The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLetter from Laurie Allen RE C E IVED MAR - 4 2005 CITY OF MERIDIAN City of Meridian eny c: Ff7;< C;:F/CE Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho March 2, 2005 Re: Kingsbridge Subdivision Dear Sir or Madam: .lòi.Jo~ Þ/4H 0 ~j) Þ~'!!iì?2 lO05 G cI! §ffk~ I am writing this letter on behalf of my husband and myself. We live at the end of Terri Drive on approximately 4 acres. We have 537 feet abutting the north line of the proposed subdivision. We have been to all the past Kingsbridge hearings to voice our opposition to their proposed plat. We are not satisfied that this version is the best that we can hope for. We ask that you restrict this subdivision to R2 density with a mioirnum 18,000 sq.ft. lot size east ofDartmoor Subdivision and require a mioirnum of 1/2 acre lots on the perimeters abutting acreage properties. We find that this version has addressed some of the concerns of surrounding property owners. Vision First is in the hope that they have made enough 'concessions' to make the opposition go away. But the more we research and review requirements and findings of the Commission and P & Z, the more certain we are that the developer has made no real concession and no attempt to truly negotiate. What they have done is to minirnaIly follow your guide lines and requirements. Our research also indicates that the finaI plat must match the approved preliminary plat. This concerns us greatly because the preliminary does not reflect what was agreed to by the developer. We see no written plan to fence and landscape the subdivision in the manor requested by the perimeter properties or proper detail regarding single level home restrictions on certain perimeter lots. We would like to see the fencing on the North perimeter six foot tall, of a solid natore, and on the property line. Any buffer zone or walking path should be on the Kingsbridge side of the line to help keep our acreages from becoming 'public' land. We also find no sufficient plan to address subdivision storm-water retention and runoff or the continued delivery of irrigation water beyond the subdivision. We feel that a development agreement should be included in this approval process to prevent futore cbanges from the original agreed to amenities, details, restrictions and density. Meeting these requirements would help ease the transition from the large rural acreage to the urban density of the new subdivision. ~espe~. .ectfully - D(~ Laurie Allen ~ 3550 S. Terri Drive Meridian, Idaho 83642 Boise Idaho Falls Pocatello Moffqtt Thomas MOFFATT THOMAS BARRETT ROCK & FIElDs, CHTD. Eu"",,,c. Tb~ Job, W. """." R. B.Rock Ri,hud C. Pidd, Rob", E. Bok~ Joho S. Simko Jobo C. W.oJ D.J.m~ ""o,iog """,T. O'n.. Lu", C. Hun"" R.ndon A. P""'mM M"kS. P=y..ki S"ph,n R. Tb~u GJ'n., M. Ch,i"...., G=ld T. H..,h s- L. c.mpb.n R<>be"S.Bu,", J.....C.D"¡. Midu.J E. Tho,"" P,"ici.M. Ol"on J""" C. d,G!", Bmdloy]WiI!;.m, [""EodfuoJ Mirn..¡ O. Ro. D~idS.].o"o J"""L.M."in C. CI.yton Gm D~P.GaoJn" JuJ...B.G.biol, AogoJ. S,h.." Kwf=nn Kimb"ly D. Bvnn, Roo, B.nj.miD If. S<hwnrn Jon A. StonquÎ.. E,i, M. Bn=o Bndley]. Dixo. ]~nG.Mumy Muk C. P"'non And....J. W.ldom Sb.wn C. Nunl.y Tyl.. J. And=nn R....II G. M.,.,.¡f Mo'g" W. Ri<h,oJ" of """",,1 Willisc. MoB;<t; 1907-1980 Kid< R. Hdvk, 1956-200~ U5 Bank Plaza BuHdlng 1015CapitoiBlvdl0thFI PO Box 829 Boise. 