îi'
III
~= ~ ==-:.: ~.:= :;r:.;,~===..'":".~~: ~=~
..........., ""'. "",......un" fooItlir .,""" -. ..."'.h. ""..om"'""""I,,... am."
, ".._".",qd,""'bi""'Ow.", u....."a...,oIhorWII.....na..aACCI."""""p'\"""
",-""""""""",-""","""""".........",..."...._".11.."",......".......
I.." "'..... "..u........ ,," """",...,....., ......O" -'1IMa ...,-'......"..""'........ dud
,..'I"'UI...'IN"'JnI~m"""', ^tI""...."'r.~"'altmc,_oIuIl.....'t,.......""r,,~......
,.. .......... .It.. .....",.
~ 'TIm""""""""'lutRI~ boll/llu.l.tI".IŒp>Imd.n4_"I_"..d,,,......~
=.:r:="':""":"'='::~I'.:.vh~=:='~"" ":'J":'=::,:':: =
'W.""""'-'I:r:'I~ ""_f.._-to1.......-..wllhIn_"""",..,nn",,,
(lIII'ltI""'-"'1"4..,.",..I""..k.....",...."".luotIbolJlOO"'...........0f """'.""
...".........l1IaIboubLol,"'" """""",,""""11"""""""""" .....,........"
(Io
..,
J"""""¡"" ...,......110""'0.0 'nrll.. ,,_,1....-,.....,1.."""1 "'.."". """"1""",,,1"
r"."""""""""'Ac:<:""""...II..tU>'lþ J"""....Ih.h",!,.d""ur..,......"'lt.
""""""""""",....IbIIIhr..IÞI¡mmoo/.....,nr""IbOlluOll\r,_.I"""-""...wlllo1n,,,nml
¡:~':~=. ',:= -:::.~ ::;~ ß:'~~:"OJ: :.;¡;n.L'::,~~=':J:= ~:~
:= :~~:~'~'=:=I;:~::::'~'::::':: =¡" ':r":;~":.':j"-:~,:":.'=:~"~:~:c:-.::'::Ji
I..", _t""'t"""""Ior.......""." -11I""'.It,, 13tII".,..."""",....,......r..., 10""""",
.t~".;._/Or....._",...
1t1,
(n
!ll!!œ!!lllrJ¡AlI""~."""",""""""'"""".""",,-
b_cut.... ",~......_.r._...L.'f'IO'I",........tI"'",, ßobtIn_.
.... a_.hoII IoIIoJI. 1.0"....... dltoh.y..." ..Ih. loG!, uulO.....o.",..Iu.......lotoI...
aoIw. ........ -.om 111amo", .1t",1" I...... (""
III
Nßhd...... ,..1.. ""...."""... 11.. ho"""'" ... IIIIq1.... ""11 '~I'" "..1.. 11m .".t"..I.. .,
,...-",....Im
"
2.
^u .......n.......... "", ",Lot""".. -"""om!:
1In-""'\'I........"~t"'",,'l\IoInIn.L""' I"".""""'""""'I"""".
Þ'~m"" ."""wIoloh'" 1",,_... kOIn¡"""'oIodl
"
Vollldu hdo"",I"" """""'" ..",..11.11.. ,.."'."'I"",~"..."".."",IIoII"",,.r'"
I"..'" "r._ohnI.."""'doI """"""' ,,"""". wn, ""It<...,...."",...".;
Ulln"',""I""",..."",o.."",.,"",,""',"'I"""""""""""""'I""""""""""
.....011"'"
A_""",...IIht¡. .......",,~,..aII,"'%I oå~.tI"'I""oI."""\J""""'"
.1IoII...b..n""",..... ....IUkd,
d.
s,
co)
~ "'" .nt' ......".......... ......11....... "',............ .,I"",'.Iom"',I.
'....-... .......".....""",..I....,h"'" "",..".11""", "'."""""" ....,,""
-\h.""",..".. .....oomdiI. ntd..""......,....",.............t.oto.
- ,." ""~ ,~_,..tIoIt,~..., ...,.11." ............. ""a'.w."""" ......"'......
.-II'IoaIu""'IIIII"""" 'I""""'" O. ACCUl"'orAd'oJo VI,II".w,
'"
="'.;;::'t, ".1:: =::::::~~== i::'-:'~::¡¡::'~::~:'~
.........d/tnjl....._, ~.aw""".I.oI..",...._.DuIhI""",""-nmbO.....
. o¡ooIIf/ooI...al~"_'" _IllY Un _.m! """""""-""'" r"""""-
_\It r-. :n.II"U1~'lllaa._"'_I.oIoI""II,.I"""I."""'_"""_..,
r L 'I1to_uII__"",.........._I""Io,.",n..."""",Ioa"'..u._"WLmo.
':
~
~~
,
~I
mlCL.\lIATION 01' COVENANTS. PAR'I1\oIOOR
,:';,:.'."
,:',
" 4- ,>
" }:.:-
, .'."-t.,
. 'j,
", ,':'I:
,}"'
" ~~~§!
. ':,~':j
"
M. ,:..
.,:,.
<"
,
~
,
J
"
"
"
~
"
¡
\
~
f
~
'"
---w........'..,u
: .
