HomeMy WebLinkAboutKingsbridge Subdivision PP
PP 04-030
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Vision First. LLC
october 21. 2004
ITEM NO.
5
REQUEST Request for Reconsideration of the Denial of Preliminary Plat for
Kingsbridge Subdivision - 4070 South Eagle Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: See attached
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY ~~~
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DIstRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SEITLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone: ~
Emailed: staff Initials:
Materials presented at pubUc meeting$ $hall become property oIlhe City 01 Meridian.
HECPING SHAPE COMMUNITIES eOR THE FUTURE
Corporate Office
6615. RI,e"hoce lace, 50/te 120
E'gle, Id,ho 83616
1208) 938-4655 phoee
1208) 938-4765 f"
Randy S, Clarno
5ee/or Partee" Chief Execo6,e Off/eel
Jeff Solscheid
Partee, Chief F/"eÔ,1 Offleel
October 8, 2004
Washington Office
8513 NE. H"el Dell A,eeoe, 50/te 201
V,"ooo,e', W"hlegtoe 98665
(360) 546-2501 rho",
(360) 573-5161 fax
1866) 546-2501 toll Ieee
Wayne Kankelberg
Partee, Chief De,elopmect Offleel
Chainnan Keith Borup & Commissioners
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Meridian
660 E. Watertower, Suite 202
Meridian, ID 83642
RE:
Kingsbridge Subdivision - Vision First, L.L.c., Applicant
Preliminary Plat - City of Meridian File No. PP-04-030
Dear Chainnan Borup & Commissioners:
Vision First, L.L.C., the applicant for the above-referenced preliminary plat, comes
before the Commission and respectfully requests reconsideration of the 2-0 vote, taken at the
conclusion of the public hearing on September 16, 2004, to recommend denial of preliminary
plat approval. In response to the concerns expressed by Commissioner Zaremba in support of his
Motion to Deny approval, the applicant has accomplished the following:
(I) Revised preliminary plat to reduce density. Weare prepared to reduce the
number of residential lots in the project, ranging from seven to eighteen, subject to reaching an
amicable settlement with the residents of the Dartmoor subdivision. The Staff Report indicated
that a reduction of seven lots would bring the entire project below the 3 dwelling units per acre
maximum density required by the Future Land Use Map for Low Density Residential use.
Cutting 18 dwelling units from the previous total of 237 would reduce the total residential lots to
219. (See enclosed preliminary plat, redrawn as of 9/27/04). This reduction cuts the project
density to 2.86 dwelling units per acre, below the 3 dwelling units per acre maximum density
required by the Future Land Use Map for Low Density Residential use. Although our project
site is split between Low Density and Medium Density Residential, our average density for the
entire site now meets the Low Density standard.
(2) Eliminated all substandard lots. Although the applicant is still proceeding to
apply for a Planned Development, which allows flexibility in lot sizes and configurations in
exchange for inclusion of project amenities, we have eliminated all lots of less than 8,000 SF in
area. The previous plat included 110 lots of less than 8,000 square feet (See enclosed plan of
previous plat, with sub-8,000 SF lots shaded). By eliminating 18 lots from the project and
adjusting lot lines, the new plat reduces this number by 100%. Not a single lot in the project
would be less than 8,000 square feet in area. Our prototypical lots are now 80 x 100 or 80 x 110
feet, instead of70 x 100 or 70 x 110, as fonnerly platted.
REAL ESTATE. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT. LAND DEVELOPMENT
VISION FIRSLLc
Chainnan Keith Borup & Commissioners
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Meridian
October 8, 2004
Page 2
(3) Increased lot sizes on proiect perimeter. We have also increased the size of
all lots at the project perimeter to provide a better transition from low density county
subdivisions on adjoining land. Opponents at the September 16" hearing pointed out that many
of the lots on the easterly and southerly boundaries were 7,000 square feet in area. By
eliminating two lots along the easterly boundary, we have increased our average lot area on those
14 lots to 8,866 SF. By eliminating two lots along the southerly boundary backing up to the Ten
Mile Feeder Canal, we have increased our average lot area on those 17 lots to 8,957 SF. By
eliminating one lot adjoining Zaldea Lane along the southerly boundary, we have increased our
average lot area on those 11 lots to 8,306 SF. We have not reduced, altered or eliminated any of
the open space buffers from the previous plat. We also are proposing to enhance the landscape
buffer adjoining Zaldea Lane with landscaping and 6-foot privacy fence on top of a benn
running the length of Zaldea Lane (See enclosed color elevation).
(4) Favorable Recommendation from ACHD. One concern raised by the
Commission at its September 16th hearing was that ACHD had not submitted its written findings
and recommendation to the City. I testified that the applicant had met with ACHD planning staJf
on September 13th and had redrawn E. Dartmoor Drive as a cul-de-sac (now renamed E.
Dartmoor Court) at ACHD's recommendation, to minimize vehicle trips to and from Eagle Road
through Dartmoor. The applicant's traffic engineer, Dobie & Associates, updated its traffic
study in response to the cul-de-sac and detennined that trips through Dartmoor will be cut in half
from 800 to 400 total vehicle trips per day. The revised report was submitted to Mr. Siddoway
on September 16th, but not in time to be included in the Commission's agenda packet. I have
attached another copy of Mr. Dobie's supplemental report for the Commissioners' review.
ACHD conducted its technical review of the revised preliminary plat on September 22,
2004. In addition to the cul-de-sac, ACHD staff required the addition of two more stub streets
for future connectivity, to be located at the northwest and northeast corners of Kingsbridge.
Both are now included on the revised preliminary plat. The ACHD Commission held its public
hearing on Kingsbridge traffic issues on October 6,2004, and voted 4-1 to recommend approval
of Kingsbridge, as revised in conformance with ACHD's technical review. A copy of ACHD's
final order is enclosed.
(5) Open Space. As discussed in Paragraph (3) above, the revised preliminary plat
does not reduce, alter or eliminate any of the open space buffers from the previous plat. The
total open space equals 11 %. of the project land area (See enclosed open space plan) and, thus,
qualifies as one of the amenities for Planned Development approval.
VISION FIRSLLc
Chainnan Keith Borup & Commissioners
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Meridian
October 8, 2004
Page 3
(6) Dartmoor Covenant. The record of the September 16th hearing contained an
opinion letter written May 27, 2004, by attorney Robert Burns to the Dartmoor residents, The
applicant only received a copy of that letter with the staff report on Monday, September 13th.
The applicant's attorney, Edward Miller, filed an opinion letter interpreting the Dartmoor
covenant with the city clerk on the afternoon of September 16th but not in time for it to be
included in the agenda packet. I have enclosed a copy of Mr. Miller's opinion letter and the
Dartmoor CC&Rs referenced in the letter.
Commissioner Zaremba's motion stated that annexation and plat approval would not be
in the public interest while the enforceability of the Dartmoor plat covenant is still at issue. The
staff report and the City Attorney, in apparent reliance on Mr. Burns' letter, recommended a
condition of approval either requiring majority approval of the Dartmoor residents or requiring
the applicant to obtain a District Court order establishing the applicant's "right to subdivide and
develop the property...." The applicant's attorney concluded in his opinion letter that the
majority approval condition has already been satisfied. The Commission was at a disadvant¡ge
at the September 16th hearing, because the commissioners did not have copies of Mr. Miller's
letter or the Dartmoor CC&Rs available for reference.
The northerly tract of the property that the applicant seeks to redevelop as Kingsbridge
Subdivision is Lot 11, Block 2 ofDartmoor Subdivision. The third subparagraph of Article II of
the Declaration of CC&Rs for Dartmoor reads as follows:
"As provided in Section 5.28 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 obiection to the exclusion of said Lot 1 and 11. Block
2 and consents to the re-subdivision and development thereof in accordance with
the zoning ordinances then in force and effect and applicable to Lot 1 and 11,
Block 2, including such re-subdividing and development as shall reQuire that
access to Lot 1 and 11. Block 2 will beprovideg b"i the public right(s) of way
within Uartmoor Subdivision, and that the utility facilities Ipcated within
Dartmoor Subdivision maybe extended to serve said Lot 1 and 11, Block 2,
including a re-subdivisìon thereof." (Emphasis added.)
Thus, each of the Dartmoor owners consented to redevelopment and re-subdivision of
Lot 11, Block 2 in accordance with the zoning ordinance applicable and ìn force at the time of
application (i.e., April 2004). Mr. Burns stated in his letter (Page 2, '\I 3) that the Dartmoor
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
VISION FIRSTLLc
Chainnan Keith Borup & Commissioners
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Meridian
October 8, 2004
Page 4
Subject Lot would never be developed." Contrary to Mr. Burns' assertion, the CC&Rs not only
contemplate future development of Lot 11, Block 2, but each Dartmoor owner specifically
consented to such development by accepting a deed to a lot within Dartmoor. Mr. Bums' letter
is based on an incomplete reading of the Dartmoor CC&Rs, relies on a plat note referring to
county code provisions no longer applicable to the subject property, and ignores the role of the
Area of City Impact Agreement subsequently adopted by the City and Ada County.
Note 9 on the Dartmoor Subdivision Plat (recorded March 3, 1994) stares that, "Lot 11
Block 2 is a deed restricted lot and may only be used for open space as defined in the non-fann
development section of the Ada County Code, Section 8-4B- 7 and in the planned development
provisions of the Ada County Code found in Title 8, C1lapter 9." Were the property located
outside the Meridian Area of City Impact and still subject to the Ada County Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Code, the Dartmoor residents would have an argument that the land may not be
redeveloped until the 15th anniversary of the plat recording date. However, the land is (1) inside
the Meridian Area of City Impact, (2) within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area, (3)
contiguous to the city limits, and (4) served by city utilities located in South Eagle Road
contiguous to Lot 11.
The staff report stated that: "It. has been staffs understanding that the County's open
space restrictions are voided if the property is annexed to a city and urban services are
available." During the Commission's discussion following dose of the public hearing, Chainnan
Borup stated that the objective of the non-fann use covenants was to prevent the proliferation of
I-acre rural subdivisions that would hamper future extension of public water and sewer as rural
areas are urbanized. In applicant's opinion, the staff report and Chainnan Borup are correct,
because their views are supported by the Area of City Impact Agreement (codified in Title 9,
Chapter 4 of the Ada County Code), the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the County Code.
Section 9-4-2 of the County Code states that:
"A. Annexation by the city of Meridian shall be limited to those lands lying within the area
of impact and being contiguous to the boundaries of the city of Meridian.
"B. Upon annexation, the provisions of this agreement sþ.all no longer apply to the annexed
area."
Section 9-4-3A of the County Code states that:
"The Meridian Comprehensive plan, adopted by Meridian on August 6, 2002, by Resolution 02-
382, shall apply to the Meridian area. of city impact."
VISION FIRSLLc
Chainnan Keith Borup & Commissioners
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Meridian
October 8, 2004
Page 5
Lot 11, Block 2 is located within the Meridian Area of City Impact. The Meridian
Comprehensive Plan controls land development within the Area of City Impact. Lot II, Block 2
is located within the Meridian USP A, is contiguous to the Meridian city limit, and upon request
of the landowner, is appropriate for annexation to the City. Upon annexation, development of
Lot 11, Block 2 is governed by the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The
Dartmoor residents, by accepting the deeds to each of their lots, waived their right to obj ect to re-
subdivision and development of Lot II, Block 2, provided they are done in compliance with the
zoning code in effect at the time of the fe-subdivision and development.
(7) Conclusion. The applicant has provided copies of its revised preliminary plat to
the Dartmoor residents and will meet next week with a Dartmoor representative to discuss the
revisions we have made to address the neighbors' concerns. Our hope is that the Dartmoor
residents will approve the revised plat. Even if they maintain their opposition, however, the
applicant asks the Commission to give Mr. Miller's letter and the Dartmoor CC&Rs a thorough
reading.
The revisions made to the preliminary plat completely address the reasonable concerns
raised by Dartmoor and other adjoining property owners and support a conclusion that
annexation and preliminary plat approval are in the public interest. For the reasons stated in this
letter and with the support of the enclosed documents, the applicant urges the Commission to
reconsider its September 16th decision denying preliminary plat approval andto grant a rehearing
of the application. The applicant is prepared to pay the notice and publication fees for the rt}-
hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
~~
Kenneth M. Elliott
Resident Legal Counsel
Enclosures
cc: Anna Canning, Planning Director
Steve Siddoway, PrincipalPlanner
Bruce Freckleton. Sr. Engineering Tech - Public Works
City Attorney
c::
,Ìj
(Q
'h- .C
1 :~
to-; '..~,
§
:ï:I
(,,)
CIJ
U.)
('J)
('J)
CIJ ~
~Cj
.~ 5
"tSCQ
~ CIJ
~
(,,)
('J)
'"0
~
'1..
.~
T)
ñ
!'~I
I/)
I/)
( )
I/)
....
0
...J
0
u.
(f)
0
0
0
to
r:::
(t
~
....
j'
~
f
J
~j
~ j
(t
....
{d
'-.\>
rf\
\'I
-"""
PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOT Il,BLOCK20FTHE
DARTMOOR SUBDMSION
WITHIN A PORTiON OF THE
SOUTH 112 OF THE NORTHWEST
114, AND THE NORm 112 OF THE
NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE
SOUTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 28.
TOWNS1llP 3 NORm. RANGE [
EAST, BOiSE MERIDIAN, ADA
COUNTY. IDAHO
DE]1EWPMENT DATA
-,--
m~_-
_.,-
-~
~U'-'.ß
.-w,=
-~=~, .-.
..~._-= '.~'
~"^' .'".'" ~
ZONING SETBACKS
--
~_..~ "",
ö
l'.RELIMINARY PLAT
- , ..
»=. - ",---~~~_. - --~.~- '"~-~-
~:¡ æi ~~~ := .:;:-.;:- --=' -~::'.: ~;:.
VlCIN11Y MAP
DEVELOPMENT CONTACTS
"...".,.~,
",. .-- - - '"
-~o~"
-,'_.~-
.."",---,.-
.~--
.=~o_.
-- "., m-""
-- ,". =-".
~.oo----I
-TOi>l --
::r~.i..:'.'g;_~,.
=."'ii.n~
~-
~~-,~
_._~-,.
s¡;¡ ~,
z
sa
m
~~
êJ9
m .
filZ
O~
Q~
~fiI
m:;J
0
Z
~
:::.~:¡~'"
~~¡¡;-
~
i3
I
pp
1\
~
./-"',
~ Ada County Highway District
Right-aI-Way & Development Department
Planning Review Division
This application required Commission action due to the neighborhood concerns regarding the extension of
an existing stub street. It was heard on the regular agenda on October 6, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. Tech Review
for this item was held with the applicant on September 24, 2004. Please refer to the attachment for request
for reconsideration guidelines. Staff contacts: Lori Den Hartog, phone: 387-6174, E-mail:
Idenhartoa@achd.ada.id.us and Andrea N. Tuning, phone: 387-6177, E-mail: atunina@achd.ada.id.us
File Numbers:
Kingsbridge Subdivision-MPPO4.030/MAZO4-023
Site address:
4070 S. Eagle Road
Applicant:
Vision First, LLC
661 N, Rivershore Lane
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Representative:
The Land Group
462 E. Shore Drive
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Application Information:
The applicant has submitted the above referenced application to the City of Meridian requesting rezone,
annexation, and preliminary plat approval for the development of 237 single-family residential lots and 23
common lots on 76,72-acres, The site is located south of Victory Road, east of Eagle Road.
Acreage: 76.72
Current Zoning: RUT
Proposed Zoning: R-4
Residential lots: 237
Common lots: 23
Vicinity Map
4.
5,
2
A.
Findings of Fact
1,
Trip Generation: This development is estimated to generate 2,268 additional vehicle trips per day
10 existing) based on the Institute of Transportation Manual.
2.
Impact Fees: There will be impact fees that are assessed and due prior to issuance of any building
permits. The assessed impact fees will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that
time.
3.
Traffic Impact Study: A traffic impact study was required with this application. The study was
compiled by Dobie Engineering, Inc. Below is an executive summary of the study.
Executive Summary:
. The site is estimated to generate 2,268 vehicle trips per day; with 180 AM peak hour trips and 242
PM peak hour trips.
The Eagie/Victory intersection has an all-way STOP control with a traffic beacon. There are no
auxiliary turn lanes on any of the approaches, The current intersection operates at a LOS C.
With the installation of a traffic signal and left tum lanes on all approaches, the EagleNictory
intersection will operate at a LOS C (calculated for build out year 2007).
The EaglelAmity intersection has an all-way STOP control. There are no auxiliary turn lanes on
any of the approaches. The intersection operates at a LOS C,
The EaglelAmity intersection will operate at a LOS D with the addition of ieft turn lanes on all
approaches, for the buildout year 2007,
. A left-turn lane and a right-turn lane are warranted on Eagle Road at the main site access on
Eagle Road at the same access, This intersection will operate at an acceptable levei of service
with these improvements.
No improvements are warranted at the Eagle RoadlDartmoor Drive access.
. Eagle Road will provide sufficient capacity with planned road improvements to accommodate
regional traffic growth. A 3-lane section should be adequate through the year 2020, and a 5-lane
section will be needed beyond then.
Site Information: There is one existing residence on the site; the balance of the site has been
utilized for agricultural purposes.
Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area:
Direction Land Use Zoning
North Golden Eagle Subdivision (Single-family residential-3 to RUT-Ada County
5-acre parcels)
South Kunz Hollow Subdivision (Single-family residential~5-acre RUT-Ada County
parcels)
East Bridlewood Subdivision (Single-family residential-5 to 10- RUT-Ada County
acre parcels)
West Dartmoor Subdivision (Single-family residential-1-acre RUT Ada County
parcels)
3
6, Impacted Roadways
Roadway Frontage Functional Traffic Count Levelof Speed Limit
Classification Service"
Eagle 725' Minor Arterial 5,770 north of Amity Road Better 40 MPH
on 2/24/04 than
"C"
Victory None Collector (west No counts available west of Better 50 MPH (west of
of Eagle Road) Eagle Road than Eagle Road)
"C"
Minor Arterial 5,404 east of Eagle Road on 40 MPH (east of
(east of Eagle 2/14/02 Eagie Road)
Road)
Dartmoor 60' Residential Approximately 150 per day Better 20 MPH
Collector based on ITE rates than "C"
'Acceptable level of service for a two lane arterial roadway IS "0" (14,000 VTD).
7.
Roadway Improvements Adjacent To and Near the Site
Eagle Road currently has 2 traffic lanes and no curb, gutter, or sidewalk abutting the site.
Victory Road currently has 2 traffic lanes and no curb, gutter, or sidewalk.
Dartmoor Drive currently has 32-feet of pavement and no curb, gutter, or sidewalk. Dartmoor
Drive is currently not striped for non vehicuiar traffic.
8,
Existing Right-of-Way
Eagle Road currently has 50-feet of right-of-way abutting the site (25-feet from centerline),
. Dartmoor Drive currently has 60-feet of right-of-way (30-feet from centerline).
9,
Existing Access to the Site
The site currentiy has one agricultural access on Eagle Road at the north property line.
10-
Site History
This site was originally a part of Dartmoor Subdivision which was platted in 1994. Dartmoor
Subdivision contains 21 lots, 18 of which are buildable lots. Dartmoor Drive was constructed as a
stub street to Lot 11, Block 2 of Dartmoor Subdivision. Lot 11, Block 2 of Dartmoor Subdivision,
which is a portion of the current application, was platted as a deed restricted lot that could redevelop
no earlier than 15 years from the date of the plat.
Capital Improvements Plan/Five Year Work Program
The intersection of Eagle Road and Victory Road is scheduled in the District's Five Year Work
Program and the Capital Improvements Plan to be widened to 5 lanes and signalized in 2006. In
coordination with that project Eagle Road from Victory Road to the Ridenbaugh Canal crossing
(approximately y. mile) is scheduled to be widened to 5 lanes with curb, gutter, sidewalk and bike
lanes.
11,
Eagle Road is scheduled in the Capital Improvements Plan to be widened to 3 lanes from Amity Road
to Victory Road in 11 to 15 years,
12.
Other Developments in the Area
Tuscany Lakes Subdivision was approved by the ACHD Commission on May 8, 2002. The project
contained 455 residential lots and is located west of Eagle Road, south of Victory Road, and east of
Locust Grove Road.
2.
3.
4
B.
Findings for Consideration
Right-at-Way
Eagle Road
District policy requires 96-feet of right-of-way on arterial roadways (Figure 72-F1 B). This right-of-way
allows for the construction of a 5-lane roadway with curb, gutter, 5-foot concrete detached sidewalks
and bike lanes,
1.
Modification of Policv
District policy requires developments abutting arterial roadways to dedicate 48-feet of right-of-way
from the centerline of the roadway. Due to the fact that Eagle Roadis included in the District's
Capital Improvements Plan to be reconstructed to a 3-lane roadway, the District will only require that
the applicant to dedicate 35-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Eagle Road.
Dedicate 35-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Eagle Road abutting the parcel by means of a
warranty deed. The right-of-way purchase and sale agreement and deed must be completed and
signed by the applicant prior to scheduling the final plat for signature by the ACHD Commission or
prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to
30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receiptof all requested material. The
owner will be paid the fair market value of the right-of-way dedicated which is an addition to existing
ACHD right-of-way if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to
breaking ground, in accordance with the ACHD Ordinance in effect at that time (currently Ordinance
#198), if funds are available.
Recommendation reGardinG additional rioht-of-wav
The submitted traffic impact study identifies the need for a 5-lane roadway on Eagle Road beyond
2020. The current Capital Improvements Plan has a 3-lane road widening project on Eagle Road
scheduled in 11 to 15 years. The District would strongly recommend that the applicant preserve a
total of 48-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Eagle Road abutting the site. The applicant
would not be compensated for the right-of-way beyond what is currently listed in the CIP, until such
time as an additional widening project would take place. The applicant may dedicate 35-feet of right-
of-way from the centerline of Eagle Road and construct the sidewalk a minimum of 41-feet from the
centerline of Eagle Road. This will allow the applicant to be compensated for the additional right-of-
way that can be purchased by impact fees at this time (35-feet from centerline) and will preserve the
additional right-of-way needed for the future roadway improvements on Eagle Road (48-feet from
centerline).
Sidewalk
District policy requires 7-foot wide attached (or 5-foot detached) concrete sidewalk on all arterial
roadways,
The applicant will be required to construct a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting
the site with the face of sidewalk located a minimum of 28-feet from the centerline of the roadway.
Street Sections
Internal Local Streets
District policy 7204.4.2 states, "Developments with any buildable lot that is less that 1-acre in size will
typically provide streets having a minimum pavement width of 32-feet with curb, gutter and sidewalks,
The total street width shall be 36-feet from back-of-curb to back-of-curb, Variations of this width may
be allowed, depending on traffic volumes forecast to be generated by the development. Concrete
sidewalks shall be a minimum of 5-feet in width unless they are separated from the curb 5-feet or
more in which case the sidewalk shall be a minimum of 4-feet in width,
The applicant is proposing to construct the internal roadways as 3eÞfoot street sections with rolled
curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalks (some that are attached and others are detached by an S-
foot landscape strip) within 50-feet of right-of-way. The proposed street section meets District policy
and should be approved with this application. The sidewalk appears to meander outside of the right-
of-way. If the sidewalk meanders outside of the right-of-way, the applicant should provide the District
with an easement for the sidewalk.
Residential Collector
District policy 72-F1A, 7202.3.2 and 7202,3,5, requires that residential collectors be constructed as
36-foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks with no front-on housing.
The access restrictions for these street segments should be stated on the final plat. Unless otherwise
noted, parking should be prohibited on these street segments. Coordinate the sign age Program with
District staff.
The applicant is proposing to construct Kingsbridge Drive from Eagle Road to Lot 26 of Block 2 as a
residential collector. The applicant is proposing to construct the residential collector as a 3eÞfoot
street section with vertical curb, gutter and 5-foot attached concrete sidewalk within 50-feet of right-of-
way. This street section meets District policy and should be approved with this application.
Tum Lanes
Based on the recommendations of the submitted traffic impact study, the applicant will be
required to stripe Kingsbridge Drive at the intersection with Eagle Road, to accommodate
simultaneous left and right turn movements onto Eagle Road.
Front-on Housinq
As stated above, front-on housing is prohibited on residential collectors. The segment of
Kingsbridge Drive from Eagle Road to Lot 26, Block 2 should not have front-on housing.
4.
Turn Lanes
District policy 3004,1, 72-F8, AASHTO guidelines and the MUTCD guidelines require the turn lane to
be constructed to provide a minimum of 100-feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach
and departure directions, Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff.
The applicant will be required to construct a southbound left turn lane on Eagle Road at the
intersection with Kingsbridge Drive, as recommended by the Traffic Impact Study. The applicant
should provide a minimum of 1 DO-feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach .and
departure directions
The applicant will be required to construct a northbound right-turn lane at the sight approach
intersection (Kingsbridge Drive) with Eagle Road, as recommended by the submitted Traffic Impact
Study,
5.
Roadway Offsets
District policy 7204.11,6, requires local roadways to align or offset a minimum of 300-feet from an
arterial roadway (measured centerline to centerline).
5
6
The applicant has proposed to construct the subdivision entrance, Kingsbridge Drive, approximately
330-feet north of a private road that also intersects Eagle Road. This location meets District policy
and should be approved with this application.
Internal Local Streets
District policy 7204.11,6, requires local roadways to align or offset a minimum of 125-feet from
another local roadway (measured centerline to centerline),
All of the internal streets exceed District offset policy and should be approved with this application.
6.
Stub Streets
District policy 7205.5 states that stub streets will be required to provide intra-neighborhood circulation
or to provide access to adjoining properties. Stub streets will conform with the requirements
described in Section 7204.5,7204,6 and 7204.7, except a temporary cul-de-sac will not be required if
the stub street has a length no greater than 150-feet. A sign shall be installed at the terminus of the
stub street stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE" In addition, a stub
street must meet the following conditions:
1. A stub street shall be designed to slope towards the street intersection and drain
surface water toward that intersection, unless a satisfactory storm drain system is
installed,
2, The District may require appropriate covenants guaranteeing that the stub street will
remain free of obstructions,
The applicant has proposed to extend one existing stub street and construct one new stub street.
Dartmoor Drive
The applicant is proposing to extend Dartmoor Drive from the west property line, Dartmoor Drive was
originally approved as a stub street as a part of Dartmoor Subdivision. Dartmoor Drive was
constructed as a residential collector with 32-feet of pavement and 3-foot shoulders and has one
existing single-family residence that takes direct access to Dartmoor Drive. Staff is supportive of the
applicant's proposal to extend Dartmoor into the site for a number of reasons, which include:
. The extension of Dartmoor Drive provides interconnectivity between the two subdivisions
. The extension of Dartmoor Drive provides a secondary access to the residents of Dartmoor
Subdivision and the future residents of Kingsbridge Subdivision
Dartmoor Drive was constructed as a residential collector in 1994 and provides direct access
to one single-family residence within the subdivision (1 out of 18)
. The extension of Dartmoor Drive provides an opportunity for interconnectivity within this
square mile and has the potential to extend local roadways and residential collector roadways
to the surrounding arterial roadways within this square mile. This interconnectivity will in turn
create a more equal distribution of traffic and will not place stress on one arterial roadway or
another
If Dartmoor Drive were not to be extended into the site to the proposed subdivision, the
District could only approve up to 100 single-family residentiai lots on one access point, per
District policy
If Dartmoor Drive were not to be extended into the site to the proposed subdivision and the
Commission granted a modification of policy to allow more than 100 single-family lots to utilize
one access point, the proposed subdivision would have only one access to Eagle Road and
would force approximately 2,268 vehicle trips per day to utilize one access point.
Dartmoor Drive was constructed as a residential collector with sufficient pavement width for
both vehicular and pedestrian traffic (32-feet of pavement, and gravel or grass shoulders) and
can accommodate the additional traffic volumes.
Stub streets are an essential component in any community. Stub streets provide secondary access
for emergency services, eliminate multiple access points to major roadways (collector and arterial
roadways), reduce vehicle miles traveled, connect neighborhoods and have the ability to increase the
sense of community in the area,
ProDosed Stub Street
The applicant has proposed to construct a stub street to the east property line approximateiy 51 a-feet
north of the Ten Mile Lateral. This stub street is anticipated to serve a g.O-acre lot that is currently
undeveloped with one single-family residence and is expected to develop in the near future. This stub
street would have the ability with future development to connect into Selatir Drive and would provide
an additional outlet to Victory Road. Staff is supportive of the applicant's proposal.
Recommended Stub Streets
The applicant is not proposing to construct new stub streets to the north, south or east. Staff believes
interconnectivity with this development is critical and will create a more equal distribution of traffic.
Additional stub streets will help to alleviate stress on one particular arterial roadway or another, The
recommended stub streets as described below should be constructed as a condition of the proposed
subdivision.
Staff is recommending that the applicant extend Widecombe Way to the north property line
approximately 120-feet east of the west property line. This stub street will serve the 5.060-acre
parcel to the north that is currently undeveloped and has one existing single-family residence located
on it. With the construction of this stub street, staff anticipates that an additional connection to Eagle
Road via Falcon Drive.
Staff is recommending that the applicant extend Stockenham Way to the north property line
approximately 100-feet west of the east property line. This stub street will serve the 3.210-acre
parcel to the north that is currently undeveloped and has one existing single-family residence located
on it. With the construction of this stub street, staff anticipates that an additional connection to Victory
Road via Terri Drive,
Commission Action
The Ada County Highway District Commission acted on this application on October 6, 2004. The
Commission approved the proposed and recommended stub streets as identified above with one
modification. The existing home that takes access to Zaldia Lane, which is adjacent to the Kunz
Hollow Subdivision, will be required to construct a stub street to the east property line at the time of
future additional re-development of that 2. 75-acre site. This stub street would provide public street
access to the 5. a-acre parcels within Kunz Hollow Subdivision that currently have access to a private
road, and are likely to (e-develop in the future.
7.
Maximum Traffic on one Access
District policy 7205.3,1 states, "If a proposed development only has one iocal street access to a
public street, or if it proposes to extend public streets from existing development with only one local
7
10.
8
street access to the public street system, the maximum forecast ADT to be allowed at any point on
the local street access is 1,000."
8.
Islands/Knuckles
District policy 7202.7 and 7207.5 requires any proposed landscape islands/medians within the public
right-of-way dedicated by this plat should be owned and maintained by a homeowners association.
Notes of this should be required on the final plat.
District policy District policy 7202.7 and 7207.5 and the local Fire District standards require an island
within a knuckle to be constructed with the island being a minimum of 4-feet wide with a minimum
area of 100-square feet and designed to safely channel traffic. The roadway around the traffic island
should maintain a minimum of a 29-foot street section. The design should be reviewed and approved
by ACHD's Development staff.
The applicant is proposing to construct five (5) knuckles within the subdivision. Some of the
knuckles are proposed to contain center islands within them. The applicant should maintain a
minimum of a 29-foot street section on either side of the island and should construct the isiand to be
a minimum of 4-feet wide with a minimum area of 100-square feet. The design should be reviewed
and approved by A CHD 's Development staff.
The applicant is proposing to construct one island within the public right-of-way of /{jngsbridge Drive.
The applicant should maintain a minimum of a 21-foot street section on either side of the island and
should construct the island to be a minimum of 4-feet wide with a minimum area of 100-square feet.
The design should be reviewed and approved by ACHD's Development staff.
9.
Access to Kingsbridge Drive for the Existing Home
Lot 17 Block 2 currently has access to a private roadway (Zaldia Lane). This home could potentially
have access to Kingsbridge Drive if an easement were provided across the landscape strip. In order
to provide Lot 17 Block 2 with access to a public roadway, staff would support an easement or right-
of-way for Lot 17 Block 2 to tie into Klngsbridge Drive.
Preliminary Plat Redesign
The applicant's original subdivision layout proposed two street connections from the new Kingsbridge
Subdivision to Dartmoor Drive (See attachment #4). Staff reviewed the proposed layout and based
on several comments and concerns expressed by the residents in Dartmoor Subdivision, staff
suggested to the applicant that an alternative layout could reduce the estimated number of vehicle
trips onto the existing Dartmoor Drive. Staff met with the applicant and the traffic engineer and
decided upon an alternative layout that cui-de-saced one of the connections to Dartmoor Drive. The
result was an estimated decrease of 400 vehicle trips per day on the existing Dartmoor Drive (See
attachment #5),
While the alternative layout does increase the estimated vehicle trips on a portion of Kingsbridge
Drive over the 1,000 VTD per day limit, staff believes that it would be temporary, If the recommended
stub streets are a condition of approval for Kingsbridge Subdivision. staff believes that when those
stub streets are extended in the future that it would alleviate some of the traffic on Kingsbridge Drive.
If the recommended stub streets are extended by other developments in the future, they will provide
connections to the arterial roadways (Eagle Road and Victory Road). Therefore. the burden of the
greater estimated traffic volumes on Kingsbridge Drive will be temporarily borne by the new
residential units as opposed to shifting the burden to the existing residential units on Dartmoor Drive.
2.
3.
4.
5,
6.
9
11.
Other Access
Eagle Road is classified as a minor arterial roadway. Other than the access specifically approved
with this application, direct lot access to Eagle Road will be prohibited. A note of the access
restriction should be placed on the final plat.
C.
Special Notice to the City of Meridian
The submitted traffic impact study identifies the need for a 5-lane roadway on Eagle Road beyond
2020, The current Capita/Improvements Plan has a 3-lane road widening project on Eagle Road
scheduled in 11 to 15 years, The District would strongly recommend that the applicant preserve a
total of 48-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Eagle Road abutting the site. The applicant
would not be compensated for the right-of-way beyond what is currently listed in the CIP, until such
time as an additional widening project would take place. The applicant may dedicate 35-feet of right-
of-way from the centerline of Eagle Road and construct the sidewalk a minimum of 41-feet from the
centerline of Eagle Road, This will allow the applicant to be compensated for the additional right-of-
way that can be purchased by impact fees at this time (35-feet from centerline) and will preserve the
additional right-of-way needed for the future roadway improvements on Eagle Road (48-feet from
centerline).
D.
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1,
Dedicate 35-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Eagle Road abutting the parcel by means of a
warranty deed. The right-of-way purchase and sale agreement and deed must be completed and
signed by the applicant prior to scheduling the final plat for signature by the ACHD Commission or
prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to
30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material, The
owner will be paid the fair market value of the right-of-way dedicated which is an addition to existing
ACHD right-of-way if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to
breaking ground, in accordance with the ACHD Ordinance in effect at that time (currently Ordinance
#198), if funds are available,
Construct a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting the site located a minimum of 28-
feet from the centerline of the roadway,
Construct a southbound left turn lane on Eagle Road at the intersection with Kingsbridge Drive, as
recommended by the Traffic Impact Study. Provide a minimum of 100-feet of storage with shadow
tapers for both the approach and departure directions
Construct a northbound right-turn lane at the sight approach intersection with Eagle Road, as
recommended by the submitted Traffic Impact Study.
