HomeMy WebLinkAboutKingsbridge Subdivision CUP
CUP 04-032
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEEIlNG
APPLICANT Vision First, LLC
September 16, 2004
ITEM NO.
18
REQUEST Public Hearing: CUP for a PO consisting of single-family residential lots w/reductions to
the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage & request to exceed maximum block length
for proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision - 4070 South Eagle Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
See attached Stalt 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:
See attached Comments
IDAHO POWER:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
Materials presented at pubic meellnlll shall become propedy of the CIty of Medcllan.
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Keith Bird
WiIIiam LM. Nary
SMun Wardle
Charles M. Rountree
CIJl'f'fIIIALL
(~~3-F<Eaj¡IßJI&BI3
PIffiBKI<WOORKS
BBlIlDornæB~T
(J¡!i!J)I¡ß2;¡¡m¡~F<Eai--95151
LE.6@A])B~T
(~~2- n:~SIW4DiI5
STAFF REPORT:
Transmittal Date: September 13, 2004
P&Z Hearing Date: September 16, 2004
To:
Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission
Steve Siddoway, Principal Planner ~~
Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Tech ~
Kingsbridge Subdivision
From:
Re:
RECEIVED
SEP 1 3 200~
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 full, 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./acre per the revised
plat application form. The net density is 3.88 d.u./acre.
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. PP-04-O30.CUP-<>4-032
KID"brid" AUP.CUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & 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 Re(lUirements
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 11, Block 2 of the Dartmoor Subdivision. The Dartmoor
Subdivision plat, Note 9, states that Lot 11 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 statrs 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 Attorney 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-Q4-o23, PP4I-O30. CUP-04-032
'""""'id" AZ.PPCUP
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 1 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 Couoty).
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-o4-03O. CUP-04-032
EOn""';'" AZ.PP.CUP
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 allowed 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. "-04-030. CUP-04-032
Kmg,bridg'AZPP.CUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & 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 concerns.
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 fue 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-<)4.030. CUP-04-O32
Kin,'bridg,AZ.PP.CU1'
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)?
=04-023, PP-o4-OJO. (UP-04-032
King,ocidg,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-OH)23. PP-<4-O30. CUN)4-O32
"""'bridg, AZ PP cUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & 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 confonnance 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 Councilor 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-û4-023. PP-<)4.030. CUP-O4-012
King""'dg, AZ.PP.CUP
Planning & Zoning ComrnissionlMayor & 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 requiœd. 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 final 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 oflattice 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.
AZ.04.02J.PP.<J4-030.CUP'()4-032
lGn"bridg, AZ.PP.CUP
9.
11.
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: September 16, 2004
Page 10
GENERAL COMMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT
1.
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.
Sidewalks within the proposed subdivision shall be built in accordance with MCCI2-13-
10-8.
6.
7.
250 and 100-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 final 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.
10.
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-04-iJ23. PP--04-0JO. CUP-"-03'
""",bri<!g, AZ PP CUP
C.
D.
E.
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: September 16, 2004
Page 11
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 Ordinanée;
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-O4-023. PP-o4-OJO. CUP-û4-oJ2
Kill"bri'" Al.PP.CUP
2.
3.
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & 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 create 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
1.
Open Space/Lot Removal: Staff recommends removing Lots 1 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 IO feet. Ordinance
11-9-1 requires 20-foot street side setbacks, except that living areas may be reduced to
IS-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-D4-0OJ.PP..Q4-0JO.CUP-04.{})2
r<mg"";dg, AZ.PPCUP
4.
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & 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 coimect for ease of maintenance.
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS (Conditional Use Permit)
1.
Applicant shan meet all of the requirements of the preliminary plat as a condition of the
Conditional Use Permit.
2.
The project shan conform to the modified dimensional standards, as fonows:
. 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 -
3.
The fonowing amenities are required as part of the Planned Development, per the
application: 10% open space, including a community park with a swimming pool,
clubhouse, fun-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 smaner open spaces around the subdivision, a
bridge "monument" and omamental street lights.
An stormwater detention areas are subject to Ordinance 12-13-14. Fencing shan not cut
off Lot 34, Block 6 ttom Lot 33, Block 6.
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
L One and two family dwenings win 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 11, 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 International Fire
Code Appendix D.
2. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shan be by the Meridian Fire Department.
AZ-O4-O2J.PP-<J4-0JO.CUP-O4-O30
lGn"b""" AZ.PP.CUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: September 16, 2004
Page 14
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 Y2" 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 turnaround.
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/northlsouth). The two entrances shall
be separated by no less than Y. 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 borne 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.
AZ-04-023. "-<)4.03°- CUP-O4-<J32
KID"brid" AZ.".CUP
RECEIVED
SEP - 3 200~
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
~ & ~ 1~ 'DidIUct
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
'$.1 August, 2004
Phones: Areo Code 208
OFFICE, Nompo 466-7861
SHOP, Nampa 466-0663
William G. Berg II.
City Clerk
City of Meridian
'J~~.-
'Ifm~,;IJj 83642
RE:
PP 04-03O-REVISED & CUP 04-032/Kingsbridge Subdivision
Dear Will:
PP 04-03o-REVISED: Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the
above referenced application for Preliminary Plat approval.
CUP 04-032: If all storm drainage is retained on-site there will be no impact on Nampa
& Meridian Irrigation District and no further review will be required.
However, if any surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District requires a Land Use Change Application be filed for review prior to final
platting. Please contact Donna Moore at 466-7861 for further information.
All laterals and waste ways must be protected. The developer must comply with Idaho
Code 31-3805, !tis recommended that irrigation water he made available to all
deveIopmentswitbin the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District.
Thank you,
IUd Ii! ~
Bill Henson
Asst. Water Superintendent
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
BHJdbg
c:
Water Superintendent
File - Office/Shop
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABlE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000
RECEIVED
SEP - 7 2004
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 Development 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 Y. hour wait to get from Overland through the VictorylEagle
stop now. Even if lights go in it will be such a hardship to deal with every day.
Sincerely,
Æ~u
Michael and Donna Rich
3742 S. Caleb PI
Meridian, ill 83642
~- ---. - ~
RE C E ¡VEL)
SEP D 9 2004
Meridian City Planning & Zoning: CiTY OF MERIDIAN
1. ed, 1 b . th th .d fth C1T\f r;.: J;::dq!( np::lrr:
I own a 5 acre parce mun late ya utting e sou Sl e 0 e proposeu Kingsb1'ic ge \ '. , . "-
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.
L
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 of25 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.
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 PRlV ATEL Y OWNED 5 AND 10 ACRE HOMESlTES 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
£~~:
Philip and JU~~:i~n
~¿~
Frank and Sue Shoemaker
349.7 Zaldia lane, Meri~
-(h~--1%--------~~
Frank and Connie Stauts
4280 S Eagle road, Meridian
September 9, 2004
HE C E IVE]"',
9 2íiO~
CiTY OF MERIDIAN
;¡r{ CU=:DK ("\cF!(',F
TO: Meridian City Planning and Zoning
FROM: Frank Shoemaker
RE: Kingsbridge Subdivision
Vision First, LLC Developer
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 bermed
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.
~J~
Frank Shoemaker
3497 Zaldia Lane
Meridian, Idaho
P¿¿C2¿:
PhiID~~~~.
3405 Zaldia Lane
Meridian, Idaho
ConvnenIs:
ZALDIA LANE, LOOKING WEST.
KlNGSBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED ON THE RIGHT
SIDE OF THIS PHOTO. NORTH SIDE OF STREET.
ConvnenIs:
ZALDIA LANE
PHOTO IS LOOKING NORTH FROM THE COMMON DRNEWAY
OF FRANK SHOEMAKER AND PHIL DEANGELI
KlNGSBRIDGE PROJECT WOULD BE ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF THE WHITE FENCING
ConvnenIs:
ZALDIA LANE, LOOKING EAST FROM SOUTH EAGLE ROAD
KlNGSBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IS TO THE LEFT.
CommenIs:
CoIl1lllelds:
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
Commem.:
TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION NEW CONSTRUCTION
ALL TWO 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. ACROSS FROM THE
PROPOSED KlNGSBRIDGE PROJECT.
NO LANDSACPlNG, CANAL ACCESS ROAD.
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 SUBDNlSION WHERE NO BUFFER LANDSCAPING WAS
REQUIRED.
