HomeMy WebLinkAboutKingsbridge Subdivision AZ
IU-rJðm/JWU< ¡} tö
IJp ¡J nJl/tX
3-~
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Vision Arst, LLC
March 3. 2005
ITEM NO.
REQUEST Public Hearing: Annexation & Zoning of 76.72 acres to a R-3 zone for
Kíngsbridge Subdivision - 4070 South Eagle Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
See attached staff report
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
No comment
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
See attached comments
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
See attached comments
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
See attached comments
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See attached letters from public
Contacted: ]Ç("Jî pj,JJ o:f -- Date: ~~/-OS- Phone:
Emalled: .t:r-""'@ V ì SIVVJ-h ¡I' ,sf-, n« Staff Initials: ~
~rlall pre.ented at public: meelln l .haD become property of Ih9 City of Merldlan.
AZO5-003
9
ale
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
j
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Keith Bird
Christine Donnell
Shauo Wardle
Charles M. Rountree
DW;;;;:;¡trn
IDAHO
CI:1IT'ffl!ALL
(~~~'¡;Æo~~Rl3
PIJBBJO<JWOOR:Ks
BBlliDDl!il<lJBF.R!œrI!imIIIT
(~Iß=I-'¡;àJa~-JJ$51
LE6<!>A ID 00RlI.1ŒJIIH!II T
(~~&'¡;liXJI~5
STAFF REPORT:
Transmittal Date: February 25, 2005
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
To:
Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission
From:
Craig Hood, Associate Planner (I¡¡ ~
Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager ~
Re:
Kingsbridge Subdivision REVISED
.
Annexation and Zoning o£16.72 Acres trom RUT (Ada County) to R-3 (Rural
Medium Density Residential), by Vision First LLC. (File No. AZ-O5-003).
.
Preliminary Plat Approval of One-Hundred-Thirty (130) Building Lots and
Thirty-Four (34) Common Lots on 76.72 Acres in a Proposed R-3 Zone, by
Vision First LLC. (File No, PP-O5-004).
.
Conditional Use Pennit Approval' for a Residential Planned Development of
Single-Family Homes with Reduced Street Frontage, and Exceeding the
Maximum Block Length, by Vision First, LLC. (File No, CUP-O5-004).
We have reviewed the above referenced submittals and offer the following comments and
conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly
modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council:
HISTORY
In the Fall of 2004, the applicant applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ-04-023), Preliminary
Plat (PP-04-030), and Conditional Use Pennit approval for a Planned Development (CUP-04-
026) on the subject 76+ acres. The previous development proposed lot sizes below the 8,000
square-foot minimum of the requested R-4 zone, and a gross density of 3.1 dwelling units per
acre. On September 16, 2004, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted to recommend denial of
AZ-04-023 and CUP-04-026 to the City Council, and they voted to deny PP-04-030. On October
21,2004, the applicant's request for reconsideration of a revised plat that included] 8 less lots
and increased minimum lot size was not acted on by the Planning & Zoning Commission. An
appeal of the Commissions decision to deny the preliminary plat was submitted to the City
Council. The Council approved the applicant's appeal, but subsequently denied all three
applications after the public hearing on December 14, 2004. The findings for denial were
approved on January 4, 2005. The basis for the denial was: the lack of transition between the
AZ-05-003. PP-iJ5-0IM. CUP-OS-OO4
K;""b,idg, REVISEDAZPPClJP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 2
project and the large parcels around it; the amount of traffic that would utilize the existing street
(Dartmoor Street) in Dartmoor Subdivision; the proposed density was too high; and it was not in
the best interest of the City (see Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision & Order
ITom the January 4th, City Council),
In response to the City Council's denial of the previous applications, the applicant believes that
the subject applications address the Findings for Denial. The project now includes:
. Transitional lot sizes at the project perimeter,
. Gross density of 1.69 dwelling units per acre (net loss of 107 buildable lots ITom
original submittal),
. Requested R-3 zone is consistent with existing character of the area (rural),
. Minimum lot size is 12,000 square-feet, and;
. The estimated additional traffic on Dartmoor Street is less than 300 vehicle trips
per day based on the new layout.
The subject property includes Lot U, Block 2, Dartmoor Subdivision. Note 9 of Dartmoor
Subdivision states that Lot 11 is restricted for a period of 15 years to open space per the Non-
Fann Development section of Ada County Code. The property was platted in 1994, making the
sunset of the Ada County imposed restriction March 3, 2009. It has been staff's understanding
that it is not within the City's jurisdiction or authority to apply or enforce County restrictions or
County requirements on properties annexed into the City.
SUBJECT APPLICATIONS SUMMARY
The applicant, Vision First LLC, is proposing annexation of 76.72 acres of land located on the
east side of Eagle Road, approximately one-half mile south of Victory Road. The proposed
preliminary plat for the property consists of 130 building lots and 34 common lots. The gross
density of the proposed plat is ,1.69 dwelJing units per acre. There are currentJy two homes and
some outbuildings on the subject property. The existing home and outbuildings on Lot 14,
Block 2, are to remain, while the existing structures on Lots 1, 2 and 8, Block 1, are to be
removed. The remainder of the property is currentJy being utilized as open space.
The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map shows the southwest 20-acres of the subject
property as "Medium Density Residential", which is defined as three to eight dwelJing units
per acre. The 56-acres located on the north side of the Ten Mile Feeder are depicted as "Low
Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Future Land Use Map. Low density areas are
anticipated to contain single-family homes at densities of three dwelling units or less per acre.
The proposed density (1.69 d.u.lacre) is consistent with the Low Density designation for the
majority of this property, and below the Medium Density range for the 20-acres designated as
such.
The proposed development is entirely residential and contains no use exceptions. As required
by MCC 11-9-1 for the R-3 zone, all buildable lots within the proposed development contain a
minimum 12,000 square-feet. NOTE: As shown on the preliminary plat, Lot 18, Block 2, is 59
square-feet shy of 12,000 square feet. This lot should contain 12,000 square-feet as proposed
Al-OS-OO], PP-o5-0O4. CUP.OS-DO4
K;"'brid,, REV1SEO.AZ.PPCUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3,2005
Page 3
with the application. The Jargest lot is 119,907 square-feet and contains an existing residence.
The second largest lot is 30,791 square-feet. The average lot size is 16,539-square feet.
NOTE: Generally, the larger lots are along the perimeter of the subdivision. However, the
smallest lots in the development are directly adjacent to the large 5 and lO-acre lots in Zaldien
Zerua Subdivision to the south. To mitigate the small size of these lots the applicant is
proposing to construct a 3-foot tall grassed benn, within a 20-foot wide common lot along the
southern boundary. The 6-foot vinyl fence is proposed on the north side of this common lot.
As part of the Conditional Use Pennit for a Planned Development (CUP/PO) application, the
applicant is seeking reductions to the minimum lot ITontages required in the R-3 zone, and a
request to exceed the I,OOO-foot block length. These proposed modifications are detailed
below.
R-3 Zone:
Lot Frontage-Citv Reauirements Proposed Frontage
90-feet minimum (non cul-de-sac) 60-feet minimum (non cul-de-sac)
40-feet minimum (cul-de-sac/curve) 30-feet minimum (cul-de-sac/curve)
Block Length-Citv Requirements
1000-feet maximum
Proposed Block Length
1,325-feet (approximately)
There are two blocks (2 and 7) that exceed the maximum I,OOO-foot block length. Of the 130
proposed lots there are 25 lots that do not meet the minimum street ITontage requirement for
the proposed R-3 zone. All of the lots requiring a variation to the minimum lot frontage
dimension are internal to the subdivision and do not lie on the exterior boundary.
In exchange for the proposed modifications listed above, the project includes amenities
including 10% open space, a community park on Lot 10, Block I, that contains a swimming
pool, a BBQ area with picnic tables and a tot lot. Another park (Lot I, Block 8) is proposed
that contains a water feature, benches and a walking path. Additional amenities include a
landscaped boulevard corridor along Kingsbridge Drive with street trees in the 8-foot planter
strips between the street and the detached sidewalk, a walking path along the south side of the
Ten Mile Feeder, a walking path along the north boundary, smaller open space pockets, a
bridge monument, and ornamental street lights. The amenities are depicted on the submitted
landscape plan, and are described in the applicant's letter accompanying the CUP/PD
application. See CUP/PD Special Considerations below for a detaiJed analysis of the proposed
amenities and the design thereof.
During the public hearing for the previous submittal of Kingsbridge, there was discussion
about the applicant making improvements to the existing portion of Dartmoor Drive that does
not contain curb, gutter or sidewalk. No off off-site improvements are being proposed with the
subject application.
AZ-Oj-OOJ. PP-oj.o04, cup.Oj-O",
Ki",be"" REvrSEO.AZ PP.CUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 4
The subject applications (AZ, PP and CUP/PD) were submitted concurrently to the Planning &
Zoning Department for review. Staff has provided a detailed analysis and recommended
conditions of approval for the requested annexation and zoning, preliminary plat and
conditional use permit applications below. Staff recommends approval of the subject
applications with the conditions outlined in this report.
LOCATION
The property is located on the east side of Eagle Road, approximately halfway between Victory
Road and Amity Road, within Section 28, Township 3 North, Range 1 East.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
North: Golden Eagle Estates, zoned RUT (Ada County).
South: Kunz Hollow and Zaldien Zerua Subdivisions, zoned RUT (Ada County).
East: Bridlewood Subdivsion and Rural Residential, zoned RUT (Ada County).
West: Dartmoor Subdivision, zoned RUT (Ada County).
OWNERS OF RECORD
The property owners of record include Kingsbridge Properties, LLC, David L. and Kathleen S.
PalITeyman, David A. and Janie Teeter, and Jae-D Acres, Inc. All current property owners have
provided notarized consent for Vision First, LLC to submit the subject applications.
ANNEXATION & ZONING ANALYSIS
According to Ordinance 11-15-11, Genera/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:
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;
In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, 'medium density' is defined as areas
including single-family homes at densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre; 'low
density' consist of single-family homes at densities of three dwelling units or less per
acre. Staff finds that the requested zoning designation, R-3, is hannonious with and in
accordance with the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, which
designates the land to be "Low Density Residential" north of the Ten Mile Feeder, and
"Medium Density Residential" adjacent to Eagle Road. The 1.69 dwelling units per acre
proposed with the preliminary plat is consistent with previous Commission and Council
actions and generally confonns to the goals, objectives, and action items contained in the
Comprehensive Plan for this area. In addition, in the applicant's cover letter (dated
AZ.05.QOJ. PP.{)5.004. CUP.O5.QO'
K"g,b,id" REVISED.AZ'PCU'
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3,2005
Page 5
January 14, 2005) several Comprehensive Plan policies are listed, all of which support
the annexation and proposed residential use of the property.
B.
Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the future;
Concurrent with the annexation and zoning application, the applicant has submitted a
preliminary plat and conditional use permit proposing single-family lots on the subject
site (PP-05-004 & CUP-05-004). Staff does not anticipate that the applicant plans to
rezone the subject property in the future if the accompanying CUP/PD and PP
applications are approved.
c.
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-3
zone, (if the accompanying Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development is also
approved).
D.
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;
There have been no recent street improvements in the area. However, the intersection of
Eagle Road and Victory Road is within ACHD's Five Year Work Program for
reconstruction in 2007. Eagle Road is currently in the ACHD CIP (20-year plan) for road
widening to 3-lanes.
If the Commission and Council approve the requested annexation application, this will be
the first property in Section 28, Township 3 North, Range I East to be annexed into the
corporate limits of the City of Meridian. The subject property is currently surrounded by
one to five-acre parcels-rural-type density. However, just across Eagle Road ITom the
subject site Tuscany Lakes Subdivision was approved for development at 2.4 gross
dwelling units per acre (sewer and water service lines were brought down Eagle Road,
directly adjacent to the northwest comer of the subject property). The proposed zoning
and subsequent residential density, 1.69 dwelling units per acre, is lower than Tuscany
Lakes but considerably denser than the surrounding county parcels.
Staff finds that the requested zoning and proposed density is within the anticipated range
for a lower density urban project. Further, based on the Comprehensive Plan, staff
believes that some of the existing large county parcels in the area will redevelop with
similar densities in the near future. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council
rely on staffs analysis, public testimony received and any comments submitted ITom any
other agencies or departments regarding whether this property should be annexed.
AZ.05.00J. PP.{)S.004. CUP.O5.004
Kiog,b"", REVISED.AZ".CU'
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 6
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;
The applicant has submitted four (4) ITont elevations for the proposed dwelling units.
Staff believes that the design of the dwelling units will be con¡.patible with the adjoining
uses, if the buildings are constructed as shown on the submitted elevations. Even though
the proposed and existing uses are the same, residential, staff finds that the proposed
density of the residential use will change the existing character of the area, which is
largely rural. However, the proposed development is generally hannonious with the
intended character envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and previous Commission and
Council action on this site. Staff does not find that the proposed zoning/uses will
adversely change the essential character of area.
Staff has received several calls, e-mails and letters ITom adjacent property owners
concerned about the subject development. Staff recommends that the Commission and
Council consider the adjacent property owners concerns and appropriate measures to
address their concerns.
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
detennine 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 use will be
disturbing to future or existing neighbors, as long as landscaping, fencing and other
recommended conditions are exercised. Further, staff does' not anticipate that the
proposed residential use will be hazardous as long as the conditions outlined in this report
are complied with and construction traffic and house construction is conducted in a
manner consistent with City Code and the conditions ofthis report.
G.
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;
The applicant will be responsible for the extension of utilities to and through this
proposed development. Sizing and routing shall be coordinated with the Public Works
Department.
The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay park and highway
impact fees.
On October 6, 2004, ACHD approved the previous Kingsbridge development with site-
specific and standard conditions. The applicant should comply with all amended
AZ.OS-DO3. """'-DO<. CUP.OS.DO4
IG","'id" REVISEDAZPPCUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3,2005
Page 7
requirements of the ACHD for the revised application. Please review the ACHD report
for additional infonnation regarding this finding.
On February 11, 2005, a joint agency/department comments meeting was held with
representatives of key service providers to this property. Based on the joint
agency/department meeting and other comments received from agencies/departments,
staff finds that the public services listed above can be made available to accommodate the
proposed development, The Commission and Council should reference any written
and/or verbal testimony submitted by any public service provider, regarding their ability
to adequately service this project. NOTE: Sanitary Services Company will not use Zaldia
Lane (private) to pick up trash for the proposed Lot 14, Block 2. Therefore, trash cans for
Lot 14, Block 2, should be pulled to the curb of Kingsbridge Drive.
H.
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;
If approved, the developer will finance the extension of sewer, water, utilities,
pressurized irrigation, and local street inITastructure to serve the project. The primary
public costs to serve the future residents will be rITe 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;
According to the amended Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by Dobie Engineering,
Inc., the proposed project is anticipated to generate 1,235 vehicle trips per day. Of that
traffic, 300 additional vehicle trips per day are anticipated on the existing Dartmoor Drive
in Dartmoor Subdivision. The previous TIS anticipated 800 additional vehicle trips per
day on Dartmoor Drive. Based on,the revised plat and TIS, substantially fewer vehicles
will use Dartmoor Drive as access to/ITom the proposed development. Staff recognizes
that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this subdivision; however, staff
does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of
the public, Staff does not anticipate the proposed annexation and subsequent uses will
create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, traffic (see Finding "J" below), or odors, To
lessen the impact of this development on the existing residences in Dartmoor
Subdivision, staff recommends that construction traffic be prohibited ITom utilizing
Dartmoor Drive or the ditch rider's access road to the Ten Mile Feeder (see CUP Special
Consideration #4 below). Staff finds that the proposed residential zoning/uses will not be
detrimental to people, property or the general welfare ofthe area,
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;
AZ.oj.DOJ. PP"',-oo,. cUp.os.a04
"","idg, REVISEO.AZPPCUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 8
The applicant is proposing to construct one new public street entrance into the site from
Eagle Road (Kings bridge Drive). The applicant is also proposing to extend a stub street
(Dartmoor Drive) into the site that was approved with the Dartmoor Subdivision.
Dartmoor Drive currently has 32-feet of pavement and no curb, gutter, or sidewalk.
Dartmoor Drive is currently not striped for non-vehicular traffic. As mention~d in the
above finding, the extension of Dartmoor Drive will cause traffic volumes on the
existing portion of the street to increase. However, if the extension of Dartmoor Drive
is constructed as approved by ACHD, staff does not believe that the subdivision will
create interference with traffic on the existing public street. If all proposed vehicular
approaches (streets) are approved and accepted by ACHD, staff does not believe that
the subdivision will create interference with traffic on the surrounding public streets.
Please review the ACHD report for this project for additional information regarding
this finding.
K.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of
major importance; and
There are several mature trees on this property. Any existing trees larger than 4"
caliper that are removed should be mitigated for, per the Landscape Ordinance. If the
on-site trees are protected and mitigated for, as required by the Meridian Parks
Department, staff finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction,
loss or damage of any natura] feature(s) of major importance. Staff recommends that
the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to
determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural
or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware.
L.
Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. (Ord.
592, 11-17-1992)?
The legal description submitted with the application, prepared by FOX Land Surveys,
Inc., shows that the property is contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the
City of Meridian. Staff finds that all essential services are available or will be provided
by the developer to the subject property and will not require unreasonable expenditure
of public funds. The applicant is proposing to develop the land in substantial
compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that this is a logical
expansion of the City limits. In accordance with the findings listed above, staff finds
that the annexation/zoning of this propertv would be in the best interest of the Citv.
PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS
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 ofthe subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan;
AZ-OS-GO], PP.{)j-Oo.. CUP-Oj-Oo.
<i",",id" REVISEn.AZ.PPCUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 9
As noted in the analysis above, staff finds that the subdivision appears to be in general
confonnance with the Comprehensive Plan. 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 "G" and "H" for more details,
c.
The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement program;
Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their
cost, staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital
improvement funds.
D.
The public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments ITom the public
service providers (e.g. - police, fire, ACHD, etc.) to detennine this finding. See
Annexation and Zoning Analysis item "H" and the Agency Comments and Conditions at
the end of this report for more detail.
E.
The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the
Commission's attention.
Staff is not aware of any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the
development of this subdivision that should be brought to the Council or Commission's
attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the
Commission and Council reference any public testimony' that may be presented to
detennine whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or
environmental problems of which staff is unaware.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS (PRELIMINARY PLAT)
I. Stub Streets: The applicant is proposing three stub streets to adjacent properties. Staff is
generally supportive of the stub streets with one exception. Ivybridge Way is stubbed to
the Blackmer property (Parcel No. R3193250030), approximately 50-feet east of the
north-south Blackmer property line. So that the Blackmer property can be developed
efficiently, lots on both sides of the street extension, staff recommends that this stub
street be moved in alignment with Darlington Way. Further, this change will bring Block
7 into compliance with MCC for maximum block length; it will be below the I,OOO-foot
maximum. See Site Specific Condition #2 below.
2.
Existing Residence: The applicant is proposing to retain the existing house on Lot 14,
Block 2. Access to this residence is currently provided from Zaldia Lane to the south.
Az.05.oOJ. PP"'.OO4. CUP.oj.o04
Killg.',id" REVISEDAZPPCUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 10
Sanitary Services has commented that they will not use Zaldia Lane to service Lot 14.
Refuse for Lot 14, Block 2, should be brought to the curb of Kingsbridge Drive.
The applicant has placed a note on the plat (#14) stating that Lot 13, Block 2 (HOA
common lot), has an ACHD access easement on it. When Lot 14, Block 2, develops
Lot 13 will be dedicated to ACHD. Staff recommends that Lot 13, Block 2, be
incorporated with Lot 14, Block 2, now so access to Kingsbridge Drive is ensured for
Lot 14 when it redevelops.
Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed ITom their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services
are available ITom the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes
such as landscape irrigation.
See Site Specific Condition #3 below.
3.
Ditches. Laterals. and Canals: Per MCC 12-4-13, 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. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate
irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written
approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users
association approval cannot be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer prior to final plat signature, On the submitted plans, the applicant is not
proposing to tile the Ten Mile Feeder. Meridian City Code I 2-4-13 ,A.2 allows the City to
waive the requirement for covering a ditch, lateral or canal, if it finds that the public
purpose requiring such will not be served in the individual case. The applicant has
provided no justification for a waiver of the standard requirement to tile the Ten Mile
Feeder. In accordance with MCC 12-4-13, all irrigation, ditches, laterals and canals,
including the Ten Mile Feeder should be tiled. See Site Specific Condition #5 below.
4.