Construct Kingsbridge Drive as a residential collector from the intersection with Eagle Road to Lot 26,
Block 2. This roadway shall be a 36-foot street section with vertical curb, gutter, and 5-foot concrete
sidewalks within 50-feet of right-af-way. Stripe Kingsbridge Drive at the intersection with Eagle Road,
to accommodate simultaneous left and right turn movements onto Eagle Road.
Construct the internal local roadways as 36-foot street sections within 50-feet of right-af-way with
rolled curb, gutter and 5-foat concrete sidewalks. If the sidewalk meanders outside of the right-of-
way, the applicant should provide the District with an easement for the sidewalk,
2,
3.
4,
5.
6,
10
7,
Extend Dartmoor Drive into the site as proposed. There shall only be one street connection to the
existing Dartmoor Drive from the new subdivision, as proposed on the revised layout (See attachment
#5).
8,
Any landscape islands or medians shall be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association,
Notes of this are required on the final plat.
9.
Construct a stub street to the east property line, as proposed, approximately 510-feet north of the Ten
Mile Lateral, to serve the adjacent 9.0 acre parcel. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway
stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE,"
10,
Construct Widecombe Way as a stub street to the north property line approximately 120-feet east of
the west property line, Install a sign at the terminus of the stub street stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL
BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE."
11.
Construct Stockenham Way as a stub street to the north property line approximately 1 OO-feet west of
the east property line. Install a sign at the terminus of the stub street stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL
BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE."
12.
Provide an easement across the landscape lot OR public right-of-way frontage for the existing home
on Lot 17, Block 2. When the property with the existing home re-develops (approximately 2,75-
acres), it will be required to extend Kingsbridge Drive through the site as a stub street to the east
property line.
13.
Other than the access that is specifically approved with this application, direct lot access to Eagle
Road is prohibited and shall be noted on the final plat.
14.
Comply with ail Standard Conditions of Approval.
E.
Standard Conditions of Approval
1.
Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way,
All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne
by the developer,
Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the
construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file
number) for details.
Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by
the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details,
All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy
Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all
applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein, An engineer registered In the State
of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans.
The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or
other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes.
11,
F.
1.
2,
7,
Construction, use and properly development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements
of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy.
8.
Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with
Ordinance #198, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance.
9,
It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The
applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant
shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking
ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in
the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction,
10.
No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and
signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative
of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written
confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District.
Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this
application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other
regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises
the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a
waiverlvariance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the
time the change in use is sought.
Conclusions of Law
The proposed site plan is approved, if all of the Site Specific and Standard Conditions of Approval are
satisfied,
ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed useldevelopment will not place an
undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity
impacted by the proposed development.
Attachments
1. Vicinity Map of Square Mile
2, Aerial Map
3. Original Site Plan
4, Original Site Plan with traffic distribution
5. Revised site plan with traffic distribution
6. Stub street map
3, Reconsideration Guidelines
11
12
Request for Reconsideration of Commission Action
1,
Request for Reconsideration of Commission Action: A Commissioner, a member of ACHD staff
or any other person objecting to any final action taken by the Commission may request
reconsideration of that action, provided the request is not for a reconsideration of an action previously
requested to be reconsidered, an action whose provisions have been partly and materially carried
out, or an action that has created a contractual relationship with third parties,
a. Only a Commission member who voted with the prevailing side can move for reconsideration,
but the motion may be seconded by any Commissioner and is voted on by all Commissioners
present.
If a motion to reconsider is made and seconded it is subject to a motion to postpone to a
certain time,
b. The request must be in writing and delivered to the Secretary of the Highway District no later
than 3:00 p.m, on the day prior to the Commission's next scheduled regular meeting following
the meeting at which the action to be reconsidered was taken, Upon receipt of the request,
the Secretary shall cause the same to be placed on the agenda for that next scheduled
regular Commission meeting.
c, The request for reconsideration must be supported by written documentation setting forth new
facts and information not presented at the earlier meeting, or a changed situation that has
developed since the taking of the earlier vote, or information establishing an error of fact or
law in the earlier action. The request may also be supported by oral testimony at the meeting.
d, If a motion to reconsider passes, the effect is the original matter is in the exact position it
occupied the moment before it was voted on originally, It will normally be returned to ACHD
staff for further review, The Commission may set the date of the meeting at which the matter
is to be returned, The Commission shall only take action on the original matter at a meeting
where the agenda notice so provides,
e, At the meeting where the original matter is again on the agenda for Commission action,
interested persons and ACHD staff may present such written and oral testimony as the
President of the Commission determines to be appropriate, and the Commission may take
any action the majority of the Commission deems advisable,
f,
If a motion to reconsider passes, the applicant may be charged a reasonabie fee, to cover
administrative costs, as established by the Commission.
- Sep IS 04 12:58p
D
.E ENGINEERING [HC
388
J09
F. [
777 H..rthston. On,.
Bo..., 10 83702
Phon, 208-345-3200
Fax 208-388-0309
Dobie Engineering, Inc.
Fax
To:
Mike Howard & Ken Elliot
From: Patrick Dobie, P.E.
VISion FIrst LLC
Fa>c
938-4765
Pages: 2
Phone: 938-4655
Dat..
9/1612004
Re:
KingsbIidge Subdivision
cc:
Gordon Bates
The Land Group
0 U,!!ent
0 For Review
0 Please Comment
0 Please Reply
0 Please Recycle
. Comments: See revised traffic distlibution for Kingsbridge. Call me if you have any questions.
, 5.." 16 04 12:58"
D
-E ENGINEERING INC
388
JOS
".2
N
t
FIGURE A
KINGSBRIDGE SUBDIVISION
ADT DISTRIBUTION
WITH DARTMOOR ACCESS
I
I
--.J
I
i
,
I
I
II
i ,/\!
i.:~
Ll..J
i
_J
0
<
0
tt:
~
«
IJJ
-/lOT -
AVERAGE DAILY "TRAme
Traffic Stody PcoP"',d 8y
I rdHEJ -
I DOBIE EN.GINE.ERING. INC.
=~_.~ -.""" ",-,'"
~/
PEDESTRIAN STRIPE
4' FROM PAVEMENT
EDGE (BY ACHD)
II
@
00::
---
---
"
EXISTING EDGE
OF PAVEMENT
@
15,047 SF
SLOPE SIDEWALK
TO MATCH
EXISTING PAVEMENT
(12: 1 MAX SLOPE) ~
'?
"JÞ."'-
'0'
15,281 SF tï
@ 8~ STORM
C:s;:: WATER
~O SWALE
0 )
~ 8,303 SF
@ 10,188 SF
(33)
'~ '-'
^
-.
O::J
~ee
.J.':J(þ
~cnC"
0'" 'C .,
Q) -.
no.
(Dee
CD
GIVE~SLEY UP
UWOPFICEB
.., W, 110_"""
PO "'.no. Bolla, "".8-
T&IJ!I'HONI!: 208 38"'200
FACSIMIL&: "" 388-'300
WEBSITE: www~""""'1oy-
Garv ... -
"",IyT,-
""_L......
WIIOm C. -
-c.-....
!'ham.. e. .......
",1MfI""",
_P,Feo_.
J-. c. -...
_J.N",......
"""T,IO'"
""'...1<.-
Anne C. KIInkol
J_,.........
Fron~ln"""o
September 16,2004
City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
Anna Borchers Canning, Planning Director
City 0 f Meridian Planning and Zoning Department
660 E. Watertower, Suite 202
Meridian, ID 83642
RE:
08.. R. Lmn-
O,"""d LonI'"Jr.
EmIIyA""""'"
_0,"0-
-...-,
--... R. McCI...
.... ...... "'ConneD
C¡m~loA...mlO
_..H,...,..
..........."'"
-J.MJU", Jom..A."""...
Jud,.. B. "'"",om'" OF C<IlINS&L
Ango'OI<""'n
_..N~"" ' """,end D."""'"
W.HoghO'RI-',u..... RETIAED
......, C. 0.
-""'-
_v......
H,-'_LL-M.
J.WI""-
"""'eye-Ward
_11 ""18
_v.-o
Kingsbridge Subdivision
Annexation & Zoning, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use & Planned Development
City of Meridian File Nos. AZ-O4-023; PP-04-030; CUP-04-032
Dear Commissioners and Director Canning:
This fInn represents Vision First, LL.C., 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 has strived to achieve a first-class 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 require VisiQ1l First to get the written consent of a
majority ofDartmoor Subdivision lot owners to develop that portion of Kings bridge Subdivision
located on Lot 11, Block 2 of Dartmoor Subdivision ("Lot 11"). To begin, we note that Vision
First already meets ConditiQ1l No.2 because each and every lot owner in Dartmoor Subdivision
has already consented to the resubdivision and development 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 II, 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 Meridian approve the proposed development without Site Specific
Condition No.2.
City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
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 would 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 final decision by
the District 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 II 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 II 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, could not have been more clear.
"As provided in Section 5.28 [sic-actually 5.27] of this Declaration, Lots I 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
conclusivelv deemed to have waived anv obiection t,p the exclusion of said Lot 1
and 11. Block 2 and consents to the re-subdivision II1I1d deve1ODment thereof in
accordance with the zonil\!! ordinances then in force md effect and applicable to
Lot 1 and 11, Block 2, includine: such re-subdividinll snd develooment as shall
reauire that access to Lot 1 and 11. Block 2 will be omvided bv the Dublic ri¡zht(s)
of way 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 essentia1Jy gives the neighbors absolute veto rights that were never contemplated by
anyone. 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 PlamUng and Zoning Commission
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.
Furthennore, proposed Condition No.2 exlùbits a misunderstanding ofthe nature 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 the open space
limitation to prohibit any future development on Lot II. The old Section 8-4B- 7 of the Ada
County Code (wlùch 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 available. See Ada County Code § 8-4J-3.D.I:a. The City of
Meridian's annexation and rezone of Lot 11 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 Staff is 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 available." 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 Dar1moor 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. Burn's analysis to support the
proposed condition. In brief, Mr. Bums asserts that Dartmoor residents were "assured by the
recordation of the Plat that [Lot 11] would not be developed for IS 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 11 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 1] is subject to the
"open space" requirements of then Section 8-4B-7, now codified as Article 8-4J, which would
permit resubdivision and development of Lot II. Of course, none of Ada County's ordinances
will apply to the property once it is annexed into the City. Annexation is proper because Lot] I
is within the Meridian Area of City Impact, is contiguous to the Meridian city limits and is
serviceable by public utilities.
City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Conunission
September 16, 2004
Page 4
Mr. Burns' 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 II of the CC&Rs. See Section N(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 11 would be used for agricultural
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. Burns 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 Dartn"loor 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. Burns' 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 tmly yours,
LEMlFGL:ehk
Enclosures: Plat of Dartmoor Subdivision
CC&Rs of Dartmoor Subdivision
Ada County Code § ~-3.D
cc:
Jill Holinka, City Attoœey
Steye Siddoway, Principal Flamm
Brnce Freckleton, Sr. Engineering Tech
Vision First, L.L,C.
I
:~ i!
ffi~¡¡ ; æ8
~~; ~~~;
~Ið ~.~ð
8;'(: .
! 1,"--
~ .1-"-+/
Z § I~. ~. ~~1/'1
Q~ Ii! ~~.~
øu /?I!
¡~i -;yo II
i~ = J - II
ollJL 0 ~
~ WI! :: ~~I
.. II: ~ "11 JS
(0 I :~
~ 0 r. -:
~ !I ~ ~ :.
~ ~ ~ i! ~~
~ ¡ ~.
. ~J
;
l;-
::; ...
.,. ....!!
."
~~ i
. .. .. '
il. ,.,,".
t ~~I ~
'. ~.
~i ~ : P
~. ~." ~ m"
( !i~~~ v
1.1 ..1. ! ~ ..,
' iÎ
. ~
1:111 m"
!!U....¡~ ¡!.....
....., "...." ,
.
.
ð ð ð-
0 ~ o§
f~~ b
ð ø n 15: ~ :;
m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lo~¡¡: ~ I §
'CJIIi~.~~t~~~~
~ W ~ 2 ~: :å. ~ ~ :
e.J~~~~ diioa9
.
So... ori-
.
"""'NO
I ~ . e '¡¡I -
~h~ i i I !¡i! ~! ;!.'
:iig ~ I ; I;il ~! i;i I
~I~; Î I ~ U~~ t! III ¡
IIII ~!. ! ili! !i !;¡ ~
~ i;i~ ,~~ i g~l: ~f II! ~
~ 11111; ill 11.1 a §!;!
. d ídUII.J~ ,- .I~ I~
I', ~~.~, ...,
hi! i h ~ .11~d ~ II~¡~.
;~.~ 'I ~¡¡ it Î J~!.' . i 1t
~il~ h I~ it 'It.1 ~~~ ~~~ ;1
i!~1 ~~ Ii ~~ ¡!II~~ ~tqllil
..o~ b i. h .! !i 9 t 9 ¡ ,
- - -- - :. - :.::- - IJ.
....,~. ....
....... ."""1
!
i, !
liq
ti .
I. i
"¡ .
~I ß
~i ~
i- i
-~a ~
§~..
.!h
li~ i
a~U
.~H
ip
, ="
::
, "'
-l ....'" '._,-:¡";."",-- - --- ,-
~'r"¡"'::~ , ",,-, ,.." '" ,':::..- ......~ ~=.
, II . ~ 0'81 """"......
<
.. .
18 ~
~i' .~
~:,~h ~
I~t!i~ ~
t~~h~ ~
*
~.
~ .
i
I
~
~ æ~
~ ~:
ffi~¡;
§>:
dð
IIJ ~
.. .
!, ~ ¡
;, ~ ;.
:' > ~
I' ~L
" > i .
~ ~ ill
if li
" .. ~ ~
, mu
~
I :
~ ~
'......: ; ii ~
~ ~ "
:!
. :
f
{
(
\
;~
.
i¡
. . \' \r.;...v 11..,,;\ :J " U ~ l :J a :,
::¿ç---- III!CLARATION OF '. :I;~9~OOl"'rf44
~" ~. 'CQ\'tiNA~. CONUmONB. RIIS'nUCTIONII AND". ...l91..o;:..,. ' ., ,r, .~~nDE , .
I I'UR ~:1f¡\tlll~H..!:IIU.
~ DOlse 10
VjÎ UAR'fMOORSUUD1VJS1ON, /,. r .II, /,¡g¿, 'lJw6.
MAIICII8,1994 4~~nlll PI'!. '0
~~
fiE " .Lt
. RIOGR. Pit,"": tEO IT VI' "
..111:1.. 1- .""ITA'"
WIIl!1tIlAS..~ "*~"'.... Ø'_,_"", ........,..,... ._, 01'....,1. loud I."" C"""'r.NI'."'"
,.dIotobu1",....u..I..IDII-
....., d'_",I',."",.. 19.111"""2.1""'" I, orm.'¡'I,IIA1I'IMOO1lIUllÞMIION, ,,"".. or...
Cm'III1.toldIÞ.w llI",_.",.....,...dL
".II1IAI'1'P.D """""""
WIII!DIIAI.tbo"_,hI1JbtdlOOlop""'___""R"¡d"""'DuIlø¡...m..d.IInodI.....nJl.......,
"""""ICI.IIL,1Jo. r.,~ """"""".....I"mI_,..oImIo,nI."'"uIUow""", IIw. .mIo,........
.""..._10.1,..
::~,::'¡,:~::: '=::::"'r'.':'" ~~'7':""..';'d:~~¡,::=:::.:'.r"";;
1""'1171"... ""_,'" 'R "'lOr""'" ...""11""""","" 'odw¡--", ..""...'IIDII" """'"
An11I:1.£ " . """"""'0"
!!:-~:.==--:=: """" ~..:=.- ~"."'..=.. ~~ =;~~=
""""""",.........tIoo=_~_""""""""'__,II".""""I.q,-
"""""'_"'~-_""""""-'),o .rw o""""_OId""""""In""ID""""",
III ,- ~ ...... ............ """'"""'" _. """""""" """oI'1>utm... loIuإbloo ""..,. ....
::::'.::'ù,": \:.:r~==~.;::: 1~ ":'7~;:::::,':.w-::;:::-'M.":'.d~
""""'" ""'I.III"""I "'" d.."""""",""".... ~"""'"'IU~,.bI"""lIJ'..d~ a.."......,..",........
""""""""., 1",-,.,_....1",,1.""""'119.. 0......., ""..,.OW"', u """"r."""..
~=.:~~:. ":"~~ :r=~~,::.:~,:"..:.::. ":~': ;=:-,~'...,':':'.::. "':::'::'~
,_,10... Ib'.. ", """ "r""'-'"" ....,."... ."""". _" ................. or Om...","""""...
""1"""'"", I"'owlo"",......, """""" """""001""""".- dlØ\s¡I.I"""""'u.u, 01'11"1""'""'" ~"..
"""""""""""""""" """"""""""_I........",.""I"_"'.""""""".""'.~""d...
""""1""""""""_""""""""'._'0"""""""""""""011""'""'"""""""",,""""""",...
