The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLetter from Laurie Allen March 2, 2005 RE C E IVED MAR - 4 2005 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY CIFRi< Oí-FfCE Rko~ 1f4li 0 ~JJ ÞfJD:9li' 2 2005 - 'iVlN(l'l~b~ City of Meridian Meridian Planning and Zoniog Conunission 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho Re: Kingsbridge Subdivision Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing this letter on behalf of my husband and myself. We live at the end of Terri Drive on approxilnately 4 acres. We have 537 feet abntting the north line of the proposed subdivision. We have been to all the past Kingsbridge hearings to voice our opposition to their proposed plat. We are not satisfied that this version is the best that we can hope for. We ask that you restrict this subdivision to R2 density with a minimum 18,000 sq.ft.lot size east of Darbnoor Subdivision and require a minimum of 112 acre lots on the perimeters abutting acreage properties. We find that this version has addressed some of the concerns of surrounding property owners. Vision First is in the hope that they have made enough 'concessions' to make the opposition go away. But the more we research and review requirements and findings of the Conunission and P & Z, the more certain we are that the developer has made no real concession and no attempt to Indy negotiate. What they have done is to minimally follow your guide lines and requirements. Our research also indicates that the final plat must match the approved preliminary plat. This concerns us greatly because the preliminary does not reflect what was agreed to by the developer. We see no written plan to fence and landscape the subdivision in the manor requested by the perimeter properties or proper detail regarding single level home reslrictions on certain perimeter lots. We would like to see the fencing on the North perimeter six foot ta1L of a solid nature, and on tile property line. Any buffer zone or walking patll should be on tile Kingsbridge side of the line to help keep our acreages from becoming 'public' land. We also find no sufficient plan to address subdivision storm-water retention and runoff or the continued delivery of irrigation water beyond tile subdivision. We feel that a development agreement should be included in this approval process to prevent future changes from tile original agreed to amenities, details, reslrictions and density. Meeting these reqnirements would help ease tile transition from tile large mral acreage to tile urban density of the new subdivision. ~~ Laurie Allen ~ 3550 S. Terri Drive Meridian, Idaho 83642 Boi,e Idaho Fall, Petalello Mof!qtt Thomas MOFFATr'IHOMAS BARRETT ROCK & FIElDS, CHTD. Eu"",eC. Thorn.. Joh. W. """t< R. ".R"k Ri,b"d c. F¡e¡d, Ro"",, E. Bnk.. Joh. S. Simko Joh. C. Wont D. Jom.. Mo..i.. G.",T. !hnœ L",y C. Hun.., Ra.d.1I A. P""mo. M"k S. F,u"",ki S..phe. R. TbumB Glenno M. Cb,i"".~. Genld T. Hm,h Srot< L. c.mpbell Rob",". "..no J.....c. Du, Mi.h.el B. Thom.. Purici, M. 01,,0. J..... C. doG!" Bnd1ey] Willi..., 10< R.dfo'" Mkh..1O.Roe D"id S.]...e. J.....L.M.t<in C. CI'Y'°. Gill D.vidF.GW... JuH.. E. G.biol. Angela Soh", Kmfmonn Kimbedy D. B- Rou Beojomln H. Soh"""" Jon A. Stenqui" B,i.M.,...., Bndloy J. m"oo J...n G. Mu".y M"k C. P."""n And,ow]. Wolden Sh.wn C. Nuroey TyI..]