Pressure Irrigation: The applicant has indicated that the pressure irrigation system will be
owned by the Kingsbridge Homeowners' Association. The City of Meridian requires that
underground pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water
(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should 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 will. be responsible for the payment of assessments for the
common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer, An underground,
pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved
specifications and in accordance with MCC 12-13-8 and MCC 9-1-28, See Site Specific
Condition #6 below.
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS (PRELIMINARY PLAT)
I. The 3-page preliminary plat prepared by The Land Group, Inc., dated 1-14-05, is
approved with the conditions listed herein. AIl conditions of the Conditional Use Pennit
AZ.O5.00J. PP"".O04. CUP.05.004
KI'g",ld" REVISEOAZPPCUP
6,
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 11
(CUP-05-004) application shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat
(PP-05-004),
2.
Provide a public stub street to the Blackmer Property (Parcel No. R3193250030),
approximately 450-feet east of the west property line (in alignment with Darlington
Way).
3,
Provide approximately 100-feet ofITontage on Kingsbridge Drive for Lot 14, Block 2, by
incorporating Lot 13, Block 2, into Lot 14, Block 2. Refuse service for Lot ]4, Block 2,
shall be ITom Kingsbridge Drive and not Zaldia Lane. Trash cans for Lot 14 shall be
brought to the curb of Kingsbridge Drive. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic
systems within this project will have to be removed ITom their domestic service, per City
Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services are available ITom the City of Meridian.
Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. The applicant
shall be responsible for payment of and the actual physical sanitary sewer and domestic
water connection for the existing house.
4.
Revise the following notes on the preliminary plat as follows:
. Note 7 shall be revised by adding a second sentence that reads: "Setbacks shall be
measured ITom the property line or the adjacent sidewalk, whichever is more
restrictive. "
Note 12 shall be amended by removing Lot 13, Block 2, ITom being a HOA lot,
and Lot 29, Block 2, shall be added to the list ofHOA lots.
Note ]4 shall be removed (see Condition #3 above).
Add a note stating that the HOA is responsible for keeping Lot 9, Block 1, and
Lot 20, Block 2, ITee of weeds and debris and is subject to a 60-foot wide
irrigation easement.
.
.
.
5.
All irrigation ditches, laterals, and canals (including the Ten Mile Feeder) intersecting,
crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per
MCC 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage
district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval
submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can not
be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat
signature.
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
AZ.OS.DOJ. PP"'5.0O4. CUP.05.0O4
Ki".bridg, REVISEO.AZ.PP,CUP
II.
12.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 12
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.
7.
The submitted 4-page landscape plan prepared by The Land Group, Inc., dated 1-14-05 is
approved as submitted, with the following notes/modifications:
. Per MCC 12-13-13-3, any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed ITom the property
shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of
caliper inches of trees that were removed. To mitigate for the existing trees on site,
provide additional trees as shown on the landscape plan.
. Provide a 6-foot tall vinyl fence around the entire perimeter of the project, as
proposed. Provide 6-foot tall and 3-foot tall wrought iron fencing as shown. All
fences shall taper down to 3 feet maximum within 20 feet of all right-of-way.
. All micropaths within the proposed subdivision shall be designed in accordance with
MCC 12-13-15 "Micropath Landscaping" and MCC 12-4-3 "Pedestrian Walkways,"
Micropath fencing shall be constructed per MCC 12-13-15-9, as proposed,
. Depict a minimum 40-foot wide landscape buffer along Eagle Road (including a 5-
foot wide detached sidewalk), as proposed. Said landscape buffer shall be located
beyond the 48-feet shown as future street right-of-way,
. All areas being counted toward the open space requirement shall be ITee of "wet
ponds" or other such nuisances. All stonnwater detention facilities incorporated into
the required open space are subject to Ordinance 12-13-14 and shall be fully
vegetated with grass and trees, as depicted on the submitted landscape plan.
The approved landscape plan is not to be altered without prior written approval of the
Planning & Zoning Department.
8.
Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, all structures on Lots 1,2, and 8,
Block I shall be removed.
9,
All buildable lots within the subdivision, including Lot 18, Block 2, shall be a minimum
of 12,000 square-feet.
10.
For all street bulb-outs with landscape islands, paint the curb red and provide signage
"No parking fire lane." All roadways shall have a turning radius of28-feet inside and 48-
feet outside,
Sanitary sewer and water service to this development shall be ITom extensions of existing
mains that were installed as part of the Messina Village Subdivision.
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.
AZ.O,.oOJ. PP'{)'.O04. CUP.o'.D04
Ki""oc;d" REVISEDAZPPCUP
7.
8.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 13
13.
In accordance with MCC 12-13-10-8, Applicant shall provide 5-foot detached sidewalks
adjacent to Eagle Road, as proposed, Applicant shall also provide 4-foot detached
sidewalks adjacent to the intemal public streets, as proposed.
14.
Maintenance of all common area lots shall be the responsibility of the Kingsbridge
Homeowners' Association.
15.
Direct lot access to Eagle Road is prohibited. A note shall be placed on the final plat
restricting access to Eagle Road.
GENERAL CONDITIONS (PRELIMINARY PLAT)
I. All grading ofthe site shall be perfonned in confonnance with MCC 1I-12-3H,
2.
Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the
subdivision pursuant to MCC 12-13-10-8.
3.
A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing,
landscaping, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the
final plat.
4.
A detailed landscape and fencing plan, in compliance with the landscape and subdivision
ordinance and as noted in this report, shall be submitted for the subdivision with the final
plat application.
5.
Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
6,
One-hundred-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 detennined after power designs are completed by
Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and pennit ITom
the Public Works Department prior commencing installations.
Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed ITom 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 have to be mitigated.
Submit any up-dated groundwater/soils monitoring data, as collected and analyzed by a
soils scientist, to the Public Works Department for review. Any drainage areas
(detention/retention basins) must be designed to ensure that water will percolate or
discharge with a period of time not to exceed 24-hours for all stonns up to and including
a IOO-year stonn events. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed 3:1. Any
portion of a drainage area not improved with sod/grass seed (or other approved
landscaping) shall not count towards the required open space area. The project engineer
AZ.05.DOJ. PP-oj.D04. ('tJp.05.004
KI""bd'" REVISEDAZPPCtIP
13.
14.
15,
16,
17.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 14
should pay close attention to the results offield studies detennining the groundwater, soil
type & and characteristics during the design and construction phases. The engineer shall
be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet
above the highest established nonnal groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the
bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least I-foot above groundwater.
9.
The applicant shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
10.
Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed ITom 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.
11.
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.
12.
Applicant's engineer will be required to submit a signed, stamped statement certifying
that all street finish centerline elevations are set a minimum of three feet above the
highest established nonnal groundwater elevation.
The applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and
construction inspection fees, as detennined during the plan review process, prior to
signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374.
Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Pennitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES
Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency,
Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or tenns of the approved
annexation/conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for
compliance,
Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in MCC
12-2-4.
AZ.Qj.aa3. pp-<5.a04. cup.os.a04
K;"g,b,idg' REVISEDAZ PP cUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 15
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS
The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each
proposed conditional use in tenns of the following and may approve a conditional use pennit if
they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish (J 1-17-3):
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;
As part ofthe Planned Development (PD) the applicant is requesting reliefITom the
standard street ITontage requirement of the R-3 zone, and the maximum block length
required by Meridian City Code. See Special Consideration #1 below for detailed
analysis.
Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the requested use
and all other required features. Although the site is large enough to accommodate all of
the features required by ordinance, the applicant has asked, through the Planned
Development, to modifY the specific development standards listed above (frontage and
block length). 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 ofthis Ordinance;
The current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the property as Medium
and Low Density Residential. As noted in the annexation analysis above, staff finds that
the subdivision appears to be in general confonnance with the Comprehensive Plan. See
Annexation and Zoning Analysis item "A".
C.
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.
D.
That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions ofthe approval imposed,
will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity;
Staff finds that if all conditions are complied with, this development should not adversely
affect other property in the vicinity. However, staff recommends that the Commission
and Council rely upon public testimony, staff's analysis, and other agency comments
when determining if the proposed uses will adversely affect the other properties in the
vicinity, See items "F", "H", "I", and "I" in the Annexation and Zoning Analysis for
further infonnation.
AZ-<J5.003. PP.<MO'. CUP.05.004
KI","id" REVISED.AZ.PPCUP
G.
H.
I.
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 16
E.
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
proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services;
Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis items "0" and "H" Agency Comments and
Conditions at the end of this report, and any comments that may be submitted to the City
Clerk regarding this project.
F.
That the proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public
cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic
welfare of the community;
See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item "H".
That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment,
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or
general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes,
glare or odors;
See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item "I".
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".
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 (CUP/PD)
1. Reduced Standards: As stated earlier, the applicant is requesting modifications from
standard ordinance requirements for street frontage of the R-3 zone and to the
maximum block length.
Lot Frontal!:e: The minimum requested street ITontage for non-cui-de sac lots is 60-feet,
when 90-feet is the standard requirement in the R-3 zone. The minimum requested street
ITontage for cul-de-sac lots is 30-feet, when 40-feet is the standard requirement. Of the
130 proposed lots, 25 lots require a modification to the standard street frontage
requirement. All of the lots requiring a variation to the minimum lot frontage dimension
AZ.O;.oOJ. ".o'.ao,. cuP.os.aO4
Kio"brid" REV1SED.AZ"CUP
2.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 17
are internal to the subdivision and do not lie on the exterior boundary. Staff is
supportive of reducing the frontage for some of the lots as it provides lot diversity.
Block Length: There are two blocks (2 and 7) that exceed the maximum I,OOO-foot
block length. If the applicant complies with Site Specific Condition #2 in the
Preliminary Plat section of this report, Block 7 will not exceed the maximum length.
Staff believes that a modification is appropriate for Block 2 due to the private street to
the south.
See Site Specific Condition #2 below.
2.
Amenities: MCC 12-6-2,A.3 requires two or more amenities to be provided as part of
each planned development. The proposed amenities for the subject planned development
include: 10% open space, a community park on Lot 10, Block 1, that contains a
swimming pool, a BBQ area with picnic tables and a tot lot, another park (Lot I, Block 8)
that contains a water feature, benches and a walking path, a landscaped boulevard
corridor with street trees in the 8-foot planter strips between the street and the detached
sidewalk, a walking path along the south side of the Ten Mile Feeder, a walking path
along the north boundary, smaller open space pockets, a bridge monument, and
ornamental street lights. Staff is generally supportive of the proposed site design and
amenities. See Site Specific Condition #3 below.
3.
Housing Types: The applicant has submitted four (4) ITont elevations for the proposed
dwelling units. Staff believes that the dwelling units will be compatible with the
adjoining uses, if the buildings are constructed as shown on the submitted elevations,
Construction within Kingsbridge Subdivision should substantially comply with the four
(4) elevations submitted by the applicant. Construction materials used on the structures
should be approved by the City of Meridian Building Department and in accordance with
the most recent Unifonn Building Code. See Site Specific Condition #4 below.
4.
Construction Traffic: To lessen the impact of this development on the existing residences
in Dartmoor Subdivision, staff recommends that construction traffic be prohibited ITom
utilizing Dartmoor Drive or the ditch rider's access road to the Ten Mile Feeder. The
applicant should be required to install a sign on Lot 13, Block 1, infonning construction
personnel that they should use Kingbridge Drive, not Dartmoor Drive. Further, the
applicant should be required to install a sign on both sides of Kingsbridge Drive, near the
intersection of Eagle Road, identifying Kingsbridge as the only entrance for construction
traffic. See Site Specific Condition #5 below,
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I. The 2-page site plan prepared by The Land Group, Inc., dated 1-14-05, is approved with
the conditions listed herein. All conditions of the Preliminary Plat application shall also
be considered conditions of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP-05-004) application.
The project shall confonn to the R-3 dimensional standards, modified as follows:
AZ.o5.0OJ. PP'{}5.004. CUP.O5.00<
Xi",b,id" REVISEDAZPPCUP
2.
3.
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 18
. Minimum lot ITontage: 60-feet (non-cul-de sac); 30-feet for cul-de-sac lots
. Minimum lot size: 12,000 square-feet
. Maximum Block Length: Approximately] ,325 feet (per the Preliminary Plat)
3.
The following amenities are required as part of the Planned Development, per the
application: 10% open space, a community park on Lot 10, Block I, that contains a
swimming pool, a BBQ area with picnic tables and a tot lot, another park (Lot], Block 8)
that contains a water feature, benches and a walking path, a landscaped boulevard
corridor with street trees in the 8-foot planter strips between the street and the detached
sidewalk, a walking path along the south side of the Ten Mile Feeder, a walking path
along the north boundary, smaller open space pockets, a bridge monument, and
ornamental street lights. The applicant shall be required to obtain a Certificate of Zoning
Compliance (CZC) ITom the City prior to construction of any pennanent structures on the
proposed park lots.
4.
Construction of homes within Kingsbridge Subdivision shall substantially comply with
the four (4) elevations submitted by the applicant. Construction materials used on the
structures shall be approved by the City of Meridian Building Department and in
accordance with the most recent Unifonn Building Code.
5.
The applicant shall install a sign on Lot 13, Block I, infonning construction personnel
that they must use Kingbridge Drive, not Dartmoor Drive as access to the site. Further,
the applicant shall install a sign on both sides of Kingsbridge Drive, on Lot I, Block 2,
and Lot 8, Block I, identifying Kingsbridge Drive as the only entrance for construction
traffic.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS
MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT
I, One and two family dwellings will require a fire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available
for duration of2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average
of 500' apart. International Fire Code Appendix C.
Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire
Department.
a, Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 Yz" 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 when spacing pennits.
f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
g. Fire hydrants shall be placed 18" above finish grade.
The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than ISO-feet in length that is not
provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around.
Az.05.oo3. "..oS.OO4. CUP.o5.oo4
"""beid,, REYISEDAZPP.C(JP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 19
4.
All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28-feet inside and 48-feet
outside radius,
5.
For all Fire Lanes (including bulb-outs with landscape islands/"buttons"), paint the curb red
and provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane".
6.
Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before
combustible construction begins.
7.
To increase emergency access to the site a minimum oftwo points of access will be required
for any portion of the project, which serves more than 50 homes. The two entrances shall be
separated by no less than Y> the diagonal measurement of the project.
8.
The proposed project lies outside the five-minute response zone goal. Achievement of
this goal is subject to budgetary constraints and is intended to enhance the probability of
a favorable outcome on a request for Basic Life Support. The budget constraints are
typically defined as capital outlay for facilities that are located within 1.5 miles ITom a
given location and sufficient operational funds to staff the facilities.
9.
All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface
as measured around the perimeter of the building.
10,
Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the
jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) ITom a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as
measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire
hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings
equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance
with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183),
a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet
(183 m).
b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system
installed in accordance with Section 903.3 .1.1 or 903.3 .1.2, the distance requirement
shall be 600 feet (183 m).
MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT
I. Standard for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian
Landscape Ordinance will be followed.
2.
Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standard
established in the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance will be followed.
RECOMMENDATION
AZ.O'.OOJ. PP'{)5.004. CUP.Oj.O04
Ki"",bdd" REVISEDAZPPCUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 20
Staff recommends approval of the submitted annexation/zoning (AZ-O5-003), preliminary
plat (PP-O5-004), and conditional use permit (CUP-O5-004) applications, with the
conditions listed herein.
AZ.OS.O03.PP'{);.OO4.C'VP.OS.O04
K;",bcid" REVlSmAZ.pprup
Joint School District No.2
911 Meridian Road. Meridian, Idaho 83642 . (208) 855-4500 . Fax (208) 888-6700
SUPERINTENDENT
Dr, Linda Clark
RECEIVED
FEB - 8 2005
February 4, 2005
C.ity 01 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 ofKinl!sbridl!e 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 thirty-five (35) elementary
aged children, thirty-three (33) middle school aged children, and twenty-six (26) senior
high aged students. 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 855-4500.
Sincerely,
~-Ø -
Supervisor of Facilities and Construction
-~_.
~~_1.'~
~
Oc.......wtt ut 0(;, ~
. ----'--~
John S. Franden, President
Sherry R. Huber, 1st Vice President
David Bivens, 2nd Vice President
Carol A, McKee, Commissioner
Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner
RECEIVED
FEB 2 5 2005
February 24, 2005
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
To:
Vision First, LLC, Ken Elliot
661 N. Rivershore Lane, Suite 120
Eagle, Idaho 83616
M P P -05-004/MC U P -05-004/MAZ -05-003
Kingsbridge Subdivision
4070 S. Eagle Road
Subject:
On February 23, 2005, the Ada County Highway District acted on your application for the above
referenced project. The attached report lists site-specific requirements, conditions of approval and
street improvements, which are required.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 208-387-6174.
~':!Ø7
Lori Den Hartog
Planner II
Right-of-way & Development Services, Planning Division
CC:
Project file, Construction Services, Drainage, Utilities
City of MEiridian
The Land Group, Inc.
462 E. Shore Drive, Suite 100
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Ada County Highway District. 3775 Adams Street. Garden City, ID . 83714. PH 208-387-6100 . FX 345-7650. www,achd.ada.id.us
-~-_..
--"~-.
A't~-"""l~~~
~
Right-of- Way & Del'elopment Department
Planning Review Division
(J,,""""'¡;(:(..d1é ~
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 contact: Lori Den Hartog, phone: 387-6174, E-mail:
Idenhartoa@achd.ada.id.us
On February 4, 2005, ACHD received a revised preliminary plat from the City of Meridian. The
revisions are noted in blue type. Due to the number and type of revisions, the item requires
Commission action, and was approved on the consent agenda on February 23, 2004.
File Numbers:
Ki ngs b ri dge S u bdivisio n-M P P-05-004/MC U P'-05-004/MAZ -05-003
4070 S, Eagle Road
Site address:
Applicant:
Vision First, LLC
661 N. Rlvershore 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 130 (originally 237) single-family
resident/allots and 34 (originally 23) common lots on 76.72-acres. The site is located south of Victory
Road, east of Eagie Road.
Acreage:
Current Zoning:
Proposed Zoning:
Residential lots:
Common lots:
76.72
RUT
R-3 (originally R-4)
130
34
Vicinity Map
-~~-,-,:.AMlT'C ,
.t.
A.
Findings of Fact
1.
Trip Generation: This development is estimated to generate 1,235 (originally 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 Doble 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 EagleNictory 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 turn lanes on all approaches, the Eagle/Victory
intersection will operate at a LOS C (calculated for build out year 2007).
The Eagle/Amity 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 Eagle/Amity intersection will operate at a LOS D with the addition of left 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 level of service
with these improvements.
No improvements are warranted at the Eagle Road/Dartmoor 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.
2
Comments on Revised Site Plan:
A left-turn lane and a right-turn lane are still warranted on Eagle Road at the main site
access. This intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service with these
improvements.
Dartmoor Drive will see an increase of less than 300 vehicle trips per day. The previous
layout estimated an additional 400 vehicle trips per day.
Kingsbridge Drive, the residential collector, is anticipated to carry volumes less than
1,000 vehicle trips per day.
4.
Site Information: There is one existing residence on the site; the balance of the site has been
utilized for agricultural purposes.
5.
Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area:
Direction Land Use Zoning
North Golden Eagle Subdivision (Single-family resideíìtial-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)
6. Impacted Roadwa~s
Roadway Frontage Functional Traffic Count Level of 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 Eagle 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.
8,
3
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 ot pavement and no curb, gutter, or sidewalk. Dartmoor
Drive is currently not striped for non vehicular traffic.
Existing Right-of-Way
Eagle Road currently has 50-teet ot right-of-way abutting the site (25-feet from centerline),
Dartmoor Drive currently has 60-teet of right-of-way (3D-feet from centerline).
B.
1.
2.
4
9,
Existing Access to the Site
The site currently has one agricultural access on Eagle Road at the north property line,
10.
Site History
This site was originally a part 01 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 201 Dartmoor Subdivision. Lot 11, Block 2 of Dartmoor Subdivision,
which is a portion 01 the current application, was platted as a deed restricted lot that could redevelop
no earlier than 15 years from the date of the plat.
11.
Capital Improvements PlanlFive 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 2007. In
coordination with that project Eagle Road trom Victory Road to the Ridenbaugh Canal crossing
(approximately'h mile) is scheduled to be widened to 5 lanes with curb, gutter, sidewalk and bike
lanes.
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,
Findings for Consideration
Right-ot-Way
Eagle Road
District policy requires 96-leet of right-of-way on arterial roadways (Figure 72-F1 B). This right-ol-way
allows lor the construction of a 5-lane roadway with curb, gutter, 5-foot concrete detached sidewaiks
and bike lanes.