,..,.",."""...,.""""."""",-.,..oIoIDI.....".,........I""""""""".""."oI1""""""""""'IO....., "
"........, 011..............",." ""_o8 l "". """""'1- nllII'IIßIII=oI>Io",""""OI(I ,",Id'U...",~.
"",1.._,.""."" """08......ICm". ConI""...,M:CI, ....Md..............".",. """""""'1°""'011101".
""-"""'......,.".. """"""""""..."""""'.""""""""""0'_-
["""""""""."".2'."'._""L""""II"""""""""""Ior.".......r "...........".,.
"..,...d,.., """rl,.."""....1.oI_Þa"""""""""'-_"""""""""',"'m....'",
""'.."..., ..g",""."" "d""",..tAlolLl' . '"" II, ""ok.........""..I100......~,.~.".. .I...",pm,,"""""
~~:-..:~;':..:~ ,~::"'=ñ:':":.h~~=~~ 1'::"\T~'ñ:. ~;:,:. ~~~ ~~I;:\~~;¡r:':::'r:
"""""1".".." .",.....,.....",11""", "'III""_"'IId .1Ibbo_.......iItIhIu" "" ""'m.."'"",
..w .... 1 ,,'" II. 01..... 2. ""'nil.. , """nIIo..... III....,.
1"11,, """"""""""-""'"III""-InP"""'r"bdl>bI.". ",_,,'0"",,1Jp CIIl "r""'~1I1 or
""CII'.""""""' >IJn&II. II" "",.....'U..L"'Io__,¡""".ø."",IJ'IhoJ"""'.' L""-
1 ..IIdM"""'~"""'"InI"',,","'¡IIIJI""jocØ""lh.......hlA,r""'I""II._...w o""..., Cb,"an ~I"""
,........ """"'.'"""""o¡ao..""'þllll.,..,r..".....,...", 1I.1IIao" """""""'lt...ln....r"""'.'~
II. """,I...." 01..11". ..db.........1a _..11"'....
A."""" III. II1!I!1Nm"""
.. """'11"_10""'0,""'" d~ _""IIt_...""'. "'m¡oIroo,.orolllÞl'l.."""'" pl..... ".,.."""
..""'""", .
Á!:Ik "" ",d.U..",.1 Co"roICommlll_... 01""""""'.""
I!III!I!!oII ^"".............otmI""l.aI,onlfOmJ'"..",..",.....,........I"""'PIOIfi""'Ih"'."""""
,....... .11 ...., '............. ..11 ""-'" "'/od. ...... .. ,"",...... 1....1110.
-... 111111l1li010"""."""""""""'01111"""""'-
tz=;C';':..~~.:..::~,,:~:"'. ..;~='.: '.':u.n: =-::.~..O::: ::;:~:.~:",.II..
'.
1IBCLAM1'ION OF COVENANTS. DMTIIIOPR
Jf<.':,~
: .
.
'..'r,
,',
.:"~
:';¡::
~I
'"
1(j~O{ O1;'4:;
=:c.;.~",':; ~~':.~:: ~'"':.~~~ ........ In 'lib _... 10 ""rII-
I
IiuaIuo. '1110 amltuJpo4 11m"". uribe ~.. .",..W o. - A.
!IIuIII!ms8In Alh""'.'¡""".__I_n.ralltdnob0n4_=......II..."'....bnlldIop.......,
"""""'_"""""""""""""""'-,."""'100'1""""..0" ... _...--..m'I.""".
_"""""" ..,............., ".n......"" "r. ""Mhl"""'- .....do,.._I- ......-...
~ ~ 1:::':":':~,::::~,:",:""",:,:,,~:.'1:'~r.'::. ::~.:.i:;:'~=:"":'" "",..... "",1""... ;"
~ ..,..."..,.......'ur_o""'r""'_"~.",!I_"'In_""'IIdI."",.,I"""""
I::":::::~:: ;:-0':;:, :~:~'¿:'~;~""-"o .M"~.I"'" ",""..IOm..."
!!'r.~~~:;;;':=::;:':f:-:~=:~ ¡:::::::. ': ~.4;:;"":, '::".:';':'::1::',
'0""1"""",.""""""""""""""-"""",,,
'~.Lot....III""In""""'!.n,.I""",","'Id¡""""""-""oI"'......n...
='~'i': or:o:.::::, ="'I=~~ ==~.:.~t"',:~~"'::':'=,';:."::.:
""""'100,"" ,..:R.'B " M"""".~III II""""",;;,......",......or, -;¡.jM."..... ""'!lor....ray
1""",.""",..1_. or....... I -, "'In"""'.... ""IIWf8. .101..,-.......... .......,.- m.ot.....
""""""""I1"dorl'1f'1"'.....r......."...."............
D.I!I. ^"'I""""_""-"""'I""IJ'h'I'OII3!1Donm""_lvId...u.....""",nmom........"""",
-...kClmot""""""'he"""""¡"'-b.r"",,,..'nIodl_""""""
~'4!.~""I¡"""....r"'dcb_""r"'~I"""""'P_omI_1ao!do"'!":""""'o'"
ARTICJ.R19. .........
"""""."'U_..h_m""""""'lOd"""""""""_""'lnoIt.".IIocIo""',oI..r...""....
1 ::::":"';."~~~=::- ~~ ~:': =:::~ ~::.:r'~"='~ I. ~ :.;::
"'"",'",w.,......h""""""""""""""""""""...__n......".""""or:
Þ¡ 1n."I,,""'....MII CIcaupo""IndIdTJI.,ur""m, "'dco!an."""O 'IIIO., homo-.........
"""""""",oIll-.aJI.......,..I""""',"n..otl. ""'......,......-.
~=~~~n:""::'"...'::~"'::'== ~~~"::".:.~:::\:... .....-.. ~llh
1'-Cw
]*
1"1
Ibl
U"..mp","... ....,r.. Ibl _I ""1Jh"",I",.nl ,.""" 1111"'."."" """,.....,1...101
"III... .......,.IuIIoU......
..m'l.. """"""'IIBI....,.ul.......,..."...... .,",Idol"""""""" - ..,..,.......
"""""'O¡:""-1nIo&"'.....oal""""'II"""'__"'",~"""",
(d
II)
PI
""'fIr. dol 'I" -,... "'1111. -, .~_... - will,..,.... iii"" - ""
d.... ..""IoII,_".","w1III.
U'ñll..""_'~I....It.I1II"2""""""'J II1P-'-"-"""""I""In""""
2 and 10, -""".n or..... ,.. ........,................
.'.dlh'll""'.II I.."""IvI.....r,ù"""""PI1Wllhdl"JII"""""""'-""."""""""
lhe" 1""",-
1111
AIl'nL"IJ>: '.-MITTKJ'IISIpI
IIfIn'ltlNs.a1 IIw """""'III1InDa-"""'loIIInnabd",.....rorlbel\d1ool1o....",n...
(01 :.t':.:~~~:::";::I=~;':'::~=~~"",~ ralll_.....-....
LI.."",."""" ¡n.I',I2"""','G.17,AI.øl8IoaU'-.""'-""'dInø"
.""",IiI""".
t-r þJ
,.
;t~',,~"f..;~i" .
.~:;l~ ~.~>.
1j:-.f.: ',.
"
(1r)
=~'a!n_",:,":~~:='ba::[:.~""""'I_""""""'","IImIIa_U
LnlU,nrUInot2,-"SU!nI""""""""".'.""'Ploldl&lGOl.
~ LoiI..nI1l,.ra""""......nn"""halllI.....n.""'.....IIIbI........
"ø..o¡.... ... - .._, "..Dllt",
I
DllCr..ARA TION DJI COVENANtS - /)&l1:1IIIO011.
2
':~" ,.'~
. .;¡\/;;~:,
lti:JOOU.1 '¡"It;
::-~'::'~ ~,,~~:L~:::; :r.,:~:... '"'.::. ~ =::'..;.. ~ :-.:=
............- -""_Dam_""" ^C:C1n_tOIIIo.......~....oI- VI,"""'.
~-r::.~~::":"'",::h:::~:n:.::.'.:. ...tdr. - ...... ....... _Iud!"" ,............ ...
5KC:'11C,""" ~ ^"1ln""II'J"""".~I.,....Idm""J.o .UJI~""lrMß,m.,....""
""""""1""" .
Pto"LI"""
n." L.. u..
_toll.....
-""PIlI'
_PIn""""]
-Pln""CU1
;¡.
^111"""""""""....I.....ACC_..""""L
""""', '.1 d_..- .""""'11... II.. ""I'I'I1.....buJldIIIa..'!.III an..o.1Io .riWI ÞulootI...
"""'l1on.'",. ..........¡..", Dcal_.. 'r.... "'^" oIa. _lhoIua... ""..0lio] Lnt r.... d,.""',"-wo¡o
"'""r m¡,... em",.. ""'ob"""",..-.......r...... Hno.......""".- ""'-"'.MlIIn¡..."Lol
......~",._.I'o'lItll...
::-.:",:~ ¿;:~ 5.~1':="=r::.:- "31:~~~ .~::';.:::"':"::.~::= """"""~ .r ....... (D
P",..I...U..
_'~'L!I"
BIdo .... u..
1I""J1'oot.ØII'
IDa .... 10'
"""""""'CU'
A......................I......^"C_.1'JIft"II!.
t"".':::':':~='.',:';::=:::='= ~"..,.. or....... ...-. 1,"¡"'¡. 0' """".~
..."',...".,. 111,1"-" """'" "",uIInJ ........ n ... '"^""'" -- .1 ilia .....- ...., '0""-
JI""'IidIn""""""""_"""""Ullrb_""""""""'I-"ID""'-""""'....røl.
/IIK.'TIIIN1I.1ft1!'!wuwlll1 "I1I...I"'ocII '_"".........-ot..._.IIIIfIO"""".."""'lIOIofiI
;:..~~;::; ::,'::::,:':,,°;;= :':'::'" .::::..";" .:.::. ï:.'i.:. ~..r=..:.Wt: ~I::mü.';
"aII",.."raD.~""""'I"""wll"""""""'nd_..\I """-""","".,,..._1'Io<
=:, ~:'111~ .r -:.:~ :""":"b.... ~ :::o:-=,." ':;":.~I;:'.dnr.:
1""""",.lnrlllllO""" 1.-.1 """"...14<"""" ,"or,. """"""'_'.,b"¡""""h1I10h0al.
,""",,,., "",.."""" """"M ' ...""",, III>oID """...... """"'I11_~..m. I'M""'" -.a,m"o"""".1
... .r"'h ,...,.1..",... """,,", """"",...,..,-. """""""""""'" .....,.h...'" a"".r. "I-'"
......... hr". a.""". """.,,""1atJIo l...foI""""""- """""'-'" -110" ""h""'I11""""'"
"""""",,,,"..1..................-.
~~::J:;,~~.~ ";~':'~'r:~. ~=:-~~...... ...!do ,led, .. pIo"" .. ...... """",..,hl....m
RIIt..".,NR.,ø AlII!!I!RIa No""'Io.U_""""'ol..~.........,.."...,-"~""......I.""~""'",,,
"""'r h........ IIII,""",. -, "_, """.. ""r......,......_.."",......t",.. rllnlmod., '" Ow",,'.
¡o..,...,... II., he hi.. I"0'Io"'110""'."""""'-10 """""1. """""_'111"" """"""""""
"". r""hlod hi."". I., on "".".""" PI AaImo1."Io1", La ØI .- hI'" -.. """"" h_, 1"-
,.........",..o(] .r"""(,!J.rlhOl\J."'I"'k'1"""""'""""""" .1I '1I~n"""I"""""',~""",""
~'i"1y ""'......, .., 0""~1"" 0111""" u., ... .,""'" "" "".......... OWl.... Ln'. &n,' """"" ...",-
"'.....,.....""""...",.._1. "."'00"'-"."'.."""-""""" ...,."""".......,..".....,..Ih,
""1"""""'01. 111"0"""""0""_._"""""1""""""""""'"l1li'."""".""""'."""0"":11I
'-I,..,.,.... t.o," hl""""""""'.,oœ_",..-....".",..."LoIa""""",I1I"'."""Oko",..
.......,., II",..r.. "...n,,". 1liioi.... _1"""'_"""O""""""".""""' 'InI"""""",., L.......
"""",'.11' """',.I..............._..",."",.h~"'""""""""".I0.__'","""""""""",,
"""_"""¡"'~hoI"IoI~"hd,",..hollm"_""""'.""""'Ir""""'OM"'oI""'_""""""'dr
IlK !In""!...."", """d"""""""" """""'."","" .....mId, -""""" roo""" """"""lIOII
=':.: r=:-.,,~ 1.. ~.:r. ~~=. ':'::: hi::ï:;' ....",-.., ..""".... ... rm.InM 01...
~~::~'a~=~~n"":.: ~:":~::':".~I~~~ :'=:~ ~"::,~-=:;
""'."......."", oIIII..mt...t.:t:...""".. " 10 l1li1""""'".,."""",,, NIØhI'&"""_""""t~.
drl1lll.""DII"...",waD...LoI.
RRC."rIUN 5.11 8Iaua. Nn """"""'Id1I11- "............"," III dlqß.,..t """ """" olow "" or........ !.lit.
""""_"""""'d""I"'\IIII\"""""rRID~'~"""""""""""""""^"""""""h..
.....""".I...-IIToII,,'" _......""",........ olIO 11IitI""II.. I IIW/dIn¡¡ lIMod.. ",,"'"""'1.,01 ""
""""".""""""h"oI""",""I""" Alt11J""'_"_'IIB""""""""I"""'S"~.ldr",
ML-ntIN5.1J ~ -,...~...n..II'r..~d""'IhI8"'d.........,,_...t.øt...,..rw...
""'l1>li1.... """"."'_"" .......",....,~...In"""""'u40""'"""" 'r'bo_""""""'r""","-
""""""""""-"""IIO'_"_'."""I""""""0\11 "........L""",","..'"""""
",.rm'IIIfU'...."""""an._Jtdot_""""""""""""'_...""_..,,q'lral"'I'I"""
"""UCe.
DllCLAIlADOH OF COYJ!NANTS. DJ.R'lMOOR
;
.j
~
'.JU; /.~~
~"¡::I ,. :,
"~'\ ':.:~:
'\-'1 ",,"~'
"~' .
" "> '.'~'~~';~
. .,,;'>..
, " ',"""!, '~".
. .'.. ,:', .; '\ì";¡'~¡
.~<';",:' . ~'f' .
." "'1.
'. """~',"
.: '
'.
. .-
I
, ..
>
"""""VV.J.""
='" ':-'~ ~ &0,: ~= :.r,:.,: 'I'::".;:.:¡,,= ~ ':f:: aa;::.,,=,,=::.ï..'":;
1wIaII..... 'b,-.."""""""" ""--""""""."".1111-_""""',""-"",
oil""'."""'. '1""'".",.-..._...pltarr_....J4I'_"--':""'-"""L"'-
AØ"",""",'w""'_nl".............,....... -""'1liiio.. ...,.IbIaIIInMI.oaIl.,.'-" alia...
la_",.... """"""""""".",-"""""",-""-"""""""",_"
....,.....,...,.. A"', 0 OoiIIJII1IoII...alda-...""""..dl"'I1IrIn"._,-."a_-" In-
1:':: .:,~i;".. =..:,,"":.: I~ o:J:"'Da~"~=: .. : :'.:t '=>h: ::..."::..";:-:.~~:=:¡ ::
""""".,nm""""""'_'-"""'.""-bI1_Udo""""""""'fII¡-""'¡¡"'I«1._........
"'...........,.. anal_.....
~.= ~. oJ.'U:, '"U =: ::., "i.': ;: := ~~~==.~ -==:~,=r."'1"
...bd_"""I~III",uu.""'_1t/._..,..woII"IIm_""""" Do""""'~
~.:':~ ""':: =:r: ::""7:::-"': !:"J.'ü:.:J.."':::== ::::=:':.~
""M"_""al"""""".""""""",I1/IJÞtIo--,"-
_.,'un...1S I._""""" 'IoIG..-,Iid_lJoIIro."_.o\IøIIn......Ia""oIllaaar.......
""""",.I0Il1"""""_""",-" ""'-......._arJloo IIU""".....,ro,'I'-"".""
... _""""011110- -.... .........-.......10-_"""""""""-
..1"",..... w"...."""",..",-,1tooIa"'1IaI"'............... -100"""'_,0IIII,1""..
,...".......uJtr,d.......""",,,,- 1._""",..................aItoIIl-._,IuJI.........i.",Ina,_,
"'r "" u....~ ,
""""'.mvllt 1_'1' "",,10, I,a -"""'ob""" ,U....... "...at....,¡,. b...ka, -.......~... ,.."
-.... OIl'" ... ..... ....... - 'I'" _la, ... -- ...... ..,"" 'loll ... - - ...... .- ..
O"_d,,_,,"-""'nIIo""..
:.=~::' ~~~~..:.:r=~'::".:::=:::=. ~ = =:::
:\':t'" :',.'ï:,¡~~~~ ~I~~::"":'="~~:':'.:.:er~-=:~
:::.."':".:=:::';',.::.~= ~:.~= =:'~..= taM.."........ ..."'...... 1ft
Tho...""" ._11""'" 10.... "'-""""_allllelnlp1lull_"""""LaI'~.1I"""U
",..ItI"'~'_VI~-.
~:::.,~:::' ..-=t~~ ::'-::.0:: =so:=:,::~:: ,::::~ :
:=~~,~;;: ~nmi::t -===""Ct ~~.""-"""""" "'... ACe "',-
""""'¡",,"'h ",...-..."'11 Ita........... ...._IIa.""" 01"""""""""""""""" ""'"...