CÐnmenIs:
NEW WOODBRIDGE SUBDIVISION, ALL TWO LEVEL HOMES
NO LANDSCAPING BUFFER FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY
Cornmanls:
TWO LEVEL HOMES, GOOD VIEW OF REAR YARD'S
Commenls:
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
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 thet 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 ro ose develo ent at -4 is not atible with nt nei borhoods and ro rties 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-acre 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 crooosed homes creates a Great safelY concern.
Dartmoor and Caleb are desianated a Deaf Child Area. Adults and children walk an 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 entrences must be required, not just "stubbed out" as proposed.
3- Provisions need to be mandated bv vour commission for Drooer storm water manaaement in order to ensure the
current Duritv levels of the aauifers to our wells. We all currently heve 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 irriaatian drainaaes need to be Drovided for and maintained.
5- ODen sDaces need to be no less than 10% of the total land. This should be functional ODen sDace not includina
berms or other landscaDina reauirements. 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 clanned as one of onlv two entrances to Kinasbri~e develoDment detached sidewalks from
Eaale Road east on Dartmoor Road as well as on the east side of aale Road both north and south of the
Dartmoor intersection are needed to imorove the safetv of our children and Dedestrians and to provide 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
profit, are what we are seeking.
Sincerely,
~ £lÆ 11-
Michael & Paula Raedy
3702 S Caleb Place
Meridian, Id 83642
884-4499
RECEIVED
SEP G 9 200~
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY CLERK OFF/I.¡=:
To: City of Meridian Planning and Zoning.
~RF"(---'EI1 TL'[)
i ..1 ./ :oJ V 1'J....,
From: Troy and Kristi Quick (Dartmoor subdivision homeowners).
SEP 0 B 200~
Re: The proposed Kingsbridge subdivision.
City OfMeridiar
City Clerk Oì1iCé
My wife and I wanted to express our concerns about the proposed Kingsbridge
subdivision. We are not anti-development, actua1ly just the contrary, we run a building
contracting business ourselves. However, we feel the R-4 zoning with smaller than 8,000
sq/ft lots would not be complimentary to the surrounding homes. AIl of the surrounding
homes 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 impact
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 subdivisions for smaller homes. We need some
subdivisions that have larger lots for more upper scale homes to be built in. The 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.
?J: ~
~~Qj
Troy and Kristi Quick
Brady & Teresa Turner
3678 S. Caleb Place
Meridian, ID 83642-7068
208-887-6832
RECEIVEI)
SEP 08 2004
C~ty OfMeridial¡
Clt.y CIerk OffiCt
September 7, 2004
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
RE: Proposed KINGSBRIDGE 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:
1. 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 ofDartmoor Subdivision have obtained a
legal opinion in support of our opposition to this development, a copy of which has been
submitted to the Meridian City Attorney.
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.
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 Dart moor 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.
5. While we recognize that the Ada Cmmty Highway District is proposing improvements 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 of Dartmoor last April, at which time Applicant
proposed 222 residential lots in Kingsbridge. The Dartmoor residents voiced many concerns
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 concerns,
we would likely support such a proposal.
We favor controlled, sensible development with preserved rural areas and open spaces, especially in
the corridor between Meridian and Boise. We do not believe infilling all open space between
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 higherthanRl orR2; (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.
Sin~
~.~.~
Brady & Teresa Turì1êr.J
Lot 6, Block 2, Dartmoor Subdivision
~ua - <'00 - H UU
p.1
September 8, 2004
RlE c E IVE15
SEP a S 2004
City Of AI -'d'"
Clty ClerkeÔffl~~l
William and Sbari Lewis
4200 South Eagle Road
Meridian, Idabo 83642
Mr. William Berg, City Clerk
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idabo 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 snuthern property line of Kingsbridge Subdivision
is the northern boundary of the private lane leading to our property. We do not care to view thc back yards of all the
bomes in Kingsbridge Subdivision. We would therefore suggest that the Southern boundary of Kingsbridge be a
landscaped mound of dirt topped with a nice view-blocking fence,
Better ye~ please require Kingsbridge Subdivision to incorporate ZaIdia Lane as its Eagle Road access. This would
reduce the number of Eagle Road accesses for ACHD purposes. Zaldia Lane ends within direct line-of-sight with
Bott Lane which connects to Cloverdale Road. This would be a wonderful through access for future reference. This
option would reqnire ZaldiaIBott Lanes to be 50 feet wide, which is doable now but not likely in the future.