Dedicate 48-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.
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 41-feet from the centerline of the roadway.
5
3.
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 36-foot street sections with rolled
curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalks (some that are attached and others are detached by.an 8-
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 signage 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 36-foot
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.
Revised Site Plan:
The applicant has proposed to now construct Kingsbridge Drive from Eagle Road through the
site to the easternmost property line as a residential collector. The applicant is proposing to
construct the residential collector as a 41-foot street section with rolled curb, gutter, and a 5-
foot detached concrete sidewalk within 6o-feet of right-of-way. District staff recommends that
the residential collector be constructed as a 36-foot street section (no wider) with vertical
curb, gutter, and a 5-foot detached (or attached) concrete sidewalk. The applicant may have
the option of constructing the roadway within 50-feet of right-of-way and providing the District
with an easement for any portion of the sidewalk that is outside of the public right-of-way.
Turn 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.
6.
6
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 1 DO-teet ot storage with shadow tapers for both the approach
and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn iane 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 10o-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).
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.
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 instailed 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
suliace water toward that intersection, unless a satisfactory storm drain system is
instalied,
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
originaily approved as a stub street as a part of Dartmoor Subdivision. Dartmoor Drive was
constructed as a residential collector with 32-teet of pavement and 3-toot 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 coliector in 1994 and provides direct access
to one single-family residence within the subdivision (1 out 01.18)
. 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 wili in turn
create a more equal distribution of traffic and wili 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-tamily residential 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 approximately 440-feet
north of the Ten Mile lateral. This stub street is anticipated to serve a 9.0-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 outleno 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
approximateiy 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,
Statf is recommending that the applicant extend Stockenham Way to the north property line
approximately 1 DO-feet west of the east property line. This stub street will serve the 3.21 O-acre
7
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 5.0-acre parcels within Kunz Hollow Subdivision that currently have access to a private
road, and are likely to re-develop in the future.
Comment on Revised Site Plan:
All of the required stub streets are shown on the revised preliminary plat.
7.
Islands/Knuckles
District policy 7202.7 and 7207.5 requires any proposed landscape islands/medians within the public
right-ot-way dedicated by this plat should be owned and maintained by a homeowners association,
Notes of this should be required on the tinal piat.
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 1 OO-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 seven (7) 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 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.
The applicant is proposing to construct one island within the public right-of-way of Kingsbridge 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.
8.
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 Kingsbrldge Drive.
Comment on Revised Site Plan:
The applicant has provided that Lot 13, Block 2 will have an access easement across it to be
dedicated in the future when Lot 14, Block 2 (previously Lot 17, Block 2) re-develops. The
access easement appears on the plat as Note 14. This meets the intention of the original
requirement and is supported by District staff.
8
2,
3.
4,
5,
9
9.
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 cul-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 RQad). 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.
10.
Other Access
Eagle Road is classified as a minor arterial roadway. Other than the access specitically 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.
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1.
Dedicate 48-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.
Construct a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting the site located a minimum of 41-
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 ot 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 coliector from Eagle Road to the easternmost property
line. This roadway shall be a 36-toot street section with verticai curb, gutter, and 5-foot concrete
sidewalks within 50-feet (minimum) of right-of-way. Provide an easement to the District for any portion
of the sidewalk that is outside of the public right-of-way. Stripe Kingsbridge Drive at the intersection
with Eagle Road, to accommodate simultaneous left and right turn movements onto Eagle Road.
13.
14.
D.
1,
2.
3.
4,
5,
10
6,
Construct the internal local roadways as 36-foot street sections within 50-feet of right-of-way with
rolled curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalks, If the sidewalk meanders outside of the right-of-
way, the applicant should provide the District with an easement for the sidewalk.
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 Kingsbridge Drive a stub street to the east property line, as proposed, approximately 440-
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 Ivybridge Way as a stub street to the north property tine approximately 130-feet east of the
west property line. Install a sign at the terminus of the stub streêt stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE
EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE."
11,
Construct Stockenham Way as a stub street to the north property line approximately 180-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 14, 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.
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.
Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
Standard Conditions of Approval
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 lessthan 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
E.
1,
2.
applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State
of Idaho shall prepare and certity all improvement plans.
6,
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.
7.
Construction, use and property 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 #200, 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
waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief Is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the
time the change In use is sought.
11.
Conclusions of Law
The proposed site plan is approved, if all of the Site Specitic and Standard Conditions of Approval are
satisfied,
ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an
undue burden on the existing vehicular transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the
proposed development.
Attachments
1. Vicinity Map of Square Mile
2. Aerial Map
3. Previously Approved Site Plan
4. Re-submitted preliminary plat (2/4/2005)
5, Reconsideration Guidelines
11
".",-,
/
i
I
I
6
. h wing a lack
" M of the Square ml e S 0
Vicinity ap
'~ep 2104 10:56a
II
r~:
j/ 'I
.L~
l:D
I
- -~
!
DOBIE ENGINEERING INC
399 0309
p.2
N
t
FIGURE A
KINGSBRIDGE SUBDIVISION
ADT DISTRIBUTION
WITH DARTMOOR ACCESS
I
[-
l__-
-r-
~
- ADT-
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
T",ffi< St.d, Pc.pac.d 8~
DOBIE ENGiNEERING, INC.
m,"",,-,". "'n.""'" ,.,..,,'"
AbÙ'\IV\U\.t ~ 'j
PREUMINARYPLAT L 1 =-..~.- DEVELOPMENT CONTACTS
;~~O~~~~~~N ~'" TfP'::::;;':'::¡=:';-';:='r':"""':':'r-':':";;=':':'r";;=r"",~-' I ,. -"r':";'~::;;;:-~!,=.:;;;::"-:--l¡'1 !~'"*~~<
WITIßNAPORTIONOFTHE '!-,.lII, --J¡-'!! 2. ,,'=' , ¡ ~"I ¡i¡ ",*II,!, ,!1,""""",~.u,
SOUTIlI/20FTHENORTIlWEST I '" '\ \ ~ '" 1 '@' 'I 'Ø' "+"""', I '@- i @' '¡ @- 'I @. 'I @; '¡ i I' .:.;, ,I II
1/4,~~~Rl~~¿~~THE '--"""'1l~~k:=:-:~ .;.~. .L~:)¿'~~='=:l~-",-~,::,~:';;-::!:='=~j ~-"-' ~'",,~.,w 0::;:';..:',:=;,-'
SOUTHWEST 114 SECTION28 I. .'i2. 116"""""1'.-, ';::-, .\~. ..~':." '" . mi' ..~' """Tr-"'.""'-';¡'-'T"""ì, I I, -, ~ ¡r.~~~~; IO::;:~=:;,
" " 1'-.','_"'1<-', ~...=. , . . I..",." ~':':&,:r"';¡. ~
TOWNSHlP 3 NORTII,RANGE 1 L.:"~' -j.t'" ï @"Ii'"""".,' ~.;\'(0" @;'I-"'I-"I'-@ "~,I I~I ""'.M'~.~"~M
EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA , """'1~' '~';-,':r-~;':"J, ~ ,:Yr-~" \'-';""1-'" ¡T'-"'," ,@...,j",:'L" ..:..J !¡~"_'L~ !~~~~-:'",'~
COUNTY, IDAHO " "'!ll,<{L."@11~:¡-'~"¡-';':'\'\'" I, t ¡I-¡'G',i,: ..~._~.~
OARTMOOR I. -. .1 1.1-. .."'-..\:-..""'-'/ , 0 ,,¡-.-,..-..! '0'" ø' ,i "1;; ~i ""'. " -. . ~.. 'I' !I'" ' ., ::1:.¡"~1M¡"",
'0"',-' '.- -'\'_"'~' "~,"'4@', , ffiOO"~'~-'m
7'U80IVI510N' 'jt~:: ,.@. 3~1¡o-"~':;:. ., @"",~:':--'¡"L,",-j"",J.,z~, I"~n' !""-"'-"iø:
.."'n"',"-:;';-'~""""~",\" "'",..:>....@ ..".:"";;:"~.....-. , ..""'-1 -ill -. ,_. !:;7ii,~.~..,. Z
DEVELOPMENT DATA ~ !! \'< ° ~ -:. .;e..:.\.;. --. ~. -',,1 T ! ';'r-',~ .-. ~ ,S"!. ~ i I' ° '! T ="iW.::'."~, Q
m'~~,_~m"(~"-,, '0'I.I,I,ß..'<t@ø-.~.~"~.",..">-'~/.2'.'I2,~@>."""".~01 "1-'1: ~.~.::i.J,- rn
-....- """"m.,.." II'" '\--- ~',_.~'i¡,... .Y- ' "-'W@II~"-""-" ~ ,Ie 'u 'I <:0
m~';"'- """'('~""" ,,' 0.,V @",., " @' J@>;;"~'..-L"';"j '-'.', -- . .. n=1'Ì'¡':'-"-" -_. >::;
~~- ,~"("".,,, ~ ' "'~--'\\<ø.~._.'.\\.~.::""'::"_""":_::::':::;:"¿~i! "'~~-'¡il' 2. ,I: ::H."~:'~"~"". &¡~
m~~ ,..~ ", ' J-;;:,<"....",""\¡.~.~ 'r' 0,..J I, /-'-""":-.'-:-'-=-.~" i l.:<f:; -'" i i ¡' ,~" j I 5?.:!;'::¿~' ~ 8
===:::: /',', .ffvYç¿:k:.!'. ~,< ø:. : ;::;;-/\ c.;;::-~: ~ i"'¿'---',;--i.-....:' .-_b ¡ Ic::'.:':;¡¡'::n-j...... rn .
.....~= ,,= -~ , ';//....1I'~ .4.' "h""iiY>"';:;;;~"--:1<à\~-' "'" '--.~I'~"~'-'-'-+-"-'-'-'~ -"""""""~ (,:1:<';
. .'/ @'..'" """""""'/~~"'\"-'" "0' ~"'.' I'~-- ~'~æ....", ::s
~..~= "~u ",v/......~ -.)/ '~'. /~.~. _....~"'. ,....\ ¡ .:. 'ill,~. ¿fíi[:.'~'I6Ct!'L:,~, ~':o~,~_. ~'-'¡:¡
_w.œ_.m ,_. , "'. \ p, .þ 7 >. ..$1' @ >: 'c.., _.."L..... 'ii' ~., m I I ,. , -"",..- i2
-~ ..,.."""" ' \, "-."'0(" @ /~ / ". @ ..,.., < :\...2.'\ - ~ 0 .i i '-~:;,.. @ 'I ii', @ , . r.¡
~;::7sETI3~~: -~ ~! @'i q r~~~~) ~,7;r£~:)~ (~. , ~;?» \\\:-"~l;;J;~, rt~ .~.' u::.~ I!!~~:~"~ III ~ ~
'oo'"........~~. i, ...'. ~'" ,. $I ¡~r "'. < ¡m~..""... ,\+.1 1 '~~ ,_. -'.r ~ , II Z
¡:¡-'=M".J:i,,':,.~OO....~.'Œ ,""""'>-"\_"~/" @ '",'-"'~'r""'u~'õi-""""",'L.;,;..,.",-u",,u ".j.JÇ».-' ¡! i2
-~_Mœ~,~. ~ ,.."Q ,;" ,¡, -', ..:>,..t."iIr ,~. @) '¡--~'.=<m;o,...-v= I> u .. ,.&1'Lu_'Lu.I
'I II ¡ / \ I -'/ "\.--'~ i ¡ i ~..-".- "¡""-'-"""'..J- '7: ..Jr-gru'."r"rry......,., .~. ""r" -. -:
I!: 1- ~~--~ :'.!!'.7@'Jiir:~..§"!/~"I'e' ~@)li@>'¡@\\!!'I¡ @>1 ~'
Ii ";;';ffc,~;=~i"';~~~ I ~l'=:;::~~::J~~=;,.;o~~=~.:.~~~~~ I !
1 :1" I, 0 ~ '-' !I .'!!. m 2. !I '" ~ ,¡ ì /. ÇL. -""'" ~'oo..._m_Mœ~_=,~J---_...oo= ~IIJlm
1 I' 1 '" -. )<-.~~.L_'~_uju_."",l..l.~: '=', '" , "Y'" :"~~':...~%"::::':'=:'ò:::"~,"",=-~.:'.~.;:¡:,.,.~=:.":i.. '1ft!
',I'!I :;¡.,p).,~'-:-'-'=-œ='-""""",-",~ 0) / è'$ ¡.,f!_~ Œ~__~~~"~-"~-~"--"""""~-OO""M. eJ!!ih
: I ,! <1, ~'o:;-o<""";;;;;",r,;;,o:;:'.ru'.'Tu~'lT.~"~\\;" ~/ if iF-vr'-.... ' ~~.¡:¡,::(¡;::"~~~~.".("~--_.~-----"""'" 1"1_']
, I I"" ,_.,,! I' '" " ø" "'" 0" '" J l'l f:l!'@ "" I 'MO~~~__--'~='-'~---_M_&_-m ~.',
[I ~~t:t~~~~~~ !#, ~'-! ~:~?~ ?~~~~' i . ~-, i_::
i.11'1!'..:..il\0!!0'!"'!!0!1'¡¡"}Jb.:::.l @ I.~_~__--~._=~~,~~-~.,~._.,., O-~PI{/KX
::: ¡a0~u",u;¡':::.=¡=~~L:;."'.:~-=.;:;=":==> }-"-i .-. ~ ;:;:::;:;:';;;;;;:;:;;;;~:;;;;:;;:~;;;:;;';:;:>' . '. ~ , -~ KK
'11 "I .,',"';; )"~""~'~""-'T";¡;¡"'T-;>-';"""""<' @il .. ~-~"--, --'-~~-~-~'œ~~~..- ¡ , r -I' -", 08
'1'-"'¥"'li0"""~"",..,,,-,!, ,--=..__..._..~ ~~-
i r" l...., .. -. . -:.t~ -. Ii 2. ~ -. ~ 2. \' , ' "'---~~"---~'-~m_~.~_",-~-. ~ 01.".0'
: I L_--,::.,':'==-:-:'.::ix",!j-:-:"'-.ò~:.=-:-L::'.:,,:-:L..-:-:,,_..::.:., ---~._-- =:7:::~'='~~=:::"-:~'::~:oo,:;:',,::,:,:,. ".--
II I _.J ZALOIEN ZERr'A ì tlW'ci.\W,~w..\,j;g\'~~':".':a,"i1,"ci\~~"";"',~!",'¡""'"1'.k;:¡'b"'~~"""~" / ..~.-? /
::: : -- 5U80lVI5107 :"'=,~='::"7_':=~~::.::=::~,,::7'_~::==_.~ I .,;¡;,- . --~
. ~ MASTER SITE PLAN. - !1æ'~'¡'::;:1i:i.~F':'~~":~~~~::'::?~-::",,_- . ..YI.ClNITYMAP PP
'III. ,~". ,. ,~. o' .... - "~""="'"-'~-=~~~'M_=m"~"'.~-~.m'_~m
- - ---"._,-".""~,._-,~~".~.
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 tinal 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 ot 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 reasonable fee, to cover
administrative costs, as established by the Commission,
RECEIVED
FEB 2 5 2005
Cityof.Meridian
City Clerk Office
~," ~ 'l~ 'Di4tIUd
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651.4395
FAX # 208.463.0092
15 February, 2005
Phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 4661861
SHOP: Nampa 466.0663
William G. Berg Jr., City Clerk
City of Meridia.Í1
-iT'~l42
RE:
PP 05-004, CUP 05-004 & AZ 05-003/Kingsbridge Subdivision
Dear Will:
PP 05-004 & CUP 05-004: Ifall stonn drainage is retained on-site there will be no
impact on Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and no further review will be required.
However, if any surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District requires that a Land Use Change Application is 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.
AZ 05-003: Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above
referenced application for Annexation and Zoning.
Sincerely,
p,:d¡ V~
Bill Henson
Asst. Water Superintendent
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
BH/ç\bg ,
C: File. Offjce/Shop
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABlE ACRES
RIVER flOW RIGHTS, 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS, 40,000
RECEIVED
FEB 2 5 2005
~~.~:J ~
City Clerk Office CO~y
~&~I)' ~ ~:¿a
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651.4395
FAX # 208.463-0092
18 February 2005
Phones: Areo Code 208
OFFICE: Nomp" 466.7861
SHOP: Nompo 466-0663
The Land Group, Inc.
Kerby Kirkham
462 E. Shore Drive, Suite 100
Eagle, ID 83616
._._"'._~ -
RE: ---L~nd U's-; Cha~ge APPliClltìõn - Killa;brid~e Subéllv¡;Î;;n-~--~- --~~ -~--
Please note the District now reQuires three (3) sets of plans
Dear Mr. Kirkham:
Enclosed please find a Land Use Change Application for your use to file with the Irrigation
District for its review on the above-referenced development. If this development is under a
"rush" to be finalized, I would recommend that you submit a cashier's check, money order or
cash as payment of the fees in order to speed the process up. If you submit a company or
personal check, it must clear the bank before processing the application.
Should this development be planning a pressure urban irrigation system that will be owned,
operated and maintained by the Irrigation District, I strongly urge you to coordinate with John P.
Anderson, Water Superintendent for the Irrigation District, concerning the installation of the
pressure system, Enclosed is a questionnaire that you must fill out and return in order to initiate
the process of contractual agreements between the owner or developer and the Irrigation
District for the ownership, operation and maintenance of the pressure urban irrigation system,
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call on me at the District's
office, or John P. Anderson, at the District's shop.
Sincerely,
~~~~~
NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
DNM/smc
cc: File
Water Superintendent
Will Berg, City Clerk, Meridian City
Vision First, LLC, 661 N. Rivershore Lane, Suite 120, Eagle, ID 83616
enc.
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS. 23,000
BOISE PROJEG RIGHTS. 40,000
feb,23, 2005 4:55PM
No, 0260
p, 1
Brady & Teresa Turner
3678 S. Caleb Place
Meridian, ID 83642-7068
208-887-6832
RECEIVED
FEB 2 32005
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
FebIUaIy21,2oo5
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
RE: Proposed KlNGSBRIDGE Subdivision
Dear Commissioners:
We hereby submit our oIJIJosition to the proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision per the applications for
annexation and zoning filed by VisionFiISt, LtC (the "Applicant'), scheduled forœaring before the
Commission on March 3, 2005.
Our opposition to the latest applications by Applicant is based on the following:
1. Kingsbridge Subdivision as currently proposed by the Applicant is not compatible with
surrounding Cll1TeI1trural land use. All of the SWTOunding residential lots are in acreages, but
the Applicant is requestingR-3 zoning-onry a single-level reduction from the R-4 zoning
Applicant sought and was denied in its previous 2004 applications. While the cWTent
applications are a step in the right direction, the Applicant has not adequately reduced density
in the cWTent design. Furthermore, the planned development envisioned by Applicant is
distinctly urban in character, which is not harmonious with the existing rural character of the
area. Please note that this proposed development is surrounded on all sides by existing rural
residences in acreages. Inserting an urban development into the middle of a distinctly rural
setting on the outskirts of the City will change the essential character of the area. Finally,
since the surrounding lands are all developed rural residential acreages, the City will not
likely find further annexation paths into the surrounding lands anytime soon.
2. Kingsbridge Subdivision as proposed by the Applicant will add arolUld 1,235 additional
vehicle trips to the roads through and surrounding Dartmoor Subdivision. The Dartmoor
Subdivision has onJy 15 residential lots connecting to Dartmoor Drive, which Applicant
proposes to utilize for access to Eagle Road. By its own admission, ACHD reviews and
approves new developments without consideration of the increasing volwnes produced by
other recently-approved but not fully-developed subdivisions (such as Tuscany Lakes),
Adding 1,200 more cars to an already congested Eagle Road wil1 only increase our
frustration, compromise our safety, and degrade our quality of life, Fl1rrhennore, the volume
FEB 23 '1215 17:13
PAGE. 1211
Feb,23, 2005 4:55PM
No, 0260
P, 2
Plann1ng and Zoning Commission
February 21,2005
Page Two
of traffic :from Kingsbridge Subdivision directly through Dartmoor Subdivision,
conservatively estimated at around 300 trips per day (we believe it will be higher), will
directly negatively impact the quiet rural character of the Dartmoor Subdivision. Tripling
our current neighborhood traffic levels is simply unacceptable. If the Commission finds for
approval of the applications, we request that S. Ivybridge Way not connectto E. Kingsbridge
Dr. (e.g. S lvybridge Way does not go south of Menivale Way). This would result in a
substantial reduction in traffic through Dartmoor Subdivision.