"""""",,"" Ita.- wOIIl..",_........ """'1"_.I11III - - or. ...~""'.. """'.......
,....bfa. ....'1'1'1.' db............... _.....'I'I1ln1pJ1oa_I'1IIo Lolli..... ....,.ubmolonl-
~ ~.:. ~I~ ;::-~~ ,¡;:.-'==~':' ~=~,= =::r ':'r::~:'::::':;:::
"""...IIo"nn" ..r,ho_,........... ""'.¡"""""'",Iha..r, ". ........"""""'" an""""""'1br II.
""""I'II'..'.'~"""""'_"""-I._"....._".......r. """""""'..."""kk..,....,....
.r"11 ," k.,. """" ".. .......... "'k, ""'_1' fa""~
III!L.,JIINS.17 ~ 'n..htllawlo& """"-.'....""............rr.wlI"nI".."""""O""'"
tal
110", OwoooIli"""obaII_,U '-""-_In pool ""..-.. "",,1II>I.1mI1
k"I' "'1."........... ""'.......... 10 ".r.... ,..... "'. aluahlw> 1rIIm- .......... ""',1, """...
"',I""".""""".-..."",_......bø","""",~""", ~"_"'~,-.
,u".....c 1'0"""""_1"""......-.-"-"'011_""""10""'_101..."
,'"U""- mU1_,.,...taJltkII..alltlbb.h~I"""".ml"oaU"".a1I-I. "" "'or
...,Uo Old.
:::.,-= ,or=: :::d:;::: aI":.:~:.:"(':;::'~ 1..':'.~,7 ..~~;
...."" I. IIaII 1It=:l " "'...-1- "'_wIIO UI".q~- aliI'" """""'on.
I"
^ I.~d".w""". -""1\1""'.""'"'" ho,O_.".. _.. '-"'.,,'a".,,-
.""""9 .........
AI,.......... -. """"',...al1 H/J"" """""...d__lhaACC. """"""-
"'-~-""'-"-"""' _IIII81It-_....-""..a1ooII'"
........, ..........-.-O tp'-II!' IkoN:l: lit 'I'JI'I OiIaIcI- fJIm IIt1JIJa 1IIaw.
II!II:ftIIN""~ Na_'CI""'~"""I"""dobo!l"""""'_""""""""'_...L"-
::::::':,::'"'.. .';:'.." ':'= 1:.'===:::-: =.".~ ~ "%~ ~
J::,':.'i'~ ::~:.=:r"::l::= ~ .::,::.~ :::'=~:I;'=:::a~ =~=::
..._..I~_It- <uI,b"".lno1k"ru""'""wI d_~.."IIt"'.....,...-..... -...tor....""
"""_",,n""""........,...,.........,"""'I.,O.......&.-
¡
.
~
I,.....','
. .S.".\"', ...",>',.
'i:~,< "';:;
..
..,
IdJ
DECI.AIIo\11OtI 01' C:O'lBIIAN1II- ÞÅR'tMOOR
" .'
:/ï~;~'i,,:':' .:'>t~:,:.:W;:
','..:.! ,,~"-. 'i.";.
,:<."':,, :. '. ":.'
. ,',,',
¡ : ~::..:.r~~~;
..Lb~UUU~7'la
~~ ':'.:~;::...~;;"~::::= ~:~'::~:..::.~ ".".:."";'::;""':,',::...."":. "::'.::; =,':~-;O::
".,"",.,.. .n""" ""',"""".""m.~....,.."I'_,,1"14I'_""".""'- """"'01."""
...'O'~"'I""""'.""""'I""""""-""""""-"'."",_Io1...
\'"""""", "'h..ft"""'""""I."._,....,...'h"",....."..r.........,........,..",, ,..".. -.n,O
,oIdo,..""
~;;~~1~ ~~,::k:::::;'~~:i:='::;: ~.:.:::,:.:;::: =~~.i:'.: '::":'~-;::':.ß
... "__,"'" ....""1.,, ",..,1"""'" "....""",..,...",1"""",-""" "'11"'_'" ..,""""
""............,". '1"1"'" "..,..'I~I" "'C.
SI"<"'1! "'~1 .~ ""h""""""."'I""'D'-""ø"""........",..........."".
1--_""" ,....1....",........., I.IIt. øbIrb'-, -,"""",..."""~....,"......",,.""..
."""""""""""""""'00""""""""',"""""""--""""""".""""'."'."
""""""""""""-"""""""""""1".._.,.......- """""""""""""'0"'.""'"
""""""".'mI1"........_",_.O.'-"'.Dr""_.."...._,r...............",.~",,,..
.....",..."".......-..",.....,.....,."..."'."'.21101_,.... ""-""""""""""""'"
"""'."'..""""'0"""",.1.......................-."""..."""",..........."....""....... ",.'~
""',_.. "'."'1"""'"
""'..n )"""1!!I!lno"""l~........~"",....,Cnoo.",U... ",........",.....h..""""..""............
...."""...r. "",""bIO"'"""'",, "'..._w.........."'.,..øtroIIo",.............,;,., "'d.^"",
"""-f",."."'I1".""."""",."""",-""""""""""""" "",...,..",..""
"""'-_"'....,œlh...'. ""_"."'."""""","'n"""",..""""",~.".......,..... """"I"'",
-,....,...-....., """"""""'.""""..n.'u""",.oO""""-"""""""""""""",,
""""'Uh,a""""'.I.'m"""--'.,~.",
U.. D."", .".. "",'...,,"'"" ",..,..."" ,........."" ". .........,..........,. """"""""_,.."~
""'aId~"'"h .."..oO""""""".,(!IÐJ"".l\orw,---'"""""""",,", "......... """'.."""
I........"",....,.-.........h"""',........,-..............,....,.."",...-"...""",,"........
"""to<:<:.
""l'"""'" ""."",,".n."""""...,œC_Ir""'.., n..o_"...._",......"".""""",...
o"""o.""""w"".."""""""In""""'.23,"....I1._.".ho""'~"""'I1"'",IIo"""".
"....I""""....",..,..................o"","""""","",W"',U".....œ..""""I""""L """'10."1
l1'U"..."r."_."....."'III"~"_h,..,......",,,...................r...1\hm""""..I""'"
II... ,.,..ho,'~" G..".... """"""..",, ,"",.I""""""",.....""...."",,.""""'h,,'" ,adJ.", ""'" ",
'.",.."Ola"", """,_.tI""""""",""II"""""(I~'_......",....."""w_""""",
.................,t¡;"'n_h_"",."'-"'. ",.................potot........._............
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""".-"""""""'-- 2II"'I.""""'01,-
fI ""1""""'" """-"""."""mIopotot by """"-""-""'-"" ,.""""........
-...,......"""1..""........- """" ..,.-. lor "" -... """""'..."........ ØJ "'_Id """
...... """"""".'1\1.""'-"""."""'.'" .""".""'(3)",,- "... ..................1oaI'", I....
..,..............,.,.......... """""""""""..,....-"""L....._...n""","""""""""""
"""""""_,..............""""""w.......,.u...",.....r""-'-"ltLool..,,!I=t""'.....
-"'-""'W""'W--"'-"'-"'-""""""'-,""'~..m"'~"o1rpmII
"""n"_~_....,...,,,........._.....,........ ^",,_""""_"'I~I1...""""
1V."...,.UmI.......,u_.""" G¡n_...,................,..u",............""""'""ooIUl"'",,,""'"
,-.--
A"""""""'"",......,""',""h.'"".-",.""""",""
~
"""'oO "" .""...,"." ACC ar... "'"".., .,..,....... ",......I-.,-m.. ..1 ""It'
'.-..",......."""..lb'L"..............._u..,
u..~"",.ImI1.....,..b"'m"'.....,"""..-....""".._....--.._r..,
",h.",,", """"""'" ..111.' 1o....- u .."""", by""AC"...
'"
"I
"""""'" " IuI1 tho - 01 1<0 """",.. ..."'. SIOJIIID.OD ..., ,,","" " ... .."., ""I"'"
._""",....MI'" """L...
IIi'.c-n"I'i 5.211 c...,.~, .......ÞF....... "...- c...~.... ................ """""",", .. ,.,"1o."',
~~~, ,;h;:;',~ :=.::-: == =~ ":.."::'::-...:: ¡:"'.:,:. '= ~ ...r:;.:,;
""""""'-"."'--(9II """"""""""""",-"""""o"""",,¡-...........
"",...."",...,..,....--..._o",.......""""..,.,--."".,."..""'h....
"""".""""""""".............-... """""""",.""-,'""",,,1.........""."'_....1"'...
"'""'."""I"'.""""_"'Ud....... ""'"""""""",~_""........-.'""""",...n'"
~: ~-:.==~~ ~ ;j",.,,:::;r.: Ii:':' ::: :: :'.:' ..= ::-:.a~~ :"'=!b
dd1"",II.'hoO"""r. """¡uar Þor"""""""""""""""OI1l'-"""W>ha1"""""",-""",."
"""""""",IIoo""",..r...IIioo""""-fl"',....¡mSt....",l\AIoMIqtll1l111no1....._"......",..
,h"",.",", ,"','1>,..",..""""",..."",..... """"""""".",,"".10"""".."'.....,..,...., I h""""'"
1""",""""'Oh,""Om¡".""'b_""OW""ø)..",........._.r""""",_,'.n¡'."""~""",,,
"""""",.0.."",.."" (3)""",... ",..""..-...,.. I1I,L.,.. """"",.rr,oo """"""""".."."
..,...1 '" ".hlyr"""I"~' ,"'" -.... ....1- ""'-""""""""""1",",,'..11. Looo ,.n """11.....,. ...0'
""'"""'"!n....Mhll.......".....,.............,_._hlll",,,........,,lnl""",, A"""""",,""h,
""""""""",",,,. ""."....."""""I1".hIoi",.,,,. """"'hr'" ."'"",,, .....",..m,."w"..""
1,1~'",~"""""""""""""""",""""",I.,,,,"'h""""""""'."""'I1"""""'r'"oOl"~I",G""',,
.~..""""",'Ih".."'I1"""..,.I......r...lI",o."",",D","""w1I11I1".h"',........"...,"""",,.....
""""'.....m"........"..""""~._",......,..".......,,,__...,,,.I1""""wh."",I...."".""".
"ECLAI1o\TlON OF COVENANTi. DAlt'lTdOOR
,f
~
W:' ,
~~{., :r
,"', .'
.{.,'
-- :,"":"'~'
.;'." ,;> '.>r
'.ct
~":::.;'.
.i
,~f
..! ;.'.
"'.
.. .
,.
,
"
~
-..
IG90UO1749
.""............,. """"'" H"...""..o,..""""",. '...-.....,.. ~."""""'.""~"'-"1I&
"'1"-""" 'O~"""""'-.-"""""""""""-'C""".Q"""_""."""",,,
".,""",., """""". """'nl..'" """'. ,.1 "" ".....,.....,.." """""""""""",'.,0....-
"""""'_""
"..""",j,- """""""""""'0."""""""".""""""""""""""""".""'.""'.
""""'I """""~""_n""r_.",...,...I""""."II~""'aI."I..,.,IZI"'",......,'S. .,.,
"""""""""."""""""111............., """"""..'I1or""')""""" """""""""'" """LH
.., ""In",......... ......"" "'."'In' p. """"," "fll'.." (IZ ...... """""""'" ..,.,......., "'"..
,.",...,.....-.."".....",. ""n"""."'."""! 1bI"..""...""'i.,.....,¡".............,
"'.,,"ml' "'",.., "". "",...",..,." b ... ...." ","""""J... ""'0"""'" ..........11.."",
""......- .
1111,.-11111'1.21 ~...."""'r""""""I1 ""~_"""",......._..""¡,..-...,-.",.,,,,O.L
m,,_.. """""" u""""".2I.............""",,.......,¡,.... 0'111..."""""""""""""
""""'.rC"II""""""""',""....r"""""',"_."0""'L.".._,.1oaId"""""""'-
""""""'r'.......
~::;'~':J:'.c;-:,~-::"",,::::: , =~ ".::::."'.:~:::~=::':' .. ...",... ..'10 .."'...",
~
II)
5::,= ~~ =':; :':::',..:: :;:::= =::::::..'"':='::.: ~=;:;
1",1". ..." "". """"- ,,""" """r "'- ....., ",D!I"IIo"'Jd~""'","'I.'" Om",
. """"""""""""f~""""'" """"'.".'."""""""""="""""""""".
""""', ""'~...... ,'_m,..~..,.... ,. ...........-- ..... 'c """_,,0..,,,,,
I.""'..'" .""""""mI..."II".."~,,, "",,"'-',""""",-"""..........,,""
,."""""""""""""""""'. ^""""""""""O".._,...""".",..."'h"~r""",,
"'......m_"'Oc_.
~ """""""'10"'111111"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'"
b ""__...........,,,m, """,Ju............",r... "'-_"""""'-
::;';:';~I~~' =.~~: :'I.~I"::': .:=:c:~:,\'" ~= ~~:::~'='~;-¡:;::
(""'I"""""""""""".","""."m"",...,....""r"'~m' _""""~ -"",,
"""-"""""'",n,],"", "_...""""",..""""'..h,"".'....r.....,,..,.
h
1'1
I.-.!!BL""" ..,."",]"...""",.",.._"""""""""",.,]"""",,0......-
"",... I."""""." ACC......S..,...."IoJ. ""'.'" /no'...".... or.... ""'....",
""-"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'" ,.......,.,.......""""",
...,..... """", "...".. """1>1""" "~'.""'IIII' ..0,................." """J' IoIC
""" 2,.,.""'O."""]I-"""'Hrn" 2.~IWcI>J,,""II"... '.........."""....
:; :::.':'::':;:~::'~;""." =::~\'.: ~~,,^:'.';:'~,":;,:;~:."~:;~ "..::::::':1
""""""""",,"""""_t.I""""', :IIn"""~"'."""""""""""'W'"
.'~I 1';"""" "m,O"",.,....
I'
(0)
II""""" AU""""" -", .'..r......... ...,." ".""'0""
U""""""".... ,.,..",.."",............,. ".......-..,......... ""-_.
"", ._"""""", """"'m."""-V-..... "",1"""""'""""""""",
"""......,_""...,,,r""""""'(111,
II)
-,.,"""",""""""" """",.................""".""".....""""",..".."
"'1"""'.""" .....
I.
AU'.""""'I~...._"..."LuI"""""""oU"':
"'m"_""O"......."~.."",d """L...""",,.._....L._",""
""~I"'""w""""'m_'" ""0-""'"
2.
o.
V"""""I",..',,],, ".""'...,"'" "'.., "","",""'0......"""...""",..,.,...
"""... """""""""mhl 0""".. ",."..r.."".....m, '" 1"""."'"
"."",".'~""I.. ""'" "'," ,," o. "... ",'" ""1 ",.. L'" "......., "'1""'" "'." ""'"
""""","
A "",,"'1., """'" '""...".r"""""'."""""""""'."""')"'L"'....
.... ... ", on.... no... ,,"'IßJo ,
,.
s.
..,
~ .., ......, """ "'."'01""""""" ......._,.. """",.. ..,.
""-"-'" "'.".""""""""""""'._0"""""'0"""""'.""
""""""""""'-]0._"'."""""""""""_.""-
- '...m"""'""""""'",""""""........wH""'..........,."......."....,
"""""""""""."""""""""""'""'" """......""VI, 0_,
Ch)
(I)
O"1f""""'-l1"'._"""""bØ..........,...._...",rI..m"",,~,"""""'"
_..""..,.""",O"loCCmd """",~"""""I........".",.."",......",.."""",,
...""""............,. H,......,r"""""""""".""""O"""'..-..."C...rb
. .,.,""" ."".., """,,.. ...,....,,'.. ... .ce ,'" ,...""..", """"" rIO""" .......
_lit [¡;r'¡'71, 1"",Z7~"..Q""",1ui, "'!I"i"'L""'.d;.¡I,~',I"",2.,"""'" ...."",-JD'òI~""",""""
r "1110-""""""-""""""""""""""""""",.""0"""'11.."""""""',..""",,,
;
';
:~;.,i';;.'~!)
!i!':
DJ!CLAIlATJOH OF COVENANTS - DAR11\IOOR
,"
".
,'-.. ".',
.' .
.-:
',,1":'-
.-,
, ':'~~,:
" "':.:;.>
.::",,: "
: -'~;!.:~.ï'
: Wi;'f;f' ,
-"'-,
,".",
,"""
,c
,¡
't
"
"
~
;:
¡
}
~
~
.. .
---~~V""ÚU
","~.'.5'" 1!II!!!I!lli!!!! O"'."'~d"""'L,..""'I....."",, "."..I..,Þal"'.""""""""""
"""""""""-1.'.."""'9....cc."""'-."Ia"."", .".",.",.!")",,',,,"'O""'"
..",..,~.,......."". "'a~~""""""."""""""'.""""""""""-\.nI,"""""'on1l""Ia'
Iu "" ...""', ... " I... ~ ... I.""", '
"""""."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""I""",""u"""""".I1"."".
.......".'bhO,..""........,..""........",.."",..,.....,..... """~'J'C'I"""""',"""II.""'.""
"".,"U"""""""""'.""""""""""".""""'.'""""""'IaI_In",_.œ,5.1""""",
AnTIC'." VI- AIU""1'I!1""""'. o"on,.." """"1T1'I!1!