. And..... 1<u..,¡IG.Mcecdf M"'1!"W. Ri.h.r<I"of"",n..J WiU;,CMoff.",1907-l980 K¡'k R. Hdvi" 1956-2003 US Bank Plaza Mding 10lSCapitoiBlvdl0thFI PO Box 829 Boise. Idaho B3701 OB29 October 11, 2004 via Hand Delivery 208345 2000 BOO 422 2BB9 20B 3B5 53B4 Fax www.moffatt.oom REcE~1) HAR 0 2/2005 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNíÑG & ZONING City Clerk, City ofMeric1ian Meridian City Hall 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Vision First, LLC; Proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision; City of Meridian File Nos. AZ-O4-023, PP-O40-030, and CUP-O4-026 MTBR&FFile No, 19-898.0 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: We represent the residents ofthe Dartmoor Subdivision ("Dartmoor"), which adjoins the proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision ("Kingsbridge") and which would include the most directly impacted properties from the development of Kings bridge. In connection with our representation ofDartmoor, we have reviewed, among other documents, a letter from Edward Miller with the law film Givens Pursley, dated September 16,2004, that is included in the record presented to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission ("P&Z"). This letter is intended to address and COltect some of the statements included in Mr. Miller's letter. At the hearing before the City Council on October 19, 2004, you will hear testimony from the Dartmoor residents regarding the representations that they received at the time they bought their lots from the developer ofDartmoorwith respect to the futuIe development of Lot 11, Block 2 ("Lot 11"), which lies adjacent to Dartmoor and comprises a significant portion of Kings bridge. Some of these residents will undoubtedly share with you the fact that they were assured that Lot 11 would be developed with one to two acre lots in a manner consistent with the large lots in Dartmoor. Most all ofthese residents will undoubtedly share with you the fact that they were assured that Lot 11 would remain open space and not be developed at all until at least 15 years after the recording of the plat for Dartmoor. AJ3 discussed below, the recorded record establishes the indisputable truth with respect to the IS-year moratorium on development and, as a matter of equity, fairness, good govenunent, and prudence, Dartmoor therefore requests BOLMT2:659522.1 City Clerk, City of Meridian October 11, 2004 Page 2 that the Meridian City Council refrain from approving any development of Kings bridge at least until the IS-year moratorium has run on March 3, 2009. Site Specific Condition No.2 ofthe September 13, 2004, Staff Report to P&z proposed the following condition of approval to the Kingsbridge applications: 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 fmal decision by the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District of the State ofIdaho declaring that the applicant has the right to subdivide and develop the property notwithstanding the nonbuild restriction placed on the property by Ada County. Such approval shall be required prior to submittal of any final plat applications or issuance of any building permits. Mr. Miller, on behalf of his client, argues that "Vision First already meets Condition No.2 because each and every lot owner in Dartmoor Subdivision has already consented to the resubdivision and development of Lot 11." Miller letter at p. 1. Mr. Millerpoints to the following language contained in the tlúrd paragraph