We understand that the Kingsbridge preliminary desigu 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. nus would improve property values for both
sides of Zaldia Lane and might alleviate some of the property value concerns for other Zaldia Lane homeowners,
Your careful corWderntion of the above-referenced matters would be especially helpful. We, as tax payers,
appreciate the efforts you make on behalf oftbe City of Meridian. It continues to grow and mature due to your
continued services.
Most sincerely,
,.; /'.' /6
.,..J. c / .
/ , '..-,. "
)",..,/1."'.)", -,Ilt""'y
/I.-///! ¿:.'
Shan-s". LéWis
all
WilIiamJ.LewisU
SEP 138 '13416:12
208 288 18013
PAGE. 01
MofJqtt Thomas
MOFFATI' THOMAS BARRETr ROCK & FIELDs, CHTD.
Boise
Idaho falls
Pocatello
Eug,n, C. Th......
Jnhn W. Bm",
R.B.R<><k
Ri,h,ro c. Fi,1ds
Rnb"r E. Bokes
John 50 Simko
Joho C. Wwd
D. J"".. M....;ng
Guy T. Daoce
L",y C. Hun",
Mo'g~ W. Ri,haro.
M"k A. Ellionn
R,nd'¡¡ A. Petenn",
M"k S. Prusynski
S"Ph,n R. Thom...
GI,m.. M. Ch""ornen
c.ndd T. H",d,
&nt, L C""pbeU
Robe" B. Bum.
Jom.. C. Dale
Michael E. Thorn..
Pudcia M. Ohson
James C. deGI..
B<adloy J W;niam.
Lee Radfurd
Mi,hoolO. Roo
David S. Jen"n
J......LMan;n
c. aaymn Gill
David P. Gwdn"
Julian E. Ga[,;nIa
Angela Schoo, Kauf""nn
Kimbody D. Evan. Roæ
B,njamin H. Schwan2
Jon A. Srenqui"
&kM.-
BmdIey J. Dixon
Jaonn G. Mumy
Muk C. Pore"""
And...,). Wald,..
Shawn C. Nunley
US Bank Plaza Buildin9
101 5 Capitol Blvd 10th fl
PO Box B29
Boise. Idaho B3701 OB29
May 27, 2004
20B 345 2000
BOD 4222889
20B 3B5 5384 fax
www,moffatt.com
~. ~
~li~ \ \~#
?JJ\fk~V
RECEIVE))
SEP C Ij 2004
WiUÙCMoDm.1907-19B0
Kirk R. H<1",", 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:
Of lVleriwan
CleTk Otllee
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 Lot"),
by Vision First, L.L.C. and/or Vision Land Management, LLC (jointly, "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 of the following
documents:
1.
The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for
Darbnoor 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
The Warranty Deed by which Skyline conveyed the Subject Lot to the
Williamsons in January 1995 (the "Deed").
3.
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
BOI.MT2:547817.1
Rick R. Stott
May 27, 2004
Page 2
~ . \J~
.\~~ ~'~J\
y~\f ~~
unrecorded, that might pertain to the development of the Subject Lot and have assumed for
purposes 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 fIrSt 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 minimUJ]), 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 thai 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 Middlekauff should 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 (15) years from 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.Lf{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 Dartmoouesidents, all of these residents were assured by the recordation of the Plat that the
Subject Lot would not be developed for 15 years and they were further assured by the
recordation of the CC&Rs that the Subject Lot would never be developed.
BOI_MT2,S47817.1
Rick R. Stott
May 27,2004
Page 3
~
"'."I'hY"
, ,~Îf-/ ïY"
~~~ y~ ~
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.