1<111..""'1110\.11' U.........,...c."""",o ""'.""""""""""""""""IACo¡"".......,.....I"'"",,,
""(:11""-""""""."."""""""",.,,,_. A..""".""'AO<:"",'O"'."'.",,,.....
"""""""'.""""".1""""'__"""""""'."""""""""""'.""""""".0°"',
...........,"...".......".........",.
"".""".6,"' ""..",.......",..,~. ".""_.""'.00_'"
...... A. S,....,
...""...-
"....".s......
:J:~":'I~~ :':::':-':':."~"'r':'.~:'~i'!t""'..:;. "":::1;'::::"""=:..": ::".::'. ~:-:.::;
." ."". ",...""",.._-..". "'- _'_"""""'."D""'.""'~"I"'".....""""....., '.'11.
1II1.""'I".,."",."'D"'."'""","'......n""""m"'.~"'lh'.Oe:. lI.....'""",,~,=
....,"'" ..",~...... .,""" "'".. In",....... ...........,
..... "'C"'"I..",.. "ohi. '" ,.......,1" """"""""""",-, ",......,." .'V,.,.........." .o.""
....""""".",.I,."'II""""""I"'."'~'Aa:,I"""'_"""""","".""""","""I""'"
.."" .00.... "'.""~""'.""'AOe:.
""'-"".'.113 ~ .""""".00."""."""""""..... Gn"'r.""'" ",....,...."0..,,..
"'-"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-"""-'~'" "'O"" ....."..
".'."'I~I"""""".",,"""I'~""".""'-"""""""'In"'_1øn"""""""""""""""1
..,."".....,.,....,....,...".. n""""""""""""""""""'.m.cor....,.."".,..,.....
"""""".""""""""""""""""~"""""""""'1'O."'t"'O- ""'1..._... "I ".'"".""
"'"'I"""."'"""w""""""""'~"~'"'."..'_"',AL'C,"'""""""""",,,""ho"""",""""'"
"........""".
sm..-"".,." .."""D""""'N._.""""""""""".""""""-""""",,,-
"",""',.'m-"""""'."'_""""'",..........,rlhe_....-..,..........""""",......
'0""'0""""""" .,.... """" "'...,...",..........~... pi"....... "'111...._..... AOe:.
,."~IIIN"" JInfIuU,- .",....I""".OC""I."_....,.......".."...,...~,.....",.>".,...1...
'_'nl""" "",.".., .... ... .. ""..., ""~I """ -"'. hø.......... 'm ..... .. ,_". .oo ... ,.
"""""""""""""""""""""",."""""""",_","""""""""""""""""""."""""..,""
.""""'" ,,, 11m ,........ """"""'or.'.'. ,. "",""""'. "r"....,,1n ",..............,." """"'."""".
I.....""I'.""'."-,"""""""""u_'""~-,,,,,,-~,
",":nUN .... ~ "',ACO..,......""......... ",......".....",~...",...........I~~~""hI""',"
""".n.". ~....¡""'..... """",.".....,. ".""""".....,. ..."" ~.- ",1II.AOe. ---
""....'o"r"""'MI""""""~""~.....~m.-I_I"""In.....,...bI¡ol""""""" 5""',,"'~""
...~,."",,",....,hI'n,""" "'" "." "" PI ""'-nI~,AOO. Jr, ."...". ....".. ..",."".,....., "
""',"I"""" )"""""""""""'.""~"lIl.'_"."""""'d"'h~""""""'I"""'I"""'~
... .....""
..",mN'.., &!J!!!Ð1I.!øm T."--Aa:""'.""""-nn.........,.-Iw........,.."....",...
""""""""""".""""""""5""~""'~" """"'"lI....",...,¡.,............"...r.... ...,.... "II"'."",
"hI'" "" ... '10"" ... .. 0."" ."" ..... .n """mo,t!.. ..~..... ".. he """"""""'" ",.. """,In, """""
,....,"', ,... Ao<',"""" ,. ""In ,.".,.... """"'" ..,. r". """,,,,"....~.n, Iu """'-".00 1m
"""""'~"""""_"""""'" '."".""""" """"'."""".""""."""""""""""""""'"'"
..."'" "..."'". """..,
^""""",.........""",."""..O"""""""""""".'..-r""""""'\r"'" """""orodll""',..,
""""""""-"""""',-""....."'1""",."""",
(oj
~ A""..."""II"""U.."",..buI1"""'I~.""II"'",.",""""""""""""
"""""'-"""""."..........."""",....",.............""""",..,........""""".
"""""""""".
:::¡¡.;:~~~~ ~'~:r'::.~::':':= ::.":.=,:" ::':'0 i'::::..':;":.~:'
1I"'I""""""^Cc'"...~I""""""""'<WI"'fInIa,,...'ndø"'II...r...,,1on......
,&)
Co!
~ . """""r,.",r".,...", ",...LcI Iv I. """""."",.. "..,.,,".' """"""
::::"~I~::.;rI'"~'::æ;.,,.¡t..7.;=~~¡:":::":""'..=-:~ ...,...., ""'...... '.-.
f:.":::'~ I~~'~:::~'=~=~;~:!:.::'~':'.::" ~:~r.:Üb;I'::'b~ ::~-:,~J'¡:~.."~
..,.moIl' '""_"wb'~,,""n""'...._'" ......... """""""".""'" ",..."..
'"" CoI""""
"I
DECLAllATlDN OF COVENANTS - DARl1ItOOlt
. ;~~{. t.?
y:
'",
::':~; :.\~? . ~;. .
.::~;~~~~ .
. .
.1; <" j[~'~...
. .
iii
""/
"""H""." !!£r!U """""'..d1~""""'M"",r""""""."'ACC,"'ACC"""""""""."m
"'~""'I"""~"""'W"""""'P'~"""'r"""'"h."__.._..., ",._","'.=
"""In"""""I"'~""""~""'"""""""""_I, A...Id1I!n,.I"""""""',""IWII",.".."".,
..."..."........ 'h"""""'Tb"""!"""""",.,I""."""""",_"~""",,,, """"do""
,","'"11""" !n'~J:.Il""JL"IIII/!!koo.I"""""""""""'h"""'--'_....r""""_""",_.,,,.
ACC"'II""""""""'rlr",..,'.m,-UoII""'""""""-"""""""""""""""",,""",.i,'...
""'.'",".'.h,..h",I."""","""""I,.'I"""""""""""'",r....."'.."",..... ""."""""-
"""""""""","."""",.,,.,,.... A""'. vn.""".."""""".,,. r., """"""""""'.,..u&d, Tho .ce","'
""......"hi "',""_.W" "'0. """"""'.... ........... """" ""'AoII". vn. -. """=r"""" """'"
"""'" """""""""""""""""'" """""""""A'",,- """"""0""'""",,"= """OJI"',"",
,., ""'" ""..,..........,.""""... """"""" """""", p...."""".. 'd'""",.. Ace.. ,".'u, ""'m
...,.. ,-,..'" ............ ...", ._h 1m.. '......UI... "'bWlO, _"'- ",'" ACe.
J.ti:JUO{)17S1
AImC",,-"'. """"""'"
;::""",... 1IWiII!d"'~- """'-""."Io""-"""""hA."'.......",."".
5Itt."77U",.O1 """"""""'0_". """"""""'-""""""""""-""'_1'""
""""" ""'-.-"",."h""'"
IW.L'TI""'." ~AD"""""'~'IaI"""""""""-"""""""""","""""=""h~
","...........""""...,..."",.",.."""",.................,........",...........",.............".,...
"'.,"" ."""""""""""""""""",. "" "" ,...... "_"""."""""-""",, ,"".... ".
-""""""""""""""~ """""""""""""""""""__"""""""""""",-
~"""""""""""""."7""" Tlo__"'"",........._"",...."""",.".........."..
"""""""""""'nf"".""I'....r,......."""......,....,,-.... "."""""'",,"""""""",,,.
'0]00..".......",.....", "'" ""'.""0 "'0 """"" ",U.., "T""'-..D. LoL
.,.",..,... ~"'- """""""""""""""""""""""""'."""""""'01'.""".....
I.""""""."""_"""""""""""""""'_~""""""""""""""""""."........."o
"""""'$1."'" ..'hn-""",I2II1LI1D,.,.,.. ,-"',""""""""',..".,.... -",".r~.",...."
10~",..................ßft,...-t"I\".rlh""'. "'-.-..... ......, '."""""'. "'h.
II..."", ,.,"'".. ..",.""" ".....,......,.. -, """""""""""'-""'.""10"""""1..,. .......
"""".111.""""""""""'1"""".""""""-'-"""""'."""""""""""""."""'"
"""""""-"""""""""""'0'...,..""""""'."""'"""_'."""'" A",....".."""."
...111 ."'" "m ,"".,"." """"",.""",,,", 0...'" """""""'-'1"1.../0"..........""",..."""""..
"""~"'n""'C"""'lo""'m""'""n.......
""'" ......"......III.......,.a.,.. O_m""Acc, """""""'",",,0 ."Ace""",""'.'" ....~ ..,.
"~"""""~""""lIm"""".ACC""'.._...
IiIU."77"N1.11S .w~ A"I"""""""""'"""-h....._...........,.......".. u....,
........... ""'h,.... = -,-,."""""".""" .....""" "".'....."""" n'5~ ...........
~."""'"""""""""h......_................,..k. """""""'..'.""",..../1.............
"""""""""'^""u1I.~...d....... ""..11...."""""""." m'ar'-~_D'Oo"""'.""""Acc,
..._I""""'~r" ....,..""" 'I"" Ace ".¡".. m., '" '..,do'lo . od.-.o ...""D. 0_.
111«1"1/11<1'" f.II!I!!!!!..DC."""".-n.."".",, ".ACC...."...,U.""r""........"""",.",..",.
O"".,r""", ""'."..,,~
(00,
"""'1..., ""'rl"....,.In<I"IRmlo1l"""""""'I'.....rl"""""b""'"""""",,
..".......""""""",," btll",""""'" ~"...-.._,~.....odI",' ""'p(o .'""""""
"'.""~.""""""""",'."".'Io1_...r""'D"""""""""'I'ml"I.">""'. ,,'
nh"2"""h"1Iu:;"""""""'"""""'~"I"o!Jo"""""I1"...."....."~"."r..."""..
"""1lo0oi.
'0)
.¡,¡".,~".. "'.'1"", Iq'.cl... ......,., ,,01 '""..... .. ,n ...,.... -. ,," ,.. 'nipo'lno ...."
""....",.,"'... .""""""" ..".....M," 0.""""""",."""""", ","", .""",., rho
,......"I't~"""""""'-""""""""II"".."m_"'dI""'h'""""""""o"ulo)
""".'-"""",
""""""""""".,""'cl""""""",."""""".""""""""""""""""""""""
"""'"",....."...."""""""""""',"""""""""""","""-
fe)
II." """"/0, "."""""""1,,'........' "",., ""'....."" ""'..".."....... ".......", ...,..'lmlh,....
.." .."... ..,.",.,...L",- lb. ACe.... ..........""",.. """""""....n- """"."",.......~11
'-,"'loll" A"" '7". """~J "'1"""""""""
""AC" ...0 """", """,u,.""""",,, ,q.k,..........",..........",_........... b...""I...",
"".."".,....10).
ow.¡:m"".1J3 bJII"""""""'m"'!&Th'ACC...II""Ih.d~..._..........D""""""'Ih.._,
..."""., '..,.....,..,....... wl"" D."","",....""...""", on II....., """,........."..... "Ih'ACt:"
"""""",."""""""""""""""",7.07.........-.."",...".""...."""""",.",.."."""",.
""-'111"'." I""""'~m'm'" l1"ACC"..,...."""""""...."",..... "1__... ".."'" """..
"""""'...... ,q.""""ILOU.h.1I1II1,. ..."-""",.",, ""- "'" r"...............",.....,..,u.. ."..h...
"""""I."""')"""I"ÞI.""""""r"'I""""""",~1I. 11_""""_"'.""""""""""""""'"
,...."", ",..".""""",."" ACe, """"'" 0....."'""" """""'.",,,WI." """""".. "'"10
"""""",".. "".C'...."'n""""" 11Iod"""""""""""""'-"""I,._II"'Im... ...,011.""..
DIICLARA 11011 OF COVßNiINŒ .IJAnlMOOR
t,r':~'1.
p. ,"'. ,,:!,.~> ."-' .
.' <:.' ~:,",:.:-.' '
'.. :: ';""', -1.-
A}%¡.:r:,. ,.' .l,,- .":-;;..-
'.:'" '. ..,;::<
';' -);~r
,!<"
-...
.Lu.;.rUUU~75;¿
"""..."...~.......,,,.."d'_"""'.CC".1d"""","'Aec_"'.....rioI"'_,,~
"""""""""'."""'10"'1'_"'-""-"""""""""""""""""""""'-
'."""""""""""ACC~"'nwI"""""'h.... "u..._- """""'..CCIo'..._.'"
",.....oid"""""' """"'Io"""'_"~"""byl._al'lIIIIJI.h"""""""""".,,,.Io"
'.""'~"_"""'""'""."""I_I.'CM"'r"""_Io"""..,"1a'-""""""""",,
"'h""""""-O."""",ACC.
~~:~: ::.';=.. ~::~::::;:::~; ;~~'~~.'.~ :'~';J. ~ n;;:'~~:=d-:.':.,¡,,"'::':1::. ';'.':; ~~
"","o """""""""""."'_"'oI""'..ar"'KmII.....-...u""""""'nd1""~ ....",
""""."""""""""""""""""""""".'r............""",.hr. H.'In......_""",..
",.... ,.-... Ace.... ""'.. ,..".""....",..,,1 """'1d'",,,~ r... ...,.. "'" .","..11""
o\!mCI..VII1,oll'r:Et.LA_IIIII
1II!(.~1CI....., Io:m1 "'''-".""""'_'",""""',""""""""_""""""""'.......
""""""""""'...."."m."""""""",1doI. .""""""""'.2"',.."..........-...."",-
.ot ."",.... d.. .m_""", ....'" r.. .......,.. - ..... ou¡ ,.... ...\ ..... ",..."", '" . .....
,..""~,."."...t~II""""",'.",."""""""~,~)oI'.""...",_.",,.........._..,,..
"""""""-"""...,......."",..,,-....
"':¡1<I....., JI.....1ormk'1I1> "",...,.... no, '" ......,. ran-
to) . I!!..!!m!!m; U"""""""""'dn""""._¡"".""""'r"""'."""""""'~.
::~=~:r :::,::.-:: =~=."~~ :::::~ :":"':~~',,-::,:::=;~~
,I. D,tJ!!'JJ:IS """-"~~""..m"""""""""I...",-,.....b1"",""""""""'="'"
11.""",..-.-.........." """"""" '.w..,...Ipd"""",.""""""" a......
1"""""""""".r,monI"""""""""""".",.""",t.nowJ~"""'""",,_.., ....
"'¡"""""""""'""""""""",¡.""""',"w..""""""""""""",. ^"'"...-..
"",_.0,""""""""""",."""",_"""""",-
$"'-~"""'IIJ t!Im:!!rW:m ""bl"""~""""""'Oo"..h"",....",..,.I"",~""""""'.""
..."""", or.", or "" "'-"".a..""" -- "'...... """"""" oJ......""""",,,,, ,,!G...""
onr '...... """'-'1nod """""""""".r""""""""""""""""""" ..."'......"""..,...,.....
"nm~"",.."r"""r"."""..ob'.""""-"'.""."'m.-",-,'IWIo,......,..",...",n",,."
... '01 .", ",' ""..
BIlL"".."" ..r~""""c_. -.............,.,...-",.., ^""..",.., "-lIDo"""""""
......",10'... 1I""""""'_1o""""InI"""""""""""_"~",nypm'IoIn",...."........m..
""""""""""""-" '1In""1""'" bl """I'".,, 11._"" dhIo,_""""", "". 'noh""""."",
.".""",...""....L
$IIL"'""", 4muJum ....""""",.!.01.....""""",..r"""""""""""..-.r............
""""""""""_""L""""""""""",-."""""""""""""""""""""",'1oo'
...IIt"""""""""""'..."""..................-_...r"""""""""""."""""""b."'"
"""""",,
5IICI",..O." -- -",.""",""""""""""""""-""-"",,,,,...n~I'
""""""""""""""'.."'"""""""""""""""""""""""""""111.""'_""""'"
"J:¡llIN.~' .!!!1- '........."rll." ,""'","""""""",""".""",..""""".....",,,...,
"""".""""""""""""I1""',""wh"lbob.""""'.""1In1no. """"""d..""""'h".'~1
"'dlh'~"""'wd"""""""'_"',I"""""""""~."""""'""""""",-""""""""", .""1"""
"""""'I""""I_""_",n("'.""""""'lI"""""""'w\oIdo~"".II.tn"""""""""""
..,....
'NWI""...'ntl!Ruu.",...."",........", ", ."""""". .111.'.,...,...... ......".....
OIIAN'"""
Sk'YLI"t! '1ILD1'.\'IINT""hI'.H'Y.A,""'Umllal""""'"
1"""" ......... for... ......., ......
PEGGY J. JACOBSON
-to NOTARY puaLic 1<
STATE OF IDAHO
STATE Of ID^"D, ¡
County or ADA .,.
On Chh..JJt!:::r.y of.---JJ!dM./<'; , I,!i!/...
bot.", ", tJ 7'1~ ,~
po"'.."'V apP"red-!!i~ 1:~
t;,.J1. -¡J.J.~ .g,'(/J/I'- --, :.+
L+-I1'+ufShP 'Y "i~,
~no.., Co ... Co bo tho po.,o., who.. n....,
... '.b,..'b." to Ch, w~~ .;:,ro...nt 'n'
.cknow¡od9"" to on th.c ......"J tho
"....