of Article II to the Dartrnoor CC&Rs (copy attached to Miller letter) to support his argument: As provided in Section 5.28 of this Declaration, Lots 1 and 11, of Block 2, are excluded by the Grantor from coverage of this Declaration. By accepting a Deed to a Lot within Dartrnoor Subdivision, each Owners shan be conclusively deemed to have waived any objection to the exclusion of said Lot 1 and 11, Block 2 and consents to tluJ re-subdivision and development thereof in accordance with the zoning ordinances then in force and effect and applicable to Lot 1 & 11, Block 2, including such re-subdividing and/or development as shall require that access to Lot 1 and 11, Block 2 will be provided by the public right(s)-of- way within Dartmoor Subdivisions, and that the utility facilities located within Dartrnoor Subdivision may be extended to serve said Lot I and 11, Block 2, including a re-subdivision thereof. (Emphasis added.) There are at least three fundamental problems with Mr. Miller's argument. First, as discussed further below, the argument ignores the other applicable (and controlling) provision in the Dartmoor CC&Rs that proscribes any development of Lot 11 for a minimum of IS years. BOLMT2:559522.1 City Clerk, City of Meridian October 11,2004 Page 3 Second, and as also discussed further below, the argument ignores the limitation in the Dartmoor plat that proscribes any development of Lot 11 for a minimum of 15 years. Third, the argument ignores the fact that Lot 11 was expressly excluded from the Dartmoor CC&Rs and that therefore the implied consent thereby granted by the Darimoor residents to the development of Lot II was personal to Skyline Development Company ("Skyline"), the developer of Dartmoor, which had promised the Dartmoor lot purchasers that no development of Lot 11 would occur for at least 15 years and that when development did occur it would be done in a manner consistent with the development ofDartmoor. In other words, because Lot 11 is excluded from the Dartmoor CC&Rs, the consent (which is neither a covenant nor a restriction) for the development of Lot 11 contained in the CC&Rs runs only to Skyline, which, of course, would be limited by its prior representations to how it might develop Lot 11 once the IS-year moratorium on development expired. In sum, because there is a complete lack of privity (or contractual relations) between Vision First and the Darbnoor residents, Vision First cannot sever the commitments made by Skyline (i.e., development limited in time and density) from the very benefits Skyline obtained for making these commitments (i.e., consent to limited development). Above and beyond the foregoing "privity" argument, however, are the matters contained in the Dartmoor CC&Rs and plat concerning the development of Lot 11 that are not subject to dispute. Thus, Article V, Section S.OI(b) of the CC&Rs specificaIlyprovides as follows: aDen SDaee Lots: The following Lots shall be used for agricultural purposes, subject to the limitations as provided in this Declaration (hereafter "Open Space Lots"): Lot 11, of Block 2, Dartmoor Subdivision, according to the Plat. thereof. (Emphasis added.) Or as otherwise indisputedly promised, Lot 11 is to be used for open space "according to the Plat thereof." And, in this regard, Note 9 to the Darbnoorplat (copy of plat attached to Miller letter; blowup of Note 9 attached hereto) expressly provides: LOT 11 BLOCK 2 IS A DEED RESTRICTED LOT AND MAY ONLY BE USED FOR OPßN SPACß AS DEFINED IN THE NON-FARM 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, CHAPTER 9, Tim DEED RESTRICTED LOT MUST ALSO ONLY BE USED IN THE MANNER SPECIFIED IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ISSUED BY ADA COUNTY'S DEPARTMENT OF BOI_MT2:559522.1 City Clerk, City of Meridian October II, 2004 Page 4 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THIS LOT MUST BE USED IN AFORESTATED MANNER FOR A PERIOD OF NOT LESS THAN FIFTEEN (15) YEARS FROM THE RECORDING DATE OF 13/3/941 (Emphasis added.) Thus, the plat states without restriction of any kind that Lot II must be used for open space through at least March 3, 2009. It is this express recorded restriction that the Dartmoor residents are asking the Meridian City Council to respect. Mr. Miller argues that this deed and/or plat restriction should be ignored because to respect the recorded promise relied upon by the Dartmoor residents would effectively give these residents "veto rigb.ts," which, of course, is exactly what the Dartmoor CC&Rs and plat were intended to accomplish. Mr. Miller next argues that this restriction should be ignored because Ada County changed its zoning ordinances after the plat was recorded; however, the final sentence of Note 9 to the plat specifically provides that Lot II shall be used for open space for not less than 15 years, and does not provide for a shO~' of this moratorium on development in the event of a change in Ada County's ordinances. . Miller finally argues that this restriction should be ignored becanse it "runs contrary to the ity of Meridian's exclusive power to control the zoning and development of the lands wi . its corporate limits" - which argument, the Dartmoor residents respectfully submit, is 1'fal1y the point here at issue. The Dartmoor residents understand that theiMeridian City Council holds broad and expansive legislative power in connection with land u$e matters, including deciding the Kingsbridge applications. Having great power, however¡ also instills a great obligation on the Meridian City Council to ensure that private property rigbts are respected. And, in this regard, there can be no question that the Dartmoor residents were promised by both Skyline and Ada County that they could build their homes in Dartmoor with the assurance that Lot 11 would remain open space for at least 15 years. If the Meridian City Council approves the Kingsbridge applications it will subject the Dartmoor residents (and possibly the City of Meridian) to needless and costly litigation to stop the project in court -- which the Dartmoor CC&Rs and plat give the Dartmoor residents the absolute right to do. Thus, the central question presented by the Kingsbridge applications is whether concerns with equity, fairness, good government, and prudence should prevail over the given fact that the Meridian City Council may have the power ,to approve the applications pending before it. The Dartmoor residents respectfully submit that the foregoing governmental concerns over the exercise of power should clearly prevail un4er the present circumstances, and they therefore plead they be spared by the Meridian City Council from litigating to enforce their indisputable private-property rights. , BOI_Mf2:5S9522.1 City Clerk, City of Meridian October II, 2004 Page 5 In sum, the Dartmoor residents would respectfully ask; What possible end can be achieved by approving a project proscribed by its recorded plat ftom being constructed other than subjecting all concerned parties to costly and time consuming litigation? Dartmoor can think ofnone other. And for this reason alone the Kingsbridge applications Bhould be denied. Very truly yours, A-Þ- RBB/kdp Attachment cc; Tim Wallace (via E-mail) Rick Stott (via E-mail) BOI_MT2:550522.1 '" I ~~" I :,d I: ~I I..OT NUMBER \ NOTES 11 I I~~. 