'daho 83701 0829 October 11, 2004 via Hand Delivery 2083452000 8004222889 20g 385 53B4 Fax www.moff,tt.com RECE~1) MAR 0 2. 2005 CITY OF lIiEIllDlAN PLANNiÑG & ZONING City Clerk, City of Meridian Meridian City Hall 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Vision First, LLC; Proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision; City of Meridian File Nos. AZ-O4-023, PP-O40-030, and CUP-O4-026 MTBR&F File No. 19-898.0 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: We represent the residents of the Dartmoor Subdivision ("Dartmoor'1, which adjoins the proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision ("Kingsbridge'1 and which would include the most directly impacted properties from the development of Kingsbridge. In connection with our representation ofDartmoor, we have reviewed, among other documents, a letter from Edward Miller with the law fmu Givens Pursley, dated September 16, 2004, that is included in the record presented to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission ("P&Z'} This letter is intended to address and correct some of the statements included in Mr. Miller's letter. At the hearing before the City Council on October 19, 2004, you will hear testimony ITom the Dartmoor residents regarding the representations that they received at the tirne they bought their lots from the developer of Dartmoor with respectto the future development of Lot 11, Block 2 ("Lot 11'1, wmch lies adjacent to Dartmoor and cornprises a significant portion ofK.ingsbridge. Some of these residents will undoubtedly share with you the fact that they were assured that Lot 11 would be developed with one to two acre lots in a manner consistent with the large lots in Dartmoor. Most all of these residents will nndoubtedly share with you the fact that they were assured that Lot 11 would remain open space and not be developed at all.until at least 15 years after the recording ofthe plat for Dartmoor. As discussed below, the recorded record establishes the indisputable truth with respect to the IS-year moratorium on development and, as a matter of equity, fairness, good government, and prudence, Dartmoor therefore requests BOLMT2:5õ9522.1 City Clerk, City of Meridian October 11, 2004 Page 2 that the Meridian City Council reftain ftom approving any development of Kings bridge at least until the IS-year moratorium has run on March 3, 2009. Site Specific Condition No.2 of the September 13, 2004, Staff Report to P&Z proposed the following condition of approval to the Kingsbridge applications: Approval of the plat is conditioned on the applicant demonstrating written approval by a majority of the lot owners in Dartmoor Subdivision of the subdivision and development, or as an alternative, a favorable fmal decision by the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District of the State ofIdaho declaring that the applicant has the right to subdivide and develop the property notwithstanding the nonbuild restriction placed on the property by Ada County. Such approval shall be required prior to submittal of any fmal plat applications or issuance of any building pennits. Mr. Miller, on behalf of his client, Rrgues that "Vision First already meets Condition No.2 because each and every lot owner in Dartmoor Subdivision has already consented to the resubdivision and development of Lot 11." Miller letter at p. 1. Mr. Miller points to the following language contained in the third paragraph of Article IT to the Dartmoor