"""UINø.3IIliII!.IIIIIII1!w O".~'OIt1Idt....'LoI""",.~I,.,t, 'Il1o"""".""",.......,0-.,.,'"
::== ..:;'.:::=,'~~ ~;.~~ ~~~:;:::"':e"'..=::-..:.J'~:1.:':::::
",110 "'",.1,., nrb", ,!,,"","'oUding. ,
~1:::'~'=~:':'=:m¡U:':=' ~=::..~:.'":. =-"",1:' :~:r.:::~":'~"11 ~~:
...., ...D.....I.IIooI"~ J..oroloD_"",,, ."Io"~ "....."" ."blh"uIdo~I""In"" 1>0"'", !~,'M,"m,
AnT"".R VI. AD..,ItI'I!L",IW. ""Nt1ItI1. mMM!TI1I1I
:u:'..~~~~.. .t1r.:~ ~~ ~ ~~,:::;::O~~ ~ ~~':\: ~:::'~:;,~ ~~r'::
,.........1.. - """",1.."..,_,..011..""""'" ........,Iw"""n""""L ......... ."", ACC m.,
"",......,..""""...o1Jbnr.8I""""'L
,,""l1I1N.... "",..............,,... ,1".",.....oIl"'^"C.baII"
1IdwøoIA.Jn1"...
...,IoeM.-
TIJaInooM,J.....
:::W"~I~ ~!':~=~"'f::' ,~:.~":".t"':_c:a:::r;::. -:u=.=.:. "'.: =~~ ~~I:::r
~'h~'i~:::i' :t::' ~~'=~::'::~)."; :: ::-::"':.".::'=~':=~t::"':;:"~:::: :':;'Ái::=
",...... .my "." -.oo .']hm 01"" ............. .n""""
11" A"C~." ,"...... ~.".",. _"IIn.I. ...,0.........."" oO.p"'."O"'_....p .,1Io ..",0"..,. ... '...
-"I",......""l1nrln'rmlu,_nol",.ACC,......"".....r..",....,.......,,.......r",'ODt>}.........
nllI" .""- ....1Iurc,,".'Ø..ACC.
~P.l:'l'fI,"','" ~ _1IIo."C,..........-O.........o........"..."",n.III.,..", 0."""
"0""""""""""""'-" ..1"""""100'" .r......,...... .......- ",.".. ."".r" dI,""'"
:'I.dr~~~~;~':""..,.:~1:":'lnf~~"';::;.~ ...::~~..::::::::",:: ~ '=,'~"':',:""!...
~"",q"",.."...."",.-"',.II..cll'ppth:rl,..".."I""I'D....nr""""..""'."""".,,y ..",,"...111'.
'Im".."."'......."",;,......""""",, ..".... "1II.,.;..."...~c.".........""'Ø...nI.".Ø..t1,",..,."".,,
...""',,."',
~~t:"~.:.:-".:....::.:;~:.:;;:;,, ":'.,:,~,:::,¡~=~=,,~=:.: ::'~~:~~ \T-"'::
...,.::1;"",....,.... .,..w1lld,."",."""."""""'"-"'"n............,IIIeD",,....'.tø,,ACC.
1!1!1~""N"" n..1LI1!.JIwu:JwIh At't'....I",""ACC."UI""....L"""""",""'"".'I"""""..y""",t...
111,_,... ",,"- a", ,.. ,,' ""...1 0.... ".. ,.""..~.. ..,- 0.. ."'" .t 'DOOI!1.. ,," ,.. ,,'
h"r"....""....,..I_"""""""""."'r.rot"""".""""""OI ID~,"""'II"IoI"O....",I.""1,......
""""""""",,< t... ........""",...,mo¡,'-""" ," "'.""""""0.. ..."......",","" 1011""" ....1".."..""..
"""1øI1.."II"",..""",,,....n.,ut",,""'",uoll""""YßI"""""""'-
=.':;~:~: :::",,;,ft'&~~~~~~:¡~ ~=:..::::::U= :::,m."'r=:':'~'¡~:~=-::
: '=~1;:":',::""":"",;:~"='.:. i:".::= :=';: .;~.:.~.:'... .:.':.::~. ~:~'i:.:~':
.',Ood,.. ,;",.lJooIITml..,..,."..".....t.,oUl"""""".............1 oitl",,""" ø" ",..,.","";,¡, "" , ,,",,"
..,.........
1<I!l"'UN ',0' 4td!llmlllw "',_.CC'I'P""'I",.........",....."""t".,.....""".........",.."""I"'.,
.r..,lnol....._.-.".,.....l1aInlM"""""o-dtaU.oInnll""""I O1la'Oou".'.na..""I,oII0"" ACC,
.""'h,..o""""""" ~...........I.....,..q"""""""""'I'_""IIo_""n1m1hl"'W"""""""'""
1'",,11"'" "" A",".""I."O..~......"".h"'_lUpq. la, ""in-nil"""," """h,...... Ace..
....""",..., or"......""... h..,....1 "",.. ACn-1Ib """". ""_..""""""""",I,t....",........t...
"",..I._.m"".....
AU 'I""""~"'.""""'" ."...,,",,""IDII "....wId" "'~Qo.'I1""o!r1 Do1h.th'l1..no1"p....mI",..'U...lu..,
I"""'" ......do... wb" ...."...Io...h....,.01........
,,)
II1LI!km . "" ph. ~....",II.. I""".. .r'helmlhllllBÞ/"ul,nnll....""".....t ",,~,._,
"'h"".........ouIwall...IIIoI.ol.""oha"I."~'U..._..O.....- IuIomunlu...""",
"".1m,...........,
~~~::t::-::U,~ .:F..:~ :¡:~ :'=~'.".'J:~== :::¡ =~,"b;-':~~
1I"..InoI\o¡tIoDACC""""""od"""""","",,_.InoI.....-.....IIo....,
~ ."'nb""~""p'n!o...r,,,\.,,"""""""""O_".O"'.I"""",'Y'"
b_. r.=C:':~: 1I;:~-::~;~¡1:,,'=::.r.:.~.a-d"""',"rll""""""',
;":::~,;; ~:?¡¡:='~'r ..:::rh~::I'.~=:'::: ~~~C~:I,=J; ::"'~~'¡'~~110~~
..p..."Ut........h"wl""""""""",1 UIUIio1I.""....-..".."""".",,"'IU"'" "1'8<011...