In ~IT"ESS ltI'EREOf. I how "'...oto SOt Iify
han" and arrl.." orr officio' lOa! th of
DECL.UlI\TlON OF COVEN"." 'Yo.. ,. chr, ..relFl t. fir.: bo °V
"'Ilt . ,. ....
. "'aho.
"
'-:
"
'.
','
'~¡..ç- '. ~,
."
.,' '
::':.
'.,
1,
,¡
,',-
..,.
",
:<
'j¡,'
, :';;¡
~
.
Exhibit A-Ordinance 389
2. Cluster subdivision. Not less than 75 percent of the total area of a duster
subdivision, as described in Section B-2a~ 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 Articllt.
C.
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-Rivers
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 spa(: a~asshall be restrl~ from development until. both
the following conditions have been met
i. The subject property has received development approval and
aPProvat. fora zoning ordinance map amendment to 1) a commercial
or industrial distlictor2) a residentiai or rural district that allows' a
density of less' than or equal 105 acrespèf dwelling; and
4J-2
L Exhibit A-Ordinance 389
*" J , I,Jrþan,SElrvi¡;esare available to the proposed development.
2. Cluster subdivision. Areas designated as dedicated open space shall be
restricted from development until the site recelvas approval of a master site
plan and/or tinal 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 andlor
shown on the tinal 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 govemment 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, archaeological, 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 space, 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 falls 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
Tara Green
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Steve Siddoway {siddowas@meridiancity.org]
Monday, October 18, 200410:42 AM
'Tara Green'
'Bill Nary'
FW: Kingsbridge
Tara,
The applicant for Kingsbridge Subdivision has submitted a request for
reconsideration by the Planning & Zoning Commission. The Kingsbridge AZ and
CUP scheduled for hearing with the City Council on October 19 should be
tabled until the P&Z Commission has finalized action on the reconsideration
request.
The applicant has until this Friday to file an appeal of the Commission's
denial of the plat. I recommend that the date for the tabled hearings on
the AZ and CUP be set out far enough that the appeal of the plat can be
considered concurrently if one is filed.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Steve
--------------------------------------
Steve Siddoway
Principal Planner
Meridian Planning & Zoning
660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone 208.884.5533
Fax 208.868.6854
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Nary [mailto:naryb@meridiancity.org]
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 4:49 PM
To: siddowas@meridiancity.org
Subject: Kingsbridge
Do we need to note on the Council agenda that we may request to Table?
It's pointless for the Council to hear the matter we an appeal and a
reconsideration pending.
PP 04-030
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT VIsion First, LLC
September 16, 2004
ITEM NO.
17
REQUEST Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval for 237 single-famOy residential building lots
& 21 common lots on 76.72 acres in a proposed 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
See attached Comments
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DiSTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
See attached Comments
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
See attached Comments
See attached Comments
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emalled:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at pubÐc meetings man b.come properly oIlhe CIIy 01 Meridian.
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
Dlfcrldt~ -
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Keith Bird
William LM. Nary
Shaun Wardle
Charles M. Rountree
- '~
'{':'
""
~ILJ"\HO ~?
1. J
-c: ..JV
~'" ,
-~"'"
19'13
CDlY'fIKALL
(~ImI-4m3-H;dll"8-'üß)3
PIJBBro~S
BlillIDornœB~T
(~n1a~-f¡fujl-9$~1
LEOOAIDB~T
(~--H ~ti34Q\)5
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 <Pf-iwl---
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 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.lacre per the revised
plat application fonn. 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.
AbO4-023, PP-o4-O30, CUP-04-032
Kmjob,/d" AZ,PP,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 CUPIPD 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 Len¡rt}¡
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 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 Dartrnoor
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-O4-023, PP..{J4-0JO, CUP-O4-032
King,b,;dg, AZ,PP,C",
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 developm~nt, 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
pennits. 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, oflots.
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 Zema 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 1. 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-o4-023, "-04-030, CUP-04-032
King'b'~g,AZ,PP,ClJP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: September 16, 2004
Page 4
C.
D.
AZ-Q4-O23, "--04-030, CUP-O4-032
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 113 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 detennine 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 Pennit 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
Kio,,"';dg, 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 Dartrnoor 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'()23, PP-.Q4.()30, CUP-04.()32
King'b,;"', Al,PPCUP
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 infonnation 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-D4-02J, PP-o4-OJO, CUP-04-032
King'brid" AZPP,CUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: September 16, 2004
Page 7
Staff finds that the annexation of this property would be in the best interest of
the City.
AZ-04-023, PP-<J4-<)JO, CUP-04-o32
Kin"bridg'AZPP,CUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: September 16, 2004
Page 8
PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS AND REQUIREMENTS
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 í"manciaI 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 CQNDlTIONS-PRELIMINARYPLA T
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 Dartrnoor Subdivision of the subdivision and development,
or as an alternative, a favorable final decision by the District Court for the Fourth Judicial
AZ-"-OO]. PP-o4-O30, CUP-O4-O32
KWgò""",o AZ,PPCUP
6.
7.
8.
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 pennits,
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 fonn 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.
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.
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.
The applicant shall be responsible for payment of and the actual physical sanitary sewer
and domestic water connection for the existing house.
AZ.O4-02], PP-<J4-030. CUP-O4-O32
King.brid,. AZ,PPCUP
8.
9.
10.
II.
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 1O0-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.
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.
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-û4-o23, PP-ú4-030, CUNJ4-o"
lUng,"""" AZPP,cup
C.
D.
E.
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & 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 tenus of the following and may approve a conditional use pennit 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-û4-030, CUP-<J4-<J32
"""brid" AZPP,CUP
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 ofthe 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 1.
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
2.
3.
1.
Open SpacelLot 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 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-<'-OJO, CUP-O4-OJ2
Kiog,b""" AZ,PP,CUP
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,)
1.
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
1. One and two family dwellings will require a flTe-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 llÚnute 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 shall be by the Meridian Fire Department.
AZ-Q4.()23, "-<4-030,CUP-04-032
IGng,bridg,AZPP,CUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: September 16, 2004
Page 14
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 \1;," 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/north/south). The two entrances shall
be separated by no less than Y:z 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].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-O4.023, PP-1J4-OJO, CUP-04-032
""""bddgoAZPP,CUP
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
olfe;~dlan
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 466-9272 . FAX 466-4405
PARKS & RECREATION
(208) 888-3579' Fax 898-5501
PUBLrC WORKS
(208) 898-5500. Fax 887-1297
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Shaun Wardle
William L. M, Nary
Charles M. Rountree
Keith Bird
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 887-221 I . 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.: PP 04-030
Request: Preliminary Plat approval of 237 single-family residential building lots and 21
common lots on 76.72 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Kingsbridge Sub
By: Vision First, LLC
Location of Property or Project:
4070 South Eagle Road
Your Concise Remarks:
~ './"'<;1 ~~ ~~ ~;rjJ£dljhrr-
David Zaremba, P/Z (No FP)
David Moe, P/Z (NoFP)
Wendy Newton-Huckabay, P/Z (NoFP)
Michael Rohm, P/Z (No FP)
Keith Borup, P/Z (No FP)
Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
Bill Nary, CIC
Charlie Rountree, CIC
Keith Bird, CIC
Shaun Wardle, CIC
Water Department
Sewer Department
Sanitary Service (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Building Department
Fire Department
Police Departmem
City Attorney
Cny Engineer
City Planner
Parks Department
x
Meridian School District (NoFP)
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/pPonly)
Owest (FP/PP only)
Intermountain Gas (FP/PPonly)
Bureau of Reclamation (FP/PPonly)
Idaho Transportation Department (No FP)
Ada County Land Records
Meridian Development Corporation
Historical Preservation Commission
33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE. JlÆERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 . (208) 888-4433
Cily Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 . Human Resources Fax (208) 884-8723 . Finance & Utility Billing Fax (208) 887-4813
~oo\ * D¡Slr,
'-J~. /C'/
, ;::c Pcepocieg 1--
Ò Todav', 0
---, Stude", fm -
Tamacaw', N
6'. Challeeg."
u":
°. [egle.
SUPERINTENDENT
Dr, Linda Clark
Joint School District No.2
911 Meridian Road. Meridian, Idaho 83642 . (208) 855-4500 . Fax (208) 888--6700
RECEIVED
AUG 23 2004
August 19,2004
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Dear Planners:
The Meridian School District has experienced phenomenal student growth the last ten
years. The high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools throughout the district
are operating over capacity.
Approval of Kings bridge Subdivision will have a significant impact on school
enrollments at Lake Hazel Elementary. Lake Hazel Middle. and Mountain View High
School.
We can predict that these homes, when completed, will house eight (8) elementary aged
children, seven (7) middle school aged child, and six (6) senior high aged student.
Additional students will further compound the current overcrowded situation. Residents
cannot be assured of attending the neighborhood school, as it may be necessary to bus
students to other schools across the district.
School capacity is addressed in Idaho Code 67-6508. The Meridian School District is
currently operating beyond capacity. Future development will continue to have an impact
on the district's capacity. If you have any questions, please contact me at 888-6701.
Sincerely,
~/?-
Wendel Bigham
Supervisor of Facilities and Construction
(I'CENTRAL
.. DISTRICT
.~~JI~
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Environmental Health Division IEC E I VE ðetu~ :~ise
AUG 3 1 200~ 0 Eagle
0 Garden City
City n' Meridian 'J.Merl'dl'an
City Clerk Office ~
0 Kuna
OACZ
0 Star
Rezone #
Conditional Use #
Preliminary I Final/Short ~ 1'~&fI'-t'3t?- ~ IIIsE 0
oklV ~S ßI2/ PtÞ:'E .'5bA P/¿//S/J?
01.
02.
03,
04,
05,
06,
07,
~,
'f,
We have No Objections to this Proposal.
We recommend Denial of this Proposal.
Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal.
We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment.
Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of:
0 high seasonal ground water 0 waste fiow characteristics
0 or bedrock from original grade 0 other
This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or
surface waters,
This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Departm~nt of Water Resources concerning well construction and
water availability,
After wri~ approvai from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for:
~entral sewage 0 community sewage system 0 community water well
0 interim sewage ~ntral water
0 individual sewage 0 individual water
The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare,
Division ~nvironmental Quality:
~ntral sewage i}~ommunity sewage system 0 community water
0 sewage dry lines /""""entral water
Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem,
~o,
0 11, This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other
considerations indicate approval.
012, If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State
Sewage Regulations,
013. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any:
0 food estabiishment 0 swimming pools or spas
0 beverage establishment 0 grocery store
~4, Please see attached stormwater management recommendatations
015,
0 child care center
Date:(¡¡J:!tt
Reviewed By: J1. .......
CDHO>OOIk,
Review Sheet
~ CENTRAL
\it BtflI~
MAIN OFFICE' 707 N, ARMSTRONG PL . BOISE, 10 83704-0825 . (208) 375-5211 . FAX 327-8500
--,-----
To p,"venl and Ireat disease and di.<abili(J'; fo prom ole iteallhy ii/eSlyles; and 10 prOleel and p"omme f/,,' ¡"alIi< and quafifJ' of our e",'ironment-
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that storm water be pre-treated prior to discharge to the
subsurface to prevent impact to ground water and surface water quality. The
engineers and architects involved with the design of this project should obtain
current best management practices for storm water disposal and design a
storm water management system that is preventing groundwater and surface
water degradation. Manuals that could be used for guidance are:
State of Idaho Catalog of Stonnwater Best Management Practices For
Idaho Cities and Counties.
Prepared by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, July
1997.
Stor:mwater Best Management Practices Guidebook.
Prepared by City of Boise Public Works Department, May 2000.
""d,I2.,",",
Servinl? Va/l~r- Elmo!'". Ii""". alld Ada COIIIIIIC.'
Aoa / Boise County OHICE
707 N, ;¡motran, PI. '
ßoi",ID 83704 -
",1;0, He,/lh: 327-7499
Plonnino:32;-740C
-m-;,s,
Seel,- ""t,/",o: 327-745C
WI: m-148'
:¿7-E50C
------_.-,,--------
Elm"" Coum' OffICe
51C[,
,"ocntóh
"7-'._-
:, -
RECEIVED
SEP - 3 2004
City of Meridian
'IA- .~~ ~ - ' City Clerk Office
'~ & ~ 1~ "l)~
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
William G. Berg Ir.
City Clerk
Phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
SHOP: Nompa 466-0663
:WAuaust 2004
Meridian, ID 83642
RE:
;pp 04-030/Kingsbridge Subdivision
Dear Will:
If all storm drainage is retained on-site there will be no impact on Nampa & Meridian
Irrigatiol1 District and no further review will be required.
However, if any surface drainage leaves the site, the N ampa & Meridian Irrigation
District requires a Land Use Cha¡¡ge Application be filed for review prior to final
platting. Please contact Donna Moore at 466-7861 for further infonnation.
All laterals and waste ways must be protected. The developer must comply with Idaho
Code 31-3805. It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all
developments within the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District.
Thank you,
I3WÞt~
Bill Henson
Asst. Water Superintendent
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
BH/dbg
c:
Water Superintendent
File - Office/Shop
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABlE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS 40,000
- - -- - -y "- --Wyyyy.'
IUJ:.1UIJ1AN I'II<:¡; DEPT.
.. City Clerk
@OOl
Greg & Bev Viertel
3835 S Gideon Place
Meridian, JD 83642
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
33 E Idaho Ave
Meridian, 10 83624
September 3, 2004
Rø:
Development of land adjacent to Dartmoor Subdivision
MTBR&F File No 190898.0
RECEIV:EI)
SEP O? 2004
Dear Commissioners:
City OfMeridiaL
Ó(y Clerk Office
'We al'e"writing'"in'regards to the proposed -deveJopment-of the land adjacenUo. the'OaFtmoor '
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
Klngsbridge 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 inìgation 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% of the 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 tirne"they had, assured. us that they would work with us. We ptov.ided 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 OUf safety and quality of life maintained
in th:~~~ce:r T~anl, hank you for your consideration.
Sinœ~ ~ ~ <#- ~()Add
Greg and Bev Viertel
SEP 07 '04 15:55
2088886854
PAr,¡:- 0"
RECEIVED
SEP 1 3 2004
RICK R STOTT
3684 S. Caleb Place
Meridian, ID 83642
<:,ity of Meridi.n
CIty CI..r~ n"'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 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
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 attomeys 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,
¡{ AIb
Rick R Stott
RECEIVED
SEP 1 3 2004
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 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 sUlTOunding one and five acre lots that surround the proposed
development. Meridian City has within its boundaries many diverse building
developments ftom 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,
~ ~4~&~
Rex and Tammy Cook
To: City of Meridian P1anni.ng & Zoning and I\da County Highway Distri~ECEI
From:
Jeff and Sharon McKee, 3891 So. Gideon
P1., Meridian, Idaho 83642, Dartmoor
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Resident concerns
~ deve1opment
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ED
Estates,
CityOfMeri 'an
City Clerk 0 ce
Subject:
for the Kingsbridge
Vision First, LLC , For Annexation and
Zoning of ,ISj,~¡ !¡>~i', i,,~, ..,S~vi,sicm,
~j¡j::l~""iIIìi~:~
As you review Vision First LLC app1ication for the ,p1anDed deve1opment of
Kingsbridge I ask that you consider the following concerns.
Both PriJÐa.J:y and Secondary entrances are coming off of So. Eag1e road. There
are other opportUDities to have a secondary access off of VictOJ:y or
C1overdaJ.e. These opportUDities need to being earnestly pursued by the
deve10per. Which had not happened as of Sept 1" 2004?
If Dartmoor has to be the Secondary entrance for Kingsbridge, We wouJ.d request
sidewalks be added down both sides for the chi1dren to walk to and from their
bus stops.
The curvature of Dartmoor is going to make a 1eft hand tw:n off of Gideon
danqerous; the view of cars cO1Íling out of Kingsbridge cannot be seen from
Gideon. We wouJ.d request a stop sign or a speed bump on Dartmoor and CaJ.eb for
West heading traffic towards Eaq1e road.
As the neighborhood and surrounding properties discuss the Kingsbridge proposal.
the overwhe1JDing 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 acre rural. area into an immediate
R-4 urban area is going to look extreme1y tacky from an incoming viewpoint.
2, Property val.ues of our existing homes wil1 be forced 10wer due to the change
in traffic and views, or in some cases the 1ack of views as they get b10cked
in.
During our meetings with the deve1.oper, Lots of ideas and concerns have been
brought forth, however, none of them have been settled. We would like to
complete full agreements with the developer before they are allowed to proceed,
The traffic southboUDd on Eagle road and WestboUDd on Victory to Eagle is
currently hacking up from 3pm to past 6pm as far as the eye can see in either
direction. I'm asking that you don't put blind faith into a traffic study that
was bought and paid for by Vision first. The existing surrounding neighborhoods
and coIllIlercial properties have not completed their developments. The completion
of the existing developments will already add extreme burdens on these prÙllary
access roads as it is now. In the AM hours the traffic heading North on Eagle
road backs up from Victory to the Dartmoor entrance and beyond around 715 am.
We are asking you to reduce the zoning for this area and insist that the Vision
first deve1.oper works out agreements with the home owners before they are
allowed to proceed. There DUst be reasonable mediums we can all agree upon.