2 I U 3 ..~ 4 1 A TEN (10) roOT WIDE: EASDIENT IS HEREBY RESER\ÐI ADJACENT TO AI.!. LOT UNts COWIolOil TO A PUBUC flOIIT-OF-WAY AND ADJACENT TO THE SU8Ð1'11S1ON BOUNDAfIY FOR PUBUC U1JU11£S, DRAINACE,' AND IRlllAA1JON FACIUnES. 1H/S EASEIoIENT SHALl. NOT PRECWOE 'THE CO/fSlIWC1JON OF HARD SURFACE DRlIoTNAYS AND WAtKWA'I'S TO EACH LOT. BlJiLDlNe SEtBACKS AND OIWEN$OIIAL STANDARDS IN lItIS S1JBDI'IISION SHALl. COIIPLY WITH 'THE APPUCABL£ ZONING REGULAnONS OF ADA COUNTY !DANo. N(y RESUBDMSlON OF THIS PLAT SHALl CO!IPLY WITH THE APPUCABL£ %CHINe REGuLA1JONS IN EFFECT AT 'THE 'I1ME OF 1H£ RESUBDI\1SION. DE\ELOPER SHAI.!. COMP1.Y WITH IDANO COOt SECtION 31-3aœ RELA1JNG TO IRIIIGA1JON RlOIITS, 1RANSFER ANO OISCl.OSUR~ . 8 A S1R1P OF lAND SHAI.!. BE AESEIMD ALONe EACII COItIION INIEAlOA PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE IIInllH 'IIIIS SUBDI\1$¡ON FOR TlfE: PUI\POSt OF lIIANSPOATA1IOtc OF PROPERTY DRAlNAc£' ANØ/OR TIfE INSTALlIo1lON OF A PRESSlJRE'IRRleAlION SYS1EII. $All) STRIP OF lAND SIiALI. " A TOTAL OF MNTY (2OPEET III WIDTH, SEINe TEN (10) fEET ON BOTif SIDES OF PROPERTY LINES. e LOT I II1.OCIC I, LOT 2 II1.OCIC Z. AND LOT " BLOCK 2 ARE HEREBY DEStCNAIED AS HON-BtJILDlHe LOTS. NO PERNANENT S1RIJCMIES R£CU1RJNe A PERIoIIT SHALl. BE COOISIRUCIED UPCIt SAID LOTS. . . 7 LOT III1.OCIC " LOT.2 BLOCK 2, AND LOT 18 BI.OCK 2 ARE COW"ON.AREAS TO BE OIlNED AIIO MAlHTAII/ED BY THE HOMEOVINERS' ASSOaAlION AND ARE NOT OEDICA1ED TO 1H£ PuIIUC BUT . ARE AE_IIED FOR. USES AS STAlED WITHIN 'IHE RESIRIC1J'IE COIIEIINfIS FOR THE SUBOt\1SlON. 121' ~: eo' EASÐIEHT fOIl 1H£ !IN "'1£ LA1EIW. -L' - B FLOOD IRRlGA1JON SHALl. NOT BE At.I.OMD \II'IIIIN TEN (10) F'ŒT OF A DRAlIIfIELD OR SUBSURFACE $£WAC[ DISPOSAL Sltr. . 9 LOT 11 BLOCK 2 IS A DEED RES1IIICIED. LOT AND MAY ONlY B£ USED FOR OPEN Sf'4CE AS DEFINED III 1It£ NOII-F:~D T KCnOtc OF 111£ ADA COUIcTY CODE, KC1IOtc 8-48-7 AND IN tIlE PlANNED PRO'llSlOHS OF tIlE ADA COUNTY COOt FOUND IN 1I1lE II, CHAPtER 8, tIlE DEED RES1R1C LOT WUST ALSO ONLY B£ USED IN tHE MANNER. SPECIFIED IN THE COHDlnONS OF APPROVAL ISSUED BY ADA COUNT't'S OEPAR1I.tENT OF II£\IELQPIIENT SEI!'iIC£S. 'IIIIS LOT IlUST BE USED IN AF'ORESTATED MANNER FOR A PERIOD OF' HOT l£SS 1HAN F1F1E£N (18) '(EARS FROM lIIE RtCtUIDlI'fC DAlE OF . . /0 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF LOTS I AND 10 OF BLOCK 2, DIRECT VENICULAR ACCESS ONTO EITHER EAGLE ROAD OR OARTMOOR DRIVE FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL LOT IN THIS . SUBDIVISION SHALL BE PROHIBIT£!!. 11 A eo' \IIDE EASEMENT FOR tHE t£N NILE LAIERAt. IS HEREBY RESER'ÆD AS SHOIIN. 