,tn{lI!-
,h)
(o
"I
D£CLAIIATlDN OF COVENANTS. DAImIIOQII.
fiJ
~;,;c:.,,~,
"',.' , .'
~~;,ltï:: :::. '
.r.':j~.~"
'!>-
.~;" .
. '.
,. (,. ':.' t.
... ~, :. .,':...
.," :~ ,:.,.
. . ,~:~~~~;, '
"Ii'
~
. .2
{;
J.G!JQO{ 1751
:":::" ~~, ~ '::::':;-;J t~':: =' ;;~~==t:"'::':~~:':~.~ :::,::=
..,¡'ludrrPlI.oI"'i't'"..r".........".I,............."I, A_III'I'....I~.lInIØolII.."b,",_,'"
""'-"""""¡""""'-"~'rrh...d"'_I"..n-wllb~...._!ht.,......1oI.
~;:':~I~': "':~!:J¡~ .......:::~ ':"":;~'::~d'"::::":':"':"':;:: :=:~":'~=
.., OU" II_""""""""""""" ,..1.101,.1""'" "",",,'I......01-...,.rn._, """:C"."ho..
:. "': '=:';::.'="==:~,~:~ :.; I=:, ~~:::.~ .:.. T. ,.::~=:':~';",~~~
:~~J~¡;,";'.:::';::::.';"::::=;:~":"~:::'~~'::';;'::~'C'"u::"":' ':'r d~ A':'.~';::>" ~~:~
.",1'10'.. -low.........".., too"",.... """" 'ml".ld.. .lbo!!IitJ"I'UlI"""""" oil'" Ace.
Aim"'.. VI'. ...............
mIL"."""" __.""......Id""'_',_.""""'~A.""""'...."..t.1
I-
:"'..;::' ,~"'="~.::t\ t:.'f"':"~:':'" ""'t.', ..........or._" . LoI...................." 1"1.
::~~ ~ w"~:;¡'1,:::,,A~:::,~~=.d~=.h~":~:'="-:~~::
....... ..... -",,"""""""al.. .10.. ,."....."" "_..01""_01....... ..110. ""'100
..._.."I............""'_Id~ Th""""".IIpI1..r..ddrm¡,.....-",.........-,......,.............
"'id""", "'-""""""1""". Tho """"""."""011'-""",.,,,1""""""""""".'."'"
"""""'1",,...........,......... bblou b. ""....""'.. "1"""'_, ".'IIaI".."..""".I..".II"...
I. j".h 1101 "_"," '" U.. "'"ut""III. Mu"",þ '" I""od'T""_mllOlliol".1.oI.
~~~:.".z:.:.. ,~~'::iï.=';,=~"::~':':.tt. ",,==-=:::.::~..:r~=:~~
....... ..11..... ..,.- """""",,'m ""..,.....II¡>. ,..,JdIIL-",.U.u.,L.........,...""..".,..,
",......"I"""""""""'"II.\'_~~IIf.)."b................. .pInIIl.Wownoltl1,........."". "'"
"""""""".""""""""""""""""-,."""""""",,,,,_,,"""01,.""""",01.1-.
"""""'II".....".........dlO""""""h '....Gt"""-,"""'_""'d""",""",,.........~.....r
-"""""""""""""'I"...........,......Ih 'IIu:Dn".._""""""""""" AO)"'."'-"""
"."......."" ".e....""'""""""", t... ...."" ....""1UI1........",..................""".""""".,.r
IItcI."""""""""rla""""',!IuI.1MI>oI,
- ...............II"',.. OM...,.. D......'" ACe, or""~lnIII........ ...ACe""" ......Io.d........."
...".. ..110..... _.... n""'ACCobo. d.........
IIJtL"I10N1.ft6 .IIIImaI.Jm!I.! ^,.....................,.h'(OLId"""""."'"larl.."""......"""
""""""""""""'C 110m """'.11........... 10....."""-",, "'-.0,...... P"'~ ....",....
...II...,..,........",.............,....._......"~",,,hI.. 10",_.....1"_""""".-,,,
",,"',dhr"" Ar:c................ .'..""m..,.. ",~I""... ..........", Þ """"'.,""""""",., ACe,
""....,.. ",...y'o,...II"""""""" Ace ".1.... ..."".....""", .~.pb.."...D.....
1I11"".'"1.ft1 I'",."".r..........".II",..'A"'" '11IoACCdIoII....lllllud."..,II"""""""",lh,...
......... .'<1'" P"P'" .ft .
11>1
~:'::~..:'I.:1::t~"=Ib=~~ -::'~.":.\"'::;'.I:¡.¡. -':=:,:':':d'"=&::r...::.':.::
I"~"".............,,.. """"'""""".", ,.."'......"', ....,...,"".. L.".... II,.r
n""..ðluollllllllJl......""""'..I"""""""",.o¡¡.""_""OI",..'IIJht-.r""UI."
I!.p~ !\N,l
M.I"""""""""" ."'0."....110,.01_1010_......1.."" """1"'_'
.""""'1""" '01 Ut._,............ "",,10 D"...........,......htcIJ"""I,b"... ",..",.....