3. Applioant has failed to negotiate in good faith with the Dartmoor residents to address our
concerns adequately. Despite the City Council's stated preference for much lower density (at
a suggested R-2 level) and admonishing Applicant to work with the surrounding residents on
a more compatible design, the Applicant proceeded to file the current applications without
soliciting any input from the neighbors.
4. The recorded plat ofDartmoor Subdivision restricts development of Lot 11 for a period of at
least 15 years, or until March of 2009. The residants of Dartmoor Subdivision and the
sUlTounding properties have relied on this development restriction and, for many of us, led us
to purchase our properties believing the land would not soon be developed. While we
recognize the City's authority to annex this property, we respectfully appeal to the
Commissioner's sense of justice and fairness by not forcing the Dartmoor residents into
costly litigation with the Applicant. We continue to assert our equitable interest in
maintaining Lot 11 of Dartmoor as open space until at least 2009.
We resDectfullv reQuest that the cUlTent aD1)lications for Kin!!sbridl!e Subdivision be denied as
DroDosed. If the Applicant would design a rural development with much lower density in keeping
with the surrounding land use, mitigation of our traffic concerns, and in compliance with the views
expressed by the City Council and Mayor in the hearings on the previous applications, we would
likely suppott such a proposal.
Thank you for your consideration.
~~ð--~
Lot 6, Block 2, Dartmoor Subdivision
FEB 23 '0517:13
PAGE. 02
February 25, 2005
RECEIVED
FEB 25 2005
TO: Meridian City Planning and Zoning
City Of Meridiar,
City Clerk Office
FROM: Frank Shoemaker
RE: Vision First
Kingsbridge Subdivision
The developer of the above subdivision, continues to proceed toward obtaining approval for a
project that Meridian City Mayor and city council have previously denied. Findings of Fact for
the January 4th meeting, stated that as proposed, the density of the project is not compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood. The city council was specific in stating that the uniqueness
of the area is more suitable for executive home sites. Suggested to the developer to redesign
the project with larger lots. The finish product being more compatible with the immediate area.
Something that is not of the typical high density project with homes mirroring each other in
design. Also, that the perimeter home owners, with the five and ten acre lots, be more involved
in the design.
These meetings have occurred with the developer appearing to be more corporative with the
Dartmoor residents. And although increased lot sizes are proposed and total number of
dwellings reduced, the end result is still a high density project, not what the city council had
suggested be obtained.
For example, the Dartmoor Subdivision has building sites approaching 1 acre. For a smooth
transition, the developer has increased the size of the building lots that abut the Dartmoor
Subdivision, from approximately 12,500 square feet to 22,000 square feet. Approximately
50% ratio in size difference as compared to the Dartmoor sites.
Those lots abutting the larger five acre parcels on the north of the project were originally 9,000
to 9,500 sq ft sites. Their latest revision notes larger 22,000 sq ft sites. Approximately 10% the
size of the neighboring acreages.
Those lots abutting the larger ten and five acre parcels on the south of the project were
originally 7,000 square feet and have since been increased to approximately 12,000 square feet
lots. A ratio of approximately 5% the size of the larger acreages. Developer states that the
comprehensive plan notes this area to be medium density R3, or three units per acre. The
current zoning of the parcel is Rural Urban Transitional ( RUT) and permits one dwelling per
five acres. With cluster developments permissible allowing one acre minimum building sites if
city services are available. The R3 notation has nothing to do with the present zoning and the
the city council, stated this was an unlikely use and an incorrect classification. The developer
uses this reference as support for the higher density. Thus, ignoring city council comments and
concerns of those property owners along Zaldia lane.
A smooth transition, as suggested by the city council? Obviously not with minimal concern for
the larger property owners and how this high density will have an adverse effect on property
values for those with five and ten acre parcels along Zaldia lane.
That area on the south of the project is my primary concern. As proposed, residential homes will
be built on the south side of E Plympton Drive. The rear of the each dwelling will be facing
Zaldia Lane. These small 12,000 sq ft lots will dictate a two level home.
The developer proposes a 3' berm and a 3' fence between Zaldia Lane and the rear of the
properties as a buffer zone,. He states that a drainage ditch prevents extensive landscaping.
Note that there is no drainage ditch along the south side of the property. Extensive landscaping
could be accomplished. Developers excuse is not valid.
Nor has developer, addressed the parking of RV vehicles. Obviously not allowed on the street,
for the neighbors to view. Therefore, parking in the rear yard will occur. And given the minimal
landscaping proposed as a buffer zone, a direct rear yard view will exist, further diminished by
visible RV units parked in the rear yard.
A better design would be allowing only one level dwellings with E Plympton Drive running
parallel to Zaldia Lane, divided by extensive berm landscaping with the privacy fence on top. In
addition, large caliper trees are preferred. The front of the dwellings would then be located on
the north side of E Plympton Drive, facing Zaldia Lane, divided however by E Plympton Drive
and the increased buffer landscaping. This would create an adequate setback and a smooth
transition from the five acre parcels.
The RUT zoning allows 1 acre building sites in cluster projects if serviced by city services. This
would be acceptable to me if building restrictions permitted only one level dwellings and placed
on the north side of E Plympton Drive, facing Zaldia Lane, with extensive landscaping dividing
the two streets. These one acre building sites would be considered executive home sites as
suggested by the mayor and city council. The transition would be smooth and aesthetic
pleasing.
I am currently building a new home that as proposed, would view the rear of those dwellings.
Most likely, I could look in the rear yards as I drive down the street.
Being a Real Estate Appraiser, I would suggest to the commission, that my property will be
adversely affected by what is proposed in the Kingsbridge project.
Having five acres, within close proximity to Interstate, shopping, etc, would have good market
appeal. The potential buyer would most likely not be interested once they visited the property
and viewed the unsightly rear yard of massive homes along the Zaldia Lane.
I would hope that the commission would consider the reason for denial by the city council and
not allow the Kingsbridge Subdivision as proposed. That the developer has not addressed the
executive home sites as suggested by Mayor Tammy de Weerd and council members.
Perimeter building sites along Zaldia Lane should be at least one acre in size, have increased
landscaping as a buffer zone dividing Zaldia Lane and E Plympton Drive. Dwelling set back
would thus be increased by the dwellings being located on the north side of E Plympton Drive.
The overall aesthetic appeal would be favorable and property values would be enhanced.
~~5l~~
Frank Shoemaker
Bob and Lesa L. Becker
3421 S. Selatir Place
Meridian, ID 83642
RECEIVED
FEB 2 3 2005
February 20, 2005
Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
City of Mer"i'
City Clerke,.
RE:
Kingsbridge Subdivision - Vision First LLC, Applicant
We live on a five+ acre estate lot on the eastern boundary of this proposed subdivision.
On January 4,2005, Mayor deWeerd and the City Council denied the Preliminary Plat,
Annexation and Zoning request and, among other findings, offered the following (Exhibit C):
1. The Comprehensive Plan states the City will "require new urban density subdivisions
which abut. ,. existing low density residential land uses to provide landscaped screening
or transition densities with larger, more compatible lot sizes to buffer the interface
between urban densities and rural residential densities." The current preliminary plat
(dated 12/29104) provides for 21,675 and 21,763 sq ft lots (approximately Y:. acre)
along our property line. Our 5+ acre lot is over 200,000 sq ft. - ten times the size of
these proposed lots. We do not believe the developer has provided adequate
transition lots.
In a recent development across Victory Rd. from our neighborbood (Muir Woods)
the developer placed I-acre transition lots on tbe periphery abutting existing 2.5
acre 1018. When Bremerton subdivision was developed across from our house, the
developer placed a 2.7-acre transition lot between our 5 acres and tile I-acre lots to
the southeast.
We request that you require 2.5-acre transition 1018 along our property line.
2. The City of Meridian Ordinances require that "proposed uses be designed.. ,to be
harmonious and appropriate in appearance with existing ...character of the general
vicinity." The City Council found that "the proposed lot sizes are too small to be
harmonious with the existing or intended character of the vicinity." The proposed
development is surrounded by 1-10 acre home sites ranging in value from
approximately $350,000 to $1,000,000.
We urge you to require the proposed development preserve the character of the
area by requiring the transition lots as stated above,
Finally, the City Council instructed the developer to "work with the neighbors," The
Comprehensive Plan states: "It is important for citizens of the area to determine how they want
development to occur in order to preserve the City's character...." (Chapter VII, pg. 85).
Vision First held an "informational meeting" with neighbors after their revised proposal had
already been developed and submitted to the City of Meridian. We don't believe this constitutes
"workIDg with the neighbors."
Thank you for your consideration,
¿cJ6-ß~
'h?v ¡3¿ ~
Bob and Lesa Becker
RECEIVED
FEB Z' 2 2005
February 18, 2005
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
To: City of Meridian Planning & Zoning
From: Lisa Job, Homeowner in Dartmoor Estates
Re: Proposed KINGSBRIDGE Subdivision
My concerns regarding the proposed KINGSBRIDGE Subdivision are related to
maintaining the quality of our environment, preserving our resources and providing a
high level of safety for the residents of Dart moor Estates,
. '---'-'---~-~--" ..._..~~_.~-~~-~=-,~--~~~~c~-~.C'~-'-
-------
Density:
. The current proposal has reduced the density ITom the original plat. The
entire outer perimeter of the project should have a transitional line of one acre
so that the quality ofliving is preserved. If the perimeter lots are not one acre
or larger, then the CCRs should reflect that all perimeter houses must be
single level dwellings,
. If this project is approved, Dartmoor Drive CANNOT be used as a
constructiC)ll entrance, This would put all re$idents in a high risk zone for
safety concern traffic and dra.sticallyerodethe quality oflivihg.
. I would like to, ,see this subdivision zoned as R2, However, if it remains as
R3, then all requirements ofR3 should be met without question. ,
. Dartmoor Drive should be improved to match the entrance at Kingsbridge,
including sidewalks both on the north and south sides,
Traffic:
. In addition to banning Dartmoor Road as a construction entrance,
-'âetached side walks should be created ITom Eagle Road east on Dartmoor as well
as on the east side of Eagle Road both north and south of the Dartmoor
intersection to improve the safety of our children and pedestrians and to provide a
safe zone for the children at the bus stop location. Dartmoor and Caleb roads are
a Deaf Child Area. Provisions need to be made to maintain a high level of safety,
Rural vs. Urban living:
. Provisions need to be made for proper storm water management to ensure the
current purity levels of the aquifers to our wells,
. If the city utilities are to be brought down Dartmoor, then they should also be
expanded down Caleb and Gideon at the same time. No utilities down
Dartmoor would allow for fewer burdens on the city utility needs by allowing
Dartmoor homeowners to maintain their current private wells and septic
systems.
. Irrigation rights and water levels need to be maintained
. Perimeter fencing needs to be provided by the developer along all boundaries
on the outmost edge, The fencing materials need to be agreed upon by both
the surrounding homeowners and the developer to ensure that the final
product is harmonious to the environment and pleasing to the residents,
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Sincerely,
)
J,'.~~
,/~L,',-:/~Y/
i ",' 1. ( .
-_0 ~.~~~,.."". ~4 J~~~aeonPIace-------~--'--'- '-- -._- ~--'-'"
Meridian, Idaho 83642
208-887-1254
. ---- -..--.-.-... ~'--"-""
Feb 28 05 12:26p
p.l
1( f ¡<¡ G ¿> 5' I ~ J ~i:6jIVED
-- FEB 2 8 2005
,-;-7 t ~ s ti {' &1 ' City Of"'riollim
/ /¡ èjty Clerk Office
Ill!
~
r: 0 a.. K ;N,9 S' h/'c: O~f
~17./;< ? ô ~
~?Ù~,
¡¿Pc! - -9'~ó S
FEB 28 '05 12:44
PAr,F.¡;}1
Feb 28 05 12:26"
".2
TO: Meridian Planning and zoning Commission
From: Philip and Judy De Angeli,3405 e. Zaldia lane
Re: Vision First-Kingsbridge Development
Date: Feb. 25, 2005
RE C E I'lE])
FEB 2 8 2005
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Over the past six months we have been to all meetings and have submitted written
testimony regarding lack of landscaping/screening between the ITonts of our homes and the
backside of the proposed subdivision. Landscape plans submitted by Vision First dated 01-14-05
show only a 36" berm and no trees. They cite an irrigation ditch as an obstacle. This piped ditch
is non-existent today and is being created by Vision First's engineers to reroute nine mile creek
around the project. A taller benn with fencing on top and ffequentty spaced trees would help to
Dampen the visual effect of another concentrated housing project.
In it's denial of the project on Dec. 14th the city council was unanimous when it discussed
the transition between our 5 and 10 acre lots and the Kingsbridge project. The plans of 0 1-14-05
now show only 12,000 foot lots. The remainder of the perimeter lots are half acres. This is
obviously unfair and really no transition at all.
Relocating Plympton Dr. To the South side of the proposed homes in block 2 on the
southern boundary and requiring single story homes would provide a much more compatible
interfacing to our existing homes. We would then be facing the ITonts of the houses, with the
street that serves them, between us.
A meeting was held with Ken Elliot on Feb. 22, 2005. Plans for some improvements on
the issues mentioned above were presented by him. These statements were only verbal and
presented as tentative plans. Thereafter I received the attached e-mail wm Mr. Elliot to Lisa Job
Dartmore Homeowners representative, dated Feb. 24,2005, in which he makes a commitment to
improved landscaping but the berm is not mentioned.. Some lots have been identified as one-
story. He also increased the size of the lots to 16,000 feet. At the time of this writing no plans
are available to view actual changes.
We request that the changes made in the e-mail wm Mr. Elliot as well as the changes
requested herein,at a minimum, be made a part of any pennission to build the subject project,
based on the stated policy of the city of Meridian to encourage appropriate transitioning.
r submit this letter not knowing if there will be any agreement reached between now and
the meeting with P&Z on mar. 3, 2005.
~u~
~. u. ~.
Y.. -- -: ---- -----
Philip De Angeli
3405 Zaldia Lane
Meridian
FEB 28 '05 12:44
PAGE. 02
Feb 28 05 12:2Sp
- VI YII'"IVI"~~dY"--
From: Ken,Elliott
To: lisajob@cableone.net
Cc: Randy Clarno; Jeff Solscheid ; Wayne Kankelberg
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 7:07 PM
Subject: Kingsbrldge
p.3
Lisa: I spoke with the Vision First partners today and reported the results of our discussions last evening at your
home with Laurie Allen, Bradford Dedman, and Philip DeAngeJi. You explained that you had not reached a
unanimous consensus of the neighbors following the meeting at the school, ,and asked if Vision First would
consider developing a project with 1-acre lots around the entire perimeter and no lots on the interior less than Y.
acre in size. I responded that with Y. acre lots around the entire boundary of the northerly tract, with no Jots of
less than 12,000 SF (the minimum size for the City's R-3 (Medium Density Rural zone) and with overall density
at 1.69 lots per acre (well below the 2 lots per acre density permitted in the City's Low Density Rural zone), we
feel that the new Proposed plat complies with the direction given by both the City Council and P&Z Commission
to provide a low density transition from existing rural home sites east of Eagle Road to the new urban density
projects being built west of Eagle Road and north of Victory Road.
We also discussed what I perceived to be the key objection raised at the neighborhood meeting, which is the
smaller size of the lots in the R-8 portion of the project adjoining Zaldea lane. I told you that I had raised this
concern with the Vision First partners and that we had discussed the possibility of removing 5 lots from the
southern tract, so that the smallest lots bordering Zaldea would be 16,000 SF, instead of 12.000 SF. I obtained
their agreement to this proposal today, and we have directed The Land Group to redraw the plat accordingly.
This would reduce the number of lots from 130 to 125 (including the remaining Teeters' lot), reduce the overall
project density to 1.63 units per acre, and increase the average residential lot size to 17,200 SF.
We also discussed the neighbors' request for limiting all or some of the perimeter lots to single-story houses. As
I said last evening, we hope to sell the Y. acre lots around the perimeter for premium prices to help make up for
the 90 (now 95) lots that we have cut from the project The premium is lost if we limit all perimeter lots to a
single-story, because it costs the builders more to build the same large house spread over a single level than it
does to build the same floor area in a 2-story house. Although we agree thata certain market segment will be
looking for a single-level home, we expect about 2/3 of our homebuyers to want 2-story houses, by looking at
other new large lot residential projects in the Eagle and Meridian markets.
I did get the partners' agreement to a compromise on this request, as Laurie and Bradford both suggested
Tuesday evening, i.e., we are willing to identify those lots that have adjoining houses in close proximity and limit
those lots to a single-story. I have identified a total of 22 perimeter lots that the partners would agree to restrict
in our CC&Rs to a single story. They are: Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 (as widened and renumbered on the plan I will
print off for you tomorrow) in Block 2 adjoining Zaldea Lane; Lots 3. 4 and 5 in Block 1, south of Dartmoor and
the 10-Mile Canal; Lots 17 and 18 in Block 1 and Lots 2,3,4 and 5 in Block 5 adjoining Dartmoor's east
boundary; Lots 22, 23, 24 and 25 in Block 7 south of Teri Lane; Lots 14 and 15 (as renumbered and expanded)
on the cui de sac west of Kunz Hollow; and lots 25, 34 and 35 across the 10 Mile canal from the 2 Kunz Hollow
2/26/2005
FEE 28 '05 12:45
PAGE. 03
RL-:'1 "'Lì 'I 'V1i"i' I)
.J.~A il'J . ,_..1. ,
FEB 28 2005
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Feb 28 05 12:261"
p.~
Page 2 of2
houses with their building envelopes on the north end of their lots. By my count, this is one-half of the total of
44 perimeter lots in Kingsbridge.
In addition, Vision First renews and expands its previous offers to install the foilowing project amenities:
(1) Construct a concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter extending along the north side of Dartmoor Drive from the
Kingsbridge sidewalk at the current end of Dartmoor Drive to the school bus stop at the Eagle Road entry to
Dartmoor, together with a painted crosswalk from the Gideon cul-de-sac to the north side of Dartmoor and a
painted stripe delineating a pedestrian walkway on the south side of Dartmoor;
(2) Install vinyl privacy fencing, in accordance with the city-imposed approval condition (i.e., 4 feet solid topped
by 2 feet of lattice) extending along the entire north property line of Kingsbridge; Install either 5-foot wrought iron
or 6-foot vinyl privacy fence on all other project perimeters, as consensus is reached by those adjoining property
owners. Lisa explained that, with respect to our prior offer to extend privacy fencing along Dartmoor to the cul-
de-sacs, the two lot owners on the south side have installed vinyl fencing and the residents on the north side
have elected not to request fencing.
(3) Impose a 25-foot rear yard setback on all perimeter lots {except adjoining Zaldea Lane if the buffer south of
the privacy fence is widened to 25 feet as provided in (4);
(4) Create a new 5-foot iandscaped strip south of the 6-foot vinyl privacy fence to be instailed on the southerly
lots abutting Zaldea lane. Plant a row of trees 20 feet on center in the 5-foot strip (instead of 1 tree per lot in
the back yards) and irrigate and maintain as Kingsbridge common area. Seek approval of Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District fo narrow the waste pipe easement north of Zaldea from 20 to 15 feet wide. If not approved,
the fence and rear lot lines would be moved 5 feet north, making the southerly lots only 95 feet deep, Instead of
100 feet. In this case, the rear yard setback on the lots abutting Zaldea would be 20 feet (still over the 15' code
minimum) instead of 25 feet, but the total buffer south of the privacy fence would be 25 feet wide (5 feet of
landscape plus 20 foot easement).
(5) Pipe the tail dijch along Dartmoo(s south and west boundary between the, existing southwest corner of
Palfreyman's field tothe Dartmoor irrigation pond north of its Eagle Road entry.
Once the revised plat maps are available to pick up tomorrow, I will give you a call. Vision First is hopeful that
the above compromises will be well-received by the neighbors and will achieve a consensus of quiet
acceptance and neutrality toward Kingsbridge, if not outright. vocal support (which we would certainly
welcome). Please let me know if such a consensus has been achieved prior to next Thursday's hearing. Thank
you.
Ken Elliott
Vision First L.l.C.