CC&Rs (copy attached to Miller letter) to support his argument: As provided in Section 5.28 of this Declaration, Lots 1 and 11, of Block 2, are excluded by the Grantor from coverage of this Declaration. By accepting a Deed to a Lot within Dartmoor Subdivision, each Owners ahaU be concluaively deemed to have waived any objection to the excluaion of laid Lot 1 and 11 Block 2 and conaents to the re-aubdiviaion and development thereofin accordance with the zoning ordinancea then in force and effect and appUcable to Lot 1 & 11, Block 2, including such re-subdividing and/or development as shall require that access to Lot 1 and 11, Block 2 will be provided by the public right(s)-of- way within Darbnoor Subdivisions, and that the utility facilities located within Dartmoor Subdivision may be extended to serve said Lot 1 and 11, Block 2, including a re-subdivision thereof. (Emphasis added.) There are at least three fundamental problems with Mr. Miller's argument. First, as discussed further below, the argument ignores the other applicable (and controlling) provision in the Dartmoor CC&Rs that proscribes any development of Lot 11 for a minimum of 15 years. BOf_Mr2:55'522.1 City Clerk, City of Meridian October II, 2004 Page 3 Second, and as also discussed further below, the argument ignores the limitation in the Dartmoor plat that proscribes any development of Lot 11 for a minimum of 15 years. Third. the argument ignores the fact that Lot II was expressly excluded from the Dartmoor CC&Rs and that therefore the implied consent thereby granted by the Dartmoor residents to the development of Lot II was personal to Skyline Development Company ("Skyline"), the developer of Dartmoor, which had promised the Dartmoor lot purchasers that no development of Lot 1 I would occur for at least 15 years and that when development did occur it would be done in a manner consistent with the development ofDartmoor. In other words, because Lot 11 is excluded from the Dartmoor CC&Rs, the consent (which is neither a covenant nor a restriction) for the development of Lot II contained in the CC&Rs runs only to Skyline, which, of course, would be limited by its prior representations to how it might develop Lot II once the 15-year moratorium on development expired. In sum, becallBe there is a complete lack of privity (or contractual relations) between Vision First and the Dartmoor residents, Vision First cannot sever the connnitments made by Skyline (i.e., development limited in time and density) from the very benefits Skyline obtained for making these commitments (Le., consent to limited development). Above and beyond the foregoing "privity" argument, however, are the matters contained in the Dartmoor CC&Rs and plat concerning the development of Lot II that are not subject to dispute. Thus, Article V, Section 5.01(b) of the CC&Rs specifically provides as follows: Ouen SDace Lots: The following Lots shall be IIBed for agricultural purposes, subject to the limitations as provided in this Declaration (hereafter "Open Space Lots"): Lot 11, of Block 2, Dartmoor Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof. (Emphasis added.) Or as otherwise incIisputedly promised, Lot 1 I is to be used for open space "according to the Plat thereof." And, in this regard, Note 9 to the Dartmoor plat (copy ofpIat attached to Miller letter; blowup of Note 9 attached hereto) expressly provides: LOT II BLOCK 218 A DEED RESTRICTED LOT AND MAY ONLY