:~=':::"'" """""""'",III..,,.......løolorlœ -"~'"'- -.. D",..(II
<OJ
M"'JItdutao,...~~U .n >/l.I...I'a,"bll"",..........bJ.U1...........................t..ou.,,,.....
,"'-...al..... ,""I"'""" ""....or............. - "'- ..."",-
U." '_'1'1 "'.,....tan'I"""""'.,,", ........"I..h""""""""IWU I""'-""~ L" ..",..111""'"
............. """""ahllL". _aACC"" "m.... .....1"",......",.... .a-I""""".IIIII'..........",
................. Ace I.,... 0...100 ,.......1111.,.........,
..,
". Ace ...lh..,Ih,.WI¡IIII"lum.I,..II.,~.b. ...I......_."'~I- ...."'..~ k...".,I"II".
,.",,1"""""'111-
=:: ~d .::I:'ü..~ ~~b:~~~'T..~,=:'~~:=:;::::r~~A~~
1"!fIonI1tqt1. ...11......-10_.,.17.-,.,-"1-"""""" .......InUtl """""""",
:=:;: ~~"',,~cr:¡~~:==::'C~ "¡:~= :';:'01" ':""':~~~d
"'1",...., ""Idy "".... ",¡....- .HlU" h....... Loll. or.....-.n¡odt, """"'a. ""'""I,...,, 10
1",,_,1"1.. .""......n". ,rd. ACe." I"'" "oil 0'I'mr .mI""...INn_~",..wttlIU""",bo."... or",b
........11"1.,,. UIIt.nw.....n1tI Lo>II". """..._dl'I.,r,..d......."""... ,_"'"'. d.....,,".. " ..1=
Dl!CLAJtATlON OF COVENANTS. DAII.1'MOOR
t
.~,
,
'IL~'ì'\:";~ ~.
~~~:. ':.:~~ '
.'
::'. ~~~
:'. .,?t;
. i<
't:;
.LU.;¡'UUU~752
,
,..........., ......rhu """"'-"" lIoto\CC.. ..1d."""".U. AÐC.""t"""'ri¡d".- .......
1",_..........."ttP'..,ollmlla1..-...I......L"._IftIlI""""',IorOb""""""""
,............."""",ø..AeCtn..............ouItb.""""h1 o""'IO"1ftI. 'lbtr(¡hI"...AOC......,_.1II
........odlb_,..I...,.",........_ø,....r!ll'lhalo¥rl...r, ..l1li"......- ,.............uio
....."...""""... "'0""""""'_"""""" "'1..,......,,-- ,__d.......""...
","'u,.",...",...,.......","'_.
IIItL'TIIIH'.'. Øw!:/IHIn...O.....oII1 'n.'I~.n""ACC""Y'IIonIIOII_""'-"""""""""
.b,........ ..'110 "...mOb"""!"""""1 ",II. ACC. "" hmo,.t.....I..""",Ion.wIIII............."..."
""".. o¡odI..... ....111,. ,.....-... oj ,Ie 110. or "'" .mIÞ. ..._CUl... ..."........ -~-...
...", ,,","'_1"""", -"\.......,I0Il,,,......, ......,.".... ....""". HJthIo¡ In'" 0........",1,,11
I.~'hh ...,..... .""....._,.. ""..."",...., 0..1 "......t,......~I'.._..."... D......I....
ARTlCI,E VIII. hll'L'BLLANllÐlIA
tllIt."fIClH R.l1 JIm¡ TI,tI-.øo.""".I............mJano._IodODII1oI..__.lrod I..". oIa....
.odUan.t.,>I.2II11..."."......IDtII_.....vIIooI, ....0._31.11...""""""""'-'111...,..."......
,114 ",.,n, .... 'IU_~ _114 "" ...-1.. ........ ,r 'oo POI ,..,. aoI1. - '1IIAA,1ohoo1'", . ""'...
to...".... ..",...11."" ,_"....I""'IItI1"."""" ISI"I"'O. ""'111"",....01,..,101.. ...Im.. .,"'n
","""',,' . .....,"" ""'I'" "'" """'"' -."",
1111<:1'0,"0." j\1JIIIII\- ,."".....,...""", ,.-".. roll...,
In! . ~ _dl""'LOIwfII.I.Do",-'_~Io.~......,.hy..anOl...,...".....Ih~
~:h: ~~ == ~-:;.¡::~:.= ':."'.=:~':::':::~::::;:~':'
D~ -""""""""".I.......I"",'t,.I_,'~..p'",lm""'~I"'~m""'"".,
,..."............,...-.." .....1.........,........ ,p."",.......-....., """"'.
Inc"""'" """",.....h..01 1.."nny""""01 (SIS otd" ,"","""'In",,"',,"""'td.m..O<
...........d_......_...."",I.....p"""wllho......en...,n,oo",... """"'-"
11110...........- """'101.. _arwdll,........"111 a......
IllCmlNØJtJ ~ "............. D........,.,a",..I11"""""""""""", """'_""01""
...1..".'..nr....oIn...._utl"""-"",,"""'_.r"""' UIW-.r.'bD..~..............,,,
'IIY I!>I' """"'-""""'"""""""""""""'-"11'_,"""100...."",..,...,..."
ftO1Iml"i"""" ."n. .....01............. ..mlkl".. .....IIm."""""""",rowlola.. bot..........."....I"
111 /nU Ion.. ",' cJI>d.