Dated this 7th day of September, 2004
Regards, Jeff and Sharon McKee
~
~""~
~ 0 {~lv /,{: (5 ? tV'--
So &o¡v L(.t S- P ""--
5D. ~ lj'.IS- r.~
so- t~ ltl:7P'^""
~ t~ ~: l~pV'^-
)0, &~ Ô:17 ff"--
:> D Ôt~ $',,/ S- P"^--
So Ótof- b:l,:)p~
50. Ed. of- 5 -/ ":; p^^---
50 [~ ~:15 p~
50 r~.' (:>p~
5 0 [+ (P: I 5" P IV\...-
5ð [o..~?: IS-- f~
)0 é a~ ~'. )$" f""'-
~ éa.of- ~:I,)p~
50 f~r- :;',(':) P'^"-- .
David & Valerie La Vigne
3317 S. Selatir PI.
Meridian, ID 83642
(208) 884-5756
RECEIVED
SEP - 8 2004
September 5, 2004
City Of Melidian
Planning and Zoning Commission
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, ID 83642
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 SubdMsion. We live on 5.6 acres (ZOned Agricultural) located off Victory Road and S. SeJatir 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 SubdMsion
and in harmony with the adjacent 1.0-5.0+ acre rural neighbors, would have access through Dartmoor SubdMsion and off
Eagle Road. Therefore, we object to three aspects of the proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision.
Objections and Recommendations:
1. Denstty of the Proposed development - The current zoning for the proposed development is low density and is
compatible to the surrounding area. Why allow a rezone to R-4 when the surrounding area is all 1-5+ acres? We just
learned thåt the developer met with Dartmoor residents to incorporate their thoughts into the plan and induded larger lots
adjacent to Dartmoor. On the eastern side, we all have 5+ acres, shouldn' larger 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 can~
imagine an urban neighbor wanting to live so dose to the cutting and baling associated with an ag zone.
Recommendation: Reduce density to one-acre lots. At a minimum, reduce the denstty of the lots on the rural borders.
The Muir Woods Subdivision on VictorylCloverdale is an example of one-acre lots bordering the subdivisions rural
neighbors.
2. Victory access stul>-out - The proposed plat indicates a stul>-out on the eastern 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 neighborhood of 1-5+ acre upscale homes. It was developed with the
intent and agreement to selVe as a dead-end street. Please refer to the agreement dated Septermber 10, 1993 and filed
with the Ada County Recorderwhich 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 stul>-out potentially affecting Selatir Place.
3. Development prior to year2009- How this area is developed is more important than when tt is developed.
Recommendation: If compromise would help, we would be agreeable to concede to early development if our first two
concerns were addressed.
Please take our concerns and recommendations under consideration. We appreciate your concern for developing Meridian
::: - ïJ!2~ ÙL 4 U~
David & Valerie La Vi9r
RECEIVED
SEP - 8 2004
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Septemeber 6th , 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 KINGSBRlDGE Subdivision are related to
maintaining the quality of our environment, preserving our resources and providing a
high level ofsafety for the residents ofDartmoor Estates.
Density:
. The current proposal is not compatible with its surrounding areas. The land
under consideration for development is completely surrounded by I acre and 5
acre parcels. A rating ofR4 allow too many homes arid 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
. I would like to see this subdivision zoned as an RI or possibly an R2.
. All perimeter lots of KINGS BRIDGE 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 KINGS BRIDGE only.
. Merrivale Way, within KINGSBRlDGE needs to be ONE WAY going east.
This would help direct the traffic of KINGS BRIDGE 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 stonn 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 their current 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 CIer1t's Office of Meridian 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 Klngsbridge development. J have some serious concems with
regards to a number of points in this development in terms 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 surrounding the Klngsbridge plan. I would ask to have
the number of homes reduced in order to blend with the surrounding homes better.
I believe this development will infringe on my rural style of IMng. This portion of Ada county is
known to be a rural area. The density of homes that Klngsbridge is planning belongs more in
the city of Meridian proper than it does in the country.
I am concemed that the added traffic will be a danger to the families of Dartmoor subdivision.
Klngsbridge is planning to use our road as a main thoroughfare into the development. This will
be a tremendous traffic load on our subdivision.
Sincerely,
'L~ ! ð~
Tim OBrien
3673 S. Gideon PI
Meridian, JD 63642
Bob and Lesa L Becker
One Bar One Ranch - 3421 50 Selatir Place
Meridian, ID 83642
RECEIVED
SEP - 8 2004
September S, 2004
City of Meridian
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
con nectivity to Victory Road"
Dear Commissioners:
We are writing to request that you deny the Kingsbrldge 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. 8S), This parcel of land is surrounded by
1-S+ acre homes ranging in value from approximately $3S0,000 to $7S0,000 (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 œQ.Uiœs. "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 Selatlr 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 Selatir 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 IS 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 IS-year restricted deed.
ThaJ'< you for YO~onsideration,
:J'4? ~ ¡:
Bob and Lesa Becker
ßc4-ß'~
Our neighbors to the East:
RECEIVED
SEP -1 2004
September 2, 2004
City 0' 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 Dartrnoor 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 Dartrnoor 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 VictoryÆagle
stop now. Even if lights go in it will be such a hardship to deal with every day.
Sincerely,
¡Q~Ú
Michael and Donna Rich
3742 S. Caleb PI
Meridian, ID 83642
RECEIVED
SEP G 9 2004
Meridian CityPlamring & Zoning: CITY OF MERIDIAN
.. . . CITY (:.! r;:pv ncr::!t'"'c
I own a 5 acre parcel unmediately abutting the south SIde of the proposoo KJngSln'idge' ,', , ",,'
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 subdivisiorL
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, TIlE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF TIlE
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 ftont 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 teITaID is flat, which would only
accentuate the obtrusiveness of 25 foot tall roofs directly in front of our home.
3. TURN TIlE 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 TIlE PRN ATEL 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 areal barrier and it will never happen.
Thank you
£~ -------~
Philip and Jud eAngeli
~_~~~::a - _l~
Frank and Sue Shoemaker
349.7 Zaldia lane, M~
--(&~- -~- - -- -- _: ~k...J
Frank and Connie Stauts
4280 S Eagle road, Meridian
September 9, 2004
flECEfVEj)
9 2004
CiTY OF MERIDIAN
~~Ir/ CU=PK (:':cF!C'1=
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 RV'S, 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 RV'S 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
?LdCZd
PhiID:":~~ ~.
3405 Zaldia Lane
Meridian, Idaho
CornmenIs:
ZALDIA LANE, LOOKING WEST.
KlNGSBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED ON THE RIGHT
SIDE OF THIS PHOTO. NORTH SIDE OF STREET.
Comments:
ZALDIA LANE
PHOTO IS LOOKING NORTH FROM THE COMMON DRIVEWAY
OF FRANK SHOEMAKER AND PHIL DEANGELI
KINGSBRIDGE PROJECT WOULD BE ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF THE WHITE FENCING
Comments:
ZALDIA LANE, LOOKING EAST FROM SOUTH EAGLE ROAD
KlNGSBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IS TO THE LEFT.
Commenls:
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
CommenlS:
TUSCANY lAKES SUBDIVISION. ACROSS FROM THE
PROPOSED KINGSBRIDGE PROJECT.
NO LANDSACPING , CANAL ACCESS ROAD.
Comments:
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, RV GATE AND EXTENDED
CONCRETE PARKING
IF INADEQUATE SIDE YARD, DRIVE THRU GARAGE DOOR TO
ACCESS THE REAR YARD IS DONE.
CoIlill1elD:
NEW SUBDIVISION WHERE NO BUFFER LANDSCAPING WAS
REQUIRED.
Commenls:
TWO LEVEL HOMES, GOOD VIEW OF REAR YARD'S
CommenIs:
NEW WOODBRIDGE SUBDIVISION, ALL TWO LEVEL HOMES
NO LANDSCAPING BUFFER FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY
Commenls:
ONE LEVEL PROJECT, MINIMAL LANDSCAPING. WROUGHT
IRON FENCING
WITH EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING, AND PRIVACY FENCE,
THIS WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. MAJORITY OF THE ROOF
UNE 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 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, cooditions 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 declsion-
1- The proposed 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-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 proDOsed homes creates a areat safetY concern.
Darlmoor and Caleb are desionated 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 out" as proposed.
3- Provisions need to be mandated bv vour commission for proper storm water man_ment in order to ensure the
current ouritv 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 irriaation 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 soace not includina
berms or other landscapina 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.
e- With Dartmoor Road planned 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
Dartmoor intersection are needed to improve the safetv of our children and Pedestrians and to provide a safe
zone for the children at the bus stop 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,
~ h2Ji: ¿-
Michae) & Paula Reedy
3702 S Caleb Place
Meridian, Id 83642
884-4499
RECEIVED
SEP 0 9 2004
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY CLERK OFFICF
To: City of Meridian Planning and Zoning.
RECEIVET)
SEP () 3 200~
From: Troy and Kristi Quick (Dartmoor subdivision homeowners).
C;ity OfMeridl¡YL
City Clerk Oí1iCf
Re: The proposed Kingsbridge subdivision.
My wife and I wanted to express our concerns about the proposed 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 smaller than 8,000
sq/ft lots would not be complimentary to the surrounding homes. All 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 oflife. 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.) Largerlot 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.
?r~ ,()
~7Qj~
Troy and Kristi Quick
Brady & Teresa Turner
3678 S. Caleb Place
Meridian, ID 83642-7068
208-887-6832
RECEIVED
SEP 08 2004
City Of Meridia.¡¡
City Clerk Office
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:
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 II, Block 2 of Dartmoor Subdivision is deed restricted as noted on the
recorded Plat ofDartmoorSubdivision 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 I 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 of Dartmoor 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 Kings bridge Subdivision will directly and negatively impact the quiet rural
character ofthe Dartmoor Subdivision. The many children ofDartmoor 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 County 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 sp¡¡ce 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 higherthanRI 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.
Si~
~-~r
Lot 6, Block 2, Dartmoor Subdivision
~Ug-"gg-H'UU
p.l
September 8, 2004
RECEIVEI)~
SEP a q 200~
Cj", 0""
c.o.> ","erjQj~r
,lty Clerk O[fi~e"
WiIüam 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 ofa public hearing for the above-referenced subdivision on Eagle Road south of
Victory Road. We have some COncerns and/or 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 ofIGngsbridge Subdivision
is the northern bolDldary 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 IGngsbridge be a
landscaped mound of dirt topped with a nice view-blocking fence.
Better yet, please require Kingsbridge Subdivision to incorporate Zaldia Lane as its Eagle Road access. This would
reduce the nwnber of Eagle Road accesses for ACHD purposes. Zaldia Lane ends within Wrect line-of-sight with
Bott Lane which connects to Cloverdale Road. This would be a wonderful through access for future reference. This
option would require ZaldiaIBott Lanes to be 50 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 Zaldia Lane and might aUeviate 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,
.." /0"
i' / c/( / .
).11.r'};:;', ~-;'¿Itk-<V
- /" /"¡
Shan». Léwis
/
,/
William j, Lewis n
SEP 08 '04 16: 12
208 288 1800
PAGE. 01
Mo.f!qtt Thomas
MOFFATT THOMAS BARRETT ROCK 6- FIELDS, CHTD.
Boise
Idaho Falls
Pocatello
Eusene C. Thon...
John W. B""""
R. B-Rod<
Rich.<d C. Field.
Robe" E. B.Jœ,
John S. Simko
Jobn C. W.<d
D. Joun.. M....ins
Ga,y T. l),nœ
Lmy C, Hum",
Mn,s", W. Ricb",¡,
Muk A- Ell....
R"d.l1 A. Pere,m.n
Mack S. P",,>,n,ki
S<ephen R. 11""""
Glenn. M. Cbti,remen
Gen1d T. H=b
s."" L. Campbell
Rnbett B- Bums
J...... C. Dale
Micb>el E. Thorn..
Polricö. M. OI""n
Junes C. doGl..
Bndley J Willi...,
Lee Radfun1
Micb.et o. R-
D..id S. Jeo..o
J..... L. U"Ûn
C. Clayton Gill
l),vid P. G"'¡~
Juli.. E. GabinJ"
Angel. Schoo, K.ufm.nn
Kimbe,ly D. Ev,"" Ro..
Benj...in If. Schwouu
Jon A. Stenq..",
Eric M. B--
Bndley J. D;,.,n
J...o G. U"""y
Muk C. I'eœ...n
AndrewJ. W.lde"
Sh.wn C. Nunley
U5 Bank Plaza Building
1015 Capitol Blvd 10th FI
PO Box B29
Boise. Idaho B370' OB29
May27,20O4
20B 345 2000
8O04222BB9
20B 3S5 5384 Fax
www.moffatt_com
n~, '\l~
'~ '~.
~~J'&!
RE C:E IV~~ I)
SEP C 'J 2004
WiUñCMøI&".1907-1980
Kirk R. IMrie, 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:
OL;,:lendiaJl
beck Office
You have asked me to advise you and the other homeowners in the Dartrnoor 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
specijiCally, 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 Dartrnoor 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
Dartmoor Subdivision (the "CC&Rs"), which were made by Skyline
Development Company ("Skyline") and recorded in March 1994;
The Plat Showing Dartrnoor Subdivision (the "Plat"), which was also recorded
in March 1994; and
2.
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
BOLMT2:547B17,1
Rick R. Stott
May 27, 2004
Page 2
~.' ~~
.\~~ ~~
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 IT, the first paragraph of Article N, 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 N 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
"[s]ubject 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 Dartrnoor 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 erýoin the fencing ofIand that they had been told by the subdivision
developer would be maintained as a common recreational area. Significantly, the land at issue
was neither subjectecI 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 eqnally 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 Dartrnoor 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 ouly 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 (I 5) 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.1.ft4) (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 Dartmoorresidents, 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_MT2:547817.1
Rick R. Stott
May 27, 2004
Page 3
,~
, ~ \L~Y
~~~t~~
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,
þJ3-
RBBlkdp
BOI_Mf2:547817,1
9-7-04
To City of Meridian P&Z,
RECEIVED
SEP - 8 2004
City of Meridi:,,"
City Clerk offIce
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 of location, 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 finn 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 ifDartmoor 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 ofthe
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. If they 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, ID 83642
Hm-884-0740
Wk-378-9887
Sepœmber 7, 2004
RECEIVED
SEP 0 9 2004
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
To: City of Meridian Planning and Zoning
Re: Proposed KlNGSBRIDGE development
Dear Sir or Madam:
My family and I live in Darlmoor Estates, which is located directly west and north of the proposed
Kingobridge development Darlmoor Estates consists of nice upper end homes on 1 acre lots within a simple
environmen~ open wood pole fencing, no sidewalks and very little traffic (within the subdivision that is). We
love living here due to its qnie~ rural environment
I am writing you to express my disapproval with the Kingobridge 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 zoning not be allowed and dun the minimum lot size
be increased to, at leas~ '/2 acre (R2 zoning, I believe) due to the following;
0 The adjacent homes are on 1 acre or greater lots. The proposed density does not fit
with any of the current sumrunding properties. The majority of Kingsbridge will be
'1and"locked" by 1 and 5 acre properties.
0
The small lot size will atttact lower end homes, thus, affecting the value of the
surrounding properties.
0
It will completely destroy the cw:rent 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 meeting; The
cw:rent 'proposal seems to be only about fitting in as many homes as possible, which
means more money for the developer, but destroys the quality of this area for the
current and future residents.
Increased Traffic on Darlmoor Road. Traffic driving to Kingobridge via Damnoor is both a
safety and quality of life issue. I request that Darlmoor Road not be used as an access to
Kingsbridge, except for emergency vehicle, pedestrian and bike access.
0
I am very concerned about the safety of our children. The children wait for the bus,
walk and play along Darlmoor road. There are no sidewalks and the road is just big
enough for 2 way traffic. The Caleb and Darlmoor roads are also a Deaf OIild area.
The increased traffic through Darlmoor on to Kingsbridge, especially at the proposed
density, is . definite safety issue.
0
The homes along Darlmoor road have open fun~ Their property values and quality
of life will be direcdy affected by an increase in traffic.
Current Water rights and irrigation drainage need to be provided for and maintained.
-2-
September 7, 2004
Quality of the Water Aquifers. Darlmoor residents and surrounding properties rely on their own
wells for clean wate& I am concemed 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 are.. although I had 2 expectations. First was that this area would
not be developed unbI 2009 due 1D the Deed Restricrion on Lot 11, B1ock 2 of Darlmoor Estates. Second was
that it would be developed in such a way 1D fit in and compliment the current surrounding properties. I do not
see the current proposed Kin ¡'bridge development as doing eithe&
It is for these reasons I ask that you do not approve the current proposed Kingsbridge development and R4
zoning
Sincerely,
ß/ IÎ /r
Ronald R. Pattan
3885 50 Gideon Place
Meridian, ill, 83642
(208)887-9860
RECEIVED
September 6, 2004 SEP 0 5 2004
,9tyOfM 'di
To: City of Meridian Planning & Zoning and Ada County Highway Dis~ ClerkeÔffi:
From: Tim and Renee Rule family, DartnlOor 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 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 II, 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.
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 storm water management to
ensure the cun-ent purity levels of the aquifers to our wells.
6. Open spaces need to be 1 0% of the total land. This is to be functional
open spaces, not including berms 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 cun-ent 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 zoning.
Thanks ~ your consideration,
-- ---r Nl ~v~
RtA'\RC' euJ!-¡¿~
Tim and Renee Rule