BE USED FOR OPEN SPACE AS DEFINED IN THE NON-FARM DEVELOPMENT SECTION OF THE ADA COUNTY CODE, SECTION 8-4B- 7 AND IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS OF THE ADA COUNTY CODE FOUND IN TITLE 8, CHAPTER 9, THE DEED RESTRICTED LOT MUST ALSO ONLY BE USED IN THE MANNER SPECIFIED IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ISSUED BY ADA COUNTY'S DEPARTMENT OF BOLMT2:559522. f City Clerk, City of Meridian October 11, 2004 Page 4 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THIS LOT MUST BE USED IN AFORESTATED MANNER FOR A PERIOD OF NOT LESS THAN FIFTEEN (15) YEARS FROM THE RECORDING DATE OF f3ß/94J (Emphasis added.) Thus, the plat states without restriction of any kind that Lot II must be used for open space through at least March 3, 2009. It is this express recorded restriction that the Dartmoor residents are asking the Meridian City Council to respect. Mr. Miller argues that this deed and/or plat restriction should be ignored because to respect the recorded promise relied upon by the Dartmoor residents would effectively give these residents "veto rights," which, of course, is exactly whEt the Dartmoor CC&Rs and plat were intended to accomplish. Mr. Miller next argues that this restriction should be ignored becanse Ada County changed its zoning ordinances after the plat was recorded; however, the final sentence of Note 9 to the plat specifically provides that Lot II shall be used for open apace for not less than 15 years, and does not provide for a shorteQing of this moratorium on development in the event of a change in Ada County's Ordinances~. Miller finally argues that this restriction should be ignored because it "rims contrary to the 'ty of Meridian's exclusive power to control the zoning and development of the lands wi . its corporate limits" -- which argument, the Dartmoor residents respectfully submit, is , ally the point here at issue. The Dartmoor residents understand that theiMeridian City Council holds broad and expansive legislative power in connection with land üfe matters, including deciding the Kingsbridge applications. Having great power, howevet~ also instills a great obligation on the Meridian City Council to ensure that private property rights are respected. And. in this regard, there can be no question that the Dar!moor residents were promised by both Skyline and Ada County that they could build their homes in Dar!moor with the assurance that Lot II would remain open space for at least 15 years. If the Meridian City Council approves the Kingsbridge applications it will subject the Dartmoor residents (and possibly the City ofMeridillQ) to needless and costly litigation to stop the project in court -- which the Dartmoor CC&Rs and ¡plat give the Dar!moor residents the absolute right to do. Thus, the central question presented þy the Kingsbridge applications is whether concerns with equity, fairness, good government, and prudence should prevail over the given fact that the Meridian City Council may have the power!to approve the applications pending before it. The Dartmoor residents respectfully submit that 'the foregoing governmental concerns over the exercise of power should clearly prevail under the present circumstances, and they therefore plead they be spared by the Meridian City Council from litigating to enforce their indispntable private-property rights. BOLMT2:559522.1 City Clerk, City of Meridian October 11, 2004 Page 5 In sum, the