:;';:~~:f':" :~=;.~"f;:"=:=~In=IIn~:";".,==,=r:"r:::
..."".u......,"'" ,......""""n.,..tnoo.".I"Itt""II"""'mldbllI_...,oJI...lhylnw,lnoI".",,O......
wk>I..,..' " '.'t...L
I'd
""'"\'1<,""" ~ ,""""",",",LoI.,............ot,""u""',"'-'oI,.........",..,......",
hnI""ur."pllo.....-., L.'.", """'OR' -.-"" ..............-..opt... '.........,......~,"
.."1""'.._" .._--.,......... """",""",I......,.,.,I...IoD..........",_I,ha'.,'"
hI ....."',.
""CI'1<,""'. Jiœr!!!!!!In &"'01...,_"",11,..."",........011""".."-"",...-"..."",,..11011'
........_tm, "',." .......... ...".. d_"",n ....""'110. ..1IdII, .........ow.. .r.., ",..."...,....
:: ~\: ~.;~:... ~ ':::1"""'...:::::,,;'1: :.=:~: ,::"":: ::..': :",..:~::".t-:'::~:r~~~:,;';:
""""I,""10I"'1IiaUIM.""".__"""",,,......-dlllltlnohoioO""""""lnlnlnl..,......... Ancol,h""
,"II1...".I""",""~fo,_..I_.r...._""...nn.t""'o",_"""IoI1hI,,.,,"Ih.t...bha'
.......,
IN WITN...'IIUlUlUÞ 110.0..,...,.. ....."".m 0"- u "......... "'" /In' _......
an.N"UlI:
.
,
PEGGY J. JACOIISCN
.. HOTIIfIY PUIIUC .,.
STAT£ OF !DAHO
STATI! aF IDAlia, ¡
CDunty .r AaA n.
CIrI tIoll.JR!j. dAy.y o~. U!J!l,
be'." la, a ,..
pe..... 1.1'1 n"",. . Ind~~ ~~
t;~ ~~ .5l"flM .
Ionawn t. .. to be the por'.n. who.. ......
on .ub...,.... t. th.. "lthJ,~ ~t~nt and
o.knowlaIQod ,. ... that ...cut.J the
......
In \lITHESS IIIIEnEaF, I havch...vnto..t err
h..., ..., arfl..d oor orfl~ aI .u' the d.
Þ/!:CLA.!lA"ON OFCOY~~~t~"~ In <hI. ..rtl.fl t. rr..: .b... 1
mJto¡ -...,
'.
..
\',
,~
.;
'iT- r", '¡
'::r,
,t
..
':; ;; i',
. Idaho.
"
'.,
~,
.:;¡ .' ;",
. ,~. -J!M ' . :,'
".t...~<~-: ;
J~' IIOnmlulo. .""Ir..
.' "" '~:~:'
" , '~'~r¡;":
;,
",
":!i
.¡,'
, :"11
*
C.
Exhibit A-Qrdinance 389
2. Cluster subdivision. Not less than 75 percent of the total area of a cluster
subdivision, as described In Section 8-28-6 of this Title. shall be designated
as. and used exclusively for, dedicated open space, as set forth in this
Article.
3. Planned unit development. Not less than 10 percent of residential areas
of planned unit developments shall be designated as, and used exclusively
for, dedicated open space. as set forth In this Article,
Allowed open space uses. The allowed open space uses shall include, but
not be limited to. the following:
1. Natural areas;
2. Agriculture;
3. Community garden plots for cultivation by residents;
4. Recreational areas designed for specifIC passive and/or active
recreational uses Including, but not limited to, golf courses, tot lots, tennis
courts, swimming pools, and ball fields;
5. Greenways identified on the adopted Ada County Ridge-to-Rlvers
Pathway Plan;
6. Lawns or ground cover with or without trees;
7. Riding trails and common pasture;
8. Use associated with an historic structure; or
9. Any combination of uses listed above.
D.
Term and form of restrictions for dedicated open space.
1. Non-farm subdivision. All development restrictions shall be noted and/or
shown on the final plat and shall be recorded as either a deed restriction or
a conservation easement prepared subject to the regulations of Idaho Code
§55-21 05.
a. Open space areas shall be restricted from development until both
the following conditions have been met:
i. The subject properly has recelVJd development approval and
approval for a zoning ordir¡anc8 mapsmendment to 1) a commercial
or industrial dlstrtctor 2) a residenÞI or rural district that allOWs a
density of less than or equal t05 aorea. per dwelling; and
4J-2
L Exhibit A-Ordinance 389
¡" ii. Urban services are available to the proposed development.
2. Cluster subdivision. Areas designated as dedicated open space shall be
restricted from development until the site recalves approval of a master site
plan and/or final plat and the proposed development shall be served by a
community water system and a municipal or central wastewater collection
and treatment system. Development restrictions shall be noted and/or
shown on the final plat and shall be recorded as either a deed restriction or
conservation easement prepared subject to the regulations of Idaho Code
§55-21 05.
E.
Ownership. Dedicated open space shall be held In one or more of the
following methods of ownership:
1. Condominium. If ownership of the proposed development is held as a
condominium in conformance with Idaho Code, Title 55, Chapter 15, the
dedicated open space may be held as a common area of the condominium.
2. Homeowners association. The dedicated open space may be held In
common ownership by an Incorporated homeowners association.