;3.73-
RBB/kdp
BOI_MT2:547817.1
9-7-04
RECEIVED
SEP - 8 2oo~
City of Merídíi'"
City Clerk OffIce
To City of Meridian P&Z,
In May of 1994 we purchased a 1.1 acre building lot in the Dartmoor 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 Dartmoor drive was going to be used that they
would have to install sidewalks, landscaping, tall fencing on lots that border Dartmoor
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 Dartmoor 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 Dartmoor 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 Dartmoor 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 Dartmoor 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
September 7, 2004
RECEIVED
SEP 09 2004
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
To: City of Meridian Plæming and Zoning
Re: Proposed KINGSBRIDGE development
Dear Sir or Madam:
My family and I live in Dartmoor Estares, which is located directly west and north of 1he proposed
Kingsbridge development Dartmoor Estares consists of nice upper end homes on 1 acre lots within a simple
environment. open wood pole funcing, no sidewalks and very little traffic (within the subdivision that is). We
love living here due to its qniet. rura1 environment
I am writing you to express my disapproval wi1h 1he Kingsbridge development as it is currently proposed.
Listed below are my major concems:
Minimum Lot Size. The sheer number of homes (237) is my largest concem and at 1he root of
most of my concem& I request that 1he R4 zoning not be allowed and 1hat 1he minimum lot size
be increased to, at !east. Yo acre (R2 zoning, I believe) due to the following.
0
The adjacent bomes are on 1 acre or grearer lots. The proposed density does not fit
wi1h any of the current surrounding propertie& The majority of Kingsbridge will be
'1and-locked" by 1 and 5 acre properties.
0
The small lot size will attract lower end homes, 1hus, affecting 1he value of 1he
surrounding properties.
0
It will compIereIy destroy 1he current rura1 environment that exists.
0
We (Dartmoor residents) have expressed OIU concem wi1h 1he density to the
developelS, but the number of homes has ooly increased since OIU inirial meeting; The
current proposal seems to be onlý about fitting in as many homes as possiWe, which
means more money for the developer, but destroys the quality of this area fur the
current and future residents. .
Increased Traffic on Dartmoor Road. Traffic driving to Kingsbridge via Dartmoor is both a
safety and quality of life issue. I request that Dartmoor Road not be used as an access to
Kingsbridge, except fur emetgeney vehicle, pedestrian and bike access.
0
I am very concerned about the safety of OIU cbikIren. The cbildren wait for the bus,
walk and play along Dartmoor road. There are no sidewalks and 1he road is just big
enough for 2 way traffic. The Caleb and Dartmoor roads are also a Deaf Child area.
The increased traffic through Dartmoor on to Kingshridge, especially at 1he proposed
density, is a definiœ safety issue.
0
The homes along Dartmoor road have open fun~ Their property values and quality
of life will be directly affecœd by an increase in traffic.
Current warer rights and irrigation drainage need tö be provided for and maintain~d.
-2-
September 7, 2004
QuaJity of the Water Aquifi:rs. Dartmoor residents and surrounding properties rely on their own
wells for clean wate~ I am concerned about the effect on the purity of the aquitiors with such a
large number of homes in the area.
I am not against development of this area, although I had 2 expect¡¡tions. First was that this area would
not be developed until 2009 due to the Deed Restriction on Lot 11, Block 2 of Dartmoor Est¡¡te~ Second was
that it would be developed in such a way to fit in and compliment the current surrounding properties. I do not
see the current proposed Kingsbridge development as doing eithe~
It is for these reasons I ask that you do not approve the current proposed Kingsbridge development and R4
zonm§
Sincerely,
41 /Î ;/ ¡þI;-
Ronald R Patlan
3885 S. Gideon Place
Meridian, ID, 83642
(208)887-9860
RECEIVED
September 6, 2004 SEP 0 9 2004
.9tyOfM 'di
To: City of Meridian Planning & Zoning and Ada County Highway DislDÏJ!V ClerkeOffi:
From: Tim and Renee Rule family, Dartmoor Subdivision Homeowners
Re: Proposed Development on the land directly east and south ofDartmoor
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 CUlTent
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 CUlTent 2009 Deed Restriction on Lot 11, Block 2 of
Dartmoor Estates (which was our assumption 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.
I. 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 1
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 CWTent purity levels of the aquifers to our wells.
6. Open spaces need to be 10% of the total land. This is to be Ílmctional
open spaces, not including benns or other landscaping requirements.
Oue 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 CWTent 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 ofDartmoor Estates to be deemed
R2 zoning.
T"hankS ~. ;' r :our consideration,
-~MLf/<L
~ Fi.{' t~, l2uJl. R.~
Tim and Renee Rule
- - -- - -- ..- --_v__v...
'"""UII!M 1'&<: DEPT.