661 South Rlvershore lane. Suite 120
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Tel 2081938-4655
Fax 2081938-4765
Cell 208/830-4292
E-mail Kene@visionfirst.net
2/26/2005
FEE 28 '05 12:45
PAGE. 04
March 2nd, 2005
RECEIVEr)
MAR 0 2 2005
Donald G. Hendriksen
4240 Bott Lane
Meridian, Id 83642
~!ty Of Meridian
(aty Clerk Office
City of Meridian
Annexation & Zoning
City Hall
33 East Idaho Ave.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
RE: KINGSBRIDGE SUBDIVJSION
I am writing this letter in support of the Kingsbridge Subdivision, and
encourage your approval, as platted to Zoning and Annexation. We own
9.3 acres on the East boundary, with over 600 feet of frontage against the
east boundary of the development. We are in favor due the decrease in
density of 1.69 units per acre. Vision First LLC has done a good job of
coming to a middle ground, with density, traffic problems and exits. We
attended most of the meetings at City Hall, and neighborhood meetings, and
haw lOtayed -BeUtI'alAme~.
We feel this development is the best interest of the community and
neighborhood as a whole. Vision First LLC, we feel has bent over backwoods
with the neighbors request and concerns. We think some of our neighbors
keep moving the goal posts, to halt development. We hope that this
development is approved, versus a development of 3-8 houses per acre later.
This current development, will keep up property values and be an asset,
rather than a development of much higher densities, later. The pressure to
put much higher densities in the same parcel later, are a good probability.
I have lived at this address since March of 1990. I have watched my current
neighbors, move in including Dartmoor and Selatir, and never complained
about them either. Things are changing, and we feel that this may be in our
best interest in the long term.
If you have any questions, please call!
~/JJ,
~/:b(~n
208-362-3020
,
. . ----~'- --~..._--
!,
.~~- -- /.
,;:;: "
.!<
, ~---r
l;~
Lisa Job
R,ECEIVEf)
MAR 0 22005. .
City Ot Mcnd181 . J !:>; :~
:~:~j~~~~~~~e:n~~~~onfirstnet> City Clerk Office ~
"Randy Clarno" <randyc@visionfirst.net>; "Jeff Solscheid" <jeffs@visionfirstnet>; "Wayne
Kankelberg" <waynek@visionfirstnet>
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 7:07 PM
Kingsbridge
~
!!, ~
From:
To;
Cc:
Sent:
Subject:
Lisa: I spoke with the Vision First partners today and reported the results of our discussions last evening at your
home with Laurie Allen, Bradford Dedman, and Philip DeAngeli. You explained that you had not reached a
unanimous consensus of the neighbors following the meeting at the school, and asked if Vision First wouid
consider developing a project with 1-acre lots around the entire perimeter and no lots on the interior less than Y.
acre in size. I responded that with Y. acre lots around the entire boundary of the northerly tract, with no lots of
less than 12,000 SF (the minimum size for the City's R-3 (Medium Density Rural zone) and with overall density at
1.69 lots per acre (well below the 2 iots per acre density permitted in the City's low Density Rural zone), we feel
that the new proposed plat complies with the direction given by both the City Council and P&Z Commission to
provide a low density transition from existing rural home sites east of Eagle Road to the new urban density
projects being built west of Eagle Road and north of Victory Road.
We also discussed what I perceived to be the key objection raised at the neighborhood meeting, which is the
smaller size of the lots in the R-B portion of the project adjoining Zaldea lane. I told you that I had raised this
concem with the Vision First partners and that we had discussed the possibility of removing 5 lots from the
southern tract, so that the smallest lots bordering Zaldea would be 16,000 SF, instead of 12,000 SF. I obtained
their agreement to this proposal today, and we have directed The Land Group to redraw the plat acccrdingly.
This wouid reduce the number of lots from 130 to 125 (including the remaining Teeters' lot), reduce the overall
project density to 1.63 units per acre, and increase the average residential lot size to 17,200 SF.
We also discussed the neighbors' request for limiting all or some of the perimeter lots to single-story houses. As I
said last evening, we hope to sell the Y. acre lots around the perimeter for premium prices to help make up for the
90 (now 95) lots that we have cut from the project. The premium is lost if we limit all perimeterlots to a single-
story, because It costs the builders more to build the same large house spread over a single level than it does to
build the same floor are.a in a 2-story house. Although we agree that a certain market segment will be iooking for
a single-level home, we expect about 2/3 of our homebuyers to want 2-story houses, by looking at other new
large lot residential projects in the Eagle and Meridian markets.
I did get the partners' agreement to a compromise on this request,
Tuesday evening, i.e., we are willing to identify those lots that have
those lots to a single-story. I have identified a total of 22 perimeter I
our CC&Rs to a single story. They are: Lots 4,5,6 and 7 (as wide
for you tomorrow) in Block 2 adjoining Zaldea Lane; Lots 3, 4 and 5
Canal; Lots 17 and 18 in Block 1 and Lots 2,3,4 and 5in Block 5 a
23,24 and 25 in Block 7 south of Teri Lane; Lots 14 and 15 (as ren
west of Kunz Hollow; and Lots 25,34 and 35 across the 10 Mile can
building envelopes on the north end of their lots. By my count, this i
Kingsbridge.
In addition, Vision First renews and expands its previous offers to ins
(1) Construct a concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter extending along t
Kingsbridge sidewalk at the current end of Dartmoor Drive to the sch
Dartmoor, together with a painted crosswalk from the Gideon cul-de-s
painted stripe delineating a pedestrian walkway on the south side of
(2) Install vinyl privacy fencing, in accordance with the c~y-imposed a ., ppe
by 2 feet of lattice) extending along the entire north property line of Kingsbridge; Install either 5-foot wrought iron
or 6-foot vinyl privacy fence on all other project perimeters, as consensus is reached by those adjoining property
owners. Lisa explained that, with respect to our prior offer to extend privacy fencing along Dartmoor to the cul-de-
sacs, the two lot owners on the south side have installed vinyl fencing and the residents on the north side have
2/25/2005
elected not to request fencing.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
(3) Impose a 25-foot rear yard setback on all perimeter lots (except adjoining Zaldea Lane p~.m0NING
the privacy fence is widened to 25 feet as provided in (4»;
(4) Create a new 5-foot landscaped strip south of the 6-foot vinyl privacy fence to be installed on the southerly lots
abutting Zaldea lane. Plant a row of trees 20 feet on center in the 5-foot strip (instead of 1 tree per lot in the back
yards) and irrigate and maintain as Kingsbridge common area. Seek approval of Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District to narrow the waste pipe easement north of Zaldea from 20 to 15 feet wide. If not approved, the fence
and rear lot lines would be moved 5 feet north, making the southerly lots only 95 feet deep, instead of 100 feet In
this case, the rear yard setback on the lots abutting Zaldea would be 20 feet (still over the 15' code minimum)
instead of 25 feet, but the total buffer south of the privacy fence would be 25 feet wide (5 feet of landscape plus
20 foot easement).
RÐo:fVE¡)
FEB 28 2005
{. ,',Ç/ .
(5) Pipe the tail ditch along Dartmoor's south and west boundary between the existing southwest corner of
Palfreyman's field to the Dartmoor irrigation pond north of its Eagie Road entry.
Once the revised plat maps are available to pick up tomorrow, I will give you a call. Vision First is hopeful that the
above compromises will be well-received by the neighbors and will achieve a consensus of quiet acceptance and
neutrality toward Kingsbridge, if not outright, vocal support (which we would certainly welcome). Please let me
know if such a consensus has been achieved prior to next Thursday's hearing. Thank you.
Ken Elliott
Vision First L.L.C.
661 South Rivershore lane, Suite 120
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Tel 208/938-4655
Fax 208/938-4765
Cell 2081B30-4292
E-mail Kene@visionfirstnet
2/25/2005
PRELIM1NARYPLAT J, _u_u / r='~~"." J2EVELOPMENTCONTACrS
¿-1'i~o~Ro;ii~~r;g'N -,?1,~~Jr\:,"-r~=r==:'~F':Cf':CF5~1:i~' ¡ . 'Tj::.;¡~:TTlli:~"~l!¡! tilrf:::~~ ~".
W1THINAPORTIONOFTHE 1'0",'._""""!--,,'" 1,,'--'I'OII!!.-"--';,--':,'IiI!-'il!'_'!!-"I'-'~-"""~".
SOUTH 1/2 OF TIJE NORTHWEST , ,),\,0 101 0 'T."-='~"" 0 § 1 § I § " § '1",.".9!!¡¡ -'".-.~'"o
1/4,ANDTHE,'NORTHI/20FTIJE ., , ~"~"'1"\,l:'-,."~,J",,,Æ_','J.,',"'/~' 5--§" "',#"~,"':-'L..J.,"~'_,'L",~,_j_.,~",...J, ',~,"-',"-~r,' , , , ~,-,,':-,"'="'--'
SO~~~,1~~~~~28, . !~. í I ¡:::~1'::::-;;;:~~\/~/,. 0~-r~d'T~.::;':;::::::f'"-¡"";\'=;:-':;;;=:-î!!' '0' IT on ,,-:,':'::::::~
TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH RANGEl L~' 'j ," 0,'/ § -'ii/-,-t=:':";2\'('Œ'" ';;;" @;",--~ -@ .,I!, !I"_c-,"'~"~~- n- '"""-'='
EAST, ~g~~T~~~' ADA ~ : .") 1t!.~~"'. : I ~;.tÆJ ' ~. ..:~t:-~t-~J~¡~~l:nl i![ -;:-"J ,: ;:~;::'
DARTMOORI'-'1!'Ç-""¡"',=;~II"';A,-,1,\\0"0'!0"090\j'@"i!" 'I[ ::"0::4:"~
)JS8"""ON , ø j-i-¡:. ~ Þ.. § .:¡.,\,,-n':..- ,> § ""~,,,""'¡"L,"-.J~, . I n~n ' I!' ..~"_.. ','
, ..Tf......._.~ "/'1'" ø '~., ~-,.~~,- ~..-+- "',', Jl, ~ Z
t-~-'" "'-""'"/'\.e">,-,,,,~, - ",' -~-,'O 0
DEVEWPMENTDATA . ' .. "-:!" oj ..t ëï ./..:~::~/.,,~, ~ -,/"r;.--r.'y..,- 0,' J !ii, ~ ì!' "0 ", ~Jš~::'- [¡)
=.-."~ """~,~~ I' .2,"'\\/';'~: ",-f' ~"':'. """"1/-'~-"i2_'¡@"I'I,,-,"-..1 Iii-'!, -. --- -
-~~.~, ""'-~~, . I \'~ '" ?'<' -- /O~ , -, ','-" , ',-- --"~""i ' ." u_~-',- I ' > 0
=._~ ,~"",=~" ,y '",,'f;:'. ~ §f" § /@:"";":;;L,'..L,j., "," 0- " e ¡I' ø !, =.~ 5:r;
-'=-,', .,.."'~,~ ~'{"~.~~~"",~,,(,0,,/~15'~,~-,=::::==::'-::'-'L,"~,"-'."I,t"",-,~"-",~,_,,.'I,,'~ -- ,'!, , , ::0"',:=:':;',-'. 111-<
==:o:~ ::: >~" .;ø;?;?1:~~~~: 0;¿;;ç&;:='\F;~~,'-"-;~;:~~~~j~i ~:~~jJ ~:::- ¡¡; ~
'-.'= ",.,-,u, , /// § ".1 ""'~"" ~'~4,\\ ~ -- " [' ~! ~~";""'_.. [7-- ~ _._~.~"'. t§ ~
:::::.,== ;:.:_. :\~~~:.}.;;vY" /~>~¡;'1;\@;:~';~~~2:\ -~. ~';'l ilL,' !1~~~~ te~#~~,. 5c~~'= ~ ~
~".- =,-~~ .!'.JI'!';'§/""-',-,-//"1"",~F"\.'.§'-~\t,""li,,,"~"9-u~u-!I!'.'!:_'L.."'n',""L~.11¡! ¡:q~
-- ~, ' -- j'!" '" . 'yJ '/'~ "t' \... '" -\ " "It..!J ~ '1 .._~_u- 'I rn
ZONING SETBACKS --....j e -it.;;;..,!" ì, /TI/f !i!-J~'.'!, ~'e"", \. $!.,$!.~.'1J. ):9', @,~!I.r' J ;I! ~
-~-~" I. 5,"~. < liI'f' '."'",' ..,.cu, -, ,. ' ' <?" ,-- -'J',,". .'fI, ,Ii H
-_o_-,,-,"::fA. " ..".. ""'-=.,,,~.J '/It@ ,'" "§ r ~j""",-..........l,."",..l...L';:"'~ ~..~,J "" J.e:'.ì' , " S2
==ii;!"~y. ~. """"""'" II, -,;, ~,..t:1~J -. @ ~"<'-'.'==~ j>; @T""" "~'0,-~-"1
n'!i L ~ I '.~'/ '\oj", ii!,'J// ')""""'."",' -. .v-.~,." .."n1"n".-T""f'-",""--",._,,! -1,""_. ,
1", ,.e. .""e,§,§.-.¡-..~.._" ,..@, ,
",,: ---- :'--¡ @'1~1¡;1":-¥.-' ,." '! '!_'!!!,~::.\'I--~ !'!.ì ' ~~'
I:: Ii I" '[~~'~~~j~:iit~~~;~;~~:~-:1 f ~~~~r¡~~~~ffii~~:~i~;þ~~;~~¿~,~'==:=~ . ~d; ~ ~ - i,¡U
"I:" r" "............~...L_,._..~.._.,_..LL"--, y--' ,I Jih' e J ~".~~_m_._.._~"^,,~-_.~~~'~~ . ~ ~L'5m
!lm;~=i)~Çfï~[~~~~~~=f~:;;;;\~. ;)l~¡~;.,¡ ~~~~~~::~:~:,::'=-':::':=;:::-=:, ~~ ~)!I
',~, L.""'3I1 kf"ff:.L.~._.L.~._.L.~nd! \(.>/~.._n"'n_..- ,._.""--,~~--,_.~-,,,~,-,~,,~-~ '-~~~'~T"- II'\"'.~
¡I~~irf'i~~~~~~~~~~:~ :ii~¡ ¡ ~~~:.~:;:::::::.'.::~~ ~=:::':~~.:::~". ~, ~ ¡I --M:"
""I!,! I".if¿,~ll '0'," 0,', " 0,' ~,0,- iH,-",il '--~.."---~._'_._~-~'~'"-='-~",'~-' -~' I -~,'~/""
¡i:,: ~0[ ,r,~:=:=="'?=::.~.:::-':=-£:="=:':/ \, e , ø- ~ ;:;;:::~,:;;:-:~..;;:;:;;;;:;;..:;;;;;;;:;:;;;:;.:;;;;~;, .....). ~~, ,-~ "" ¡;¡
,¡I¡I! ' '~"""~""T".'i"'5¡¡;T.':"'ì"¿-.-¡ ¡ ,,-~.~.,,-,"_.~_.._-_.~.__~~_n,"- 51 ' ílv8,lRfll..,d' o.~. GB ø
r ¡ l1~:=:icc,:i"J:;~=1::!;:LAAJ~~ --"._..~~f:;,~~£~~~~~:r:~~"t,:::::~'~~:,,~~=~~i:~ ~~ ~. ~AÞ:8 'Õ5"'+" I
:.,r, ---J"A D,"',' ,CR[A r ~ 1~~~,~~,'.¡gr,¡~;.~o,.':Œ',é:c\¡,r,,',J.':;~.'1':~~,~!~:~,":.:¡"'~:~.'¡". F ~ FE)!' ',' " '"
¡:. : -- c s'~;D'V'sIOt I :::=::::':'::::':::~-.::,'::::::=::::rn::::::~o...." ¡ -:.:::---,.--~~ ~ 9
, . ~ ,MASTER SITE PLAN.. - '~=~-;-¡¡;:~~W::~;'::¡""::'.';~;"'::"~'::':=~~-"",'::~.....- ~ ,yrCINITYMAP PP '!
'II" "~""W-O' - ::;"f¡"t"~.~..~i'i':"",~:~",.,,,.=-':::'::';:'~I¡;:'~"'î""-'u_,,~-"" =, dW ::1
~','~.:; ~
PRELIMJNARY PLAT
LOT 11, BLOCK 2 OF THE
DARTMOOR SUBDIVISION
WITHIN A PORTION OF THE
SOUTH 112 OF THE NORTHWEST
1/4, AND THE NORTH 112 OF TI:Œ
NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE
SOUTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 28,
TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1
EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA
COUNTY, IDAHO
DEVELOPMENT DATA
"'m. """""TY ""Ek ",n AC '~"',7" SF)
,'"UC ~o... AREk "." ^' "",,.m S>')
"'TAL """.0' AREk '256 ^' 1"".23' S>')
""""mAL LOT AR!:k ,""J6 AC (2"".'" SF)
'56 LO"
""'" """'" LO""
OP'" "'ACE """
A"""'" LOT """
>HOTS
".200 "/RES""'"" LOT
.~"""' RES LOT .'"
....u. RES HCUSE .'"
'2000 "
'_SF
ORO'" "".TY,
,." RES ""'lAC
EVELOPMENT CONTACTS
I~~~
,.""
~j~,
,~'õ
f'~
fig
~~
-I
~A~i
Ub'
:J.
.1
" I
~" /,
'-...,/ I
" , I
, ,
/', ,~
,
DE"""""
KlNOSBRrJ>G< L.L<:
c/O w.ow """T. ceo
", . m""""ORE CINE. sum '"
"""',,"","".
PHOWE. 1208) '38-."s
CONT^," RANDY cu."",
OWNERs,
"""""""'- ccc """"""
~ i'~,%:~ sunE "" .~i;~~=::?-'"
EA"" """' 03076
PHOWE. (""') ""'-'65S
co",^", RANDY "",,",
0.,-..
~ci1" ,~t~;::~ ,. 'A"""'AN , '.nœ '~::;::'
BOI~ IDAHO 'J7"
,,",,"E. 1"")J7'-"'"
'A"'" A AN' JANIE IT<1ER
".. S. ""'-E RD.
","/Ou", IDA"""",
PHOWE. I"") "H=
"',,""'
"'erN"",
THE LAND OR"'. ~C
..., E. SHORE O~. SUITE '"
""""IDAHO..",
~~;'~;::,:,
:z;
0
>-<
r.n
>0
>-<X
O~
II1Q
::>-
r.n "
Ç:i)Z
0$
08
>-<0:::
~riJ
1I1::E
r.n
0
:z;
g
I'~~
~.'Ij.~j
"'"", ZONIN', RUT (A" COU'TY) . I' -.~
,."""" ZON'NO I );"~
ZONING SETB~~KS ~' @j ~~~
""'N"""^"" SHArJ. OEm I. I fê
CONRJANCE on" SECTION "-9-" ~ ".., fO
'"' "..mAN NO"",,^, COOE. AS ...........--
""ENDED SY ORDINANCE 03-'001. .
:i ~I i / \... I. ~
11 :1 I 1- œ"",..".",,_\ ~ - '~ "
I' . . ,,=-=_~_=_f= ~~-~~.~~.=--_..~.~ . ~~ ~ š 1 J
! : Ii i ~---;---~r--,:iAr'2~~¡"=~~' . ~U:r;7 L ;Idf~~~'
dl Ii I. r: "-'::,1,:",,,j,~, :~~d_--_".,--..j---'J"'---L., . ...t ;iiÚr:
I i II I. ~".¡;) /-----'-------'-:111- L ' ¡:: j!~th
:!H+ïf"'~ ~,>'Ò(;9«'~~:'ÕT:::Jf-~~',;õ--r \- rl¡I""~'¡~.!
III; 10: _.,}!/ -. 1= .,.. r= ~.. ~ ~\
1¡"/!L",;iiio,!p:0:0:-""""""", ""~
I ! ~.L.."'~J . I'LIø:::=:::=.~::=-;;c.:.~~_-=.-.~ .1 I :fI~ì'.
¡ i *.~-+-~~:_=:=-==~-=-~~~~ Á II ~!
Ii I II ¡ r'".;;;,'39! (£'. ,~,----,---,¡:p--~--~::--,~ , ~I ~I rn.j="m"",,
11Ii/i:0~ll"'='¡,,"";,:,,=,:- 1.04020
if! lilr0 ~-~.(~~tEi..::~L"1t.~-=$.' --.~~-~.-,~.' ~.,..', ',~ (, ::~: P:KK
li'l, :" 0 :"0 ¡g ë1'f/Wlg" I~~~~ dE
Ii U' L ,~. J ,u Jl .: : ~ 1-14-05
ii! IL - ~~~-~ ~~~~t~~:;:~~::~fh:--~ /? . FE' ~ 28 ö(ir"
Ii: : SUBD!VISIO ~~ -.", CITY OF ttrotN'"
I', . PLANNING" NINQ
Ö ~~~~-~ 'SITE !:LAN. )~~:. ~ 1:-'P
lANOSCAO'£ """'TEe,.