3. Fee simple dedication.
a. The dedicated open space may be dedicated to a Federal, State,
or municipal government body empowered to hold an interest in real
property subject to the laws of Idaho or the United States, or a charitable
corporation, charitable association, or charitable trust, the purposes or
powers of which include retaining or protecting the natural, scenic, or open
space values of real property, assuring the availability of real property for
agricultural, forest, recreation, or open space use, protecting natural
resources, maintaining or enhancing air or water quality, or preserving the
historical, architectural, archaeol~gical, or cultural aspects of real property.
b. The applicant or owner shall submit for County review and
approval any offer of dedication and the terms and conditions thereof that
demonstrate the dedicated open space shall be maintained as dedicated
open space for the required term as specified in Section 8-4J-3D above.
c. The Board may, but shall not be required to, accept any portion or
portions of the dedicated open spa.ce, provided the land is accessible to the
residents of the County, there is no cost of acquisition other than any costs
incident to ownership, such as title Insurance, and the Board agrees to and
has access to maintain such lands.
4. Private ownership.
F.
Maintenance requirement. In the event any private owner of dedicated open
space fails to maintain same according to the standards of this Title, Ada
County may, in accord with the dedicated open space plan and following
4J-3
VISION
FIRST L.L.C.
RECEIVED
SEP \ 5 2004
('11' of Meridì!,n
éitŸ Clerk OffiCe
HELPING SHAPE COMMUNITIES FOR THE FUTURE
fax
COVER PAGE
Pages to ífI
follow: ~
RE: City of Meridian File Nos. Az.o4-023; PP-O4-030; CUP-O4-032
TO:
Steve Siddoway, Principal Planner
City of Meridian Planning & Zoning Department
FROM: Ken Elliott \ ~
FAX NUMBER: 888-6854
DATE:
9/16/2004 4:43 PM
SUBJECT: Mr. Siddoway: I have attached copies of the
transmittal memo from Dobie Engineering dated 9/16/04 and the
revised ADT distribution map for Kingsbridge Subdivision that
reflects conversion of Dartmoor Drive into a cu~de-sac to prevent
cross trips via Dartmoor Drive to and from Kingsbridge Drive. This
redesign reduces the daily vehicle trips from Kingsbridge through
Dartmoor from 800 to 400, adding to the existing 200 Dartmoor-
generated trips, for a total of 600 daily trips through Dartmoor. The
cul-de-sac cuts the Kingsbridge-generated trips through Dartmoor in
half (see attached Figure B from Dobie's revised report dated
September 8,2004). This cul-de-sac was recommended by Andrea
Tuning, ACHD Traffic Planner, to address the Dartmoor residents'
concerns, while still keepirg two public access points into
Kingsbridge, as required by ACHD Code. Please enter this letter
and the attachments into the record for tonighfs Planning & Zoning
Commission hearing on Kingsbridge. Thank you.
,5..p 16 04 12:58p
DOBIE ENGINEERING INC
388 030S
ro- 1
777 Hearthstone Dri>le
Boise. ID 83702
P"""e 208-345.3200
Fax 2D8-38I>-IJJ09
Dobie Engineering, Inc.
Fax
To:
Mike Howard & Ken Elliot
From: Patrick Dobie. P.E.
VIsion Rrst LLC
Fa><:
938-4765
Pages: 2
P- 938-4655
Date<
9/1612004
Re:
KingsbJidge Subdivision
cc:
Gordon Bates
The Land Group
0 Urgent
0 For Review
0 Please comment
0 Please Reply
0 Please Recycle
. Comments: See revised traffic distribution for Kingsblidge. Call me if you have any questions.
,Sep 16 04 12:58p
--.J
I
I
I
i
I
i
)
,-----,!,' /: I:
. . \
r:~
Ll~
I
I
i
I
.----.J
I
I
!
~
DOBIE ENGINEERING INC
.IV
t
~
CI
<
W
388 0309
p.2
FIGURE A
KINGSBRIDGE SUBDIVISION
ADT DISTRIBUTION
WITH DARTMOOR ACCESS
- ADT -
AVERAGE ONLY TRAFFIC
Team, Study P"poco' By
m__. ~"..,""' ,,>-""
~/
PEDESTRIAN STRIPE
4' FROM PAVEMENT
EDGE (BY ACHO)
II
@
,
;
,
,
Qû::
------
------
15,047 SF
"
EXISTING EDGE
OF PAVEMENT
@
SLOPE SIDEWALK
TO MATCH
EXISTING PAVEMENT
(12: 1 MAX SLOPE)
'?x
1;.'),
ro"?
15.281 SF I:j
@ 0>
O~ STORM
c::s;:: WATER
~O i SWALE
0 )
?j
~ 8,303 SF 10,188 SF
@ (33)
Dobie Engineering, Inc.
777 Hearthstone Dr.
Boise, ID 83702
Ph. 208-345-3290
Fax 208-388-0309
Email dobie_dei@msn.com
September 9, 2004
RE: Kingsbridge Subdivision Traffic Impact Study
Andrea Tuning
Ada County Highway District
3775 N. Adams SI.
Garden City, ID 83713
Dear Andrea:
I reviewed the revised site plan for the proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision and
estimated the traffic distribution on the new road system. The major change from the
original traffic study involved the introduction of an emergency access (gated entry)
to the Dartmoor Subdivision.
Attached you will find Figure A showing the average daily traffic on the internal
streets with the gate. Figure B shows the traffic distribution without the gate. Also
attached is an analysis of the level of service at the main site entrance under
maximum traffic loading. An acceptable service Jevel can be achieved with the
addition of the recommended auxiliary lanes.
The need for auxiliary lanes at Kingsbridge was estimated based on the new traffic
volumes. Both a left-turn and a right-rum deceleration lane will be needed using
AASHTO warrants.
All other findings, conclusions and recommendations in the original study remain
applicable to the new site plan.
Sincerely,
,ßl- jJ -l~^-
¡
I
Patrick Dobie, P.E.
Dobie Engineering, Inc.
i
I
!