Darlmoor residents would respectfully ask: What possible end can be achieved by approving a project proscribed by its recorded plat from being constructed other than subjecting all concerned parties to costly and time consuming litigation? Darbnoor can think of none other. And for this reason alone the Kingsbridge applications should be denied. v cry truly yours, AfJ- RBBlkdp Attachment cc: Tim Wallace (via E-mail) Rick: Stott (via E-mail) BOLMT2:559522.1 11 'O' EASÐIM fOR 1Hi 111< "ILl: LAl!IIAL -L' - "I LOT NUMBER \ I ~. (' I : ;ä , A TEN (10) FOOT WIDE EASEIIENT IS HEREBY RESER\ÐI ADJACENT TO 'ILL LOT UNES ÇO"OH ~~ TO A PU8ue RIGIIT-OF-WAY AND ADJACENT TO THE SUBDMSlOH SOUNO'IRY FOR NEUe U1IUI1Es, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIOAI1OH FACIUnES. THIS EASßlENT SH'IU. NOT PRECLUDE THE CONSTRUClION OF HARD SURFACE ORl\IEWAYS AND IVAIJ<IVAYS 10 EACH LOT. NOTES þ lit I. "'Iõi' 2 8UILDING SETiACKS AND OII.lEN$ON. Ai. STANDARDS IN litiS SU8DI\'lSlON SHALl. COIIPLY WITH F1o. THE APPUCA8l£ ZONING REOULAI1OHS OF ADA COUNTY IDANO. f ~5 3 ANY RESU80llllSl0N OF lItIS PLAT SHALl. COOIPLT 1\11If 11i£ APPUCA8t£ ZONING RECuv.lIONS g Ii IN EFFECT AT THE 1111E OF 1IfE RESU8D1\1S1OH. ..~ I 4 D£\IELOPER SHm COMPLY WITH IDAIIO CODE SECI1OH 31-3Iœ RELAI1NG TO IRRlCAlIOIf RlCIIITS, 1RANSFER ANO DISCLOSURE. . 5 A STRIP OF LAND SHALl. 8E RESER\I£D ALONG EACI1 COllI/ON lillER/OR PRoPERTY 80UNDARY UNE IIITHIN THIS SU8DI\1SJON FOR 111£ PIII\POSE OF 'lRANSPORTA1ION OF PROPERtY DRAINACE, AND/OR THE INSTALl.Al1ON OF A PllESSURE'lRIIIGAlIOIf SYSTEII. SAID STRIP 'OF LAND SHALl. at A TOTAl. OF I'o.(NtY (20PEEt IN \IIDm SElNG TEN (10) f'ŒT ON B01ll SlOES OF PROPERTY LINES. 8 LOT 1 BLOCK I. LOT 2 BLOCIC Z. AND LOT l' IILOCK 2 AIlE HEREBY DESIGNATED AS NON-8UILDING LOTS. NO PERMANENT STRUCIURES R£QUIRING A PERIIIT SHALL 8E CONS1RUCIED UPON SAID LOTS. . 7 LOT I 8LOCK '. LOT.2 BLOCK 2, ANO LOT IS BLOCK 2 AIlE COllI/ON. AREAS TO BE OIlNED AND MAINTAINED BY 1IfE H()EO'MolERS' ASSOCIAlION AND AIlE NOT DEDICATED 10 lIfE PUEUC BUr . ARE RESER\ÐI FOR. USES AS ST'I 1ED ""1II1N IIIE RES1RIC11\IE CO\IENAN1S FOR IIIE SUBDoIIISICtl. 12" ~. B FLOOD IRRlGAlION SHALl. NOT BE AI.LOIIED YoIIHIN 1'£11 (10) FEET OF A OIWllFlEUI OR SUBSURFACE SEWACE DISPOSAL SItE. . 9 LOT 11 BLOCK 2 IS A DEED RESl1IIC1ED. LOT AND MAY ONLY BE USED FOR OPEN SPACE AS DEFINED IN 111£ NON-FARN DE\IEL.OpI/£NT SEcnON OF !HE ADA COUNTY CODE, 5EC1101f 8-48-7 AND IN THE PlANNED O£\IELOPI/ENT PROVISIONS OF !HE ADA COUN1Y CODE FOUNO IN 111Lt 8, CHAP1ER 8. 1IfE D£ED RESl1IIC1£D LOT MUST ALSO ONL'/' BE USED IN !HE MANNER. SPECIFIED IN THE CONDl110NS OF APPROVAL ISSUED B'/' ADA COUNTYS DEPARJIIENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. 1IIIS LOT IlUST BE USED IN Af'OR£STATED MNiN£R FOR A PERIOD OF' NOT LESS THAN FlF'fEEN (IS) '(EARS Fl'l0il 1IfE RtCnIIDIIIG DAlE OF . 10 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF LOTS I AND 10 OF 8LOCK 2, OIAECT VEHICULAR ACCESS ONTO EJTHER EAGLE ROAD OR OARTMOOR DRIVE FROM AN'/' RESIDENTIAL LOT IN THIS . SUBDIVISION SHAL~ BE PROHIBITE~. 11 I>. 80' YoIDE EASElllNT FDR !HE TEN MILE LATERAl. IS HEREII'/' RESER'ÆD AS SHOIIN. 