"" ClND ORCUP. IN"
.,., E. SH"", DR" SUITE ",
""'" "'HO "",
PHOW" (20') '39-<0<'
CONTAcT, PH- NUu.
""""""'"
"'" ""'" '""= ~C
~~SU'TE'"
"""'" (2Ds) ><>-7'"
CONTACT, "" FOJ<
t-<
f<l
(J)
f5:
f<l
>:
f<l
P:
11)
0
"J.
""
~
0
Mar, 2, 2005 4:34PM
March 2, 2005
CityofMeridJan
Meridian pJl!DIÙJIg and ZOUing Commission
33 E. Idaho Avenue
Meridian. Idaho
, ,'-, ' " "'j' ¡ ,\1(;11)
,'U:lAjl\ t " ül'
MAR 03 200S
Cit OfMeriilian
Ci~ Clerk Office
Re: Kingsbridge Subdivision
Dear gjr or Madam:
No, 0350 p, 1
RliJo~
"4q 0 ~(j
ÞBh'.9~ 2 2005
~'<VJJv. ~
Gli
'pi
I am wri1.iIIg this 1etIer on behalf of my husband and myself. We live at file end ofTÐIri Drive on appœimæely
4 acres. We have 537 feet abutting the north line of the proposed subdMsion.
We have been 10 aU the past KiDgsbridge hearings to voice our opposiûon 10 their proposed plat.
We axe 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 miDimum 18,000 sq.ft, lot size east ofDanmoor Subdivision and require a 11ÙDÌ1111IID of 1/2
acre lots on the perimeteIs abuItiDg acreage properties,
We find that lJUs version bas addressed sonIe oftbc conCCtllS of sunounding property owneIs, Vision First is in
the hope that they have made enongh 'concessions' to make the opposition go away. But the mœe we reseæ:ch
and review requireIœDIs and findings of the Commission and P & Z. file more certain we are that the developer
bas made no real concession and no attempt to trUly negotiate. What they have done is to minimally follow
your guide IiDes and requiremeD1s.
Our æsearch also illdicales that the fiœ1 plat must match the approved preliminary plat. This CO1lCC1l1S us
greatly beœuse the preJimiDaly does not xeflect what was agæed 10 by the developCt'. We see no written plan
to fence and landscape the sobcIivision in the manor requested by the perimeter propcnies or proper dellW
regarding siDgIe level home restrictions on certain perimeter Jots.
We would like to see the fencing on the North perimeter six Ibot taIl, of a solid D81UI'C, and on the prope:tty line.
Any buffer zone or wa1king path should be on the Kingsbridge side of the line to belp keep our acreages from
becoming 'public' land.
We also find no sof6cíent plan to address subdivision stonD-water œten1ion and runoff or the continued
delive¡y of irrigatiaD water beyond the subdivision.
We feci thai a development agœemcntShouId be included in this approval process to pmoent future chaDges
from the original agn:ed to amenities, details, restrictions and deDsity.
Meeting these requùements would help ease the 1J8DSition from the large roraI acreage to the wban density of
the new subdivision.
~»
\o('~ ~
Laurie AlIen
3550 S. Tem Dri\'e
Meridi<m. Idaho 83M2
MAR 02 '05 16:52
PAGE. 01
Mar, 2.2005 4:35PM
No. 0350
P. 2
Moffqtt Thomas
MOFFATT'l1IOMAS :BA.RRB1T ROCK do PIIW>s, CHTD.
S.....C.Tho.... s....I..C..þboli r..,bcrlrD.E..n.R...
Job.W.Bwm _B.- lIo.jomiall.&¡",-
IL D. Roci< ]- c. !>.Ie ".. A. Slcnquüo
RJ<honl C, Y",1d. 101- B. n..... lltié H. Buzc.
!lobe" S. e.... Paa!c;dL 0Ia0. end~ J.Ir....
]ob.s.S;..1cc ].....c.dcGloo .r-G.I@rDlJO
J.hoc.WI"" DnrUo¡rJIWUli.... MarkCt.......
I). J..." Mon.iD!: tocRod£ooI McItow J. WùdoA
Go« ' T. Do"" WcIIoc.I 0. ... Sh.... C Noo1cr
!=yC.Mu.... DM4s.,¡..,... 'frr..J.AMtaoB
ll<odcUA.P.tumco ].....1..-' a.....íIG.-
=~i"Tt~:.. g..,,~o:~ lI!oIpoW.Riw..¡"of...,.,.¡
G ",o.M.o,........ ]uJ...H.G.biol. IVlJIl,C:Mo8i".1J07.118O
C...IdT.Huxh AosdaSWuKoul..... .o\7d-R.H""k,19S<>.1QOJ
RECEIVED
MAR 0 3 2005
8oj,.
Idoho F¡I~
Fo"'teUo
City Of Meridiar¡
City Clerk Office
October 11,2004
via Hl1l/d Delivery
us BanI: PI". Bu;ldlo9
101 SCapitolB/1xJ lOtI> 'I
1'0 eo. 82.
Bo...ldaho 817010029
208 345 2000
800 421 lsse
208 385 5384 F..
-,moffatt.com
Cily Clerk, City ofMer:idian
Meridian City Hall
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridia;¡, Idaho 83642
Re: Vision First, LLC;
Proposed Kingsbridge SubdMsioD;
City of Meridian File Nos. AZ-O4..oZ3, PP-040-O30,
and CUp.O4-026
MTBR&FFile No. 19-898.0
REcE~1)
~ 0 2, 2005
ÞfmQ.P'MBRJDIAN
- """"'l'I.tNG &, Z°.N1NO
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
We represent the residents of the Dartmoor Subdivision ("Darlmoor'~, which adjoÙJs tile
proposed Kmgsbridge Subdivision C"Kingsbridge"} and w1ùd1 would iJ:Iclude the most directly
impacted properties fi'om the development ofKingsbridge. In connection with our
representation ofDartrnoor. we have reviewed, among other docwnents, ,a letter ftom Edward
Miller with the law film Givens Pursley, dated September 16, 2004, that is included in tiN:
record presenled to the Meridian Planning !UId Zoning Commission C'P&z'~. This letter is
intended to address and correct some of the statements included in Mr. Miller's letter.
At the hearing before the City Council on October 19, 2004, you wi1I hear testimony ftom the
Dartrnoor residems regarding tile representations that they rece.ived at the time they bought their
lots from the developer ofDartmoorwith respect to the future development of Lot II, Block 2
C'Lot II'? which lies adjacent to Dartmoor and comprises a significant portion of Kingsbridge.
Some of these xesidents will undOubtedJy share with you the filctthat they were assured thai
Lot 11 would be developed with one to two acre lots in a manner consistent with the large lots
in Dartmoor. Most all of these residents will undoubtedly share with you the filct that they were
assllTed that Lot I I would remain Op(!J1 space and not be developed at aII 'until at leasll S ycars
after the recording of the pIal for DartInoor. As disCUSSed below, the recorded record
establishes the indisputable 1rUth with respect to the IS-year montorium on developll1ent and,
as a matter of equity, fairness, good government, and prudence, Dartmoor therefore req~eôts
BOJ_MT¡;õ!;SS¡¡.1
MAR 02 '05 16:53
PAGE. 02
Mar. I.. 2005 4:35PM
No. 0350
P. 3
City Clc:rk, City of Meridian
October 11, 2004
Page 2
that the Meridian City Council rehin Jiom approVÌ1lg any development of Kings bridge at least
until the I5-year moratorlumhas run on March 3, 2009.
Site Specific Condition No.2 of the September 13, 2004, StaffRepOIt 10 P&Z proposed the
foJlowing COJIdiûon of approval to the IGngsblidge applications:
Approval of the plat is conditioned on the applicant
demonstrating written approval by a ~ority of the 101 owners in
DlI11moor Subdivision of the subdivision and development, or as
an aItcmative, a favorable ti:JiaI decision by the District Court for
the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho declariJ1g that the
applicant has the right to subdivide and develop the property
notwithstanding the nonbuild restriction placed on the property by
Ada COlU1ty. Such approval shall be required prior to submittal
of any finaI plat applications or issuance of any buildiDg permits.
Mr. Miller, on behalf ofhis client, argues that "Vision First already meets Condition No.2
because each and evmy lot owner in Dartmoor Subdivision has already consented to the
resubdivis.ion and development of Lot 11." },.fIller letter at p. 1. Mr. Miller points to the
following language contained in the tIùrd paragraph of Article n to the Dartmoor CC&Rs (copy
attached to MiUer letter) to support his argDment:
As provided in Section 5.28 of this DeclaratiOD, Lots 1 and II, of
Block 2, rue aduded bJl the Grfllltor from coverage of t1ûs
Declfll'ation. By accepting a Deed to a Lot within Dartmoor
Sul:idivision, each Owners shall be condusive/y deemed to have
waIved any objection to the aclusion of sRid Lot 1 and 11,
Bhlck 21l1Ul COll8elltlJ tD tAe rø-subdivision Il1Ul development
thereofln IU:COrdflllce with tAB zrllling urdInaces tllen Inforeg
ad effect ad Wlkøble to Lot 1 .t 11, Block Z, including such
re-subdividing and/or devcloPDtent as shall require that access to
Lot 1 and II, Bloc.k:2 will be provided by thepubJicrigb.t(s)-of-
way within Dartmoor Subdivisions, and that the utility facilities
located with:in Darbnoor Subdivision Dtay be extended to serve
said Lot I and II, Block 2, including aro-subdivision thereof.
(Emphasis added.)
There are at least three fundll!l1ental problems with Mr. Miller's argument. rust. as discussed
further beJow, the argwnent ignores the other appJicable (and controlIing) provi.ion in the
Dartmoor CC&Rs that proscribes any development of Lot 11 for a minimum of 15 years.
BOtMT2,S>9522,1
MAR 02 '05 16:53
PAGE. 03
Mar. 2. 2005 4:35PM
No. 0350
P. 4
. .
City Clerk, City of Meridian
October 11, 2004
Page 3
Second, and as also discussed .further below, the BrgUmeJ1t iØllOJ'œ the limitation in the
Dartrnoor pJat that proscribes IIIIY deve]op1I1eI1t of Lot 11 for a minimwn ofl S years. Third, the
argument igJrores the fact that Lot II was exp.œ¡sly ac1uded from the Dartmoor CC&R& and
that therefore the implied CODBent thereby granted by the Dartmoor residents to the development
of Lot II was pelSOnal to Skyline Development Company ("Skyline"), the developer of
Dartmoor, which had pro.mjsed the Dartmoor lot purchasers that DO development of Lot 11
would occur for at least I S years and ihat when development did occur it would be done in a
manner consistent with the deveIopmentofDartmoor. In other words, because Lot II is
excluded ftom the Dartmoor CC&Rs, the CO1I88IIt (which is neither a covenant nor a restriction)
for the development of Lot 11 contained in the CC&Rs nms only to SkyJù¡e, which, of course,
wou1d be Ihnited by its prior representations to how it might develop Lot 11 once the IS-year
moratorium. on development expired, In sum, becanse there is a complete Jack of privity (or
CODtlactual relations) between Vision First and !he Dartmoor residents, Vision Fits! cannot
sever the commitments made bySkyliae (ie., development 1im.ited in time and density) 1ìam
the very benefits Skyline obtained for making these commi1ments (i.e.., consent to limited
development).
Above and beyond the foregoÌZJg "privity" argument, however, are the matters contained in the
Dartmoor CC&R.s and plat CODœming the development of Lot II that are not subject to
dispute. Thus, Article V, Seçtion 5.01 (b) of the CC&Rs specifically provides as follows:
O»en SOllee Lots: The followmg Lots shall be used. for
agrl~turaI purpose¡, subject to the limitations as provided in this
Declaration (hereafter "Open. Space Lotsj:
Lot 11, of Block 2, Dtl/1mtlOr SIl/Jtft¡¡i8itnt, fW:Or4Ú1g to the PI"' .
thereof.
(Emphasis added..) Or as otherwise indisputedly promised, Lot 11 is to be used for open space
"according to the Plat the.reo£" AIu!, in this regard, Note 9 to the Dartmoorplat (copy of plat
a1tached to Mil1er letter; blowup of Note 9 attached hmto) expressly provides:
LOT II BLOCK 2IBA DBBD RESTRICTED LOT ÆND.MAY
ONLYBB llSEDFOR OPENSPACE AS DBFINHDINTHE .
NÒN-P ARM DEVELOPMENT SECTION OF THE ADA
COUNTY CODE, SBCTION 8-4B- 7 AND IN THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT PROVJSIONS OF THE ADA COUNTY
CODE FOUND IN T1TLB 8, CHAPTER. 9, THE DEED
RESTRlCTEDLOTMUST ALSO ONLYBB USED IN THE
MANNER. SPEClFmD IN THE CONDmONS OF APPROVAL
ISSUED BY ADA COUNTY'S DEPARTMENT OF
aOLMT2:S"õ22.!
MAR 02 '05 16:53
PAGE. 04
Mar. 2, 2005 4: 36PM
No, 0350
P, 5
. ~
City Clerk, City of Meridian
Oclober 11, 2DD4
Page 4
DBVRLOPMENT SERVIŒS. THIS LOT MUST BE USED
IN AFOBESTATED MANNER FORA P1JBJ:OD OF NOT
LESS THAN FIFTEEN (15) YEARs FROM THE
RECORDING DATE OF 13/31P4/
(ElllpJwis added) Thus, the plat states without restriction of any kiIld that Lot 11 must be used
ÍO1' opl!ll. spaçe tbrough at !east March 3, 2009. It is 'Ibis express recorded restriction that the
Dartmoor residenb are askiDg the Meridian City CO'IUICil to respect.
Mr, Miller argues that this deed and/or pJat restriction should be ignored because to respect the
reconJed promise relied upon by the Dartmoor residents would efièctively give these residents
"veto rights,.. whicb, of course, is exactly what !he Dartmoor CC&Rs and plat were intended to
accomplish. Mr, Miller next argues that this restriction should be ignored because Ada CoUllty
changed ita zoning ordinances after the plat was reco.rded; however, the final sentence ofNoto 9
10 the plat specüica1ly provides that Lot 11 sball be used for open space for not less than
15 years, and does not provide for a ~ oftbis moratorium on development in the event
of a change in Ada County's ordinllllÇes. J1r. Miller fiDaIly argues that this restriction should
be ignored because it "runs contrary 10 the City of Meridian's exclusive power to conIm1 the
zoning and development of the lands within, ita COIporaIe limits" - Which argument, the
Dartmoor residents respecttùlly submit, is ~aI1y the point hme at issue.
TheDartmoorI8&ÌdenlB uncIerstaud thatthe,Meridiau CityCounciJ holds broad and expansive
JegisJatjve power in connection with land use ma1ters, Ù1cl1Iding deciding tho IGngsbridge
applicationS. Having great power, however, also :iusti1Js a great obIigatÌoJ1 on the Meridian City
Council 10 CIIBUle that private property rights art! respected. And. in tbis regard, there can bo no
question tbat the Dartmoor res:idents WCJ:IJ promised by both Skyline and Ada County that they
could build their homes in Dæ1moor with the assurance that Lot 11 would romain open space
ÍO1' at least 15 years.
If the Meridian City Council approves the Xingsbridgo applications it will subject the DlI11moor
œsidents (and possibly the City of Meridian) 10 needless and costly IXtigation to stop tha project
in court - which the DlI11moor CC&Rs and,plat give the Dartmoor residents the absolute right
10 do. Thus, the central question)lfesllltted by the Kin¡sbridge applications is whether concerns
with equity, 1àirness, good 1O'VeIIIII1eI1t. and prudence should prevail over the given J!1ct that the
Meridian City Council DIlly have the pclWerÚ) approve the applicstions pending before it The
Dartmoor residents respoctful1y submit that the fÐregomll SOVCIIIDIental concerns over the
exercise of power shouId olearly prevai]1IIIder the present ~, and they therefore
plead they be SPared by the Meridian City Council from litigating to enforce their indiSPUtable
private. property rights.
SO .JoI1'2S5a~ 1
MAR 02 '05 16:54
PAGE. 05
Mar. L. LUU, 4:36PM
No, 0350
P, 6
. -
City Clerk, Gty of Meridian
Ûçtober I I, 2004
Pago 5
In sum, the Dartmoor resjdents would respec1:lùlJyask: What pos&1'ble end can be achieved by
approving a project proscribed by its recorded plat from be.ing OOllJ lxuctCd other than subjecting
an COJlCelUed parties to, costly and time CODSIIIIling litigation? Dartmoor can think of none
other, And for tbis reason alone the Kingabridge appJicatlons should be denied.
Ve¡y tr.uly )'OUD,
A-.fL
RBBIkdp
Attachn1CJ1t
oc:
Tim Wallace (via E-mail)
Rick Stott (via E-mail)
BOLMT2:6S95.Z2.1
MAR 02 '05 16:54
PAGE. 06
J
--....- -.. - - ¡'¡;'...š...- OARTMOoR SUB ~.... , ...." ,. " ....
S£ CORNER . ro.... I' ..."...~- .......... ""--""-"""""co r....
NW 1/4 S£C1!ON 2ð 0 Ene"'e.,. - ~ - tonlplannera
CPI# No. 8117789 4118 rm8nll~ o~, _SuItt D~2
a..:
=
~
~
=
0
2:
11
~
.0
...,
<t-
.... ~, .... 1IU: 1IH OII.C L4-
n
~
....
-I -
-.. .:
~ICTIVE COVENANTS'
~
-,
LOT NlJMSER
NOTES
\ "
. IS
lL
e:
~
A ÆN (1O) FOOT 1110£ £.UÐœfT IS HlIIElly ~ AO.IAcÐIr ro AU. WT UH£S C,,",-
TO " ~ IllGilT-OF-WAY - AO.IAI:£Nr ro IHE ~SIOIt IICcJM)AII'r fI ¡ puauc
tI~ :'AlNt-Œ, - NIl) lAAlCAiia¡¡ 'AeUJln. IHra ItASDlENr SHAU. Nor PI!£CUIO£
11£ C1JDIf 01' ItAIID SURFACE o~w"w AMI W.\U!'MA'IS ro fAC>t lOT.
IIIM.Þ.wo SErtACKS ANIJ ~ONAi. SfANDAI!O$If IIf!$ ~\IS OH IINALI. COMPLY 1'11111
'IIÆ ""~ ~! O RtCI/¡.\lIOHS OF ADA COOIIrr IDAHO.
AHY ~SlOH OF 11111 PLAT IIkA\.l, COtoIp¡,Y I!IIII!H¡ N'l'UCMI£ l<JilflO IlECUl.Al1OJ1S
/If £Fftcr AT TH[ TIle Of 1IIE RtSUIIDI\ SIOH,
DEIÐ.O¡II:R SItAu. COWPI.Y "'IH IDAHo CGDr «C1IOH ~~380$ Ra.AlINQ fo IRNcA1ItIH
RlCHf$, 1RAHrnã NI ) bIsQ.~
. 15 A S1JI I' Of LAND IiIfALL IE A!æRICI N.CIII11 (ACI ,~I!H..!!!ŒRlOII ~IY ~ARY
LIH£ IIIIHW 1IIIS SIIIÐI~DIf RIft, DIE ~-:"""'"""'tA1IOlt or I'RÐPERJY
/ItLutf~ MÐ/OR 1IiE INSrAtIAIIOII Of' A ,-.,........,.,' ~1IOH lmor.. $4!D SJRIP Of'
lAND IIfIoU. 8( ArorA!. 01' ~ (zo)'Fë£r IN "'D1I\. IDNo 'ÐI (to) fEEr QflIlOTH
SIDQ Of' PIIOfoòIY LIlEs.
. ~~ ti.o~ ~~"'fs~'.tt~~ ~Df':'~~Bl~""SIRUCI[I)
UPCIH SAID LOTS. - .
7 I.Of I 8I.OCK '. LOT. a ØI.OQ( "" AND 1.01' tØ ILOC!( a NI£ QlMt, QffoAREAS TO IlL OIINm AJ.t
:r~ M ~=£~.c=:~M.:s~W ~"& ~ "::~g,:s\~
. fI.aOO IUllllAl1Otf S!IAIL t ()T III ~ f IJ ¡N !tit (10) FEET 01' A DIW.W1no OR
IlllllsulFACE SEW.AiZ ÐlSPo- SI1E. .
. 1.01' 11 kQCK Z IS A DEED IlESIIIICIQ LOr AND NAY ÐNJ.r 8[ IIS£D ... 0f'EH $PACE AS
GIPINtD II lilt --IAII.. DIV!LDP~~c.!!* or IHõ AlIA C O NJY ~ $[C1111to 8-4B-7
NIl) III 111£ ~ ~lIQ t ~"v........" 01' tIC 4IOA CØU ry ÇOø£ ~o IN 1 1l£ II.