í
I
I
I
~
['
C~\:
i4~
I__\.J
~
I
I
I
--I
I
N
t
FIGURE B
KINGSBRIDGE SUBDIVISION
ADT DISTRIBUTION
WITH DARTMOOR ACCESS
- ADT -
AVERAGE DAILY !RAFFlC
~
a::
~
ILl
r,offie ó'udy Pcep.,.d By
DOBIE ENGINEERING, INC.
777 H_. "'. ..... "702 "'-"",
. Two-Way Stop Control
Page I of
. t . TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
lGenerallnfonnation Isite Information
f'nalyst P. DOBIE nterseclion SITE ACCESS
'lgencylCo. DEI ~~clion ACHD
:Iiite Performed 3117/2004 lysis Year 2007
wivsh; TIme Period PM
"roiecl DescriDlion KlNGS BRIDGE (REVISED SITE PLAN)
S1nIeI: KINGS BRIDGE t.lor1hISouIh SIreet: EAGLE ROAD
Inten;ec tion Orientation: Norlh-south ISt..dv Period tJm¡t 0.25
Volumes and
8Iaiør StJeet NorIhbound Southbound
¡¡¡;¡¡¡¡-ement 1 2 3 4 5 6
I L T R L T R
/Volume 0 450 55 90 700 0
f>eak-Hour Factor PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
tourlv Flow Rate, HFR 0 473 57 94 736 0
-t Heavv Vehides 0 - - 0 - -
Iedian Type Undivided
T Channelized 0 0
lInE 6 0 1 1 1 1 0
on! iauration T R L T
Ø¡ ream Sional 0 0
Uno rSInlet Westbound Eastbound
7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
oIume 35 0 55 0 0 0
eat-Hour Factor PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
oor1y Flow Rate, HFR 36 0 57 0 0 0
ercent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
'ercent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
Rr Channeized 0 0
Laries 1 0 1 0 0 0
L R
8Wav- Queue Lenath. and Level of Service
NB sa Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L L R
(vph) 94 36 57
(m) (vph) 1048 143 595
Ie 0.09 0.25 0.10
95% queue length 0.29 0.94 0.32
Control Detay 8.8 38.4 11.7
OS A E B
/Ipproacl1 Detay - - 22.0
~oach LOS - - C
>
HCS2000TM
CopyrisbI C ó'OOO lI1ùvonily of Florida, All Kiøh" Raerved
V...... 4.
file:/IC: \Documentso/020and%20Settings\DOBIE\LocaI%20Settings\ T emp\u2k 18. trnp
9/9/200
RECEIVED
SEP - 3 2004
, C.ity of Merídi"r¡
'1A_.~~L..- c.tyClerkOHke
,~ & ~ 1~ 'ZJi4bûct
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
3;P}Wf 1st 2004
WiUiam G. Berg Jr.
City Clerk
Ci 0
Phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
RE:
AZ 04-023/Kingshridge Subdivision
Dear Will:
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above referenced
application for Annexation and Zoning of76.72 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for
proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision.
Thank you,
~;;U ø~-
BiiCf{enson
Asst. Water Superintendent
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
BH/dbg
c:
Water Superintendent
File - Office/Shop
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABlEACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJEG RIGHTS - 40,000
.~--"----
RECEIVED
SEP - 3 2004
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
~&~')
COpy
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
1 September 2004
The Land Group, Inc.
Kerby Kirkham
462 E. Shore Drive, Suite 100
Eagle, ID 83616
phones: Areo Cod. 208
OFFICE: Nompa 466-7861
SHOP: Nompa 466-0663
-~-------~---- -
u_-- _--0----
RE:
Land Use Change Application - Klnasbridae Subdivision
Please note the District now reQuires three f3) sets of plans
Dear Mr. Kirkham:
Enclosed please find a Land Use Change Application for your use to file with the Irrigation
District for its review on the above-referenced development. If this development is under a
"rush" to be finalized, I would recommend that you submit a cashier's check, money order or
cash as payment of the fees in order to speed the process up. If you submit a company or
personal check, it must clear the bank before processing the application.
Should this development be planning a pressure urban irrigation system that will be owned,
operated and maintained by the Irrigation District, I strongly urge you to coordinate with John P.
Anderson, Water Superintendent for the Irrigation District, concerning the installation of the
pressure system. Enclosed is a questionnaire that you must fill out and return in order to initiate
the process of contractual agreements between the owner or developer and the Irrigation
District for the ownership, operation and maintenance of the pressure urban irrigation system.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call on me at the District's
office, or John P. Anderson, at the District's shop.
SincerelY,
iJ JU.ß- 1l. 7r¡ P1'ÚJ
Donna N. Moore, Asst. SecretarylTreasurer
NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
DNM/smc
cc:
File
Water Superintendent
Will Berg, City Clerk, Meridian City
Vision First, LLC, 661 N. Rivershore Lane, Suite 120, Eagle, ID 83616
enc.