12 '!HIS DE\lELOPMENT RECOGNIZES SEClION 22-4S03 OF lifE IDAHO CODE, RlG>lt TO FARM ACT. \\!ItCH STA]U: ."1(0 AQRCU~IURAL OPERAlION OR N" APPWlTENANI;!!. TO IT SHALL BE OR SECOIIE A NUISANCE, PRIVATE OR PUBUC, BY ANY CHANGED CONDlI1Ol1S IN OR ABOUT THE SURROUNDING NOIIACRICUl.IURAL ACTIVITIES. AFTER !HE SAWE ""S BEEN IN OPERI>.I1ON FOR' MORE '!HAN <lNE II) YEAR. IItIEN lIfE OPERAI1ON WAS Nor A NUISANCE 'IT lIfE "'IE .11/£ OPERAI1O1f BEGAN, PIlò\1DEO, '!HAT lIfE .PIIOIIISION$ OF 1HJS SEC'IION SHALL NOT APPL'/' -E\IEII 'I . NblSANCE IIESUUS FROII lifE IIIPROPEROR NEtlUGENT OPERAlIOIf OF Nl1 AGRlCUl.1URAL OPElU.lION DR APPlJRTENAHcE 10 IT" ~ 'Numerical Subdivision Plats - Bk64 PgåS39 DÀRTMOOR SUB. A~'734ša:S~le; 1 inch = 1.18 'nci SE CORNER "'" . """""..,.0: ........... ..._-"'......... 0:- ...... NW 1/4 SEC'I10N 28 . Engln..... - s"rw)WI - I.Qnclplann.,. ~ICTIVE COVENANTS' CPItF NO. 8117799 4819 Emerald Street Surte 0-2 ~ HOAGLAND, DOMINICK & HICKS ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC' Samuel A. Hoagland. Thomas B. Dominick . George G. Hicks. Francis H. Hicks, of counsel December 8, 2004 RECE~D HAR 02.2005 CIty Oli' MERIDIAN PLANNíÑG & ZOMNG Meridian City Hall City Clerk" City of Meridian 33 E, Idaho Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83642 FACSIMILE NO.: 888-4218 Re: Vision First, LLC; Purposed Kingsbridge Subdivision; City of Meridian File Nos. AZ-04-023, BP-O40-030, and CUP-O4-026 Dear Mayor and Members of the Meridian City Council: I have been retained by Ib.e members of BridIewood Subdivision and Brernerton Subdivision to review the above referenced applications in light of the laws in effect in Ada County at the time their subdivisions were approved by Ada County, I have had an opportunity to review a copy of the letter prepared for the planning and Zoning Conunission by representatives of Vision First and particularly incorporating a strained legal opinion rendered by Mr. Miller of the finn, Givens Pursley LLP, suggesting that the homeowners and their successors in the DartmooT Subdivision had agreed to the development of Lot II, Block 2 at this time, in spite of provisions prohibiting the development of Lot 11 for a minimum of fifteen (IS) years. Neither that analysis nor the rebuttal prepared in behalf of the homeowners in Dartrnoor Subdivision takes into consideration the fundamental and basic fact that the law in Ada. County at the time regarding rura1 area districts and rural preservation zones specifically prohibits the c1eveJopment of Let 11, Block 2 for a period off1fl:een (15) years ttom the lime Damnoor Subdivision was approved. In researching tbis matter I made a public records request to the Ada Cmmty Development Services Division. This gave me an opportunity to research Title 8, Chapter 4, Section B7 of the Ada County Code in effect at the time the of the approval of the subdivisions appurtenant to and in the vicinity of the land that is currently subject of the above referenced applications. I believe that the language on the plat restricting development for 15 years was required by Ada County Code 8-4B- 7(E)(f)(4). It was one offour options that could be selected by developers at the time to maintain open space as a condition of development. Shoreline Center, Suite 100 . 