12 'THIS DE:\I&:I.OPMENr RECOGNIZES SEC1lON U-4SO.J OF tH£ /DANO CODE, RJG!t TO F'ARiI ACT, VlNICH STAJES: ."N.o ACRlClJL1URAL OPERA'IION OR AN' APPtlllTENANCE. TO IT SHALl. BE OR IlECOI/E A NUISANCE, PRIVATE OR PU&uc, BY ANY CHANGED CONOIIIONS PI OR ABOUT tHE SURROUNDING HONAORICUl.1URAL AC'II'II1IfS.AF1IR THE SAME lIAS BEEN IN OPERAIION FOR'MORE 'I1iAN ONE 11) ~ IIIHEN THE ClPERA1JON. WAS Hor A NU,SAHet Ar THE IIIoIE 'IH£ OPERAIION BEDAN; PRÒ1ÎÍOEO, tHAr lIIE .PRO\1SIONS OF IHtS $õC1JOH SHALl. /fOT APPLY ,,"ENEIIER A . HtlISANCE RESUL'IS FROM tHE IMPROPER OR HECUOENT OPERA1ION Of' ANY AORIClJL1URAl OPERAlIOH OR API'URIENANCE TO IT.. . ~ Numerical Subdivision Plats - Sk64 Pg6539 DÂRTMOOR SUB A;rrmš6. S~le: 1 inch = 1.181ncresl SE CORNER' "'" r """""'" "..... ........."'............... ,...." NW 1/4 SECTION 28 . Engln.." - s"MI)'0r8 - l.anifplann.,. ~ICTIVE COVENANTS' CPIlF NO. 8117799 4819 Emerald Street SUitt 0-2 ""-. ,~, ~ HOAGLAND, DOMINICK & HICKS ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC' Samuel A. HoagJand . Thomas B. Dominiek 0 George O. Hicks. FntJlÇi. H. Hicks, of counsel December 8, 2004 :RECE~D HAlf 0 2 200S CItY OI<' MERIDIAN PLANNí:ÑG &: ZONING Meridian City Hall City Clerk, City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83642 FACSIMILE NO.: 888-4218 Re: Vision First, LLC; Purposed Kingsbridge Subdivision; City of Meridian File Nos. AZ-O4-023, BP-O40-030, and CUP-O4-026 Dear Mayor and Members of the Meridian City Council: [ have been retained by the members of Bridlewood Subdivision and Bremerton Subdivision to review the above referenced applications in light of the laws in effect in Ada County at the time their subdivisions were approved by Ada County. I have had an opportunity to review a copy of the letter prepMed for the planning and Zoning Commission by representatives of Vision First and particolarly incorporating a strained legal opinion rendered by Mr. Miller of the .!inn, Givens Pumley LLP. suggesting that the homeownem and their successors in the Dæ1moor Subdivision had agreed to the developmCllt of Lot 11, Block 2 at this time, in spite of provisions prohibiting the developulCllt of Lot 11 for a minimum of fifteen (15) years. Neither that analysis nor the rebuttal prepared in behalf of the homeowners in Dartmoor Subdivision takes into consideration the fundamental and basic fåct that the law in Ada County at the time regarding rural area districts and rural preservation zones specifically prohibits the development of Lot II, Block 2 for a period offLfteen (15) years from the time Dartmoor Subdivision was approved. In researching this matrer I made a public records request to the Ada County Development Services Division. This gave me an opportunity to research Title 8, Chapter 4, Section B7 of the Ada County Code in effect at the time the of the approval of the subdivisions appurten3J\t to and in the vicinity of the land that is currently subject of the above referenced applications. I believe that the language on the plat restricting development for IS years was required by Ada County Code 8-4B- 7(E)(f)(4). It was one offoUT options that coold be selected by developers at the time to maintain open space as a condition of development. Shoreline Center, Suite 100 0 1471 Shoreline Drive . Boise,Idah083702 Phone (208)343-9111 . justícemaxímus.com . Fax: (208) 386-9944 ~.01 ÞÞS.S-98E (80~1 H pue '~OJUJWDO 'pueT'eDH WdOS'Þ ÞOO~ 80 oao ". -Ii'" The perimeter property owners as well as the Dartmore property owners who invested their money and lives into their homes counted on this provision and the fact that Lot 11, Block 2 would not be developed until at least 2009. The provision cannot be ignored nor can it legally be swept