ClNAI'1Ðt .. 1IIE 0iE0 1ID!RlCa LOr -r AUIO ClNLr BE WED IN 111£ MANNÐt-SP£aFlEO
III 1IIr CONС1¡OIIS 01' N'l'1IOVA!. "sum IIY ADA ~ IIPldllllENr Of' orwiOPMENT
~ litiS LOr NUSr BE US£D IN ~rAf£D MAIfIIER RIll A I'illlDO or,¡or lESS IIIAN
FI'1RIf (16) ~ FllCIoI IHE ~ OA1E 01 . '
10 &~11~l~"'~ or ~Jo~/lØMlel:~~I,R:~~ §f:1I ONTO
IIIBJ VMfoI/ SHALL BE I'/Io f.Jr~
It 1\ 10' r.tŒ rASODr I0Il IHr 1Ðf IIILt IAJEllAi. 18 NDlmy II£SÐlICI AS rHOI\ft.
It 1I/\s ~~AIE![.~ SEe1l"" D-4SO.1 or œœ. /IiGf ' 10 "AIIM ACT,
"CII Sf.. ,1IaH at AI" NÇt!:. II) " AQ. Bt; (1ft
~- 8r IIIt'f CIt ÇIIND¡1 OifS /If THE
~AFlDlIIIE II~S 8UH III fI ¡-MORr
WAS NOr A AI' IH£ E~"lION
IHI8' NOr NO"", A
,NCGuGÐf1 ON 01' AllY eu..1UIIAI.
'>T
If)
§
If)
IS)
(\
IS)
'"
a:
E:
Mar. 2. 2005 4:37PM
No. 0350
P. 8
.,
~
HOAGLAND, DOMINICK & HICKS
ATTORNEYS AT LAw, PLLC .
Samuel A. Hoaglaød . Thomas B. Dommid: ' Geaqe O. Hicb . I'IIID<ÍI H. Hic:ks, of CIKIDseI
DeCeJllber 8, 2004
RECXE~D
HAlf 02 2005
~i1J:Q!. ~lAN
- """"'~G &: ZONING
Meridian City HaJI
City Clerk, City ofMeridiaÐ
33 B. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
FACSIMILBNO.: 888-42]8
Re: Vision Firat, LLC;
PIIIposld KiDgsbridge Subdiviaion;
City of Meridùm File Nos. AZ-04.O2J, B?-040-030, and CUP..()4-026
Dear Mayor and Memb=r¡¡ of the Meridian City CoUJlC:i];
I have bclII1 retained by the members of BrldIewood Subdivision and B~merton
Subdivision to review the abO\lll rÑerenced applications in light of the laws in effectm
Ada County at the time their subdivisio.ns were approved by Ada County. I have bad 8n
opportImity to re\IÌew a copy of the Ietter prepared far the plllmlÌog and Zoning
Commission by repJeSenfaliVBS of Vísiœ Firs! 8I1d particularly ÙJl:OJpOratin,g a strained
legal opiDiDli reOOerod by Mr. Millllll' of 1he firm, Givens Pw:sley UP, suggesting that the
homeowoem and their successors in Ihe Dartmoor Subdivision had agreed to the
development of Lol II, Block 2 at this lime, in spile of prov:isions proIu"biting the
development of lot 11 for a minimum of fifteen (lS) years. Neither that 1D1A1)1Sis nor the
rebuttal prepared in behalf ~ the hDmsownlllS in Dartmoor Subdivision takes into
OODsideralion the :fimdamallal and basic fact that the Jaw in Ada County III the dme
regarding rural area districts and rural pœservalion ZOIles specifically prohibits the
development of Lot ] I, Bloet 2 for a period off1fteen (IS) yells ftom the lime Dartmoor
Subdiv:ision was approved.
In researchÎDg Ibis matter I nw!e a public rœords request to the Ada County
Developmem Services DivisioD. This gave me au opportrmity 10 ~search Title 8,
Chapter 4, Section B7 of the Ada County Code in effect at the time the of the approval of
the subdivisions IIppIIrtmant to and in 1fIe vicinity of the laud that is currently subject of
the above n:1'ereœed applications. I believe that the Janguage on the pJat restricting
dwelopmem for IS yean¡ was RqIliRd by Ada Counly Code 8-4B-7(E)(f)(4). It was one
of four opliCIIIS that coaJd be selected by dliwelopen; at the time to maintain open space as
a condition of developme:1!.
SborelineCenler,SaìleIOO. 1471ShoreUneDrive . Boise,Idaho83702
Phone (208) 343-9J11 . justicemaximus.com . Fa~ (208) 386-9944
-MAR 02 '05 16:55
. -PÃGÊ.Ø8-~n
IVlar, L. LUU, 4:37PM
No,O350
P, 9
The perimeter property owners as well as the Danmore p.roperty owners who
ilwested their JDODey and lives into their hOJl1eB çollDll:d on this provision 4Dd the filet
that 1.01 II, Block 2 wuuJd not be developed until at least 2009. The pl'O\lÍ9.Ìon c8llDOt be
ignored nor ellJl it legally be swept UDdar the lUg. I attach a copy oftbe OrdinaDce fur
your review aDd ÇOJJSjdmdian. Thaok you tOr )'DIIt time and effort in deaIiug with this
issue, J urge ~ to deny the applicatÌcm.s based upan the filet thAt they are premature in
that thøy violate applioable regulations in me and e&:it when the origiaal deed
restricticm.s were filed of nlcord and are Still in force by virtue of the thoae s.me
regulatùms. '
ë;d~
Gearse G. Hicks
BNCLOStJ1æ
GGH:m
MAR 02 '05 16:55
, ,--., . -'PÃGÊ:"øgM-
lVIar, L. LUU~
4:37PM
No, 0350
P,
10
, '
, , ,', '." c., ,;".' ','. ',.': ' :' ' " '. '", .
'}" > :i:P;:!;' ~~.,' \i ;"~ i;L:õc:.';;;, ¡~; ;,Ù;:,;,;, C"Hi ;~;::} ~¡~it,; \
': " : ~ :"~ ~ '.;,:; e~ : >'" ", ,;:" t.' OP81t SPJlclf"Ø188S,aræn'bè maIntained ,$Cfltfal,Uielt,ÜS8 :'as:suëb,', .,>-.::' '" >:,,;
i":{/~'<"!i~fi'~1:111'I':t.¡;¡<~;,. .
,-,:,c':;: '::,;' "'", :}:,: ',0< ,'J8Spon8ll!IUtj< ".for,' .II~:, m.a1n_lønlUl~a.:' A:",copy ..OI,:'Jhs, UsoèlatJbnl" ,',',', : ""
J: ": ,~, ',;,~' _:,' ",'JoundaliOÍI" co¥enants'ôr ,liylawlr"SlIaJf bir 'sublii~iád:'io ~/h~ :Direç ot ~" "', ','
:"" ",: ~;,,-'" "ll!cllcall!1g,,~~ ,{)'~Y""~~,"I!lbleJor;'!I~Y~~I:'Þf:,B~Yla~es'....r:, ",..- "
:'>":""~~~~~:;',~i>';:-"':<':<:,,~;,,'i,":'<;, ,;,':,':-:,,:,: '::,:, ':'::~:O¡',:--
, "-"!3r,68diCal(orj'.oi~ve opnient¡'¡gi1ls'a/'øpeñ spiÚmaYbè inade,',~
'10 an appropriate PUbÍic 8g8nçy' wnh ownersllip remaining 'wfth Ilia
' ,develop!!!r, or -homeowner's 8S6OCIatio:n. Maintenance responslbilUy: ,
,:incJudlng--Vlejl8Yment: ~.f" .IIIiJ(ØS, ,;and c;harg~s,',sh..II' re,maln ,Wfth
'the~ertylWtller(s).", '-::: ': ,'-' ',' ,< ,
, (4', Oeed~resjrïciød 'pri~¡j¡;-oWiI~rShjp Qr a perllId of ri~I less than: '
, :' "',' "'.:: ,:, ',.. . flfleen (15J~y8its,.,whrçh Ghal) prevent d8~elopineni a"dior 'si;bs1J~ " ,;'" .:
'--, , , ,"'-' ';' ,':quem SubdlvlsiOl'I,öf,t!1e, open: ~pa~'area' ~n4,p,rovide I~e malnt~n:,",: "
"" ,', ';::~"; ;':\:';:: ~~"!'"~~.;(~;;:~~?" "dC.!:
", , ;' :',', '(",':-"niar'¡talrl'same:acCál'(¡ lng',Io,I~ø..itandardS'l1f1liis...titlll;Ada"Coun!)'.may;In:""':"::""i<,;
'~""';"" .,",". ,"'acI:OÍ"cIaltCe'iWith"tb4a:'oÞ'en;s~i"Plan'::~~:;OIl~i"9: reaSon.able noticE/::'., ':,:::0::,1.:"';,.-
"":':"-" ,/, - ::: ,': :'~dI!Irnand' 11:181 ~IIClenc;r:'of',malnt nilnée';.be :éar~ecl ana,entef.',the, opsc..-,' ~ (:-:, C ";-, ,-
;; -,,' .;~ ':-,i\}I~!!1!1!!~~~'~ {'Nr:~;
"':.>., , '.' '" "..:å,'The :pr°.PO.sed .cìe~elop.inèñi':sne:,jlhail(haYe::äi:çass',¡Jn,~,a.'-::~.:":, "
, ,'(:E;Ú:':}::;7~~~~;~J~;~~1¡: .~~ :.; J ;;' , .' ',;
:'t-' ',', ,";, ,'; "~Ulldr~(f faeu,oo:¡ }!I f~nI&g1 ' on 'a,:C!esig~ed Þ\ l!Ilc.,~ree~ ,8 :pi)Vale. :°, , ,<
."'", ,:;,:," ;: :','ill~lIetJn !lécQr\lance:~fth',$'eí:tiolre::-1~,.,or,a'Pilv.ate,.S.!reel'Ihat:compl~"":""
:',' ',: -.,,"':,~"h Ihe JlUbllc:SIr&Øi:C ol)sll\li:IIo~'s~ards,;:a~ "pllc~ied in:t.he:J\da,' ,;'
"n.,,:' ","Coun!Y..Highway, Di~rlC:i':'DeYe' ojimenr:P.OliçY,:Manu~I,(as":~':may ¡W",;:,
' " :.. " "anil!~8d;frornUni,è,~O,:~kand'á~:ve!ifi~c1'/Jy, ~e"HlgliwilY, glslrlpl;,; ',:, ' .",
,:,",:,', "::": "~::-A!;:',~~~i~:~t~s~i'~'i~(~~~~;~:~;!h~~;!,;~~'~'~~:" ..,,':~":;;~';'"
, '
','
..
,;
;,,' ,
. ,
, " ,
,.:., ,
, ,
,,'
:" '
, .
" -
'" "',,
, ",..
',' ,
, ", "
, ':::" GoO
",
','
',.,
"" '
"
, ','
',' '.. ,
' , '
"', ",
" ,"
-
"" ,
'. '
, ,
, '.
MAR 02 '05 16:55
" ,
, '
PAGE:iø'--
VISION
. F I RSTnc
RE C~: IVE D
MAR 0 2 1005
City OïMeridian
City Clerk Office
... ,
""rtdy S. C'..no
'." ,
March 1,2005
Chaionan David Zaremba & Commissioners
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Meridian
660 E. Watertower, Suite 202
Meridian, !D 83642
RE:
Kingsbrídge Subdivision -- Vision First, I. LC, Applicant
Annexation and Zoning - File No. AZ-OS-OO3
!'rcJímínary !'lat - File No. !'P-OS-O04
Conditionalljsc Peonit for Residential Planned Development - File No. COP-05-004
Dear Chaimlan Zaremba & Commissioners:
Vision First, LL.C., the applicant in the above-referenced matters, would like to con/inn
in ~¡ritmg the compromises reached concerning our proposed Kingsbridge project, as a result of
our meetings with neighboring property owners. On the evening of January 26, 2005. we held an
open forum at the Lake Hazel Middle School, after having mailed pnor \vritten notice of the
meeting to all property owners on !he City's public notification list for!hcsc applications. About
thirty neighbors attended, and we had a candid and productive discu.ss¡on of their remaining
concerns with our revised preliminary plat
At least one pwperty owner from e¡¡ch of the adjoining neighbmhoods attended, and we
agreed that each affected area would hold a follow-up meeting to list their chief concerns and
H.-commend measures to address those concerns. Then, each adjoining area was to name a
represc'11tative to meet with Vision First. The subsequent meeting was held last Tuesday,
February 22'"'. Representatives of Dartmoor, Terri Lane, Falcon Crt'St Driv,-,. Kunz Hollow and
south of Zaldia Lane attended. The only street not represented at tlte subsequent meeting was
Se!atir Place.
From the applicant's perspective, the key objeetion raised at the neighborhood lIIet1:ings
was the smaller size of the lots in the R.8 portion of the project adjoining ZaIdi" Lane. In
rc'Sponse to the neighbors' concerns. Vision First instructed its land planner to delt'!e an
additional five lots fIom the southerly, entry tract, so that the smallest lots bnrdt.'t'Íng Zaldia Lane
are now betwet~1 ] 5,000 and [6,000 SF, lllstcad of Just overl2,OQ(J SF This plan revIsion
reduces the number of residential lots in Kingsbridge from 130 to 125 (ineluding the remaining
Teeters' lot), reduces the overal\ project density to 1.63 dwelling units per acre, and il1crc>a.~es the
average residential lot si/-c to 17,200 SF.
R'^' E""lI . COMM"..", "'h."S"""" ""'0
VISION fiRST",
Chainnan David Zaremba & Commission~"f"S
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Meridian
March " 2005
Page 2
The neighbors also requested limiting all or some of the perimeter lots to ~ingle-story
houses, Vision First explained our intt.'Iltion to sell the y, acre lots around the project perimeter
lor prt.'lTlium pnce~ to help make up for the 95 lots thai the applicant has cut Irom the project,
since the City Council hearing in December 2004. The premium would be lost if all perim~1er
lot~ are limited to a single-story, because il costs the builders more to huild the same large house
spread over a single level than it does to build the same floor 1IfC3 in a 2.story house, Vision
First agrees with the neighbors that a certain market segment will be looking for a ~ingle-level
bome, but we expect about 2/3 of potential homebuycrs to want 2-story houses, based on existing
market trends in comparable residential projects in Eagle and Meridian,
As a compromise, Vision First has identifi~"¡¡ those Kingsbridge lots with existing,
adjoining houses in close proximity and will limit those lots to a single-story residence, The
applicant has identíticd a total of 22 perimeter lots (one-half the total of 44 perimeter lots in
Kingsbridge) that the applicant will agree to restrict in our recorded CC&Rs to a single story.
Those lots arc labek-d with dots on the enclosed preliminary pIal and have the f()llowing Lot and
Block numbers:
(I)
(2)
(3)
Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 in Block 2 adjoining Zaldia Lane;
Lots 3, 4 and 5 in Block I, south of Dattmoor and the IO-Mile Fe~"¡¡er Canal;
Lots 17 and 18 in Block I and U!ts 2, 3, of and 5 in Block 5 adjoining Dartmoor's
east boundary;
Lots 22, 23, 24 and 25 in Block 7 south ofTeri Lane;
LNS 14 and 15 on the cuI de sac west ofKwlZ Hol1()w; and
Lots 25, 34 and 35 across the 10 Mile caoal fro¡n the 2 Ku¡j¡¡ Hollow houses with
budding envelopes on tbe north end of their lots.
(4)
(5)
(6)
TIle applicant would also agree to aecepllrne followíøgJlì~-spec¡ ¡c approval ¡:onditions:
(I) Construct a concrete sidewalk. curb and gut:ler cxtendingalong thc nol1.hside of
Dartmoor Drive ¡rom the Kingsbridge sidewalk at thec¡¡¡rc¡¡t end of Dartmoor Drive 10 the
school bus SlOp at the Eagle Road entry to DartrnOOr, to~ with a painted (.']'osswalk tTom the
Gídeon t.'UI,de-sac to the nQr\h side of Dartmoor Drive and apaintcd stripe delineating a
pedestrian walkwllY on the soulh side of Dartmoor Drive;
(2) Install vinyl privacy fencing. in accordan¡:e with the cíty-imposcdapprovalrondition
(i.e.. 4 feet soUd topped by 2 feet of lattice) extending along the entire north property line of
King¡¡bridge; Install either 5-fool wrought iron or 6-tlx)! vinyl privacy fence. on all other project
VISION FIRST",:
Chainnan David Zaremba & Commissioners
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Meridian
March I, 2005
Page 3
pt'limetcrs, in accordance with the consensus reached by the property owners adjoining each
boundary.
(3) Impose a 2S-foot rear yard setback (to he stated in the CC&Rs) on al! perimcíer lots.
(4) Create a new 5-foot landscaped strip south of the 6-loot vinyl privacy fence to he
instaJ1ed on the southerly lots abutting Zaidi a Lane. Plant a row of evergreen trees 20 fet'lon
center in the S-Il)o! strip (instead of 1 tree per lot in the back yards) and. irrìgate and mamtain as
Kingsbridge conunon area. Seek approval of Nan!pa-Meridian Irrigation District tü 11MI'OW the
waste pipe easement nürth of laMia from 20 [0 IS feet wide, with pipe installed five ft.'Ct from
southerly easement boundary, to maintain 10 foot separation from landscape stnp to the pipe.
(5) Grade the twenty. foot buffer strip along Zaldía Lane upward to the fence line of the
southerly Kingsbridge lots at a " to I slope, to produce a total vertica] screen of 11 feet (6-foot
privacy fence on top of 5-foot berm),
By:
r~
Kenneth M. Elliott .
Resident Legal Counsel
(6) Pipe the tail ditch along Dartmoor's south and WC$t boundary betw<:cn the existing
southwest comer of Palfreyman's field to the Dartmoor irrigation pond north of its Eagle Road
<:l1try.
Respectfully submitted,
cc
Anna Cannlllg, I'lannmg t)tr,\C1or
Craig flood. A"""Ómcl'lannor
Bruce Fr'ckl<~"n, Devcl<>pment S"':r"ic~ Maúgcr
Bdl Nary . City At_y
03/0212005 09:00 FAX 208 37S 9892
PARKS WESTSIDE
~002
I
To City of Meridian P&Z,
RECEIVE.D
03-01-ottAR 0 2 2005
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
In May of 1994 we purchased a 1.1 acre building lot in the Dartmoor Subdivision,
from Skylin~ 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 Febntary 24, 2004 at a Dartmoor
Homeowners Association meeting, we were told that the 15 year deed restriction would
expire when annexation from the City of Meridian was in affect. We as homeowners
hired Moffatt Thomas Law firm to advise us on the deed restriction. The legal fees have
become a big burden to the homeowners ofDartmoor Subdivision, for something that we
should not have to deal with for another five years. You have denied tillS issue once, and
I hope that you will deny this new plat once again. After our last meetin~ with the City
Council, they made it real clear that they were not interested in this type of subdivision,
because it is not consistent with the surrounding homes. City Council told them Rl or R2
would be more suitable for this development. The new plat is R3; this is not even half
acre lots. Prior to this March 2005 meeting, we met once with the developer and the
sun-ow1ding neighborhoods, and once with 4 representatives of all sections of the
neighborhoods. We were unable to come to an agreement on density. We had asked for
one acre lots around the perimeter, and halfacre lots in the center. The developers were
not wi]1ing to move from there plat. We have spoke to several real estate agents and
appraisers, who tell us that we will lose anywhere from 10-20% off of the cost of our
houses if this development is approved.
If this development is approved, we wi]] continue to 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
MAR 02 '05 09:28
208 378 9892
PAGF. ¡;;¡?
03/02/2005 09: 00 FAX 208 378 9892
PARKS WESTSIDE
~001
3-2-05
TO: WILLIAM BERG
FROM: TIM WALLACE
MAR 02 '05 09:27
208 378 9892
PAGE. 01
If'
Bradford and Tonya Dedman
3644 E Zaldia Ln.
Meridian, ill 83642
RECEIVED
MAR 0 2 2005
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
March 1, 2005
Dear Council Members and all,
Meridian City COImcil, P &Z Staff, and Mayor
RE: The proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision
I have attended each Council meeting concerning this development since the process
began last summer. Before consulting with nearly all SUITOunding property owners I
spoke at the September 16 hearing, citing the proposal's density as our main concern. As
we near another hearing with the latest iteration by Vision First, LLC (herein referred to
as VF) my wife and I are still questioning the many interpretations of transition and
overall density. We both feel reduced density is the resuh of careful planning- based on a
smooth transition between the old and the new properties. Transition should be
addressed both in the nature of home proximity and the skyline. One acre lots with a
limit of one-level homes around the perimeter of the development would provide a
smooth transition as you look across- and as you look up.