1471 Shoreline Drive' Boise,ldaho 83702 Phone (208) 343-9111 . justicemaximu8.Com . Fa( (208) 386-9944 ~.d ¡'¡'S-Š-9BE (BO~) H pue '~o~u~woo 'pueyleoH WdOS'¡' ¡,oo~ BO oao The perimeter property owners as well as !be Darlmore property owners who invested their money and lives into their homes eounted on t1ù.s provision and the fact that Lot ii, Bloek 2 would not be developed until at least 2009. The provision cannot be igDOl'ed nor ean it legally be swept under the rug. I attach a copy of the Ordinance for your review and coDS.ideralion. Thank you for your time and effort in dealing with this issue. I urge you to deny the applications based upon the fact that they are premature in that !bey violate applicable regulations in force and effect when the original deed restricticns were filed of record and are still in force by virtue of the those same regulations. ë;:4 ~ George G. Hicks ENCLOSURE GGH:rar -¡;;"'d vvBB-9B& (BO~ H pu~ '~O!U!wocr 'PU~I3~OH WdOS'v vOO~ BO oacr ""-" "-"'""- ,'8'~7,' E1, .:,,' >,'.;';, 'f.-;'¡:k;~_;~-;~i;è~:~:~~rj"'~¡~z~f~~'~~';h~~~~;~',r~¿~:'a6:s~¿¿." " .,'ianö1.ëIÍlÎJI:iISh4!d Qr'deilfroyed~"Opaiisle,Ce:'arëaã:'ma)l.'bè:prese'rVed"àj,d' , ":.mS!ntsi(1.ed.æ¡s reqU,lred !Jy)his.Seclloi1,by'any..oi.the'1,oilowin¡',mechar;¡/sms'.'.:.' ',,": ,~r,ç~~:.~rh::;~~¡1j~.,:~~~J1~:~~:"'ti:'M~.'<c~~pfy;:~;~:'ap'~~prop~~te':""" , -. . . ,':"pubfJo 'ai;tency;;,.Ikt.heré .,I~,,:.a :publ!C",agenCy:;Vllllng Jo: "accept'the~"',< ,'-dedlcå!lori~"-:'.":."" ":".":':':"""""" , (2) Comm6n 'ownerShlp or'ttie'open "",~Þa~~:,, bY'~'-hom~owne~'s : .. association ,or 'priville; :"ponpro1It, loûndallon.:Wi1lçh",:åssumes ,)ùli réspoilsiblllty:Jor..lt.s:'liIalntenanca., A.deepy :Of,.thè ,àsso6iaiibn/ '. ' .¡oundatioil' co'venanls,of ,byrawB"'shall be' .subniftied"io':¡heDireCto'r".. "indIcating th,. ~arty,re.sponslbJe for, payment ,øf'"any tsies'.or ,'.charges..",,':..,',- ":.."',',""",".," ',"'", "(3r'Ö~h~a1iOnOldevelõpnierlt ~ights' or'6penspacs'may b~ made ' to an appropriate pubiic agency' wIth ownership remaining 'w~h the developer, or homeowner's assoclatio.n. Maintenance responsibility, . includIng .Ihepayment, of all ,taxes ,and charges. ,sh¡¡,lIremain w~h .theproperty,aWnel(s). ' ,', " :,' " (4) Deed-resiricied ,prlYateownershlp Jor a period of riot less ihan ; "fifleen. (1:sryåàrs,'~'Whlch lihall prevent deve!çptnent ¡¡,nd/o{ '5UbS~"...:' .:. , , quen! aubdlvlsioilofthe open ~psce. area' and provide the malnten-:., ,s~ce re~pon~lþility,i?cJU'd1ng ihe paY~en: (I"a~I,ta~~s:and charge~'",'. <.". ,g,ln the~vehijljáijmYP~lvate~~~ner'ciLòp;n~spa~~'faUsl;':' malrí!.1õinsameacCcirdfng,to,1he.,standaf(l$',of Ihistitle, Ada.County,may; In,' ""accorda¡¡ce',wllh'ths"op'en'spaceplan"and.iol/öwh;g reas,onable notice;"'" ""demand' that "I!èliclenc\,c:-ol::n¡alnte1liance",'be .i:Qrr~e,c ,¡¡no ente(:the °P8I:1" ,. spåce'to,l1)àlnt,a.:in,same,'The':.cost of..sucl)'niaintenanceshalfbe' charged t.o.: :, those pélso~S:.havlríg '. the: ¡¡,rima!)' l'esXJnsii!IIiy' .fçr )ilalrttenance' Of,:the:' 'o.p~n,sP!l~e.'"",""'::'.-""":""./.;""",.;~ -:""~~:"':' ' . '..,:,2~'!h.~,:.!"~I~'~ :i~i:co~è"g~' ;s.h~I' be~.¥.¡jht( percÌ!nÌl:?~~l: ~3,The,fo!lowiÎ1g,i!Qr\láge:l~T1cf}cc.essrequiremej;.I~'s~¡¡'lIaIiÞ!: '" ,,' ,. "mlll:tal£ ~T~~'~,.:~:~f~ ~(~;, 'f~y~::~fèhr,:S¡;~?~~~;~~ ¡'-<~~e';'icé~~s.- :.o"n ::,' ,~:::.::. . , '. ,.:'b:'E~cfÍ'ì;st'wíihi;f::ihè:--pr~Pósød :d~~~iopme~t:'s¡'~II.h~veörie, , .~tÍndred",feet.:(1'OO' :'Qr :I~ntag~"ona.".desigñ~ed þl,!buc,sfreet;a : pl1i1aiil, ",' iI!!eet .In accar~Elnce.'wfth .S'ectlon"e~13T~,ora I'nV.ale,~reel'thalaompl~~' . ,with the '.PUbllç"streét,(:o~struclion 'standards¡;:as~pecÎfied 1i1:theAda,' , Counly..Highway. Dlslrièj':Developmenf.F'orlCy.:Manual .(as':I.t.ma~ be.." ~:::r;',~:::~;;;;'~~:.:~""~ ',' .. ",' .. , " - ." . . . ' . S8O , , , . . . E:1 -d ¡'¡'BB-98E: (80Z1 H pu~ '~~Iu,woa 'pu~I'eoH WdSS:¡' ¡'OOZ 80 ~~ü