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJEO RIGHTS - 40,000
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Shaun Wardle
William L M. Nary
Charles M. Rountree
Keith Bird
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 466-9272' FAX 466-4405
PARKS & RECREATION
(208) 888-3579' Fax 898-5501
PUBLIC WORKS
(208) 898-5500' Fax 887-1297
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 887-2211 . Fax 887-1297
PLANNING & ZONING
(208) 884-5533 . Fax 888-6854
TRANSMITTALS 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
and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Clerk's Office
Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: September 9, 2004
Transmittal Date: August 18, 2004 Hearing Date: September 16,2004
File No.: AZ 04-023
Request: Annexation and Zoning of 76.72 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed
Kingsbridge Subdivision
By: Vision First, LLC
Location of Property or Project:
4070 South Eagle Road
David Zaremba, P/Z (No FP)
David Moe, P/Z (No FP)
Wendy Newton-Huckabay, PIZ (NoFP)
Michael Rohm, PIZ (No FP)
Keith Borup, P/Z (No FP)
Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
Bill Nary, C/C
Charlie Rountree, CIC
Keith Bird, CIC
Shaun Wardle, CIC
Water Department
Sewer Department
Sanitary Service (No VAR, VAc-, FP)
Building Department
Fire Department
Police Department
City Attomey Your Concise Remarks:
==-.
ok
Meridian School District (No FP)
Meridian Post Office (FP/PP only)
Ada County Highway District
Ada County Development Services
Central District Health
Nampa Meridian Irrig. District
Settlers Irrigation District
Idaho Power CO. (FP/PP only)
Qwest (FP/PP only)
Intermountain Gas (FP/PPonly)
Bureau of Reclamation (FP/PPonfy)
Idaho Transportation Department (No FP)
Ada County Land Records
Meridian Development Corporation
Historical Preservation Commission
~
tJ
~
AUG 2 3 2004
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE' MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 . (208) 888-4433
City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 . Human Resources Fax (208) 884-8723 . Finance & Utility Billing Fax (208) 887-4813
'P4L rw:;
q-l~
X-bßì ~+--
l(p /7 /?;-
r f
Meridian City Plannillg .and ZoniIlg
33 EIdaho AVe, . .
Meridian, ill 83642
. ,'. ',"
RE:~Sbridge Subdivision
Dear Sirs,
We are homeowners residing at 3422 Dartmoor Dr and would like to express our
concerns regarding the proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision. The existing land
surrounding the proposed subdivision is currently a rural lifestyle ofliving as the land is
all in one to five acre parcels. The proposed R3 plus zoning will negatively affect the
OU:ITefIt-rtIral.Jn-mg,'tJ11l!iityofiife-and'Wfety öÎOl.lr<lliÌl'ateli. .. - .
While we understand growth and development will happen, the proposed R3 plus zoning
is NOT acceptable! We woUld be in favor of the development ifRl zoning is approved
for the development. This would reduce the number of cars and maintain the current
rural lifestyle enjoyed by all homeowners surrounding this propose urban style ofliving!!
Althoughthe developers have ,established the main entrance past Dartmoor, the reality is
the developinel1t wiÜûst, Óårlmoor primarily as their main entrance because it is the most
direct route. We would like Dartmoor to be an emergency entrance only. If this cannot
happen; then it is imperative that the developers provide sidewalks on both sides of
DártlnooÌ' as well as speed bumps to maintain safety for our children.
Our homeowners association as met with the developers of this proposed subdivision to
express our concerns to them. They said they would work with us and address our
concerns, However, we have found through the filing of the subdivision plan that they
have not worked with good faith! Not only did they not address any of our concerns,
they increased the numbers of home sites - this is in direct conflict of our main concern!!
Please help us maintain our current rural lifestyle we enjoy while still managing the
growth!!
;E.i.nc.lY, '." ..~.
, L.."
. F'~
Rick and Brenda Schultsmeier
.RE C E IVED
2004
CITY OF MERIDIAN
~:ITY (:1 FfX !;FFlrj=
rage 1 01 ¿.
-------------.------.--
f+¿ ~
q-I fp
:EIY- rY) ~
.:it flP /7 If
I I
Machelle Hili
From: Kristy Vigil (vlgill<@meridlancity.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 7:53 AM
To: siddowas@ci.meridian.id.us; Tara Graen; Jessica Johnson; Machelle Hill
Subject: FW: Kingsbridge Subdivision Hearing
Importance: High
Kristy Vigil
Administrative Assistant
Meridian Planning & Zoning
208-884-5533
-----Orlglnal Message----
From: Jenny Wokersien [mailto:vwokersien@email.uophx.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 9:01 PM
To: vlgilk@meridiandty.org
Subject: Kingsbrldge SubdiVIsion Hearing
RECEIVED
SEP 1 6 2004
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
K. Jeffery & VIrginia Wokersien
3702 S. Selatir Place
Meridian, ID 83642
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
660 E. Watertower, Suite 202
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Commissioners:
This letter is written in reference to the proposed development of the Kingsbridge Subdivision in
Meridian, Idaho. We have lived on Selatir Place in Meridian for almost nine years and are grateful for
the character of our community. We appreciate your consideration of our thoughts regarding the rezone
of the deed restricted open space lot that borders our subdivision, Bremerton.
We oppose the developer's request to rezone the lot from RUT to R-4. The R-4 designation is
incompatible with the existing homes in that immediate area. The homes in our subdivision are located
on lots that range from 1- 5 acres. A rezone to R-4 would negatively affect the values of the existing
homes in our area.
We also oppose the proposed interior street stubbed at the easterly boundary to provide for future
connectivity to Victory Road. Selatir Place is a narrow, country road with no sidewalks that provides
access to 13 homes. Allowing high density development traffic to Selatir Place would create unsafe
conditions for us and our children.
We respectfully ask that you help us preserve the character of our community by denying the
Kingsbridge Subdivision developer's request to rezone to R-4 the open space lot and to construct an
interior road that connects to South Selatir Place.
Thank you,
9/16/2004
rage ¿. or ¿.
Jeff and Jenny Wokersien
Jenny Wokersien
Universi1y of Phoenix FlexNet Facul1ylIdoho Campus
208-362-2077
vwokersi en@email.uoÞhx.edu
9/16/2004