under the rug. I attach a copy of the Ordinance for your review and consideration. Thank you for your time and eftòrt in dealing with this issue. I urge you to deny the applications based upon the fact that they are premature in that they violate applicable regulations in force and effect when the original deed restrictions were filed of record and are still in force by virtue of the those same regulations. ENCLOSURE GGH:rar ¡'¡'SS-98E: (80~) ðß/~ George G. mcks H pue '~o~u~woa 'pue¡'eOH WdOS:¡' ¡'OO~ 80 oaa -', , ,"~:.;:<:-::_--'::::'~~:-:, ._'(>",~., ": -":,> E1): " ) .9pen;sp-aêír,areas ,hail'be màfii!iaJned ,sö:l!Ì"at41i~¡r¡j s'é, "Ìlfi- s~ç,{.~ ' ,,:I&,n01 ,dlin.f"ish,èI or ,'dej¡(roY8d:-'Opeiis~e:,iirëaS:' n1ay,oe;pressrŸed- ai,d' ',' ":,mal,ntaj('tØd,1!!S requ!red by',this,Sedlon,by'anY"ci:lhe'fpllcwing,rnechanlsms').,: "'-"" ",::~çpn1:,~rJ::~:J;{1í-~~:~~,~L:-t}::Ád~-',~~~~'iëa~':'appropriät9':-:,.:, -'" , --~,'" '," ,:::pubTrq 'aQeocy.:"I(,_,t,har9, ,15,:8 ,pUbl!c"Jlgency ,\IIUling':,ta:acœpt't~~":: -,' dedlçatlc,n~"::::,' -,'" "','-,',::",-,::,' ""::::;'-":, , :...,' , :;':, (2) Ccmmøn 'ÓwnershlP ~f: Uie-:~~en~¡;a~~:bY' ~'-hcmecwñe;'s ' ',' association ,or priv¡¡a~ :-ponprofil ,: foûndatlcn,'W\llch<åssumas ,,:Nli ' -iešponsil:lillty,fcir>O1I,S:'liIajntensti~a., A,:copy "o!.thii¡ssoClaiibnl ", " "'foundation' covenants, or ,bylaws' shall be' ,subniftted"to "¡he Dire,ctor ',' ifldlcallng Ih!l, i)arty.re,spcnslbJe,fcr, payrnsnt 'of' any t¡¡xes'.cr ,char~es:..,o,:" ' ,-":< r-:",>: ""-:"" " "(3l6edl~aIiOnOfdevelöpmèl1t ~ighis crí,pe¡'spa~á'may b;¡ made to an appropriate public agency wllh ownership remaining 'with the developer orhom~wnsr'sassc<:lation. Maintenance responsibillly, including' ,thep-ayment 01, sll laxesand charges,shafl' remain with 'theproperty,oWner(s.J. .,",,' ,',' "',' ", (4) Deed,reSlrlcted prlvateownenship lor II periOd of nO! less than fifteen (15),yéárs,,'which shall prevent development andioi 'subse.<:: " quent $ubdivisionåf1he open space area .and: provide thl¡! malnten-:" , ,ii~ce respon~lþmtyinciudlng the ~~Tn~nt ofa!!taxes~and oh,arg~s.;_, , 'g.lnthe'~Yeht~t :iJny'p;ivate~~ne"-'citòp¡inspa;:~-fallst;" " rrialrita.insameaccórdingtc,the"Sland¡¡rQs',of Ihis.title, Ada' 'County ,maý, In' "'accoÌ'da!'lèe':vilth"the'open'spaceplaFl"al1l;..ioll~jrig rea'sonabia nollce,"', - ,"'-:'demand' thaI "delicieocy-;'olmainteniance",bs/:orrilcte,danëienter:the oPen,' , , "späce,:lomalnl¡l)n:s¡jml.:The,cosfol,~uctf'maIn18nånce ,ìihalfbec!Targed 1.0,> : those' persofls,tlav~rig , f¡'e~ j:J,rii1¡aryre~CJnsl~lIÍ!)' 'rç('Jilall'!e~~~ce;, Oflhe:.' ','o_pen,spa~e.,::..."".""\.',:,:..,:;,:::":,,,:,,,.'.,:......~,:'" ',""",..:','" 2;Th,~.!"~I~'m':¡Ö~Cc~~1!!9~;S,~.¡I.\)~,i~ii~t(pe~e~ií21)%1~ , ',- , 3.!lie rOllowjhgir(litageand"a'ccess'iequ¡reme"ts.:'s~allaP.PJY: ',' , " ': , '~~'ftft~~~[i~~~l~l~~gn.":.' : 'h,tindred' ,filet, (100')ol,frontage'cin a._,d¡jsiÏln~ed pu,bUo,sreet; ,a :,prNalê", - : 'slreet.in accardance:wfth Secticne;-13"3,or ,a priv,atestreel 'thaloomþlle.s' , '. " "',wIlh the' publlc"-Slreei -construction 'standards;:' as 'spécilied ¡n" !he',Ada ' , "'County Highway,' DIStiièi'::Develojime'nf "Policy::' Manual' (as' ,:it: may be'., -,,~~e~9;,~::r,;;el:t~::::::::f;a,:~I:::i:y~:~;;~~:a[;istrt,ct., ,: ,', --' '-' . .. '. '--, .. ,'e'~ .. " , ' .. , ,-, ,-- , . 'SIO , , - ' ': Ey-d 1>1>66-98£ (80i!) H pu~ '~~tU!WOa 'pu~y2~oH WdSS:1> 1>OOi! 80 _~~a