.. City Clerk
@OOI
Greg & Bey Viertel
3835 S Gideon Place
Meridian, ID B3642
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
33 E Idaho Ave
Meridian, 10 83624
September 3, 2004
Re:
Development of land adjacent to Dartmoor Subdivision
MTBR&F File No 190898.0
RECEIVE])
SEP 0 ? 200~
Dear Commissioners:
CitY Of Meridial<
Ci(v Clerk Office
We -are-writing'in -regards to the proposed -development-of the land adjacent -to- the Dartmoor '
Subdivision 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 vehicle, 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 functionai
4. Transitiona/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% of the tolal 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 time" they had, assured- us 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 ~~:~cey T~anl. ank you for your consideration.
Sina~ ~ t££2 .¡. ~()~
Greg and Bev Viertel
SEP Ø7 '04 15:55
2088886854
P<=Ir... ""
RECEIVED
SEP f 3 2004
RICK R STOTT
3684 S. Caleb Place
Meridian, 1083642
~ity of Meridi~n
CIty Clerk nu'ce
September 9, 2004
City of Meridian Planning and Zoning
City Clerk's Office
Meridian City Hall
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re: Proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision
4070 South Eagle Road
To Whom It May Concem:
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 concem
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 iIIogical- 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
subdivision. An apparent misrepresentation by the developers to appease
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 concems (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,
-=jf-:AØ
Rick R Stott
RECEIVED
SEP 1 3 2()()1¡
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
September 8, 2004
To: City of Meridian Planning & 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 t()
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 1Ì'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,
~ ~~' Œx,~
Rex and Tammy Cook
To: City of Meridian Planning & Zoning and Ada County Highway DistriRECEI
From:
Jeff and Sharon McKee, 3891 So. Gideon
Pl., Meridian, Idaho 83642, Dartmcor
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Resident concerns
) development
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Estates,
Subject:
for the Kingsbridge
Vision First, LLC , For Annexation and
Zoning of , ~~J:i.<\!Je,. Subdi.,. "n. sion,
~¡j)!J;i¡j¡1$"'~~.
As you review Vision First LLC application for the planned development of
Kingsbridge I ask that you consider the following concerns.
Both PriJDary and Secondary entrances are coming off of So. Eagle road. There
are other opportunities to have a secondary access off of Victory or
Cloverdale. These opportunities need to being earnestly pursued by the
developer. Which had not happened as of Sept 1st 2004?
If Dartmoor has to be the Secondary entrance for Kingsbridge, We would request
sidewalks be added down both sides for the children to walk to and from their
bus stops.
The curvature of Dartmcor is going to make a left hand turn off of Gideon
dangerous; the view of cars coIÍling out of Kingsbridge cannot be seen from
Gideon. We would request a stop sign or a speed bump on Dartmoor and Caleb for
West heading traffic towards Eagle road.
As the neighborhood and surrounding properties discuss the Kingsbridgeproposal
the overwhelming theme is not to keep them out but to reduce the number of
houses and make the property sizes bigger. Two major concerns with the number
of houses.
1. We believe the transition from a 1 to 5 a=e rural area into an immediate
R-4 urban area is going to look extremely tacky from an incoming viewpoint.
2. Property values of our existing homes will be forced lower due to the change
in traffic and views, or in some cases the lack of views as they get blocked
in.
During our meetings with the dave1oper, Lots of ideas and concerns have been
brought forth, however, DOne of them have been settled. We would like to
complete full agreements with the developer before they are allowed to proceed.
The traffic southbound on Eagle road and Westhound on Victory to Eagle is
currently backing up from 3pm to past 6pm as far: as the eye can see in eithex
direction. I'm asking that you don't put blind faith into. a traffic stud,y that
was bought and paid for by Vision first. The existing surrounding neighborhoods
and coIllDercial properties have not completed their developments. The completion
of the existing developments will alread,y add extreme burdens on these primary
access roads as it is now. In the AM hours the traffic heading North on Eagle
road backs up from Victory to the DartJnoor entrance and beyond around 715 am.
We are asking you to reduce the zoning for this area and insist that the Vision
first dave1oper works out agreements with the home owners before they are
allowed to proceed. There DDJ.st be reasonable mediums we can all agree upon.
Dated this 7th da;y of September, 2004
Regards, Jeff and Sharon McKee
~