We feel, though VF has provided some concession with this new application, including
some one-level perimeter home sites, and several larger lots, we are still faced with half
acre lots and smaller butting against five acre estates along the North, East, and (my)
South border. We feel many considerations have been made for the Dartmoor
neighborhood- but less to surrounding areas such as Zaidi&, Selatir, and Terri streets.
Throughout many meetings and conversations with neighbors, several themes recur,
forcing us to continue to question VF's ethics throughout this process. Please consider
these two stark examples:
Council has already received (perhaps numerous copies of) an email sent from Ken Elliot
to the Dartmoor Assn. President last fall- wherein a universally understood ultimatum
suggested we all buy in to the application- or all concessions offered so far (sidewalks,
etc) would be withdrawn. The request made to us was I believe to "stand down".
Council has also likely received numerous letters citing a so-called Informational
Meeting called by VF on January 26, 2005. Back in December, following the first
application's denial Council strongly suggested to VF the importance of meeting with the
impacted neighbors. Your instructions seemed clear to me: First, meet with neighbors;
Second, Develop plan; Third, Apply with City- and likely know where all the neighbors
stand.
Well, we all know now VF saw fit to contradict Council recommendations, and First,
applied their latest plan (I believe Jan, 24), then held the meeting not as Council
suggested (for discussion) but solely for the purpose of presented an already- submitted
plan- and attempted a unanimous buy-in of said plan on the spot. Approximately 60
people in attendance were furious.
After patiently listening to this "presentation" we dismissed Ken Elliott- and immediately
formed a group offour representatives- one from each bordering neighborhood- to
streamline our process of info dissemination. Never again were we interested in showing
in great numbers to such an unprofessional and misleading process- the direct result of a
very cunning and manipulative pressure tactic.
Members of Council, My wife and I urge you to carefully consider the behavior of the
applicant throughout this process. We want good neighbors who are proud of their
Meridian homestead. We want a transition to be just that, not a stark planting of dense
home sites in the middle of a beautiful setting. We feel a Five to One to Half acre
transition is more harmonious than immediately Five to Half. We want developers to
consider their investment carefully, thoroughly, and most important- Locally. Vision
First's investment here is very temporal- when they are done, I am convinCed most of the
revenue will be reinvested not in our community- but rather their hometown- Vancouver,
Washington. When VF packs up, we will be left with the aftermath.
Thank You and Sincerely,
~1cAJtl<V--
Bradford A Dedman
(208)898-9680
** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT **
AS OF FEB 28 '05 12:51 PAGE. 01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
DATE TIME TO/FROM
03 02/28 12:49 P-AND-Z
MODE MIWSEC PGS CMD~ STATUS
EC--S 01'24" 004 165 OK
._~-~--.~.~V,..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
p. I
17
7Â/~
F ðR-þ( t~N:3 s h¡¿; ()~[
fA G¿,y I~J.....d),'.oIJ
St¡eL7
II II
~
;;J;:,;vl<
:t""",-
~?Ù~,
Jd\:f- ~Yó~
FEE 26 '!as 12:44
PAGE. 01
** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT **
AS OF
FEB lØ 'Ø5 11:58
PAGE.Øl
CITY OF MERIDIAN
24
DATE TIME TO/FROM
02/10 11: 58 P-AND-Z
MODE MIN/SEC PGS
EC--S 0Ø'26" 001
CMD~ STATUS
Ø5Ø OK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Machelle Hill
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tara Green
Thursday, Februmy 10, 2O0511:25AM
JessIca Johnson; Machelle Hill; Will Berg
FW: Letter of Support, Merldlan Pill COmmiSSion Meeting, March 3.2005, for Brighton
Investments. LLC
-----Origina¡ Message-----
From: Rand Spiwak [mailto;spiwakr@dbcc.odu]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 11:17 AM
To: greent@meridiancity.org
Cc: gsmith@engrnw.com
Subject: Letter of Support, Meridian P&Z Commission Meeting. March
~>,2005, for Brighton Investments, LLC
RECEIVED
FEB 1 rJ 2005
City OfMe,idicw
City C]"rk Of1ic~
Dear Ms. Green,
Thank you so much for emailing me the Prelim. Plat application
documents for Brighton Investments, LLC, Heritage Commons Sub-division.
I spoke to their engineer, Mr, Eugene Smith and was informed that
ßrighton is rcquesting a changc in their PD for Heritage Commons to
modify their plans from twenty-onc "traditional home" home sites to
twenty-eight "carriage home" home sites. ] am an adjacent property
owner, 1458 E. Loyalty. owner of the first home (and first carriage
home) constructcd in Heritage Commons. My wife Sally and I are most
supportive of the proposcd rc-dcsign of the sub-division and most
appreciative of the planning and foresight displayed hy Brighton
Investments, LLC in the entire sub-division. We currently reside in
Ol'mond Beach, Florida ( greater Daytona Beach) and will not be ablc to
testify in favor of the request on March3rd, 2005, We anticipatc
permanent ¡"esidence in our Ileritage Commons home upon early retirement
and relocating to Idaho in a couple of years. Again. we are in çomplete
support with ßrighton's proposed Plat changes.
Dr, Rand S. Spiwak
10 Canterbury Woods
Ormond Beach, FI. 32174
386/212-7123
and
1458 E, Loyalty
Meridian, ID 83713
** TX CONFIRMATION REPCRT **
AS OF
FEB 18 '05 15:29
PAGE. 01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
23
DATE TIME TO/FROM
02/18 15: 28 P-AND-Z
MODE MIWSEC PGS
EC--S 00'51" 002
CMD~ STATUS
122 OK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R). V."(. ., P.' -Î.~1;. T~ in,
.l.} .jj-~.U- '.( lL.dj
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
FEe 1 e 2005
,.;it" 0(' MencE."
,:'i,.:. Clerk Offic"
STATE OF IDAHO
)
) §
}
COUNTY OF ADA
Mik8 Arnold. Premier Sians. Inc 2100 E. Failview Avenue. Suite 7 855-0380
(name) (address) (phone)
Meridian
(city)
Idaho
(state)
, being first duly sworn upon
oath, depose and say:
I personally posted the subject property with the hearing notice sign 10 days prior to the pubiic
hearing for the Amend the creliminarv Dlat (02-0071 to add 7 additional buildinQ lots for
HeritaQe Commons
Dated this ---..1l.- day of
..~ Ii V
t L . (S."""'I
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written,
.'
RUTH ZAHORIK
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF IDAHO
My Commission Expires:
Masterlaffid-posting
** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT **
AS OF
FEe 18 '05 15:30
PAGE.01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
---_:~--~~!~J~~:_~~~~~:=-~-------~~~~-_:~~~~-~~:_--~:_-:~:~:_-------------
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
.RECEIVED
FEB 1 3 2005
City OfMc,'iJi""
"it)' n",k ()ffi~c
STATE OF IDAHO
)
) §
)
COUNTY OF ADA
Mike Arnold. Premier Sians Inc. 2100 E. Fairview Avenue Suite 7
(name) (address)
855~0380
(phone)
Meridian
(city)
Idaho
(state)
. being first duly sworn upon
oath, depose and say:
I personally posted the subject property with the hearing notice sign 10 days prior to the public
hearing for the Annexation and zon'n!! of 45.88 acres from RUT to R4 zones: Dreliminarv
Dlat for 115 build in!! lots and 26 common lots: vacate E Manderlv Ln. & 30' wide
aqricultural easement: variance to exceed block lenath for Tustin Subdivision.
Dated this --.1Z..-. day of
March . ~
.~
,~ (Signature)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written,
RUTH ZAHORIK
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF IDAHO
My Commission Expires:
7//2/~
Masterlaffid-posting
** TX CONFIRMFITION REPORT **
RS OF
FEB 24 '05 14:31
PAGE.01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
22
DATE TIME TO/FROM
02/24 14:30 P-AND-Z
MODE MIN/SEC PG5
EC--S 00'29" ØØl
CMDij STATUS
152 OK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob and Lesa L. Beclœr
3421 S. Selatir Place
Meridian, ID 83642
RECEIVED
FEB 2 3 20115
February 20, 2005
Dear Planning and Zoning Comlllissioners:
Cily../ Mer',,:.
Cily Clerk C:
RE:
Kingsbridge SubdivisiGn - VISion First LLC, Applicant
We live on a five+ acre estate lot on tbe eastern boundary of this proposed subdivision.
On January 4, 2005, Mayor deWoerd and tbe City Council denied the PrclirniDaJy Plat,
Annexation and Zonin{l request and, among other findin{lS, oftèred!be foUowing (Exhibit C):
1. The Comprehensive Plan states the City will "require new urban density subdivisions
which abut... ex;mng low density residential land uses ro provide landscaped screening
or transition densities witb larger, more compan'ble lot sizes ro buffer the interface
~een urban densities and rural residential densnies." The curreDt preliminary plat
(dated 12129104) provides for 21,675 and 21,763 sq ft 1015 (approximately Yo acre)
along our property IiDe. Our s+ acre lot is over 200,000 sq IL - ten timesthe.size of
tIIese proposed 101S. We do DOt believe the developer bas provided adequate
transition lots.
In a _em developmeøt- Vldory:Rd. ti'om our neighborhood (Muir Woods)
the devduper placed I-acre transition 1015 00 the periphery abutting existing 2.5
acre lots. Wben,Bremerton subdivisiGn was developed across from our boose, tbe
developer placed a 2. 7-acre trallSitJon lot between our 5 acres and the l-acre lots to
the southeast.
We request that you require 2.5.acre tr8ILÚdon lots along our property line.
2. The City ofMcridìan Ordinances reqlrlre that "proposed uses be designed,.. ro be
harmonious and appropriate in ",ppea""," with ex¡sting ...character of the general
vicinity." The City Council found that "the proposed lot sizes are too small to be
harmonious with the existing or intended character of the vicinity." The proposed
development is surrounded by 1-10 aere home sites ranging in VIIlueti'om
appro~lmatcly $350,000 to $1,000,000.
We urge you to require the proposed development preserve the character of the
area by requiring the transition lots aa stated above.
Finally, the City Council instructed the developer to "work with the ncigbbors." The
Comprehensive Plan 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. 85).
Vision First held an "informational meeting" with neighbors after their revised proposa] had
already been developed and submilied to Ihe City of Me rid inn, We don't believe this constitutes
"working with the neighbors,"
Thank you for your consideration,
.,5?'6- ~
'l.?c.-I3¿ ~
Bob and Lesa Becker
** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT **
AS OF
FEB 24 '1215 14:3121
PAGE. 1211
CITY OF MERIDIAN
21
DATE TIME TOÆROM
1212/24 14:29 P-AND-Z
MODE MIWSEC PGS
EC--S 00'49" I2IØ2
CMDII STATUS
151 OK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
, ... ",. "."
,"C.UlöU
Yo
Brady & Tema Turn...
36788. Cal.bi/ace
Meridian, ]]) 85642- 7068
108-887-6832
RECEIVED
FEB 2 3 2005
City of Meridian
City ClerkOlfice
Febroa¡y 21,2005
PlaDDing and Zomng Commissio.n
City of Meridian
33 EOst Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83542
RE: Proposed KINGSBRIDGE Subdimion
Dear Commissionezs:
We hereby submit our ~ to the proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision per the applications for
lIDIIexation and zomng filedby VisionPiIsl, u.C (the wApplicant"), sdleduled for bearing before the
Commission OD Marth 3, 2005. .
Our opposition 10 Ibe latest applications by Applicant is based on the fullOWÙlg:
1. Kingsbridge Subdivision as cwremty proposed by Ibe Applicant is nol compatible with
sUltOunding currenl t1Ir8! land use. All orthe SUttD1IIIding residenlia1lots are in acreages, but
the Applicant is n:questing R- 3 zoning-only a single-level nduction from the R-4 zoning
Applicant sought and was denied in Its prme>us 2004 applications. While the cunent
applications ate a Slep in the right dùection, the Applicauthasnol adeqUBlelyreduood density
in the current design. F1IttIœmore, the planned development envisioned by Applicant is
diStiDCtlyurban Ìll character, whiehis not harmonious with the e:åsting t1Ir8! characteroflhe
area. Please DOle that this proposed development is surrounded on an sides by existiDg rural
t'esidences in acreages. InsertiDg an urban development into the middle of a distinçtly rural
set1ing on the outskirts of the City will change the eiSOI1'Iial character ofthe area. Fina11y,
since the SUJrOunding lands are all devcJoped rural residentiaJ acreages, the City will not
likely find further lIDIIoxation paths into the SUtrOUDding lands anytime soon.
2. Kingsbridge Subdivision lIS proposed by the Applicant will add aro1l!>d 1,235 additioDaI
vehicle trips to Ibe roads through and swrounding Dllrtmoor Subdivision. The Darlmoor
Subdivision has only 15 residential lots colmocting to DarbnDor Drive, which Applicant
proposes to utilize for access to EagJe Road. By its own admission, ACHD reviews and
approves new developments without coDSidemìon of the increasing volwnes produced by
other recently-approved but not fuJly-developed subdivisions (such as Tuscany Lakes).
Adding 1,200 more cars to an already congested Eagle Road will only increase our
frustratior" compromise our safety, and degrade our quahty ofJife. FurthOl111ore. the volume
FES 23 'I2IS t7;13
PAGE. 1211
** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT *'"
AS OF
FEB 24 '05 14:56
PAGE. 01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
23
DATE TIME TO/FROM
02/24 14:55 P-AND-Z
MODE MIWSEC PG5
EC-5 00'37" 0Ø2
CMD~ STATUS
155 OK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECEIVED
fEB 2,2 2005
February 18,2005
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
To: City of Meridian Planning & Zoning
From: Lisa Job, Homeowner in Dartmoor Estates
Re: Proposed KINGSBRIDGE Subdivision
My concerns regarding the proposed KINGSBRIDGE Subdivision are related to
maJntaining the quality of our environment, preserving our resources and providing a
bigb level of safety for the residents ofDartmoor Estates.
Density:
. The current proposal has reduced the density from tbe original pIa!. The
entirc outer perimeter of the project should have a transitional line of one acre
so that the quality of living is preserved. !ftbe perimeter lots are not one acre
or larger, then the CCRa should reflect tbat all perimeter houses must be
single level dwellings,
. If this project is approved, Da:rtmoor Drive CANNOT be used as a
construction entrance. This would put all residents in a high risk zone for
safety concern traffic and dI1lsticaily erode the quality of living.
. I would like to see this subdivision zoned as R2. However, if it remains as
R3, then all requirements ofR3 should be met without question.
. Dartmoor Drive should be improved to match the entrance at Kingsbridge,
including sidewalks both on the north and south sides.
Traffic:
. In addition to banning Dartmoor Road as a construction entrance,
detached side walks should be created from Eagle Road east on Dartmoor as well
as on the east side of Eagle Road both north and south of the Dartmoor
intersection to improve the safety of our children and pedestrians and to provide a
safe zone for the children at the bus stop location. Dartmoor and Caleb roads are
a Deaf Child Area. Provisions need to be made to maintain a high level of safety.
Rural vs. Urban living:
. Provisions need to be made for proper storm water management to ensure the
current purity levels oftbe aquifers to our wells.
. If the city utiiities ~e to bebrOugbt down Dartmoor, then they sbould also be
expanded down Caleb and Gideon at the same time. No utilities down
Dartmoor would allow for fewer burdens on the city uti!ity needs by allowing
** TX CONFIRMI<TION REPORT **
AS OF
FEB 25 '05 12:59
PAGE. 01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
01
DATE TIME TO/FROM
02/25 12:58 P-AND-Z
MODE MIN/5EC PGS
EC-S 00'58" 0øz
CMD~ STATUS
158 OK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 25, 2005
RECEIVED
FEB 2 5 2005
TO: Meridian City Planning and Zoning
City Of Mcridi""
C;ty CIOTk Office
FROM: Frank Shoemaker
RE: Vision First
Kingsbridge Subdivision
The developer of the above subdivision, continues to proceed toward obtaining approval for a
project that Meridian City Mayor and city council have previously denied. Findings of Fact for
the January 4th meeting, stated that as proposed, the density of the project is not compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood. The c~y council was specific in stating that the uniqueness
of the area is more suitable for executive home sites. Suggested to the developer to redesign
the project with larger lots. The finish product being more compatible with the immediate area.
Something that is not of the typical high density project with homes mirroring each other in
design. Also, that tile perimeter home owners, with the five and ten acre lots, be more involved
in the design.
These meetings have occurred with the developer appearing to be more corporative wi1h the
Dartmoor residents. And although increased lot sizes are proposed and total number of
dwellings reduced, the end result is still a high density project, not what the city council had
suggested be obtained.
For example, the Dartmoor Subdivision has building s~es approaching 1 acre. For a smooth
transition, the developer has increased the size of the building lots that abut the Dartmoor
Subdivision, from approximately 12,500 square feel to 22,000 square feel. Approximately
50% ratio in size difference as compared to the Dartmoor si1es.
Those lots abutting the larger five acre parcels on the north of the project were originally 9,000
to 9,500 sq ft sites. Their latest revision notes larger 22,000 sq ft sites. Approximately 10% the
size of the neighboring acreages.
Those lots abutting the larger ten and five acre parcels on the south of the project were
originally 7,000 square feel and have since been increased to approximately 12,000 square feet
lots. A ratio of approximately 5% the size of the larger acreages. Developer states that the
comprehensive plan notes this area to be medium density R3, or three units per acre. The
current zoning of the parcel is Rural Urban Transitional ( RUT) and permits one dwelling per
five acres. With cluster developments permissible allowing one acre minimum building sites if
city services are available. The R3 notation has nothing to do with the present zoning and the
the city council, stated this was an unlikely use and an incorrect classification. The developer
uses this reference as support for the higher density. Thus, ignoring city council comments and
concerns of those property owners along Zaldia Lane.
A smooth transition, as suggested by the city council? Obviously not with minimal concern for
the larger property owners and how this high density will have an adverse effect on property
values for those with five and ten acre parcels along ZSldia Lane.
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
oU;;;;;¡Ùrn
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 466-9272 . FAX 466-4405
PARKS & RECREATION
(208) 888-3579' Fax 898-5501
PUBLIC WORKS
(208) 898-5500' Fax 887-1297
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Shaun Wardle
William L. M. Nary
Charles M. Rountree
Keith Bird
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 887-2211 . Fax 887-1297
PLANNING & ZONING
(208) 884-5533 . Fax 888-6854
TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning
and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Clerk's Office
Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: February 24, 2005
Transmittal Date: February 1, 2005 Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
File No.: AZ 05-003
Request: Annexation & Zoning of 76.72 acres to a R-3 zone for Kingsbridge Subdivision
By: Vision First, LLC
Location of Property or Project:
4070 South Eagle Road
~
David Zaremba, P/Z (No FP) Meridian School District (No FP)
David Moe, P/Z (NoFP) Meridian Post Office (FPIPPonly)
Wendy Newton-Huckabay, P/Z (NoFP) Ada County Highway District
Michael Rohm, P/Z (No FP) Ada County Development Services
Keith Borup, PIZ (NoFP) ~Central District Health
TammYdeweerd'Ma~ry." C"C'- , ".' " Nampa Meridian Irrig. District
Charlie Rountree, C/C ) J,.:J Settlers lITigation District
Christine Donnell, C/C I ;) Idaho Power CO. (FP, PP, CUP)
Keith Bird, C/C . tt.~ - ~ :~;, Owest (FP/PPonly)
Shaun Wardle, C/C, 11>" ~ Intermountain Gas (FPIPPonly)
Water Department £ \.~\.:,.;.ß ;ß'P1' Bureau of Reclamation (FPIPPonly)
Sewer Department err J. v ~ ~rr~Jt U Idaho Transportation Department (No FP)
Sanitary Service (No VA~"£ Ada County Land Records
Building Department Meridian Development Corporation
Fire Department Historical Preservation Commission
Police Department
City Attorney
City Engineer
City Planner
Parks Department
YourConciseRema~s: Vú~~~~~ (
~ 1 r~ ~ -b ~rJ \/ (J.,R¡)IJ. JTH
I , .
7
33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE' MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642' (208)888-4433
City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 . Human Resources Fax (208) 884-8723 . Finance & Utility BiUing Fax (208) 887-4813